Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Co-creation of value in Platform-Dependent Entrepreneurial Ventures

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the rise in digital platforms, particularly platform-dependent entrepreneurial ventures (PDEVs), and the potential for collaboration among different stakeholders, the dynamics of co-creating value in this context remains unexplored. To address this gap, we offer an integrated conceptual framework that combines prior research on ambidexterity and co-creation and take a two-step approach for analysis: first, the direct impact of multiple dimensions of co-creation (i.e., dialog, access, risk analysis and transparency) on strategic outcomes is analyzed; second, the modus operandi of co-creation’s indirect effects within a dynamic environment alongside ambidexterity is analyzed. Results from 298 PDEVs support the direct effects of a co-creation strategy on firm outcomes, as well as the independent benefits of the dialog and access dimensions. Results from the subsequent process-focused model also support the indirect effects of co-creation, with exploitation being crucial for converting the value from co-creation into beneficial outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table 2
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Table 4
Table 6
Table 7
Fig. 4
Table 8
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albinsson, P. A., Perera, B. B. Y., Cruces, L., & Sautter, P. (2011). ‘Assessing value co-creation: DART scale development and validation’, Marketing 2011: Delivering Value in Turbulent Times, 458

  2. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). ‘Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation’. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). ‘Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context’. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). ‘ The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berger, E. S., von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Kuckertz, A. (2019). ‘Digital or not–The future of entrepreneurship and innovation: Introduction to the special issue’. Journal of Business Research, 125, 436–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). ‘Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited,’. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Birkinshaw, J. (2017). ‘Reflections on open strategy’. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 423–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boon, E., Pitt, L., & Salehi-Sangari, E. (2015). ‘Managing information sharing in online communities and marketplaces’. Business Horizons, 58(3), 347–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonaccorsi, A., & Rossi, C. (2003). ‘Why open source software can succeed’. Research policy, 32(7), 1243–1258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). ‘Alternative ways of assessing model fit’. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: SAGE Publications

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brunn, P., Jensen, M., & Skovgaard, J. (2002). ‘e-Marketplaces: Crafting A Winning Strategy’. European Management Journal, 20(3), 286–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brush, C. G., & Vanderwerf, P. A. (1992). ‘A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance’. Journal of Business venturing, 7(2), 157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1993). ),‘Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: a validation study’. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 391–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). ‘Founder competence, the environment and venture performance’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 77–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chandna, V., & Salimath, M. S. (2020). ‘When technology shapes community in the Cultural and Craft Industries: Understanding virtual entrepreneurship in online ecosystems’. Technovation, 92, 102042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chandna, V., & Salimath, M. S. (2018). ‘Peer-to-peer selling in online platforms: A salient business model for virtual entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Research, 84, 162–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cho, J., Ozment, J., & Sink, H. (2008). ‘Logistics capability, logistics outsourcing and firm performance in an e-commerce market’. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 336–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chuang, S. H. (2020). ‘Co-creating social media agility to build strong customer-firm relationships’. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 202–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Church, E. M., & Oakley, R. L. (2018). ‘Etsy and the long-tail: how microenterprises use hyper-differentiation in online handicraft marketplaces,’. Electronic Commerce Research, 18(4), 883–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). ‘Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems’. Research Policy, 43(7), 1164–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cooper, A. C., & Artz, K. W. (1995). ‘Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs’. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6), 439–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cutolo, D., Hargadon, A., & Kenney, M. (2021). ‘Competing on Platforms’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(3), 22–30

    Google Scholar 

  24. Del Aguila-Obra, A. R., & Padilla-Melendez, A. (2006). ‘Organizational factors affecting Internet technology adoption’. Internet Research, 16(1), 94–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. de Oliveira, D. T., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2017). ‘Value co-creation in web-based multisided platforms: A conceptual framework and implications for business model design’. Business Horizons, 60(6), 747–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). ‘Dimensions of organizational task environments’,Administrative Science Quarterly,52–73

  27. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). ‘Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?’. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dunkelberg, W., Moore, C., Scott, J., & Stull, W. (2013). ‘Do entrepreneurial goals matter? Resource allocation in new owner-managed firms’. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 225–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Elias, S. R., Chiles, T. H., Duncan, C. M., & Vultee, D. M. (2018). The aesthetics of entrepreneurship: How arts entrepreneurs and their customers co-create aesthetic value. Organization Studies, 39(2–3), 345–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2006). ‘ The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance’. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 243–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Firat, A. F., Dholakia, N., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). ‘ Marketing in a postmodern world’. European Journal of Marketing, 29(1), 40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). ‘The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates’,American Sociological Review,692–710

  34. Frow, P., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2011). ‘Co-creation: a typology and conceptual framework’, in Proceedings of the 2011: Anzmac Conference, 28–30

  35. Fujitsu website (2017). http://www.fujitsu.com/global/microsite/vision/digital-co-creation/, Last accessed on Dec 6, 2017

  36. Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2009). ‘Consumer empowerment through internet-based co-creation’. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 71–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5), 1479–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). ‘The interplay between exploration and exploitation’. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hajli, N., Shanmugam, M., Papagiannidis, S., Zahay, D., & Richard, M. O. (2017). ‘Branding co-creation with members of online brand communities’. Journal of Business Research, 70, 136–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Harman, H. H. (1967). Modem factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010). ‘Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance’. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 590–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Holbrook, M. B. (1996). ‘Special session summary Customer Value–A framework for analysis and research’, in Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch Jr., (eds.), NA- Advances in Consumer Research, 23(2), 138–142

  44. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). ‘Evaluating model fit’. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Sage Publications, Inc.

  45. Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). ‘Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators’. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kale, S., & Arditi, D. (1998). ‘Business failures: Liabilities of newness, adolescence, and smallness’. Journal of Construction engineering and management, 124(6), 458–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kazadi, K., Lievens, A., & Mahr, D. (2016). ‘Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders’. Journal of business research, 69(2), 525–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kennedy, E. (2017). ‘I create, you create, we all create–for whom?, Journal of Product & Brand Management.

  49. Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). ‘The rise of the platform economy’. Issues in science and technology, 32(3), 61

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research (4th ed.). Holt, NY

  51. Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2017). ‘Customer co-creation and exploration of emerging technologies: the mediating role of managerial attention and initiatives’. Long Range Planning, 50(2), 221–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim, E., Tang, L., & Bosselman, R. (2019). ‘Customer perceptions of innovativeness: an accelerator for value co-creation’. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43(6), 807–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press: NY

  54. Knights, D., Noble, F., Vurdubakis, T., & Willmott, H. (2001). Chasing shadows: control, virtuality and the production of trust. Organization studies, 22(2), 311–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kotler, P. (2002). Marketing Management. London: Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kraus, S., Rigtering, J. C., Hughes, M., & Hosman, V. (2012). ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands’. Review of Managerial Science, 6(2), 161–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kuhn, K. M., & Galloway, T. L. (2015). ‘With a little help from my competitors: Peer networking among artisan entrepreneurs’. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 39(3), 571–600

    Google Scholar 

  58. Laplume, A. O., & Dass, P. (2015). ‘ Outstreaming for ambidexterity: evolving a firm’s core business from components to systems by serving internal and external customers’. Long Range Planning, 48(3), 135–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). ‘Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base’. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). ‘Differentiation and integration in complex organizations’,Administrative Science Quarterly,1–47

  61. Lee, L., & Yang, C. L. (2013). ‘Key Success Factors in Female Micro Entrepreneurship-A Study of the Catering Business’. Service Science and Management Research, 2(3), 39–47

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lee, W. H., Miou, C. S., Kuan, Y. F., Hsieh, T. L., & Chou, C. M. (2018). ‘A peer-to-peer transaction authentication platform for mobile commerce with semi-offline architecture,’. Electronic Commerce Research, 18(2), 413–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Li, D. Y., & Liu, J. (2014). ‘Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China’. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2793–2799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). ‘Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration’. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). ‘Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance’. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Maklan, S., Knox, S., & Ryals, L. (2008). ‘New trends in innovation and customer relationship management: a challenge for market researchers’. International Journal of Market Research, 50(2), 240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. March, J. G. (1991). ‘ Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). ‘ Strategy-making and environment: the third link’. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Morse, E. A., Fowler, S. W., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). ‘The Impact of Virtual Embeddedness on New Venture Survival: Overcoming the Liabilities of Newness’. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(2), 139–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. (2014). ‘Knowing when to leap: transitioning between exploitative and explorative R&D’. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 126–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). ‘Interactions in virtual customer environments: Implications for product support and customer relationship management’. Journal of interactive marketing, 21(2), 42–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Nambisan, S. (2017). ‘Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nambisan, S., Siegel, D., & Kenney, M. (2018). ‘On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship’. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(3), 354–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Navarro, S., Llinares, C., & Garzon, D. (2016). ‘Exploring the relationship between co-creation and satisfaction using QCA’. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1336–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. O’Brien, R. M. (2007). ‘A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors’. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). ‘The ambidextrous organization’. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83

