The Engagement of Complementors and the Role of Platform Boundary Resources in e-Commerce Platform Ecosystems

Engert, Martin; Evers, Julia; Hein, Andreas; Krcmar, Helmut Article — Published Version The Engagement of Complementors and the Role of Platform Boundary Resources in e-Commerce Platform Ecosystems Information Systems Frontiers Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Engert, Martin; Evers, Julia; Hein, Andreas; Krcmar, Helmut (2022) : The Engagement of Complementors and the Role of Platform Boundary Resources in e-Commerce Platform Ecosystems, Information Systems Frontiers, ISSN 1572-9419, Springer US, New York, NY, Vol. 24, Iss. 6, pp. 2007-2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10236-3 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/313370 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10236-3 The Engagement ofComplementors andtheRole ofPlatform Boundary Resources ine‑Commerce Platform Ecosystems MartinEngert1 · JuliaEvers1· AndreasHein1· HelmutKrcmar1 Accepted: 21 December 2021 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021 Abstract The success of digital platforms can be attributed to the engagement of autonomous complementors as exemplified by e-commerce Content Management System (CMS) platforms such as WordPress and Shopify. Platform owners provide Platform Boundary Resources (PBRs) to stimulate and control complementor engagement. Despite the increasing scholarly interest in digital platform ecosystems, their exact role in facilitating and channeling complementor engagement remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted an embedded case study on CMS platform ecosystems, comprising a total of 24 interviews with platform owners and complementors. We inductively derive five types of complementor engagement and their respective manifestations and two overarching engagement goals of complementors. Moreover, we determine the different types of PBRs utilized, including their critical effects, and distinguish between uniform and individual PBRs reflecting their respective generalizability and scalability. We discuss the findings by introducing the concepts of complementor resourcing and complementor securing and shed light on the standardization-individualization tension of PBRs faced by platform owners. Keywords Digital platform ecosystems· Complementor engagement· Platform boundary resources· Content management systems· e-Commerce· Case study 1 Introduction In recent decades, incited by digitalizing products, services, and processes, digital platform ecosystems have emerged as a dominant economic model (Cusumano etal., 2020; Hein etal., 2019b; Soto Setzke etal., 2021). The continued growth of the e-commerce sector, for instance, can be attributed to the role of content management system (CMS) platforms, such as WordPress and Shopify, and their respective ecosystems. They allow online merchants to create, manage and expand their online stores, thus to compete with online retail giants, such as Amazon or Alibaba. CMS platforms are digital platforms and provide a technological core that is being augmented by modules developed by a diverse ecosystem of independent third parties (commonly referred to as complementors), extending the platform’s core functionality (De Reuver etal., 2018; Tiwana etal., 2010). As such, Shopify relies on complementors to provide additional functionalities to their e-commerce CMS platform, with its integrated app store comprising almost 6000 applications in 2021.1 Together with the ecosystem of complementors, the Shopify platform serves the needs of 1.7 million online merchants in 2020.2 Hence, the potential for the success of digital platform ecosystems lies in the fact that they are based on the contributions of complementors. Complementor activities spur generativity across the ecosystem, bringing the products and services offered to scope and scale, which are difficult to replicate within a single organization (Hein etal., 2019a; Parker etal., 2017). Cooperative partnerships and strategic alliances have been a commonly used format for dealing with market challenges such as complex customer needs for over three decades (Drucker, 2003; Harvey & Lusch, 1995). However, complementors are autonomous actors in platform ecosystems who engage with the platform with limited contractual obligations. Hence, they invest resources only if it enables them to provide a more compelling value proposition to their customers and if they can capture that value (Kude * Martin Engert mar[email protected] 1 KrcmarLab, Department ofInformatics, Technical University ofMunich, Boltzmannstrasse 3, 85748Garching, Germany 1 https:// apps. shopi fy. com 2 https:// news. shopi fy. com/ shopi fyannou ncesfour thquar t erandfullyear2020finan cialresul ts# / Published online: 3 January 2022 Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 etal., 2012; Rickmann etal., 2014). Complementor engagement describes their different ways and forms of interacting with the platform according to their intended objectives and ambitions. Complementor engagement encompasses not only the development of applications but also collaboration among complementors, exchange of knowledge, testing new platform features, or selling the platform to users (Foerderer etal., 2019; Saadatmand etal., 2019; Wareham etal., 2014). With these various engagements, complementors represent a vital source of information and resources for a platform’s scalability, growth, and competitive sustainability (Jacobides etal., 2018; Wan etal., 2017). CMS platforms provide many resources to stimulate and enable complementors to engage with the platform and all other actors within the ecosystem. They include Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for billing processes in their applications or forums to interact with customers and other complementors. Research on digital platform ecosystems refers to these as platform boundary resources (PBRs), either technical or social PBRs. Technical PBRs comprise APIs or Software Development Kits (SDKs), supporting applications and their development (Bianco etal., 2014; Eaton etal., 2015; Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013). Besides technical PBRs, platforms also provide social PBRs ranging from documentation to interactive forums and hackathons (Bianco etal., 2014; Foerderer etal., 2019). Recent research has devoted particular attention to questions concerning the adequate design of technical PBRs and their role in balancing openness and control from the perspective of the platform owner (Hein etal., 2019a; Karhu etal., 2018). Some researchers have also investigated the ongoing (re) design of PBRs between complementors and the platform owner and complementor satisfaction with them (Eaton etal., 2015; Petrik & Herzwurm, 2020a). Hence, PBRs represent one of the critical elements in creating a successful digital platform by facilitating complementor engagement in general (Petrik & Herzwurm, 2020a, b). However, given the centrality of PBRs in managing the's length relationship with complementors and the scholarly attention to the topic, there is little knowledge of the concrete role of PBRs in facilitating different complementor engagements. While extant research informs platform firms on the importance of PBRs, their relation to the engagement of complementors as the driver of a platform’s generativity and growth remains unknown (Petrik & Herzwurm, 2020a). The standardization of PBRs is a prerequisite to the scalability of the platform ecosystem enabling engagement of all complementors, while individualized PBRs can increase engagement of single complementors (Hein etal., 2019c). Hence, Shopify and other platform firms benefit from a deeper understanding of the application of standardized and individualized PBRs and their respective roles for complementor engagement. In essence, such knowledge will allow platform firms to strategically employ standardized and individualized PBRs to stimulate and steer complementors’ collective and individual engagement. Moreover, the connections between the types of PBRs and the different engagement interactions of complementors contribute to striking a balance between openness and control of external contributions (Boudreau, 2010; Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2011, 2013). Further, the use of PBRs for different engagement types informs the development of complementor strategies and clarifies the nature of their platform dependency (Cenamor, 2021; Nambisan etal., 2018). Therefore, we pose the following guiding research question to be explored with the current study: What is the role of platform boundary resources in complementor engagement of digital platform ecosystems? To answer this research question, we build on an embedded case study in the context of e-commerce CMS platform ecosystems (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2018), constituting one of the fastest growing and fragmented platform markets. More precisely, we apply a two-step research approach. In the first step, we conduct interviews with nine different CMS platforms representatives to overview the overall setting and the platform owner perspective. In the second step, we focus on three of these CMS platforms (namely WordPress, Magento, and Shopify) and conduct 15 interviews with complementors affiliated with them to gain insights into how they engage with the platforms and the role of PBRs to account for the complementor perspective. Notably, 12 of the complementors offer their applications on all three CMS platforms, strengthening the generalizability of our findings for the context of e-commerce CMS platforms. Based on an inductive analysis of the interview data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), we create an in-depth understanding of the interactions between the platforms and their respective complementors via the provided PBRs. First, our results yield insights into five types of complementor engagement: developing products, ensuring compliance, enhancing products, commercializing products, and cooperating in addition to their respective manifestations. Further, alignment with the platform and driving innovation and success emerged as the two engagement goals of complementors. Second, we determine the PBRs that complementors utilize for each engagement manifestation and distinguish between uniform and individual PBRs. The resulting framework provides a much-needed step toward an integrated perspective of PBRs and their role in engaging an ecosystem of complementors. The current paper thus contributes to the literature on digital platform ecosystems by broadening the perspective on PBRs as facilitators of complementors’ strategic engagement. By introducing the novel concepts of complementor resourcing and complementor securing, the results of the current study emphasize the original notion of PBRs enabling resourcing and securing 2008 Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 processes (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013). They represent the complementor perspective in the interactive process of shaping and reshaping PBRs termed “distributed tuning,” as Eaton etal. (2015) suggested. Finally, we shed light on the standardization-individualization tension of PBRs faced by platform owners. Practitioners benefit from an integrated perspective on PBRs and their role in engaging complementors, allowing them to make informed decisions concerning PBR provision and developing strategies for complementor engagement around them. 2 Theoretical Background – Digital Platform Ecosystems Following Tiwana etal. (2010), digital platforms represent an extensible codebase, which provides core functionality extended by interoperable modules. These modules are software-based add-ons, such as applications in the mobile application marketplaces of Apple and Google (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2015; S. Wang etal., 2008). The interconnectedness and necessary interoperability between the modules and the platform results in considerable dependency, leading to increased coordination costs on the part of the developers of the modules (Tiwana, 2015). Platform owners, in turn, face the challenge of defining standards and procedures that increase the openness for external contributions while keeping control over the platform core (Boudreau, 2010, 2012). Prior work has primarily devoted considerable attention to this situation by taking the platform owner's perspective and investigating platform governance and design (Lima Fontão etal., 2019; Schreieck etal., 2021). At its core, platform governance focuses on answering the questions concerning “who makes what decisions about a platform” (Tiwana etal., 2010, p.679). Hence, platform governance considers a broad variety of topics. For instance, it comprises the design and implementation of the rules for admitting complements to the platform application marketplace, summarized as input control (Lima Fontão etal., 2019; Tiwana, 2014). Besides enacting top-down rules, platform owners provide resources to complementors to stimulate and enable their contributions. These affordances provided by the platform owner to complementors take the form of PBRs (Constantinides etal., 2018; Hein etal., 2019a). Thus, PBRs, such as SDKs, allow complementors to develop applications on top of the software-based platform with minimal effort. Thereby, the quality of the PBR is one of the most critical factors for complementors (Koch & Kerschbaum, 2014; Petrik & Herzwurm, 2020a). The conceptual origin of PBRs, the different types, and their relation to complementary resource contributions will be outlined in more detail in the following sections. From a socio-technical view, platform ecosystems are considered structures of inter-firm relations that interact for a focal value proposition to emerge (Adner, 2017). In their recent literature review guided by socio-technical systems theory, K. Kapoor etal. (2021) provide an extensive overview of the socio-technical view of platform ecosystems. They integrate the four dimensions of socio-technical systems, namely technical aspects, tasks, actors, and structures, and derive an extensive research agenda for platform ecosystem research around them. One of their key findings relates to the platform owner’s responsibility to develop “incentive mechanisms not only to attract competent complementors but also to maintain lasting relationships with them” (K. Kapoor etal., 2021, p.99). Since digital platform ecosystems comprise diverse actors, mainly distinguished along the lines of complementors, users, and the platform owner, the management of relationships with other actors is considered a critical success factor (Floetgen etal., 2021; Hein etal., 2019a). Therefore, engaging other users and complementors has received increased attention (Saadatmand etal., 2019). Engagement in the context of digital platform ecosystems is considered an actor’s contribution of resources, such as time, knowledge, and relationships toward the ecosystem and its associated actors (Yu & Ramaprasad, 2019). Hence, engagement is the foundation for value cocreation among complementors and the platform owner (Saadatmand etal., 2019; R. D. Wang & Miller, 2019). We will outline aspects concerning the role of complementors within the ecosystem, their motivations, and strategies in more detail during the following sections. 2.1 Platform Boundary Resources Building on the boundary objects theory (Bharosa etal., 2012; Star, 2010), the concept of PBRs was introduced to research on digital platform ecosystems to denote resources that allow the platform owner to govern complementary software development (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2010). Following the definition by Ghazawneh and Henfridsson (2013, p.174), PBRs are defined as “the software tools and regulations that serve as the interface for the arm’s-length relationship between the platform owner and the application developer.” Prior studies identified different PBRs and distinguished between application boundary resources, development boundary resources, and social boundary resources (Bianco etal., 2014; Petrik & Herzwurm, 2020a). Application boundary resources allow third-party applications to connect with the platform core, including APIs for accessing specific data (Grzenda & Legierski, 2021). Development boundary resources provide the means to developers to develop their applications, such as SDKs or debugging tools. These are supported by social boundary resources which comprise documentation, support contacts, or developer 2009Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 forums (Bianco etal., 2014). The platform's scalability depends on the availability of standardized PBRs, such as APIs, while catering to individual needs of complementors via individualized resources comprising support contacts (Hein etal., 2019c; Huber etal., 2017). By providing PBRs to complementors, the platform owner can fuel generativity within the ecosystem via resourcing while maintaining control over the platform core via securing (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013). That way, PBRs allow the platform owner to balance control and external contribution, mediating between the various parties (Boudreau, 2010; Kannisto etal., 2020). However, PBRs are not exclusively created by the platform owner: when complementors perceive them as limited, they may build PBRs themselves via self-sourcing (Eaton etal., 2015; Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013). Moreover, PBRs can provide an entry point for hostile attacks, such as forking, emphasizing the importance of balancing openness and control to sustain the platform’s competitive advantage (Karhu etal., 2018). In their seminal work, Eaton etal. (2015) investigated the dynamic process of platform owners and complementors in shaping and reshaping PBRs. The authors find that PBRs are artifacts shaped by the interactions between the platform owner and complementors over time. Hence, how complementors engage with the platform and the platform owner determines the presence and shape of the PBRs in digital platform ecosystems and vice versa. 2.2 Engagement ofAutonomous Complementors Critical to the sustained success of multi-sided platform ecosystems is a platform’s ability to attract complementors or, more precisely, external software providers that build complementary software applications or module extensions on top of the platform's technological infrastructure (Ceccagnoli etal., 2012; Engert etal., 2019). Such engagement of complementors forms a symbiotic partnership between platform and complementor that is beneficial to both sides through value cocreation (Zhang etal., 2021). On the one hand, platform ecosystems benefit from a functional extension that adds significant value to end customers through specific software solutions (Engert etal., 2021). On the other hand, complementors can integrate their products into the offering of a broader platform, thus increasing the attractiveness of their value proposition(s) for customers (Adner, 2017; Cennamo & Santalo, 2019). However, complementor engagement transcends the idea of mere app development by complementors. It captures their different ways and forms of interacting with the platform according to their intended objectives and ambitions. More precisely, complementors are autonomous actors who engage with the platform purely out of self-interest and invest their resources (such as their time, know-how and effort) in value co-creating activities only if it enables them to provide a more compelling value proposition to their customers and if they can capture that value (Kude etal., 2012; Rickmann etal., 2014). By having agency, it is evident that complementors differ significantly in terms of their strategy, resources, and capabilities (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018; Lusch & Nambisan, 2015). As such, complementors can be distinguished according to their various roles within the ecosystem. In addition to development-oriented activities, complementors may, for example, also be involved in serviceoriented activities aimed at implementing and integrating the software or its extended modules into the end customer's IT infrastructure. Other complementors may deliver consulting services focusing on adapting and customizing the generic software according to customers' specific needs in the various industry segments (Wareham etal., 2014). Additionally, their agency allows them to affiliate with only one platform, referred to as “single-homing” or multiple platforms at the same time, referred to as “multihoming” (Armstrong, 2006). An app developer, for instance, offering their app on both the Google Play Store and the Apple App store is multihoming. The heterogeneity among complementors and their diverse interactions with the platform complicate the platform owner's attempts to manage and orchestrate the ecosystem. It requires continuous investments in the design and adaptation of the underlying platform to enable value-adding interactions among actors in the ecosystem through PBRs and the implementation of governance mechanisms on the part of the platform owner (Lima Fontão etal., 2019; Tiwana etal., 2010). PBRs, therefore, represent a means or mechanism that facilitates the sharing of resources or knowledge and establishes the foundation and boundaries for resource contributions by various entities, such as complementors (Hein etal., 2019a; Karhu etal., 2018). Depending on the provision and design of the resources and how complementors perceive them, there may be different implications for complementor engagement (Petrik & Herzwurm, 2020a). For example, technical PBRs, such as APIs or SDKs, enable complementors by affording access to the platform's technology. Others, such as the supply of training, certifications, or documentation, aim at knowledge transfer from the platform owner to the complementor and allow an expanded perspective to the mere enablement through a more application-oriented focus (Foerderer etal., 2019). Another critical use of PBRs lies in their potential to motivate and incentivize complementors to interact and commit to the platform ecosystem on an ongoing basis (Schulz etal., 2020; Zhang etal., 2021). Examples are manifold, including supporting successful complementors with dedicated individual resources, such as customer referrals that further enhance their positioning and differentiation within the network (Cenamor, 2021; Huber etal., 2017). Lastly, the ways complementors use and engage with PBRs 2010 Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 provided by the platform owner has consequences for their design, giving rise to the distributed tuning of PBRs (Eaton etal., 2015). To date, however, the scientific debate has not conceptualized the types of complementary engagement within platform ecosystems and the facilitating role of PBRs. This knowledge serves to answer questions concerning the dependency of complementors and explain their strategic engagement with specific platforms. Exploring the use of different PBRs may inform platform owners on the importance of specific PBRs. This is particularly concerning which engagement types build on standardized PBRs and which depend on individual PBRs. These issues are to be addressed with the current work. 3 Research Approach Recognizing the lack of studies to advance our understanding of the role of PBRs in engaging complementors in digital platform ecosystems, we conduct an embedded case study of CMS platform ecosystems in the e-commerce industry (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2018). With a projected global sales volume of $4.2 trillion in 2021, e-commerce represents one of the largest markets created by the rise of digital technologies, making it an intriguing research setting.3 The chosen research approach is particularly suitable to investigate complex and contemporary phenomena, such as digital platform ecosystems, PBRs, and the engagement of complementors. To that end, we apply a qualitative two-step research design comprising 24 semi-structured interviews as the primary data source. First, we conduct interviews with nine different e-commerce CMS platform owners to gain an in-depth understanding of the research setting and the perspective of various platform owners on the provision of PBRs and the engagement of complementors. In a second step, we focus on three e-commerce CMS platforms (WordPress, Magento, and Shopify), interviewing 15 representatives of complementor organizations. The selected units of analysis are all successful and mature platforms, having attracted and engaged large numbers of complementors to their ecosystem. The chosen subunits differ regarding their ownership and governance structure, with WordPress being open-source, Magento being formerly open-source, and in transition to a closed platform after being acquired by Adobe and Shopify being a closed platform. Importantly, our study aims to identify the commonalities across platforms as units of analysis within the broader context of e-commerce CMS platforms. Overall, the employed case study focuses on different types of complementor engagement and the PBRs provided by platform owners while aiming to understand the role of PBRs in complementor engagement in the e-commerce context in general. The following section introduces the role of CMSs in the e-commerce sector and showcases their properties as digital platform ecosystems. 3.1 e‑Commerce Content Management Systems asPlatform Ecosystems In e-commerce, online merchants are the platform's customers, running online shops that build on CMSs. Various e-commerce solution providers acting as platform owners of CMS platforms, such as WordPress, Magento, and Shopify, address this need. Plugins created by third-party developers expand the core functionality of the CMS, thus taking on the role of third-party developers. The complementors utilize PBRs to build and promote their plugins, which are extensions that can be downloaded and installed by online merchants into their platform instantiations, which are their online shops. Typical plugins are, for instance, payment solutions (e.g., Alipay, Amazon Pay) or apps for the online merchant to interact with consumers, such as chat programs or chatbots. We selected three different platforms to understand better complementor engagement and the role of PBRs: WordPress, Magento, and Shopify. Table1 briefly describes each subunit: 3.2 Data Collection Concerning our primary data collection, we first conducted interviews with nine representatives from platform owners (P1 to P9) for an average of 32min each (see Table2). Interviews were conducted under the premise of anonymity; thus, we pseudonymized the platforms as platforms 1 through 9. Our interview questions and the selection of roles focused on the interactions with complementors and the role of PBRs in enabling and managing these interactions. Significantly, in the case of open-source platforms, the platform owner was represented by members of the open-source community. After this round of interviews, we chose three platforms, WordPress, Magento, and Shopify, based on the following rationale: We aimed at selecting three mature platforms with a large number of partners (using the number of available apps in the app store as a proxy), making it necessary to provide a large number of scalable and personal PBRs. Besides, we chose one open-source platform (WordPress) and one proprietary platform (Shopify). We added a third currently open-source platform that is transitioning to a proprietary 3 https:// www. forbes. com/ sites/ joanv erdon/ 2021/ 04/ 27/ globalecomm ercesalestohit42trill ionasonlinesurgeconti nuesadoberepor ts/ 2011Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 status as an intermediate case (Magento). The characteristics of all platforms are displayed in Appendix 1. Subsequently, we conducted 15 interviews with representatives of complementor organizations associated with the three platforms under investigation, focusing primarily on roles related to the technical integration of applications with the platform (see Table3). As shown in Table3, 12 of the complementors offer their applications on all three CMS platforms, strengthening the generalizability of our findings for the context of e-commerce CMS platforms. Interview questions focused on interactions with and the expectations toward the platform. The average interview length for complementors is 38min. All interviews were conducted between early and mid2020 using semi-structured interview guidelines. Appendix 2 provides an overview of the interview guidelines. Each interview was recorded and transcribed to enable structured data analysis. We further investigated secondary data, such as websites, corporate blogs, and whitepapers to triangulate our findings. 3.3 Data Analysis To analyze the data, the research team followed structured coding procedures comprising open, axial, and selective coding, switching between the data and the emerging theory Table 1 CMS platforms as units of analysis included in the embedded case study a https:// wordp ress. org/ plugi ns/ b https:// marke tplace. magen to. com/ c https:// apps. shopi fy. com CMS platform Brief description WordPress (free and open-source) WordPress is a free and open-source CMS platform initiated in 2003. Originally designed to serve as a publishing system, mainly for blogs, but evolved to serve various web functionalities, such as forums, e-commerce, and media galleries. It is the most prominent CMS globally, accounting for about 42% of the entire web (W3Techs, 2021). Due to its open nature, there are no business-level agreements, partner programs, accountancy requirements, or financial incentives. However, it includes a plugin architecture with approximately 59.000 plugins in its marketplace in mid-2021.a Notably, plugins can be installed freely, but to use their features, users may need to subscribe to a paid plan or other modes of payments as requested by the respective developer. Magento (open-source acquired by Adobe and in transition to closed) Magento is an open-source e-commerce digital platform founded in 2008. In 2018, it was acquired by Adobe. Thus, there are both free (Magento Open Source) and paid versions (Magento Commerce, Magento Commerce (on-site)). Magento powers approximately 1.1% of the entire web (W3Techs, 2021). The platform has a marketplace for extensions, which allows users to extend and enhance the capabilities of the Magento platform. There are about 3900 extensions available in the marketplace, which can be free or paid via the Magento marketplace.b Shopify (paid and closed) Shopify is a paid and closed-source e-commerce platform that was founded in 2004. Shopify offers online stores a set of services, including payment management, marketing, shipping, and customer engagement tools, to simplify the management of an online store for small merchants. Shopify accounts for 5.5% of CMS used in the entire web, making it the second biggest CMS besides WordPress (W3Techs, 2021). There are close to 6000 apps on its marketplace as of mid-2021, making Shopify the most crowded marketplace among its competitors.c Table 2 Overview of interviews with platform owner representatives *platform is part of the three selected cases WordPress, Magento, and Shopify Interviewee Role Platform (pseudonymized) Duration P1 Integrations Manager Platform 1 32min P2 Head 3rd Party Developer Ecosystem Platform 2 35min P3 Strategic Partnerships Director Platform 3* 28min P4 Head of Developers Platform Platform 4 43min P5 Director of Technology Partnerships Platform 5 31min P6 Head of App Market Platform 6 39min P7 Partnership Manager Platform 7* 38min P8 Business Development Manager Platform 8* 38min P9 CEO, Co-founder Platform 9 33min 2012 Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Table4 uses an example to illustrate our coding steps. We coded both dimensions to capture complementor engagement and their relation to PBRs while making additional notes and memos. We started openly coding the interviews and identified 103 codes of different instances for complementor engagement. In a second step, we engaged in axial coding and created 32 codes for different complementor activities. Thirdly, we switched to selective coding, firstly (I) integrating the activities in ten engagement manifestations and secondly (II) determining the five engagement types from the engagement manifestations as our final results. The research team iterated between the levels to ensure that higher-level codes aligned with the underlying data. While coding complementor engagement, the team collected the PBRs mentioned by interviewees in the context of each engagement (see bold marks in Table4). These PBRs were then categorized as uniform or individual as part of a separate coding procedure by two research team members. Discussions helped clarify ambiguous PBRs, such as hackathons, which were coded as “individual” PBRs due to their restricted accessibility for complementors. In addition, the research team coded the critical effects of each PBR on complementors’ engagement, which relate to innovation, governance, and communication between the platform owner and complementors. 4 Results The current study provides insights into complementor engagement and the role of PBRs in supporting and enabling the different types of engagement. Our data suggests five types of complementor engagement:developing products, ensuring compliance, enhancing products, commercializing products, and cooperating. For each complementor engagement type, we determine two engagement manifestations. For each manifestation, we collect the respective PBRs through which complementors engage and distinguish them according to their uniform or individualized nature and their critical effects on complementors’ engagement. As such, uniform PBRs reflect standardized one-to-many resources, such as documentation, APIs, and various tools to be used by every complementor without individual adjustments. In contrast, individual PBRs comprise one-to-one and one-to-few resources, such as personal contacts, hackathons, or individual promotions, available to single complementors or selected groups of complementors. Table5 presents examples for uniform and individual PBRs identified from our data and their respective effects on complementor engagement. Appendix 3 provides a detailed overview of all engagement types, manifestations, and the associated PBRs. Lastly, two engagement goals emerge from the engagement types: complementors ensuring platform alignment while also aiming to drive innovation and success concerning their products and services offered via the CMS platforms. Figure1 summarizes our results based on the categories mentioned above. For instance, the engagement manifestation troubleshooting is a subset of enhancing products. For troubleshooting, complementors utilize uniform PBRs, including testing and debugging tools and individual PBRs, such as live chats and personal contacts. The following sections present the results according to the engagement goals, the engagement types associated with these goals, and each type's manifestations. The PBRs utilized are highly interrelated with each engagement Table 3 Overview of interviews with complementors Interviewee Role Affiliated Platform Ecosystems Duration WordPress Magento Shopify C1 Integrations Developer Team Lead x x x 41min C2 CEO, Founder x x x 46min C3 Integrations Developer x x x 38min C4 Business Development Manager x 32min C5 CTO x x x 24min C6 Tech Lead x x x 33min C7 Senior Developer x 34min C8 Integrations Manager x x x 41min C9 Partnerships Specialist x x x 35min C10 Integrations Developer x x x 31min C11 Lead of Integrations Team x x x 51min C12 Growth Hacker x x x 27min C13 Integrations Developer x x x 56min C14 Head of Marketing x x x 39min C15 Platform Integration Specialist x 43min 2013Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 manifestation and therefore presented alongside the manifestations. 4.1 Engagement Goal: Ensure Platform Alignment One goal complementors pursue when engaging with digital platforms is to ensure the platform's alignment concerning technical, legal, and other regulatory aspects. To that end, complementors utilize PBRs to ensure technical integration and alignment with technical requirements. Additionally, complementors ensure compliance with their products and business approach from a legal standpoint, such as financial reporting standards and compliance with platform-specific regulations, such as payment processing. PBRs, such as APIs and the SDK, allow complementors to overcome technological ambiguities while terms and conditions and agreements support their efforts to ensure compliance. 4.1.1 Developing Products Product development encompasses all complementor activity related to developing their products within the standards and prerequisites of the platform in a technical sense. Complementors engage in integration and ensure their alignment with technical requirements. Technical Integration To integrate their products with the platform, complementors interact with the platform to understand its infrastructure, its architectural configuration, and the technological environment's overall dynamics. In this regard, C6 describes that they “[…] first need to study the documentation and API […]” because “[…] all in all, you need to acknowledge the environment.” Part of becoming familiar with the platform is understanding the dependencies of the modules that complement the platform's core functionality. Interview partner C15 expresses that “[…] the biggest challenge is to make sure that the app works for every user in every case” and that this is particularly complex when there are many interdependencies of platform modules. To make the best use of the platform's capabilities, complementors take advantage of the learning opportunities that are either freely available or are limited to specific partners who can receive exclusive certifications. Generally, these training programs help understand necessary details to increase the product's quality significantly. To that end, platform owners open and provide access to the platform in a technical sense and allow complementors to use the basic platform functionalities for application development. The relevant PBRs are standardized for all complementors and range from providing APIs and software development tools, such as compilers and debuggers via SDKs, to sandboxes and testing environments. Moreover, Table 4 Exemplary coding of complementor engagement and associated PBRs Exemplary Interview Data (Open Codes underlined) Complementor Activities (Axial Codes) Engagement Manifestations (Selective Codes I) Engagement Types (Selective Codes II) Associated PBRs "[…] and our objective was to find new platforms to integrate our product on. […] But the problem was they were lacking key functionalities that are essential for us. After a few emails, we called their product team to suggest them working on building these gateways.” (C1) • Inquiries to extend the functionality to enable new product integrations • Technical Requests • Enhancing Products • Emails • Personal contacts 2014 Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 associated with two engagement goals. Each engagement type comprises two manifestations, with each manifestation utilizing different PBRs. We distinguish between uniform and individual PBRs to differentiate them according to their generalizability and scalability. The current paper thus advances the understanding of complementor engagement and its relations with uniform and individualized PBRs. Introducing the novel concepts of complementor resourcing and complementor securing, we emphasize the original notion of PBRs enabling resourcing and securing processes (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013). Moreover, we clarify the standardization-individualization tension concerning the provision of PBRs for platform owners and bring forward the idea of dominant PBR designs within highly competitive platform industries. The integrated perspective on PBRs and their role in engaging complementors allows practitioners to make informed decisions concerning strategic PBR design. Managers on the complementor side benefit from systemizing their engagement activities to develop competitive strategies around PBRs. Table 6 Characteristics of all platforms in the first interview round *small [50–500 apps]; medium [501–3000 apps]; large [3001 + apps] Interviewee Size of App Store* Open Source vs. Proprietary Platform 1 small Proprietary Platform 2 small Proprietary Platform 3 large Open Source Platform 4 small Proprietary Platform 5 medium Proprietary Platform 6 medium Open Source Platform 7 large Proprietary Platform 8 large Open Source Platform 9 large Open Source Table 7 Overview of interview guidelines Interview guideline – platform owners • Information about company and interviewee • Part 1: Questions regarding ecosystem orchestration strategy of the platform, expectation management, preliminary enablement of the complementors, and process of shipping complementary products to the marketplace • Part 2: Questions regarding reviewing complimentary products, initiating maintenance processes, conflict resolution, community orchestration, communication channels with complementors, and igniting innovation • Part 3: Questions regarding benchmarking complementors, ecosystem governance strategies, enforcing requirements, and business level interactions Interview guideline– complementors • Information about company and interviewee • Part 1: Questions regarding digital platform selection, expectations from digital platforms, preliminary engagement with the platforms, and process of building complementary products for digital platforms • Part 2: Questions regarding platform engagement on maintenance processes of complementary products, conflicts, bugs within the platform, participation in the community, interactions with the platform, and innovation • Part 3: Questions regarding evaluating performance, competition strategies, compliance with platform requirements, and business level interactions Appendix1 Characteristics ofall platforms inthefirst interview round Appendix 2 Overview of interview guidelines 2021Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 Table 8 Engagement manifestations and associated PBRs Engagement Types Engagement Manifestations Uniform PBRs (one-to-many) Individual PBRs (one-to-one or one-to-few) Developing Products Technical Integration API, SDK (debuggers, compilers), sandboxes, testing environments, documentation, guidelines, tutorials, videos, training, webinars Exclusive training Technical Requirements Code quality standards, design specifications, blogs, documentation, (code and style) reviews - Ensuring Compliance Legal Compliance Terms and conditions agreements, protection of proprietary rights, privacy policies - Regulatory Compliance Agreements, clarifications of property rights, privacy policies, conflict resolution procedures and enforcement procedures, accounting system for payment processing, transaction management, and financial reporting standards - Enhancing Products Troubleshooting Testing tools, debugging tools, newsletters, guidelines, documentation, changelogs, monthly town halls, forums, stack exchange Personal contacts, live chats, emails, phone contacts Technical Requests - Hackathons, emails, personal contacts Commercializing Products Marketing Prefabricated marketing materials, stock photography, and branding assets Workshops, listings on the marketplace, advertorials, ads such ad banners, cost-per-click campaigns, featured blog postings Competitive Differentiation Benchmarking tools, interfaces to configure non-technical product aspects, market intelligence, and platform ecosystem briefings - Cooperating Knowledge Exchange Blogs, forums, stack exchange Hackathons, code challenges, events, workshops Platform Co-Development - Personal contacts, live chats, emails, phone contacts, Early access programs (alpha and beta) Appendix3 Engagement manifestations andassociated PBRs 2022 Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Bugra Cil for his support in data collection and analysis. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06316 678451 Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 23935 11 Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17562171. 2006. tb000 37.x Bharosa,N., Lee,J., Janssen,M., & Rao,H.R. (2012). An activity theory analysis of boundary objects in cross-border information systems development for disaster management. Security Informatics, 1(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 21908532-115 Bianco,V.D., Myllarniemi,V., Komssi,M., & Raatikainen,M. (2014). The Role of Platform Boundary Resources in Software Ecosystems: A Case Study. IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, 11–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ WICSA. 2014. 41 Boudreau, K. J. (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 Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409–1427. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 1110. 0678 Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012). Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 263–290. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 41410 417 Cenamor, J. (2021). Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions. Journal of Business Research, 122, 335–343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2020. 09. 016 Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2018). Platform architecture and quality trade-offs of multihoming complements. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 461–478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 2018. 0779 Cennamo, C., & 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 Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2019). Generativity Tension and Value Creation in Platform Ecosystems. Organization Science, 30(3), 617–641. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2018. 1270 Claussen, J., Kretschmer, T., & Mayrhofer, P. (2013). The effects of rewarding user engagement: The case of Facebook apps. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 186–200. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 1120. 0467 Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O., & Parker, G. G. (2018). Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 381–400. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 2018. 0794 Cusumano,M.A., Yoffie,D.B., & Gawer,A. (2020). The Future of Platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from https:// sloan review. mit. edu/ artic le/ thefutureofplatf orms/ De Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018). The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124–135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s412650160033-3 de Lima Fontão, A., dos Santos, R. P., & Dias-Neto, A. C. (2019). Exploiting Repositories in Mobile Software Ecosystems from a Governance Perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(1), 143–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s107960189861-8 Drucker, P. F. (2003). The new realities (New). Transaction Publ. Dubé, J.-P.H., Hitsch, G. J., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2010). Tipping and Concentration in Markets with Indirect Network Effects. Marketing Science, 29(2), 216–249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mksc. 1090. 0541 Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., & Yoo, Y. (2015). Distributed tuning of boundary resources: The case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 217–243. https:// doi. org/ 10. 25300/ misq/ 2015/ 39.1. 10 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258557 Engert,M., Chu,Y., Hein,A., & Krcmar,H. (2021). Managing the Interpretive Flexibility of Technology: A Case Study of Celonis and its Partner Ecosystem. In Forty-Second International Conference on Information Systems: ICIS 2021, Austin, TX, United States of America Engert,M., Hein,A., & Krcmar,H. (2020). Partner Programs and Complementor Assessment in Platform Ecosystems: A MultipleCase Study. In Twenty-Sixth Americas Conference on Information Systems: AMCIS 2020, A Virtual Conference (Due to global COVID-19 situation) Engert,M., Pfaff,M., & Krcmar,H. (2019). Adoption of Software Platforms: Reviewing Influencing Factors and Outlining Future Research. In Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems: PACIS 2019, Xi’An, China Floetgen,R.J., Strauss,J., Weking,J., Hein,A., Urmetzer,F., Böhm,M., & Krcmar,H. (2021). Introducing platform ecosystem resilience: leveraging mobility platforms and their ecosystems for the new normal during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09600 85X. 2021. 18840 09 Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Schuetz, S. W., & Heinzl, A. (2019). Knowledge boundaries in enterprise software platform development: Antecedents and consequences for platform governance. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 119–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ isj. 12186 Ghazawneh,A., & Henfridsson,O. (2010). Governing third-party development through platform boundary resources. In Thirty-First International Conference on Information Systems: ICIS 2010, St. Louis, MO, United States of America 2023Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 Ghazawneh,A., & Henfridsson,O. (2011). Micro-Strategizing in Platform Ecosystems: A Multiple Case Study. In Thirty-Second International Conference on Information Systems: ICIS 2011, Shanghai, China Ghazawneh, A., & Henfridsson, O. (2013). Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: The boundary resources model. Information Systems Journal, 23(2), 173–192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 13652575. 2012. 00406.x Ghazawneh, A., & Henfridsson, O. (2015). A paradigmatic analysis of digital application marketplaces. Journal of Information Technology, 30(3), 198–208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ jit. 2015. 16 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine. Grzenda, M., & Legierski, J. (2021). Towards Increased Understanding of Open Data Use for Software Development. Information Systems Frontiers, 23(2), 495–513. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1079601909954-6 Harvey, M. G., & Lusch, R. F. (1995). A systematic assessment of potential international strategic alliance partners. International Business Review, 4(2), 195–212. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 09695931(95) 00005-K Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019a). Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 30(1), 87–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1252501900377-4 Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019b). The emergence of native multi-sided platforms and their influence on incumbents. Electronic Markets, 29(4), 631–647. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1252501900350-1 Hein, A., Weking, J., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019c). Value co-creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 29(3), 503–518. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1252501900337-y Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391–1399. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2018. 01. 019 Huber, T. L., Kude, T., & Dibbern, J. (2017). Governance practices in platform ecosystems: Navigating tensions between cocreated value and governance costs. Information Systems Research, 28(3), 563–584. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 2017. 0701 Hurni,T., Huber,T.L., Dibbern,J., & Krancher,O. (2020). Complementor dedication in platform ecosystems: rule adequacy and the moderating role of flexible and benevolent practices. European Journal of Information Systems, 1–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09600 85X. 2020. 17796 21 Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2904 Kannisto, P., Hästbacka, D., & Marttinen, A. (2020). Information Exchange Architecture for Collaborative Industrial Ecosystem. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(3), 655–670. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s107960189877-0 Kapoor, K., Ziaee Bigdeli, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Schroeder, A., Beltagui, A., & Baines, T. (2021). A socio-technical view of platform ecosystems: Systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 128, 94–108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2021. 01. 060 Kapoor, R., & 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), 531–551. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2017. 1122 Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R., & Lyytinen, K. (2018). Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 479–497. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 2018. 0786 Koch, S., & Kerschbaum, M. (2014). Joining a smartphone ecosystem: Application developers’ motivations and decision criteria. Information and Software Technology, 56(11), 1423–1435. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. infsof. 2014. 03. 010 Kude, T., Dibbern, J., & Heinzl, A. (2012). Why do complementors participate an analysis of partnership networks in the enterprise software industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(2), 250–265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ TEM. 2011. 21114 21 Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service Innovation: A ServiceDominant Logic Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 25300/ MISQ/ 2015/ 39.1. 07 Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ etap. 12254 Nambisan, S., Siegel, D., & Kenney, M. (2018). On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(3), 354–368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sej. 1300 Parker, G. G., van Alstyne, M. W., & Jiang, X. (2017). Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the firm. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 255–266. Petrik,D., & Herzwurm,G. (2020a). Boundary Resources for IIoT Platforms - a Complementor Satisfaction Study. In Forty-First International Conference on Information Systems: ICIS 2020, A digital conference (due to Covid-19) Petrik,D., & Herzwurm,G. (2020b). Towards the IIoT Ecosystem Development - Understanding the Stakeholder Perspective. In Twenty-Eighth European Conference on Information Systems: ECIS 2020, A Digital Conference Rickmann,T., Wenzel,S., & Fischbach,K. (2014). Software Ecosystem Orchestration: The Perspective of Complementors. In Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems: AMCIS 2014, Savannah, GA, United States of America. Saadatmand, F., Lindgren, R., & Schultze, U. (2019). Configurations of platform organizations: Implications for complementor engagement. Research Policy, 48(8), 103770. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2019. 03. 015 Schreieck,M., Wiesche,M., & Krcmar,H. (2021). Capabilities for Value Co-Creation and Value Capture in Emergent Platform Ecosystems: A Longitudinal Case Study of SAP’s Cloud Platform. Journal of Information Technology. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02683 96221 10237 80 Schulz,T., Gewald,H., Böhm,M., & Krcmar,H. (2020). Smart Mobility: Contradictions in Value Co-Creation. Information Systems Frontiers. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1079602010055-y Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., & Svahn, F. (2013). Capability search and redeem across digital ecosystems. Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 183–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ jit. 2013. 14 Soto Setzke,D., Riasanow,T., Böhm,M., & Krcmar,H. (2021). Pathways to Digital Service Innovation: The Role of Digital Transformation Strategies in Established Organizations. Information Systems Frontiers. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1079602110112-0 Star, S. L. (2010). This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01622 43910 377624 Staykova,K.S., & Damsgaard,J. (2017). Towards an Integrated View of Multi-Sided Platforms Evolution. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) Tanriverdi, H., & Lee, C.-H. (2008). Within-industry diversification and firm performance in the presence of network externalities: Evidence from the software industry. Academy of Management 2024 Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025 1 3 Journal, 51(2), 381–397. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ AMJ. 2008. 31767 300 Tavalaei,M.M., & Cennamo,C. (2020). In search of complementarities within and across platform ecosystems: Complementors’ relative standing and performance in mobile apps ecosystems. Long Range Planning, 101994. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2020. 101994 Tiwana,A. (2014). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Amsterdam etal., Netherlands etal.: Morgan Kaufmann Tiwana, A. (2015). Platform desertion by app developers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(4), 40–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07421 222. 2015. 11383 65 Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 1100. 0323 W3Techs. (2021). Usage statistics of content management systems. Retrieved from https:// w3tec hs. com/ techn ologi es/ overv iew/ conte nt_ manag ement Wan, X., Cenamor, J., Parker, G. G., & van Alstyne, M. W. (2017). Unraveling platform strategies: A review from an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Sustainability, 9(5), 734–752. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su905 0734 Wang, R. D., & Miller, C. D. (2019). Complementors’ engagement in an ecosystem: A study of publishers’ e-book offerings on Amazon Kindle. Strategic Management Journal, 76(3), 70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 3076 Wang, S., Zheng, S., Xu, L., Li, D., & Meng, H. (2008). A literature review of electronic marketplace research: Themes, theories and an integrative framework. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(5), 555–571. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s107960089115-2 Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Giner, J. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195–1215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2014. 0895 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE. Yu,Y., & Ramaprasad,J. (2019). Engagement on Digital Platforms: A Theoretical Perspective. In Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems: ICIS 2019, Munich, Germany Zhang,J., Li,S., & Wang,Y. (2021). Shaping a Smart Transportation System for Sustainable Value Co-Creation. Information Systems Frontiers. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1079602110139-3 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Martin Engert is a Ph.D. student at the Chair for Information Systems at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany. He holds a Master’s degree in Management at TUM. Martin has experience in innovation and intellectual property (IP) management from AUDI AG and ZF Friedrichshafen AG. Besides, he worked as an IP consultant. His research interests concern digital platform ecosystems, value co-creation, open-data, and data-driven business models. His work was published in conference proceedings such as ICIS, AMCIS, and PACIS. Julia Evers is a graduate student in the interdisciplinary study program Management and Technology at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany. She has pursued her interest in digital technologies and their impact on the business world both professionally and academically. In projects at Airbus or Celonis, she gained practical experience assessing the transformation potential of blockchain or process mining. In her academic education, she gained a deep understanding of complementor engagement in digital platform ecosystems. Andreas Hein is a research group leader at the Chair for Information Systems, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany. He holds a Master’s degree at TUM in Information Systems. In addition, Andreas has three years of experience as a Senior Strategy Consultant at IBM. His work has appeared in journals such as the European Journal of Information Systems, Business & Information Systems Engineering, and Electronic Markets and refereed conference proceedings such as ICIS, ECIS, PACIS, AMCIS, and HICSS. Andreas focuses his research on digital platform ecosystems, distributed ledger technologies, and value co-creation in complex ecosystems. Helmut Krcmar is Professor Emeritus of Information Systems with the Department of Informatics, Technische Universität München (TUM), Munich, Germany, with a joint appointment with the School of Management, where he is currently the Founding Dean and Delegate Officer of the President – TUM Campus Heilbronn. He has been a Postdoctoral Fellow with IBM Los Angeles Scientific Center, and an Assistant Professor of Information Systems with the Leonard Stern School of Business, NYU, and Baruch College, CUNY. From 1987 to 2002, he was the Chair of Information Systems, Hohenheim University, Stuttgart, where he was the Dean of the Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences. From 2002 to 2020, he was the Chair of Information Systems with the Department of Informatics, TUM, where he was the Dean from 2010 to 2013. His research interests include information and knowledge management, engineering, piloting, and management of innovative IT-based services, computer support for collaboration in distributed and mobile work and learning processes. Interdisciplinary work incorporates areas such as accounting, mechanical engineering, and health care. He has coauthored a plethora of research papers published in major IS journals, including MISQ, JMIS, JIT, ISJ, JSIS, EJIS, and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Helmut Krcmar is a Fellow of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) and a Member of Acatech National Academy of Science and Engineering. 2025Information Systems Frontiers (2022) 24:2007–2025