The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations: Implications for platform strategies
Open accessAbstract
Research summary: Platform ecosystems have spurred new products and services, sparked innovation, and improved economic efficiency in various industries and technology sectors. A distinctive feature of the platform architecture is its modular and interdependent system of core and complementary components bound together by design rules and an overarching value proposition. Accordingly, we conceptualize platforms as meta‐organizations, or “organizations of organizations” that are less formal and less hierarchical structures than firms, and yet more closely coupled than traditional markets. To function successfully, however, platforms require coordination among multiple participants not all of whose interests are aligned. These organizational features of platforms raise many interesting and complex strategic challenges and hold implications for how platforms compete. In this paper, we discuss some of the most salient features of platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations, specifically in terms of the sources of authority or power in the ecosystem, the motivation and incentives a platform creates to attract participants, and its governance and coordination structures. We then consider how papers appearing in this special issue inform us about the effects of these features on platform competition along three distinct dimensions: (a) with traditional incumbents as platforms enter and establish themselves in new markets, (b) with other platforms to secure an advantageous market position, and (c) with the different participants on the platform to share the value that has been created jointly. We close by identifying some promising directions for future research. Managerial summary: Platform ecosystems have spurred new products and services, sparked innovation, and improved economic efficiency in various industries and technology sectors. A distinctive feature of the platform architecture is its modular and interdependent system of core and complementary components bound together by design rules and an overarching value proposition. This makes platform ecosystems an organizational form on its own (a “meta‐organization”), neither possessing the hierarchical instruments of a firm, nor the largely uncoordinated decisionmaking of markets. Successful platform ecosystems require coordination among multiple participants with possibly conflicting interests. We discuss some of the most salient features of platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations, specifically in terms of the sources of authority or power in the ecosystem, the motivation and incentives a platform creates to attract participants, and its governance and coordination structures. These features affect how platform ecosystems compete: i) with a traditional incumbent, ii) with other platform ecosystems, and iii) between different participants of the same platform ecosystem. The articles published in this special issue speak to different aspects of platform competition from the perspective of organization design.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Towards a theory of ecosystems
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2904 · Cited by 3,724
Design Rules: The Power of Modularity
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001 · Cited by 3,504
Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy
Adner, R. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316678451 · Cited by 2,600
Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework
Gawer, A. (2014) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006 · Cited by 1,869
Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers
Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1593720 · Cited by 1,799
Ghazawneh, A., & Henfridsson, O. (2013) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00406.x · Cited by 854
How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems
Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2750 · Cited by 692
Boudreau, K. J. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0678 · Cited by 676
Schilling, M. A. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069353 · Cited by 663
Self-citationPlatform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements
Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2018) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0779 · Cited by 273
Self-citation
Cited by
Digital transformation: A review and research agenda
Plekhanov, D., Franke, H., & Netland, T. H. (2023) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.007 · Cited by 606
Volberda, H. W., Khanagha, S., Baden-Fuller, C., Mihalache, O. R., & Birkinshaw, J. (2021) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102110 · Cited by 477
Chen, L., Tong, T. W., Tang, S., & Han, N. (2022) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063211045023 · Cited by 345
Renewing the resource‐based view: New contexts, new concepts, and new methods
Helfat, C. E., Kaul, A., Ketchen, D. J., Barney, J. B., Chatain, O., & Singh, H. (2023) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3500 · Cited by 319
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2024) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104906 · Cited by 220
Metadata
- Authors
- Kretschmer, T., Leiponen, A., Schilling, M., & Vasudeva, G.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-11-15
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 405-424
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W3097673076
- Cited by
- 670
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 55.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations: Implications for platform strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.3250
- The paper
- Kretschmer, T., Leiponen, A., Schilling, M., & Vasudeva, G. (2022). Platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3250
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.