Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society (기술혁신학회지)

Korea Technology Innovation Society (한국기술혁신학회)
권호 표지

Platform Interaction and Strategy from the Perspective of Organizational Ecology

조직 생태학 관점에서 본 플랫폼 이해관계자들간의 상호 작용 및 전략

  • Received : 2018.11.01
  • Accepted : 2019.01.31
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In order to provide theoretical guidance to research in platform strategy, we build the conceptual framework based on the organizational ecology and analyze symbiotic/competitive relationship between platform entities. Platform owner and service provider (i.e. complementors) make symbiotic relationship, where platform owner provide service provider user-base and platform resources such as marketing tools and platform technology, and service provider provide platform owner services which users utilize. In addition to symbiotic relationships, platform owner has competitive relationship with other platform owners, and service provider builds competitive relationship with other service providers. In these relationships, the strategy of platform owner affects service provider and service provider builds a strategy for their own survival and success. This type of interaction makes competitive dynamics in platform. However, previous platform literature focuses on strategies to enhance network effect from the perspective of platform owner. Thus, there is little attention on interaction among the service providers. Using the framework based on community ecology of organizational ecology, we analyze interaction and strategy between platform owner and service provider in the viewpoint of platform openness strategy and platform pricing strategy. This research contributes to the literature of platform strategy by providing a theoretical framework based on organizational ecology to deeply understand the dynamics of platform.

본 연구는 플랫폼 생태계 이해관계자간의 공생, 경쟁 관계를 분석하는 이론적 프레임을 구축하고, 플랫폼 제공자와 서비스 제공자간 상호 작용 및 전략을 연구했다. 플랫폼 제공자는 서비스 제공자에 사용자 기반을 제공하며, 서비스 제공자는 플랫폼 제공자에 서비스를 제공하며 공생 관계를 맺는다. 더불어 플랫폼 제공자, 서비스 제공자는 다른 플랫폼 제공자, 서비스 제공자와 경쟁 관계를 형성하며 다양한 상호작용을 만든다. 기존 연구들은 플랫폼 제공자 관점에서 네트워크 효과를 높이는 전략에 집중하고 있다. 본 연구는 조직 생태학의 커뮤니티 이론을 통해 플랫폼 개방, 가격전략에서 플랫폼 제공자와 서비스 제공자간 상호 작용 및 상호 전략을 살펴보았다. 플랫폼 개방, 고가 가격 전락은 서비스 제공자를 늘리고, 이익을 늘리나, 서비스 제공자간 경쟁을 높이고, 서비스 제공자의 이익을 감소시켜 경쟁플랫폼으로의 이동을 촉진해 플랫폼 경쟁력을 약화시킨다. 이에 플랫폼 제공자는 서비스 제공자에 차별적인 플랫폼 자원 제공, 가격 정책을 펼치며 서비스 제공자는 싱글호밍을 통해 공생을 강화하거나, 멀티호밍으로 사용자 기반을 확대하며 플랫폼 생태계에 다양한 상호작용을 만든다.

Keywords

References

  1. 이투데이 (2014), "배달앱 고가 수수료에 방 빼는 중소가맹점들", http://www.etoday.co.kr/news/section/newsview.php?idxno=934463 (2018.10.10.).
  2. Anderson, E. G., Parker, G. G. and Tan, B. (2014), "Platform Performance Investment in the Presence of Network Externalities", Information Systems Research, 25(1): 152-172. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0505
  3. Armstrong, M. (2006), "Competition in Two‐Sided Markets", The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3): 668-691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00037.x
  4. Armstrong, M. and Wright, J. (2007), "Two-sided Markets, Competitive Bottlenecks and Exclusive Contracts", Economic Theory, 32(2): 353-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-006-0114-6
  5. Athey, S., Calvano, E. and Gans, J. S. (2016), "The Impact of Consumer Multi-homing on Advertising Markets and Media Competition", Management science.
  6. Barnett, W. P. (1990), "The Organizational Ecology of a Technological System", Administrative Science Quarterly, 31-60.
  7. Barron, D., West, E. and Hannan, M. (1995), "Competition, Deregulation and the Fortunes of Credit Unions".
  8. Boudreau, K. (2008), "Opening the Platform vs. Opening the Complementary Good? The Effect on Product Innovation in Handheld Computing".
  9. Boudreau, K. (2010), "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control", Management Science, 56(10): 1849-1872. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1215
  10. Caillaud, B. and Jullien, B. (2003), "Chicken and Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers", RAND Journal of Economics, 309-328.
  11. Carrillo, J. D. (2006), "Platform Competition: The Role of Multi-homing and Complementors".
  12. Carroll, G. R. and Hannan, M. T. (2000), The Demography of Corporations and Industries, Princeton University Press.
  13. Carroll, G. R. and Harrison, J. R. (1994), "On the Historical Efficiency of Competition between Organizational Populations", American Journal of Sociology, 100(3): 720-749. https://doi.org/10.1086/230579
  14. Cennamo, C. and Santalo, J. (2013), "Platform Competition: Strategic Trade‐offs in Platform Markets", Strategic Management Journal, 34(11): 1331-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2066
  15. Chang, A. (2012), "Zynga Unleashes New Games and Its Own 'With Friends' Social Network", https://www.wired.com/2012/06/zynga-unleashes-its-own-social-network-new-games/ (10 Oct 2018).
  16. Chu, J. and Manchanda, P. (2015), "Quantifying Cross and Direct Network Effects in Online C2C Platforms", Marketing Science, Forthcoming.
  17. Clements, M. T. (2004), "Direct and Indirect Network Effects: Are They Equivalent?", International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(5): 633-645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.01.003
  18. Clements, M. T. and Ohashi, H. (2005), "Indirect Network Effects and the Product Cycle: Video Games in the US, 1994-2002", Available at SSRN 500922.
  19. Dobrev, S. D., Ozdemir, S. Z. and Teo, A. C. (2006), "The Ecological Interdependence of Emergent and Established Organizational Populations: Legitimacy Transfer, Violation by Comparison, and Unstable Identities", Organization Science, 17(5): 577-597. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0209
  20. Eisenmann, T. (2007), "Platform-mediated Networks: Definitions and Core Concepts", Harvard Business School-Module Note.
  21. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006), "Strategies for Two-sided Markets", Harvard Business Review, 84(10): 92.
  22. Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. W. (2008), "Opening Platforms: How, When and Why?".
  23. Evans, D. S., Hagiu, A. and Schmalensee, R. (2008), Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries: MIT press.
  24. Freeman, J. and Hannan, M. T. (1983), "Niche Width and the Dynamics of Organizational Populations", American Journal of Sociology, 1116-1145.
  25. Gandal, N., Kende, M. and Rob, R. (2000), "The Dynamics of Technological Adoption in Hardware/software Systems: The Case of Compact Disc Players", The RAND Journal of Economics, 43-61.
  26. Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. A. (2014), "Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation", Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3): 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105
  27. Gobry, P. E. (2011), "Facebook Basically Owns Zynga", http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-basically-owns-zynga-2011-7 (10 Oct 2018).
  28. Hagiu, A. (2006), "Pricing and Commitment by Two‐sided Platforms", The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3): 720-737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00039.x
  29. Hannan, M. T. and Carroll, G. (1992), Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation, and Competition, Oxford University Press.
  30. Hannan, M. T., Carroll, G. R., Dobrev, S. D., Han, J. and Torres, J. C. (1998), "Organizational Mortality in European and American Automobile Industries Part II: Coupled Clocks", European Sociological Review, 14(3): 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018241
  31. Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1987), "The Ecology of Organizational Founding: American Labor Unions, 1836-1985", American Journal of Sociology, 910-943.
  32. Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1993), Organizational ecology: Harvard University Press.
  33. Hyrynsalmi, S., Suominen, A., Jansen, S. and Yrjönkoski, K. (2016), "Multi-homing in Ecosystems and Firm Performance: Does it Improve Software Companies' ROA?", IWSECO@ICIS.
  34. Idu, A., Van de Zande, T. and Jansen, S. (2011), "Multi-homing in the Apple Ecosystem: Why and How Developers Target Multiple Apple App Stores", Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital Ecosystems.
  35. Katz, M. L. and Shapiro, C. (1985), "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility", The American Economic Review, 424-440.
  36. Korn, H. J. and Baum, J. A. (1994), "Community Ecology and Employment: Dynamics: A Study of Large Canadian Organizations", 1985-1992, Social Forces, 73(1): 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/73.1.1
  37. Landsman, V. and Stremersch, S. (2011), "Multihoming in Two-sided Markets: An Empirical Inquiry in the Video Game Console Industry", Journal of Marketing, 75(6): 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0199
  38. Lee, S., Bae, S. J., Rhee, M. and Park, M. (2018), "Complementor-side Ecology and its Implications on Platform Strategy", Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  39. Nair, H., Chintagunta, P. and Dube, J. P. (2004), "Empirical Analysis of Indirect Network Effects in the Market for Personal Digital Assistants", Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2(1): 23-58. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QMEC.0000017034.98302.44
  40. Nutt, C. (2008), "Analysis: Microsoft on the Secrets of Marketing Halo 3", https://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18213 (10 Oct 2018).
  41. Ohashi, H. (2003), "The Role of Network Effects in the US VCR Market, 1978-1986", Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 12(4): 447-494. https://doi.org/10.1162/105864003322538929
  42. Park, S. (2004), "Quantitative Analysis of Network Externalities in Competing Technologies: The VCR Case", Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4): 937-945. https://doi.org/10.1162/0034653043125275
  43. Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2017), "Innovation, Openness, and Platform Control", Management Science.
  44. Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. W. (2000), "Information Complements, Substitutes, and Strategic Product Design", Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems.
  45. Parker, G. G. and Van Alstyne, M. W. (2005), "Two-sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design", Management Science, 51(10): 1494-1504. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0400
  46. Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W. and Choudary, S. P. (2016), "Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You", WW Norton and Company.
  47. Rochet, J. C. and Tirole, J. (2003), "Platform Competition in Two‐sided Markets", Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4): 990-1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212
  48. Rochet, J. C. and Tirole, J. (2006), "Two‐sided Markets: a Progress Report", The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3): 645-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x
  49. Roughgarden, J. (1983), "Competition and Theory in Community Ecology", American Naturalist, 583-601.
  50. Ruef, M. (2000), "The Emergence of Organizational Forms: A Community Ecology Approach", American Journal of Sociology, 106(3): 658-714. https://doi.org/10.1086/318963
  51. Rysman, M. (2009), "The Economics of Two-sided Markets", The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 125-143.
  52. Schilling, M. A. (2002), "Technology Success and Failure in Winner-take-all Markets: The Impact of Learning Orientation, Timing, and Network Externalities", Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 387-398. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069353
  53. Shapiro, C. and Varian, H. R. (2013), Information Rules: a Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Harvard Business Press.
  54. Sun, M. and Tse, E. (2007), "When does the Winner Take All in Two-sided Markets?", Review of Network Economics, 6(1).
  55. Wade, J. (1995), "Dynamics of Organizational Communities and Technological Bandwagons: An Empirical Investigation of Community Evolution in the Microprocessor Market", Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1): 111-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160920
  56. West, J. (2003), "How Open is Open Enough?: Melding Proprietary and Open Source Platform Strategies", Research Policy, 32(7): 1259-1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00052-0
  57. Weyl, E. G. (2010), "A Price Theory of Multi-sided Platforms", The American Economic Review, 100(4): 1642-1672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.4.1642
  58. ZDNET (2015), "배달의민족, 배달 앱 시장서 27개월 연속 1위", http://www.zdnet.co.kr/news/news_view.asp?artice_id=20150123161259 (2018.10.10.).