The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generativity Tension and Value Creation in Platform Ecosystems
Abstract
Platform-based technology ecosystems are new forms of organizing independent actors’ innovations around a stable product system. This collective organization is proving superior to traditional, vertically integrated systems in many sectors because of greater “generativity”—the ecosystem’s capacity to foster complementary innovation from autonomous, heterogeneous firms—which extends the usage scope and value of the platform to users. However, greater generativity can also lead to greater variance in the way ecosystem members’ contributions satisfy users’ needs, and it could potentially hinder the ecosystems’ value creation. We draw on collective action theory to examine generativity’s impact on user satisfaction and the mechanisms driving it. We argue that products enhancing user satisfaction contribute to a collective, shared asset, the platform system reputation, from which all participants benefit. Thus, generativity has both a positive (system reputation) and negative (free-riding) effect on the ecosystem members’ incentives for developing products that enhance user satisfaction. We argue that the negative free-riding effect prevails as the platform system matures and competition with alternative platform systems increases. Using data from the video game industry, we find supportive evidence for the free-riding effect, which generates an average loss in total revenue for first-rate games of about $36.5 million and a drop of about 3.3% in the console’s market share. By identifying the conditions that exacerbate free riding in platform ecosystems, our study contributes to the understanding of the evolutionary dynamics of platform ecosystems. It also highlights one feedback mechanism governing collective action in ecosystems and its implications for value creation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Accordingly, digital platform ecosystems commonly draw on consumer ratings of product quality as a measure indicating the value the platform offering has for its users (Cennamo & Santaló, 2019;Kircher & Foerderer, 2024).”
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 Cennamo & Santaló, 2019
In the citing paper
“As they design their digital product, complementors in platform ecosystems face a trade-off between value creation and value capture in their strategic decisions (Cennamo & Santaló, 2019;Jacobides et al., 2024).”
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 Cennamo & Santaló, 2019
In the citing paper
“Platforms alter how customers access and utilize products and services by extending their value and functionalities (Cennamo & Santaló, 2019).”
From Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems (2023) · cites this paper as Cennamo & Santaló, 2019
In the citing paper
“Consequently, DPEs are likely to consist of a mix of complementors either being exclusively engaged or seeking to multi-home in competing ecosystems to boost sales (Cennamo & Santaló, 2019).”
From Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems (2023) · cites this paper as Cennamo & Santaló, 2019
Citations
Cites
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression
Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005) · Identification and Inference for Econometric Models · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511614491.006 · Cited by 7,211
Towards a theory of ecosystems
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2904 · Cited by 3,724
Self-citationCompetition in two-sided markets
Armstrong, M. (2006) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00037.x · Cited by 3,315
Two-sided markets: A progress report
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2006) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x · Cited by 2,994
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0322 · Cited by 2,964
Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy
Adner, R. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316678451 · Cited by 2,600
Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1985) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2555589 · Cited by 2,554
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Belsley DA, 2004, Regression Diagnostic: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
- Greene WH (2012) Econometric Analysis, 7th ed. (Prentice Hall, Boston).
- Majchrzak A, 2012, Technology Affordances and Constraint Theory of MIS
- 10.2307/20159628 · DOI
- Zittrain JL, 2006, Harvard Law Rev., 119, 1974
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–406 of 406
dos Santos, M. G., Conejo, A. F., & Silva, L. E. N. (2026) · Journal of Small Business Management · doi:10.1080/00472778.2026.2738930
Value Actualization Through Learning Systems
Baba, M. S. A., Senyo, P. K., Gozman, D., & Agyei-Ababio, N. (2026) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30942-6_42
Gao, J., Mu, R., & Shi, X. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-30126-1.00005-2
Design-logic alignment in digital transformation: A qualitative meta-analysis of Kodak
Ashrafi, A., Constantinides, P., Thatcher, J., & Mehandjiev, N. (2026) · Journal of strategic information systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2026.102008
Agarwal, S., & Ranganathan, R. (2026) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.70136
Zhao, L., Xu, L., & Luo, Y. (2026) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2026.124934
Metadata
- Authors
- Cennamo, C., & Santaló, J.
- Affiliations
- Bocconi University (IT)
- Department of Strategy, IE Business School, 28006 Madrid, Spain
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 617-641
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2946420406
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 48.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Keywords
- platform ecosystems, generativity, value creation, free-riding, user satisfaction, collective action theory, complementary innovation, video game industry
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