INTRODUCTION OF DIGITAL PLATFORMS BY INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES AS A SOURCE OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2023-1-18-32
Abstract
This paper examines the impact of digital platforms on the development of industrial companies, their role for the development and formation of sustainable competitive advantages by industrial enterprises. It is investigated how digital platforms affect efficiency and what negative network effects industrial companies experience. As a method of empirical research, the case method of eight Russian industrial companies is used, the number of which varies from 38 to 996 people. All the industrial companies included in the sample have been working on digital platforms for more than 5 years. The results of the study were the conclusions that digital platforms are used as an opportunity to enter foreign markets only by small industrial companies, large and medium-sized companies use other sources of internationalisation; digital platforms are not used as a source of innovative development. Digital platforms serve as an ecosystem to create a better offer for customers. Digital platforms are also a source of sustainable competitive advantages due to the formation of relationships with partners and obtaining information about consumers and markets.
About the Authors
A. V. Trachuk
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Russia), “Goznak” JSC (Moscow, Russia)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of economic sciences, professor, Department of Management and Innovations, Faculty “Higher School of Management”, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, General Director of “Goznak” JSC (Moscow, Russia). ORCID: 0000-0003-2188-7192.
Research interests: strategy and management of the company՚s development, innovation, entrepreneurship and modern business models in the financial and real sectors of the economy, dynamics and development of e-business, operating experience and prospects for the development of natural monopolies.
N. V. Linder
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Russia)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of economic sciences, professor, head of Department of Management and Innovations, Faculty “Higher School of Management”, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Russia). ORCID: 0000-0002-4724-2344.
Research interests: strategy and development management companies, formation of development strategy of industrial companies in the context of the fourth industrial revolution, innovation transformation of business models, dynamics and development of e-business development strategies of companies in the energy sector in the fourth industrial revolution, exit strategies of Russian companies on international markets.
References
1. Anderson J. (2010). M-banking in developing markets: Сompetitive and regulatory im- plications. Info, 12(1): 18-25.
2. Best practices in the deployment of smart grid technologies (2010). McKinsey on Smart Grid. Technical report. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/epng/pdfs/mck%20on%20smart%20grids/mosg_bestpractices_vf.pdf.
3. Brynjolfsson E., McAfee A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York, WW Norton & Company.
4. Ceccagnoli M., Rothaermel F.T. (2008). Appropriating the returns from innovation. In: Libecap G.D., Thursby M.C. (eds.). Technological innovation: Generating economic results. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 11-34.
5. De Marco C., Di Minin A., Marullo C., Nepelski D. (2019). Digital platform innovation in European SMEs. An analysis of SME instrument business proposals and case studies. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2760/57240.
6. De Reuver M., Sørensen C., Basole R.C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124-135.
7. Eisenmann T.R., Parker G., Van Alstyneet M. (2008). Opening platforms: How, when and why? Harvard Business School Working Paper, no. 09-030, September.
8. Eisenmann T., Parker G., Van Alstyne M. (2011). Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12): 1270-1285.
9. Evans D.S. (2008). Antitrust issues raised by the emerging global internet economy. NorthWestern University Law Review, 102(4): 1987-2007.
10. Evans D.S. (2011). Platform economics: Essays on multi-sided businesses. Competition Policy International. https://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/PLATFORM-ECONOMICS-Essays-on-Multi-Sided-Businesses.pdf.
11. Evans D.S., Schmalensee R. (2007). The industrial organization of markets with two-sided platforms. Competition Policy International, 3(1): 151-179.
12. Evans D.S., Schmalensee R. (2010). Failure to launch: Critical mass in platform businesses. Review of Network Economics, 9(4): 1-26.
13. Gawer A., Cusumano M. (2012). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. In: Druid 2012 Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark.
14. 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.
15. Hagiu A., Wright J. (2011). Multisided platforms. Harvard Business School Working Paper, no. 12-024, October.
16. Katz M., Shapiro C. (1986). Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4): 822-841.
17. Koh T.K., Fichman M. (2014). Multi homing users preferences for two-sided exchange networks. MIS Quarterly, 38(4): 977-996.
18. Kwark Y., Chen J., Raghunathan S. (2017). Platform or wholesale? A strategic tool for online retailers to benefit from third-party information. MIS Quarterly, 41(3): 763-785.
19. Pagani M. (2013). Digital business strategy and value creation: Framing the dynamic cycle of control points. MIS Quarterly, 37(2): 617-632.
20. Rochet J.-C., Tirole J. (2006). Two-sided markets: An overview. RAND Journal of Economics, 35(3): 645-667.
21. Roson R. (2005). Platform competition with endogenous multihoming. In: Dewenter R., Haucap J. (eds.). Access pricing: Theory, practice, empirical evidence. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.
22. Rysman M. (2009). The economics of two-sided markets. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3): 125-143.
23. Shapiro C., Varian H.R. (1999). Pricing information. In: Information rules. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 19-51.
24. Spagnoletti P., Resca A., Lee G. (2015). A design theory for digital platforms supporting online communities: А multiple case study. Journal of Information Technology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272318551_A_Design_Theory_for_Digital_Platforms_Supporting_Online_Communities_A_Multiple_Case_Study.
25. Sutton R.I. (1997). The virtues of closet qualitative research. Organization Science, 8(1): 97-106.
26. Tan B., Pan S.L., Lu X. (eds.) (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): 248-280.
27. Tiwana A. (2014). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Amsterdam, Waltham, MA, Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.
28. Tiwana A., Konsynski B., Bush A. (2010). Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4): 685-687.
29. Wareham J., Fox P.B., Cano Giner J.L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4): 1195-1215.
30. Ye G., Priem R.L., Alshwer A.A. (2012). Achieving demand-side synergy from strategic diversification: How combining mundane assets can leverage consumer utilities. Organization Science, 23(1): 207-224.
Review
For citations:
Trachuk A.V., Linder N.V. INTRODUCTION OF DIGITAL PLATFORMS BY INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES AS A SOURCE OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES. Strategic decisions and risk management. 2023;14(1):18-32. https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2023-1-18-32
Views:
729
Email this article 