DigitalPlatformJIT2017

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/316055710
The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda
Article in Journal of Information Technology · April 2017

DOI: 10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3
CITATIONS READS
397 7,611
3 authors:
Mark de Reuver Carsten Sørensen

Delft University of Technology The London School of Economics and Political Science
125 PUBLICATIONS 2,187 CITATIONS 229 PUBLICATIONS 3,568 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Rahul C. Basole
Accenture AI
103 PUBLICATIONS 2,926 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Multi-party computation (MPC) as control mechanism and its effect on firms' behavior towards data sharing in data marketplaces View project
Delivering Digital Drugs (D3) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rahul C. Basole on 28 May 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Information Technology (2017)
ª 2017 Association for Information Technology Trust All rights reserved 0268-3962/17
www.palgrave.com/journals
Research Article
The digital platform: a research agenda

Mark de Reuver1, Carsten Sørensen2, Rahul C. Basole3
1
Faculty Technology Policy and Management, Department Engineering Systems and Services, Delft University of Technology,
Jaffalaan 5, 2628BX Delft, Delft, The Netherlands;
2
Department of Management, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK;
3
College of Computing and Tennenbaum Institute, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Correspondence:
C Sørensen, Department of Management, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
As digital platforms are transforming almost every industry today, they are slowly finding
their way into the mainstream information systems (ISs) literature. Digital platforms are a
challenging research object because of their distributed nature and intertwinement with
institutions, markets and technologies. New research challenges arise as a result of the
exponentially growing scale of platform innovation, the increasing complexity of platform
architectures and the spread of digital platforms to many different industries. This paper
develops a research agenda for digital platforms research in IS. We recommend
researchers seek to (1) advance conceptual clarity by providing clear definitions that
specify the unit of analysis, degree of digitality and the sociotechnical nature of digital
platforms; (2) define the proper scoping of digital platform concepts by studying platforms
on different architectural levels and in different industry settings; and (3) advance
methodological rigour by employing embedded case studies, longitudinal studies, design
research, data-driven modelling and visualisation techniques. Considering current
developments in the business domain, we suggest six questions for further research: (1)
Are platforms here to stay? (2) How should platforms be designed? (3) How do digital
platforms transform industries? (4) How can data-driven approaches inform digital
platforms research? (5) How should researchers develop theory for digital platforms? and
(6) How do digital platforms affect everyday life?
Journal of Information Technology (2017). doi:10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3
Keywords: digital platforms; digital infrastructures; digital ecosystems; digital innovation;

research agenda
Introduction
esearchers within the information systems (IS) field Outside IS, scholars have long discussed platform concepts
R and beyond are seeking to understand the omnipresent

