Complementors as Ecosystem Actors: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda.

Full text

This paper was presented at ISPIM Connects Global 2020: Celebrating the World of Innovation -
Virtual, 6-8 December 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-566-8
1
Complementors as Ecosystem Actors: A Systematic
Review and Research Agenda
Alexandra Elena Carst*
Aalborg University Business School, Fibigerstraede 11-146, Aalborg,
Denmark.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Sino-Danish Center for
Education and Research, Beijing, China.
E-mail: alexandraec@business.aau.dk
Yimei Hu
Aalborg University Business School, Fibigerstraede 11-146, Aalborg,
Denmark.
E-mail yimei@business.aau.dk
* Corresponding author
Abstract: This is an example of the abstract style. The abstract should be
between 100 and 150 words.
Keywords: complementors; complement; complementarity; innovation
ecosystems; platform ecosystems; ecosystem; review.
1 Introduction
Nowadays, a product or service, or say the realization of a core value proposition, is the
result of multiple cross-industry interactions tangled in an ecosystem. These inter-
organizational networks have become more complex due to the variety and loosely-
coupled actors. As ecosystem participants, complementors’ role is to augment the focal
value proposition. However, since there are usually no formal agreements between
complementors and other ecosystem actors, how to collaborate with complementors and
leverage their role to boost the core value proposition is challenging and unclear. Thus,
the purpose of this paper is to enhance our understanding of complementors’ role within
ecosystems by systematically reviewing relevant literature and synthesizing the findings
to reveal the relations between complementors and ecosystems, including the other
participants.
Despite increasing academic attention, ecosystem research has a relatively short
history and lacks consensus. Even though complementors’ presence is acknowledged by
their integration in the majority of definitions for (innovation) ecosystems (Jacobides,
Cennamo and Gawer, 2018), research on these actors in such settings is rather scattered.
Considering the interlink between participants through the final value proposition, many
academics agree that all the actors in an ecosystem are seen as suppliers of knowledge
(Fransman, 2014). Upstream components are absolutely necessary for the lead firm(s)’
product. But complementors can also be categorized under the “direct value creation

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis,
7-10 June 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1
2
roles” together with suppliers (Dedehayir et al., 2018, p.18). Without complementor’s
innovations, the lead firm and the entire ecosystem cannot reach their full potential for
success (Shipilov and Gawer, 2020). In this context, complementors (Teece, 1986;
Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996) are the actors whose offerings are bundled by the
customer with the lead firm’s product (Adner & Kapoor, 2010). In ecosystem studies,
complementors are seen as consumers (Gawer, 2014) or downstream innovators due to
their position (Adner, 2006; Cusumano & Gawer, 2002). Nevertheless, through their
incremental innovation, the role and presence of complementors is deemed necessary for
the lead firm(s) and the overall ecosystem (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Brusoni & Prencipe,
2013).
Due to their nature, further complications may arise. Since the lead firm has (almost)
no control or influence on complementors, no official link, no fair understanding, or
practically no receptivity to complementors (Adner and Kapoor, 2010), understanding
these actors and their indispensable role in ecosystem is essential in collaborating with
them and overcoming certain risks they may pose (Kapoor, 2013). Thus, this literature
review aims to investigate and synthesize the state-of-the-art ecosystem research stream
and topics in regards to complementors. The purpose is to provide an extensive and
thorough systematic review of these ecosystem actors by responding to the following
inquiry: (1) how are complementors perceived in ecosystem? (2) what is the
complementors’ role in ecosystems? and (3) what are the main gaps in the related
literature?. This study is structured as follows. The next section lays the background
information on connecting concepts. Section 3 explains the search strategy adopted in the
study. Section 4 presents the findings of a two-step in-depth analysis on complementors
in ecosystems. In Section 5, a discussion on the practical and theoretical implications is
developed. Section 6 will conclude with a summary on the main findings of the study, as
well as limitations and research opportunities.
2 From complementarity to complementors
The definitions of complementarity are versatile depending on the area of study (Xu et
al., 2010). In economy, it is perceived as the impact on user value, “the marginal value of
a variable increases with another variable” (Teece, 2018, p. 1373), or factor prices from
the perspective of cross-price elasticity (Xu et al., 2010). While in innovation research, it
is seen as technological congruence and the effect of new solutions as a mix of current
technologies (Teece, 1986, 2018). Thus, in regards to technology, complementarity can
be defined as the synergistic interactions or relations between its different layers (Xu et
al., 2010). Despite its apparent simplicity, this concept is rather complex and
“complicated to understand fully” (Samuelson, 1974, p. 1255).
There are different types of complementarities and can be categorized into Hicksian
complementarity (Hicks, 1970), Hirshleifer (asset price) complementarity (Hirshleifer,
1978), Cournot complementarity in input oligopoly (Cournot, 1838), technological and
innovational complementarities (Teece, 1986, 2018), Edgeworth/Pareto complementarity
in consumption (Edgeworth, 1897) also known as supermodular complementarity, and
unique vs. generic complementarities (Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer, 2018).
The products, activities, or services resulting from these complementarities are
generally referred to as complements. The value of complements is so critical to the
business that failing to engage and coordinate with complementors in order to assure the
right complements can lead to the collapse of business (Brandenburger and Nalebuff,
1996). Despite their wide variety and impact on the attractiveness of other products and

businesses’ success, complements are often overlooked, which prompted Teece to state
that “the literature on complements is both confused and complex” (2018, p. 1373).
Furthermore, complementarities and complementary assets are sometimes used
interchangeably (Morgan, Feller and Finnegan, 2013). Complementary assets is seen as a
broad term that encompasses “different types of complementary resources, capabilities,
technologies, and activities that are required for the commercialization of a given core
technology” (Kapoor and Furr, 2015, p. 417). Originating from Teece’s framework
(1986), complementary resources and capabilities represent a main determinant in firm’s
strategic decisions with the intention of capturing value. Besides being internal to a firm,
complementary assets may also refer to the complementary products and services
delivered by third-party providers (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018). These providers were
coined as complementors in Brandenburger and Nalebuff’s book ‘Co-opetition’ (1996) to
complete their proposed value net. Though until then regarded only as value enhancers,
since mid-1990s the role of complementors has started to be attested as strategically vital
to businesses due to their power of enlarging the pie. Despite their advantages, in the
early literature, complementors have also presented tensions (Brandenburger and
Nalebuff, 1996; Yoffie and Kwak, 2006; Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018), and thus been
referred to as co-opetitors (Afuah, 2000). Nevertheless, complementors may not generate
all the types of complementarities and not only third-party firms provide complements. In
some cases, complements can also be internally produced, but offered as separate
products to the customer (Adner and Kapoor, 2010).
The concepts of complementarity and complementors became crucial notions in
business ecosystem studies, and were later adopted in innovation and platform
ecosystems research (Boudreau, 2010; Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2010; Scholten and
Scholten, 2012; Tsujimoto et al., 2018), since “ecosystem often takes a time to realize the
benefits from complementors” (Kang, Lee and Tsai, 2011, p. 287). Though present in
platform research track for a couple of decades, complementors have only entered the
research visor (more intensely) since 2013 onwards (Kapoor, 2013; Kapoor and Lee,
2013). And in 2018, the overall evolution of studies on complementors has seen an
apogee; possibly an attempt to clear out some of the confusion surrounding this concept
(Teece, 2018).
As Adner stated, in ecosystem context, these concepts of complements,
complementary assets and complementors “have suffered from a conceptual blending as
improvements in any of these are treated as improving the focal firm’s offer in the same
general way” (2017, p. 50). Thus, a delimitation of their features and meanings is need.
For this reason, the present review targets all these concepts and are separately presented
to understand their overlaps and differences.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis,
7-10 June 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1
4
Figure 1 Evolution of literature on complementors.
3 Methodology
Considering the exploratory objective, this study is a systematic literature review that
delivers reliable evidence-informed findings with minimized bias level. A systematic
review complies to a number of strict steps and norms, i.e., systematic structure,
transparency, replicability, synthesis (Tranfield, Denyer and Smart, 2003). Thus, its pre-
established strategy and precise data collection attain reliable findings that can be
transposed into practical decisions (Moher et al., 2009).
A systematic review should also be structured and conducted in a way that the study is
consistent to the specific research field the review intends to commit to (Snyder, 2019).
Considering that the number of studies on ecosystem have been steadily increasing, a
hybrid research methodology of bibliometric and content analysis is advisable (Facin et
al., 2016; Fu, Wang and Zhao, 2018; Thomas and Autio, 2019). Following this
recommendation, this review followed four steps: (1) search strategy and selection of
studies, (2) bibliometric descriptive analysis to grasp an overview of the extant
knowledge; (3) qualitative in-depth analysis in order to identify different themes in
regards to complementors; (4) synthesis of findings and themes by emphasizing the
identity, role, behavior and interactions of complementors in ecosystems.
Search strategy and selection of studies
This review adopted a search strategy inspired by the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al.,
2009), and similar to the strategy employed by Thomas et al. (2011) in their systematic
review on platform ecosystem.
Applying several exclusion criteria based on publication type, language, scientific
disciplines, and relevancy, 135 articles were extracted from two multidisciplinary
databases (i.e., Web of Science and Scopus) using the truncated keywords “ecosystem*
AND complement*” in order to ensure the inclusion of all synonyms and variations, e.g.,
complementor(s), complementary partner(s), complement provider(s), complementer(s),
and related keywords. Focusing on the overall ecosystem concept is reasoned by the
shared fundament of all ecosystems, despite the typology of ecosystems emerged from
the lack of consensus on a core definition (Ritala and Almpanopoulou, 2017).

Figure 2 Selection of studies.
Bibliometric analysis
The dataset was completed with ten articles from complementor literature that have an
ecosystem setting, and three from the most local cited references through bibliographic
snowballing technique. Applied in the initial phase of a research, bibliometric analysis
reveals critical information that can be later used as the base for the study. The first phase
consisted of a descriptive analysis of the bibliographic metadata. Then, science mapping
of the conceptual structure through co-word and multiple correspondence analysis was
conducted to reveal relationships and similarities between studies (Su and Lee, 2010;
Zupic and Čater, 2015).
Content analysis
For an in-depth explanation of a concept within relatively new context (Weber, 1990;
Duriau, Reger and Pfarrer, 2007), 34 highly relevant articles were objectively selected for
content analysis by intersecting the core articles identified through Bradford’s law
1
, most
globally and locally cited articles, and local referenced documents. The articles were then
systematically reviewed and coded in NVivo to uncover relevant themes.
4 Findings
Bibliometric analysis
The dataset spans over 20 years from 2000 to 2020 with articles from 75 journals and a
compound annual growth rate of 17.27% in the scientific production. This topic has been
1
Bradford’s law suggests that articles can be clustered based on the journals’ productivity of
articles. Such a division results in several zones, with the core or nuclear zone being considered the
most productive (Tripathi and Sen, 2016).

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis,
7-10 June 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1
6
receiving increasing academic attention since 2010 onwards, after a slowdown the
previous year. This escalation ought to be due to Adner and Kapoor’s seminal work on
value creation in innovation ecosystems (2010), which triggered the first noticeable
upsurge in 2013 with research on innovation (Boudreau and Lakhani, 2013; Brusoni and
Prencipe, 2013), value co-creation (Gyrd-Jones and Kornum, 2013), cooperation
(Kapoor, 2013) and competition (Cennamo and Santaló, 2013; Kapoor and Lee, 2013) in
ecosystems, particularly platform ecosystems, as well as several case studies (e.g., West
and Wood, 2013).
Figure 3 Annual scientific production.
The publications reached higher peak in 2018 when several attempts to theorize and
conceptualize different types of ecosystems developed this research track (Cennamo,
2018; Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer, 2018; Shaw and Allen, 2018; Tsujimoto et al.,
2018) along with numerous case studies on innovation ecosystems (e.g., Kwak, Kim and
Park, 2018), entrepreneurial ecosystems (e.g., Theodoraki, Messeghem and Rice, 2018),
and, in particular, platform ecosystems (e.g., Inoue and Tsujimoto, 2018; Karhu,
Gustafsson and Lyytinen, 2018; Zhu and Liu, 2018).
As an author’s keyword in ecosystem studies, complementors resurfaced in 2012, and
in 2018 emerged as a trend topic, though complements and complementary assets have
long been supporting this research stream (Teece, 1986).
Despite the overlaps in meaning and characteristics, these three keywords surprisingly
do not reveal direct connection through co-word analysis (Adner, 2017). This disjunction
exposes the need for further connecting research that explores these topics. However,
complementors strongly connect to innovation and two types of ecosystems rather than
the general concept, specifically platform (ecosystem) and business ecosystem.
Complements is encapsulated in a main research front, ecosystems. As for
complementary assets, this concept appears as an isolated small vertex that does not
connect to any other author’s keyword.
The multiple correspondence analysis suggests that complementors closely connect
with platform competition and digital platform, despite their collaborative and value-
added nature. While complements and complementary assets relate to network effects and
value creation, respectively, though under the same group. This clustering corresponds to
a shared substance determined by a large proportion of the articles that treat the terms
together. But the separation of the three relevant keywords in two clusters once again
illustrates the disconnectedness between them.

Content analysis
The second approach included articles from 16 journals focused on subjects as
management, strategy, operations management, and marketing. The majority of the
papers included in the dataset are of empirical nature, complemented by conceptual or
theoretical publications and literature reviews.
Table 1 Type of research design of the 34 articles
Research design
Number of papers
Percentage
Conceptual/theoretical paper
9
26.47%
Conceptual/theoretical + empirical study
2
5.88%
Empirical mixed-methods study
4
11.76%
Empirical qualitative case study
9
26.47%
Empirical quantitative study
7
20.59%
Literature review
3
8.82%
In order to explore and identify differences of perceptions regarding complementors
in different types of ecosystems, the articles were coded according to this delimitation.
Then the nodes were categorized in five main themes: (1) definitions, characteristics and
roles of complementors; (2) complements: types and value; (3) complementarities and
complementary assets; (4) complementors’ strategy and relationships; and (5) their
impact and risks.
Complementors: definitions, characteristics and roles. In an ecosystem setting,
complementors take different shapes and terminologies depending on the cited sources:
(a) original definition of complementors, “developer of a complementary product”
(Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996), whose output enhances the customer value of
another product if they are consumed together (Gawer and Henderson, 2007; Gawer and
Cusumano, 2014); (b) “complementary assets providers” (Teece, 2018) that are capable
of capturing significant value, and do not strictly refer to complementors but also other
kinds of firms, like technology providers (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018); (c) their own
interpretations based on previous ecosystem-related studies focusing on these actors
(Yoffie and Kwak, 2006; Boudreau and Jeppesen, 2015). Complementors are perceived
as “neither buyers nor suppliers to the firm” (Kapoor, 2013, p. 5), but as distinct
downstream actors (Adner and Kapoor, 2010), that provide complementary products
which may be bundled together by customers (Kapoor, 2013). In platform ecosystems,
complementors are seen as indispensable actors, a “powerful position based on high
status” (Saadatmand, Lindgren and Schultze, 2019, p. 13). However, because of their
downstream (Adner and Kapoor, 2010) or periphery location (Wareham, Fox and Giner,
2014), complementors are sometimes unfairly associated with consumers and treated as
such, despite their delivery of innovative complements. From the variety of ecosystems,
complementors in platform ecosystems are frequently studied complementors, whose
large number determine the attractiveness level of the platform which in turn leads to a
greater number of end-users (Gawer, 2014).
A common characteristic that often appears in their definitions is the independence of
complementors. Their autonomy is particularly emphasized in platform ecosystem studies
(Wareham, Fox and Giner, 2014; McIntyre and Srinivasan, 2017; Saadatmand, Lindgren
and Schultze, 2019). Despite their substantial interdependence and common goal of co-
creating a joint value proposition and supporting the entire ecosystem, complementors
may not have signed partnerships or collaboration agreements with other actors

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis,
7-10 June 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1
8
(Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer, 2018). However, with proper architecture of the
ecosystem (and platform) and respecting some principles of conduct, the cooperation can
be smooth (Brusoni and Prencipe, 2013). Complementors’ autonomy is also rendered in
their rationale and motivation of competitively differentiating themselves (Saadatmand,
Lindgren and Schultze, 2019). Besides independent and rational, complementors are also
considered to be entrepreneurial-minded, since they juggle their own interests of having a
competitive portfolio, knowledge and experience, while delivering innovative solutions
that meet customer needs at the speed required by the market. These complements not
only benefit the users, but also the ecosystem (Cennamo and Santaló, 2019).
Due to interdependence, the performance of the focal firm is affected by
complementors’ value creation (Kapoor and Agarwal, 2017) since they engage in and
support the ecosystem’s core value proposition (Saadatmand, Lindgren and Schultze,
2019). Through network effects, complementors also have the power of generating strong
competitive advantages for the entire ecosystem (Williamson and De Meyer, 2012;
Boudreau and Lakhani, 2013), placing them among the determinants of the survival and
development of ecosystems (Teece, 2018). The worth of complementors’ contribution
may depend on their maturity, while the degree of generativity depends on the number of
different complements provided (Cennamo and Santaló, 2019).
Complements: types and value. In ecosystems, complements enhance the value of the
focal actor’s product (Adner and Kapoor, 2010), whose individual value would be lower
without the complements’ additional augmentation (McIntyre and Srinivasan, 2017).
Their variety, quality, and subsequently generativity level can impact the value of an
entire ecosystem by generating more revenue, increasing demand for one or more
products, subsequently boosting their usefulness and the level of customer satisfaction,
and creating indirect network effects (Boudreau and Lakhani, 2013; Jacobides, Cennamo
and Gawer, 2018).
In platform ecosystems, the number and variety of complements is typically larger,
determining the customer to evaluate the perceived value ex ante based on their expected
satisfaction by the average complement; an assumption that can be influenced by the
platform’s reputation, which in turn determine new complementors to join the ecosystem.
Thus, complement quality directly correlates with user satisfaction (Cennamo and
Santaló, 2019). Furthermore, the mutual dependency between platform and complements
(Gawer and Cusumano, 2008) is also illustrated in the increased number of complements
acting as a barrier to entry for competitors (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014). But too many
and similar complements can lead to overcrowding issues (Wareham, Fox and Giner,
2014).
Complementary assets. Though linked to Teece’s framework (1986) of using
complementary assets in adopting a strategic decision to capture value, they are also used
for the purpose of creating value in ecosystems (Adner and Kapoor, 2010; Kapoor and
Furr, 2015; Teece, 2018). Their advantage in an ecosystem is that their availability
minimizes the influence of bottlenecks on the value creation process (Kapoor and Furr,
2015), but they can also serve as a barrier to entry (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012).
In an ecosystem, complementary assets can originate from different industries,
because they are transferable and adaptable, or completely new in order to meet the
demands and requirements of technologies. Thus, ownership over complementary assets,
capability of developing, and/or managing them result in a competitive advantage
influencing the division of profits (Teece, 2018).
Since complementary assets do not strictly refer to complementors’ output, they can
be divided according to their origin in the value chain: upstream and downstream
complementary assets (Kapoor and Furr, 2015), vertical and lateral, or based on the type
of involved complementarity (Teece, 2018).

Complementarities. Since “complementarity lies at the core of ecosystems” (Teece,
2018, p. 1383), an understanding of complementarities generated by complementors is
needed. In ecosystem research, value-add potential of complementarities is contingent on
the efficiency and effectiveness of the relationships within ecosystems (Adner, 2006; Xu
et al., 2010). Furthermore, complementarities can shape the development of all types of
ecosystems (Xu et al., 2010). If ignored, technological complementarities can become
bottlenecks to the value creation process of the ecosystem’s focal proposition (Kapoor
and Furr, 2015).
The complementarities strictly generated by complementors are multilateral and
nongeneric since customization is assumed to some extent. As the essence, dynamics, and
distinctive feature of ecosystems, these downstream complementarities are either unique
or supermodular/Edgeworth. These complementarities render the participants’ degree of
interest in the ecosystem health. Under unique complementarities, the aim is to ensure
just enough demand, while supermodularity promotes a higher degree of interest by
intensifying the collaboration between ecosystem actors to co-create an attractive focal
value proposition. The intensity of supermodular complementarities translates into the
ecosystem’s level of resiliency (Adner, 2006; Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer, 2018).
Complementors’ strategy and relationships. Complementors’ decision to participate
in an ecosystem depends on their own interests, portfolio, knowledge, capabilities
(Wareham, Fox and Giner, 2014), motivations, and risk preferences, which determine
their degree of commitment in enhancing the value and the reputation of ecosystems
(Cennamo and Santaló, 2019). Though a motivation, the ecosystem’s high generativity
can also be a temptation to diminish their investment. Furthermore, the architecture and
structure of ecosystem determines the continuance of complementors’ participation,
unless their decision rights are deprecated (Saadatmand, Lindgren and Schultze, 2019).
Ecosystem complexity is in complementors’ advantage to maintain their performance,
and discourage prospective firms from joining the ecosystem because of high
performance requirements. But ecosystem complexity is also seen as a challenge in case
extant complementors would like to move to a different platform or ecosystem. The
extent of complexity (within an ecosystem or across ecosystems) is rendered by its
architecture, the number of unique complementarities (Kapoor and Agarwal, 2017).
As supported by the interorganizational collaboration literature, since complementors
relationships are generally characterized by knowledge sharing and blending
complementary capabilities and assets, these interactions determine and stimulate the
joint value creation process (Kapoor, 2013). Due to lack of control or influence on
complementors and their activities, the responsiveness can be challenged without proper
coordination (Brusoni and Prencipe, 2013). Though, choosing to collaborate with
complementors will strain away value from the focal firm (Teece, 2018). Thus, lead
firms-complementors relationships are characterized by the value creation-appropriation
duality, producing different degrees of cooperation and competition.
The relationships with complementors are co-opetitive because of the undeniable
presence of “competition and conflict of interest” (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012, p. 264), since
they compete for value capture, and can enter each other’s product space. There are two
types of co-opetitive interactions that involve complementors: (1) between (lead) firms
and complementors, and (2) among complementors competing for value capture and
profit from the commonly developed innovations (Zhu and Liu, 2018). A large number of
participating complementors increases competition, impacting the profits and value
creation, as well as demotivating prospective firms from entering the ecosystem (Gawer
and Cusumano, 2014; Wareham, Fox and Giner, 2014). While in platform ecosystem
extant complementors may take advantage and choose to free-ride by delivering less
beneficial complements and capturing residual demand (Cennamo and Santaló, 2019).

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis,
7-10 June 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1
10
The intensity of competition is critical to the development and survival of these
relationships. A certain degree may encourage innovation, but too intense can be
damaging. There is need for a balance between complementarity, cooperation and
competition among complementors, between the generativity and stability of a platform
(Saadatmand, Lindgren and Schultze, 2019).
Instead of loosely-coupled relationships, the lead firms can also establish alliance
relationships with complementors, which will more efficiently ensure coordination,
compatibility and willingness to invest in the new focal product or service, and
subsequently generate greater value, as well as incur lower organizational costs and
higher investments from complementors (Kapoor and Lee, 2013). On platform
ecosystem, complementors might have to abide to certain rules imposed by the platform
owner, including terms, conditions, technical requirements, (license) agreements, before
receiving access to resources and information (Scholten and Scholten, 2012). Boudreau
and Lakhani (2013) suggest that complementors need more flexibility in platform
ecosystem in order to freely deliver more and diverse solutions. But nowadays, it is
common to have some written form of developer agreement or partnership programs
between software complementors and platform owners (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, mutual trust and respect are needed for a fruitful cooperation between the
complementors and lead firms (Gawer and Henderson, 2007). But aligning individual
interests with collective incentive, working together to align their various capabilities for
delivering practical solutions to customers is challenging (Wareham, Fox and Giner,
2014). Interdependence between complementors and the lead firms may result in delayed
or slow adoption for integration and compatibility purposes (Adner, 2006; Adner and
Kapoor, 2010, 2016).
The organizational unit coordinating such interdependencies range from engineering
and marketing to a dedicated department or executive. These units can manage different
kinds of interactions, but a dedicated organizational interface can achieve more intense
collaboration with complementors (Gawer and Henderson, 2007; Kapoor, 2013).
Impact and risks. Based on a study on semiconductor industry, Kapoor determined
that the relationships with complementors have different degrees of impact: “most
beneficial in improving the performance of focal firms’ products, moderately beneficial in
increasing sales or gaining customers in existing market segments, and least beneficial in
gaining customers in new market segments” (2013, p. 5). Because of interdependence, it
is important to understand the involved risks in order to set realistic goals (Adner, 2006).
Though the interactions with complementors assume knowledge sharing, cooperative
activities and specific investments (Kapoor, 2013), their challenges should not be treated
as upstream or component challenges. Without proper coordination, downstream
complement challenges can arise in technological compatibility leading to bottlenecks in
value creation, preventing customers from deriving full benefit. Lack of control over
complementors adds up to the risks of collaborating with them (Brusoni and Prencipe,
2013), but lack of coordination with complementors will affect the reputation, success
and health of ecosystem (Scholten and Scholten, 2012). Compared to upstream
challenges which are dealt with by supply managers, complement challenges are usually
disregarded. Though sales and marketing manager should tackle these, they only
concentrate on end customers (Adner and Kapoor, 2010).
Complementors and focal firms can also become direct competitors. In platforms, the
intensity of competition and the evolution of the ecosystems affect the behavior,
implication and success of complementors. Besides direct market entry, complementors
also face other challenges from the lead firms, such as increasing fees, restricting access
to the platform, resources, or user base (Zhu and Liu, 2018). These actions or their mere
threats affect complementors’ motivations, behavior and incentives to invest (Gawer and
Henderson, 2007; Kapoor, 2013; Gawer and Cusumano, 2014). Complementors can also

enter lead firm’s product space (Kapoor, 2013) or engage in other forms of exploitation,
e.g., forking, hacking, infringement (Karhu, Gustafsson and Lyytinen, 2018).
Furthermore, low-quality complements impact the reputation of platform (Wareham, Fox
and Giner, 2014), as well as customers’ satisfaction, and value creation process, lowering
the sales and subsequently the consumption (Cennamo and Santaló, 2019).
5 Discussion and future research
In academic research, complementors are recognized to have an important role in any
type of ecosystem and determine firms’ value creation and appropriation (Brandenburger
and Nalebuff, 1996; Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Kapoor and Lee, 2013). Over the past three
decades, the complementor’s role has been emphasized especially in business ecosystem
studies (Kapoor, 2013; Tsujimoto et al., 2018), but platform ecosystem publications that
study complementors have become more numerous and heavily recognize their
importance. Platform ecosystem studies emphasize the value enhancement potential of
complementors (Wareham, Fox and Giner, 2014) since their number and diversity
positively correlate with the variety of complements leading to platform success and
dominance (Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer, 2018; Saadatmand, Lindgren and Schultze,
2019). But the heterogeneity of complementors does not ensure a certain complement
quality (Wareham, Fox and Giner, 2014).
Though with a different origin, complementarity is also a key factor in the discussion
about complementors, since high complementarities render great value for customers
(Adner, 2006; Xu et al., 2010). But how to achieve these complementarities in
ecosystems is yet to be understood (Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer, 2018).
Despite the focus on the management of the relationships with complementors, their
influence and commitment incentives to ecosystem, the nature of complementors, how
complementor-related factors (e.g., size, age) and how their experience with other
ecosystems impact their ability to commit and support ecosystems are research areas that
need further development (McIntyre and Srinivasan, 2017). Complementors may
innovate more easily and be more creative in these settings where their independence is
augmented (Kapoor and Agarwal, 2017), but how to interact and collaborate with
complementors as well as the involved impacts and challenges are topics that need more
clarification in different types of ecosystems (Kapoor, 2013; Kapoor and Lee, 2013;
McIntyre and Srinivasan, 2017). Though some studies examined the platform owner’s
entry in complementary markets (Gawer and Cusumano, 2002; Gawer and Henderson,
2007), research on their entry patterns is still scarce (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012; Zhu and
Liu, 2018).
Understanding complementors’ contribution as just a derivative to value creation
process is flawed, the dynamics of value capture in ecosystem are just as important
(Adner and Kapoor, 2010). Thus, further study on the value creation opportunities and
value appropriation risks and their variations among complementors may uncover
collaboration patterns (Kapoor, 2013). Though undeniably present and linked to
complementors, competition dynamics are often disregarded in extant ecosystem
research, but also in platform ecosystems studies (Gawer, 2014). Regarding
complementors’ strategy and relationships, it is also rather unclear what are the needed
complementors’ capabilities to capture value in ecosystems and how they could better use
them for this purpose (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018). Conceptualizing the different types

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis,
7-10 June 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1
12
of complements’ strategies helps to understand how their number and uniqueness
influence the value creation and competition on platforms (McIntyre and Srinivasan,
2017).
6 Conclusions
This systematized framework assists the consolidation of extant knowledge on
complementors and facilitates the development of ecosystem research track.
Complementors’ role in co-creating focal value propositions is imperative, but
cautiousness is recommended in their coordination and allowed number of entrants, to
avoid overcrowding effects, particularly on platforms. The study reveals the need for
more recognition and empirical evidence on their co-opetitive interactions, especially in
innovation and business ecosystems, since the strategic interdependencies between them
and lead firms are essential. The disjunction between complementors, complements, and
complementary assets in ecosystem studies also demonstrates the need for more
connecting research.
Without recognizing and coordinating complements, preferably before
commercialization to avoid adoption delay, businesses can fail to reach their technology’s
full value potential. The complexity of complementors’ interactions in ecosystems goes
beyond those in the supply chain (Kapoor, 2013). Besides recognizing their role (Adner
and Kapoor, 2010; Boudreau, 2010), it is important to understand how complementors’
interactions and relationships shape or influence value creation and appropriation in
ecosystems (Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Adner, 2012). Since its conceptual emergence,
complementors have assumed cooperation for value creation and competition for value
capture, but the intensity of these opportunities and threats vary (Kapoor, 2013). Further
research on their strategies and challenges they pose is required (Zhu, 2019). Thus, there
is a definite need for a generalizable model of value capture and value creation in
ecosystem that can be achieved by studying the ecosystem dynamics, interactions
between the various actors and the impact of their actions (Woodard et al., 2013).
As proven by the alliance literature, assigning a dedicated organizational unit would
increase the efficiency of collaborating and cooperating with complementors across
different functions. The decision on an extant organizational entity (e.g., engineering,
marketing departments) may depend on the sort of interactions with complementors
(Kapoor, 2013). But firms spend more time in and are more efficient at identifying and
analyzing competitors and suppliers, even though they are aware of complementors’
existence and collaboration opportunities (Noonan and Wallace, 2006). Thus, this review
is highly relevant to managers who seek to understand the role, behavior, and interactions
of the actors who provide value-enhancing complements (Adner and Kapoor, 2010).
Lastly, though the disproportion in the types of research reflects that the ecosystem
research stream is still developing. The empirical research on complementors in
ecosystems is dominated by case studies in various kinds of ecosystems. And the setting
of most of the studies is platform ecosystems. The reason may be the high number of
complementors and their increased visibility which renders their easy identification in
platforms. But this imbalance impedes generalizations in regards to complementors.
Hence, complementors still need further clarification and research regarding their
interactions and behavior in order to be able to efficiently manage and collaborate with
them (Yoffie and Kwak, 2006).

References and Notes
Adner, R. (2006) ‘Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem’,
Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 84(4), p.
98+. Available at: https://hbr.org/2006/04/match-your-innovation-strategy-to-your-
innovation-ecosystem.
Adner, R. (2012) The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation. New York: Penguin
Group.
Adner, R. (2017) ‘Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy’,
Journal of Management, 43(1), pp. 39–58. doi: 10.1177/0149206316678451.
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010) ‘Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the
structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology
generations’, Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), pp. 306–333. doi: 10.1002/smj.821.
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2016) ‘Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution:
Re-examining technology S-curves’, Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), pp. 625–648.
doi: 10.1002/smj.2363.
Afuah, A. (2000) ‘How much do your coopetitors’ capabilities matter in the face of
technological change?’, Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), pp. 397–404. doi:
10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:3<397::aid-smj88>3.3.co;2-t.
Boudreau, K. J. (2010) ‘Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs.
devolving control’, Management Science, 56(10), pp. 1849–1872. doi:
10.1287/mnsc.1100.1215.
Boudreau, K. J. and Jeppesen, L. B. (2015) ‘Unpaid Crowd Complementors: The
Platform Network Effect Mirage’, Strategic Management Journal, 36, pp. 1761–1777.
doi: 10.1002/smj.2324.
Boudreau, K. J. and Lakhani, K. R. (2013) ‘Using the crowd as an innovation partner’,
Harvard Business Review, 91(4), pp. 61–69.
Brandenburger, A. M. and Nalebuff, B. J. (1996) Co-opetition: 1. A revolutionary
mindset that combines competition and cooperation. 2. The Game Theory strategy that’s
changing the game of business. New York, NY, USA: Currency Doubleday.
Brusoni, S. and Prencipe, A. (2013) ‘The organization of innovation in ecosystems:
Problem framing, problem solving, and patterns of coupling’, Advances in Strategic
Management. 1st edn. Edited by R. Adner, J. E. Oxley, and B. S. Silverman. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, 30, pp. 167–194. doi: 10.1108/S0742-
3322(2013)0000030009.
Ceccagnoli, M. et al. (2012) ‘Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of
Enterprise Software’, MIS Quarterly, 36(1), pp. 263–290.
Cennamo, C. (2018) ‘Building the Value of Next-Generation Platforms: The Paradox of
Diminishing Returns’, Journal of Management, 44(8), pp. 3038–3069. doi:
10.1177/0149206316658350.
Cennamo, C. and Santaló, J. (2013) ‘Platform competition: Strategic trade-offs in
platform markets’, Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), pp. 1331–1350. doi:
10.1002/smj.2066.
Cennamo, C. and Santaló, J. (2019) ‘Generativity tension and value creation in platform
ecosystems’, Organization Science, 30(3), pp. 617–641. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1270.
Cournot, A. A. (1838) ‘Recherches sur les Principes Mathematiques de la Theorie des
Richesses’, (Translated into English by N. Bacon as Researches in the Mathematical
Principles of the Theory of Wealth. Haffner, London, 1960t).

