Platform Overthrow: uncovering the critical role of functional extension and generic technology [Allier extension fonctionnelle et généricité technique pour renverser une plateforme]

Can a platform leader be challenged and loose its architectural control over its innovation ecosystem? The question seems absurd since theoretical works on modularity and multi-sided markets depict platform competitive landscapes as controlled by a hegemonic platform leader. However, platform history chronicles several cases of leadership shifts for the benefit of firms formerly providing complementary innovations. We coined these situations " platform overthrows ". To bridge the gap between classical optimization models and empirical evidences of platform overthrow, we rely on a design-theory-based model (Legrand et al. 2017) of platform dynamics to generate testable hypothesis. We then test them with a sample of 22 empirical cases of attempts of platform overthrow. Our results indicate that platform overthrows are always built by a challenger that introduces a new functional range in the ecosystem. However, the efforts of the challenger can be ruined if the technology of the platform leader is easily adaptable to the new functional range. Otherwise, the challenger can overthrow its platform leader if it succeeds in designing a technology that can address both the former and the new functions. We conclude by highlighting how studying both technological and functional evolutions can provide a thorough understanding of platform ecosystem dynamics.

[1]  Michael A. Cusumano,et al.  Platform Leadership How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation , 2002 .

[2]  Annabelle Gawer,et al.  What Drives Shifts in Platform Boundaries? An Organizational Perspective , 2015 .

[3]  Mark de Reuver,et al.  The digital platform: a research agenda , 2018, J. Inf. Technol..

[4]  Martin Kenney,et al.  Structuring the Smartphone Industry: Is the Mobile Internet OS Platform the Key? , 2011 .

[5]  Robert K. Perrons,et al.  The open kimono: How Intel balances trust and power to maintain platform leadership , 2009 .

[6]  Offer Shai,et al.  Infused design. I. Theory , 2004 .

[7]  Kevin J. Boudreau,et al.  Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom? An Early Look at Large Numbers of Software 'Apps' Developers and Patterns of Innovation , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[8]  Peng Huang,et al.  Co-Creation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software , 2011, MIS Q..

[9]  Marc Steinberg,et al.  A Genesis of the Platform Concept: i-mode and Platform Theory in Japan , 2017 .

[10]  David Gann,et al.  Architectural Leverage: Putting Platforms in Context , 2014 .

[11]  Violina P. Rindova,et al.  Partnering portfolios, value-creation logics, and growth trajectories: A comparison of Yahoo and Google (1995 to 2007) , 2012 .

[12]  Rodrigo Kazuo Ikenami,et al.  Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends , 2016, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[13]  Fernando F. Suarez,et al.  Dethroning an Established Platform , 2012 .

[14]  A. Gawer,et al.  Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel , 2005 .

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

[16]  Andrei Hagiu,et al.  Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries , 2016 .

[17]  A. Gawer,et al.  Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation , 2013 .

[18]  David S. Evans,et al.  Failure to Launch: Critical Mass in Platform Businesses , 2010 .

[19]  Thomas R. Eisenmann,et al.  Platform Envelopment , 2010 .

[20]  D. McIntyre,et al.  Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps , 2017 .

[21]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Model-based Approaches to Managing Concurrent Engineering , 1991 .

[22]  G. Kaa,et al.  Platform control during battles for market dominance: The case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry , 2016 .

[23]  Benoit Weil,et al.  Rise And Fall Of Platforms: Systematic Analysis Of Platform Dynamics Thanks To Axiomatic Design , 2017 .

[24]  Andrei Hagiu Two-Sided Platforms: Product Variety and Pricing Structures , 2009 .

[25]  Fb Timothy,et al.  General Purpose Technologies:Engines of Growth? Journal of Econometrics, . , 1995 .

[26]  Olga Kokshagina,et al.  Platform emergence in double unknown: Common challenge strategy , 2012 .

[27]  Andrei Hagiu,et al.  Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators , 2008 .

[28]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  A NEW APPROACH OF INNOVATIVE DESIGN : AN INTRODUCTION TO C-K THEORY. , 2003 .

[29]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Modularity in the Design of Complex Engineering Systems , 2006 .

[30]  J. Rochet,et al.  Platform competition in two sided markets , 2003 .

[31]  David Wood,et al.  Evolving an Open Ecosystem: The Rise and Fall of the Symbian Platform , 2014 .

[32]  A. Gawer Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework , 2014 .

[33]  Michael A. Cusumano The platform leader's dilemma , 2011, CACM.

[34]  Nam P. Suh Development of the science base for the manufacturing field through the axiomatic approach , 1984 .

[35]  Kevin J. Boudreau,et al.  Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[36]  R. Garud,et al.  The Disruptor’s Dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. Television Ecosystem , 2015 .

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