Search

This article analyzes the connection between gamification and business success, focusing on customer retention, new customer acquisition, and transforming user perceptions. Based on a qualitative comparative analysis of 40 high-profile gamification projects, it shows that a combination of three key features—virtualization, social comparison, and tangible rewards—explain the various pathways to success. Each pathway requires the presence—and sometimes absence—of different design features, and firms do best when they focus on one or two objectives rather than all three at once. The article presents a framework for designing and implementing gamification more strategically and effectively, noting the ethical questions that arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2000, Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark published "Design Rules: The Power of Modularity," a book that introduced new ways of understanding and explaining the architecture of complex systems This Special Issue of Industrial and Corporate Change celebrates this seminal work, the research it has inspired, and the insights that these collective efforts have generated. In this introductory essay, we review the impact of "Design Rules" across numerous fields, including organization theory, competitive strategy, industry structure, and innovation management. We offer perspectives on key themes that emerge from contributions in this issue, including the alignment between organizational and technical designs ("mirroring"), the dynamics of industry evolution, and the role that individuals play in shaping and responding to system designs. We close by highlighting opportunities to apply the theory in Design Rules to new phenomena and puzzles that have emerged in the past 20 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As industry boundaries dissolve and digitalization grows apace, ecosystems are becoming increasingly important. Yet for all the excitement and Big-Tech envy, there is little guidance for how to create ecosystems. How should a firm best engage? Should it become a partner to someone else's ecosystem, or build its own? Should it focus on a broad range of digitally connected services, or narrow down? How should we think about ecosystem value proposition, governance, and complementor choice? And, what is the case for investment in ecosystems? Drawing on recent research and projects with leading firms, this article offers a framework for understanding, engaging in, and building business ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The metaverse comprises a range of technologies offering shared digital experiences based on immersive virtual worlds or decentralised economies. Brands, Big Tech, and investors made huge investments in the metaverse, but users did not share their excitement and the bubble duly burst. We explore this story by drawing on a wide range of data sources and first-hand knowledge. We consider the metaverse as a set of overlapping, partly competing ecosystems and expand the lens of industry architecture to Ecosystem Architecture to examine the rules, roles, and responsibilities involved. We find that incumbent firms rushed to embrace the metaverse in the hope of pre-empting disruption and safeguarding their competitive position, leading to over-investment. Greed among ecosystem orchestrators impeded contributors from creating value, while persistent technological shortcomings impaired the user experience. Our study throws new light on the dynamics of innovation and technology hypes and the challenges involved in cultivating and coordinating ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most profound changes in the industrial landscape in the last decade has been the growth of business ecosystems—groups of connected firms, drawing on (digital) platforms that leverage their complementors and lock in their customers, exploiting the "bottlenecks" that emerge in new industry architectures. This has created new asymmetries of power, where the "field" of competition is not the relevant product market, as is usually the case in competition law, but rather the ecosystem of various complementary products and associated complementor firms. These dynamics raise novel concerns over competition. After examining the foundational elements of the ecosystem concept, we review how ecosystems are addressed within the current scope of competition law and identify the gap in the existing framework of conventional competition law. We then move to a critical review of current efforts and proposals in the European Union for providing regulatory remedies for ex ante and ex post resolution of problems, focusing on the current (2020) proposals of the Digital Market Act on ex ante regulation, with its particular focus on "gatekeepers." We also review recent regulatory initiatives in European countries that focus on ex post regulation and on the role of business models and ecosystem architectures in regulation before providing a deep dive into proposed Greek legislation that explicitly focuses on ecosystem regulation. We conclude with our observations on the challenges in instituting and implementing a regulatory framework for ecosystems, drawing on research and our own engagement in the regulatory process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital technologies and modular production methods have led to the emergence of a new generation of global leaders which cement their market position by orchestrating digital platforms and ecosystems of complementors, which offer them new ways to create and capture value that often transcend the boundaries of existing sectors. Their business models, built on intangibles such as software code and access to data, support expansion that is both breathtakingly rapid and effectively costless. With capital markets all too willing to invest in these firms' growth, and regulators unable to rein them in, these firms have been able to accumulate unprecedented power and wealth, with profound implications for competition, the economy, and society itself. This special issue confronts the challenge of regulating platforms and ecosystems head-on, revisiting the economic, strategic, and legal foundations that enable us to detect and redress issues of dominance and competition and address questions of the appropriate conception of and limits of the law. The papers included cover topics including the true nature of competition with an emphasis on dynamics and innovation, new approaches for legal and economic analysis including the alternatives for the "welfare criterion" and the protection of sunk investments, the approaches to take on tech mergers and acquisitions, the virtues and limits of self-regulation, the potential for radical breakups of Big Tech, and the issues of data, when privacy protection and competition steer us in different directions. Contributors also weigh up the case for regulatory intervention, the practical challenges involved, and the future state that we hope such actions will bring about. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8616.2010.00663.x Byline: MICHAEL G. JACOBIDES (1) Abstract: Those who study and plan strategies risk falling into the traps that maps, graphs, charts and matrices present. Michael G. Jacobides feels that strategy might best be cast as a dramatic playscript that can reveal the unfolding plots of business far better than traditional strategic tools, as the landscape shifts around us. Author Affiliation: (1)MJACOBIDES@LONDON.EDUSir Donald Gordon Chair of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at London Business School, where he is Associate Professor of Strategic and International Management.

The article explores how playscripting can be a more effective strategic planning tool, as it forms a narrative between goals and participants. A playscript consists of company decisions, actions, and motives, including those of other entities involved, and delineates roles of capturing and adding value.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8616.2009.00618.x Byline: Michael G. Jacobides (1) Abstract: The current downturn was a surprise to many business leaders. Some are still in a state of mental shock. It's time to think in new ways. Michael G. Jacobides says that the study of industry architectures can lead your company out of the recession. Author Affiliation: (1)(mjacobides@london.edu) is Associate Professor of Strategic and International Management at London Business School. He is also the Sumantra Ghoshal Fellow at the Advanced Institute of Management.