The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
A resource‐based view of the firm
Wernerfelt, B. (1984) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207 · Cited by 25,635 · cited 1×
“Given the entrality of economies of scope in theories of organizations (Teece, 980; Wernerfelt, 1984; Helfat and Eisenhardt, 2004), this comon underpinning provides the intuition that an organizational ens might be useful to develop a unifying framework for platforms. y organization I do not…”
BackgroundSocial Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness
Uzzi, B. (1997) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393808 · Cited by 9,853
(2003) · Cited by 9,368
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
(1938) · Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa) · Cited by 7,145
Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/154247603322493212 · Cited by 5,642
On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules
Parnas, D. L. (1972) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/361598.361623 · Cited by 4,838
The Architecture of Complexity
Simon, H. A. (1991) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9_31 · Cited by 4,479 · cited 2×
“…by breaking up a complex system into discrete components, which interact through standardized interfaces within a standardized architecture, one can eliminate what would otherwise be an unmanageable spaghetti tangle of systemic interconnections (Simon, 1962; Parnas, 1972; Langlois, 2002).”
BackgroundOpen Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology
Badawy, A. M. (2004) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2004.05.003 · Cited by 3,637
Design Rules: The Power of Modularity
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001 · Cited by 3,504
Flagged first, then by citations
6 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Baldwin, 2000, vol. 1
- Zaheer, 2000, Strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 203, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<203::AID-SMJ102>3.0.CO;2-K · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 999
Value (co-)creation in B2B sales ecosystems
Rusthollkarhu, S., Hautamäki, P., & Aarikka‐Stenroos, L. (2020) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-03-2020-0130 · Cited by 89
Inoue, Y. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120652 · Cited by 65
Review of the changing electricity industry value chain in the ICT convergence era
Park, C., & Heo, W. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120743 · Cited by 62
Digital Platform Ecosystems for Sustainable Innovation: Toward a New Meta-Organizational Model?
Calabrese, M., Sala, A. L., Fuller, R. P., & Laudando, A. (2021) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci11040119 · Cited by 79
“In essence, the platform sponsor establishes the degree of decision-making decentralization and assumes a function of direction and control of the digital platform ecosystem (Gawer and Cusumano 2002; Gawer 2011, 2014; Eisenmann et al. 2011; Cusumano et al. 2019).”
BackgroundWu, M., Liu, Y. D., Chung, H. F. L., & Guo, S. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.019 · Cited by 67
Karakara, A. A., & Osabuohien, E. S. C. (2020) · Journal of Enterprising Communities People and Places in the Global Economy · doi:10.1108/jec-03-2020-0022 · Cited by 63
Interconnected digital twins and the future of digital manufacturing: Insights from a Delphi study
Dyck, M. V., Lüttgens, D., Piller, F. T., & Brenk, S. (2023) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12685 · Cited by 71
Majchrzak, A., Griffith, T. L., Reetz, D. K., & Alexy, O. T. (2018) · Academy of Management Discoveries · doi:10.5465/amd.2017.0041 · Cited by 66
Collective action and provider classification in the sharing economy
Newlands, G., Lutz, C., & Fieseler, C. (2018) · New Technology Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12119 · Cited by 63
Electricity Market Empowered by Artificial Intelligence: A Platform Approach
Xu, Y., Ahokangas, P., Louis, J.-N., & Pongrácz, É. (2019) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en12214128 · Cited by 65
“The engineering/technological platform is seen as a digital platform with technological architectures that enable innovation [56,62,63].”
BackgroundAbdelkafi, N., Raasch, C., Roth, A., & Srinivasan, R. (2019) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-019-00385-4 · Cited by 63
“more interdependent user groups, by playing an intermediation or a matchmaking role (Gawer 2014; Evans and Schmalensee 2016).”
BackgroundTowards food platforms? An analysis of online food provisioning services in Italy
Oncini, F., Bozzini, E., Forno, F., & Magnani, N. (2020) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.06.004 · Cited by 63
Liu, H., Xue-rong, L., & Wang, S. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120827 · Cited by 63
A complexity management approach to servitization: the role of digital platforms
Eloranta, V., Ardolino, M., & Saccani, N. (2021) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-08-2020-0582 · Cited by 63
“Third, the meta-organizational approach has combined the previous two major approaches (Gawer, 2014).”
BackgroundResultDigital platforms for food waste reduction: The value for business users
Amaral, D. G., & Orsato, R. J. (2022) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3193 · Cited by 67
Feng, N., Fu, C., Wei, F., Peng, Z., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, K. H. (2019) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.11.002 · Cited by 65
The impact of digital logistics start-ups on incumbent firms: a business model perspective
Mikl, J., Herold, D. M., Ćwiklicki, M., & Kummer, S. (2020) · The International Journal of Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijlm-04-2020-0155 · Cited by 71
Моисеев, Н. А., Mikhaylov, A. Y., Dınçer, H., & Yüksel, S. (2023) · Financial Innovation · doi:10.1186/s40854-023-00461-x · Cited by 69
“This paper also develops ideas about the sustainability of shock effects (McDonagh and Prothero 2014) and the technological open innovation process in the USA based on value cocreation, which can be divided into several types (Iansiti and Levien 2004; Gawer 2014; Chang et al.”
BackgroundInternet of things (IoT) platform competition: Consumer switching versus provider multihoming
Basaure, A., Vesselkov, A., & Töyli, J. (2019) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102101 · Cited by 65
Brunswicker, S., Almirall, E., & Majchrzak, A. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13561 · Cited by 59
Personal Data Spaces: An Intervention in Surveillance Capitalism?
Lehtiniemi, T. (2017) · Surveillance & Society · doi:10.24908/ss.v15i5.6424 · Cited by 62
“From a theoretical stance, Gawer (2014) identifies two perspectives to platforms: from an engineering perspective, platforms are modular technological architectures, and from an economic perspective, they are intermediaries of multi-sided markets.”
BackgroundMobile Gaming Production Networks, Platform Business Groups, and the Market Power of China’s Tencent
Coe, N. M., & Yang, C. (2021) · Annals of the American Association of Geographers · doi:10.1080/24694452.2021.1933887 · Cited by 68
“The development of mobile apps as platform intermediaries has been extensively examined in the media studies (e.g., Nieborg and Helmond 2019) and technology literatures (e.g., Gawer 2014; Oh, Koh, and Raghunathan 2015).”
BackgroundHaki, K., Blaschke, M., Aier, S., Winter, R., & Tilson, D. (2022) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2022.2136542 · Cited by 67
“An innovation platform is a digital technology foundation (e.g., a cloud-based enterprise software platform), providing building blocks upon which partners can jointly develop new innovations that are loosely coupled to the platform (Cusumano et al., 2019; Gawer, 2014; Tiwana et al., 2010).”
BackgroundSystems of innovation and innovation ecosystems: a literature review in search of complementarities
Bassis, N. F., & Armellini, F. (2018) · Journal of Evolutionary Economics · doi:10.1007/s00191-018-0600-6 · Cited by 62
Enacting Social Crowdfunding Business Ecosystems: The case of the platform Meridonare
Presenza, A., Abbate, T., Césaroni, F., & Appio, F. P. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.03.001 · Cited by 60
Platform-based business model and entrepreneurs from Base of the Pyramid
Fu, X., Ghauri, P. N., Ogbonna, N., & Xing, X. (2022) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102451 · Cited by 59
Pujadas, R., Valderrama, E., & Venters, W. (2023) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104931 · Cited by 62
“The conceptualization of ICTs and digital technologies as modular architectures (Baldwin and Clark, 2006; Yoo et al., 2012) has informed digital innovation research, resulting in a dominant view that digital ecosystems are platform ecosystems (de Reuver et al., 2018; Gawer, 2014; Yoo et al., 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialFürstenau, D., Auschra, C., Klein, S. P., & Gersch, M. (2018) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-018-0323-4 · Cited by 64
“Platforms can be understood as evolving organizations or even meta-organizations (Gawer 2014).”
BackgroundLópez, D. B., & Gawer, A. (2014) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.005 · Cited by 58
“Beyond the literature on private collective models, literatures on technological platforms (Gawer & Cusumano 2002; Gawer & Henderson 2007; Gawer 2009, 2014; Boudreau 2010; Boudreau & Hagiu 2009; Eisenmann 2008; Eisenmann et al. 2011, Nambisan and Sawhney 2011;Tiwana et al. 2010), innovation…”
BackgroundSustainability as a Challenge and Driver for Novel Ecosystemic 6G Business Scenarios
Yrjölä, S., Ahokangas, P., & Matinmikko‐Blue, M. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12218951 · Cited by 58
“From the economics research perspective, connecting the demand and supply sides to enable sustainable growth and create new markets is crucial [12].”
BackgroundLin, Y., Chen, A., Yin, Y., Li, Q., Zhu, Q., & Luo, J. (2021) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108112 · Cited by 62
“organization in an interconnected world (Gawer, 2014).”
BackgroundUncovering value creation in innovation ecosystems: paths towards shared value
Arena, M., AZZONE, G. F., & Piantoni, G. (2021) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-06-2021-0289 · Cited by 60
Steps toward a digital ecology: ecological principles for the study of digital ecosystems
Márton, A. (2021) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1177/02683962211043222 · Cited by 68
“…for instance, conceptualizing the environment as a market of voluntary participants (e.g. Airbnb managing a market of hosts and guests) or as a periphery of innovators complementing a product-platform (e.g. Apple managing external app developers) (Eaton, Elaluf-Calderwood et al. 2015, Gawer 2014).”
BackgroundGovernance rigidity, industry evolution, and value capture in platform ecosystems
Uzunca, B., Sharapov, D., & Tee, R. (2022) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2022.104560 · Cited by 65
Designing Scalable Digital Business Models
Zhang, J. J., Lichtenstein, Y., & Gander, J. (2015) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s0742-332220150000033006 · Cited by 58
“Although both those types of economies of scale have been discussed before (e.g., Arthur, 1988; Shapiro & Varian, 1999; Gawer, 2014), framing them in terms of scalability provides insights into how digital businesses scale up.”
InfluentialBit by (Twitch) Bit: “Platform Capture” and the Evolution of Digital Platforms
Partin, W. C. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120933981 · Cited by 79
“As Annabelle Gawer (2014) has suggested, this kind of behavior poses a challenge to how some literature in business studies conceives of and analyzes multisided markets as simple intermediaries.”
BackgroundTaxonomy of Digital Platforms: A Business Model Perspective
Staub, N., Haki, K., Aier, S., & Winter, R. (2021) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.744 · Cited by 57
“Such platform organizations are conceptualized as follows: (a) they coordinate business actors that can both innovate and compete, (b) harness economies of scope in supply and/or demand and (c) consist of a modular technological architecture with a core and a periphery [10].”
BackgroundMethodCha, H., Kotabe, M. “., & Wu, J. (2022) · Management International Review · doi:10.1007/s11575-022-00494-x · Cited by 65
“Second, due to the demand-side economies of scale by the indirect network effect (Gawer, 2014), digital platform-based transactions tend to occur repeatedly in the large markets, as long as new and old transactional parties continue to join the ecosystem through digital platforms with the positive feedback loop of net…”
BackgroundAttour, A., & Lazaric, N. (2018) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-018-0035-3 · Cited by 57
“More generally, platform ecosystems are observable at three different levels of analysis and organizational settings: within firms, across supply-chains, and across industry ecosystems (Gawer 2014).”
BackgroundDo Ride-Sharing Services A ffect Traffi c Congestion? An Empirical Study of Uber EntryPreprint
Li, Z., Hong, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2838043 · Cited by 59
An evolutionary perspective on the dynamics of service platform ecosystems for the sharing economy
Xu, Y., Hazée, S., So, K. K. F., Li, K. D., & Malthouse, E. C. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.056 · Cited by 60
Wu, A., Song, D., & Liu, Y. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.016 · Cited by 60
Lafuente, E., Ács, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2022) · Journal of Small Business Management · doi:10.1080/00472778.2022.2100895 · Cited by 62
“Digital platforms (for example, Alphabet-Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft) are a “layered architecture of digital technology” (Yoo et al., 2010, p. 725) that facilitate communications, interactions between system participants, as well as the development of innovations that support economic and social act…”
BackgroundInfluentialFrom product to platform: How incumbents' assumptions and choices shape their platform strategy
Dyck, M. V., Lüttgens, D., Diener, K., Piller, F. T., & Pollok, P. (2023) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104904 · Cited by 66
van Zoonen, W., Sivunen, A. E., & Treem, J. W. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.108089 · Cited by 60
Platforms in Sub-Saharan Africa: startup models and the role of business incubation
David‐West, O., Umukoro, I. O., & Onuoha, R. O. (2018) · Journal of Intellectual Capital · doi:10.1108/jic-12-2016-0134 · Cited by 56
Wruk, D., Oberg, A., Klutt, J., & Maurer, I. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04209-5 · Cited by 59
Bottlenecks, Modules and Dynamic Architectural CapabilitiesPreprint
Baldwin, C. Y. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2512209 · Cited by 56
“In contrast, the IBM managers adopted what is now called an “open” platform strategy (Ferguson and Morris, 1993; Gawer and Cusumano, 2002; West, 2003; Boudreau, 2010; Baldwin and Woodard, 2011; Eisenmann, Parker and Van Allstyne, 2011; Gawer, 2014).”
BackgroundIn Waze We Trust: Algorithmic Governance of the Public Sphere
van der Graaf, S. (2018) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v6i4.1710 · Cited by 33
“Platforms thus tend to be understood as ‘platforms as markets’ or ‘platforms as modular technological architectures’ (Gawer, 2014).”
BackgroundAnthony, B., Petersen, S. A., Helfert, M., Ahlers, D., & Krogstie, J. (2021) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-07-2020-0511 · Cited by 60
Nwaiwu, F. (2021) · Energy Sustainability and Society · doi:10.1186/s13705-021-00325-1 · Cited by 71
Digital platforms: A literature review and policy implications for development
Rossotto, C. M., Prasanna, L. D., Ramos, E. G., Miranda, E. C., Badran, M. F., Licetti, M. M., & Murciego, G. M. (2018) · Competition and Regulation in Network Industries · doi:10.1177/1783591718809485 · Cited by 55
“A platform can be internal to a production process (enabling recombination of units within a firm), supply-chain-based (enabling clients–suppliers coordination), or multisided industry platform , where ‘‘a platform leader pools external capabilities from complementors’’ (Gawer, 2014).”
iIoT ecosystem development through boundary resources: a Siemens MindSphere case study
Petrik, D., & Herzwurm, G. (2019) · doi:10.1145/3340481.3342730 · Cited by 57
“The market for iIoT platforms also includes various platform providers [21], which provide open interfaces and grant access to third-party companies to develop enterprise platform-based applications [9].”
BackgroundResearch directions for sharing economy issues
Kauffman, R. J., & Naldi, M. (2020) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100973 · Cited by 59
“17 To gain an awareness of a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives on sharing economy platforms, see Gawer (2014).”
Das, A. K., & Dey, S. (2021) · Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · doi:10.1108/jmtm-04-2020-0161 · Cited by 58
Coordination in a Digital Platform Organization
Leong, C., Lin, S., Tan, F. T. C., & Yu, J. (2023) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2023.1226 · Cited by 70
Shaping Markets Through Temporal, Constructive, and Interactive Agency
Pontikes, E., & Rindova, V. (2020) · Strategy Science · doi:10.1287/stsc.2020.0110 · Cited by 53
“Ecosystems research provides ample evidence of changing schemas to change ecosystem structures (Hannah and Eisenhardt 2018) and of concerted strategies to bring alignment among varied and valuable—but not necessarily structured—complementarities (Gawer 2014, Adner 2017).”
BackgroundJohnson, M., Roehrich, J. K., Chakkol, M., & Davies, A. C. (2021) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-08-2020-0536 · Cited by 53
“Gawer (2014) argues that platforms can be usefully conceptualised as evolving organisations or metaorganisations that: (i) federate and coordinate constitutive agents who can innovate and compete; (ii) create value by generating and harnessing economies of scope in supply and / or in demand; and…”
BackgroundPietrulla, F. (2022) · Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy · doi:10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100031 · Cited by 67
Cozzolino, A., & Geiger, S. (2023) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104913 · Cited by 68
Kyprianou, C. (2018) · Academy of Management Discoveries · doi:10.5465/amd.2017.0081 · Cited by 54
den Hartigh, E., Ortt, R., van de Kaa, G., & Stolwijk, C. C. M. (2015) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2015.12.001 · Cited by 52
“We adhere to the platform framework as put forward by Gawer (2014) and Gawer and Cusumano (2014).”
BackgroundMethodThe Interface Affect of a Contact Zone: Danmaku on Video-Streaming Platforms
Li, J. (2017) · Asiascape Digital Asia · doi:10.1163/22142312-12340079 · Cited by 52
Hassel, A., & Sieker, F. (2022) · European Journal of Industrial Relations · doi:10.1177/09596801221082456 · Cited by 62
“Thus, indirect network effects, represented, for instance, by the number of sellers and customers on Amazon Marketplace, characterize a preference for variety (Gawer, 2014; Jacobides et al., 2018).”
BackgroundInfluentialBorner, K., Berends, H., Deken, F., & Feldberg, F. (2023) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104788 · Cited by 57
Hödl, T., & Myrach, T. (2023) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00808-9 · Cited by 51
“It also shows that content creators face a ‘winner-take-all’ situation (Cennamo and Santalo 2013, p. 1331; Gawer 2014, p. 1241).”
BackgroundGregori, P., Holzmann, P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2023) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3551 · Cited by 51
Ahokangas, P., Matinmikko‐Blue, M., Yrjölä, S., & Hämmäinen, H. (2021) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102128 · Cited by 51
“Generally, platforms have been considered to “ grow ” an ecosystem of complementors around them (Gawer, 2014), making these two concepts (platforms and ecosystems) intertwined.”
BackgroundJones, K., Mosca, L., Whyte, J. K., Davies, A. C., & Glass, J. (2021) · Construction Management and Economics · doi:10.1080/01446193.2021.1983187 · Cited by 50
“The digital warehouse is thus a form of internal platform (Gawer 2014), and a virtual manifestation of Lessing ’ s (2006) technical platform.”
Liu, Y., Wu, A., & Song, D. (2022) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2022.100954 · Cited by 54
Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., & Krcmar, H. (2022) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00764 · Cited by 57
The digital imperative: Institutional pressures to digitalise
Bennich, A. (2023) · Technology and Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102436 · Cited by 51
Wagner, G., Prester, J., & Paré, G. (2021) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2021.101694 · Cited by 58
Being a Deliveroo Rider: Practices of Platform Labor in Nijmegen and Berlin
Timko, P., & van Melik, R. (2021) · Journal of Contemporary Ethnography · doi:10.1177/0891241621994670 · Cited by 48
“Further refining this definition, Gawer (2014) identifies two ways of thinking about platforms: either as technological architectures or as multisided markets.”
BackgroundMei, J., Zheng, G. W., & Zhu, L. (2021) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/radm.12494 · Cited by 56
Sharing economy: seeing through the fog
Trabucchi, D., Muzellec, L., & Ronteau, S. (2019) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-03-2018-0113 · Cited by 49
Zhuang, T., & Liu, B. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14137568 · Cited by 64
“…as well as complementary innovators, are critical underpinnings of an activity system that strives for innovation for collective aims and goals [42,43], the different stakeholders in the Chinese context have provided new value to each other basically on the unified platform, built by MOE, where…”
BackgroundSpaniol, M. J., & Rowland, N. J. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121966 · Cited by 57
Guo, Y., Chen, Y., Usai, A., Wu, L., & Wu, Q. (2022) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-02-2022-0138 · Cited by 61
From platform growth to platform scaling: The role of decision rules and network effects over time
Varga, S., Cholakova, M., Jansen, J. J. P., Mom, T. J. M., & Kok, G. J. M. (2023) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2023.106346 · Cited by 56
Wan, X., & Jing, C. (2017) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-017-0280-3 · Cited by 50
Cha, H. (2020) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2020.100755 · Cited by 48
Yang, C. (2021) · Global Networks · doi:10.1111/glob.12352 · Cited by 47
Mertens, K. G., Rennpferdt, C., Greve, E., Krause, D., & Meyer, M. (2022) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12642 · Cited by 47
Open data platforms: Discussing alternative knowledge epistemologies
Danneels, L., Viaene, S., & den Bergh, J. V. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.007 · Cited by 47
“The identification of different platform types is based on an exogenous variable, such as the organizational form (Gawer, 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialKollmann, T., Hensellek, S., de Cruppe, K., & Sirges, A. (2019) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-019-00369-4 · Cited by 51
“Electronic marketplaces such as Uber or Airbnb represent a nascent but rapidly evolving category among digital platforms (Gawer 2014; McIntyre and Srinivasan 2017; Täuscher and Laudien 2018).”
