Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Entrepreneurship through the platform strategy in the digital era:

Insights and research opportunities
Ying-Jiun Hsieh a, Yenchun Jim Wu b, c, *
a
Institute of Technology Management, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
b
National Taiwan Normal University, Graduate Institute of Global Business and Strategy, 31Shida Rd., Daan Dist., Taipei, TW 10645, Taiwan, ROC
c
National Taipei University of Education, College of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 134, Sec. 2, Heping E. Rd., Taipei, TW 10671, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Entrepreneurship has gained increasing research attention in recent years. Although researchers largely
Received 3 October 2017 agree the importance of innovation in the process of entrepreneurship, little research explores how the
Received in revised form emerging innovation approaches can facilitate the above process. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies
26 January 2018
on entrepreneurship adopting the open platform strategy in light of the digital evolution. To address this
Accepted 22 March 2018
Available online 23 March 2018
research gap, this study investigates how entrepreneurs can take advantage of the platform-based
innovation ecosystem in the entrepreneurial process. First, the study discusses various platform-based
innovations for entrepreneurs and elaborates on the implementation with examples and practices.
Keywords:
Innovation
Accordingly, the study demonstrates a framework which categorizes these innovation platforms to fulfill
Platform strategy the needs at two pivotal stages of the innovation process (i.e. invention and commercialization) for
Entrepreneurship entrepreneurs. The study also discusses the concerns and issues an innovation platform ecosystem may
Internet bring forth for entrepreneurs. Finally, the study proposes a number of topics that merit further research.
Platform This study represents the first effort to categorize online platforms and develop an innovation process-
based framework of platforms for entrepreneurs.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction intertwined. Innovation needs entrepreneurship skills and inno-

Entrepreneurship, the process of designing, launching and
running a new business, plays a pivotal role in the development and
commercialization of new technologies (Drucker, 1985). Through
this process, creative ideas become useful innovations providing
solutions (i.e. solving problems) for customers. Innovation, which
refers to the process of translating an idea or invention into a
product or service that creates value or for which customers will
pay, is essential to entrepreneurship, both in an existing business or
a new venture (Bessant & Tidd, 2007; Trimi & Berbegal-Mirabent,
2012). Particularly, new ventures are often considered the sources
driving creative destruction as they introduce new products or
services posing threats to existing firms (Criscuolo, Nicolaou, &
Salter, 2012). Entrepreneurial start-ups are also more innovative
than incumbent businesses (Bhide, 2000; Shane, 2008). Thus, not
only are entrepreneurship and innovation related, they are also
* Corresponding author. National Taiwan Normal University, Graduate Institute of
Global Business and Strategy, 31Shida Rd., Daan Dist., Taipei, TW 10645.
E-mail address: wuyenchun@gmail.com (Y.J. Wu).
vation is a major trait of an entrepreneur.
Over the past decade, the indivisible relationship between
innovation, particularly open innovation, and entrepreneurship has
drawn a lot of research attention. Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, and
West (2006, p. 1) define open innovation as “the use of purposive
inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innova-
tion and to expand the markets for external use of innovation.”
From a firm’s process perspective, three core processes (i.e. outside-
in, inside-out, and coupled) can be differentiated in open innova-
tion (Enkel, Gassmann, & Chesbrough, 2009). The outside-in pro-
cess extends the company’s own knowledge pool through
integrating suppliers, customers, or other external knowledge
sources. The inside-out process brings ideas to the market, sells
intellectual property, or transfers ideas to the outside environment.
The coupled process refers to co-creation with complementary
partners through alliances, cooperation, or joint ventures. Related
research results are fruitful. For example, Kask and Linton (2013)
indicate that forming relationships with external partners is
essential to the success of a start-up business. Greul, West, and Bock
(2016) show a start-up firm’s degree of openness in innovation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.033
0747-5632/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
316 Y.-J. Hsieh, Y.J. Wu / Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323
relates to the firm’s capabilities and founding strategies. Particu-
larly, newly started firms are less willing to provide more outbound
openness than they use in inbound openness. Eftekhari and Bogers
(2015) examine how open innovation can foster new venture cre-
ation and find that ecosystem collaboration, user involvement and
an open environment directly influence new venture survival.
Furthermore, the above effects are moderated by the entrepre-
neurs’ open mindset. Spender, Corvello, Grimaldi, and Rippa (2017)
analyze the literature pertaining to new ventures and open inno-
vation and synthesize their relationship in seven sub-topics, help-
ing explain the phenomenon of start-up businesses in relation to
open innovation.
Despite recent research contributions in open innovation and
entrepreneurship, there still exists a number of questions and
conceptual gaps in the above research area. For example, what are
the innovation opportunities for entrepreneurs amid the rapid
advance of new technologies? The study also finds insufficient
research effort on the relationship between entrepreneurship and
the adoption of platform-based open innovation strategy. In
particular, how can entrepreneurs achieve innovation through
participating in platform-based ecosystems? To answer the above
research question, the study aims to (1) investigate present inno-
vation platforms available for start-up firms, (2) categorize these
innovation platforms to fulfill the needs at different stage of inno-
vation for entrepreneurs, and (3) demonstrate the concerns and
issues an innovation platform ecosystem may bring forth for
entrepreneurs.
The study is organized as follows. The next section discusses the
relationship between entrepreneurship and open innovation. The
study then describes various types of platforms and how the plat-
form strategy can facilitate open innovation. Next, the study elab-
orates on the platform-based innovations for entrepreneurs with
examples and practices. The study further classifies these platforms
according to the two primary endeavors in the innovation process
(i.e. invention and commercialization). Namely, these platforms are
categorized into four types of platforms based on an entrepreneur’s
capability (high or low) in the above two activities. The study then
demonstrates the potential challenges arising from the adoption
the platform strategy and proposes a number of future research
topics. The final section concludes the study with theoretical and
managerial insights. The framework in Fig. 1 captures the above key
elements.
2. Entrepreneurship and open innovation
The first step to explore how entrepreneurs can achieve inno-
vation through participating in a platform-based ecosystem is to
understand how entrepreneurship relates to open innovation. As
noted above, entrepreneurs are commonly seen as innovators of
new ideas and business processes. Through innovations entrepre-
neurs create new wealth-producing resources or endow existing
resources with enhanced potential for creating wealth (Drucker,
2002). Similar to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), entrepre-
neurial start-up companies face certain challenges (e.g. lack of re-
sources, technology challenges, coordination and management of
business functions, and access to the cutting-edge knowledge) for
innovation (Abouzeedan, Klofsten, & Hedner, 2013). These firms are
deficient in resources to generate assets (West, 2014), and thus
have a tendency towards external resources for innovation via the
open innovation strategy (West & Kuk, 2016). Quite a few studies
document the success of adopting open innovation strategies for
large enterprises such as IBM and Procter & Gamble (Chesbrough,
2003). Nonetheless, how SMEs and start-up firms can benefit
from the open innovation draws insufficient research attention
(Hossain, 2015). Heyne, Boettke, and Prychitko (2010) indicate that
entrepreneurial start-up companies can attain innovation with
advanced technologies and organizational strategies through alli-
ances with complementary partners (i.e. an open strategy). In
particular, van de Vrande, De Jong, Vanhaverbeke, and De
Rochemont (2009) suggest that SMEs pursue open innovation
mainly for commercial activities such as meeting customer demand
and keeping up with competitors. Likewise, Hemert, Nijkamp, and
Masurel (2013) demonstrate that SMEs’ interaction with sources of
innovation is important not only in the recognition phase of the
innovation process but also at the end stage of the innovation
process for the successful commercialization of a product or a
service. As noted above, open innovation comprises both outside-in
and inside-out movements of technological ideas (Lichtenthaler,
2009). van de Vrande et al. (2009) suggest that it is important for
SMEs and new ventures to rely on both inbound and outbound
open innovation simultaneously. Notably, Chaston and Scott (2012)
find that firms in emerging economies do not have to be reliant on
entrepreneurial behavior to sustain business growth. Nevertheless,
involvement in open innovation can be beneficial. Particularly, an
entrepreneurial mindset may help SMEs to move toward an open-
innovation approach, where codified and transferrable knowledge
are essential. Furthermore, Lakovleva (2013) examines the impli-
cations of an entrepreneurial focus for open-innovation activities
through a case study of an Norwegian SME operating in the
maritime-oil industry.
3. Open innovation via the platform strategy
Open innovation by adopting the platform strategy appears to
gain popularity in research over the past few years (Boudreau,
2010; Parker & Van Alstyne, 2017). The term platform becomes
universal and exists in a variety of contexts such as new product
development and innovation (Thomas, Autio, & Gann, 2014), eco-
nomics (Armstrong, 2006), and technology strategy (Gawer &
Cusumano, 2008). Furthermore, a platform can be either internal
(i.e. company or product based) or external (i.e. industry based)
(Gawer & Cusumano, 2014). In the present context, a platform,
however, refers to a technology that allows other businesses to
connect and build on top of it. As such, a platform business acts as a
medium which lets others connect to it. As the internet-based
technologies evolve, more businesses are shifting their focus to
becoming a platform. Platforms enable smaller companies to build,
innovate, and grow faster. A platform strategy differs from a con-
ventional product strategy in that it requires an external ecosystem
to generate complementary product or service innovations and
build positive feedback between the complements and the plat-
form. A platform strategy has greater potential for innovation than
a single product-oriented firm can generate alone (Gawer &
Cusumano, 2014).
With an aggregate market value of $4.3 trillion (Evans & Gawer,
2016), platform businesses can be found in a growing number of
industries such as social networking (Facebook, Wechat); internet
auctions and retail (Amazon, eBay, Alibaba); on-line financial and
human resource functions (Workday, Elance, Freelancer, Work-
Fusion), urban transportation (Uber, Lyft, Sidecar), mobile payment
(Apple Pay, Wechat Pay) and clean energy (Sungevity, SolarCity,
EnerNOC). Predominant in the US and China, these platform com-
panies have an increasing global presence and are the major drivers
of innovation.
There are several types of platforms (Evans & Gawer, 2016).
First, innovation platforms provide developers an environment
through which they develop complementary products and services.
Such platforms include Apple iOS and Google Android which build
innovation ecosystems of app developers for their various mobile
devices. Second, transaction platforms offer a link between
 Y.-J. Hsieh, Y.J. Wu / Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323
Entrepreneurship Open innovation
and open innovation via the platform
strategy
Challenges of adopting the
platform strategy for
entrepreneurs
Management process
coordination
Knowledge control/spillover
Capturing value
Validated business models
Conflicting priorities
Unbalanced power and
influence
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of entrepreneurship through the platform strategy in the digital era.
individuals and institutions, facilitating their various interactions
and commercial transactions. E-commerce platforms (e.g. Amazon
and eBay) are examples of this type of platforms. Notably, a variant
of transactions platforms such as Uber, Airbnb and Zipcar start to
gain popularity in recent years. These platforms, also known as on-
demand (work/staffing) platforms, enable the exchange of goods
and services between individuals. Third, integration platforms offer
the capabilities of both transaction and innovation functions. Large
enterprises such as Apple and Google create innovation platforms
for their developers. Based on these ecosystems, apps are devel-
oped and then made available in respective transactional platforms.
Likewise, Amazon and Alibaba serve as transactional platforms for
their users. As innovation platforms, vendors may also develop
their products on these e-commerce platforms. Fourth, investment
platforms are the platforms that holding companies who manage a
portfolio of platform companies. The Priceline Group is an example
that focuses on online travel and related services. Other examples
include Kayak and Open Table.
4. Platform-based innovations for entrepreneurs
Platforms obviously induce abundant opportunities for both
incumbent businesses and entrepreneurial ventures. Indeed, there
exists a number of internet platforms targeting new ventures. For
example, a recently developed Nokia’s Innovation Platform (NIP)
provides a development and trial environment for entrepreneurs
and industry partners to speed up innovation of Internet of Things
(IoT) solutions through an open, collaborative model.
The following discussion demonstrates how entrepreneurs can
take advantage of the platform strategy to innovate. Noted that
invention and commercialization signify the two important phases
in the innovation process (Huizingh, 2011). As such, new product/
317
Platform-based
innovations for
entrepreneurs
New
product/service
development
(NPD/NSD)
Commercialization
Types of platforms for
entrepreneurs
Type I (Mavens)
Type II (Enthusiasts)
Type III (Technical needs)
Type IV (Intrapreneurs)
service design (i.e. R&D) represents the core activity in the inven-
tion phase while the process of introducing a new product/service
into commerce (i.e. making it available in the market) is the focus of
the commercialization phase. In the commercialization phase,
businesses also aim to find a sustainable business model for the
offering. Apparently, these two phases require different and specific
resources. Research suggests that new product/service design and
business model development are essential to the success of inno-
vation (Teece, 2010; Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011). Furthermore, poor
product/service design and improper business model also repre-
sent common problems that cause start-up firms to fail (Insights,
2014).
4.1. New product/service development (NPD/NSD) via the platform
strategy
Online platforms may foster an environment for entrepreneurs
to develop new products/services. Data and information from these
platforms can help NPD/NSD in various stages, such as idea gen-
eration and screening, concept development and testing, providing
faster feedback than surveys and focus groups. This information is
beneficial to both existing and new products.
Particularly, online innovation communities play an important
role in creating, shaping, and disseminating innovation activities
(Sigala, 2012). Actually, firms have long used various forms of
business-to-customer or customer-to-customer online commu-
nities to acquire customer knowledge via the user generated con-
tent (Erat, Desouza, Scha €fer-Jugel, & Kurzawa, 2006). Firms use
such online social communities for more active cooperation and
interaction with customers (Füller. Mühlbacher, Matzler, & Jawecki,
2009; Rowley, Teahan, & Leeming, 2007). Firms develop and sup-
port these social innovation communities to not only generate and
318 Y.-J. Hsieh, Y.J. Wu / Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323
evaluate new ideas, but also create and maintain customer bonds
with the firms (Dahan & Hauser, 2002; Nambisan, 2002). Hence,
online communities are appropriate for developing innovative
ideas with users (Tietz & Herstatt, 2005). For example, SAP creates
an online community for exchanging user’s views and soliciting
feedback about services. SAP may even adopt ideas created in the
community (see for example www.asug.com, America’s SAP users’
group).
Social media is also useful for new product/service develop-
ment, which enables consumers to become co-producers and co-
designers of their experiences via online customer participation
(Sigala, 2009). As such, firms and customers may collaborate for
product/service design and create entrepreneurial opportunities.
For example, Starwood implements the Aloft virtual hotel concept
designed by second life users (see http://www.virtualaloft.com/and
www.secondlife.com) (Kohler, Fueller, Stieger, & Matzler, 2011;
Kohler, Matzler, & Füller, 2009). Secondlife users may even vote
for the name of the new hotel, and contribute to e-marketing of the
new hotel via e-word-of-mouth (Schiller, 2007). Likewise, by
scouring eBay and Amazon reviews, C&A marketing is an example
of entrepreneurship which develops products that answer the
frustrations of consumers and include the requested features.
Listening to conversations around current products can uncover
ideas for the development of those products, as well as new
product ideas. Consumers expressing their frustrations is common
on social media; they are potential sources for new product
development ideas. Analyzing conversation types in conjunction
with sentiment analysis can also surface common issues with the
existing product. One other example is Lego Mindstorms. Lego
develops the platform to allow the players to realize their innova-
tion ideas. These prototype products can later be commercialized
with the help of venture capital, which is also a partner of the
platform.
4.2. Commercialization via the platform strategy
Commercialization capabilities require operating routines for
developing and producing products, managing sales force and
distribution channels, providing customer service, maintaining
reputation and brand recognition, and participating in setting in-
dustry standards and practices (Lee, 2009). Commercialization in-
cludes both strategic (e.g. business modeling and marketing) and
operative (e.g. manufacturing and sales) activities. Particularly,
business model design is important for entrepreneurs (Zott & Amit,
2010). Entrepreneurs may be able to develop new products/ser-
vices but lack the ability to commercialize them. Indeed, a number
of platforms are available for this type of entrepreneurs. Examples
of such platforms are Apple iOS and Google Android, which foster
innovation ecosystems of app developers. In this respect, app de-
velopers take advantage of the platforms as a channel to reach
users and buyers. Foxconn (the world’s largest contract electronics
manufacturer based in Taiwan) and Alibaba launched an online
platform called “Kick2real” in 2014 to help entrepreneurs turn their
creative ideas into prototypes at no cost. The Foxconn-backed
platform further help start-up businesses manufacture their
products. In this case, the platform offers technology and
manufacturing support for entrepreneurs.
In addition to the above platforms that fulfill entrepreneur’s
specific needs to commercialize their products/service, some plat-
forms offer more general and comprehensive services to entre-
preneurs. For example, Amazon’s Amazon Web Services (AWS)
provide start-up enterprises a selection of services ranging from
cloud computing and data management to cost management and
business productivity. Several platforms even help entrepreneurs
develop business models. For example, Startup Autobahn, an
innovation platform in Europe, focuses on future topics such as
blockchain, artificial intelligence, future of production, virtual re-
ality, augmented reality, sensors and connectivity. These innovation
platforms provide an entrepreneurial ecosystem environment,
helping start-up businesses not only to test emerging technology
(e.g. mobility and industry 4.0) use cases, but also to create efficient
go-to-market approaches and validate their business models.
Start-up firms may also collect customer complaints and un-
derstand delivery problems via social media, which is more effec-
tive and efficient than the conventional use of phone calls and face-
to-face communication. Furthermore, these firms may use social
media for better post-introduction evaluation of a new product/
service based on actual market response to the offering (Frei &
Morriss, 2012). Social media provide an uncomplicated way to
collect feedback. Hence, many government agencies launch online
social platforms based on Twitter or Facebook to solicit citizen
feedback on new policies (Magro, 2012; Nam, 2012). Government
officials can then make necessary changes to their new policies
based on the feedback (Charalabidis, Triantafillou, Karkaletsis, &
Loukis, 2012).
5. Classifying platforms for entrepreneurs
As noted above, there are a number of approaches to categorize
various platforms according to intended purpose and function.
From the perspective of entrepreneurs, however, there is a need to
classify these platforms to facilitate the entrepreneurial process.
The study proposes a classification framework through the lens of
innovation process. Namely, the framework is based on entrepre-
neurs’ capability in NPD/NSD and commercialization as invention
and commercialization represent the two pivotal stages in the
innovation process. Furthermore, Research indicates that invention
and commercialization are two types of capabilities that affect the
development of new knowledge (Helfat, 1997; Lee, 2009). As such,
each type of capability leads to a specific path that potential en-
trants can emulate. The proposed innovation process-based
framework of platforms is discussed as follows.
5.1. Type I platforms for low commercialization but high NPD/NSD
capability
Platforms in this category can help entrepreneurs with NPD/
NSD capability but lack the ability to commercialize their products/
services. Examples are various app stores, Amazon AWS, eBay, and
Biyao (meaning “necessary” in Chinese). The needs for commer-
cialization range from sales, operation, business modeling, mar-
keting, to supply chain management. Apple’s iOS and Google’s
Android app stores represent examples of this type of platform for
promoting and selling apps. As noted above, AWS is an example of
platform providing start-up firms a wide range selection of oper-
ative services such as data computing and storage, mobile services,
and business analytics. Chinese e-commerce site Biyao represents
the example for supply chain management. The platform Biyao
makes luxury cheaper with a customer-to-manufacturer (C2M)
business model. Manufacturers for luxury brands can join the
platform Biyao and become its suppliers. The site eliminates in-
termediaries so that customers can buy customized products
directly from top manufacturers without logo, but at a significantly
reduced price. This platform also provides entrepreneurial oppor-
tunity for luxury manufacturers with a different sales channel for
their quality goods. Type I platforms help entrepreneurs not only
promote and sell their products/services, but also provide them
with operational support. Nonetheless, entrepreneurs may lose the
direct contact with end customers which is often considered as
crucial to a sustaining business (Gronroos, 2011).
 Y.-J. Hsieh, Y.J. Wu / Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323
5.2. Type II platforms for low commercialization and low NPD/NSD
capability
Typical entrepreneurs are those who have the knowledge and
capability to develop prototype products but lack resources to
commercialize them. They benefit from Type I platforms. Type II
platforms, however, fulfill the needs for those entrepreneurs who
are not capable of developing new products or services, nor having
the knowledge to put them into markets. There is an emerging
trend of entrepreneurship simply based on creative ideas and
limited resources. Indeed, a number of platforms help this type of
entrepreneurs start a business. For example, a partner of Nokia
Innovation Platform (NIP) can showcase his/her ideas in IoT ser-
vices and applications and NIP makes them available for the in-
dustries. NIP offers the possibility to connect with its ecosystem
including startups, partners, Nokia business divisions and Nokia
Bell-Labs for innovation acceleration. One other option gaining
popularity is the incubator platform. Through incubator platforms,
entrepreneurs can market their novel ideas to potential customers,
obtain needed resources, and gain access to the expert advisory
network. Examples include the White Label Virtual Business Incu-
bator (WLVBI) platform that allows the startup ecosystem to
collaborate on a crowdsourced membership based virtual business
incubator platform. In the travel industry, the Travel Startups
Incubator (TSI) platform provides an infrastructure for start-up
businesses in the incubator to connect with potential investors.
These businesses demonstrate their travel ideas, the platform gives
them exposure and access to investors and its innovation partners
(e.g. travel companies) and strategic alliances.
On the other hand, entrepreneurs with interests and want to
explore more ideas and knowledge can participate in various open
innovation labs. These labs can be founded by countries (e.g. Open
Innovation Lab of Norway), cities (e.g. Shenzhen Open Innovation
Lab in China), businesses (e.g. Deutsche Bank Open Innovation Lab),
or universities (e.g. Peace Innovation Lab at Stanford). Like a
“makerspace”, this type of platforms integrates related industrial
partners and offer various innovation and entrepreneurship cour-
ses, transforming “makers” into “entrepreneurs.” Last, some en-
trepreneurs may purely want to take advantage of their unused and
oftentimes limited resources (e.g. sharing resources with others).
These mini-entrepreneurs (Kenney & Zysman, 2015) can join
platforms such as Uber for sharing vehicles and Airbnb for sharing
houses, among other types of platforms aiming for sharing re-
sources. As aforementioned, these platforms are on-demand plat-
forms, a variant of transaction platforms. Type II platforms allow
entrepreneurial enthusiasts to realize their innovative ideas. On the
other hand, this type of entrepreneurs generally lack core compe-
tency in either developing new products/services or sustaining
business models.
5.3. Type III platforms for high commercialization but low NPD/NSD
capability
This type of platforms target those entrepreneurs that are able
to commercialize products or services but lack the ability to design
them. Research suggests that the capability in commercialization
such as business modeling provides an alternative for innovation
(Afuah, 2014). For example, based on open standards and source,
Bosch’s IoT platform allows entrepreneurs to realize innovative
business models in the Internet of Things and cross-domain ap-
plications. Likewise, Haier, a Chinese leading brand of major
household appliances transformed from a traditional manufacturer
to an open entrepreneurship platform in recent years. Haier ex-
tends its ecosystem (Haier Open Partnership Ecosystem, HOPE) to
both online social networks and offline communities. The
319
innovation platform HOPE allows users to showcase their business
models and commercialization ideas, and provides necessary
technical solution for their innovation needs. As such, users submit
their business and/or other IoT solutions through the open inno-
vation platform and become entrepreneurs and dynamic partners
of Haier. Entrepreneurs with technical needs may find support from
this type of platforms. Yet, the lack of NPD/NSD capability may
constrain entrepreneurs’ potential to exploit further commerciali-
zation opportunities.
5.4. Type IV platforms for high commercialization and high NPD/
NSD capability
Often found within large enterprises, internal corporate entre-
preneurship platforms exemplify this type of platforms. Companies
such as Google and Proctor & Gamble establish this type of plat-
forms to encourage internal venture, for example, aiming to enter
new businesses by expanding operations in existing or new mar-
kets. These “intrapreneurs” normally are employees and have the
support internally in resources such as manufacturing, marketing,
and R&D to start a business. Even though these large enterprises
are capable of providing innovation resources for the intrapreneurs,
some firms still seek external partnership with other firms or in-
stitutes. These examples include Siemens’s TechnoWeb 2.0
collaborating with its external knowledge agents, and GE’s First
Build collaborating with research institutes. This type of platforms
nourish internal entrepreneurship, providing intrapreneurs with
opportunities to establish new start-up business units or firms.
Nonetheless, internal employees’ innovation ideas are generally
limited to follow the firm’s existing strategic directions. Fig. 2
demonstrates the types and examples of platforms for entrepre-
neurs based on their NPD/NSD and commercialization capabilities.
6. Challenges of adopting the platform strategy for
entrepreneurs
Besides new opportunities entrepreneurs can obtain via the
platform strategy, particular problems may also arise and point to
several research directions. There exists both common and specific
concerns for the platforms. First, the platform strategy shares same
downsides with open innovation such as increased management
process coordination cost and potential loss of key knowledge
control or intellectual property spillover (Enkel et al., 2009; Müller,
2013; Veer, Lorenz, & Blind, 2013). While an open community
makes it easier for a firm to create value, it makes it harder to
Type III (Technical needs) Type IV (Intrapreneurs)
High
Bosch IoT platform Internal entrepreneurship platforms:
Haier Open Partnership Ecosystem Google; P&G
Commercialization capability
(HOPE) Siemens Techno Web 2.0
GE-First Build
Type II (Enthusiasts) Type I (Mavens)
Incubator platforms (WLVBI, TSI) App stores (iOS/Android)
Open innovation labs (makerspace) eBay
On-demand platforms (Uber, Airbnb) AWS
Low
Biyao
Low NPD/NSD capability High
Fig. 2. Types and examples of platforms for entrepreneurs based on NPD/NSD and
commercialization capabilities.
320 Y.-J. Hsieh, Y.J. Wu / Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323
capture value (Simcoe, 2006). Second, most of these platforms were
developed and built in recent years; they are relatively new and
need time to validate their business models. Third, collaboration via
platforms requires those involved to master the art of compromise.
The complexities intrinsic to multi-stakeholder initiatives such as
conflicting priorities, protection of self-interests and disputes over
the level of commitment pledged. Often times effectiveness is
compromised. Fourth, within such initiatives, there is often a
disproportionate amount of power and influence that large
participating enterprises exhibit over SMEs and entrepreneurs.
These challenges highlight the need for research on collaborative
efforts to be specific in scope and purpose, and to implement
tangible measures of success such as explicit, publically commu-
nicated targets, metrics and goals, in order to achieve meaningful
impact. Fifth, posting the needs to an online innovation platform
suggests that the needs are stated explicitly (so that they can be
understood by outsiders), yielding the risk revealed trade secrets or
patenting concerns (Hallerstede, 2013). In some cases, sensitive
information constituting competitive advantage may have to be
revealed to find a solution (Henkel, 2006). Finally, open innovation
has been defined as “a distributed innovation process based on
purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational
boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in
line with the organization’s business model” (Chesbrough &
Bogers, 2014, p. 17). Nonetheless, start-up businesses typically
lack sound business models. Table 1 demonstrates how the afore-
mentioned challenges relate to each type of platform. Generally,
both platform providers and users face the challenge of manage-
ment process coordination. In particular, platform providers also
encounter the challenges of convincing users with sound business
models and protection of their intellectual property. Users, on the
other hand, has the major concern of knowledge spillover.
7. Future research directions
While the proposed conceptual platform framework (Fig. 1)
provides insights into various paths through which entrepreneurs
can take advantage of the platform-based ecosystems in the
entrepreneurial process, there are a number of opportunities for
further refinement. This section demonstrates several future
research opportunities.
1. Enablers and barriers to adopt the platform-based innovation
strategy: Although innovation research asserts that for start-up
entrepreneurs an open approach leads to new venture survival
(e.g. Eftekhari & Bogers, 2015), insufficient research examines
the driving factors for those entrepreneurs to adopt the open
platform-based approach. Specifically, future research may
investigate mechanisms that support and prevent the above
process (West & Bogers, 2014).
2. Types of entrepreneurs versus level of involvement in platforms:
Start-up companies involve more in inbound than outbound
Table 1
Challenges of adopting the innovation platforms for entrepreneurs.
Primary challenges Platforms for different types of entrepreneurs
Type I (Mavens)
Management process coordination x x
Knowledge control/spillover x x
Capturing value
Validated business models
Conflicting priorities
Unbalanced power and influence x x
openness considering their limited resources (Greul et al., 2016).
This phenomenon, however, may depend on entrepreneurial
motivation. Further research can explore how the level of
involvement may vary for different types of entrepreneurs (e.g.
user versus accidental entrepreneurs).
3. Integration of online and offline innovation platforms: Emerging
innovation platforms are largely online, though some of them
also provide the offline environment. Research suggests that an
individual’s motivation to participate in innovation commu-
nities varies across online and offline environments (Muhdi &
Boutellier, 2011). Each type of platform has its own benefits
and disadvantages. Online innovation platforms have the
advantage of efficiently sourcing knowledge from diverse
groups of individuals, whereas offline innovation platforms
allow face-to-face collaborative work. The face-to-face
communication is crucial particularly for Type II entrepreneurs
(i.e. enthusiasts), for example, in an open innovation lab such as
makerspace where entrepreneurs make, learn, explore, and
share in the facility. Future research may investigate how
innovation platforms can integrate both types of platforms to
capture optimal value.
4. Business modeling before adopting innovation platforms: While
the open innovation literature describes innovation processes
with specific phases, in reality, SMEs and entrepreneurial
innovation processes are often unstructured. Ullrich and
Vladova (2016) indicate that business modeling with a focus
on knowledge-intensive processes (such as innovation pro-
cesses) provides a path to analyze and evaluate the current
situation in an enterprise. Trimi and Berbegal-Mirabent (2012)
also point out that the study of business model design for en-
trepreneurs is new and attractive. Such an analysis is a critical
starting point for evaluating knowledge and information flows,
business processes and personnel interactions (Gronau, 2012).
5. Strategic risk analysis of open innovation project participation:
Research emphasizes the importance for a firm to match its
innovation strategy to the innovation ecosystem (Adner, 2006).
The openness of innovation processes is associated with un-
certainty regarding positive and negative consequences of the
project design. In this regard, entrepreneurs often need
methodical support within the decision process of open inno-
vation project participation. Nonetheless, review of the extant
literature suggests that no approaches exist for weighing the
risks and benefits of open innovation project participation. The
lack of a decision support framework for weighing benefits and
risks of open innovation participation leads to a promising
research topic.
6. Protection and control of knowledge spillover: The platform-
mediated innovation makes it possible for both entrepreneurs
and partners to increase the “innovation productivity.” For en-
trepreneurs, however, there exists a trade-off between gain and
loss of knowledge. As such, innovation research proposes an
optimal level of openness and intellectual property duration for
Type II (Enthusiasts) Type III (Technical needs) Type IV (Intrapreneurs)
x x
x x
x
x x
x
 Y.-J. Hsieh, Y.J. Wu / Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323 321

Table 2
Summary of key concerns, insights, and future research opportunities in entrepreneurship through the platform strategy in the digital era.

Key concerns Insights Future research opportunities

Types of innovation platforms
for entrepreneurs
Knowledge control and
protection in entrepreneurial innovation. However, sensitive information may have to be revealed knowledge spillover from the entrepreneur’s perspective.
innovation platforms
Enablers and inhibitors of
adopting entrepreneurial
innovation platforms
Strategic consideration in
entrepreneurship through
innovation platforms
Based on entrepreneurs’ capability in NPD/NSD and
commercialization, four types of innovation platforms are
categorized. They are for mavens, enthusiasts, technical needs, and accidental entrepreneurs) are not factored in the categorization.
intrepreneurs.
For entrepreneurs, innovation platforms expedite the process of
in the process. There exists a trade-off between gain and loss of
knowledge.
Multiple stakeholders in the ecosystem may have conflicting
interests and tendency to protect self interests. Entrepreneurs’
considerations to participate in the platforms vary. Obtaining
complementary knowledge and resources are drivers, while
unbalanced power between entrepreneurs and platform sponsors platforms are built around a model of sharing resources (i.e.
are concerns.
Research on business modeling and risk analysis of
entrepreneurship through innovation platforms remains scarce.
Matching between innovation strategy and platform participation is offline innovation platforms facilitate face-to-face collaborative
pivotal for entrepreneurs.
While this study categorizes innovation platforms for
entrepreneurs, various types of entrepreneurs (e.g. user and
Further research may probe into different types of entrepreneurs
versus level of involvement in the platforms. Likewise, the
differences in development process and nature of offerings between
products and services also call for future research to explore how
these differences affect the selection of platform-based innovation
ecosystem for entrepreneurs.
Further research may examine the level of protection and control of
Particularly, the level of protection and control for knowledge
should be contingent on the type and value of knowledge.
Insufficient research examines the driving factors for those
entrepreneurs to adopt the open platform-based approach.
Specifically, future research may investigate mechanisms that
support and prevent the above process. Furthermore, These
hardware, network, storage, etc.). Hence, co-tenancy can introduce
inconvenience particularly for small start-up firms. This concern
merits further research on the impact of resource co-tenancy on
entrepreneurs’ attitude to adopt the innovation platforms.
Online innovation platforms have the advantage of efficiently
sourcing knowledge from diverse groups of individuals, whereas
work. Future research may explore how to integrate both online and
offline innovation platforms to capture optimal value.
Entrepreneurial innovation processes are often unstructured.
Hence, further research on business modeling/analysis before
adopting innovation platforms is critical, as it helps evaluate
knowledge and information flows, business processes, and
personnel interactions. Review of the extant literature suggests that
no approaches exist for weighing the risks and benefits of open
innovation project participation. The lack of a decision support
framework for weighing benefits and risks of open innovation
participation leads to a promising research topic.

platform sponsors in the platform ecosystem (Parker & Van
Alstyne, 2017). Further research may examine the level of pro-
tection and control of knowledge from the entrepreneur’s
perspective.
7. Co-tenancy of resources in the platform-based innovation
ecosystem: While entrepreneurs enjoy benefits such as scal-
ability and reliability from the use of the innovation platforms,
problems for using the platform such as vendor lock-in and
increase in networking costs seem inevitable as a result. These
platforms are built around a model of sharing resources (i.e.
hardware, network, storage, etc.). Hence, co-tenancy can intro-
duce inconvenience particularly for small start-up firms and
merits further research.
8. NPD versus NSD in the platform-based innovation ecosystem:
Some researchers suggest that firms can follow the conventional
new product development approach to develop new services
(e.g. de Vries, 2006). This approach, however, does not take into
account the differences between products and services in the
development process (e.g. the level of customer involvement).
Thus, future research may explore how the above differences
affect the selection of platform ecosystems for entrepreneurs.
Table 2 summarizes the key concerns, insights and future
research opportunities in entrepreneurship through the plat-
form strategy in the digital era.
8. Conclusions
With the passage of time platform economy is booming largely
due to new innovations taking place in the information technology
and rapidly globalizing world. Platform-based innovation ecosys-
tems are transforming our global business landscape in multiple
ways, affecting both entrepreneurial and incumbent businesses.
Their rapid speed and scale of operations create opportunities on
the one hand and pose challenges on the other for start-up busi-
nesses. The study demonstrates how start-up firms can take
advantage of the platform-based open innovation strategy in their
entrepreneurial process. Specifically, through the lens of innovation
process, the study classifies various platform-based innovation
ecosystems for entrepreneurs to develop new products/services
and commercialize them. The study also discusses the challenges
and issues arising from the adoption of innovation platforms for
entrepreneurs, and proposes a number of future research avenues
accordingly.
Theoretically, this study is contributive in that it examines in
depth the platform-based innovation ecosystems available to
entrepreneurs. This study also represents the first effort to cate-
gorize these platforms and develop an innovation process-based
framework of platforms for entrepreneurs. Furthermore, this
study brings up a number of research opportunities. Managerially,
platforms managers can better understand the needs for entre-
preneurs in the innovation process from the study. Likewise, the
discussed concerns and issues help platform managers refine
their offerings to attract entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs also
benefit from this study by learning available platform-based
innovation ecosystems which help them at various stages in the
entrepreneurial process.
322 Y.-J. Hsieh, Y.J. Wu / Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to
Ministry of Science & Technology, Taiwan for the financial support
(MOST 104-2511-S-003 -031 -MY3 & MOST 106-2511-S-003 -029
-MY3).
References
Abouzeedan, A., Klofsten, M., & Hedner, T. (2013). Internetization management as a
facilitator for managing innovation in high-technology smaller firms. Global
Business Review, 14(1), 121e136.
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem.
Harvard Business Review, 84, 98e107.
Afuah, A. (2014). Business model innovation: Concepts, analysis and cases. New York:
Routledge.
Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of
Economics, 37(3), 668e691.
Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Chichester: John Wiley
& Sons.
Bhide, A. (2000). The origin and evolution of new businesses. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs.
devolving control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849e1872.
Charalabidis, Y., Triantafillou, A., Karkaletsis, V., & Loukis, E. (2012). Public policy
formulation through non-moderated crowdsourcing in social media. In Pro-
ceedings of IFIP fourth international conference on e-participation - ePart 2012,
3e6 September, Kristiansand, Norway.
Chaston, I., & Scott, G. J. (2012). Entrepreneurship and open innovation in an
emerging economy. Management Decision, 50(7), 1161e1177.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an
emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough,
W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3e28).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a
new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Criscuolo, P., Nicolaou, N., & Salter, A. (2012). The Elixir (or burden) of youth?
Exploring differences in innovation between start-ups and established firms.
Research Policy, 41, 319e333.
Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. R. (2002). The virtual customer. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19(5), 332e353.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80,
95e104.
Eftekhari, N., & Bogers, M. (2015). Open for entrepreneurship: How open innovation
can foster new venture creation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(4),
574e584.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation:
Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311e316.
Erat, P., Desouza, K. C., Scha€fer-Jugel, A., & Kurzawa, M. (2006). Business customer
communities and knowledge sharing: Exploratory study of critical issues. Eu-
ropean Journal of Information Systems, 15(5), 511e524.
Evans, P. C., & Gawer, A. (2016). The rise of the platform enterprise: A global survey.
Frei, F., & Morriss, A. (2012). Uncommon service: How to win by putting customers at
the core of your business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2009). Consumer empowerment
through internet-based co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems,
26(3), 71e102.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 28.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417e433.
Greul, A., West, J., & Bock, S. (2016). Open at birth? Why new firms do (or don’t) use
open innovation. In Paper presented at the 2016 academy of management, ana-
heim, California, august 9.
Gronau, N. (2012). Modeling and analyzing knowledge intensive business processes
with KMDL: Comprehensive insights into theory and practice. GITO mbH Verlag.
Gronroos, C. (2011). Management and marketing: Marketing the moment of truth in
service competition. Toronto: Lexington Books.
Hallerstede, S. (2013). Managing the lifecycle of open innovation platforms. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability
accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 339e360.
Hemert, P., Nijkamp, P., & Masurel, E. (2013). From innovation to commercialization
through networks and agglomerations: Analysis of sources of innovation,
innovation capabilities and performance of Dutch SMEs. The Annals of Regional
Science, 50(2), 425e452.
Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of
embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953e969.
Heyne, P., Boettke, P. J., & Prychitko, D. L. (2010). The economic way of thinking.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hossain, M. (2015). A review of literature on open innovation in small and medium-
sized enterprises. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 5(1), 6.
Huizingh, E. K. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.
Technovation, 31(1), 2e9.
Insights, C. B. (2014). The top 20 reasons startups fail. October, 7, 2014.
Kask, J., & Linton, G. (2013). Business mating: When start-ups get it right. Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 511e536.
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2015). Choosing a future in the platform economy: The
implications and consequences of digital platforms. In Kauffman foundation new
entrepreneurial growth conference (pp. 156e160).
Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Stieger, D., & Matzler, K. (2011). Avatar-based innovation:
Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(1), 160e168.
Kohler, T., Matzler, K., & Füller, J. (2009). Avatar-based innovation: Using virtual
worlds for real-world innovation. Technovation, 29, 395e407.
Lakovleva, T. (2013). Open innovation at the root of entrepreneurial strategy: A case
from the Norwegian oil industry. Technology Innovation Management Review,
3(4), 17e22.
Lee, G. K. (2009). Understanding the timing of ‘fast-second’ entry and the relevance
of capabilities in invention vs. commercialization. Research Policy, 38(1), 86e95.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm perfor-
mance: Examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4),
317e330.
Magro, M. (2012). A review of social media use in e-government. Administrative
Sciences, 2(2), 148e161.
Muhdi, L., & Boutellier, R. (2011). Motivational factors affecting participation and
contribution of members in two different Swiss innovation communities. In-
ternational Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 543e562.
Müller, S. (2013). Innovationsrecht e Konturen eines Rechtsgebiets. Zeitschrift für
Innovations- und Technikrecht (InTeR), 12, 58e71.
Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0.
Government Information Quarterly, 29, 12e20.
Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product
development: Toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3),
392e413.
Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2017). Innovation, openness, and platform control.
Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2757 (in-press).
Rowley, J., Teahan, B., & Leeming, E. (2007). Customer community and co-creation:
A case study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(2), 136e146.
Schiller, M. (2007). Virtual aloft re-opening on tuesday, may 8. Aloft in second lifeda
developers report, retrieved november 2014. from http://www.virtualaloft.com/.
Shane, S. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepre-
neurs, investors, and policy-makers live by. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sigala, M. (2009). E-service quality and web 2.0: Expanding quality models to
include customer participation and inter customer support. Service Industries
Journal, 29(10), 1341e1358.
Sigala, M. (2012). Web 2.0 and customer involvement in new service development:
A framework, cases and implications in tourism. In M. Sigala, E. Christou, &
U. Gretzel (Eds.), Social media in travel, tourism and hospitality (pp. 25e38).
Farnham: Ashgate.
Simcoe, T. (2006). Open standards and intellectual property rights. In
Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke, & Joel West (Eds.), Open Innovation:
Researching a new paradigm (pp. 161e183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spender, J. C., Corvello, V., Grimaldi, M., & Rippa, P. (2017). Startups and open
innovation: A review of the literature. European Journal of Innovation Manage-
ment, 20(1), 4e30.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range
Planning, 43(2), 172e194.
Thomas, L. D., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting
platforms in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198e219.
Tietz, R., & Herstatt, C. (2005). Taking advantage of online communities for generating
innovative ideas (No. 32). Working Papers/Technologie-und Innovations manage-
ment. Technische Universita €t Hamburg-Harburg.
Trimi, S., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2012). Business model innovation in entrepre-
neurship. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(4),
449e465.
Ullrich, A., & Vladova, G. (2016). Weighing the pros and cons of engaging in open
innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(4).
Veer, T., Lorenz, A., & Blind, K. (2013). How open is too open? The "dark side" of
openness along the innovation value chain. In Paper presented at the 35th DRUID
celebration conference, Barcelona, Spain, June 17e19.
van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009).
Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Tech-
novation, 29(6), 423e437.
 Y.-J. Hsieh, Y.J. Wu / Computers in Human Behavior 95 (2019) 315e323 323

de Vries, E. I. (2006). Innovation in services in networks of organizations and in the
distribution of services. Research Policy, 35, 1037e1051.
West, J. (2014). Challenges of funding open innovation platforms: Lessons from
symbian ltd. In Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke, & Joel West (Eds.), New
frontiers in open innovation (pp. 71e93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of
research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31,
814e831.
West, J., & Kuk, G. (2016). The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot
leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 102, 169e181.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective.
Long Range Planning, 43(2), 216e226.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and
future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1019e1042.