Advertisement

The Role of Openness and Extension Modularization in Value Capture for Platform-Based Digital Transformation

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 389)

Abstract

Digital transformation is radically changing the way companies conduct business and compete in established markets. In particular, a growing number of companies are switching from predominantly product-focused to platform-based business models. However, it remains unclear how these platforms should be designed to enable platform owners to maximize value capture. In this study, we investigated the interactions between platform openness and extension modularization and their influence on value capture in the context of digital transformation. To do so, we combined a case survey strategy with a configurational approach using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. We found that there is no single condition necessary to achieve a high degree of value capture. Furthermore, our results show the importance of closedness and tight coupling of platforms and their applications. Finally, we confirmed the importance of interface conformance to high value capture. In addition, our results contribute to both theory and practice and provide implications for future research into the role of digital platforms in digital transformation.

Keywords

Digital transformation Digital platforms Configuration theory 

References

  1. 1.
    Vial, G.: Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 28, 118–144 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parker, G.G., Van Alstyne, M.W., Choudary, S.P.: Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You. WW Norton & Company, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hein, A., et al.: Digital platform ecosystems. Electron. Markets 30, 87–98 (2020).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cusumano, M.A., Yoffie, D.B., Gawer, A.: The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power. HarperCollins Publishers, Manhattan (2019)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Krcmar, H.: The platform owner’s challenge to capture value – insights from a business-to-business IT platform. In: 38th International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul, South Korea (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ondrus, J., Gannamaneni, A., Lyytinen, K.: The impact of openness on the market potential of multi-sided platforms: a case study of mobile payment platforms. J. Inf. Technol. 30, 260–275 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Alstyne, M.W., Parker, G., Choudary, S.P.: Reasons platforms fail. Harvard Bus. Rev. 31, 2–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsson, R.: Case survey methodology: quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies. Acad. Manag. J. 36, 1515–1546 (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ragin, C.C.: Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riasanow, T., Soto Setzke, D., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H.: Clarifying the notion of digital transformation: a transdisciplinary review of literature. J. Competences Strategy Manag. 10, 5–36 (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    West, J., O’Mahony, S.: The role of participation architecture in growing sponsored open source communities. Ind. Innov. 15, 145–168 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soto Setzke, D., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H.: Platform openness: a systematic literature review and avenues for future research. In: 14th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Siegen, Germany (2019)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boudreau, K.: Open platform strategies and innovation: granting access vs. devolving control. Manag. Sci. 56, 1849–1872 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dal Bianco, V., Myllärniemi, V., Komssi, M., Raatikainen, M.: The role of platform boundary resources in software ecosystems: a case study. In: IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 11–20. IEEE, Sydney (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, R.M., Kijl, B., Martens, J.K.J.: A comparison of inter-organizational business models of mobile app stores: there is more than open vs. closed. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 6, 13–14 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tiwana, A.: Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems. Inf. Syst. Res. 26, 266–281 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orton, J.D., Weick, K.E.: Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15, 203–223 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hein, A., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H.: Tight and loose coupling in evolving platform ecosystems: the cases of airbnb and uber. In: Abramowicz, W., Paschke, A. (eds.) BIS 2018. LNBIP, vol. 320, pp. 295–306. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93931-5_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J.T.: Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strateg. Manag. J. 17, 63–76 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Block, D., Vis, B.: Addressing the challenges related to transforming qualitative into quantitative data in qualitative comparative analysis. J. Mixed Methods Res. 13(4), 503–535 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Basurto, X., Speer, J.: Structuring the calibration of qualitative data as sets for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Field Methods 24, 155–174 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iannacci, F., Cornford, T.: Unravelling causal and temporal influences underpinning monitoring systems success: a typological approach. Inf. Syst. J. 28, 384–407 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P.C., Aguilera, R.V.: Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: best practices in strategy and organization research. Strateg. Organ. 16, 482–495 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park, Y., El Sawy, O.A., Fiss, P.C.: The role of business intelligence and communication technologies in organizational agility: a configurational approach. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 18, 648–686 (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bouncken, R.B., Fredrich, V., Kraus, S.: Configurations of firm-level value capture in coopetition. Long Range Plann. (2019, in print)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M.: How established companies leverage IT platforms for value co-creation – insights from banking. In: 25th European Conference on Information Systems, Guimarães, Portugal (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sia, S.K., Soh, C., Weill, P.: How DBS bank pursued a digital business strategy. MIS Q. Exec. 15, 105–121 (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hagiu, A., Altman, E.J.: Intuit QuickBooks: From Product to Platform. Harvard Business School Publishing (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saarikko, T., Jonsson, K., Burström, T.: Software platform establishment: effectuation and entrepreneurial awareness. Inf. Technol. People 32, 579–602 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bai, G., Zhao, L., Wang, Z.E.: Advantech: evolution of its IoT ecosystem strategy. Emerald Emerg. Markets Case Stud. 8, 1–28 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li, Y.: The technological roadmap of Cisco’s business ecosystem. Technovation 29, 379–386 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Collis, D.J., Junker, T.: Digitalization at Siemens. Harvard Business School (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., Lyytinen, K.: Digital transformation of ABB through platforms: the emergence of hybrid architecture in process automation. In: Urbach, N., Röglinger, M. (eds.) Digitalization Cases. MP, pp. 273–291. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95273-4_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Iansiti, M., Lakhani, K.R.: Digital ubiquity: how connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business. Harvard Bus. Rev. 92, 1–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kuebel, H., Limbach, F., Zarnekow, R.: Business models of developer platforms in the telecommunications industry - an explorative case study analysis. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dasi, A., Elter, F., Gooderham, P.N., Pedersen, T.: New business models in-the-making in extant MNCs: digital transformation in a telco. In: Pedersen, T., Devinney, T.M., Tihanyi, L., Camuffo, A. (eds.) Breaking up the Global Value Chain: Opportunities and Consequences, vol. 30, pp. 29–53. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang, J., Liang, X.-J.: Business ecosystem strategies of mobile network operators in the 3G era: the case of China mobile. Telecommun. Policy 35, 156–171 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hilbolling, S.: Organizing ecosystems for digital innovation. Ph.D. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2018)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mocker, M., Ross, J.: Digital transformation at Royal Philips. In: 39th International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA (2018)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Laborie, F., Røed, O.C., Engdahl, G., Camp, A.: Extracting value from data using an industrial data platform to provide a foundational digital twin. In: Offshore Technology Conference (2019)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lal, R., Johnson, S.: Maersk: Betting on Blockchain. Harvard Business School Publishing (2018)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ofe, H.A., Sandberg, J.: Platform establishment: navigating competing concerns in emerging ecosystems. In: 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA (2019)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., Lindgren, R.: Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms: how volvo cars managed competing concerns. MIS Q. 41, 239–253 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Törmer, R.L.: How the LEGO group is embarking on architectural path constitution to transform its information infrastructure into a digital platform. In: 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, vol. 2, pp. 649–656. SCITEPRESS, Funchal (2018)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mukhopadhyay, S., Bouwman, H., Jaiswal, M.P.: An open platform centric approach for scalable government service delivery to the poor: the Aadhaar case. Gov. Inf. Q. 36, 437–448 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thiem, A., Dusa, A.: QCA: a package for qualitative comparative analysis. R J. 5, 87–97 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comp. Sociol. 9, 397–418 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fiss, P.C.: Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 393–420 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    El Sawy, O.A., Malhotra, A., Park, Y., Pavlou, P.A.: Research commentary—seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: it takes three to tango. Inf. Syst. Res. 21, 835–848 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., Basole, R.C.: The digital platform: a research agenda. J. Inf. Technol. 33, 124–135 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations