Research Commentary—Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics

Abstract

T he emergence of software-based platforms is shifting competition toward platform-centric ecosystems, although this phenomenon has not received much attention in information systems research. Our premise is that the coevolution of the design, governance, and environmental dynamics of such ecosystems influences how they evolve. We present a framework for understanding platform-based ecosystems and discuss five broad research questions that present significant research opportunities for contributing homegrown theory about their evolutionary dynamics to the information systems discipline and distinctive information technology-artifactcentric contributions to the strategy, economics, and software engineering reference disciplines.

Platform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements

“…Finally, if platform owners cannot resolve the technological dilemma of having an advanced platform that is not complex, the question becomes an organizational one (Tiwana et al 2010;Yoo et al 2010): How do platform owners manage this complexity with their complement providers? We have limited knowledge on the interorganizational schemes and mechanisms used by platform providers to guarantee high-quality integration with complements (Tiwana 2015), and to govern the evolution of the ecosystem of complement providers to reduce unintended variance (in quality) and increase intended variance (variety of high-quality complements) (Tiwana et al 2010, Wareham et al 2014).…”

“…1 Clearly, consumers do use multiple platforms; but when it comes to choosing among functionally similar platforms, they tend to singlehome, or largely use one of them as their preferred platform of choice, even when consumers affiliate with multiple platforms (see Armstrong 2006 andTirole 2003 for a discussion of cases where consumers can multi-home and complementors single-home). 2 A platform's technological architecture shapes its core functionalities Woodard 2009, Gawer 2014), which can affect both competitive performance (Gawer andCusumano 2002, Zhu andIansiti 2012) and incentives of independent firms to develop complements (Anderson et al 2014, Tiwana et al 2010, Gawer 2014. As a system comprises the platform and its complements, the effect of platform architecture on both platform performance and complement supply matters for value creation at the system level (Cennamo 2016).…”

“…We suggest that the true costs of multihoming are determined indirectly by platform owners via technological architecture, and thus possibly heterogeneous across platforms. This has important implications for platform evolution and competitive performance (Cennamo 2016, Tiwana et al 2010Wareham et al 2014), and for platform strategy (Cennamo andSantaló 2013, Claussen et al 2013). Third, some work suggests that multihoming renders platforms more similar because users can use the same complement on different platforms (Landsman and Stremersch, 2011).…”

“…We ask how the tradeoffs complementors face when designing products for multiple platforms affect the quality performance of multihoming complements across platforms. , Tiwana et al 2010, Gawer 2014. As a system comprises the platform and its complements, the effect of platform architecture on both platform performance and complement supply matters for value creation at the system level (Cennamo 2016).…”

Business ecosystem research agenda: more dynamic, more embedded, and more internationalized

“…For example, in the software industry, the platform concept has shifted business competition towards a platform-centric ecosystem (Tiwana et al 2010). Platform research has been extended into several streams, including pricing structure over supply and demand (Armstrong 2006), platform competition (Zhu and Iansiti 2012), suppliers' technology strategy (Cusumano 2010) and customers' multi-homing strategy (Landsman and Stremersch 2011), as well as some social issues in the platform (Suarez 2005).…”