Typology of Digital Platforms in the Mechanical Engineering

Rix, Calvin; Horst, Christiane; Autenrieth, Philip; Paproth, Yona; Frank, Jana; Gudergan, Gerhard

doi:10.1109/ice/itmc49519.2020.9198471

Cited by 5 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Governance clarifies who may participate, how value is created and divided and how conflicts are resolved (Parker et al, 2016). The ecosystem dimension determines the spread of the ecosystem, ranging from local to international (Rix et al, 2020). Although platforms always facilitate interaction between two or more actors, platform sides refer to how many different groups the platform addresses.…”

Section: Results: the Taxonomy Of Physical Interaction Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A mobile PIP often has the characteristics of a campaign, moving purposefully to places where relevant actors are located (e.g., the BMW Guggenheim Lab 3 ), whereas stationary PIPs are infrastructures geared towards continuity (e.g., corporate innovation labs). Public accessibility describes the extent to which PIPs are open to the respective customer groups (Rix et al, 2020). An open PIP allows uncontrolled access (e.g., to an open innovation lab), whereas a closed PIP is not publicly accessible (e.g., a corporate innovation lab).…”

Section: Physical Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The actor segments dimension describes possible actors that the PIP connects as participants, including business-to-business (B2B), business-to-consumers (B2C) or consumers-to-consumers (C2C; Rix et al, 2020). Industry focus specifies whether the PIP enables vertical or horizontal integration (Täuscher & Laudien, 2018), where the former means the PIP focuses on a specific industry or group of customers with specialized requirements or needs (e.g., the IKEA Space10, 4 an innovation lab focusing solely on the future of living), whereas the latter occurs when the PIP meets the demands of several industries or a large group of customers (Li et al, 2006).…”

Section: Platform Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Physical interaction platforms: A taxonomy of spaces for interactive value creation

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical interaction platforms (PIPs) such as living labs, innovation hubs and fab labs can play a key role for complex innovation tasks in the context of grand challenges. Although research focuses predominantly on aspects like collaboration within and organization of these spaces, little research has shed light on the development process of the PIP itself. This paper aims to contribute to innovation literature by identifying essential dimensions for the design and sustainable operation of PIPs. We use and transfer conceptual knowledge and empirical evidence in an iterative taxonomy development process. Five iterations were performed: (1) initial screening of PIPs, (2) an expert workshop, systematic literature reviews on (3) platform classifications and (4) on platform‐mediated value creation, and (5) a taxonomy evaluation by practitioners. The resulting PIP taxonomy consists of 18 design dimensions summarized in five groups: physical architecture, platform actors, key‐value propositions, value creation and revenue logic. It contributes with (1) a tangible framework for PIP concept development building on established design dimensions from platform‐, business model‐ and value creation literature. (2) It emphasizes criteria that require thorough reflection in the design phase (e.g., IP rights), enabling practitioners to identify and overcome critical issues early.

show abstract

Section: Results: the Taxonomy Of Physical Interaction Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Physical Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Platform Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physical interaction platforms: A taxonomy of spaces for interactive value creation

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When trading different goods or services, it must first be determined who allocates the transaction partners (1.2). The literature refers to the entity, which selects the partner: here, the buyer or seller comes into question but, on the other hand, the transaction partner can also be determined by the platform (Rix et al, 2020).…”

Section: Content-related Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Secure Cloud-Computing in FinTechs – An Artefact for Prioritizing Information Security Measures

Leuthe,

Weiß,

Dersch

et al. 2024

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital platforms (DPs) represent a challenging research object. In this context, scientific literature has produced a large number of publications studying DPs. Given the importance of designing DPs in both academia and practice, the purpose of this study is to synthesize the current research findings on DPs and provide a framework with possible design topics under consideration from a business model perspective. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify and synthesize the relevant findings. We analyzed 22 publications published before May 2021. The analysis shows that, in terms of "Value Propositions", most design topics were identified. In contrast, only one design topic was identified for "Customer Relationships", "Customer Segments", and "Cost Structure". In sum, our results present a framework with design topics for DPs and support the alignment of further research. Practitioners receive an overview of design topics for DPs that encourage today`s digital transformation projects.

show abstract

“…Die Investition in wertvolle IoT-Daten und -Services sowie die eigene Bereitstellung von Datensätzen und Modellen kann einmalig, periodisch oder nutzungsbezogen als As-a-Service-Modell erfolgen. Unabhängig vom Geschäftsmodell muss jedoch vorab ein fairer Preis für datengetriebene Produkte definiert werden (Rix et al 2020). In einem voll entwickelten Ökosystem ergeben sich nach einiger Zeit automatisch Mechanismen, welche die Preise für bestimmte Daten nach Qualitätsmaßstäben und Aussagekraft der Daten festlegen.…”

Section: Neue Wertschöpfung Und Preisfindungunclassified

Grenzkostenfreie IoT-Services in den Datenmarktplätzen der Zukunft

Trauth¹,

Mayer

2022

Datenwirtschaft Und Datentechnologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungEs kann künftig möglich sein, im Internet der Dinge (engl. Internet of Things, kurz IoT) Daten und Resilienz-Services ebenso souverän wie selbstsicher zu handhaben und auszutauschen. Ähnlich wie dies heutzutage mit physischen Ressourcen möglich ist. Um diese Vision zu realisieren, entwickeln Forschende im Projekt SPAICER einen GAIA-X konformen IoT-Datenraum, der Datenproduzierende, Datenkonsumierende und Datenverarbeitende an einem digitalen Ort vereint und eine medienbruchfreie Datenökonomie ermöglicht. Mit Hilfe dieser medienbruchfreien Datenökonomie lassen sich wichtige Antworten auf relevante Fragen, wie zum Beispiel nach industrieller Nachhaltigkeit und resilienter Produktion, auf Knopfdruck ermitteln. Dabei ist der Vorteil eines IoT-Datenraums, dass skalierbare und grenzkostenfreie digitale Vermögenswerte entwickelt werden können, die Datenproduzierende von produktbezogenen zu nutzungsbezogenen Technologieführern wandeln. Hierdurch werden IoT-Daten zu Wirtschaftsgütern und IoT-Services zu digitalen Geschäftsmodellen.

show abstract

Typology of Digital Platforms in the Mechanical Engineering

Cited by 5 publications

References 29 publications

Physical interaction platforms: A taxonomy of spaces for interactive value creation

Physical interaction platforms: A taxonomy of spaces for interactive value creation

Towards Secure Cloud-Computing in FinTechs – An Artefact for Prioritizing Information Security Measures

Grenzkostenfreie IoT-Services in den Datenmarktplätzen der Zukunft

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About