See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327971665

Digital Platforms: A Review and Future Directions

Conference Paper · September 2018

CITATIONS READS

36 30,658

3 authors:

Ahmad Asadullah Isam Faik

National University of Singapore The University of Western Ontario
8 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Atreyi Kankanhalli
National University of Singapore
174 PUBLICATIONS   10,405 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wellness, Ageing, Serious Games and Healthcare Communities View project

Artificial Intelligence in Governments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmad Asadullah on 20 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Digital Platforms: A Review and Future Directions

Completed Research Paper

Ahmad Asadullah Isam Faik

Department of Information Systems and Department of Information Systems and
Analytics, National University of Singapore Analytics, National University of Singapore
15 Computing Drive, Singapore 117418 13 Computing Drive, Singapore 117417
ahmad@comp.nus.edu.sg faik@comp.nus.edu.sg

Atreyi Kankanhalli
Department of Information Systems and
Analytics, National University of Singapore
13 Computing Drive, Singapore 117417
atreyi@comp.nus.edu.sg

Abstract
The increasing adoption of digital platforms as a new mode of organizing economic and
social activities has led to a growing interest in research on this topic amongst IS scholars.
As a result, the digital platforms literature has grown significantly over the last decade. Yet,
scholars call for more research on the topic as platforms evolve and many questions remain
unanswered. There is therefore a need to take stock of the existing literature in order to gain
better visibility of what has been achieved and what directions future research can take. We
conducted a systematic review of the literature on digital platforms including 96 articles,
covering IS and management journals. Key findings of this study show an ambiguity in the
current conceptualization of digital platforms. They also highlight the multi-dimensional
nature of digital platforms which reflects the heterogeneity of their manifestations in
practice.

Keywords: Literature review, Digital platforms, Platform design and deployment, Platform adoption
and outcomes, Definitions of digital platform, Future directions

Introduction
Digital platforms have become a major mode for organizing a wide range of human activities,
including economic, social, and political interactions (e.g., Tan et al. 2015; Kane et al. 2014). In
particular, the rise of digital platforms has transformed the landscape of multiple industries such as
transportation (e.g., Uber, Grab), hospitality (e.g., Airbnb, CouchSurfing), and software development
(e.g., Apple iOS, Google android). Enterprises that have leveraged the affordances of digital platforms
have achieved significant growth in size and scale. For instance, digital platform providers in the areas
of e-commerce and software development have attained more than $700 billion in market value
(Evans and Gawer 2016). As a result, digital platforms have become an attractive business model and
strategy, and a promising engine of economic growth for a number of sectors.
The prominence of this phenomenon and its dependence on IT capabilities have led to increasing
interest in researching digital platforms amongst Information Systems (IS) scholars (e.g., Tiwana
2015; Kwark et al. 2017; Markus and Loebbecke 2013; Parker et al. 2017). Prior empirical and
conceptual studies have examined platforms from different angles, such as the growth of platform-

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

based ecosystems (Jha et al. 2016), the governance of platforms (Boudreau 2010), the adoption of
platform strategies (Hagiu and Wright 2015), and the impact of digital platforms on society (Chan and
Ghose 2014). However, despite these important advances in our understanding of digital platforms,
calls continue to be made for more research on the topic given its increasing significance for practice,
the evolving technology and its uses, and the many unanswered questions in this area (e.g., Tiwana et
al. 2010; de Reuver et al. 2017). To answer these calls effectively, it is important to take stock of the
current state of the literature on digital platforms. To do so, we attempt in this study to achieve the
following research objectives. First, we synthesize the existing definitions of digital platforms and
extract the main characteristics of digital platforms. Second, we provide an overview of the main
topics studied under digital platforms and the research methods used. Third, we identify the different
types of platforms based on various dimensions of categorization. Lastly, we identify gaps in the
literature and suggest opportunities for future research.
A few other studies have offered reviews on the topic of digital platforms. However, existing reviews
are typically focused on a particular type of digital platforms, such as crowdsourcing platforms (e.g.,
Majchrzak and Malhotra 2013). Yet, other reviews offer categorizations of research streams and
conceptualization of digital platforms but without a thorough review of the literature (de Reuver et al.
2017). In this paper, we provide a systematic profiling of the literature based on a review of 96
articles before we highlight the topics studied and methods used. We also discuss the gaps and
potential directions for future research. Specifically, we present how IS scholars define and
characterize digital platforms, the methodologies used for the study of digital platforms, the topics
examined, and the dimensions used to categorize platforms.
Key findings of this paper show that despite an increase in the publications on the topic (around 17
publications every year on average for the last three years), there continues to be ambiguity in the
conceptualization of digital platforms within the IS literature. We also found that case study and
econometrics methods are the dominant methodologies in digital platform research across all
publications. Further, we discuss and categorize the main variables that are examined across different
research streams, i.e., platform design and deployment, adoption and use, and outcomes. Lastly, we
review previous categorization schemes and highlight the main dimensions used to differentiate
between various types of digital platforms.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the subsequent section presents the major definitions of
digital platforms, followed by a discussion of the key characteristics of digital platforms. We then
outline our literature review methodology before we present our findings, including the distribution of
papers across years and journals, the frequency of research methods, the research streams, and
dimensions of categorization. We then discuss these findings and provide several directions for future
work.

Conceptualizations & Definitions of Digital Platforms

Prior research has defined and conceptualized digital platforms based on different views. Some
conceptualizations are based on a technical view that focuses on the technical elements and processes
that interact to form a digital platform. For example, Spagnoletti et al. (2015, p. 364) define a digital
platform as “a building block that provides an essential function to a technological system and serves
as a foundation upon which complementary products, technologies, or services can be developed.”
Studies adopting this view focus on the technical developments and functions that form the
foundation upon which complementary products and services can be developed i.e., building on the
top of the technical core that a platform owner offers and facilitates (Tiwana et al. 2010; Ghazawneh
and Henfridsson 2013; Ceccagnoli et al. 2012). For instance, studies adopting this view have
conceptualized a digital platform like Apple iOS in terms of the dynamics between its core
functionalities and the capabilities offered by independent app developers.
Other studies have conceptualized digital platforms based on a non-technical view that presents
platforms as a commercial network or market that enables transactions in the form of business-to-
business (B2B), business-to-customer (B2C), or even customer-to-customer (C2C) exchanges (Tan et
al. 2015, Koh and Fichman 2014, Pagani 2013; Ye et al. 2012). For example, Koh and Fichman

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

(2014, p. 977) define digital platforms as “two-sided network…that facilitate interactions between
distinct but interdependent groups of users, such as buyers and suppliers.” The focus in this view is
on the interactions between the different groups that join a platform either as users or providers of
goods and services. Table 1 provides a summary of these definitions.
Table 1. Definitions of Digital Platforms in Prior Literature
Conceptualization
Definitions of Digital Platforms Reference
View
“a building block that provides an essential function to (Spagnoletti et al.
a technological system and serves as a foundation upon 2015, p. 364; Yoo
which complementary products, technologies, or et al. 2012,
services can be developed” p.1400)
“set of components used in common across a product (Ceccagnoli et al.
family whose functionality can be extended by 2012, p. 263)
Technical (e.g., applications”
software
development & “The extensible codebase of a software-based system (Tiwana et al.
production) that provides core functionality shared by the modules 2010, p.676 ;
that interoperate with it and the interfaces through Ghazawneh and
which they interoperate” Henfridsson 2013,
p.3)
“a set of subsystems and interfaces that form a common (Xu et al. 2010, p.
structure for/from which derivative applications can be 1305)
developed and distributed”
“a commercial network of suppliers, producers, (Tan et al. 2015,
intermediaries, customers ….. and producers of p.249)
complementary products and services termed
“complementors” ….. that are held together through
formal contracting and/or mutual dependency”
“Two-sided networks ……that facilitate interactions (Koh and Fichman
between distinct but interdependent groups of users, 2014, p. 977)
such as buyers and suppliers”
Non-technical (e.g.,
B2B & B2C “multisided platform …….exists wherever a company (Pagani 2013, p.
transactions) brings together two or more distinct groups of 625)
customers (sides) that need each other in some way,
and where the company builds an infrastructure
(platform) that creates value by reducing distribution,
transaction, and search costs incurred when these
groups interact with one another”
“…value is created by facilitating the interaction (Ye et al. 2012, p.
between two or more mutually interdependent groups 211)
of customers”

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Key Characteristics of Digital Platforms

Digital platforms present a number of characteristics that explain their attractiveness as an organizing
model. First, digital platforms contribute to significant reductions in transaction costs, including
distribution, search, contracting, and monitoring costs (Eisenmann et al. 2006; Pagani 2013). For
example, aggregation platforms such as TripAdvisor and Expedia gather and combine travel
information from multiple sources into one platform, thereby reducing the cost of searching for
information and of using the services of intermediary agents. Second, digital platforms help in
organizing and coordinating the technological development of complementary products through
modularity and appropriate governance structures (Tiwana et al. 2010; Boudreau 2010). For example,
Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android platforms offer independent software developers a technical and
regulatory structure that facilitates and incentivizes their participation in application development. In
addition to these characteristics, other attributes have been discussed in terms of broader concepts,
such as generativity (Faraj et al. 2016; Yoo et al. 2012) and cross-side network effects (Hagiu 2014;
Evans et al. 2006). Generativity is defined as the ability of a technology to generate new outcomes
driven by large and heterogeneous users (Zittrain 2006). For example, the generativity of
crowdsourcing platforms enables them to produce new solutions to challenging problems based on the
diversity of contributions from a large number of participants. Cross-side network effects reflect the
fact that the value of platform for a participant on one side increases as the number of participants on
the other side increases. For instance, in e-commerce platforms such as eBay or Amazon the value of
the platform for the seller increases when there are more buyers on the other side, and vice versa.

