Skip to main content

From Concept to Measurement: The 12 Pillars and their Measurement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Digital Platform Economy Index 2020

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Economics ((BRIEFSECONOMICS))

  • 535 Accesses

Abstract

While ecosystem theories and concepts have a relatively long history with both entrepreneurial ecosystems (Acs et al., 2017) and digital ecosystems (Li et al., 2012; Weill & Woerner, 2015), the digital entrepreneurship ecosystem and a platform-based economy concepts have emerged only recently (Elia et al., 2020; Nambisan, 2017; Sahut et al., 2019). Moreover, measurements are lagging behind conceptual developments. Some argue that all ecosystems are exclusive, as each has its unique component structure, strengths, and weaknesses. Consequently, case studies are more appropriate than simple or composite indicators to describe the ecosystem phenomenon (Isenberg, 2010; Spigel, 2017). While we agree that the specifics of each ecosystem can be viewed up close, when looking from a certain distance, one can recognize the common structures and features (Szerb et al., 2019). Accurate measurements are vital for three reasons. First, solid policy recommendations should be based on appropriate measures. Second, one can recognize the relative development of a particular unit by comparing it to other units’ rankings and index scores. And third, an ecosystem’s strengths and weaknesses can be identified from a benchmarking perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For other entrepreneurship ecosystem measures, see the Global Entrepreneurship Index, its regional counterpart the regional Entrepreneurship and Development Index, Kauffmann’s entrepreneurship ecosystem, and the Startup Genome’s Global Startup Ecosystem model-based measures. Digital measures can be divided into maturity/readiness, transformation, and complex indices. The best-known composite digital index is the European Union’s Digital Economy and Transformation Index (DESI). Others are the Mastercard and the Fletcher School at Tufts University’s Digital Evolution Index, and the Economic Intelligence Unit’s Inclusive Internet Index.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkire, L., Pohlmann, J., & Barnett, W. (2019). Triggers and motivators of privacy protection behavior on Facebook. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alt, R., Beck, R., & Smits, M. T. (2018). Fin tech and the transformation of the financial industry. Electronic Markets, 28(3), 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D., Criscuolo, C., & Gal, P. N. (2015). Frontier firms, technology diffusion and public policy. OECD Future of Productivity Background Paper. OECD Future of Productivity Background Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Szerb, L., Komlosi, E., & Tiszberger, M. (2018). The European index of digital entrepreneurship systems (JRC technical reports, 153). Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Szerb, L., Komlosi, E., & Tiszberger, M. (2019). EIDES 2019—The European index of digital entrepreneurship systems (No. JRC117495). Joint Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baierl, R., Behrens, J., & Brem, A. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. J. (2019). Digital literacy. In R. Hobbs & P. Mihailidis (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media literacy (Vol. 2, pp. 343–349). Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batabyal, A. A., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). Digital technologies, knowledge spillovers, innovation policies, and economic growth in a creative region. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25(5), 470–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Developing maturity models for IT management. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berners-Lee, T. (2009). The next web. What’s next in tech session: TED conference, Long Beach, CA. https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web

  • Bock, W., Wilms, M., Soos, P., & Roeber, B. (2014). Reforming Europe’s telecoms regulation to enable the digital single market. Communications and Strategies, 93, 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy. Digital Kompetanse, 1(4), 263–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, P. E., Chaudhry, S. S., Stumpf, S. A., & Sudler, H. (2011). Piracy in cyber space: Consumer complicity, pirates and enterprise enforcement. Enterprise Information Systems, 5(2), 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christin, D., Reinhardt, A., Kanhere, S. S., & Hollick, M. (2011). A survey on privacy in mobile participatory sensing applications. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(11), 1928–1946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., Bacao, F., & Irani, Z. (2017). Assessing the pattern between economic and digital development of countries. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(4), 835–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2010). Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3, 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S. (2013). Economics of vertical restraints for multi-sided platforms. University of Chicago Institute for Law & Economics Olin Research Paper, 626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: The new economics of multi-sided platforms. Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, J., & Klemperer, P. (2007). Coordination and lock-in: Competition with switching costs and network effects. Handbook of Industrial Organization, 3, 1967–2072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, M. W. (2009). Digital divide: The case of developing countries. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6(2), 471–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friemel, T. N. (2016). The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18(2), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadi, S., & Ghobadi, Z. (2015). How access gaps interact and shape digital divide: A cognitive investigation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(4), 330–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Digital economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1), 3–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., & Weber, B. W. (2018). On the FinTech revolution: Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 220–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomber, P., Koch, J. A., & Siering, M. (2017). Digital finance and FinTech: Current research and future research directions. Journal of Business Economics, 87(5), 537–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies and the digital in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.54412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A. (2014). Strategic decisions for multisided platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajli, N., & Lin, X. (2016). Exploring the security of information sharing on social networking sites: The role of perceived control of information. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herhalt, J. (2011). Cyber crime: A growing challenge for governments. KPMG International: Issues Monitor-Government on Cyber Crime, 8, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindman, M. (2018). The internet trap: How the digital economy builds monopolies and undermines democracy. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P. N. (2010). The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy: Information technology and political Islam. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, C. E. K., Hung, Y. T. C., Hair, N., Perotti, V., & DeMartino, R. (2007). Taking advantage of digital opportunities: A typology of digital entrepreneurship. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 4(3), 290–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyrynsalmi, S., Suominen, A., & Mäntymäki, M. (2016). The influence of developer multi-homing on competition between software ecosystems. Journal of Systems and Software, 111, 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (2016). Cyber crime, security and digital intelligence. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (2001). New technology and the small firm. Small Business Economics, 16(1), 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011132809150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Nguyen-Phillips, A., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2017). Achieving digital maturity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiiski, S., & Pohjola, M. (2002). Cross-country diffusion of the internet. Information Economics and Policy, 14(2), 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (2015). Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klang, M., & Murray, A. (Eds.). (2005). Human rights in the digital age. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kummer, M., & Schulte, P. (2019). When private information settles the bill: Money and privacy in Google’s market for smartphone applications. Management Science, 65(8), 3470–3494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kundi, G. M., & Akhtar, R. (2014). Digital revolution, cyber-crimes and cyber legislation: A challenge to governments in developing countries. Journal of Information Engineering and Applications, 4(4), 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafuente, E., Acs, Z. J., Sanders, M., & Szerb, L. (2020). The global technology frontier: Productivity growth and the relevance of Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 55, 153–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampson, B. W. (2004). Computer security in the real world. Computer, 37(6), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. S. (2001). An analytical framework for evaluating e-commerce business models and strategies. Internet Research, 11(4), 349–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., Badr, Y., & Biennier, F. (2012). Digital ecosystems: Challenges and prospects. In proceedings of the international conference on management of emergent digital EcoSystems (pp. 117–122). MEDES’12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2457276.2457297.

  • Lund, J., & Ebbesson, E. (2019). Understanding digital innovation from a layered architectural perspective. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(2), 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Boland, R. J., Jr. (2016). Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Information Systems Journal, 26(1), 47–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, H. V. (2006). The digital divide: The role of political institutions in technology diffusion. Comparative Political Studies, 39(2), 176–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M., & Tambini, D. (Eds.). (2018). Digital dominance: The power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and apple. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. (2018). Fake news, disinformation, manipulation and online tactics to undermine democracy. Journal of Cyber Policy, 3(1), 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murawski, M., & Bick, M. (2017). Digital competences of the workforce: A research topic? Business Process Management Journal, 23(3), 721–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Njenga, J. K. (2018). Digital literacy: The quest of an inclusive definition. Reading & Writing, 9(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuechterlein, J. E., & Weiser, P. J. (2007). Digital crossroads: American telecommunications policy in the internet age. MIT Press Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2014). Platform strategy. In M. Augier & D. Teece (Eds.), Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasquier, T., Singh, J., Powles, J., Eyers, D., Seltzer, M., & Bacon, J. (2018). Data provenance to audit compliance with privacy policy in the internet of things. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 22(2), 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persily, N. (2017). The 2016 US election: Can democracy survive the internet? Journal of Democracy, 28(2), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2015). Virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital age. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poore, M. (2015). Using social media in the classroom: A best practice guide. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of online. Education, 5(3), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, L., Cotten, S., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T., & Stern, M. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roca, C. J., García, J., & de la Vega, J. (2009). The importance of perceived trust, security and privacy in online trading systems. Information Management & Computer Security, 17(2), 96–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J. (2017). Brexit, trump, and post-truth politics. Public Integrity: American Society for Public Administration, 19(6), 555–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2017.1285540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, P., Bucci, S. P., & Inserra, D. (2017). Next steps for US cybersecurity in the trump administration: Active cyber defense. Background, 3188, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahut, J.-M., Iandoli, L., & Teulon, F. (2019). The age of digital entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics., 56, 1159–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00260-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits. Capital, credit, interest and the business cycle (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. (1999). Information rules. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, A. K. (2019). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem: A critique and reconfiguration. Small Business Economics, 53(3), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00232-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steininger, D. M. (2019). Linking information systems and entrepreneurship: A review and agenda for IT-associated and digital entrepreneurship research. Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 363–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sussan, F., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., Horváth, K., & Páger, B. (2019). The relevance of quantity and quality entrepreneurship for regional performance: The moderating role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1308–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tura, N., Kutvonen, A., & Ritala, P. (2018). Platform design framework: Conceptualisation and application. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(8), 881–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, J. A. (2017). Digital divide: Impact of access. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (pp. 1–11). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0043

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, B. E., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2019). What’s next? Six observations for the future of political misinformation research. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidmann, N. B., Benitez-Baleato, S., Hunziker, P., Glatz, E., & Dimitropoulos, X. (2016). Digital discrimination: Political bias in internet service provision across ethnic groups. Science, 353(6304), 1151–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. (2015). Thriving in an increasingly digital ecosystem. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentrup, R., & Ström, P. (2017). Online service providers: A new and unique species of the firm? In M. Taddeo & L. Floridi (Eds.), The responsibilities of online service providers (pp. 157–177). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • West, D. M. (2015). Digital divide: Improving internet access in the developing world through affordable services and diverse content. Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyl, E. G. (2010). A price theory of multi-sided platforms. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1642–1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, M., & Mattord, H. (2012). Principles of information security. Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2003). The skills for life survey: A national needs and impact survey of literacy, numeracy and ICT skills (No. 490). The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Szerb, L., Somogyine Komlosi, E., Acs, Z.J., Lafuente, E., Song, A.K. (2022). From Concept to Measurement: The 12 Pillars and their Measurement. In: The Digital Platform Economy Index 2020. SpringerBriefs in Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89651-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics