IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v136y2018icp145-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of ability difference and strategy imitation on cooperation network formation: A study with game theoretic modeling and multi-agent simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Nishino, Nariaki
  • Okazaki, Miki
  • Akai, Kenju

Abstract

Using game theoretic modeling and multi-agent simulation, this study examines cooperation networks in business ecosystems. Business ecosystems generally involve various stakeholders, which develop complex and interdependent relations. Many related studies qualitatively assess these issues from actual case studies, but it is difficult to clarify the general mechanism that forms an ecosystem. In this study, particularly addressing cooperative behavior between agents in business ecosystems, we construct a game theoretic model of cooperation network formation based on Nowak's model of indirect reciprocity and Heider's balance theory. Multi-agent simulation demonstrates that in case agents have different abilities, a cooperation network is likely to collapse because low-ability agents leave the cooperative network. Furthermore, if the agents are able to imitate strategies, then simulation similarly demonstrates that cooperation is insufficiently constructed because of a delay of increasing evaluation values. However, the surviving cooperation network under the conditions of ability difference and strategy imitation forms strong cooperative relations. This result can be regarded as a strong coupling, whereas loosely coupled relations, as demonstrated by Iansiti and Levien, are desirable in terms of the health of ecosystems. Finally, we present discussion of how to form business ecosystems in terms of ability differences and strategy imitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nishino, Nariaki & Okazaki, Miki & Akai, Kenju, 2018. "Effects of ability difference and strategy imitation on cooperation network formation: A study with game theoretic modeling and multi-agent simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 145-156.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:136:y:2018:i:c:p:145-156
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517301634
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.008?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. Lee, Changjun & Lee, Daeho & Hwang, Junseok, 2015. "Platform openness and the productivity of content providers: A meta-frontier analysis," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 553-562.
    2. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Shane Greenstein, 1999. "Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 1-40, March.
    3. Joseph Farrell & Michael L. Katz, 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 413-432, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Annabelle Gawer, 2009. "Platform Dynamics and Strategies: From Products to Services," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2010. "Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 306-333, March.
    7. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    8. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    9. Xin Xu & Viswanath Venkatesh & Kar Yan Tam & Se-Joon Hong, 2010. "Model of Migration and Use of Platforms: Role of Hierarchy, Current Generation, and Complementarities in Consumer Settings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1304-1323, August.
    10. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Farrell, Joseph & Katz, Michael L, 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 413-432, December.
    13. Lamar Pierce, 2009. "Big losses in ecosystem niches: how core firm decisions drive complementary product shakeouts," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 323-347, March.
    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. Hao, Xiaoqing, 2023. "Import competition and pressure in the international crude oil trade: A network analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    2. Yu Zhou & Shanshan Shi & Shaohua Wang, 2022. "A Multi-Agent Model-Based Evolutionary Model of Port Service Value Network and Decision Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Yela Aránega, Alba & Del Val Núñez, Mª Teresa & Castaño Sánchez, Rafael, 2020. "Mindfulness as an intrapreneurship tool for improving the working environment and self-awareness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 186-193.

    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. Jens Foerderer, 2020. "Interfirm Exchange and Innovation in Platform Ecosystems: Evidence from Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4772-4787, October.
    2. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    3. Peng Huang & Marco Ceccagnoli & Chris Forman & D.J. Wu, 2009. "Participation in a Platform Ecosystem: Appropriability, Competition, and Access to the Installed Base," Working Papers 09-14, NET Institute, revised Sep 2009.
    4. 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.
    5. Niedermayer, Andras, 2013. "On platforms, incomplete contracts, and open source software," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 714-722.
    6. Jens Foerderer & Thomas Kude & Sunil Mithas & Armin Heinzl, 2018. "Does Platform Owner’s Entry Crowd Out Innovation? Evidence from Google Photos," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 444-460, June.
    7. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    8. Thomas, Llewellyn D.W. & Autio, Erkko & Gann, David M., 2022. "Processes of ecosystem emergence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    9. Xing Wan & Javier Cenamor & Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2017. "Unraveling Platform Strategies: A Review from an Organizational Ambidexterity Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Mi Hyun Lee & Sang Pil Han & Sungho Park & Wonseok Oh, 2023. "Positive Demand Spillover of Popular App Adoption: Implications for Platform Owners’ Management of Complements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 961-995, September.
    12. Siobhan O'Mahony & Rebecca Karp, 2022. "From proprietary to collective governance: How do platform participation strategies evolve?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 530-562, March.
    13. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    14. 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.
    15. Chao Zhang & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1177-1197, November.
    16. Xue Ding & Zhong Yang, 2022. "Knowledge mapping of platform research: a visual analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 787-809, September.
    17. Packalen, Mikko, 2010. "Complements and potential competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 244-253, May.
    18. Fabian Schueler & Dimitri Petrik, 2022. "Objectives of platform research: A co-citation and systematic literature review analysis," Papers 2202.08822, arXiv.org.
    19. 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.
    20. Kazan, Erol & Tan, Chee-Wee & Lim, Eric T.K & Sørensen, Carsten & Damsgaard, Jan, 2018. "Disentangling digital platform competition: the case of UK mobile payment platforms," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86345, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:136:y:2018:i:c:p:145-156. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.