Governance and Design of Digital Platforms: A Review and Future Research Directions on a Meta-Organization
Open accessAbstract
The burgeoning digital-platforms literature across multiple business disciplines has primarily characterized the platform as a market or network. Although the organizing role of platform owners is well recognized, the literature lacks a coherent approach to understanding organizational governance in the platform context. Drawing on classic organizational governance theories, this paper views digital platforms as a distinct organizational form where the mechanisms of incentive and control routinely take center stage. We systematically review research on digital platforms, categorize specific governance mechanisms related to incentive and control, and map a multitude of idiosyncratic design features studied in prior research onto these mechanisms. We further develop an integrative framework to synthesize the review and to offer novel insights into the interrelations among three building blocks: value, governance, and design. Using this framework as a guide, we discuss specific directions for future research and offer a number of illustrative questions to help advance our knowledge about digital platforms’ governance mechanisms and design features.
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
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?
Leveraging data for value creation in digital platform ecosystems is relevant for the strategic choices of complementors, such as their multihoming strategy, platform product design decisions regarding software and hardware autonomy, or the type of value capture.
“leveraging data for value creation in digital platform ecosystems is relevant for the strategic choices of complementors (Cennamo, 2018;Chen et al., 2022), such as their multihoming strategy, platform product design decisions (Gregory et al., 2021) regarding software and hardware autonomy (Hein et al., 2020), or the type of value capture of platform participants”
From What role do data network effects play for multihoming complements? An empirical analysis of platform complementors’ strategies for consumer value creation (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2022
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMultihoming decreases complementors' structural dependencies on a particular platform provider.
“First, it decreases complementors' structural dependencies on a particular platform provider (Chen et al., 2022).”
From What role do data network effects play for multihoming complements? An empirical analysis of platform complementors’ strategies for consumer value creation (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 212 · Cited by 345
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Barnard, C. 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., & Kretschmer, T. 2018. Platform architecture and quality tradeoffs of multihoming com- plements. Information Systems Research, 29(2): 461-478.
- Gawer, A. 2014. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7): 1239-1249. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102045 · DOI · Paper page
- Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4): 293-317.
- Kuan, J., & Lee, G. 2020. Governance strategy for digital platforms: Differentiation through information privacy. Strategic Management Review, Forthcoming.
- McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. 2017. Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1): 141-160. doi: 10.5465/amp.2018.0018 · DOI
- Rietveld, J., Ploog, J. N., & Nieborg, D. 2020. The coevolution of platform dominance and governance strategies: Effects on complementor performance outcomes. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(3): 488-513.
- Rietveld, J., Seamans, R., & Meggiorin, K. 2021. Market orchestrators: The effects of certification on platforms and their complementors. Strategy Science, 6(3): 191-264.
- Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. 2016. Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber's drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10(2016): 3758-3784.
- Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5): 491-508.
- Authors
- Chen, L., Tong, T. W., Tang, S., & Han, N.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- University of Colorado System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tong, Tony W.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-11-17
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 147-184
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W3194056670
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 212
- Citations by year
- 2026: 87 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 36.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Management (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
- Keywords
- digital platforms, platform governance, platform design, organizational governance, incentive mechanisms, control mechanisms, meta-organizations, platform owners, platform value, 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
