IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5331-d804528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value Creation in Platform Enterprises: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Huayong Du

    (School of Management, China West Normal University, Nanchong 637002, China)

  • Ying Teng

    (School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China)

  • Zhenzhong Ma

    (School of Business, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing 211815, China
    Odette School of Business, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada)

  • Xuguang Guo

    (School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China)

Abstract

Platform enterprises have emerged as one of the most popular business models in the era of knowledge economy. The success of platform enterprises relies on continuous value creation by constructing an efficient platform and attracting more users to participate in order to create more value for the users and by the users. This study is to explore the key factors that drive value creation in platform enterprises’ ecosystem to help better understand the management of platform enterprises as the knowledge-based entrepreneurial ventures in emerging markets. This study employs a newly emerged method—a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to empirically analyze the antecedent configurations of value creation for Chinese platform enterprises. This method extends qualitative comparative analysis by integrating fuzzy-sets and fuzzy-logic principles with qualitative comparative analysis principles, which offers a more realistic approach. This paper identifies different configurations for high and non-high levels of value creation in platform enterprises. The results show that continuous user commitment is crucial to creating positive value for Chinese platform enterprises, and active user participation and knowledge sharing as well as platform construction/improvement are the key elements that determine the platform enterprises’ value creation process. The results also demonstrate a hybrid value creation logic with efficiency and innovation in platform enterprises. This study further identifies an asymmetric causality in the Chinese platform enterprises’ value creation process that is crucial for knowledge sharing and effective management of platform enterprises. The findings can shed light on the strategic management of platform enterprises for emerging markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Huayong Du & Ying Teng & Zhenzhong Ma & Xuguang Guo, 2022. "Value Creation in Platform Enterprises: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5331-:d:804528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5331/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5331/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. West, Joel, 2003. "How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1259-1285, July.
    3. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. "Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    4. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    5. Thomas R. Eisenmann & Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2009. "Opening Platforms: How, When and Why?," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Hagiu, Andrei & Jullien, Bruno, 2014. "Search diversion and platform competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 48-60.
    7. Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2018. "Innovation, Openness, and Platform Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3015-3032, July.
    8. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective .- (forthcoming)," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 65692, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    9. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    10. Ma, Zhenzhong & Yu, Mingyang & Gao, Chongyan & Zhou, Jieru & Yang, Zhenning, 2015. "Institutional constraints of product innovation in China: Evidence from international joint ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 949-956.
    11. Henk Kox & Bas Straathof & Gijsbert Zwart, 2017. "Targeted advertising, platform competition, and privacy," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 557-570, September.
    12. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 75001, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    13. Kumar Rakesh Ranjan & Stuart Read, 2016. "Value co-creation: concept and measurement," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 290-315, May.
    14. Jay B. Barney, 2018. "Why resource‐based theory's model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(13), pages 3305-3325, December.
    15. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    16. Birger Wernerfelt, 1984. "A resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 171-180, April.
    17. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    18. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    19. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    20. Yanjie Shang & Haiyun Yu & Zhenzhong Ma, 2020. "Venture Investors’ Monitoring and Product Innovation Performance in Serial Crowdfunding Projects: An Empirical Test," Chinese Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(3), pages 300-314, May.
    21. Zhuoxin Li & Ashish Agarwal, 2017. "Platform Integration and Demand Spillovers in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Facebook’s Integration of Instagram," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3438-3458, October.
    22. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 65705, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    23. Haiyun Yu & Yanjie Shang & Nan Wang & Zhenzhong Ma, 2019. "The Mediating Effect of Decision Quality on Knowledge Management and Firm Performance for Chinese Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-15, July.
    24. Annabelle Gawer & Rebecca Henderson, 2007. "Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 1-34, March.
    25. Jerker. Denrell & Christina. Fang & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "From T-Mazes to Labyrinths: Learning from Model-Based Feedback," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1366-1378, October.
    26. S. Sriram & Puneet Manchanda & Mercedes Bravo & Junhong Chu & Liye Ma & Minjae Song & Scott Shriver & Upender Subramanian, 2015. "Platforms: a multiplicity of research opportunities," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 141-152, June.
    27. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    28. Zhang, Xiang & Chen, Rongqiu, 2008. "Examining the mechanism of the value co-creation with customers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 242-250, December.
    29. Perrons, Robert K., 2009. "The open kimono: How Intel balances trust and power to maintain platform leadership," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1300-1312, October.
    30. Netsanet Haile & Jörn Altmann, 2016. "Structural analysis of value creation in software service platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(2), pages 129-142, May.
    31. Oliver Alexy & Joel West & Helge Klapper & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1704-1727, June.
    32. Andrei Hagiu & Bruno Jullien, 2011. "Why do intermediaries divert search?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(2), pages 337-362, June.
    33. Shaker A. Zahra & Harry J. Sapienza & Per Davidsson, 2006. "Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 917-955, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Nan & Wang, Liya & Ma, Zhenzhong & Wang, Shouyang, 2022. "From knowledge seeking to knowledge contribution: A social capital perspective on knowledge sharing behaviors in online Q&A communities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Wang, Nan & Wan, Jiahao & Ma, Zhenzhong & Zhou, Yan & Chen, Jin, 2023. "How digital platform capabilities improve sustainable innovation performance of firms: The mediating role of open innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jingtao Yi & Jinqiu He & Lihong Yang, 2019. "Platform heterogeneity, platform governance and complementors’ product performance: an empirical study of the mobile application industry," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Mosterd, Lars & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Ding, Aaron Yi & de Reuver, Mark, 2021. "Context dependent trade-offs around platform-to-platform openness: The case of the Internet of Things," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Sebastian Spaeth & Sven Niederhöfer, 2022. "Compatibility promotion between platforms: The role of open technology standards and giant platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1891-1915, December.
    4. Jan Frederic Nerbel & Markus Kreutzer, 2023. "Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Tang, Hua & Chen, Jing & Ai, Xingzheng & Li, Xiaojing & He, Haojia, 2023. "First-party content decision under competitive hardware/software platforms: Free vs. charge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(3), pages 1068-1083.
    6. Fabian Schueler & Dimitri Petrik, 2022. "Objectives of platform research: A co-citation and systematic literature review analysis," Papers 2202.08822, arXiv.org.
    7. Broekhuizen, T.L.J. & Emrich, O. & Gijsenberg, M.J. & Broekhuis, M. & Donkers, B. & Sloot, L.M., 2021. "Digital platform openness: Drivers, dimensions and outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 902-914.
    8. Tavalaei, M. Mahdi, 2020. "Waiting time in two-sided platforms: The case of the airport industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    9. Veile, Johannes W. & Schmidt, Marie-Christin & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2022. "Toward a new era of cooperation: How industrial digital platforms transform business models in Industry 4.0," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 387-405.
    10. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    11. Burcu Tan & Edward G. Anderson, Jr. & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2020. "Platform Pricing and Investment to Drive Third-Party Value Creation in Two-Sided Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 217-239, March.
    12. Jabbour, Chady & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Maurel, Pierre & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2019. "Spatial data infrastructure management: A two-sided market approach for strategic reflections," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 69-82.
    13. Carmelo Cennamo & Hakan Ozalp & Tobias Kretschmer, 2018. "Platform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 461-478, June.
    14. Martin Poniatowski & Hedda Lüttenberg & Daniel Beverungen & Dennis Kundisch, 2022. "Three layers of abstraction: a conceptual framework for theorizing digital multi-sided platforms," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 257-283, June.
    15. Zhu, Weijun & Xie, Jiaping & Xia, Yu & Wei, Lihong & Liang, Ling, 2023. "Getting more third-party participants on board: Optimal pricing and investment decisions in competitive platform ecosystems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(1), pages 177-192.
    16. Benedict Bender, 2020. "The Impact of Integration on Application Success and Customer Satisfaction in Mobile Device Platforms," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(6), pages 515-533, December.
    17. Pinar Ozcan & Filipe M. Santos, 2015. "The market that never was: Turf wars and failed alliances in mobile payments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1486-1512, October.
    18. Simon P. Anderson & Bruno Jullien, 2015. "The advertising-financed business model in two-sided media markets," Post-Print hal-02866192, HAL.
    19. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    20. Liu, He & Li, Xuerong & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of platform research: Developing the research agenda for platforms, the associated technologies and social impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5331-:d:804528. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.