1 Introduction

The concept of “ecosystems” has a historical origin dating back to the late nineteenth century, initially used in the context of natural systems (Holgersson et al. 2022; Poti and Joy 2022). In the 1980s, this notion was later applied in business and entrepreneurship literature, specifically referring to “systems” that describe innovation networks comprising communities of actors who create or facilitate innovations (Poti and Joy 2022). Building upon this historical context, platform ecosystems (PEs) have emerged and gained prominence across various industry sectors, including marketplace platforms such as Amazon and eBay, transportation platforms like Uber and Bolt, information and communication technology platforms such as Android OS and iOS, and accommodation platforms like Airbnb (Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017; Zhang et al. 2021a). These PEs have significantly increased the involvement of entrepreneurs and consumers in the digital economy (Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017; Zhang et al. 2021a). PEs can be understood as economic communities of interconnected organisations and individuals built around a core setting or platform (Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015). Drawing on an ecosystem perspective, PEs are complex networks formed by organisations that interact and share resources to provide customer-oriented solutions (Choi et al. 2019; Wei et al. 2021). Consequently, these systems create shared spaces for participants to collaborate and co-create products and services, in ways that are perceived as valuable by the economic communities (Wei et al. 2021).

Theoretically, PEs are rooted in the contemporary notion of the ecosystem literature known as the service-dominant logic (SDL), which posits that service is the fundamental basis of all exchanges, and value is created through the participation of multiple actors (Gamble et al. 2021; Kutsikos et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2019). The SDL was first introduced in 2004 by American scholars Vargo and Lusch within the domain of behavioral economics as a theoretical framework for explaining value creation through the exchange or application of resources among actors (Akaka et al. 2013; Gamble et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2019). Since its inception, the SDL viewpoint has revolutionised the conceptualisation of value by providing a broader and more holistic understanding of value creation beyond the traditional firm-customer relationship (Gerke et al. 2020; Pinho et al. 2014; Simeoni and Cassia 2019). Consequently, academic discourse on ecosystems has evolved beyond the narrow focus on dyadic firm-customer relationships to encompass the interactions of multiple actors within service ecosystems. The PEs’ model of economic interaction shapes a novel business environment that connects actors, technologies, and ensures high levels of service provision (Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015; Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017; Sorri 2021).

However, the existing reviews on ecosystem evolution has predominantly concentrated on platform leaders while neglecting the critical engagement processes between other actors, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which sustain innovation and knowledge flow within these systems (Mukhopadhyay and Bouwman 2019; Tsujimoto et al. 2018; Zhong et al. 2021). Furthermore, prior studies that have examined PEs, primarily provided empirical evidences on sub-areas such as platform orchestration among platform owners and how they orchestrate innovation flows (Isckia et al. 2020), platform synergy of owners and complementors (Wu et al. 2022), core processes for strategising in PEs (Isckia and Lescop 2015), ecosystem structure (Adner 2017), and business models of firms in the platform economy (Schiavone et al. 2021; Tavoletti et al. 2021). By orchestrator, the authors describe a central entity or organisation that plays a crucial role in coordinating and managing the interactions among various stakeholders within the ecosystem to facilitate value creation (Isckia et al. 2020; Wei et al. 2021). Notwithstanding their valuable contributions, these individual studies have been constrained either by their focus on the firm-customer relationship or their exclusive emphasis on the role of platform orchestrators, thereby overlooking the multi-actor engagement practices involving SMEs within PEs. This research gap in the literature necessitates an integrative approach that consolidates and extends previous studies to comprehensively investigate platform ecosystem development, taking into account the crucial actor-to-actor engagement practices that drive platform value creation. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to address this gap in the literature by providing a comprehensive analysis and understanding of the engagement processes involving SMEs in platform ecosystems, thereby contributing to the existing body of knowledge on this subject matter.

Several studies have demonstrated the significant role of SMEs in customer value creation, wherein digital technology platforms serve as foundations for integrating physical and social resources (Cavallo et al. 2021; Janosec et al. 2017; Marcon and Ribeiro 2021; Mulrow et al. 2017; Tian et al. 2021). Given the potential of SMEs to drive economic growth and industrialisation, many markets have been structured as PEs, blurring traditional organisational boundaries and fostering collaboration among actors to develop innovations (Marcon et al. 2024; Marcon and Ribeiro 2021; Mulrow et al. 2017; Tian et al. 2021). Hence, platforms have become assets that reduce market friction, enabling various actors, including SMEs, to enter and leverage networks (Janosec et al. 2017) (Poti and Joy 2022). As research in this field has become essential for the theoretical integration of value creation assumptions like the SDL (Fang et al. 2021; Fu et al. 2017), this paper presents a structured review of the current state of knowledge regarding PE development.

Against this backdrop, this paper employs a structured literature review to analyse themes and synthesise a conceptual framework encompassing the core elements required for both orchestrators and SMEs in the development of a platform ecosystem. The research question guiding this study is: What are the core elements for orchestrators and SMEs in developing a platform ecosystem? This research question seeks to explore the (i) roles and contributions of SMEs within platform ecosystems, (ii) essential elements required for orchestrators and SMEs to effectively participate and create value within these ecosystems, (iii) interdependencies and interactions between platform orchestrators and SMEs in driving ecosystem development and, (iv) implications of understanding these core elements for both theoretical advancements in ecosystem literature and practical implications for stakeholders involved in platform ecosystem development.

The motivation behind addressing this research question lies in the increasing significance of SMEs as vital contributors to economic growth and innovation within platform ecosystems. While prior studies have predominantly focused on platform leaders and their orchestration roles, there remains a notable gap in understanding the dynamic engagement processes involving SMEs. From a theoretical standpoint, unveiling the core elements necessary for SMEs’ participation in platform ecosystems contributes to the broader conceptualisation of value creation within service-dominant logic frameworks, enriching our value co-creation understanding beyond traditional firm-customer relationships. Practically, insights derived from the study can inform orchestrators, policymakers, and other stakeholders about the essential factors that facilitate SMEs’ integration and value creation within platform ecosystems. Given the pivotal role of SMEs in driving innovation and economic growth, bridging this research gap is crucial for devising strategies to foster inclusive and sustainable ecosystem development.

By adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, the subsequent sections of this article are structured as follows: Sect. 2 elucidates the theoretical foundation of the study domain, providing a comprehensive background. In Sect. 3, we expound upon the methodology employed for reviewing the existing literature and refining the generated concepts into a conceptual framework. Section 4 presents an analysis of the results derived from the literature review. Building upon this analysis, Sect. 5 provides the discussion and synthesis of the conceptual framework. Finally, in Sect. 6, the article concludes by outlining the research implications, addressing the limitations encountered, and highlighting potential avenues for future research.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 What is an ecosystem?

The concept of an ecosystem has its roots in biology and ecology, referring to a community of interacting organisms and their physical environment (Maysami and Mohammadi Elyasi 2020; Wei et al. 2021). This concept has been adopted in various socioeconomic domains, including business, innovation, management, entrepreneurship, and services, as a valuable and effective strategy for studying and understanding organisational interactions within these domains (Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015; Holgersson et al. 2022; Maysami and Mohammadi Elyasi 2020; Poti and Joy 2022). In the context of these domains, the ecosystem metaphor is used to describe a complex network formed by organisations that interact and share resources to create customer-oriented solutions (Choi et al. 2019; Hoch and Brad 2021; Poti and Joy 2022; Wei et al. 2021). Although these domains share the common definition of a community of collaborative organisations, distinctions have been observed.

The terms “business ecosystem” and “entrepreneurial ecosystem” have often been used interchangeably to focus on firms’ interactions with their environment (Cavallo et al. 2021; Choi et al. 2019; Wei et al. 2021). Similarly, the concept of a digital platform-based ecosystem represents a hybrid of digital and platform ecosystems, representing a focal firm’s collaborative network with external autonomous actors (Murthy and Madhok 2021). With the increasing globalisation and digitisation, competition and connectivity have intensified across regions. Firms now operate dynamic and co-evolving communities, creating and capturing value through various models of collaboration and competition (Hoch and Brad 2021; Iansiti and Levien 2004; Kelly and Canning 2015).

Scholars have attempted to differentiate between these different perspectives of ecosystems. Maysami and Elyasi (2020) distinguish between innovation ecosystems, which broadly focus on the actors and conditions necessary for creating a dynamic and innovative economy, and entrepreneurial ecosystems, which refer to a set of components with interdependent relations enabling productive entrepreneurship in a specific area. However, Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari (2019) argue that platforms serve as initial settings for collaborations, leading to the emergence of digital ecosystems that encompass other ecosystems. This notion is supported by Pooya et al. (2021), who suggest that modern business ecosystems are built upon technology provided by digital platforms.

For these authors, including Wei et al. (2021), innovation ecosystems revolve around a particular innovation and its supporting actors, while platform ecosystems differ in their architecture, with firms organising themselves around a platform, such as automobile and housing companies like Uber and Airbnb (Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari 2019; Pooya et al. 2021). Thus, ecosystems can be differentiated in terms of value capturing, with business ecosystems focusing on business model innovation, innovation ecosystems concerned with customer value creation, and platform ecosystems concentrating on a specific class of technologies, platforms, and the interdependence between focal and non-focal actors. A notable example of a platform ecosystem is represented by Apple’s iOS and Android technology platforms (Wei et al. 2021).

2.2 Ecosystem characteristics

In describing the term “ecosystem” and distinguishing it from related concepts such as networks and clusters, it is crucial to underscore the characteristics and functionalities of each construct within the study. While networks primarily denote interconnections among entities or actors, ecosystems extend beyond mere connections to encompass a holistic view of interactions, dependencies, and shared resources within a community (Aldrich and Fiol 2007; Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015). Clusters, on the other hand, typically refer to geographic concentrations of interconnected firms and related organizations operating within a particular industry or sector (Porter 1998). In contrast, ecosystems transcend geographical boundaries and may comprise diverse stakeholders operating in disparate locations but collaborating through digital platforms or shared interests (Hoch and Brad 2021).

Furthermore, the term “platform ecosystem” represents a specific subtype of ecosystem characterized by a core platform that facilitates interactions and transactions among various stakeholders, including producers, consumers, and complementors (Cusumano et al. 2019). Platform ecosystems, exemplified by entities like Android OS and Amazon, serve as foundational infrastructures that enable the exchange of goods, services, and information, thereby fostering value creation and innovation (Sorri 2021). Other types of ecosystems may include innovation ecosystems, which focus on fostering dynamic environments conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship, and digital ecosystems, which are characterized by the integration of digital technologies and platforms to enable collaborative interactions and value creation (Pooya et al. 2021; Wei et al. 2021). By delving into the specific nuances of platform ecosystems and distinguishing them from other ecosystems, this study aims to provide a focused exploration of the unique dynamics and mechanisms underlying value creation and collaboration within these ecosystems.

Irrespective of its form, an ecosystem exhibits distinct characteristics and regulations that delineate the entry, functioning, and departure of participants (Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015; Ceccagnoli et al. 2012; O’Mahony and Karp 2022). Theoretically, this underscores the interdependence of stakeholders in the process of commercialising and advancing the ecosystem (Zhang et al. 2021b). According to Olsson and Bosch (2017), the establishment of a platform ecosystem revolves around the following attributes: multiple actors, a platform leader or orchestrator, integration of resources, and platform technology, while addressing the questions of who (customers), what (functionality with customer value), why (goal), when (market uncertainty), and how (the process of finding a solution).

Among the various features of the ecosystem, the interdependence of stakeholders emerges as the most crucial aspect, as no single actor possesses all the resources necessary to address customer problems (Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017). This resource deficiency has spurred companies and individuals to engage in cooperative endeavours, resulting in the formation of alliances wherein stakeholders share their knowledge, skills, products, and services (Wei et al. 2021; Zhang et al. (2021b). Additionally, this characteristic of the ecosystem defines the customers, actors, and diverse stakeholders within the supply chain (Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017; Zhang et al. 2021b). The functionality aligned with customer value delineates the sharing or reduction of innovation costs and risks among multiple participants in the ecosystem (Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017). Particularly advantageous for start-ups and SMEs, this arrangement allows for cost reduction in production while leveraging the platform technology typically provided by the platform owner or leader (Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015; Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017). Furthermore, the risk of failure is collectively borne as new entrants join a platform that has already established a foothold in the market despite prevailing uncertainties. These actors engage in competition, partnership, and co-evolution to accomplish the goals of the ecosystem (Zhang et al. 2021b).

