Skip to main content
View expanded cover

Management Digitaler Plattformen pp 1–33Cite as

Objectives of Platform Research: A Co-citation and Systematic Literature Review Analysis

Part of the ZfbF-Sonderheft book series (ZFBFS,volume 75/20)

Abstract

Business economics research on digital platforms often overlooks existing knowledge from other fields of research which leads to conceptual ambiguity and inconsistent findings. To reduce these restrictions and foster the utilization of the extensive body of literature, we apply a mixed methods design to summarize the key findings of scientific platform research. Our bibliometric analysis identifies 14 platform-related research fields. Conducting a systematic qualitative content analysis, we identify three primary research objectives related to platform ecosystems: 1) general literature defining and unifying research on platforms; 2) exploitation of platform and ecosystem strategies; 3) improvement of platforms and ecosystems. Finally, we discuss the identified insights from a business economics perspective and present promising future research directions that could enhance business economics and management research on digital platforms and platform ecosystems.

Schlüsselwörter

  • Digital platform
  • Platform ecosystems
  • Research objectives
  • Literature review
  • Co-citation analysis

JEL-Classification

  • L15
  • M15
  • O32

Schlüsselwörter

  • Digitale Plattform
  • Plattformökosysteme
  • Forschungsschwerpunkte
  • Literaturanalyse
  • Co-Zitationsanalyse

Zusammenfassung

Die betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung zu digitalen Plattformen vernachlässigt häufig bestehendes Wissen aus anderen Forschungsbereichen, was zu konzeptioneller Ambiguität und inkonsistenten Ergebnissen führt. Um diese Einschränkungen zu verringern, wenden wir einen Mixed-Methods-Ansatz an, um die wichtigsten Ergebnisse der Plattformforschung zusammenzufassen. Die bibliometrische Analyse identifiziert 14 Forschungsfelder. Die folgende Inhaltsanalyse zeigt drei grundlegende Forschungsziele in Bezug auf Plattform-Ökosysteme: 1) allgemeine Literatur, die Plattformen definiert und verschiedene Forschungsansätze vereinheitlicht; 2) die Nutzung von Plattform- und Ökosystemstrategien; 3) die Verbesserung von Plattformen und deren Ökosystemen. Abschließend diskutieren wir die Ergebnisse aus betriebswirtschaftlicher Sicht und präsentieren zukünftige Forschungsrichtungen, die die betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung zu digitalen Plattformen und Plattformökosystemen voranbringen könnten.

Schlüsselwörter

  • Digital platform
  • Platform ecosystems
  • Research objectives
  • Literature review
  • Co-citation analysis

JEL-Classification

  • L15
  • M15
  • O32

Schlüsselwörter

  • Digitale Plattform
  • Plattformökosysteme
  • Forschungsschwerpunkte
  • Literaturanalyse
  • Co-Zitationsanalyse

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-31118-6_1
  • Chapter length: 33 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-658-31118-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Additionally, conference proceedings (e.g. International (A) and European (B) conferences on Information Systems) are not considered in our analysis.

