平台控制和多重实现的平台效益:荟萃分析

IF 5.9 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Nicholas Roberts, Inchan Kim, Kishen Iyengar, Jennifer Pullin
{"title":"平台控制和多重实现的平台效益:荟萃分析","authors":"Nicholas Roberts, Inchan Kim, Kishen Iyengar, Jennifer Pullin","doi":"10.1108/intr-05-2023-0346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Platform owners need to encourage yet control complementors in ways that generate benefits. Retaining too much control can restrict innovation and knowledge flows; giving up too much control can lead to poor quality and platform instability. Studies provide mixed findings that make it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions. We aim to provide a more accurate understanding of the link between platform control and platform benefits.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>We conducted a meta-analysis of empirical research in this area.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Access-based control positively influences realization benefits, but it does not appear to affect creation benefits. Authority-based control does not appear to affect creation or realization benefits. Control is positively linked to benefits on transaction platforms but not on innovation platforms. Platform control is positively related to platform benefits in studies that use objective measures and in studies that measure control from the complementor’s perspective. However, the relationship between control and benefits is uncertain in studies that use perceptual measures and in studies that measure control from the owner’s perspective.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>Tighter restrictions on who can join the platform can lead to greater use of platform innovations. Platform control is also an effective driver of benefits on transaction platforms. Researchers should carefully think through the manner in which they measure platform control and platform benefits. Our study is limited by a small sample size, four moderators and a set of empirical-only studies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Our findings can guide future research and help practitioners better understand when platform control is related to platform benefits.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":54925,"journal":{"name":"Internet Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Platform control and multi-realized platform benefits: a meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Roberts, Inchan Kim, Kishen Iyengar, Jennifer Pullin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/intr-05-2023-0346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>Platform owners need to encourage yet control complementors in ways that generate benefits. Retaining too much control can restrict innovation and knowledge flows; giving up too much control can lead to poor quality and platform instability. Studies provide mixed findings that make it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions. We aim to provide a more accurate understanding of the link between platform control and platform benefits.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>We conducted a meta-analysis of empirical research in this area.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>Access-based control positively influences realization benefits, but it does not appear to affect creation benefits. Authority-based control does not appear to affect creation or realization benefits. Control is positively linked to benefits on transaction platforms but not on innovation platforms. Platform control is positively related to platform benefits in studies that use objective measures and in studies that measure control from the complementor’s perspective. However, the relationship between control and benefits is uncertain in studies that use perceptual measures and in studies that measure control from the owner’s perspective.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\\n<p>Tighter restrictions on who can join the platform can lead to greater use of platform innovations. Platform control is also an effective driver of benefits on transaction platforms. Researchers should carefully think through the manner in which they measure platform control and platform benefits. Our study is limited by a small sample size, four moderators and a set of empirical-only studies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>Our findings can guide future research and help practitioners better understand when platform control is related to platform benefits.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":54925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internet Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internet Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-05-2023-0346\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-05-2023-0346","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的平台所有者需要以能够产生效益的方式鼓励并控制互补者。保留过多控制权会限制创新和知识流动;放弃过多控制权会导致质量低下和平台不稳定。研究结果不一,难以得出具有普遍意义的结论。我们的目标是更准确地理解平台控制与平台效益之间的联系。基于权力的控制似乎不会影响创造或实现效益。在交易平台上,控制与收益呈正相关,但在创新平台上则不然。在使用客观衡量标准的研究和从补充者角度衡量控制的研究中,平台控制与平台效益呈正相关。然而,在使用感知衡量标准的研究和从所有者角度衡量控制权的研究中,控制权与收益之间的关系并不确定。平台控制也是交易平台效益的有效驱动因素。研究人员应仔细考虑衡量平台控制和平台效益的方式。我们的研究受到样本量小、四个调节因素和一组纯经验研究的限制。原创性/价值我们的发现可以指导未来的研究,帮助从业者更好地理解平台控制与平台效益的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Platform control and multi-realized platform benefits: a meta-analysis

Purpose

Platform owners need to encourage yet control complementors in ways that generate benefits. Retaining too much control can restrict innovation and knowledge flows; giving up too much control can lead to poor quality and platform instability. Studies provide mixed findings that make it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions. We aim to provide a more accurate understanding of the link between platform control and platform benefits.

Design/methodology/approach

We conducted a meta-analysis of empirical research in this area.

Findings

Access-based control positively influences realization benefits, but it does not appear to affect creation benefits. Authority-based control does not appear to affect creation or realization benefits. Control is positively linked to benefits on transaction platforms but not on innovation platforms. Platform control is positively related to platform benefits in studies that use objective measures and in studies that measure control from the complementor’s perspective. However, the relationship between control and benefits is uncertain in studies that use perceptual measures and in studies that measure control from the owner’s perspective.

Research limitations/implications

Tighter restrictions on who can join the platform can lead to greater use of platform innovations. Platform control is also an effective driver of benefits on transaction platforms. Researchers should carefully think through the manner in which they measure platform control and platform benefits. Our study is limited by a small sample size, four moderators and a set of empirical-only studies.

Originality/value

Our findings can guide future research and help practitioners better understand when platform control is related to platform benefits.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Internet Research
Internet Research 工程技术-电信学
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
10.20%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This wide-ranging interdisciplinary journal looks at the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the internet. Recent issues have focused on online and mobile gaming, the sharing economy, and the dark side of social media.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信