2.3 The PE conceptualisation

The discourse surrounding the categorisation of platforms has been predominantly shaped by economic and technological theoretical perspectives (David-West et al. 2018). The economic perspective, also known as the transactional perspective, perceives platforms as double or multi-sided markets that facilitate interactions among different categories of consumers (David-West et al. 2018; Gawer 2014; Gawer and Cusumano 2014). Parker et al. (2016) succinctly capture this viewpoint by defining a platform as “a business that enables value-creating interactions between external producers and consumers. The platform establishes an open and participative infrastructure for these interactions, along with setting governance conditions. Its primary purpose is to facilitate matches among users and facilitate the exchange of goods, services, or social currency, thereby enabling value creation for all participants” (Parker and Van Alstyne 2018; van Alstyne et al. 2016).

On the other hand, the technological perspective, or engineering perspective, conceptualises platforms as intentionally designed, modular, and technological architectures (David-West et al. 2018; Gawer 2014; Gawer and Cusumano 2014). David-West et al. (2018) argue that while the economic perspective provides insights into platform competition, the technological perspective primarily focuses on innovation. In this regard, the platform serves as a foundation where innovation takes place within its modules (Gawer 2014; Schreieck et al. 2016). This understanding of the technological perspective of platforms is also well captured by Tiwana et al. (2010), who define a platform as “the extensible codebase of a software-based system that provides core functionality shared by the modules that interoperate with it and the interfaces through which they interoperate” (David-West et al. 2018). However, these scholars also point out that the drawback of this perspective is that it tends to view the platform solely as a piece of software and fails to consider it as a comprehensive business model (David-West et al. 2018; Gawer 2014; Gawer and Cusumano 2014; Li et al. 2023; Patel et al. 2020). While research adopting the technological perspective of platforms neglects to consider pricing, revenue sharing, or competitive strategy, its counterpart that adopts the economic perspective pays less attention to issues of control, openness, and technology design (Schreieck et al. 2016). Recognising the limitations of these two categorisation domains, researchers have recommended integrating both views, as no single perspective can fully capture the complexity of a platform (Gawer 2014; Schreieck et al. 2016).

2.4 Value co-creation in PEs

Originally, the term “value” was exclusively associated with the creation of tangible goods through manufacturing and distribution processes (Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari 2019). The notions of “value-in-exchange” and “embedded value” long represented value chains driven by suppliers (Breidbach et al. 2013; Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari 2019). However, in light of the recent wave of the Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) perspective and the transformation of businesses into value networks, the concepts of “value-in-use” and “value-in-context” have come to dominate the literature on value creation within ecosystems (Breidbach et al. 2013; Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari 2019; Pinho et al. 2014).

The advent of a systemic viewpoint on value co-creation has expanded its application to a network of stakeholders collectively generating value for actors and consumers (Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari 2019). The creation of economic value has thus shifted from the sole contribution of individual firms to a process occurring within complex ecosystems, encompassing the development of appropriate technology, its market availability, and the adoption by various actors (Hein et al. 2019; Poti and Joy 2022). Therefore, value can be defined as the level of satisfaction that individuals anticipate a product or service will provide them (Wang 2021).

In platform ecosystems, the activities of value creation are collaboratively undertaken by the platform leader or sponsor and the complementors (Murthy and Madhok 2021). The network effects resulting from the interactions of different actors involved in creating or utilising complementary innovations amplify the value of the platform (Wang 2021). Consequently, the success of an ecosystem relies on the shared understanding and simultaneous creation of value, as well as the ability to identify customer needs and transform them into opportunities for products or services (Mayangsari and Novani 2015; Wang 2021).

Achieving successful value creation within a platform ecosystem, as well as other forms of digital ecosystems, necessitates three categories of activities: the development of suitable technology, the market introduction of the technology as products and services, and the adoption of these products and services by diverse actors (Poti and Joy 2022). This paradigm shift signifies a departure from the individual contributions of single firms towards the integration of diverse skills in order to create economic value (Hein et al. 2019; Poti and Joy 2022). The collective value creation by multiple firms, which has separately evolved within different fields such as innovation, business/entrepreneurship, and management, is now widely recognised as “value co-creation” (Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari 2019; Poti and Joy 2022).

2.5 SME participation in value co-creation

The facilitation of value co-creation activities within ecosystems holds significant importance for SMEs, as they often lack the financial resources required to independently develop value on a larger scale (Benitez et al. 2020a). In the face of an increasingly dynamic and complex business environment, firms are increasingly reliant on external networks to sustain their competitiveness and cultivate innovation capabilities for economic growth Georgescu et al. (2022). In today’s digitalised and globalised world, SMEs face the challenge of adopting valuable technologies that may be beyond their financial means. Hence, partnerships become crucial in enabling their access to such technologies.

However, empirical evidence suggests that many SMEs struggle to adopt digital technologies due to their limited internal resources for expensive technology adoption or the perceived lack of profitability (Wu et al. 2022). In contrast, the value-creation approach offered by platform ecosystems presents SMEs with an opportunity to engage in third-party collaborations and gain insights into the market for their products or services (Wang 2021; Wu et al. 2022). By joining a platform ecosystem, SMEs not only expand their sales channels but also gain access to the resources and capabilities of other actors, thus enhancing their ability to create value (Wang 2021; Wu et al. 2022). In many platform ecosystems, SMEs play a complementary and influential role in shaping the actions and outcomes of the overall value networks (Wu et al. 2022).

In light of this perspective, Wang (2021) refers to SMEs as platform cooperative enterprises that join a platform and develop complementary products and services based on mutually agreed-upon standards. Consequently, the value of the platform is contingent upon the availability and innovation of these complementors (Wang 2021; Wu et al. 2022). Given this opportunity for SMEs, we aim to conduct a structured review to identify and categorise the essential elements involved in the development of these platform cooperative enterprises.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research approach and methods

The methodology section of this study outlines the procedures employed for conducting a systematic literature review and presents a synthesis framework derived from the concepts generated during the review process. To ensure the replicability, reproducibility, and inference of this study, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Shamseer et al. 2015).

The structured review procedure was undertaken following a recognition of its theoretical and practical significance. It consisted of three main steps: study planning, review execution, and review reporting. During the preparation phase, we utilised existing guidelines proposed by Moher et al. (2016), with some minor adjustments regarding the number and sequence of discrete activities. This helped us identify the study’s rationale, research questions, and the development and evaluation of the review protocol.

The execution phase of the review encompassed various activities, including the identification of the research problem, selection of primary studies, assessment of study quality, and data extraction, monitoring, and synthesis. Lastly, the reporting phase involved determining mechanisms for disseminating the findings, formatting the review report, and evaluating the final results.

The primary objective of the conceptual framework was to identify, categorise, and synthesise relevant concepts pertaining to orchestrators and SMEs in the development of platform ecosystems. Through a comprehensive examination of multidisciplinary literature, relevant concepts were identified from the selected data. These concepts were subsequently organised, categorised, and synthesised to construct a theoretical framework. Figure 1 provides an overview of the methodology employed, starting from the literature review and culminating in the analysis of the conceptual framework.

Fig. 1
figure 1

A methodology from literature review to a conceptual framework

Full size image

3.2 Data collection

The review process was carefully developed and planned to ensure the exclusion of irrelevant and low-quality studies (see Fig. 2). A comprehensive set of free-text terms specifically tailored for platform ecosystems was devised and rigorously tested to retrieve articles of relevance and interest. The search was conducted across all relevant fields, including document titles, abstracts, and keywords. Consistent with the objectives of the study, the primary focus was on SMEs’ involvement within platform ecosystems, and the selection of primary studies was conducted accordingly. A systematic search strategy, incorporating search strings and keywords aligned with the research questions, was employed to acquire the pertinent studies.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Structured review data selection process

Full size image

To ensure a broad coverage of the research topic and encompass diverse perspectives, articles were sourced from three prominent academic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. These databases were selected based on their high impact and peer-reviewed nature, in accordance with the recommendation by Delgado-Rodriguez and Sillero-Arenas (2018) to utilise multiple databases for a comprehensive search and selection process.

The study’s search strategy entailed an independent search utilising a combination of carefully chosen keywords, resulting in the construction of a distinct database comprising articles relevant to the study area. Table 1 provides an overview of the comprehensive search terms employed and the corresponding outcomes of the investigation.

Table 1 Search terms and results for data collection
Full size table

Upon conducting a comprehensive review of the reports’ references, an additional five relevant studies were identified and subsequently included in the study. The eligibility criteria for article selection are presented in Table 2, while Fig. 2 illustrates the selection process, ultimately resulting in 68 articles being included in the final database for the review.

Table 2 Structured review eligibility criteria (Kitchenham and Charters 2007)
Full size table

The eligibility criteria employed in this study were established based on the review questions outlined by Kitchenham and Charters (2007). These criteria were categorised into two groups, namely C1 and C2, to differentiate the measures to be applied at different stages of the data collection process.

Following the retrieval of articles, a rigorous screening process was undertaken to assess their alignment with the eligibility criteria. Initially, over 27,000 articles were obtained, which were subsequently narrowed down to 20,619 articles after applying filters such as English language publications only. Conference reviews, panel discussions, and lecture notes were excluded, with preference given to published articles without any temporal limitations to capture relevant publications over time. The titles and abstracts of the 20,619 articles were screened to determine their relevance to the study, resulting in a further reduction to 171 articles in the database. Furthermore, during the title and abstract review stage, reports that deviated from the research questions and lacked relevance to SMEs’ participation were excluded.

The subsequent stage involved a comprehensive reading of the selected studies to ensure their relevance, empirical soundness, and methodological rigor. This step emphasised evaluating the methodological quality and validity of the included studies.

3.3 Data extraction, coding and charting

The database comprising 67 articles underwent a comprehensive analysis encompassing both conceptual aspects and empirical examination. The conceptual structure focused on the examination of key aspects such as abstracts, codes, or fields of inquiry, delving into the underlying concepts rather than the specific factual content presented in the documents. This analysis aimed to address fundamental questions regarding the who, what, when, where, and for whom the studies were conducted. On the other hand, the empirical structure drew upon observations and verifiable evidence derived from the studies themselves. This structure served as the basis for extracting the main findings reported in the articles, which are further expounded upon in Sect. 4 of this study. The research and development structure of the article database for this investigation is presented in Table 3, offering an overview of the composition and organisation of the included articles.

Table 3 Factors explored in the literature database
Full size table

The analysis process followed a rigorous two-phase iterative cycle of primary and secondary cyclic coding, facilitated by the use of Atlas.ti software, in order to align with the research question of the study. In the primary coding phase, the articles were thoroughly read, and open-ended coding techniques were employed to identify prominent themes. The objective of this initial coding phase was not to analyse the data per se, but rather to provide a descriptive account of the primary activities and processes encompassed within the selected article database (Charmaz 2014; Corbin and Strauss 2014). Through this coding cycle, numerous codes pertaining to the platform ecosystem emerged. These codes, which emerged from the open-ended coding process, were meticulously recorded and subsequently carried forward to the next coding phase. Figure 3 illustrates a sample of the primary codes generated during the first phase of coding.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The primary cycle codes

Full size image

The secondary coding cycle served as an extension of the primary coding phase, encompassing the grouping and organisation of codes into interpretive concepts. These secondary codes were derived from the primary codes, as well as from identified relationships and patterns within the literature on ecosystems. By establishing connections between the secondary codes and the corresponding data, a coherent understanding was developed. Through this iterative process, the coding phase culminated in the comprehensive analysis of all selected articles. The synthesised secondary codes were further distilled to extract meaningful insights from the grouped codes. Figure 4 provides an overview of some of the secondary coding concepts derived from the primary codes. For a comprehensive list of reports selected for the structured review, please refer to Appendix 1.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The secondary coding cycle

Full size image

4 Results and analysis

This section undertakes an in-depth analysis of the literature database and themes. By means of a bibliometric analysis, we investigated the fundamental themes, authors, and the interconnections among them within the conceptual structure of the literature database. Concurrently, the content analysis encompassed a comprehensive thematic examination, enabling the identification, analysis, and interpretation of the prevailing themes extracted from the literature encompassed within the database. Through these rigorous analytical approaches, we sought to enhance our understanding of the existing scholarly works, their interrelationships, and the prominent themes that emerge from them. By employing both bibliometric and content analysis techniques, we aimed to provide a comprehensive exploration and interpretation of the literature database, contributing to the broader academic discourse in the field.

4.1 Bibliometric analysis

The articles incorporated in the final database encompass a publication timeline spanning from 2012 to 2024, indicating a notable growth rate of 37.8% per annum in scientific output. These 67 articles were disseminated across 56 journals, thereby ensuring the inclusion of the most current data and pertinent trends in the field. Remarkably, the average time since publication for these articles stands at 3.61 years, with the highest volume of articles (13 in total) being published in 2021. For a visual representation of the annual scientific production pertaining to the selected reports included in this structured review, please refer to Fig. 5. This figure effectively illustrates the distribution of scientific output over the specified time period.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Annual scientific production of the selected studies

Full size image

During the analysis of sources, it was observed that a considerable proportion of the articles were published in journals such as the Journal of Service Management, Industrial Marketing Management, Business Research, Strategy and Leadership, Sustainability, Technovation and Technology Innovation Management Review. Among these sources, one article by Ceccagnoli et al. (2012) emerged as the most globally cited, accumulating a total of 289 citations with an average of 26.27 citations per year. Notably, authors Bosch J, Breidbach CF, Brodie RJ, Ketonen-Oksi S, Marcon A, Ribiero J and Woratsckek H exhibited the highest level of productivity, each contributing two publications to our article database.

This description of the sources and citations sheds light on the size and scope of our database, as well as the expertise and impact of the selected articles incorporated in this review. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the authors and the impact their publications have had, please refer to Table 4. This table provides a detailed overview of the authors and the respective impact of their selected publications.

Table 4 Impact of selected publications
Full size table

Furthermore, the bibliometric analysis conducted on the articles included in our sample reveals that authorships and collaborations predominantly originate from Europe, America, Australia, and Asia. Notably, the primary and second corresponding authors are affiliated with institutions based in China and the United States. More so, it is evident that collaborations between authors were most prevalent between individuals based in Australia and Europe. Examples include the highest collaboration frequency of 2 observed between authors in Finland and Norway, Germany and Australia, and the United Kingdom and Sweden. Conversely, the representation of African author affiliations within the studies in our database is notably sparse, with only one instance of such affiliation recorded. This reflection could suggest that platform ecosystems from an African context are relatively underrepresented, indicating a scarcity of research in the field emanating from Africa and potentially suggesting inadequate reporting on such research domains. Figure 6 depicts the geographical distribution of article authorships, with the blue areas indicating a higher frequency of authorships, while the red lines denote cross-country collaborations observed within the selected articles.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Study setting of the selected reports

Full size image

In the analysis of the conceptual structure database, we employed the Keyword Plus approach along with three labels per cluster to generate a thematic map that encapsulates the key themes found within the selected articles. These clusters were evaluated based on measures of centrality, which indicates the degree of relevance, and density, which signifies the level of development. Through this evaluation, we aimed to describe the conceptual structure of the subject under investigation. Figure 7 provides a visual representation of the fundamental themes identified, which include innovation, competition, value creation, collaboration, service-dominant logic, and value co-creation. These themes exhibit a higher internal strength within the subject network, indicating their significant influence within the literature. Conversely, the niche themes of economics and ecosystems demonstrate a substantial degree of interaction with other networks in the subject’s network. This suggests a growing trend wherein emerging ecosystem studies increasingly focus on the themes of innovation, value creation, and service-dominant logic. By examining the thematic map and considering the centrality and density measures, we gain valuable insights into the underlying structure and interconnections of the subject matter. These findings contribute to our understanding of the prevailing themes and highlight the potential areas of emphasis within the evolving landscape of ecosystem studies.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Thematic map of the review studies

Full size image

4.2 Thematic analysis: core elements for orchestrators and SMEs in developing PEs

Building upon the bibliometric analysis conducted on the selected reports, our study advanced to the stage of analysing and categorising the core elements relevant to orchestrators and SMEs involved in the development of PEs. These elements were systematically organised into seven distinct themes, each of which holds significance within the domain of actor-to-actor engagement.

To provide a comprehensive overview and understanding of these themes, their importance is described within the context of actor-to-actor engagement. The results of this thematic analysis are presented in Table 5, which serves as an illustrative representation of the findings. To address the research question posed in this study, the subsequent sub-sections delve into each theme in greater detail, offering a comprehensive analysis of their respective contexts and implications, with a specific focus on SME considerations. For a comprehensive listing of the identified concepts and their contextual descriptions, please refer to Appendix 2.

Table 5 Thematic analysis
Full size table

4.2.1 Dynamic capabilities

Several researchers have recognised the significance of dynamic capabilities as a core element in the development of PEs from a multi-actor perspective (Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015; Feng et al. 2019; Ketonen-Oksi 2018; Marcon et al. 2024; Marcon and Ribeiro 2021). Dynamic capabilities encompass the ability of a firm to effectively integrate, construct, and reconfigure its resources in order to create value within a dynamic and evolving environment (Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015). This process commences with a firm’s capacity to identify problems or recognise opportunities and threats within the business ecosystem. However, these problems can only be regarded as opportunities for value creation when the necessary capabilities or resources to transform them into solutions are accessible.

As a result, the identification of opportunities within PEs necessitates an understanding of a firm’s ability to generate products or services that are deemed valuable by the economic community (Chibuike et al. 2024; Wu and Tsai 2022). When seizing opportunities and adapting capabilities to align with the problem domain, firms must also exercise caution to avoid pursuing supposed opportunities or offering services that are irrelevant to the system. Therefore, SMEs that intend to participate in PEs should possess a comprehensive understanding of the requirements of the ecosystem, its actors, and the end-users of the intended value (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Codes and sub-themes of dynamic capabilities

Full size image

This thematic aspect delves further into the firm’s ability to capitalise on opportunities or mitigate threats in order to maintain competitiveness within the environment (Feng et al. 2019; Tian et al. 2021). Upon the identification of an opportunity, the firm must promptly make market-oriented decisions on how to allocate, mobilise, or adapt its resources for the development of products and services. SMEs may encounter situations where the existing resources at their disposal, such as knowledge and skills, prove insufficient for effective integration and engagement with actors in the ecosystem. Consequently, the SMEs are compelled to proactively search for and build the required capabilities within a specific timeframe to enhance their interaction with the economic community (Chibuike et al. 2024; Georgescu et al. 2022). Furthermore, if another actor has already assumed the intended role of the SME within the system, it may necessitate the acquisition of new capabilities (Engert et al. 2023). Hence, SMEs must continuously adjust and actively seek the skills necessary to foster innovation and facilitate growth within a platform ecosystem.

4.2.2 Enterprise architecture

It is crucial to acknowledge that the element of enterprise architecture (EA) encompasses a broad spectrum of sub-themes, including business, information, application, and technology perspectives. EA leverages dynamic capabilities to establish the structure and operations of a firm, particularly in contexts where data utilisation is involved (Blasco-Arcas et al. 2020; Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch 2015; Luo 2018; Nambisan 2018). This element plays a vital role in facilitating successful participation in multi-sided platform settings, as actors align their values and objectives with the system.

The business architecture or perspective focuses on delineating business goals, values, objectives, processes, relationships, and strategies aimed at delivering value. The information architecture encompasses the collection, analysis, storage, and utilisation of data within the framework of established policies. The application architecture addresses the various applications that support the successful implementation of the business strategy. As businesses undergo increased digitalisation, platform architectures strive to enhance service delivery while generating profits. The technology architecture encompasses the data and ICT devices that facilitate product development and service delivery. Consequently, we propose that the integration of these four elements of EA yields significant benefits for ecosystem engagement and fosters innovation (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Codes and sub-themes of enterprise architecture

Full size image

4.2.3 Digital transformation

Authors such as Choi et al. (2019), Maysami and Elyasi (2020) and Breidbach et al. (2013) have emphasised the significance of digital connectivity in the development of PEs. Achieving a high level of compatibility plays a crucial role in the adoption of technology and overcoming barriers within platform settings (Engert et al. 2023; Santarsiero et al. 2023; Troisi et al. 2023). Consequently, attitudes towards technology and the facilitation of its adoption are pivotal factors for success within PEs (Brea 2023).

In line with this, SMEs constantly confronted with the challenges and threats of survival in competitive business environments, may find greater prospects in embracing modern technology and digital business models rather than solely pursuing innovation (Breidbach et al. 2013; Choi et al. 2019; Li et al. 2023; Orefice and Nyarko 2021). Technology compatibility, in this regard, refers to the ability of two organisations or systems to effectively collaborate and exchange information within the same environment (Breidbach et al. 2013). However, it is important to note that technology compatibility alone does not guarantee success. Adoption, which entails perceiving an innovation as superior to the idea it supersedes, involves the implementation or utilisation of a compatible technology to generate goods or services. Therefore, digital transformation entails the integration and adoption of digital technology by SMEs to create and deliver value to customers (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10
figure 10

Codes and sub-themes of digital transformation

Full size image

4.2.4 Resource integration

The theme of resource integration comprises various sub-themes focusing on capability relationships, development, and sharing to facilitate value creation (Liu et al. 2019; Radziwon and Bogers 2019; Stieler and Germelmann 2018). Liu et al. (2019) highlight essential elements within ecosystems, such as boundary resources and service interactions, as enabling factors in a shared world and service exchange. Additionally, Widjojo et al. (2020) extend this broad theme by examining the case of the Indonesian SME community to underscore the critical role of resources such as knowledge in driving innovation.

Consequently, we define resource integration as the process of actively combining resources in a continuous manner to generate value. This process entails the planning, assembly, and optimisation of all available resources within the ecosystem. Activities falling under the purview of resource integration include resource complementation, resource mobilisation, resource development, and service interaction within the system. Notably, researchers such as Alexander et al. (2018), Blasco-Arcas et al. (2020), Kapoor and Agarwal (2017), Faggini et al. (2019), and Liu et al. (2019), argue that the ultimate objective of platform development is to foster resource sharing and sustainability (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11
figure 11

Codes and sub-themes of resource integration

Full size image

4.2.5 Value co-creation

The concept of value co-creation and actor engagement finds its theoretical foundations in the SDL (Blasco-Arcas et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2019). Researchers in this domain have not only focused on the combination of firms’ resources but also emphasised the delivery of value through co-creation activities (Chang et al. 2017; Hamidi et al. 2020; Murthy and Madhok 2021; Pinho et al. 2014). Acknowledging the importance of stakeholders and value creation chains for successful engagements (Matarazzo et al. 2024), other scholars such as Cavallo et al. (2021), Zimmer et al. (2014) and Selander et al. (2013), have established the importance of multiple actors in a platform ecosystem development.

In a case study on Taiwan’s steel industry, Fang et al. (2021) examined the intricacies of the web of relationships involving multiple players and drew lessons from it. One proposition put forth by the study is that the level of knowledge-based factors among ecosystem members positively correlates with the extent of network value co-creation practices. Hence, the identification of value co-creation drivers becomes a crucial link to the success of enterprises operating within ecosystems (Chowdhury et al. 2023). Additionally, Wei et al. (2021) delved into the behavioral intentions of SMEs concerning the protection of intellectual and technological properties when joining platform ecosystems. The study introduced the relatively new concept of “coopetition,” which also gained attention in the work of Ceccagnoli et al. (2012), referring to the integration of cooperation and competition among firms in PEs. These factors, along with resource sharing and network participation, drive value in the systems (Bashuri and Bailetti 2021; Chowdhury et al. 2023; Poniatowski et al. 2021; Svarcaite and Gadeikiene 2023). As a result, actor roles and engagements, trust, service interaction, and a multi-actor perspective emerge as important considerations for firms intending to participate in multi-sided platform settings (Ceccagnoli et al. 2012; Feng et al. 2019; Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017; Kutsikos et al. 2014; Talmar et al. 2020) (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12
figure 12

Codes and sub-themes of value co-creation

Full size image

4.2.6 Social innovation

Having established the significance of value co-creation in the development of PEs, we further delve into the outputs resulting from these resource integration and co-creation activities. Social innovation often entails the creation of solutions, including products or services, that effectively address the needs of clients or customers. In the context of PEs, innovation extends beyond satisfying end-user needs and encompasses the requirements of the actors within the system (Bagno et al. 2023; Pasi et al. 2022; Radziwon and Bogers 2019).

Notably, knowledge-sharing emerges as a crucial aspect of innovation that transcends individual firms and extends to the network level, facilitating collaboration and competition across similar or different markets (Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017). The success of technology ecosystems like the Apple and Android operating systems is frequently attributed to the willingness of SMEs to collaborate and enhance their innovativeness, thereby fostering complementary innovation (Ceccagnoli et al. 2012; Tan et al. 2020; Wei et al. 2021; Zhou et al. 2022). Through complementary innovation, firms generate ideas internally or collaborate with other firms and present these ideas to the ecosystem for validation (Holmström Olsson and Bosch 2017; Tan et al. 2020). Other facets of innovation encompassed within this thematic structure include innovation management, complementary assets, and digital technology (Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari 2019; Tian et al. 2021) (Fig. 13).

Fig. 13
figure 13

Codes and sub-themes of social innovation

Full size image

4.2.7 Community management

The element of community management encompasses the establishment of a network consisting of diverse actors and customers who engage in interactions to collaboratively co-create and deliver value while adhering to accepted standards. We recognise its significance in governance and in maintaining a balanced flow of value within the network. In the case study conducted by Widjojo et al. (2020), which examined value co-creation in the Indonesian SME community, the findings reveal that the presence of collaborative networks involving external actors and dynamic interactions among community members is associated with successful resource integration and value co-creation processes. Thus, we assert that orchestrators must foster an active and engaged community among all participants through various forms of interaction.

Similarly, David-West et al. (2018) and Matarazzo et al. (2024) conducted studies on platform ecosystems in Sub-Saharan Africa and Italy respectively, highlighting the effectiveness of business incubators and stakeholder engagement across the region. The role of the community is often emphasised in creating favourable conditions for innovation and developing a blueprint for aligning business and technology structures in the future. Therefore, community management encompasses all aspects of governance, sustainability, and interdependency within the network (Fig. 14).

Fig. 14
figure 14

Codes and sub-themes of community management

Full size image

4.2.8 Summary of core elements

Several elements play a pivotal role in the development of PEs when considering perspectives from both orchestrators and SMEs. Dynamic capabilities, enterprise architecture, digital transformation, resource integration, value co-creation, social innovation, and community management emerge as fundamental elements within engagements among actors in such multi-sided settings. While the development of PEs is influenced by factors such as the platform sponsor’s structure and the business models of participating SMEs, adopting a multi-actor perspective within the framework of the service ecosystem amplifies the value propositions for each actor involved in the co-creation process (Hlongwane and Grobbelaar 2022; Michalke et al. 2022). These key elements collectively contribute to the holistic understanding and effective functioning of multi-sided platforms, thereby facilitating their development and success.

5 Discussion

Extensive theoretical and empirical research has presented compelling evidence supporting the substantial advantages of PEs as disruptive mechanisms for value co-creation, guided by certain principles. It is argued that SMEs join platforms as third parties to mitigate the uncertainties associated with new business ventures and profit generation capabilities (Ceccagnoli et al. 2012). By actively participating in the co-creation process, these firms leverage the platform ecosystem to foster growth and scale their business models (Orefice and Nyarko 2021; Tian et al. 2021).

Within SME engagement, the innovation habitat encompasses not only the creation of novel solutions but also the agility and adaptability required for SMEs to thrive in dynamic platform ecosystems. SMEs often face resource constraints and market uncertainties, necessitating rapid adaptation to changing conditions. This sub-theme emphasizes the importance of SMEs fostering an environment conducive to innovation while remaining responsive to evolving market dynamics.

Digital transformation represents a critical pathway for SMEs to unlocking opportunities within platform ecosystems. Technology adoption, particularly in the digital business models, offers SMEs the means to enhance their competitiveness and reach new markets. However, SMEs must navigate challenges such as technology compatibility and adoption barriers, underscoring the importance of tailored digital transformation strategies aligned with SME capabilities and objectives.

Furthermore, it is important to recognise the vital role SMEs play in the integration of resources within platform ecosystems, leveraging their unique capabilities to contribute to value creation. Resource optimization becomes paramount for SMEs, as they seek to maximize the utilization of limited resources while collaborating with other actors within the ecosystem. Successful resource integration empowers SMEs to enhance their value proposition and drive innovation collaboratively.

Consequently, value co-creation lies at the heart of SME engagement within platform ecosystems, as SMEs collaborate with other actors to deliver innovative solutions and create shared value. For SMEs, collaborative innovation practices and social innovation initiatives offer avenues for generating value and fostering sustainable growth. By actively participating in value co-creation activities, SMEs can differentiate themselves and strengthen their position within the ecosystem.

More so, effective community management is essential for SMEs to cultivate meaningful engagements within platform ecosystems. SMEs must actively engage with other actors and adhere to community standards while navigating governance structures and regulatory frameworks. By fostering an engaged and cohesive community, SMEs can leverage collective intelligence and drive collective action towards common goals. More so, given that SMEs often face resource constraints and market uncertainties, fostering an environment conducive to innovation is necessary while remaining responsive to evolving market dynamics.

However, despite the perceived benefits of the ecosystem strategy, there are inherent risks involved. The intricate interaction and integration of resources among multiple actors within the ecosystem can lead to adverse relationships, including dependency risks and issues related to advanced technologies (de Oliveira and Cortimiglia 2017; O’Mahony and Karp 2022; Wei et al. 2021). Furthermore, firms may inadvertently neglect their individual objectives while pursuing the goals of the platform (Wei et al. 2021). Depending on the platform’s regulations, a firm’s competitors may be granted access, resulting in reduced sales and profits (O’Mahony and Karp 2022). Moreover, challenges related to the shared access, development, and maintenance of resources persist within platforms, thereby increasing the likelihood of technology duplication by opportunistic participants (O’Mahony and Karp 2022). Building trust in ecosystem participation requires the alignment of the platform leader’s engagement rules with the perspectives of SMEs to effectively benefit from co-creation while mitigating opportunistic tendencies.

To address these complexities, we propose a Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) framework that outlines the essential elements for orchestrators and SMEs involved in the development of a platform ecosystem. Additionally, we elevate the level of abstraction and flexibility in PE development by transitioning from a logical schema to a conceptual map. The CIPP framework is visually depicted in Fig. 15.

Fig. 15
figure 15

CIPP Framework of core elements in developing Pes

Full size image

Figure 15 provides an illustrative representation of the framework, where the context serves as the foundation for PE development. This context is crucial as it introduces a multi-actor perspective that incorporates SMEs in the platform’s developmental process. The input component of the framework encompasses the seven foundational elements: dynamic capabilities, enterprise architecture, digital transformation, resource integration, value co-creation, social innovation, and community management. These elements collectively shape the strategies and considerations involved in defining the resources and operational structure of the SMEs engaged in the platform ecosystem.

The process component of the framework comprises the sub-themes or activity statements associated with each element. From the perspective of SMEs, the input component can be perceived as guiding strategies for establishing the necessary resources and operational framework within their firms. Subsequently, the process elements represent the spectrum of work plans and activities required to transform these resources into valuable outcomes.

Lastly, the product component of the framework emphasises co-creation and innovation as the intended products resulting from the process within the platform ecosystem. It highlights the collaborative efforts and novel ideas generated through the engagement of multiple actors in the ecosystem.

Ultimately, this framework offers orchestrators and SMEs a valuable tool for evaluating platform activities and provides a rational basis for effective management. By utilising this framework, stakeholders can systematically assess and analyse the various components and processes involved in the platform ecosystem, enabling informed decision-making and fostering successful platform development.

6 Conclusion

In conclusion, this study offers both theoretical and practical implications that contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Furthermore, we acknowledge the limitations of our research, thereby expanding the scope of the field by suggesting potential avenues for future research.

6.1 Theoretical and practical implications

This research paper presents significant findings resulting from a systematic approach to data collection and analysis of available literature concerning platform ecosystem development. The study makes original and valuable contributions to the existing body of knowledge on platform ecosystems and highlights their importance in an increasingly digitalised and globalised world, benefiting both scholars and practitioners.

From a theoretical perspective, this paper advances the understanding of value co-creation by offering a systemic lens for conceptualising the platform ecosystem. It expands the existing literature beyond a firm-centric viewpoint to encompass a multi-actor perspective that includes platform orchestrators and SMEs. In contrast, prior literature on platform ecosystem development has primarily focused on producer-customer co-creation and the activities of platform orchestrators, neglecting the significance of actor-to-actor engagement practices within multi-sided networks.

On a practical level, the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) framework proposed in this paper offers practical guidance for practitioners and platform ecosystem managers involved in ecosystem development. By highlighting foundational elements such as dynamic capabilities, enterprise architecture, and value co-creation, the framework provides a structured approach for navigating the complexities of platform ecosystem development.

Furthermore, for industry professionals engaged in platform ecosystem development, the findings of this study offer strategic insights into fostering collaborative relationships among diverse actors. By understanding the core elements identified in the CIPP framework, practitioners can leverage these insights to design and implement effective strategies for orchestrating value co-creation and fostering innovation within platform ecosystems.

Finally, policy-makers can leverage the insights from this research to inform governance frameworks and regulations governing platform ecosystems. By recognizing the importance of community management and the facilitation of actor-to-actor engagements, policymakers can design policies that promote inclusivity, transparency, and trust within platform ecosystems, thereby fostering a conducive environment for value co-creation and innovation.

6.2 Bias analysis and limitations

In ensuring that the articles in our search and final selection align with the type of ecosystem referred to in this study, we adopted a meticulous approach throughout the data collection process. Firstly, our search strategy was crafted to focus on keywords and search strings specifically tailored for platform ecosystems, with a primary emphasis on SMEs’ involvement within these ecosystems. We utilized a combination of relevant terms such as “platform,” “ecosystem,” “SME,” and related variations to capture articles that directly addressed the intersection of these concepts. Additionally, we employed a systematic search strategy across multiple databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct, which are known for their comprehensive coverage of scholarly literature. These databases were chosen based on their high impact and peer-reviewed nature, ensuring that the selected articles undergo a rigorous review process.

Furthermore, during the screening and selection process, we applied strict eligibility criteria, as outlined in Table 2, to ensure that only articles directly relevant to our research questions and focused on platform ecosystems were included. This involved examination of titles, abstracts, and full-text articles to assess their alignment with the scope of our study. Articles that did not meet the criteria or deviated from the focus on SMEs within platform ecosystems were excluded. Additionally, we conducted a review of the references cited in the selected articles to identify any additional relevant studies, thereby enhancing the breadth and depth of our dataset. Through these systematic measures, we aimed to ensure that the articles included in our study effectively contribute to the exploration and analysis of platform ecosystems through an SME standpoint.

However, it is important to acknowledge potential biases in the selection of primary studies based on the chosen search terms and keywords targeting actor-to-actor engagements within the platform ecosystem. Moreover, the exclusion of non-English studies during the selection and outcome stages represents a limitation of the study. Furthermore, limitations may arise from the demographic distribution of the studies included in the analysis. Nonetheless, it is important to note that structured reviews do not aim to provide a qualitative analysis of subjects. Rather, the focus lies in assessing the significance of the subject matter based on the research question and generating a comprehensive range of data that facilitates the study of platform ecosystem development as a whole.

6.3 Future directions

This paper adopts the perspective that platform ecosystems are economic communities of various actors built around core settings. It explores the essential elements that drive the involvement of actors, particularly SMEs and orchestrators, in developing and facilitating platform ecosystem emergence. By leveraging a conceptual framework, the study aims to orchestrate a comprehensive approach towards fostering the growth of digital platform-based ecosystems in diverse industries. Nonetheless, it is essential to note that this may deserve additional attention to delve deeper into this field of inquiry. Figure 16 maps the contributions of other reports and the present paper within the body of platform ecosystem literature and highlights areas that hold promise for future research directions.

Fig. 16
figure 16

Research contributions and future directions

Full size image

The recent works of Benitez et al. (2020b) and Tiwana et al. (2010) exploring platform co-evolution has shown that platform ecosystems are dynamic and evolve; further studies on the development and evolutionary stages of these platform ecosystems can offer valuable insights into the challenges, opportunities and outcomes that arise during their growth. Additionally, these studies can shed more light on the roles enacted by various actors on the stage of ecosystem emergence and the critical interactions between them.

More so, with the multi-actor framework conceptualised in this paper supporting the theoretical perspectives of ecosystems on the transformation of businesses into value networks [e.g. Breidbach et al. (2013), Ketonen-Oksi and Valkokari (2019), Pinho et al. (2014)], there is a need to conduct industry-based case studies of thriving platform ecosystems to identify value co-creation strategies and resource integration patterns that contribute to their success. These empirical studies can provide a deeper understanding of the processes or factors that stimulate actor engagement resulting in value creation. More so, theorising and comparing platform ecosystems within various industries and regions can provide structural and management variations for successful platform ecosystem development. While it is noteworthy to mention the contributions of Zimmer et al. (2014) in the development of innovation clusters, future works can extend their considerations on the boundaries and contexts within which interactions are facilitated in various platform ecosystems.

Further studies on the regulation of platform ecosystems can explore governance mechanisms and regulatory frameworks fostering platform ecosystems, especially in the healthcare sector. Property rights, privacy, security, interoperability, trust and data-sharing issues should be examined further. Our paper has initiated discussions on these pertinent topics and laid a foundation for further exploration. Ultimately, these studies will provide a comprehensive approach to studying value co-creation in ecosystems and further guarantee the sustainability of today’s multi-sided platforms.

Finally, we envisage that the recent artificial intelligence (AI) developments may significantly advance increased automation and intelligent decision-making within platform ecosystems. Actor engagement may be impacted by how AI systems within the platforms interact with SMES, orchestrators and other participants. While this may offer new insights and analytical capabilities for understanding platform ecosystem complexities and enhancing the effectiveness of our proposed CIPP Framework, we foresee the rise of challenges in terms of ethical considerations, privacy issues and the need for responsible AI governance. Therefore, future research should focus on AI-driven changes, exploring their implications on value co-creation, governance and sustainability of multi-sided digital platforms.