BackgroundNew digital threats to media pluralism in the information age
Parcu, P. L. (2019) · Competition and Regulation in Network Industries · doi:10.1177/1783591719886101 · Cited by 47
“…which arise when the benefit to users in one group depends on the number of users in the other, fuel a self-reinforcing feedback loop that has the effect of hardening the incumbent platform’s base advantages (Gawer, 2014, p. 1241) favoring ‘‘winner takes all’’ or ‘‘winner takes most’’ dynamics.”
Platform Development: Emerging Insights From a Nascent Industry
Shi, X., Li, F., & Chumnumpan, P. (2020) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320929428 · Cited by 59
“…extends the understanding of firm 2066 Journal of Management / November 2021 boundaries by answering the call from Nambisan (2017) for the drivers of platform firms’ fluid boundaries and the calls from earlier works for this same line of research (e.g., Gawer, 2014; Schreyögg & Sydow, 2010).”
InfluentialFrey, A., Trenz, M., & Veit, D. J. (2019) · Journal of Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11573-019-00948-z · Cited by 50
“Their services facilitate the exchange between different types of consumers that otherwise could not transact with each other (Gawer 2014).”
BackgroundDiscovering Business Models of Data Marketplaces
Fruhwirth, M., Rachinger, M., & Prlja, E. (2020) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2020.704 · Cited by 45
“These groups perform exchanges of goods by using pricing strategies [18, 31].”
BackgroundRodón, J., & Eaton, B. A. (2021) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1177/02683962211013362 · Cited by 59
“…platform can be understood from a number of perspectives including engineering, economic, or organizational forms (Rolland et al., 2018), which might be thought of in terms of infrastructural architectures, mul-tisided markets, and ecosystems, respectively (Alaimo et al., 2020; Gawer, 2014).”
BackgroundSignalling Strategies of Exporters on Internet Business‐to‐Business Platforms
Jean, R. “., & Kim, D. (2021) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12761 · Cited by 48
Fellnhofer, K. (2021) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102384 · Cited by 48
Bomtempo, J. V., Alves, F. C., & Oroski, F. D. A. (2017) · Faraday Discussions · doi:10.1039/c7fd00052a · Cited by 45
Platform-Based Business Models: Insights from an Emerging AI-Enabled Smart Building Ecosystem
Xu, Y., Ahokangas, P., Turunen, M., Mäntymäki, M., & Heikkilä, J. (2019) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics8101150 · Cited by 55
“The technology platform thinking is often associated with the dyadic components of “core” and “peripherals” [67,77].”
InfluentialMore friends than foes? The impact of automobility-as-a-service on the incumbent automotive industry
Wells, P., Wang, X., Wang, L., Liu, H., & Orsato, R. J. (2020) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119975 · Cited by 51
“The ‘platform’ business model whereby supply and demand are mediated in an internal market, hosted by the focal firm and usually accessible from a range of digital devices, is a specific variant of the value-network businss model (Gawer, 2014; Thomas et al., 2015).”
BackgroundPlatform-based innovation ecosystems: Entering new markets through holographic strategies
Barile, S., Simone, C., Iandolo, F., & Laudando, A. (2022) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.07.003 · Cited by 46
The emergence of the ecosystem management function in B2B firms
Gomes, L. A. D. V., Facin, A. L. F., Leal, L. F., Zancul, E. D. S., Salerno, M. S., & Borini, F. M. (2022) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.12.015 · Cited by 57
Battle on the Wrong Field? Entrant Type, Dominant Designs, and Technology Exit
Chen, T., Qian, L., & Narayanan, V. K. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2669 · Cited by 43
Here’s an Opportunity: Knowledge Sharing Among Competitors as a Response to Buy-in Uncertainty
Botelho, T. L. (2018) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2018.1214 · Cited by 43
“A main advantage of engaging in knowledge sharing through a digital platform is capitalizing on the network effects commonly associated with such platforms (Evans 2003; Gawer 2011, 2014; Rochet and Tirole 2006).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Gawer, A.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Gawer, Annabelle
- ORCID
- 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
- FWCI
- 153.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
