Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Management Review Quarterly
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00368-y
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
AlexandraElenaCarst1,2 · YimeiHu1
Received: 19 January 2023 / Accepted: 31 July 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
As downstream actors providing innovations that enhance the value of the core
proposition, complementors have been recognized as indispensable in many defini‑
tions of ecosystems. The increasing attention they have received in the past years
demonstrates the concern to enrich our knowledge of complementors. With a hybrid
approach of bibliometric and content analyses, this systematic literature review aims
at a clearer understanding of complementors in an ecosystem setting. The findings
confirm complementors’ strategic role in enhancing the ecosystem’s focal value
proposition and impacting the ecosystem survival and success, more intensely since
2018. Several characteristics of complementors are also revealed. Despite autonomy
being their most affirmed feature, an inconsistent understanding of complemen‑
tors in different types of ecosystems is revealed. This study represents a pioneering
attempt to systematically understand complementors as ecosystem actors through
extant literature. Various research gaps in the extant ecosystem research were also
identified, providing research directions in terms of complementors’ coopetitive
interactions, strategies, and challenges in ecosystems.
Keywords Complementor· Complement· Complementarity· Complementary
asset· Ecosystem· Bibliometric analysis
JEL Classification O32
1 Introduction
Ecosystems are the locus and structure where various loosely coupled actors interact
to materialize (complex) value propositions (Adner and Kapoor 2010; Adner 2017;
Kapoor 2018). Beyond the traditional interorganizational network literature, the eco‑
system research stream emphasizes the complementors’ participation in augmenting
* Yimei Hu
yimei@business.aau.dk
1 Aalborg University Business School, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
2 Sino‑Danish College (SDC), University ofChinese Academy ofSciences, Beijing, China
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
the focal value proposition (Tsujimoto etal. 2018). Complementors are downstream
actors whose output enhances the value of a focal product or service that customers
generate from its use (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996). Neglecting complemen‑
tors in an ecosystem may lead to the failure of the focal firm and the realization of
the core value proposition (Adner 2021; Liang etal. 2022), as exemplified by the
successful entry of Alfa Romeo and Fiat in the United States, only when special‑
ized mechanics or appropriate spare parts were made available (Brandenburger and
Nalebuff 1996).
Complementors’ innovations and value‑added activities, when bundled together
with the focal firm’s core offering, unlock the full‑value potential of the core prod‑
uct, thereby improving the reputation and performance of the entire ecosystem
(Teece 1986; Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996; Adner and Kapoor 2010). Com‑
plementors’ innovations, role, and presence are thus deemed necessary for the focal
firm and the entire ecosystem (Adner and Kapoor 2010; Brusoni and Prencipe
2013). Nevertheless, proper coordination of complementors seems to be overlooked
(Liang etal. 2022). Furthermore, in a business world where coopetition, i.e., simul‑
taneous cooperation and competition, is increasingly ubiquitous (Brandenburger and
Nalebuff 1996; Bengtsson and Kock 1999, 2000), the power of differentiation and
competitive advantage may lie in the hands of complementors (Mantovani and Ruiz‑
Aliseda 2016). Hence, understanding complementors and their interactions with
other ecosystem actors is crucial.
In recent years, several reviews of various types of ecosystems have brought clar‑
ity and progress towards a theory of ecosystems (e.g., Cobben etal. 2022; Gran‑
strand and Holgersson 2020; McIntyre and Srinivasan 2017; Rietveld and Schilling
2021; Shipilov and Gawer 2020; Tsujimoto etal. 2018). However, complementors
have not been the main focus of analysis until now. Despite receiving increasing aca‑
demic attention in ecosystem research and being integrated into most definitions for
(innovation) ecosystems (Jacobides etal. 2018), research on complementors in eco‑
system settings remains dispersed across contexts and topics. Therefore, this review
aims to clarify the development of complementors’ research in the extant ecosystem
literature, providing a comprehensive and in‑depth understanding of their defini‑
tions, roles, and interactions within ecosystems. This systematic review investigates
and synthesizes the state‑of‑the‑art ecosystem literature to understand complemen‑
tors as ecosystem actors. For this purpose, we relied on two methods: (1) A biblio‑
metric analysis for an overview of the conceptual structure and development of the
literature, and (2) A content analysis of the most relevant articles.
To the best of our knowledge, this review represents a pioneering and timely
attempt to synthesize the extant literature on complementors in ecosystems. By pro‑
viding a comprehensive understanding of complementors, the review makes several
contributions to ecosystem literature. First, we identify the definitions, core features,
and roles of complementors. Additionally, we provide an overview of their inter‑
actions, strategies, and challenges in different types of ecosystems. Among oth‑
ers, autonomy emerges as a commonly affirmed characteristic of complementors.
Despite their primary role of value enhancement, complementors’ relationships
with other ecosystem actors are often coopetitive. The intensity of these coopetitive
relationships determines the ecosystem’s structure, health, and governance system
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
(Gawer 2014). For this reason, coordinating complementors presents a management
challenge.
Second, we show the contribution and connection of interrelated concepts, i.e.,
complements, complementary assets, and complementarity, to the ecosystem litera‑
ture. We emphasize the need for conceptual rigor regarding these terms in ecosys‑
tem studies and offer delimitations and suggestions for cautious use of these con‑
cepts in connection with complementors to avoid confusion.
Third, we provide several research avenues that could enrich our knowledge of
complementors as ecosystem actors. Due to the imbalance in the number of studies
on complementors in different types of ecosystems, further research on these actors
in other ecosystem types, besides platforms, is warranted.
2 Complementors: fromgame theory origin toecosystem
appropriation
With a game theory origin, complementors were first coined as a term in Branden‑
burger and Nalebuff’s book “Co-opetition” (1996). Together with suppliers, cus‑
tomers, and competitors, complementors formed the proposed value net of the focal
firm (ibid.). Until then, complementors were only regarded as value enhancers.
Since the mid‑1990s, the role of complementors has been attested as strategically
vital to firms due to their ability to enlarge the business pie. “A player is your com-
plementor if your customers value your product more when they have the other play-
er’s product than when they have your product alone” (Brandenburger and Nalebuff
1996, p. 18). However, complementors can also exhibit competitive tensions with
other value co‑creation actors (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996; Yoffie and Kwak
2006; Helfat and Raubitschek 2018). The fact that complementors and coopetition
have the same origin is not surprising. Rather than dividing the world into black and
white, competitors and partners, coopetition offers the potential for a win–win situ‑
ation. The simultaneous presence of cooperation and competition dimensions has
become the new normal (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996; Bengtsson and Kock
2000). The potential for value co‑creation is followed by competitive tension and
value destruction (Gnyawali and Charleton 2018). Therefore, complementors have
also been referred to as a type of coopetitors (Afuah 2000).
The concept of complementors was later adopted in ecosystem literature to define
actors that add extra value through their innovations. Alongside complementarity,
complementors became crucial notions in business ecosystem studies and were later
endorsed in innovation and platform ecosystem research (Boudreau 2010; Srini‑
vasan and Venkatraman 2010; Scholten and Scholten 2012; Tsujimoto etal. 2018),
as “ecosystem often takes a time to realize the benefits from complementors” (Kang
etal. 2011, p. 287). As illustrated in Fig.1, the literature on complementors has seen
a surge in recent years; possibly an attempt to clear up some confusion surrounding
this concept (Teece 2018).
The products, activities, or services resulting from these complementarities are
generally referred to as complements (Teece 1986, 2018). Failing to engage and
coordinate with complementors can lead to the collapse of the focal firms’ business
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
(Adner and Kapoor 2010; Brusoni and Prencipe 2013; Mantovani and Ruiz‑Aliseda
2016). Despite the wide variety of the complements and their impact on the attrac‑
tiveness of other businesses’ products and success, complements are often over‑
looked. This prompted Teece (2018) to describe that “the literature on complements
is both confused and complex” (p. 1373). Complementors may not generate all the
types of complementarities, and third‑party firms are not the only providers of com‑
plements. In some cases, focal firms may also internally produce complements,1 but
offer them as separate products to the customer. In this instance, the firm has a dual
role of complementor and focal firm (Adner and Kapoor 2010; Gawer and Hender‑
son 2007; Zhu and Liu 2018). Google, for instance, owns the Android platform (the
focal firm) while acting as a complementor through its applications on Google Play
Store.
To develop the ecosystem theory, the interdependencies and complementarities
among ecosystem actors have been highlighted recently. Particularly, non‑generic
complementarities are seen as delineating elements of ecosystems (Jacobides etal.
2018; Kapoor 2018; Teece 2018). However, due to application heterogeneity and
identical word stems, the use of concepts such as complement, complementary inno-
vation, and complementarity seems to cause conceptual and terminological confu‑
sion (Adner 2017; Teece 2018). This confusion may undermine the notional and
application utility of these terms. To avoid such threats, clarifications are necessary
to improve their conceptual rigor in the ecosystem literature.
In the discussion about complementors, we can hardly avoid a more fundamen‑
tal concept, complementarity, with an undeniable presence in ecosystems (Jacobides
etal. 2018). The definitions of complementarity are versatile, depending on the area
of study (Xu etal. 2010). In neoclassical economics, complementarity is perceived
as the impact on user value, i.e., “the marginal value of a variable increases with
another variable” (Teece 2018), or factor prices from the perspective of cross‑price
elasticity (Xu etal. 2010). While in innovation research, complementarity is seen as
technological congruence and the synergistic interactions or effects resulted from
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Number of articlesOthers (conference proceedings, books, chapters, etc.)
Fig. 1 Evolution of complementor literature. The dataset was extracted from Web of Science and Scopus
by searching the truncated keyword “complementor*”
1 In this study and from here onwards, we use complements as strictly referring to complementors’ out‑
put, unless otherwise specified.
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
combining or reconfiguring current technologies into novel solutions (Teece 1986,
2018; Xu etal. 2010). Despite its apparent conceptual simplicity, complementarity
is a rather complex notion that is too “complicated to understand fully” (Samuel‑
son 1974, p. 1255). For a non‑exhaustive list of types of complementarities, consult
Appendix 1.
Furthermore, complementarities and complementary assets are sometimes
used interchangeably (Morgan etal. 2013). Complementary assets are a broad
term that encompasses “different types of complementary resources, capabili-
ties, technologies, and activities that are required for the commercialization of
a given core technology” (Kapoor and Furr 2015, p. 417). According to Teece
(1986), complementary resources and capabilities represent a main determinant
in a firm’s strategic decisions intending to capture value. Originally, comple‑
mentary assets were considered internal to a firm. However, with the develop‑
ment of the ecosystem stream, complementary assets crossed these boundaries
by also encapsulating the complementary products and services delivered by
third‑party providers (Helfat and Raubitschek 2018).
As Adner (2017) also stated, in the ecosystem context, the concepts of com‑
plementors, complements, and complementary assets “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” (p. 50). Thus, clarification and
delimitation of these concepts are necessary. This literature review aims to elu‑
cidate and understand the features and differences of these concepts, i.e., com‑
plementors, complements, complementarity, complementary assets. In light
of the overlaps among these concepts, which may go beyond sharing the same
word stem, and the warning on conceptual blending, several questions arise: (1)
What are complementors’ characteristics and roles in ecosystems? (2) How do
complementors behave in ecosystems? and (3) How are the intersecting concepts
understood in ecosystem literature? The review also identifies significant gaps in
ecosystem research concerning complementors.
3 Methods
This study adopts a systematic review approach to provide reliable and evi‑
dence‑informed findings with minimized bias. Conducting, structuring, and syn‑
thesizing the findings in a systematic manner render transparency, replicability,
and consistency of the review process and results (Davis et al. 2014; Snyder
2019; Cobben etal. 2022). Given the relatively new research track and complex
nature of ecosystems, a hybrid methodology combining bibliometric and con‑
tent analyses is adequate to gain a comprehensive understanding of complemen‑
tors. This approach involves a bibliometric analysis of the existing ecosystem
literature and a qualitative analysis of the most relevant articles. The combina‑
tion of bibliometric analysis techniques and content analysis method increases
the reliability of the findings and facilitates our understanding of the conceptual
structure of the reviewed articles. To ensure the reliability and objectivity of the
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
review, transparent and reproducible steps were employed in the search strategy
and selection of articles. Initially, we performed a bibliometric analysis to grasp
and map the relevant extant knowledge using quantitative methods (Zupic and
Čater 2015). Subsequently, a qualitative in‑depth content analysis allowed for
identification of themes in the most relevant articles in the dataset (Gaur and
Kumar 2017).
3.1 Search strategy anddata selection
This review relies on a collection of bibliographic data extracted from two multi‑
disciplinary databases, namely Web of Science and Scopus. The choice of these
two major databases is due to their slightly different but overlapping coverage of
journals. Relying on two databases is also motivated by the inclusion of all relevant
articles in our dataset (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017; Gavel and Iselid 2008; Zhu and
Liu 2020). Considering the narrow research focus and yet maturing field of eco‑
system stream, the initial search string contained two truncated terms, “ecosystem*
AND complementor*” (Phase I, as illustrated in Fig.2), to capture the plurals. The
combined dataset resulted in 79 unique English articles from relevant subject areas
until 2021. After reading the content of these articles, alternative wordings and syn‑
onyms for complementors were identified and presented in Table1. These additional
terminologies were grouped based on similarity and used in a second search round
Fig. 2 Article selection and screening process for bibliometric analysis. Database S stands for Scopus,
while W stands for Web of Science. Phase I original search string: ecosystem* AND complementor*.
Phase II search strings: see Table2. Phase III comprises two searches, i.e., forward citation (FC) and
backward citation (BC). The S dataset for Phase III represent the 21 S merged dataset from Phase I and
II, while W dataset is the 69 W merged dataset. Due to different filter options, the results were first lim‑
ited to publications until 2021. Under the relevancy criterion, Phase III results were further filtered based
on the inclusion of “ecosystem*” and “complement*” in topic fields. For backward citations in Scopus,
this filter was applied earlier (point a) due limited options
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Table 1 Identified alternative terminologies for complementors in the first resulted dataset from Phase I. The search strings of each group were used in Phase II as shown
in Fig.2
Group Synonym/Alternative name for
complementor(s)
Num‑
ber of
articles
Example of articles Search string Phase II of search
1 Complement producers 5 Rietveld etal. (2020), Rietveld and Eggers
2018, Rietveld and Schilling (2021);
Winter etal. (2018)
“ecosystem*” AND (“complement pro‑
ducer*” OR “complement developer*”
OR “complement provider*” OR “pro‑
ducer* of complement*” OR “devel‑
oper* of complement*” OR “provider*
of complement*”)
Group 1
1 (third‑party) Complement developers 1 Rietveld and Shilling (2021)
1 Providers of complements 1 Weiss and Gangadharan (2010)
2 Complementary firms 2 Bagheri etal. (2016), Huo etal. (2021) “ecosystem*” AND (“complementary
firm*” OR “complementary manufac‑
turer*” OR “complementary partner*”
OR “complementary enterprise*” OR
“complementary organi?ation*”)
Group 2
2 Complementary partners 3 Williamson and De Meyer (2012),
Thomas and Ritala (2021), Winter etal.
(2018)
2 Complementary manufacturers 1 Huo etal. (2021)
2 Complementary enterprise s 1 Huo etal. (2021)
2 Complementary organizations 1 Thomas and Ritala (2021)
3 Producers of complementary goods 2 Mantovani and Ruiz‑Aliseda (2016),
Rietveld and Eggers (2018)
“Ecosystem*” AND (“provider* of
complementary” OR “supplier* or
complementary” OR “developer* of
complementary” OR “producer* of
complementary”)
Group 3
3 Complementary goods producers 1 Rietveld and Schilling (2021)
3 Providers of complementary products and
services
2 Schmeiss etal. (2019), Rietveld and Egg‑
ers (2018)
3 Providers of complementary goods 1 Rietveld and Eggers (2018)
3 Suppliers of complementary goods 1 Rietveld and Eggers (2018)
3 Third‑party developers of complementary
modules
1 Benlian etal. (2015)
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
together with “ecosystem*”, in Phase II. Generic terminologies, such as “third‑party
developers”, were excluded. This step enlarged the dataset to an aggregate of 92
unique articles. Lastly, to ensure the inclusion of relevant papers, a third round of
dataset expansion with forward and backward cited articles was conducted (82 plus
38 from Web of Science, and 108 plus 83 from Scopus in Phase III). This step also
minimized the probability of missing recent but contributing articles. Some of these
articles might use only the term “platform” instead of “platform ecosystem”. Such
publications were initially bypassed by the search strings due to the inclusion of the
keyword “ecosystem”.
The focus on the overall ecosystem concept is justified by its shared fundament
across all ecosystems (e.g., business ecosystems, innovation ecosystems, platform
ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems). A variety of ecosystem types emerged
potentially from the lack of consensus on a core definition (Ritala and Almpano‑
poulou 2017). Nevertheless, the differentiation between business ecosystems and
innovation ecosystems remains unclear in the literature (Gomes etal. 2018). Thus,
this review uses the umbrella concept of ecosystem to provide an overview of the
research development on complementors across different types of ecosystems.
At each search stage, the same exclusion criteria based on publication type, lan‑
guage, scientific disciplines, and relevancy were applied. Consequently, only aca‑
demic articles written in English and published until the end of 2021 were selected.
However, early access articles published in 2022 were also included. The search
results were refined based on relevant subject areas, e.g., business, management, and
social sciences. Before extractions, further data cleaning was performed. By reading
the articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords, we screened the articles based on rel‑
evant use of the term “ecosystem”. Only articles that refer to business‑related eco‑
systems were included, e.g., business ecosystem, innovation ecosystems, platform
ecosystems, digital ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystem. In this relevancy stage,
we excluded all the articles that refer to other types of ecosystems, e.g., marine eco‑
systems, biological ecosystems, ecological ecosystems, agricultural ecosystems, or
architectural ecosystems. Additionally, articles that used “complement” as a verb
in an unrelated context were removed. In cases where such information was not
available in the abstracts, the article’s content was read to determine its relevance.
After extracting and merging the datasets to remove duplicates, 253 unique articles
entered the bibliometric analysis. Two more special issue introductory articles were
excluded. Figure2 illustrates the selection process.
3.2 Bibliometric analysis
The final dataset for bibliometric analysis comprised 253 articles, as shown in
Fig.2. This method objectively served the purpose of this study. Bibliometric analy‑
sis also revealed critical information about the body of ecosystem literature involv‑
ing, regarding, or mentioning complementors. A first, descriptive analysis of the
bibliographic metadata was conducted. The data were harmonized by converting
singulars into plurals (e.g., ecosystems, complementors, platforms, complements) to
avoid double occurrences of the same keywords.
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
The bibliometric analysis focused on the conceptual structure to understand the
main themes and trends regarding complementors in ecosystems. Relevant key‑
words were mapped to visualize their growth dynamics using bibliometrix pack‑
age in RStudio (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017) and Excel. Further science mapping of
the conceptual structure through co‑word analysis was performed in RStudio and
VOSviewer, revealing relationships and similarities between articles based on key‑
word co‑occurrences (Su and Lee 2010; Zupic and Čater 2015; Aria and Cuccurullo
2017). We further generated conceptual thematic maps illustrating the centrality
and density, as well as the evolution of topics that represent the dataset, providing
insight into the research topics contained therein and revealing links between con‑
cepts or themes.
3.3 Content analysis
Bibliometric analysis provides an overview of the ecosystem research stream
through a rigorous scientific process. However, it relies solely on bibliographic data
for analysis, while the articles’ contents are not taken into consideration. Therefore,
a content analysis was performed to provide a more in‑depth explanation of com‑
plementors within the relatively new context of ecosystems (Weber 1990; Duriau
etal. 2007). This second analysis of the most influential studies offered a compre‑
hensive understanding of the reviewed articles and trends. Similar to other reviews
(e.g., Alon etal. 2018; Bretas and Alon 2021), the selection of articles was objec‑
tively performed by intersecting the most globally (at least 10 global citations) and
most local referenced documents (at least 10 local citations), resulting in 44 articles
for the content analysis. As the selected articles may not all take the perspective of
complementors but still provide relevant information, the content of the 44 articles
was thoroughly read and systematically reviewed. The articles were coded in NVivo,
a qualitative data analysis software, to uncover relevant themes in connection to
complementors as detailed in Sect.5. The codes were delimited by the ecosystem
type that set the scene in the 44 articles, allowing for the identification of variations
in perceptions and understanding of complementors in different settings. The codes
were grouped into categories to generate the main themes. For an overview of the
articles included in content analysis, see Appendix 2.
3.4 Descriptive analysis
The dataset for bibliometric analysis spanned over 14 years from 2007 to 2021,
consisting of articles written by 524 authors and published in 107 journals, with
a compound annual growth rate of 40.08% in scientific production. Multi‑authored
articles dominated the sample, accounting for 217 articles. As illustrated in Fig.3,
the research agenda on complementors received increasing academic attention
from 2012 onwards, with an initial peak in 2010. This peak is likely attributed
to Adner and Kapoor’s seminal work on value creation and interdependence in
innovation ecosystems (2010), which triggered subsequent upsurges. Innovation
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
ecosystem‑based studies dominated in 2016, but since 2017, research on platform
(ecosystems) has been the leading setting to study complementors.
The year 2018 presents the first noticeable apogee, marking a turning point that
renders greater academic attention. The 2018 studies contributed with attempts to
theorize and conceptualize different types of ecosystems (Helfat and Raubitschek
2018; Jacobides etal. 2018; Kapoor 2018; Teece 2018) and numerous case studies,
particularly on platform ecosystems, contributing to understanding complementors
(e.g., Cennamo 2018; Inoue and Tsujimoto 2018; Karhu etal. 2018; Ozalp etal.
2018; Rietveld and Eggers 2018; Zhu and Liu 2018). Since 2018, there has been a
constant increase in annual publication output, particularly in platform ecosystem
empirical studies.
The articles included in the dataset covered various types of ecosystems. Comple‑
mentors in platform ecosystems are the most frequently studied (e.g., Benlian etal.
2015; Boudreau 2012; Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015; Cenamor et al. 2013; Cen‑
namo 2018; Gawer 2014), while complementors in entrepreneurial ecosystems are
the most disregarded. Figure4 exposes the uneven development of complementor
0
20
40
60
80
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Articles
Year
ecosystem business ecosystembusiness ecosystem with platform
innovation ecosystem innovation ecosystem with platform platform (ecosystem)
entrepreneurial ecosystem
Fig. 3 Annual scientific production by ecosystem type
020406080100 12
01
40
ecosystem (non-specfic/other types)
entrepreneurial ecosystem
platform (ecosystem)
innovation ecosystem with platform
innovation ecosystem
business ecosystem with platform
business ecosystem
Bibliometric analysis dataset Content analysis dataset
Fig. 4 Categorization of articles based on the types of ecosystems studied in the two datasets
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
research across different types of ecosystems. The division of articles by ecosystem
type is maintained across the 44 articles in the content analysis.
Most of the articles in the dataset are empirical studies, with quantitative stud‑
ies dominating. The remaining articles comprise conceptual or theoretical publica‑
tions, literature reviews, and experiments or modelling, in descending order. Table2
illustrates similar disproportion in research design captured by the two datasets. The
reliance on empirical studies is understandable, given the still‑developing ecosystem
research seeking theorization of the field. The presence of several literature reviews
also justifies the pursuit of clarity and structure in the ecosystem field. Synthesizing
and integrating existing literature pave the way to a deeper understanding of defini‑
tions, origins, development, key challenges of ecosystems, and research directions
(e.g., De Reuver etal. 2018; Nambisan etal. 2018; Thomas etal. 2014; Tsujimoto
etal. 2018). However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to sys‑
tematically review complementors.
4 Bibliometric analysis
4.1 Keywords’ growth trends
Examining the yearly cumulative occurrences, complementors resurfaced as an
author’s keyword in ecosystem‑related studies in 2010. Figure5 depicts an ascend‑
ing trend after 2017, indicating the increasing academic interest in complementors
as ecosystem actors. This phenomenon can be attributed to the upsurge of ecosys‑
tem studies that notice and/or regard complementors as undisputable actors (e.g.,
Table 2 Research design of the articles included in the bibliometric and content analyses
Research design Bibliometric analysis dataset Content analysis dataset
Number of
papers
Percentage (%) Number of
papers
Percentage (%)
Empirical study 165 65.22 28 63.64
Qualitative 63 24.90 2 4.55
Quantitative 82 32.41 21 47.73
Mixed methods 20 7.91 5 11.36
Conceptual/theoretical 36 14.23 7 15.91
Conceptual/theoretical
paper + empirical study/
simulation
8 3.16 0 0
Literature review 28 11.07 5 11.36
Experiment/modelling 12 4.74 1 2.27
Experiment/model‑
ling + empirical study/
simulation
4 1.58 3 6.82
253 100 44 100
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Cennamo etal. 2018; Kapoor and Agarwal 2017; Rietveld and Eggers 2018; Zhu
and Liu 2018).
Complementors’ products and services emerged as a top author’s keywords under
the terminology of complements in 2010, the same year as complementors. From
2013 onwards, complementary assets and complementarities also emerged as key‑
words, reflecting their importance in sustaining the ecosystem research track. How‑
ever, the dynamics of these keywords have shown a slowdown in the usage rate
recently. In contrast, the keyword complementors has accelerated since 2018, signifi‑
cantly distancing itself from the other keywords.
4.2 Conceptual structure
4.2.1 Keyword co‑occurrence analysis
Through co‑word network analysis of the dataset, the conceptual structure of knowl‑
edge can be mapped. This analysis captures relationships between relevant concepts
based on their co‑occurrence in a set of articles. By relying on author’s keywords
as a method parameter, important and emerging topics are uncovered. The size of
the node represents the frequency of the keyword. Figure6 exhibits two dominant
clusters, representing platforms (purple) and the umbrella concept of ecosystems
(green). The emergence of platforms and platform ecosystems (blue) in two clusters
is not surprising, given the increasing preference for using only platforms. It, thus,
illustrates the detachment of platform studies from the ecosystem stream and estab‑
lishing its own arena.
Complementors emerged as a distinct keyword under the platform ecosystems
cluster (blue). Under this cluster, complementors heavily link to platform govern-
ance, showcasing their critical role in a platform ecosystem setting. However, com-
plementors also strongly connect with concepts from other clusters, such as busi-
ness ecosystems, platforms, ecosystems, and innovation. Additionally, weaker links
of complementors include complement quality, digital transformation, competition,
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
complementors complements
complementarities complementary assets
Fig. 5 Cumulative keywords’ growth trends
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
specifically platform competition, sustainability, modularity, and governance. These
topics comprise potential research avenues in connection to complementors.
While complements materialized as a topic under the open innovation cluster, it con‑
nects with all other clusters. Thus, complements seem to contribute to a wide range of
topics, e.g., ecosystems, business ecosystems, platforms (ecosystem), platform govern-
ance, value creation, and value capture.
Unlike complementors and complements, complementarities and complementary
assets emerged under the same cluster (red), but without a direct link. Besides eco-
systems, the contribution of complementary assets is primarily limited to the cluster it
belongs to, i.e., dynamic capabilities, value creation, value capture, business models,
and network effects. In contrast, complementarities appeared more versatile, contrib‑
uting to several research fronts, particularly related to platform (ecosystems), but also
ecosystems. Specifically, complementarity connected with platform (ecosystems), digi-
tal platforms, ecosystems, strategy, value creation, network effects, platform competi-
tion, complement quality, and further with modularity.
Fig. 6 Co‑occurrence network based on author’s keywords
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
The lack of direct links among complementors, complements, complementary
assets, and complementarity exposes the need for connecting research. The disjunction
between these topics confirms Adner’s argument (2017). Jointly exploring these con‑
cepts may reveal overlaps and discrepancies to better understand their individual contri‑
bution to the ecosystem field.
4.2.2 Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis is a method of plotting connections on a two‑dimensional matrix
based on density and centrality functions. Density refers to the theme’s development,
while centrality captures its importance in a specific field (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017).
Figure 7 illustrates the thematic analysis of the dataset. The node size indicates the
number of keywords captured by the respective topic. The upper right quadrant depicts
the motor themes that lead the literature, with high density and high centrality. These
“driving” topics mainly include open innovation and complementors. It should be
noted that the lower development degree of complementors determines its crossing into
the basic themes’ quadrant. This explains the research potential of complementors that
is left unexplored in ecosystem literature.
The upper left quadrant displays niche themes that lack strong representation in the
dataset. Themes such as complexity and entrepreneurial ecosystems require further
development in connection with complementors. The lower left quadrant of emerging
or declining themes includes topics like firm performance and innovation (ecosystems).
The umbrella concept of ecosystems, along with business models and platform ecosys-
tems, appears as a basic theme in the lower right quadrant. Due to a lower centrality,
Fig. 7 Thematic map (The top term of each node is the dominant keyword.)
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
innovation ecosystems also transverse into basic themes. These topics show a high
degree of relevance to be researched further.
4.2.3 Thematic evolution
Thematic evolution is a method that divides a given period into time intervals
and charts the evolution of themes across time. In this study, the inclusion index
weighted by author’s keyword occurrences, with a minimum frequency of five,
was utilized to map the research field into an alluvial graph. Three cutting years
were chosen based on the most notable yearly surges of publication, as shown in
Fig.5. Figure8 displays the longitudinal thematic map with different representa‑
tive themes for each period. Each term corresponds to a topic that can converge
into another mainstream theme over time or diverge into multiple themes.
Complementors emerged as a top theme in the third time slice (2019–2020),
stemming from three themes: innovation, network effects, and competition. Com‑
plementor’s incremental innovations, i.e., complements, create indirect network
effects that benefit the entire ecosystem. Despite their collaborative nature in
enhancing the core offering’s value, complementors’ link with the competition
theme is not unexpected, given their initial definition involving “some inherent
[competitive] tensions” (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996, p. 17). Since 2021,
complementors have been mainly captured by platform ecosystems research,
emphasizing their integral role in platforms.
Fig. 8 Thematic evolution with four time slices
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
4.3 Key findings ofbibliometric analysis
As a keyword, complementors have been increasingly used in ecosystem litera‑
ture, particularly since 2018. However, terms with the same word stem show a
lower usage rate.
The conceptual structure mapped through keyword co‑occurrence analysis
revealed strong links between complementors and platform and business eco‑
system streams, as well as platform governance. Complementors in other types
of ecosystems, such as innovation ecosystems, require further exploration. The
weaker links with (platform) competition, complement quality, sustainability,
modularity, and governance present areas for future research. Additionally, the
disconnect between complementors, complements, complementary assets, and
complementarity suggests the need for bridging research.
The thematic analysis indicates that complementors in ecosystems is a topic
that requires further development, particularly in connection with entrepreneur‑
ial ecosystems and the competition dimension. Although the thematic evolution
shows the contribution of competition research to complementors studies, com‑
plementors have mainly been captured by platform research since 2021.
5 Content analysis
After coding the 44 selected articles by ecosystem type, several major themes
emerged: (1) Definitions, characteristics, and roles of complementors; (2) Com‑
plementors’ interactions, participation determinants, challenges, and strategies;
(3) Complements and complementary assets; and (4) Complementarity.
5.1 Complementors: definitions, characteristics, androles
In ecosystem settings, complementors take different shapes depending on the
cited sources, which leads to inconsistencies across various definitions of com‑
plementors in the ecosystem literature. The concept of complementors has also
overlapped with intersecting terms such as complements and complementary
assets. This blending makes their distinction difficult to grasp and explain, rein‑
forcing the findings from Sect.4.2. As shown in Table3, some researchers quote
Brandenburger and Nalebuff’s (1996) definition of complementors, focused on
enhancing value (Kapoor 2013; Kapoor and Lee 2013; Gawer and Cusumano
2014; Adner 2017; Rietveld and Eggers 2018), while others refer to Teece’s
(1986, 2018) work on complementary assets, which are provided by complemen‑
tors (Helfat and Raubitschek 2018). Lastly, in the platform ecosystem context,
complementor‑ or platform‑related studies are cited to define complementors.
Complementors are generally perceived as distinct downstream actors (Adner
and Kapoor 2010) known for providing “complementary products and services
that contribute towards the focal offer’s value creation” (Kapoor 2018, p. 7).
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Table 3 Definitions of complementors in different types of ecosystems according to the cited source. The emphasis of each definition appears in Italics
Definition Source Cited by Synonyms Ecosystem
Developers/producers of comple‑
mentary products or services,
whose output enhances the
customer value of another
product if they are consumed
together (i.e., higher sales of
one lead to higher sales of
another)
Value net (firm, competitors,
suppliers, customers, comple‑
mentors) (Brandenburger and
Nalebuff 1996). In this context,
complementors’ relation‑
ships are often argued to be
coopetitive
(Kapoor 2013; Kapoor and Lee
2013; Gawer and Cusumano
2014; Adner 2017; Helfat and
Raubitschek 2018; Rietveld
and Eggers 2018)
Complement providers (Cen‑
namo and Santaló 2019)
Innovation ecosystem, busi‑
ness ecosystem platform
ecosystem
Complementary assets providers
that have significant value
capture capability (also encap‑
sulates other kinds of firms
besides complementors, e.g.,
technology providers)
Complementary assets, Profiting
From Innovation (PFI) frame‑
work (Teece 1986, 2006, 2018)
(Helfat and Raubitschek 2018;
Teece 2018)
Sometimes referred to as com-
plementors, complementary
products providers connecting
to the above situation (Helfat
and Raubitschek 2018)
Platform ecosystem
Autonomous/third‑party provid‑
ers/developers/producers of
complementary products/com‑
ponents/goods/services
Platform‑related studies
(Cusumano and Gawer 2002,
Boudreau 2012, Ceccagnoli
etal. 2012, Zhu and Iansiti
2012, Gawer 2014, Gawer and
Cusumano 2014, Boudreau
and Jeppesen 2015, Riet‑
veld and Eggers 2018) or
complementor‑focused studies
(Yoffie and Kwak 2006)
(Boudreau 2010; Cenamor etal.
2013; Cennamo and Santaló
2013, 2019, Wareham etal.
2014, Benlian etal. 2015,
Cennamo 2018, Nambisan
etal. 2018, Ozalp etal. 2018,
Rietveld and Eggers 2018)
external innovators (Cennamo
2018), platform follower
(Nambisan etal. 2018)
Platform ecosystem
“value-creation partners” (Wen
and Zhu 2019, p. 1337)
Complementor‑related studies
(Kapoor 2013)
(Wen and Zhu 2019) Platform ecosystem
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
They can be viewed as part of the economic game for value capture from a game
theory perspective (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996) or as an extension of the
supply chain within the innovation ecosystem literature (Adner 2017). In busi‑
ness ecosystem literature, complementors may be regarded as “neither buyers nor
suppliers” (Kapoor 2013, p. 5). However, certain expressions, such as “firms pro-
viding complementary components” (Hannah and Eisenhardt 2018), may errone‑
ously bring complementors closer to the component supplier category.
Besides the common definitions of complementors from business and inno‑
vation ecosystems, the platform research stream offers a greater variety. In plat‑
form ecosystems, complementors are seen as “key sources of distinct valuable
resources” (Cenamor etal. 2013, p. 413) or innovation (Boudreau 2012). Despite
their importance, complementors are sometimes associated unfairly with consum‑
ers and treated as such, due to their periphery (Wareham etal. 2014) or down‑
stream location in the value chain (Adner and Kapoor 2010),. Additionally, in
platform studies, complementors are often defined as suppliers of complemen‑
tary products and/or services (West and Wood 2013; Thomas et al. 2014; Ben‑
lian etal. 2015; Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015; Kang and Downing 2015), or even
“supply-side users” (Benlian etal. 2015). Another pattern specifically linked to
digital platform context refers to complementors as software providers (Boudreau
2012) or app developers (Benlian etal. 2015; De Reuver et al. 2018; Eckhardt
etal. 2018; Kapoor 2018; Zhu and Iansiti 2012).
Despite the diverse definitions, complementors exhibit several key characteris‑
tics. One common feature is their autonomy, which is particularly emphasized in
platform ecosystem studies (Boudreau 2012; Ceccagnoli etal. 2012; Cenamor etal.
2013; West and Wood 2013; Thomas et al. 2014; Wareham et al. 2014; Benlian
etal. 2015; Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015; Cennamo 2018; De Reuver etal. 2018).
Complementors may not have formal partnerships or signed agreements with other
ecosystem actors. Moreover, they may not share the same supply chains as other
ecosystem members (Gawer and Cusumano 2014). Hence, the focal firm usually has
no direct control over complementors or their products and services (Cennamo and
Santaló 2019). However, in platforms, complementors rely on the platform technol‑
ogy to develop, supply, and promote their complements to users. In this way, com‑
plementors earn legitimacy and gain access to platform resources. However, this
reliance implies complying with rules imposed by the platform owner, making com‑
plementors “platform followers” (Nambisan etal. 2018, p. 360).
Stemming from their autonomy, another feature of complementors is their adapt-
ability. This characteristic allows complementors to originate from different markets
(Gawer 2014), be highly responsive to changes in the focal product (Kapoor and
Agarwal 2017), market, and customer demand. These adjustments would be other‑
wise more difficult for the focal firms to implement (Wareham etal. 2014).
Heterogeneity is another heavily stated characteristic of complementors in eco‑
systems. A variety of complementors is desired in any type of ecosystem because
heterogeneous complementors deliver a wide variety of innovative complements
that enhance the focal product’s value. Platform studies often mention the variety
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
characteristic, which together with a large number, can generate indirect network
effects (Boudreau 2012; Scholten and Scholten 2012; Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015;
Cennamo 2018; Cennamo and Santaló 2019).
Complementors are also considered to be rational and entrepreneurial-minded
(Boudreau 2012; Cennamo 2018; Cennamo and Santaló 2019). They pursue
their own interests of maintaining a competitive portfolio, acquiring and protect‑
ing knowledge, and gaining experience. Meanwhile, they deliver innovative solu‑
tions that meet customer needs at the speed required by the market (Boudreau and
Jeppesen 2015; Cennamo and Santaló 2019). Figure 9 presents the characteristics
and roles of complementors.
In line with the aforementioned characteristics, complementors’ roles in ecosys‑
tems are multifaceted. First, complementors play an indispensable value enhance-
ment role in materializing the core value proposition and unlocking its full‑value
potential (Kapoor and Agarwal 2017; Kapoor 2018). Through network effects, com‑
plementors can meet numerous and various customer needs, generating strong com‑
petitive advantages for the entire ecosystem and contributing to its survival, devel‑
opment, and progress (Boudreau 2010; Williamson and de Meyer 2012; Wareham
etal. 2014; Adner and Kapoor 2016; Kapoor and Agarwal 2017; Rietveld and Egg‑
ers 2018; Teece 2018; Cennamo and Santaló 2019). Complementors’ value creation
also impacts the performance and success of the focal firm (Kapoor and Agarwal
2017). This reliance on complementors has been increasingly emphasized in busi‑
ness ecosystems (Kapoor 2013; Tsujimoto et al. 2018) and platform ecosystems
(Eckhardt etal. 2018), as complementors determine the shift “from product to net-
work value” (Li 2009, p. 380).
Secondly, complementors were found to also act as legitimacy facilitators in plat‑
form ecosystem studies. Whenever a platform releases a new technological genera‑
tion, complementors can contribute to achieving legitimacy of the upgraded plat‑
form (Cennamo 2018). Thus, complementors are a critical source of ecosystem
legitimacy.
Thirdly, complementors may act as ecosystem disruptors, exhibiting challenges
and threats to ecosystem incumbents. During intergenerational transitions in techno‑
logical paradigms, complementors could be crucial reasons for disruption in ecosys‑
tems (Ozalp etal. 2018).
Fig. 9 Complementors’ characteristics and their roles in ecosystems
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
A fourth role of complementors is ecosystem defender. They have the potential
to obstruct others from entering the ecosystem by increasing the entry barriers and
intensifying competition (Ozalp etal. 2018). However, in platform ecosystems, a
high number of complementors also increases the demand and number of users
through network effects and diversity of complements offered (Rietveld and Eggers
2018).
5.2 Complementors’ interactions: participation determinants, challenges,
andstrategies
Interactions with focal firms yield several benefits, primarily deriving from the roles
of complementors. However, the platform literature presents a more extensive list of
benefits, e.g., enhancing commitment and value co‑creation through knowledge and
resource sharing (Nambisan etal. 2018), increasing the attractiveness of the plat‑
form (Boudreau 2012; Benlian etal. 2015), and showing confidence in the future
of the respective platform (Ceccagnoli etal. 2012; Cenamor etal. 2013). This con‑
fidence transmits to potential users (Adner and Kapoor 2010; Cenamor etal. 2013).
The benefits of complementors’ participation in ecosystems rest on the inten‑
sity of their involvement, influenced by various determinants (See: Table4). In
business ecosystems, the low appropriability risk (Kapoor 2013), compatibility
consensus, and complementors’ willingness to invest (Kapoor and Lee 2013) play
crucial roles. Platform ecosystem studies provide further insights into the deter‑
minants of complementors’ participation, e.g., platform‑related factors like the
size of the installed base (Cenamor etal. 2013; Cennamo 2018; Cennamo and
Santaló, 2013; Kapoor 2018), governance mechanisms (Boudreau and Jeppesen
2015; Karhu etal. 2018), high purchase propensity (West and Wood 2013), the
number of incentives (Benlian etal. 2015; Eckhardt etal. 2018), adequate share
of value capture (West and Wood 2013; Cennamo 2018; Eckhardt etal. 2018),
degree of platform openness (Benlian etal. 2015; Karhu etal. 2018), and extent
of complementarity (Kapoor 2013). The complexity of complementors’ rela‑
tionships requires alignment of interests (Benlian etal. 2015), capabilities, and
activities among the involved ecosystem members (Helfat and Raubitschek
2018). In addition, user behavior (Rietveld and Eggers 2018), time, and resources
(Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015; Eckhardt etal. 2018) are strong determinants that
complementors consider when participating in an ecosystem.
Two of the ecosystem features or governing forces that impact and shape com‑
plementors’ interactions are interdependence and coopetition. Interdependence is
the glue between members, the causal relationship between any two ecosystem
actors that are affected by any change in one or the other (Jacobides etal. 2018).
Business ecosystem studies suggest that the interdependence with complementors
differs from that with suppliers. The distinction lies in the position of actors along
the value chain (Kapoor 2018). Due to interdependence, balancing complemen‑
tors’ individual interests with the collective goals of the business ecosystem is
challenging for complementors (Wareham etal. 2014).
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Table 4 Complementors’ interactions, participation determinants, challenges, and strategies in ecosystems
Business ecosystem Innovation ecosystem Platform ecosystem
Interactions with focal firm(s) Value creation, enhance the perfor‑
mance of the focal product, boost
sales, attract users (Kapoor 2013)
Potential for research exploration
Enhance the performance
of the focal product, boost
sales, attract users (Kapoor
2013), transmit confidence to
potential customers (Adner
and Kapoor 2010)
Enhance commitment, stimulate value creation, knowledge and
resource sharing, cost synergies (Nambisan etal. 2018), show
their confidence in the future of the platform, which transmits
to potential users (Ceccagnoli etal. 2012; Cenamor etal. 2013),
more likely to timely react (Eckhardt etal. 2018), create compar‑
ative advantage through specialization and diversity (Boudreau
2012), increase platform attractiveness (Benlian etal. 2015)
Participation determinants Low appropriability risk (Kapoor
2013), willingness to invest,
compatibility consensus (Kapoor
and Lee 2013)
Potential for research exploration
Potential for research explora-
tion Ecosystem’s maturity, generativity, benefits (Cennamo and Santaló,
2019), including financial gain (Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015,
Eckhardt etal. 2018), number of incentives (Benlian etal. 2015),
recognition (Eckhardt etal. 2018), platform openness (Benlian
etal. 2015; Cennamo 2018; Karhu etal. 2018), governance
mechanisms (Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015; Karhu etal. 2018),
size of installed base (Cenamor etal. 2013; Cennamo 2018; Cen‑
namo and Santaló, 2013), access to information (Eckhardt etal.
2018), high purchase propensity (West and Wood 2013),
User behaviour (Rietveld and Eggers 2018),
Complementors’ capabilities (Boudreau 2010; Wareham etal.
2014) and the implied alignment of capabilities and activities
(Helfat and Raubitschek 2018), risk preferences (Cennamo and
Santaló 2019), individual perceptions and intentions (Benlian
etal. 2015), willingness to invest, compatibility consensus (Cec‑
cagnoli etal. 2012),
Time and resources (Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015; Eckhardt etal.
2018)
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Table 4 (continued)
Business ecosystem Innovation ecosystem Platform ecosystem
Challenges For focal firm: coordination/man‑
agement challenges (Jacobides
etal. 2018; Kapoor 2018), pos‑
sibility of conflict due to value
appropriation and the risk/oppor‑
tunity of entering each other’s
market space (Kapoor 2013)
For complementors: balancing
their own interest with the eco‑
system’s (Wareham etal. 2014),
risk of focal firm’s entry into
complementary market (Kapoor
2013)
For focal firm: delayed deliv‑
ery of complements, techno‑
logical incompatibility, slow
adoption, low performance
(Adner and Kapoor 2010,
2016, Kapoor 2018), coordi‑
nation challenges (Jacobides
etal. 2018), (significant)
value and profits strained
away from the focal firm
(Teece 2018), complement
challenges and potential
bottlenecks in value creation
(Adner and Kapoor 2010)
For complementors: Potential
for research exploration
For platform owner: balancing openness vs. control (Cennamo
2018), (almost) no control on third‑party complement supply
(West and Wood 2013), platform forking (Karhu etal. 2018),
delayed delivery of complements (Cenamor etal. 2013), quality
of complements, coordination issues (Cennamo 2018, Jacobides
etal. 2018; Scholten and Scholten 2012), straining away (signifi‑
cant) value and profits from the focal firm (Teece 2018)
For complementors: new learning processes, high evelopment
costs, compatibility adjustments (Cennamo 2018; Ozalp etal.
2018), platform owner’s control over the profit/value capture
allocation (West and Wood 2013) or eagerness to capture more
value (Wen and Zhu 2019), increasing fees, restricted access to
the platform, resources, user base or information (Foerderer etal.
2018, Nambisan etal. 2018, Rietveld and Eggers 2018, Wareham
etal. 2014, Zhu and Liu 2018), risk of platform owner entering
the complementary market, i.e., becoming direct competitors
(Cennamo 2018, Foerderer etal. 2018)
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Table 4 (continued)
Business ecosystem Innovation ecosystem Platform ecosystem
Strategies Multihoming (Kapoor 2018)
Potential for research exploration Establish formal relationships
with the focal firms to ensure
consensus for compatibil‑
ity and conflict resolution
(Kapoor and Lee 2013)
Potential for research explora-
tion
Establish formal relationships with the focal firms to ensure
consensus for compatibility and conflict resolution (Ceccagnoli
etal. 2012),
Risk mitigation strategies, e.g., continuously invest in the RandD
and protection mechanisms, avoid providing popular comple‑
ments and, consequently, unwanted competition risk from
platform owners, obstruct the information channel through price
increases to seem less popular, lock in suppliers, build custom‑
made proprietary complements, etc. (Foerderer etal. 2018; Zhu
and Liu 2018), multihoming (Cennamo etal. 2018; Cennamo and
Santaló 2019)
To platform owner market entry: (a) Diminish development and
innovation efforts (a common reaction), (b) Continue to innovate
the product in question to enhance the potential of being acquired
by the platform owner or lock‑in as many customers to ensure
future profits and market position, (c) Focus on short‑term profits
by changing their pricing strategy considering the degree of vul‑
nerability and, thus, diminishing their chance of being acquired,
(d) Increase or speed up their innovation activities (i.e., racing
effect), (e) Multihoming, (f) Exit the ecosystem, etc. (Foerderer
etal. 2018, Li and Agarwal (2017), Rietveld and Eggers 2018;
Wen and Zhu 2019)
Interactions among comple‑
mentors Potential for research exploration Potential for research explora-
tion Stimulate stronger network effects (Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015),
wider variety and quality of complements (Boudreau 2012; Cen‑
namo 2018; Cennamo and Santaló, 2013)
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Table 4 (continued)
Business ecosystem Innovation ecosystem Platform ecosystem
Participation determinants Knowledge sharing, the possibil‑
ity to combine resources and
capabilities (Kapoor 2013)
Potential for research explora-
tion Tackling the platform growth, knowledge sharing and peer learn‑
ing, forming an identity (Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015), low eco‑
system entry barriers for complementors (Wareham etal. 2014),
Platform owner’s power over complementors’ survival and promo‑
tion (Rietveld etal. 2019), the share of value captured by the
platform owner (Wen and Zhu 2019), entry (or even intent) of
platform owner in complementary market (Boudreau 2010)
Challenges Potential for research exploration Potential for research explora-
tion Intense competition (Boudreau 2012, Cennamo 2018, Cennamo
and Santaló, 2013), overcrowding effects (Boudreau 2010, Gawer
and Cusumano 2014, Ozalp etal. 2018, Wareham etal. 2014)
Potential for research exploration
Strategies Potential for research exploration Potential for research explora-
tion Potential for research exploration
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Another dynamic drive featured in the complementors’ interactions with other
ecosystem actors is coopetition, i.e., simultaneous cooperative value creation and
competitive value capture. Complementors pursue the common goal of realizing
the core value proposition, thereby increasing the business pie for all ecosystem
actors. However, owing to their autonomy, complementors may exhibit competi‑
tive dynamics in capturing their share of value. Thus, complementors’ relation‑
ships are characterized by the value creation‑capture duality (Kapoor 2013).
Their different degrees of cooperation and competition shape the ecosystem’s
structure and its governance system (Gawer 2014).
These two forces, interdependence and coopetition, generate various chal‑
lenges for both focal firms and complementors. On the one hand, collaboration
with complementors can strain away (significant) value and profits from the
focal firm(s) (Teece 2018). Complementors also present coordination challenges
for focal firms, which can take various forms, such as delays, incompatibil‑
ity, slow adoption, low performance, and integration issues (Adner and Kapoor
2010, 2016; Kapoor 2018). These challenges may affect the reputation, success,
and health of the ecosystem as a whole (Scholten and Scholten 2012). Without
proper coordination, these complement challenges can lead to bottlenecks in real‑
izing the ecosystem’s value proposition (Adner and Kapoor 2010). On the other
hand, complementors also face challenges due to an obvious power imbalance in
their interactions with the focal firms. The most significant challenge is when the
focal firm enters the complementary market space, turning them into direct com‑
petitors. This theme has received some research interest in business ecosystems
(Kapoor 2013), but this coopetition scenario seems more common in platforms
(Cennamo 2018; Foerderer etal. 2018). The generally unavoidable complemen‑
tary market entry by the platform owner may be aimed at preventing complemen‑
tors from becoming too powerful (competitors) (Wen and Zhu 2019). Under the
threat of direct competition from the platform owner, complementors’ strategies
vary according to the number and popularity of the affected products from their
portfolio.
To deal with the aforementioned challenges, complementors may resort to estab‑
lishing formal relationships with the focal firms instead of loosely coupled interac‑
tions (Ceccagnoli etal. 2012; Kapoor and Lee 2013) or engaging in multihoming,
a complex strategy more common in platforms that may result in access to more
market opportunities and a distributed risk (Cennamo et al. 2018; Kapoor 2018;
Cennamo and Santaló 2019). However, multihoming may dilute the platform’s value
proposition, generate technical integration issues, and affect the quality of multi‑
homing complements (Cennamo etal. 2018). Further research on multihoming com‑
plementors in other ecosystem types will render a more profound understanding of
this strategy.
In addition to the interactions between complementors and focal firms, interac‑
tions among complementors have also received some attention. Collaboration among
complementors was found to be more prone to creating positive network effects in
platform studies (Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015). The motivations behind this action
may be various, such as tackling platform growth through knowledge sharing, form‑
ing an identity by affiliation, or combining resources and capabilities (Kapoor 2013;
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015). However, complementors inevitably compete for the
same user base (Boudreau and Jeppesen 2015) or profit from the jointly developed
innovations (Rietveld etal. 2019; Zhu and Liu 2018). These competitive dynamics
can shift and intensify for various reasons, such as the platform owner’s power over
complementors’ survival and promotion (Rietveld etal. 2019), the share of value
captured by the platform owner (Wen and Zhu 2019), entry (or even intent) of plat‑
form owner in complementary market, attaining the position of complementor also
(Boudreau 2010), numerous complementors and, subsequently, overcrowding effects
(Boudreau 2010; Gawer and Cusumano 2014; Wareham etal. 2014; Ozalp etal.
2018), and low ecosystem entry barriers for complementors (Wareham etal. 2014).
These actions not only affect participating complementors, but also demotivate pro‑
spective complementors from entering the ecosystem (Gawer and Cusumano 2014;
Wareham etal. 2014). The strategies complementors employ in their interactions
with other complementors represent a wide venue for future research in any type of
ecosystem.
5.3 Complements andcomplementary assets
In ecosystem literature, complementors are closely related to complements and
complementary assets. Although these concepts are distinct, their overlaps can
cause confusion (Adner 2017). Complements are defined as additional innova‑
tions that enhance the value of the focal product, allowing it to reach its full
potential, as its individual value would otherwise be lower (Adner and Kapoor
2010; Gawer and Cusumano 2014; Eckhardt etal. 2018; Karhu etal. 2018; Ozalp
etal. 2018). Complements are not only offered by complementors; often times
focal firms also own and deliver complements (Cenamor etal. 2013). Comple‑
mentors’ output is identified as downstream or third-party complements, distin‑
guishing them from upstream complements or components in terms of location
(Adner and Kapoor 2010; West and Wood 2013; Thomas etal. 2014; De Reuver
etal. 2018; Kapoor 2018; Parker and Van Alstyne 2018). To minimize confu‑
sion, complements delivered by the platform owner are seldom referred to as
first‑party complements (Cennamo 2018).
In ecosystem studies, complements are referred to by various names, e.g.,
complementary products/services/goods/technologies (Boudreau and Jeppesen
2015; Cenamor et al. 2013; Cennamo 2018; Eckhardt et al. 2018; Jacobides
et al. 2018; Kapoor 2018; Li 2009; Parker and Van Alstyne 2018; Tsujimoto
etal. 2018), complementary innovations (Gawer and Cusumano 2014; Benlian
etal. 2015; Cennamo 2018; Foerderer etal. 2018), complementary components
(Hannah and Eisenhardt 2018), or, more exclusively to platforms, complemen-
tary modules or applications (Benlian etal. 2015; Zhu and Iansiti 2012), exten-
sions (Cennamo et al. 2018), peripherals or peripheral elements (Boudreau
2010; Cenamor et al. 2013), edge technologies (Boudreau 2010), modules or
(complementary) third-party modules (Boudreau 2010; De Reuver etal. 2018).
The greater variety of terminologies for platform complements may arise from
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
the common integration of third‑party complements by platform owners (West
and Wood 2013).
The diversity, quality, and generativity level of complements contribute to the
success of focal firms (Adner 2006), create indirect network effects, and impact
the value of the entire ecosystem (Jacobides etal. 2018; Rietveld etal. 2019).
However, complements also increase the interdependence and complexity of the
ecosystem (Cennamo etal. 2018; Zhang etal. 2022). In platform ecosystems,
the number and variety of complements are typically larger and spur innovation
(Cenamor etal. 2013; Kang and Downing 2015; Cennamo etal. 2018; Eckhardt
etal. 2018; Cennamo and Santaló 2019). Complement quality directly correlates
with user satisfaction (Cennamo and Santaló 2019), but the impact of comple‑
ments varies depending on each complement’s popularity (Cenamor etal. 2013).
Considering the blurred notional delimitations among the relevant keywords
as noticed by Adner (2017), complementary assets have also emerged as a dis‑
tinct theme. While connected to Teece’s framework (1986), which considers
a firm’s complementary assets (i.e., capabilities and resources) in its strategic
decisions for capturing value, complementary assets are also relevant in the con‑
text of ecosystem’s value creation (Adner and Kapoor 2010; Teece 2018). The
availability of complementary assets in ecosystems offers various advantages,
including acting as an entry barrier (Ceccagnoli etal. 2012) and contributing to
value creation (Thomas etal. 2014). The development or modification of com‑
plementary assets must occur before product commercialization to allow full
potential extraction by customers (Adner and Kapoor 2010). Nevertheless, own‑
ership of complementary assets or the capability to develop and/or manage them
creates a competitive advantage that influences the division of profits (Teece
2018).
Complementary assets are not only internal to focal firms but are also used as
a synonym for downstream complements provided by third‑party complementors
(Li 2009; Thomas etal. 2014). Complementary assets can be categorized as verti‑
cal and lateral or, more commonly, depending on the type of the complementarity
involved (as complements categorization) (Teece 2018).
5.4 Complementarity
“Complementarity lies at the core of ecosystems” (Teece 2018). As a key fea‑
ture and building block for the ecosystem theory, an understanding of the differ‑
ent natures of complementarities generated by complementors is needed. Although
shedding some light on this concept is still considered a challenge (Jacobides etal.
2018; Kapoor 2018; Teece 2018).
In ecosystem research, complementarity generally associates with the economic
synergy created by a mix of at least two assets that generate a higher value or utility
under a combined solution (Cenamor etal. 2013; Kapoor 2018). The value‑added
potential of complementarities is contingent on the effectiveness of relationships
(Adner 2006), interdependence (Kapoor 2013; Cennamo 2018), and alignment of
value co‑creating interactions within ecosystems (Thomas et al. 2014; Jacobides
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
etal. 2018). Complementarities have the power to enhance value and shape ecosys‑
tem development (Teece 2018), determine its competitiveness, and increase its resil‑
ience (Thomas etal. 2014). Analyzing the nature of complementarities contributes
to understanding the value creation‑capture duality within, and also across, ecosys‑
tems (Jacobides etal. 2018).
Complementarities in ecosystems come in various types, such as unidirectional or
bidirectional, generic or specialized/specific (Jacobides etal. 2018; Kapoor 2018);
unique or supermodular/Edgeworth (Jacobides etal. 2018). However, complemen‑
tarities strictly generated by complementors are multilateral, involving a to‑and‑fro
influencing relation on various parties’ value, and nongeneric, assuming (some) cus‑
tomization and coordination of operations and other aspects (Jacobides etal. 2018).
Nongeneric complementarities and their management represent the essence, dynam‑
ics, and distinctive features of ecosystems (Jacobides etal. 2018). Downstream com‑
plementarities, whether unique or the more prevalent supermodular/Edgeworth type,
render the degree of interest that participants have in ecosystem health (Jacobides
etal. 2018).
Furthermore, complementarities specifically connect to indirect network effects,
as network effects reinforce the impact generated by complementarities among eco‑
system actors (Gawer 2014). It is worth noting that supermodularity in consumption
can result in both direct and indirect network effects (Jacobides etal. 2018). How‑
ever, the value‑enhancing impact of complement availability, number, and variety on
the focal proposition may not be unlimited. In some ecosystems, a large number of
complementors may deter others from being willing to join due to saturation (Gawer
and Cusumano 2014; Cennamo and Santaló 2019). Further research is needed to
determine when indirect network effects cease to be beneficial for the ecosystem.
5.5 Key findings ofcontent analysis
In our content analysis, we first uncovered an inconsistency across various defini‑
tions of complementors within ecosystems, which can lead to confusion in under‑
standing their role(s). To clarify this concept, we identified several key characteris‑
tics of complementors, i.e., autonomy (although in platforms, complementors rely
on the provided infrastructure to develop and sell their complements (Nambisan
et al. 2018)), adaptability, heterogeneity, rationality, and entrepreneurial mindset.
Building upon these identified characteristics, we unveiled complementors’ roles in
ecosystems, i.e., value enhancement, legitimacy facilitation, ecosystem disruption,
and ecosystem defense.
We then mapped out complementors’ interactions, participation determinants,
challenges, and strategies in relation to the interacting party, i.e., focal firms and
other complementors. While platform studies offer valuable insights into these
aspects, there remains a need for comprehensive research attention to understand the
dynamics of complementor interactions across various types of ecosystems.
Finally, we addressed the conceptual overlaps with intersecting terms, i.e., com‑
plements, complementary assets, and complementarity. By showcasing their distinc‑
tions, we clarified their unique roles and contributions within ecosystems.
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
6 Discussion andfuture research
To clarify our understanding of complementors in an ecosystem setting, we con‑
ducted a systematic literature review using two methods. The bibliometric and con‑
tent analyses revealed insights at different levels. The systematic approach ensured
objectivity and reliability of findings. However, this review is not exempt from limi‑
tations. First, the inclusion of the keyword “ecosystem” in the search string might
have omitted some platform ecosystem studies and more recent articles. Second, the
number of articles in the content analysis is limited. To overcome these limitations,
we will widen our discussion perspective by including relevant articles outside our
dataset, and pave future research avenues for the literature stream on complementors
in ecosystems.
6.1 Complementors asecosystem actors
With increasing attention from the ecosystem research stream, complementors are
recognized as key actors in realizing the core value proposition. Their contribution
to the ecosystem’s core value proposition unlocks greater potential for the custom‑
ers and expands the pie for all ecosystem actors (Kapoor and Agarwal 2017). Addi‑
tionally, complementors play a pivotal role in determining the survival and develop‑
ment of the ecosystem (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996; Iansiti and Levien 2004;
Kapoor and Lee 2013). Consequently, academic interest in studying complementors
as ecosystem actors has grown, particularly since 2018, with a focus on platform
ecosystems. However, this topic is tackled disproportionately across different types
of ecosystems, calling for more research on complementors in business, innovation,
and entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Defining complementors in ecosystems poses challenges due to different funda‑
ments being used. This practice stretches the concept in multiple directions, causing
a dilution of its perceived usefulness. Although first introduced by Brandenburger
and Nalebuff (1996), complementors take on various forms in different kinds of eco‑
systems, depending on the cited source and emphasized features, i.e., value enhance‑
ment nature (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996; Kapoor 2013), value capture
capability (Teece 2018), and autonomy (Boudreau 2012; Boudreau and Jeppesen
2015; Ceccagnoli etal. 2012; Cusumano and Gawer 2002; Gawer and Cusumano
2014; Yoffie and Kwak 2006; Zhu and Iansiti 2012). Generally, complementors are
actors whose output enhances the value of a core product (or service) when con‑
sumed together. This integration is (normally) performed by the customer. While
this statement holds true in platform ecosystems, where users typically choose the
complements, other ecosystems, like innovations ecosystems (without platform),
may require dual‑party coordination between focal firms and complementors before
commercialization. In such cases, the responsibility to unlock the full‑value poten‑
tial lies with both parties. For instance, Adner and Kapoor’s (2010) example with
Airbus A380 and airports demonstrates that (sometimes) integration must be per‑
formed before making it available to customers. Thus, adjustments to the definition
of complementors may be necessary to accommodate different ecosystem types.
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Considering complementors’ characteristics, further reflections on their auton‑
omy are warranted. As the most stated characteristic and a reason for the complexity
of their coopetitive relationships, complementors’ autonomy is expected to be main‑
tained in all ecosystems. However, their autonomy is often associated with coor‑
dination challenges and collaboration risks. Complementors may be encouraged to
innovate and develop in ecosystems that ensure or augment their autonomy (Kapoor
and Agarwal 2017). However, complementors’ autonomy may affect their respon‑
siveness, unless proper and targeted coordination is involved in their interactions
with other ecosystem actors (Brusoni and Prencipe 2013; Kapoor 2013). Despite
being autonomous, complementors are subject to certain rules or standards when
participating in ecosystems (Scholten and Scholten 2012; Jacobides etal. 2018). In
platform ecosystems, they heavily rely on the platform’s technology to develop and
commercialize their innovations, as well as to connect with users and perform trans‑
actions (Ceccagnoli etal. 2012; West and Wood 2013; Thomas etal. 2014; Namb‑
isan etal. 2018; Parker and Van Alstyne 2018; Agarwal etal. 2023). However, these
restrictions and technological dependence may hinder complementors’ autonomy.
Based on their characteristics, several roles of complementors in ecosystems
have been identified, including value enhancer (Kapoor and Agarwal 2017; Kapoor
2018), legitimacy facilitator (Cennamo 2018; McIntyre etal. 2020; Taeuscher and
Rothe 2021), ecosystem disruptor (Ozalp etal. 2018; Adner 2021; Adner and Lieber‑
man 2021), and ecosystem defender (ibid.). While complementor’s roles have been
emphasized over the past three decades, particularly in business ecosystem studies
(Tsujimoto etal. 2018), platform ecosystem publications investigating complemen‑
tors have become more numerous. This may be due to the agglomeration of com‑
plementors in platforms, their number, facile identification, or their absolute neces‑
sary presence on the platform for ecosystem success and dominance (Cenamor etal.
2013; Cennamo 2018; Jacobides etal. 2018; Saadatmand et al. 2019). Moreover,
although generally seen as platform participants who require management by the
platform owner to maximize their added value, dominant complementors can even
influence their management through network effects, extending their roles beyond
value enhancement (Agarwal etal. 2023). Furthermore, depending on the degree of
platform openness, complementors can even change the platform architecture (van
der Geest and van Angeren 2023), revealing their dynamic and multifaceted impact
on platform ecosystems. Additional research on complementors may identify more
roles across different ecosystem types.
The challenge of navigating complementors’ interactions is also a highlight in
this review. Initially, emphasizing their collaborative nature, the thematic evolution
showed that the complementors theme emerged in 2019 stemming from network
effects, competition, and innovation. This proves the competitive dimension of com‑
plementors’ interactions. Understanding complementors’ contribution in ecosystems
as not solely a derivative of value creation but also involving dynamics of value
capture is essential (Adner and Kapoor 2010). Although competition dynamics are
undeniably present and linked to complementors, their investigation in interactions
with focal firms but also among complementors remains underexplored in ecosys‑
tem research (Gawer 2014). Further studies on the variations and intensity of value
creation opportunities and value capture risks among complementors and between
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
the focal firms and complementors may uncover cooperation‑competition patterns
(Kapoor 2013; Gawer 2014).
Complementors and focal firms can enter each other’s product space (Kapoor
2013). While some studies have examined the platform owner’s entry into com‑
plementary markets (Gawer and Cusumano 2002; Gawer and Henderson 2007),
research on their entry patterns and complementors’ responses remains limited
(Ceccagnoli etal. 2012; Zhu and Liu 2018; Kang and Suarez 2023). Complementors
may also engage in various forms of exploitation, e.g., forking, hacking, infringe‑
ment, multihoming, to profit from economies of scale (Karhu etal. 2018; Cennamo
and Santaló 2019; Tian etal. 2022; Chung etal. 2023). Restricting complementors’
access (to a single platform) can improve the complement quality through exclusiv‑
ity and focused investment (Casadesus‑Masanell and Hałaburda 2014; Chu and Wu
2023). Nevertheless, such restrictions may reduce the quantity of complements due
to platform exit or hinder complementors’ willingness to engage with other plat‑
forms (Eisenmann etal. 2009; Boudreau 2010; Chung etal. 2023). Moreover, the
performance of exclusive complementors in the video game platform context has
been found to be weaker (Castro and Sant’Anna 2023). Further investigation on
the degree of ecosystem openness and the impact of complementors’ exploitative
strategies could offer valuable insights into their innovativeness and behaviors in
ecosystems.
6.2 Complementors, complements, complementary assets,
andcomplementarity: inconsistencies andpropositions
Complementors maintain their importance as a defining element in ecosystem the‑
ory, but the findings indicate a slowdown in the use of interrelated concepts, i.e.,
complements, complementary assets, and complementarity. Despite conceptual
overlaps, their disconnectedness stresses the need for clarifying research and a more
careful application of these concepts.
Although with a different origin, complementarity not only serves as a build‑
ing block of ecosystems but also plays a critical role in the discussion about com‑
plementors. This is because high complementarities render significant value to
customers and, consequently, to ecosystems (Adner 2006; Xu etal. 2010; Teece
2018). However, how to achieve these complementarities in ecosystems is yet to
be understood (Jacobides etal. 2018). It is essential to note that complementors in
ecosystems are not the actors involved in any (type of) complementarity. Instead,
they are strictly linked to multilateral, non‑generic complementarities, which are
considered an essential and distinctive feature of ecosystems.
Regarding complementors in ecosystems, we propose a refined definition that
considers the identified characteristics. Complementors in ecosystems are gener‑
ally perceived as:
Autonomous, entrepreneurial-minded, rational, and highly adaptable
downstream actors whose complementary innovations, i.e., (downstream)
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
complements, augment the value of the focal proposition when consumed
together by the user.
Complementors maintain their significance across different types of ecosys‑
tems, but their autonomy characteristic may be affected in platform ecosystems.
In this setting, complementors base the development of their business and prod‑
ucts on the platform’s architecture and resources. In this case, complementors
are sometimes even called “followers” (Nambisan etal. 2018, p. 360). Hence,
their autonomy and interdependence with the focal firm or (platform) ecosystem’s
structure and resources may be inversely proportional. Possibly, the degree of
complementor dependence on the platform ecosystem in which they participate is
higher than in other types of ecosystems.
Special attention should also be given to the concepts of complementarities
and complementary assets, as they are sometimes used interchangeably. Moreo‑
ver, since complementary assets are found along the entire value chain, they may
not necessarily or strictly refer to complementors as downstream actors. Dividing
complementary assets according to their origin in the value chain, i.e., upstream
and downstream complementary assets, can help eliminate confusion. Thus,
when exclusively referring to complementors’ output, an option would be to use
the term downstream complementary assets.
Although complements, complementary assets and complementarity share
a common word stem and intersecting conceptual features, they may not solely
concern complementors. Therefore, distinctions, clarifications, and cautious use
of these concepts in ecosystem studies are required. For instance, even though
complements are a broad term that generally encompasses the products, activi‑
ties, or services resulted from complementarities, in an ecosystem setting using
(downstream) complements as only referring to complementors’ output would
clear out the confusion. Other terminologies, like third‑party innovation (Parker
and Van Alstyne 2018), are vague and may refer to the output of all external
actors. Although, “third-party innovation” excludes the innovation provided by
the focal firms.
6.3 Gaps andfuture research avenues
Despite the remarkable development of literature on complementors and their role
in ecosystems over the past two decades, this study has unveiled several research
gaps. Further potential research venues in connection to the following gaps are also
proposed in Table5.
First, the disconnect among the concepts of complementors, complementa-
rity, and complementary assets in ecosystem studies highlights the disproportion‑
ate attention and disparate development of these topics. Their conceptual distinc‑
tiveness and individual contribution to ecosystem research stream require further
clarification.
Secondly, although complementors are recognized as key ecosystem actors, the
existing literature is inconclusive and inconsistent regarding their definition, charac‑
teristics, and role(s) (McIntyre and Srinivasan 2017; Ozalp etal. 2018). Empirically
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Table 5 Potential research venues uncovered by the review
Business ecosystem Innovation ecosystem Platform ecosystem
Conceptual distinctiveness How to define and categorize complementors in ecosystem research?
How do complementors along interrelated concepts, i.e., complements, complementary assets, complementarity individually contribute to
the ecosystem literature?
What/where are the conceptual overlaps and distinctiveness?
Roles and characteristics What other roles complementors hold in different ecosystem contexts?
How complementors contribute to the sustainability of the ecosystem?
What features complementors exhibit depending on the degree/nature of complementarity/complement integration locus/extent of interde‑
pendence? Do these aspects emerge into types of complementors?
Interactions with focal
firm(s)/other comple‑
mentors
How to coordinate complementors? What coordination processes and mechanisms are most
efficient for complementors?
How do complementors manage their coopetitive interactions with other ecosystem actors?
Are the interaction and collaboration patterns of complementors contingent on the type of ecosystem or its maturity?
How do the variety and quality of complements influence the ecosystem’s value and competitive dynamics?
How different governance modes/degree of interdependence impact the interactions with complementors and their added value?
How are the interdependencies between complementors and ecosystem/focal firm(s) properly and strategically coordinated?
Participation determinants What determines complementors to interact with the focal firm(s)?
What are the determinants for complementors to interact with other complemen‑
tors? Are these determinants/motivators different from those for the interac‑
tions with the focal firm(s)?
Impact and challenges For focal firm: What other risks and challenges complementors pose in different
kinds of ecosystems?
How complementors’ presence and contribution impact the evolution and devel‑
opment of the ecosystem?
How can focal firm(s) successfully manage/coordinate with complementors to
avoid complement challenges?
For platform owner: How the number and uniqueness of
complementors influence value creation and competi‑
tion?
For complementors: How does the complementors’
dependence on the platform resources (and possible rules
and guidelines) for complement development impact
their autonomy and strategic decisions?
For complementors: What other risks and challenges complementors face in different kinds of ecosystems? Are these risks higher or more
intense in certain types of ecosystems, considering that, for instance, in platform ecosystems the focal firm can access (and even store)
data about the complementors’ business on the platform? Do complementors in innovation and business ecosystems face this issue at the
same intensity?
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Table 5 (continued)
Business ecosystem Innovation ecosystem Platform ecosystem
Strategies What are the needed capabilities for complementors to capture value in ecosys‑
tems? How could complementors better use their capabilities for value capture?
Are these capabilities contingent to the type of ecosystem they participate in?
What strategies complementors engage in business and innovation ecosystems?
How do complementors respond to direct competition from the focal firm’s entry
into the complementary market?
How do complementors engage in multihoming strategy in business and innova‑
tion ecosystems?
What strategies complementors employ in their interactions with other comple‑
mentors?
How do complementors respond and solve complement challenges of the ecosys‑
tem?
What governance forms strikes the right balance between
openness and control to foster complementary innova‑
tions?
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
studying the nuances and evolutions, if any, in complementors’ behaviors and fea‑
tures across different (types of) ecosystems can facilitate a general and more in‑
depth understanding of complementors as ecosystem actors, as well as a clarification
of their definition. Alternatively, we could consider defining complementors based
on the type of ecosystem they participate in. Given this gap, the development of
methods to identify and categorize complementors, as well as to evaluate or measure
their performances, is deemed necessary. Such efforts will contribute to a more uni‑
fied and refined understanding of complementors’ characteristics and contribution
within ecosystems.
Thirdly, considering the complexity of complementors’ relationships, natures,
and functions, more recognition and empirical evidence on their (coopetitive) inter‑
actions are needed, particularly in the contexts of innovation and business ecosys‑
tems. While research on complementors in platform ecosystem has grown (Liang
etal. 2022), understanding their relationships and interactions in business or inno‑
vation ecosystems requires further investigation. In these settings, do complemen‑
tors rely more on transactions and, consequently, traditional agreements? Regarding
complementors’ interactions with focal firms, the interdependence between these
actors, particularly during the emergence of platform ecosystems, has been acknowl‑
edged. At this stage, the platform and complementors are co‑dependent, but unwill‑
ing to invest until the other is populated enough, generating the chicken‑and‑egg
problem (Hein etal. 2020). However, effective management of these interdependen‑
cies demands further research (Gawer and Henderson 2007; Kapoor and Lee 2013),
particularly on how interdependencies between complementors and ecosystems are
properly and strategically coordinated in business and innovation ecosystems. Addi‑
tionally, the interplay between cooperation and competition among complementors
represents a notable research gap with significant potential for future exploration in
various ecosystem types. Investigating the circumstances under which complemen‑
tors engage in collaboration despite the obvious competitive dynamics for value cap‑
ture, the determinants of their participation in such interactions, and their assumed
challenges, and strategies employed during collaboration remain intriguing avenues
for ecosystem research. Embracing the inherent phenomenon of coopetition can help
complementors on platforms like Amazon cope with paradoxical tensions (Yoo etal.
