49,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Books on Demand
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
The concept of platforms emerges in an increasing number of industries and affects customers' changing expectations, industries themselves, and new technologies' availability. Today, most platforms act as a technical foundation and distribution channel for complementary software products. Organizations can join platforms and use them to develop and distribute software products. They become complementors on the platforms. Platforms influence the motivations as well as the organization and affects software products of the complementors. Among other things, when using platforms, complementors must accept the platforms' specifications (for example, the technologies to be used). These requirements lead to additional work for complementors. The effort for complementors increases if software products are to be offered in parallel on multiple platforms. This publication examines how platforms affect organizations that use multiple platforms. It gives organizations recommendations for action on how to accommodate the platforms' influence.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 683
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020
Ähnliche
VON DER FAKULTÄT FÜR WIRTSCHAFTS- UND SOZIALWISSENSCHAFTEN DER
UNIVERSITÄT STUTTGART ZUR ERLANGUNG DER WÜRDE EINES DOKTORS DER
WIRTSCHAFTS- UND SOZIALWISSENSCHAFTEN (DR. RER. POL.) GENEHMIGTE
ABHANDLUNG
VORGELEGT VON:
CHRISTOPHER GEORG JUD
AUS LANDSHUT
H
AUPTBERICHTER
:
U
NIV
.-P
ROF
. D
R
. G
EORG
H
ERZWURM
M
ITBERICHTER
:
U
NIV
.-P
ROF
. D
R
. H
ANS
-G
EORG
K
EMPER
T
AG DER MÜNDLICHEN
P
RÜFUNG
:
16.06.2020
BETRIEBSWIRTSCHAFTLICHES INSTITUT DER UNIVERSITÄT STUTTGART
2019
Foreword
The progressive digitalization of processes, products and services leads to convergence of industries, providers, business areas and products, which represents a game changer for the market of digital or digitalized goods. The Internet of Things (IoT) is now opening the door to the digital world for more and more providers of formerly purely physical goods and is thus leading to the convergence of digital and analogue markets and value creation systems. Furthermore, these developments enable the atomisation of products/services (e.g. bundled micro-services instead of apps) and increase the number of possible products and services as well as their providers. Platforms act as enablers for cooperation (especially in development and sales) between the value-added partners. This leads to coopetition because the value-added partners can be both cooperation partners and competitors.
Digitisation thus leads to a sustainable change in the software market in the direction of a platform economy and offers enormous potential for innovative business models and new ways of awakening and satisfying customer needs in order to earn money.
This also creates new challenges for (business) informatics: On the one hand, platforms have to be designed very openly so that they are attractive for as many participants (providers, customers, partners or complementers) as possible. So far, research in this area has focused on platform providers. However, many software vendors will not be able to achieve the necessary critical mass to offer their own platform. In the platform economy, they therefore act as complementers for one or more platforms already existing on the market. This results in platform-based eco-systems whose success factors for development and marketing differ significantly from the traditional product business.
In the present work, Mr. Jud succeeds in closing major research gaps in the design of product management for complementors in the platform economy and provides an excellent overview of the topic for scientists and practitioners.
Stuttgart, July 2020
Univ.-Professor Dr. Georg Herzwurm
Acknowledgments
Many people supported and contributed to the successful completion of this doctoral thesis. First of all, I would like to thank my doctoral supervisor, Professor Dr. Georg Herzwurm, for accepting this dissertation and giving me the freedom to do this research project. My thanks also go to Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Kemper for providing the second opinion.
The vital and fruitful discussions with my colleagues on the chair, Tim Taraba, Tobias Schäfer, Dimitri Petrik, and Robert Henzel, helped me question my assumptions and find new approaches. With Dominik Dellermann, I had the pleasure to publish research projects, also contributing to this doctoral thesis. Thank you very much for this cooperation and support! This work is fundamentally based on data from expert interviews, a Delphi study, and various case studies. At this point, I would like to thank all the participants of the studies and that you have contributed to the results of this doctoral thesis.
My family, namely my parents Christine and Wilfried Jud, as well as my sisters Magali and Clarissa, always supported me and encouraged me to do this project. Thank you! My sincere thanks go to my wife, Ricarda-Charlotte Jud, for her support and feedback in the process of this work.
Munich, July 2020
Christopher Jud
Dedicated to Christine, Wilfried, Magalí, Clarissa,
and my beloved wife Ricarda-Charlotte
Summary of Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
Abstract
Zusammenfassung
1.
Introduction
1.1 Motivation
1.2 Research Gap
1.3 Research Objective and Questions
1.4 Research Methodology and Research Design
2.
Theoretical Foundation
2.1 Viewpoint on Organizational Design
2.2 Complexity and Modular Systems Theory
2.3 Platforms and Related Concepts
2.4 Understanding of Software Products
2.5 Conclusion
3.
Research Design for Theory Generation
3.1 Methodology of Analysis: Introduction to Grounded Theory
3.2 Data Sources and Phases of GT in this Work
3.3 Discussion of Developed Theory
4.
Theory: Understandings and Assumptions
4.1 Understanding and Definitions
4.2 Understanding of Solutions and Software Products
4.3 Platform Understanding
4.4 Additional Concepts
4.5 Ontology of the Theory
4.6 Conclusion
5.
Theory: Expected Outcomes
5.1 Expected Benefits
5.2 Consequences
5.3 Discussion
6.
Theory: Factors of Influence
6.1 Complementor-Based Factors of Influence
6.2 Product-Based Factors of Influence
6.3 Platform-Based Factors of Influence
6.4 Industry-Based Factors of Influence
6.5 Factors of Influence Based on Multi-Platform Support
6.6 Discussion
7.
Theory: Product Characteristics and Implementation
7.1 Product Complexity, Platform Specificity and Platform Integration
7.2 Product Design and Instantiation
7.3 Conclusion
8.
Theory: Discussion and Integration
8.1 Discussion of Theory
8.2 Integration in Existing Theoretical Concepts
8.3 Quality and Limitations of Developed TDCPSP
8.4 Conclusion on Theory Discussion
9.
Recommendations for Complementors
9.1 Methodological Integration of Recommendations
9.2 Recommendations for the Development and Management of Software Products on Multiple Platforms
9.3 Recommendations regarding the Management of Platforms
9.4 Assessment Criteria for Platforms
9.5 Refinement and first Evaluation of Recommendations by a Delphi Study
9.6 Evaluative Case Studies
9.7 Contribution of Recommendations for Action
9.8 Comparison of Results
9.9 Conclusion
9.10 Summary of Complementors and multiple APL
10.
Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion
10.1 Discussion of Results and Insights
10.2 Limitations
10.3 Implications for Practical Applications
10.4 Implications for Research
10.5 Conclusion
A Appendix
A.1 Interview guideline expert interviews for GT
A.2 Questionnaire for Delphi - Round 1
A.3 Questionnaire for Delphi - Round 1
List of References
Table of Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgments
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
Abstract
Zusammenfassung
1.
Introduction
1.1 Motivation
1.2 Research Gap
1.3 Research Objective and Questions
1.4 Research Methodology and Research Design
1.4.1 Research strategy
1.4.2 Research Type
1.4.3 The Frame of Reference and its Elements
1.4.3.1 Design Objectives
1.4.3.2 Design Parameters
1.4.3.3 Design Conditions
1.4.3.4 Effect of Design Parameters
1.4.4 Process of Research
2.
Theoretical Foundation
2.1 Viewpoint on Organizational Design
2.2 Complexity and Modular Systems Theory
2.3 Platforms and Related Concepts
2.3.1 Platform Fundamentals
2.3.1.1 Two Closely Related Concepts: Ecosystems and Platforms
2.3.1.2 Roles and Responsibilities on Platforms
2.3.2 Multi-Sided Markets and Network Effects
2.3.3 Multiple Platforms and Multi-Homing
2.4 Understanding of Software Products
2.5 Conclusion
3.
Research Design for Theory Generation
3.1 Methodology of Analysis: Introduction to Grounded Theory
3.2 Data Sources and Phases of GT in this Work
3.2.1 Data Sources
3.2.2 Phases of Data Collection and Generation Theory
3.3 Discussion of Developed Theory
4.
Theory: Understandings and Assumptions
4.1 Understanding and Definitions
4.2 Understanding of Solutions and Software Products
4.2.1 Solution
4.2.2 Conceptual Understanding of Software Products
4.2.3 Additional Concepts
4.2.3.1 Complementary, Platform-based Software Product Core
4.2.3.2 Complementary, Platform-based Software Product Family
4.3 Platform Understanding
4.3.1 Hosting System
4.3.2 Operating System
4.3.3 Basic Services
4.3.4 Business Services
4.3.5 Applications
4.3.6 Value Creation by Use of Platform Stack
4.3.7 Development and Infrastructure Platforms
4.3.8 Types of Generic Platforms
4.3.8.1 Application Platforms: Integrated and Complementing Platform Stack
4.3.8.2 Utility Platforms
4.3.9 Discussion of the Platform Stack and Limitations
4.3.10 Platforms in Industries and Ecosystems
4.3.11 Evolution and Maturity of Platforms and Industries
4.4 Additional Concepts
4.4.1 Interfaces and API
4.4.2 Types of Services
4.5 Ontology of the Theory
4.5.1 Theoretical Foundations regarding Ontologies
4.5.2 Entities in the Ontology
4.5.3 Categories of Factors of Influence in the Ontology
4.5.4 Expected benefits
4.5.5 Expected consequences
4.5.6 Product Characteristics
4.5.7 Relationships of Entities in the Ontology
4.5.8 Relationships of Influencing Factors and Entities in the Ontology
4.6 Conclusion
5.
Theory: Expected Outcomes
5.1 Expected Benefits
5.1.1 Complementor-Oriented Benefits
5.1.2 Product-Oriented Benefits
5.1.3 Technology-Oriented Benefits
5.1.4 Business-Oriented Benefits
5.1.4.1 Access to Customers and Markets
5.1.4.2 Opportunities and Potentials of Platforms for Complementors
5.1.4.3 Commercial Advantages
5.1.4.4 Cooperations and Alliances
5.2 Consequences
5.2.1 Complementor-Oriented Consequences
5.2.2 Product-Oriented Consequences
5.2.3 Technology-Oriented Consequences
5.2.4 Business-Oriented Consequences
5.3 Discussion
6.
Theory: Factors of Influence
6.1 Complementor-Based Factors of Influence
6.1.1 Strategy
6.1.1.1 Development and maintenance of own platforms
6.1.1.2 Strategic evaluation
6.1.2 Product Development and Management
6.1.2.1 Complexity for Product Management and Development
6.1.2.2 Product Development
6.1.2.3 Product Management
6.1.2.4 Management of Cycles
6.1.3 Platform-Focused Capabilities of Complementors
6.2 Product-Based Factors of Influence
6.2.1 Architecture and Specificity of Products
6.2.1.1 Product Type
6.2.1.2 Specificity
6.2.1.3 Customers of Solutions and Software Products
6.2.1.4 Product Variants
6.2.2 Software Product Requirements
6.2.3 Implications of Software Product Strategy
6.2.3.1 Strategic Environment of Product
6.2.3.2 Platform Desertion
6.2.3.3 Platforms as Foundations for Software Products
6.2.4 Platform Decision
6.3 Platform-Based Factors of Influence
6.3.1 Attractiveness and Richness of Platforms
6.3.1.1 Platform Attractiveness
6.3.1.2 Platform Richness
6.3.1.3 Reputation and Reach of Platforms
6.3.1.4 Security of Platforms
6.3.1.5 Trend of Platforms
6.3.1.6 Platform Ecosystems
6.3.2 Organization and Governance of Platforms
6.3.2.1 Openness of Platforms
6.3.2.2 Approval processes
6.3.2.3 Possibilities to participate in Evolution of Platforms
6.3.3 Responsibilities and Actions of Platform Providers
6.3.3.1 Motivations and Behavior of Platform Providers
6.3.3.2 Communication and Exchange with Platform Providers
6.3.3.3 Information and Support for Development and Distribution
6.3.3.4 Business Model of Platform Providers
6.3.4 Restrictions by Platforms
6.3.5 Business-Based Factors of Influence
6.3.5.1 Customer Feedback
6.3.5.2 Financial Factors
6.3.5.3 Distribution Channels of Platforms
6.3.5.4 Targeted Industries and Markets
6.3.5.5 Risks Triggered by Platforms
6.3.6 Technology-Based Factors of Influence
6.3.6.1 Technology-Based Effort to Develop for Platforms
6.3.6.1.1 Standards
6.3.6.1.2 Programming Languages
6.3.6.1.3 Architecture of Platforms
6.3.6.1.4 Security
6.3.6.2 Provided Technical Resources
6.3.6.2.1 Development Resources
6.3.6.2.2 Resources to Interact with Platforms
6.3.6.2.3 Integration of Platforms
6.3.6.2.4 Test of Platforms
6.3.6.3 Fragmentation of Devices and Variants of Platforms
6.3.6.3.1 Number and Range of Hosting Systems
6.3.6.3.2 Different Variants of Platforms
6.3.6.4 Release of Products and Features
6.3.6.5 Service Level Agreements
6.3.6.6 Surrounding Technical Factors
6.3.6.6.1 Performance
6.3.6.6.2 Flexibility
6.3.6.6.3 Availability
6.3.6.6.4 Scalability
6.4 Industry-Based Factors of Influence
6.4.1 Industry Knowledge and Expertise
6.4.1.1 Certifications
6.4.1.2 Types of Platform Concepts in Industries
6.4.2 Industry-Specific Requirements and Specificities
6.5 Factors of Influence Based on Multi-Platform Support
6.5.1 Characteristics of Platforms
6.5.2 Complexity of Multi-Platform Support
6.5.3 Operation and Development of Multi-Platform Software Products
6.5.4 Cross-Platform Development
6.6 Discussion
7.
Theory: Product Characteristics and Implementation
7.1 Product Complexity, Platform Specificity and Platform Integration
7.1.1 Product Complexity
7.1.2 Platform Specificity
7.1.3 Integration of Platform Stack
7.1.4 Types of Products
7.1.4.1 Type 1: Content-Oriented Product
7.1.4.2 Type 2: Integrated Product
7.1.4.3 Type 3: Technology-Specific Product
7.1.4.4 Type 4: System-Specific Product
7.2 Product Design and Instantiation
7.2.1 Content-Oriented Product
7.2.2 Integrated Product
7.2.3 Technology-Specific Product
7.2.4 System-Specific Product
7.3 Conclusion
8.
Theory: Discussion and Integration
8.1 Discussion of Theory
8.1.1 Understanding of Platforms and Industries
8.1.2 Expected Outcomes
8.1.3 Factors of Influence
8.1.3.1 Idiosyncrasies of Platforms
8.1.3.2 Factors concerning Industries
8.1.3.3 Multiple Platforms
8.1.4 Complementary, Platform-Based Software Products
8.1.5 Order and Relationships between Categories
8.1.6 Conclusion of the Theory
8.2 Integration in Existing Theoretical Concepts
8.2.1 Modular System Theory
8.2.1.1 Assessing the Quality of the MST
8.2.1.2 Comparison of Theories
8.2.1.2.1 Modular Systems
8.2.1.2.2 Inter-firm Modularity
8.2.2 Contributions to Platform and Ecosystem Literature
8.2.2.1 Understanding regarding Platforms
8.2.2.2 Expected Outcomes
8.2.2.3 Factors of Influence
8.2.2.4 Product Characteristics
8.3 Quality and Limitations of Developed TDCPSP
8.4 Conclusion on Theory Discussion
9.
Recommendations for Complementors
9.1 Methodological Integration of Recommendations
9.2 Recommendations for the Development and Management of Software Products on Multiple Platforms
9.2.1 Consider Platform Characteristics in Software Product Planning and Roadmap
9.2.2 Modularization in Software Products
9.2.3 Consideration as Stand-alone Products
9.2.4 Use of Platform-Independent Technologies
9.2.5 Use Cross-Platform Development Tools
9.2.6 Use agile Development Methodologies when Developing for multiple Platforms
9.2.7 Consider the Evolution of APL in Development and Planning
9.2.7.1 Implement Strategic Consideration of Platforms and Industries
9.2.7.2 Detach from individual Platforms in Development and Planning of Software Products
9.2.8 Management of External Resources
9.2.8.1 Monitor and Management of External Resources
9.2.8.2 Monitor and Management of Intellectual Properties Rights and Licenses as well as Legal Restrictions
9.2.8.3 Use of External Know-How
9.2.8.4 Outsourcing of Tasks
9.2.9 Recommendations regarding Responsibilities and Synchronization of Activities
9.2.9.1 Synchronize and Coordinate Activities of Development, Operation, and Management of Software Products
9.2.9.2 Synchronize and Coordinate Activities of Organizational Units
9.2.9.3 Centralized Role for Coordination of Solutions and Software Products
9.3 Recommendations regarding the Management of Platforms
9.3.1 Monitor Evolution and Development of Platforms
9.3.2 Monitor Behavior of Platform Providers
9.3.3 Strategic Alliances and Cooperations
9.3.4 Establish a Close Contact to Platform Providers
9.3.5 Unions or Associations on Platforms
9.3.6 Leave Platform in Case of Insufficient Surrounding Factors
9.3.7 Continuously Test and Assess Platforms
9.3.8 Plan and Manage Activities Industry-Dependent
9.3.9 Monitor Trends in Technologies, Industries and in Customer Groups
9.3.10 Implement a dedicated Knowledge Management for Platforms
9.4 Assessment Criteria for Platforms
9.5 Refinement and first Evaluation of Recommendations by a Delphi Study
9.5.1 Process of Delphi in this Work
9.5.1.1 Survey and Questionnaire Design
9.5.1.2 Selection of Experts for the Study
9.5.2 Execution of Delphi Study
9.5.2.1 1. Round: Ranking and Suggestion of additional Recommendations for Action
9.5.2.2 2. Round: Consensus on Selection of Recommendations for Action
9.5.3 Interpretation of results
9.5.3.1 Recommendations for Action regarding Software Product Development and Management on Multiple Platforms
9.5.3.2 Recommendations for Action regarding Management of Platforms
9.5.3.3 Assessment of Platforms
9.6 Evaluative Case Studies
9.6.1 Methodical Foundations and Assumptions
9.6.2 Evaluation of Recommendations for Action
9.6.2.1 Evaluation Case 1: Existing Solution
9.6.2.1.1 Description of the Solution
9.6.2.1.2 Recommendations for the Development and Management of Software Products on Multiple Platforms
9.6.2.1.3 Recommendations regarding Management of Platforms
9.6.2.1.4 Conclusion of Application of Recommendations for Action
9.6.2.2 Evaluation Case 2: Solution in Development
9.6.2.2.1 Description of the Solution and Complementor
9.6.2.2.2 Recommendations for the Development and Management of Software Products on Multiple Platforms
9.6.2.2.3 Recommendations regarding Management of Platforms
9.6.2.2.4 Conclusion of Application of Recommendations for Action
9.6.2.3 Conclusion of Evaluation of Recommendations
9.6.3 Evaluation of Assessment criteria
9.6.3.1 Assessment of UPL as foundation for solutions
9.6.3.1.1 Conclusion of assessment of Microsoft Azure as UPL
9.7 Contribution of Recommendations for Action
9.7.1 Recommendations for the Development and Management of Software Products on Multiple Platforms
9.7.2 Recommendations regarding the Management of Platforms
9.7.3 Assessment Criteria
9.7.4 Effects of Recommendations for Action
9.7.5 Reflection of Quality of Case Study
9.8 Comparison of Results
9.9 Conclusion
9.10 Summary of Complementors and multiple APL
10.
Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion
10.1 Discussion of Results and Insights
10.2 Limitations
10.3 Implications for Practical Applications
10.4 Implications for Research
10.5 Conclusion
A Appendix
A.1 Interview guideline expert interviews for GT
A.2 Questionnaire for Delphi - Round 1
A.3 Questionnaire for Delphi - Round 1
List of References
List of Figures
1 Frame of reference of Kubicek (1975
)
2 Process of study
3 Roles in a supply chain network
4 Roles in the context of a PECO
5 Structure of value creation in PECO
6 Network effects in PECO
7 Types and effects of network effects
8 Relationship between Theory and Empiricism
9 Elements and relations in GT
10 Framework of influence of platforms on complementing SP
11 Understanding section of framework
12 Understanding of different layers regarding platforms and industries
13 Interdependencies between solution and related concepts
14 Platform heterogeneity for complementors
15 Levels of viewpoints of Herzwurm & Pietsch (2009
)
16 Platform stack of Knoll & Rinderle-Ma (2015) with different layers
17 The Layered Architecture of Digital Technology of Yoo et al. (2010
))
18 The understanding of the platform stack of this work
19 Platform stack with generic platform types
20 Hosting systems, versions as well as variants of APL
21 Generic types of services
22 Ontology of this work
23 Integration of the ontology in the frame of reference of this work
24 Expected outcomes section based on figure 10
25 Factors of Influence section based on figure 10
26 Product Characteristics & Implementation in figure 10
27 Platform Specificity of CPSP
28 Integration of CPSP in platform stack
29 Platform specificity and integration of CPSP in platform stack
30 The four different types of CPSP
31 Framework of TDCPSP
32 Frame of reference of this work and the TDCPSP
33 Process of generation and evaluation
34 Process of Delphi study in this work
35 Self-assessment of participants of the Delphi study in round 1
36 Frame of reference with integrated recommendations for action
37 Contribution of recommendations for action
List of Tables
1 Types of platforms based on Gawer (2014
)
2 Concepts regarding PECO and SP
3 Overview of the interviewed experts
4 Overview of the analyzed documents
5 Overview of industries and platform types
6 Overview and description of assessment criteria for platforms
7 Delphi method compared to group discussion and expert interviews
8 Results regarding the development and management of CPSP
9 Results for recommendations regarding the Management of Platforms
10 Results regarding the assessment criteria for platforms
11 Overview of results of case studies: Development and Management of SP on Multiple Platforms
12 Overview of results of case studies: Management of Platforms
13 Overview of results of case study: Assessment Criteria
14 Criteria for evaluation of the quality of case studies
15 Comparison of FoI and assessment criteria with solution features
List of Abbreviations
AGL Automotive Grade Linux.
AMR Academy of Management Review.
AOSP Android Open Source Project.
API Application Programming Interface.
APL Application Platforms.
B2B Business-2-Business.
B2C Business-2-Consumer.
BM Business Model.
BS Business Software.
CC Connected Cars.
CoP Content-oriented Software Product.
COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf.
CPSP Complementary platform-based Software Product.
CPU Central Processing Unit.
CRM Customer Relationship Management.
CS Cloud Services.
DP Desktop Platforms.
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning.
FoI Factors of Influence.
GT Grounded Theory.
GUI Graphical User Interface.
IaaS Infrastructure as a Service.
IDE Integrated Development Environment.
IoT Internet of Things.
IP Intellectual Properties.
IPR Intellectual Property Rights.
IS Information Systems.
ISR Information Systems Research.
IT Information Technology.
KPI Key Performance Indicators.
MP Mobile Platforms.
MSP Music Streaming Provider.
MST Modular Systems Theory.
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer.
OS Operating System.
OSS OpenSource Software.
OTA Over-the-Air.
PaaS Platform as a Service.
PAT Principal-Agent-Theory.
PBFI Platform-based Factors of Influence.
PECO Platform Ecosystem.
PL Programming Language.
PM Platform Management.
POP3 Post Office Protocol.
RDT Resource Dependence Theory.
RQ Research Question.
SaaS Software as a Service.
SDK Software Development Kit.
SE Software Engineering.
SH SmartHome.
SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol.
SoMe Social Media.
SP Software Product.
SPC Software Product Core.
SPDD Software Product Development and Distribution.
SPDev Software Product Development.
SPF Software Product Family.
SPM Software Product Management.
SsP System-specific Software Product.
TCT Transaction Cost Theory.
TDCPSP Theory of Development of Complementary, Platform-based Software Products.
TsP Technology-specific Software Product.
UPL Utility Platform.
USP Unique Selling Proposition.
Web Web Applications.
WI Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Abstract
In more and more industries, platforms are emerging that are based on changing expectations of customers, the industries themselves and the availability of new technologies. This work examines how platforms affect organizations that use platforms to develop and distribute software products. Most platforms today act as a technical foundation and distribution channel for complementary software products. Organizations can join platforms and use them to develop and distribute their software products. They then become complementors on the platforms. Platforms influence the motivations as well as the organization and software products of the complementors. Among other things, when using platforms, complementors must accept the platforms’ specifications (for example, the technologies to be used). These requirements lead to additional work for complementors. The effort for complementors is increased if software products are to be offered in parallel on multiple platforms.
The effects that platforms have on complementors have not yet been adequately addressed in the literature, especially from an organization-theoretical perspective. This issue is addressed in this work. Not only are the motives and factors that affect complementors investigated but recommendations for action are developed on how complementors can control the influence of platforms on their organization.
Based on the theoretical foundations of platforms, the concept of ecosystems, and the understanding of software products from the literature, a theory is developed that aims to determine the field of tension that affects complementors when software products are to be developed and distributed based on multiple platforms. The theory then serves as a basis for the extraction of recommendations for action for complementors. The recommendations for action should enable complementors to design their organization in such a way that the effects of platforms can be coordinated and controlled. By validating the recommendations for action on the basis of a Delphi study and case studies, the applicability of the recommendations for action in practice is confirmed.
Zusammenfassung
In immer mehr Branchen entstehen Plattformen, die auf veränderten Erwartungen der Kunden, der Branchen selbst sowie auf der Verfügbarkeit neuer Technologien basieren. Diese Arbeit untersucht, wie sich Plattformen auf Organisationen auswirken, die Plattformen zur Entwicklung und dem Vertrieb von Softwareprodukten nutzen. Die meisten Plattformen von heute fungieren als technische Grundlage und Vertriebskanal für komplementäre Softwareprodukte. Organisationen können Plattformen beitreten und diese für die Entwicklung sowie den Vertrieb ihrer Softwareprodukte nutzen. Sie werden dann zu Komplementoren auf den Plattformen. Plattformen beeinflussen Motive sowie die Organisation und Softwareprodukte der Komplementoren. Unter anderem müssen Komplementoren bei der Nutzung von Plattformen, Vorgaben dieser akzeptieren (zum Beispiel der zu nutzenden Technologien). Diese Anforderungen führen zu einem Mehraufwand für Komplementoren. Der Aufwand für Komplmentoren wird erhöht, wenn Softwareprodukte parallel auf mehreren Plattformen angeboten werden sollen.
Die Auswirkungen, die Plattformen auf Komplementoren haben, werden in der Literatur bisher nur unzureichend behandelt, insbesondere aus organisatorisch-theoretischer Sicht. Dieser Umstand wird mit dieser Arbeit adressiert. Dabei werden nicht nur die Motive und Einflussfaktoren untersucht, die auf Komplementoren wirken. Es werden im Weiteren Handlungsempfehlungen erarbeitet, wie Komplementoren den Einfluss von Plattformen auf ihre Organisation steuern können.
Aufbauend auf den theoretischen Grundlagen zu Plattformen sowie dem Konzept der Ökosystemen und dem Verständnis von Softwareprodukten aus der Literatur, wird eine Theorie entwickelt, die darauf abzielt, das Spannungsfeld zu ermitteln, welches auf Komplementoren wirkt, wen Softwareprodukte basierend auf mehreren Plattformen entwickelt und vertrieben werden sollen. Die Theorie dient im Anschluss als Grundlage für die Entwicklung von Handlungsempfehlungen für Komplementoren. Durch die Handlungsempfehlungen sollen diese in die Lage versetzt werden, ihre Organisation so zu gestalten, dass Auswirkungen von Plattformen koordiniert und gesteuert werden können. Durch die Validierung der Handlungsempfehlungen anhand einer Delphi-Studie sowie durch Fallstudien wird die Anwendbarkeit der Handlungsempfehlungen in der Praxis bestätigt.
1 Introduction
In this chapter, the motivation regarding this work, the research objectives as well as the research methodology and design are introduced.
1.1 Motivation
Through trends like (disruptive) applications of technologies and changes of expectations of customers, products, and their Business Model (BM) come under pressure. The developments in the fields of the Connected Cars (CC), Cloud Services (CS) and the Internet of Things (IoT) can be seen as examples of this. Homes are charged with smart capabilities. They autonomously adapt the temperature to fit the needs of the residents. Cars are equipped with functionality to deliver entertainment and information to passengers. The availability of autonomously driving cars creates potentials for new products and services as in the time while driving. In the area of Information Technology (IT)-services and IT-infrastructure, customers can use virtualized infrastructure and services without having to provide them themselves, as is the case with CS.1 Smartphones and so-called wearables2 are a permanent companion of people to remain informed about current events, communicate with others or use applications like games. Based on these trends, companies need to rethink their products and services.3 Companies thereby face different challenges: the speed, technologies and digital concepts that emerge and the possibilities that new approaches offer. Companies need to stay up to date and integrate changes like new technologies as well as changing expectations of customers into products and portfolios.4 Besides that, they need to adapt processes like development, production or service as well as their organizations based on them. Most of the trends described here are triggered by IT and the charging of products with software components.5
Based on the observations above, it can be stated, that software and IT play a significant role in the change of industries6 and the daily lives of users. The variety of applications of software is thereby wide: a software application itself can be the Software Product (SP) that generates value for customers. In other cases, software components replace previous physical components and charge physical products with new features.7
So-called platforms build the technological foundation for SP8 and in some industries, platforms also become an important interface to the customer9. Emerging in an increasing number of industries, platforms offer new ways for companies to develop and distribute SP. Platforms offer technical architectures and capabilities to develop SP and allow accessing functionalities that can be used in SP10: Basic functionalities like run-time environments, interfaces, as well as security features for SP, are provided by platforms.11 Besides technical components, distribution channels like marketplaces (e.g., the AppStore of Apple) are also provided by platforms. By using platforms, organizations that develop and distribute SP do not need to implement all components of an SP from scratch but can instead use capabilities of platforms like architecture or interfaces well as distribution channels of platforms and focus on core competencies like the development of the value propositions of their SP.12
Since the emergence of platforms, the concept has gained increasing attention in practice as well as research. There are platforms that serve internal company purposes such as product development (product platforms) or as external platforms that are accessible to actors in a specific industry such as customers.13 Internal platforms are developed as part of concepts like product lines of a company.14 External platforms are provided and maintained by so-called platform providers. This type of platform is often open for contribution of external parties, so-called complementors.15 Complementors require resources of platforms to deliver value for their customers. Nevertheless, external platforms are outside the sphere of influence of complementors. Customers use external platforms to satisfy a need and also participate in products of complementors. External platforms often also act as a distribution channel for SP.16 In research, platforms have been analyzed in different scientific fields like production and manufacturing management as well as Innovation Management Research, Information Systems Research (ISR), and Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI).17 External platforms have been an object of analysis in ISR since the mid-1990s, the days of Microsoft Windows 95 and the possibilities for companies to develop software products for this Operating System (OS).18 So far literature lacks an integrative theoretical framework of concepts that describes the field of tension complementors face concerning platforms. This field of tension encompasses outcomes expected by complementors and factors that affect Software Product Development and Distribution (SPDD) when providing SP to multiple platforms. Especially the Factors of Influence (FoI) that are caused by platforms directly or because of changes that emerge for complementors need to be considered.
Based on that insight, literature suggests to set up own external platforms to exploit revenue, establish a Platform Ecosystem (PECO) and become a platform provider.19 Setting up an own platform thereby requires capabilities and resources that many companies do not have. Besides that, Gawer & Cusumano (2008) state that not every organization can become a platform provider and be successful.20 Instead, depending on the industry, monopolies, duopolies or oligopolies of dominant platforms can emerge. Examples can be found in the field of mobile applications. Today, apps for Mobile Platforms (MP) are offered by many companies.21 A new business has emerged, the so-called app economy, as MacMillan (2009) and Basole & Karla (2011) call it.22 Two platforms in the field of mobile applications are dominant: Apple iOS and Google Android. Besides that, there are examples of companies that have failed to maintain a certain market share in the field of MP (Nokia with Symbian or Microsoft with the Windows Mobile OS) or successfully enter the market (like Microsoft after the re-launch of Windows Phone/Mobile or Mozilla with FirefoxOS). Along with the above-discussed example of MP, examples also can be found in the industries of Desktop Platforms (DP) and CS. Concluding, changes in platforms and industries must also be taken into account.
Due to the aforementioned emergence of external platforms in an increasing number of industries, complementors are more likely to serve multiple platforms in different industries to gain market share and reach relevant customers.23 Examples again can be found in the field of MP where Apple iOS and Google Android form a duopoly and complementors often provide SP for both platforms to reach different groups of customers. If SP are developed for multiple platforms, the effort for complementors increases:24 Characteristics like technologies, architectures or governance mechanisms need to be considered. Depending on the industry, external platforms are either open or closed for external participation.25 Through open platforms, complementors can contribute to SP without or only low entry barriers.26 In the case of closed platforms, participation on the platform is restricted, and in some cases, preconditions like certifications need to be satisfied.27 Such characteristics influence complementors regarding the SPDD. Complementors need to consider two phases with regard to SP concerning platforms: first, the initial development SP on platforms (join); and second, maintenance of SP on platforms during the life cycle of the SP (stay).28 In this work, both phases - the initial as well as the maintenance phase - are subsumed by SPDD.
There is no formal definition of FoI.29 Therefore, previous understandings are used to define a frame regarding the understanding of FoI in this work. Regulations, previous experiences and maneuvering abilities of a car in case of driving or functionalities or previous experiences in case of a word processor are examples used by Hanseth & Monteiro (1998) to describe FoI.30 Such factors affect the actions and behavior of an actor.31 Though the examples of Hanseth & Monteiro (1998) are in a different context, they describe the nature of FoI. Concerning businesses, Hanseth & Monteiro (1998) state, that organizations do not act in a vacuum and are also affected by FoI.32 Surrounding factors like the economic environment of competitors or the market as well as customers and own products determine the sphere of action of organizations. Hanseth & Monteiro (1998) do not distinguish between technical and non-technical factors ex-ante. Instead, they grant all factors the same explanatory status and based on that allow a better description of the mechanisms in a network of actors.33 Besides that, FoI should be to considered together, according to Hanseth & Monteiro (1998).34 For the development of SP, Herzwurm (2000) specifies that the effect of design measures is influenced by FoI and names these factors as determinants that influence the effect of measures.35 In this work, the understandings and descriptions of FoI of Hanseth & Monteiro (1998) and Herzwurm (2000) are used to form an understanding of factors that affect complementors on multiple platforms. In the context of this work, FoI are understood as factors that affect complementors in SPDD for multiple platforms. Effects thereby are not necessarily determined ex-ante. Some of them appear over time. The degree of effects and the necessary conclusion highly depend on the context and organization of complementors as well as their SP. Relationships between the 1.2 Research Gap 5 different FoI and implications on how complementors can manage the influence of multiple platforms need to be considered from an organization theoretical perspective of complementors. Furthermore, research in WI does not only discuss effects as in the case of these work platforms, but also aims to change reality by extracting recommendations for action. Following a pragmatic research approach, from the understanding of this work and with regard to platforms, there are no generally valid recommendations for action. They depend on the context of organizations, in case of this work, complementors. Based on that, a situational nature of the field of tension and especially the FoI is assumed and needs to be considered when assessing FoI as well as extracting recommendations for action to address the influence of multiple platforms.
The situational approach (in other publications also called contingency approach) has been discussed by different authors like Chandler (1962) and in German research of ’Organisationstheorie’ among others by Kieser & Ebers (2014) and Kubicek (1975).36 The fundamental understanding is that there is no optimal structure for organizations. Kieser & Ebers (2014) states that organizational structures need to be adapted regarding (external) influences.37 Following this, different organizational structures can be successful.38 Thereby situational factors like external influences and strategic decisions affect the structures of organizations.39 To accommodate the individuality concerning SP and complementors, external influence triggered by platforms and industries as well as internal decisions of complementors need to be considered.40
1.2 Research Gap
Platforms are on the one hand the foundation for the development of SP. The meaning, capabilities, and resources of platforms are used by complementors to develop SP. On the other hand, platforms act as distribution channels that allow customers to obtain SP. Technological requirements and requirements based on restrictions to be allowed to publish SP on platforms, but also effects on internal processes such as release planning or resources (e.g. financial and human resources) of complementors must be considered for each individual platform. Complementors presumably need to accommodate characteristics as well as individual requirements of platforms and incorporate them during SPDD. Moreover, additional factors are likely to emerge if multiple platforms are served.
Research on platforms has gained increasing interest in literature and publications have investigated different perspectives on this object of study. The perspective on platform providers that operate and provide platforms has been investigated extensively.41 Moreover, fundamental concepts like two-sided markets or ecosystems are analyzed.42 Also the complementors’ viewpoint is investigated in literature like with Benlian et al. (2015), Hilkert (2012), Hyrynsalmi et al. (2016) or Kude (2012).43
Literature investigates different aspects of the relationships between complementors and platforms like boundary resources (resources that are provided by the platform), ecosystems, technologies, distribution channels, product portfolio, and intellectual properties as well as aims of complementors, financial implications, and risks for complementors. So far, an integrated analysis regarding the field of tension of complementors especially in case of multiple platforms and dedicated measures to react to that influence is missing. The field of tension thereby encompasses drivers, impediments as well as additional factors complementors face when using multiple platforms for development and distribution of SP. This work aims to close this gap in current research. Especially the transition to software-developing organizations in the course of the so-called ’digitalization’ implies challenges for organizations and has not been investigated in depth from the viewpoint of complementors on platforms. Thereby, not only market-based developments need to be kept in mind, but also technical developments and restrictions influence SP, their implementation and distribution to customers, as mentioned above. Along with ’traditional’ software-developing organizations that are used to work with platform concepts in the field of software business, this work also targets organizations that become complementors on platforms, but whose previous core competencies have not been in the development of software or SP. The complementors need to question existing SP and how SP are developed and distributed.44 Recommendations for action to accommodate the influence of platforms on the complementors’ organization are concepts that can be applied to respond to that influence and are proposed later in this work.45 Here, the relationships between FoI need to be considered due to inter-dependencies with other categories.
1.3 Research Objective and Questions
This work investigates how complementors are affected by the increasing number of platforms and how complementors can manage the influence regarding SPDD for multiple platforms. The aim is to provide organizational alternatives in the form of recommendations for action for complementors to address the influence regarding SPDD. The developed recommendations for action should satisfy the following criteria:
Individual characteristics of platforms are assumed to add up in case of multiple platforms. Recommendations should consider the characteristics of individual platforms as well as the effect when characteristics of individual platforms need to be satisfied in a context where SP are provided to multiple platforms.
Recommendations for action that are developed in this work should be grounded on the field of tensions organizations face when becoming complementors on multiple platforms. This approach requires the consideration of the situational nature of FoI and requirements and takes into account the type of organization of complementors.
The recommendations of action for complementors are derived systematically and scientifically founded.
The applicability of the developed recommendations in practical contexts should be ensured. Thereby, the recommendations should be adaptable based on the general conditions of the applying organizations.
The expected results of this work are to describe the field of tension complementors face when deciding to develop and provide SP on multiple platforms. A theoretical framework is provided that describes the interplay of motives of complementors to join multiple platforms, the effect multiple platforms have and contributes to the current body of literature. The theoretical framework grounds on empirical data. Based on the insights of the developed theory, scientifically founded recommendations for action are extracted. By answering the research questions and achieving the research goal, actors and departments in organizations of complementors that are responsible for SPDD or strategic decisions regarding platforms benefit from the results of this work because of the overview of the field of tension for complementors, especially the FoI and the influence of platforms on SP as well as the resulting effects derived from it. Next to that, recommendations for action are provided, that help to take necessary actions regarding SPDD and platforms and to design the organization to meet the influence that emerges with multiple platforms, as discussed above.
The research objective of this dissertation is thus to analyze the field of tension complementors face concerning multiple platforms and derive recommendations for action for complementors.
Given the research objective, the following research questions are derived:
Platforms have individual characteristics that affect complementors. Research Question (RQ)1a thus engages with individual characteristics of platforms from the viewpoint of complementors on platforms:
RQ 1a: How do platform characteristics affect complementors that contribute to those platforms with software products?
The second RQ aims to analyze the characteristics of multiple platforms. The RQ thereby extends the first RQ concerning the perspective on providing SP for multiple platforms. Individual characteristics for each platform need to be considered and implemented by complementors. Next to individual characteristics of each platform additional factors emerge when multiple platforms are provided with SP. Complementors provide SP to platforms that are often based in distinct industries. If different industries are concerned, effects triggered by the industries also have to be considered.
RQ 1b: How do characteristics of multiple platforms affect complementors that contribute to those platforms with software products?
Where RQ 1a and 1b address characteristics of platforms and effects when multiple platforms are considered, effects on the complementors’ organization as well as the process of SPDD can be expected. These effects are analyzed with RQ 2: RQ 2: How is the development and distribution of software products of complementors affected by multiple platforms?
Within the framework of a pragmatic research approach, the fourth RQ derives recommendations for action that complementors can apply to design their organization and processes in relation to SPDD and to take into account the influence of several platforms on SP. The findings of RQ 1a, 1b and 2 are used to derive the recommendations for action.
RQ 3: What recommendations for action can be given to complementors regarding the development and distribution of software products on multiple platforms?
1.4 Research Methodology and Research Design
In the following, the research strategy as well as the methodological approach of this work are introduced.
1.4.1 Research strategy
This work is assigned to the research domain of the German WI. Together with the Anglo-Saxon ISR, publications in this domain can be grouped in two streams of research: design-orientedISR and behavioristic ISR.46 Studies in design-orientedISR aim to develop directions for activities regarding the design and operation of Information Systems (IS) as well as the innovation in the systems themselves by using means-end value relationships.47 Thereby, they follow a constructional claim to design the reality with artifacts (like software applications) developed in this kind of studies.48 In contrast to design-oriented studies, behavioristic ISR analyzes IS as a phenomenon and aims to develop cause-and-effect relationships regarding their usage or implementation.49 One of the characteristics of ISR and WI is that any theories that are applied in this field are borrowed from other scientific fields, like social science, management science, economics or computer science.50 The development of own theories in ISR can be valuable to investigate phenomena like the one analyzed in this work.51 In order to fulfill the research objective and answer the research questions, defined above in section 1.3, a design-oriented research design has been used.52 Nevertheless, to develop an understanding of the field of tension, also methods of behavioristic ISR have been used to extract the exploratory cause-and-effect relationships53 of complementors concerning multiple platforms. The insights are used to derive the recommendations for action in the next step. In order to guide the general setup of this work, the proposed process of the German "‘Memorandum zur gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik"’ (memorandum regarding a design-oriented ISR) is followed as a meta-framework.54 The memorandum groups the research process in four steps55:
Analyse (Analysis)
: In the analysis phase, the factors of a problem are investigated, as Österle et al. (2010) highlight.
56
Before that, the research objectives and object of study as well as the research design are introduced. For this work, it is necessary to ensure a common understanding of SP and platforms due to the diverse definitions and concepts of SP in different industries. Therefore, a fundamental understanding of SP and platforms is introduced. Building on the theoretical understanding, the influence of multiple platforms on complementors and their SP is investigated. The methodological approach of Grounded Theory (GT) is used. The theory developed based on the application of GT is analyzed, insights and relationships are discussed as well as compared with the Modular Systems Theory (MST) and integrated into the body of literature regarding platform and ecosystems research.
Entwurf (Design)
: According to Österle et al. (2010), the artifacts developed in this work should be deduced, justified and delimited with concepts from research and practice.
57
Based on the insights of the framework of the developed theory, recommendations for action for complementors are extracted. The developed recommendations for action for complementors are introduced, refined with a Delphi study and evaluated with a multiple case study, as Österle et al. (2010) require.
58
Evaluation (Evaluation)
: The developed recommendations for action are evaluated based upon pre-defined targets like the reduction of influence as well as the effort necessary to implement specific recommendations for action.
59
Recommendations are extracted from data gained during research as well as from insights from existing literature. The key findings and limitations are discussed, and a conclusion closes this work.
Diffusion (Diffusion)
: The last step focuses on the publication of insights. For this work, this can be achieved after the reviews and defense of the work and thus it is not in the scope of the actual research. Nevertheless, aside from researchers, potential audiences that might benefit from this work include software product managers of complementors, persons responsible for the development of SP as well as owners or members of boards that develop strategies regarding digitalization of products and aim to use platforms to develop and distribute SP.
An exploratory approach is used to identify relationships between platforms and SP of complementors from different perspectives like the technical, business and organizational in relation to complementors as organizations and derive the field of tension.60 As the artifact of this part, a theory regarding the field of tension development of complementors is extracted. This understanding is of exploratory and descriptive nature and aims to explain motivations (summarized later as expected outcomes) and FoI that affect complementors when developing and distributing SP for multiple platforms. Complementors, the influence of platforms on organizations of complementors and SP are analyzed from an organizational perspective. In the design-oriented part, recommendations for action are derived and developed based on insights of the first part.61 The aim here is to delimit measures complementors can take to address the influence of platforms considering the individual context a complementor is in.
1.4.2 Research Type
In a research project, the focus of the analysis must be narrowed down so that reasonable data sources can be found.62 From the perspective of this work, complementors are organizations that develop and distribute SP on multiple platforms.63 Because of the SP, the BM of complementors is software-intensive64 or has at least software-intensive components (like apps for mobile devices) that are part of the value proposition.65 Complementors do not necessarily have to be companies; in addition, e.g. federal authorities, non-governmental organizations or religious institutions can also become complementors on platforms.66
Following the understanding of Bühner (2004) and Nicolai (2009), not only the institutional perspective on organizations is used but also the functional perspective.67 The institutional perspective sees an organization as "‘[...] a socio-technical system that encompasses humans and material resources and whose essential aspect is the organization regarding a target that should be achieved"’68. Profit orientation can be a goal of an organization but does not have to be. In the functional understanding of organizations, the organizations are seen "‘as an activity, that efficiently designs human and mechanical activities"’69. There, especially organizational functions like departments responsible for SPDD or the management of SP are concerned, next to departments responsible for marketing, sales, and strategy.70
Following the pragmatic goal of science, problems of organizations in practice are the foundation for research, where recommendations for action are given by the researcher in the form of praxeological statements.71 The statements are based on experiences and insights of the practice and are evaluated in a practical context.72 It is thereby apparent, that a ’one size fits all’ solution does not hold for practical problems of organizations.73 Instead, given recommendations for action depend on environmental and organizational restrictions of complementors.74
The issue of a missing integrative theoretical understanding is addressed in this work by deducing a framework that integrates the differed aspects of the field of tension that affect complementors concerning multiple platforms. The theoretical framework that builds the foundation of this work has been developed by the application of the GT methodology of Glaser & Strauss (1967).75 GT is a research method whose origins are in the social sciences.76 Besides social sciences, GT has also been applied in organizational research. For organizational research, Kubicek (1977) discusses GT in his publication regarding research with heuristic frames of reference and heuristic research designs.77 The methodology is also frequently used in research in the domain of WI and ISR.78 Publications from the field ofISRthat use GT as a methodological foundation are among others Day et al. (2009), Joorabchi et al. (2013) and Palka et al. (2009).79
Following Glaser & Strauss (1967) and Urquhart et al. (2010), the results of applying GT are theories in different degrees of maturity.80 In this work, a substantive theory is developed.81 Foundation for the development of the substantive theory are data of expert interviews and the analysis of documents.82 Expert interviews have been chosen because of the expected insights regarding the influence of multiple platforms on complementors. Such insights need to be gained from parties concerned by the object of study or that can contribute to the gain of knowledge with experiences.83 Especially because of the various facets, insights of organizations in a practical context are necessary. Thereby, on the one hand, an exploration of FoI and motives can be extracted. On the other hand, relationships between different categories of FoI can be determined. The analysis of documents was used as an additional source to question the insights gained through expert interviews and to back them up with additional data and to add further insights.84 Nevertheless, executing expert interviews requires a careful setup and execution. Otherwise the gained data can become subjective and random and experiences of the interviewed participants may not meet the required criteria.85 These critics are addressed in this work with a rigorous research setup, application of the guidelines of GT86 and the use of data from different sources.
Concluding, the degree of novelty and the objectives of this work require a qualitative research design. To the best of knowledge of the author, no other approach would have brought this spectrum and depth of insights as applying GT and use data gained in expert interviews supported by the analysis of documents. With other methods like literature analysis, it would not have been possible to gain results with the same extent. An alternative approach to expert interviews that could have been applied are case studies in organizations to observe the SPDD as well as the complementors’ organization, portfolio, and issues with multiple platforms. Because of the needed amount of data as well as the time and effort necessary for case studies to gain the same insights, the author decided to use expert interviews and document analysis as data sources. Case studies nevertheless are used later in this work to evaluate the recommendations for action.
A detailed discussion of the methodology of GT and the data sources are given in chapter 3. In chapter 9, the recommended concepts are refined with a Delphi study allowing to give scientifically founded recommendations for action. In a next step, the derived recommendations for action will be evaluated with case studies in order to assess their feasibility in a practical context that meets the requirements of praxeological research. The process and discussion of applied methods can be found in detail in chapter 9. To accommodate the insights of the theory and recommendations for action for complementors in a frame of reference and to explain the relationships of the different artifacts of this work, the frame of reference regarding praxeological statements of Kubicek (1975) in combination with the understanding of Herzwurm (2000) is used.87Figure 1 provides an overview of the elements of the frame of reference of Kubicek (1975).
Figure 1: Frame of reference of Kubicek (1975)88
1.4.3 The Frame of Reference and its Elements
The different elements of the frame of reference are introduced in the following.
1.4.3.1 Design Objectives
According to Herzwurm (2000), design objectives direct the process of design thoughts.89 Design objectives in this work do not aim to design platform or industries. Because often it is not possible to design platforms and industries as a complementor due to limited resources or because other actors (like platform providers) restrict the possibilities to affect platforms (or even industries). Instead, the design objectives of this work aim to accommodate the influence of multiple platforms on the organization of complementors. This abstract design objective, the reduction of the influence of platform, is refined in the course of this work based on the gained insights.
1.4.3.2 Design Parameters
Herzwurm (2000) refers to design parameters as alternatives for measures that allow different options for complementors.90 In this work, design parameters are presented in the form of recommendations for action, which aim to reduce the influence of multiple platforms on the complementors, and which are discussed in the course of this work.
1.4.3.3 Design Conditions
Design conditions reflect the situation of the organization that is the aim of the design intention.91 Design conditions are determined by the categories of the theory developed in this work. Besides that, complementors expect specific outcomes concerning activities on multiple platforms.92 They need to accommodate FoI and specificities of SP that are directly or indirectly influenced by the platforms. Herzwurm (2000) and Kubicek (1975) mention that design conditions restrict design parameters regarding the implementation but also regarding the effect.93
1.4.3.4 Effect of Design Parameters
The design parameters trigger effects on complementors.94 When choosing design parameters, the desired effects need to be considered. Besides the desired effects, also the impact of design parameters on the organization need to be taken into account.95 Thereby, the effects can be predicted or literal.96 The effects of recommendation for action (the design parameters) in this work are discussed as part of the introduction of the recommendations for action in chapter 9.
In the chapters throughout this work, the frame of references is referred and developed artifacts are integrated.
1.4.4 Process of Research
In the following the process of research is presented. In chapter 2, the body of literature regarding platforms, ecosystems, and complementors as well as SP is introduced and discussed. The MST introduces the connection of platforms and SP. Later, the MST is used to integrate and discuss the developed theory.
In chapter 3 the GT methodology is presented, and the structure of the theory development is discussed.
In chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7, the different categories of the field of tension of complementors concerning multiple platforms are analyzed regarding the SPDD, following the structure of the developed theory.
The integration and discussion97 of the developed theory in context to another comparable theory is done in chapter 8. The MST is used as a previously developed theory to compare the developed substantive theory. Chapter 9 deals with the derivation, delimitation, and argumentation of recommendations for action98 that aim to address (reduce) the influence of multiple platforms from the complementors’ viewpoint. The developed concepts for complementors are refined and evaluated based on a Delphi study and case studies. In chapter 10, this work is argumentatively concluded, limitations are discussed, and an outlook for future research is given.
The process of the research can be found in the following figure 2.
Figure 2: Process of study99
1 cf. Garg et al. (2013), p. 1012
2 Wearables encompass electronic devices that can be worn like clothes. Examples are smartwatches or smart glasses.
3 cf. Tiwana (2014), p. 10 et seq.
4 cf. Tiwana (2014), p. xv and Evans & Gawer (2016), p. 4
5 cf. Porter & Heppelmann (2014), p. 4 et seq.
6 In this work, the term industry is used synonymously for sectors and branches. In German, the meaning of industry would be translated with ’Branche’ (see: Buxmann et al. (2015), p. 207 et seq.).
7 cf. Schäfer et al. (2015) and Porter & Heppelmann (2014)
8 cf. Cusumano & Selby (1998), p. 148 et seq. and Tiwana (2014), p. 5-8
9 Developers of mobile applications cannot create value for customers without e.g. a smartphone or tablet device.
10 cf. Hagiu (2009), p. 1011 et seq., Gawer (2014), p. 1244 and Porch et al. (2015), p. 10 et seq.
11 cf. Holzer & Ondrus (2011), p. 24 et seq.
12 cf. Koch & Kerschbaum (2014), p. 1432 et seq. and 1426
13 Gawer (2014), p. 1243 et seqq. Porch et al. (2015) distinguish between interior and exterior platforms. Source: Porch et al. (2015), p. 8-11
14 cf. Bosch & Bosch-Sijtsema (2009), p. 1; Gawer (2014), p. 1243 et seqq. and Porch et al. (2015), p. 8-10
15 cf. Gawer (2014), p. 1243 et seqq. and Porch et al. (2015), p. 10 et seq.
16 cf. Benlian et al. (2015), p. 6 and Gawer & Cusumano (2015), p. 38
17 cf. Porch et al. (2015) and Thomas et al. (2014)
18 cf. Cusumano & Selby (1998), p. 188 et seq. and 241
19 cf. Evans (2011b), p. 377
20 cf. Gawer & Cusumano (2008)
21 cf. Hagiu (2009), p. 1011 et seq. and Gawer (2014), p. 1244
22 cf. MacMillan et al. (2009), URL see references and Basole & Karla (2011)
23 cf. Rochet & Tirole (2003), Evans & Schmalensee (2007), p. 18 et seqq.
24 cf. Carrillo & Tan (2006), Doganoglu & Wright (2006), Doyle (2014) Hyrynsalmi et al. (2016b) or Hyrynsalmi et al. (2016a)
25 cf. West (2003), Boudreau (2010) and Benlian et al. (2015)
26 No entry barriers are more theoretical assumptions, as most platforms use some kind of barriers like registrations (Benlian et al. (2015), p. 5).
27 Participation is limited to complementors that are invited or get certified by the platform provider
28 cf. Herzwurm & Pietsch (2008), p. 2
29 cf. Hankel et al. (2018), p. 87
30 cf. ibid
31 cf. Hanseth & Monteiro (1998), p. 96
32 cf. Hanseth & Monteiro (1998), p. 96 et seq.
33 cf. Hanseth & Monteiro (1998), p. 97
34 cf. ibid
35 cf. Herzwurm (2000), p. 24
36 cf. Chandler (1962), Kieser & Ebers (2014) and Kubicek (1975)
37 cf. Kieser & Ebers (2014), p. 164 ans 175 et seq.
38 cf. Peine (2014), p. 25
39 cf. Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2010), p. 1283
40 The developed theory analyses influence of platforms on various aspects of complementors and SP of complementors.
41 cf. Cusumano & Selby (1998), Gawer & Cusumano (2002), Gawer (2014) and Tiwana (2014)
42 cf. Two-sided or multi-sided platforms are discussed among others with Rochet & Tirole (2002), Rochet & Tirole (2003), Evans (2003b) or Evans (2011b). In the case of the ecosystems’ viewpoint like with Jansen et al. (2009), Jansen et al. (2013) or Mautsch (2014)
43 cf. Benlian et al. (2015), Hilkert (2012), Hyrynsalmi et al. (2016b) and Kude (2012)
44 cf. Porter & Heppelmann (2014), p. 4 et seq. and Schreieck et al. (2016), p. 2
45 cf. Österle et al. (2010), p. 665
46 cf. Österle et al. (2010), p. 664 and 666 et seq.
47 cf. Österle et al. (2010), p. 666
48 cf. Herzwurm (2000), p. 23 and 27
49 cf. Österle et al. (2010), p. 666
50 cf. Baskerville & Myers (2002) and Urquhart et al. (2010), p. 365
51 cf. Urquhart et al. (2010), p. 365
52 cf. Herzwurm (2000), p. 23 et seq. and Österle et al. (2010), p. 669
