Digital platforms are increasingly recognized as transformative tools for government service delivery. Yet, many platforms fail to achieve their intended impact and there is limited understanding of the organizational capabilities required to develop successful platforms. This study addresses this gap with an in-depth case study of a platform that successfully fostered an ecosystem of internal and external stakeholders – an achievement often described in the literature as challenging. The study identifies three organizational capabilities the public sector organization used for building a digital platform that engages with the surrounding ecosystem – technological asset management, platform architecture, and ecosystem orchestration – and shows how they are interlinked and mutually reinforce one another. The findings further advance the Government as a Platform literature by uncovering an unconventional platform development trajectory and highlighting the importance of user-centric and agile approaches towards platform development.
AdnerR.HelfatC. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.331
3.
AmitR.SchoemakerP. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140105
4.
AndrewsR.BeynonM. J.McDermottA. M. (2016). Organizational capability in the public sector: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv005
5.
AnsellC.MiuraS. (2020). Can the power of platforms be harnessed for governance?Public Administration, 98(1), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12636
6.
AttardJ.OrlandiF.ScerriS.AuerS. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006
BarneyJ. B.KetchenD. J.WrightM.Jr (2011). The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline?Journal of Management, 37(5), 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310391805
10.
BeganyG. M.MartinE. G. (2020). Moving towards open government data 2.0 in US health agencies: Engaging data users and promoting use. Information Polity, 25(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-190169
11.
BlaschkeM.HakiK.AierS.WinterR. (2018). Capabilities for digital platform survival: insights from a business-to-business digital platform. Thirthy Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018.
12.
BoninaC.EatonB. (2020). Cultivating open government data platform ecosystems through governance: Lessons from Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Montevideo. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101479
13.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.003
14.
BrysonJ. M.AckermannF.EdenC. (2007). Putting the resource-based view of strategy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(4), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00754.x
15.
BurnsT.StalkerG. M. (1961). Mechanistic and organic systems. Tavistock Publications.
CordellaA.BoninaC. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004
18.
CordellaA.PalettiA. (2019). Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409
19.
CusumanoM. A.YoffieD. B.GawerA. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital, competition, innovation, and power. HarperCollins Publishers.
20.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
21.
DanneelsL.ViaeneS. (2015). Simple rules strategy to transform government: An ADR approach. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.006
22.
DanneelsL.ViaeneS.Van den BerghJ. (2017). Open data platforms: Discussing alternative knowledge epistemologies. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.007
23.
De ReuverM.SørensenC.BasoleR. C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3
24.
de ReuverM.SteinS.HampeJ. F. (2013). From eParticipation to mobile participation: Designing a service platform and business model for mobile participation. Information Polity, 18(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-0276
25.
DosiG.NelsonR. R.WinterS. G. (2000). Introduction: The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. In DosiG.NelsonR. R.WinterS. G. (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities (p. 22). Oxford university press.
26.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS.TinklerJ. (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
El SawyO. A.MalhotraA.ParkY.PavlouP. A. (2010). Research commentary—seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: It takes three to tango. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0326
FernandezS.RaineyH. G. (2017). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. In Debating public administration (pp. 7–26). Routledge.
31.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus022
32.
GawerA. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006
33.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
34.
GrantR. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.4.375
35.
GuptaA.PanagiotopoulosP.BowenF. (2020). An orchestration approach to smart city data ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119929
36.
HakiK.BlaschkeM.AierS.WinterR.TilsonD. (2024). Dynamic capabilities for transitioning from product platform ecosystem to innovation platform ecosystem. European Journal of Information Systems, 33(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2136542
37.
HarrisonT. M.PardoT. A.CookM. (2012). Creating open government ecosystems: A research and development agenda. Future Internet, 4(4), 900–928. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi4040900
38.
HarveyG.SkelcherC.SpencerE.JasP.WalsheK. (2010). Absorptive capacity in a non-market environment: A knowledge-based approach to analysing the performance of sector organizations. Public Management Review, 12(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902817923
HelfatC. E.RaubitschekR. 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
41.
JanssenM.EstevezE. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30(S1), S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003
42.
KapoorK.Ziaee BigdeliA.DwivediY. K.SchroederA.BeltaguiA.BainesT. (2021). A socio-technical view of platform ecosystems: Systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 128(2021), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.060
43.
KleinH. K.MyersM. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410
44.
KlievinkB.BharosaN.TanY. H. (2016). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.12.002
45.
KogutB.ZanderU. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
46.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391211
47.
MaccaniG.DonnellanB.HelfertM. (2015). Exploring the factors that influence the diffusion of open data for new service development: An interpretive case study. In ECIS 2015: Proceedings of the 23rd European conference on Information Systems, Münster, Germany.
MergelI. (2018). Open innovation in the public sector: Drivers and barriers for the adoption of Challenge.gov. Public Management Review, 20(5), 726–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1320044
51.
MergelI.GanapatiS.WhitfordA. B. (2021). Agile: A new way of governing. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13202
MolinaA. D.SpicerM. W. (2004). Aristotelian rhetoric, pluralism, and public administration. Administration & Society, 36(3), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399704265293
54.
MukhopadhyayS.BouwmanH.JaiswalM. P. (2019). An open platform centric approach for scalable government service delivery to the poor: The Aadhaar case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.001
NewcomerK. E.CaudleS. L. (1991). Evaluating public sector information systems: More than meets the eye. Public Administration Review, 51(5), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/976406
57.
O’ReillyT. (2010). Government as a platform. In LathropL.RumaL. (Eds.), Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice (pp. 13–40). Calif. O’Reilly Media.
58.
PabloA. L.ReayT.DewaldJ. R.CasebeerA. L. (2007). Identifying, enabling and managing dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 687–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00675.x
59.
PanagiotopoulosP.KlievinkB.CordellaA. (2019). Public value creation in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421
60.
PangM. S.LeeG.DeLoneW. H. (2014). IT Resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in public-sector organizations: A public-value management perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 29(3), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.2
61.
PenroseE. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. John Wiley.
62.
PeppardJ.WardJ. (2004). Beyond strategic information systems: towards an IS capability. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2004.02.002
63.
PeterafM. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303
64.
PieningE. P. (2013). Dynamic capabilities in public organizations: A literature review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 15(2), 209–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.708358
65.
SchreieckM.WiescheM.KrcmarH. (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, 36(4), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211023780
TanB.PanS. L.LuX.HuangL. (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), 2. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00393
ThompsonM.VentersW. (2021). Platform, or technology project? A spectrum of six strategic ‘plays’ from UK government IT initiatives and their implications for policy. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101628
70.
WadeM.HullandJ. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148626
71.
WalshamG. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1995.9
YildizM. (2007). E-Government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002
77.
ZolloM.WinterS. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
