Title: Platforms and public administration

Authors
Felipe Zarpelon, Ph.D. Candidate, Unisinos University, Porto Alegre, RS.
fmzarp@gmail.com
Vinicius Nardi, Ph.D. Candidate, Unisinos University, Porto Alegre, RS.
viniciusamnardi@gmail.com
Jorge Verschoore, Ph.D., Unisinos University, Porto Alegre, RS. jorgevf@unisinos.br

Synonyms: e-Participation – Crowdsourcing – Public participation – Two-sided markets

Definition: Platforms refers to the strategy to connect consumers (citizenships) and

developers (government) interested in the results of network interactions.

Introduction
In business administration, the strategic use of business management platforms is
recurrent. Magazines are used to connect businesses - through their advertisers - with
readers. Trade shows have established themselves around the globe through this same
model, serving as the basis for the link between consumers and sellers. With the
advancement of technology, companies like Facebook, Google, Alibaba, Uber, and
Airbnb used the same format to become leaders in their business segments. The success
of this format was then used in public administration, mainly to stimulate social
participation and legitimization of governments.
In principle, the use of public service platforms has characteristics similar to those of the
private market. However, a differential is the motivation of users. While in private
initiative the economic purpose supports most actions, the return on public platforms is
fundamentally social. The purpose of this entry is to provide an overview of the role of
platforms and its use in the public domain. It begins with an analysis of theoretical
perspective and the managerial consequences of its use. Finally, it concludes with an
approach of what is know about platforms in public administration.

Theoretical perspectives

The platform is a transformative but straightforward concept that has affected

businesses, the economy and even society (Parker et al., 2016). Traditional sectors such
as hosting, transportation, and retail have undergone significant changes following the
introduction of platform-based business models (Kohler, 2015; Libert et al., 2014). Parker
et al. (2016) argue that eventually all industries will be affected by business platforms,
given the value produced by cooperative work through social networks. Contemporary
networks enhance the ability to create value through fast and spread connection of distant
actors with complementary resources.
What makes the platform model successful is the ability to connect people,
organizations and resources in an interactive environment in which value propositions are
created and exchanged (Parker et al., 2016). Information and communication
technologies (ICT) play an essential role in platform business models as they allow
reaching the necessary scale to sustain network externalities. Besides the access to distinct
actors and resources, ICT enhance the necessary breadth for businesses to develop rapidly
and become successful players in traditional markets (i.e., private transportation, hosting,
etc.) or even create new markets (Hagiu & Rothman, 2016).
Platform business models connect knowledge and talent spread into the crowd
to predict opportunities and create solutions. ICT as powerful data processers should be
able to organize and filter the amount of information arising from interactions of
complementary actors. As an outcome, resources are effectively connected to
opportunities and solutions arise (Brabham, 2013; Howe, 2008).
In general, four main players comprise the platform ecosystem: owners,
providers, producers, and consumers (Parker et al., 2016). Owners are responsible for
controlling intellectual property and defining governance for interactions among users.
Providers usually stand for technological solutions as an interface among users,
processing data and supplying information. The group of users is composed of producers
and consumers, each sustaining their positions according to each transaction.
The platform becomes active as a business when it generates a value perceived
by both connected parts through its primary assets, which are the information and the
interactions it makes possible (Evans & Schmalensee, 2010). Because they are connecting
people, platforms benefit from network externalities (Katz & Shapiro, 1985), that is, the
product or service utility increases as the number of consumers and creators involved
increases. Parker et al. (2016) refer to these externalities as an essential part of the
platform architecture and go beyond, stating that not only benefits are observed with
increasing numbers of users on a platform. The authors identify negative effects of the
network, mainly when an indiscriminate increase in the number of users on a poorly-
managed platform can reduce the value produced for each user. Then, the perfect fit of
managerial structures and set of users sustain the value creation in platforms.

Managing platforms

Kohler (2015) identifies three models of platform operation as the best

architecture for business purposes. These models are defined by how stakeholders are
connected, business objectives, and structures of power and control: a) two-sided or
multiple-sided platforms, b) product platforms and c) integrating platforms.
In two-sided markets, the users connect and interact directly inside the platform
environment. The two-sided connection is a feature not only of platform strategies but of
markets with network externalities. Platforms managed under this model connect groups
with distinct and complementary objectives (Eisenmann et al., 2006; Rysman, 2009).
 The dynamics of product platforms undersees the development of products or
services by users on a base technology. In a second step, these developers sell their
solutions to connected consumers. Similarly to two-sided models, product platforms
promote the matching of complementary objectives, but here the control and direction of
the platform owner are accentuated. The owner has the technology on which the product
or service is developed by its creators (Kohler, 2015).
The main characteristic of the integrative platform is an environment where
contributions are captured and sold to consumers. The creation is a core activity here,
performed mainly through competitions. This operation also presents a variation,
commonly known as collaborative communities, whose main objective is to gather a
series of contributions from the crowd into an original set of value (Kohler, 2015).
These different platform configurations can be successful in their applications
through new strategies where the focus is on orchestrating resources and optimizing
internal processes to facilitate external interactions, generate customer value and
maximize the value of the ecosystem (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2009; Van Alstyne et al.,
2016).
The platforms traditionally focused on private initiatives were adopted by the
public with the power to respond to the demands of increasingly participatory individuals,
called Citizens 2.0, and to legitimize their actions towards society (Brabham, 2008, 2009;
Hilgers & Ihl, 2010; Linders, 2012; Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2013). These initiatives are
based on the belief that citizens with experience, situational awareness and interest in
participating are potential sources of solutions for governments pressured to do more with
less (Royo & Yetano, 2015). In recent years, driven by technological advances,
availability of information and social mobilization, this development has become more
widespread (Thomas & Streib, 2005).

Platforms in Public Administration

Traditionally focused on private enterprise, the use of platforms as a public management

strategy has been recurring in the last decade. Technological advances, the growth of
social activism (Nalbadian et al., 2013) and the concern to expand participation
mechanisms have made the use of platforms - especially electronic ones - increasingly
large. Pressed to do more with less, governments came to use platforms as tools to
legitimize their actions, to understand the demands of society and to find potential
solutions to social problems, since citizens directly involved with the situation would
have the experience to suggest interventions (Brown et al. al, 2017).
The platform-based public service management strategies have as their differential
motivation. While in the business environment economic purposes are the rule, in public
management the return is fundamentally social. Cases such as the Brazilian
government's "Ideia Legislativa" platform (to quote Nardi et al., 2018) illustrate this
reality. In the concrete case, citizens can suggest through the platform changes in the
current legislation and mobilize their network of contacts to raise support. These ideas
are then brought to the discussion and, if approved, implemented in society.
At the same time that it brings the public administration closer to society, the use of
platforms expands the process of direct democracy (Royo & Yetano, 2015) and facilitates
the solution of social problems. The use of social media technologies and the
implementation of open government initiatives encourage the participation of society
in the political process, giving legitimacy to public actions and making more effective
solutions to complex problems. The use of platforms, for example, enabled
matchmaking systems to be implemented to overcome management failures, as in the
case of access to the American education system (Roth, 2015).

Conclusion

Increasingly, organizations around the world use platforms as a business strategy. To

date, however, little has been explored on the topic in the literature. The use of
platforms as tools for public management, although still an embryonic stage, has
aroused the interest of managers for their ease of implementation and returns
generated. Although the similarities between the public and private use of platforms are
recognized, a point of differentiation is the outcome generated for users. While in the
private initiative the motivation is economic, in the public administration the return is
inherently social.
The use of public management platforms emphasizes citizens' engagement and their
direct participation in the political process. At the same time as it brings benefits to the
citizen, the results for the government that can use the tool as a source of identification
of social problems and solutions, increase their relations with society, strengthen citizen
confidence in public management and, finally, legitimize their actions. Serving as a
mediator between government and society, a platform is a resource-rich tool for
implementing innovative practices that enable governments to do more with less. The
understanding of the strategy still lacks advances in the literature, especially the
architectures to be used in each case to reach the best possible results.

Cross-references: Business platforms; e-Citizenship; Crowdsourcing; Two-sided

markets; Opportunity; Innovation; Governance; Performance; Power; Open
Government; Government as a platform; New public management

References

Boudreau, K.; Lakhani, K.. (2009) How to manage outside innovation. MIT Sloan
management review, v. 50, n. 4, p. 69.
Brabham, D. C. (2008) Crowdsourcing as a model for problem-solving: An introduction
and cases: Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, v. 14(1), p. 75–90.
Brabham, D. C. (2009) Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning
projects: Planning Theory, v. 8, p. 242-262.
Brown, A., Fishenden, J., Thompson, M., & Venters, W. (2017) Appraising the
impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP)
in UK Government public service reform: Towards a Platform Assessment
Framework (PAF). Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 167-182
Eisenmann, T., G. Parker, and M. W. Van Alstyne (2006) Strategies for two-sided
markets: Harvard Business Review, v. 84, p. 92-+.
Evans, D. S.; Schmalensee, R. (2010) Failure to launch: Critical mass in platform
businesses. Review of Network Economics, v. 9(4).
Hagiu, A., and S. Rothman. (2016) Network Effects Aren't Enough: Harvard Business
Review, v. 94, p. 64-71.
Hilgers, D., and C. Ihl. (2010) Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open innovation
to the public sector The International Journal of Public Participation, v. 4(1), p.
67–88.
Howe, J. (2008) Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of
Business. New York: Random House.
Katz, M. L., and C. Shapiro (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility:
American Economic Review, v. 75, p. 424-440.
Kohler, T. (2015) Crowdsourcing-Based Business Models: how to create and capture
value. California Management Review, v. 57, p. 63-84.
Libert, B., Y. Wind, and M. Fenley (2010) What Airbnb, Uber, and Alibaba have in
common. Harvard Business Review, v. 11.
Linders, D. (2012) From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for
citizen coproduction in the age of social media: Government Information
Quarterly, v. 29, p. 446-454.
Nalbandian, J., O'Neill, R., Michael Wilkes, J., & Kaufman, A. (2013). Contemporary
challenges in local government: Evolving roles and responsibilities, structures,
and processes. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 567-574.
Nardi, V., Zarpelon, F., Verschoore, J., & de Araújo, M. (2018). The Multiple
Bases of Social Return Platforms: Evidence of a Brazilian
Initiative. International Journal of Public Administration, 1-10.
Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution. WW
New York, NY: Norton & Company.
Roth, A. E. (2015). Who gets what – and why: The new economics of matchmaking and
Market design. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Royo, S., & Yetano, A. (2015). “Crowdsourcing” as a tool for e-participation: two
experiences regarding CO2 emissions at municipal level. Electronic Commerce
Research, 15(3), 323-348.
Rysman, M. (2009) The Economics of Two-Sided Markets: Journal of Economic
Perspectives, v. 23, p. 125-143.
Seltzer, E., and D. Mahmoudi (2013) Citizen Participation, Open Innovation, and
Crowdsourcing: Challenges and Opportunities for Planning: Journal of Planning
Literature, v. 28, p. 3-18.
Thomas, J. C., and G. Streib (2005) E-democracy, E-commerce, and E-research:
Examining the electronic ties between citizens and governments: Administration
& Society, v. 37(3), p. 259–280.
Van Alstyne, M., G. Parker, and S. Choudary (2016) Pipelines, Platforms, New Rules and
the of Strategy: Harvard Business Review, p. 54-62.