Societal digital platforms have emerged globally as a new class of digital platforms to address community and social needs in several countries. Based on platform centred ecosystem approach, societal digital platforms not only provide solution to some significant community problem but also enable other ecosystem participants to create innovative solutions on top of such platforms in diverse fields. This study examines how, in absence of any monetary appropriation, architecture and design features of societal digital platforms facilitate achieving platform goals of ecosystem innovation and network effect. A qualitative multiple case study method based on a data-driven approach has been followed to examine a set of propositions. In-depth interpretive case analysis has been used to analyse multiple cases employing NVivo software. It has been established that the architecture and design aspects of societal digital platforms enable ecosystem innovation (due to modularity and by adopting open standards) as well as drive positive network effect (due to scalability and strong ties network). For practitioners and policy planners, this research contributes by bringing out configurations which need to be incorporated in architecture and design to realize societal digital platforms goals. These can be further employed in other similar platforms which are emerging in different countries. Secondly, this study contributes to the theoretical understanding of elements of ecosystem innovation and network effect in case of societal digital platforms.
AnsellC., & MiuraS. (2020). Can the power of platforms be harnessed for governance?Public Administration, 98(1), 261–276.
2.
BaldwinC. Y., & WoodardC. J. (2009). The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Platforms, markets and innovation. 19–44. Research Collection School of Information Systems. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/2452
3.
BoudreauK. J., & JeppesenL. B. (2015). Unpaid crowd complementors: The platform network effect mirage. Strategic Management Journal, 36(12), 1761–1777.
4.
BrownA., FishendenJ., ThompsonM., & VentersW. (2017). Appraising the impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP) in UK Government public service reform: Towards a Platform Assessment Framework (PAF). Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 167–182.
5.
BrunswickerS., & MukherjeeS. (2020). The Microstructure of Complex Design Architectures: A Theory of Design Network Motifs. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2020, No. 1, p. 21853). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
6.
BygstadB., & D’SilvaF. (2015, November). Government as a platform: a historical and architectural analysis. In Norsk konferanse for organisasjoners bruk at IT (Norwegian Conference for Organisation use of IT (Vol. 23, No. 1).
7.
CapaldoA. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 585–608.
8.
ConstantinidesP., HenfridssonO., & ParkerG. G. (2018). Introduction: Platforms, and infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 253–523.
9.
CusumanoM. (2010). Technology strategy and management: The evolution of platform thinking. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 32–34.
10.
CusumanoM. A., GawerA., & YoffieD. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition. Innovation, and power (pp 275-284). HarperCollins Publishers.
11.
CusumanoM., GawerA., & YoffieD. (2021). Can self-regulation save digital platforms?Industrial and Corporate Change, 30(5). Oxford University Press
12.
D’SilvaD., FilkováZ., PackerF., & TiwariS. (2019). The design of digital financial infrastructure: Lessons from India (Paper No. 106). BIS.
13.
de ReuverM., SørensenC., & BasoleR. C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124–135.
14.
EatonB. D. (2012). The dynamics of digital platform innovation: Unfolding the paradox of control and generativity in Apple’s iOS [Doctoral dissertation, The London School of Economics and Political, Science (LSE)].
15.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
EvansP. C., & BasoleR. C. (2016). Revealing the API ecosystem and enterprise strategy via visual analytics. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 26–28.
18.
EvansD. S., & SchmalenseeR. (2016). Matchmakers: The new economics of multisided platforms. Harvard Business Review Press.
19.
FidelR. (1984). The case study method: A case study. Library and Information Science Research, 6(3), 273–288.
20.
FishendenJ., & ThompsonM. (2013). Digital government, open architecture, and innovation: Why public sector IT will never be the same again. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 977–1004.
21.
GarudR., & KumaraswamyA. (1995). Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 93–109.
22.
GawerA. (2009). Platform dynamics and strategies: From products to services. Platforms, Markets, and Innovation, 45, 57.
23.
GawerA., & CusumanoM. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation (Vol. 5, pp. 29-30). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
24.
GawerA., & CusumanoM. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.
25.
GlukhikhI. N., & TolstolesovaL. A. (2021). Systems Engineering Methodology for Designing Digital Public–Private Partnership Platforms. Applied System Innovation, 4(1), 4.
26.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
27.
HautamäkiA., & OksanenK. (2017). Sustainable innovation: Solving wicked problems through innovation. In MentionA.-L. & TorkkeliM. (Eds.), Open innovation: a multifaceted perspective: Part I (pp. 87–110). World Scientific Publishing Company.
28.
HuangJ., HenfridssonO., LiuM. J., & NewellS. (2017). Growing on steroids: Rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 301–314.
29.
IsckiaT., de ReuverM., & LescopD. (2018, September). Digital innovation in platform-based ecosystems: An evolutionary framework. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Management of Digital EcoSystems (pp. 149–156).
30.
JoseS., & PurohitS. (2018, February7). Societal platforms: Reimagining developments. India Development Review. https://ideronline.org
31.
KatzM. L., & ShapiroC. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424–440.
32.
KohT. K., & FichmanM. (2014). Multihoming users’ preferences for two-sided exchange networks. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 977–996.
33.
KraatzM. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 621–643.
34.
LarsonA. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 76–104.
35.
LightA., & SeravalliA. (2019). The breakdown of the municipality as caring platform: Lessons for co-design and co-learning in the age of platform capitalism. CoDesign, 15(3), 192–211.
36.
MaxwellJ. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE Publications.
37.
McIntyreD. P., & SrinivasanA. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 141–160.
38.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
39.
MirU. B., KarA. K., GuptaM. P., & SharmaR. S. (2019, September). Prioritizing digital identity goals: The case study of Aadhaar in India. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 489–501). Springer.
40.
MooreG. C., & BenbasatI. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
41.
MukhopadhyayS., BouwmanH., & JaiswalM. P. (2020). An open platform centric approach for scalable government service delivery to the poor: The Aadhaar case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 437–448.
42.
OkoliC., & SchabramK. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824
43.
OllerosX. (2008). The lean core in digital platforms. Technovation, 28(5), 266–276.
44.
PeristerasV., & TarabanisK. (2000). Towards an enterprise architecture for public administration using a top-down approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 9(4), 252–260.
45.
PervanG., & MaimboM. (2005). Designing a case study protocol for application in IS research. In Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1281–1292). PACIS.
46.
RaghavanV., JainS., & VarmaP. (2019). India stack—Digital infrastructure as public good. Communications of the ACM, 62(11), 76–81.
47.
RanerupA., HenriksenH. Z., & HedmanJ. (2016). An analysis of business models in Public Service Platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 6–14.
48.
RindfleischA., & MoormanC. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 1–18.
49.
SanchezR., & MahoneyJ. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76.
50.
SchwarzJ. A. (2017). Platform logic: An interdisciplinary approach to the platform-based economy. Policy & Internet, 9(4), 374–394.
51.
StallkampM., & SchotterA. P. (2021). Platforms without borders? The international strategies of digital platform firms. Global Strategy Journal, 11(1), 58–80.
52.
SuarezF. F. (2005). Network effects revisited: The role of strong ties in technology selection. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 710–720.
53.
TäuscherK., & AbdelkafiN. (2018). Scalability and robustness of business models for sustainability: A simulation experiment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 654–664.
54.
TiwanaA., KonsynskiB., & BushA. A. (2010). Research commentary: Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.
55.
TrabucchiD., & BuganzaT. (2020). Fostering digital platform innovation: From two to multi-sided platforms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(2), 345–358.
56.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.
57.
VassilakopoulouP., GrisotM., Blegind JensenT., SellbergN., EltesJ., ThorsengA. A., & AanestadM. (2017). Building national eHealth platforms: The challenge of inclusiveness. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems-Transforming Society with Digital Innovation, ICIS 2017.
58.
VestuesK., MikalsenM., & MonteiroE. (2021, January). Using digital platforms to promote a service-oriented logic in public sector organizations: A case study. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (p. 2193).
59.
Van AlstyneM., & ParkerG. (2017). Platform business: from resources to relationships. NIM Marketing Intelligence Review, 9(1), 24–29.
60.
Von HellensL., NielsenS., & BeekhuyzenJ. (Eds.). (2005). Qualitative case studies on implementation of enterprise wide systems. Igi Global.
61.
YinR. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.
62.
YooY., HenfridssonO., & LyytinenK. (2010). Research commentary: The new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.
