The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0368-492X.htm

Platform
A multidimensional platform ecosystem
ecosystem framework framework
Sergey Yablonsky
Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University,
St. Petersburg, Russian Federation 2003
Received 1 July 2019
Revised 25 December 2019
16 February 2020
Abstract Accepted 18 February 2020
Purpose – Ecosystems that support digital businesses maximize the economic value of network
connections. This forces a shift toward platforms and ecosystems that are collaborative by nature by
applying business models with multiple actors playing multiple roles. The purpose of this study is to
show how the main concepts emerging from research on digital platform ecosystems (DPEs) could be
organized in a taxonomy-based framework with different levels or dimensions of analysis. This study
discusses some of the contingencies at these different levels and argues that future research needs to
study DPEs across multiple levels of analysis. While this integrative framework allows the comparison,
contrast and integration of various perspectives at different levels of analysis, further theorizing will be
needed to advance the DPE research. The multidimensional framework proposed here involves the use
of a multimethodological approach that incorporates a synergy of businesses, technological innovations
and management methods to provide support for research in interrelationships across platform
ecosystems (PEs) on a regular basis.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper proposes a new PE framework by constructing a formal
taxonomy model that explains a vast group of phenomena produced by the PEs.
Findings – In addition to illustrating the PE taxonomy framework, this study also proposes a clear and
precise description and structuring of the information in the ecosystem domain. The PE framework assists in
identification, creation, assessment and disclosure research of platform business ecosystems.
Research limitations/implications – Because of the large number of taxonomy concepts (over 200),
only main taxonomy fragments are shown in the paper.
Practical implications – The outcomes of this research could be used for planning, oversight and control
over ecosystem management and the use of ecosystem’s knowledge-related resources for research purposes.
Originality/value – The PE framework is original and represents an effective tool for observing PEs.
Keywords Multisided platform, Business platform ecosystem, Taxonomy framework,
Technological platform
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The systems approach to studies of complex phenomena has a long tradition in a wide range
of disciplines (Granstranda and Holgerssonb, 2019). In the past two decades, the concept of
innovation and business ecosystem (BE) has become popular (Gomes et al., 2018; Gupta
et al., 2019). This is not just a metaphor but also a powerful definition that calls for
conceptual research analysis. Industry sources are similarly demonstrating interest in BEs
and digital technologies (Gartner, 2017; Desmet et al., 2017; DeBeasi and Knoernschild, 2019;
Blosch and Burton, 2016, 2019). Organizations are seeking opportunities to innovate
business models (BMs), turning their attention outward into the BE of customers, partners, Kybernetes
suppliers and other actors – including “things” – to create new services, products and Vol. 49 No. 7, 2020
pp. 2003-2035
experiences. To take advantage of the BE, scholars recognize that it represents far more © Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
than just a network of relationships; it is a dynamic, self-organizing, resilient system DOI 10.1108/K-07-2019-0447
K (Blosch and Burton, 2016, 2019). The size of digital ecosystems (DEs) ranges from millions of
49,7 actors to billions of actors (Amazon, Facebook, Alibaba).
As indicated by a global survey (Evans and Gawer, 2016), digital platforms and
ecosystems have now become an important economic force, with a total market value of
more than $4.3tn and an employment base of at least 1.3 million direct employees, with
millions of others indirectly employed. As Evans and Gawer (2016) point out, platform
2004 businesses can be found in a growing number of industries, including social networking
(Facebook, LinkedIn), internet auctions and retail (Amazon, eBay, Angie’s List), online
financial and human resource functions (Workday, Elance-oDesk, Freelancer, WorkFusion),
urban transportation (Uber, Lyft, Sidecar), mobile payment (Mahala, Square) and clean
energy (Sungevity, SolarCity, EnerNOC). Among the largest IPOs of the past few years,
many are multisided platforms (MSPs):
 Alibaba had the biggest IPO ever, at $25bn;
 Visa at $19.7bn;
 Facebook at $16bn;
 Twitter at $2.1bn;
 Google at $1.67bn;
 LinkedIn at $1.2bn; and
 Groupon at $700m.

Platforms like Airbnb and Uber threaten to disrupt well-established industries, such as taxi
and hospitality services, using a platform-driven BM. Regional surveys (Evans and Gawer,
2016, Olayinka, Evans and Gawer, 2016) have identified 62 major platform companies
operating across Asia with a market capitalization of $800m or more, and 42 platform
companies operating in 33 African countries. The market value of the 62 Asian platform
companies now exceeds $1.1tn and has a powerful growing influence on shaping markets
throughout the region and worldwide.
In the digital age, traditional ways of doing business have transformed. Digital business
now refers to the creation of new business designs by blurring the digital and physical worlds.
It promises an unprecedented convergence of people, businesses and artificial agents (things,
smart things and smart machines) that changes existing BMs and creates new revenue
opportunities and platform designs (Cearley et al., 2017; Yablonsky, 2019). Despite the fact that
digital business and technology are inextricable, a lot more than only technology is required –
for example, leadership, talent, skills and new BMs (Schallmo et al., 2017). Business ecosystems
have become extremely complex as firms consider dynamic interactions of a multilayered BE
(Teece, 2012). New digital customers use digital channels – Web, mobile, social, etc. – to
consume content, engage with brands and complete a transaction. The internet and related
technologies are thus more than just new digital channels: they are a completely different
approach to providing business services and creating new digital BEs.
This paper investigates platform ecosystems (PEs). It contributes to the research into the
domains of system design, strategic management and information systems by presenting a
multidimensional framework that identifies how platform BEs can improve management within
organizations. Strategy is needed to guide platform BM portfolios and related BE trajectories.

2. Research design and methodological approach

Our research addresses the need for a BM framework in ecosystem-driven technology and
market environments, which recognizes the specific impact of ecosystem conceptualization.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in using more than one methodology and Platform
method, possibly from different areas of thought, in solving a single multi-dimensional ecosystem
problem. Flood and Jackson (1991) mentioned that enormously complex, multidimensional
and ill-structured problems, made up of social, behavioral, coercive, exploitative and
framework
manipulative components, require such contrivances that perennially preoccupied
contemporary systems thinkers’ need to develop different and independent endeavors and
competing orientations. Thus, the design of the requirements of the ecosystem’s artifacts is
built upon sources of justificatory knowledge across three domains: 2005
(1) systems design;
(2) strategic management; and
(3) information systems.

We chose a design science research approach for our study; our intended artifact was a
framework for an ecosystem-driven platform stack (Turber et al., 2014; Yablonsky, 2018a,
2018b). Our approach was also inspired by methodologies for the conceptual analysis of
social systems. More specifically, we place certain demands on our conceptualizations
(Granstranda and Holgerssonb, 2019):
 They must fill the empirical and theoretical need for concepts.
 They should be capable of being operationalized, qualified, typologized and used as
concepts for taxonomies.
 They must be syntactically and semantically compatible with common
conceptualizations of related concepts – here, the concepts of system, innovation
and BE.

The qualitative research in this paper aims to collect and analyze quality data regarding the
status and prospective evolution of BE research. The research methodology includes
extracting knowledge from these domains, classifying and organizing domain concepts,
validating issues and developing ontology. An ontological framework enables researchers to
access a knowledge base, appraise its content, determine if the resources are relevant and
integrate and aggregate the data with in-house resources and data. Methodological insight
into complex business ontology development has been demonstrated by several researchers
(Osterwalder, 2004; Bullinger, 2009; Poli et al., 2010). An ontology formally represents
knowledge as a hierarchy of concepts within a domain, using a shared vocabulary to denote
the types, properties and interrelationships of those concepts. For example, the creation of
domain ontologies is fundamental to the definition and use of an enterprise architecture
framework (Bullinger, 2009), e-commerce (Osterwalder, 2004; Osterwalder and Pigneur,
2010; Yablonsky, 2016), financial services (Yablonsky, 2016), Internet-of-Things (IoT) (De
et al., 2017) and other domains.
A clear and precise description and structuring of the information in the ecosystem
domain are prerequisites for a common understanding of the strategic information
exchanged among different partners of ecosystems. It also fosters semantic interoperability
in the context of global data exchange among public administrations, facilitates electronic
interoperability among ecosystem businesses and improves ecosystem metrics. Ontologies,
taxonomies and other types of controlled vocabularies are the preferred means for achieving
such a common understanding, by specifying the terms of the domains, disambiguating
them from each other, controlling synonyms and structuring the domain via term
relationships. Taxonomy (lightweight ontology) consists of a hierarchy of concepts linked
by a transitive subsumption relation (often called isA or subClassOf), whereby each instance
K of a class can be inferred to be an instance of all parent classes (Poli et al., 2010).
49,7 Heavyweight ontologies add classes (concepts), instances (objects) of classes or concepts,
attributes (aspects, properties, features, characteristics or parameters that objects and
classes can have), relations and more (Poli et al., 2010). By modeling concepts and their
relationships, ontologies and taxonomies make possible descriptions of complex ecosystem
domains in a machine-processable manner. They offer a common vocabulary for the
2006 integration of the hundreds of different knowledge bases, metadata formats and database
schemas that are used in the various domains. Taxonomies provide a promising, though
largely unexplored, approach to significantly improve corporate processes and research. We
consider the domain of ecosystems with exactly this view in mind. We emphasize the digital
PE viewpoint, which represents an integrated model of the existing literature and practical
perspectives.
The research seeks to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. What concepts and characteristics distinguish ecosystems through their types?
RQ2. What frameworks could be adopted and used to facilitate understanding,
analyzing and structuring platform ecosystems and their relationship with
technology platforms?
RQ3. What are the technology building blocks that an enterprise or industry needs to
support digital ecosystem business?
RQ4. What are the necessary business and technology platforms components required
to support the capabilities of a platform ecosystem?
RQ5. How can these be organized in a conceptual multidimensional multilayered
platform ecosystem framework for management and decision-making?
To answer the RQs, we first follow the recommendation of De Reuver et al. (2018) to provide
clear definitions for key concepts in the digital PE context. Subsequently, we follow
Nickerson and Muntermann (2013) who offered a well-structured, step-by-step method for
developing a taxonomy. Leaning on Moyer (2016), an industry vision of digital
transformation into a scalable digital platform consists of four parts: concept, capabilities,
assets and research. We initiated our process through a conceptual-to-empirical approach by
defining the primary ecosystem components involved in pattern conceptualization of the
established platform BM (Yablonsky, 2018a, 2018b). The purpose was to analyze and clarify
the place of the ecosystem layer in the platform BM and digital platform stack (Yablonsky,
2018a, 2018b). Using this framework, we collected additional qualitative data through
semistructured expert interviews, keeping in mind foresight methodology (Thom, 2010).
Our interview partners were some members of the technology groups, founders and Chief
Technology Officers of the data-driven ventures for NTI markets run by the Russian
National Technology Initiative (NTI; www.nti2035.ru/; https://asi.ru/eng/nti/). After the
framework was applied to relevant ventures, the results enabled an evaluation of the
appropriateness of the data-driven ecosystem framework. To further improve the data
reliability and internal validity, we triangulated the interview outcomes with a range of
secondary data, consisting especially of publicly available documents, such as the venture’s
white papers and annual reports. To identify the subdimensions and instantiations, we
screened the ventures for differences and commonalities, leading us to a preliminary version
of the multilayered PE vision. Required modifications were identified and a refined
framework was proposed. Based on theoretical conceptualization, combined with empirical
evidence, we then proposed a PE taxonomy framework to facilitate the understanding, Platform
analyzing and structuring of PEs. ecosystem
This paper further analyzes definitions of the ecosystem and the concept of a PE. In
response to the above RQs, the rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 3 reviews
framework
recent literature regarding PEs and the key determinants for promoting the framework for
systematic PE management. This will form the basis for our framework analysis in Section
4. Platform ecosystem design and management are present in Section 5. Conclusions and
suggestions are given in Section 6.
2007

