UCL School of Management

University college london, 22 february 2021, platform competition review.

Interest in platform competition has grown significantly over the last three decades. This interest continues to grow rapidly with the rise of the Internet that has dramatically increased both the scale and scope of platform competition, to the point where business media outlets describe the current economic landscape has been described as a “platform economy”. 

In a recent paper published in the Journal of Management, UCL School of Management’s Joost Rietveld and co-author Melissa Schilling from New York University provide a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the academic literature on platform competition.

The explosive rise in platform competition has seen a dramatic increase in the number of academic articles covering the platform competition, a total of 333 articles between 1985 and 2019. The four key prominent themes identified were;

  • Network Externalities and their Implications
  • Platform Ecosystems  and Corporate Scope
  • Platform Compliment and User Heterogeneity
  • Platform Governance and Ecosystem Orchestration.

Learn more about the paper on this website  where you can browse all the papers included in the review, apply filters based on your interests, explore the journals by publication count, and view a number of interactive data visualizations summarizing the findings.

Watch this excellent short 4-minute video to get a better understanding of the four key themes dominating the research field. 

platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

2022 Impact Factor

  • About   Publication Information Subscriptions Permissions Advertising Journal Rankings Best Article Award Press Releases
  • Resources   Access Options Submission Guidelines Reviewer Guidelines Sample Articles Paper Calls Contact Us Submit & Review  
  • Browse   Current Issue All Issues Featured Latest Topics Videos

California Management Review

California Management Review is a premier academic management journal published at UC Berkeley

CMR INSIGHTS

Three approaches for winning the platform competition.

Three Approaches for Winning the Platform Competition

Image Credit | Rodion Kutsaiev

Introduction

The notion of platforms isn’t novel, yet digital platforms have become the dominant business models across various industries. Today, many of the world’s most valuable companies are platform-based, deriving their success from disrupting conventional businesses and innovating new products and services in emerging areas. 1

Related CMR Articles

“Managing Multi-Sided Platforms: Platform Origins and Go-to-Market Strategy” By David J. Teece, Asta Pundziene, Sohvi Heaton, & Maaja Vadi

Digital platforms are not exclusive to tech giants or digital startups. Companies in established sectors, such as banking, automotive, pharmaceuticals, airlines, and retail, are increasingly leveraging digital platforms to transform their operations and industries, with many already delivering remarkable results. 2

Digital platforms are fundamentally reshaping strategy and competition. Unlike traditional manufacturing or product-centric organizations, the unique attributes of platforms, like network effects and winner-takes-all market dynamics, create a fiercely competitive environment, making it particularly challenging when competing against platform leaders with formidable capabilities and resources and dominant market positions. 3

This study delves into critical questions: What are the main strategies used by platforms to gain market dominance? How do emerging platforms challenge and overtake established ones? Under what conditions are these strategies successful? Addressing these questions is essential for business leaders, entrepreneurs, and policymakers, and they constitute the central focus of this research.

Platforms and Platform Competition

Platforms are firms ‘ that facilitate transactions and govern interactions between two or more distinct user groups who are connected via an indirect network’ . 4 The digital foundation of most dominant platforms today leads to their frequent identification as digital platforms. In the past two decades, a substantial body of research has emerged, examining these platforms from both strategic and operational perspectives. For many scholars and business leaders, the emergence of digital platforms is viewed as a paradigm shift, as traditional models of vertically integrated firms with hierarchical supply chains are increasingly replaced by dynamic groups of independent partners working together in an ecosystem to deliver integrated products and services in a growing number of sectors. 5

Operationally, most digital platforms do not take ownership of products or production processes. Compared with traditional manufacturing or product platforms, digital platforms enjoy significant competitive advantages.  They can introduce new transaction mechanisms more rapidly and at much lower cost; provide access to new capabilities that may be too expensive or time-consuming to build within a firm; scale much faster than an individual business; and enable both high variety and high capacity to evolve simultaneously.  The cost-benefit of imitation, incremental improvement, supply chain flexibility and resilience, executional capability and operational excellence also differs significantly from traditional firms. 6

However, several gaps still exist in our understanding of platforms and the dynamic competition between them. For example, although digital platforms operate in a setting that calls for highly interdependent decisions, many studies thus far have focused on single design parameters, such as how a new platform feature attracts users, or which mechanism is effective for matching different user groups in a platform. While a growing body of work examines the experience of successful platforms from a small number of industries primarily in developed economies, much less is known about how and why dominant platforms get displaced in different markets, and how such displacements are different from traditional technological disruptions.  Importantly, digital technologies enable dominant platforms to identify emerging trends easily and facilitate continuous updating of services, business models and operations, and some established platforms also increasingly envelope adjacent platforms through acquisitions or organic growth.  Such capabilities by the dominant platforms have made it harder for new entrants to survive and grow.  Yet innovative new platforms continue to emerge and prosper in both developed and emerging economies in a growing number of sectors.  To succeed in platform competition, essential questions must be asked: Which approaches are effective, and how are they incorporated into the strategy and operations of these platforms?

This paper is informed by two strands of research with some of the most successful digital platforms in the world. First, a longitudinal study of established global digital champions, including Amazon, Google, Uber, Alibaba, JD.Com and Didi Chuxing, supplemented by further case studies of some once dominant digital platforms that have stagnated, or experienced major setbacks, including Yahoo, eBay, Groupon and Baidu. Second, exploratory case studies of emerging digital champions including Slack and VMWare, and a number of other platform leaders that are yet to become household names, including Imagen, a leading video storage platform from the UK; and Xero, a successful cloud-based accounting platform for small businesses from New Zealand.  

Data is primarily gathered through semi-structured interviews with senior and divisional level business leaders, supplemented by comprehensive secondary and archival data from both public and private sources.  Ongoing dialogues are maintained with some of the business leaders to ensure data is continuously updated. 

These case studies have unveiled three fundamental approaches that have been effectively deployed in their quest for market leadership.  Importantly, these approaches have not only been deployed by platform leaders to maintain their market dominance in both established fields and emerging area, but also offered viable pathways for new or weaker platforms to survive and grow when facing platform leaders with superior resources and capabilities and dominant market positions ( Table 1 ).  

platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

Approach One: Leveraging competitive advantages from one source for new competitive advantages from other sources

Strategic management is dominated by three complimentary paradigms, namely, the resource-based view, the industry-based view, and the institution-based view. Competitive advantages can be derived from a firm’s resource and capability, its market position, or its institutional environment. Since few firms possess competitive advantages from all sources in every market, it leaves opportunities open for other players to survive and grow. This allows some weaker firms to build on their unique competitive advantages from one source to gain new competitive advantages from other sources. 

In platform competition, the network effect and winner-takes-all dynamics can significantly enhance such a strategy. A competitive advantage, once established, often proliferates more rapidly than in traditional firms, creating new strengths through cumulative processes. In large emerging markets, some native digital platforms have effectively leveraged their deep understanding of local culture and markets to compete against global platforms with superior resources and capabilities. By tailoring products and services more closely to local needs, these platforms can achieve closer institutional fit in home-markets. This allows them to initially survive, then grow market share and develop new resources and capabilities through imitation, product and service refinements, supply chain flexibility, and other operational excellence. These efforts can eventually trigger increasing returns and network effects, enabling these platforms to build new competitive advantages over time to challenge dominant players.

This pattern is evident in the success of some native Chinese digital platforms against American giants in China, with similar trends observed in India, Southeast Asia, South America, and Africa. Examples include Alibaba and JD.com competing with eBay and Amazon in e-commerce in China, Flipkart against Amazon in India, and Didi Chuxing and Grab challenging Uber in ride-hailing in China and Southeast Asia.

Similarly, in developed economies, some emerging digital platforms leverage niche competitive advantages to outperform dominant platforms. Slack exemplifies this, starting as a specialized workplace collaboration tool that quickly attracted a core user base with its standout product. By integrating seamlessly with third-party applications and forming strategic partnerships with specialists like Zoom and Asana, Slack evolved from a chat software into a comprehensive workplace collaboration platform, effectively competing with dominant digital platforms for the workplace.

Slack’s approach has enabled diverse user organizations to efficiently organize their internal processes and external activities. This includes Xero, a cloud-based accounting software provider for small businesses from New Zealand, and Starling Bank, a digital challenger neo-bank in the UK. Both have utilized Slack to streamline their operations in ways their larger incumbents often struggle to replicate.

This strategy has also been employed by VMware, a leader in multi-cloud environment, and Imagen, a top video storage management platform. Both have successfully built on their superior products to grow market share and capabilities to compete effectively against both established and emerging platforms.

This strategy underscores the path-dependent nature of competitive advantages in platform competition. It illustrates how smaller platforms can leverage initial competitive advantages from one source to develop further advantages from other sources, capitalizing on network effects and increasing returns to scale. Key measures such as product innovation, incremental improvement, executional capabilities, and operational excellence are crucial in maximizing the potential of any competitive edge. This approach provides a viable pathway for smaller platforms to survive and grow amidst dominant competitors in both developed and emerging economies.

Approach Two: Achieving sustainable competitive advantages (SCAs) dynamically through consecutive temporary advantages (TAs)

Fundamentally, strategy is a plan for achieving long-term goals by creating sustainable competitive advantages for a firm. However, in the current volatile business climate, lasting competitive advantages are increasingly scarce. 7  Most advantages are temporary or transient, a consequence of rapid competitor actions, counter-responses among rivals, imitation, and frequent internal and external disruptions. Empirical studies show that long-lasting competitive advantages are rare and diminishing in duration, with temporary advantages gaining importance especially in new, emerging, high-tech, or fast-paced markets. 8

In platform competition, sustainable competitive advantages are typically gained dynamically through successive temporary advantages. This involves introducing new advantages before competitors can overcome existing ones. As observed in the competition between leading American digital platforms (such as Amazon, eBay, and Uber) and native platforms in large emerging markets (like Alibaba and JD.Com in China, Grab in Southeast Asia, and Flipkart and Ola in India), the strategy for native platforms often starts with imitation and adaptation. They then continuously iterate their products and business models based on emerging intelligence, achieving temporary advantages consecutively.

These competitive advantages are usually transient and quickly matched or even imitated by American platforms. However, the cumulative effect of these small, temporary advantages can eventually trigger increasing returns and network effects. Sustaining and enhancing multiple temporary advantages is key to achieving dynamic and cumulative sustainable advantages. Essential in this process is the role of incremental improvement in maximizing the value of temporary advantages, leading to sustainable competitive advantages dynamically.

This strategy has also been successfully employed by emerging digital champions in developed economies, such as VMware and Slack in the USA and Europe. Despite facing strong competitors, these platforms have thrived in highly competitive markets like multi-cloud environment and workplace collaboration platforms.

This approach underscores a shift in the digital market, highlighting the redefined importance of different types of competitive advantages. Temporary advantages and operational excellence gain growing strategic significance in the context of increasing returns and network effects. It presents another viable strategy for smaller platforms to survive and expand against formidable competitors.

Interestingly, some leading platforms like Amazon and Alibaba are also increasingly adopting this approach to maintain their market leadership, countering disruptors in their core markets.

Approach Three: Accomplishing radical change through an evolving portfolio of incremental innovations

Radical innovations, while impactful, are rare and fraught with risk. 9  However, they can be progressively achieved through an evolving portfolio of small-scale changes, interspersed with occasional radical shifts. This strategy not only mitigates the risks associated with radical innovations but also allows for continuous refinement based on real-time market feedback, user insights, and operational data.

For instance, in their early competition with eBay and Amazon in China, Alibaba and JD.com engaged in a relentless cycle of imitation, iteration, and innovation. This process, driven by user feedback and experimentation, allowed them to test and scale new ideas efficiently. As highlighted by a senior Alibaba executive, it enables quick scaling of successful ideas and minimal loss on unsuccessful ones. Over time, these small innovations can accumulate into significant changes.

VMware, a leader in multi-cloud platforms, exemplifies this strategy by continually enhancing its services, allowing seamless integration of various cloud services with private clouds. Through strategic partnerships, VMware offers an expanding array of digital solutions, thriving in a competitive market against formidable competitors.

This approach is also evident in other emerging platforms like Slack, Zoom, and Imagen, and in major users like Starling Bank and Xero. It underscores the evolving significance of different types of innovations in digital markets, highlighting the growing strategic importance of incremental innovations. It provides another viable path for smaller platforms to compete against stronger rivals.  It is also increasingly used by leading platforms like Amazon and Alibaba to maintain their market dominance.

Three Typical Scenarios

These approaches have been successfully deployed by different digital platforms under three typical scenarios. 10

“David and Goliath”: In markets dominated by one leading platform, weaker platforms often find niche areas to develop unique competitive advantages to survive and grow. Despite the dominant platform’s significant resources, these smaller platforms often focus on superior products or services tailored for specific market segments that might have been overlooked or deemed unattractive by the dominant player. A classic example is Taobao (part of Alibaba) outcompeting eBay in China’s C2C market. By nurturing an evolving portfolio of incremental innovations and temporary advantages, weaker platforms can gradually improve their market fit and resources to survive and expand.

“Tug of War”: In markets with two or several equally powerful platforms, a land-grab strategy becomes crucial. Some platforms may use penetration pricing to build a large user base, hoping to offset early losses with later revenue streams. Here, operational excellence is vital, as even minor advantages can accumulate and shift the market balance. Uber’s competition with Didi Chuxing in China, Grab in Southeast Asia, Ola in India, and many others in global cities like London exemplify this scenario.

“Empire Building”: Both dominant and weaker platforms use this approach to cement their market leadership. Dominant platforms often form strategic partnerships or invest in support services, transitioning from asset-light to asset-heavy business models to create new barriers (“moat”) to protect their market leadership. This is evident in Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods, Alibaba’s investments in the Suning retail chain and Cainiao logistics. These strategies highlight the importance of operational excellence and incremental improvement in sustaining market leadership.

Strategic and Operational Implications

In this section, three insights for business leaders and entrepreneurs are highlighted. 

Nonlinear Dynamics in Platform Development: Unlike traditional firms with a linear value chain, digital platforms rely on ecosystems where they don’t own the products or processes. The flexibility and scalability with this approach come with low entry barriers and vulnerability to disruption, as they lack exclusive control over technology or standards. This research highlights the nonlinear dynamics of platform development, where small changes can lead to significant outcomes through cumulative processes.

Strategy Making and Execution in Platform Firms: Traditional linear strategy making and execution are challenged in platform competition. For platform firms, strategy is increasingly formed and recalibrated through execution, based on emerging operational intelligence from within the platform and its external networks. This iterative process is vital in a rapidly changing business environment where both the strategy’s path and destination may frequently change.

Limitations of Traditional Competitive Practices: Platform competition redefines traditional competitive practices focused on direct rivalry and head-on confrontations. Platforms often aim for victory not through a single decisive battle but through successive incremental and radical changes. These gradual improvements help platforms to improve market positions over time, eventually leveraging increasing returns and network effects to succeed. This calls for a greater focus on executional capability and operational excellence in the digital economy.

Conclusions and Future Research

This paper outlines three approaches used by digital platforms in their quest for market leadership. These strategies not only provide survival and growth paths for smaller platforms competing against more resourceful market leaders, but also help dominant platforms maintain their positions. The need for systematic exploration and validation of these approaches in diverse global contexts is highlighted, offering guidance for business leaders and entrepreneurs across various digital platforms.  Future research should focus on three areas: 

Empirical studies on platform competition: More empirical research is needed to understand the dynamics of platform competition in both developed and developing economies. The focus should broaden from how successful platforms operate to how they emerge, expand, and compete under various scenarios. The role of transient advantages and incremental improvements, in the context of increasing returns and network effects, deserves deeper exploration.

Platform development in traditional industries: Research should extend beyond the emergence and disruption by digital platforms to include how traditional industries leverage digital platforms for strategic and operational transformation. There is also a need to integrate this with established research in areas like modularity, product-service systems, and servitization.

Global context of platform studies: The empirical context of platform studies should extend beyond a few sectors in developed economies. Many innovative practices in emerging economies like China, India, the Middle East, Africa, and South America are influencing global trends. Systematic studies are required to understand and facilitate the

Cusumano, M. A., D. B. Yoffie and A. Gawer (2019). The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power . NY, USA: HarperCollins

Blumberg, S, Bossert, O, Richter, G & Kürtz, K O (2021) The power of platforms to reshape the business . Mckinsey Digital

Li, F & Shi, X (2021) Four Essential Capabilities for Successful Platform Development . California Management Review )

Rietveld J & Schilling, M. 2020. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature. Journal of Management , DOI: 10.1177/0149206320969791

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

Li, F (2022). Sustainable Competitive Advantages via Temporary Advantages: Insights from the Competition between American and Chinese Digital Platforms in China . British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12558

Li (2022) op cit .

Dagnino, G, Picone, P & Ferrigno, G (2020) Temporary Competitive Advantage: A State‐of‐the‐Art Literature Review and Research Directions.  International Journal of Management Review .  Volume23, Issue1: Pages 85-115

Hopp, C, Antons, D, Kaminski, J & Salge, T O, 2018. The Topic Landscape of Disruption Research—A Call for Consolidation, Reconciliation, and Generalization. Journal of Product Innovation Management 35 (3):458–487

Li, F. (2018). Why Western Digital Firms Have Failed in China.  Harvard Business Review , https://hbr.org/2018/08/why-western-digital-firms-have-failed-in-china .

Feng Li

Recommended

Current issue.

Winter 2024 | Volume 66 Issue 2

Volume 66, Issue 2 Winter 2024

Recent CMR Articles

The Changing Ranks of Corporate Leaders

The Business Value of Gamification

Hope and Grit: How Human-Centered Product Design Enhanced Student Mental Health

Four Forms That Fit Most Organizations

Global Clusters of Innovation - Lessons from Silicon Valley

Global Clusters of Innovation - Lessons from Silicon Valley

Berkeley-Haas's Premier Management Journal

Published at Berkeley Haas for more than sixty years, California Management Review seeks to share knowledge that challenges convention and shows a better way of doing business.

EconBiz - Find Economic Literature

  • Platform Competition : A Syste...
  • More details

Cover Image

Platform Competition : A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature

  • Report error
  • EndNote - Citavi, Endnote, RefWorks, ...
  • Zotero, Mendeley, RefWorks, ...

Editorial: Advancing interdisciplinary research : insights from the JIBS special issue

Cheng, Joseph L. C., (2014)

Information systems theorizing based on evolutionary psychology : an interdisciplinary review and theory integration framework

Kock, Ned F., (2009)

Consumption ethics : a review and analysis of future directions for interdisciplinary research

Carrington, Michal, (2021)

Platform Strategy : Managing Ecosystem Value Through Selective Promotion of Complements

Rietveld, Joost, (2019)

Platform strategy : managing ecosystem value through selective promotion of complements

Platform competition : a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

Rietveld, Joost, (2021)

Sign in to my Account

Register for an account.

Journal of Management

  • Current Issue
  • OnlineFirst
  • Submit Paper
  • in This journal
  • Email Alerts

Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature

See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

Published  July  01, 2021

Article Information

Volume: 47 issue: 6, page(s): 1528-1563

Article first published online: July 01, 2021;Issue published:  July 01, 2021;

DOI:10.1177/0149206320969791

Joost Rietveld , Melissa A. Schilling , University College London , New York University

Joost Rietveld, University College London, Level 38, One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AA, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

  • Related Articles

Browse articles that cite this article, as well as articles with similar content as identified by the editorial team.

There are no articles to show here yet

Competitiveness in the visitor economy: A systematic literature review

The competitive effects of school choice on student achievement: a systematic review, return-to-competition criteria after ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis, vol 47, issue 6, 2021.

  • Overview of the Platform Competition Literature
  • Themes in Platform Competition Research
  • Future Research
  • More empirical studies pooling data from multiple industry settings
  • Greater diversity in empirical settings
  • More in-depth case study research
  • Forging stronger links to traditional theoretical frameworks
  • Concluding Remarks
  • Figures & Tables

京ICP备09090397号-11

Joost Rietveld, Melissa A. Schilling

Vol 47, Issue 6, pp. 1528 - 1563

Issue published date: July-01-2021

10.1177/0149206320969791

View permissions information for this article

Book cover

Digitalization Across Organizational Levels pp 147–178 Cite as

The Economic and Social Consequences of Digital Platforms: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Literature Review

  • Michaela Lindenmayr 6 ,
  • Tobias Kircher 6 ,
  • Alexander Stolte 6 &
  • Jens Foerderer 6  
  • First Online: 08 May 2022

576 Accesses

Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

To monetize digital technologies, many firms use platform-based business models. While such digital platforms can yield tremendous profits, they also pose new challenges, among them privacy, harmful content such as hate speech, cyberbullying, or discrimination, as well as competition and innovation. These challenges have seen an uptick in research interest in the past years yet lack a structured and holistic overview. To resolve, this chapter reports a structured and interdisciplinary literature review. We document open research questions and outline mutual dependencies between the topics under consideration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
  • Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Acquisti, A., & Fong, C. (2020). An experiment in hiring discrimination via online social networks. Management Science, 66 (3), 1005–1024.

Article   Google Scholar  

Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54 (2), 442–92.

Aghion, P., Harris, C., Howitt, P., & Vickers, J. (2001). Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. The Review of Economic Studies, 68 (3), 467–492.

Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., García, S., Gil-López, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58 , 82–115.

Asadullah, A., Faik, I., & Kankanhalli, A. (2018). Digital platforms: A review and future directions. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2018) .

Google Scholar  

Bapna, R., Ramaprasad, J., Shmueli, G., & Umyarov, A. (2016). One-way mirrors in online dating: A randomized field experiment. Management Science, 62 (11), 3100–3122.

Bauer, J., Franke, N., & Tuertscher, P. (2016). Intellectual property norms in online communities: How user-organized intellectual property regulation supports innovation. Information Systems Research, 27 (4), 724–750.

Bhargava, H. K. (2021a). Bundling for flexibility and variety: An economic model for multiproducer value aggregation. Management Science, 67 (4), 2365–2380.

Bhargava, H. K. (2021b). The creator economy: Managing ecosystem supply, revenue-sharing, and platform design. Management Science . https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4126

Bhargava, H. K., Rubel, O., Altman, E. J., Arora, R., Boehnke, J., Daniels, K., Derdenger, T., Kirschner, B., LaFramboise, D., Loupos, P., et al. (2020). Platform data strategy. Marketing Letters, 31 (4), 323–334.

Bocij, P., & McFarlane, L. (2003). Cyberstalking: The technology of hate. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 76 (3), 204–221.

Bonina, C., Koskinen, K., Eaton, B., & Gawer, A. (2021). Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 31 (6), 869–902.

Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56 (10), 1849–1872.

Burnap, P., & Williams, M. L. (2016). Us and them: Identifying cyber hate on Twitter across multiple protected characteristics. EPJ Data Science, 5 (11).

Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2015). The hidden cost of accommodating crowdfunder privacy preferences: A randomized field experiment. Management Science, 61 (5), 949–962.

Campbell, J., Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2015). Privacy regulation and market structure. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24 (1), 47–73.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Hervas-Drane, A. (2015). Competing with privacy. Management Science, 61 (1), 229–246.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Yoffie, D. B. (2007). Wintel: Cooperation and conflict. Management Science, 53 (4), 584–598.

Cavusoglu, H., Phan, T. Q., Cavusoglu, H., & Airoldi, E. M. (2016). Assessing the impact of granular privacy controls on content sharing and disclosure on Facebook. Information Systems Research, 27 (4), 848–879.

Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2018). Platform architecture and quality trade-offs of multihoming complements. Information Systems Research, 29 (2), 461–478.

Chan, J., & Wang, J. (2018). Hiring preferences in online labor markets: Evidence of a female hiring bias. Management Science, 64 (7), 2973–2994.

Chellappa, R. K., & Shivendu, S. (2010). Mechanism design for “free” but “no free disposal” services: The economics of personalization under privacy concerns. Management Science, 56 (10), 1766–1780.

Chetty, N., & Alathur, S. (2018). Hate speech review in the context of online social networks. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 40 , 108–118.

Claussen, J., Kretschmer, T., & Mayrhofer, P. (2013). The effects of rewarding user engagement: The case of Facebook apps. Information Systems Research, 24 (1), 186–200.

Cohen-Almagor, R. (2012). Freedom of expression, Internet responsibility, and business ethics: The Yahoo! saga and its implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 106 (3), 353–365.

Cook, C., Diamond, R., Hall, J. V., List, J. A., & Oyer, P. (2021). The gender earnings gap in the gig economy: Evidence from over a million rideshare drivers. The Review of Economic Studies, 88 (5), 2210–2238.

Cramer, J., & Krueger, A. B. (2016). Disruptive change in the taxi business: The case of Uber. American Economic Review, 106 (5), 177–182.

Cui, R., Li, J., & Zhang, D. J. (2020). Reducing discrimination with reviews in the sharing economy: Evidence from field experiments on Airbnb. Management Science, 66 (3), 1071–1094.

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

De Corniere, A. (2016). Search advertising. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 8 (3), 156–188.

Dhillon, G., & Smith, K. J. (2019). Defining objectives for preventing cyberstalking. Journal of Business Ethics, 157 (1), 137–158.

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

Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84 (10), 92–101.

Etzioni, A. (2019). Cyber trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 156 (1), 1–13.

European Commission. (2016). Code of conduct of countering illegal hate speech online. https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/eu-code-conduct-countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en . Accessed 27 December 2021.

Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2010). Failure to launch: Critical mass in platform businesses. Review of Network Economics, 9 (4).

Evans, P. C., & Gawer, A. (2016). The rise of the platform enterprise: A global survey . New York: The Center for Global Enterprise.

Faber, R., & de Reuver, M. (2019). Consumer studies on digital platform adoption and continuance: A structured literature review. In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2019) .

Fieseler, C., Bucher, E., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2019). Unfairness by design? The perceived fairness of digital labor on crowdworking platforms. Journal of Business Ethics, 156 (4), 987–1005.

Fischer, S., Lohrenz, L., Lattemann, C., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2020). Critical design factors for digital service platforms - A literature review. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2020) .

Fisman, R., & Luca, M. (2016). Fixing discrimination in online marketplaces. Harvard Business Review, 94 (12), 88–95.

Foerderer, J. (2020). Interfirm exchange and innovation in platform ecosystems: Evidence from Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference. Management Science, 66 (10), 4772–4787.

Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Mithas, S., & Heinzl, A. (2018). Does platform owner’s entry crowd out innovation? Evidence from Google photos. Information Systems Research, 29 (2), 444–460.

Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Schuetz, S., & Heinzl, A. (2014). Control versus generativity: A complex adaptive systems perspective on platforms. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2014) .

Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Schuetz, S. W., & Heinzl, A. (2019). Knowledge boundaries in enterprise software platform development: Antecedents and consequences for platform governance. Information Systems Journal, 29 (1), 119–144.

Foerderer, J., Lueker, N., & Heinzl, A. (2021). And the winner is…? The desirable and undesirable effects of platform awards. Information Systems Research, 32 (4), 1155–1172.

Foerderer, J., & Schuetz, S. (2022). Data breach announcements and stock market reactions: A matter of timing? Management Science . https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4264 .

Forbus, P. (2021). Commentary: The case for a healthier social customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 85 (1), 93–97.

Fortuna, P., & Nunes, S. (2018). A survey on automatic detection of hate speech in text. ACM Computing Surveys, 51 (4).

Fu, R., Huang, Y., & Singh, P. V. (2021). Crowds, lending, machine, and bias. Information Systems Research, 32 (1), 72–92.

Gal-Or, E., Gal-Or, R., & Penmetsa, N. (2018). The role of user privacy concerns in shaping competition among platforms. Information Systems Research, 29 (3), 698–722.

Ganco, M., Kapoor, R., & Lee, G. K. (2020). From rugged landscapes to rugged ecosystems: Structure of interdependencies and firms’ innovative search. Academy of Management Review , 45(3), 646–674.

Gawer, A. (Ed.). (2009). Platforms, markets and innovation . Edward Elgar E-Book Archive. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing

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

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

Gnyawali, D. R., Fan, W., & Penner, J. (2010). Competitive actions and dynamics in the digital age: An empirical investigation of social networking firms. Information Systems Research, 21 (3), 594–613.

Guttentag, D. (2019). Progress on Airbnb: A literature review. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 10 (4), 814–844.

Hagiu, A., & Jullien, B. (2011). Why do intermediaries divert search? The RAND Journal of Economics, 42 (2), 337–362.

Halckenhaeusser, A., Foerderer, J., & Heinzl, A. (2020a). Platform Governance Mechanisms: An Integrated Literature Review and Research Directions. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2020) .

Halckenhaeusser, A., Foerderer, J., & Heinzl, A. (2020b). Wolf in a sheep’s clothing: When do complementors face competition with platform owners? In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2020) .

Harris, R. (2017). Detecting cyber bullying: But can it be stopped? https://www.wvtf.org/post/detecting-cyber-bullying-can-it-be-stopped#stream/0 . Accessed 09 August 2021.

Hermann, E. (2021). Leveraging artificial intelligence in marketing for social good—An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04843-y

Hermes, S., Pfab, S., Hein, A., Weking, J., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020). Digital platforms and market dominance: Insights from a systematic literature review and avenues for future research. In Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2020) .

Heurix, J., Zimmermann, P., Neubauer, T., & Fenz, S. (2015). A taxonomy for privacy enhancing technologies. Computers & Security, 53 , 1–17.

Hui, K.-L., Teo, H. H., & Lee, S.-Y. T. (2007). The value of privacy assurance: An exploratory field experiment. MIS Quarterly , 31(1), 19–33.

Johnson, G. A., Shriver, S. K., & Du, S. (2020). Consumer privacy choice in online advertising: Who opts out and at what cost to industry? Marketing Science, 39 (1), 33–51.

Jung, D., Kim, B. C., Park, M., & Straub, D. W. (2019). Innovation and policy support for two-sided market platforms: Can government policy makers and executives optimize both societal value and profits? Information Systems Research, 30 (3), 1037–1050.

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

Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (2), 93–115.

Khan, L. M. (2016). Amazon’s antitrust paradox. The Yale Law Journal, 126 (3), 710–805.

Kircher, T., & Foerderer, J. (2021). Does EU-consumer privacy harm financing of US-app-startups? Within-US evidence of cross-EU-effects. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2014) .

Klausen, J., Marks, C. E., & Zaman, T. (2018). Finding extremists in online social networks. Operations Research, 66 (4), 957–976.

Kuan, J., & Lee, G. (2020). Governance strategy for digital platforms: Differentiation through information privacy. Strategic Management Review, 48 (1), 147–184.

Kumar, V., Nim, N., & Agarwal, A. (2021). Platform-based mobile payments adoption in emerging and developed countries: Role of country-level heterogeneity and network effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 52 (8), 1529–1558.

Kummer, M., & Schulte, P. (2019). When private information settles the bill: Money and privacy in Google’s market for smartphone applications. Management Science, 65 (8), 3470–3494.

Lambrecht, A., Goldfarb, A., Bonatti, A., Ghose, A., Goldstein, D. G., Lewis, R., Rao, A., Sahni, N., & Yao, S. (2014). How do firms make money selling digital goods online? Marketing Letters, 25 (3), 331–341.

Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads. Management Science, 65 (7), 2966–2981.

Lee, J. K. (2015). Research framework for AIS grand vision of the bright ICT initiative. MIS Quarterly, 39 (2), iii–xii.

Leicht-Deobald, U., Busch, T., Schank, C., Weibel, A., Schafheitle, S., Wildhaber, I., & Kasper, G. (2019). The challenges of algorithm-based HR decision-making for personal integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 160 (2), 377–392.

Liu, C. Z., Gal-Or, E., Kemerer, C. F., & Smith, M. D. (2011). Compatibility and proprietary standards: The impact of conversion technologies in IT markets with network effects. Information Systems Research, 22 (1), 188–207.

Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., Galletta, D. F., & Vance, A. (2013). The drivers in the use of online whistle-blowing reporting systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30 (1), 153–190.

Lowry, P. B., Zhang, J., Wang, C., & Siponen, M. (2016). Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Information Systems Research, 27 (4), 962–986.

Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). London: Macmillan.

Marx, M., Gans, J. S., & Hsu, D. H. (2014). Dynamic commercialization strategies for disruptive technologies: Evidence from the speech recognition industry. Management Science, 60 (12), 3103–3123.

Mayya, R., & Viswanathan, S. (2021). Delaying informed consent: An empirical investigation of mobile apps’ upgrade decisions. Available at SSRN .

Mejia, J., & Parker, C. (2021). When transparency fails: Bias and financial incentives in ridesharing platforms. Management Science, 67 (1), 166–184.

Milberg, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Burke, S. J. (2000). Information privacy: Corporate management and national regulation. Organization Science, 11 (1), 35–57.

Mini, T., & Widjaja, T. (2019). Tensions in digital platform business models: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2019) .

Morris, R. (1994). Computerized content analysis in management research: A demonstration of advantages & limitations. Journal of Management, 20 (4), 903–931.

Murthy, R. K., & Madhok, A. (2021). Overcoming the early–stage conundrum of digital platform ecosystem emergence: A problem–solving perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 58 (7), 1899–1932.

Neshkovska, S., & Trajkova, Z. (2018). The essentials of hate speech. Teacher, 14 (1), 71–80.

Niculescu, M. F., Wu, D. J., & Xu, L. (2018). Strategic intellectual property sharing: Competition on an open technology platform under network effects. Information Systems Research, 29 (2), 498–519.

Oremus, W. (2021). Facebook under fire: Why Facebook won’t let you control your own news feed . https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/11/13/facebook-news-feed-algorithm-how-to-turn-it-off/ . Accessed 15 December 2021.

Ozalp, H., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Disruption in platform–based ecosystems. Journal of Management Studies, 55 (7), 1203–1241.

Pacheco-de Almeida, G., & Zemsky, P. B. (2012). Some like it free: Innovators’ strategic use of disclosure to slow down competition. Strategic Management Journal, 33 (7), 773–793.

Pan, Y., Huang, P., & Gopal, A. (2019). Storm clouds on the horizon? New entry threats and R&D investments in the U.S. IT industry. Information Systems Research, 30 (2), 540–562.

Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2005). Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Science, 51 (10), 1494–1504.

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

Pinsonneault, A., & Heppel, N. (1997). Anonymity in group support systems research: A new conceptualization, measure, and contingency framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14 (3), 89–108.

Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (4), 97–118.

Pritchard, M. (2021). Commentary: “Half my digital advertising is wasted…”. Journal of Marketing, 85 (1), 26–29.

Pundak, C., Steinhart, Y., & Goldenberg, J. (2021). Nonmaleficence in shaming: The ethical dilemma underlying participation in online public shaming. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31 (3), 478–500.

Ransbotham, S., Fichman, R. G., Gopal, R., & Gupta, A. (2016). Special section introduction—Ubiquitous IT and digital vulnerabilities. Information Systems Research, 27 (4), 834–847.

Rauf, A. A. (2021). New moralities for new media? Assessing the role of social media in acts of terror and providing points of deliberation for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 170 (2), 229–251.

Rich, A. S., & Gureckis, T. M. (2019). Lessons for artificial intelligence from the study of natural stupidity. Nature Machine Intelligence , 1(4), 174–180.

Rietveld, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2021). Platform competition: A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature. Journal of Management, 47 (6), 1528–1563.

Robinson, J. (1934). What is perfect competition? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 49 (1), 104–120.

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

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

Rysman, M. (2009). The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23 (3), 125–143.

Sanchez-Cartas, J. M., & Leon, G. (2021). Multisided platforms and markets: A survey of the theoretical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35 (2), 452–487.

Schmidt, A., & Wiegand, M. (2017). A survey on hate speech detection using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media (SocialNLP 2017) .

Schumann, J. H., von Wangenheim, F., & Groene, N. (2014). Targeted online advertising: Using reciprocity appeals to increase acceptance among users of free web services. Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59–75.

Scott, S. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2014). Entanglements in practice: Performing anonymity through social media. MIS Quarterly, 38 (3), 873–894.

Seamans, R., & Zhu, F. (2014). Responses to entry in multi-sided markets: The impact of Craigslist on local newspapers. Management Science, 60 (2), 476–493.

Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4 (2).

Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing Science, 26 (6), 742–757.

Shapiro, C., Varian, H. R., Carl, S., et al. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy . Boston: Harvard Business Press.

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

Sokol, D. D., & Zhu, F. (2021). Harming competition and consumers under the guise of protecting privacy: An analysis of Apple’s iOS 14 Policy Updates. Available at SSRN .

Son, J.-Y., & Kim, S. S. (2008). Internet users’ information privacy-protective responses: A taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Quarterly, 32 (3), 503–529.

Soto Setzke, D., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019). Platform openness: A systematic literature review and avenues for future research. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Business Informatics (WI 2019) .

Stigler, G. J. (1957). Perfect competition, historically contemplated. Journal of Political Economy, 1957 (65), 1–17.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7 (3), 321–326.

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

Tiwana, A. (2013). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy . Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

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

Trabucchi, D., & Buganza, T. (2022). Landlords with no lands: A systematic literature review on hybrid multi-sided platforms and platform thinking. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25 , 64–96.

Tucker, C. E. (2014). Social networks, personalized advertising, and privacy controls. Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (5), 546–562.

Vickers, J. (1995). Concepts of competition. Oxford Economic Papers, 1995 , 1–23.

Vives, X. (1984). Duopoly information equilibrium: Cournot and Bertrand. Journal of Economic Theory, 34 (1), 71–94.

Wang, Q., & Xie, J. (2011). Will consumers be willing to pay more when your competitors adopt your technology? The impacts of the supporting-firm base in markets with network effects. Journal of Marketing, 75 (5), 1–17.

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

Westin, A. F. (1968). Privacy and freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review, 25 (1).

Whelan, G. (2019). Trust in surveillance: A reply to Etzioni. Journal of Business Ethics, 156 (1), 15–19.

Wong, R. Y. M., Cheung, C. M., Xiao, B., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Standing up or standing by: Understanding bystanders’ proactive reporting responses to social media harassment. Information Systems Research, 32 (2), 561–581.

Wu, X., & Pang, M.-S. (2021). How data privacy regulations affect competition: Empirical evidence from mobile application market. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2014) .

Xu, H., Teo, H.-H., Tan, B. C., & Agarwal, R. (2012). Research note—Effects of individual self-protection, industry self-regulation, and government regulation on privacy concerns: A study of location-based services. Information Systems Research, 23 (4), 1342–1363.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237–307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Heilbronn, Germany

Michaela Lindenmayr, Tobias Kircher, Alexander Stolte & Jens Foerderer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Foerderer .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Institute of Information Systems Universität Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Jens Dibbern

Technical University of Munich, Heilbronn, Germany

Jens Förderer

Information Systems, Decision Sciences and Statistics, ESSEC Business School, Cergy, France

Thomas Kude

Information Systems and Business Administration, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany

Franz Rothlauf

Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Kai Spohrer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Lindenmayr, M., Kircher, T., Stolte, A., Foerderer, J. (2022). The Economic and Social Consequences of Digital Platforms: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Literature Review. In: Dibbern, J., Förderer, J., Kude, T., Rothlauf, F., Spohrer, K. (eds) Digitalization Across Organizational Levels. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06543-9_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06543-9_7

Published : 08 May 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-06542-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-06543-9

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature

Profile image of Melissa Schilling

2020, Journal of Management

Interest in platform competition-where competing firms facilitate interactions between two or more distinct groups of users who are connected via an indirect network-has grown significantly over the past three decades. Early examples of platforms that captured the attention of scholars include telecommunications networks (e.g., , electronic payments and automated teller machine networks (ATMs) used by banks (e.g., , video cassette recorders (VCRs; e.g., , computer hardware and software , air transport (e.g., , and credit cards . These industries demanded our attention because they exhibited patterns of price setting and customer demand that did not match traditional economic models; they often exhibited high levels of interfirm interdependency and coordination, and they often became dominated by one or a few leading platforms .

Related Papers

carmelo cennamo

"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 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 tradeoffs, and that the WTA approach will not be universally successful."

platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

carmelo cennamo , Claudio Panico

Two-sided platform markets such as videogame systems, smartphones, and tablets are influenced by indirect network effects (Armstrong, 2003; Rochet & Tirole, 2003, 2006): users tend to adopt the platform that offers a wide variety of content, while content providers tend to support the platform with a large user installed base. In addition to variety, users derive value from higher quality content. Because content quality depends on third-party providers, or complementors, platform owners cannot directly control such quality and can only induce it indirectly. We develop a theoretical model to gain a better understanding of the links between a platform's and developers' strategies, as well as the effect of (within-platform) competition among developers.

Kenan Guler

In recent years, platform firms have become an essential component of the business world. With the increasing number of studies, the impacts of platform firms on the traditional business environment are visible in many industry settings. Yet, little attention has been paid to the origin of these organizations. Analyzing 52 publicly available interviews with platform entrepreneurs, managers, and venture capitalists, I explore the emergence of platform firms. In a rigorous grounded theory-building study, I develop a theory and a process model showing how platform firms come into existence over four consecutive stages: (1) Inefficient Markets and Incumbents, (2) Entrepreneurial Motivation and Enabling Factors, (3) Efficiency-Enhancing Means, and (4) Platform Firms. The model illustrates that platform organizations’ impact on the traditional business environment results from developing efficiency-enhancing means. It also highlights the differences between platform firms and traditional ...

Ryan Jacildo

These new markets and business models also create new challenges for regulators and government agencies� One major concern is the “winnerstakemost” dynamics of many digital platform markets as a few large firms become dominant� Digital companies are now able to combine several factors and strategies to gain greater understanding of consumer psychology to influence behavior and to crowd out new potential competitors and thus shape the competitive landscape of the digital economy� Such factors include strong network effects, “multisidedness,”3 massive data capture, increased computational power, and use of new technologies� Given the pervasiveness of the digital economy in many aspects of our economic lives, its developments impact consumer welfare, competition policy, and the growth trajectories of countries�

Long Range Planning

Anna Morgan-Thomas

Journal of The European Economic Association

jean marcel

Disruptive Platforms. Markets, Ecosystems, and Monopolists

Tymoteusz Doligalski

This chapter explains the platform business model as a canvas. A platform is defined as a business model that matches independent agents and facilitates their interactions. The model’s centre consists of objects, i.e. goods that customers look for on the platform or the goods’ presentation. The model has two groups of customers: object makers (creators, providers) and object takers (recipients, buyers). For both of them, value is made up of network values, non-network values and the costs that they incur. The matchmaking mechanism determines objects’ accessibility, thus impacting the selection of users for interaction. The reputation system gives information about users’ credibility. Institutions and interventions determine the correct functioning of the platform. Value capture covers both the applied revenue model and the methods of increasing financial benefits by the platform at the cost of its users.

Journal of World Economy: Transformations & Transitions

Olga Nosova

The purpose of the proposed paper is to study the specific factors shaping the benefits of information platforms as an innovative institutional form and model of doing business. Active dissemination of the business model of online platforms radically transforms the competitive landscape of the market environment. The task of determining the sources and mechanisms for studying the changes that are taking place is being updated. New areas of competition include competition between hierarchical and network structures, between global «structuring» platforms, competition in dominant platform ecosystems, the interaction between platforms operating in competitive markets, competition between organizers and users, and between platform users. The impact of platforming on cross-industry, regional and international competition is determined. The sources of competitive advantages of platforms are investigated. These include reliance on data as the main factor of production, changing the cost st...

Hyeokkoo Kwon

Similar to love, competition can often be unrequited. This study explores the asymmetric pattern of competition driven by membership overlap in two-sided mobile social apps (MSAs) markets. Building on the niche-width dynamics framework, we theorize and validate the relative prevalence and survival capabilities of messaging apps and SNS apps, especially when membership overlap fosters current or potential competition between the two app categories. The analyses—based on panel dataset consisting of information on 8,483 panel members’ exact amount of time used for 21 mobile social apps—show that competition between SNS and messaging apps can be asymmetric in favor of messaging apps. This asymmetric pattern is more pronounced for membershipbased competition compared to usage-based competition. In addition, different MSAs developed by same platform providers exhibit synergistic effects, rather than destructive consequences, on each other’s growth. The findings identify the complex nature...

Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Johan Sandberg , Hosea A. Ofe

RELATED PAPERS

Sandra van Dulmen

Journal of Turkish Studies

Kenan Arınç

Earth System Dynamics

International Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics

shivraj singh

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Daniel Dolgin

The Journal of Immunology

Olivia White

Ambiente e Agua - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Science

JOSE WASHINGTON DOS SANTOS

Eduardo Matheus

Proceedings. Biological sciences

Conrad Labandeira

Byron Lopez arauz

Francisco Herve

Clinical & Biomedical Research

Adão Machado

Poster presentations

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Noemi Nicosia

Mariusz Antolak

Agricultural Reviews

Muthu Abishag

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

David Eldridge

Frontiers in Physiology

Jeferson Vianna

sushma gowda

Journal of Phycology

Bruce Gottlieb

The Internet of Everything

Snehal Mane

Primary: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar

Purnama Sari

Olimpia: Publicación científica de la facultad de cultura física de la Universidad de Granma

Fredy Rafael Rosales Paneque

Journal of Clinical Investigation

Emil Szittya. Der Mann ohne Identität

Zoltán Rockenbauer

RELATED TOPICS

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

NYU Stern

Melissa A. Schilling

Melissa A. Schilling

Joined Stern 2001

Leonard N. Stern School of Business Tisch Hall 40 West Fourth Street, 716 New York, NY 10012

E-mail [email protected]

View/Download C.V.

Research Interests

Courses taught, academic background, awards & appointments, selected publications.

Melissa A. Schilling is the Herzog Family Professor of Management at New York University Stern School of Business. She serves as Deputy Department Chair of the Management & Organizations Department, and Director of the Innovation Initiative at the NYU Stern Fubon Center for Technology, Business and Innovation. She received her Bachelor of Science in business administration from the University of Colorado at Boulder. She received her Doctor of Philosophy in strategic management from the University of Washington. Professor Schilling’s research focuses on innovation and strategy in high technology industries such as smartphones, video games, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, electric vehicles, and renewable energies. She is particularly interested in platform dynamics, networks, creativity, and breakthrough innovation. Her textbook, Strategic Management of Technological Innovation (now in its seventh edition), is the number one innovation strategy text in the world. She is also coauthor of Strategic Management: An integrated approach (now in its fourteenth edition).

Her research in innovation and strategy has earned her awards such as the National Science Foundation's CAREER Award, the Best Paper in Management Science and Organization Science for 2007 Award, the 2022 Sumantra Ghoshal Award for Rigour and Relevance in the Study of Management, and the 2018 Leadership in Technology Management award at PICMET. Her research has also appeared in leading academic journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Management Science, Organization Science, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, and Research Policy. She also sits on the editorial review boards of numerous journals and is a senior editor at Strategy Science. Professor Schilling teaches courses in technology and innovation management, strategic management, corporate strategy, and strategy for social-mission-based organizations.

Teaching Resources

Innovation Strategy

Innovation, sources of individual creativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3jKzYnzC6c&t

Platform Ecosystems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAFSRq-NYTY&t

Network Externalities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIp7TR2R4gg&t

Choosing New Projects: https://youtu.be/0QOdd45aZ1o

Collaboration types: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJlJJhPJHs0&t

Collaboration partners and governance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHULUlCYOUQ

Deployment Strategies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jMEkXPmz8&rel=0

  • Strategic Management

Ratios Made Easy: https://youtu.be/WJsSgT_on6s

Vertical Integration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVyPNy-pZS0&t

Agency Problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKplaCgZFMs&t

Value chains and VRIO Analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpb1fxt9YfU&t

Leveraging Technology into New Markets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15DCeacHq5M

  • Technological change and innovation
  • Alliances and collaboration strategies
  • Cognition, creativity and learning
  • Pharmaceutical and biotech innovation
  • Technology standards and modularity
  • Breakthrough innovators
  • Breakthrough Strategic Thinking
  • Strategy I & II
  • Strategy with a Social Purpose
  • Tech Evolution & Economics
  • Tech Immersion
  • Technology and Innovation Management
  • Technology Innovation Strategy

Ph.D., Strategic Management, 1997 University of Washington

B.S., Business Administration, 1990 University of Colorado

Lanzolla, G, Lorenz, A, Miron-Spektor, E, Schilling, M, Solinas, G & Tucci, CL (2021) Digital transformation: What is new if anything: Emerging patterns and management research Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(3):341-350.

Kretschmer, T, Leiponen, A, Schilling, M & Vasudeva, G (2021) Platform ecosystems as metaorganizations: Implications for platform strategies Strategic Management Journal.

Rietveld, J & Schilling, MA (2021) Platform competition: A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature Journal of Management, 47:1528-1563

Kneeland, MK, Schillling, MA & Aharonson, B. (2020) Exploring Uncharted Territory: Knowledge Search Processes in the Origination of Outlier Innovations Organization Science, 31: 535-557

Rietveld, J, Schilling, MA, & Bellavitis, C. (2019) Platform strategy: Managing ecosystem value through selective promotion of complements Organization Science, 30: 1232–1251

Schilling, MA (2018) The cognitive foundations of visionary strategy Strategy Science, 3:335-342.

Schilling, MA (2018) Potential sources of value in mergers and their indicators Antitrust Bulletin, 63(2): 183-197

Van de Ven, A, Adner, R, Barley, S, Dougherty, D, Fountain, J., Hargadon, A, Kamlet, M, Karlin, B, & (2017) Increasing benefits and reducing costs to society of technological innovation Behavioral Science and Policy Journal, 3(1):94-103.

Schilling, M.A (2016) Unraveling Alzheimer’s: Making Sense of the Relationship between Diabetes and Alzheimer’s Disease Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 51:961-977.

Aharonson, B. & Schilling, M.A. (2016) Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution Research Policy, 45: 81-96.

Related News & Research

Areas of expertise.

  • Networking & Social Networks
  • Technology & Innovation

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review

    platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

  2. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

  3. Platform competition A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the

    platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

  4. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

  5. Systematic Review and Literature Review: What's The Differences?

    platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

  6. systematic literature review use cases

    platform competition a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature

VIDEO

  1. Three Minute Thesis (3MT®) Finals

  2. Methodology

  3. Individual Research

  4. EDU201_Topic024

  5. Strengthening QAPI with CLAS and Culture Change

  6. Module 3 (Why research is important)

COMMENTS

  1. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    The review contributes by (a) documenting how the literature on platform competition has evolved; (b) outlining four themes of shared scholarly interest, including how network effects generate "winner-takes-all" dynamics that influence strategies, such as pricing and quality; how network externalities and platform strategy interact with corporat...

  2. (PDF) Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review

    The review contributes by (a) documenting how the literature on platform competition has evolved; (b) outlining four themes of shared scholarly interest, including how network effects...

  3. [PDF] Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review

    A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature on platform competition by analyzing a sample of 333 articles published between 1985 and 2019 to facilitate a broader understanding of the platform competition research that helps to advance knowledge of how platforms compete to create and capture value. Expand View on SAGE

  4. Platform Competition: A Systemati... preview & related info

    Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature. Rietveld J; Schilling M; Journal of Management (2021) 47(6) 1528-1563. DOI: 10.1177/0149206320969791. 138 Citations. Citations of this article. 579 Readers. Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

  5. Platform Competition Review

    In a recent paper published in the Journal of Management, UCL School of Management's Joost Rietveld and co-author Melissa Schilling from New York University provide a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the academic literature on platform competition.

  6. Research trends of digital platforms: A survey of the literature from

    This study offers a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature on digital platforms. We collected and analyzed a sample of 1,224 articles published from January 2018 to December 2021. Our findings show that those holding platform hegemony in the real world are also active leaders in platform research.

  7. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    The review contributes by (a) documenting how the literature on platform competition has evolved; (b) outlining four themes of shared scholarly interest, including how network effects generate "winner-takes-all" dynamics that influence strategies, such as pricing and quality; how network externalities and platform strategy interact with corporat...

  8. Three Approaches for Winning the Platform Competition

    California Management Review) Rietveld J & Schilling, M. 2020. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature. Journal of Management, DOI: 10.1177/0149206320969791. Jacobides, M, Cennamo, C & Gawer, A (2018) Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal. 39 8): 2255-2276. Li, F (2022).

  9. Three Approaches for Winning the Platform Competition

    A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature on platform competition by analyzing a sample of 333 articles published between 1985 and 2019 to facilitate a broader understanding of the platform competition research that helps to advance knowledge of how platforms compete to create and capture value. Expand

  10. A socio-technical view of platform ecosystems: Systematic review and

    Significant part of extant literature covers aspects of platform competition and related strategies, but there remain some pressing concerns in this area. ... an S-T system is based on authors' interpretation of the concept, and could be subjective. Furthermore, in applying a systematic literature review approach, one of its inherent ...

  11. Platform Competition : A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    Over the past three decades, platform competition—the competition between firms that facilitate transactions and govern interactions between two or more distinct user groups who are connected via an indirect network—has attracted significant interest from the fields of management and organizations,...

  12. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    Reader environment loading

  13. Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps

    A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature on platform competition by analyzing a sample of 333 articles published between 1985 and 2019 to facilitate a broader understanding of the platform competition research that helps to advance knowledge of how platforms compete to create and capture value.

  14. Author Page for Joost Rietveld :: SSRN

    Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature. Journal of Management, 47 (6): 1528-1563. Number of pages: 57 Posted: 12 Oct 2020 Last Revised: 25 May 2021. Joost Rietveld and Melissa A. Schilling. UCL School of Management and New York University (NYU) - Department of Management and Organizational Behavior.

  15. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    The review contributes by (1) documenting how the literature on platform competition has evolved; (2) outlining four themes of shared scholarly interest, including how network effects generate "winner-take-all" dynamics that influence strategies such as pricing and quality, how network externalities and platform strategy interact with corporate-...

  16. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature. The American Journal of Sports Medicine , Vol.50 , 4 . pp.1157 -1165 , March 01, 2022 .

  17. PDF Platform Competition: a Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review ...

    The review contributes by (1) documenting how the literature on platform competition has evolved; (2) outlining four themes of shared scholarly interest, including how network effects generate "winner-take-all" dynamics that influence strategies such as pricing and quality, how network externalities and platform strategy interact with corporate-...

  18. The Economic and Social Consequences of Digital Platforms: A Systematic

    This article offers a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature on platform competition by analyzing a sample of 333 articles published between 1985 and 2019.

  19. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    R Adner, Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem, Harvard Business Review, № 84 R Adner, Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations, Strategic Management Journal, № 31, с. 306

  20. The Economic and Social Consequences of Digital Platforms: A Systematic

    To find and analyze the papers used for the research, we carry out a structured literature review. The procedure is divided into the collection of papers related to the contents based on a structured scope (Sect. 3.1), the selection of the most relevant papers according to pre-defined criteria (Sect. 3.2), and the analysis of those papers (Sect. 3.3).

  21. Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the

    This article offers a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature on platform competition by analyzing a sample of 333 articles published between 1985 and 2019. The review contributes by (a) documenting how the literature on platform competition has evolved; (b) outlining four themes of shared scholarly interest, including how ...

  22. (PDF) Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review

    Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature Melissa Schilling 2020, Journal of Management Interest in platform competition-where competing firms facilitate interactions between two or more distinct groups of users who are connected via an indirect network-has grown significantly over the past three decades.

  23. Melissa Schilling

    Platform competition: A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature Journal of Management, 47:1528-1563. Kneeland, MK, Schillling, MA & Aharonson, B. (2020) Exploring Uncharted Territory: Knowledge Search Processes in the Origination of Outlier Innovations