Shifting to the Cloud - How SAP's Partners Cope with the Change

With the advance of cloud technology, enterprise software vendors have introduced software platforms to facilitate third-party contributions to their ecosystems. This shift towards cloud-based software platforms af-fects ecosystem partners who have to adopt the new technologies, rethink their business model, and change their sales strategies. To understand how partners cope with this change, we conducted an exploratory case study within SAP’s partner ecosystem after the intro-duction of a cloud-based software platform. By conduct-ing 14 interviews within SAP and 10 partner companies, we identify three distinct coping strategies that partners adopt in the face of the shift to the cloud. Partners either (1) embrace, (2) slow down, or (3) repurpose the change. SAP in turn engages in mediation actions to in-crease the adoption of its platform and to alleviate pos-sible negative impacts of the coping strategies. These mediation actions contribute to a continuous adjustment of SAP platform strategy. These findings contribute to literature on platform ecosystems by (1) highlighting that partners react differently to change in the ecosys-tem and by (2) shedding light on the interactions be-tween platform owner and partners in the development of a platform strategy.

[1]  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..

[2]  Dominik Dellermann,et al.  Understanding Platform Loyalty in the Cloud: A Configurational View on ISV's Costs and Benefits , 2017, Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[3]  Jaeki Song,et al.  Mobile Application Development Platform Adoption: A Grounded Theory Investigation , 2013, AMCIS.

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

[5]  Jörn Altmann,et al.  Role of Platform Providers in Service Networks: The Case of Salesforce.com App Exchange , 2014, 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on Business Informatics.

[6]  Jens Dibbern,et al.  Why Do Complementors Participate? An Analysis of Partnership Networks in the Enterprise Software Industry , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

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

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

[9]  Geoffrey G. Parker,et al.  Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[10]  Arun Rai,et al.  Research Commentary - Information Technology-Enabled Business Models: A Conceptual Framework and a Coevolution Perspective for Future Research , 2014, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Alexander Benlian,et al.  Software-as-a-Service : Anbieterstrategien, Kundenbedürfnisse und Wertschöpfungsstrukturen , 2010 .

[12]  Niels Bjørn-Andersen,et al.  Exploring Value Cocreation in Relationships Between an ERP Vendor and its Partners: A Revelatory Case Study , 2012, MIS Q..

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

[14]  Felix B. Tan,et al.  Sustaining the Momentum: Archival Analysis of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (2006-2012) , 2014, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Thomas L. Huber,et al.  The Interplay of Power and Trust in Platform Ecosystems of the Enterprise Application Software Industry , 2014, ECIS.

[16]  C. Urquhart Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide , 2012 .

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

[18]  Helmut Krcmar,et al.  Grounded Theory Methodology in Information Systems Research , 2017, MIS Q..

[19]  Thomas L. Huber,et al.  Governance Practices in Platform Ecosystems: Navigating Tensions Between Cocreated Value and Governance Costs , 2017, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  Helmut Krcmar,et al.  Governing Platforms in the Internet of Things , 2017, ICSOB.

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

[22]  Maximilian Schreieck,et al.  How established Companies Leverage IT Platforms for Value Co-Creation - Insights from Banking , 2017, ECIS.

[23]  Helmut Krcmar,et al.  The Platform Owner’s Challenge to Capture Value – Insights from a Business-to-Business IT Platform , 2017, ICIS 2017.

[24]  Peng Huang,et al.  When Do ISVs Join a Platform Ecosystem? Evidence from the Enterprise Software Industry , 2009, ICIS.

[25]  Cathy Urquhart,et al.  Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[26]  Severin V. Grabski,et al.  A Review of ERP Research: A Future Agenda for Accounting Information Systems , 2011, J. Inf. Syst..

[27]  DYNAMICS OF PLATFORM-BASED NETWORKS DURING ARCHITECTURAL SHIFTS IN VIDEO GAMES: THEORY AND EVIDENCE , 2013 .

[28]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory : Strategien qualitativer Forschung , 2006 .

[29]  Helmut Krcmar,et al.  Design and Governance of Platform Ecosystems - Key Concepts and Issues for Future Research , 2016, ECIS.

[30]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Preparing for the Future: Understanding the Seven Capabilities of Cloud Computing , 2010, MIS Q. Executive.

[31]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Change and Control Paradoxes in Mobile Infrastructure Innovation: The Android and iOS Mobile Operating Systems Cases , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[32]  Kai Fischbach,et al.  Software Ecosystem Orchestration: The Perspective of Complementors , 2014, AMCIS.

[33]  Armin Heinzl,et al.  Knowledge boundaries in enterprise software platform development: Antecedents and consequences for platform governance , 2019, Inf. Syst. J..

[34]  Rüdiger Zarnekow,et al.  An Expert View on the Role of Complementary Assets for the Adoption of Smart Home Platforms , 2015, PACIS.