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis,
7-10 June 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1
14
Cusumano, M. A. and Gawer, A. (2002) ‘The Elements of Platform Leadership’, MIT
Sloan Management Review, pp. 51–58. doi: 10.1016/S0041-5553(89)80021-7.
Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J. and Ortt, J. R. (2018) ‘Roles during innovation ecosystem
genesis: A literature review’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Elsevier
Inc., 136, pp. 18–29. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028.
Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K. and Pfarrer, M. D. (2007) ‘A Content Analysis of the Content
Analysis Literature in Organization Studies: Research Themes, Data Sources, and
Methodological Refinements’, Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), pp. 5–34. doi:
10.1177/1094428106289252.
Edgeworth, F. Y. (1897) ‘Teoria Pura del Monopolio’, Giornale degli Economisti, 15,
13–31(Translated as ‘The pure theory of monopoly’ in Papers Relating to Political
Economy, vol. I. Macmillan and Co., London, pp. 111–142, 1925).
Facin, A. L. F. et al. (2016) ‘The Evolution of the Platform Concept: A Systematic
Review’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(4), pp. 475–488. doi:
10.1109/TEM.2016.2593604.
Fransman, M. (2014) Models of Innovation in Global ICT Firms: The Emerging Global
Innovation Ecosystems. Seville, Luxembourg.
Fu, W., Wang, Q. and Zhao, X. (2018) ‘Platform-based service innovation and system
design: a literature review’, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 118(5), pp. 946–
974. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-03-2017-0129.
Gawer, A. (2014) ‘Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an
integrative framework’, Research Policy. Elsevier B.V., 43(7), pp. 1239–1249. doi:
10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. A. (2002) Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and
Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. A. (2008) ‘How companies become platform leaders’, MIT
Sloan Management Review, 49(2), p. 28+.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. A. (2014) ‘Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation’,
Journal of Product Innovation Management. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 31(3), pp. 417–
433. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12105.
Gawer, A. and Henderson, R. (2007) ‘Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in
Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel’, Journal of Economics & Management
Strategy, 16(1), pp. 1–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00130.x.
Gyrd-Jones, R. I. and Kornum, N. (2013) ‘Managing the co-created brand: Value and
cultural complementarity in online and offline multi-stakeholder ecosystems’, Journal of
Business Research, 66(9), pp. 1484–1493. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.045.
Helfat, C. E. and Raubitschek, R. S. (2018) ‘Dynamic and integrative capabilities for
profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems’, Research Policy.
Elsevier, 47(8), pp. 1391–1399. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019.
Hicks, J. (1970) ‘Elasticity of substitution again: substitutes and complements’, Oxford
Economic Papers, 22(3), pp. 289–296.
Hirshleifer, J. (1978) ‘The private and social value of information and the reward to
inventive activity’, The American Economic Review, 61(4), pp. 561–574. doi:
10.1016/b978-0-12-214850-7.50038-3.
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004) The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of
business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Inoue, Y. and Tsujimoto, M. (2018) ‘New market development of platform ecosystems:

A case study of the Nintendo Wii’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Elsevier Inc., 136, pp. 235–253. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.017.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C. and Gawer, A. (2018) ‘Towards a theory of ecosystems’,
Strategic Management Journal. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 39(8), pp. 2255–2276. doi:
10.1002/smj.2904.
Kang, J.-S., Lee, H.-Y. and Tsai, J. (2011) ‘An analysis of interdependencies in mobile
communications technology: The case of WiMAX and the development of a market
assessment model’, Technology in Society, 33(3–4), pp. 284–293. doi:
10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.10.002.
Kapoor, R. (2013) ‘Collaborating with complementors: What do firms do?’, Advances in
Strategic Management. Edited by S. B. S. Adner R. Oxley J.E. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, 30, pp. 3–25. doi: 10.1108/S0742-3322(2013)0000030004.
Kapoor, R. and Agarwal, S. (2017) ‘Sustaining superior performance in business
ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and Android
smartphone ecosystems’, Organization Science, 28(3), pp. 531–551. doi:
10.1287/orsc.2017.1122.
Kapoor, R. and Furr, N. R. (2015) ‘Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the
drivers of entrants’ technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry’, Strategic
Management Journal. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 36(3), pp. 416–436. doi:
10.1002/smj.2223.
Kapoor, R. and Lee, J. M. (2013) ‘Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How
organizational forms shape new technology investments’, Strategic Management Journal,
34(3), pp. 274–296. doi: 10.1002/smj.2010.
Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R. and Lyytinen, K. (2018) ‘Exploiting and defending open
digital platforms with boundary resources: Android’s five platform forks’, Information
Systems Research, 29(2), pp. 479–497. doi: 10.1287/isre.2018.0786.
Kwak, K., Kim, W. and Park, K. (2018) ‘Complementary multiplatforms in the growing
innovation ecosystem: Evidence from 3D printing technology’, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change. Elsevier Inc., 136, pp. 192–207. doi:
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.022.
McIntyre, D. P. and Srinivasan, A. (2017) ‘Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging
views and next steps’, Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), pp. 141–160. doi:
10.1002/smj.2596.
Moher, D. et al. (2009) ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
analyses: the PRISMA statement’, British Medical Journal, 339(July), pp. 1–8. doi:
10.1136/bmj.b2535.
Morgan, L., Feller, J. and Finnegan, P. (2013) ‘Exploring value networks: Theorising the
creation and capture of value with open source software’, European Journal of
Information Systems. Nature Publishing Group, 22(5), pp. 569–588. doi:
10.1057/ejis.2012.44.
Noonan, J. and Wallace, M. (2006) ‘Improved optimisation through advanced
relationship planning’, Supply Chain Management, 11(6), pp. 483–490. doi:
10.1108/13598540610703873.
Ritala, P. and Almpanopoulou, A. (2017) ‘In defense of “eco” in innovation ecosystem’,
Technovation, 60–61(February), pp. 39–42. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.01.004.
Saadatmand, F., Lindgren, R. and Schultze, U. (2019) ‘Configurations of platform
organizations: Implications for complementor engagement’, Research Policy, 48(8, SI),
pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.015.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis,
7-10 June 2020.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1
16
Samuelson, P. (1974) ‘Complementarity: An Essay on the 40th Anniversary of the Hicks-
Allen Revolution in Demand Theory’, Journal of Economic Literature, 12(4), pp. 1255–
1289.
Scholten, S. and Scholten, U. (2012) ‘Platform-based Innovation Management: Directing
External Innovational Efforts in Platform Ecosystems’, Journal of the Knowledge
Economy, 3(2), pp. 164–184. doi: 10.1007/s13132-011-0072-5.
Shaw, D. R. and Allen, T. (2018) ‘Studying innovation ecosystems using ecology
theory’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Elsevier Inc., 136, pp. 88–102.
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.030.
Shipilov, A. and Gawer, A. (2020) ‘Integrating Research on Inter-Organizational
Networks and Ecosystems’, Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), pp. 92–121. doi:
10.5465/annals.2018.0121.
Snyder, H. (2019) ‘Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and
guidelines’, Journal of Business Research. Elsevier, 104(March), pp. 333–339. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
Srinivasan, A. and Venkatraman, N. (2010) ‘Indirect network effects and platform
dominance in the video game industry: A network perspective’, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 57(4), pp. 661–673. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2009.2037738.
Su, H. N. and Lee, P. C. (2010) ‘Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-
occurrence: A first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight’, Scientometrics,
85(1), pp. 65–79. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0259-8.
Teece, D. J. (1986) ‘Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration,
collaboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, 15, pp. 285–305. doi:
10.1142/9789812833181_0005.
Teece, D. J. (2018) ‘Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling
technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world’, Research Policy.
Elsevier, 47(8), pp. 1367–1387. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015.
Theodoraki, C., Messeghem, K. and Rice, M. P. (2018) ‘A social capital approach to the
development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an explorative study’, Small
Business Economics. Springer New York LLC, 51(1), pp. 153–170. doi: 10.1007/s11187-
017-9924-0.
Thomas, L. D. W. and Autio, E. (2019) ‘Innovation Ecosystems’, Oxford Research
Encyclopaedia of Business and Management.
Thomas, L. D. W., Autio, E. and Gann, D. M. (2011) ‘Architectural leverage: Putting
platforms in context’, in DRUID 2011: Innovation, Strategy, and Structure -
Organizations, Institutions, Systems and Regions. Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 1–30.
Available at: https://conference.druid.dk/acc_papers/7tds8rsktrabhsihhxq7v39dmouc.pdf.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003) ‘Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review’, British
Journal of Management, 14(3), pp. 207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Tripathi, H. K. and Sen, B. K. (2016) ‘Crop science literature and Bradford law’, Annals
of Library and Information Studies, 63(2), pp. 85–90.
Tsujimoto, M. et al. (2018) ‘A review of the ecosystem concept — Towards coherent
ecosystem design’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Elsevier, 136, pp. 49–
58. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B. and Giner, J. L. C. (2014) ‘Technology ecosystem governance’,
Organization Science, 25(4), pp. 1195–1215. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0895.
Weber, R. (1990) Basic Content Analysis. 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE

Publications, Inc.
West, J. and Wood, D. (2013) ‘Evolving an open ecosystem: The rise and fall of the
Symbian platform’, Advances in Strategic Management. Edited by S. B. S. Adner R.
Oxley J.E., 30, pp. 27–67. doi: 10.1108/S0742-3322(2013)0000030005.
Williamson, P. J. and De Meyer, A. (2012) ‘Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully
harness the power of partners’, California Management Review, 55(1), pp. 24–46. doi:
10.1525/cmr.2012.55.1.24.
Woodard, C. J. et al. (2013) ‘Design capital and design moves: The logic of digital
business strategy’, MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems. University of
Minnesota, 37(2), pp. 537–564. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.10.
Xu, X. et al. (2010) ‘Model of migration and use of platforms: Role of hierarchy, current
generation, and complementarities in consumer settings’, Management Science, 56(8),
pp. 1304–1323. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1033.
Yoffie, D. B. and Kwak, M. (2006) ‘With Friends like These: The Art of Managing
Complementors’, Harvard Business Review, (September), pp. 88–98.
Zhu, F. (2019) ‘Friends or foes? Examining platform owners’ entry into complementors’
spaces’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 28(1), pp. 23–28. doi:
10.1111/jems.12303.
Zhu, F. and Liu, Q. (2018) ‘Competing with complementors: An empirical look at
Amazon.com’, Strategic Management Journal, 39(10), pp. 2618–2642. doi:
10.1002/smj.2932.
Zupic, I. and Čater, T. (2015) ‘Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization’,
Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), pp. 429–472. doi:
10.1177/1094428114562629.