    Google Scholar 

  77. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). ‘Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future’. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2013). ‘What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector’. Organization Science, 25(3), 868–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Ovaskainen, M., & Tinnilä, M. (2011). ‘Megatrends in electronic business: An analysis of the impacts on SMEs’. International Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation (IJEEI), 2(1), 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). ‘Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms’,International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,1–18

  81. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). ‘Managing the co-creation of value’. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36(1), 83–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Pee, L. G. (2016). ‘Customer co-creation in B2C e-commerce: does it lead to better new products?’. Electronic Commerce Research, 16(2), 217–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Piller, F. T., Vossen, A., & Ihl, C. (2012). ‘From social media to social product development: the impact of social media on co-creation of innovation’,Die Unternehmung, 65(1)

  84. Pitelis, C. N. (2009). The co-evolution of organizational value capture, value creation and sustainable advantage. Organization studies, 30(10), 1115–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Pitelis, C. (2012). ‘Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual framework’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(6), 1359–1388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. (2010). ‘Cross-border market co-creation, dynamic capabilities and the entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise’. Industrial and corporate change, 19(4), 1247–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Pluijm, L. (2010). ‘Realizing co-creation’, Master Thesis, Tilburg University

  88. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). ‘Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Prahalad, C. K., & Krishnan, M. S. (2008). The new age of innovation: Driving cocreated value through global networks. New York: McGraw-Hill

    Google Scholar 

  90. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). ‘Co-opting customer competence’. Harvard Business Review, 78, 79–90

    Google Scholar 

  91. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). ‘Co-creating unique value with customers’. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Zollo, M. (2006). ‘Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions’. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 263–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). ‘Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators’. Journal of management, 34(3), 375–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). ‘Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance’. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). ‘Building the co-creative enterprise’. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 100–109

    Google Scholar 

  96. Rayna, T., Striukova, L., & Darlington, J. (2015). ‘Co-creation and user innovation: The role of online 3D printing platforms’. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37, 90–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Reynolds, P. D. (2000). ‘National panel study of U.S. business start-ups: Background and methodology’. In J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (4 vol., pp. 153–228). Stamford, CT: JAI Press

    Google Scholar 

  98. Roberts, N. (2015). ‘Absorptive capacity, organizational antecedents, and environmental dynamism,’. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2426–2433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Robinson, D. K., Rip, A., & Mangematin, V. (2007). ‘Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology’. Research policy, 36(6), 871–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). ‘Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity’. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Rullani, F., & Haefliger, S. (2013). ‘The periphery on stage: The intra-organizational dynamics in online communities of creation’. Research Policy, 42(4), 941–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Saeed, K. A., Grover, V., & Hwang, Y. (2005). ‘The relationship of e-commerce competence to customer value and firm performance: an empirical investigation’. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 223–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Spena, T. R., Caridà, A., Colurcio, M., & Melia, M. (2012). ‘Store experience and co-creation: the case of temporary shop’. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(1), 21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Second Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, New Jersey, London

  105. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). ‘Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation’. Organization Science, 14(6), 650–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). ‘A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes’. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Steiger, J. H. (1990). ‘Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach’. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Sugathan, P., Ranjan, K. R., & Mulky, A. G. (2017). ‘An examination of the emotions that follow a failure of co-creation’. Journal of Business Research, 78, 43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Sugathan, P., & Ranjan, K. R. (2019). ‘Co-creating the tourism experience’. Journal of Business Research, 100, 207–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Swift, T. (2016). ‘The perilous leap between exploration and exploitation’. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1688–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Tanaka, J. S. (1993). ‘Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models’. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10–39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  112. Trochim, W., Donnelly, J., & Arora, K. (2015). Research methods: The essential knowledge base, Cengage Learning: Boston, MA

  113. Troxler, P., & Wolf, P. (2017). ‘Digital maker-entrepreneurs in open design: What activities make up their business model?’. Business Horizons, 60(6), 807–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Tsao, W. C., & Hsieh, M. T. (2015). ‘eWOM persuasiveness: do eWOM platforms and product type matter?’. Electronic Commerce Research, 15(4), 509–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Tseng, F. M., & Chiang, L. L. (2016). ‘Why does customer co-creation improve new travel product performance?’. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2309–2317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). ‘Learning through acquisitions’. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 457–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Verona, G., Prandelli, E., & Sawhney, M. (2006). Innovation and virtual environments: Towards virtual knowledge brokers. Organization studies, 27(6), 765–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Volery, T., Mueller, S., & von Siemens, B. (2015). ‘Entrepreneur ambidexterity: A study of entrepreneur behaviours and competencies in growth-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises’. International Small Business Journal, 33(2), 109–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Walrave, B., Romme, A. G. L., van Oorschot, K. E., & Langerak, F. (2017). ‘Managerial attention to exploitation versus exploration: toward a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(6), 1145–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach’. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Wirtz, B. W., Schilke, O., & Ullrich, S. (2010). ‘Strategic development of business models: implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the Internet’. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 272–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Witell, L., Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Löfgren, M. (2011). ‘Idea generation: customer co-creation versus traditional market research techniques’. Journal of Service Management, 22(2), 140–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Wright, K. B. (2005). ‘ Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services’,Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 10(3)

  124. Wu, Y., & Wu, S. (2015). ‘Managing ambidexterity in creative industries: A survey’. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2388–2396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Wu, S. L., & Hsu, C. P. (2018). ‘Role of authenticity in massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs): Determinants of virtual item purchase intention’. Journal of Business Research, 92, 242–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Yang, T. T., & Li, C. R. (2011). ‘Competence exploration and exploitation in new product development: the moderating effects of environmental dynamism and competitiveness’. Management Decision, 49(9), 1444–1470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Yeung, A. H. W., Lo, V. H. Y., Yeung, A. C. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2008). ‘Specific customer knowledge and operational performance in apparel manufacturing’. International Journal of Production economics, 114(2), 520–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Zaheer, H., Breyer, Y., & Dumay, J. (2019). ‘Digital entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary structured literature review and research agenda,’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Zifla, E., & Wattal, S. (2016). ‘Community Engagement in Peer-to-Peer Business: Evidence from Etsy.Com’, in ECIS (September. 55)

  130. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). ‘Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms’. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Zutshi, A., Zutshi, S., & Sohal, A. (2006). ‘How e-entrepreneurs operate in the context of open source software’ in Zhao, F. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and Innovations in E-Business: An Integrative Perspective. Idea Group: Hershey, PA, 62–88

  132. Iacobucci, D., & Rosa, P. (2005). Growth, diversification, and business group formation in entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics, 25(1), 65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organization Science, 24(5), 1459–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Luu, T. T., Rowley, C., & Dinh, K. C. (2018). Enhancing the effect of frontline public employees’ individual ambidexterity on customer value co-creation.Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

  135. Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Bagherzadeh, M., & Singh, J. J. (2020). Co-creation: A key link between corporate social responsibility, customer trust, and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(1), 151–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Dahlin, P., Moilanen, M., Østbye, S. E., & Pesämaa, O. (2020). Absorptive capacity, co-creation, and innovation performance: a cross-country analysis of gazelle and nongazelle companies.Baltic Journal of Management

  137. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon

    Google Scholar 

  138. Bessen, J. (2014). History backs up Tesla’s patent sharing. Harvard Business Review Blog, 13

  139. Alghalith, N. (2018). Tesla: innovation with information technology. International Journal of Business Research and Information Technology, 5(1), 37–51

    Google Scholar 

  140. O’Reilly, C. A. III, & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of the paper benefitted from feedback from at the European Group of Organization Studies (EGOS) Conference. We also thank Richard Makadok and participants of the Academy of Management’s PDW on Corporate Strategy Issues in Platform-Based Business Models for their comments. The support by the G. Brint Ryan College of Business summer research grant is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Austin E. Cofrin School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet Drive, 54311-7001, Green Bay, WI, USA

    Vallari Chandna

  2. Department of Management G. Brint Ryan College of Business, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305429, 76203, Denton, TX, USA

    Manjula S. Salimath

Authors
  1. Vallari Chandna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manjula S. Salimath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vallari Chandna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chandna, V., Salimath, M.S. Co-creation of value in Platform-Dependent Entrepreneurial Ventures. Electron Commer Res (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09574-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09574-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation