IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v33y2023i1d10.1007_s12525-023-00651-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boundary resource management in innovation ecosystems: The case of e-commerce

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Wulfert

    (University of Duisburg-Essen, Chair for Business Informatics and Integrated Information Systems)

Abstract

Major challenges in contemporary information systems development demand new development approaches, such as innovation ecosystems, consisting of a focal innovation platform surrounded by independent developers. The attraction of third-party developers and the amplification of generativity in extension development call for sophisticated boundary resources. As demarcation points between an innovation platform and external developers, boundary resources entail a strategic value and need to be managed carefully. However, existing research does not provide an approach for the holistic management of boundary resources from design to retirement. We apply a design science research approach consisting of two design cycles involving a literature review identifying 26 application lifecycles and the analysis of eight innovation platforms in e-commerce. We evaluated the model for boundary resource management in interviews with nine domain experts. We develop an integrated boundary resource management lifecycle as a specialization of application lifecycle management for the holistic management of boundary resources in innovation ecosystems addressing third-party developers. The boundary resource management lifecycle consists of four layers: boundary resource governance, continuous communication, technical boundary resources, and supplementary boundary resources. It decouples technical and supplementary boundary resources while emphasizing their intertwined nature for ecosystem participants. Owners of innovation platforms can instantiate the reference procedure model for attracting developers.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Wulfert, 2023. "Boundary resource management in innovation ecosystems: The case of e-commerce," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:33:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s12525-023-00651-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-023-00651-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-023-00651-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12525-023-00651-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Wareham & Paul B. Fox & Josep Lluís Cano Giner, 2014. "Technology Ecosystem Governance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1195-1215, August.
    2. Kimmo Karhu & Robin Gustafsson & Kalle Lyytinen, 2018. "Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 479-497, June.
    3. Amrit Tiwana & Benn Konsynski & Ashley A. Bush, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 675-687, December.
    4. Juhani Iivari, 2015. "Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 107-115, January.
    5. Rainer Alt, 2020. "Electronic Markets on business model development," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(3), pages 405-411, September.
    6. Joan E. van Aken, 2004. "Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field‐Tested and Grounded Technological Rules," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 219-246, March.
    7. 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).
    8. Johannes S. Schwarz & Christine Legner, 2020. "Business model tools at the boundary: exploring communities of practice and knowledge boundaries in business model innovation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(3), pages 421-445, September.
    9. Jan Recker, 2013. "Scientific Research in Information Systems," Progress in IS, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-30048-6, February.
    10. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Michael Blaschke & Uwe Riss & Kazem Haki & Stephan Aier, 2019. "Design principles for digital value co-creation networks: a service-dominant logic perspective," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(3), pages 443-472, September.
    14. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    15. Stephan Diederich & Alfred Benedikt Brendel & Lutz M. Kolbe, 2020. "Designing Anthropomorphic Enterprise Conversational Agents," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(3), pages 193-209, June.
    16. de Reuver, Mark & Sørensen, Carsten & Basole, Rahul C., 2018. "The digital platform: a research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80669, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Timo Phillip Böttcher & Lukas Rickling & Kristina Gmelch & Jörg Weking & Helmut Krcmar, 2021. "Towards the Digital Self-renewal of Retail: The Generic Ecosystem of the Retail Industry," Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organization, in: Frederik Ahlemann & Reinhard Schütte & Stefan Stieglitz (ed.), Innovation Through Information Systems, pages 140-146, Springer.
    18. Juhani Iivari & Magnus Rotvit Perlt Hansen & Amir Haj-Bolouri, 2021. "A proposal for minimum reusability evaluation of design principles," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, May.
    19. Martin Engert & Julia Evers & Andreas Hein & Helmut Krcmar, 2022. "The Engagement of Complementors and the Role of Platform Boundary Resources in e-Commerce Platform Ecosystems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 2007-2025, December.
    20. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    21. Daniel Beverungen & Oliver Müller & Martin Matzner & Jan Mendling & Jan Brocke, 2019. "Conceptualizing smart service systems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(1), pages 7-18, March.
    22. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    23. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & David P. McIntyre & Arati Srinivasan, 2017. "Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 141-160, January.
    24. 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).
    25. Miremadi, Iman & Khoshbash, Mostafa & Saeedian, MohammadMahdi, 2023. "Fostering generativity in platform ecosystems: How open innovation and complexity interact to influence platform adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    26. Tobias Kretschmer & Aija Leiponen & Melissa Schilling & Gurneeta Vasudeva, 2022. "Platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations: Implications for platform strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 405-424, March.
    27. Geoff Walsham, 2006. "Doing interpretive research," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 320-330, June.
    28. Andreas Hein & Jörg Weking & Maximilian Schreieck & Manuel Wiesche & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2019. "Value co-creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(3), pages 503-518, September.
    29. Youngjin Yoo & Ola Henfridsson & Kalle Lyytinen, 2010. "Research Commentary ---The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 724-735, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    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. Fabian Schueler & Dimitri Petrik, 2022. "Objectives of platform research: A co-citation and systematic literature review analysis," Papers 2202.08822, arXiv.org.
    4. Tobias Wulfert & Robert Woroch & Gero Strobel & Sarah Seufert & Frederik Möller, 2022. "Developing design principles to standardize e-commerce ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1813-1842, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Andreas Hein & Maximilian Schreieck & Tobias Riasanow & David Soto Setzke & Manuel Wiesche & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2020. "Digital platform ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(1), pages 87-98, March.
    7. Saadatmand, Fatemeh & Lindgren, Rikard & Schultze, Ulrike, 2019. "Configurations of platform organizations: Implications for complementor engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    8. Choi, Goya & Nam, Changi & Kim, Seongcheol, 2019. "The impacts of technology platform openness on application developers’ intention to continuously use a platform: From an ecosystem perspective," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 140-153.
    9. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    10. Andreas Hein & Maximilian Schreieck & Manuel Wiesche & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2019. "The emergence of native multi-sided platforms and their influence on incumbents," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 631-647, December.
    11. Christian Bartelheimer & Philipp Heiden & Hedda Lüttenberg & Daniel Beverungen, 2022. "Systematizing the lexicon of platforms in information systems: a data-driven study," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 375-396, March.
    12. Kapoor, Kawaljeet & Ziaee Bigdeli, Ali & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Schroeder, Andreas & Beltagui, Ahmad & Baines, Tim, 2021. "A socio-technical view of platform ecosystems: Systematic review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 94-108.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Miremadi, Iman & Khoshbash, Mostafa & Saeedian, MohammadMahdi, 2023. "Fostering generativity in platform ecosystems: How open innovation and complexity interact to influence platform adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    16. Evgheni Croitor & Dominick Werner & Martin Adam & Alexander Benlian, 2022. "Opposing effects of input control and clan control for sellers on e-marketplace platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 201-216, March.
    17. Mario Schaarschmidt & Dirk Homscheid & Thomas Kilian, 2019. "Application Developer Engagement In Open Software Platforms: An Empirical Study Of Apple Ios And Google Android Developers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-33, May.
    18. Martin Engert & Julia Evers & Andreas Hein & Helmut Krcmar, 2022. "The Engagement of Complementors and the Role of Platform Boundary Resources in e-Commerce Platform Ecosystems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 2007-2025, December.
    19. Brunswicker, Sabine & Schecter, Aaron, 2019. "Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    20. de Reuver, Mark & Sørensen, Carsten & Basole, Rahul C., 2018. "The digital platform: a research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80669, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Boundary resources; Innovation platform; Application lifecycle management; E-commerce; Design science research;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:elmark:v:33:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s12525-023-00651-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.