Platform Strategy for Business Transformation in a Blockchain Ecosystem

  • Sang-Wuk KuEmail author
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


This chapter explains blockchain platform strategies for business transformation in a blockchain ecosystem. The blockchain platform, which includes specific transaction records and distributed ledgers for certain time periods, can be defined as (1) a core asset in a blockchain ecosystem, (2) a common basic asset, (3) an asset possibly generating derivative content and services, such as complements, (4) the hub in the value chain in blockchain technology-based businesses, and (5) an asset retaining blockchain technology.

Blockchains can generate various complements within the context of platform leadership. This means blockchains can show the characteristics of complementarity. They bring about network externality and lock-in effect regarding platform leadership. Blockchain technology innovation is beneficial for production efficiency, cost reduction, and lowering prices.

Blockchains can also be defined as the adjustment of existing approved transactions and derivative service providers as complementors. Blockchain platforms should promote the blockchain ecosystem for platform leaders and complementors so that ecosystem stakeholders can form competitive and cooperative relationships with blockchain platform leaders.


  1. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (1997). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84–93.Google Scholar
  2. Chun, S. Y., & Hahn, M. (2008). A diffusion model for products with indirect network externalities. Journal of Forecasting, 27, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cusumano, M., & Gawer, A. (2002). The elements of platform leadership. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 51–58.Google Scholar
  4. Dai, Z., & Scott, M. J. (2004). Product platform design through sensitivity analysis and cluster analysis. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference.Google Scholar
  5. Economides, N., & Katsamakas, E. (2006). Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Management Science, 52(7), 1057–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Halman, J. I. M., Hofer, A. P., & van Vuuren. (2003). Platform-driven development of product families: Linking theory with practice. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayes, F. (2007). It’s lock-in rut. Computerworld Google Scholar
  8. Iansiti, M. (2007). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review Google Scholar
  9. Iansiti, M. & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kikuchi, T. (2007). Network externalities and comparative advantage. Bulletin of Economic Research, 59(4), 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim, J. (2002). Product differentiation and network externality: A common on economides: Network externalities, complementarities, and invitations to enter. European Journal of Political Economy, 18, 397–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krishnan, V., & Gupta, S. (2001). Appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development. Management Science, 47(1), 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ku, S. W. (2010a). Interpretation of platform leadership under platform openness: In the perspectives of transaction costs and network externality. Industry Research, 26(3), 89–120.Google Scholar
  14. Ku, S. W. (2010b). The mediating effect of the complementarity of a platform: Antecedents and its effect on the new complement development performance. Korea Academy of International Business Education, 7(4), 1–21.Google Scholar
  15. Ku, S. W., & Cho, D. S. (2011). Platform strategy: An empirical study on the determinants of platform selection of application developers. Journal of International Business and Economy, 12(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  16. Kubartz, B., Lu, P., & Roeder, S. (2001). Economics and social sciences: Complements, competitors, accomplices? European Planning Studies, 9(6), 773–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McGrath, M. E. (1995). Product strategy for high technology companies. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  18. Meyer, M. H., & Lehnerd, A. P. (1997). The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Robertson, D., & Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning for product platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39(4), 19–31.Google Scholar
  20. Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2004). First in, first out? The effects of network externalities on pioneer survival. Journal of Marketing, 68, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tiwana, A. (2008). Does interfirm modularity complement ignorance? A field study of software outsourcing alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1241–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Turnbull, G. K., & Djoundourian, S. S. (2003). Overlapping jurisdictions: Substitutes or complements? Public Choice, 75, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, C. C., Lo, S. K., & Fang, W. (2008). Extending the technology acceptance model to mobile telecommunication innovation: The existence of network externalities. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Witt, U. (1997). Lock-in vs. critical masses – Industrial under network externalities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15, 753–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zauberman, G. (2003). The intertemporal dynamics of consumer lock-in. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Convergence StudiesPai Chai UniversitySeo-GuSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations