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

Abstract

The widespread uptake of platform strategies turns many vendors of enterprise software into curators of an ecosystem of firms that collaboratively develop and commercialize a shared technology. As a platform owner's effectiveness in integrating knowledge across ecosystem participants will distinguish it from its competitors, we investigate the management of development‐related knowledge across firm boundaries. Our exploratory, multiple‐case study of 4 platforms illustrates how “knowledge boundaries” emerge between platform owners and complementors. We observe that knowledge boundaries are influenced by a platform's functional extent, interface design, and evolutionary dynamics, which create differences, dependencies, and novelty of development knowledge, resulting in qualitatively distinct types of knowledge boundaries. To overcome knowledge boundaries, platform owners provide various resources at the boundary, including information portals, documentation, helpdesks, and alignment workshops. We observe that in shaping these resources, platform owners face a trade‐off between providing knowledge at the right scope, while allowing for the scalability of knowledge resources for the entire ecosystem. Depending on their scope and scale, we classify knowledge boundary resources as broadcasting, brokering, and bridging, each representing qualitatively distinct patterns in managing knowledge in platform ecosystems. We conclude with implications for researchers and managers.

The Engagement of Complementors and the Role of Platform Boundary Resources in e-Commerce Platform Ecosystems

“…For example, technical PBRs, such as APIs or SDKs, enable complementors by affording access to the platform's technology. Others, such as the supply of training, certifications, or documentation, aim at knowledge transfer from the platform owner to the complementor and allow an expanded perspective to the mere enablement through a more application-oriented focus (Foerderer et al, 2019). Another critical use of PBRs lies in their potential to motivate and incentivize complementors to interact and commit to the platform ecosystem on an ongoing basis (Schulz et al, 2020;Zhang et al, 2021).…”

“…Complementor engagement describes their different ways and forms of interacting with the platform according to their intended objectives and ambitions. Complementor engagement encompasses not only the development of applications but also collaboration among complementors, exchange of knowledge, testing new platform features, or selling the platform to users (Foerderer et al, 2019;Saadatmand et al, 2019;Wareham et al, 2014). With these various engagements, complementors represent a vital source of information and resources for a platform's scalability, growth, and competitive sustainability (Jacobides et al, 2018;Wan et al, 2017).…”

“…Technical PBRs comprise APIs or Software Development Kits (SDKs), supporting applications and their development (Bianco et al, 2014;Eaton et al, 2015;Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013). Besides technical PBRs, platforms also provide social PBRs ranging from documentation to interactive forums and hackathons (Bianco et al, 2014;Foerderer et al, 2019). Recent research has devoted particular attention to questions concerning the adequate design of technical PBRs and their role in balancing openness and control from the perspective of the platform owner (Hein et al, 2019a;Karhu et al, 2018).…”

Opposing effects of input control and clan control for sellers on e-marketplace platforms

“…Control on E-marketplace platforms Prior IS and strategic management research has defined and conceptualized e-marketplace platforms as infrastructure that mediates interactions between sellers and buyers (Eisenmann et al 2011;Foerderer et al 2018;McIntyre and Srinivasan 2017). Unlike intermediaries on traditional markets (e.g., retail stores), platform providers of e-marketplace platforms do not take ownership of the products and services transacted (Hagiu and Yoffie 2009).…”

The art of vivacious variance

“…In the fifth paper, Foerderer, Kude, Schuetz, and Heinzl (2018) note that digital platforms are among the most important phenomena to study with regard to understanding software innovation. In the enterprise software industry in particular, many firms transformed from vendors of pre-packed software into platform firms, which allow independent third-party firms to participate in the development and commercialization of their software by developing complementary software.…”