2022). Extending these investigations to other ecosystem types can provide valuable
insights into complementors’ perspectives and their management of coopetition in
their complex interactions with diverse ecosystem actors.
Fourthly, concerning complementors’ strategies, it is rather unclear what capa‑
bilities they need to capture value in ecosystems and how these capabilities can be
more effectively utilized for this purpose (Helfat and Raubitschek 2018). Are these
capabilities different depending on the kind of ecosystem? For example, sensing by
platform complementors in the metaverse context (Zabel etal. 2023) highlights the
need for understanding complementors’ capabilities in ecosystems. Addressing this
research direction can shed light on how complementors effectively balance col‑
laborative efforts, enhance downstream innovation, and optimize their positions and
roles within the ecosystem. Thus, conceptualizing different types of complement
strategies may help understand how their number and uniqueness influence value
creation and competition on ecosystems (McIntyre and Srinivasan 2017).
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Fifthly, further research is required on the impact and challenges that comple‑
mentors assume and pose. Are these risks higher or more intense in certain types
of ecosystems, considering that, for instance, in platform ecosystems, the focal firm
can access, and even store, data about the complementors’ business on the platform?
Do complementors in innovation and business ecosystems face this issue to the
same degree? Therefore, competition and governance are venues worth exploring
regarding complementors. Additionally, the connection between complement qual‑
ity and variety, as well as their impact on the ecosystem’s value, sustainability, and
competitive dynamics (Cennamo 2018) also require further investigation.
Finally, a major gap in the extant ecosystem literature is the lack of studies from
the complementors’ perspective. Taking their vantage point may reveal a different
side of the story. Given the interdependence and mutual influence between com‑
plementors and other ecosystem actors, more research may emerge on how com‑
plementors should strategize to adapt and survive in different types of ecosystems.
Theory‑building on complementors’ strategies and interactions can enrich the eco‑
system literature and strategic management scholarship.
6.4 Practical implications
This systematic review highlights the pivotal role of complementors in realizing the
ecosystem’s core value proposition and sheds light on their alternative roles, which
can positively or negatively influence the ecosystem success and development. Poli‑
cymakers and managers seeking to stimulate ecosystem expansion should recognize
the significance of complementors and promote collaboration with and among them.
Preserving complementors’ autonomy can stimulate innovation and responsiveness,
while being mindful of their potential for competition and cooperation. Understand‑
ing complementors’ roles, characteristics, participation determinants, interactions
patterns, and challenges can inform strategies for fair competition, stimulating
innovation, maximizing the benefit of the core proposition, and safeguarding the
ecosystem.
7 Conclusion
This systematic review assists the consolidation of existing knowledge on comple‑
mentors and facilitates the development of ecosystem research. To the best of our
knowledge, this study represents a pioneering attempt to comprehend complemen‑
tors based on the extant ecosystem literature. With increasing research interest in
complementors, particularly since 2018, managers should take notice of them and
address the diverse challenges they may pose or face. Proper identification and
coordination of complements, ideally before commercialization to avoid adop‑
tion delays, are essential for the focal offering to reach its full‑value potential. In
addition to identifying and recognizing complementors’ roles (Adner and Kapoor
2010; Boudreau 2010), unpacking their interactions and challenges reveals a more
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
profound understanding influencing the success of the core value proposition and
ecosystem health (Iansiti and Levien 2004; Adner 2012). Paying attention to com‑
plementors’ competitive dynamics warrants further investigation for the sake of
proper coordination. Thus, more research on their strategies and the (coopetitive)
challenges they pose is needed (Zhu 2019).
Lastly, the disproportionate focus on different types of ecosystems and research
designs reflects the ongoing development of the ecosystem research stream. Empiri‑
cal research dominates the literature on complementors in various ecosystems, pri‑
marily in platform ecosystems, possibly due to their high number and increased vis‑
ibility, rendering their effortless identification in platform ecosystems. However, this
imbalance limits generalizations regarding complementors. Therefore, complemen‑
tors still require further clarification and research regarding their roles, interactions,
and strategies in ecosystems, to manage and collaborate with them efficiently.
Appendix1: Types ofcomplementarities
Type of com‑
plementarity
Other termi‑
nologies
Relevant research‑
ers
Short explanation Notes
Cournot
complemen‑
tarity
Input oligopoly
complemen‑
tarity
(Cournot 1838) Two individually
sold products by
two monopolis‑
tic companies
are consumed at
the same time
In an innovation ecosystem
setting, this type of com‑
plements may appear in the
form of bottlenecks that are
needed for the creation and
commercialization of an
innovation (Teece 2018)
Edgeworth
complemen‑
tarity
Pareto comple‑
mentarity or
Supermodu‑
lar comple‑
mentarity
(as it is more
commonly
used/known
nowadays)
(Edgeworth 1897,
Milgrom and
Roberts 1990,
Jacobides etal.
2018, Teece
2018)
A higher utility
resulted from
the simultaneous
consumption of
two products (or
services, assets,
activities),
than separated,
individual con‑
sumption
The consumption of one
product positively impacts
the value and demand of
the other. This complemen‑
tarity can be found in con‑
sumption and production
Strong com‑
plementarity
Strict comple‑
mentarity
(Hart and Moore
1990)
Two products that
generate value
only through
joint use
The individual use of one of
the two products would not
generate any benefit
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Type of com‑
plementarity
Other termi‑
nologies
Relevant research‑
ers
Short explanation Notes
Hicksian
complemen‑
tarity
Production
complemen‑
tarity
(Hicks 1970) A price decrease
in production
factor triggers
an increase in
the quantity of
its complements
that are used in
the production
Not fully relevant for innova‑
tion research because of its
hypothesis of an existing
link between the two fac‑
tors. But its contribution
lies in the idea that com‑
mercializing an innovation
impacts the demand for its
complements
Hirshleifer
complemen‑
tarity
Asset price
complemen‑
tarity
(Hirshleifer 1978) The impact of an
innovation on
the asset prices
of another
Financial equivalent of
Hicksian complementarity.
It aims at profiting from an
innovation (Teece 1986,
2018)
Technological
complemen‑
tarity
(Teece 1986,
2006, 2018)
When an innova‑
tion needs
new and/or
re‑engineered
complementary
technologies to
reach its full‑
value potential
A type of technological
complementarity is inno‑
vational complementarity
(Teece 2018)
Innovational
complemen‑
tarity
(Teece 1986,
2018)
Downstream pro‑
ductivity boost
generates by an
improved tech‑
nology meant for
extended uses
It may be considered a type
of technological comple‑
mentarity (Teece 2018)
Generic vs.
unique
complemen‑
tarity
(Teece 1986;
Jacobides etal.
2018)
No involved coor‑
dination due to
its generic fea‑
ture vs required
customization
Unique complementarity is
generated from one‑way
relation (i.e., the first
item requires another to
function, though a third
item can be used with a
possibly lower efficiency;
linked with transaction cost
economics) or two‑way
relation (i.e., both items
need each other; linked
with the concept of co‑
specialization, resulting
into co‑specialized assets
(Teece 1986) or technologi‑
cal complements (Teece
2018))
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Appendix2: Overview of44 articles selected forcontent analysis
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Adner (2017) Conceptual/theo‑
retical A structuralist
approach to
conceptualizing
the ecosystem
construct (p. 39)
Ecosystem Conceptual blending of com‑
plements, complementors
and complementary assets
as are all seen as improve‑
ments towards the focal
firm’s product/service. Call
for research on the manage‑
ment of complementors
Adner and Kapoor
(2010)
Empirical quali‑
tative How do the chal-
lenges faced
by external
innovators affect
the focal firm’s
outcomes? (p.
306)
Innovation
ecosystem
Importance of complement
challenges. Complements
are integrated downstream
by the customer with the
focal product. Comple‑
ment challenges negatively
impact the expected ben‑
efits of the focal firm
Adner and Kapoor
(2016)
Empirical mixed
methods Why do some new
technologies
emerge and
quickly supplant
incumbent
technologies
while others take
years or decades
to take off? (p.
625)
Innovation
ecosystem
Complementors as ecosys‑
tem actors. Complements
are their value‑enhancing
output that is integrated by
the customer with the focal
offering. Like components,
complements have the
power to shape a technol‑
ogy’s course of progress
Benlian etal.
(2015)
Empirical mixed
methods How can platform
providers
encourage
desirable
behaviours by
complementors
(i.e., application
developers) in
the absence of
formal roles and
hierarchical con-
trol structures?
(p. 209)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
The role of perceived plat‑
form openness on comple‑
mentors’ behaviors
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Boudreau (2010) Empirical quan‑
titative how different
approaches to
opening a system
influence the rate
of innovation (p.
1849)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Strategies of opening up the
platform when collaborat‑
ing with complementors to
ensure compatibility and
interoperability of comple‑
mentary components, and
to boost complementary
development. The inde‑
pendence of complementors
may reflect in their initial
reluctance of innovating on
the platform
Boudreau (2012) Empirical quan‑
titative Understanding of
the economic
mechanisms
shaping applica-
tion software
innovation,
particularly as
the number of
producers grows
(p. 1410)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementors are seen as
developers that produce
complementary application
in a software context
Boudreau and
Jeppesen (2015)
Empirical quan‑
titative Does reliance on
network effects
and strategies
to attract large
numbers of
complementors
remain advisable
in such contexts?
(p. 1762)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Unpaid competing comple‑
mentors are responsive
despite the lack of sales
incentives. But in this situa‑
tion, the network effects are
almost non‑existent
Ceccagnoli etal.
(2012)
Empirical quan‑
titative (1) Is participation
in a platform
ecosystem,
on average,
associated with
an increase in
performance?
(2) How is this
improvement
in performance
affected by an
ISV’s owner-
ship of IPRs
and specialized
downstream
capabilities? (p.
264)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Commercialization of an
innovation depends on
downstream complemen‑
tary capabilities, among
others. Complementary
assets are suggested to be
vertically integrated. Com‑
plements or complemen-
tary innovations increase
the platform’s value. The
interactions with comple‑
mentors are a double‑edged
sword due to the duality of
value co‑creation and value
capture. Platform owners
also pose the risk of market
entry for complementors;
a constant risk that shape
the cautious behavior of
complementors, e.g., IPR
protection
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Cenamor etal.
(2013)
Empirical quan‑
titative Understanding
of the role of
complementary
products within
platform-based
markets (p. 406)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complements are seen “as
strategic drivers of adop-
tion in platform-based
markets” (p. 405). Com‑
plementors may unlock
and enhance the value
of platforms. In‑house
complements provided by
platform owner may impact
the platform adoption dif‑
ferently
Cennamo (2018) Empirical quan‑
titative How next-gener-
ation leaders
solve these
coordination
problems to
generate value
for users and
how this solution
later affects their
market perfor-
mance over time
(p. 3039)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
First‑ and third‑party com‑
plements are critical in
enhancing the value of the
platform during the early
development stage
Cennamo and
Santaló (2013)
Empirical quan‑
titative Hypothesis 1:
All else equal,
embracing apps
market competi-
tion and apps
exclusivity strat-
egies with same
intensity will
lower platform
performance. (p.
1336)
Hypothesis 2:
All else equal,
platform
performance
will decrease at
intermediate lev-
els of distinctive
positioning and
increase at high
and low levels
of distinctive
positioning. (p.
1337)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
A large installed base of users
on a platform results in a
large number and variety of
complements (interdepend-
ence between users and
complementary products).
Availability of comple‑
ments is one of the main
determinants of platform’s
value and market share.
Managing complements
is critical. The platform’s
overall strategy influences
complementors
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Cennamo etal.
(2018)
Empirical quan‑
titative How the tradeoffs
complemen-
tors face when
designing
products for mul-
tiple platforms
affect the quality
performance
of multihoming
complements
across platforms
(p. 462)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
The complexity of platforms
negatively impacts the
quality of the multihoming
complements
Cennamo and
Santaló (2019)
Empirical quan‑
titative how this generativ-
ity’s tension
unfolds over time
and affects user
satisfaction (p.
618)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Fluctuations in platform’s
generativity affects com‑
plementor’s value and their
motivation to participate
in that ecosystem. Due to
their autonomy, comple‑
mentors decide the level of
investment and innovation
efforts on complements.
Indirect network effects
are highlighted. But the
value of each complement
is different according to the
users, who can imper‑
fectly estimate it ex‑ante.
Complementors may take
advantage of free riding,
once there are enough
first‑rate complements.
Or complementors may
multihome, though this
may create compatibility
issues. These complemen‑
tors’ strategies may harm
platform reputation
De Reuver, etal.
(2018)
Review Develops a
research agenda
for digital plat-
forms for dealing
with these trends
and research
challenges (p.
125)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementors or third‑
party developers are under‑
stood as one of the main
organizational elements of
platforms
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Eckhardt etal.
(2018)
Experiment/
model + empir‑
ics/simulation
how the presence
of certain types
of informa-
tion about
entrepreneurial
opportunities
in a platform
ecosystem is
associated with
commercializa-
tion rates among
complementors
(p. 370)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementors enhance the
value of platforms through
their complementary tech‑
nologies
Foerderer etal.
(2018)
Empirical quan‑
titative If a platform
owner like
Google releases
an app for
its Android
platform, does
it keep app
developers from
innovating in the
future? (p. 444)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Platform entry in comple‑
mentary markets can have
positive impact on comple‑
mentors by providing new
ideas and opportunities to
innovate
Gawer (2014) Conceptual/theo‑
retical Technological
platforms can
be usefully
conceptualized
as evolving
organizations or
metaorganiza-
tions (p. 1240)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
More complements attract
more users. Sometimes
complementors are seen
as consumers because they
develop on top of the plat‑
form. But this view neglects
the competitive interactions
between the complementors
and the platform owner,
the platform’s impact on
complementors’ incen‑
tives to innovate. Since the
ecosystem evolves, like any
other actors, complemen‑
tors can also hold multiple
roles, which may change
over time
Gawer and
Cusumano
(2014)
Review How [the literature
on industry plat‑
forms] relates to
managing inno-
vation within
and outside the
firm as well as
to dealing with
technological
and market
disruptions and
change over time
(p. 418)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Identifying and collaborat‑
ing with complementors
is important. Opening up
the platform motivates the
complementors to innovate
since it decreases their
costs, but some resources
should be kept proprietary
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Hannah and Eisen‑
hardt (2018)
Empirical quan‑
titative How do firms suc-
cessfully balance
competition and
cooperation over
time in ecosys-
tems? (p. 3165)
Ecosystem Complementors are com‑
plementary component
providers that may increase
the innovativeness of a
focal firm, differentiating
from the rival companies.
Complementors are further
seen as an integral part of a
firm’s ecosystem strategy
Helfat and Rau‑
bitschek (2018)
Conceptual/theo‑
retical Specific types
of dynamic capa-
bilities can help
platform leaders
make decisions
and take actions
more effectively
under these
challenging con-
ditions (…) some
dynamic capa-
bilities can help
firms to not only
create value, as
is generally the
focus of research
on capabilities,
but also capture
value. (p. 1392)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementary assets
providers (including
complementary products
providers, i.e., complemen‑
tors) may pose threats to
platform owners. Comple-
mentary products providers
strictly refer to complemen‑
tors, while complementary
assets providers encap‑
sulate more firms among
which complementors
are included. Continuous
innovation realignment and
integrative capabilities are
needed between the plat‑
form and complementors
Jacobides etal.
(2018)
Conceptual/theo‑
retical When and why
ecosystems
emerge, and
what makes them
distinct from
other govern-
ance forms (p.
2255)
Ecosystem Multilateral, nongeneric
complementarities (unique
and supermodular) are con‑
sidered one of the building‑
blocks of ecosystems. The
intensity of supermodular
complementarities renders
the level of ecosystem’s
resilience. Complements
enhance the value of a
product for customers.
Complementors may or
may not have a direct
connection with the focal
firm. But they are necessary
actors in ecosystems and
can originate from different
industries. The collabora‑
tion between the focal firms
and complementors affects
the commercialization of a
product/service
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Kang and Down‑
ing (2015)
Conceptual/theo‑
retical + empir‑
ics/simulation
To explore the
importance of
the keystone
effect for plat-
form competition
in the presence
of indirect
network effects
(p. 171)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complements impact the
platform’s installed base.
In turn, the availability of
complements is impacted
by the strength of the key‑
stone actor
Kapoor (2013) Empirical quan‑
titative shedding light
on the different
ways in which
firms collaborate
with comple-
mentors, and by
exploring how
the nature and
the benefits of
collaboration
are influenced
by the organi-
zational and
strategic contexts
underlying firm-
complementor
relationships
(p. 4)
Business
ecosystem
Complementors should not be
seen or treated as buyers or
suppliers, since they pose
different challenges when
interacting with them
Kapoor (2018) Conceptual/theo‑
retical Explicating the
novelty and the
usefulness of
ecosystem-based
theorizing (p. 1)
Ecosystem Complements are a key theo‑
retical construct in business
ecosystems that do not
appear in strategic alliances
or networks
Kapoor and Lee
(2013)
Empirical quan‑
titative How differences
in the ways in
which firms
are organized
with respect to
complementary
activities affect
their decision
to invest in new
technologies (p.
274)
Business
ecosystem
The (type of) relationships
with complementors are
important for the focal firm
in coordinating the changes
the complements need
to undergo when a new
technology or upgrade is
implemented
Kapoor and Agar‑
wal (2017)
Empirical quan‑
titative The extent to
which a high
performing
complementor
can sustain its
superior perfor-
mance within
the [platform]
ecosystem (p.
531)
Business
ecosys‑
tem with
platform
Complementors in platforms
are seen as holding the
majority of the ecosystem,
and essential to the value
creation of the ecosystem.
Complementors’ value
capture is impacted by the
ecosystems’ structure and
evolutionary characteristics
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Karhu etal. (2018) Empirical mixed
method How do open-
ness and related
governance
decisions render
an ODP and its
resources vulner-
able to platform
forking and how
can the host use
its resources to
defend against
it? (p. 480)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Besides the benefits of com‑
plementors’ presence on a
platform, the study presents
a competition perspective
on platform governance,
i.e., platform forking. For
complementors’ govern‑
ance, boundary resources
are significant
Li (2009) Empirical mixed
method How Cisco Sys-
tems has been
so successful in
utilizing its strat-
egy of mergers
and acquisitions
(MandA) for
corporate growth
(p. 379)
Business
ecosystem
Complementors through their
products or services enable
a focal firm to achieve a
network value, rather than a
product value. Complemen‑
tors are seen as value‑
adding actors
Li and Agarwal
(2017)
Empirical quan‑
titative (1) What is the
impact of the
platform owner’s
integration strat-
egy on consumer
demand for
the first-party
application
and third-party
applications?
(2) How does the
integration strat-
egy impact the
overall demand
in the comple-
mentary market?
(p. 3439–3440)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementor integration
by the platform owner can
be beneficial to the entire
complementary market
Nambisan etal.
(2018)
Review how and when
(under what
circumstances)
OI and platforms
together may
facilitate, hinder,
or channel
entrepreneurship
(p. 356)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Through complementors,
platform owners create
value for the users. To facil‑
itate this, platform owners
share/provide resources to
complementors, and other
incentives to encourage
innovation efforts and com‑
mitment
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Ozalp etal. (2018) Empirical quan‑
titative How do genera-
tional technolog-
ical transitions
affect disruption
in platform
ecosystems?
And how do
incumbent plat-
forms navigate
the process of
disruption? (p.
1204)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
A technologically advanced
platform is a challenge for
complementors, who have
to experience steep learning
curves and higher costs to
timely develop and deliver
compatible complements.
Thus, the complement‑
development challenges
also impact the platforms
(i.e., complementors are
essential to the platforms’
success), while some com‑
plementors would opt for
less challenging platforms
Parker and Van
Alstyne (2018)
Experiment/
model To achieve the
highest growth
rate, how open
should that
economy be? To
encourage third-
party developers,
how long should
their intellec-
tual property
interests last? (p.
2015)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
The balance between plat‑
form openness and control
impacts the complemen‑
tors’ behavior and ability to
innovate
Rietveld and Egg‑
ers (2018)
Empirical quan‑
titative how the evolution
of a platform’s
user base from
one dominated
by early adopters
to one dominated
by late adopters
affects perfor-
mance outcomes
for complemen-
tary products (p.
305)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
The entry time of comple‑
mentors in a platform
ecosystem impacts the suc‑
cess of their complements.
Besides the installed base
of users, complementors’
success on the platform is
also impacted by heteroge‑
neity in demand preferences
and users’ behavior
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Rietveld etal.
(2019)
Empirical quan‑
titative How do platform
sponsors choose
the complements
to promote and
when to promote
them? (p. 1234)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Selective promotion of
complements by the plat‑
form owner is a strategic
decision that can help the
latter to possibly capture
more value generated by
the promoted complements
on the platform, due to the
more favorable or exclusive
agreements between the
platform owner and the
complementors. Platform
owner can influence the
value of the ecosystem
through selective promotion
of complements. But this
strategy can have various
reasons and objectives
Scholten and
Scholten (2012)
Empirical quan‑
titative Identifying and
categorizing
control mecha-
nisms leading
platform owners
in the ICT
industry have
implemented to
steer external
complementary
innovation
efforts on top of
their platform (p.
165)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Through network effects,
complementors and
platforms become more
valuable for the consumers.
To ensure a certain comple‑
ment quality, consistency,
and reliability in the ICT
industry, platform owners
implement different control
mechanisms that help to
coordinate and manage
complementors’ innovation
and development efforts
Teece (2018) Conceptual/theo‑
retical
Profiting from
Innovation (PFI)
framework in the
digital economy
and (platform)
ecosystems
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
There are different types of
complementary assets that
impact the value capture of
an innovation in different
ways. Complementary
assets can either be pro‑
duced in‑house or by third
parties. Either way will
capture some value of the
focal innovation. Com‑
plementors add up to the
value of an innovation with
their complements. Further
research on complements
and complementarity is
needed. There are different
types of complementarities;
a concept that represents
the essence of (platform)
ecosystems
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Thomas etal.
(2014)
Review A systematic
review of the
platform litera-
ture (p. 198)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementors are seen as
independent, third‑party
actors that contribute to
driving economies of inno‑
vation and complementarity
in a platform setting
Tsujimoto etal.
(2018)
Review First, what is the
definition of
the ecosystem
in the field of
management?
Second, what are
the main streams
of ecosystem
research? Third,
has the eco-
system concept
added new and
significant value
to management
research? (p. 49)
Ecosystem Complementors are included
in the heterogeneity of
ecosystem actors that have
their characteristics and
motivations. Like all the
other actors, complemen‑
tors are believed to behave
according to their own
rationale and decision‑
making strategies. The
heterogeneity of actors,
interests, and behaviors
may negatively impact the
ecosystem’s success
Wareham etal.
(2014)
Empirical quali‑
tative Research Question
1. How are the
main tensions
in technology
ecosystems
addressed in
technology
ecosystem
governance?
(…) Research
Question 2.
Tensions can
manifest them-
selves as either
contradictory or
complementary
logics. Are con-
tradictory and
complementary
logics present
in technology
ecosystems? If
so, how are they
governed? (p.
1196)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complements increase the
value of a focal product.
Complementors are autono‑
mous actors whose output
enhances the focal prod‑
uct’s value, but they also
admit to some sort of guid‑
ance or control imposed by
the ecosystem leader
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Wen and Zhu
(2019)
Empirical quan‑
titative How app devel-
opers on the
Android mobile
platform adjust
innovation
efforts (rate and
direction) and
value-capture
strategies in
response to the
threat of Goog-
le’s entry into
their markets (p.
1336)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementors are small
firms that rely on platform
resources to develop and
offer their complements to
users, and they are needed
for platform health. Com‑
plementors face risks and
challenges from the plat‑
form owner, e.g., the latter
entry in complementary
markets. But complemen‑
tors react to even the mere
entry threats by adjusting
their value creation and
capture strategies
West and Wood
(2013)
Empirical mixed
method How the firm
[Symbian] built
a complex eco-
system of stake-
holders, evolved
this ecosystem
over its 10-year
lifespan, and
how limitations
in its conception
and leadership
of this ecosystem
limited its ability
to respond to
the iPhone and
Android threats
(p. 30)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementors are third‑
party complementary prod‑
ucts that receive returns
from the platform sponsor
to ensure continuous supply
of complements
Williamson and
De Meyer (2012)
Conceptual/theo‑
retical How a company
can shape the
structure and
workings of its
business ecosys-
tem to simultane-
ously create and
capture value,
while minimizing
the detrimental
effects of surren-
dering hierarchy,
vertical integra-
tion, and direct
control? (p. 25)
Business
ecosystem
To ensure complementary
investments, the focal firms
have to find the proper ways
to stimulate complemen‑
tors’ participation and
commitment
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
References Type of research Research question/
objective
Type of
ecosystem
View on complementors and
related concepts
Zhu and Iansiti
(2012)
Experiment/
model + empir‑
ics/simulation
A formal model
to examine
conditions
under which an
entrant platform
can survive the
competition with
an incumbent
platform (p. 90)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Complementors are seen as
developers of complemen‑
tary applications contribut‑
ing to network effects in the
context of platforms
Zhu and Liu
(2018)
Empirical quan‑
titative Will we observe
different
patterns for
platform-owner
entries in such
markets? Are
platform owners
more likely to
target successful
complementary
products, or
are they more
likely to target
underperforming
complementary
products, which
are often less
likely to be
noticed, seeking
to improve con-
sumer satisfac-
tion? How are
consumers and
complemen-
tors affected by
platform-owner
entries? (p.
2620)
Platform
(ecosys‑
tem)
Platform owners may enter
the complementary market
spaces for various reasons.
Occasionally, this entry
decision depends on the
complementors’ invest‑
ments on the platform. But
complementors can employ
various strategies to impede
platform owners from
reaching that point, e.g.,
increase prices of comple‑
ments, conceal information
regarding their suppliers
Acknowledgements We appreciate the comments from the editor and the anonymous reviewer. We sin‑
cerely thank the participants of ISPIM conference 2020 for their valuable feedback on the initial draft of
this article. We also acknowledge the funding support from the Sino‑Danish Center for Education and
Research (SDC) and the National Social Science Fund of China (No. 20&ZD075).
Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception, design, and conceptualization of
results. The material preparation and data collection were performed by AEC. The data was analyzed
and synthesized by AEC and YH. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AEC, but all authors
contributed to writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Funding Open access funding provided by Aalborg University Library. This work was supported by the
Sino‑Danish Center for Education and Research (SDC) and the National Social Science Fund of China
(No. 20&ZD075).
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Data availability The bibliometric analysis dataset extracted from the two datasets, i.e., Web of Science
and Scopus, and contents generated and analyzed during the current study are available upon reasonable
request. The content analysis dataset is included in the Appendix 2.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of
this article.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com‑
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen
ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Adner R (2006) Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv Bus Rev 84:98
Adner R (2012) The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation. Penguin Group, New York
Adner R (2017) Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. J Manage 43:39–58. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06316 678451
Adner R (2021) Winning the right game: how to disrupt, defend, and deliver in a changing world. MIT
Press, Boston
Adner R, Kapoor R (2010) Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological
interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strateg Manag J 31:306–
333. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 821
Adner R, Kapoor R (2016) Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: re‑examining technology
S‑curves. Strateg Manag J 37:625–648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2363
Adner R, Lieberman M (2021) Disruption through complements. Strategy Science 6(1):1–19. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1287/ stsc. 2021. 0125
Afuah A (2000) How much do your coopetitors’ capabilities matter in the face of technological change?
Strateg Manag J 21:397–404. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ (SICI) 1097‑ 0266(200003) 21:3% 3c397:: AID‑
SMJ88% 3e3.3. CO;2‑T
Agarwal S, Miller CD, Ganco M (2023) Growing platforms within platforms: how platforms manage the
adoption of complementor products in the presence of network effects? Strateg Manag J 44:1879–
1910. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 3487
Alon I, Anderson J, Munim ZH, Ho A (2018) A review of the internationalization of Chinese enterprises.
Asia Pacific J Manag 35:573–605. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10490‑ 018‑ 9597‑5
Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: an R‑tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J
Informetr 11:959–975
Bagheri SK, Di Minin A, Paraboschi A, Piccaluga A (2016) It’s not about being generous: platform lead‑
ers and patent shelters. Res Tech Manag 59(2):28–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08956 308. 2015.
11371 95
Bengtsson M, Kock S (1999) Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in busi‑
ness networks. J Bus Ind Market 14:178–194. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 08858 62991 02721 84
Bengtsson M, Kock S (2000) “Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultane‑
ously. Ind Mark Manage 29:411–426
Benlian A, Hilkert D, Hess T (2015) How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of plat‑
form openness from the complementors’ perspective. J Inf Technol 30:209–228. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1057/ jit. 2015.6
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Boudreau KJ (2010) Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control.
Manage Sci 56:1849–1872. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 1100. 1215
Boudreau KJ (2012) Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app devel‑
opers and patterns of innovation. Organ Sci 23:1409–1427. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 1110. 0678
Boudreau KJ, Jeppesen LB (2015) Unpaid crowd complementors: the platform network effect mirage.
Strateg Manag J 36:1761–1777. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2324
Brandenburger AM, Nalebuff BJ (1996) Co‑opetition: 1 A revolutionary mindset that combines competi‑
tion and cooperation 2. The Game Theory strategy that’s changing the game of business, USA
Bretas VPG, Alon I (2021) Franchising research on emerging markets: bibliometric and content analyses.
J Bus Res 133:51–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2021. 04. 067
Brusoni S, Prencipe A (2013) The organization of innovation in ecosystems: problem framing, problem
solving, and patterns of coupling. Adv Strateg Manag 30:167–194. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ S0742‑
3322(2013) 00000 30009
Casadesus‑Masanell R, Hałaburda H (2014) When does a platform create value by limiting choice? J
Econ Manag Strategy 23:259–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jems. 12052
Castro HR, Sant’Anna DALM (2023) Playing against the platform: a research note on the impact of
exclusivity under vertical competition in video game platforms. Technol Forecast Soc Change
191:122501. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2023. 122501
Ceccagnoli M, Forman C, Huang P, Wu DJ (2012) Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: the case
of enterprise software. MIS Q 36:263–290
Cenamor J, Usero B, Fernández Z (2013) The role of complementary products on platform adoption:
evidence from the video console market. Technovation 33:405–416. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn
ovati on. 2013. 06. 007
Cennamo C (2018) Building the value of next‑generation platforms: the paradox of diminishing returns. J
Manage 44:3038–3069. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06316 658350
Cennamo C, Santaló J (2013) Platform competition: strategic trade‑offs in platform markets. Strateg
Manag J 34:1331–1350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2066
Cennamo C, Santaló J (2019) Generativity tension and value creation in platform ecosystems. Organ Sci
30:617–641. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2018. 1270
Cennamo C, Ozalp H, Kretschmer T (2018) Platform architecture and quality trade‑offs of multihoming
complements. Inf Syst Res 29:461–478
Chu LY, Wu B (2023) Designing online platforms for customized goods and services: a market frictions‑
based perspective. Acad Manag Rev 48:78–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2020. 0247
Chung HD, Zhou YM, Ethiraj S (2023) Platform governance in the presence of within‑complementor
interdependencies: evidence from the rideshare industry. Manage Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/
mnsc. 2023. 4706
Cobben D, Ooms W, Roijakkers N, Radziwon A (2022) Ecosystem types: a systematic review on bounda‑
ries and goals. J Bus Res 142:138–164. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2021. 12. 046
Cournot AA (1838) Recherches sur les Principes Mathematiques de la Theorie des Richesses
Cusumano MA, Gawer A (2002) The elements of platform leadership. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 62:51–58.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0041‑ 5553(89) 80021‑7
Davis J, Mengersen K, Bennett S, Mazerolle L (2014) Viewing systematic reviews and meta‑analysis
in social research through different lenses. Springerplus 3(1):1–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/
2193‑ 1801‑3‑ 511
De Reuver M, Sørensen C, Basole RC (2018) The digital platform: a research agenda. J Inf Technol
33:124–135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41265‑ 016‑ 0033‑3
de Vasconcelos Gomes LA, Facin AL, Salerno MS, Ikenami RK (2018) Unpacking the innovation eco‑
system construct: evolution, gaps and trends. Technol Forecast Soc Change 136:30–48. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2016. 11. 009
Duriau VJ, Reger RK, Pfarrer MD (2007) A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organi‑
zation studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organ Res Methods
10:5–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28106 289252
Eckhardt JT, Ciuchta MP, Carpenter M (2018) Open innovation, information, and entrepreneurship
within platform ecosystems. Strateg Entrep J 12:369–391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sej. 1298
Edgeworth FY (1897) Teoria Pura del Monopolio. Giornale Degli Economisti 15:13–31
Eisenmann TR, Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2009) Opening Platforms: How, When and Why? In: Gawer A
(ed) Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, USA, pp 131–162
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Foerderer J, Kude T, Mithas S, Heinzl A (2018) Does platform owner’s entry crowd out innovation? Evi‑
dence from Google photos. Inf Syst Res 29:444–460. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 2018. 0787
Gaur A, Kumar M (2017) A systematic approach to conducting review studies: an assessment of content
analysis in 25 years of IB research. J World Bus 12:145
Gavel Y, Iselid L (2008) Web of science and scopus: a journal title overlap study. Online Inf Rev 32:8–
21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14684 52081 08659 58
Gawer A (2014) Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative frame‑
work. Res Policy 43:1239–1249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2014. 03. 006
Gawer A, Cusumano MA (2002) Platform leadership: how intel, microsoft, and cisco drive industry inno‑
vation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts
Gawer A, Cusumano MA (2014) Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. J Prod Innov Manag
31:417–433. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jpim. 12105
Gawer A, Henderson R (2007) Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: evidence
from intel. J Econ Manag Strategy 16:1–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1530‑ 9134. 2007. 00130.x
Gnyawali DR, Charleton TR (2018) Nuances in the interplay of competition and cooperation: towards a
theory of coopetition. J Manage 44:2511–2534. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06318 788945
Granstrand O, Holgersson M (2020) Innovation ecosystems: a conceptual review and a new definition.
Technovation 90:102098. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2019. 102098
Hannah DP, Eisenhardt KM (2018) How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosys‑
tems. Strateg Manag J 39:3163–3192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2750
Hart O, Moore J (1990) Property rights and the nature of the firm. J Polit Econ 98:1119–1158
Hein A, Schreieck M, Riasanow T etal (2020) Digital platform ecosystems. Electron Mark 30:87–98.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12525‑ 019‑ 00377‑4
Helfat CE, Raubitschek RS (2018) Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation
in digital platform‑based ecosystems. Res Policy 47:1391–1399. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol.
2018. 01. 019
Hicks J (1970) Elasticity of substitution again: substitutes and complements. Oxf Econ Pap 22:289–296
Hirshleifer J (1978) The private and social value of information and the reward to inventive activity. Am
Econ Rev 61:561–574. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ b978‑0‑ 12‑ 214850‑ 7. 50038‑3
Huo L, Qian Z, Shao Y, Jin Y (2021) A good match or a quarrel? Value co‑creation between complemen‑
tary manufacturers. Tech Anal Strat Manag 33(12):1450–1466. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09537 325.
2021. 18768 45
Iansiti M, Levien R (2004) The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems
mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts
Inoue Y, Tsujimoto M (2018) New market development of platform ecosystems: a case study of the Nin‑
tendo Wii. Technol Forecast Soc Change 136:235–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2017. 01.
017
Jacobides MG, Cennamo C, Gawer A (2018) Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strateg Manag J 39:2255–
2276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2904
Kang J‑S, Downing S (2015) Keystone effect on entry into two‑sided markets: an analysis of the market
entry of WiMAX. Technol Forecast Soc Change 94:170–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore.
2014. 09. 008
Kang HY, Suarez FF (2023) Platform owner entry into complementor spaces under different governance
modes. J Manage 49:1766–1800. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06322 10947 59
Kang J‑S, Lee H‑Y, Tsai J (2011) An analysis of interdependencies in mobile communications tech‑
nology: the case of WiMAX and the development of a market assessment model. Technol Soc
33:284–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techs oc. 2011. 10. 002
Kapoor R (2013) Collaborating with complementors: What do firms do? Adv Strateg Manag 30:3–25.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ S0742‑ 3322(2013) 00000 30004
Kapoor R (2018) Ecosystems: broadening the locus of value creation. J Organ Des 7:1–16. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1186/ s41469‑ 018‑ 0035‑4
Kapoor R, Agarwal S (2017) Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: evidence from
application software developers in the iOS and Android smartphone ecosystems. Organ Sci
28:531–551. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2017. 1122
Kapoor R, Furr NR (2015) Complementarities and competition: unpacking the drivers of entrants’ tech‑
nology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry. Strateg Manag J 36:416–436. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ smj. 2223
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Kapoor R, Lee JM (2013) Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: how organizational forms shape
new technology investments. Strateg Manag J 34:274–296. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2010
Karhu K, Gustafsson R, Lyytinen K (2018) Exploiting and defending open digital platforms with bound‑
ary resources: Android’s five platform forks. Inf Syst Res 29:479–497. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre.
2018. 0786
Li YR (2009) The technological roadmap of Cisco’s business ecosystem. Technovation 29:379–386.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2009. 01. 007
Li Z, Agarwal A (2017) Platform integration and demand spillovers in complementary markets: evidence
from Facebook’s integration of Instagram. Manag Sci 63(10):3438–3458. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/
mnsc. 2016. 2502
Liang X, Luo Y, Shao X, Shi X (2022) Managing complementors in innovation ecosystems: a typol‑
ogy for generic strategies. Ind Manag Data Syst 122:2072–2090. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/
IMDS‑ 12‑ 2021‑ 0809
Mantovani A, Ruiz‑Aliseda F (2016) Equilibrium innovation ecosystems: the dark side of collaborating
with complementors. Manage Sci 62:534–549. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 2014. 2140
McIntyre DP, Srinivasan A (2017) Networks, platforms, and strategy: emerging views and next steps.
Strateg Manag J 38:141–160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2596
McIntyre DP, Srinivasan A, Chintakananda A (2020) The persistence of platforms: The role of network,
platform, and complementor attributes. Elsevier
Milgrom P, Roberts J (1990) The economics of modern manufacturing: technology, strategy, and organi‑
zation. Am Econ Rev 80:511–528
Morgan L, Feller J, Finnegan P (2013) Exploring value networks: theorising the creation and capture of
value with open source software. Eur J Inf Syst 22:569–588. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ ejis. 2012. 44
Nambisan S, Siegel D, Kenney M (2018) On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Strateg
Entrep J 12:354–368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sej. 1300
Ozalp H, Cennamo C, Gawer A (2018) Disruption in platform‑based ecosystems. J Manage Stud
55:1203–1241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12351
Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2018) Innovation, openness, and platform control. Manage Sci 64:3015–3032.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 2017. 2757
Rietveld J, Eggers JP (2018) Demand heterogeneity in platform markets: implications for complementors.
Organ Sci 29:304–322. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2017. 1183
Rietveld J, Schilling MA (2021) Platform competition: a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the
literature. J Manage 47:1528–1563. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06320 969791
Rietveld J, Schilling MA, Bellavitis C (2019) Platform strategy: managing ecosystem value through
selective promotion of complements. Organ Sci 30:1232–1251. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2019.
1290
Rietveld J, Ploog JN, Nieborg DB (2020) Coevolution of platform dominance and governance strategies:
effects on complementor performance outcomes. Acad Manag Discov 6(3):488–513. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 5465/ amd. 2019. 0064
Ritala P, Almpanopoulou A (2017) In defense of ‘eco’ in innovation ecosystem. Technovation 60–61:39–
42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2017. 01. 004
Saadatmand F, Lindgren R, Schultze U (2019) Configurations of platform organizations: implications for
complementor engagement. Res Policy 48:1–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2019. 03. 015
Samuelson P (1974) Complementarity: an essay on the 40th anniversary of the hicks‑allen revolution in
demand theory. J Econ Lit 12:1255–1289
Schmeiss J, Hoelzle K, Tech RPG (2019) Designing governance mechanisms in platform ecosystems:
addressing the paradox of openness through blockchain technology. Calif Manag Rev 62(1):121–
143. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00081 25619 883618
Scholten S, Scholten U (2012) Platform‑based innovation management: directing external inno‑
vational efforts in platform ecosystems. J Knowl Econ 3:164–184. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s13132‑ 011‑ 0072‑5
Shipilov A, Gawer A (2020) Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Acad
Manag Ann 14:92–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ annals. 2018. 0121
Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res
104:333–339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2019. 07. 039
Srinivasan A, Venkatraman N (2010) Indirect network effects and platform dominance in the video game
industry: A network perspective. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 57:661–673. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/
TEM. 2009. 20377 38
A.E.Carst, Y.Hu
1 3
Su HN, Lee PC (2010) Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co‑occurrence: a first look at jour‑
nal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics 85:65–79. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11192‑ 010‑ 0259‑8
Taeuscher K, Rothe H (2021) Optimal distinctiveness in platform markets: leveraging complementors as
legitimacy buffers. Strateg Manag J 42:435–461. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 3229
Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy. Res Policy 15:285–305. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1142/ 97898 12833 181_ 0005
Teece DJ (2006) Reflections on “Profiting from Innovation.” Res Policy 35:1131–1146. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. respol. 2006. 09. 009
Teece DJ (2018) Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and
licensing models in the wireless world. Res Policy 47:1367–1387. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol.
2017. 01. 015
Thomas LD, Ritala P (2022) Ecosystem legitimacy emergence: a collective action view. J Manag
48(3):515–541. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06320 986617
Thomas LDW, Autio E, Gann DM (2014) Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context. Acad
Manag Perspect 28:198–219. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amp. 2011. 0105
Tian J, Zhao X, Xue L (2022) Platform compatibility and developer multihoming: a trade‑off perspective.
MIS Q 45:1661–1690. https:// doi. org/ 10. 25300/ MISQ/ 2022/ 16369
Tsujimoto M, Kajikawa Y, Tomita J, Matsumoto Y (2018) A review of the ecosystem concept—Towards
coherent ecosystem design. Technol Forecast Soc Change 136:49–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
techf ore. 2017. 06. 032
van der Geest C, van Angeren J (2023) Architectural generativity: leveraging complementor contributions
to the platform architecture. Calif Manage Rev 65:71–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00081 25623
11593 98
Wareham J, Fox PB, Giner JLC (2014) Technology ecosystem governance. Organ Sci 25:1195–1215.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2014. 0895
Weber R (1990) Basic content analysis, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Inc, Newbury Park
Weiss M, Gangadharan GR (2010) Modeling the mashup ecosystem: structure and growth. R&D Manag
40(1):40–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467‑ 9310. 2009. 00582.x
Wen W, Zhu F (2019) Threat of platform‑owner entry and complementor responses: evidence from the
mobile app market. Strateg Manag J 40:1336–1367. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 3031
West J, Wood D (2013) Evolving an open ecosystem: The rise and fall of the Symbian platform. Adv
Strateg Manag 30:27–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ S0742‑ 3322(2013) 00000 30005
Williamson PJ, de Meyer A (2012) Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully harness the power of part‑
ners. Calif Manage Rev 55:24–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1525/ cmr. 2012. 55.1. 24
Winter J, Battisti S, Burström T, Luukkainen S (2018) Exploring the success factors of mobile business
ecosystems. Int J Innov Tech Manag 15(3):1850026. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1142/ S0219 87701 85002 68
Xu X, Venkatesh V, Tam KY, Hong S‑J (2010) Model of migration and use of platforms: Role of hierar‑
chy, current generation, and complementarities in consumer settings. Manage Sci 56:1304–1323.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 1090. 1033
Yoffie DB, Kwak M (2006) With friends like these: the art of managing complementors. Harv Bus Rev
84(9):88–98
Yoo DK, Roh JJ, Cho S, Yang MM (2022) Coopetition in a platform ecosystem: from the complemen‑
tors’ perspective. Electron Commer Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10660‑ 022‑ 09565‑5
Zabel C, O’Brien D, Natzel J (2023) Sensing the Metaverse: The microfoundations of complementor
firms’ dynamic sensing capabilities in emerging‑technology ecosystems. Technol Forecast Soc
Change 192:122562. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2023. 122562
Zhang H, Hu Y, Shi X, Gao Y (2022) When and how do innovation ecosystems outperform integrated
organizations? On technological interdependencies and ecosystem performance. Ind Manage Data
Syst 122(9):2091–2120. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IMDS‑ 11‑ 2021‑ 0720
Zhu F (2019) Friends or foes? Examining platform owners’ entry into complementors’ spaces. J Econ
Manag Strategy 28:23–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jems. 12303
Zhu F, Iansiti M (2012) Entry into platform‑based markets. Strateg Manag J 33:88–106. https:// doi. org/
10. 1002/ smj. 941
Zhu F, Liu Q (2018) Competing with complementors: an empirical look at Amazon.com. Strateg Manag
J 39:2618–2642. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2932
Zhu J, Liu W (2020) A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers.
Scientometrics 123:321–335. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11192‑ 020‑ 03387‑8
1 3
Complementors asecosystem actors: asystematic review
Zupic I, Čater T (2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ Res Methods
18:429–472. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28114 562629
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
