CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126Digital Platforms and EconomicsInnovation and Knowledge ManagementOpen Source Software Innovations

Knowledge boundaries in enterprise software platform development: Antecedents and consequences for platform governance

Open access
Foerderer, Jens, Kude, Thomas, Schuetz, Sebastian Walter, Heinzl, Armin·2019·Information Systems Journal
DOI 10.1111/isj.12186
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The widespread uptake of platform strategies turns many vendors of enterprise software into curators of an ecosystem of firms that collaboratively develop and commercialize a shared technology. As a platform owner's effectiveness in integrating knowledge across ecosystem participants will distinguish it from its competitors, we investigate the management of development‐related knowledge across firm boundaries. Our exploratory, multiple‐case study of 4 platforms illustrates how “knowledge boundaries” emerge between platform owners and complementors. We observe that knowledge boundaries are influenced by a platform's functional extent, interface design, and evolutionary dynamics, which create differences, dependencies, and novelty of development knowledge, resulting in qualitatively distinct types of knowledge boundaries. To overcome knowledge boundaries, platform owners provide various resources at the boundary, including information portals, documentation, helpdesks, and alignment workshops. We observe that in shaping these resources, platform owners face a trade‐off between providing knowledge at the right scope, while allowing for the scalability of knowledge resources for the entire ecosystem. Depending on their scope and scale, we classify knowledge boundary resources as broadcasting, brokering, and bridging, each representing qualitatively distinct patterns in managing knowledge in platform ecosystems. We conclude with implications for researchers and managers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/isj.12186

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Focal platform firms can use knowledge bridging, targeting an individual complementor with specific knowledge transfers such as one-to-one assistance and coaching.

    “Third, knowledge bridging targets an individual complementor with specific knowledge transfers, i.e., oneto-one assistance and coaching (Foerderer et al., 2019;Huang et al., 2018;Zhang et al., 2022).”

    From Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems (2023) · cites this paper as Foerderer et al., 2019

  • Focal platform firms can use standardized broadcasting of information via transferable objects such as handbooks, guidelines, or wikis to exchange knowledge with complementors without direct interaction.

    “One possibility is the standardized broadcasting of information via transferable objects, i.e., handbooks or guidelines, or wikis.Complementors can access this knowledge without direct interaction with the focal platform firm.”

    From Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems (2023) · cites this paper as Foerderer et al., 2019

  • Focal platform firms can use knowledge brokering, providing meta-knowledge via dedicated and semi-formalized interaction such as helpdesks and account managers for a subset of complementors.

    “Second, knowledge brokering provides meta-knowledge and takes place for a subset of complementors via dedicated and semi-formalized interaction, i.e., helpdesks and account managers.”

    From Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems (2023) · cites this paper as Foerderer et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Schuetz, S. W., & Heinzl, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Mannheim (DE)
  • École Supérieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales (FR)
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
Corresponding author
Foerderer, Jens
ORCID
Venue
Information Systems Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-01-29
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
119-144
ISSN
  • 1350-1917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2575
DOI
10.1111/isj.12186
OpenAlex
W2784842309
Cited by
126
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
FWCI
14.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Information Systems Journal (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
knowledge boundaries, platform governance, platform ecosystems, knowledge management, complementors, knowledge brokering, interface design, platform evolution

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