Content uploaded by Maximilian Schreieck
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maximilian Schreieck on Jun 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016
DESIGN AND GOVERNANCE OF PLATFORM
ECOSYSTEMS – KEY CONCEPTS AND ISSUES FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
Research
Schreieck, Maximilian, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany,
maximilian.schreieck@in.tum.de
Wiesche, Manuel, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, wiesche@in.tum.de
Krcmar, Helmut, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, krcmar@in.tum.de
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of current research in IS on the design and govern-
ance of platform ecosystems. To this end, we conduct a literature review of relevant journals and con-
ferences. We show that platform ecosystems have been analysed from two different perspectives: tech-
nology- and market-oriented. Thereby, most studies take on the viewpoint of the platform owner. Fur-
thermore, we summarize key concepts on the design and governance of platform ecosystems that have
been discussed in literature. As most relevant concepts we identify the definition of roles, pricing,
boundary resources and openness. Based on this analysis, we derive issues for future research: the
integration of market- and technology-oriented perspectives, an individual level of analysis to include
complementors and end-users and the role of data as boundary resource in platform ecosystems. This
paper contributes to the understanding of platform ecosystems in IS literature by structuring existing
research with regard to different perspectives and concepts and by providing starting points for future
work. In addition, it lays out which concepts practitioners need to consider when designing and gov-
erning platform ecosystems.
Keywords: Platform ecosystem, platform governance, boundary resource, literature review.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 2
1 Introduction
“Proliferating digital platforms will be at the heart of tomorrow’s economy, and even government”,
The Economist stated last year, referring to the dominance of platform ecosystems in today’s economy
("Something to stand on," 2014). In a broad sense, platforms can be defined as “foundational products,
services, or technologies upon which additional complementary products, services or technologies can
be developed” (Gawer, 2009b). The term platform ecosystem refers to the platform and all stakehold-
ers interacting on the platform (Gawer & Cusumano, 2013). The dominance of platform ecosystems
can be underlined by two numbers: six out of ten of the most valuable brands in the Interbrand index
have platform-based business models ("Best Global Brands," 2014) including Apple and Google with
their platform ecosystems dominating the market of smartphones. At the same time, all ten start-ups
included in the list of the most trending start-ups in 2015 are, to a certain extent, based on platforms
("SpotRocket - Quantitative rankings of the world's hottest startups," 2015). The list includes for ex-
ample Uber, Airbnb and Spotify as platforms connecting providers and consumers of services, and
cloudera, a technological platform for processing big data.
Platform ecosystems need to attract and coordinate two or more different target groups also referred to
as sides (Gawer, 2009b) – in most cases complementors and customers (Tiwana, 2014) – for example
drivers and passengers in the case of Uber or developers and end-users in the case of an app store. The
right design and a suitable governance concept are therefore key to orchestrating a successful platform
ecosystem with all stakeholders (Smedlund & Faghankhani, 2015). As described by Tiwana,
Konsynski, and Venkatraman (2013) in a special issue of the Journal of Management Information Sys-
tems on IT governance, new organizational forms enabled by IT such as platform ecosystems raise the
questions “Who is governed?”, “What is governed?” and “How is it governed?”. Answering these
questions in the right way is crucial for platform owners – especially in view of the fierce competition
between ecosystems (Mantena & Saha, 2012). The owners of platform ecosystems constantly compete
with others to gain market share both in the group of end-users and complementors. For example, Am-
azon is trying to gain ground in the market for mobile device applications which is dominated by
Google and Apple. Amazon has just launched the program “underground” as an attempt to undermine
the Google Play Store on Android as marketplace for mobile applications (Dillet, 2015).
Since the late 1990s, motivated by Microsoft’s unpreceded success with its operating system platform
Windows, IS research tries to understand how successful platform ecosystems in the IT industry need
to be designed and governed (Bakos, 1998; Messerschmitt & Szyperski, 2003; Selander, Henfridsson,
& Svahn, 2010). Researchers analysed the technical requirements of software platforms (Baldwin &
Woodard, 2008), characteristics of successful platforms (Tan, Pan, Lu, & Huang, 2015), optimal pric-
ing for platform-based businesses (Lin, Li, & Whinston, 2011) and control mechanisms applied on
platforms (Goldbach & Kemper, 2014). These aspects all relate to how platform ecosystems are de-
signed and governed (Hein, Schreieck, Wiesche, & Krcmar, 2016; Tiwana, Konsynski, & Bush,
2010). However, the growing base of literature builds on different understandings of the term platform
and different perspectives on platform ecosystems. While some researchers view platforms as an IT
artefact (Baldwin & Woodard, 2008), others define it as an abstract construct that brings together dif-
ferent parties (Bakos & Katsamakas, 2008). As a result, findings on the design and governance of plat-
form ecosystems lack conceptual consensus.
Several authors have already contributed to structuring the research field of platforms. Thomas, Autio,
and Gann (2014) provide a comprehensive review from a management research point of view that not
only includes platform ecosystems but also organizational platforms, product family platforms and
market intermediaries. This analysis needs to be concretized for the IS field. Existing literature re-
views on platform ecosystems in IS provide a focus on specific concepts related to platform ecosys-
tems and do not provide an overview of concepts (Porch, Timbrell, & Rosemann, 2015; Smedlund &
Faghankhani, 2015). In order to understand the role of design and governance in platform ecosystems,
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 3
it is necessary to structure existing contributions based on their perspectives on platform ecosystems
and the various concepts of design and governance they focus on. We thereby build on the framework
developed by Tiwana et al. (2010) which is the first to integrate concepts of design and governance of
platform ecosystems.
Towards this end, we conducted a literature review, condensing different perspectives on platform
ecosystems in the first step. We determine that platform ecosystems have been analysed from two dif-
ferent perspectives: technology- and market-oriented. Thereby, most studies take on the viewpoint of
the platform owner. In the second step, we present key concepts of the design and governance of plat-
form ecosystems identified in literature. By discussing these concepts, our review reveals major open
issues related to the design and governance of platform ecosystems: the integration of the two perspec-
tives on platform ecosystems when discussing design and governance concepts, an individual level of
analysis to consider characteristics of the actors in platform ecosystems and the role of data as bounda-
ry resource in platform ecosystems. Addressing these open issues will significantly contribute to our
understanding of platform ecosystems and in particular of the key concepts of design and governance.
The results will prove useful for practitioners that set up or run platform ecosystems and lack a struc-
tured overview of influencing factors on and within the platform ecosystem.
In the remainder of the paper, we first describe the process of literature search. Then, we present the
results by structuring contributions according to different perspectives on platform ecosystems and by
presenting the compiled concepts for the design and governance of platform ecosystems. Based on
these findings, we discuss themes for future research.
2 Design of the Literature Review
In this review, we looked for publications that (a) focus on the platform ecosystem as unit of analysis
and (b) derive explicit or implicit insights on how to design and govern platform ecosystems. Towards
this end, we screened relevant outlets drawing on the guidelines by Webster and Watson (2002) and
vom Brocke et al. (2009) and subsequently coded the studies with regard to their key results on plat-
form ecosystems.
