Platforms · Quantitative empirical study

Unpaid crowd complementors: The platform network effect mirage

Strategic Management Journal · 2015

Katherine J. Boudreau and Lars Bo Jeppesen

Original paper ↗

Summary

Unpaid complement production does not automatically translate into durable network effects or platform success.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Measure active, valuable complements and usage—not just developer counts.

Reported result

What the study found

Unpaid complement production does not automatically translate into durable network effects or platform success.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Quantitative empirical study

Sample and setting

Crowd-created complements on platforms

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Crowd-complement context.

Research sources

abstract_only

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.