3. Conceptualizations of ecosystems
In this section, we conceptualize nondigital (offline) and digital (online) BEs. Scholars
identify three broad groups of papers on ecosystems: an “innovation ecosystem” (IE) stream,
focused around a particular innovation or new value proposition and the constellation of
actors that support it; a “business ecosystem” stream, which centers on a firm and its
environment; and a “platform ecosystem” stream, which considers how actors organize
around a platform (Jacobides et al., 2018).
First, we introduce core concepts from the literature on systems and nondigital BEs
(Section 3.1). We next explain how DEs differ from nondigital ecosystems, with specific
focus on governance arrangements (Section 3.2).

3.1 Nondigital business ecosystems

We begin nondigital business ecosystems with concepts of system, innovation, business and
PEs.
3.1.1 System concept (Ackoff, 1971, p. 40). A general concept of the system is that it is
composed of a set C of components and a set R of relations between these components.
Systems analysis is essentially the attempt to characterize C and R. A common
characterization of a dynamic open system is in terms of the transformation of inputs into
outputs through the activities performed by agents or actors interacting with an
environment.
The term ecosystem was coined by Tansley (1935) to identify a basic ecological unit
consisting of both the environment and the organisms that use it. The primary motivation
for utilizing ecosystem concepts has been the desire to the exploit self-organizing properties
of natural ecosystems (Briscoe et al., 2011).
3.1.2 Innovation ecosystem. The IE stream describes the all-important economic, social,
political, organizational, institutional and other factors that influence the development,
diffusion and use of innovations. Conceptualizations have been introduced of national,
sectoral, regional and corporate innovation systems (Lundvall, 1992; Asheim et al., 2005).
Firms increasingly form IEs to implement complex value propositions (Adner, 2012;
Kapoor and Lee, 2013).
3.1.2.2 Innovation ecosystem. An IE is an evolving set of actors, activities, and artifacts,
along with institutions and relations, including complementary and substitute relations, that
are important in the innovative performance of an actor or a population of actors
(Granstranda and Holgerssonb, 2019).
There are several kinds of IE, such as government IEs, enterprise IEs and regional IEs
(Jacobides et al., 2018). The key differences between these is the type of core actor or
ecosystem builder.
3.1.2.3 Innovation ecosystem. An enterprise IE is an interorganizational value-creating
and value-capturing system built by focal firms, in which heterogeneous members in
K different ecological niches can efficiently exchange resource and innovation values (Cong
49,7 and Wei, 2019).
3.1.2.4 Corporate innovation system. A corporate innovation system is a set of actors,
activities, resources and institutions, along with the causal interrelations that are in some
sense important for the innovative performance of a corporation or groups of collaborating
companies and other actors (e.g. universities, institutes, agencies) (Granstrand, 2000, p. 13).
2008 3.1.3 Business ecosystem. A helpful conceptualization of a BE stream states two general
ecosystem strategy views (Adner, 2017):
 ecosystem-as-affiliation (focused on actors), which sees ecosystems as communities
of associated actors defined by their networks and platform affiliations; and
 ecosystem-as-structure (focused on activities), which views ecosystems as
configurations of activity defined by a value proposition.

The ecosystem-as-affiliation view sees ecosystems as communities of associated actors

defined by their networks and platform affiliations. Within the context of business, Moore
(1993, 1996, 2006) used the biological metaphor and used the term to describe the business
environment in ways mentioned in the following sections.
3.1.3.1 Business ecosystem. A BE is an economic community supported by a foundation
of interacting organizations and individuals: the organisms of the business world (Moore,
1996). This economic community produces goods and services of value to customers who
are themselves members of the ecosystem. The member organisms also include suppliers,
lead producers, competitors and other stakeholders. Over time, they coevolve their
capabilities and roles, tending to align themselves with the direction set by one or more
central companies. The companies holding leadership roles may change over time, but the
function of ecosystem leader is valued by the community as it enables members to move
toward shared visions to align their investments and to find mutually supportive roles.
The ecosystem-as-affiliation view defines ecosystems as networks of affiliated
organizations; these positions have been repeated in many recent papers (Jacobides et al.,
2018). This perspective places an emphasis on the breakdown of traditional industry
boundaries, the rise of interdependence and the potential for symbiotic relationships in
productive ecosystems (Adner, 2017). It focuses on questions of access and openness,
highlighting measures such as the number of partners, network density and actors’
centrality in larger networks. In the business context, analysis performed on the level of the
“healthcare ecosystem,” the “Apple ecosystem” or the “entrepreneurial ecosystem” will fall
easily into this category.
3.1.3.2 Business ecosystem. A BE is described as “a community of organizations,
institutions, and individuals that affect the enterprise and the enterprise’s customers and
supplies.” (Teece, 2007, p. 1325)
For Teece, the ecosystem represents the environment that the firm needs to monitor and
react to, which affects its dynamic capabilities and thus its ability to build a sustainable
competitive advantage. Here, the ecosystem is conceived as an economic community of
interacting actors that all affect each other through their activities, considering all relevant
actors beyond the boundaries of a single industry.
Moore’s key idea is coevolution, a process by which organizations become involved in an
ongoing cycle of interdependent change. Most of the work in the organizational ecology vein
considers firms as independent units without allowing for interdependence within or across
industries. Teece (2018) argues that a BE is a group of interdependent organizations
collectively providing goods and services to their customers. Whereas, biological
ecosystems are self-organizing, BEs need not be (Teece, 2018, 20116). They frequently
benefit from an ecosystem initiator or manager – usually a platform leader firm. To attract Platform
firms into the ecosystem, the initiator provides coordinating mechanisms, standards, rules, ecosystem
key products, intellectual property and financial capital, creating the structure and
momentum for the market it seeks to create. The platform leader takes responsibility for
framework
guiding the technological evolution of the system so as to maintain competitiveness against
rival ecosystems (Gawer and Cusumano, 2002). Business ecosystem scholars note that BE
initiator, unlike the plants and animals in a biological ecosystems, can potentially
understand the functioning of the whole of which they are a part (Teece, 2012). As a result, 2009
they can make determined decisions in reply to external threats and opportunities. Business
and corporate strategy processes are thus “evolutionary by nature, and often involve
significant elements of intentional design and orchestration of assets by managers” (Augier
and Teece, 2008, p. 1201).
Teece and Linden (2017) propose that competition is no longer so much firm against firm
as ecosystem against ecosystem. The BE concept has gone beyond the concepts embedded
in organizational ecology, which has its roots in the work of Hannan and Freeman (1977):
Organizational ecology refers to a major theoretical perspective that attempts to explain the
emergence, growth and decline of populations of organizations, relying mainly on an
environmental selection model of change (Carroll and Negro, 2018, p. 1208).
Within organizational ecology, research programs operate following the so-called theory
fragments, which are coherent “partial theories stated as universal rules and formalized in
predicate logic” (Hannan et al., 2007, p. 7). While most firms fail to adapt to changes in the
business environment, BEs – unlike plants and animals – can potentially understand the
functioning of the whole of which firms are a part. Business ecosystems will thus reflect
“evolution with design” (Augier and Teece, 2008).
Strategy in the ecosystem-as-affiliation sphere tends to focus on augmenting the number
of actors that link to a focal actor, increasing its centrality and expected power. By
increasing the number and intensity of participants in its ecosystem, the focal actor
increases its bargaining power (Jacobides et al., 2006), increases system value through direct
and indirect network externalities (Parker et al., 2016) and increases the likelihood of
unexpected interactions between partners that may unlock new interactions and
combinations that will in turn increase the overall value creation of the system (Adner,
2017). Such considerations are influenced by Metcalfe’s (2013) law, according to which the
value of network of size n is proportional to n2. The value of a network therefore grows as
the square of growth in its user base. In a mesh network with each of N nodes connected to
every other node, there are N  (N 1) links, i.e. N2. However, DValue = D N2 only if:
 the per capita transaction volumes also increase by DN2; and
 each user’s willingness to pay per transaction remains constant as her transaction
volume grows.

The collective evolution of the ecosystem typically relies on the technological and business
leadership of one or two platform-based firms – the platform leaders (Teece, 2018). A PE
exists when there are common standards and interfaces that permit the elements of the
ecosystem to innovate independently while advancing collectively (Robertson and Ulrich,
1998). Business ecosystems represent a substitute for the large vertically integrated firms of
previous decades that have become too clumsy to produce competitive product families that
draw on multiple areas of expertise (e.g. computing and communications) (Teece, 2018).
Ecosystem-as-affiliation offers an appealing metaphor and a helpful description of
interactions on the macro level. However, it is often hard to extricate its characterizations
K and recommendations from those of other approaches to interdependence (such as networks,
49,7 platforms and multisided markets). Additionally, because of its tendency to look at
aggregates, the strategy guidance offered by this perspective tends to focus on general
governance and community enhancements, giving limited insight into the specifics of value
creation (Adner, 2017).
An alternative ecosystems-as-structure perspective offers a complementary approach to
2010 considering interdependent value creation (Adner and Feiler, 2016). This begins with a value
proposition and seeks to identify the set of actors that need to interact for the proposition to
come about; it is based on a definition of the ecosystem that is better specified for the given
perspective.
3.1.3.3 Ecosystems-as-structure. The ecosystem is defined by the alignment structure of
the multilateral set of partners that need to interact for a focal value proposition to
materialize (Adner, 2017).
Hein et al. (2019a) state that the latest conceptual work on ecosystems (Kapoor, 2018;
Adner, 2017; Jacobides et al., 2018) points to the rise of a paradigm shift that integrates the
intraorganizational technical perspectives on digital platforms and the interorganizational
economic, business and social perspectives on ecosystems. In this paradigm, digital
platforms depend heavily on autonomous agents that contribute to the digital platform’s
value proposition (Teece, 2017b). The interdependencies between the platform and the
agents in an ecosystem can have both economic and structural components (Kapoor, 2018;
Adner, 2017).
Scholars have extracted three repeated entities from the set of existing innovation and
BE definitions, namely, actors, artifacts and institutions (Jacobides et al., 2018). They have
identified relations, such as collaborative/complementary and competitive/substitute
(Jacobides et al., 2018). Complementarities generate significant sources of value throughout
the ecosystem. The basic notion is that the whole, in the form of two or more complements in
combination, is greater than the sum of its parts (Teece, 2016). Complementarities are
important for the “innovation ecosystem” stream, because most technologies require
complementary technologies if their full value is to be realized.
3.1.3.4 Definition. Complementarities occur when two or more items are more valuable in
combination than in isolation. The items can be vertical or horizontal, and they may involve
user utility, prices, or technology. Complementarities are significant sources of value
throughout the economic system (Teece, 2016).
The most commonly studied types of complementarities involve factor prices or value
from use (Carlaw and Lipsey, 2002). Innovation studies, such as that of Rosenberg and
Frischtak (1983), instead look at the impact of new combinations of existing technologies. In
the absence of rules for participation in an ecosystem, delicate complementarities can be
disturbed and opportunities lost (Teece, 2016). Because of the interdependence of
organizational roles, there are simply too many potential conflicts to allow a completely self-
organizing approach. In economic terms, ecosystems are rife with externalities (Teece, 2016).
Defined as “the collaborative arrangements through which firms combine their
individual offerings into a coherent, customer-facing solution” (Adner, 2006, p. 98), one often
finds a technology platform at the core of an IE: a set of shared assets, standards and
interfaces that underpins the activity system surrounding it (Gawer, 2014).
3.1.4 Platform ecosystem. The PE stream focuses on the platform focal firm and
considers how ecosystem actors (economic agents) are organized around a platform. Shared
standards and interfaces are inherent features of platform-based ecosystems. They permit
the members of the ecosystem to innovate independently while competing collectively
against other firms and ecosystems in the relevant market.
 Platforms can last for years; for example, offline malls link consumers and merchants Platform
and print newspapers connect subscribers and advertisers. For several decades, scholars ecosystem
have discussed platform concepts from a nondigital worldview. A broad class of businesses
of this sort that have economic features not well explained in standard textbooks has been
framework
presented by Rochet and Tirole (2003, 2004, 2006). Gawer and Cusumano investigated how
companies could compete through platforms (Gawer and Cusumano, 2008). Moore (1996)
proposed a strategic shift from competition toward coopetition around a shared niche.
Recent books by Tiwana (2014), Evans and Schmalensee (2016) and Parker et al. (2016)
2011
specify how platforms are shaping business and BMs and are in fact transforming entire
economies. Platform research is generally formalized both within the industrial innovation
management literature (Gawer, 2014; Thomas et al., 2014) and the economics literature
(Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005). The literature on MSPs is now regularly cited by
competition authorities and courts (Evans and Schmalensee, 2018). These are businesses
that pose novel problems for competition policy (Evans, 2003; Evans and Schmalensee,
2015). Platforms enable new products and services by reusing platform components. They
have lower fixed costs and enable service providers to market in a shorter period of time.
Market platform intermediaries usually reduce search and transaction costs for interactions
between two or more distinct groups of customers (e.g. suppliers and consumers in the case
of 7-Eleven, or sellers and buyers in that of eBay).
A successful MSP usually creates a network of relationships between economic entities
(producers, stakeholders, distributors, consumers, government agencies, etc.) which, by
competition or cooperation, facilitate the creation and distribution of a platform product or
service. The PE metaphor could be used to describe such a platform network characterized
by open, flexible, demand-driven, interactive networked architecture and collaborative
environments (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014). The ecosystem concept is of increasing
significance in the field of the enterprise management, system design and business
architecture. Starting from Moore (1996), the ecosystem concept has been actively discussed
in management studies.
Gupta et al. (2019, p. 1) state that the BE:
[. . .] has been defined in multiple ways and has been used interchangeably, jointly and
overlapping with innovation ecosystems and digital ecosystems, making it difficult to
differentiate, consolidate, utilize and grow the body of knowledge, both in academia and
industry.
Teece (2017a) mentions that the concept of “industry” as a group of firms performing similar
activities and competing or cooperating with each other is now increasingly less aligned
with the way firms think about themselves. In the digital economy, continues Teece (2017a),
firms see their roles as being less in industries and more in BEs.
In the above analysis, we have described the enterprise BE as an interorganizational
value-creating and value-capturing system built by a focal firm or focal firms, in which
heterogeneous members in different business ecological niches can efficiently exchange
resource and values.
We have created a general typology of different overlapping types of ecosystems,
including the following ecosystems (Figure 1):
(1) innovation ecosystems (IEs);
(2) business ecosystems (BEs);
(3) platform ecosystems (PEs); and
(4) digital ecosystems (DEs), including:
K  digital IEs (DIEs);
49,7  digital BEs (DBEs); and
 digital PEs (DPEs).

3.2 Digital business ecosystems

Most of today’s platforms and ecosystems are principally digital or online (White, 2018;
2012 Rong et al., 2018; Hein et al., 2019a, 2019b). They capture, transmit and monetize data,
including personal data, over the internet and other networks (Evans and Gawer, 2016).
They may not be purely digital, but most successful digital platforms and ecosystems take
advantage of the digital innovations and power of pervasive internet connectivity in the
hand of billions of users. Platform technologies are essential for coordinating suppliers and
buyers to deliver consumer value. Facebook is a type of platform that coordinates suppliers
and consumers of social information; without a social media platform such as Facebook, it
would be much more difficult and costly for people to exchange social information.
Although concepts and notions can be borrowed from these streams of platform literature,
digital platforms are particularly different in numerous ways (White, 2018; Yablonsky,
2018a, 2018b).
MSPs usually consist of a platform architecture with subsets of components (hardware,
software, services) and rules (technical standards, protocols for information exchange,
policies and contracts that govern transactions), and with a strategy and portfolio of BMs
employed by users in most of their transactions. These are the main building blocks of such
platforms (Figure 2).
A platform provides common standards, interfaces and tools to power core technologies
to increase the productivity and profitability of a company, a set of companies or users
(Teece, 2017a). A successful digital platform usually creates a network of the relationships
that exists between the economic entities – producers, stakeholders, distributors, consumers,
government agencies and others – that facilitate the creation and distribution of a platform
product or service in PEs through competition and cooperation (Figure 3). The PE metaphor
could be used to describe such a platform network characterized by an open, flexible,
demand-driven, interactive networked architecture and collaborative environments (Gawer
and Cusumano, 2014). The coevolution of the ecosystem is typically reliant on the
technological leadership of one or two firms that provide a platform around which other
system members providing inputs and complementary goods can align their investments
and strategies (Parker et al., 2017). For some social and crowdfunding digital platforms, the
creation of a DE is a critical success factor for positive platform dynamics.
Digital platforms can take a variety of forms and there are many ways to categorize
them. We should first distinguish a technology platform from a business platform, which
includes a technology platform as its main component.

Figure 1.
Overlapping types of
ecosystems
 Platform
ecosystem
framework

2013

Figure 2.
Platform building
blocks

3.2.1 Technology platform. A technology platform is defined as a set of building blocks that
act as a foundation upon which an array of firms (a BE) may develop complementary
products, technologies or services (Gawer, 2009). The requirements for the platform are that:
 it should perform a critical function for the overall system or should solve a crucial
technological issue in an industry; and
 it should be easy to connect to, build upon and provide space for new and unplanned
usage.

3.2.2 Internal platform. We define an internal (company or product) platform as a set of

assets organized in a common structure from which a company can efficiently develop and
produce a stream of derivative products (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014). We define an
external (industry) platform as a product, service or technology that can act as a foundation
upon which external innovators, organized in an innovative BE, can develop their own
complementary products, technologies and services.
3.2.3 Network platform. A network technological platform, or network platform, is
usually based on digital network building blocks. Network platforms differ from product
platforms in their stronger network effects, switching costs and multihoming costs (Parker
and Van Alstyne, 2014).
3.2.4 Business platform. A business platform is a nexus of rules and infrastructure that
facilitates interactions between network users (Eisenmann et al., 2011).
3.2.5 Business platform (Parker and Van Alstyne, 2014). A business platform is a
published standard and a governance model that facilitate third-party participation.
Platforms have their own unique characteristics, with one of the central features being
the presence of network effects or network externalities (Parker et al., 2016). The value of
platform affiliation for a user depends on the number of other users.
A platform can be categorized in terms of the scope of its production process:
 internal platforms, enabling recombination of subunits within the firm;
 supply-chain platforms, coordinating external suppliers around an assembler; and
K
49,7

2014

Figure 3.
A PE structure with
its capabilities
  industry platforms, where a platform leader pools external capabilities from Platform
complementors (Gawer, 2014). ecosystem
In the latter two types, platforms not only provide a stable core but also mediate between framework
different groups of users – a so-called MSP.
Platform design facilitates matches among providers and consumers – that is, the
creation or exchange of goods, services, and social currency – so that all participants can
capture value. Platforms offer unique opportunities to engage members of a BE in the 2015
exchange of value (Blosch and Burton, 2016). However, they require an entirely new
approach to strategy, management and IS architecture. The answers to these question are
not limited to digital business platform technology decisions, but also include businesses,
markets, economics, partners, customers, human capital, processes, information and
technologies.
Digital platforms and ecosystems could be categorized based on the structure of platform
and control. As shown by Parker and Van Alstyne (2014), and by Parker et al. (2016),
platforms with ecosystems have following four types of actors or economic agents roles:
(1) The owners of platforms, platform sponsors, or platform leaders control the
intellectual property and governance of their platforms. The owner sets the
direction, controls the underlying platform technology and provides the overall
organizing structure for the platform via rules, governance and ecosystem support.
It can assist the ecosystem’s work by helping participants see how they are better
off being part of the system than being outside of it. This role can be performed by
one or many firms.
(2) Platform providers operate as a platforms’ interface with users. The platform
provider is the point of contact for common components, rules and architecture for
the users of the platform. This role can be fulfilled by one or many firms.
(3) Users (supply side) or producers create their offerings. These are content and
application developers. Producers provide specific items that attract users to the
platform, such as music, games, information, services and others.
(4) Users (demand side), the target consumers of the platform’s solutions and services,
make use of producers’ offerings. These can be individuals, businesses or
organizations.

Another categorization of ecosystems is based on the asset weight of platform enterprises,

including “HQ, other rooftops, retail outlets, manufacturing plants, service shops, etc.” (Evans
and Gawer, 2016). We provide a typology of the platform enterprise ecosystem in Figure 4.
The size of mixed and heavy DEs ranges from hundreds of millions to several billion
actors. For example, the number of daily active users of Baidu’s Mobile Ecosystem Baidu
App is about 188 million, this being one of the largest digital media and services platforms
in China; the Baidu Smart Mini Program now has more than 150,000 developers and 250
million daily active users. Digital ecosystems are hence a sophisticated type of social
information system that generate a great deal of big data.
Jacobides et al. (2018) describe the types of complementarity of products and services
provided by complementors and focus on the unique and supermodular complementarities
that characterize the relationship between a platform and the actors in an ecosystem (Table I).
For example, applications and their application store have unique complementarity in
the sense that the applications cannot function without the store and its underlying
platform. Furthermore, a supermodular complementarity exists, in that the existence of
K
49,7

2016

Figure 4.
Typology of platform
enterprise
ecosystems

Product or Product or
Service A Service B
(one or (one or
Type of complementarity group) Relation group) Direction

Unique Complementarity 1 A Does not function without B One-way or two-

way
Unique Complementarity 2 A Maximize the value with B One-way or two-
way
Supermodular A Increased amount of B One-way
Product A makes Product
Table I. B more valuable
Types of
complementarity Source: Based on Jacobides et al. (2018)

applications increases the value of the store (Jacobides et al., 2018). The direction offered will
enrich both research into ecosystems and research into mainstream strategy, as firms
become increasingly engaged in and respond to ecosystem growth.
The business platform ecosystem needs to accommodate new technologies easily as
dynamic business capabilities arise (Teece, 2017a). Digital technologies have shifted the
organization’s perspective outwards and created an opportunity to develop innovative new
PE-based BMs. Designing and assessing an ecosystem BM is now an essential activity for
organizations. It requires creativity to imagine these new BMs and analytical skill to assess
their opportunity and viability.
To meet the needs of the target consumers, the platform can adopt four major types of IE
governance model (Kaganer et al., 2013):
  a facilitator, connecting suppliers and buyers directly through a bidding process Platform
(examples: Freelancer, Elance-oDesk); ecosystem
 an arbitrator, engaging multiple suppliers through competitions (examples: framework
Crowdspring, 99designs, MediaPiston, InnoCentive and Witmart);
 an aggregator, aggregating hundreds or thousands of microtasks performed by
multiple suppliers (examples: Amazon Mechanical Turk, MobileWorks,
CrowdFlower and CloudFactory); and 2017
 A governor, providing project governance and certifying supplier quality
(examples: Topcoder, TRADA and uTest).

A PE usually goes through periods of competitive strength and weakness as external

circumstances change, and these dynamics also need to be managed by the platform owner.
Teece (2017a, 2017b) described the PE life cycle as consisting of four phases: birth,
expansion, leadership and self-renewal. This model provides a useful framework for
thinking about how platforms and dynamic capabilities interact.
The following are the broad categories of ecosystem value chain:
 A linear value chain ecosystem orchestrates and optimizes the organization’s value
chain; this is a particularly common type when multiple partners are involved in a
complex value chain.
 A platform-led ecosystem mediates the ecosystem using a platform.
 A decentralized ecosystem is the BE itself, which defines and mediates the
transactions among partners. Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are well-known
cases of decentralized ecosystems based on blockchain technology.

These ecosystem types have resulted in different types of BMs. In the value chain, the BE
opened up the reach and range of value. Today, PEs provide access to a wider range of
partners with complementary capabilities, and to the ability to create and coordinate these
highly complex, demand-driven supply networks. Each of these ecosystem types has
created its own BM opportunities, which require a change in perspective away from the
traditional, input–output process to a dynamic ecosystem perspective.
Osterwalder (2004) has provided an ontology of BMs, which is a conceptualization and
formalization of the elements, relationships, vocabulary and semantics of e-BMs. The
ontology is structured into several levels of decomposition with increasing depth and
complexity. Osterwalder (2004) defined a business model (or BM) as:
[. . .] a conceptual tool that contains a set of elements and their relationships and allows
expressing the business logic of a specific firm. It is a description of the value a company offers to
one or several segments of customers and the architecture of the firm and its network of partners
for creating, marketing and delivering this value and relationship capital, to generate profitable
and sustainable revenue stream.
The interpretation of BMs as formal conceptual representations or descriptions
predominates at present (Osterwalder, 2004; Gassmann et al., 2014). Osterwalder and
Pigneur (2010) have developed a popular business model canvas (BMC), which is a
taxonomy of the nine main BM building blocks (Figure 5).
BM building blocks have been generalized using metacomponents (Günzel and Holm,
2013; Gassmann et al., 2014) (Figure 6). This concept helps us to understand the value being
captured from technological innovations and platforms (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002;
Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Osterwalder et al., 2014), as well as the boundaries of a firm
K (Zott et al., 2010), and it allows the creation of a direct connection between business strategy
49,7 and business processes (Al-Debei and Avison, 2010).
Research on BMs extends across a variety of fields, including information systems,
strategic management and technology and innovation management (Abdelkafi et al., 2013;
Schneider and Spieth, 2013; Zott et al., 2010). It should thus contribute to a better
understanding by providing firms with specific means, such as tools and methods, which
2018 can be used for BM innovation (Remane et al., 2017).
BM patterns describe proven solutions to problems that recur during BM design
(Abdelkafi et al., 2013; Remane et al., 2017; Gassmann et al., 2014). Alexander et al. (1977)
describe them as follows:
Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then
describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a
million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice.
Patterns thus describe a “solution” to a recurring “problem” that needs to be solved, which
also accounts for BM patterns (Abdelkafi et al., 2013). The complete BMs of companies are
often a combination of several patterns (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). A BM pattern
should be usable “a million times over” and therefore requires a certain level of
generalization (Amshoff et al., 2015).
However, many companies have difficulties in capturing and tapping into the
unprecedented ecosystem complexity around products and services in a structured way.
Burkhart et al. (2011) identifies the “absence of formalized means of representations [. . .] to
allow a structured visualization of business model” as a major research gap. In the next
section, we made use of existing methods of BM patterning to build PE businesses.

4. A framework for systematic platform ecosystem research

Studying digital platforms and ecosystems is challenging as a consequence of their distributed
nature (Constantinides et al., 2018), but developments in the business environment pose even
greater research challenges for scholars and businesses. To manage digital platform BM
portfolios and multilayered platform BEs, companies are creating digital platform stacks for
sharing critical assets. As mentioned earlier, a multisided business platform is usually a subset

Figure 5.
Business model
building blocks

Figure 6.
Business model
building blocks with
metacomponents
of components (hardware, software, services), rules (technical standards, protocols for Platform
information exchange, policies and contracts that govern transactions) and or strategy/BMs’ ecosystem
building blocks employed by users in most transactions. Hunter and Coleman (2016) state that:
framework
[. . .] in the context of digital business, a platform is an architecturally innovative means of
sharing assets such as algorithms, data and functions with ecosystems of people, businesses and
things. A platform typically includes tools, functions and support for multiple customer segments
(e.g., buyers and sellers; students, faculty and administrators). 2019
With new digital BMs, resources may be added or combined in new and different ways to
support the digital platform strategy; an organization may also begin with a set of resources
applied across the entire business or else apply specific assets to a few areas.
Yablonsky (2018a, 2018b) proposed the following integration of business and
technological platform counterparts in the multilayered digital platform stack (Figure 7):
(1) Business platforms stack:
 1.1. BM and leadership platform.
 1.2. Talent platform.
 1.3. Delivery platform.
 1.4. Promotion platform.
 1.5. Other.

(2) Technology platforms stack related with innovation technologies

 2.1. Information systems platform.
 2.2. Customer experience platform.
 2.3. Data and analytics platform.
 2.4. IoT platform.
 2.5. Ecosystems platform.
 2.6. Trust platform.
 2.7. Integration platform.
 2.8. Other.

Figure 7.
Digital platform stack
K The digital business platform stack is described through the lens of business and technology
49,7 platform layers and platform capabilities (Teece, 2017a). It is intended to provide a higher-
level overview of the key capabilities needed to assemble a digital business platform stack.
With digital platform BMs organized in the BM portfolio, platform assets may be added or
combined in new and different ways to support the digital platform strategy. Delivering a
digital platform demands new capabilities to enable, support and evolve digital business,
2020 including enterprises and ecosystems (Burton and Basiliere, 2016). We use this framework
to identify and specify digital PE substacks (Figure 7).
Drawing on existing knowledge in the field of PEs (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010;
Osterwalder et al., 2014; Blosch and Burton, 2016; Blaschke et al., 2017a, 2017b; Yablonsky,
2018a, 2018b) and platform research (Evans, and Gawer, 2016), we argue that a
metastructuring perspective throughout the platform landscape represents an important
contribution that has, to date, been lacking. The objective of this research was to create such
a metastructuring perspective for PE research. We make use of a taxonomy-enabled
methodology to create a consistent structure for the PE framework.

4.1 Business platform ecosystem stack

The business PE stack is a part of platform stack (Figure 7). It is more closely related to PE
capabilities.
The key roles of a business model and leadership platform ecosystem (BM&LPE) are to
collect dispersed sources of knowledge, to recombine the collected knowledge so as to
empower innovation and management and to transfer it to new technological and
organization contexts. A digital PE is a business-driven framework that describes how a
community of partners, providers and customers share and enhance digital processes and
capabilities, or extend them for mutual benefit. This framework enables the different
combinations of BMs, leadership, talent, delivery and IT infrastructure that power a digital
platform BE.
A PE BMP (Figure 8) consists of following main parts:
 platform;
 target groups of customers (producers and consumers, including employees);
 target ecosystem partners;
 complementary products and services; and
 rival platform ecosystems and the competitive environment in which they exist;
upstream and downstream parts of the platform’s value chain (Tiwana, 2014).

We provide the taxonomy of PE BMPs as a basic conceptual framework and knowledge

management tool for describing, analyzing and interpreting nonprice instruments used in
digital PEs. We adopt this taxonomy (Yablonsky, 2018a, 2018b) to define a PE BMP with
relative importance of specific types. A PE BMP is a conceptualization and formalization of
the elements, relationships, vocabulary and semantics of PEs. It is structured into several
levels of decomposition with increasing depth and complexity and contains over a hundred
entities. Space considerations allow us to present only three taxonomy levels with a limited
number of entities (Figure 8).
Platform ecosystem usually use different combinations of the following sources of value:
 Customer data: Personal/firm/institution profiles, data and insights.
 Digital content: 3DP files, video/audio/visual content, etc.
 Platform
ecosystem
framework

2021

Figure 8.
Platform BE BMP
K  Marketplace/community/network connections: Number of partners and customers in
49,7 ecosystem, number of type of connections, etc.
 Algorithms: Forecasting, algorithmic trading (algotrading).
 Represented/stored value: Cryptocurrencies, block chain trust, crowdfunding,
loyalty points.
 Technology infrastructure and apps.
2022
 Ecosystem products/services: Physical, apps, financial, human, intellectual, property,
hybrid.
 Business policies/rules/regulations/APIs (implementing business policies in the DE):
Customer application programming interfaces (APIs), partner and supplier APIs,
APIs for management.
 Ecosystem decision-making and sharing.

A PE creates Value by facilitating interactions between different sides of the platform. A PE

Value Preposition usually creates value in the following main areas:
 mobilizing user groups (customer segments) and balancing interests;
 matchmaking between customer and partner segments;
 reducing costs by channeling transaction through the PE; and
 making strategic decisions in the evolution of the ecosystem, multihoming costs,
scaling and liquidity.

A platform provides business with a foundation where resources can come together in
different combinations to create value. Some resources may be inside, permanently owned
by the company; some may be shared; and some can come from an outside ecosystem. The
value arises largely from the dynamic connection of these resources and actors, and from the
network effects between them. The generativity of digital platforms produces exponential
growth of PEs, thereby creating research objects that are several orders of magnitude larger
than any traditional IS system (De Reuver et al., 2018).
Platform ecosystem increases Value to such an extent that it attracts even more users. A
PE’s value to a user depends on the number of other PE users and defines the willingness-to-
pay (WTP) for platform ecosystem participation. WTP for platform ecosystem affiliation is a
cap on platform fees. The key to PE management is to understand the network effects that
occur when the value of a product, service or piece of data depends on the number of other
users (Shapiro and Varian, 1999). A network effect (also called network externality) is the
effect that one user of a platform, good or service has on the value of that product to other
people. When a network effect is present, the value of a product, service or piece of data is
dependent on the number of others using it. Network effect may be negative (e.g. due to
congestion) or positive.
The PE BMP has two or more Platform Customer Segments, each of which has its own
value preposition and associated revenue stream. Furthermore, in some BMs, one customer
segment cannot exist without another. Sometimes one or more customer segments may
enjoy free offers or reduced prices subsidized by revenue from other customer segments.
Choosing which segment to subsidize can be a crucial strategic pricing decision that
determines the success of platform BM. Platforms are of value to one group of customers
only if the other groups of customers are also present.
The main Platform Costs incurred under Platform BMP relate to maintaining and
developing the platform. Platform costs can be divided into:
  homing costs, related to the adoption, operation or other costs encountered due to Platform
platform affiliation (Armstrong, 2006); and ecosystem
 switching costs, paid by consumers for switching from one platform to another framework
(Shapiro and Varian, 1999).

The following key partners are present in the platform BE:

 user enterprises in all sectors, who want to improve or transform their services and
2023
products using innovative technology, data products and services;
 data generators and providers, who create, collect, aggregate, transform and model
raw data from various public and nonpublic sources and offer them to customers;
 technology providers, who provide tools and platforms that offer BD management
and analytic tools to extract knowledge from ecosystem data, curate and allow it to
be visualized;
 service providers, who develop applications on top of the tools and platforms to
provide services to user enterprises;
 entrepreneurs, who build innovative businesses and services based on the demand
and supply sides;
 researchers and academics, who provide access to state-of-the-art research in
innovative technologies; and
 policymakers, who are responsible for establishing policy framework conditions
that foster the adoption of innovative technology in various sectors.

The goal of a talent platform is to facilitate knowledge exchange in BM and leadership

environments and to offer affiliated economic agents the opportunity to access large
intraecosystem or ecosystem communities of economic agents with experiential, educational
and professional knowledge of the company’s diverse geographical and disciplinary fields
(Boudreau, 2010; Boudreau et al., 2011; Colombo et al., 2013; Colombo et al., 2015; Evans and
Gawer, 2016).
A talent business platform ecosystem creates value primarily by enabling direct
interactions between two (or more) distinct types of affiliated talent consumers. The talent
business platform ecosystem is at the center of the enterprise’s relationship with talent. How
can enterprise acquire and keep top talent in the age of digital business? In relationships
with top talent, an enterprise can use marketers’ tools and analysis. Seeing talent as a
customer and employment by a talent platform as the fulfilment of a brand promise can help
improve talent acquisition and retention. Persistent shortfalls in key talent areas show that
enterprises need to act immediately to adapt their talent approaches to the digital world. A
talent business platform ecosystem serves the need of multiple customer segments, including
enterprise executives and managers, HR professionals and recruiters and potential or
current employees, to create and maintain engagement and evolving relationships between
the enterprise and its internal and external contributors (Hunter and Coleman, 2016). A key
function of the talent PE is to capture and analyze data related to talented individuals and
talent pools before, during and after their employment by the enterprise. The talent PE
specifically supports an approach to talent that recognizes and leverages the customer
decision life cycle of “explore, evaluate and engage.” Treating talent as a customer whose
relationship with the enterprise involves a mix of exploration, evaluation and engagement
over time is more realistic and fruitful for all involved than treating the acquisition of talent
as a transaction.
K A delivery business platform ecosystem creates value primarily by enabling direct
49,7 interactions between two (or more) distinct types of affiliated delivery consumers.
A promotion digital business platform ecosystem creates value primarily by enabling
direct promotion interactions between two or more distinct types of affiliated platform
participants, such as consumers, producers and providers. It allows creation of internally
managed outbound messages and external inbound messages sent by platform participants
2024 themselves. A promotion platform influences platform participants – consumers, producers
and providers – to submit multimedia messages, provide different types of activities and
promote them on social media and PEs.

4.2 Technology platforms stack (ecosystem part)

The coevolution of the BE is typically reliant on the technological leadership of one or two
firms that provide a platform; other ecosystem members that provide inputs and
complementary goods align their investments and strategies with this. The PE technology
stack is correlated with innovative technologies. To manage new digital BMs and BEs,
companies need to create a digital business platform to share critical assets. Coltman and
Queiroz (2015) state that a firm’s strategy on the corporate level refers to the set of choices
regarding how to compete across the different businesses that constitute the corporate
profile. On this level, strategic decisions are made about how technological platforms can
support levels of data sharing and business process standardization across business units
(BUs).
Corporate-level strategy is reflected in corporate technological platforms that include
data, hardware, network, applications and management services shared by BUs. A core
function of technological platforms is thus to provide the foundation that allows BUs to
leverage common factors of production and to promote process synergies where the joint
value creation is greater than the sum of the value created by the individual businesses.
Realizing these synergies requires continuous efforts of alignment to ensure that corporate
strategy and the capabilities of corporate technological platforms are integrated.
Digital technology platforms are described through the lens of applications and business
capability components that support business PE. There are multiple layers to these
technological platforms, which are necessary to effectively implement and integrate it in
practice (LeHong et al., 2016). Business platforms are supported by technology platforms in
seven overlapping areas (see Figure 9):
(1) Information system platforms (T1:ISP) support the front and back office and
operations, such as ERP and other core systems.
(2) Customer experience platforms (T2:CEP) contain the main customer facing parts,
such as customer and citizen portals, omnichannel commerce and customer apps.
(3) Data and analytics platforms (T3:DAP) include information management and
analytical capabilities. Data management programs and analytical applications
fuel data-driven decision-making, and algorithms automate discovery and action.
Through data and analytics platform, the ecosystem data environment supports a
community of interacting organizations and individuals.
(4) IoT platforms (T4:IOTP) connect physical assets and smart machines (smart
things) for monitoring, optimization, control, analytics and monetization.
Capabilities include connectivity, analytics and integration with core and OT
systems.
 (5) Ecosystems platforms (T5:EP) support the creation of, and connection to, external Platform
ecosystems, marketplaces and communities. API management control and security ecosystem
are their main elements.
framework
(6) Trust platforms (T6:TP) are based on blockchain technology and are used to foster
trust.
(7) Integration platforms (T7:IP) support the integration of all the above platforms,
allowing the maximum flexibility to support business transformation demands. 2025
Platform ecosystems can also be supported by data and process integration
platforms. For example, IP supports multipartner collaborations on different
digital platforms.