First, we conducted an all-field search (title, abstract, keywords, references) with the key word “plat-
form” in the journals included in the Senior Scholars’ Basket of Journals of the Association for Infor-
mation Systems. We screened the abstract of all 367 articles and identified 30 publications that
matched both search criteria (a) and (b). If the match to our search criteria was unclear after reading
the abstract, we read the full text to decide on the inclusion of the respective articles. Second, we per-
formed a forward and backward search based on the publications gathered so far. This resulted in 40
additional articles from a variety of outlets. The sample includes books, such as the textbook “Plat-
forms, Markets and Innovation” by Gawer (2009a), dissertations, e.g. from Qiu (2013), and articles
from economic journals as long as they are related to the field of IS. Third, we extended our search to
the leading IS conferences to include the most recent research topics. We focused on contributions
published at the following conferences since 2013: International Conference on Information Systems
(ICIS), European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS), Americas’ Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) and Wirtschafts-
informatik (WI). We restricted the search to title, abstract and keywords and excluded research-in-
progress papers. Compared to the search in journals, we used the more specific search term “platform
AND (ecosystem OR architecture OR governance OR control)” in order to end up with a manageable
amount of hits. Again, the articles that resulted from the search were screened and selected according
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 4
to the criteria defined above. This step yielded another 27 articles (Table 1). Finally, 6 articles were
added to the sample based on suggestions by the reviewers
1
, leading to a total of 103 articles.
We then coded the selected articles along three main coding dimensions, using an explorative coding
process which was repeated iteratively to develop conclusive coding constructs for each of the catego-
ries (Lacity, Khan, Yan, & Willcocks, 2010). The first dimension represents the research method used
in the articles. An overview of the predominant methods in a field of research helps to assess its ma-
turity and to identify methods for future studies that complement existing research (Edmondson &
McManus, 2007). The second dimension covers the articles’ perspectives on platform ecosystems.
This builds on previous literature reviews that have identified different streams of literature on plat-
forms and helps to take a holistic perspective on platform ecosystems. The perspective also includes
whether the studies focus on the platform owner, the complementors or the end-users. The third di-
mension comprises all concepts related to the design and governance of platform ecosystems that are
discussed in the respective article. In addition to the main coding dimensions, we gathered information
on the cases and examples used in the studies. By summarizing the insights along the coding dimen-
sions, we can carve out the focal points of existing research and identify issues for future research.
Outlet
Search
Hits
Selected
Top journals
MISQ
“platform”
in
all fields
52
8
JAIS
35
1
ISR
59
8
JMIS
76
3
ISJ
12
4
JIT
60
4
EJIS
45
0
JSIS
28
2
Top confer-
ences
ICIS
“platform AND (ecosystem OR architecture OR governance
OR control)”
in
title, abstract and keywords
(published since 2013, no RIPs)
99
5
ECIS
89
8
AMCIS
150
6
HICSS
33
4
WI
21
4
Other
Other journals
Forward and backward search
(for articles in top journals)
-
22
Other confer-
ences
-
2
Dissertations
-
3
Books / book
chapters
-
6
Other
-
7
Total
728
97
Table 1. Summary of the literature search process. Six additional articles were added during
the review process.
3 Research on Platform Ecosystems
In this part of the literature review, we summarize the insights from the selected and coded articles on
platform ecosystems in IS following the three main coding dimensions: research method, perspectives
on platform ecosystems, and concepts of design and governance of platform ecosystems.
1
Articles suggested by the reviewers: Wareham, Fox, and Cano Giner (2015), Boudreau (2012), Tiwana (2015), Liu, Au, and
Choi (2014), Selander, Henfridsson, and Svahn (2013), Kude, Dibbern, and Heinzl (2012)
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 5
3.1 Research Methods
Research interest in platforms in IS has constantly increased since the late 1990s (see Figure 1). First
platform ecosystems such as IBM’s hardware-based personal computer platform and especially Mi-
crosoft’s tremendously successful software-based Windows platform attracted the interest of IS re-
search. We analysed which research methods are used in the publications and found that the majority
of contributions is based on qualitative research.
67 publications apply qualitative methods, whereof 36 are based on case studies. These cases mostly
focus on the successful platform ecosystems of the last decades: Microsoft with its Windows ecosys-
tem (Eurich, Giessmann, Mettler, & Stanoevska-Slabeva, 2011) as well as Google and Apple with
their app store ecosystems (Manner, Nienaber, & Schermann, 2013). Another 25 studies apply various
qualitative approaches such as theory building based on qualitative insights (Grover & Kohli, 2012) or
expert interviews (Bergvall-Kåreborn & Howcroft, 2014). Quantitative insights are presented in 28
studies. Researchers apply data analysis (Basole & Karla, 2011), experiments (Goldbach & Benlian,
2014), surveys (Goldbach & Benlian, 2015), simulations (Butler, Bateman, & Gray, 2014) as well as
mathematical models to understand the formation of prices (Bakos & Katsamakas, 2008) or to under-
stand processes and relationships in platform ecosystems.
Plotting the data over time reveals that the share of quantitative research has increased over the last
decade (see Figure 1). According to Edmondson and McManus (2007) who evaluate the maturity of
research fields, this increase in the share of quantitative studies shows that the topic “platform” in IS is
currently evolving from a nascent to an intermediate field of research.
Figure 1. Number of quantitative and qualitative studies on platforms in IS over time (results
from conference proceedings excluded, as the search was restricted to 2013-2015).
3.2 Perspectives on Platform Ecosystems
Our iterative coding process revealed two important dimensions along which studies take on different
perspectives on platform ecosystems. First, studies have a different understanding of the platform eco-
system as unit of analysis. We therefore identify different perspectives on platform ecosystems by
bringing together definitions and viewpoints from various studies. Second, studies focus on different
stakeholders of the platform ecosystem, the platform owner, the complementors or the end-users. Both
dimensions are discussed below. Regarding the understanding of the platform ecosystem, we identi-
fied more than 20 different definitions of the term “platform” referring to the core of the platform eco-
system. Based on these definitions and on existing attempts to cluster them, we derived two character-
istics that can be used to differentiate platforms: technology- vs. market-oriented (Dibia & Wagner,
2015; Gawer, 2014; Thomas et al., 2014) and internal vs. external (Gawer, 2014; Porch et al., 2015).
As we focus our literature review on platform ecosystems, we can assume that the underlying plat-
forms are external, i.e. they bring together different actors to enable interactions that would not be
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 6
possible without the platform (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2011). We therefore focus on the character-
istic technology- vs. market-oriented (see Table 2). The analysis suggests that the characteristic tech-
nology- vs. market-oriented is not mutually exclusive. An app store, for example, is a marketplace for
apps, enabled by the underlying technology, i.e. the mobile device’s operating system and its applica-
tion programming interfaces (APIs). We therefore see technology- and market-oriented as two per-
spectives on platform ecosystems. To a certain extent, all platform ecosystems need underlying tech-
nology and will exhibit characteristics of a market.
According to the technology-oriented perspective, a platform is defined as “a set of stable components
that supports variety and evolvability in a system by constraining the linkages among the other com-
ponents” (Baldwin & Woodard, 2008). This definition comprises software platforms such as operating
systems (e.g. Apple’s iOS) and hardware platforms such as IT infrastructure or computing hardware
(e.g. wireless networks) (Fichman, 2004). The purpose of technological platforms is to enable co-
creation of value in the platform ecosystem by complementors, for example the creation of applica-
tions for an operating system platform. Accordingly, studies taking on a technology-perspective, focus
on study variables that influence the intensity of the co-creation of value such as openness (Benlian,
Hilkert, & Hess, 2015) or the provision of boundary resources (Bianco, Myllarniemi, Komssi, &
Raatikainen, 2014).
Following the market-oriented perspective, platform ecosystems can be seen as “markets, where users’
interactions with each other are subject to network effects and are facilitated by a common platform
provided by one or more intermediaries” (Eisenmann, Parker, & Van Alstyne, 2011). This definition
comprises e-commerce marketplaces where goods and services are exchanged (e.g. Ebay) as well as
communities where information is exchanged (e.g. Facebook). Intermediaries bring together different
parties to enable a transaction between these parties (Thomas et al., 2014). While Ebay connects buy-
ers and sellers, Facebook connects providers and consumers of information. The market perspective
on platform ecosystems is rooted in economics, where characteristics of multi-sided markets have
been an ongoing research topic (Weyl, 2010). The purpose of market platforms is to match supply and
demand on a digital marketplace. Therefore, studies taking on the market-oriented perspective focus
on study variables such as the number of market sides (Economides & Tåg, 2012) or the competitive
strategy (Armstrong, 2006) to understand price formation and the success of intermediaries.
Technology-oriented perspective
Market-oriented perspective
Definition
“A set of stable components that supports
variety and evolvability in a system by con-
straining the linkages among the other com-
ponents” (Baldwin & Woodard, 2008)
“Markets, where users’ interactions with
each other are subject to network effects and
are facilitated by a common platform pro-
vided by one or more intermediaries”
(Eisenmann et al., 2011)
Sub-categories
Software platform, hardware platform
Marketplace, community
Examples
Google Play, Apple App Store, SAP HANA
Cloud Platform, IBM Watson
Airbnb, Uber, Spotify, Facebook
Purpose
Co-creation of value, innovation
Matching of supply and demand, exchange
of information
Selected
independent
variables
Perceived openness
Boundary resources
Availability of complementary products
Control mode
Number of market sides
Network effects
Centrality
Competitive strategy
Selected
dependent vari-
ables
Number of third-party applications
Rate of innovation
Platform adoption
Platform stickiness
Welfare
Equilibrium price
Platform adoption
Table 2. Summary of the technology- and market-oriented perspective on platform ecosystems.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 7
The contributions considered in this literature review by the majority focus on one of the perspectives
(Table 3). Over all outlets, only 10 studies explicitly cover both perspectives.
Article
Perspective (Platform Ecosystem)
Perspective (Stakeholder)
Technology
Market
Owner
Comple-
mentor
End-user
Soft-
ware
Hard
ware
Market-
place
Commu-
nity
Top journals
Anderson, Parker, and Tan (2014)
X
X
X
Avgerou and Li (2013)
X
X
X
Bakos and Katsamakas (2008)
X
X
Benlian et al. (2015)
X
X
Bergvall-Kåreborn and Howcroft (2014)
X
X
Bock, Ahuja, Suh, and Yap (2015)
X
X
X
Butler et al. (2014)
X
X
X
Ceccagnoli et al. (2012)
X
X
Claussen, Kretschmer, and Mayrhofer (2013)
X
X
X
X
Eaton (2015)
X
X
X
Fichman (2004)
X
X
Ghazawneh and Henfridsson (2013)
X
X
Gnyawali, Fan, and Penner (2010)
X
X
X
Grover and Kohli (2012)
X
X
Hackney, Burn, and Salazar (2004)
X
X
Koch and Schultze (2011)
X
X
Koh and Fichman (2012)
X
X
Kuk and Janssen (2013)
X
X
X
Lin et al. (2011)
X
X
X
Lindgren, Eriksson, and Lyytinen (2015)
X
X
Liu et al. (2014)
X
X
X
Lusch and Nambisan (2015)
X
X
X
Mantena and Saha (2012)
X
X
Markus and Loebbecke (2013)
X
X
Ondrus, Gannamaneni, and Lyytinen (2015)
X
X
X
Rai and Tang (2014)
X
X
Sambamurthy and Zmud (2000)
X
X
Selander et al. (2013)
X
X
Shaw and Holland (2010)
X
X
Spagnoletti, Resca, and Lee (2015)
X
X
X
X
Tiwana (2015)
X
X
X
Tiwana et al. (2010)
X
X
Yaraghi, Du, Sharman, Gopal, and Ramesh
(2015)
X
X
X
X
Top conferences and others
70 articles
40
3
22
2
60
17
7
Total
61
5
34
9
85
31
10
Table 3. Perspectives on platforms in IS research.
In addition to the different perspectives on platform ecosystems, we coded which stakeholder the stud-
ies in our review focus on – the platform owner, the complementor or the end-user (Table 3). The plat-
form owner runs the platform and orchestrates the involved parties and processes on the platform. In
most cases, the platform owner initiated the opening of the platform to enable the co-creation of value
from third-parties (Ceccagnoli, Forman, Huang, & Wu, 2012) or to establish an exchange platform he
can benefit from. In the example of the Apple App Store, Apple itself is the platform owner, running
the App Store as integrated part of the operating system iOS. The complementor is an external party
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 8
not directly related to the platform owner that contributes to the platform ecosystem (Eisenmann,
Parker, & Van Alstyne, 2008). App developers who publish apps on the Apple App Store can there-
fore be referred to as complementors. The end-user or customer accesses the platform to consume a
service available on the platform (Tiwana et al., 2010). The user of an Apple device is likely to visit
the Apple App Store to download and install applications.
Of those articles, that exhibit a clear focus, 85 take the platform owner’s perspective while only 31
consider the complementor, as for example Goldbach and Benlian (2015), and only 10 consider the
end-user as for example Koh and Fichman (2012) (Table 3). This observation needs to be taken into
account for the discussion of concepts for the design and governance of platform ecosystems as well
as for the deduction of open issues for future research.
3.3 Design and Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Our results show that researchers’ main interest has been to understand why and how platform ecosys-
tems in the IT industry arise and become successful in order to identify the underlying mechanisms of
successful platforms. Ultimately, guidelines how practitioners can design and govern successful plat-
form ecosystems are derived (Benlian et al., 2015; Ondrus et al., 2015; Spagnoletti et al., 2015;
Yaraghi et al., 2015). The success of platforms is usually measured by its size, e.g. number of users,
complementors or complementary products or services (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013). For com-
mercial platforms, size alone is not sufficient but has to be complemented by a profitable business
model. While for example the success of the non-profit knowledge platform Wikipedia is measured by
the number of articles, the success of an e-commerce platform such as Ebay also includes the revenue
and profit Ebay generates as platform owner.
To contribute to our understanding of platform ecosystems, we aggregate insights on the design and
governance of platform ecosystems across all studies identified as relevant in our literature search.
