Governance Strategies to Drive Complementary Innovation in IoT Platforms: A Multiple Case Study

Bibtex

@Select Types{,
  
   
  
   
  title    = "Governance Strategies to Drive Complementary Innovation in IoT Platforms: A Multiple Case Study", 
  author    = "Christian Marheine", 
  doi    = "https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_g3-marheine", 
  abstract    = "The widespread uptake of the Internet of Things spurred both software and hardware firms to compete for platform leadership. Information systems research has acknowledged that a platform’s success depends on the innovational output of its ecosystem of firms. However, the question whether platform owners should coordinate these firms through cooperative or competitive strategies to create complementary applications remains unaddressed. To address this gap, an exploratory, multiple case study of four German companies with IoT platforms was conducted. Five of the six governance strategies derived from the literature were confirmed: opening, alliancing, coring, entering, and pricing. In these strategies, 19 distinct governance mechanisms and their positive or negative effects were identified. The findings contribute to research on business-to-business platforms by demonstrating that cooperation between platform owners and complementors represents the dominant meta-level strategy in IoT platforms.

", 
  keywords    = "Internet of things, IoT platforms, platform governance strategies, complementary innovation, multiple case study research.", 
}

Abstract

Abstract

The widespread uptake of the Internet of Things spurred both software and hardware firms to compete for platform leadership. Information systems research has acknowledged that a platform’s success depends on the innovational output of its ecosystem of firms. However, the question whether platform owners should coordinate these firms through cooperative or competitive strategies to create complementary applications remains unaddressed. To address this gap, an exploratory, multiple case study of four German companies with IoT platforms was conducted. Five of the six governance strategies derived from the literature were confirmed: opening, alliancing, coring, entering, and pricing. In these strategies, 19 distinct governance mechanisms and their positive or negative effects were identified. The findings contribute to research on business-to-business platforms by demonstrating that cooperation between platform owners and complementors represents the dominant meta-level strategy in IoT platforms.

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Internet of things, IoT platforms, platform governance strategies, complementary innovation, multiple case study research.

