A contingency model for the allocation of media content in publishing companies

Benlian, Alexander; Hess, Thomas M.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.05.001

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, third-party developers are only willing to produce complementary applications if a platform provides sufficient incentives to fulfil developers' needs such as value appropriation or recognition (Rochet and Tirole, 2003). In this respect, platform governance, which is generally defined as who makes what decisions about a platform (Benlian and Hess, 2007;Tiwana et al, 2010), plays a particularly important role for platform owners to make deliberate choices about platform access, ownership, and control when appropriately involving and engaging app developers. Tiwana et al (2010) note that governing platforms requires a delicate balance of control by a platform owner and autonomy among independent developers (676f.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How open is this Platform? The Meaning and Measurement of Platform Openness from the Complementers’ Perspective

Benlian

Hilkert²,

Heß

2015

Journal of Information Technology

Self Cite

185

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software platforms' success largely depends on complementors' willingness to repeatedly invest their time and effort to the development of platform applications that attract users and increase the platform's installed base. But how can platform providers encourage desirable behaviours by complementors (i.e., application developers) in the absence of formal roles and hierarchical control structures? Although previous studies of software-based platforms have identified openness as critical instrument at the macro (i.e., platform) level and have provided initial attempts to measure the construct, no research has been dedicated to comprehensively conceptualize and operationalize platform openness at the micro level from the perspective of application developers. To go beyond these preliminary findings and to theorize about the nature and effects of platform openness as perceived by application developers, we develop a construct called perceived platform openness (PPO). Drawing on recently advanced scale development methodologies, we conceptualize PPO as a multidimensional construct and empirically validate it with important consequent variables linked to developers' continuous platform contributions. Empirical evidence from several rounds of qualitative and quantitative steps supports the conceptual validity of the construct and empirical relevance of the scale across different smartphone platform contexts (i.e., Apple iOS and Google Android). Researchers will benefit from the study's systematic and comprehensive conceptualization of PPO, how it is measured, and how it relates to critical application developer beliefs and attitudes. Platform managers may use our results to target the underlying facets of PPO most likely to contribute to the platform's long-term goals.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How open is this Platform? The Meaning and Measurement of Platform Openness from the Complementers’ Perspective

Benlian

Hilkert²,

Heß

2015

Journal of Information Technology

Self Cite

185

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CT has contributed to the quality and productivity of IS function and to the larger company by providing feedback to manage and improve IS function to better fit the business needs (Benlian & Hess, 2007;Langdon, 2003). It argues that an IT-organizational relationship is not a simple linear causal one that can be identified by whether it is a technical or organizational imperative, but a dynamic evolution through organizational practices (e.g., managerial experiences) (Lee & Grover, 1999 that match external characteristics (e.g., environment) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003) In IS literature, several contingency antecedents (e.g., environmental [dynamism], technical [connectivity] or organizational [business knowledge of IS manager, business strategy, information intensity, size, structure, user satisfaction]) have been included in the analysis of a "fit" relationship (Benlian & Hess, 2007;Ducan, 1995;Earl, 1993;Jiang, 2003;Kearns, 2000;Kearns, 2005;Kearns & Lederer, 2004;Wang, 2001). Using these antecedents, IS research examined the problems, benefits, methodologies, and management issues of the IS planning process (Doherty, Marples, & Suhaimi, 1999;Lederer & Sethi, 1996;Ragu-Nathan, Apigian, Ragu-Nathan, & Tu, 2004;Tang & Tang, 1996;Teo & Ang, 2001).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%