Following Tiwana (2014), we differentiate insights on architecture and governance of platform eco-
systems. However, we replace the term architecture by design, broadening the rather technical defini-
tion by Tiwana. He defines the architecture of a platform ecosystem as “a conceptual blueprint that
describes how the ecosystem is partitioned into a relatively stable platform and a complementary set of
apps that are encouraged to vary, and the design rules binding on both”, whereas our understanding of
the design of a platform ecosystem refers to a conceptual blueprint of the whole ecosystem, including
the partners and processes interacting on the platform and that includes both the technology- and mar-
ket-oriented perspective. Governance, the “partitioning of decision-making authority between platform
owners and app developers, control mechanisms, and pricing and pie-sharing structures” (Tiwana,
2014), covers tactical decisions that impact the processes within the platform ecosystem. Governance
is related to both the technology- and market-oriented perspective as it covers technological aspects
such as providing APIs and market-related aspects such as setting prices.
We identified eight key concepts focusing on the design and governance of platform ecosystems (Ta-
ble 4). Some concepts are relevant for both design and governance of platform ecosystems; some pri-
marily affect either design or governance. Furthermore, as depicted in the last three columns of the
table, the concepts have been discussed from a technology- or market-oriented perspective, in some
cases both. In the remainder of this section we will briefly present these concepts.
The definition of roles within a platform ecosystem is an important factor of ecosystem design and
covers for example the number of sides it connects (Gnyawali et al., 2010), the ownership regimes
(Bakos & Katsamakas, 2008), the distribution of power which can be centralized or decentralized and
the relationship to stakeholders of the platform ecosystem (Bullinger, Rass, & Moeslein, 2012). For
example, a platform ecosystem for mobile payment must balance ownership and power of three sides
in the ecosystem (banks, dealers and customers) and establish relationships to partner companies that
can increase its popularity (as airlines and hotels do for credit cards). Roles in platform ecosystems are
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 9
discussed from both a technology- and market-oriented perspective, but few studies have integrated
the perspectives.
Pricing and revenue sharing has been studied as a governance mechanism in platform ecosystems.
Pricing and revenue sharing refers to payment flows within the platform ecosystem and how they are
distributed between the different stakeholders. These concepts can be used to support network effects
and to overcome the chicken-and-egg problem in the initial phase of a platform ecosystem (Suarez &
Cusumano, 2009). For example, Microsoft paid software developers to create first apps on the Win-
dows phone platform in order to attract more users. Later on, the developers had to generate revenues
by selling their apps to the end-users or displaying advertisements. Pricing and revenue sharing is
mostly discussed from a market-oriented perspective. However, some studies take the technology-
oriented perspective, for example when pricing for hardware components is analysed (Bresnahan &
Greenstein, 1999).
Boundary resources are tools, regulations or other resources that are used to govern co-creation of
value in platform ecosystems (Eaton, 2015). Most of the publications that cover boundary resources
focus on APIs or software development kits (SDKs) that are used to facilitate co-creation of value.
However, boundary resources can also stunt co-creation of value. For example, rigid regulations for
the approval of complementary products or services on a platform may decrease the complementor’s
motivation (Eaton, 2015). A boundary resource that is gaining importance in practice is data which is
provided by the users of a platform and can be made accessible for the complementors (Gawer, 2014).
While data is mentioned as boundary resource in literature, its role is not yet analysed in detail.
Boundary resources are analysed from a technology-oriented perspective as they impact the technical
details of contributing to a platform but also complementors’ motivation. Again, only few studies inte-
grate a technology- and market-oriented view.
Openness refers to “to the easing of restrictions on the use, development and commercialization of a
technology” (Boudreau, 2010). Following Boudreau (2010), a platform ecosystem can be opened by
granting access to the platform or by partially giving up control over the platform. For example, Mi-
crosoft grants access to the Windows platform for application developers but stays in control, whereas
in the Linux platform, the underlying technology has been made completely available to stakeholders
(Ondrus et al., 2015). While choosing the right degree of openness is part of the design of a platform
ecosystem, it can also be adjusted dynamically to govern the ecosystem as shown in case studies on
Android and iOS (Homscheid, Kilian, & Schaarschmidt, 2015). So far, openness is mostly discussed
from a technology-oriented perspective as it is closely related to how access is granted to technology.
Few studies also consider the market-oriented perspective or both perspectives.
In addition to these concepts, we identified control, technical design, competitive strategy and trust as
relevant concepts discussed by several authors. Control, in general, is used to “direct attention, moti-
vate, and encourage organizational members to act according to organizational goals and objectives”
(Wiesche, Schermann, & Krcmar, 2011) and IS play a key role to implement control mechanisms
(Schermann, Wiesche, & Krcmar, 2012; Wiesche, Berwing, Schermann, & Krcmar, 2011). In platform
ecosystems, control refers to how the platform owner governs the processes within his platform eco-
system and can be divided into formal control mechanisms (e.g. output control) and informal control
mechanisms (e.g. clan control) (Tiwana, 2014). Technical design comprises the modular architecture
of the platform (Tiwana et al., 2010), the definition of its interfaces and the compatibility to relevant
systems. Competitive strategy describes whether competition, collaboration, or the mélange of both,
co-opetition, is the most suitable strategy to establish a platform ecosystem among competing ones
(Mantena & Saha, 2012). Trust as counterpart of power is a basic prerequisite for a platform ecosys-
tem to succeed (Hurni & Huber, 2014). It is relevant for the relationship between platform owner and
complementors as well as for the relationship between customers and the platform ecosystem as a
whole. Similar to the concepts described above, only few studies integrate the technology- and market-
oriented perspective when discussing control, technical design, competitive strategy and trust.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 10
Concept
Aspects
No. of studies
technology-
oriented
market-
oriented
both
Roles
Number of sides
Ownership
Distribution of power
Relationship to stakeholders
15
14
2
Pricing and revenue sharing
Achieving network effects
Barriers to market entry
Subsidizing of one or more sides
8
16
3
Boundary resources
Software tools (API, SDK)
Documentation
Data
14
7
2
Openness
Granting access to technology
Giving up control over technology
13
3
2
Control
Informal control mechanisms
Formal control mechanisms
12
1
2
Technical design
Modularity
Interfaces
Compatibility
10
4
1
Competitive strategy
Competition
Co-opetition, collaboration
Single vs. multihoming
1
5
1
Trust
Relationship complementor – platform
owner
Relationship end-user – platform
1
1
1
Table 4. Concepts of design and governance of platform ecosystems.
4 Central Issues for Future Research on Platform Ecosystems in IS
In this section, we discuss central issues for future research on the design and governance of platform
ecosystems in IS based on the insights gained in the analysis of existing literature. We discuss three
major issues: the integration of the different perspectives on platform ecosystems when analysing de-
sign and governance concepts, an individual level of analysis in platform ecosystems and the role of
data as boundary resource in platform ecosystems. We suggest that future research on these issues will
deepen our understanding of platform ecosystems and allow to derive recommendations for their im-
plementation and management in practice.
