Multisided Platforms as New Organizational Forms

Abstract

Multi-sided platforms (MSPs) have recently drawn considerable research attention, as the influence of platforms is increasingly relevant across a wide array of industries. However, despite theoretical and empirical advances spanning multiple disciplines, several core questions remain about MSPs. This article offers novel insights around platform business models, platform scale and scope, characteristics of platform "sides", and the role of technology in platform evolution. We hope that these insights provide a useful framework for integrating and advancing various perspectives on the emergence and management of MSPs.The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance of Associate Editor Susanna Khavul and three anonymous reviewers in improving the manuscript.

Moving beyond the Build-or-Join Decision: A Multiple Case Study on Multi-Platform Strategies of Incumbent Firms

“…Digital platforms have received significant attention from economics, technology management, information systems, and strategic management [13,14]. Although different definitions of the term digital platforms exist across disciplines, the consensus is that digital platforms provide the basis for complementary products and services that can be developed and offered on the platform by third parties [8,20].…”

“…Although research on digital platforms made significant advances on the dynamics of platform emergence, platform orchestration, as well as platform strategies and platform competition (see [13,14] for an extensive review), theoretical and empirical work has largely explored digital platforms in the context of young digital platforms [15,16]. Only a small set of research explores how incumbent firms transition into the platform economy and how they need to change to benefit from platform economics [5,7,10,[17][18][19].…”

Sustaining Complement Quality for Digital Product Platforms: A Case Study of the Philips Hue Ecosystem

“…This focus on complement quantity by scholars and platform owners, however, is insufficient and potentially misleading. Some recent work has pointed out that platform value not only depends on the quantity of complementary products, but also on their quality (Cennamo, 2018; Hagiu, 2011; McIntyre et al, 2020; Panico and Cennamo, 2020). Complements differ in the value they provide for the platform ecosystem.…”

“…Thus, a key challenge for platforms is to attract complementors to rapidly realize a large quantity of complements (e.g., Boudreau and Jeppesen, 2015; Jacobides, Cennamo, and Gawer, 2018; Katz and Shapiro, 1986). Researchers have only recently pointed out that the quality of complements also affects the value of platforms (e.g., Cennamo, 2018; McIntyre, Srinivasan, Afuah, Gawer, and Kretschmer, 2020), showing that not all complements are equally valuable.…”

Digital platforms and ecosystems: remarks on the dominant organizational forms of the digital age

“…I simply aim to offer my interpretation of the rise of platforms and ecosystems as the major organisational consequence of digital innovation. Twenty years ago, when I started to explore the topics of platforms, ecosystems, and digital innovation, these themes were not mainstream in management research (see, for example, Cusumano et al, 2019Cusumano et al, , 2021Gawer, 2009Gawer, , 2014Gawer & Cusumano, 2002Gawer & Srnicek, 2021;Jacobides et al, 2018;McIntyre et al, 2020;Shipilov & Gawer, 2020). Over time, this line of research has benefitted from important contributions from a growing community of management scholars from strategy, innovation studies, economics, organisation studies, and information systems which have successfully collaborated across academic communities and silos (Autio et al, 2018;Constantinides et al, 2018;Lyytninen et al, 2020;Nambisan et al, 2020;Parker et al, 2016Parker et al, , 2017Yoo et al, 2012Yoo et al, , 2010.…”