Platforms · Longitudinal observational analysis of partnering activity and performance indicators.

Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software

MIS Quarterly · 2012

Marco Ceccagnoli, Chris Forman, Peng Huang, D. J. Wu

Summary

Joining a major platform ecosystem was associated with increased sales and a greater likelihood of IPO; effects were greater with stronger IP rights or downstream capabilities.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Design APIs, interoperability, partner programs, and defensible IP together; ecosystem participation can create value, but complementors need appropriation and downstream capabilities.

Reported result

What the study found

Joining a major platform ecosystem was associated with increased sales and a greater likelihood of IPO; effects were greater with stronger IP rights or downstream capabilities.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Does participation in a platform-owner ecosystem improve small independent software vendors’ performance, and how do appropriability mechanisms shape the benefit?

Design

Longitudinal observational analysis of partnering activity and performance indicators.

Sample and setting

1,210 small independent software vendors in enterprise software, observed over 1996–2004.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The evidence is observational and historical, and is specific to small enterprise-software vendors and the studied platform ecosystem.

Research sources

Fetched MISQ publisher page establishes complete citation/DOI and abstract with design context, sample size/period, findings, and platform implications. Firecrawl research job 01a1436c-f86b-77df-af1c-9a2f87e3535e returned this citation and metadata.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.