4.1 Integrating Different Perspectives on Platform Ecosystems with Design
and Governance Concepts
Future research can gain additional insights on how to design and govern ecosystems by integrating
the technology- and market-oriented perspective on platform ecosystems. None of the platform-based
businesses can be described with only one of the perspectives (Basole, 2009). An app store, for exam-
ple, is a marketplace that matches demand for and supply of applications on mobile devices. At the
same time, the app store is the platform owner’s vehicle to co-create value on his technological plat-
form, i.e. the operating system of the mobile devices. To understand such platform ecosystems that
can be interpreted as two interlaced platforms – a technology and a market platform – the technology-
and market-oriented perspectives have to be integrated. Existing literature rarely adapts an integrated
view, as shown in our review.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 11
All of the constructs related to the design and governance of platform ecosystems that we have identi-
fied in our literature review, can be viewed from a technology- and a market-oriented perspective. For
example, providing boundary resources such as APIs or development tools is, on the one hand, a tech-
nological aspect of governance used to incentivize developers to contribute to a platform ecosystem.
On the other hand, providing boundary resources will also impact the platform ecosystem as a market-
place by increasing the competition between developers. Similarly, the agreement on decision rights
for the different stakeholders within the platform ecosystem is influenced by technology- and market-
oriented considerations: decision rights for developers on a platform may include the tools and frame-
works used but also the prices that can be set in the market.
First contributions integrate the different perspectives with regard to specific phenomena. For exam-
ple, Claussen et al. (2013) discuss incentives for developers of Facebook apps while interpreting the
Facebook app store as market and technological platform. Yet, many concepts related to the design
and governance of platform ecosystems still need to be evaluated against the integrated view.
Cusumano (2010) stated that “[w]ho wins and who loses these competitions is not simply a matter of
who has the best technology or the first product. It is often who has the best platform strategy and the
best ecosystem […].” In order to come up with the best strategy for a platform ecosystem, research
and practitioners need to consider both the technology- and the market-oriented perspective.
In doing so, research should not only focus on case studies of successful platform ecosystems, as “suc-
cessful […] platforms are the exception” (Hagiu, 2014). Insights from failed platform ecosystems can
enhance the field and provide additional insights. Within multiple-case studies of successful and non-
successful platform ecosystems, patterns for successful design and governance strategies could
emerge. As a starting point, a case survey of existing case studies as described by Jurisch, Wolf, and
Krcmar (2013) could provide valuable insights.
4.2 An Individual Level of Analysis for End-users and Complementors
Our review revealed that most studies focus on the platform owner, neglecting the perspective of the
end-user or complementor. For example, Table 3 shows that no study with a technology-oriented per-
spective takes on the end-user perspective although the end-user is also affected by technological deci-
sions of the platform owner. The complementor’s perspective, even though adapted by several more
recent publications (Bergvall-Kåreborn & Howcroft, 2014; Goldbach & Benlian, 2015; Hurni &
Huber, 2014), is based on an abstract representation of the complementor, its characteristics are not
considered on an individual level of analysis. Bergvall-Kåreborn and Howcroft (2014) argue that
complementors and end-users need to be seen as individuals because their different characteristics can
impact the relationship they establish to the platform ecosystem. Including the complementors and
end-users into the analysis, will also allow to discuss a bottom-up approach in the design and govern-
ance instead of interpreting it as a top-down approach only – a gap that has recently been shown by
Constantinides and Barrett (2015).
A software developer from an open source community might be incentivized by open interfaces and
the freedom to decide on the tools and frameworks to use. A start up, on the other hand, might focus
on reliable, documented interfaces and adequate pricing and revenue sharing. Depending on which
types of complementors a platform owner wants to attract, different design and governance concepts
may prove useful. To understand the role of individual complementors and end-users, future research
should take on an individual level of analysis. Experiments or simulations could generate insights de-
tached from specific cases as for example in the experiment by Goldbach and Benlian (2014) who
compare different control mechanisms in platform ecosystems. Similar to Schilling, Laumer, and
Weitzel (2011) who evaluate the motivation of open source software developers depending on their
personality, personality traits and more specific characteristics such as a complementor’s self-efficacy
or goal setting could be evaluated. In doing, so it could be worthwhile to not only analyse current
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 12
complementors and end-users of a platform but also complementors who failed with their product and
end-users who have already turned their back on the platform ecosystem.
Complementors and end-users are not necessarily individuals. Especially in the case of business-to-
business platform ecosystems, complementary products are created by and sold to companies. Instead
of a large crowd of developers, the platform owner has to govern a group of partner companies. Some
of them might be strategic partners that enhance the platform ecosystems value for customers signifi-
cantly. With regard to the customer companies, a platform needs to provide firm-specific solutions that
are still based on the same technological platform, a challenge that for example all ERP system pro-
viders are facing at the moment. Based on research on interfirm networks, the role of relationships and
strategic partnerships could be a worthwhile area for future research.
4.3 Data as Boundary Resource in Platform Ecosystems
In our analysis of existing literature, we identified the concept of boundary resources as one of the
most important governance mechanisms. At the same time, Gawer (2014) depicts the importance of
data as boundary resource. However, no article explicitly analyses the role of data as boundary re-
source in platform ecosystems. In practice, many of today’s platform ecosystems are fuelled by data.
For example, Google and Facebook use the aggregated user data to sell personalized advertisements,
attract developers by providing selected data streams via API (Gawer, 2014) and build additional ser-
vices such as Google’s real-time traffic information service based on movement data of Android users
(Barth, 2009). As data is usually provided via APIs, it is also worthwhile to analyse how these inter-
faces define standards for data exchange and how these standards change over time. This might affect
the optimal design and governance of platform ecosystems.
Data that is aggregated in a platform ecosystem can even be a threat. Developers can use the data ag-
gregated by their own apps to strengthen its competitive position vis-à-vis the platform owner. For
example, fitbit, a seller of fitness trackers, uses the data aggregated by its iOS and Android apps to
establish its own ecosystem based on wearables – perhaps one reason why Apple and Google push
their own fitness and health ecosystems Apple Health and Google Fit (Pressman, 2015). The way the
data flow is handled in platform ecosystems is therefore an important aspect of platform governance,
largely neglected in existing literature.
First publications have touched the topic of data in platform ecosystems in the context of open data
(Ponte, 2015), wearables (Sun, Lou, Li, & Wang, 2015), and inter-organizational collaborations (van
den Broek & Veenstra, 2015) but did not explicitly consider its role as boundary resource. A first step
would be to evaluate how data is used to govern platform ecosystems in practice and to generalize the
findings. This will enhance research on governance of platform ecosystems and address a topic that is
highly relevant in practice.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we summarized recent literature on platform ecosystems and derived open issues for fur-
ther research based on the results. We analysed the methodology applied by the studies in our review,
determined different perspectives research takes on platform ecosystems and condensed the key con-
cepts of design and governance of platform ecosystems. In doing so, we identified three major issues
for further research. First, we suggest to integrate the market- and technology-oriented perspective
when discussing phenomena on platform ecosystems. This is in particular relevant for design and gov-
ernance concepts such as boundary resources or openness that are implemented technically but impact
the market-related processes on the platform. Second, we think that future research needs to integrate
complementors and end-users into the analysis in addition to the platform owner. An individual level
of analysis would further contribute to our understanding as each contributor and end-user is different.
Third, we recommend to study data as boundary resource in more detail. Data has been mentioned in
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 13
several contributions as boundary resource fuelling platform ecosystems and is highly relevant in prac-
tice.
By reviewing existing literature and deriving issues for future research, our study contributes to IS
governance literature in several ways. First, we provide a holistic overview on research related to the
design and governance of platform ecosystems. The overview integrates contributions that were previ-
ously not related due to a heterogeneous understanding of platforms and platform ecosystems. There-
by, we provide a unified foundation for future research on design and governance of platform ecosys-
tems. Second, we summarize concepts related to the design and governance of platform ecosystems
across all studies. In doing so, we identify the key challenges relevant for all platform ecosystems and
reference the current state of research regarding these challenges. Third, we derive specific issues for
future research that are rooted in existing research but show how our understanding of platform eco-
systems and their governance can be enhanced. Finally, our study is relevant for practice by laying out
which concepts practitioners need to consider when designing and governing a platform ecosystem.
Currently, digital platforms spring up like mushrooms while others are withering and practitioners try
to figure out how to bring them to success. The issues we identified will provide useful in practice and
will further advance the applicability of the scientific findings on platform ecosystems.
The results of our study underlie several limitations. First, the literature search might not cover all rel-
evant studies due to the choice of outlets and keywords. For example, alternative terms for the concept
of platform ecosystems such as software ecosystem, partnership network, etc. might yield additional
relevant articles. Second, the coding process we conducted simplifies the results of the studies to make
them comparable. Similar concepts were merged to superordinate concepts, as summarized in Table 5
in the appendix. In the course of this process, some insights might have been lost and are not repre-
sented in our results. A greater level of detail within studies that focus on specific concepts might gen-
erate additional insights. Third, our twofold perspective on platforms in IS, market- and technology-
oriented needs to be concretized with further cases from practice. While the perspectives are based on
existing literature on platforms, we could not clarify all communalities and differences between the
perspectives within the scope of this review. Fourth, the issues for future research that we derived
from our results may be influenced by the authors perspective and the topic. Further open issues might
therefore exist and can be discovered by future work.
Acknowledgment
We thank the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy for funding this research as
part of the project 01MD15001D (ExCELL).
Appendix
Omitted concept
Comment
Business model
merged with competitive strategy
Features and functionalities
merged with technical design
Information and transparency
merged with boundary resources
Decision rights
merged with roles
Resolve conflicts
merged with roles
Network effects
merged with pricing and revenue sharing
Data
merged with boundary resources
Table 5. Omitted coding constructs of governance and design of platform ecosystems.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 14
References
(*included in literature analysis)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Anderson, E. G., Parker, G. G., & Tan, B. (2014). Platform performance investment in the presence
of network externalities. Information Systems Research, 25(1), 152-172.
Andersson, M., Hjalmarsson, A., & Avital, M. (2013). Peer-to-Peer Service Sharing Platforms:
Driving Share and Share Alike on a Mass-Scale. Thirty Fourth International Conference on
Information Systems, Milan.
Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in Two-Sided Markets. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 1-
32.
Armstrong, M., & Wright, J. (2007). Two-sided markets, competitive bottlenecks and exclusive
contracts. Economic Theory, 32, 353-380.
Arnold, Y., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2003). CoPEP : A Development Process Model for
Community Platforms for Cancer Patients. Community Platform Engineering Process (CoPEP).
Avgerou, C., & Li, B. (2013). Relational and institutional embeddedness of web-enabled
entrepreneurial networks: Case studies of netrepreneurs in China. Information Systems Journal,
23(4), 329-350.
Bakos, Y. (1998). The emerging role of electronic marketplaces on the Internet. Communications of
the ACM, 41(8), 35-42.
Bakos, Y., & Katsamakas, E. (2008). Design and Ownership of Two-Sided Networks: Implications
for Internet Platforms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(2), 171-202.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, C. J. (2008). The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View. Working
Papers - Harvard Business School Division of Research, 1-3.
Barth, D. (2009). The bright side of sitting in traffic: Crowdsourcing road congestion data. Google
Official Blog. Retrieved from http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2009/08/bright-side-of-sitting-in-
traffic.html. (visited on September 5, 2015).
Basole, R. C. (2009). Structural Analysis and Visualization of Ecosystems: A Study of Mobile Device
Platforms. Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, California.
Basole, R. C., & Karla, J. (2011). Entwicklung von Mobile-Platform-Ecosystem-Strukturen und -
strategien. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 53, 301-311.
Benlian, A., Hilkert, D., & Hess, T. (2015). How open is this platform? The meaning and
measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective. Journal of Information
Technology, 30, 209–228.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Howcroft, D. (2014). Persistent problems and practices in information
systems development: a study of mobile applications development and distribution. Information
Systems Journal, 24(5), 425-444.
Best Global Brands. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.bestglobalbrands.com. (visited on
September 5, 2015).
Bianco, V. D., Myllarniemi, V., Komssi, M., & Raatikainen, M. (2014). The role of platform
boundary resources in software ecosystems: A case study. IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software
Architecture.
Bock, G.-W., Ahuja, M. K., Suh, A., & Yap, L. X. (2015). Sustainability of a Virtual Community:
Integrating Individual and Structural Dynamics. Journal of the Association for Information,
16(6), 418-447.
Boudreau, K. J. (2010). Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving
Control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849-1872.
Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An earlier look at large numbers of software
'apps' developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409-1427.
Boudreau, K. J., & Hagiu, A. (2008). Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators. Working
Papers - Harvard Business School Division of Research, 1-29.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 15
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Bresnahan, T. F., & Greenstein, S. (1999). Technological competition and the structure of the
computer industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 47(1), 1-40.
Brousseau, E., & Penard, T. (2007). The Economics of Digital Business Models: A Framework for
Analyzing the Economics of Platforms. Review of Network Economics, 6(2), 81-114.
Bullinger, A., Rass, M., & Moeslein, K. (2012). Towards Open Innovation in Health Care. 20th
European Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona.
Butler, B. S., Bateman, P. J., & Gray, P. H. (2014). An Attraction-Selection-Attrition Theory of
Online Community Size and Resilience. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 699-728.
Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003). Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service
Providers. The RAND Journal of Economics, 34, 309-328.
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012). Cocreation of Value in a Platform
Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 263-290.
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2014). Digital platforms. Communications of
the ACM, 57(2), 38-39. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2556647.2556940
Cenamor, J., Usero, B., & Fernández, Z. (2013). The role of complementary products on platform
adoption: Evidence from the video console market. Technovation, 33(12), 405-416.
Claussen, J., Kretschmer, T., & Mayrhofer, P. (2013). The Effects of Rewarding User Engagement:
The Case of Facebook Apps. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 186-200.
Constantinides, P., & Barrett, M. (2015). Information Infrastructure Development and Governance as
Collective Action. Information Systems Research, 26(1), 40-56.
Cowen, T., & Gawer, A. (2012). Competition in the Cloud: Unleashing investment and innovation
within and across platforms. Communications & Strategies, 85(1), 45-62.
Cusumano, M. (2010). Technology strategy and management - The evolution of platform thinking.
Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 32-32.
Cusumano, M., & Gawer, A. (2002). The elements of platform leadership. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 31(1), 51-59.
David, J., & Mann, A. (2007). The Emergence of On-Demand Software Aggregators: Implications
for Developers, Customers, and Software Companies. Thirteenth Americas Conference on
Information Systems, Keystone, CO, USA.
Dibia, V., & Wagner, C. (2015). Success Within App Distribution Platforms: the Contribution of App
Diversity and App Cohesivity. 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Dillet, R. (2015). Amazon Underground Features An Android App Store Focused On “Actually
Free” Apps. TechCrunch. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/26/amazon-
underground-is-an-android-app-store-with-only-actually-free-apps/. (visited on September 5,
2015).
Eaton, B. D. (2012). The Dynamics of Digital Platform Innovation: Unfolding the Paradox of
Control and Generativity in Apple ' s iOS. (Dissertation), London School of Economics.
Eaton, B. D. (2015). Distributed Tuning of Boundary Resources: the Case of Apple’s iOS Service
System. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 217-243.
Economides, N., & Katsamakas, E. (2006). Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source
Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry. Management Science,
52(7), 1057-1071.
Economides, N., & Tåg, J. (2012). Network neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis.
Information Economics and Policy, 24(2), 91-104.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research.
Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.
Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2006). Strategies for Two-Sided Markets.
Harvard Business Review.
Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2008). Opening Platforms: How, When and Why?
Working Papers -- Harvard Business School Division of Research, 1-27.
Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). Platform envelopment. Strategic
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 16
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Management Journal, 32(12), 1270-1285.
Eurich, M., Giessmann, A., Mettler, T., & Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. (2011). Revenue Streams of
Cloud-based Platforms:Current State and Future Directions. Seventeenth Americas Conference
on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan.
Evans, D. S. (2003). The antitrust economics of two-sided markets. SSRN.
Evans, D. S. (2012). Governing Bad Behavior by Users of Multi-sided Platforms. Berkeley
Technology Law Journal, 2(27), 41-46.
Evans, D. S., Hagiu, A., & Schmalensee, R. (2006). Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms
Drive Innovation and Transform Industries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2010). Failure to Launch: Critical Mass in Platform Businesses.
Review of Network Economics, 9(4).
Fichman, R. G. (2004). Real options and IT platform adoption: Implications for theory and practice.
Information Systems Research, 15(2), 132-154.
Gannamaneni, A., Ondrus, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). A Post-failure Analysis of Mobile Payment
Platforms. 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Gawer, A. (2009a). Platforms, Markets and Innovation: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Gawer, A. (2009b). Platforms, markets and innovation: An introduction. In A. Gawer (Ed.),
Platforms, markets and innovation (pp. 1-16).
Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative
framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239-1249.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2013). Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417-433.
Gawer, A., & Henderson, R. (2007). Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary
markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16(1), 1-34.
Ghazawneh, A., & Henfridsson, O. (2011). Micro-strategizing in platform ecosystems: a multiple
case study. Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai.
Ghazawneh, A., & Henfridsson, O. (2013). Balancing platform control and external contribution in
third-party development: The boundary resources model. Information Systems Journal, 23, 173-
192.
Giessmann, A., Kyas, P., Tyrväinen, P., & Stanoevska, K. (2014). Towards a better Understanding
of the Dynamics of Platform as a Service Business Models. 47th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences.
Giessmann, A., & Stanoevska, K. (2012). Platform as a Service - A Conjoint Study on Consumers'
Preferences. Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando.
Gnyawali, D. R., Fan, W., & Penner, J. (2010). Competitive actions and dynamics in the digital age:
An empirical investigation of social networking firms. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 594-
613.
Goldbach, T., & Benlian, A. (2014). Mobile Application Quality and Platform Stickiness under
Formal vs . Self-Control - Evidence from an Experimental Study. Thirty Fifth International
Conference on Information Systems, Auckland.
Goldbach, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). How Informal Control Modes affect Developers' Trust in a
Platform Vendor and Platform Stickiness a Platform Vendor and Platform Stickiness. Twelfth
International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Osnabrück.
Goldbach, T., & Kemper, V. (2014). Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Effects of Control
Mechanisms on App Develpers' Intention to Stick with a Platform. Twenty Second European
Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv.
Grover, V., & Kohli, R. (2012). Cocreating IT Value: New Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm
Environments. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 225-232.
Hackney, R., Burn, J., & Salazar, A. (2004). Strategies for value creation in electronic markets:
Towards a framework for managing evolutionary change. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 13(2), 91-103.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 17
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Hagiu, A. (2014). Strategic Decisions for Multisided Platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review,
55(2), 71-80.
Hahn, C., Röher, D., & Zarnekow, R. (2015). A value proposition oriented typology of electronic
marketplaces for B2B SaaS applications. Twentieth Americas Conference on Information
Systems, Puerto Rico.
Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., & Krcmar, H. (2016). Multiple-Case Analysis on Governance
Mechanisms of Multi-Sided Platforms. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, Ilmenau.
Henningsson, S., & Hedman, J. (2014). Transformation of digital ecosystems: The case of digital
payments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 8407 LNCS, 46-55.
Homscheid, D., Kilian, T., & Schaarschmidt, M. (2015). Offen versus geschlossen - Welchen
Zusammenhang gibt es zwischen Apple iOS- und Android-App-Entwicklern? Twelfth
International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Osnabrück.
Huntgeburth, J., Blaschke, M., & Hauff, S. (2015). Exploring Value Co-Creation in Cloud
Ecosystems - A Revelatory Case Study. Twenty Third European Conference on Information
Systems, Münster.
Hurni, T., & Huber, T. (2014). The Interplay of Power and Trust in Platform Ecosystems of the
Enterprise Application Software Industry. Twenty Second European Conference on Information
Systems, Tel Aviv.
Jurisch, M. C., Wolf, P., & Krcmar, H. (2013). Using the Case Survey Method for Synthesizing Case
Study Evidence in Information Systems Research. Nineteenth Americas Conference on
Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois.
Kazan, E., & Damsgaard, J. (2014). An Investigation of Digital Payment Platform Designs : a
Comparative Study of Four Designs: A Comparative Study of Four European Solutions. Twenty
Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv.
Koch, H., & Schultze, U. (2011). Stuck in the Conflicted Middle: A Role-Theoretic Perspective on
B2B E-Marketplaces. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 123-146.
Koh, T. K., & Fichman, M. (2012). Multihoming Users' Preferences for Two-Sided Exchange
Networks. MIS Quarterly, 2(3), 977-996.
Kude, T., Dibbern, J., & Heinzl, A. (2012). Why do complementors participate an analysis of
partnership networks in the enterprise software industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 59(2), 250-265.
Kuebel, H., & Hanner, N. (2015). An Expert View on the Role of Complementary Assets for the
Adoption of Smart Home Platforms. Nineteenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems,
Singapore.
Kuk, G., & Janssen, M. (2013). Assembling infrastructures and business models for service design
and innovation. Information Systems Journal, 23(5), 445-469.
Lacity, M. C., Khan, S., Yan, A., & Willcocks, L. P. (2010). A review of the IT outsourcing
empirical literature and future research directions. Journal of Information Technology, 25(4),
395-433. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.21
Lin, M., Li, S., & Whinston, A. B. (2011). Innovation and Price Competition in a Two-Sided Market.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(2), 171-202.
Lindgren, R., Eriksson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). Managing identity tensions during mobile
ecosystem evolution. Journal of Information Technology, 1-16.
Liu, C. Z., Au, Y. A., & Choi, H. S. (2014). Effects of Freemium Strategy in the Mobile App
Market: An Empirical Study of Google Play. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(3),
326–354.
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective.
MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155-175.
Manner, J. (2014). Steuerung plattformbasierter Servicemarktplätze. (Dissertation), Technische
Universität München.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 18
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Manner, J., Nienaber, D., & Schermann, M. (2013). Six Principles for Governing Mobile Platforms.
11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Mantena, R., & Saha, R. L. (2012). Co-opetition Between Differentiated Platforms in Two-Sided
Markets. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(2), 109-140.
Markus, M. L., & Loebbecke, C. (2013). Commoditized Digital Processes and Business Community
Platforms: New Opportunities and Challenges for Digital Business Strategies. MIS Quarterly,
37(2), 649-653.
Messerschmitt, D. G., & Szyperski, C. (2003). Software Ecosystem: Understanding an Indispensable
Technology and Industry (Vol. 1).
Ondrus, J., Gannamaneni, A., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). The impact of openness on the market
potential of multi-sided platforms: a case study of mobile payment platforms. Journal of
Information Technology, 30(3), 260-275.
Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2005). Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information
Product Design. Management Science, 51(10), 1494-1504.
Ponte, D. (2015). Enabling an Open Data Ecosystem. Twenty-Third European Conference on
Information Systems, Münster.
Porch, C., Timbrell, G., & Rosemann, M. (2015). Platforms: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Using Algorithmic Historiography. Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Systems,
Münster.
Pressman, A. (2015). How Fitbit's outsmarting Apple, at least so far. Retrieved from
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-fitbit-s-outsmarting-apple--at-least-so-far-163052237.html.
(visited on March 19, 2016).
Qiu, Y. (2013). Institutional logics, indie software developers and platform governance.
(Dissertation), R.H.Smith School of Business.
Qiu, Y., Hann, I.-H., & Gopal, A. (2013). From invisible hand to visible hand: platform governance
and institutional logic of Mac indies. Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information
Systems, Milan.
Rafiq, A., Ågerfalkm, P. J., & Sjöström, J. (2013). Boundary resources dependency in third-party
development from the developer's perspective. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 197-211.
Rai, A., & Tang, X. (2014). Coevolution Perspective for Future Research Information Technology-
Enabled Business Models : A Conceptual Framework and a Coevolution Perspective for Future
Research. Information Systems Research, 25(1), 1-14.
Rickmann, T., Wenzel, S., & Fischbach, K. (2014). Software Ecosystem Orchestration: The
Perspective of Complementors. Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems,
Savannah.
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Two-Sided Markets. European Economic Association, 1(4), 990-
1029.
Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2000). Research Commentary: The Organizing Logic for an
Enterprise's IT Activities in the Digital Era - A Prognosis of Practice and a Call for Research.
Information Systems Research, 11(2), 105-114.
Schermann, M., Wiesche, M., & Krcmar, H. (2012). The Role of Information Systems in Supporting
Exploitative and Exploratory Management Control Activities. Journal of Management
Accounting Research, 24, 31–59.
Schilling, A., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2011). Is the Source Strong With You? A Fit Perspective to
Predict Sustained Participation of FLOSS Developers. Thirty Second International Conference on
Information Systems, Shanghai.
Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., & Svahn, F. (2010). Transforming Ecosystem Relationships in Digital
Innovation. Thirty First International Conference on Information Systems, St. Louis.
Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., & Svahn, F. (2013). Capability search and redeem across digital
ecosystems. Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 183-197.
Shaw, D. R., & Holland, C. P. (2010). Strategy, networks and systems in the global translation
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 19
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
services market. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(4), 242-256.
Smedlund, A., & Faghankhani, H. (2015). Platform Orchestration for Efficiency, Development and
Innovation. Forty Eighth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Something to stand on. (2014). The Economist. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593583-proliferating-digital-platforms-will-be-
heart-tomorrows-economy-and-even. (visited on January 18, 2016).
Song, J. (2013). Mobile Application Development Platform Adoption: A Grounded Theory
Investigation. Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois.
Spagnoletti, P., Resca, A., & Lee, G. (2015). A Design Theory for Digital Platforms Supporting
Online Communities. Journal of Information Technology, 1-17.
SpotRocket - Quantitative rankings of the world's hottest startups. (2015). Retrieved from
http://spotrocket.co/. (visited on September 5, 2015).
Staykova, K., & Damsgaard, J. (2015). A Typology of Multi-sided Platforms: The Core and the
Periphery. Twenty Third European Conference on Information Systems, Münster.
Suarez, F., & Cusumano, M. A. (2009). The Role of Services in Platform Markets. In A. Gawer
(Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation.
Sun, X., Lou, Y., Li, T., & Wang, Q. (2015). Designing Wearable Device-Based Product and Service
Ecosystem. In P. L. P. Rau (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design Methods, Practice and Impact (Vol.
9180, pp. 108-115).
Tan, B., Pan, S., Lu, X., & Huang, L. (2015). The Role of IS Capabilities in the Development of
Multi-Sided Platforms: The Digital Ecosystem Strategy of Alibaba.com. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 16(4), 248-280.
Thomas, D. W. L., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. (2014). Architectural leverage: putting platforms in
context. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198-219.
Tiwana, A. (2014). Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Tiwana, A. (2015). Evolutionary Competition in Platform Ecosystems. Information Systems
Research, 18(1), 7047-7047.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform
architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4),
675-687.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Special Issue: Information Technology and
Organizational Governance: The IT Governance Cube. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 30(3), 7-12.
van den Broek, T., & Veenstra, A. F. v. (2015). Modes of Governance in Inter-Organizational Data
Collaborations. Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Systems, Münster.
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009).
Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search
Process. Seventeenth European Conference on Information Systems, Verona.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2015). Technology Ecosystem Governance.
Organization Science, 25(4).
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13-23.
Weyl, E. G. (2010). A price theory of multi-sided platforms. American Economic Review, 100(4),
1642-1672.
Wiesche, M., Berwing, C., Schermann, M., & Krcmar, H. (2011). Patterns for Understanding
Control Requirements for Information Systems for Governance, Risk Management, and
Compliance (GRC IS). CAiSE, London, UK.
Wiesche, M., Schermann, M., & Krcmar, H. (2011). Understanding the Role of Information
Technology for Organizational Control Design: Risk Control as New Control Mechanism.
International Federation for Information Processing.
Schreieck et al. /Governance of Platform Ecosystems
Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey, 2016 20
*
*
Yaraghi, N., Du, A. Y., Sharman, R., Gopal, R. D., & Ramesh, R. (2015). Health Information
Exchange as a Multisided Platform: Adoption, Usage, and Practice Involvement in Service Co-
Production. Information Systems Research, Advance online publication.
Zhong, J., & Nieminen, M. (2015). Resource-based co-innovation through platform ecosystem:
experiences of mobile. Journal of Strategy and Management, 8(3), 283-298.
