Industrial Management & Data Systems

Platform-based service innovation and system design: a literature review

Wenhui Fu, Qiang Wang, Xiande Zhao,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Wenhui Fu, Qiang Wang, Xiande Zhao, (2018) "Platform-based service innovation and system
design: a literature review", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 118 Issue: 5, pp.946-974,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2017-0129
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2017-0129
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 06 March 2019, At: 07:04 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 230 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 434 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Platform-based service innovation and system design: research opportunities", Industrial
Management &amp; Data Systems, Vol. 118 Iss 5 pp. 975-997 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IMDS-03-2017-0130">https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2017-0130</a>
(2018),"A systemic logic for platform business models", Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29
Iss 4 pp. 546-568 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-02-2017-0036">https://doi.org/10.1108/
JOSM-02-2017-0036</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:376953 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

IMDS
118,5 Platform-based service
innovation and system design:
a literature review
946 Wenhui Fu
China Europe International Business School,
Received 31 March 2017
Revised 31 October 2017 Shanghai, China
10 January 2018
Accepted 18 January 2018
Qiang Wang
School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, and
Xiande Zhao
China Europe International Business School,
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Shanghai, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the platform literature and synthesize the
various topics of research into a common framework to reveal the relations between platform-based service
innovation, system design and other platform-related factors.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative descriptive analysis led to an overview of the distribution
of research focuses of the 187 sample articles identified by a well-established search strategy. A qualitative in-
depth review was then used to clarify the detailed research topics and generate an overall conceptual model to
link them, with a focus on platform-based service innovation and system design.
Findings – In total, 11 research topics of three research perspectives were identified and linked by a
framework that accounts for the relationships between platform-based service innovation and system design
and their influences on platform evolution. A small panel of industry experts validated the accuracy and
utility of the proposed framework.
Originality/value – This paper provides an integrated framework for separately developed research
perspectives and the topics investigated in the platform literature. Through the proposed framework, this
paper helps to improve the knowledge on platform study and management, and lays a foundation for
exploring the research opportunities in platform-based service innovation and system design.
Keywords Service innovation, Literature review, System design, Network platform
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Platform-based businesses have gained great popularity in recent years. An increasing
number of firms are adopting this model to meet the needs of heterogeneous users and to
exploit network effects and external resources that complement those of the firm
(Ceccagnoli et al., 2012). Consequently, platform studies have similarly burgeoned (Thomas
et al., 2014). Rooted in different intellectual traditions and based on distinct assumptions,
platform studies have been dominated by different theoretical perspectives, including the
engineering design perspective, an economics perspective and ecological perspectives;
research has been conducted at the level of individual products, product systems, industry
supply chains, markets, industries and even constellations of industries, covering a wide
variety of topics (Gawer, 2014; Thomas et al., 2014). However, as the platform concept
evolves and the application context expands, a limited and divided research agenda cannot
Industrial Management & Data
properly explore the increasingly complicated platform phenomenon (Gawer, 2014).
Systems
Vol. 118 No. 5, 2018
pp. 946-974 This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (71602159,
© Emerald Publishing Limited 71420107024, and 71572141).
0263-5577
DOI 10.1108/IMDS-03-2017-0129 This paper forms part of a special section “Featured issue on supply chain innovation”.
 For example, traditional manufacturing firms may know how to design an efficient Platform-based
product platform system, but they are likely to lack knowledge on how to attract various service
external resources and stimulate network effects to expand their business (Fu et al., 2017). innovation
On the other hand, many internet-based firms are good at developing innovative services to
attract external resources, but they sometimes face the system design problem such
as the mismatching between internal technological and external business systems
(Tiwana et al., 2010). 947
This situation calls for a comprehensive review of the different research streams and
some attempts have been made to do so (Tranfield et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 2014; Facin
et al., 2016). For instance, Tiwana et al. (2010) explored the co-evolution of platform
architecture, governance and environmental dynamics. Gawer (2014) bridged internal
platforms, supply chain platforms and industry platforms by combining their innovations
and competitions. Thomas et al. (2014) provided a model that allows different platform types
to be placed in context with others. Facin et al. (2016) clarified the evolutionary trajectory of
the platform concept. These literature reviews have helped to provide a coherent theoretical
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

grounding for platform studies. However, little attention has been paid to platform-based
service innovation and system design, when integrating different research streams.
A distinguishing feature of the platform business is that it is neither like a firm (which has
definite boundaries) nor like a marketplace (with more permeable borders); it is, rather,
“a foundation created by a firm that lets other firms build products and services upon it as in
a marketplace” (Kelly, 2016, p. 122). A platform owner, therefore, has to consider both the
system design actions that solve an essential “foundation” problem and the innovative
service actions that stimulate complementors’ incentives to co-create value as in a
“marketplace” (Gawer and Cusumano, 2002, 2008, 2014). This highlights the critical roles of
platform-based service innovation and system design in understanding the platform
phenomenon and developing platform-related theories (Gawer, 2014; Zhao et al., 2015).
Furthermore, understanding how these two critical factors interact with other
platform-related factors and jointly advance the success of a platform is also vital.
The objective of this review, therefore, is to provide an up-to-date and comprehensive
understanding on the research streams and topics related to platform-based service
innovation and system design, and on how they relate with other research issues in platform
studies. By systematically reviewing 187 papers on platform business between 2006 and
2016, this review synthesizes different research perspectives and research topics into a
comprehensive framework, which lays a foundation for an exploration of the research
opportunities in this area.
This review makes several contributions to platform studies and practices. First, by
using a hybrid research approach (a quantitative descriptive analysis and a qualitative
in-depth review), we clarify various research topics in different research perspectives.
Second, we delineate relationships between these separated research topics and provide a
comprehensive framework to reveal the mechanism of platform evolution driven by
platform-based service innovation and system design. This framework will help to enrich
the knowledge of platform development. For example, it will illustrate how firms with
different resource endowments (e.g. manufacturing-oriented or service-oriented firms) gain
heterogeneous capabilities (e.g. servitization or efficiency enhancement) in their process of
platformization, and how platform-based ambidextrous capabilities can be enhanced via
internal optimization vs external interaction, or a vertically integrated structure vs a
pluggable open structure.
The review proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we set out our search strategy and provide
an overview of the distribution of research focuses of the literature. The literature is then
reviewed by an in-depth analysis in Section 3. The analysis identifies 11 research topics,
explored from three perspectives: product family, multi-sided market and business
 IMDS ecosystem. In Section 4, we propose a framework to integrate these different research topics,
118,5 to show how platform-based service innovation and system design can coordinate with
these research topics to influence platform evolution. In Section 5, the paper concludes with
a summary of the theoretical and practical implications, limitations and future studies.

2. Research methodology and data description

948 Given the rapidly growing literature in platform studies, a combination of bibliometric and
content analyses is recommended in related review articles (e.g. Thomas et al., 2014; Facin
et al., 2016). This study also adopted such a hybrid research methodology and focused more
on the depth of the content analysis to identify and categorize research issues and reveal the
relationships among them.
Below we illustrate the key steps in conducting the literature review in terms of: the search
strategy and data collection; the quantitative descriptive analysis to investigate the distribution
of research focuses in literature; the qualitative in-depth review to explore the relationships
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

between different research topics; and the building of a comprehensive framework to

synthesizes different research perspectives and topics, by emphasizing on service innovation
and system design.

2.1 Search strategy

We adopted a search strategy similar to that used by Dahlander and Gann (2010) and
Thomas et al. (2014), where systematic reviews are used to consolidate the results of major
studies on a particular topic (Higgins and Green, 2006). We searched the ISI Web of Science
“Science Citation Index” and “Social Sciences Citation Index” database for articles that had
“platform” in the title field from 2006 to 2016, and this identified 24,397 papers. As the term
“platform” has a number of common English meanings and there was substantial noise in
the search results (Thomas et al., 2014), we refined the search in three steps. First, restricting
the results to the management and business areas reduced the number of titles to 271.
According to Thomas et al. (2014), either using further search terms to refine the search or
restricting the results to key journals risks biasing the results to academic areas the
researchers are particularly familiar with or to a particular meaning. Our second step,
therefore, was to apply three exclusion criteria: we excluded papers that dealt with
dictionary definitions (principally those considering similar terms like “website,” “online
community,” “blog”); we excluded papers that used the term “platform” in senses that were
obviously not related to the management discipline, such as “drilling platform” or “offshore
oil platform”; we excluded papers that reported on software installation or that reported
innovations from a purely technological rather than business or management perspective.
This second step reduced the list to 247 papers. Third, all members of the research team
individually evaluated the content of these papers to decide on their inclusion (Higgins and
Green, 2006). The full inter-rater reliability among all three researchers was 70 percent. This
step led to 173 papers being identified. Besides articles, we also decided to add one
influential book, Platform, Markets and Innovation, which is a collection of 14 papers, edited
by Gawer (2009a). Hence, the final sample comprised 187 papers.

2.2 An overview of the research focuses of platform-related studies

We analyze the distribution of the research focus of the sample articles quantitatively with
the help of the descriptive statistics tool in ISI Web of Science and CiteSpace literature
analysis software.
First, we derived a file from ISI Web of Science which contained all the metadata
available in the database for the 187 articles. Then, we imported the file to CiteSpace and
used keyword co-occurrence analysis in the software to generate a network to show how the
 keywords relating to different research perspectives and research topics are distributed and Platform-based
connected (see Figure 1). service
In Figure 1, the size of the nodes (and text labels) reflects the count (i.e. frequency) of the innovation
keywords: the bigger the node, the higher the keyword count. The connecting line between
nodes represents the co-occurrence relationship. Its thickness indicates the co-occurrence
strength of two keywords. The number of lines one keyword receives from and makes with
other keywords is called “centrality,” which refers to the connection capability of the keyword 949
in the whole network. Table I lists the count and centrality of the keywords in Figure 1.
Figure 1 and Table I show that, first, some keywords, such as “product platform,”
“two-sided market,” and “ecosystem,” have specific characteristics and could be assigned to
different research perspectives used in platform studies. In fact, this is in line with the different
development stages of the platform concept. The first general use of platforms began from the
concept of product family in the manufacturing field (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014; Thomas
et al., 2014). Platforms are defined as the assets (components, processes, knowledge, people or
relationships) shared across a family of products (Robertson and Ulrich, 1998). Later, with the
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

development of IT, the concept of the “common structure” or “basic standards” was extended
to other production or service sectors like computing platforms (such as IBM’s computer
hardware assembly system), technology platforms (such as Sony’s Betamax and JVC’s VHS)
and operating platforms (such as Android, iOS and Windows), which allow external
organizations to participate in platforms (Gawer and Cusumano, 2002, 2008, 2014). The
platform concept had been no longer pure architecture or a tool; it became a business model
from which profits could be made by an intermediary service and two-sided market
architecture (Eisenmann et al., 2006). Then, with the rise of the internet, its “reach and richness
of information” reshaped traditional business models and stimulated the wisdom of crowds
(Evans and Wurster, 1997) to achieve value co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004),
open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003, 2011; Chesbrough et al., 2008) and a sharing economy
(Hamari et al., 2015). The role of the platform, therefore, had again changed from a market
intermediary to an ecosystem organizer that focuses on stimulation of external parties’
innovations and the activity of the whole ecosystem (Cusumano and Gawer, 2002; Gawer and
Cusumano, 2002, 2008, 2014). We summarize the evolution of platform concepts as shown in
Table II. We suggest that the driving force of the platform evolution is transaction cost
(Williamson, 1985), which is reduced with the rise of IT and the internet, making it

Timespan: 2006–2016 (Slice Length =11)

Selection Criteria: Top 50 per slice, LRF = 2, LBY = 8, e = 2.0
Network: N = 61, E =122 (Density = 0.0667)
Largest CC: 53 (86%)
Nodes Labeled: 5.0%
Pruning: None

Figure 1.
Keyword
co-occurrence
network of the data
 IMDS Count Centrality Keywords Count Centrality Keywords Count Centrality Keywords
118,5
38 0.37 Innovation 10 0.00 Product 5 0.00 Ecosystem
development
34 0.15 Competition 10 0.13 Perspective 5 0.06 Community
30 0.14 Strategy 10 0.03 Economics 5 0.00 Flexibility
24 0.11 Platform 9 0.07 Information 5 0.05 Adoption
950 technology
21 0.02 Industry 9 0.00 Organization 5 0.00 Service
19 0.12 Management 8 0.05 Product platform 5 0.00 User acceptance
18 0.06 Network 8 0.00 Compatibility 4 0.00 Crowdsourcing
externality
18 0.05 Design 8 0.05 Product 4 0.00 Co-creation
16 0.10 Network 8 0.28 Network effect 4 0.01 Thinking
16 0.12 Architecture 7 0.06 Software 4 0.00 Value creation
16 0.00 Performance 7 0.02 Impact 4 0.00 Capability
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

15 0.24 Market 7 0.00 Quality 4 0.01 Proprietary

15 0.12 System 7 0.00 Integration 4 0.00 Platform
leadership
14 0.00 Model 7 0.00 Internet 4 0.05 Variety
13 0.10 Firm 6 0.00 Software industry 4 0.00 Behavior
13 0.02 Technology 6 0.00 Entry 4 0.01 Technology
acceptance
model
12 0.04 Dynamics 6 0.01 Externality 4 0.06 Consumer
12 0.09 Modularity 6 0.12 Open source 4 0.01 Firm
Table I. software performance
List of count 11 0.10 Two-sided 6 0.08 Competitive 4 0.01 Framework
and centrality market advantage
of the keywords 11 0.01 Evolution 6 0.05 Family 4 0.00 Governance

cost-efficient in a market mode or an alliance mode compared with a hierarchical

organizational mode. As such, the architectural scope of a platform has evolved from an
organizational level to an industrial level and then to a cross-industrial ecosystem level.
Second, although some keywords could be assigned to certain research perspectives, or
specifically, belonging to different development stages of the platform concept, most of the
keywords, especially those with a high degree of centrality and a high count, such as
“innovation,” “competition,” “strategy” and “design,” were generally used in all research
perspectives. This indicates that, regardless of research perspective, different research
topics can be organized and synthesized by common themes, such as platform service
innovation and system design.

3. Detailed analysis of research topics by different perspectives

In this section, we conduct an in-depth content review of detailed research topics of the
platform studies. In order to systematically enumerate these topics, three research
perspectives are identified in this study: product family (or engineering design perspective),
multi-sided market (or economics perspective) and business ecosystem (or ecological
perspective), with reference to the classification logic of Gawer and Cusumano (2014), Gawer
(2014), Thomas et al. (2014) and Facin et al. (2016) on platform studies, the keywords
distribution (count and centrality) shown in Figure 1 and Table I, and the evolution of
platform concept explained in Table II.
Of the 187 published articles, 35 had product family as the primary perspective, 58 the
multi-sided market and 94 the business ecosystem. The number of articles across the three
 Platform Market intermediary
Platform-based
concept Product platform (two-sided market) platform Platform ecosystem service
innovation
Evolution Conceptual development stage Intermediate development Advanced development stage
stage of the (or internally focused basic stage
concept platform)
Description The stable center of a platform An intermediary between two Platform as a system or
family leading to derivative or more market participants architecture that supports a 951
products (Thomas et al., 2014) (Thomas et al., 2014) that collection of complementary
and the collection of assets (i.e. facilitates the different groups’ assets (Basole and Karla, 2011;
components, processes, transactions and can take Thomas et al., 2014)
knowledge, people and many guises (Eisenmann et al.,
relationships) that a set of 2006), acting as a hub of value
products shares (Robertson exchanges (Economides and
and Ulrich, 1998) Katsamakas, 2006)
Examples Consulting, outsourcing, Credit and debit cards, Web Facebook, Uber, Wechat,
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

computing, biotechnology search, Yellow Pages Smart home, Smart city

Distinctive “Common structure,” “basic “Common structure,” “basic “Common structure,” “basic
features standard,” or “framework” standard,” or “framework” standers,” or “framework”
Two-sided market and Two-sided market and
network effect network effect
Symbiotic relationship among
parties that stimulates
external innovation (not for
the purpose of direct benefit)
Scope of Mainly organizational level Industrial level Cross-industrial level
concept
Supporting Simpson et al. (2005), Jiao et al. Rochet and Tirole (2006), Gawer and Cusumano (2002,
literature (2007), Pasche et al. (2011), and Evans (2003, 2012), Armstrong 2008, 2014), Tiwana (2015),
Magnusson and Pasche (2014) (2006), Economides and and Casadesus-Masanell and Table II.
Katsamakas (2006) and Llanes (2015) The evolution of
Eisenmann (2008) platform concept

research perspectives over time is shown in Figure 2. Tables III–V show the research topics
and research methodologies used in studies taking the three respective research perspectives.

3.1 Perspective of the product family

Starting with the phenomenon of product family, the initial focus on platform studies builds
on the engineering management tradition and new product development (NPD) (Robertson

35

30

25

20

15

10
Figure 2.
5 The number of sample
articles by different
0 research perspectives
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 over time
Product family Multi-sided market Business ecosystem
 IMDS Methodologies
118,5 Total
(proportion of
Topics Main works Case Survey Math Others 187 papers)

NPD and Pasche et al. (2011), Vickery et al. (2013), 2 3 2 7 (3.7%)

modularity Magnusson and Pasche (2014), Huang et al.
952 (2007), Jiao et al. (2007), Pekkarinen and Ulkuniemi
(2008), and Hofman and Meijerink (2015)
Architecture Van der Duin et al. (2014), Basoglu et al. (2014), 7 3 10 (5.3%)
design Chai et al. (2012), Dadfar et al. (2013), Pasche
and Magnusson (2011), Spagnoletti et al. (2015),
Yang et al. (2012), Tatsumoto et al. (2009),
Yakob and Tell (2009), and Alblas and
Wortmann (2014)
Platform Alblas and Wortmann (2012, 2014), Ben 11 2 13 (7.0%)
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

lifecycle and Mahmoud-Jouini and Lenfle (2010), Patrucco

transition (2014), Shibata and Kodama (2015), Karlsson
and Sköld (2012), Sköld and Karlsson (2013),
Wortmann and Alblas (2009), Nehme et al.
(2015), Sköld and Karlsson (2007), Brusoni and
Table III. Prencipe (2009), Eloranta et al. (2016), Eloranta
Topics and research and Turunen (2016), and Zhu and Furr (2016)
methodology used in Other issues Mäkinen, Seppänen and Ortt (2014), Ghosh and 1 3 1 5 (2.7%)
studies taking the Morita (2006), Kang et al. (2015), Yu and Huang
perspective of the (2010), and Sako (2009)
product family Total 21 6 5 3 35 (18.7%)

and Ulrich, 1998; Gawer, 2014). According to our literature analysis, 35 papers, representing
18.7 percent of the total, took this perspective, mainly investigating the topics “NPD and
modularity,” “architecture design,” and “platform lifecycle and transition” (see Table III).
NPD and modularity. Success in manufacturing often depends on applying product
platforms which enable firms to benefit from scale effects by reusing existing components in
NPD. Gawer (2014) extended the concept of “economies of scope in production” to the
concept of “economies of scope in innovation” in the context of platform-based NPD, and
defined it as “when the cost of jointly innovating on Product A and B is lower than the cost
of innovating on A independently of innovating on B” (p. 1242). Scholars have suggested
various advantages of applying a platform strategy in NPD, such as an increase of
component commonality, the involvement of process adaptations (Pasche et al., 2011) and
the encouragement of supply chain integration (Vickery et al., 2013).
Product platform has also been well recognized as a successful tool for modularity and
mass customization (Huang et al., 2007). Scholars have explored how to utilize a platform to
solve the variety dilemma: how to incorporate frequent design changes and recurrent
process variations in implementing mass customization (e.g. Jiao et al., 2007; Magnusson and
Pasche, 2014).
Applying platform-based modularity to developing new services was also widely
discussed. For example, Pekkarinen and Ulkuniemi (2008) summarized four modularity
dimensions to the service platform: service, process, organizational and customer interface.
Hofman and Meijerink (2015) explored how to apply product platform thinking to the
service sector. Eloranta et al. (2016) and Eloranta and Turunen (2016) investigated the use of
platforms in service-driven manufacturing.
Architecture design. The engineering perspective views product platforms as
technological designs (Gawer, 2014). The lack of systematic approaches to architecture
 Methodologies
Platform-based
Total service
(proportion of innovation
Topics Main works Case Survey Math Others 187 papers)

Network effect and Kang and Downing (2015), Evans (2009), 3 5 7 1 16 (8.6%)
chicken-and-egg Evans and Schmalensee (2010), Hagiu
problem and Spulber (2013), Tucker and Zhang 953
(2010), Choi et al. (2012), Wilbur (2008),
Boudreau and Jeppesen (2015), Prieger
and Hu (2012), Luchetta (2012), Salinger
and Levinson (2015), Srinivasan and
Venkatraman (2010), Wu et al. (2013), Chu
and Manchanda (2016), Healey and Moe
(2016), and Steiner et al. (2016)
Platform Sun and Tse (2009), Cennamo and Santalo 1 3 11 1 16 (8.6%)
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

competition, (2013), Eisenmann et al. (2011), Evans

winner-takes-all (2013), Jeziorski (2014), Kang and Lee
scenario and (2014), Reisinger et al. (2009), Reiginger
platform (2012), Hagiu and Jullien (2014), Bardey
envelopment et al. (2009), Lee (2014), Sridhar et al. (2011),
Li et al. (2010), Hossain et al. (2010),
Mantena and Saha (2012), and Halaburda
and Yehezkel (2016)
Platform pricing Chao and Derdenger (2013), Chou et al. 3 9 12 (6.4%)
(2012), Lin, Li and Whinston (2011),
Roger and Vasconcelos (2014), Liu and
Serfes (2013), Hagiu (2009), Njoroge et al.
(2013), Rasch and Wenzel (2013), Jin and
Rysman (2015), Banker et al. (2011), Wen
and Lin (2016), and Chen et al. (2016)
Multi-homing Koh and Fichman (2014), Hogendorn and 1 4 5 (2.7%)
Yuen (2009), Maruyama et al. (2015),
Choi (2010), and Landsman and
Stremersch (2011)
Other issues Bakos and Katsamakas (2008), Nocke 6 3 9 (4.8%) Table IV.
et al. (2007), Rasch and Wenzel (2014), Topics and research
Miao (2009), Maruyama and Zennyo methodology used in
(2013, 2015), Rysman (2009), Shy (2011), studies taking the
and Hagiu and Wright (2015) perspective of the
Total 4 12 37 5 58 (31%) multi-sided market

design has made many firms shy away from platform strategies (Sahin-Sariisik et al., 2014).
Therefore, the first research focus of architecture design is on systematic approaches, such
as the three-step approach of Robertson and Ulrich (1998), the proactive–reactive approach
of Simpson et al. (2005) and the function–technology platform approach of Alblas and
Wortmann (2014). Sahin-Sariisik et al. (2014) also developed a structured approach for
platform-driven product planning. Yakob and Tell (2009) discussed possible approaches for
error deletion and problem solving in architecture design.
The other focus of architecture design is on the balance between stability (maintaining a
stable structure for platform operation) and versatility ( facilitating variety and flexibility in
module development), as suggested by Baldwin and Woodard (2009) and Tiwana et al.
(2010). Factors which influence this balance include decision making and the management
of knowledge (Pasche and Magnusson, 2011), distinctions between incremental and radical
innovations, and market- or technology-based innovations (Van der Duin et al., 2014), the
 IMDS Methodologies
118,5 Total
(proportion of
Topics Main works Case Survey Math Others 187 papers)

Overview Cusumano (2012), Gawer and Cusumano (2014), 1 10 11 (5.9%)

and Thomas et al. (2014), Tiwana et al. (2010), Gawer
954 concept (2014), Sriram et al. (2015), Sørensen et al. (2015),
analysis Gawer (2009a), Baldwin and Woodard (2009),
Laurie et al. (2006), and Facin et al. (2016)
Open Ordanini et al. (2011), Montelisciani et al. (2014), 13 12 1 2 28 (15.0%)
innovation Luo and Toubia (2015), Frattini et al. (2014),
and value Battistella and Nonino (2012), Mäkinen,
co-creation Kanniainen and Peltola (2014), Frey et al. (2011),
Tiwana and Bush (2014), Rayna et al. (2015),
Ceccagnoli et al. (2012), Rohrbeck et al. (2010),
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Malik et al. (2011), Yaraghi et al. (2015), Parjanen

et al. (2012), Holzmann and Katzy (2014), Taylor
et al. (2013), Selsky and Parker (2010), Casadesus-
Masanell and Llanes (2015), Krishnamurthy and
Tripathi (2009), Chakravarty et al. (2014), Survey:
Chen and Xu (2009), Case: Markus and
Loebbecke (2013), Lee and Youn (2009), Barrett
et al. (2016), Dushnitsky et al. (2016), Mačiulienė
and Skaržauskienė (2016), Haile and Altmann
(2016), and Rode (2016)
Openness Economides and Katsamakas (2006), Nielsen and 6 5 3 4 18 (9.6%)
leverage Aanestad (2006), Eisenmann (2008), Simcoe et al.
and (2009), Greenstein (2009), Eisenmann et al. (2009),
platform Casadesus-Masanell and Hałaburda (2014),
governance Ondrus et al. (2015), Huang et al. (2013), Schilling
(2009), Benlian et al. (2015), Jiang et al. (2010),
Boudreau (2010), Fehder et al. (2014), Lahiri et al.
(2011), De Reuver et al. (2011), Oh et al. (2015), and
Den Hartigh et al. (2016)
Platform Boudreau and Hagiu (2009), Gawer and 5 4 1 6 16 (8.6%)
leadership Cusumano (2008), Olleros (2008), Palaima and
and Skaržauskiene (2010), Masson et al. (2009),
ecosystem Suarez and Cusumano (2009), Spagnoletti et al.
design (2015), Lee et al. (2010), Son and Choung (2014),
Tee and Gawer (2009), Eisenmann et al. (2006),
Hagiu (2014), Yang and Jiang (2006), Casey and
Töyli (2012), Aulkemeier et al. (2016), and Van
Alstyne et al. (2016)
Market Zhu and Iansiti (2012), Blondel and Edouard 12 2 2 16 (8.6%)
entry, (2015), Suarez and Kirtley (2012), Staykova and
expansion Damsgaard (2015), Gawer and Henderson (2007),
and Gawer (2009b), Tiwana (2015), Basole and Karla
evolution (2011), Gawer and Phillips (2013), Breidbach et al.
(2014), West and Wood (2013), Rong et al. (2013),
Table V. Muzellec et al. (2015), Hagiu and Yoffie (2013), Jha
Topics and research et al. (2016) and Hann et al. (2016)
methodology used in Other Cenamor et al.(2013), Lin, Chan and Wei (2011), Li 2 2 1 5 (2.7%)
studies taking the issues and Reimers (2012), Xu et al.(2010), and Mesquita
perspective of the and Sugano (2011)
business ecosystem Total 39 23 8 24 94 (50.0%)
 reusability of subsystems, the compatibility of subsystem interfaces and the extensibility of Platform-based
platform-based products (Chai et al., 2012). Scholars have also investigated organizational service
factors (e.g. Dadfar et al., 2013) and different industrial contexts for architecture design innovation
(e.g. Basoglu et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2012; Tatsumoto et al., 2009).
Platform lifecycle and transition. Platforms are frequently modified and renewed within
their lifecycle to meet additional customer-specific engineering demands and evolving
innovations in technology. Scholars have explored factors influencing the transformation 955
and upgrading of product platforms. For example, Brusoni and Prencipe (2009) indicated
that the successful transition relies on consistent changes across product, organization and
knowledge. Karlsson and Sköld (2012) emphasized the importance of scope and technology
in renewing existing knowledge of platform replacements. Sköld and Karlsson (2013)
summarized four types of platform development: incremental, modular, architectural and
radical. Finally, the industry-specific context for platform transition has also been widely
discussed (e.g. Nehme et al., 2015; Patrucco, 2014; Shibata and Kodama, 2015).
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Scholars have also tried to adopt the concept of product lifecycle to the platform context
(Wortmann and Alblas, 2009). For example, Alblas and Wortmann (2012) identified
which attributes of platform change determine the stage in the platform’s lifecycle.
Ben Mahmoud-Jouini and Lenfle (2010) discussed platform evolution management from a
lifecycle perspective. Sköld and Karlsson (2007) identified three strategic stages in a product
platform’s lifecycle: the creation of a common architecture, accomplishing product
differentiation within an expanded and multi-branded product scope, and corporate
responsibility for the transition from a single-brand to a multi-brand platform.
Other topics and summary. Other topics of papers taking this research perspective
include literature reviews (e.g. Mäkinen, Seppänen and Ortt, 2014) and investigations of
supply chain platforms (e.g. Sako, 2009; Yu and Huang, 2010) and platform sharing
(e.g. Ghosh and Morita, 2006; Kang et al., 2015).
The product family perspective was the one most widely adopted in research by the
mid-2010s (Thomas et al., 2014). Most of the studies have been exploratory in nature, with
studies investigating new trends. Table III shows that exploratory methodologies, such as case
studies, are used more often than confirmatory methodologies, such as large-sample surveys.
In our literature review, three clear trends were evident: research shifted from a focus on product
thinking to a focus on platform thinking (e.g. Sawhney, 1998; Hofman and Meijerink, 2015;
Zhu and Furr, 2016), from product platforms to service platforms (e.g. Gawer, 2009b; Pekkarinen
and Ulkuniemi, 2008; Hofman and Meijerink, 2015; Eloranta et al., 2016; Eloranta and Turunen,
2016) and from product lifecycle to platform lifecycle (e.g. Wortmann and Alblas, 2009;
Alblas and Wortmann, 2012; Ben Mahmoud-Jouini and Lenfle, 2010).

3.2 Perspective of the multi-sided market

There were 58 papers that took this perspective, representing 31 percent of the total.
This perspective builds predominantly on the industrial economics tradition and
has a strong economic focus (Thomas et al., 2014). The topics investigated by papers
taking this perspective mainly included “network effect and chicken-and-egg problem,”
“platform competition, winner-takes-all (WTA) scenario and platform envelopment,”
“platform pricing” and “multi-homing” (Table IV ).
Network effect and chicken-and-egg problem. The network effect is like the spread of a
virus: the more users who use the platform, the more valuable the platform will be to both
the users and the platform owner (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014). Therefore, how to stimulate
the network effect is of great research interest. Scholars have explored different steps in the
stimulation process, such as how to overcome installed base disadvantage for new platform
startups (e.g. Kang and Downing, 2015), how to extend the user base and secure enough
 IMDS customers to reach a “critical mass” (e.g. Evans, 2003, 2009, 2012) and, finally, how to
118,5 “ignite” the market (e.g. Evans and Schmalensee, 2010). Because both same-side (or “direct”)
network effects (in the same group) and cross-side (or “indirect”) network effects (among
different groups) exist (Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005, 2009; Eisenmann et al., 2006, 2009;
Gawer and Cusumano, 2014), how to leverage users of both these sides of a platform
(cross-side network effect) is also a key problem addressed by this topic. Caillaud and Jullien
956 (2003) summarized it as a “chicken-and-egg problem”: to attract users of one type, a platform
needs to have a sufficient number of users of the other type. Scholars have discussed this
problem from the point of view of the platform owner (e.g. Hagiu and Spulber, 2013; Tucker
and Zhang, 2010; Choi et al., 2012; Wilbur, 2008) and from the point of view of other platform
participants (Boudreau and Jeppesen, 2015; Prieger and Hu, 2012).
In relation to network effects, network structure, position and the interaction between
different kinds of network effects have been topics of research attention (Luchetta, 2012;
Salinger and Levinson, 2015; Chu and Manchanda, 2016; Healey and Moe, 2016; Steiner et al.,
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

2016). For example, Srinivasan and Venkatraman (2010) examined the network positions of
the platform and complementors, and linked direct network effects to indirect network
effects. Wu et al. (2013) investigated a unique nested network effect in online games, where
accessories are sold to game-players. The network effect applied to the segment of
game-players who bought accessories; the buyers were seen as being “nested” within the
larger overall market segment represented by all game-players.
Platform competition, WTA scenario and platform envelopment. Chen and Xie (2007)
further divided the cross-side network effect into a virtuous cycle network effect and a
cross-platform network effect. The former emphasizes a self-reinforcing effect in one
platform while the latter emphasizes the possibility of the network effect crossing different
platforms and markets.
Like the “success breeds success” rule of the resource-based view (Barney, 1991),
self-reinforcement often leads to a WTA scenario (Arthur, 1989), whereby the larger the
market share a platform takes, the more resources and new customers it can attract; this,
again, is the incumbency advantage (Venkatraman and Lee, 2004). Scholarly attention has
shown how resource-based competitive advantage can be self-reinforcing. For example, Sun
and Tse (2009) found that resource heterogeneity (i.e. varying initial network sizes) was a
source of sustained competitive advantage for two-sided networks. However, the
self-reinforcing and unconditional logic of the WTA approach were challenged by later
researchers after they analyzed moderating factors, such as features of the network and the
platform context (Lee et al., 2016). For example, Cennamo and Santalo (2013) argued that
platform competition was shaped by important strategic trade-offs and that the WTA
approach would not be universally successful.
The other specific competitive situation in the platform context, namely, platform
envelopment, results from the cross-platform network effect (Chen and Xie, 2007).
Eisenmann et al. (2011) defined this phenomenon as “one platform enters into another’s
market by bundling its own platform’s functionality, sharing user relationships and
common components” (p. 1271). Studies have examined how to launch an envelopment
attack and how to design defensive strategies (Eisenmann et al., 2011; Jeziorski, 2014). What
is more, Evans (2013) pointed out that platform competition always introduces new
products and services, some involving drastic innovation. Platform envelopment is closely
related to the ecosystem-based platform structure discussed below in relation to the topic of
market entry, investigated from the perspective of the platform ecosystem.
Besides competition between platform owners (i.e. the “outside competition”, e.g. Kang
and Lee, 2014; Reisinger et al., 2009; Reisinger, 2012; Hagiu and Jullien, 2014; Bardey et al.,
2009; Lee, 2014), several studies have also empirically investigated the “inside competition”
 between sellers and buyers, that is, within one platform (e.g. Li et al., 2010; Sridhar Platform-based
et al., 2011). They have also examined the platform coexistence problem with vertical and service
horizontal differentiation (e.g. Hossain et al., 2010), and the co-opetition between innovation
differentiated platforms (e.g. Mantena and Saha, 2012; Halaburda and Yehezkel, 2016).
Platform pricing. Platform pricing is used as a strategy to expand the user base, to
leverage relationships between different participating groups and platform owners, and to
compete with rivals. “Mixed bundling” is an important platform pricing strategy commonly 957
used in the technology and media industries, both in bundling hardware with software and
in bundling different software products (Chao and Derdenger, 2013; Chou et al., 2012).
Scholars have also investigated different considerations in platform pricing, including
seller-side innovation (Lin, Li and Whinston, 2011), moral hazard on the seller’s side (Roger
and Vasconcelos, 2014), price discrimination (Liu and Serfes, 2013), product variety and
pricing structures (Hagiu, 2009; Chen et al., 2016), net neutrality (Njoroge et al., 2013) and the
piracy problem (Rasch and Wenzel, 2013). Different contexts have also been discussed, such
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

as US sports card conventions ( Jin and Rysman, 2015), fee structures of crowdsourcing
(Wen and Lin, 2016) and comparison with traditional pricing (Banker et al., 2011).
Multi-homing. Multi-homing behaviors have important impacts on two-sided platform
competition and strategy (Koh and Fichman, 2014). Scholars have focused on the causes of
the multi-homing behavior of different platform participants. For example, Hogendorn and
Yuen (2009) found that a component provider is more likely to sign exclusive contracts with
a single platform if its product is popular, if the platform market share difference is large,
and if cross-platform indirect network effects are low. Koh and Fichman (2014) investigated
how selling and buying activities on business-to-business (B2B) exchanges affect
multi-homing buyers’ preferences for exchanges. Other works include a study by Choi
(2010) on the effects of tying in multi-homing, as well as studies by Landsman and
Stremersch (2011) and Maruyama et al. (2015) on multi-homing in the games industry.
Other topics and summary. Other topics investigated from this research perspective
include platform ownership (e.g. Hagiu and Yoffie, 2013; Bakos and Katsamakas, 2008;
Nocke et al., 2007) and platform compatibility (e.g. Rasch and Wenzel, 2014; Miao, 2009;
Maruyama and Zennyo, 2013, 2015). Literature reviews have also adopted this perspective
(e.g. Rysman, 2009; Shy, 2011; Hagiu and Wright, 2015).
Compared with the product platform and the platform ecosystem literature, Gawer (2014)
once pointed out that there were two limitations to taking a purely economic perspective
on platforms. First, platforms are taken to be both exogenous and fixed. This prevents
any insight into what determines how or why they evolve. Second, the relationship
between platform owners and participants is simplified to a seller–buyer relationship.
The complementor and innovator roles of participants are ignored. We found several
studies that have attempted to fill such gaps (e.g. Boudreau and Jeppesen, 2015; Evans, 2009;
Evans and Schmalensee, 2010; Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2010). Moreover, studies
taking this perspective have started to turn their focus from a static, demand-side view to a
dynamic, supply-side view (e.g. Banker et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2013).

3.3 Perspective of the business ecosystem

There were 94 papers taking this perspective, representing 50 percent of all articles.
A growing body of scholarly work has explored the platform ecosystem in a range of
contexts. Hot issues include “open innovation and value co-creation,” “openness leverage
and platform governance,” “platform leadership and ecosystem design” and “platform
market entry, expansion and evolution” (Table V ).
Open innovation and value co-creation activities. Unlike centralized approaches to
product/service distribution, platforms do not rely on a central intermediary to supply
 IMDS content, monitor, oversee transactions or coordinate activities (Forte et al., 2009). Platform
118,5 participants are often both providers and consumers (Androutsellis-Theotokis and Spinellis,
2004). As resource providers, they use their resources and capabilities to participate in the
design and delivery of services or products. Meanwhile, they also consume the products and
services provided by other participants.
Users are the major source for value co-creation activities. The role of users has
958 expanded from “targets,” “information sources,” “co-producers” and “value co-creators” in
traditional value co-creation contexts to “co-investors” (Ordanini et al., 2011) and “external
expertise” (Montelisciani et al., 2014; Luo and Toubia, 2015) in the open platform context,
such as crowd-founding and crowdsourcing (Frattini et al., 2014; Dushnitsky et al., 2016).
Mäkinen, Kanniainen and Peltola (2014), Frey et al. (2011), Tiwana and Bush (2014)
and Rayna et al. (2015) have explored user-dominant platform value co-creation
activities. Besides users in participating platforms, other external collaborators, such as
small independent software vendors (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012), large multinational
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

enterprises (Rohrbeck et al., 2010), investors in open-source and proprietary platforms

(Casadesus-Masanell and Llanes, 2015) and university–industry collaborations (Malik et al.,
2011) have also been investigated to determine what drives better performance, customer
integration and the development of business relationships. Scholars have also explored
platform operators’ perspectives and actions in motivating users’ value co-creation activities
(e.g. Battistella and Nonino, 2012; Rode, 2016) and winning users’ trust and loyalty in open
innovation and value co-creation management (e.g. Chakravarty et al., 2014; Chen and Xu,
2009; Markus and Loebbecke, 2013; Lee and Youn, 2009; Barrett et al., 2016).
The seller–platform–buyer triad and their collaborative partnership have been a focus of
research, in an elaboration on the seller–buyer dyadic relationship of conventional theories.
Mačiulienė and Skaržauskienė (2016) and Haile and Altmann (2016) described evaluation
methods and structural analysis for platform value co-creation. Taylor et al. (2013) discussed
whether the multi-platform whole is more powerful than its separate parts. Holzmann and
Katzy (2014) explored matchmaking mechanisms between innovation partners and platforms.
Selsky and Parker (2010) examined platform-related cross-sector social partnerships.
The different industrial contexts discussed have included service co-production in a
health information exchange platform (Yaraghi et al., 2015), collective creativity in a virtual
idea-generation platform (Parjanen et al., 2012) and open innovation in a monetary donation
platform (Krishnamurthy and Tripathi, 2009).
Openness leverage and platform governance. Openness leverage is considered to be the
central strategic instrument used by platform owners to intermediate the ecosystem of users
and complementors (Gawer, 2009b). Open platforms have open access and external
participants invest to improve the platform. Proprietary platforms have closed access and
external participants invest to access the platform (Caillaud and Jullien, 2003; Parker and
Van Alstyne, 2005; Rochet and Tirole, 2006). The issue of openness leverage is of growing
interest to academics, because, especially in relation to strategic design and pricing policy,
there are debates over the balancing of competing goals such as quantity vs quality,
fairness vs focus, personal attention vs economies of scale, etc. (Armstrong, 2006;
Eisenmann et al., 2006; Hagiu, 2009; Boudreau and Hagiu, 2009). Scholars have compared
different cases like Windows vs Linux and Apple vs IBM (e.g. Economides and Katsamakas,
2006; Greenstein, 2009; Den Hartigh et al., 2016) and discussed factors that influence the
decision making of proprietary vs shared models (e.g. Nielsen and Aanestad, 2006;
Eisenmann, 2008; Simcoe et al., 2009; Eisenmann et al., 2009; Casadesus-Masanell and
Hałaburda, 2014).
The impacts of openness leverage have been widely explored. For example, Ondrus et al.
(2015) examined openness at three levels (the provider, technology and user levels).
 Huang et al. (2013) investigated how to use intellectual property rights (or ownership of Platform-based
strong downstream capabilities) to protect an independent supplier against the threat service
of expropriation. Schilling (2009) discussed how either open or closed technologies can rise innovation
to the position of dominant design. Benlian et al. (2015) analyzed the meaning and
measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective.
Some studies have also explored different contexts for platform governance. For
example, Jiang et al. (2010) discussed whether “mid-tail” products are worthwhile for a 959
platform to sell directly or are better left for independent retailers to sell. Generally,
platforms are likely to sell high-demand products and leave the long-tail products for
independent sellers to offer. Boudreau (2010), Fehder et al. (2014), Lahiri et al. (2011),
De Reuver et al. (2011) and Oh et al. (2015) have also contributed to this area.
Platform leadership and ecosystem design. If the “open” and “closed” leveraging issue is
regarded as a price-based strategic instrument for how a platform deal with its surrounding
constituents, there should also be consideration of the how non-price instruments can be used
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

by platform owners themselves (Boudreau and Hagiu, 2009). These non-price instruments are
what platform owners use to regulate, lead and design their platform ecosystem.
A platform leader is the central player in an ecosystem but is nonetheless highly
dependent upon innovations and investments from external participants (Gawer and
Cusumano, 2002). Gawer and Cusumano (2002, 2008, 2014) developed the concept of
“platform leadership” to describe the ecosystem operation capability of a platform owner.
In their 2008 study, they explored two strategies by which companies can become platform
leaders: “coring” ( focusing on the means to create a new platform where none has existed)
and “tipping” ( focusing on the means to win platform wars by building market momentum).
A main role of platform leadership is to design a platform ecosystem (Gawer and
Cusumano, 2014; Van Alstyne et al., 2016). In relation to product platforms, scholars have
emphasized the importance of decentralization in designing the platform ecosystem and
suggested that platform leaders should keep a lean core for neutrality, scalability, evolvability
(Olleros, 2008) and pluggable flexibility (Aulkemeier et al., 2016). But compared with the
architecture design of a product platform, the ecosystem design requires a more comprehensive
and systematic outlook. Gawer and Cusumano (2014) indicated that platform leaders need to
prepare for both technological and business model innovation with a coherent set of decisions.
Palaima and Skaržauskiene (2010) emphasized the importance of platform leaders being
systems thinkers. Masson et al. (2009) argued that the design process is neither an aggregation
of past experience nor a top-down design, nor an evolutionary adaption of previous platforms,
but a clear set of shared procedures for collaboration and value co-creation activities.
Scholars have also discussed ecosystem design issues in different industrial contexts
(e.g. Spagnoletti et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2010; Son and Choung, 2014; Tee and Gawer, 2009) and
based on different strategies (e.g. Eisenmann et al., 2006; Hagiu, 2014; Yang and Jiang, 2006;
Casey and Töyli, 2012).
Platform market entry, expansion and evolution. Platforms are characterized by their
evolvability—the ability to evolve over time by adding new features and sides to their initial
value proposition (Staykova and Damsgaard, 2015). Different from transition issue of
product platform which focus on supporting product innovation, the evolution issue
of platform ecosystem focuses more on the dynamic growth of the whole ecosystem and
co-development with external participants.
The analysis of platform market entry has mainly focused on how to defeat the
incumbent. Scholars have suggested that new entrants will have to have a platform quality
advantage (Zhu and Iansiti, 2012), or to transform from a specialist component maker to an
assembler/integrator/system maker (Gawer, 2009b), or to be associated with an open
innovation process and supported by a business ecosystem (Blondel and Edouard, 2015),
 IMDS or to investigate the right timing and area (Staykova and Damsgaard, 2015; Hagiu and
118,5 Yoffie, 2013), or to find a distinctive and underserved segment of users, leverage the existing
platforms, differentiate based on emerging needs and simplify business models for
complementors (Suarez and Kirtley, 2012).
After successfully entering one market, a platform has to expand into other markets and to
become multi-sided (Staykova and Damsgaard, 2015). If the expansion is not accomplished in
960 time, the competitive advantage gained previously can be annulled. Staykova and Damsgaard
(2015) emphasized that the timing of expansion is of equal importance to the timing of entry.
Gawer (2009b) underlined the dynamic matching between the unfolding process of a platform
and the strategies it has devised. There is, though, a dilemma over whether a platform owner
should enter into its complementors’ markets or preserve complementors’ incentives to
innovate, as discussed by Gawer and Henderson (2007) and Tiwana (2015).
The evolution of the platform ecosystem has been widely explored. Longitudinal case
studies account for a large proportion of the empirical work. For example, Gawer and
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Phillips (2013) studied how Intel transformed from a traditional supply chain assembler to a
platform leader, and West and Wood (2013) studied the rise and fall of the Symbian
platform; other works include Basole and Karla (2011), Jha et al. (2016) and Hann et al. (2016).
Scholars have summarized the lessons learned and proposed some principles. For example,
Rong et al. (2013) identified an evolutional pattern of platform strategy along the business
ecosystem lifecycle: an open strategy emerges at the birth of the platform and is kept during
the expansion phases, but then a dominating strategy is adopted in the authority phase, and
finally the opportunistic strategy takes over at the renewal phase. Breidbach et al. (2014)
summarized the process by stating that “engagement platforms” transition to an
“engagement ecosystem.” Muzellec et al. (2015) also took a lifecycle perspective to discuss
how a platform owner dynamically formulates two different value propositions—one for the
end-user side and the other for the business side.
Other topics and summary. Other topics include: platform choice, such as the studies by
Cenamor et al. (2013) on the influence of complementary product portfolios on platform
adoption and by Lin, Chan and Wei (2011) on a theory of planned behavior to predict choice
intention of platforms; a government’s effect on platform building (e.g. Li and Reimers, 2012;
Xu et al., 2010; Mesquita and Sugano, 2011); and concept analysis and the classification of
research streams (e.g. Cusumano, 2012; Thomas et al., 2014; Gawer, 2014; Tiwana et al., 2010;
Sriram et al., 2015; Sørensen et al., 2015). Gawer (2009a), Baldwin and Woodard (2009) and
Laurie et al. (2006) have also contributed to this area.
Although the number of platform ecosystem studies has increased recently and more
rapidly than the studies taking the other two perspectives, it is still at an exploratory stage. As
shown in Table V, exploratory methodologies like case studies are used more frequently than
confirmatory methodologies such as large-sample surveys. It can be predicted that topics in
this research perspective will be more diversified, and connections with the other two research
perspectives will also be strengthened. Gawer (2014) pointed out that the literature on
platform ecosystems has not provided insights on competition between platforms (which the
multi-sided market literature does) or between platform owners and complementors (which
the multi-sided market literature ignores). Studies like Tiwana (2015), Luo and Toubia (2015),
Muzellec et al. (2015) and Oh et al. (2015) have already tried to fill such theoretical gaps.

4. Findings and discussions

Based on the literature review from three perspectives, a conceptual model (Figure 3) is
proposed to cluster and link the various research topics and issues. This model shows how a
platform evolves through the interactions between platform service innovation, platform
system design and other factors such as the network effect and value co-creation activities.
 Platform service innovation Platform-based
service
Platform leadership and innovation
ecosystem design Network effect and
chicken-and-egg problem
Openness leverage and
Co-evolution of a platform ecosystem
platform governance
Value co-creation activities and
Platform pricing open innovation 961
Platform lifecycle and transition

Platform system design NPD and modularity

Platform market entry, expansion
and evolution Figure 3.
Multi-homing A conceptual model of
Architecture design
Platform competition, the relationships
winner-takes-all scenario, and
platform envelopment
between different
research topics and
perspectives
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Product family perspective Multi-sided market perspective Business ecosystem perspective

4.1 Platform-based service innovation and system design

A platform consists of some core components and many peripheral components. Compared
with traditional organizations, a platform connects more stakeholders and resources in a much
broader scope, but with a looser organizational form. Therefore, a mechanism to maintain the
platform as a whole and to drive the running and development of the platform is important.
This requires a platform owner to design a complex but flexible system in the back-office and
provide innovative platform services to different groups of stakeholders through various
resources in the front-office (Suarez and Cusumano, 2009; Gawer and Cusumano, 2014).
A platform system is a combination of platform architecture, modules (components),
interfaces and their interactions (Tiwana et al., 2010). “Architecture design,” an area of
research within the product family perspective, initially explored the assembly, decomposition
and interactions between different components of the product platform (e.g. Pasche and
Magnusson, 2011; Van der Duin et al., 2014). Within the business ecosystem perspective,
studies of “openness leverage and platform governance” then expanded the scope of such
work and examined the way connections were made with external complementors, while work
on “platform leadership and ecosystem design” considered interactions with the environment
and the dynamic upgrading of the system (e.g. Suarez and Cusumano, 2009; Ordanini et al.,
2011; Mäkinen, Kanniainen and Peltola, 2014). In summary, these three areas of work
combined revealed that the core principles for platform system design are balance and fit
(Tiwana et al., 2010): balance between stability in the core system and versatility in modules,
and fit between platform architecture (including considerations of decomposition, modularity
and design rules) and platform governance (including considerations of decision rights,
control mechanisms and proprietary vs shared models of ownership).
Platform-based service innovation describes how to better serve the platform
participants (complementors or stakeholders) and how to implement the design rights
and regulations in the front-office (Fu et al., 2017). From a service business logic, in a
business relationship the supplier supports the customer’s practices with a range of service
activities, which enable the customer to co-create value (Grönroos, 2011; Wang et al., 2015,
2016). In the platform context, the platform owner’s basic role in generating value is to
facilitate the complementors’ value co-creation activities. The topic of “platform leadership
and ecosystem design” mainly relates to how a platform provides facilities to support
participants’ production activities (e.g. Cusumano and Gawer, 2002; Gawer and Henderson,
2007; Boudreau, 2012). The topic of “openness leverage and platform governance”
intertwines with the topic of “platform pricing,” and together they define the authority,
 IMDS responsibilities and profits of both the platform owner and its complementors (e.g. Parker
118,5 and Van Alstyne, 2005; Eisenmann et al., 2006).
In summary, platform system design and service innovation jointly create a mechanism
to facilitate complementors’ value co-creation activities (Gawer and Cusumano, 2008, 2014;
Thomas et al., 2014) and to stimulate network effects (Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005;
Eisenmann et al., 2006, 2009), showing the critical feature of platforms that distinguishes
962 them from other business models (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014). As pointed out by Ordanini
et al. (2011), platform owners serve as a typical “network orchestrator” in that “they do not
execute specific activities, but create the necessary organizational systems and conditions
for resource integration among other players to take place” (p. 463).

4.2 Network effect and value co-creation activities

The platform business has been termed an “economic catalyst” because it causes or
accelerates reactions between two or more agents and creates more value than the agents can
create separately (Evans and Schmalensee, 2007, p. 4). Such value addition is increased where
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

the network consists of nodes (the agents) connected by multi-directional flows (Evans, 2009).
Because of the network effect, interactions within a network platform are more efficient than
the bi-directional interactions in traditional business (Evans, 2009; Hagiu, 2009).
Value co-creation refers to “benefit realized from integration of resources through activities
and interactions with collaborators in the customer’s service network” (McColl-Kennedy et al.,
2012, p. 375; see also Vargo and Lusch, 2004). In a platform context, the complementors
organize heterogeneous resources and capabilities autonomously to participate in product/
service innovation for end-users (Adner and Kapoor, 2010; Chesbrough, 2003). The topic of
“NPD and modularity” involves one form of complementors’ value co-creation, namely,
collaborative innovation in the product platform context. Both physical products and the
service products/processes require complementors to be highly flexible and adaptable
(modularized) to satisfy various personalized and customized needs of end-users. The topic of
“multi-homing” covers how complementors choose platforms for their production activities.
They are the key activator in the platform-based value co-creation context (Ordanini et al., 2011).
Value co-creation activities and the network effect are two concepts of platform-based
ecological interdependence. The richer the complementors’ collaborative network and their
value co-creation activities, the more potential participants will be attracted to the platform;
the more valuable the platform to the complementors and end-users, the more heterogeneous
and effective value co-creation activities can be developed. From a dynamic perspective, at the
emergence stage of a platform, the platform owner uses its own resources and capabilities
(service innovation and system design) to solve the chicken-and-egg problem and to trigger
the network effect. When the initial group of participants grows large enough, the platform
owner can use the power of existing participants to attract more participants, by facilitating
value co-creation activities between the existing ones and the potential ones (Fu et al., 2017).
Therefore, it is the ecological interdependence and interaction between value co-creation
activities and the network effect that lead to the co-evolution of a platform ecosystem.

4.3 Co-evolution of a platform ecosystem

Kelly (2016) indicated that “ecosystems are governed by co-evolution, which is a mixture of
competition and cooperation” (p. 124). The topics “platform lifecycle and transition” and
“platform market entry and platform evolution” describe the cooperation and collaborative
evolution among platform owners, complementors and end-users in a platform ecosystem.
Vargo et al. (2015) defined service ecosystems as “relatively self-contained, self-adjusting
systems of resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements
and mutual value creation through service exchange” (p. 21). The two topics cover how,
as a platform ecosystem develops, each participant evolves as an independent institution with
 its own schemas, norms, coordinating mechanisms and regulations (Thomas et al., 2014), and Platform-based
the platform owner evolves as more of an infrastructure builder which establishes service
configurations of interrelated, cohesive sets of institutions (Vargo et al., 2015). The topic of innovation
“platform competition, WTA scenario and platform envelopment” covers the internal and
external risks and threats and defensive measures in the co-evolution of a platform ecosystem.

4.4 Assessing the rigor and trustworthiness of the framework 963

In order to evaluate the rigor and trustworthiness of the framework derived from our
literature review, we adopted criteria developed by Flint et al. (2002) and Mello and Flint
(2009). We invited four entrepreneurs with extensive experience of platform operations and
different industrial backgrounds to be our evaluation experts. They are founders or senior
executives of four influential platform companies. These four experts were asked to
comment on: how well the research addresses the core issues of the platform business
phenomenon; how relevant the framework is to the practice of platform management;
whether the framework is able to demonstrate and explain the relations and interactions in
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

platform-based service innovation and system design. Based on their feedbacks, the
framework has been accepted as a comprehensive one to explain the phenomenon.
The experts also commented that the framework would be really useful and help them and
others enormously in their platform businesses.

5. Implications and conclusions

Using a quantitative descriptive analysis, we provide an overview of the current body
of literature on platform studies, covering three perspectives (the engineering design,
the economics and the ecology-based perspectives) and research various topics
(e.g. innovation, competition, strategies and IT systems). Then, based on a qualitative
in-depth review, we clarified the relationships among these diversified topics and
developed a comprehensive framework to reveal the mechanism of platform evolution
driven by platform-based service innovation and system design. The findings of this
paper deepen our understanding on platform studies in the fields related to operations
management, information systems and strategic management, and provide practitioners
managerial insights with regard to improving operational effectiveness of platforms and
evolving platforms to new business models with appropriate design for the long-term
development of a platform ecosystem.
Although previous studies have shed light on the definitions, distinctions, characteristics
and the main research perspectives of platforms, there is still much to be learned,
particularly new features of platforms being set up in emerging economies. The findings of
previous studies have been mainly derived from famous case examples in advanced
economies (e.g. IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.). Platforms in
advanced economies have standardized structures and partnerships, whereas platforms in
emerging economies like China may be still in the platformization process, with complicated
and dynamic structures and sometimes highly influenced by government policy.
Furthermore, new platform-related phenomena and questions continue to emerge.
Academic studies have lagged far behind these rapidly changing practices.
In the next complementary paper “Platform-Based Service Innovation and System
Design: Research Opportunities,” we will illustrate several cases from a typical emerging
economy, China, to show the latest platform phenomena and explore the research
opportunities in platform-based service innovation and system design. The “Internet Plus”
action plan proposed by the Chinese government greatly encourages the development of
platforms. Platforms represent a path for the transformation and upgrade of traditional
manufacturing industries, as they are a source of innovation; platforms should also add
momentum to China’s entrepreneurial boom.
 IMDS References
118,5 Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010), “Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of
technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generation”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 306-333.
Alblas, A.A. and Wortmann, J.C. (2012), “Impact of product platforms on lean production systems:
evidence from industrial machinery manufacturing”, International Journal of Technology
964 Management, Vol. 57 Nos 1/3, pp. 110-131.
Alblas, A.A. and Wortmann, J.C. (2014), “Function-technology platforms improve efficiency in
high-tech equipment manufacturing: a case study in complex products and systems (cops)”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 447-476.
Androutsellis-Theotokis, S. and Spinellis, D. (2004), “A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution
technologies”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 335-371.
Armstrong, M. (2006), “Competition in two-sided markets”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 668-691.
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Arthur, W.B. (1989), “Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in”, Marketing Science,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 52-66.
Aulkemeier, F., Paramartha, M.A., Iacob, M. and Van Hillegersberg, J. (2016), “A pluggable service
platform architecture for e-commerce”, Information Systems and E-business Management,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 469-489.
Bakos, Y. and Katsamakas, E. (2008), “Design and ownership of two-sided networks: implications for
internet platforms”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 171-202.
Baldwin, C.Y. and Woodard, C.J. (2009), “The architecture of platforms: a unified view”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.),
Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, pp. 19-44.
Banker, R., Mitra, S. and Sambamurthy, V. (2011), “The effects of digital trading platforms on
commodity prices in agricultural supply chains”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 599-612.
Bardey, D., Cremer, H. and Lozachmeur, J.M. (2009), “Competition in two-sided markets with common
network externalities”, Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 327-345.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barrett, M., Oborn, E. and Orlikowski, W.J. (2016), “Creating value in online communities: the
sociomaterial configuring of strategy, platform, and stakeholder engagement”, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 704-723.
Basoglu, N., Daim, T. and Polat, E. (2014), “Exploring adaptivity in service development: the case of
mobile platforms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 501-515.
Basole, R.C. and Karla, J. (2011), “On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and
strategy”, Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 313-322.
Battistella, C. and Nonino, F. (2012), “Open innovation web-based platforms: the impact of different
forms of motivation on collaboration”, Innovation Management Policy & Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 557-575.
Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S. and Lenfle, S. (2010), “Platform re-use lessons from the automotive industry”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 98-124.
Benlian, A., Hilkert, D. and Hess, T. (2015), “How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement
of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective”, Journal of Information Technology,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 209-228.
Blondel, F. and Edouard, S. (2015), “Entrance into a platform-dominated market: virtue of an open
strategy on the numerical computation market”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 177-188.
Boudreau, K.J. (2010), “Open platform strategies and innovation: granting access vs devolving control”,
Management Science, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 1849-1872.
 Boudreau, K.J. (2012), “Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software ‘Apps’ Platform-based
developers and patterns of innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1409-1427. service
Boudreau, K.J. and Hagiu, A. (2009), “Platform rules: multi-sided platforms as regulators”, in Gawer, A. innovation
(Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA,
pp. 163-191.
Boudreau, K.J. and Jeppesen, L.B. (2015), “Unpaid crowd complementors: the platform network effect
mirage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 12, pp. 1761-1777. 965
Breidbach, C.F., Brodie, R. and Hollebeek, L. (2014), “Beyond virtuality: from engagement platforms to
engagement ecosystems”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 592-611.
Brusoni, S. and Prencipe, A. (2009), “Design rules for platform leaders”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms,
Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 306-321.
Caillaud, B. and Jullien, B. (2003), “Chicken and egg: competition among intermediation service
providers”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 309-329.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Hałaburda, H. (2014), “When does a platform create value by limiting
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

choice?”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 259-293.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Llanes, G. (2015), “Investment incentives in open-source and proprietary
two-sided platforms”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 306-324.
Casey, T.R. and Töyli, J. (2012), “Dynamics of two-sided platform success and failure: an analysis of
public wireless local area access”, Technovation, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 703-716.
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P. and Wu, D.J. (2012), “Co-creation of value in a platform
ecosystem: the case of enterprise software”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 263-290.
Cenamor, J., Usero, B. and Fernández, Z. (2013), “The role of complementary products on platform
adoption: evidence from the video console market”, Technovation, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 405-416.
Cennamo, C. and Santalo, J. (2013), “Platform competition: strategic trade-offs in platform markets”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 1331-1350.
Chai, K., Wang, Q., Song, M., Halman, J.I.M. and Brombacher, A.C. (2012), “Understanding
competencies in platform-based product development: antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 452-472.
Chakravarty, A., Kumar, A. and Grewal, R. (2014), “Customer orientation structure for internet-based
business-to-business platform firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 1-23.
Chao, Y. and Derdenger, T. (2013), “Mixed bundling in two-sided markets in the presence of installed
base effects”, Management Science, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 1904-1926.
Chen, J. and Xu, Y. (2009), “The role of mutual trust in building members’ loyalty to a C2C platform
provider”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 147-171.
Chen, J., Fan, M. and Li, M. (2016), “Advertising versus brokerage model for online trading platforms”,
Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 575-596.
Chen, Y.X. and Xie, J.H. (2007), “Cross-market network effect with asymmetric customer loyalty:
implications for competitive advantage”, Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 52-66.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), Open Innovation: the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2011), “Bringing open innovation to services”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 85-90.
Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2008), Open Innovation: Researching a New
Paradigm, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Choi, D.O., Oh, J., Kim, Y. and Hwang, J. (2012), “Competition in the Korean internet portal market: network
effects, profit, and market efficiency”, Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 51-73.
Choi, J.P. (2010), “Tying in two-sided markets with multi-homing”, The Journal of Industrial Economics,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 607-626.
 IMDS Chou, M.C., Khian, S.C., Chung‐Piaw, T. and Zheng, H. (2012), “Newsvendor pricing problem in a
118,5 two-sided market”, Production & Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 204-208.
Chu, J. and Manchanda, P. (2016), “Quantifying cross and direct network effects in online consumer-to-
consumer platforms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 870-893.
Cusumano, M.A. (2012), “Platforms versus products: observations from the literature and history”, in
Kahl, S.J., Silverman, B.S. and Cusumano, M.A. (Ed.), History and Strategy (Advances in Strategic
966 Management), Vol. 29, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, pp. 35-67.
Cusumano, M.A. and Gawer, A. (2002), “The elements of platform leadership”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 51-58.
Dadfar, H., Dahlgaard, J.J., Brege, S. and Alamirhoor, A. (2013), “Linkage between organizational
innovation capability, product platform development and performance”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 819-834.
Dahlander, L. and Gann, D.M. (2010), “How open is innovation?”, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 699-709.
Den Hartigh, E., Ortt, J.R., De Kaa, G.V. and Stolwijk, C.C. (2016), “Platform control during battles for
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

market dominance: the case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry”,
Technovation, Vols 48/49, pp. 4-12.
De Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., Prieto, G. and Visser, A. (2011), “Governance of flexible mobile service
platforms”, Futures, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 979-985.
Dushnitsky, G., Guerini, M., Piva, E. and Rossilamastra, C. (2016), “Crowdfunding in Europe: determinants
of platform creation across countries”, California Management Review, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 44-71.
Economides, N. and Katsamakas, E. (2006), “Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source
technology platforms and the implications for the software industry”, Management Science,
Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 1057-1071.
Eisenmann, T. (2008), “Managing proprietary and shared platforms”, California Management Review,
Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 31-53.
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2006), “Strategies for two-sided markets”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 10, pp. 92-101.
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2009), “Opening platforms: how, when, and why?”,
in Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and
Northampton, MA, pp. 131-162.
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, W. (2011), “Platform envelopment”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 1270-1285.
Eloranta, V. and Turunen, T. (2016), “Platforms in service-driven manufacturing: leveraging complexity
by connecting, sharing, and integrating”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 55, pp. 178-186.
Eloranta, V., Orkoneva, L., Hakanen, E. and Turunen, T. (2016), “Using platforms to pursue strategic
opportunities in service-driven manufacturing”, Service Science, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 344-357.
Evans, D.S. (2003), “The antitrust economics of multi-sided platform markets”, Yale Journal on
Regulation, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 325-382.
Evans, D.S. (2009), “How catalysts ignite: the economics of platform-based start-ups”, in Gawer, A.
(Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA,
pp. 99-128.
Evans, D.S. (2012), “Governing bad behavior by users of multi-sided platforms”, Berkeley Technology
Law Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 19-27.
Evans, D.S. (2013), “Attention rivalry among online platforms”, Journal of Competition Law &
Economics, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 313-357.
Evans, D.S. and Schmalensee, R. (2007), Catalyst Code: The Strategies behind the World’s Most Dynamic
Companies, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Evans, D.S. and Schmalensee, R. (2010), “Failure to launch: critical mass in platform businesses”,
Review of Network Economics, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1-26.
 Evans, P.B. and Wurster, T.S. (1997), “Strategy and the new economics of information”, Harvard Platform-based
Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 70-82. service
Facin, A.L.F., Spinola, M.D.M. and Salerno, M.S. (2016), “The evolution of the platform concept: a innovation
systematic review”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 475-488.
Fehder, D.C., Murray, F. and Stern, S. (2014), “Intellectual property rights and the evolution of scientific
journals as knowledge platforms”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 83-94. 967
Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.W. and Gardial, S.F. (2002), “Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired value
change in a business-to-business context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 102-117.
Forte, A., Larco, V. and Bruckman, A. (2009), “Decentralization in Wikipedia governance”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 49-72.
Frattini, F., Bianchi, M., Massis, A.D. and Sikimic, U. (2014), “The role of early adopters in the diffusion
of new products: differences between platform and non-platform innovations”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 466-488.
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Frey, K., Lüthje, C. and Haag, S. (2011), “Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The
role of knowledge diversity and motivation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 397-420.
Fu, W., Wang, Q. and Zhao, X. (2017), “The influence of platform service innovation on value co-creation
activities and the network effect”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 348-388.
Gawer, A. (2009a), “Platforms, markets and innovation: an introduction”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms,
Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 1-16.
Gawer, A. (2009b), “Platform dynamics and strategies: from products to services”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.),
Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 45-76.
Gawer, A. (2014), “Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative
framework”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1239-1249.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A. (2002), Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive
Industry Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A. (2008), “How companies become platform leaders”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 28-35.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A. (2014), “Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 417-433.
Gawer, A. and Henderson, R. (2007), “Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets:
evidence from Intel”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-34.
Gawer, A. and Phillips, N. (2013), “Institutional work as logics shift: the case of Intel’s transformation to
platform leader”, Organization Studies, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 1035-1071.
Ghosh, A. and Morita, H. (2006), “Platform sharing in a differentiated duopoly”, Journal of Economics &
Management Strategy, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 397-429.
Greenstein, S. (2009), “Open platform development and the commercial Internet”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.),
Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 219-248.
Grönroos, C. (2011), “A service perspective on business relationships: the value creation, interaction
and marketing interface”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 240-247.
Hagiu, A. (2009), “Two-sided platforms: product variety and pricing structures”, Journal of Economics
& Management Strategy, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 1011-1043.
Hagiu, A. (2014), “Strategic decisions for multisided platforms”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 71-80.
Hagiu, A. and Jullien, B. (2014), “Search diversion and platform competition”, International Journal of
Industrial Organization, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 48-60.
Hagiu, A. and Spulber, D. (2013), “First-party content and coordination in two-sided markets”,
Management Science, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 933-949.
 IMDS Hagiu, A. and Wright, J. (2015), “Multi-sided platforms”, International Journal of Industrial
118,5 Organization, Vol. 43, pp. 162-174.
Hagiu, A. and Yoffie, D.B. (2013), “The new patent intermediaries: platforms, defensive aggregators,
and super-aggregators”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 45-65.
Haile, N. and Altmann, J. (2016), “Structural analysis of value creation in software service platforms”,
Electronic Markets, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 129-142.
968 Halaburda, H. and Yehezkel, Y. (2016), “The role of coordination bias in platform competition”, Journal
of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 274-312.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M. and Ukkonen, A. (2015), “The sharing economy: why people participate in
collaborative consumption?”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 2047-2059.
Hann, I., Koh, B. and Niculescu, M.F. (2016), “The double-edged sword of backward compatibility: the
adoption of multi-generational platforms in the presence of intergenerational services”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 112-130.
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Healey, J. and Moe, W.W. (2016), “The effects of installed base innovativeness and recency on content
sales in a platform-mediated market”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 246-260.
Higgins, J.P.T. and Green, S. (Eds) (2006), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
4.2.6, Cochrane Library, No. 4, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester.
Hofman, E. and Meijerink, J. (2015), “Platform thinking for services: the case of human resources”,
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 115-132.
Hogendorn, C. and Yuen, S.K.Y. (2009), “Platform competition with ‘must-have’ components”, Journal of
Industrial Economics, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 294-318.
Holzmann, T. and Katzy, K.S.B.R. (2014), “Matchmaking as multi-sided market for open innovation”,
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 601-615.
Hossain, T., Minor, D. and Morgan, J. (2010), “Competing matchmakers: an experimental analysis”,
Management Science, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 1913-1925.
Huang, G.Q., Zhang, X.Y. and Lo, V.H.Y. (2007), “Integrated configuration of platform products and
supply chains for mass customization: a game-theoretic approach”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 156-171.
Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C. and Wu, D.J. (2013), “Appropriability mechanisms and the
platform partnership decision: evidence from enterprise software”, Management Sciences,
Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 102-121.
Jeziorski, P. (2014), “Effects of mergers in two-sided markets: the US radio industry”, American
Economic Journal: Microeconomics, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 35-73.
Jha, S.K., Pinsonneault, A. and Dube, L. (2016), “The evolution of an ICT platform-enabled ecosystem
for poverty alleviation: the case of eKutir”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 40
No. 2, pp. 431-445.
Jiang, B., Jerath, K. and Srinivasan, K. (2010), “Firm strategies in the ‘mid tail’ of platform-based
retailing”, Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 757-775.
Jiao, J., Zhang, L. and Pokharel, S. (2007), “Process platform planning for variety coordination from
design to production in mass customization manufacturing”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 112-129.
Jin, G.Z. and Rysman, M. (2015), “Platform pricing at sports card conventions”, Journal of Industrial
Economics, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 704-735.
Kang, C.M., Hong, Y.S., Huh, W.T. and Kang, W. (2015), “Risk propagation through a platform: the
failure risk perspective on platform sharing”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 372-383.
Kang, J.S. and Downing, S. (2015), “Keystone effect on entry into two-sided markets: An analysis of the
market entry of WiMAX”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 170-186.
 Kang, S.J. and Lee, S.Y.T. (2014), “Korean online game’s platform competition under two-sided market Platform-based
characteristic”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 21-33. service
Karlsson, C. and Sköld, M. (2012), “Product platform replacements: challenges to managers”, innovation
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 746-766.
Kelly, K. (2016), The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future,
Viking Press, New York, NY.
Koh, T.K. and Fichman, M. (2014), “Multihoming users’ preferences for two-sided exchange networks”, 969
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 977-996.
Krishnamurthy, S. and Tripathi, A.K. (2009), “Monetary donations to an open source software
platform”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 404-414.
Lahiri, A., Dewan, R.M. and Freimer, M. (2011), “The disruptive effect of open platforms on markets for
wireless services”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 81-110.
Landsman, V. and Stremersch, S. (2011), “Multihoming in two-sided markets: an empirical inquiry in
the video game console industry”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 39-54.
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Laurie, D.L., Doz, Y.L. and Sheer, C.P. (2006), “Creating new growth platforms”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 80-90.
Lee, J., Song, J. and Yang, J.S. (2016), “Network structure effects on incumbency advantage”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1632-1648.
Lee, M. and Youn, S. (2009), “Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): how eWOM platforms influence
consumer product judgment?”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 473-499.
Lee, R.S. (2014), “Competing platforms”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 507-526.
Lee, S.M., Kim, T., Noh, Y. and Lee, B. (2010), “Success factors of platform leadership in web 2.0 service
business”, Service Business, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 89-103.
Li, M. and Reimers, K. (2012), “Government driven model of institutional change through adoption of
new technology: a case study of the failed pharmaceutical bidding and procurement platforms in
China”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-64.
Li, S., Liu, Y. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (2010), “Network effects in online two-sided market platforms: a
research note”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 245-249.
Lin, J., Chan, H.C. and Wei, K.K. (2011), “Understanding competing web application platforms: an
extended theory of planned behavior and its relative model”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 21-35.
Lin, M., Li, S. and Whinston, A.B. (2011), “Innovation and price competition in a two-sided market”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 171-202.
Liu, Q. and Serfes, K. (2013), “Price discrimination in two-sided markets”, Journal of Economics &
Management Strategy, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 768-786.
Luchetta, G. (2012), “Is the Google platform a two-sided market?”, Journal of Competition Law &
Economics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 83-118.
Luo, L. and Toubia, O. (2015), “Improving online idea generation platforms and customizing the task
structure on the basis of consumers’ domain-specific knowledge”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79
No. 5, pp. 100-114.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Vargo, S.L., Dagger, T.S., Sweeney, J.C. and Kasteren, Y.V. (2012), “Health care
customer value co-creation practice styles”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 370-389.
Mačiulienė, M. and Skaržauskienė, A. (2016), “Evaluation of co-creation perspective in networked
collaboration platforms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 4826-4830.
Magnusson, M. and Pasche, M. (2014), “A contingency-based approach to the use of product platforms
and modules in new product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 434-450.
 IMDS Mäkinen, S.J., Kanniainen, J. and Peltola, I. (2014), “Investigating adoption of free beta applications in a
118,5 platform-based business ecosystem”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 451-465.
Mäkinen, S.J., Seppänen, M. and Ortt, J.R. (2014), “Introduction to the special issue: platforms,
contingencies and new product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 412-416.
970 Malik, K., Georghiou, L. and Grieve, B. (2011), “Developing new technology platforms for new business
models: Syngenta’s partnership with the university of Manchester”, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 24-31.
Mantena, R. and Saha, R.L. (2012), “Co-opetition between differentiated platforms in two-sided
markets”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 109-139.
Markus, M.L. and Loebbecke, C. (2013), “Commoditized digital processes and business community
platforms: new opportunities and challenges for digital business strategies”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 649-653.
Maruyama, M. and Zennyo, Y. (2013), “Compatibility and the product life cycle in two-sided markets”,
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Review of Network Economics, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 131-155.

Maruyama, M. and Zennyo, Y. (2015), “Application compatibility and affiliation in two-sided markets”,
Economics Letters, Vol. 130, pp. 39-42.
Maruyama, M., Flath, D., Minamikawa, K., Ohkita, K. and Zennyo, Y. (2015), “Platform selection by
software developers: theory and evidence”, Journal of the Japanese & International Economies,
Vol. 38, pp. 282-303.
Masson, P.L., Weil, B. and Hatchuel, A. (2009), “Platforms for the design of platforms: collaborating in
the unknown”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 273-305.
Mello, J.E. and Flint, D.J. (2009), “A refined view of grounded theory and its application to logistics
research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 107-125.
Mesquita, D.L. and Sugano, J.Y. (2011), “The flex-fuel technology building process in Brazil: an analysis
from the perspective of business platform”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5
No. 20, pp. 8100-8109.
Miao, C.H. (2009), “Limiting compatibility in two-sided markets”, Review of Network Economics, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 346-364.
Montelisciani, G., Gabelloni, D., Tazzini, G. and Fantoni, G. (2014), “Skills and wills: the keys to identify
the right team in collaborative innovation platforms”, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Vol. 7 No. 26, pp. 4430-4445.
Muzellec, L., Ronteau, S. and Lambkin, M. (2015), “Two-sided internet platforms: a business model
lifecycle perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 139-150.
Nehme, J.J., Srivastava, S.C., Bouzas, H. and Carcasset, L. (2015), “How Schlumberger achieved
networked information leadership by transitioning to a product-platform software architecture”,
MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 105-124.
Nielsen, P. and Aanestad, M. (2006), “Control devolution as information infrastructure design strategy:
a case study of a content service platform for mobile phones in Norway”, Journal of Information
Technology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 185-194.
Njoroge, P., Ozdaglar, A., Stier-Moses, N.E. and Weintraub, G.Y. (2013), “Investment in two-sided
markets and the net neutrality debate”, Review of Network Economics, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 355-402.
Nocke, V., Peitz, M. and Stahl, K. (2007), “Platform ownership”, Journal of the European Economic
Association, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 1130-1160.
Oh, J., Koh, B. and Raghunathan, S. (2015), “Value appropriation between the platform provider and
app developers in mobile platform mediated networks”, Journal of Information Technology,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 245-259.
Olleros, X. (2008), “The lean core in digital platforms”, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 266-276.
 Ondrus, J., Gannamaneni, A. and Lyytinen, K. (2015), “The impact of openness on the market potential Platform-based
of multi-sided platforms: a case study of mobile payment platforms”, Journal of Information service
Technology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 260-275.
innovation
Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M. and Parasuraman, A. (2011), “Crowd-funding: transforming
customers into investors through innovative service platforms”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 443-470.
Palaima, T. and Skaržauskiene, A. (2010), “Systems thinking as a platform for leadership performance 971
in a complex world”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 330-355.
Parjanen, S., Hennala, L. and Konsti-Laakso, S. (2012), “Brokerage functions in a virtual idea generation
platform: possibilities for collective creativity?”, Innovation Management Policy & Practice,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 363-374.
Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2005), “Two-sided network effects: a theory of information product
design”, Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 1494-1504.
Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2009), “Six challenges in platform licensing and open innovation”,
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Communications & Strategies, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 17-36.