All capabilities in the technology platform stack can be sourced from any combination of
internal resources or external partners (insourcing, outsourcing, as-a-service and cloud
sourcing).
Ecosystem platforms are the main technology platforms that support business platform
ecosystems. The purpose of such platforms is to empower an enterprise to create value from
external BEs – the whole business network of company, customers, partners and global
competition. This requires the ability to make assets such as data, algorithms, transactions
and business processes available to external BEs through APIs; to construct ecosystems
that an enterprise can host to connect new partners and developers; and to connect to
industry ecosystems, such as marketplaces, supply chain hubs and financial networks. It
also requires organizations to consider the relationship between internal, private and public
APIs to unlock new revenue opportunities from existing services and information. We
provide a generalization of the modern structures of ecosystems (Blosch and Burton, 2016;
Oswald and Kleinemeier, 2017) that create a PE structure (see Figure 9).
(1) The ecosystem platform (T5:EP) contains:
 Application programming interface (API) management software (T5.1) that
provides proper management, security and governance for the enterprise’s sets
of ecosystem APIs, to interconnect employees, customers and partners. Banks,
retailers, governments and any kind of enterprise can expand their capabilities
into the digital world via APIs. API management software can make APIs
available to BEs and be integrated with APIs outside of the enterprise. This
serves both incoming (from external providers) and outgoing (from the
enterprise’s public-facing) APIs, and it provides a mechanism to inspire the
development of new services and to manage the usage of APIs.
 Customer-facing (or external-facing) public APIs and partner-facing public (or
outgoing) APIs (T5.2). These APIs are not applications or apps; instead, they
are key functionalities to be used in external applications, apps and websites.
 Enterprise-run ecosystems (T5.3) could be built by enterprises as commercial or
community-based PEs. For example, a platform enterprise may wish to create a
buyer/seller/third-party platform marketplace for products or services (such as
eBay, Amazon, Uber and Airbnb). The ability to create social graphs, feeds,
monetization engines and algorithms that link supply with demand (e.g.
recommendation engines) is one of the main capabilities of such platforms.
 Industry and vendor-run ecosystems (T5.4) are provided in some industries as
different hubs, communities and networks that bring together players in the
value chain. For example, retail marketplaces, B2B marketplaces, credit card
K
49,7

2026

Figure 9.
Overlapping of
technological
platforms

networks, payment networks, coupon clearinghouse networks and supply

chain hubs are external ecosystems run by an industry consortium or third-
party, technology vendors or suppliers and customers. These technologies
connect and allow interaction and commerce
 Customer portal and apps alongside supplier portal and apps (T5.5) are among a
platform enterprise’s first outreach to external ecosystems. An ecosystems
platform should be linked to all other platforms directly or through integration
and trust platforms. All other platforms will then use this as a way to digitally
interact or transact with the external world. In many ways, the ecosystems
platform serves as a gateway and host to the external world of agents and
actors. However, nearly all enterprises would prefer to have access to external
APIs or to expose their own API publicly.
 At the same time, other technology platforms should be integrated into the
ecosystem platform to add value to the platform BE:
 The information system platform (T1:ISP) includes email, telephony, video, file
storage and sharing, collaboration tools, productivity tools, employee app
stores and personal employee apps for the enterprise’s internal ecosystem,
permitting employee digital collaboration in the workplace.
(2) The customer experience platform (T2: CEP):
 Is multichannel, regardless of the interaction channel. Preferably, these
customer activities are API-based and can be combined to form any customer-
facing process across any channel. Multichannel interaction and commerce
may be B2C, B2B, B2B2C or citizen-facing.
  Involves internal and external social networks for the enterprise. Enterprises Platform
ought to be able to participate in social networks for community interaction and ecosystem
transactional functions (e.g., commerce and payment). The customer experience
platform needs to be able to support this aim by enabling the posting
framework
of multimedia data (feeds, graphics, photos, videos, etc.) and by receiving data
(e.g., customer questions from Facebook, reviews and opinions etc.). This can
also provide a mechanism for employees to engage with customers or
participants to improve the experience.
2027
(3) The data and analytics platform (T3:DAP) provides analytics and AI support of
the PE.
(4) The IoT platform (T4:IOTP) provides:
 Connectivity to enterprise-owned things and smart machines. Any enterprise
has a whole set of heterogeneous assets that it owns and uses, such as
manufacturing equipment, medical equipment, vending machines, store
equipment, and so on. The IoT platform provides connectivity to this
equipment, and should be able to handle many different data and wireless
standards.
 Support for BE consumer smart things. Enterprises should be able to connect
to customer’s smart things; at the same time, consumer things and smart
machines (e.g., appliances and electronics), cars and many other consumer-
owned things should be able to connect to an enterprise’s IoT platform.
 Support for BE partner smart things, with connectivity to partner-owned
things and smart machines. Any enterprise uses assets that it leases or that are
operated by partners. An IoT platform should also perform as a gateway to
data from partner-owned things and smart machines.

5. Platform ecosystem design and management

If a platform emerges, a platform leader not only needs to develop the underlying core
technology but also successively the BM, if it is to broaden the scope of the platform and PE
(Moser and Gassmann, 2016). Many companies now have difficulties in capturing and
tapping into the unprecedented ecosystem complexity around products and services in a
structured way (Turber et al., 2014). Scholars stress that, especially for IoT PEs,
characteristics such as multipartner collaborations, diverse partners in cross-industry
ecosystems on digital platforms or customers’ enhanced role as value co-creators, given their
provision of user data, are difficult to visualize and capture.
Indeed, PEs can quickly become highly complex. Enterprise platform architecture must
thus be closely involved in the planning and evolution of the PE, along with the design of the
technical architecture, delivery model and strategy. A successful platform strategy involves
creating an offering that is valuable to the ecosystem, innovative and dynamic, while
evolving in a measured, coordinated way. Care must be taken to balance innovation and
execution (Blosch and Burton, 2016).
We adopt the method and metacharacteristics of the platform BM (Figure 6) to design the
PE (Yablonsky, 2018a). This method helps us to understand how value is captured from
technological innovations and platforms, as well as the boundaries of a firm. It creates a
direct connection between business strategy, business processes and technological
platforms. Portfolios of digital platform enterprise ecosystem BM incorporate multiple
activities that are sometimes difficult to unravel, analyze and innovate (Yablonsky, 2018a).
K They are usually rapidly changed. To maximize the complementarity across the PE BM
49,7 portfolio, it is important to identify the relationship between the different BMs, business
platform capabilities, technological platforms, performance and innovation in the enterprise
digital platform stack. We use the straightforward method of matrix mapping for every BM
from the PE BM portfolio (Yablonsky, 2018a). As a synthesis of different views that
technology analysts, researchers and practitioners are commonly using today, we analyze
2028 and design business PE dimensions (marked “DN” in Table II) through a minimalistic,
object-oriented, functional representation based on seven key technology platforms (marked
“TN” in Table II). The level of granularity depends on the level of detail needed (Yablonsky,
2018a).
For example, the following sequence based on the key dimensions of a PE BM pattern
might be implemented:
 List all platform BMs in the platform portfolio.
 For each platform BM, use a digital PE BM pattern as a first access point for coming
up with some initial ideas for the analysis.
 Using the proposed framework of a digital PE stack with an map of the overlaps of
the technological platforms, reflect on the strategic intent, analyze the layers of the
business PE (BM and leadership platform, talent platform, delivery platform, etc.)
from the idea design process while streamlining this with an eye for possible
technological platform synergies.
 Use of value drivers for specific dimensions of the platform innovation to clarify
how technology is employed in implementing the digital PE BM ideas. Value
drivers related to all specific digital dimensions of the PE’s performance and
innovation may be a consideration.

The proposed process could be run through several iterations until all PE BMs from the PE
BM portfolio are be classified, and all matrix cells filled. This approach would keep the focus
on the transformation of the digital platform throughout the PE BM design process, while
providing leeway to explore opportunities beyond digitalization. Another example is to do a
“checklist” exercise to determine what platform parts are missing in the enterprise, or in
need of improvement or updating. The results of such a checklist can be foundational.

6. Conclusion
As has been mentioned by Blaschke et al. (2017), what is needed in the digital age of
business is “a methodology for systematic digital business modelling based on a language
both business and technology experts equally understand”. We have thus proposed such a
theoretically and practically improved multimethodology for PE strategy, BMP and IS
research. This paper contributes to research in the system design, strategic management
and information systems domains by presenting a multidimensional taxonomy framework
that identifies how platform BEs improve management within organizations. Enterprise
architecture (or EA) is most commonly associated with IT. In this paper, we describe a
simplified, top-down approach to making decisions on enterprise architecture (EA) in the
context of business PE architecture, focusing on information technology with the objective
of providing a better alignment between BE design and IT. Our research has focused on the
digital PE stack – the necessary platform components such as technology, leadership, talent
and skills, delivery, trust marketing, ecosystem and BMs, required to support the
capabilities of digital business innovations. The structured approach we have presented
here might serve as a step in this direction. The multidimensional framework was discussed
Business platforms ecosystem dimension Technology platforms ecosystem dimensions
T5: Ecosystem platform Other platforms
BM business platform T5.1 T5.2 T5.3 T5.4 T5.5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T6 T7

Overarching
D1: Hierarchical impact AD1T5.1 AD1T5.2 AD1T5.3 AD1T5.1 AD1T5.1 AD1T1 AD1T2 AD1T3 AD1T4 AD1T6 AD1T7
D1.1: Prototypical pattern AD1.1T5.1 AD1.1T5.2 AD1.1T5.3 AD1.1T5.1 AD1.1T5.1 AD1.1T1 AD1.1T2 AD1.1T3 AD1.1T4 AD1.1T6 AD1.1T7
D1.2: Solution pattern AD1.2T5.1 AD1.2T5.2 AD1.2T5.3 AD1.2T5.1 AD1.2T5.1 AD1.2T1 AD1.2T2 AD1.2T3 AD1.2T4 AD1.2T6 AD1.2T7
D2: Degree of digitization AD2T5.1 AD2T5.2 AD2T5.3 AD2T5.1 AD2T5.1 AD2T1 AD2T2 AD2T3 AD2T4 AD2T6 AD2T7
D2.1: Purely digital AD2.1T5.1 AD2.1T5.2 AD2.1T5.3 AD2.1T5.1 AD2.1T5.1 AD2.1T1 AD2.1T2 AD2.1T3 AD2.1T4 AD2.1T6 AD2.1T7
D2.2: Digitally enabled AD2.2T5.1 AD2.2T5.2 AD2.2T5.3 AD2.2T5.1 AD2.2T5.1 AD2.2T1 AD2.2T2 AD2.2T3 AD2.2T4 AD2.2T6 AD2.2T7
D2.3: Not necessarily digital AD2.3T5.1 AD2.3T5.2 AD2.3T5.3 AD2.3T5.1 AD2.3T5.1 AD2.3T1 AD2.3T2 AD2.3T3 AD2.3T4 AD2.3T6 AD2.3T7
Value proposition
D3: Product type AD3T5.1 AD3T5.2 AD3T5.3 AD3T5.1 AD3T5.1 AD3T1 AD3T2 AD3T3 AD3T4 AD3T6 AD3T7
D4: Ecosystem Actors AD4T5.1 AD4T5.2 A D4T5.3 A D4T5.1 A D4T5.1 A D4T1 A D4T2 A D4T3 A D4T4 A D4T6 A D4T7
D4.1: Producer AD4.1T5.1 A D4.1T5.2 A D4.1T5.3 A D4.1T5.1 A D4.1T5.1 A D4.1T1 A D4.1T2 A D4.1T3 A D4.1T4 A D4.1T6 A D4.1T7
D4.2: Consumers AD4.2T5.1 A D4.2T5.2 A D4.2T5.3 A D4.2T5.1 A D4.2T5.1 A D4.2T1 A D4.2T2 A D4.2T3 A D4.2T4 A D4.2T6 A D4.2T7
D4.3: Partners AD 4.3T5.1 A D 4.3T5.2 A D 4.3T5.3 A D 4.3T5.1 A D 4.3T5.1 A D 4.3T1 A D 4.3T2 A D 4.3T3 A D 4.3T4 A D 4.3T6 A D 4.3T7
D4.4: Employees AD 4.4T5.1 A D 4.4T5.2 A D 4.4T5.3 A D 4.4T5.1 A D 4.4T5.1 A D 4.4T1 A D 4.4T2 A D 4.4T3 A D 4.4T4 A D 4.4T6 A D 4.4T7
D5: Value delivery process AD5T5.1 A D5T5.2 A D5T5.3 A D5T5.1 A D5T5.1 A D5T1 A D5T2 A D5T3 A D5T4 A D5T6 A D5T7
D6: Differentiation AD6T5.1 A D6T5.2 A D6T5.3 A D6T5.1 A D6T5.1 A D6T1 A D6T2 A D6T3 A D6T4 A D6T6 A D6T7
Value creation
D7: Sourcing AD7T5.1 A D7T5.2 A D7T5.3 A D7T5.1 A D7T5.1 A D7T1 A D7T2 A D7T3 A D7T4 A D7T6 A D7T7
D8: Ecosystem partners AD8T5.1 A D8T5.2 A D8T5.3 A D8T5.1 A D8T5.1 A D8T1 A D8T2 A D8T3 A D8T4 A D8T6 A D8T7
D9: Key activities AD9T5.1 A D9T5.2 A D9T5.3 A D9T5.1 A D9T5.1 A D9T1 A D9T2 A D9T3 A D9T4 A D9T6 A D9T7
D10: Key resources AD10T5.1 A D10T5.2 A D10T5.3 A D10T5.1 A D10T5.1 A D10T1 A D10T2 A D10T3 A D10T4 A D10T6 A D10T7
Value capture
D11: Revenue model(s) AD11T5.1 A D11T5.2 A D11T5.3 A D11T5.1 A D11T5.1 A D11T1 A D11T2 A D11T3 A D11T4 A D11T6 A D11T7
D12: Pricing strategy AD12T5.1 A D12T5.2 A D12T5.3 A D12T5.1 A D12T5.1 A D12T1 A D12T2 A D12T3 A D12T4 A D12T6 A D12T7

Source: Based on Jacobides et al. (2018)

relationship between

platforms, Aj, j 
and the technology
substack (BE BMP)
2029

the business PE
Matrix forms
framework
ecosystem

{0,1} or other scale

Table II.
Platform
K and used for developing the concept of some platform markets, ecosystems and BMs within
49,7 the framework of the Russian NTI. The originality of the research described in this paper
concerns the development of a multidimensional top-down approach to platform enterprise
ecosystem development, one that provides support for executives to examine the
interrelationships across PE BM portfolio on a regular basis. The multidimensional PE
taxonomy framework supports the generation of the envisioned synergies from business
2030 and technological PE innovations. At the same time, it could be used to diversify PE BMs,
which could help executives improve ecosystem performance. The PE BM pattern
highlights a number of specific design ideas. Platform ecosystem BMP framework with
metacomponents assist in research involving the identification, creation, assessment and
disclosure of platform BEs. The outcomes of this research could be used for planning,
oversight and control over ecosystem management, as well as for the use of an ecosystem’s
knowledge-related resources for research purpose.