References

  • Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J. C., Gupta, A., Kauffman, R. J. (2007). Technology roles and paths of influence in an ecosystem model of technology evolution. Information Technology and Management, 8(2), 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. G., Parker, G. G., Tan, B. (2014). Platform performance investment in the presence of network externalities. Information Systems Research, 25(1), 152–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320–1326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Au, Y. A., Kauffman, R. J. (2008). The economics of mobile payments: Understanding stakeholder issues for an emerging financial technology application. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(2), 141–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y., von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, J. C. (2009). The architecture of platforms: A unified view. In A. Gawer (Hrsg.), Platforms, markets and innovation (S. 19–44). Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basole, R. C., Karla, J. (2011). On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and strategy. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 3(5), 313–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 123–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benlian, A., Hilkert, D., Hess, T. (2015). How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementers’ perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 30(3), 209–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-d representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. Devolving Control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849–1872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409–1427.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J., Hagiu, A. (2009). Platform Rules: Multisided platforms as regulators. In A. Gawer (Hrsg.), Platforms, markets and innovation (S. 163–191). Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J., Jeppesen, L. B. (2015). Unpaid crowd complementors: The platform network effect mirage. Strategic Management Journal, 36(12), 1761–1777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D., Geisser, K. D., Rothlauf, F. (2016). Explaining the internationalization of ibusiness firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(5), 513–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carare, O. (2012). The impact of bestseller rank on demand: Evidence from the app market. International Economic Review, 53(3), 717–741.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., Wu, D. J. (2012). Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 263–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cenamor, J., Usero, B., Fernández, Z. (2013). The role of complementary products on platform adoption: Evidence from the video console market. Technovation, 33(12), 405–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, C., Santalo, J. (2013). Platform competition: Strategic trade-offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1331–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. (2016). CiteSpace: A practical guide for mapping scientific literature. New York: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of co-citation clusters: A multiple-perspective co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386–1409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Song, M. (2019). Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. PloS One, 14(10), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7), 1164–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M. A. (2010). Technology strategy and managementThe evolution of platform thinking. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 32–34.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A. (2002). The elements of platform leadership. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating Innovation Networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., Yoo, Y. (2015). Distributed tuning of boundary resources: The case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 217–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., van Alstyne, M. (2011). Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1270–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eloranta, V., Turunen, T. (2016). Platforms in service-driven manufacturing: Leveraging complexity by connecting, sharing, and integrating. Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 178–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: The new economics of multisided platforms. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis G. A., Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. THE FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, C., Block, J. (2018). Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 103–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, W., Wang, Q., Zhao, X. (2018). Platform-based service innovation and system design: a literature review. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(5), 946–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S., West, J. (2009). Reconceptualizing and expanding the positive feedback network effects model: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26(3), 131–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A. (Hrsg.). (2009). Platforms, markets and innovation. Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239–1249.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A. (Hrsg.). (2002). Platform leadership: How intel, microsoft, and cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., Henderson, R. (2007). Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghazawneh, A., Henfridsson, O. (2013). Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: the boundary resources model. Information Systems Journal, 23(2), 173–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghose, A., Han, S. P. (2014). Estimating demand for mobile applications in the new economy. Management Science, 60(6), 1470–1488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Puranam, P., Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A. (2014). Strategic decisions for multisided markets. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A., Wright, J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 43, 162–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H. (2020). Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 30, 87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henfridsson, O., Bygstad, B. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 907–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, Y.-J., Wu, Y. J. (2019). Entrepreneurship through the platform strategy in the digital era: Insights and research opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 315–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Wu, D. J. (2013). Appropriability mechanisms and the platform partnership decision: Evidence from enterprise software. Management Science, 59(1), 102–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy, 35(8), 1200–1221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, S., Cusumano, M. A. (2013). Defining software ecosystems: A survey of software platforms and business network governance. Proceedings of IWSECO, 2012, 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, S., Finkelstein, A., Brinkkemper, S. (2009). A sense of community: A research agenda for software ecosystems. 31st International Conference on Software Engineering-Companion Volume. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J.-S., Downing, S. (2015). Keystone effect on entry into two-sided markets: An analysis of the market entry of WiMAX. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 170–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, R., Agarwal, S. (2017). Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the ios and android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science, 28(3), 531–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R., Lyytinen, K. (2018). Exploiting and defending open digital platforms with boundary resources: Android’s five platform forks. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 479–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazan, E., Tan, C.-W., Lim, E. T. K., Sørensen, C., Damsgaard, J. (2018). Disentangling digital platform competition: The case of UK mobile payment platforms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 180–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, T., Strauß, O., Scheffler, G., Kett, H., Lehmann, K., & Renner, T. (2017). IT-Plattformen für das Internet der Dinge (IoT): Basis intelligenter Produkte und Services. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G., Raghu, T. S. (2014). Determinants of mobile apps’ success: Evidence from the app store market. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(2), 133–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBurney,M. K., Novak, P. L. (2002). What is bibliometrics and why should you care? In Professional Communication Conference, 2002. Ipcc 2002. Proceedings. Ieee International (pp. 108–114). s.l.: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, D. P., Srinivasan, A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 141–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A New ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair, H., Chintagunta, P., Dubé, J.-P. (2004). Empirical analysis of indirect network effects in the market for personal digital assistants. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2(1), 23–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Sawhney, M. (2011). Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation: Evidence from the field. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ondrus, J., Gannamaneni, A., Lyytinen, K. (2015). The impact of openness on the market potential of multi-sided platforms: A case study of mobile payment platforms. Journal of Information Technology, 30(3), 260–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. G., van Alstyne, M. (2018). Innovation, openness, and platform control. Management Science, 64(7), 3015–3032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. G., van Alstyne, M., Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy—and how to make them work for you. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. G., van Alstyne, M., Jiang, X. (2017). Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the firm. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 255–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raghuram, S., Tuertscher, P., Garud, R. (2010). Research note —mapping the field of virtual work: A cocitation analysis. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 983–999.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., Basole, R. C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J.-C., Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J.-C., Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: A progress report. The Rand Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata, W. A. (2004). Competing through innovation in network markets: Strategies for challengers. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 359–377.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shy, O. (2011). A short survey of network economics. Review of Industrial Organization, 38(2), 119–149.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Suominen, A., Seppänen, M., Dedehayir, O. (2019). A bibliometric review on innovation systems and ecosystems: A research agenda. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(2), 335–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, B., Pan, S., Lu, X., Huang, L. (2015). The role of IS capabilities in the development of multi-sided platforms: The digital ecosystem strategy of Alibaba.com. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(4), 248–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D., Anthony, W. D. (2011). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. London: Atlantic Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L. D. W., Autio, E., Gann, D. M. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A. (2014). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A. (2015). Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems. Information Systems Research, 26(2), 266–281.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. (2010). Complementarities between organizational IT architecture and governance structure. Information Systems Research, 21(2), 288–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary —platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Alstyne, M. W., Parker, G. G., Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 62(April), 54–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. (2004). Preferential linkage and network evolution: A conceptual model and empirical test in the U.S. video game sector. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 876–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press. (1. MIT Press paperback ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, N., Liang, H., Jia, Y., Ge, S., Xue, Y., Wang, Z. (2016). Cloud computing research in the IS discipline: A citation/co-citation analysis. Decision Support Systems, 86, 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195–1215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster and Watson. (2002). Guest editorial: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., O’Mahony, S. (2008). The role of participation architecture in growing sponsored open source communities. Industry and Innovation, 15(2), 145–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., Venkatesh, V., Tam, K. Y., Hong, S.-J. (2010). Model of migration and use of platforms: Role of hierarchy, current generation, and complementarities in consumer settings. Management Science, 56(8), 1304–1323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5. Aufl.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for Innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., Strotmann, A. (2015). Analysis and visualization of citation networks. California: Morgan & Claypool.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, F., Iansiti, M. (2012). Entry into platform-based markets. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1), 88–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, F., Liu, Q. (2018). Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com. Strategic Management Journal, 39(10), 2618–2642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zupic, I., Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IPRI—International Performance Research Institute gGmbH, Stuttgart, Germany

    Fabian Schüler

  2. Graduate School of Excellence Advanced Manufacturing Engineering, Stuttgart, Germany

    Dimitri Petrik

Authors
  1. Fabian Schüler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitri Petrik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabian Schüler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Business Analytics, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Mischa Seiter

  2. TRUMPF GmbH & Co KG, Ditzingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Dr. Lars Grünert

  3. Institut für Business Analytics, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Andreas Steur

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Der/die Herausgeber bzw. der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schüler, F., Petrik, D. (2021). Objectives of Platform Research: A Co-citation and Systematic Literature Review Analysis. In: Seiter, M., Grünert, L., Steur, A. (eds) Management Digitaler Plattformen. ZfbF-Sonderheft, vol 75/20. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31118-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31118-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-31117-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-31118-6

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)