IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v28y2017i3p563-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governance Practices in Platform Ecosystems: Navigating Tensions Between Cocreated Value and Governance Costs

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas L. Huber

    (University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland)

  • Thomas Kude

    (ESSEC Business School, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise, France)

  • Jens Dibbern

    (University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland)

Abstract

Based on an exploratory multiple-case study in two platform ecosystems, we develop a process theory that explains how and why different ways of practicing ecosystem-wide governance are more or less successful in navigating the tension between cocreated value and governance costs. Our process theory shows that how ecosystem-wide rules and values are practiced considerably varies and changes over time. Initially, governance practices follow ecosystem-wide rules; if and how practices shift toward going beyond the rules hinges on specific necessary conditions. Irrespective of which governance route is taken, the tension between cocreated value and governance costs is more successfully addressed if practices are sensitive to ecosystem-wide values.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas L. Huber & Thomas Kude & Jens Dibbern, 2017. "Governance Practices in Platform Ecosystems: Navigating Tensions Between Cocreated Value and Governance Costs," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 563-584, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:28:y:2017:i:3:p:563-584
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2017.0701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0701
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2017.0701?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Wareham & Paul B. Fox & Josep Lluís Cano Giner, 2014. "Technology Ecosystem Governance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1195-1215, August.
    2. Amrit Tiwana & Benn Konsynski & Ashley A. Bush, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 675-687, December.
    3. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2006. "The Architecture of Participation: Does Code Architecture Mitigate Free Riding in the Open Source Development Model?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1116-1127, July.
    4. M. Lynne Markus & Daniel Robey, 1988. "Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 583-598, May.
    5. Nicholas Berente & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo & John Leslie King, 2016. "Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA’s Enterprise Information System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 551-572, June.
    6. Deborah Dougherty & Danielle D. Dunne, 2011. "Organizing Ecologies of Complex Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1214-1223, October.
    7. Geoffrey G. Parker & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, 2005. "Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1494-1504, October.
    8. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    9. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, April.
    10. Prashant Kale & Harbir Singh & Howard Perlmutter, 2000. "Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 217-237, March.
    11. Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer & Bill McEvily, 2003. "Free to Be Trusted? Organizational Constraints on Trust in Boundary Spanners," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 422-439, August.
    12. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam & Michael Tushman, 2012. "Meta‐organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 571-586, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brunswicker, Sabine & Schecter, Aaron, 2019. "Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    2. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    3. Panos Constantinides & Ola Henfridsson & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2018. "Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 381-400, June.
    4. Kimmo Karhu & Robin Gustafsson & Kalle Lyytinen, 2018. "Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 479-497, June.
    5. Jan Frederic Nerbel & Markus Kreutzer, 2023. "Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Hou, Hong & Shi, Yongjiang, 2021. "Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. Brice Dattée & Oliver Alexy & Erkko Autio, 2018. "Maneuvering in Poor Visibility : How Firms Play the Ecosystem Game when Uncertainty is High," Post-Print hal-02276702, HAL.
    8. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    9. Thomas, Llewellyn D.W. & Autio, Erkko & Gann, David M., 2022. "Processes of ecosystem emergence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Ramya K. Murthy & Anoop Madhok, 2021. "Overcoming the Early‐stage Conundrum of Digital Platform Ecosystem Emergence: A Problem‐Solving Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1899-1932, November.
    11. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    12. Liu, He & Li, Xuerong & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of platform research: Developing the research agenda for platforms, the associated technologies and social impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    13. Milan Miric & Hakan Ozalp & Erdem Dogukan Yilmaz, 2023. "Trade‐offs to using standardized tools: Innovation enablers or creativity constraints?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 909-942, April.
    14. Carmelo Cennamo & Hakan Ozalp & Tobias Kretschmer, 2018. "Platform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 461-478, June.
    15. Amrit Tiwana, 2015. "Evolutionary Competition in Platform Ecosystems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 266-281, June.
    16. de Reuver, Mark & Sørensen, Carsten & Basole, Rahul C., 2018. "The digital platform: a research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80669, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & David P. McIntyre & Arati Srinivasan, 2017. "Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 141-160, January.
    18. Koo, Wesley W., 2024. "Hybrid governance of platform entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    19. Tavalaei, M. Mahdi, 2020. "Waiting time in two-sided platforms: The case of the airport industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    20. Carmelo Cennamo & Juan Santaló, 2019. "Generativity Tension and Value Creation in Platform Ecosystems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 617-641, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:28:y:2017:i:3:p:563-584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.