References
Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S. and Posselt, T. (2013), “Business model innovations for electric mobility:
what can be learned from existing business model patterns?”, International Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-41.
Ackoff, R. (1971), “Towards a system of systems concepts”, Management Science, Vol. 17 No. 11,
pp. 661-671, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661.
Adner, R. (2006), “Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 98-107.
Adner, R. (2012), The Wide Lens: A New Strategy for Innovation, Portfolio/Penguin, New York, NY.
Adner, R. (2017), “Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 39-58.
Adner, R. and and Feiler, D. (2016), “Innovation interdependence and investment choices: an
experimental approach to decision making in ecosystems”, Working paper.
Al-Debei, M.M. and Avison, D. (2010), “Developing a unified framework of the business model concept”,
European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 359-376.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977), “A pattern language: towns”, Buildings,
Construction, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Amshoff, B., Dülme, C., Echterfeld, J. and Gausemeier, J. (2015), “Business model patterns for disruptive
technologies”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 1-22.
Armstrong, M. (2006), “Competition in two-sided markets”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 668-691.
Asheim, B., Gertler, T. and Meric, S. (2005), “The geography of innovation: regional innovation
systems”, in Fagerberg, J, Mowery, D, Nelson, R. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 291-317.
Augier, M. and Teece, D.J. (2008), “Strategy as evolution with design: the foundations of dynamic
capabilities and the role of managers in the economic system”, Organization Studies, Vol. 29
Nos 8/9, pp. 1187-1208.
Blaschke, M., Haki, M., Riss, U. and Aier, S. (2017a), “Design principles for business-model-based
management methods”, A Service-dominant Logic Perspective, Proceedings International
Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST)
2017.
Blaschke, M., Cigaina, M., Riss, U. and Shoshan, I. (2017b), “Designing business models for the digital
economy”, in Oswald, G. and Kleinemeier, M. (Eds), Shaping the Digital Enterprise. Trends and
 Use Cases in Digital Innovationand Transformation, Springer International Publishing Platform
Switzerland, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40967-2_6.
ecosystem
Blosch, M. and Burton, B. (2016), “Architecting platform ecosystems is key to integrate people, business
and things”, Gartner Research Report, ID: G00291299, available at: www.gartner.com/doc/3196533?
framework
ref=SiteSearch&sthkw=Platform%20Business%20Model%20Orchestration&fnl=search&srcId=
1-3478922254 (accessed 08 December 2019).
Blosch, M. and Burton, B. (2019), Hype Cycle for Business Ecosystems, 2019, Gartner ID: G00370579,
Gartner. 2031
Boudreau, K. (2010), “Open platform strategies and innovation: granting access vs. devolving control”,
Management Science, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 1849-1872.
Boudreau, K.J., Lacetera, N. and Lakhani, K.R. (2011), “Incentives and problem uncertainty in
innovation contests: an empirical analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 57 No. 5,
pp. 843-863.
Briscoe, G., Sadedin, S. and De Wilde, P. (2011), “Digital ecosystems: ecosystem-oriented architectures”,
Natural Computing, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. 1143.
Bullinger, A. (2009), Innovation and Ontologies. Structuring the Early Stages of Innovation, Gabler
Edition Wissenschaft.
Burkhart, T., Krumeich, J., Werth, D. and Loos, P. (2011), “Analysing the business model concept – a
comprehensive classification of literature”, International Conference on Information Science, pp. 1-19.
Burton, B. and Basiliere, P. (2016), “Architect digital platforms to deliver business value and outcomes”,
Gartner Report, ID: G00318861, available at: www.gartner.com/doc/3518917?ref=SiteSearch&
sthkw=PLATFORM%20STACK&fnl=search&srcId=1-3478922254 (accessed 18 December 2019).
Carlaw, K.I. and Lipsey, R.G. (2002), “Externalities, technological complementarities and sustained
economic growth”, Research Policy, Vol. 31 Nos 8/9, pp. 1305-1315.
Carroll, G. and Negro, G. (2018), “Organizational ecology”, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics,
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 1208-1211.
Cearley, D. Walker, M. Burke, B. and Searle, S. (2017), “Top 10 strategic technology trends for 2017: a
Gartner trend insight report”, Gartner ID: G00319572, available at: www.gartner.com/doc/
3645332?srcId=1-6595640781 (accessed 18 December 2019).
Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R. (2002), “The role of the business model in capturing value from
innovation: evidence from xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies”, Industrial and
Corporate Change, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 529-555.
Colombo, G., Dell’Era, C. and Frattini, F. (2015), “Exploring the contribution of innovation
intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical
study”, R&D Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 126-146.
Colombo, G., Buganza, T., Klanner, I.-M. and Roiser, S. (2013), “Crowdsourcing intermediaries and
problem typologies: an explorative study”, International Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1142/S1363919613500059.
Coltman, T. and Queiroz, M. (2015), “Information technology and strategy”, in Augier, M. and Teece, D.
J. (Eds), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management, available at: www.
palgraveconnect.com/esm/doifinder/10.1057/9781137294678.0794
Cong, S. and Wei, J. (2019), “Digging deep into the enterprise innovation ecosystem: how do enterprises
build and coordinate innovation ecosystem at firm level”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 820-839.
Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O. and Parker, G. (2018), “Platforms and infrastructures in the digital
age”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 29 No. 2.
De, S., Zhou, Y. and Moessner, K. (2017), Ontologies and Context Modeling for the Web of Things
Managing the Web of Things, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 3-36.
K DeBeasi, P. and Knoernschild, K. (2019), Planning Guide Overview: Architecting Your Digital Ecosystem,
Gartner ID: G00361489, Gartner.
49,7
De Reuver, M., Sørensen, C. and Basole, R.C. (2018), “The digital platform: a research agenda”, Journal
of Information Technology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 124-135.
Desmet, D. Maerkedahl, N. and Shi, P. (2017), “Adopting an ecosystem view of business technology”,
available at: www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/adopting-
an-ecosystem-view-of-business-technology (accessed 18 December 2019).
2032
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2011), “Platform envelopment”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 1270-1285.
Evans, P.C. and Gawer, A. (2016), The Rise of the Platform Enterprise a Global Survey, Center for Global
Enterprise, New York, NY, available at: www.thecge.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PDF-
WEBPlatform-Survey_01_12.pdf (accessed 18 December 2019).
Evans, D.S. (2003), “Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries”, Review of Network
Economics, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 191-209.
Evans, D.S. and Schmalensee, R. (2016), Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms,
Harvard Business Review Press, p. 272.
Flood, R. and Jackson, M. (1991), Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley, p. 268.
Gartner (2017), “Capitalizing on your business ecosystems economy: a Gartner trend insight report, ID:
G00337218”, available at: www.gartner.com/document/3759164 (accessed 03 December 2019).
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K. and Csik, M. (2014), “Revolutionizing the business model”, in
Gassmann, O. and Schweitzer, F. (Eds), Management of the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation,
Pringer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 89-97.
Gawer, A. (2009), Platform Dynamics and Strategies: From Products to Services in: Platforms, Markets
and Innovation, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gawer, A. (2014), “Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative
framework”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1239-1249.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. (2002), Platform Leadership, Vol. 400, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. (2002), Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive
Industry Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A. (2008), “How companies become platform leaders”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 28-35.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. (2014), “Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 417-433.
Gomes, A., Facin, L., Salerno, M. and Ikenami, R. (2018), “Unpacking the innovation ecosystem
construct: evolution, gaps and trends”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 136,
pp. 30-48, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009.
Granstrand, O. (2000), “Corporate innovation systems: a comparative study of multi-technology
corporations in Japan, Sweden and the USA”, Dynacom Series, Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg.
Granstranda, O. and Holgerssonb, M. (2019), “Innovation ecosystems: a conceptual review and a new
definition”, Technovation, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098.
Günzel, F. and Holm, A. (2013), “One size does not fit all – understanding the front-end and back-end of
business model innovation”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 1-34.
Gupta, R., Mejia, C. and Kajikawa, Y. (2019), “Business, innovation and digital ecosystems landscape
survey and knowledge cross sharing”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 147,
pp. 100-109.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977), “The population ecology of organizations”, American Journal of Platform
Sociology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 929-964.
ecosystem
Hein, A., Weking, J., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M. and Krcmar, H. (2019b), “Value co-creation
practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 503-518.
framework
Hannan, M., Polos, L.G.R. and Carroll, G. (2007), Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and
Ecologies, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, T., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M. and Krcmar, H. (2019a), “Digital 2033
platform ecosystems”, Electron Markets, No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4.
Hunter, R. and Coleman, M. (2016), “Competing for top talent: build the talent platform”, Gartner
Research, ID: G00308714, Gartner.
Jacobides, M.G., Knudsen, T. and Augier, M. (2006), “Benefiting from innovation: value creation, value
appropriation and the role of industry architectures”, Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1200-1221.
Jacobides, M., Cennamo, C. and Gawer, A. (2018), “Towards a theory of ecosystems”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 2255-2276.
Kaganer, E., Carmel, E., Hirschheim, R. and Timothy, O. (2013), “Managing the human cloud”, MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 2, p. 23.
Kapoor, R. (2018), “Ecosystems: broadening the locus of value creation”, Journal of Organization
Design, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 12.
Kapoor, R. and Lee, J.M. (2013), “Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: how organizational forms
shape new technology investments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 274-296,
doi: 10.1002/smj.2010.
LeHong, H. Howard, C. Gaughan, D. and Logan, D. (2016), “Building a digital business technology
platform”, Gartner, [Electronic resource], available at: www.gartner.com/binaries/content/assets/
events/keywords/symposium/esc28/esc28_digitalbusiness.pdf (accessed 24 December 2019).
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (Ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London.
Metcalfe, B. (2013), “Metcalfe’s law after 40 years of Ethernet”, Computer, Vol. 46 No. 12, pp. 26-31.
Moore, J.F. (1993), “Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 75-86.
Moore, J.F. (1996), The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business
Ecosystems, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Moore, J.F. (2006), “Business ecosystems and the view from the firm”, The Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 31-75.
Moser, D. and Gassmann, O. (2016), “Innovating platform business models”, Proceedings of The XXVII
ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s Innovation Vintage, Porto, on 19-22 June 2016.
Moyer, K. (2016), “Industry visions for digital business set the terms of competition”, Gartner research,
ID: G00307722, Gartner.
Nickerson, R. and Muntermann, J. (2013), “A method for taxonomy development and its application in
information systems”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3.
Osterwalder, A. (2004), “The business model ontology – a proposition in a design science approach”,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Lausanne, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales HEC.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G. and Smith, A. (2014), Value Proposition Design: How to
Create Products and Services Customers Want, John Wiley and Sons.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, I. (2010), Business Model Generation: AHandbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challengers, John Wiley and Sons.
Oswald, G. and M. Kleinemeier (Eds.) (2017), Shaping the Digital Enterprise. Trends and Use Cases in
Digital Innovation and Transformation, Springer International Publishing.
K Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2014), “Platform strategy”, in Augier M, Teece D. (Eds), The Palgrave
Encyclopedia of Strategic Management, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
49,7
Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2005), “Two-sided network effects: a theory of information product
design”, Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 1494-1504.
Parker, G.G., Van Alstyne, M.W. and Choudary, S.P. (2016), Platform Revolution, Norton and Co,
New York, NY.
2034 Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M. and Jiang, X. (2017), “Platform ecosystems: how developers invert the firm”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 255-266.
Poli, R., Healy, M. and Kameas, A. (Eds) (2010), Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer
Applications, Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg, London New York, NY, available at: www.
springer.com/gp/book/9789048188468
Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Tesch, J. and Kolbe, L.M. (2017), “The business model pattern database – a tool
for systematic business model innovation”, International Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 21 No. 1.
Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. (1998), “Planning for product platforms”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 39, pp. 19-31.
Rochet, J.-C. and Tirole, J. (2003), “Platform competition in two-sided markets”, Journal of the European
Economic Association, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 190-1029.
Rochet, J.-C. and Tirole, J. (2004), “Two-sided markets: where we stand”, Rand Journal of Economics,
Vol. 33 No. 4.
Rochet, J.-C. and Tirole, J. (2006), “Two-sided markets: a progress report”, The Rand Journal of
Economics, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 645-667.
Rong, K., Lin, Y., Li, B., Burström, T., Butel, L. and Yu, J. (2018), “Business ecosystem research agenda:
more dynamic, more embedded, and more internationalized”, Asian Business and Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 167-182.
Rosenberg, N. and Frischtak, C.R. (1983), “Long waves and economic growth: a critical appraisal”,
American Economic Review, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 146-151.
Schallmo, D., Williams, C. and Boardman, L. (2017), “Digital transformation of business models – best
practice, enablers, and roadmap”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 1-17.
Schneider, S. and Spieth, P. (2013), “Business model innovation: towards an integrated future research
agenda”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 1.
Shapiro, C. and Varian, H. (1999), Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, p. 352.
Tansley, A.G. (1935), “The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms”, Ecology, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 284-307.
Teece, D. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13,
pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D. (2012), “Next-generation competition: new concepts for understanding how innovation shapes
competition and policy in the digital economy”, Journal of Law, Economics and Policy, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 97-119.
Teece, D. (2016), “Business ecosystem”, The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management, Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 151-154
Teece, D. (2017a), “Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles”, Entrepreneurship,
Innovation, and Platforms, Emerald Publishing, pp. 211-225.
Teece, D. (2017b), “Business models, business strategy and innovation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43
Nos 2/3, pp. 172-194.
Teece, D. (2018), “Business models and dynamic capabilities”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 40-49 Platform
Teece, D. and Linden, G. (2017), “Business models, value capture, and the digital enterprise”, Journal of ecosystem
Organization Design, Vol. 8.
framework
Thom, N. (2010), “Measuring the value contribution of corporate foresight”, 3rd ISPIM Innovation
Symposium, Quebec City.
Thomas, L.D.W., Autio, E. and Gann, D.M. (2014), “Architectural leverage: putting platforms in
context”, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 198-219.
2035
Tiwana, A. (2014), “Platform ecosystems”, Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy, Morgan
Kaufmann, p. 300.
Turber, S., Vom Brocke, J., Gassmann, O. and Fleisch, E. (2014), “Designing business models in the era
of internet of things: towards a reference framework”, Advancing the Impact of Design Science:
Moving from Theory to Practice: 9th International Conference, DESRIST 2014, Miami, FL,
USA, May 22–24, 2014. Proceedings.
White, A. (2018), “Online platforms, economics of”, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics,
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 9790-9797.
Yablonsky, S. (2016), “Intermediaries in E-commerce”, Encyclopedia of E-Commerce Development,
Implementation, and Management, IGI Global, pp. 48-73, doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9787-4.ch005.
Yablonsky, S. (2018a), “A multidimensional framework for digital platform innovation and
management: from business to technological platforms”, Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 485-501.
Yablonsky, S. (2018b), “Platforms (MSPs) and sharing strategies in the digital economy: emerging research
and opportunities”, Advances in E-Business Research (AEBR) Book Series, IGI Global, p. 192.
Yablonsky, S. (2019), “Multi-sided platforms: current state and future research”, Russian Management
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 519-546, available at: https://rjm.spbu.ru/article/view/6418/5107
Zott, C. Amit, R. and Massa, L. (2010), “The business model: theoretical roots, recent developments, and
future research”, available at: www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/DI-0862-E.pdf (accessed 15 May 2018).

Further reading
Cennamo, C., Iansiti, M., Jacobides, M. and Teece, D. (2018), “Ecosystem dynamics: from concept to
trade-offs”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2018 No. 1, p. 12361.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M. and Bruneel, J. (2014), “Creating value in ecosystems: crossing the chasm
between, knowledge and business ecosystems”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1164-1176.
Curry, E., Freitas, A. and O’Riáin, S. (2010), “The role of community-driven data curation for
enterprises”, in Wood, D. (Ed.), Linking Enterprise Data, Springer US, Boston, MA, pp. 25-47.
Jansen, S. and Cusumano, M.A. (2013), “Defining software ecosystems: a survey of software platform
and business network governance”, in Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., and Cusumano, M.A. (Eds),
Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry,
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 13-28.
Kim, H., Lee, J.-N. and Han, J. (2010), “The role of IT in business ecosystems”, Communications of the
Acm, Vol. 53 No. 5, p. 151.

Corresponding author
Sergey Yablonsky can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]