Transforming Organizational Resource into Platform boundary Resources

The emergence of digital platforms shifts the locus of innovation from firms to ecosystems. This shift deprives product-developing firms of established control mechanisms and calls for new alternatives. Existing literature argues that platform owners have to empower ecosystems, while respecting the autonomy of members. This point to a contradiction; platform owners and third-party developers are interdependent, yet, at the same time, fundamentally detached. Contemporary research suggests that we may address this contradiction through the concept of boundary resources. Serving as the interface for arm’s length relationships, boundary resources are shaped in the interplay between platform owners and application developer. However, we have found that they are also formed in a continuous negotiation with existing firm assets. Therefore, in this research we ask how product-developing firms transform internal resources into platform boundary resources. We conducted a case study of a digital platform initiative at Volvo Group, a global truck manufacturer. Drawing on the concept of tuning, we studied Volvo’s practices in shaping boundary resources within and across multiple organizational and technological contexts. We found that resource transformation may leave firms in limbo; exposing an asset as a platform boundary resource tends to destroy its value as an internal organizational resource.

[1]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  The Tables Have Turned: How Can the Information Systems Field Contribute to Technology and Innovation Management Research? , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution , 2009, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Ola Henfridsson,et al.  The Dual Regimes of Digital Innovation Management , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  A. Gawer Platforms, Markets and Innovation , 2011 .

[5]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Evolutionary Competition in Platform Ecosystems , 2015, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[7]  Helge Godoe Innovation regimes, R&D and radical innovations in telecommunications , 2000 .

[8]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[9]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Boundary Objects in Design: An Ecological View of Design Artifacts , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Ola Henfridsson,et al.  Balancing platform control and external contribution in third‐party development: the boundary resources model , 2013, Inf. Syst. J..

[11]  J. Holmström,et al.  Managing research and innovation networks: Evidence from a government sponsored cross-industry program , 2014 .

[12]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View , 2008 .

[13]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Research Commentary - The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Distributed Tuning of Boundary Resources: The Case of Apple's iOS Service System , 2015, MIS Q..

[15]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Sequencing Design DNA: a Set of Methodological Artifacts for sequencing Socio-Technical Design Routines , 2010, ICIS.

[16]  Lisen Selander,et al.  Capability search and redeem across digital ecosystems , 2013, J. Inf. Technol..

[17]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  The Next Wave of Digital Innovation: Opportunities and Challenges: A Report on the Research Workshop 'Digital Challenges in Innovation Research' , 2010 .

[18]  P. Williamson,et al.  Ecosystem Advantage: How to Successfully Harness the Power of Partners , 2012 .

[19]  Melissa A. Schilling Strategic Management of Technological Innovation , 2004 .

[20]  Mary Tripsas,et al.  Technology, Identity, and Inertia through the Lens of 'The Digital Photography Company' , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[21]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Managing technological change in the digital age: the role of architectural frames , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[22]  Yochai Benkler,et al.  Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm , 2001, ArXiv.

[23]  Arvind Parkhe,et al.  Orchestrating Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[24]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[25]  Thomas Hess,et al.  How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[26]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[27]  Dov Te'eni,et al.  From generative fit to generative capacity: exploring an emerging dimension of information systems design and task performance , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[28]  A. Pickering The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[29]  Ralph Katz,et al.  Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[30]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy , 2013 .

[31]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[32]  Carmelo Cennamo,et al.  Platform competition: Strategic trade‐offs in platform markets , 2013 .

[33]  J. Barney Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[34]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Distributed Innovation in Classes of Networks , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[35]  David J. Teece,et al.  The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Perspectives on Alfred Chandler's Scale and Scope , 1993 .

[36]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The impact of openness on the market potential of multi-sided platforms: a case study of mobile payment platforms , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[37]  Mohanbir Sawhney,et al.  Orchestration Processes in Network-Centric Innovation: Evidence From the Field , 2011 .

[38]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies , 2011, MIS Q..