TRANSFORMING BUSINESS MODEL INTO PLATFORM-BASED BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM ORCHESTRATOR: ENTERPRISE READYNESS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Анотація
In modern business, characterized by the convergence of traditional industries, increasing digitalization, and a growing complexity in value creation, companies are increasingly operating not as isolated business entities but as participants in complex business ecosystems. In such ecosystems, value creation occurs through the interaction of manufacturers, suppliers, partners, consumers, service companies, financial institutions, and other actors who simultaneously cooperate and compete [1]. In such a landscape, the platform business model takes on particular significance, in which a company not only participates in the ecosystem but also assumes the role of orchestrator of the business ecosystem and implements a digital platform-ecosystem as the central tool for interaction among participants [2; 3].
In academic literature, a platform ecosystem is classified as a subcategory of an innovation ecosystem. These ecosystems are centered on a digital or organizational technological platform that functions as a coordination hub. The platform establishes access rules, interaction standards, interfaces and conditions for the creation of complementary value [4; 5]. A company's transition to this model encompasses more than just implementing a single digital solution. It involves a shift in the logic of coordination, value creation and distribution, as well as the company's ability to shape the architecture of interaction among various participants in the business ecosystem.
The issue lies in the fact that scientific research has not yet developed the necessary methodological tools to assess an industrial enterprise's readiness to transition to a platform-based business model for orchestrating a business ecosystem. The presence of a significant scale of operations, modern digital infrastructure, or a strong market position does not in itself imply that an enterprise is ready for platform-based transformation. A transition of this kind necessitates a combination of internal organizational and resource capabilities, the capacity to coordinate external participants, ecosystem environment parameters that are conducive to the process, and the economic feasibility of phantomization. Accordingly, there is a need to develop an integrated assessment methodology that will combine these dimensions into a single model.
Current approaches to assessing digital transformation readiness focus solely on the enterprise; however, when discussing platform ecosystems, we must go beyond assessing internal digital maturity. The presence of an extensive network of close interconnections creates a need to assess them as well (tabl. 1).
Table 1 – Comparative characteristics of assessment approaches
Characteristic
Traditional digital maturity assessment methods
Proposed author's methodology
Object of Assessment
Internal IT systems and processes
Interaction within the entire business ecosystem
Role of the Enterprise
An isolated market entity
Orchestrator / Coordination hub
Key Success Factor
Technological excellence
Ability to coordinate and generate network effects
Assessment Result
Level of automation
Readiness for a shift in value creation logic
Source: developed by the authors
The objective of this study is to develop a methodology for assessing an industrial enterprise's readiness to transition to a platform-based business model for orchestrating a business ecosystem. In order to achieve this objective, the following tasks were assigned: firstly, to identify the key groups of factors that determine an enterprise's readiness for platform transformation; secondly, to develop a system of indicators for assessing these factors; and thirdly, to propose an assessment scale, a standardization procedure, and an integrated model for assessing readiness.
This study proposes a novel approach to assessing a company's readiness to transition to a platform-based business model. The research posits that this readiness should be viewed as a multidimensional characteristic shaped by four key groups of factors:
1) The company's internal readiness.
2) The capacity to orchestrate.
3) The external environment's ecosystem readiness.
26
4) The economic viability of platform transformation.
Internal readiness encompasses the level of digital maturity, data quality, resource availability, management readiness for change, and strategic alignment of platform transformation. Orchestration capability reflects an organization’s ability to establish rules for interaction, coordinate diverse participants, build trust, and act as an integrator of data and processes. External ecosystem readiness is characterized by the density of connections between participants, their level of digital maturity, readiness for data exchange, and potential for complementarity. Economic feasibility refers to the potential to reduce transaction costs, scale interactions, generate network effects, and achieve additional economic benefits.
To operationalize these factors, a system of twenty indicators has been developed, grouped into the four blocks mentioned above. A single five-point scale is proposed for their assessment, which allows for the integration of quantitative and expert-analytical characteristics into a single evaluation procedure. In order to obtain a comprehensive result, a multi-criteria additive model of the integral readiness index has been developed. The model involves normalizing the indicators, calculating partial indices for each group of factors, and subsequently aggregating them into an integral index of the enterprise's readiness for platform transformation.
The proposed methodology allows to progress from a general theoretical understanding of the potential of platform transformation to a formalized assessment of an industrial enterprise's actual readiness. Its practical significance lies in the ability to use an integrated index as a tool for preliminary diagnosis, identifying bottlenecks, and selecting an appropriate transition path to a platform-based business model. The scientific value of the approach lies in combining the principles of business ecosystem theory, platform orchestration, and economic-mathematical modeling into a single methodological framework.
Further research should focus on testing the proposed methodology using industrial enterprises from various sectors as case studies, as well as on refining the composition of indicators and weighting coefficients to account for sector-specific characteristics.
The transition to network-based thinking and management requires acknowledging that even technically and technologically advanced enterprises are not always capable of acting as network orchestrators, as the environment may not be ready for it (a technological gap may exist). The proposed methodology allows for this technological gap to be taken into account. Furthermore, the methodology incorporates economic factors, focusing on the generation of network effects rather than merely assessing digitalization for its own sake.
Scientific Supervisor: Candidate of Sciences in Economics (Ph.D), Assos. Prof., Associate Professor at the Department of Management of Enterprises, Koleshnia Ya.
Посилання
Peltoniemi M., Vuori E. Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. Proceedings of eBusiness Research Forum. 2004. Vol. 2, No. 22. P. 267–281.
Jacobides M. G., Cennamo C., Gawer A. Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures. Research Policy. 2024. Vol. 53, No. 1. Article 104906. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104906.
Hein A., Schreieck M., Riasanow T., Setzke D. S., Wiesche M., Böhm M., Krcmar H. Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets. 2020. Vol. 30, No. 1. P. 87–98. DOI: 10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4.
Thomas L., Autio E. Innovation ecosystems in management: An organizing typology. 2020. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.203.
Gawer A. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy. 2014. Vol. 43, No. 7. P. 1239–1249. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006.