Analysis reveals how product type shapes lifecycle duration in a digital economy, suggesting adapted management strategies.
In the context of the rapid digitalization of the economy, the effective management of the life cycle of digital products is becoming a critical element of sustainable development. This study aims to analyze the impact of the typological characteristics of digital products on the structure and duration of their life cycle, and to develop recommendations for managing this process. This paper proposes a typology-oriented model of the life cycle of digital products, taking into account architectural flexibility, update frequency, user interaction nature, payment form dependence degree, and institutional constraints. Based on an analysis of scientific literature, industry reports and the practices of digital platforms, an original classification of digital products has been developed, as well as an adapted eight-stage life cycle model. This differs from traditional models in that it takes into account the specifics of the digital environment. A comparative analysis was conducted on different product types, including software, digital assets, data, internet services, digital goods, and hybrid formats. For the first time, life cycle extension strategies have been systematized, taking into account technological dynamics and market volatility. The obtained results clarify the regularities in the development of digital solutions in a market environment and can be used to optimize the economic models of digital product management in a transformational digital economy. Special attention is paid to digital assets and data as products with a non-standard development trajectory. The practical significance of this work lies in its potential application to strategic planning, investment assessment, and product life cycle monitoring. The approaches presented can be used for digital market research, business analytics, and public policy in the field of digital economy regulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Izmailova et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: