CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Digital Platforms and EconomicsInnovation and Knowledge ManagementDigital Economy and Work Transformation

Vertical and horizontal complementarities in platform ecosystems

Open access
Thomas, Llewellyn D. W., Ritala, Paavo, Karhu, Kimmo, Heiskala, Mikko·2025·Innovation
DOI 10.1080/14479338.2024.2303593
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We develop a framework of vertical and horizontal complementarities in platform ecosystems.Complementarity is a key theoretical construct for scholars investigating digital platforms and ecosystems, often mentioned in the context of complements, components, modularity, interdependence, and synergies.We shortly review the literature on complementarities in general strategy literature and then conceptualise complementarities in platform ecosystems.We distinguish between 'vertical complementarity' which signifies how complements (e.g., apps) increase the value of a platform (e.g., Android) and 'horizontal complementarity' which relates to the value creating complementarities between complements on a platform (e.g., an email and a calendar app).This distinction helps to clarify the notion of complementarities in platform ecosystems and has implications for our understanding of network effects, interdependence, generativity, platform governance, and platform strategy.

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 · 10.1080/14479338.2024.2303593

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Interoperability enables complementors to address a larger market comprising many platforms without finding themselves at the mercy of any single platform's sudden policy changes.

    “interoperability enables complementors to address a larger market comprising many platforms without finding themselves at the mercy of any single platform's sudden policy changes (Rietveld et al., 2020;Thomas et al., 2025).”

    From Make Social Media Social Again: How Platform Interoperability Can Fix Social Media and Future‐Proof Democracy (2025) · cites this paper as Thomas et al., 2025

    In “Enabling horizontal complementarities” (page unavailable), the paper says open standards permit interoperability independently of platform design and can link content across different services. “Platform governance” also discusses integrations across platform ecosystems. It does not say this gives complementors a larger market or protects them from a single platform’s sudden policy changes; “Interactions between horizontal and vertical complementarities” notes that platform changes can affect dependent complements. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2022). Organizations decentered: Data objects, technology and knowledge. Organization Science, 33(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1552 · DOI
  2. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 493-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Argyres, N. S., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Capabilities, transaction costs, and firm boundaries. Organization Science, 23(6), 1643-1657. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0736 · DOI
  4. Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. (2020). Value co-creation in ecosystems: Insights and research promise from three disciplinary perspectives. In S. Nambisan, K. Lyytinen, & Y. J. Yoo (Eds.), Handbook of digital innovation (pp. 107-132).
  5. Aversa, P., Haefliger, S., Hueller, F., & Reza, D. G. (2021). Customer complementarity in the digital space: exploring Amazon's business model diversification. Long Range Planning, 54(5), 101985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.101985 · DOI
  6. Baldwin, C. Y. (2024). A spectrum of complementarity. Innovation: Organization & Management, in press.
  7. Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, C. J. (2009). The architecture of platforms: A unified view. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation (pp. 19-44).
  8. Ball, M. (2022). The metaverse: And how it will revolutionize everything. (1st ed.). Liveright Publishing Corporation, A Division of W.W. Norton & Company.
  9. Bharadwaj, S., Bharadwaj, A., & Bendoly, E. (2007). The performance effects of complementarities between information systems, marketing, manufacturing, and supply chain processes. Information Systems Research, 18(4), 437-453. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0148 · DOI
  10. Böhmer-Horländer, S., & Kretschmer, T. (2020). First-party complements in platform markets: A dynamic perspective. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), 17028. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/AMBPP.2020.17028abstract · DOI
  11. Borner, K., Berends, H., Deken, F., & Feldberg, F. (2023). Another pathway to complementarity: How users and intermediaries identify and create new combinations in innovation ecosystems. Research Policy, 52(7), 104788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104788 · DOI
  12. Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409-1427. https://doi. org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0678 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2018). Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(1), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717732779 · DOI
  14. Burford, N., Shipilov, A. V., & Furr, N. R. (2022). How ecosystem structure affects firm perfor- mance in response to a negative shock to interdependencies. Strategic Management Journal, 43 (1), 30-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3318 · DOI
  15. 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. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.06.007 · DOI
  16. Cennamo, C. (2021). Competing in digital markets: A platform-based perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(2), 265-291. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0048 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600105 · DOI
  18. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter- organizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679. https://doi.org/10.2307/259056 · DOI
  19. Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., & Hesterly, W. S. (2018). The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 660-679.
  20. Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., & Yoo, Y. (2015). Distributed tuning of boundary resources: The case of apple's iOS service system. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 217-243. https://doi. org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.10 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & van Alstyne, M. (2011). Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1270-1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.935 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G. G., & van Alstyne, M. W. (2009). Opening platforms: How, when and why? In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation (pp. 131-162).
  23. Ennen, E., & Richter, A. (2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts-or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350083 · DOI
  24. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How intel, microsoft, and cisco drive industry innovation. Harvard Business School Press.
  25. Gawer, A., & Henderson, R. (2007). Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from intel. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00130.x · DOI
  26. Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013). Institutional work as logics shift: The case of intel's transforma- tion to platform leader. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1035-1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0170840613492071 · DOI
  27. Grant, R. M., & Baden Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00421.x · DOI
  28. Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021). The role of artificial intelligence and data network effects for creating user value. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 534-551. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0178 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571-586. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1975 · DOI
  30. Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 43, 162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2015.03.003 · DOI
  31. Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (2001). Resource complementarity in business combinations: Extending the logic to organizational alliances. Journal of Management, 27(6), 679-690. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700605 · DOI
  32. Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1990). Property rights and the nature of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1119-1158. https://doi.org/10.1086/261729 · DOI
  33. Helfat, C. E., & Lieberman, M. B. (2002). The birth of capabilities: Market entry and the importance of pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 725-760. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/icc/11.4.725 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Henfridsson, O., & Bygstad, B. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 907-931. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.11 · DOI
  35. Henfridsson, O., Nandhakumar, J., Scarbrough, H., & Panourgias, N. (2018). Recombination in the open-ended value landscape of digital innovation. Information and Organization, 28(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.03.001 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Hilbolling, S., Berends, H., Deken, F., & Tuertscher, P. (2020). Complementors as connectors: Managing open innovation around digital product platforms. R & D Management, 50(1), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12371 · DOI
  37. Hill, B. M., & Monroy-Hernandez, A. (2013). The remixing dilemma: The trade-off between generativity and originality. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(5), 643-663. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0002764212469359 · DOI
  38. Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press.
  39. Hitt, M., Harrison, J., Ireland, R. D., & Best, A. (1998). Attributes of successful and unsuccessful acquisitions of US firms. British Journal of Management, 9(2), 91-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-8551.00077 · DOI
  40. Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., & Newell, S. (2017). Growing on steroids: Rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 301-314. https:// doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.16 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Huang, P., Lyu, G., & Xu, Y. (2022). Quality regulation on two-sided platforms: Exclusion, subsidization, and first-party applications. Management Science, 68(6), 4415-4434. https://doi. org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4075 · DOI
  42. Hukal, P., Kanat, I., & Ozalp, H. (2022). Different strategy playbooks for digital platform complementors. MIS Quarterly Executive, 21(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.17705/2msqe.00056 · DOI
  43. Ireland, R., Hitt, M. A., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3), 413-446. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800308 · DOI
  44. Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy, 35(8), 1200-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.005 · DOI
  45. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.02 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Kapoor, R. (2018). Ecosystems: Broadening the locus of value creation. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0035-4 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. (2017). Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science, 28(3), 531-551. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1122 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R., Eaton, B., Henfridsson, O., & Sørensen, C. (2020). Four tactics for implementing a balanced digital platform strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(2), 105-120.
  49. Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R., & Lyytinen, K. (2018). Exploiting and defending open digital platforms with boundary resources: Android's five platform forks. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0786 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Karhu, K., & Jokinen, J.-P. (2023). Estimating and comparing cross-side network effects for three types of platform markets. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2023(1), 13477. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.13477abstract · DOI
  51. Kretschmer, T., Leiponen, A., Schilling, M., & Vasudeva, G. (2022). Platform ecosystems as meta- organizations: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3), 405-424. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3250 · DOI
  52. Lee, C.-H., Venkatraman, N., Tanriverdi, H., & Iyer, B. (2010). Complementarity-based hyper- competition in the software industry: Theory and empirical test, 1990-2002. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1431-1456. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.895 · DOI
  53. Leiponen, A. E., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wang, Q. (2022). The dApp economy: A new platform for distributed innovation? Innovation: Organization and Management, 24(1), 125-143. https://doi. org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1965887 · DOI
  54. Mantovani, A., & Ruiz-Aliseda, F. (2016). Equilibrium innovation ecosystems: The dark side of collaborating with complementors. Management Science, 62(2), 534-549. https://doi.org/10. 1287/mnsc.2014.2140 · DOI
  55. McIntyre, D. P., & Chintakananda, A. (2014). Competing in network markets: Can the winner take all? Business Horizons, 57(1), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.09.005 · DOI
  56. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). Rationalizability, learning, and equilibrium in games with strategic complementarities. Econometrica, 58(6), 1255-1277. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938316 · DOI
  57. Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029-1055. https://doi.org/10. 1111/etap.12254 · DOI
  58. Nambisan, S., Siegel, D., & Kenney, M. (2018). On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(3), 354-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/ sej.1300 · DOI
  59. O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2008). Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 422-459. https://doi.org/10.2189/ asqu.53.3.422 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Parker, G., & van Alstyne, M. (2016). Platform strategy. In M. Augier & D. J. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1-9). Palgrave Macmillan.
  61. Parker, G. G., van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution. W W Norton and Company. Parker, G., van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2017). Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the firm. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 255-266. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.13 · DOI
  62. Reuver, M., Sorensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124-135. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Rietveld, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2021). Platform competition: A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1528-1563. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206320969791 · DOI
  64. Rietveld, J., Schilling, M. A., & Bellavitis, C. (2019). Platform strategy: Managing ecosystem value through selective promotion of complements. Organization Science, 30(6), 1232-1251. https:// doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1290 · DOI
  65. Ritala, P. (2023). Grand challenges and platform ecosystems: Scaling solutions for wicked ecolo- gical and societal problems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12682. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jpim.12682 · DOI
  66. Ritala, P., & Karhu, K. (2023). Capturing value from data complementarities: A multi-level framework. In C. Cennamo, G. B. Dagnino, & F. Zhu (Eds.), Research handbook on digital strategy (pp. 273-288).
  67. Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: A progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x · DOI · Paper page
  68. Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., & Clark, D. D. (1984). End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(4), 277-288. https://doi.org/10.1145/357401.357402 · DOI
  69. Samuelson, P. A. (1974). Complementarity: An essay on the 40th anniversary of the Hicks-Allen revolution in demand theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 12(4), 1255-1289.
  70. Subramaniam, M., Iyer, B., & Venkatraman, V. (2019). Competing in digital ecosystems. Business Horizons, 62(1), 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.013 · DOI
  71. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, colla- boration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0048-7333(86)90027-2 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 47(8), 1367-1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015 · DOI
  73. Thomas, L. D. W., & Tee, R. (2022). Generativity: A systematic review and conceptual framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr. 12277 · DOI
  74. Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research commentary-digital infrastructures: The missing is research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748-759. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/isre.1100.0318 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195-1215. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0895 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press.
  77. Yoo, Y. J. (2010). Computing in everyday life: A call for research on experiential computing. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721425 · DOI
  78. Yoo, Y. J., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary -the new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The generative internet. Harvard Law Review, 119(7), 1974-2040.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomas, L. D. W., Ritala, P., Karhu, K., & Heiskala, M.
Affiliations
  • IESE Business School (ES)
  • Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (FI)
  • Aalto University (FI)
Corresponding author
Heiskala, Mikko
ORCID
Venue
Innovation
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2024-01-18
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
369-393
ISSN
  • 1447-9338 (ISSN-L)
  • 2204-0226
DOI
10.1080/14479338.2024.2303593
OpenAlex
W4390964082
Cited by
34
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 5
FWCI
11.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Innovation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Deposito Adademico Digital Universidad De Navarra (University of Navarra) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Aalto-Yliopisto
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
Keywords
platform ecosystems, digital platforms, complementarity, network effects, interdependence, generativity, platform governance, platform strategy, modularity, synergistic effect

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