Game models reveal how platform leadership shapes pricing and customization strategies, suggesting optimal governance aligns with product architecture.
Fueled by advances in cloud technologies and industrial platforms, networked collaborative manufacturing platforms (NCMPs) are reshaping how products are priced and customized. As decision rights increasingly shape value creation within these platforms, platform leadership—whether driven by the manufacturer or the designer—emerges as a critical determinant of product strategy. However, the effects of different leadership structures on pricing and customization remain unclear. To address this issue, we develop game models comparing manufacturer-led and designer-led platforms. Our analysis reveals that under manufacturer-led platforms, dual-product strategies remain viable across a wider range of customization conditions, ensuring pricing stability and broader demand coverage. In contrast, designer-led platforms are more sensitive to the commission rate—excessive commissions tend to crowd out standard product offerings and distort pricing incentives. Moreover, platform control does not always guarantee superior profit: while designers consistently outperform manufacturers under manufacturer-led platforms, profit dominance in designer-led settings shifts with commission rates. Notably, by jointly optimizing product strategy and pricing mechanisms, firms can achieve more balanced value distribution and sustain collaboration. These findings offer a strategic framework for manufacturers and designers to align platform governance with product architecture, contributing new insights into collaborative pricing, platform leadership, and dual-product innovation in industrial platform ecosystems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: