Bridging Differing Perspectives on Technological Platforms: Toward an Integrative Framework

Abstract

An integrative framework is proposed to advance management research on technological platforms, bridging two theoretical perspectives: economics, which sees platforms as double-sided markets, and engineering design, which sees platforms as technological architectures. While the economic perspective informs our understanding of platform competition, the engineering design perspective informs our view of platform innovation. The article argues that platforms can be usefully conceptualized as evolving organizations or meta-organizations that: (1) federate and coordinate constitutive agents who can innovate and compete; (2) create value by generating and harnessing economies of scope in supply or/and in demand; and (3) entail a modular technological architecture composed of a core and a periphery. In support of this conceptualization, a classification system is presented, indicating that technological platforms appear in a variety of organizational forms: within firms, across supply chains, and across industry innovation ecosystems. As an illustration, the framework is then applied to derive a simple model highlighting patterns of interaction between platform innovation and competition, yielding hypotheses that could be tested empirically by future scholars.

Knowledge boundaries in enterprise software platform development: Antecedents and consequences for platform governance

“…First, platform development takes place across firm boundaries, which confronts platform owners with the difficulty of determining the appropriate scope of knowledge boundaries to be provided at the boundary. Second, platform development is characterized by a large number of firms participating in development (Gawer, 2014;McIntyre & Srinivasan, 2017), which introduces difficulties in scaling KBR for platform owners. Second, platform development is characterized by a large number of firms participating in development (Gawer, 2014;McIntyre & Srinivasan, 2017), which introduces difficulties in scaling KBR for platform owners.…”

“…These complements are products or services that make the focal product or service more attractive (Rochet & Tirole, 2003;Shapiro & Varian, 1998). Following prior work, we use the term platform governance to refer to the fundamental decisions of platform owners with regards to the ecosystem of complementors (Gawer, 2014;Tiwana, 2013;Tiwana et al, 2010). Following prior work, we use the term platform governance to refer to the fundamental decisions of platform owners with regards to the ecosystem of complementors (Gawer, 2014;Tiwana, 2013;Tiwana et al, 2010).…”

Implications of Application Programming Interfaces for Third‐Party New App Development and Copycatting

“…The technology management literature has focused mostly on how contemporary digital platforms shift the innovation paradigm beyond organizational boundaries (Baldwin and Woodard ). Since platforms provide key building blocks based on which third‐party suppliers can develop complementary new products or services, digital platforms essentially form “ecosystems” of open innovation (Gawer ). Taking software platforms as an example, APIs define the ways for the core systems of platforms and third‐party digital new products (which are typically in the form of software apps) to integrate with each other.…”

Battle on the Wrong Field? Entrant Type, Dominant Designs, and Technology Exit

“…Moreover, developments in information technology (IT) in the past few decades have imposed added complexity on the nature of dominance battles. In many of today's technology industries, DDs may emerge as platform technologies or as non‐platform technologies (Gawer, ; Murmann & Frenken, ; Narayanan & Chen, ). A platform technology DD, such as Microsoft's Windows operating system (OS), is a baseline technical architecture that allows other technologies to be developed on it; in contrast, a non‐platform technology DD, such as Adobe's Postscript printer language, is an add‐on feature that sits on a platform technology.…”

“…A platform technology DD, such as Microsoft's Windows operating system (OS), is a baseline technical architecture that allows other technologies to be developed on it; in contrast, a non‐platform technology DD, such as Adobe's Postscript printer language, is an add‐on feature that sits on a platform technology. Platform technologies differ significantly from non‐platform technologies in both design features (Baldwin & Clark, ; Murmann & Frenken, ) and market mechanisms (Cennamo & Santalo, ; Gawer, ; Zhu & Iansiti, ), which can be important boundary conditions for the survival of technologies in dominance battles. Linking these ideas to the difference between startups and diversifying entrants, we ask: Do the disadvantages associated with startups' technologies differ in platform vs. non‐platform technology‐based dominance battles?…”