Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how complementors’ marketing capability and technology capability affect their performance. Drawing on social capital theory, the authors examine platform network centrality as a mediator and platform reputation as a moderator of the relationships between these two capabilities and complementor performance.

This study collects data by questionnaire from 154 Chinese firms adopting e-commerce platforms. Hierarchical multiple regression is used to test the hypotheses of this study.

This study finds that complementors’ marketing capability and technology capability positively affect performance by increasing their platform network centrality. Moreover, platform reputation positively moderates the relationship between platform network centrality and complementor performance, and it strengthens the mediating role of platform network centrality.

This paper emphasizes the critical role of marketing capability and technology capability on complementor performance. It explores the improvement path of complementor performance from the perspective of network position, which is a key element for complementors to effectively leverage their capabilities to build competitive advantage.

The purpose of this study is to explore the coopetition relationships between platform owners and complementors in complementary product markets. Drawing on the coopetition theory, the authors examined the evolutionary trends of the coopetition relationships between platform owners and complementors and explore the main influence factors.

The authors used Lotka–Volterra model to analyze the coopetition relationship between platform owners and complementors, including the evolutionary trends as well as the results. Considering the feasibility of sample data collection, simulation is used to verify the effects of different factors on the evolution of coopetition relationships.

The results show that there are four possible results of the competition in the complementary products market. That comprises “winner-take-all for platform owners,” “winner-take-all for complementors,” “stable competitive coexistence” and “unstable competitive coexistence,” where “stable competitive coexistence” is the optimal evolutionary state. Moreover, the results of competitive evolution are determined by innovation subjects’ interaction parameters. However, the natural growth rate, the initial market benefits of the two innovators and the overall benefits of the complementary product markets influence the time to reach a steady state.

The study provides new insights into the entry of platform owners into complementary markets, and the findings highlight the fact that in complementary product markets, platform owners and complementors should seek “competitive coexistence” rather than “winner-takes-all.” Moreover, the authors also enrich the coopetition theory by revealing the core factors that influence the evolution of coopetition relationships, which further enhance the analysis of the evolutionary process of coopetition relationships.

The study considers the interdependencies between complementors in the business ecosystem and explores the nature of collaborative interactions between them. It sheds light on the organizational and the strategic contexts in which such interactions take place, and shows how they may influence the pattern and the benefits of collaboration. The evidence presented is based on fieldwork followed by a detailed survey instrument administered to firms in the semiconductor industry. The findings, while reinforcing the shift in the locus of value creation from focal firms to collaborative business ecosystems characterized by information sharing and joint action among complementors, illustrate the organizational and the competitive challenges that firms face in their pursuit of joint value creation.

The involvement of lead‐users in product development has been emphasised as a rewarding method for companies in various industries to strengthen their development efforts. The argument is that these leading edge customers can generate innovative and appealing new product concepts. In some industries, however, companies may not be able to make use of lead‐users. In such situations, a complementor may be a valuable alternative. Complementors may be defined as development partners “whose outputs or functions increase the value” of the company's own innovations. The purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the advantages obtainable from the lead‐user method and complementor involvement respectively in order to determine the interchangeable value from these different approaches.

A typical case is selected as the empirical foundation, describing a Danish food‐producing company's collaboration with a complementor.

The case analysis shows that complementor involvement may lead to output‐related, process‐related, and system‐related advantages comparable with advantages obtainable from the lead‐user method. The findings, however, reveal some variations in these advantages. Compared with the goals set by the Danish food‐manufacturing company, output‐related advantages are achieved, e.g. in terms of higher product novelty, whereas the company's goal for enhancing its market position is not reached. Several process‐related advantages are also accomplished in terms of enhanced internal collaboration and improved cross‐functional communication. However, the company faces challenges related to how close the complementor relation might become.

This research is based on a single case study in the food industry in Denmark.

From this paper, new knowledge and insight into complementor involvement in product development as well as the related advantages and disadvantages can be derived. In academia, this knowledge contributes to deepening understanding of external partnering in product development in general. The managerial implications to be derived are associated with the potential value generated from complementor involvement in product development.

Two major markets exist in manufacturing and both are rapidly changing. On the one hand, there are the traditional original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who build their own end‐user products. Fewer and fewer of the vital components within the products sold are original. Instead, a structured network of supplier companies builds the components. These contract manufacturers may have a number of OEMs as clients and keep their manufacturing processes running full‐time by shifting jobs back and forth among client’s orders as demand requires. In recent years, more and more is required of the contract manufacturer. As well as working with traditional external forces the contract manufacturer now has to contend with the concept of complementors. This paper describes research into the concept of the complementor and proposes the complementor impact model for contract manufacturers. This new model demonstrates how contract manufacturers may capitalise relationships with fellow complementors. In doing so they themselves become superior complementors.

Innovation ecosystem research has highlighted complementors as the critical force to determining focal firm innovation’s success in addition to the traditional value chain or supply chain perspective. However, literature is relatively scarce in terms of innovation ecosystem governance, especially, on how to manage various types of complementors. The purpose of this paper is to fill this theoretical gap by developing a typology of managing complementors from multiple case studies.