digital platforms in today’s industries (Tiwana, 2014;
Parker et al., 2016). Social media platforms like Facebook have
from a non-digital worldview. Nobel Prize winner Jean Tirole
has with Rochet studied market power in two-sided markets
since the 1980s (Rochet and Tirole, 2003, 2006). Gawer and
changed how people interact and share experiences. Operating Cusumano published an influential business book in 2002 on
system platforms like Android and iOS have become the how companies could organise activities and compete through
centre of gravity in the mobile telecommunications industry. platforms (Gawer and Cusumano, 2002). Moore et al. (1997)
Payment platforms like PayPal, Apple Pay and Square are advocated a radical shift in strategy thinking from competition
disrupting the financial industry. The emergence of peer-to- towards coopetition around a shared niche. More recently,
peer digital platforms such as Uber, Airbnb and TaskRabbit books by Tiwana (2014), Evans and Schmalensee (2016) and
has created a so-called sharing economy. Competition no Parker et al. (2016) provide multiple perspectives on how
longer revolves around how to control the value chain but platforms are shaping business and organisational models and
around attracting generative activities associated with a in fact are transforming entire economies. Platform-related
platform. Disruptive crossovers from digital technologies to research is maturing as fundamental assumptions are increas-
finance (e.g. Kickstarter), mobility (e.g. Uber) and health care ingly formalised both within the industrial innovation man-
(e.g. PatientsLikeMe) are all fuelled by a digital platform logic. agement literature (Gawer, 2014; Thomas et al., 2014) and the
The digital platform: a research agenda M de Reuver et al.
economics literature (Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005). How- Non-digital platforms
ever, while concepts and notions can be borrowed from these Industrial innovation management scholars see platforms as
streams of platform literature, digital platforms are notably a stable core and a variable periphery (Baldwin and
different in several ways (Yoo et al., 2010). Woodard, 2009). This conceptualisation stipulates opportu-
Digital platforms are changing phenomena over the entire IS nities for distributed development and recombinant innova-
landscape. User interactions with organisations are changing as tion through modularisation (Henderson and Clark, 1990;
digital platforms facilitate online communities of consumers Baldwin and Clark, 2000). Within this perspective, a platform
(Spagnoletti et al., 2015). Inter-organisational relations of IS can be categorised in terms of its production process scope:
development are changing as traditional principal–agent rela- (1) internal platforms, enabling recombination of sub-units
tionships for software development are replaced by arms’ length within the firm; (2) supply-chain platforms coordinating
relations between app developers and platform providers external suppliers around an assembler; and (3) industry
(Tiwana and Konsynski, 2010; Ghazawneh and Henfridsson, platforms where a platform leader pools external capabilities
2013; Eaton et al., 2015). Architectures of IS artefacts are changing from complementors (Gawer, 2014). In the latter two types,
as the modularity of digital platforms is replacing traditional platforms not only provide a stable core but also mediate
monolithic approaches (Tiwana and Konsynski, 2010). between different groups of users.
While studying digital platforms is already challenging as a A platform mediating different groups of users, such as
consequence of their distributed nature (Henfridsson et al., buyers and sellers, is typically denoted as a multisided platform
2014), developments in the business environment pose even (Boudreau and Hagiu, 2009). In the 1990s, analyses of US
larger research challenges for IS researchers. As platforms are credit card antitrust cases triggered ideas of two-sided markets
mashed up into larger digital infrastructures, digital plat- (Rochet and Tirole, 2003). Two-sided markets bring together
forms are becoming increasingly complex research objects (or match) two distinct groups in a relationship where the
(Evans and Basole, 2016). The generativity of digital value for one group increases as the number of participants
platforms produces exponentially growing app developer from the other group increases (Evans, 2003; Eisenman et al.,
ecosystems, thereby creating research objects that are several 2006). Evans (2003) emphasises the necessity of an interme-
orders of magnitude larger than any traditional IS system diary for internalising externalities created by one group for
(Sørensen and Landau, 2015). As digital platforms are the benefit of the other. The economics literature on two-sided
competing on multiple levels of the technical architecture, markets studies a variety of phenomena, ranging from credit
for instance the operating system and browser in the mobile card merchants and holders to the health sector with patients
domain (Pon et al., 2014), specifying the appropriate unit of and doctors. Multi-sided markets denote arrangements where
analysis is becoming increasingly difficult. Platform providers multiple groups interact (Rochet and Tirole, 2003; Boudreau
such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay are carving up and Hagiu, 2009; Evans and Schmalensee, 2013).
the Internet into de facto closed domains, implying that all As platforms bring together multiple user groups, they
relevant interactions take place outside the view of research- create the so-called network effects or network externalities.
ers (Eaton et al., 2015). As platforms are emerging in highly Network externalities imply that a technology’s usefulness
diverse industries like banking (de Reuver et al., 2015), health increases as its installed base of users increases (Katz and
care (de Reuver et al., 2013), energy (Kiesling, 2016) and Shapiro, 1985; Shapiro and Varian, 1998). Increasing adoption
transportation (Svahn et al., 2015), the scope and diversity of levels can trigger positive feedback cycles that further increase
scientific discourse are growing rapidly. the usefulness of the technology (Arthur, 1989). Typically,
This paper develops a research agenda for digital platforms network externalities (Katz and Shapiro, 1985) are direct if the
for dealing with these trends and research challenges. We elicit value of the platform depends on the number of users in the
research challenges by scrutinising the literature on platforms, same user group, i.e. the value of the product increases by
ecosystems, infrastructures and two-sided markets. Next, we others buying, connecting or using the same platform or
draw upon the elicited research challenges combined with services provided via the platform. Examples of direct network
trends in the business domain to specify yet unanswered effects are social media, which become more valuable if more
research questions for the digital platforms discourse. end-users join the platform. Externalities are indirect when the
The following section conceptualises non-digital and value of the platforms depends on the number of users in a
digital platforms. Next, we elicit conceptual, scoping and different user group. For instance, video game consoles become
methodological issues in the current literature and provides more valuable for consumers if there are more developers
recommendations for digital platforms’ scholars. The discus- creating games for that console. Indirect network effects may
sion section confronts the elicited challenges with trends in also be negative, as illustrated in the context of advertising,
the digital platforms domain to specify research questions for where more advertisers on a search engine platform decrease
future research. The conclusion section concludes the its value for searchers of independent advice. Once the
paper with summary statements on the challenges ahead. adoption of a product or technology has commenced, these
network externalities provide benefits to both new and existing
Conceptualisations of digital platforms users such as reduced price, lower uncertainty about future
In this section, we conceptualise digital platforms. First, we versions of platforms and complementary services, commu-
introduce core concepts from the literature on non-digital nities of users, higher-quality products and new market
platforms (‘‘Non-digital platforms’’). Next, we explain how opportunities (Dew and Read, 2007).
digital platforms are different from non-digital platforms as Economics research on two-sided markets is primarily
well as digital infrastructures, with specific focus on gover- concerned with the financial dynamics of competition
nance arrangements (‘‘How are digital platforms different?’’). between platforms and cross-subsidisation (Rochet and
Tirole, 2003), their pricing dynamics and the intense (Tiwana et al., 2010; Boudreau, 2012). A digital platform can,
competition to be the dominant platform (Eisenman et al., however, also be characterised as a sociotechnical assemblage
2006). The overarching focus of the economics view is how encompassing the technical elements (of software and hard-
economic forces render multi-sided markets different from ware) and associated organisational processes and standards
other market arrangements. The interest in pricing strategies (Tilson et al., 2012). Ghazawneh and Henfridsson (2015) build
and financial dynamics is at the core of economics research on Tiwana et al. (2010) by defining digital platforms as:
into platforms rather than innovation dynamics. While ‘‘software-based external platforms consisting of the extensible
contributing greatly to understanding issues of pricing and codebase of a software-based system that provides core
financing, this strand of research does not facilitate an functionality shared by the modules that interoperate with it
opening of the technological black box necessary to under- and the interfaces through which they interoperate’’.
stand platform generativity and other innovation dynamics. A digital platform incorporates various modules that
Platforms are closely related to ecosystems. Iansiti and extend the functionality of the software product (Sanchez
Levien’s work explores the strategic options for enterprises in and Mahoney, 1996; Baldwin and Clark, 2000). These
becoming a keystone actor (i.e. platform) cultivating an modules can be seen as ‘‘add-on software subsystems’’
ecosystem (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a, b). Their work, (Tiwana and Konsynski, 2010, p. 676), often in the form of
building on Moore et al. (1997) idea of a changing applications designed and developed by third-party develop-
competitive environment, thus applies the biological ecosys- ers. We define such applications as ‘‘executable pieces of
tem metaphor to describe business ecosystems. While Iansiti software that are offered as applications, services or systems
and Levien’s conceptualisation does not involve a platform to end-users’’ (Ghazawneh and Henfridsson, 2013, p. 175).
construct, much other management research on ecosystems The issue of how to govern digital platforms has been a
does. Some scholars use ecosystems to denote the organisa- continuing subject of study. Darking et al. (2008) argue for
tional form associated with an industry platform (Gawer, the importance of designing the governance of digital
2014) or as an unspecific notion of a collection of assets ecosystems, balancing the different interests. Wareham
(Thomas et al., 2014). Within management research, plat- et al. (2014) study the governance of ecosystems in terms
forms are sometimes treated separately from and sometimes of dialogical relationships. As an example, the recombinabil-
intimately related to the ecosystem construct or metaphor. ity of digitised elements through digital convergence, and the
associated generativity, raises paradoxical relationships of
change and control (Tilson et al., 2010). The paradox of
How are digital platforms different? change implies the need for digital platforms to simultane-
While the industrial innovation management literature on ously remain stable to form a solid foundation for further
platforms typically assumes modularisation governed by an enrolment, and yet to be sufficiently flexible in order to
over-arching design hierarchy (Clark, 1985), this assumption support seemingly unbounded growth (Tilson et al., 2010).
does not necessarily hold for digital platforms. Digital The paradox of control presents the opposing logic of digital
technologies imply homogenisation of data, editability, platforms simultaneously being governed by centralised and
reprogrammability, distributedness and self-referentiality distributed control. The development of the iOS and
(Yoo et al., 2010; Kallinikos et al., 2013). Such characteristics Android platforms and associated ecosystems of apps and
of digitality can lead to multiple inheritance in distributed stakeholders illustrates the control paradox as varying control
settings, meaning there is no single owner that owns the arrangements have both hindered and fuelled generativity.
platform core and dictates its design hierarchy (Henfridsson The ability to facilitate a rapid self-serviced process of
et al., 2014). Furthermore, when combining the modularity continuous automatic updates of apps and operating systems
of physical goods with the layered architecture of software, resources has provided stable yet constantly evolving plat-
the resulting architectures are loosely coupled through forms. This challenges existing notions of the speed of change
standardised interfaces, leading to products open for new in large distributed technical arrangements. As an example,
meanings after manufacture (Yoo et al., 2010, p. 729). For Apple reported after less than one week from the launch of
example, allowing for the separation of form and function, a the iOS operating system upgrade a 50% adoption rate
smartphone keyboard can be software-defined and dynam- amongst its global user-base (Tracy, 2015).
ically adapt to the specific application need for input. Also, Henfridsson and Bygstad (2013) suggest that in order to
users may adapt the default keyboard configuration. Post- better understand digital platform dynamics, the core unit of
poning decisions on product features and rendering these analysis should not be the core of the platform but its
decisions, the subject of subsequent generativity as the result boundary resources. Boundary resources are made up of
of a distributed innovation process can be described as the software tools and regulations facilitating the arms’ length
late binding of capabilities by third-party developers (Svahn relationships between platform provider and app developers.
and Henfridsson, 2012). App developers combine existing Eaton et al. (2015) build on this idea by conceptualising
layered-modular resources from the operating systems, the platform dynamics in terms of distributed actors that collec-
various hardware elements, the software development kits tively tune boundary resources. These alternative units of
and a variety of public application programming interfaces analysis mark a departure from ownership-centric views in the
(APIs) into novel apps not considered when the smartphones traditional innovation management literature that focuses on
and associated software were conceived. the platform owner as a keystone organisation that manages a
Various conceptualisations of digital platforms exist. Digital number of complementors (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a, b).
platforms can be defined as purely technical artefacts where the While openness has been discussed in relation to non-
platform is an extensible codebase, and the ecosystem digital platforms (Eisenman et al., 2006), digitality also makes
comprises third-party modules complementing this codebase a fundamental difference here. For digital platforms,
openness does not merely relate to organisational arrange- Conceptual issues

