Cited by 1,869Digital Platforms and EconomicsInnovation and Knowledge ManagementProduct Development and Customization

Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework

Open access
Gawer, Annabelle·2014·Research Policy

Abstract

An integrative framework is proposed to advance management research on technological platforms, bridging two theoretical perspectives: economics, which sees platforms as double-sided markets, and engineering design, which sees platforms as technological architectures. While the economic perspective informs our understanding of platform competition, the engineering design perspective informs our view of platform innovation. The article argues that platforms can be usefully conceptualized as evolving organizations or meta-organizations that: (1) federate and coordinate constitutive agents who can innovate and compete; (2) create value by generating and harnessing economies of scope in supply or/and in demand; and (3) entail a modular technological architecture composed of a core and a periphery. In support of this conceptualization, a classification system is presented, indicating that technological platforms appear in a variety of organizational forms: within firms, across supply chains, and across industry innovation ecosystems. As an illustration, the framework is then applied to derive a simple model highlighting patterns of interaction between platform innovation and competition, yielding hypotheses that could be tested empirically by future scholars.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because of their central role in encouraging project development, platforms are often thought to foster an ecosystem under the sponsorship of a platform leader which develops and provides specific functionality to smaller projects.

    “Because of their central role in encouraging project development, they are often thought to foster an ecosystem under the sponsorship of a platform leader which develops and provides specific functionality to smaller projects (Gawer, 2014).”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Gawer, 2014

    The Introduction and §5.2 describe platform leaders as orchestrating and nurturing innovation ecosystems. Section 4.1 says firms develop and share APIs that let independent developers use platform services in their own complementary innovations. The paper does not characterize those innovations as “smaller projects,” so that qualification is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Content creators face a 'winner-take-all' situation.

    “It also shows that content creators face a ‘winner-take-all’ situation (Cennamo and Santalo 2013, p. 1331; Gawer 2014, p. 1241).”

    From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Gawer 2014

    Section 2.1 says strong network effects can, under certain conditions, produce a ‘winner-take-all’ outcome in competition between platforms. It does not extend that outcome to content creators; its video-game example instead describes developers being drawn to a platform with more users. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The service innovation and platform/network effects literatures lack a vocabulary and coherent framework for use recombination and its relation to value creation and capture in digital innovation.

    “Even in the service innovation literature (Barrett et al. 2015;Lusch and Nambisan 2015), where value-in-use is emphasized, and in the platform and network effects literature (Gawer 2014;Parker et al. 2016), where demand and user adoption are important, there is a lack of a vocabulary and coherent framework for dealing with use recombination and how it relates to value creation and capture in digit”

    From Recombination in the open-ended value landscape of digital innovation (2018) · cites this paper as Gawer 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ahuja, G., 2000. The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal 21 (3), 317-343.
  2. Fisher, F., McGowan, J.J., Greenwood, J.E., 1983. Folded, Spindled and Mutilated: Economic Analysis and U.S. vs. IBM. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  3. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., 1995. Technological and organizational designs to achieve economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal 16, 93-110.
  4. Gawer, A., 2009c. Platforms dynamics and strategies: from products to services. In: Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass, pp. 45-76.
  5. Santos, F.M., Eisenhardt, K.M., 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of orga- nization. Organization Science 16 (5), 491-508.
  6. Sako, M., 2009. Outsourcing of tasks and outsourcing of assets: evidence from automotive suppliers parks in Brazil. In: Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass, pp. 251-272.
  7. Zaheer, A., Gulati, R., Nohria, N., 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal 21 (3), 203.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gawer, A.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Gawer, Annabelle
Venue
Research Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
43
Issue
7
Pages
1239-1249
ISSN
0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052419127
Cited by
1,869
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 184 · 2025: 181 · 2024: 193 · 2023: 213 · 2022: 223 · 2021: 274 · 2020: 197 · 2019: 137 · 2018: 115 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
153.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
EPSRC NEMODE Network+
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Product Development and Customization
Keywords
technology platforms, technical architecture, platform competition, platform innovation, meta-organizations, economies of scope, modular architecture, core-periphery, platform classification, supply chain platforms, innovation ecosystems, integrative framework

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