Research Methodology
To achieve the objectives of this paper we followed Webster and Watson (2002)’s suggestions for
conducting a literature review in the IS discipline. Our search included the 8 leading IS journals
(senior scholars’ basket), which have been recognized as such by the broad IS community (Lowry et
al. 2013). They include Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ), Information Systems
Research (ISR), Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), Journal of Management
Information Systems (JMIS), Information Systems Journal (ISJ), Journal of Information Technology
(JIT), European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS), and Journal of Strategic Information Systems
(JSIS). Furthermore, for the sake of comprehensiveness, we also included general management
journals in which IS researchers and other researchers interested in such phenomena publish their
work. These included Organization Science (Org. Sci), Management Science (MS), Strategic
Management Journal (Strat. Mgmt. J), Organization Studies (Org. Stud), Administrative Science
Quarterly (ASQ), Journal of Management Studies (JMS), and Journal of Management (JM). We did
not find any relevant articles on digital platforms in the last three journals (ASQ, JMS, and JM), so we
excluded them from our study subsequently.
Since different studies use different terms to refer to the phenomenon of digital platforms, our search
was based on a range of terms including ‘digital platform’, ‘multi-sided market’, ‘two-sided market’,
and ‘intermediary market’. In order to limit our review to papers that discuss digital platforms as the
main focus of the paper, we limited our search to the title, abstract, and keywords of each paper. Our
search was conducted in the period of October and November 2017 and covered all the available
timeframes of the selected journals within the following databases: INFORMS, AIS-library, and
EBSCO.
As shown in Figure 1 our literature search process involved three stages. The first stage included the
broad search based on the above-mentioned terms in the specified online databases, which resulted in
168 articles across the above-listed IS and management journals. In the second stage, we scanned the
title and abstracts of the papers identified in the first stage and excluded irrelevant and duplicate
papers. This process resulted in 155 papers across the listed IS and management journals. In the third
stage, we combined all 155 papers in one list and conducted a careful assessment of each paper. In
this stage, we excluded more papers based on specific criteria. First, we excluded all papers that
discussed non-digital platforms (e.g., product assembly platforms, manufacturing platforms), which
appeared mostly in the management journals. Second, we excluded all papers in which digital

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

platforms were not the major focus of analysis. In these articles, the search terms may appear in the
title, abstract, or keywords but are discussed loosely or tangentially in the body of the article e.g., see
Cao et al. 2017). After careful application of these exclusion criteria, this resulted in a total number of
96 articles across all the reviewed journals. These selected articles formed the basis of our literature
review and analysis presented in this paper.

Figure 1. Stages of the Literature Review

Findings from the Review

Distribution of Papers across Years

As shown in Figure 2, research that focused on digital platforms within the reviewed journals started
appearing in 2002. Nevertheless, in the period from 2002 to 2008 research interest in the subject
remained limited. However, starting from 2009-2011 the field witnessed a surge in publications on
digital platforms. As expected, this coincides with the time when digital platforms started becoming
prevalent in practice. The number of articles continued increasing year on year, with 22 publications
focused on the topic of digital platforms in the year 2017 alone in the journals we reviewed.

25
22
Number of Papers

19
16
13
10
7
4
1
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017

Year of Publication
Figure 2. Number of Papers across Years

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Distribution of Papers across Journals

Figure 3 shows the number of papers across all the reviewed journals. We observed that Management
Science (MS) had the highest number of publications on the topic with 22 papers and Organization
Science with 5 papers, while other management journals such as Organization Studies (Org. Stud) and
Strategic Management Journal (Strat. Mgmt. J) had only 1 paper each. Within the IS journals, every
journal had published at least 2 articles on the topic, with Information Systems Research (ISR)
publishing the most (19 articles), followed by Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ)
(17 articles). This wide distribution across journals signals the broad interest in digital platforms
across the multiple research traditions that the different journals cater to. Additionally, the significant
number of articles appearing in the premium management (MS) and IS journals (MISQ and ISR)
indicate the salience of this topic.

Management Journals
IS Journals
25 22
19
Number of Papers

20 17
15
9
10 7
5 5 5
5 3 2 1 1
0
MS ISR MISQ JIT ISJ JSIS JAIS Org. Sci JMIS EJIS Org. Strat.
Stud Mgmt. J
Journals

Figure 3. Number of the Articles across Journals

Research Methods Used

Our review indicates that researchers on digital platforms have adopted a variety of methods to study
the phenomenon. As shown in Figure 4, the most common methodology is the use of econometrics,
with 26 published papers using some form of econometric methods such as ordinary least squares and
weighted least squares (e.g., Tiwana 2015; Claussen et al. 2013). Case studies and analytical modeling
are also relatively common with 22 and 15 papers adopting each of these methodologies respectively.
On the other hand, a few studies have seen the use of methods such as grounded theory, simulations,
and action design research for the study of digital platforms, but their use remains limited, with less
than 2 publications for each. Furthermore, survey, conceptual, and experimental methods have been
moderately used in the digital platform literature.
Case study-based papers included single case studies (e.g., Jha et al. 2016) that focused on one
platform and multiple case studies that explored interactions between multiple plaforms (e.g., Huber
et al. 2017). The experiment-based papers included field experiments e.g., Liu et al. (2014) exploring
the effect of different incentive mechanisms on the motivation of external contributors to the platform,
and lab experiments e.g., Hossain et al. (2011) examining the effect of platform’s competition on
user’s choice of adopting the platform. In addition, mixed methods papers included papers that
combined two methods in addressing the phenomena such as Zhou (2017) who applied econometrics
and analytical modeling to explore the relationship between buyer’s decision to purchase the product
from the platform and seller’s price setting in the platform. Others combined three methods together,
for instance Yang et al. (2012) applied action research, participatory design, and situation-awareness

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

oriented design to develop design principles for an integrated information platform that is used for the
purpose of emergency response.

30 26
Number of Papers

25 22
20 15
15 11
10 7 5 4 2 2
5 1 1
0

Research Methods

Figure 4. Diversity of Research Methods

Units of Analysis

Prior papers on digital platforms have focused on various units of analysis. As shown in Figure 5, the
most common units of analysis in the reviewed literature included the platform and the users, with
some studies adopting a multilevel approach. On the other hand, some units of analysis, such as the
group (Majchrzak and Malhotra 2016), appeared in only one paper, for which we included those
papers under the category “others” in Figure 5. As shown in Figure 5, the most common unit of
analysis is the platform with 35 papers aiming their analytical framing at that level. Yet, a significant
number of papers (24) focused their analysis on the users of the studied platforms. Also, many
publications (14 papers), combined multiple levels in their analysis focusing on multiple actors
involved with the platform, such as platform’s operation manager, entrepreneurs, and platform’s
technical architect (Jha et al. 2016). A smaller number of studies focused their analysis on the app
developers for the platform (8 papers), the firm owning the platform (7 papers), and the transactions
between platform participants (3 papers).

40 35
Number of Papers

30 24
20 14
10 8 7 5 3
0

Units of Analysis
Figure 5. Various Unit of Analysis

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Examined Variables

Prior research on digital platforms has examined the phenomenon through a wide range of variables
that reflect different streams of research. We grouped them into three major streams based on the
focal interest of the papers (i.e. dependent variable). This process took place during the third stage of
our literature review (see figure 1). These streams includes (1) the design, deployment, and scalability
of digital platforms, (2) the adoption and use of digital platforms, and (3) the outcomes of digital
platforms (see Table 2).
For instance, in the first stream, Huang et al. (2012) examined the effect of platform’s property rights
rules and the ownership of strong downstream capabilities on a firm’s decision to establish
partnership with the platform. In the second stream, scholars have explored the actual adoption and
use of digital platforms. For instance, Majchrzak and Malhotra (2016) investigated the innovativeness
of ideas generated by platform’s contributor, for which they explored the effect of platform’s
participation intensity, contributor’s knowledge variety and learning behavior. In the last research
stream, scholars have aimed to conduct empirical work investigating the outcomes of digital platform.
For instance, Greenwood and Wattal (2017) explored the effect of new platform’s services (e.g. Uber
Black & Uber X car services) on the reduction of alcohol-related vehicle death cases in the USA.
These findings highlight the diversity of variables that have been examined in the literature across
different digital platform research streams.
Table 2. Examples of Examined Variables across Different Digital Platform Research
Streams
Research Streams Dependent Variables Independent Variables Reference
Partnership decision with Property rights, ownership of (Huang et al.
platform strong downstream capabilities. 2012)
Performance of app Ecosystem complexity; (Kapoor and
developers ecosystem experience; platform Agarwal
transition. 2017)
Release of extensions; Platform experience; extension (Tiwana
Platform design, Market performance of age, design rules compliance, 2015)
deployment and Extensions extension complexity.
scalability Platform scalability Data-driven operation; instant (Huang et al.
release; and swift transformation 2017)
Number of active apps's Update activity; app rating; (Claussen et
user after the change of installed base effects; app age; al. 2013)
rule and portfolio effects.
Number of new products Opening the platform; devolving (Boudreau
platform control. 2010)
Innovativeness of idea Participation intensity; (Majchrzak
knowledge variety; learning and
behavior of contributor; crowd Malhotra
learning effects. 2016)
Number of buying Number of product listings; (Koh and
Platform adoption requests posted on the number of buying requests Fichman
and use platform posted by other buyers. 2014)
Number of submissions; Monetary incentive (high reward (Liu et al.
Quality of submissions vs low reward); task difficulty; 2014)
experienced user.
Numbe of access; time to Degree centrality; betweenness (Yaraghi et
adopt platform centrality. al. 2015)

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Outsourcee selection Language difference; time zone (Hong and

over the platform difference; cultural difference; Pavlou
service provider’s reputation; 2017)
country IT development
Number death cases Implementation of Uber Black (Greenwood
car service; implementation of and Wattal
Uber X services. 2017)
Number of asymptomatic Craigslist platform entry; race; Greenwood
Platform and Agarwal
HIV carriers gender; and Socioeconomic
outcomes 2016)
Status
Number of HIV cases Craigslist platform entry; (Chan and
personal ads posted daily; erotic Ghose 2014)
ads posted daily.

Categories of Digital Platforms

Prior literature has categorized digital platforms based on different dimensions. These categories were
identified during the third stage of our literature review where we conducted a careful analysis and
assessment of the literature. In this section, we present an overview of the main dimensions based on
which studies of digital platforms distinguished between different types of platforms. We also present
the types that fall under each dimension and examples of each type.
As shown in table 3, some scholars categorized digital platforms based on their business model.
Categorizations based on this dimension distinguish, for example, between the integrator, the product,
and the multisided platform business models (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009). In the first model, the
integrator platform model, the platform functions as a “wedge” between external contributors and end
users (Hagiu 2007). For instance, Apple provides the platform through which external contributors
(i.e. iOS software developers) can join and create apps for end users. According to this model, Apple
is able to directly monitor & control the transactions and gain profit from the transactions taking place
on its platform. This model is also applied in some crowdsourcing platforms such as InnoCentive.com
and TopCoder (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009). The second type of platforms, based on the ‘business
model’ dimension, is the product platform model. In this model, external contributors build on top of
a foundational technology provided by the platform owner, and sell the products and services directly
to end users (without the involvement of the platform owner). Thus, according to this model the
platform owner has less control over the interaction between external contributors and end user. This
model is adopted for example by cloud computing services such as those provided by Amazon and
Google (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009).The third identified type of business models is the multisided-
platform model in which external contributors can freely interact with end users through the platform.
Further, the external contributor is not required to interact with the platform owner during the design
and development of the new product and service, while the platform owner can impose certain rules
and regulations over the external contributors (Rochet and Tirole 2006). This model is applied by
some platforms such as Facebook and eBay (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009).
Other studies categorized digital platforms based on the mode of interaction between external
contributors. Boudreau and Lakhani (2009) suggested two categories based on this dimension:
collaborative and competitive platforms. The first category, collaborative platforms, encompasses
platforms that are governed by social norms and flexible rules. Under this category, external
contributors are encouraged to provide open access to information. Examples of collaborative
platforms include Threadless, SAP developers network, and Google Android application
development, Wikipedia, and the statistical tool R (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009). In the second
category, competitive platforms, external contributors develop and create competing goods or
services. End users at the other side of the platform select amongst them based on their preferences
and needs. Examples of competitive platforms include consoles for video games, TopCoder, and
Local Motors (for car design ideas) (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009).

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Table 3. Categories of Digital Platform

Dimension of
Major types Examples
Categorization
Integrator platform model Apple iOS; InnoCentive.com;
Google Android
Digital Platform Categories from

Business model Product platform model Linux; Cloud computing

initiatives
Existing Literature

Multisided platform model Facebook; eBa, Alibaba

Collaborateive platforms
Interaction mode Competitive platforms
Opened platforms
Governance mode
Closed platforms
Property based platform
Ownership Stracture
Open source based platform
Threadless.com; Wikipedia
TopCoder; Video games on
consoles
Linux; Wikipedia
Apple iOS; Google Android
Sony (game consoles);
Microsoft platforms
Linux; R

Other studies categorized digital platforms based on the governance mode of the platform and
distinguished between open and closed governance platforms (Boudreau 2010; Parker and Van
Alstyne 2017). For example, Linux and R are seen as platforms with relatively open modes of
governance, while Apple iOS is seen as an instance of closed governance, mostly because of Apple’s
relatively tight control of the development of iOS apps. However, several studies have highlighted
that platform owners often face a tradeoff between open and closed governance modes (e.g. Boudreau
2010; Parker and Van Alstyne 2017). Finally, some studies categorized digital platforms based on
their ownership structure. Categorizations based on this dimension distinguish between proprietary
platforms, such as Microsoft Windows (PC operating systems) and Sony PlayStation (game consoles),
and open source platforms, such as Linux and R (Economides and Katsamakas 2006). Each of these
ownership structures reflects important differences in pricing, sales, profitability, and societal impact.

Discussion and Directions for Future Research

Digital platforms are changing the landscape of most markets and businesses. The prevalence of
digital platforms and their significant economic and social impact have led IS researchers to pay
increasing attention to this topic. In this paper, we have provided a profiling and review of the key IS
and management literature on digital platforms. This supports the call for more research on digital
platforms (e.g., Tiwana et al. 2010; de Reuver et al. 2017) by providing an overview of the current
literature and the basis for charting paths for future research on the topic.
Our findings show that there has been a rapid and significant increase in interest in digital platform
research over the last five years. As shown in Figure 2, the number of publications has been steadily
increasing and this trend is likely to continue in the future given the continuing practical significance
of the topic and the large number of its aspects that remain unexplored. However, future
developments in the field face a number of challenges. One of these challenges is the lack of
agreement on a clear definition and conceptualization of digital platforms in the IS literature. We
highlighted in particular the difference between studies that adopt a more technical conceptualization
(e.g. Tiwana et al. 2010; Ghazawneh and Henfridsson 2013; Ceccagnoli et al. 2012) and those that
adopt a non-technical, ecosystem-focused, conceptualization (e.g. Koh and Fichman 2014; Tan et al.
2015). These two views are not inherently distinct, and future research can contribute to their
convergence by adopting definitions and conceptualizations of digital platforms that account for both
their technical core and the ecosystem of participants that is built around this core.

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Our findings also indicate a need for more diversity in the adopted methodologies for the study of
digital platforms. The current landscape is dominated by econometrics and case study based empirical
work. Given the complexity of the phenomenon, it is important for the IS field to develop the requisite
variety of methodologies that can illuminate the multiple facets of its manifestation in practice. Other
methodologies, such as simulations and action design research have shown promise but remain
underutilized. Future research may consider simulation methods to examine the effect of different
strategies for platform competition or evolution on the overall performance of the platform in the long
term, which is difficult to achieve with observational data. For example, let simulation studies can
investigate the generativity of the platforms (Faraj et al. 2016; Yoo et al. 2012) by examining the
effect of different business models on the ability of platforms to expand the scope and level of
participation of their ecosystems.
We also find that scholars have examined a wide range of variables that explore different digital
platform research streams including the: 1) design, deployment, and scalability, 2) adoption and actual
use, and 3) platform outcomes. Although these variables are not exclusive, they provide a view of the
diversity of research streams in the digital platform literature. Future research can explore new
dependent variables under each of these streams or consider more holistic approaches that span across
the different streams. Additionally, future research may examine issues related to new developments
in digital platforms, such as blockchain and IoT based platforms. While a number of studies offer
practical descriptions of these platforms, theoretical conceptualizations of their main issues from an IS
perspective remain limited.
Furthermore, as seen in this paper, scholars have categorized digital platforms based on different
dimensions. These include the platform’s business model, governance mode, ownership structure, and
interaction mode. This highlights the multi-dimensional nature of digital platforms and the need to
take this multiplicity into account when studying digital platforms or adopting them as a business
strategy. For example, the evolution and scalability mechanisms of open digital platforms may not be
applicable to closed platforms. Or, the determinants of innovativeness of ideas in collaborative-based
platforms may differ from competitive-based platforms. Therefore, future research on digital
platforms should consider the nuances of different types of platforms when examining, modeling,
analyzing and generalizing their research findings. Furthermore, it is essential for firms that are
attempting to make use of digital platform technology to consider which business model to use,
governance mode to apply, and the interaction modes of external contributors that can be
implemented to motivate and organize contributors.
Finally, we acknowledge that this study have some limitations. First, because of space limits, our
presentation of key variables was limited to a subset of the wide range of variables that have been
investigated in the existing literature. Our analysis of the 96 papers resulted in a much larger set of
variables but we selected the most representative ones in defining the three streams. Second, the list of
dimensions across which digital platforms are categorized is not meant to be exhaustive. Digital
platforms can and have been classified based on other dimensions, but the ones we present form the
major ones identified in our review. Yet, focusing on dimensions of categorizations instead of simply
listing categories helped us be more comprehensive in our analysis. Third, in this paper we did not
consider papers published in IS and management conferences (e.g. ICIS, PACIS, AOM), which have
some the latest work on the topic. However, we decided to limit our search to papers that have already
undergone the more elaborate review process of academic journals. Fourth, the topic of digital
platforms has been extensively studied in the economics literature, which we did not include in the
review presented in this paper. However, our objective was to take stock of the IS and management
literature on digital platforms. In addition, many of the reviewed papers draw on the economics
literature and much of its findings and theoretical developments are represented in the reviewed set of
papers.

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Conclusion
This study shows that despite an increase in the publications on digital platforms there continues to be
some ambiguity in the conceptualization of digital platforms within the IS and management literature,
particularly in relation to the degree of focus on the technical core versus the broader ecosystem. We
also found that case study and econometrics methods are the dominant methodologies in digital
platform research. We discuss the main research streams of digital platform and categorize some
variables that are examined across these different research streams. Lastly, we review previous
categorization schemes and highlight the main dimensions used to differentiate between various types
of digital platforms.
This paper offers several contributions to the digital platforms literature. First, we provide a
systematic profiling of the literature and highlight several gaps along with directions for future
research. This is in contrast to existing review papers that either focus on particular types of digital
platforms or discuss categorizations of research streams without a systematic review of the literature
(e.g., Majchrzak and Malhotra 2013; de Reuver et al. 2017). Second, we provide an analysis of digital
platforms research that identifies major streams and multiple dimensions of categorization. Third, we
provide IS scholars with a conceptual map that can help them answer Tiwana et al. (2010)’s call to
use IS research on digital platforms to make remarkable and notable contributions to the reference
disciplines.

References
Boudreau, K. 2010. “Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving
Control,” Management Science (56:10), pp. 1849–1872.
Boudreau, K. J., and Lakhani, K. R. 2009. “How to Manage Outside Innovation,” MIT Sloan
Management Review (50:4), pp. 69–76.
Cao, C., Farnsworth, G., Liang, B., and Lo, A. W. 2017. “Return smoothing, liquidity costs, and
investor flows: Evidence from a separate account platform,” Management Science (63:7), pp.
2233–2250.
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., and Wu, D. J. 2012. “Cocreation of Value in a Platform
Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software,” MIS Quarterly (36:1), pp. 263–290.
Chan, J., and Ghose, A. 2014. “Internet’s Dirty Secret: Assessing the Impact of Online Intermediaries
on HIV Transmission,” MIS Quarterly (38:4), pp. 955–975.
Claussen, J., Kretschmer, T., and Mayrhofer, P. 2013. “The Effects of Rewarding User Engagement:
The Case of Facebook Apps,” Information Systems Research (24:1), pp. 186–200.
Economides, N., and Katsamakas, E. 2006. “Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source
Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry,” Management Science
(52:7), pp. 1057–1071.
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., and Alstyne, M. W. Van. 2006. “Strategies for Two- Sided Markets,”
Harvard Business Review (84:10), pp. 1–12.
Evans, D. S., Hagiu, A., and Schmalensee, R. 2006. Invisible Engines How Software Platforms Drive
Innovation and Transform Industries, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Evans, P. C., and Gawer, A. 2016. “The Rise of the Platform Enterprise A Global Survey,” The
Center for Global Enterprise, USA, New York.
Faraj, S., Krogh, G. Von, Monteiro, E., and Lakhani, K. R. 2016. “Online Community as Space for
Knowledge Flows,” Information Systems Research (27:4), pp. 668–684.
Ghazawneh, A., and Henfridsson, O. 2013. “Balancing platform control and external contribution in
third-party development: The boundary resources model,” Information Systems Journal (23:2),
pp. 173–192.
Greenwood, B. N., and Agarwal, R. 2016. “Matching Platforms and HIV Incidence: An Empirical
Investigation of Race, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status,” Management Science (62:8), pp.
2281–2303.

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

Greenwood, B. N., and Wattal, S. 2017. “Show me the way to go home: an empirical investigation of
ride-sharing and alcohol related motor vehicle fatalities,” MIS Quarterly (41:1), pp. 163–187.
Hagiu, A. 2007. “Merchant or Two-Sided Platform?,” Review of Network Economics (6:2), pp. 115–
133.
Hagiu, A. 2014. “Strategic Decisions for Multisided Platforms,” MIT Sloan Management Review
(55:2), pp. 71–80.
Hagiu, A., and Wright, J. 2015. “Marketplace or Reseller?,” Management Science (61:1), pp. 184–
203.
Hong, Y., and Pavlou, P. A. 2017. “On Buyer Selection of Service Providers in Online Outsourcing
Platforms for IT Services,” Information Systems Research (28:3), pp. 547–562.
Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., and Newell, S. 2017. “Growing on Steroids: Rapidly Scaling
the User Base of Digital Ventures Through Digital Innovation,” MIS Quarterly (41:1), pp. 301–
314.
Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., and Wu, D. J. 2012. “Appropriability Mechanisms and the
Platform Partnership Decision: Evidence from Enterprise Software,” Management Science
(59:1), pp. 102–121.
Huber, T. L., Kude, T., and Dibbern, J. 2017. “Governance practices in platform ecosystems:
Navigating tensions between cocreated value and governance costs,” Information Systems
Research (28:3), pp. 563–584.
Jha, S. K., Pinsonneault, A., and Dubé, L. 2016. “The Evolution of an ICT Platform-Enabled
Ecosystem for Poverty Alleviation: The Case of eKutir,” MIS Quarterly (40:2), pp. 431–445.
Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., and Borgatti, S. P. 2014. “What’s Different About Social Media
Networks? A Framework and Research Agenda,” MIS Quarterly (38:1), pp. 275–304.
Kapoor, R., and Agarwal, S. 2017. “Sustaining Superior Performance in Business Ecosystems:
Evidence from Application Software Developers in the iOS and Android Smartphone
Ecosystems,” Organization Science (28:3), pp. 531–551.
Koh, T. K., and Fichman, M. 2014. “Multi-Homing Users’ Preferences for Two-Sided Exchange
Networks,” MIS Quarterly (38:4), pp. 977–996.
Kwark, Y., Chen, J., and Raghunathan, S. 2017. “Platform or Wholesale? A Strategic Tool for Online
Retailers to Benefit from Third-Party Information,” MIS Quarterly (41:3), pp. 763–785.
Liu, T. X., Yang, J., Adamic, L. A., and Chen, Y. 2014. “Crowdsourcing with All-Pay Auctions: A
Field Experiment on Taskcn,” Management Science (60:8), pp. 2020–2037.
Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., Gaskin, J., Galletta, D. F., Humpherys, S. L., Barlow, J. B., and Wilson,
D. W. 2013. “Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior
Scholars’ Journal Basket via Bibliometric Measures: Do Expert Journal Assessments Add
Value?,” MIS Quarterly (37:4), pp. 993–1012.
Majchrzak, A., and Malhotra, A. 2013. “Towards an information systems perspective and research
agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems (22:4),
Elsevier B.V., pp. 257–268.
Majchrzak, A., and Malhotra, A. 2016. “Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative
Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds,” Information Systems Research (27:4), pp. 685–703.
Markus, M. L., and Loebbecke, C. 2013. “Commoditized digital processes and business community
platforms: new opportunities and challenges for digital business strategies,” MIS Quarterly
(37:2), pp. 649–653.
Pagani, M. 2013. “Digital Business Strategy and Value Creation: Framing the Dynamic Cycle of
Control Points,” MIS Quarterly (37:2), pp. 617–632.
Parker, G., and Van Alstyne, M. 2017. “Innovation, Openness, and Platform Control,” Management
Science (in Advance:October), pp. 1–18.
Parker, G., Alstyne, M. Van, and Jiang, X. 2017. “Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the
firm,” MIS Quarterly (41:1), pp. 255–266.
de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., and Basole, R. C. 2017. “The digital platform: a research agenda,”
Journal of Information Technology, Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 1–12.
Rochet, J., and Tirole, J. 2006. “Two-sided markets : a progress report,” RAND Journal of Economics
(37:3), pp. 645–667.
Spagnoletti, P., Resca, A., and Lee, G. 2015. “A design theory for digital platforms supporting online

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

 Literature Review on Digital Platform

communities: a multiple case study,” Journal of Information Technology (30:4), pp. 364–380.
Tan, B., Pan, S. L., Lu, X., and Huang, L. 2015. “The Role of IS Capabilities in the Development of
Multi-Sided Platforms: The Digital Ecosystem Strategy of Alibaba.com,” Journal of the
Association for Information Systems (16:4), pp. 248–280.
Tiwana, A. 2015. “Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems,” Information Systems Research
(26:2), pp. 266–281.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., and Bush, A. A. 2010. “Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform
architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics,” Information Systems Research (21:4),
pp. 675–687.
Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. 2002. “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a
Literature Review.,” MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. xiii–xxiii.
Xu, X., Venkatesh, V., Tam, K. Y., and Hong, S.-J. 2010. “Model of Migration and Use of Platforms:
Role of Hierarchy, Current Generation, and Complementarities in Consumer Settings,”
Management Science (56:8), pp. 1304–1323.
Yang, L., Su, G., and Yuan, H. 2012. “Design Principles of Integrated Information Platform for
Emergency Responses: The Case of 2008 Beijing Olympic Games,” Information Systems
Research (23:3), pp. 761–786.
Yaraghi, N., Du, A. Y., Sharman, R., Gopal, R. D., and Ramesh, R. 2015. “Health Information
Exchange as a Multisided Platform: Adoption, Usage, and Practice Involvement in Service Co-
Production,” Information Systems Research (26:1), pp. 1–18.
Ye, G., Priem, R. L., and Alshwer, A. A. 2012. “Achieving Demand-Side Synergy from Strategic
Diversification: How Combining Mundane Assets Can Leverage Consumer Utilities,”
Organization Science (23:1), pp. 207–224.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., and Majchrzak, A. 2012. “Organizing for Innovation in the
Digitized World,” Organization Science (23:5), pp. 1398–1408.
Zhou, Y. 2017. “Bayesian Estimation of a Dynamic Model of Two-Sided Markets: Application to the
U.S. Video Game Industry,” Management Science (63:11), pp. 3874–3894.
Zittrain, J. L. 2006. “The Generative Internet,” Harvard Law Review (119:7), pp. 1974–2040.

Twenty-Second Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan 2018

View publication stats