This study conducted multiple case studies of three leading focal firms with ecosystem strategies to understand innovation ecosystem governance. Theoretical themes are inductively generated to reveal their success in managing complementors in their ecosystems.

The case analysis reveals four generic strategies to manage complementors. These strategies are contingent on the types of complementors and level of interdependence: focal firms tend to engage functional complementors and collaborate with infrastructural complementors when the level of interdependence is higher, and acquire functional complementors and nurture infrastructural complementors when the level of interdependence is lower.

For practitioners, this study can improve their understanding on the mechanisms of innovation ecosystem governance, particularly interdependence between participants in an innovation ecosystem, and developing appropriate strategies to manage different types of complementors in innovation ecosystems.

This study contributes to innovation ecosystem literature by enriching the conceptualization of interdependence in innovation ecosystems and unpacking innovation ecosystem governance with the inductively developed holistic typology of strategies to manage complementors. Meanwhile, this study also suggests underlying mechanisms for how innovation ecosystem governance and, therefore, contributes to a systematic theory on understanding innovation ecosystem governance.

Platform ecosystem governance is a decisive issue for orchestrators, as the motivation and behaviors of the complementors in an ecosystem can be distinctly different, shaped by the specific arrangements they have within the ecosystem. However, knowledge about adaptation in the governance of platform ecosystems is quite limited. First, the authors hardly know which obstacles are arising for orchestrators due to typical governance settings and their consequences. Second, the authors know less about governance strategies by orchestrators that help deal with these obstacles.

The authors follow an inductive, multistep case-study-based approach with multiple cases using guidelines proposed by Yin (2018). Based on predefined criteria, the authors selected 41 platform ecosystems with a “hub and spoke” system within and across several industries and collected a wide range of data. The authors conducted 14 interviews with executives of these platform ecosystems to gain further insights, transcribed and/or summarized all interviews, and analyzed the data.

Based on the dataset, the authors identify four significant obstacles and ten strategies of orchestrators in platform ecosystems. This approach allows us to gain insight into innovative approaches orchestrators conduct to cope with these challenges.

The authors already have a broad range of studies on ecosystem governance in the literature. However, research dealing with the dynamics of governance regimes is quite rare. The study examines how orchestrators of platform ecosystems react to emerging obstacles they are confronted with during the evolution of their platform ecosystems. Partly, these strategies might be expected, but mostly they show innovative approaches for handling these obstacles that have not been reported in research so far.

The concept of open innovation has captured the attention of both academics and practitioners alike. However, there is a dearth of research on how innovations can be diffused within open innovation ecosystems, a critical condition for the sustainability of such ecosystems. In this regard, the study advances a research agenda for guiding future inquiries into innovation diffusion within open innovation ecosystems.

Based on a systematic review of the extant literature on open innovation, this article identifies knowledge gaps in innovation diffusion, along with recommendations for bridging these gaps in the future. The study advocates that future research should consider not only innovation generation processes, but also innovation diffusion processes, especially in light of the growing application of open innovation in the context of digital goods and services.

Subscribing to an evolutionary view of innovation diffusion, the article draws on a five-phase framework – knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation – to illustrate the roles played by three distinct yet interconnected parties (i.e. platforms, complementors, and individuals) within open innovation ecosystems as well as the research opportunities it brings.

The article examines the critical, yet underexplored role of innovation diffusion in sustaining open innovation ecosystems and outlines potential research avenues that can contribute to growing the understanding of the innovation diffusion process.

The primary aim of this article is to develop an understanding that resolves and integrates the conflicting findings with regard to the effects of platform-owner entry on the innovation of individual complementors.

Drawing on the platform ecosystem literature and the profiting from innovation (PFI) framework, this study presents a conceptual model that articulates how developers' marketing capabilities and the size of platform's installed base are two key moderators that explain the conflicting results between platform-owner entry and complementor innovations.

This article theorizes that platform owners' entry stimulates developers' innovations when the size of platform's installed base is large or when developers' marketing capabilities are strong while the entry can discourage innovations otherwise.

By proposing the conceptual model, this article makes important theoretical contributions to the rising literature on platform governance and complementor innovations. It lays a foundation for future research exploring the implications of platform-owner entry.

Because of the attention increasingly being focused on digital transformation, interest in business models of platform-enabled ecosystems is rising rapidly. Although there are different theoretical views on the role of ecosystems, a synthesis of research, with a focus on governance and orchestration in dynamic, multi-industry eco-systems, is lacking.

A systematic literature review was conducted by following a rigorous search protocol in the scholarly databases covering both journal articles and conference papers These papers were subsequently filtered, and finally, 48 relevant papers were selected for analysis.

The review identifies five key aspects of platform governance design that need close consideration: the meta-organisation or ecosystem design, coordination mechanisms, mechanisms for value co-creation, value appropriation mechanisms and architectural principles. To achieve balance among a set of competing demands, platform leaders need to devote adequate attention to these aspects.

Based on a literature review, the authors provide an overview of underlying theoretical views, research methods and key trends to develop a sound theoretical grounding for research on platform governance design. The paper also suggests research gaps in the existing literature and sets directions for researchers to strengthen the understanding of effective platform governance design. The paper also provides valuable information to managers in developing or leading a successful platform ecosystem.

The paper uses existing literature published in this topic and original in nature.