Organización espacio-temporal

To answer SRQ1, we conduct five separate studies to identify various generative mechanisms, which shape the digital platform ecosystem evolution. Subsequently, we build three different theories, which explain the evolutionary process from different theoretical perspectives and based on different methodological approaches. As each of these theories relies on specific type of generative mechanisms, or ‘motors’ (see Van de Ven and Poole, 1995), we identify a number of generative mechanisms, which collectively explain why and how digital platform ecosystems evolve over time. In this section, I outline the identified generative mechanisms and discuss their characteristics and modus operandi.

In our conceptualization, generative mechanisms operate in a specific context, and when activated by triggers, they produce certain change outcomes (see Chapter IV for conceptualization). Thus, they contingently drive the evolution of a digital platform ecosystem. In addition, generative mechanisms are rooted in the digital platform ecosystem, presented as a specific configuration of actors, architecture and governance, whose latent properties (e.g. malleability, congestion of actors, incurred technology debt, etc.) determine the dominance and nature of the generative mechanism when activated (see Chapter IV). Subsequently, the activation of a generative mechanism leads to changes in the existing configuration of the digital platform ecosystem. To

72 derive the theories of digital platform ecosystem evolution (Punctuated Equilibrium, Dialectical and Teleological), I, together with my co-authors, build upon this initial conceptualization of generative mechanisms (see also Figure 3).

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of Digital Platform Ecosystem Evolution

By proposing a Punctuated Equilibrium theory of digital platform ecosystem evolution (Paper II), we argue that digital platform ecosystems evolve through a network of distributed and concurrent generative mechanisms, which transform and reinforce the deep structure of the ecosystem (that is, its existing configuration of actors, architecture and governance) in response to internal and external triggers and other mechanisms (Paper II). As such, multiple generative mechanisms operate simultaneously and interact across the ecosystem’s actors, architecture and governance to drive its evolution.

We further propose a typology of generative mechanisms, which categorizes them based on their dominance and their impact. In particular, the transforming generative mechanisms (such as change in actor types, developing platform periphery, see Table 8) account for radical changes in the existing configuration of actors, architecture and governance, while reinforcing generative mechanisms sustain the existing configuration by introducing incremental changes. Apart from their impact, we further distinguish between their dominance, indicating which element of the digital platform ecosystem (actors, architecture or governance) they mainly affect. For example, change in actor types is an actor-dominant mechanism with transforming impact, while introducing incremental innovation in platform core is an architecture-dominant mechanism with reinforcing impact on the existing deep structure of the ecosystem (see Table 8). For full overview of the empirically identified generative mechanisms, see Chapter VI, Table 8.

Dialectical Theory of Digital Platform Ecosystem Evolution

The existing configuration of actors, architecture and governance, which is a result of initial choice or of the impact of previously activated generative mechanisms (see Chapter VI or Paper II), contains certain latent properties. These latent properties can enable further the evolution of the digital platform ecosystem (e.g., malleability, increased platform attractiveness due to growing user base) or they can constrain its ability to evolve (e.g. accumulated technology debt and unresolved governance issues) (for more details, see Paper II). While the former are opportunities to grasp, the latter are problems, which the platform owner needs to address in due time.

Looking closely into the latent properties of the existing deep structure, which can constrain its further evolution, we present some of them as inherent contradictions, which remain latent until they are triggered (Paper III). These inherent contradictions came into being as result of the regulated interactions between actors on one hand, and actors and architecture, on the other hand, within a certain configuration of the deep structure. As they can escalate over time into intensified conflicts, which can jeoperdize the sustainability of the

73 ecosystem if not addressed properly, we view them as part of the constraining latent properties of the existing ecosystem configuration.

In Paper III, based on extensive literature review, we identify four types of inherent contradictions, namely performance, architecture, governance and development, each characterized by two opposites, which compete with each other (see Table 9). While these contradictions are present as properties of the existing configuration of the digital platform ecosystem, they are latent until activated by triggers, operating in specific context. These triggers stem from the presence of various competing goals (plurality), change in the environment or within the ecosystem (change) or limited number of resources (scarcity) (for more, see Smith and Lewis, 2011). The activated inherent contradictions manifest into salient tensions within the digital platform ecosystem and draw the attention of the platform owner and other ecosystem actors. Depending on their intensity, the platform owner adopts various strategies to manage them. The resolution of the salient tension then has an impact (reinforcing or transforming) on the existing configuration of actors, architecture and governance of the ecosystem.

We argue that the emerging tensions and the way they unfold over time until they are resolved (or contained) through the action of various ecosystem actors (praxis) and the adoption of managerial responses constitute the generative mechanisms, which drive the evolution from dialectical perspective. This view is similar to Van de Ven and Poole (1995), who state that conflicts can serve as generative mechanisms driving change. Further, this conceptualization of generative mechanisms is consistent with the one applied in the Punctuated Equilibrium theory of digital platform ecosystem evolution (see Paper II). In the Dialectical theory, we argue that specific generative mechanisms are rooted in the latent properties of the digital platform ecosystem and influenced by certain triggers, which activate them (similarly to the conceptualization in Paper II). The generative mechanisms in the Dialectical theory also have dominance as they relate to the constructive elements of the digital platform ecosystem (namely actors10, architecture and governance) and an impact on the existing deep structure of the ecosystem depending on the adopted managerial responses.

In contrast to the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of digital platform ecosystem evolution, the Dialectical theory underlines the role of the managerial responses in the operation of generative mechanisms. In particular, we view the role of the platform owner as mediating the tensions and their impact on the digital platform ecosystem evolution. Thus, depending on the adopted managerial response, the resolution of the salient tensions can reinforce or transform the existing configuration of actors, architecture and governance.

Teleological Theory of Digital Platform Ecosystem Evolution

74 As the Dialectical Theory of digital platform ecosystem evolution reveals the importance of the platform owner(s) for the operation of generative mechanisms, I turn to investigate the evolutionary process from strategic perspective. The resulting Teleological theory of digital platform ecosystem evolution (Figure 14), based on Paper IV, Paper V and Paper VI, follows the initial conceptualization of generative mechanisms and further aims at understanding the role of platform owner for managing the evolutionary process. In particular, I focus on explaining how the goals set by platform owners and their execution drive the evolution of a digital platform ecosystem (see also Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).

Recognizing that digital platform ecosystems operate in volatile and uncertain environment (Dattee et al., 2017), which makes it difficult to predict their evolutionary path (Ojala and Lyytinen, 2018), I argue that instead of relying on long-term goals and deliberate strategies to achieve them, platform owners rather focus on short-term goals and micro-strategies addressing pressing issues as they appear (Paper VI). By adopting a micro approach, this Teleological theory, when completed and supplemented with additional empirical evidence, also aims at moving away from presenting the platform owner as a collective and faceless actor. Instead, it sheds light into the actions of various strategic practitioners, collectively referred to as platform owner in the literature, who design micro-strategies and participate in the microstructures supporting them. When various strategic issues capture the attention of platform owners, triggered by internal and external events (see Paper IV and Paper V), owners respond by formulating specific short-term goals (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995), which require the design of micro-strategies and corresponding microstructures to support their execution (Figure 14). Thus, the cycle of setting a goal and pursuing its execution, triggered by specific external or internal events, constitutes the generative mechanism from teleological perspective (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). The execution of the formulated goals leads to various outcomes, which impact the existing configuration of the digital platform ecosystem.

Digital Platform Ecosystem

Change Trigger Learning loop Management Response Goal Formulation Goal Execution Micro-strategy Microstructure Goal Outcome

75 Figure 14. Teleological Theory of Digital Platform Ecosystem Evolution

When next challenge arises, the platform owner can respond by either adopting the same dyad of micro- strategy and microstructure, or a new one. Due to existing learning loops, the platform owner can evaluate whether a specific dyad is suitable for achieving a given goal and to decide whether to retain the dyad when addressing subsequent strategic challenges (Paper VI). For example, the inclusion of new distinct type of actors (e.g., merchants) in the ecosystem, as a result of previous transformative and actor-dominant generative mechanism (that is, change in actors types, see Table 8), serves as a trigger for the activation of an actor- dominant and reinforcing generative mechanism (that is, change in actor population, ibid). While Punctuated Equilibrium theory of digital platform ecosystem states that, the change in actor population (e.g., adoption among merchants) as a generative mechanism reinforces the existing configuration of actors, architecture and governance and operates through various socio-technical interactions among the activated constructive elements of the ecosystem (Table 6), it does not fully demonstrate how this mechanism operates from teleological perspective.

Thus, in contrast to the Punctuated Equilibrium theory of digital platform ecosystem evolution (see Paper II), which focuses on the overall socio-technical interactions within the ecosystem (see Table 6 above), the Teleological theory puts emphasis on the actions of the platform owner when it comes to strategizing, while also, of course, acknowledging the overall interactions within the ecosystem. For example, presenting the above generative mechanism from teleological perspective requires focusing on the platform owner’s aspirations to achieve fast adoption among the newly introduced type of actors (that is, more merchants joining the ecosystem) (goal formulation) (see Paper IV and Paper V). To achieve this goal, a platform owner, for example, can design a number of micro-strategies and corresponding microstructures. In particular, to stir initial adoption, platform owner can attract key merchants (that is marquee users), the inclusion of whom signals other merchants for the usefulness of the digital platform ecosystem (see Evans, 2009).