References

Referenzen

1. Schreieck, M., Hakes, C., Wiesche, M., Krcmar, H.: Governing Platforms in the Internet of Things. In: 8th International Conference on Software Business. pp. 32–46 (2017).
2. Wortmann, F., Flüchter, K.: Internet of things – Technology and valaue added. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 57, 221–224 (2015).
3. Hodapp, D., Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Kolbe, L.M.: Business Models for Internet of Things Platforms: Empirical Development of a Taxonomy and Archetypes. In: Proceedings of Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (2019).
4. IoT Analytics GmbH: IoT Platform Comparison: How the 450 providers stack up, https://iot-analytics.com/iot-platform-comparison-how-providers-stack-up/.
5. Market Research Future: IOT Platform Market Research Report – Forecast 2022 | MRFR, https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/iot-platform-market-1739.
6. Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Mithas, S., Heinzl, A.: Does platform owner’s entry crowd out innovation? Evidence from Google Photos. Inf. Syst. Res. 29, 444–460 (2018).
7. Gawer, A., Cusumano, M.A.: Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston (2002).
8. Boudreau, K.J.: Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organ. Sci. 23, 1409–1427 (2012).
9. Boudreau, K.J.: Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Manage. Sci. 56, 1849–1872 (2010).
10. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., Bush, A.A.: Research Commentary —Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Inf. Syst. Res. 21, 675–687 (2010).
11. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G.G., Van Alstyne, M.W.: Strategies for two-sided markets. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84, 92–101 (2006).
12. Tiwana, A.: Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems. Inf. Syst. Res. 26, 266–281 (2015).
13. Tiwana, A.: Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Elsevier (2014).
14. Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R., Lyytinen, K.: Exploiting and defending open digital platforms with boundary resources: Android’s five platform forks. Inf. Syst. Res. 29, 479–497 (2018).
15. Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A., Venkatraman, N.: Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q. 37, 471–482 (2013).
16. Ghazawneh, A., Henfridsson, O.: Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: The boundary resources model. Inf. Syst. J. 23, 173–192 (2013).
17. Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M.: The platform owner’s challenge to capture value – Insights from a business-to-business IT platform. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) (2017).
18. Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Wu, D.J.: Appropriability mechanisms and the platform partnership decision: Evidence from enterprise software. Manage. Sci. 59, 102– 121 (2013).
19. Perrons, R.K.: The open kimono: How Intel balances trust and power to maintain platform leadership. Res. Policy. 38, 1300–1312 (2009).
20. Armstrong, M.: Competition in two-sided markets. RAND J. Econ. 37, 668–691 (2006).
21. Gawer, A., Henderson, R.: Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 16, 1–34 (2007).
22. Gawer, A.: Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Res. Policy. 43, 1239–1249 (2014).
23. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., Lyytinen, K.: Research commentary —The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Inf. Syst. Res. 21, 724– 735 (2010).
24. Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., Yoo, Y.: Distributed tuning of boundary resources: The case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Q. 39, 217–243 (2015).
25. Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., Kretschmer, T.: Platform architecture and quality trade-offs of multihoming complements. Inf. Syst. Res. 29, 461–478 (2018).
26. Li, Z., Agarwal, A.: Platform integration and demand spillovers in complementary markets: Evidence from Facebook’s integration of Instagram. Manage. Sci. 63, 3438–3458 (2017).
27. Püschel, L., Röglinger, M., Schlott, H.: What’s in a Smart Thing? Development of a Multi- Layer Taxonomy. In: 37th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) (2016).
28. Guth, J., Breitenbücher, U., Falkenthal, M., Fremantle, P., Kopp, O., Leymann, F., Reinfurt, L.: A Detailed Analysis of IoT Platform Architectures: Concepts, Similarities, and Differences. In: Internet of Everything. pp. 81–101 (2018).
29. Hagiu, A., Wright, J.: Multi-sided platforms. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 43, 162–174 (2015).
30. Bender, B., Gronau, N.: Coring on digital platforms – Fundamentals and examples from the mobile device sector. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). pp. 1–19 (2017).
31. Choi, J.P., Stefanadis, C.: Tying, investment, and the dynamic leverage theory. RAND J. Econ. 32, 52–71 (2001).
32. Boudreau, K.J.: Platform Boundary Choices & Governance: Opening-Up While Still Coordinating and Orchestrating. In: Advances in Strategic Management. pp. 227–297 (2017).
33. Niculescu, M.F., Wu, D.J., Xu, L.: Strategic intellectual property sharing: Competition on an open technology platform under network effects. Inf. Syst. Res. 29, 498–519 (2018).
34. West, J.: How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Res. Policy. 32, 1259–1285 (2003).
35. Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., Wu, D.J.: Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem : The case of enterprise software. MIS Q. 36, 263–290 (2012).
36. Huber, T.L., Kude, T., Dibbern, J.: Governance practices in platform ecosystems: Navigating tensions between cocreated value and governance costs. Inf. Syst. Res. 28, 563– 584 (2017).
37. Sarker, Sarker, Sahaym, Bjørn-Andersen: Exploring value cocreation in relationships between an ERP vendor and its partners: A revelatory case study. MIS Q. 36, 317 (2012).
38. Jacobides, M.G., Cennamo, C., Gawer, A.: Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strateg. Manag. J. 39, 2255–2276 (2018).
39. Hagiu, A.: Pricing and commitment by two-sided platforms. RAND J. Econ. 37, 720–737 (2006).
40. Hagiu, A.: Two-sided platforms: Product variety and pricing structures. J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 18, 1011–1043 (2009).
41. Rochet, J.-C., Tirole, J.: Two-sided markets: A progress report. RAND J. Econ. 37, 645– 667 (2006).
42. Zhu, K.X., Zhou, Z.Z.: Research note—Lock-In strategy in software competition: Opensource software vs. proprietary software. Inf. Syst. Res. 23, 536–545 (2012).
43. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G.G., Van Alstyne, M.W.: Platform envelopment. Strateg. Manag. J. 32, 1270–1285 (2011).
44. Farrell, J., Katz, M.L.: Innovation, rent extraction, and integration in systems markets. J. Ind. Econ. 48, 413–432 (2000).
45. Toppenberg, G., Henningsson, S., Eaton, B.: Reinventing the platform core through acquisition: A case study. In: 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). pp. 4634–4643. IEEE (2016).
46. Gawer, A., Cusumano, M.A.: How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 49, 28–38 (2008).
47. Yin, R.K.: Case study research : design and methods. SAGE Publications (2014).
48. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future : Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26, 13–23 (2002).
49. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R., Cleven, A.: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37, 205–224 (2015).
50. Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 532– 550 (1989).
51. Kapoor, R., Lee, J.M.: Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strateg. Manag. J. 34, 274–296 (2013).
52. Economides, N., Katsamakas, E.: Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Manage. Sci. 52, 1057–1071 (2006).

Most viewed articles

Meist angesehene Beiträge

GITO events | library.gito