Publication VI

Publication VI develops a conceptual model of the sources of architectural advantage. The model is based on the definition of architectural advantage by Jacobides et al. (2006) and adopted by Ferraro and Gurses (2009): a position of advantage in the industry that provides firms with the ability to change the stable but evolving rules and roles, which shape the division of labour and surplus between different types of participants in an industry’s value chain in terms of high levels of value appropriation without the need to engage in vertical integration. It builds upon the literature on industry architecture, industrial organization and information systems. Publication VI focuses on firms employing a hub position in the context of the study (platforms in multi‐sided markets). In terms of the dissertation entity, publication VI paves the way and creates a pre‐understanding of the full variety of structural dimensions which influence the variation in the architecture. However, it is noteworthy to mention the following differences between the proposed model in publication VI and the proposed model of the whole dissertation. The focus of the conceptual model of publication VI is on how the particular actor can leverage the suggested sources to change the architecture in order to appropriate more value (excluding the analysis on the influence on value creation), thus setting the unit of analysis at the firm‐level (and not employing the ecosystem‐level perspective).

Main findings and contribution

Publication VI paves the way to the proposed model of the dissertation entity by creating a pre‐

understanding of the structural properties of ecosystem architecture and their implications for value creation and appropriation, complementing the established actor‐structure duality of publication V. In publication VI, the identified sources of architectural advantage in multi‐sided markets include complementarity, asset mobility, homing, positive network effects (direct and indirect), negative congestion externalities, bargaining power, switching costs (and lock‐in), and bottleneck position. In addition, these sources of architectural advantage were proposed to have links to competition between platforms and industry life cycle phase.

Table 5 offers a summary of the publications. Each publication has a contribution per se to the specific theoretical tradition it builds upon. Further, as the dissertation is an aggregate of publications, each publication has a contribution to the dissertation entity. The contribution of the dissertation itself is discussed in the next chapter.

Table5:Summaryofthepublications PUBLICATIONIPUBLICATIONIIPUBLICATIONIIIPUBLICATIONIVPUBLICATIONVPUBLICATIONVI TypeofpaperConceptual ConceptualQualitativeQualitative QuantitativeConceptual Research question(s)or thepurposeof thepaper

Q1: What possibilities and challenges does the two‐ sided application market bring to an intermediary? Q2: How do the possibilities and challenges influence the market dynamics?

Q1: How can value be co‐ created in different delivery channel choices?

Q1: What is the role of initiativetaking from different actors in a business ecosystem in the development of offerings?

The purpose is to develop a concept of a partnership business model and to examine its usability in an exploratory casestudy related to the IMS service development platform and collaboration between an operator and its partners.

The purpose is to examine different market entry timings and a range of strategic decisions in competition between ecosystems.

Q1: How do platform owners create and sustain architectural advantage in multi‐sided markets? Theoretical backgroundLiterature ontwo and multi‐sidedplatform‐ based markets.

Literature onbusiness models, value co‐creation, and two and multi‐sided platform‐based markets.

Literatureon management and governance of innovation network,business ecosystem, co‐evolution and first‐mover advantage (paralleled with initiative taking).

Literature onbusiness models and inter‐ organizational relationships (focusing especially on complementary resources as a rationale and structural determinant) Literature ontwo and multi‐sidedplatform‐ based markets and first‐ mover advantage

Literature ontwo and multi‐sidedplatform based markets, business ecosystems and industry architecture MainfindingsF1: Ecosystem architecture can vary within the same industry and thesuggested dimensions of variations include complementarity, asset mobility, and membership criteria. F2: Managing innovation leverage by standardizing a technological interface could increase asset mobility.

F1: Ecosystem architecture can vary in terms of complementarity and stratification, which can influence the nature of interdependence and value co‐creation possibilities between the hub firm and the complementors.

F1: In an ecosystem, there is a need for a hub firm to lead the development (i.e., market creation or the development of a new product) as a whole.

F2:

Further, there is a need for several different actors to take the initiative (i.e., occupy the hub position) at the right time and atthe right place.

F1: The complementary resources include information about the customers, marketing and distribution resources to achieve the critical mass of customers, easy‐to‐use technological interfaces for complementors to create complementing products or services, technical support (technical documentation, reports and test results) and the creation of test and development environment.

F1: Quality of the platform is positively related to the relative performance of the follower platforms. F2: Low customer price as early as possible provides the best results for the follower platform.

F1: Thearchitectural advantage model incorporates the following sources: complementarity, asset mobility, homing, positive network effects (direct and indirect), negative congestion externalities, bargaining power, switching costs (and lock‐ in), and bottleneck position.

48

Table5:Summaryofthepublications(continued) ConclusionsC1: Dimensions of variation represent the structural properties of the design of ecosystem architecture. C2:Thestructural properties could be managed for example with orchestration processes.

C1:The taxonomyof ecosystem architecture based on the dimensions ofcomplementarity and stratification.

C1: The consideration of strategic actions (i.e., takinginitiative, becoming a hub or orchestrating) in networksor ecosystems should gobeyond the boundaries of a single organizationand its closest partner network and an ecosystem‐level analysis should be employed with multi‐ actor perspective.

C1: Complementarity is a dimension of the structural template (i.e., business model or ecosystem architecture) which defines how the transactions between a focal firm and the complementorsare organized. C2: The nature and extent ofcomplementary resources aredecision‐ making criteria for the complementorwhen deciding which ecosystem to join and which hub to complement.

C1: Asymmetric pricing in regard to different ecosystem members is of importance; price optimization is a more effective strategic action than the creation of switching costs.

C1: Theproposed architectural advantage model suggests that there are structural properties which can be used and leveraged to change the architecture in order for the focal firm to appropriate more value. Contributionto thedissertation entity

Publication I locates the research problem, creates a pre‐understanding of the structural properties of ecosystem architecture and sets out relevant directions for future studies andtheory developed.

Based on publicationI, publication II extends the comparative analysis to taxonomywith the dimension of complementarity and stratification.

PublicationIII brings attention tothe management and governanceof the innovation network to analyze multi‐actor collaboration at the ecosystem level to complement the pre‐ understanding on structural properties created in publications I and II PublicationIVprovides an in‐depth examination of complementarity as a property of the structural template defining multi‐ actor collaboration.

Publication V focuses on how central actors can turn the position ina structure intoan advantage (i.e., increase in value appropriation and relative performance) thus moving beyond the structural discussionon ecosystem level.

Publication VIcreatesa pre‐understanding of the full variety of structural dimensionswhich influence the variation in the architecture and further value creation and appropriation.