ments like entrance and exit rules but also to openness of Our literature review shows a wide variety of conceptuali-
technologies such as APIs and software development kits sations on digital platforms. One specific concern is that
(SDKs). Different levels of openness are found in practice for management research on platforms does not consider the
mobile platforms like iOS and Android (Benlian et al., 2015), specific characteristics of digitality. All technological plat-
digital marketplaces (Ghazawneh and Henfridsson, 2015) forms are treated as a homogeneous group and classifications
and payment platforms (Ondrus et al., 2015). are merely based on organisational arrangements (Gawer,
Digital platforms can be seen as a less complex subtype of 2014; Thomas et al., 2014). While having paved the way for
digital infrastructure with specific control arrangements digital platform research, management scholars generally do
(Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010). Research on information not consider that technology in general, or indeed digitality
infrastructures largely began by exploring the intersection in particular, is theoretically relevant. Thomas et al. (2014)
between existing work on physical infrastructures and the do emphasise the essential element of technology, but not
characteristics of networked information technology (Arthur, digital technologies, as foundational for platform ecosystems.
1990; Hanseth et al., 1996; Shapiro and Varian, 1998). Ciborra Gawer (2014) does not conceptualise technology in relation
et al.’s (2001) research on global corporate infrastructures to the platform or ecosystem concept, but exemplifies
provides an early signposting of abandoning ideas of direct industry platform types exclusively through examples such
managerial control in these complex distributed arrange- as Facebook, Google and Apple.
ments. Such lack of control is echoed in a current debate Our first recommendation is therefore for scholars to
within IS, relating to the specific characteristics of digital provide clear definitions of what is meant by the terms
technologies, hence, focusing specifically on the dynamics of ‘‘digital platform’’ and ‘‘digital ecosystem’’. Specifically,
digital infrastructures (Tilson et al., 2010; Henfridsson and scholars should make explicit whether they refer to platforms
Bygstad, 2013). Overall, what set digital platforms apart from as technical or sociotechnical concepts. Platforms that merely
digital infrastructures are the control arrangements, which mediate between different user groups but offer no extensible
may be anchored in an organisation or consortium of firms codebase should not be considered digital platforms in the IS
that owns the core platform technologies. discourse.
The definitions developed in this section are summarised In contrast to non-digital platforms, digital platforms
in Table 1. contain components on different levels, e.g. the device, the
operating system and the applications. The innovation
Building a research agenda on digital platforms dynamics of a digital platform often depend on its depen-
The established strands of platform and ecosystem research dencies with platforms on different levels of the technical
within management, economics, IS and telecommunications architecture. For instance, in the context of mobile platforms,
literature point towards common themes for a research the iOS operating system is closely linked with the Apple
agenda into digital platforms. We argue that all streams of the iTunes app store platform. Google’s mobile wallet only
literature provide important yet partial understanding of the functions as a platform as it builds upon the Android
issues at hand. The following outlines the key challenges: operating system with its ability to emulate payment cards.
stronger clarity of the core concepts; better scoping of the An open data platform on smart cities for app developers
discourse; and clarity on methodological issues. may contain a diversity of platform components, such as
Table1 Definitions of core concepts on digital platforms
Concept Definition
Multisided platform Mediating different groups of users, such as buyers and sellers
Multisided markets Bring together (or match) distinct groups, whereas the value for one group increases as the
number of participants from the other group increases
Direct network externalities The value of the platform depends on the number of users in the same user group
Indirect network The value the platform depends on the numbers of users in a different user group
externalities
Digital platform (technical An extensible codebase to which complementary third-party modules can be added
view)
Digital platform Technical elements (of software and hardware) and associated organisational processes and
(sociotechnical view) standards
Ecosystem (technical view) A collection of complements (apps) to the core technical platform, mostly supplied by third-
party
Ecosystem (organisational Collection of firms interacting with a contribution to the complements.
view)
Applications Executable pieces of software that are offered as apps, services or systems to end-users
Boundary resources Software tools and regulations facilitating the arms’ length relationships between the involved
parties
Platform openness The extent to which platform boundary resources support complements
databases, semantically enriched databases, app development When combined, vertical and horizontal scoping issues
kits or even reusable application components (de Reuver lead to even larger complexity and lack of comparability
et al., 2015). Depending on which components are consid- across studies. For instance, in the mobile payment domain,
ered to be part of the digital platform, dynamics may be platform components are found on different levels of the
considerably different. In the case of the open data platform, architecture: the secure element on the device layer for
specifying the platform as merely a knowledgebase implies authenticating users, the trusted service manager in the
platform competition with for instance data on city points of banking infrastructure layer for handling authentication and
interest from Google, while specifying the platform as transaction handling, and the mobile wallet in the application
reusable application components implies platform competi- layer for storing multiple payment apps. For each of the three
tion with the APIs from TripAdvisor. We recommend digital platform components, different institutional and market-
platform scholars to specify the unit of analysis, including related factors play a role. For instance, for the SIM card-
which technical components are considered to be part of the based secure element on the device layer, the main strategic
platform (Eaton et al., 2015). driver is to sustain the competitive position of telecom
In sum, we recommend that scholars (1) provide clear operators, while the main strategic driver for a trusted service
definitions of digital platforms, drawing upon previous manager from a bank is to create defensive mechanisms to
research; (2) identify the unit of analysis including its scare off new entrants. To complicate matters further, the
boundary and the components that comprise the digital platform components are shifting across the layers of the
platform; and (3) specify whether the perspective on digital architecture over time. The secure element used to be located
platforms is technical or sociotechnical in nature. on the SIM card of the mobile device, but is now increasingly
implemented in the mobile phone motherboard or even the
Scoping operating system (de Reuver and Ondrus, 2017). The trusted
Due to the dynamic nature of digital platforms, the relevant service manager used to be the domain of telecom operators
unit of analysis for scholars shifts over time. Vertical scoping but is increasingly offered by banks and over-the-top
issues relate to choosing the appropriate level of the technical providers (de Reuver et al., 2015). Considering the inter-
architecture for studying platforms. As one illustrative exam- twined nature of platforms with other digital artefacts, their
ple of this scoping issue, consider the case of mobile platforms. multilevel characteristics and dynamic nature, we need
Here the operating system and associated app store are often theories on digital platform architectures that are contextu-
studied as the focal platform (e.g. Basole and Karla, 2011). alised based on deep understanding of the domain in which
However, new platforms are currently emerging on top of the they are embedded.
mobile operating system (e.g. Pon et al., 2014). Cross-platform
development enables application developers to utilise multiple Methodological issues
operating systems without noticing a difference. HTML5 As we observe when conceptualising digital platforms and
enables applications to run in the browser of the smartphone, ecosystems, these are by their very nature interconnected and
making the browser the main platform to be analysed. Hybrid comprise multiple levels of analysis. Platforms compete with
apps can embed HTML5 into native iOS or Android container other platforms, and ecosystems around different platforms
apps, and through this provide mixtures of native and web- are often partly overlapping as complementary providers
based apps. Apps can become the dominant platform as for utilise multiple platforms (i.e. multi-homing, for example,
instance Facebook’s app allows browsing within the applica- when an app developer publishes their apps on both iOS and
tion to content from third-party newspapers. Such shifting Android). Cross-platform development and the browser as
units of analysis across the different levels of the technical platform are technological developments that will accelerate
architecture complicate comparing the results of studies that this trend. Such complexity of an object of study renders
may on first sight have a similar focus. obsolete traditional reductionist approaches that dominate
Also horizontally, scoping issues are relevant, i.e. the variety the IS literature (Yoo, 2013). Comparability of research units
of application domains covered by the platform to be taken into is difficult as the complexity of digital platforms makes each
consideration in the study. The rapid penetration of sensors and of them unique in their own right. Embedded case study
wearables (i.e. the Internet of Things) leads to a wide variety of approaches are required that take into account the full
data sources that can be used to build applications. Platforms network of participants engaging in distributed innovation
are emerging that integrate devices and data sources and make arrangements (Tilson et al., 2010). By comparing cases within
them available to application developers (Nikayin and de the same larger ecosystem, internal validity of platform
Reuver, 2013). Consequently, digital platforms are also emerg- studies can be enhanced.
ing in specific application domains, such as financial and health As we typically study platforms as a snapshot in time, the
care industries. The fundamental question here is whether these understanding of platform dynamics is generally lacking. The
platforms on different levels of the technical architecture and in dynamics of digital platforms and ecosystems can only be
specific sub-domains should in fact be considered within the observed within a sufficiently long time horizon. Studies on
scope of the digital platform literature? Should these phenom- digital infrastructure dynamics show that changes may only
ena be framed within the digital platform literature or are they be observed in the long run (Tilson et al., 2010). Germonprez
separate phenomena? How will this impact the completeness and Hovorka (2013) argue that the generative principles of a
and consistency of the discourse? The trade-off is here between platform imply that the effect of design choices on the
achieving comparability of studies (implying narrowing the platform in the long run cannot be reliably predicted at its
focus of studies) with the ultimate relevance and sustainability inception. Longitudinal studies on the evolution of digital
of a field of study (implying broadening its scope). platforms and ecosystems are, therefore, required.
Table2 Main issues, risks and recommendations for digital platform scholars
Issue Risk Recommendation

Concepts Conceptual ambiguity Platform concept becomes a fad Provide clear definitions of
platforms and ecosystems,
drawing upon previous
research
Differing units of analysis across Lack of comparability between Identify the unit of analysis and
studies studies its boundary
Differing framing of platforms Specify whether the perspective
on platforms is technical or
sociotechnical in nature
Importance of digitality Lack of understanding how Make digitality an integral
digitality affects platforms aspect of the definitions
Scoping Digital platforms appear on multiple Sacrificing comparability across Widen scope of digital platform
levels of technical architecture studies or relevance and research
(vertical scoping) sustainability of discourse
Platforms are emerging for specific Lack of understanding how Develop contextualised theory
application categories such as intertwinement of digital on digital platforms
payment, share economy, media and platforms with systems and
health (horizontal scoping) institutions affects outcomes
Methodology Difficult to isolate unit of analysis Lack of comparability between Conduct embedded case study
studies approaches to compare
platforms within the same
larger ecosystem
Digital platform and ecosystem Snapshot research methods do not Conduct longitudinal studies
dynamics have long time horizon provide understanding of on platform dynamics
causalities
Bias towards successful cases, studied Lack of design knowledge on digital Study failure cases
ex-post platforms Employ a design science
approach to digital platform
research
Digital platforms are large, complex, Small-scale methods do not lead to Conduct data-driven
and dynamic holistic understanding approaches, including
network analysis
Visualise structure and
dynamics of digital ecosystems
Conduct computational
modelling of ecosystem
behaviour
Digital platform concepts have, in general, so far been Summary

largely developed based on ex-post studies of successful cases Table 2 summarises the main issues in the digital platform
such as Apple (Ghazawneh and Henfridsson, 2013; Eaton and ecosystem literature and how we recommend they
et al., 2015) and Google (Tilson et al., 2012). Failure cases should be dealt with.
where digital platforms did not succeed (or have evolved
negatively) are largely lacking, with some exceptions like
RIM, Ericsson or Nokia (Tilson et al., 2011; Selander et al., Discussion: what we don’t know about platforms
2013; West and Wood, 2013). Moreover, research on digital In this section, we discuss how the elicited challenges from
platforms has so far not revealed much direct design the research agenda section, combined with ongoing trends
knowledge. The secrecy of all the major platform-owners in the business world, lead to new unanswered questions in
makes reliable first-hand data on governance and design the digital platforms discourse.
decisions almost impossible to ascertain. Furthermore, due to
the distributed nature of digital platforms and ecosystems, Are digital platforms here to stay?
such access would likely be insufficient to fully understand It can be questioned whether we will see more or less of
the phenomenon. Broader data-driven approaches, such as platforms in the future. For instance, for Internet-of-Things
data-mining of platform data (Pon, 2016), network analysis (IoT) or mobile cloud computing, one may argue that the
of ecosystem dynamics (e.g. Basole, 2009; Karhu et al., 2014) fragmentation of connected devices and data on those devices
or secondary analysis of publicly available blogs (Ghazawneh raises a need for platforms that shield this complexity. But
and Henfridsson, 2013; Eaton et al., 2015), are viable one may similarly argue that digitality affords further
approaches. decentralisation (Tilson et al., 2010; Kallinikos et al., 2013).
In the end, it is a question about where to locate the and control, or between stability and growth in digital
intelligence: in centralised platforms or peripheral devices infrastructures, lead to different and quicker innovation
(Tiwana et al., 2010). trajectories as compared to non-digital systems (Tilson
From a technical perspective, the open standards applied et al., 2010).
in the Internet domain reduce the need for platforms. If From a design science research perspective, core questions
components can interact based on open and common are concerned with applying digital platform insights into
standards, there is no need to harness complexity through practice. This requires understanding the design practices of
a platform. However, at the same time, platform providers platform leaders, i.e. to what extent are trade-offs like
like Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay are carving up the evolvability and sustainability informing design practices?
Internet into de facto closed domains. So while open Moreover, within design cycles, a core concern is how and
standards enable open interactions without intermediating when to tackle platform issues, and for instance how design
platforms, they also facilitate creating de facto monopolies choices early in a design cycle impact the platform’s
through those digital platforms (Eaton et al., 2015). This evolution in the long run (c.f. Germonprez et al., 2011).
ongoing tension is likely to continue as new kinds of Digital platforms must also be generative and evolvable in
technologies and new patterns of organisational and human order to survive in the long run. Some platform strategies are
behaviour co-evolve. aimed at infrastructuralising the digital platform, as in the
One of the paths digital platforms are developing along is case of the Facebook OAuth authentication platform. Design
increased integration between platforms. For instance, Face- science studies should thus shed light on how digital platform
book and many other platforms offer open authorisation providers can shape platforms such that they meet these
(OAuth) identity service for logging into other services. The dynamic criteria.
use of Facebook OAuth implies that on-line shopping Evaluation of digital platforms in design studies presents
platforms are accessing Facebook data on the user’s friends methodological challenges. Typical evaluation criteria for IS
and likes. This means that platforms are transforming into design such as user acceptance or system quality do not
components being integrated into more extensive digital necessarily suffice for platforms. Technologically superior
infrastructures. APIs are combined and mashed together to products with large user appeal are not enough to win
create entirely new digital services and products (Evans and platform competition, as the case of Nokia has dramatically
Basole, 2016). Another example is the operating system, shown (Tilson et al., 2011). Evaluation approaches for
which is being displaced by the browser to access third-party platforms are difficult to develop since platforms in and of
content (Pon et al., 2014). As such, digital platforms are themselves are of little value for end-users without the
becoming increasingly complex constructs, which amplifies services running on top. In practice therefore, design studies
the conceptual, scoping and methodological challenges often use services running on top of digital platforms as a
elicited in this paper. proxy for evaluating the platform artefact, but the validity of
Several ongoing developments outside the typical realm of doing so can be questioned. From an app developer or
app stores and operating systems can only be understood complementor perspective, similar concerns apply, especially
when framed from a platform perspective. For instance, the since the appeal of a platform depends as much on technical
difficulties telecom operators and banks face when introduc- performance as on the envisioned network effects and
ing mobile payment systems are best understood from a intangible aspects like trust in platform providers.
platform perspective (de Reuver et al., 2015). While telecom A final issue for design studies on digital platforms is
operators see mobile payment systems as a generative how to deal with the multi-actor setting in which they are
platform that can be rented out to third-party payment being developed. Given that digital platforms comprise
providers, banks see them as internal platforms that have to multiple components that are distributed among the
be controlled in order to harness competitive threats. control of different actors, there is not one single platform
provider. Instead, multiple actors try to influence and
How should digital platforms be designed? shape the design of a platform jointly. Even application
Understanding of what causes a (digital) platform to succeed developers of greatly varying size have been shown to have
while others fail is still lacking. Prior studies have predom- an impact on the design and redesign of platforms through
inantly focused on success stories. Studying the conditions in leveraging the collective power of the blogosphere and
which some platforms thrive and grow while others fail is of through the power of digitality to circumvent control
value to both research and practice. Decomposing these points (Eaton et al., 2015). As such, we need design
conditions into a spectrum from ‘‘necessary’’ to ‘‘nice-to- theories that take into account the iterative shaping and
have’’ can accelerate platform design. redefinition of what is the platform by multiple distributed
A more fundamental research issue is: How do digital actors with divergent goals. Action design research (Sein
platforms actually emerge? There are many examples of et al., 2011) provides a promising approach to such highly
accidental digital platforms (e.g. iTunes, Airbnb). Do situated multi-actor design settings but has not been
products and services (or perhaps applications) evolve into applied to digital platforms.
platforms as ‘‘accidental results’’ or can they be consciously
designed? To answer these questions, scholars should How do digital platforms transform industries?
examine digital platform genesis and dynamics. While The emergence of platform thinking and the resulting
innovation management literature can inform a discussion ‘‘platform economy’’ demands research into the transforma-
on platform genesis, digitality affects these dynamics. For tive and disruptive impact of digital platforms on organisa-
example, the paradoxical relationships between generativity tions and their business models and the business
environment as a whole (Parker et al., 2016). How do driven analysis and visualisation approaches to generate
platforms change the power structure and the relationship novel insights into ecosystems and the role of platforms. One
between participants in the ecosystem? How do various illustrative example of a data-driven visualisation approach is
organisations adapt to emerging digital platforms? If not provided by Evans and Basole (2016) who, leveraging
developed internally, what types of digital platforms do publicly available data on API mashups, examine sectoral
incumbents adopt? How many platforms can successfully co- differences in the global API ecosystem and diverging
exist or is there a maximum number? How do service enterprise strategies. In another study, Um et al. (2015) use
providers and device manufacturers strategise in a platform source code data on Wordpress.org plug-ins to describe the
environment? Are there sectoral and geographic differences evolution and generative nature of platforms in digital
in digital platform assimilation? And do geographic bound- ecosystems.
aries even matter? These questions are still poorly understood However, many research issues remain with data-driven
within the context of rapid digital generativity. analysis. When studying ecosystems, how can researchers
Indubitably, the study of digital platforms requires exam- differentiate all the activities and distinguish between true
ining the ecosystems that surrounds them. While there is signal and noise? Moreover, how can researchers effectively
some work on mobile ecosystems, as outlined above, there manage the intense velocity and scale at which data on
remains the need for a deeper scholarly understanding of the platforms and ecosystem is generated? And how can
structure, dynamics, and strategy/behaviour of platforms and researchers develop computational capabilities and insights
associated organisations in the ecosystems around digital that allow greater understanding of changes in the ecosystem
platforms. Prior work has shown that ecosystemic thinking is and the resulting impact on ecosystem players? One possible
becoming particularly important for decision makers (Basole, path of addressing these research issues is stronger interac-
2014) due to increasingly global, complex and interconnected tion between the IS and computer science research commu-
business environments. Firms are not isolated anymore, and nities, which will facilitate fusion of domain expertise with
value is co-created and co-delivered by multiple contributing integration of relevant techniques from data mining, machine
entities. New theories and models that capture, explain and learning and visualisation.
predict the potentially disruptive nature of digital platforms
are needed. How should researchers develop theory for digital platforms?
As argued in the section conceptualising digital platforms,
How can data-driven approaches inform digital platforms research? most existing research on platform innovation takes as its
In the recent past, data to inform digital platform and unit of analysis either the technical components, i.e. the core
ecosystem research were resource intensive to obtain and use. platform artefact and the associated software complements as
