68 Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 Complementors’ Coopetition-Based Business Models in Multi- Platform Ecosystems Mahmoud Mohamed1, Petri Ahokangas1, and Minna Pikkarainen1,2 Abstract Multi-platform ecosystems (MPEs) are comprised of multiple platforms integrated to create and cap- ture value together. The collective value creation and capture within MPEs gives rise to coopetion, which impacts the business model configurations for both incumbents and entrants that provide complementary offerings. Previous platform research has predominantly focused on incumbent platforms. This research focuses on the question of how entrant platforms configure their busi- ness models to endorse coopetition with incumbents in the MPEs within the healthcare sector. Our findings indicate that entrant platforms configure their business models to integrate into MPEs and need to flexibly align with the complementarity requirements set by the incumbents, combine inter- and intra-platform collaborative dynamics in their business models, and build on coopetition with incumbents. Keywords: Multi-platform ecosystems, Coopetition, Complementarity Acknowledgement : This research received funding from the Stroke-data project and a research grant from the Foundation for Eco- nomic Education – Liikesivistysrahasto. Please cite this paper as: Mohamed, M., Ahokangas, P., and Pikkarainen, M. (2023), Complementors’ coopetition-based business mod- els in multiplatform ecosystems, Journal of Business Models, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 1 University of Oulu, Oulu Business School, Martti Ahtisaari Institute, Finland 2 Oslo Metropolitan University, Department for Rehabilitation Science and Health Technology, Norway ISSN: 2246-2465 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54337/jbm.v11i1.7199 Introduction Digital platforms have become a prominent com- ponent of the digital economy (Cusumano et al., 2020; Hein et al., 2019; Rietveld et al., 2019), includ- ing in healthcare. The increased adoption of digital health technologies globally brings new challenges for digital platforms operating in the healthcare do- main. These challenges affect incumbent platforms, which must keep up with rapidly changing require- ments and newness threats from the entrant plat- forms. Meanwhile, entrant platforms lack sufficient resources to meet the regulatory requirements and sustain enough revenue streams to develop their https://doi.org/10.54337/jbm.v11i1.7199 Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 6969 platforms (Aerts et al., 2023). Entrant platforms need extensive resources to get their technologies accredited by hospitals and establish trust mecha- nisms with them, as healthcare is a highly regulated domain. Incumbent and entrant platforms need to configure their business models to find new value creation mechanisms outside their ecosystem boundaries and start collaborating with their com- petitors. In turn, these dynamics drive the com- peting platforms to collaborate and integrate their technologies into Multi-platform Ecosystems (MPEs) for collective value co-creation and co-capture (Mo- hamed et al., 2023). Coopetition aggregates all actors in the MPEs in the creation of shared value, and it affects the ac- tors’ choice of competition outside the borders of the MPEs. From the strategic perspective, integra- tion into the MPEs grants the incumbent platforms the autonomy to decide the governance mecha- nisms for the whole ecosystem, which triggers governance tensions between ecosystem actors in the later phases of integration (O’Mahony and Karp, 2020). The alignment of multi-layered relations be- tween incumbent and entrant (complementing) plat- forms in MPEs is complex and differs from the single multi-sided platform (Mohamed et al., 2023; Zhang and Williamson, 2021). Research on common value co-creation and business model configuration in complex domains like MPEs is lacking. Recent re- search on platform business models has focused on incumbent platforms, often referred to as platform owners. However, there is scant research on firms’ business models offering complementary platforms (Ritala et al., 2014) or their business models and coopetition dynamics in multi-platform ecosystems. The extant research considered platform ecosys- tems as organizations where the leadership role was granted to the owner of the platform’s technologi- cal hub (Hein et al., 2019; Kretschmer et al., 2020). The platform leader orchestrates the governance mechanisms and designs the roles of admitting new complementors to the platform core (Cusumano and Gawer, 2002; Gawer, 2014). The extant research has examined collaboration-competition dynamics in the platform setting from the platform leader’s per- spective. However, most of the extant research used publicly available data for the platform companies, which may be considered biased and incomplete because it lacks data from managers and decision makers in the platform firms. In this study, we consider the managerial influence on the platform decision to configure their business model for establishing coopetition with the compet- ing platforms.  In doing so, we use the digital stroke pathway as the context for this study, in which the implementation of cross-integration between mul- tiple platform providers is required. The incumbent platform providers are the platform leaders who or- chestrate the governance mechanisms for the overall platform ecosystem. Given the complex entry require- ments and regulations in the healthcare domain, entrant platforms are the complementors for the in- cumbent’s offering and collaborate with the incum- bent platforms to get access to the healthcare domain. This study develops the following research question: how do entrants configure their business models to endorse coopetition with incumbents in MPEs? We argue that platforms integrate into MPEs to scale and renew their businesses through coopetition with a large base of stakeholders integrating into MPEs. The paper concludes that entrant platforms config- ure their business models to endorse inter-platform coopetition and gain approval from incumbent plat- forms in highly regulated domains like healthcare. Approach Definition of key concepts Platform business models At the single multi-sided platform level, the business model creates value by facilitating the exchange between the demand side (end-users) and the sup- ply side (producers) (Gawer, 2014). The network ef- fect influences the dynamics of platform business models when users on the demand side grow to an extent that motivates complementors to join the supply side of the platform to add their complemen- tary innovations and generate greater value for the platform (Tiwana et al., 2010). The platform leader decides on the degree of platform openness through governance mechanisms by granting access to complementors on the supply side to the platform Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 7070 to add their innovations (Tiwana, 2013). Depending on the degree of openness set by the governance mechanisms, when it becomes publicly known how to integrate complementary offerings to the leading platform, new complementors will be encouraged to join the platform and provide complementary offer- ings to the it (Cusumano and Gawer, 2002). As a starting point for building up the conceptual framework for MPE’s thinking, the extant research has examined the emergence of the digital platform from the single-sided platform perspective. The supply-side platform operates to fulfil the demand created by the end-users on the demand-side plat- form. The demand side aggregates the end-user group, and the supply side aggregates the platform complementors, and in some cases, it aggregates the third-party complementors. The digital multi- sided platform aggregates both demand-side and supply-side platforms around both sides. (Tiwana et al., 2010; Cusumano and Gawer, 2002). The direct network effect occurs when the platform becomes favourable to many users on the demand side. The more it aggregates complementors on the supply side, the more it provides a complementary offer- ing that matches the core of the central platform (Economides, 1996; Tiwana et al., 2010). Yet unlike industrial/product-oriented plat- forms, digital multi-sided platforms establish complex ecosystem dynamics (Cusumano et al., 2020; Tiwana, 2013). The governance mecha- nisms determine the role of each complementor in the platform ecosystem, specifying who does what, and what types of innovation are needed, specifically when these innovations take place in the complementary modules (Boudreau, 2010). Furthermore, when it becomes publicly known how to integrate complementary modules to the leading platform, new complementors will be encouraged to join the platform ecosystem (Cusumano and Gawer, 2002). Moreover, this increases competition in multi-sided markets, introducing challenging new forces for the plat- form leader to emphasise, adding innovations to the overall platform ecosystem and protect- ing the technology from imitation (Zeng et al., 2019). As part of coping with the competition that might arise from the complement’s side or entrant platforms, the platform ecosystem can evolve as a meta-organisation in which the architecture design of the leading plat- form’s infrastructure can enable the aggrega- tion of platforms around the technological core (Kretschmer et al., 2020). MPEs include leading and complementary platforms aggregated around the technological core of the leading platform (Kretschmer et al., 2020). The ar- chitectural design of the platform ecosystem ena- bles the central platform to provide the technical infrastructure for complementors to create their complementary offerings and expand their business scope (Tiwana, 2013). Further, it enables the cen- tral platform to orchestrate the value creation and capture for the entire platform ecosystem (Baldwin, 2012; Yrjölä et al., 2021). The platform ecosystem leverages the capabilities of complementors to add new features that the platform owner does not see (Tiwana et al., 2010; Isckia et al., 2020) and transform the business models of both incumbent and comple- mentor platforms. Inter-platform coopetition in MPEs Strategic management scholars define coopetition as the alignment of collaborative dynamics with com- petitors to achieve a more significant competitive advantage for both parties than a single firm could achieve alone (Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009). In the digital platform setting, coopetition oc- curs when complements align their heterogeneous motives to join the platform ecosystem to use re- sources efficiently, share costs, risks, and resources for innovation and improve the competitive dynamics Figure 1. The conceptual development of Multi-platform Ecosystems (MPEs) Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 7171 of the platform ecosystem. In this sense, the value is captured by involving competitors in the company ’s business model (Ritala et al., 2014). Although coopeti- tion intensifies data sharing between complementors in MPEs, it can stimulate tensions between comple- mentors when the individual platform’s opportunistic behaviour becomes visible (Mohamed et al., 2023; O’Mahony and Karp, 2020). The value proposition in digital platforms forms around end-user centricity and information ex- change between end-users, platform leaders, and complementors (Gawer, 2014). The integra- tion between the platform leader and comple- mentor enables the exchange of the platform leader’s internal resources and facilitates com- plementors in adding complementary innova- tion and expanding the scope of the platform (Isckia et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2019). Value crea- tion thus depends on the degree of integration between both sides of the platform. Moreover, it enhances platform leaders to establish a large base of users and complementors to enable the cross-side network effect between these two groups (Tiwana, 2013). Nevertheless, achieving the full integration dynamics between multiple complementors and leaders in multi-platform ecosystems is challenging. In MPEs, incumbent platforms come at the centre of the platform ecosystem and design the integration roles for other complementors involved in them (Cu- sumano and Gawer, 2002; Rietveld et al., 2019; Teece, 2018). Yet designing and managing com- plementarity becomes complex when multiple platforms have unequal leadership roles within the same ecosystem (Mohamed et al., 2023). Research method We opt for a qualitative case study approach (Yin, 2015) to address the configuration of comple- mentor’s business models when integrating into MPEs. We collected the research data through 13 semi-structured interviews with project managers from the selected case companies between June 2020 and November 2021. We followed purposeful sampling in the selection of the case companies (Patton, 1990), where all cases were part of the Stroke-Data consortium in Finland, which aims to co-create a patient so- lution for stroke prevention, treatment, and re- habilitation. We discussed the following themes during interview rounds: the platform’s inte- gration strategy to the MPEs, the type of mar- ket opportunities driven by integration into the MPEs, the configuration of the platform’s busi- ness model, complementarity with other part- ners, and the platform’s future business model and revenue model scenarios. We reached data saturation after the last interview round, and no further data collection could develop additional insights for this study. We anonymised any in- formation that could affect the case company ’s future strategies. We transcribed all interviews to start the data analysis. We followed the thematic analysis approach to ana- lyse our data (Braun and Clarke, 2006) and started the analysis with an in-depth reading of interview transcripts and highlighting the relevant themes for our study. We categorised the common themes into three categories, following Zott and Amit’s (2010) business model design elements of con- tent, structure, and governance to analyse how the platform conducts business and delivers value to its customers. The content refers to the activi- ties performed by the focal platform; the structure describes how various activities can be linked and what sequence is needed; and governance refers to who does what. Key insights Using Zott and Amit’s (2010) business model design elements, we identified what kind of adjustments entrant (complementing) platforms make to their business model to endorse coopetition and meet the integration requirements imposed by the incumbents in MPEs. We consider the choice of our analysis ap- proach justified, because the selected platforms con- figure their business models to integrate the external capabilities (i.e. coopetition with incumbents) with internal resources in support of innovation strate- gies (i.e. integration into MPEs). Further, the business model determines a firm’s bargaining power, which Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 7272 means that the greater the value the focal firm has, the greater the bargaining power it will have, i.e. bar- gaining power between incumbents and entrants’ platforms integrating into MPEs. In the analysis of our case study, we identified the content, structure, and governance of the com- plementing “entrant” and incumbent platforms. We found that complementing entrant platforms con- figured their business model to best align with the coopetition requirements set by the incumbents to achieve market entry into the healthcare domain. The licensing requirements to admit a new device is rather complex, and the initial cost required to run the piloting study to get a licensed medical device is beyond the resources of the newly born entrant firms. Our findings indicate that incumbents design the governance mechanisms in MPEs to control the platform’s central technological hub. In other words, incumbents facilitate the coordination and data- monetisation activities between complementors in MPEs. Whilst complementors agree to the govern- ance mechanisms that define platform-to-platform openness strategies, coopetition dynamics within and outside MPEs are difficult to identify by the com- plementors due to their limited financial resources and uncertainty about new markets. The key find- ings of our analysis are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Complementors’ Business Model Incumbent Platform Business Model Business Model configuration in MPEs P la tf or m B 1. Content The platform applies cross-collaboration with all platforms integrating into MPEs. The current usage of the platform focuses on the rehabilitation and prevention sides of the stroke treatment journey. The coopeti- tion with all platforms is a renewed opportu- nity to expand into the treatment parts of the stroke. 2. Structure A big data platform integrates and mon- etises sleep and rest periods with other platforms integrating into the stroke-data MPEs. 3. Governance Coopetition with incumbents and other new entrant platforms to develop secondary prevention solutions for strokes. Through the partnership with other new entrants, the company supplies platform E with their sensors to help build the AI-oriented platform. Platform A 1. Content The platform offers a preventive solu- tion for medical care professionals and patients and regulatory experts to certify medical devices/solutions. 2. Structure The platform is integrated into MPEs to expand the business scope through collaboration with new entrants and develop an initial prototype for Soft- ware as a medical device for clinical decision making through data integra- tions with other platforms. 3. Governance Platform-to-platform openness to de- veloping software as a medical device that supports healthcare profession- als in clinical decision making. Also, personalised support for patients alongside their treatment journey. 1. Complementor business models Enable the establishment of col- laborative relationships between competing firms as new entrants arrive with a radical innovation that may disrupt the market dominance for incumbents. The resource lim- itations and higher levels of market uncertainty are the drivers for new entrants to establish coope- tition-based business models with incumbent platforms. 2. ‘Complementors’ joint business models Relieve some of the integration con- flicts between complementors and platform leaders. Deciding who de- signs the governance mechanisms and how to share data is related to platform-to-platform openness from the beginning of integration. Table 1. Complementors’ business model configuration in the MPEs1 1 The italic font refers to coopetition in the business model elements. Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 7373 Table 1. Complementors’ Business Model Incumbent Platform Business Model Business Model configuration in MPEs P la tf or m C 1. Content Platform specialising in business intel- ligence, data reporting, warehousing and planning. 2. Structure Established collaboration with platform E to build the rehabilitation platform. 3. Governance The platform unifies the stream analytics generated from the business analytics plat- form to the platform D concept and meets the integration requirements for MPEs. Platform G 1. Content AI-based analytics platform to meas- ure ECG. 2. Structure Coopetition with new entrants to further develop the AI-driven analyt- ics platform. 3. Governance The platform applies platform-to- platform openness as a data source for all platforms integrating into the MPEs. The platform sensor monitors the patient status either from home or the hospital environment. 3. Approval of the complementors’ business models for entry and the creation of new market op- portunities Coopetition with incumbents helps gain approval to “entrants’” busi- ness models in complex domains. Entrants can find their place in MPEs through collaboration and sharing the high costs of R&D. In parallel, coopetition-based business models enable incumbents to keep control of the propensity for sudden competition from entrant firms. P la tf or m D 1. Content Empathic building platform specialising in data visualisation from all possible data collection points. 2. Structure Collaboration with platform C for data visualisation and all other platforms to integrate solutions around the empathic building platform. 3. Governance Platform integration into all points on the digital care pathway for stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. 4. Coopetition-based business model as an international mar- ket approach for complementor platforms Resource limitations, market uncer- tainty, and competition drive new entrants to configure their business model based on the mechanisms set by incumbent firms. Otherwise, they cannot establish collaborative dynamics with well-established incumbents. Coopetition will guar- antee entrant platforms a fair share of the business when expanding internationally. P la tf or m E 1. Content AI platform developed based on the inte- gration phases and complementors needs in the MPEs. 2. Structure The platform operates in the Finnish market and collaborates with platform A to access other Nordic countries. 3. Governance The platform applies platform-to-platform openness through a partnership with Plat- form A Table 1. Complementors’ business model configuration in the MPEs (Continued) Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 7474 Discussion and conclusion Our motivation for this study was to understand how entrant platforms configured their business models to endorse coopetition with incumbent platforms when integrating into MPEs. This paper enriches our understanding of the inter-platform coopetition when platforms shift from the single multi-sided platform ecosystem to multi-platform ecosystems. We emphasised healthcare as a com- plex, rapidly changing, and highly regulated domain that facilitated the competing platforms to engage in collaborative dynamics as the central part of their value creation and capture in healthcare. From the entrant platforms’ perspective, they lacked suffi- cient resources to meet the entry requirements set by healthcare. At the same time, incumbents col- laborated with entrants as a strategic approach to overcoming possible competition in the future. We analysed the business model configuration for both entrant and incumbent platforms, with a particular emphasis on the entrant platforms during their in- tegration into MPEs – i.e. the ecosystem of multi- ple platforms working together to create a shared value for the whole platform ecosystem. The extant studies have examined MPEs as a multi-layered sys- tem using modular design as a critical element for managing interdependencies between modules and bringing active cooperative dynamics to the eco- system (e.g. Yrjölä et al., 2021). Tensions of manag- ing modularity in multi-layered systems arise from battles for market dominance between different modules. The platform leader designs the modular business model to guarantee equal opportunities for all modules involved in the multi-layered system. Four significant findings have emerged from our anal- ysis. First, we argue that platforms’ need to configure their business models to integrate into MPEs is com- mon in complex domains like healthcare. Incumbent platforms take the platform leader role and design the governance mechanisms for the whole ecosystem to guarantee market dominance and overcome sudden competition by complementors. This finding reso- nates with the platform leadership strategies in the single multi-sided platform setting, where the plat- form leader decides the level of platform openness that enables complementary innovations to expand the scope of the platform (Den Hartigh et al., 2016). Further, we conclude that resource limitation and higher levels of market uncertainty drive entrant plat- forms to configure their business models for coopeti- tion with regulated incumbents. Table 1. Complementors’ Business Model Incumbent Platform Business Model Business Model configuration in MPEs P la tf or m F 1. Content The platform develops its sensors to con- tinuously monitor people at risk of stroke or stroke reoccurrence. 2. Structure Collaboration with the incumbent platforms to gain access to the Asian market. 3. Governance The platform seeks the approval of the incumbent platforms A and G to use their sensors in stroke rehabilitation and pre- vention. Table 1. Complementors’ business model configuration in the MPEs (Continued) Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 7575 Second, we argue that complementors configure their business models when integrating MPEs to best align with the complementarity requirements set by incumbents, especially in complex domains like healthcare, where the integration and optimisa- tion requirements for admitting new technologies and creating trust are complex. Our findings extend Kretschmer et al.’s (2020) view on the hierarchy and establishment of the incumbents that place a con- siderable hurdle for the platforms to enter specific markets unless the platform leader grants comple- mentors the flexibility and autonomy to design their offerings. Third, we find that complementor platforms must be flexible when configuring their coopetition-based business model with incumbents to gain their ap- proval to verify the overlapping goals and decide the size of market share from the cooperative relations. Our view is consistent with Kretschmer et al.’s (2020) study on meta-organisation features, where control of the platform is granted to the central technologi- cal hub to facilitate the coordination between the ex- isting and new complements, as entrants integrate into MPEs to increase their opportunities in the eco- system (Isckia et al., 2020). This finding highlights that MPEs grow when they become open and attract many complementors to integrate into the ecosys- tem. Nevertheless, this raises cooperative tensions between complementors concerning future collabo- rations that may influence some complementors’ fu- ture market strategies (Zhu and Iansiti, 2007). In MPEs, the dynamics of the ecosystem evolve, as many platforms decide to integrate their comple- mentary technology or open their technical core for other platforms to build their offerings upon. The complementarity does not limit the layered set- ting. Instead, some platforms can simultaneously have the complementor and owner roles, which means integrating into MPEs combines inter- and intra-platform collaborative dynamics. We conclude that the coopetition in MPEs conceptualizes two el- ements: (I) the number of complementors is bigger than the number of platform owners, and (II) the plat- form owner decides the openness of the platform infrastructure to attract complementors who add complementary innovations and increase the value of the platforms. Fourth, this study concludes that the complemen- tors’ business models build on coopetition to benefit incumbent and new entrants integrating into MPEs. Platform-to-platform openness and governance mechanisms are the wheels for admitting new com- plementors to MPEs. Nevertheless, platform leaders decide the governance mechanisms in MPEs, and they develop through multiple transitions. Platform leadership activity varies between centralise-d and decentralised control over the complementors who integrate into the MPEs. The transitions in leader- ship roles are generated from the platform leader strategy to maintain the same level of market domi- nance by not admitting platforms that might turn into sudden competitors in integrations’ later stages. Finally, this case study has analysed complementors’ approaches to configuring their business models as part of their renewal strategy. Further research could investigate the specifics of business models as the coopetition relationship emerges. In particular, an examination of the conditions in which the tensions of coopetition occur when new entrants have busi- ness opportunities outside the scope of MPEs that may intensify the competition between new en- trants and incumbents would be valuable. Further, we encourage additional empirically grounded stud- ies in different domains (instead of the healthcare domain used in this study) to investigate how the integration requirements and drivers may be formed in other settings. Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 7676 References Aerts, R., Pikkarainen, M., Xu, Y. and Andersson, S., 2023. Overcoming hospital resistance in an international innovation co-creation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 187, p.122195. Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B., 2002. The option value of modularity in design. Harvard NOM Research Paper, 1, pp.1–14. Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101. Cusumano, M., Yoffie, D. and Gawer, A., 2020. The Future of Platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review. Cusumano, M.A. and Gawer, A., 2002. The elements of platform leadership.  MIT Sloan Management Re- view, 43(3), p.51. Economides, N. and Katsamakas, E., 2006. Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open-source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Management Science, 52(7), pp.1057–1071. Gawer, 2014. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platform: Toward an integrative framework. Re- search Policy, 43(7), pp.1239–1249. Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M. and Krcmar, H., 2019. The emergence of native multi-sided platforms and their influence on incumbents. Electronic Markets, 29(4), pp.631–647. Isckia, T., De Reuver, M. and Lescop, D., 2020. Orchestrating platform ecosystems: The interplay of innovation and business development subsystems. Journal of Innovation Economics Management, (2), pp.197–223. Kretschmer, T., Leiponen, A., Schilling, M. and Vasudeva, G., 2022. Platform ecosystems as meta‐organiza- tions: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3), pp.405–424. Mohamed, M., Ahokangas, P. & Pikkarainen, M. (2023). Tensions of coopetition and integration into the multi- platform ecosystems in digital care. In Marinova, S. & Marin, M. (Eds), Reconfiguration of Business Models and Ecosystems: Decoupling and Resilience. Taylor and Francis, UK. O’Mahony, S. and Karp, R., 2020. From proprietary to collective governance: How do platform participation strategies evolve? Strategic Management Journal. Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. Rietveld, J., Schilling, M.A. and Bellavitis, C., 2019. Platform strategy: Managing ecosystem value through se- lective promotion of complements. Organization Science, 30(6), pp.1232–1251. Ritala, P. and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., 2009. What’s in it for me? Creating and appropriating value in innova- tion-related coopetition. Technovation, 29(12), pp.819–828. Ritala, P., Golnam, A. and Wegmann, A., 2014. Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon. com. Industrial marketing management, 43(2), pp.236–249. Journal of Business Models (2023), Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 68-77 7777 Teece, D.J., 2018. Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and li- censing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 47(8), pp.1367–1387. Tiwana, A., 2013. Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Newnes. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and Bush, A.A., 2010. Platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, gov- ernance, and environmental dynamics (research commentary). Information Systems Research, 21(4), pp.675– 687. Yin, R.K., 2015. Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford publications. Yrjölä, S.I., Ahokangas, P. and Matinmikko-Blue, M., 2021. Platform-based ecosystemic business models in fu- ture mobile operator business. Journal of Business Models, 9(4), pp.67–93. Zeng, J., Khan, Z. and De Silva, M., 2019. The emergence of multi-sided platform MNEs: Internalization theory and networks. International Business Review, 28(6), p.101598. Zhang, M.Y. and Williamson, P., 2021. The emergence of multiplatform ecosystems: insights from China’s mo- bile payments system in overcoming bottlenecks to reach the mass market.  Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, p.121128. Zhu, F. and Iansiti, M., 2007. Dynamics of Platform Competition: Exploring the Role of Installed Base, Platform Quality and Consumer Expectations. Division of Research, Harvard Business School Zott, C. and Amit, R., 2010. Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2– 3), pp.216–226.