Pasche, M. and Magnusson, M. (2011), “Continuous innovation and improvement of product
platforms”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 56 Nos 2/4, pp. 256-271.
Pasche, M., Persson, M. and Löfsten, H. (2011), “Effects of platforms on new product development projects”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 1144-1163.
Patrucco, P.P. (2014), “The evolution of knowledge organization and the emergence of a platform for
innovation in the car industry”, Industry & Innovation, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 243-266.
Pekkarinen, S. and Ulkuniemi, P. (2008), “Modularity in developing business services by platform
approach”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 19, pp. 84-103.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with
Customers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Prieger, J.E. and Hu, W. (2012), “Applications barrier to entry and exclusive vertical contracts in
platform markets”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 435-452.
Rasch, A. and Wenzel, T. (2013), “Piracy in a two-sided software market”, Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, Vol. 88 No. 74, pp. 78-89.
Rasch, A. and Wenzel, T. (2014), “Content provision and compatibility in a platform market”,
Economics Letters, Vol. 124 No. 3, pp. 478-481.
Rayna, T., Striukova, L. and Darlington, J. (2015), “Co-creation and user innovation: the role of online
3D printing platforms”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 37, pp. 90-102.
Reisinger, M. (2012), “Platform competition for advertisers and users in media markets”, International
Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 243-252.
Reisinger, M., Ressner, L. and Schmidtke, R. (2009), “Two-sided markets with pecuniary and
participation externalities”, Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 32-57.
Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. (1998), “Planning for product platforms”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 19-31.
Rochet, J.C. and Tirole, J. (2006), “Two-sided markets: a progress report”, RAND Journal of Economics,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 645-667.
Rode, H. (2016), “To share or not to share: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on
knowledge-sharing in enterprise social media platforms”, Journal of Information Technology,
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 152-165.
Roger, G. and Vasconcelos, L. (2014), “Platform pricing structure and moral hazard”, Journal of
Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 527-547.
Rohrbeck, R., Steinhoff, F. and Perder, F. (2010), “Sourcing innovation from your customer: how
multinational enterprises use web platforms for virtual customer integration”, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 117-131.
 IMDS Rong, K., Lin, Y., Shi, Y. and Yu, J. (2013), “Linking business ecosystem lifecycle with platform strategy:
118,5 a triple view of technology, application and organization”, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 75-94.
Rysman, M. (2009), “The economics of two-sided markets”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 125-143.
Sahin-Sariisik, A., Terpenny, J., Van Aken, E.M. and Orfi, N. (2014), “A structured approach to
972 platform-driven product planning”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 10-23.
Sako, M. (2009), “Outsourcing of tasks and outsourcing of assets: evidence from automotive supplier
parks in Brazil”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 251-272.
Salinger, M.A. and Levinson, R.J. (2015), “Economics and the FTC’s Google investigation”, Review of
Industrial Organization, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 25-57.
Sawhney, M.S. (1998), “Leveraged high-variety strategies: from portfolio thinking to platform
thinking”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 54-61.
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Schilling, M.A. (2009), “Protecting or diffusing a technology platform: tradeoffs in appropriability,

network externalities, and architectural control”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and
Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 192-218.
Selsky, J.W. and Parker, B. (2010), “Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: prospective
sense-making devices for social benefit”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Shibata, T. and Kodama, M. (2015), “Managing the change of strategy from customization to product
platform: case of Mabuchi motors, a leading DC motor manufacturer”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 67 Nos 2/4, pp. 289-305.
Shy, O. (2011), “A short survey of network economics”, Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 119-149.
Simcoe, T.S., Graham, S.J.H. and Feldman, M.P. (2009), “Competing on standards? Entrepreneurship,
intellectual property, and platform technologies”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 775-816.
Simpson, T.W., Siddique, Z. and Jiao, J. (Eds) (2005), Product Platform and Product Family Design:
Methods and Applications, Springer, New York, NY.
Sköld, M. and Karlsson, C. (2007), “Multibranded platform development: a corporate strategy with
multimanagerial challenges”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 554-566.
Sköld, M. and Karlsson, C. (2013), “Stratifying the development of product platforms: requirements for
resources, organization, and management styles”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 62-76.
Son, C. and Choung, J.Y. (2014), “Platform design and imitative innovation inside the transition
black-box: Korean nuclear power plant APR1400 case”, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 67-85.
Sørensen, C., De Reuver, M. and Basole, R.C. (2015), “Mobile platforms and ecosystems”, Journal of
Information Technology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 195-197.
Spagnoletti, P., Resca, A. and Lee, G. (2015), “A design theory for digital platforms supporting online
communities: a multiple case study”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 364-380.
Sridhar, S., Mantrala, M.K., Naik, P.A. and Thorson, E. (2011), “Dynamic marketing budgeting for
platform firms: theory, evidence, and application”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 6,
pp. 929-943.
Srinivasan, A. and Venkatraman, N. (2010), “Indirect network effects and platform dominance in the
video game industry: a network perspective”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 661-673.
Sriram, S., Manchanda, P., Bravo, M.E., Chu, J., Ma, L., Song, M., Shriver, S. and Subramanian, U. (2015),
“Platforms: a multiplicity of research opportunities”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 141-152.
 Staykova, K.S. and Damsgaard, J. (2015), “The race to dominate the mobile payments platform: entry and Platform-based
expansion strategies”, Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 319-330. service
Steiner, M., Wiegand, N., Eggert, A. and Backhaus, K. (2016), “Platform adoption in system markets: innovation
the roles of preference heterogeneity and consumer expectations”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 276-296.
Suarez, F.F. and Cusumano, M.A. (2009), “The role of services in platform markets”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.),
Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 77-98. 973
Suarez, F.F. and Kirtley, J. (2012), “Dethroning an established platform”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 35-41.
Sun, M. and Tse, E. (2009), “The resource-based view of competitive advantage in two-sided markets”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Tatsumoto, H., Ogawa, K. and Fujimoto, T. (2009), “The effect of technological platforms on the international
division of labor: a case study of Intel’s platform business in the pc industry”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.),
Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 345-368.
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Taylor, J., Kennedy, R., Mcdonald, C., Larguinat, L., Ouarzazi, Y.E. and Haddad, N. (2013), “Is the
multi-platform whole more powerful than its separate parts? Measuring the sales effects of
cross-media advertising”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 200-211.
Tee, R. and Gawer, A. (2009), “Industry architecture as a determinant of successful platform strategies:
a case study of the i-mode mobile Internet service”, European Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 217-232.
Thomas, L.D.W., Autio, E. and Gann, D.M. (2014), “Architectural leverage: putting platforms in
context”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 18-40.
Tiwana, A. (2015), “Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 266-281.
Tiwana, A. and Bush, A.A. (2014), “Spotting lemons in platform markets: A conjoint experiment on
signaling”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 393-405.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and Bush, A.A. (2010), “Platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture,
governance, and environmental dynamics”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 675-687.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal
of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tucker, C. and Zhang, J. (2010), “Growing two-sided networks by advertising the user base: a field
experiment”, Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 805-814.
Van Alstyne, M.W., Parker, G. and Choudary, S.P. (2016), “Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of
strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 54-62.
Van der Duin, P.A., Ortt, J.R. and Aarts, W.T.M. (2014), “Contextual innovation management using a
stage-gate platform: the case of Philips shaving and beauty”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 489-500.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L., Wieland, H. and Akaka, M. (2015), “Institutions in innovation: a service ecosystems
perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 63-72.
Venkatraman, N. and Lee, C.H. (2004), “Preferential linkage and network evolution: a conceptual model
and empirical test in the US video game sector”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 876-892.
Vickery, S.K., Koufteros, X. and Droge, C. (2013), “Does product platform strategy mediate the effects of
supply chain integration on performance? A dynamic capabilities perspective”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 750-762.
Wang, Q., Voss, C., Zhao, X. and Wang, Z. (2015), “Modes of service innovation: a typology”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 7, pp. 1358-1382.
 IMDS Wang, Q., Zhao, X. and Voss, C. (2016), “Customer orientation and innovation: a comparative study of
118,5 manufacturing and service firms”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 171 No. 1,
pp. 221-230.
Wen, Z. and Lin, L. (2016), “Optimal fee structures of crowdsourcing platforms”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 820-850.
West, J. and Wood, D. (2013), “Evolving an open ecosystem: the rise and fall of the Symbian platform”,
in Adner, R., Oxley, J.E. and Silverman, B.S. (Eds), Collaboration and Competition in Business
974 Ecosystems (Advances in Strategic Management), Vol. 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
Bingley, pp. 27-67.
Wilbur, K.C. (2008), “A two-sided, empirical model of television advertising and viewing markets”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 356-378.
Williamson, O.E. (1985), “Reflections on the new institutional economics”, Journal of Institutional &
Theoretical Economics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 441-456.
Wortmann, H. and Alblas, A. (2009), “Product platform lifecycles: a multiple case study”, International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 188-201.
Downloaded by University of Malaya At 07:04 06 March 2019 (PT)

Wu, C.C., Chen, Y.J. and Cho, Y.J. (2013), “Nested network effects in online free games with accessory
selling”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 158-171.
Xu, X., Venkatesh, V., Tam, K.Y. and Hong, S.J. (2010), “Model of migration and use of platforms: role of
hierarchy, current generation, and complementarities in consumer settings”, Management
Science, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 1304-1323.
Yakob, R. and Tell, F. (2009), “Detecting errors early: management of problem-solving in product
platform projects”, in Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 322-344.
Yang, C. and Jiang, S. (2006), “Strategies for technology platforms”, Research Technology Management,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 48-57.
Yang, L., Su, G. and Yuan, H. (2012), “Design principles of integrated information platform for
emergency responses: the case of 2008 Beijing Olympic games”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 761-786.
Yaraghi, N., Du, A.Y., Sharman, R., Gopal, R.D. and Ramesh, R. (2015), “Health information exchange as
a multisided platform: adoption, usage, and practice involvement in service co-production”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Yu, Y. and Huang, G.Q. (2010), “Nash game model for optimizing market strategies, configuration of
platform products in a Vendor managed inventory (VMI) supply chain for a product family”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 206 No. 2, pp. 361-373.
Zhao, X., Jian, Z. and Fu, W. (2015), Platform-based Business Model Innovation and System Design,
Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Zhu, F. and Furr, N. (2016), “Products to platforms: making the leap”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94
No. 4, pp. 72-78.
Zhu, F. and Iansiti, M. (2012), “Entry into platform-based markets”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 88-106.

Corresponding author
Qiang Wang can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]