To large degree, data were either proprietary or had to be constituting the ecosystem (Tiwana et al., 2010), or the
commercially licensed. Today, we have a wide spectrum of organisational elements, i.e. the contributing organisations
data available through numerous open and socially curated typically divided into a platform owner or keystone organ-
data sources, such as Crunchbase,1 Mesh,2 or Pro- isation (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a), and complementors or
grammableWeb,3 just to name a few. These emerging data third-party developers (Ghazawneh and Henfridsson, 2013).
sources can provide important digital platform and ecosys- However, scholars should adopt other units of analysis to
tem information for different levels and scopes of analysis. push theory development beyond traditional mid-range
Conceptually, and drawn from systems thinking, it is theories (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015). The units of analysis
critical how to effectively specify the boundaries of ecosys- chosen must allow for the theoretical treatment of the
tems based on digital platforms (Basole et al., 2015). From a fundamental characteristics of digital platform characteristics
networked economy perspective, virtually all business seg- and innovation arrangements. This can lead to the develop-
ments are related to each other to some degree. Including all ment of new insights informing the deeper theoretical
segments is resource intensive and may not necessarily inquiry into digital innovation. Doing so will allow digital
provide the desired insight. While excluding segments from platform research to establish new theoretical categories
analysis could reduce the problem space, it may also mask rather than exclusively adopt existing categories (Tilson et al.,
important complexities needed to truly understand the 2010; Alaimo and Kallinikos, 2016).
ecosystem. Prior work has suggested that the boundary of The boundary resource concept could be such unit of
the ecosystem is determined/guided by the type of insight analysis, used in the context of highly distributed arrange-
sought and the anticipated decision processes that will take ments where independent actors pragmatically engage in
place (Basole and Bellamy, 2014). Data-driven studies innovations utilising the opportunities and limitations of
focused on the ICT ecosystem, for instance, have shown that digital or layered-modular arrangements (Yoo et al., 2010;
the ecosystem is converging at a rapid pace with hardware Eaton et al., 2015). Participants can each engage in localised
and software companies collaborating closely and media optimisation of basic technologies, own intellectual property,
companies gaining importance (Basole et al., 2014). and adapt boundary resources in distributed and recursive
Once we have specified the system boundary of digital tuning arrangements (Eaton et al., 2015). Such digital
platforms and ecosystems, it is equally important to deter- innovation arrangements will be both bounded by and
mine how to effectively describe the underlying structure and leverage: (1) digital artefacts (Tilson et al., 2010; Leonardi
topology. If modelled as networks, graph theoretic measures et al., 2012; Kallinikos et al., 2013); (2) the exponential
can be used. With the increasing availability of digital data growth in computational power, faster networks, cheap
about digital ecosystem companies and the relationships storage and the development of increasingly capable middle-
between them, we have an increased ability to apply data- ware layers allowing for rapid development of fundamentally
new services (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014); and (3) architecting of technology itself can to a higher degree be
distributed architectures without central control, which allow done through apps, micro-services and other modular
more complex behaviour by independent actors with emer- elements rather than in monolithic arrangements, which
gent side-effects, such as the challenging of existing social raises the issue of how to architect these interrelationships.
categories and control points, by the emergence of new ones An example of this includes the possible approaches of
(Tilson et al., 2010). enterprises organising interrelationships through devising a
The challenge of exploring and theorising on digital micro-services architecture with independent services, all the
platforms brings with it the methodological challenges of way to the extreme solution adopted by Google of painstak-
gaining access to empirical data. However, there are so far ingly maintaining interrelationships between elements by
only very few examples of intimate studies of digital keeping all its source-code in one directory structure (@Scale,
platforms from the inside (for exception, see Alaimo, 2015).
2014), and so far most work is conducted by interviewing The platform debate should also seek to address the
complementors (Selander et al., 2013), or by collecting data broader issue of how digital platform innovation directly
from an outside perspective (Eaton et al., 2015). The inherent relates to issues of societal and global interest. One such issue
complexity of digital platform dynamics implies that they is the possibilities for direct influence on and societal
exhibit emergent behaviour (Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010). regulation of digital platforms, which in turn may play a
Empirical research should therefore employ holistic critical role in civil society. The paradox of influence is that
approaches, uncovering the generative mechanisms that lead given the right leverage on the blogosphere, even a single
to change (Henfridsson and Bygstad, 2013). There is need for developer can make the mighty Apple blink (Eaton et al.,
further research from within the digital platform and 2015), yet it is generally very difficult to see any openness
adopting processual accounts and taking advantage of the being fostered for the main digital platforms. This raises a
large amounts of data produced through use. Analysing number of critical issues regarding the power dynamics and
diverse sets of data on platform activities – found in sources the direct impact of these digital innovations on everyday life,
such as press releases, tech blogs and developer forums – for example, in terms of surveillance, labour market relations
using emerging sequence mining techniques can also provide and the distribution of wealth beyond a simplistic argument
important additional insights into the process dynamics and based on technical rationality (Zuboff, 2015; Morozov, 2016).
evolution of digital platforms. Some of the public debate as well as academic research
Platform sustainability is one important further research focuses on the wealth of opportunities offered by digital
agenda. How do we ensure that all sides of the platform platforms. Digital platforms support new ways of interacting
participate? How are developers incentivised to develop on a within communities and through mediated co-creation. They
single or on multiple platforms? Does widespread adoption allow ordinary citizens to share their spare resources in a so-
of multi-sided digital platforms raise significant issues of called sharing economy, although any equity gains resulting
power, engagement, and surveillance all specific to the digital from all such sharing are not necessarily shared (Morozov,
capabilities of these platforms (Zuboff, 2015)? This begs the 2016).
need to understand and critically assess the role of platform The traditional technologically oriented discourse mainly
governance and incentives. Some work has already begun on focuses on what is provided at very low or no direct cost to
this, for example, by Wareham et al. (2014). Our current the consumers, or how the digital platforms help smooth out
thinking on successful governance is limited and primarily operational inefficiencies. The new digital platforms can be
drawn from success stories. Another important related future presented as benevolent servants extracting and analysing
research area is the emerging block-chain phenomenon, for data, providing new forms of contracting through monitor-
example allowing new types of platformisation through ing, and personalising and customising their services to
distributed ledgers for identity validation (Mainelli and match the changing user-needs (Varian, 2010). Such argu-
Smith, 2015). How will digital platforms and ecosystems ments are popular but are also receiving push-back from
evolve when there is no central governing node/core, but wider analyses, for example, of the effects on civil society
rather a distributed model of organisation? Methodologically, though illegible mechanisms of commodification and control
researchers can develop computational/synthetic platform (Zuboff, 2015), or on how the battle for a large installed base
‘‘markets’’ to mimic and explore rules and outcomes of the of users is financed by venture capital (Morozov, 2016).
ecosystem and use the insights gained to inform design. Facebook may not only offer uniquely new opportunities for
Similarly, there are also substantial data created by online sociality to be rendered into computed categorisations
communities, including online forums and social Q&A sites (Alaimo and Kallinikos, 2016), but may indeed also support
that may reveal what types of developers participate as well as the displacement of co-present interaction (Putnam, 2000;
the nature of their participation and interaction in ecosys- Turkle, 2011).
tems across digital platforms. Adopting non-traditional In terms of the technological and industrial development,
platform and ecosystem contexts and multi-disciplinary then platformisation will likely play a role in replacing some
lenses may lead to novel theoretical extensions. traditional firms and sectors with new ones, and challenge the
role of some categories of work with others, for example, to
the extent that platforms provide mechanisms for the
How do digital platforms affect everyday life? automated self-service of business relationships previously
Digital platforms can support new and flexible means for conducted more directly by those job categories (Susskind
inter-organisational relations through a variety of distributed and Susskind, 2015). This can, for example, be in terms of the
boundary resources facilitating highly distributed and auto- possible outlook on what may constitute work with the
mated coordination of activities at arm’s length. The possibility for digital platforms supporting the micro-
coordination of the tiniest of effort (Malone et al., 2011). It typology expressing the variety of digital platforms. Thirdly,
also raises the issue of possible wider consequences for paid critical methodological issues are to be resolved in the study
work (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011; Sørensen and Pillans, of digital platforms – many of which are common to the
2012), and for our understanding of how competition may be challenges of studying digital infrastructures.
reshaped, for example, in winner-takes-all digital markets These research challenges and recommendations are ever
(Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Pon, 2016). more relevant since ongoing developments in the business
The open-ended character and malleability of digital domain lead to new unanswered research questions regarding
platforms support some degree of independent strategic the longevity of digital platforms as an architectural pattern
action by distributed actors with possible side effects for the as well as creating design knowledge. By studying questions
entire platform – an aspect of generativity (Zittrain, 2006). such as how digital platforms disrupt industries and shape
This can both lead to highly useful complements, but also everyday life, the digital platform discourse provides an
represent challenges for the organisation(s) responsible for opportunity for IS research to re-establish its relevance for
cultivating the platform and for society more generally. As an other fields. While the aim of this paper has been to raise
example, Airbnb is designed based on the notion of private awareness and stimulate discussion, it is our hope that it also
individuals sharing their extra space with strangers and will contribute to some initial conceptual clarity facilitating
making a modest income from this. However, Airbnb has the further work on populating the concept of the digital
been struggling with users in effect setting up shop as platform with meaning, precision and depth. We definitely
commercial room rental companies with multiple listings do see an urgent need for much more research exploring a
with less risk and less oversight than traditional hotels who range of emerging phenomena best classified as belonging
work in a context of significant more regulatory and taxation under the heading of digital platform innovation.
pressure (Kaplan and Nadler, 2015).
Perhaps one way of framing this challenge of participation
and democratic oversight is as global drift. For Ciborra et al. Acknowledgements
(2001), the widespread diffusion of large-scale organisational The authors wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their
information systems resulted in the loss of direct executive constructive comments. We also greatly appreciate the significant
control as the complexity across services and business contexts encouragement and help from the Editors-in-Chief in developing this
led to ‘‘drift’’. Similarly, it can be argued that global digital paper and for providing excellent feedback and advice. The research
platforms introduce complexity resulting in globalised drift was in part supported by a number of research grants. The first author’s
where even national states find it difficult to engage and work was supported by The European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research
and Innovation Program under Grant Agreement No 645791. The
regulate. The European Union directive to ensure the right to second author’s work was supported by the following research grants:
be forgotten has not only raised principled debates but also The Flexible Networks (EPSRC Grant: EP/G066434/1); User Interac-
turned out to be a practical headache – especially since the tions for Breakthrough Services (EPSRC Grant: EP/G066426/1); The
indexing is automated processing of distributed unstructured Telenor Research and Future Studies Value Networks Programme; and
data produced by independent agents and therefore not easily The Huawei HUDIP project supported under the Synergetic Innova-
managed using one simple ontology (Bennett, 2012; Wikipe- tion Network, Theory and Practice (HIRPO20161301) Programme.
dia, 2015). The third author’s work was in part supported by the Tennenbaum
Institute for Enterprise Transformation.
Conclusions Notes
The diffusion and importance of digital platforms operating as 1 www.crunchbase.com.
multi-sided markets are rapidly increasing, for example, 2 meshing.it.
facilitating social networks, smartphone app stores or the so- 3 www.programmableweb.com.
called sharing economy. Unquestionably, digital platforms are
going to be an intrinsic part of IS research and we are just in the
middle of the maturity curve. Digital platforms form uniquely References
new sociotechnical artefacts that force IS scholars to engage in
conceptual and methodological innovation. While insights @Scale (2015). Why Google Stores Billions of Lines of Code in a Single
from other academic disciplines, such as economics, strategy, Repository. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W71BTkUbdqE&feature=
and telecommunications, can provide an important founda- youtu.be.
Alaimo, C. (2014). Computational Consumption: Social Media and the
tion to understanding digital platforms and ecosystems, there Construction of Digital Consumers. London School of Economics. https://
are many fundamental differences that must be considered. www.researchgate.net/profile/Cristina_Alaimo/publication/266701936_
This paper seeks to identify and synthesise a series of Computational_consumption_social_media_and_the_construction_of_digital_
possible contributing strands of research to advancing our consumers/links/5437dbf30cf2027cbb20502d.pdf.
understanding of digital platforms. We suggest a research Alaimo, C. and Kallinikos, J. (2016). Encoding the Everyday: Social Data and Its
agenda to deal with conceptual, scoping and methodological Media Apparatus, In: S.R. Cassidy, H.R. Ekbia, and M. Mattoli (eds). Big Data
is not a Monolith: Policies, Practices, and Problems, Cambridge, MA: The MIT
challenges, including concrete recommendations to scholars.
Press.
Our analysis explores and outlines three main concerns. Arthur, W.B. (1989). Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in
Firstly, the discourse will need to engage in further concep- by Historical Events, The Economic Journal, 89: 116–131.
tual clarification of the digital platform concept and, for Arthur, W.B. (1990). Positive Feedbacks in the Economy, Scientific American
example, delineate the platform and ecosystem constructs in 262(2): 92–99.
a digital context. The second main issue is concerned with Baldwin, C.Y., and Clark, K.B. (2000). Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of
the scoping of digital platforms, for example, developing a Modularity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baldwin, C.Y., and Woodard, C.J. (2009). The Architecture of Platforms: A Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging Differing Perspectives on Technological Platforms:
Unified View, In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation (pp. Toward an Integrative Framework, Research Policy 43(7): 1239–1249.
19–44). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gawer, A., and Cusumano, M.A. (2002). Platform Leadership: How Intel,
Basole, R.C. (2009). Visualization of Interfirm Relations in a Converging Mobile Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation, Brighton: Harvard Business
Ecosystem, Journal of Information Technology 24(2): 144–159. School Press.
Basole, R.C. (2014). Visual Business Ecosystem Intelligence: Lessons from the Germonprez, M., and Hovorka, D.S. (2013). Member Engagement Within
Field, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 5: 26–34. Digitally Enabled Social Network Communities: New Methodological Con-
Basole, R.C., and Bellamy, M.A. (2014). Visual Analysis of Supply Network Risks: siderations, Information Systems Journal 23(6): 525–549.
Insights from the Electronics Industry, Decision Support Systems, 67: 109–120. Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D., and Gal, U. (2011). Secondary Design: A Case of
Basole, R.C., and Karla, J. (2011). On the Evolution of Mobile Platform Behavioral Design Science Research, Journal of the Association for Information
Ecosystem Structure and Strategy, Business & Information Systems Engineering, Systems 12(10): 662–683.
3(5): 313–322. Ghazawneh, A., and Henfridsson, O. (2013). Balancing Platform Control and
Basole, R.C., Park, H., and Barnett, B.C. (2014). Coopetition and Convergence External Contribution in Third-Party Development: The Boundary Resources
in the ICT Ecosystem, Telecommunications Policy 39: 537–552. Model, Information Systems Journal 23(2): 173–192.
Basole, R.C., Russell, M.G., Huhtamäki, J., Rubens, N., Still, K., and Park, H. Ghazawneh, A., and Henfridsson, O. (2015). A Paradigmatic Analysis of Digital
(2015). Understanding Business Ecosystem Dynamics: A Data-Driven Application Marketplaces, Journal of Information Technology 30(3): 198–208.
Approach, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) Grover, V., and Lyytinen, K. (2015). New State of Play in Information Systems
6(2): 6. Research: The Push to the Edges, MIS Quarterly 39(2): 271–296.
Benlian, A., Hilkert, D., and Hess, T. (2015). How Open is This Platform? The Hanseth, O., and Lyytinen, K. (2010). Design Theory for Dynamic Complexity in
Meaning and Measurement of Platform Openness from the Complementors’ Information Infrastructures: The Case of Building Internet, Journal of
Perspective, Journal of Information Technology, 30(3): 209–228. Information Technology 25(1): 1–19.
Bennett, S.C. (2012). Right to be Forgotten: Reconciling EU and US Perspectives, Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., and Halting, M. (1996). Developing Information
Berkeley Journal of International Law, 30: 161. Infrastructure: The Tension Between Standardisation and Flexibility, Science,
Boudreau, K.J. (2012). Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom? An Early Look at Large Technologies, and Human Values 21(4): 407–426.
Numbers of Software App Developers and Patterns of Innovation, Organization Henderson, R.M., and Clark, K.B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The
Science 23(5): 1409–1427. Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Estab-
Boudreau, K.J., and Hagiu, A. (2009). Platform Rules: Multi-sided Platforms as lished Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 9–30.
Regulators, In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation (pp. Henfridsson, O., and Bygstad, B. (2013). The Generative Mechanisms of Digital
163–191), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Infrastructure Evolution, MIS Quarterly 37(3): 907–931.
Brynjolfsson, E., and McAfee, A. (2011). Race Against The Machine, Lexington: Henfridsson, O., Mathiassen, L., and Svahn, F. (2014). Managing Technological
Digital Frontier Press. Change in the Digital Age: The Role of Architectural Frames, Journal of
Brynjolfsson, E., and McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Information Technology 29: 27–43.
Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies, New York City: WW Iansiti, M., and Levien, R. (2004a). The Keystone Advantage: What the New
Norton & Company. Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustain-
Ciborra, C.U., Braa, K., Cordella, A., Dahlbom, B., Failla, A., Hanseth, O., et al. ability, Brighton: Harvard Business Press.
(Eds.). (2001). From Control to Drift. The Dynamics of Corporate Information Iansiti, M., and Levien, R. (2004b). Strategy as Ecology, Harvard Business Review
Infrastructures, New York: Oxford University Press. 82(3): 68–81.
Clark, K.B. (1985). The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market Concepts Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., and Marton, A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of
in Technological Evolution, Research Policy 14(5): 235–251. Digital Artifacts, MIS Quarterly 37(2): 357–370.
Darking, M., Whitley, E.A., and Dini, P. (2008). Governing Diversity in the Kaplan, R.A., and Nadler, M.L. (2015). Airbnb: A Case Study in Occupancy
Digital Ecosystem, Communications of the ACM, 51(8): 137–140. Regulation and Taxation, The University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 103.
de Reuver, M., and Ondrus, J. (2017). When Technological Superiority is not Karhu, K., Tang, T., and Hämäläinen, M. (2014). Analyzing Competitive and
Enough: The Struggle to Impose the SIM Card as the NFC Secure Element for Collaborative Differences Among Mobile Ecosystems Using Abstracted Strategy
mobile payment platforms. Telecommunications Policy. doi:10.1016/j.telpol. Networks, Telematics and Informatics 31(2): 319–333.
2017.01.004. Katz, M.L., and Shapiro, C. (1985). Network Externalities, Companition and
de Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., and Haaker, T. (2013). Business Model Compatibility, American Economic Review 75: 424–440.
