Value Creation Tradeoff in Business Ecosystems: Leveraging Complementarities While Managing Interdependencies

References

• Adner R (2017) Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. J. Management 43(1):39–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adner R, Kapoor R (2010) Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management J. 31(3):306–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adner R, Kapoor R (2016) Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management J. 37(4):625–648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adner R, Lieberman M (2021) Disruption through complements. Strategy Sci. 6(1):91–109.Link, Google Scholar
• Adner R, Puranam P, Zhu F (2020) What is different about digital strategy? From quantitative to qualitative change. Strategy Sci. 4(4):253–261.Link, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Shah SK (2014) Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Res. Policy 43(7):1109–1133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison PD (1996) Fixed-effects partial likelihood for repeated events. Sociol. Methods Res. 25(2):207–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison PD (2010) Survival Analysis Using SAS: A Practical Guide (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).Google Scholar
• Allison PD, Waterman RP (2002) Fixed–effects negative binomial regression models. Sociol. Methodology 32(1):247–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke JS (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS, Zenger TR (2012) Capabilities, transaction costs, and firm boundaries. Organ. Sci. 23(6):1643–1657.Link, Google Scholar
• Argyres N, Mahoney JT, Nickerson J (2019) Strategic responses to shocks: Comparative adjustment costs, transaction costs, and opportunity costs. Strategic Management J. 40(3):357–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Ceccagnoli M (2006) Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Management Sci. 52(2):293–308.Link, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY (2020a) Design rules, volume 2: How technology shapes organizations: Chapter 5 complementarity. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY (2020b) Design rules, volume 2: How technology shapes organizations: Chapter 6 the value structure of technologies, part 1: Mapping functional relationships. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY (2020c) Design rules, volume 2: How technology shapes organizations: Chapter 14 introducing open platforms and business ecosystems. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, vol. 1 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C, Hienerth C, Von Hippel E (2006) How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Res. Policy 35(9):1291–1313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C, MacCormack A, Rusnak J (2014) Hidden structure: Using network methods to map system architecture. Res. Policy 43(8):1381–1397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Woodard CJ (2009) The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Platforms, Markets and Innovation 32:19–44.Google Scholar
• Blossfeld HP (2001) Techniques of Event History Modeling: New Approaches to Casual Analysis (Psychology Press, East Sussex, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boehm B, Abts C, Chulani S (2000) Software development cost estimation approaches—A survey. Ann. Software Engrg. 10(1-4):177–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ (2018) Amateurs crowds & professional entrepreneurs as platform complementors. NBER Working Paper No. 24512, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Bourgeois LJ, Eisenhardt KM (1987) Strategic decision processes in Silicon Valley: The anatomy of a Living Dead. California Management Rev. 30(1):143–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresnahan T, Gambardella A (1998) The division of inventive labor and the extent of the market. Helpman E, ed. General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 253–281.Google Scholar
• Bresnahan TF, Trajtenberg M (1995) General purpose technologies ‘Engines of growth’? J. Econometrics 65(1):83–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burford N, Shipilov A, Furr N (2020) Indirect interdependence: How ecosystem structure affects firms’ adaptation to environmental changes. INSEAD Working paper, Fontainebleau, France.Google Scholar
• Ceccagnoli M (2009) Appropriability, preemption, and firm performance. Strategic Management J. 30(1):81–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ceccagnoli M, Forman C, Huang P, Wu DJ (2012) Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 36(1):263–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cennamo C, Ozalp H, Kretschmer T (2018) Platform architecture and quality trade-offs of multihoming complements. Inform. Systems Res. 29(2):461–478.Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Cox DR (1975) Partial likelihood. Biometrika. 62(2):269–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis JP, Yin P, Chhabra Y (2016) Experimentation strategies and entrepreneurial innovation: Parallel and sequential innovation in the iPhone App ecosystem. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Delgado H (2017) The App Economy Forecast: $6 Trillion in New Value (App Annie).Google Scholar
• Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Sci. 35(12):1504–1511.Google Scholar
• Dogtiev A (2017) App Revenues 2017. Accessed September 8, 2017, http://www.businessofapps.com/app-revenue-statistics/.Google Scholar
• Enright AJ, Van Dongen S, Ouzounis CA (2002) An efficient algorithm for large-scale detection of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 30(7):1575–1584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK (2007) Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. Strategic Management J. 28(6):563–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Heaton S, Novelli E, Teece DJ (2021) Profiting from enabling technologies? Strategy Sci. 6(1):75–90.Link, Google Scholar
• Ganco M, Kapoor R, Lee GK (2020) From rugged landscapes to rugged ecosystems: Structure of interdependencies and firms’ innovative search. Acad. Management Rev. 45(3):646–674.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res. Policy 32(2):333–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A, Cusumano MA (2002) Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Grambsch PM, Therneau TM (1994) Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika. 81(3):515–526.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH (2004) Innovation and Diffusion (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannah DP, Eisenhardt KM (2018) How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management J. 39(12):3163–3192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE (1997) Know‐how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management J. 18(5):339–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Eisenhardt KM (2004) Inter‐temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management J. 25(13):1217–1232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):9–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyer B, Subramaniam M (2015) The strategic value of APIs. Harvard Bus. Rev. 1(7).Google Scholar
• Jacobides MG, Cennamo C, Gawer A (2018) Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management J. 39(8):2255–2276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapoor R (2018) Ecosystems: Broadening the locus of value creation. J. Organ. Design 7(1):12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapoor R, Agarwal S (2017) Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and Android smartphone ecosystems. Organ. Sci. 28(3):531–551.Link, Google Scholar
• Kapoor R, Furr NR (2015) Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants’ technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry. Strategic Management J. 36(3):416–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang HY, Suarez FF (2020) Intra-platform envelopment: The coopetitive dynamics between platform owners and platform complementors. Working paper, Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY.Google Scholar
• Kennedy P (2008) A Guide to Econometrics, 2nd ed. (Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Landauer TK, Foltz PW, Laham D (1998) An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process 25(2–3):259–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee JM, Kapoor R (2017) Complementarities and coordination: Implications for governance mode and performance of multiproduct firms. Organ. Sci. 28(5):931–946.Link, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Sci. 43(7):934–950.Link, Google Scholar
• Leiponen AE (2008) Competing through cooperation: The organization of standard setting in wireless telecommunications. Management Sci. 54(11):1904–1919.Google Scholar
• Mixpanel (2017) iOS 10 adoption. Accessed September 8, 2017, https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/ios_10.Google Scholar
• Mowery DC, Rosenberg N (1981) Technical change in the commercial aircraft industry, 1925–1975. Tech. Forecasting Soc. Change 20(4):347–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murmann JP, Frenken K (2006) Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Res. Policy 35(7):925–952.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Penrose LS (1959) Self-reproducing machines. Sci. Amer. 200(6):105–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rietveld J, Schilling MA, Bellavitis C (2019) Platform strategy: Managing ecosystem value through selective promotion of complements. Organ. Sci. 30(6):1232–1251.Google Scholar
• Rivkin JW (2000) Imitation of complex strategies. Management Sci. 46(6):824–844.Link, Google Scholar
• Rogers EM (2003) Elements of diffusion. Diffusion Innovations 5:1–38Google Scholar
• Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT (2001) Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management J. 22(6‐7):687–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT, Hill CW (2005) Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance. Organ. Sci. 16(1):52–70.Link, Google Scholar
• Salton G, Buckley C (1988) Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Inform. Processing Management 24(5):513–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Semadeni M, Withers MC, Certo ST (2014) The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic Management J. 35(7):1070–1079.Crossref, Google Scholar
• SensorTower (2016) 94% of U.S. app store revenue comes from the top 1% of monetizing publishers. Accessed July 30, 2016, https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-one-percent?platform=hootsuite.Google Scholar
• Shah SK, Tripsas M (2007) The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurial J. 1(1–2):123–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc. 106:467–482.Google Scholar
• Snihur Y, Zott C, Amit R (2021) Managing the value appropriation dilemma in business model innovation. Strategy Sci. 26(1):22–38.Link, Google Scholar
• Stock JH, Yogo M (2002) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Working paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15(6):285–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (2006) Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Res. Policy 35(8):1131–1146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (2018a) Enabling Technology, Social Returns to Innovation, and Antitrust: The Tragedy of Depressed Royalties (CPI Antitrust Chronicle).Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (2018b) Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Res. Policy 47(8):1367–1387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tidhar R, Eisenhardt KM (2020) Get rich or die trying… finding revenue model fit using machine learning and multiple cases. Strategic Management J. 41(7):1245–1273.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M (1997) Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management J. 18(S1):119–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vermeulen F, Barkema H (2002) Pace, rhythm, and scope: Process dependence in building a profitable multinational corporation. Strategic Management J. 23(7):637–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Li B, Singh PV (2018) Copycats vs. original mobile apps: A machine learning copycat-detection method and empirical analysis. Inform. Systems Res. 29(2):273–291.Link, Google Scholar