Complementors as connectors: managing open innovation around digital product platforms

In the digital age, open innovation is increasingly organized around platform ecosystems. This paper investigates how firms can coordinate open innovation as a platform strategy for the development of complementary products by independent third parties. We draw on a qualitative case study of Philips Hue – a connected lighting platform for consumers with its variety of complementary products. We identify three increasingly complex ways in which independent complements connect to a focal platform. Our findings show that managing these connections requires a hybrid open innovation approach that combines arm’s length coordination, with a large number of complementors through open interfaces, and intensive bilateral collaboration, with a selected number of partners. Our findings demonstrate that complex interconnections across digital platforms and products lead to the management challenge of navigating an ‘ecology of platforms’, which warrants future research.     

Unpaid crowd complementors: The platform network effect mirage

Platforms have evolved beyond just being organized as multi‐sided markets with complementors selling to users. Complementors are often unpaid, working outside of a price system and driven by heterogeneous sources of motivation—which should affect how they respond to platform growth. Does reliance on network effects and strategies to attract large numbers of complementors remain advisable in such contexts? We test hypotheses related to these issues using data from 85 online multi‐player game platforms with unpaid complementors. We find that complementor development responds to platform growth even without sales incentives, but that attracting complementors has a net zero effect on on‐going development and fails to stimulate network effects. We discuss conditions under which a strategy of using unpaid crowd complementors remains advantageous. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Big losses in ecosystem niches: how core firm decisions drive complementary product shakeouts

This study examines shakeouts in the context of business ecosystems. Market turbulence generated by core firm decisions in competing differentiated ecosystems can generate financial losses and exit for complementary niche market firms. I develop hypotheses predicting which niche markets will suffer larger losses and be more susceptible to shakeouts, and how core firm decisions will drive complementor performance and survival. I then apply these hypotheses to brand‐based differentiated ecosystems in the automotive industry, where networks of suppliers, customers, and complementors surround car manufacturers. More specifically, I study the complementary niche market of automotive leasing, where manufacturers sway leasing markets through product change, entry, and subsidization. To test the hypotheses, I use a proprietary dataset of 200,000 individual car leases between 1997–2002 to identify how manufacturer product design and niche market entry drive complementor losses and exit. These data allow a unique opportunity to understand how the strategic choices of core firms can have substantial and often devastating effects on niche markets in their ecosystem. Further, the results suggest how the dynamic capabilities to adapt to core firm behavior might improve performance for certain niche market complementors. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Investigating Adoption of Free Beta Applications in a Platform‐Based Business Ecosystem

Planning new product development (NPD) activities is becoming increasingly difficult, as contemporary businesses compete at the level of business ecosystems in addition to the firm‐level product‐market competition. These business ecosystems are built around platforms interlinking suppliers, complementors, distributors, developers, etc. together. The competitiveness of these ecosystems relies on members utilizing the shared platform for their own performance improvement, especially in terms of developing new valuable offerings for end users. Therefore, managing the development of the platform‐based applications and gaining timely end‐user input for NPD are of vital importance both to the ecosystem as a whole and to the developers. Subsequently, to succeed in NPD planning developers utilizing beta testing need a thorough understanding of the adoption dynamics of beta products. Developers need to plan for example resource allocation; development costs; and timing of commercial, end‐product launches. Therefore, the anticipation of the adoption dynamics of beta products emerges as an important antecedent in planning NPD activities when beta testing is used for gaining end‐user input to the NPD process. Consequently, we investigate how free beta software products that are built upon software platforms diffuse among their end users in a cocreation community. We specifically study whether the adoption of these beta products follows Bass or Gompertz model dynamics used in the previous literature when modeling the adoption of stand‐alone products. Further, we also investigate the forecasting abilities of these two models. Our results show that the adoption dynamics of free beta products in a cocreation community follow Gompertz's model rather than the Bass model. Additionally, we find that the Gompertz model performs better than the Bass model in forecasting both short and long out‐of‐sample time periods. We further discuss the managerial and research implications of our study.     

Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com

Research Summary : Platform owners sometimes enter complementors' product spaces and compete against them. Using data from Amazon.com to study Amazon's entry pattern into third‐party sellers' product spaces, we find that Amazon is more likely to target successful product spaces. We also find that Amazon is less likely to enter product spaces that require greater seller efforts to grow, suggesting that complementors' platform‐specific investments influence platform owners' entry decisions. While Amazon's entry discourages affected third‐party sellers from subsequently pursuing growth on the platform, it increases product demand and reduces shipping costs for consumers. We consider the implications of these findings for complementors in platform‐based markets. Managerial Summary : Platform owners can exert considerable influence over their complementors' welfare. Many complementors with successful products are pushed out of markets because platform owners enter their product spaces and compete directly with them. To mitigate such risks, complementors could build their businesses by aggregating nonblockbuster products or focusing on products requiring significant platform‐specific investments to grow. They should also develop capabilities in new product discovery so that they could continually bring innovative products to their platforms.     

Platform competition with complementary products

We characterize the pricing structure in a model of platform competition in which two firms offer horizontally differentiated platforms and two sets of complementors offer products that are exclusive to each platform, respectively. We highlight the presence of indirect network effects: platforms and complementors benefit from the quality and number of firms in their group and suffer from the quality and number of firms in the rival’s group through their effects on prices and market share. We then determine the incentives of platforms to subsidize the independent complementors in an equilibrium. We further analyze the incentives of each platform to form a strategic alliance with complementors through contractual exclusivity or technological compatibility, or to integrate with the complementors. Finally, we discuss the welfare consequences of these strategies.     

Modeling the mashup ecosystem: structure and growth

Mashups combine data and services provided by third parties through open APIs (such as Google Maps and Flickr), as well as internal data sources owned by users. The creation of mashups is supported by a complex ecosystem of interconnected data providers, mashup platforms, and users. In this paper, we examine the structure of the mashup ecosystem and its growth over time. Several observations follow from our analysis. First, we can conclude that while the number of new APIs and mashups over time follows a linear growth pattern, the distribution of mashups over APIs is not uniform but follows a power law. This implies that a small number of APIs provides the basis for the majority of mashups, and the other APIs are only used in certain application niches. Second, our analysis suggests that mashup platforms were introduced in response to the increasing complexity of mashups, as mashups evolved from one‐feature mashups (widgets). Third, we observe that complementary relationships between open APIs are formed based on the position of the APIs in the ecosystem. The propensity of two APIs to be used together in the same mashup depends on the existing number of mashups to which they both contribute. The growth of the mashup ecosystem follows a pattern where keystone data providers or ‘powerful hubs’ attract niche data providers as complementors, and the positions of keystones in the ecosystem are mutually reinforcing.     

Device-funded vs ad-funded platforms

We analyze device-funded and ad-funded platforms with differentiated ecosystems supporting apps provided under monopolistic competition. The incentives of a device-funded platform in investing in app curation, introducing its own apps and setting commissions on in-app purchases of external apps are largely aligned with those of consumers, while this is not necessarily the case for the ad-funded platform. In particular, consumers gain from a positive commission set by the device-funded platform because this implies a lower price of the device, and the platform’s apps are introduced and priced internalizing the impact on consumer welfare, perfectly in models of horizontal differentiation and partially in models of vertical differentiation.     

Towards a theory of ecosystems

Research Summary: The recent surge of interest in “ecosystems” in strategy research and practice has mainly focused on what ecosystems are and how they operate. We complement this literature by considering when and why ecosystems emerge, and what makes them distinct from other governance forms. We argue that modularity enables ecosystem emergence as it allows a set of distinct yet interdependent organizations to coordinate without full hierarchical fiat. We show how ecosystems address multilateral dependences based on various types of complementarities—supermodular or unique, unidirectional or bidirectional—which determine the ecosystem's value‐add. We argue that at the core of ecosystems lie nongeneric complementarities, and the creation of sets of roles that face similar rules. We conclude with implications for mainstream strategy and suggestions for future research. Managerial Summary: We consider what makes ecosystems different from other business constellations, including markets, alliances, or hierarchically managed supply chains. Ecosystems, we posit, are interacting organizations, enabled by modularity, not hierarchically managed, bound together by the nonredeployability of their collective investment elsewhere. Ecosystems add value as they allow managers to coordinate their multilateral dependence through sets of roles that face similar rules, thus obviating the need to enter into customized contractual agreements with each partner. We explain how different types of complementarities (unique or supermodular, generic or specific, uni‐ or bi‐directional) shape ecosystems and offer a “theory of ecosystems” that can explain what they are, when they emerge, and why alignment occurs. Finally, we outline the critical factors affecting ecosystem emergence, evolution, and success—or failure.     

Platform competition: Strategic trade‐offs in platform markets

Because the literature on platform competition emphasizes the role of network effects, it prescribes rapidly expanding a network of platform users and complementary applications to capture entire markets. We challenge the unconditional logic of a winner‐take‐all (WTA) approach by empirically analyzing the dominant strategies used to build and position platform systems in the U.S. video game industry. We show that when platform firms pursue two popular WTA strategies concurrently and with equal intensity (growing the number and variety of applications while also securing a larger fraction of those applications with exclusivity agreements), it diminishes the benefits of each strategy to the point that it lowers platform performance. We also show that a differentiation strategy based on distinctive positioning improves a platform's performance only when a platform system is highly distinctive relative to its rivals. Our results suggest that platform competition is shaped by important strategic trade‐offs and that the WTA approach will not be universally successful. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Synergies among Producer Firms,Lead Users,and User Communities: The Case of the LEGO Producer–User Ecosystem

While many firms today proactively involve users in their new product development efforts using a wide variety of methods such as the lead user method, firm‐hosted user communities, or mass customization toolkits, some pioneering firms are experimenting with the creation of sustainable producer–user ecosystems designed for the continuous exploration and exploitation of business opportunities. In this paper, the functioning of such ecosystems is studied with particular emphasis on the synergies they can yield. Based on an explorative and longitudinal multiple case study design, the producer–user ecosystem of the firm LEGO is analyzed, and three main actors in the ecosystem are identified: entrepreneurial lead users who aim to start their own businesses, a vibrant user community, and the LEGO company as the focal producer firm and facilitator for multiple user‐to‐user and user‐to‐producer interactions. Our study reveals three kinds of synergies: (1) reduced risk for entrepreneurial lead users and the focal producer firm, (2) the extension of the design space of the focal producer firm's products, and (3) the creation of buzz within the user community. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of our findings for innovation researchers and practitioners are discussed.     

Pawn to Save a Chariot,or Drawbridge Into the Fort? Firms' Disclosure During Standard Setting and Complementary Technologies Within Ecosystems

Research summary: W ithin an ecosystem, standard setting coordinates development of complementary technologies across firms. But each firm can itself own multiple of these complementary technologies. We study how a firm's own complementary technologies influence its disclosure inclination during standard setting. We identify a tradeoff: disclosure increases value‐creation of the firm's non‐disclosed complementary technologies, but also heightens expropriation risk. Using data on the U.S. communications equipment industry 1991–2008, we show that the firm's complementary technologies increase its disclosure inclination when its technological areas are less crowded, but decrease such inclination when there are SSO members with strong expropriation abilities. Findings stress that disclosure involves but a piece of the firm's portfolio; a systemic perspective of the entire portfolio provides a more comprehensive picture of value‐creation during standard setting . Managerial summary: W hy should a firm disclose its key technology to participate in standard setting within an ecosystem? We urge managers to think beyond “disclosing to ensure compatibility with other firms' complementary technologies within the ecosystem” as a motivation, to also consider how disclosure affects the firm's own complementary technologies within its portfolio. Disclosure in one technological area makes the firm's nondisclosed complementary technologies in other areas more valuable to itself, especially with fewer rivals competing in these other areas. But disclosure also renders the firm susceptible to losing these complementary technologies to rivals, especially when rivals have strong expropriation abilities. Analyzing disclosure decisions by communication equipment firms, we show that this tradeoff is indeed a relevant consideration in managers' strategic calculations when participating in standard setting . Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Motivation matters: Corporate scope and competition in complementary product markets

Research summary : We argue that a pure capabilities‐based view does not accurately explain the competitive dynamics of increasingly common settings in which firms act as both complementors and competitors. We propose that the Awareness‐Motivation‐Capability framework is more appropriate for these settings. We derive predictions from both a pure capabilities view and the AMC framework, and test those predictions in the U.S. auto leasing market, in which the leasing subsidiaries of car manufacturers directly compete with the same independent lessors who provide complements to the manufacturers. Although our results are consistent with capabilities playing an important role, motivation appears to be a critical factor explaining the competitive dynamics of the market. Managerial summary : Firms that compete with business units owned by larger corporate parents face additional considerations. Such subsidiary competitors can be motivated by broader corporate considerations, shifting their objectives, and consequently, their strategic actions. Expecting subsidiary competitors to pursue business unit profitability can mislead managers toward pricing, product mix, or market entry errors. We present an important example from consumer finance, where independent auto lessors, such as Bank of America (BoA), compete with captive leasing subsidiaries like Ford Motor Credit (FMC). Since FMC is motivated to subsidize and support vehicle sales for its manufacturer parent, a cost advantage is not enough for BoA to dominate the market. Understanding broader corporate motivations of competitors helps managers anticipate competition levels in potential markets, thereby improving decision‐making and performance. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Platform envelopment

Due to network effects and switching costs in platform markets, entrants generally must offer revolutionary functionality to win substantial market share. We explore a second entry path that does not rely upon Schumpeterian innovation: platform envelopment. Through envelopment, a provider in one platform market can enter another platform market, and combine its own functionality with that of the target in a multi‐platform bundle that leverages shared user relationships. Envelopers capture market share by foreclosing an incumbent's access to users; in doing so, they harness the network effects that previously had protected the incumbent. We present a typology of envelopment attacks based on whether platform pairs are complements, weak substitutes, or functionally unrelated and we analyze conditions under which these attack types are likely to succeed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Profiting from innovations: the role of new game strategies in the case of Lipitor of the US pharmaceutical industry

In exploring why innovators often do not profit from their innovations, researchers concentrate on innovators versus imitators and the extent to which owners of complementary assets capture profits from innovations. The literature provides scant attention to factors that sap profits from innovations. This paper argues that an innovator's positioning vis‐à‐vis customers, suppliers, complementors, and other co‐opetitors plays a critical role in the innovator's profitability. The article explores how an innovator can use new game strategies to better positioning, thus capturing rents from innovations and enabling further innovations in the future. The study examines the case of Lipitor, one of the world's best‐selling drug, to illustrate how positioning can play in a firm's ability to profit from its innovations.     

Modularity in making: simplifying solution space for user innovation

An increasingly popular form of open innovation in the digital age is ‘making,’ where users innovate across multiple disciplines and make products that meet their needs, using mechanical, electronic, and digital components. These users have at their disposal, a wide solution space for innovation through various modular toolkits enabled by digital‐age technologies. This study explores and outlines how these users simplify this wide solution space to innovate and make tangible products. Following a modularity theory perspective, it draws on case studies of users and their innovations: (1) Users with initial prototype product designs based on the Internet of things (IoT) from a maker event and (2) users with established product designs from the online community platform Thingiverse. The studies found that users reused the design in the form of existing off‐the‐shelf products and utilized digital fabrication and low‐cost electronics hardware as a ‘glue’ to create physical and informational interfaces wherever needed, enabling bottom‐up modularity. They iteratively refined their innovations, gradually replacing re‐used designs with own integrated designs, reducing modularity, and reducing wastage. The study contributes to open innovation and modularity with implications on the design of products and toolkits enabled by the digital age.     

Value creation by knowledge‐based ecosystems: evidence from a field study

A growing number of research and development‐driven companies are located in knowledge‐based ecosystems. Value creation by these ecosystems draws on the dynamics of single firms (interacting and partnering) as well as the ecosystem at large. Drawing on a field study of a Dutch high‐tech campus, two key sources of value creation are identified: (1) facilitation of the innovation process for individual companies and (2) creation of an innovation community. Furthermore, the coevolution of the ecosystem's business model with firm‐level business models explains why technology‐based firms join, stay in, or leave the ecosystem at a certain point in time. A remarkable finding is that ecosystem managers have to deliberately facilitate exit routes for companies that no longer fit the ecosystem in order to enhance and reinforce its business model. As such, this study suggests a dynamic capability perspective on knowledge‐based ecosystems that need to develop a business model at the ecosystem level to create sufficient innovative capacity and entrepreneurial fitness.     

The Effect of Selective Openness on Value Creation in User Innovation Communities

Open innovation research and practice recognize the important role of external complementors in value creation. At the same time, firms need to retain exclusive control over some essential components to capture value from their product and/or service system. This paper contributes to the literature by analyzing some of the trade‐offs between openness to external value creation and closedness for internal value capture. It focuses on selective openness as a key variable and investigates how it affects value creation by external complementors, specifically the members of user innovation communities. Openness, it is hypothesized, matters to community members: The more open a product design is, the higher their sense of involvement in the innovation project, and the larger the effort they devote to it. Unlike prior literature, different forms and loci of openness are distinguished, specifically the transparency, accessibility, and replicability of different components of the product being developed. Hypotheses are tested based on survey data (n = 309) from 20 online communities in the consumer electronics and information technology hardware industries. Multilevel regression analysis is used to account for clustering, and thus nonindependent data, at the community level. We find that openness indeed increases community members’ involvement in the innovation project and their contributions to it. Interestingly, however, some forms and loci of openness strongly affect community perceptions and behavior, while others have limited or no impact. This finding suggests that, at least in relation to user communities, the trade‐off that firms face between external value creation and internal value capture is softer than hitherto understood. Contingency factors that may be able to explain these patterns are advanced. For example, users are expected to value the form of openness that they have the capabilities and incentives to exploit. The findings in this paper extend the literature on selective openness in innovation. They emphasize the need to study the demand for different forms of openness at the subsystem level and align supply‐side strategies to it. In managerial practice, a careful assessment of the demand for openness enables firms to successfully use selective openness and to effectively appropriate value from selectively open systems.     

The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem

Research summary: Firms introducing disruptive innovations into multisided ecosystems confront the disruptor's dilemma: gaining the support of the very incumbents they disrupt. Through a longitudinal study of TiVo, a company that pioneered the Digital Video Recorder, we examine how these firms may address this dilemma. Our analysis reveals how TiVo navigated coopetitive tensions by continually adjusting its strategy, its technology platform, and its relational positioning within the evolving U.S. television industry ecosystem. We theorize how (1) disruption may affect not just specific incumbents, but also the entire ecosystem; (2) coopetition is not just dyadic, but also multilateral and intertemporal, and (3) strategy is both a deliberative and emergent process involving continual adjustments, as the disruptor attempts to balance coopetitive tensions over time. Managerial summary: New entrants confront a dilemma when they introduce a disruptive innovation into an existing business ecosystem, viz., how can they gain the support of the incumbents that their innovation disrupts? Confronting this “disruptor's dilemma”, the disruptor must consider several issues: How might it pitch its innovation to attract end customers and yet reduce the threat of disruption perceived by ecosystem incumbents? How can the innovation be modified to fit into legacy systems while transforming them? Based on an in‐depth analysis of TiVo and its entrepreneurial journey, we explore the strategies disruptors can deploy to address these issues. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants' technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry

Entrants in new industries pursue distinct technologies in hopes of winning the technology competition and achieving sustainable competitive advantage. We draw on the complementary assets framework to predict entrants' technology choices in an emerging industry. Evidence from the global solar photovoltaic industry supports our arguments that entrants are more likely to choose technologies with higher technical performance and for which key complementary assets are available in the ecosystem. However, diversifying entrants are more likely to trade off superior performance for complementary asset availability whereas start‐up entrants are more likely to trade off complementary asset availability for superior performance. This difference is largely due to diversifying entrants with pre‐entry capabilities related to the industry. The study offers a novel illustration of how complementarities and competition shape entry strategies. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.