Roadmapping: A Practical Approach to Come from An Existing to a Desired Kiesling, L.L. (2016). Implications of Smart Grid Innovation for Organizational
Business Model, International Journal of Innovation Management 17(01): Models in Electricity Distribution, In C.-C. Liu (Ed.), Wiley Handbook of Smart
1340006-1–1340006-18. Grid Development, Hoboken: Wiley.
de Reuver, M., Verschuur, E., Nikayin, F., Cerpa, N., and Bouwman, H. (2015). Leonardi, P.M., Nardi, B.A., and Kallinikos, J. (Eds.). (2012). Materiality and
Collective Action for Mobile Payment Platforms: A Case Study on Collabo- Organizing, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ration Issues Between Banks and Telecom Operators, Electronic Commerce Mainelli, M., and Smith, M. (2015). Sharing Ledgers for Sharing Economies: An
Research and Applications 14(5): 331–344. Exploration of Mutual Distributed Ledgers (Aka Blockchain Technology), The
Dew, N., and Read, S. (2007). The More We Get Together: Coordinating Journal of Financial Perspectives 3(3): 38–69.
Network Externality Product Introduction in the RFID Industry, Technovation Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R.J., and Johns, T. (2011). The Age of Hyperspe-
27(10): 569–581. cialization, Harvard Business Review 89(7/8): 56–65.
Eaton, B.D., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., and Yoo, Y. (2015). Moore, J.C., Rao, H.R., Whinston, A., Nam, K., and Raghu, T.S. (1997).
Distributed Tuning of Boundary Resources: The Case of Apple’s iOS Service Information Acquisition Policies for Resource Allocation Among Multiple
System, MIS Quarterly: Special Issue on Service Innovation in a Digital Age 39(1): Agents, Information Systems Research 8(2): 151–170.
217–243. Morozov, E. (2016). Cheap Cab Ride? You Must Have Missed Uber’s True Cost.
Eisenman, T., Parker, G., and Van Aystyne, M.W. (2006). Strategies for Two- The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/
Sided Markets, Harvard Business Review 84(10): 92–101. cheap-cab-ride-uber-true-cost-google-wealth-taxation.
Evans, D.S. (2003). Some Empirical Aspects of Multi-Sided Platform Industries, Nikayin, F., and De Reuver, M. (2013). Opening up the Smart Home: A
Review of Network Economics 2(3): 191–209. Classification of Smart Living Service Platforms, International Journal of
Evans, P.C. and Basole, R.C. (2016). Revealing the API Ecosystem and Enterprise E-Services and Mobile Applications (IJESMA) 5(2): 37–53.
Strategy using Visual Analytics, Communications of the ACM 59(2): 23–25. Ondrus, J., Gannamaneni, A., and Lyytinen, K. (2015). The Impact of Openness
Evans, D.S. and Schmalensee, R. (2013): The Antitrust Analysis of Multi-sided on the Market Potential of Multi-sided Platforms: A Case Study of Mobile
Platform Businesses. Paper No. 623. The Law School, The University of Payment Platforms, Journal of Information Technology 30(3): 260–275.
Chicago. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html. Parker, G.G., and Van Alstyne, M.W. (2005). Two-Sided Network Effects: A
Evans, D. S. and Schmalensee, R. (2016). The Matchmakers: The New Economics Theory of Information Product Design, Management Science 51(10):
of Multisided Platforms, Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. 1494–1504.
Parker, G.G., Van Alstyne, M.W., and Choudary, S.P. (2016). Platform Varian, H.R. (2010). Computer Mediated Transactions, The American Economic
Revolution: How Networked Markets are Transforming the Economy and How to Review 100(2): 1–10.
Make Them Work for You, New York: WW Norton & Co. Wareham, J., Fox, P.B., and Cano Giner, J.L. (2014). Technology Ecosystem
Pon, B. (2016). Winners & Losers in the Global App Economy, Surrey, UK: Governance, Organization Science, 25(4): 1195–1215.
Caribou Digital. http://cariboudigital.net/winners-losers-in-the-global-app- West, J., and Wood, D. (2013). Evolving an Open Ecosystem: The Rise and Fall of
economy/. the Symbian Platform, Advances in Strategic Management, 30: 27–67.
Pon, B., Seppälä, T., and Kenney, M. (2014). Android and the Demise of Wikipedia. (2015). Right to be Forgotten, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_
Operating System-Based Power: Firm Strategy and Platform Control in the to_be_forgotten.
Post-PC World, Telecommunications Policy 38: 979–991. Yoo, Y. (2013). The Table Has Turned: How Can IS Field Contribute to the
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Touchstone. Technology and Innovation Management? Journal of the AIS 14: 227–236.
Rochet, J.-C., and Tirole, J. (2003). Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets, Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., and Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of
Journal of the European Economic Association 1(4): 990–1029. Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research, Information
Rochet, J.-C., and Tirole, J. (2006). Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report, The Systems Research 21(4): 724–735.
Rand Journal of Economics 37(3): 645–667. Zittrain, J. (2006). The Generative Internet, Harvard Law Review 119: 1974–2040.
Sanchez, R.A., and Mahoney, J.T. (1996). Modularity, Flexibility and Knowledge Zuboff, S. (2015). Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an
Management in Product and Organization Design, Strategic Management Information Civilization, Journal of Information Technology 30(1): 75–89.
Journal 17: 63–76.
Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., and Lindgren, R. (2011).
Action Design Research, MIS Quarterly 35(1): 37–56.
Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., and Svahn, F. (2013). Capability Search and
Redeem Across Digital Ecosystems, Journal of Information Technology 28(3):
About the Authors
183–197.
Shapiro, C., and Varian, H.R. (1998). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the
Network Economy, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Mark de Reuver is Associate Professor in the Department of
Sørensen, C., and Landau, J. (2015). Academic Agility in Digital Innovation Engineering Systems and Services at Delft University of
Research: The Case of Mobile ICT Publications within Information Systems Technology. He is also Adjunct Associate Professor at
2000–2014, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 24(3): 158–170. Telecom Business School. His research focuses on digital
Sørensen, C. and Pillans, G. (2012). The Future of Work. The Corporate
platforms and platform openness for e-mobility, smart
Research Forum. http://www.crforum.co.uk.
Spagnoletti, P., Resca, A., and Lee, G. (2015). A Design Theory for Digital
energy and healthcare. He published in journals including
Platforms Supporting Online Communities: A Multiple Case Study, Journal of Information & Management, Technology Forecasting and
Information Technology 30: 364–380. Social Change, Energy Policy and Telecommunications Policy.
Susskind, R.E., and Susskind, D. (2015). The Future of the Professions: How He is Associate Editor for Telematics & Informatics.
Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Svahn, F. and Henfridsson, O. (2012). The Dual Regimes of Digital Innovation
Carsten Sørensen is Reader (Associate Professor) in Digital
Management, In: HICSS 45, Maui, Hawai’i, IEEE, pp. 3347–3356. Innovation within Department of Management at The
Svahn, F., Lindgren, R. and Mathiassen, L. (2015). Applying Options Thinking London School of Economics and Political Science (carsten-
to Shape Generativity in Digital Innovation: An Action Research into sorensen.com). He also holds visiting professorships at
Connected Cars, In: 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Science University West and Halmstad University in Sweden and is
(HICSS 49), IEEE, pp. 4141–4150. 2015/16 Otto Mønsted Visiting Professorship at Copenhagen
Thomas, L., Autio, E., and Gann, D. (2014). Architectural Leverage: Putting
Platforms in Context, The Academy of Management Perspectives 28(2): 198–219.
Business School. Carsten received a Ph.D. from Aalborg
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., and Sørensen, C. (2010). Digital Infrastructures: The University, Denmark in 1993. He has since the late 1980s
Missing IS Research Agenda, Information Systems Research 21(5): 748–759. researched digital innovation, for example innovating the
Tilson, D., Sørensen, C. and Lyytinen, K. (2011). The Paradoxes of Change and digital enterprise through mobile technology (enterprisemo-
Control in Digital Infrastructures: The Mobile Operating Systems Case, In: The bilitybook.com), and the innovation dynamics of mobile
10th International Conference on Mobile Business, Como, Italy. infrastructures and -platforms (digitalinfrastructures.org).
Tilson, D., Sørensen, C. and Lyytinen, K. (2012). Change and Control Paradoxes
Carsten has published widely within Information Systems
in Mobile Infrastructure Innovation: The Android and iOS Mobile Operating
Systems Cases, In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science since 1989 (scholar.carstensorensen.com), for example in
(HICSS 45), Maui, HI. MIS Quarterly, ISR, ISJ, JIT, Information & Organization, The
Tiwana, A. (2014). Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Information Society, Computer Supported Cooperative Work,
Strategy, Morgan Kaufmann. and Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems.
Tiwana, A., and Konsynski, B. (2010). Complementarities Between Organiza-
tional IT Architecture and Governance Structure, Information Systems Research
21(2): 288–304. Rahul C. Basole is an Associate Professor in the College of
Tiwana, A., Konsynsky, B., and Bush, A.A. (2010). Platform Evolution: Computing and the Director of the Tennenbaum Institute at
Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Georgia Tech. He is also a Visiting Scholar at Stanford
Dynamics, Information Systems Research 21(4): 675–687. University and a Batten Fellow at the Darden School of
Tracy, A. (2015): Apple Says iOS 9 Adoption Rate Is The Fastest Ever, Running Business. His research and teaching focuses on computa-
On 50% of Devices. http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailtracy/2015/09/21/
tional enterprise science, information visualization, and
apple-says-ios-9-adoption-rate-is-the-fastest-ever/-53d242bf2727.
Turkle, C. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less
strategic decision support. Prof. Basole is the Editor-in-Chief
from Each Other, New York: Basic Books. of the Journal of Enterprise Transformation. He received a
Um, S., Yoo, Y. and Wattal, S. (2015). The Evolution of Digital Ecosystems: A Ph.D. in industrial and systems engineering from the Georgia
Case of WordPress from 2004 to 2014, In: T. Carte, A. Heinzl, and C. Urquhart Institute of Technology.
(eds.) Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 36),
Fort Worth.
View publication stats

DigitalPlatformJIT2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DigitalPlatformJIT2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DigitalPlatformJIT2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda

Article in Journal of Information Technology · April 2017

Mark de Reuver Carsten Sørensen

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Delivering Digital Drugs (D3) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The digital platform: a research agenda

Keywords: digital platforms; digital infrastructures; digital ecosystems; digital innovation;

R and beyond are seeking to understand the omnipresent

openness does not merely relate to organisational arrange- Conceptual issues

Table1 Definitions of core concepts on digital platforms

Issue Risk Recommendation

Digital platform concepts have, in general, so far been Summary

View publication stats

You might also like