Book contents
- Designing Adaptive Organizations
- Cambridge Companions to Management
- Designing Adaptive Organizations
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Design Thinking in Organization Design
- 2 The Open Organization
- 3 Actor-Oriented Organizing
- 4 Collaborative Conflict Management
- 5 The Platform Organization
- 6 Circular Organizing
- 7 Organizing Intelligent Digital Actors
- 8 Agile Organizing
- 9 The Global Organization
- 10 Performance-Focused Organizing
- 11 The Healthy Organization
- 12 Modern Organizing
- Index
- References
5 - The Platform Organization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2023
Book contents
- Designing Adaptive Organizations
- Cambridge Companions to Management
- Designing Adaptive Organizations
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Design Thinking in Organization Design
- 2 The Open Organization
- 3 Actor-Oriented Organizing
- 4 Collaborative Conflict Management
- 5 The Platform Organization
- 6 Circular Organizing
- 7 Organizing Intelligent Digital Actors
- 8 Agile Organizing
- 9 The Global Organization
- 10 Performance-Focused Organizing
- 11 The Healthy Organization
- 12 Modern Organizing
- Index
- References
Summary
The ability to organize is our most valuable social technology. Organizing affects an enterprise’s efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to adapt. Modern organizations operate in increasingly complex, dynamic environments, which puts a premium on adaptation. Compared to traditional organizations, modern organizations are flatter and more open to their environment. Their processes are more generative and interactive – actors themselves generate and coordinate solutions rather than follow hierarchically devised plans and directives. Modern organizations search outside their boundaries for resources wherever they may exist. They coproduce products and services with suppliers, customers, and partners. They collaborate, both internally and externally, to learn and become more capable. In this book, leading voices in the field of organization design articulate and exemplify how a combination of agile processes, artificial intelligence, and digital platforms powers adaptive, sustainable, and healthy organizations.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Designing Adaptive Organizations , pp. 86 - 103Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Armstrong, M. 2006. Competition in two-sided markets. RAND Journal of Economics 37(3): 668–691.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y. & Clark, K. B. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Caillaud, B. & Jullien, B. 2003. Chicken & egg: competition among intermediation service providers. The RAND Journal of Economics 34(2): 309–328.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. D. 1990. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Crémer, J., de Montjoye, Y.-A., & Schweitzer, H. 2019. Competition policy for the digital era. Report for the European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf.Google Scholar
Cusumano, M. A. 2019. The cloud as an innovation platform for software development. Communications of the ACM 62(10): 20–22.Google Scholar
Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. 2019. The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power. Harper Business, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. 2006. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review 84(10): 92–101.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2019. Platform to business trading practices. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/platform-business-trading-practices.Google Scholar
Evans, D. S. 2003. Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries. Review of Network Economics 23(3): 191–209.Google Scholar
Evans, D. S. & Schmalensee, R. 2016. Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multi-sided Platforms. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Furman, J. 2019. Unlocking Digital Competition: Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel. HM Treasury: London, UK. www.gov.uk/government/publications/unlocking-digital-competition-report-of-the-digital-competition-expert-panel.Google Scholar
Garud, R. & Kumaraswamy, A. 1995. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal 16(S1): 93–109.Google Scholar
Gawer, A. 2014. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative framework. Research Policy 43(7): 1239–1249.Google Scholar
Gawer, A. & Cusumano, M. A. 2002. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal 39(8): 2255–2276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, J. M. 2017. Challenges to large-scale digital organization: the case of Uber. Journal of Organization Design 6(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Katz, M. L. & Shapiro, C. 1985. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review 75(3): 424–440.Google Scholar
Katz, M. L. & Shapiro, C. 1994. Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(2): 93–115.Google Scholar
Kessler, S. 2015. The Gig economy won’t last because it is being sued to death. Fast Company, February 17. www.fastcompany.com/3042248/the-gig-economy-wont-last-because-its-being-sued-to-death.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N. 2002. Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 49(1): 19–37.Google Scholar
Manjoo, F. 2017. The Frightful Five want to rule entertainment. They are hitting limits. New York Times, October 11. www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/technology/the-frightful-five-want-to-rule-entertainment-they-are-hitting-limits.html.Google Scholar
Moore, J. F. 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review 71(3): 75–86.Google Scholar
North, D. C. & Wallis, J. J. 1994. Integrating institutional change and technical change in economic history: a transaction cost approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 150(4): 609–624.Google Scholar
Parker, G. G. & Van Alstyne, M. W. 2005. Two-sided network effects: a theory of information product design. Management Science 51(10): 1494–1504.Google Scholar
Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. 2016. Platform Revolution: How Platform Markets Are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You. W. W. Norton, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Parnas, D. L. 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12): 1053–1058.Google Scholar
Pofeldt, E. 2017. Are we ready for a workforce that is 50% freelance? Forbes, October 17. www.forbes.com/sites/elainepofeldt/2017/10/17/are-we-ready-for-a-workforce-that-is-50-freelance/#7c4614613f82.Google Scholar
Rochet, J. C. & Tirole, J. 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association 1(4): 990–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochet, J. C. & Tirole, J. 2006. Two-sided markets: a progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics 37(3): 645–667.Google Scholar
Rosenblat, A. 2018. Uberland: How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Rules of Work. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Rosenblat, A. & Stark, L. 2016. Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: a case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication 10: 3758–3784.Google Scholar
Scheiber, N. 2018. Gig economy business model dealt a blow in California ruling. New York Times, April 30. www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/business/economy/gig-economy-ruling.html.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. & Varian, H. R. 1998. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6): 467–482.Google Scholar
Stabell, C. B. & Fjeldstad, Ø. D. 1998. Configuring value for competitive advantage: on chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal 19(5): 413–437.Google Scholar
West, J. 2003. How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy 32(7): 1259–1285.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, S. C. & Clark, K. B. 1992. Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. Free Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. 2010. The new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research 21(4): 724–735.Google Scholar
Zuboff, S. 2015. Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology 30(1): 7589.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by