Creating urban platforms — Opportunities and challenges for innovation in commercial real estate development

Abstract Current theories on commercial urban development are dominated by the concept of linearity, which does not adequately take into account the demands of adaptation posed by the pace of change in digital developments, a pace that stands in marked contrast to the pace of change in physical developments. In the hi-tech sector, platform ecosystems have been employed to accommodate innovation and change. This paper explores the potential application of platform ecosystem theory to the commercial urban development process, where there is now great uncertainty regarding the future economic implications and societal requirements of physical commercial space. The boundary conditions for value creation in platform ecosystems are as follows: modularity, standardisation, complementarity and connectivity. Each is explored through a survey of key actors in recently completed commercial urban developments. The analysis identifies significant differences in the capacity of public- and private-sector actors to promote the creation of platform ecosystems, particularly in the complementary actions of development participants. Applying an approach to urban development based on a platform ecosystem might offer great opportunities, but will also be limited by the major challenges identified in this paper.

[1]  Tzu-Chuan Chou,et al.  Understanding the roles of business ecosystems in large public IT infrastructure project development: The case of M-Taipei , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[2]  Soumaya Ben Letaifa.  The uneasy transition from supply chains to ecosystems: The value-creation/value-capture dilemma , 2014 .

[3]  J. Innes,et al.  Planning with Complexity : An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy , 2018 .

[4]  J. F. Moore,et al.  Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. , 1993, Harvard business review.

[5]  Ron Adner,et al.  Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance in New Technology Generations , 2009 .

[6]  E. Juenke.  Management Tenure and Network Time: How Experience Affects Bureaucratic Dynamics , 2005 .

[7]  Nuno Gil,et al.  On the value of project safeguards: Embedding real options in complex products and systems , 2007 .

[8]  H. Lind,et al.  Service‐led construction: is it really the future? , 2010 .

[9]  Chander K. Velu,et al.  Working Paper Series 4 / 2010 Thriving in Open Innovation Ecosystems : Toward a Collaborative Market Orientation , 2010 .

[10]  D. Teece.  TRANSACTIONS COST ECONOMICS AND THE MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE An Assessment , 1986 .

[11]  Clyde B. Tatum,et al.  Major characteristics of constructed products and resulting limitations of construction technology , 1988 .

[12]  N. Carbonara,et al.  Real option theory for risk mitigation in transport PPPs , 2013 .

[13]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  Sustainable urban development calls for responsibility through life cycle management , 2015 .

[14]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Option Value of Modularity in Design , 2002 .

[15]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  The effects of boundary spanners on trust and performance of urban governance networks: findings from survey research on urban development projects in the Netherlands , 2012 .

[16]  E. Klijn,et al.  Public Management and Policy Networks: Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance , 2020, Making Policy Happen.

[17]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  Applicability and benefits of the ecosystem concept in the construction industry , 2016 .

[18]  D. Teece.  Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance , 2007 .

[19]  É. D’Arcy,et al.  The Market Context of Property Development Activity , 2008 .

[20]  O. Williamson.  Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations , 1979, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[21]  Melissa A. Schilling.  Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity , 2000 .

[22]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[23]  Andrew Davies,et al.  Creating value by delivering integrated solutions , 2005 .

[24]  M. Jacobides,et al.  Benefiting from Innovation: Value Creation, Value Appropriation and the Role of Industry Architectures , 2006 .

[25]  Yan-Ru Li,et al.  The technological roadmap of Cisco's business ecosystem , 2009 .

[26]  Timothy F. Bresnahan,et al.  Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry , 2003 .

[27]  Patsy Healey,et al.  Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society , 1998 .

[28]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[29]  P. Newman,et al.  Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition, National Systems and Planning Projects , 1996 .

[30]  Allan Afuah,et al.  Does a focal firm's technology entry timing depend on the impact of the technology on co-opetitors? , 2004 .

[31]  A. Gawer,et al.  How Companies Become Platform Leaders , 2008 .

[32]  M.A. Cusumano,et al.  The elements of platform leadership , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[33]  B. Quélin,et al.  Creating and Capturing Value in Public-Private Ties: A Private Actor's Perspective , 2011 .

[34]  Christoph Knill,et al.  European Policies: The Impact of National Administrative Traditions , 1998, Journal of Public Policy.

[35]  Paul D Jeanne Ellis Ormrod Leedy,et al.  Practical Research: Planning and Design , 1974 .

[36]  Joe Doak,et al.  (Re)development, Complexity and Networks: A Framework for Research , 2007 .

[37]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  Theory of valuing building life-cycle investments , 2016 .

[38]  M. Hodson,et al.  Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? , 2010 .

[39]  Willem Salet,et al.  Dilemmas of planning: Intervention, regulation, and investment , 2015 .

[40]  Alistair G.F. Gibb,et al.  Reconciling construction innovation and standardisation on major projects , 2004 .

[41]  K. Frenken,et al.  Evolution in city centre retailing: the case of Utrecht (1974‐2003) , 2005 .

[42]  Robin S. de Graaf,et al.  Applying the lessons of strategic urban planning learned in the developing world to the Netherlands: a case study of three industrial area development projects , 2010 .

[43]  Lars-Erik Gadde,et al.  Supply strategy and network effects — purchasing behaviour in the construction industry , 2000 .

[44]  Erik-Hans Klijn,et al.  Institutional and Strategic Barriers to Public-Private Partnership: , 2007 .

[45]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems , 1999 .

[46]  L. Koskela.  Is structural change the primary solution to the problems of construction? , 2003 .

[47]  M. Hellström.  Solution business models based on functional modularity – the case of complex capital goods , 2014 .

[48]  Ashley A. Bush,et al.  Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics , 2010 .

[49]  R. Langlois,et al.  Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries , 1992 .

[50]  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..

[51]  R. Munton,et al.  Development and the Landowner: An Analysis of the British Experience , 1985 .

[52]  Stan Majoor,et al.  Innovative Practices in Large Urban Development Projects: Conflicting Frames in the Quest for “New Urbanity” , 2007 .

[53]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm , 2011 .

[54]  Stephen Kendall,et al.  Open Building: An Approach to Sustainable Architecture , 1999 .

[55]  Sonja Deppisch,et al.  Resilience in the Light of Climate Change: Useful Approach or Empty Phrase for Spatial Planning? , 2013 .

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

[57]  Simon Guy,et al.  Conclusions: Interpreting Development , 2008 .

[58]  L. Kosmin Langford,et al.  Platform leadership: how Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation [Book Review] , 2003 .

[59]  E. Klijn,et al.  Explaining the Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks , 2011 .

[60]  Alistair G.F. Gibb,et al.  Standardization and pre-assembly- distinguishing myth from reality using case study research , 2001 .

[61]  A. Davies.  Moving base into high-value integrated solutions: a value stream approach , 2004 .

[62]  Edward Trevillion,et al.  Systems theory and the commercial development process : towards an understanding of complex behaviour and change , 2001 .

[63]  M. Ball.  Institutions in British Property Research: A Review , 1998 .

[64]  Y. Rydin.  Planning and the Technological Society: Discussing the London Plan , 2010 .

[65]  Johannes T. Voordijk,et al.  The concept of modularity in supply chains : A multiple case-study in the construction industry , 2006 .

[66]  N. Luhmann.  Political Theory In The Welfare State , 1990 .

[67]  Matti Kuronen.  The role of partnerships in sustainable urban residential development , 2011 .

[68]  T. Das,et al.  Trust, Control, and Risk in Strategic Alliances: An Integrated Framework , 2001 .

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

[70]  E. Vuori,et al.  Business Ecosystem as the New Approach to Complex Adaptive Business Environments , 2008 .

[71]  Vassilis Agouridas,et al.  Value creation and capture mechanisms in innovation ecosystems: a comparative case study , 2013, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[72]  Will French,et al.  A low-carbon future: Spatial planning's role in enhancing technological innovation in the built environment , 2008 .

[73]  R. Mäntysalo.  Learning from the UK: Towards Market-oriented Land-use Planning in Finland , 1999 .

[74]  S. Brusoni,et al.  Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations , 2001 .

[75]  C. Webster.  The Donald Robertson Memorial Prizewinner 2003 The Nature of the Neighbourhood , 2003 .

[76]  Mark J. Eppli,et al.  Real Estate Development: Principles and Process , 1991 .

[77]  D. Harvey.  From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism , 1989 .

[78]  Andrew Davies,et al.  Can integrated solutions business models work in construction? , 2005 .

[79]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  How central business district developments facilitate environmental sustainability A multiple case study in Finland , 2014 .

[80]  Simon Guy,et al.  Property in a Global-risk Society: Towards Marketing Research in the Office Sector , 1997 .

[81]  P. Syms.  Land, Development and Design , 2002 .

[82]  Graham Winch,et al.  Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding the management of innovation in construction , 1998 .

[83]  Scott Fernie,et al.  Change in construction: a critical perspective , 2006 .

[84]  Ilari Aho,et al.  Value-added business models: linking professionalism and delivery of sustainability , 2013 .

[85]  Lamar Pierce.  Big Losses in Ecosystem Niches: How Core Firm Decisions Drive Complementary Product Shakeouts , 2009 .

[86]  M. Iansiti,et al.  Keynotes and Dominators: Framing Operating and Technology Strategy in a Business Ecosystem , 2002 .

[87]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  END-USER ORIENTED PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY , 2008 .

[88]  J. Ross,et al.  Beyond the Business Case: New Approaches to IT Investment , 2002 .

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

[90]  Patsy Healey,et al.  Models of the development process: A review , 1991 .

[91]  M. Ball,et al.  Urban Change and Conflict: Evaluating the Role of Partnerships in Urban Regeneration in the UK , 2005 .

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