How do Internet of Things Service Pricing Schemes Affect Compatibility Investment between Platform and Smart Device Manufacturer?

Abstract

The development of the Internet of Things (IoT) has rapidly progressed, revolutionizing numerous industries and transforming how we interact with technology. IoT relies on seamless connectivity between devices, allowing them to collect, share, and analyze data. As a result, compatibility and connectivity have become major concerns for customers adopting smart devices. Achieving compatibility in a smart device is a shared responsibility between the IoT platform provider and the smart device manufacturer. However, the impact of their respective efforts on smart device compatibility depends on investment efficiency and the service level. In this study, we develop a game-theoretical model to examine how investment efficiency affects the incentives of the upstream platform and the downstream manufacturer to exert compatibility efforts under the licensing pricing and revenue sharing models in a supply chain setting. Our findings indicate that, given a certain IoT platform service level, a manufacturer’s effort decreases as the relative weight decreases in the licensing pricing model. Additionally, when the platform’s effort cost is lower, the platform can invest more in compatibility, thereby improving the compatibility of smart devices. In such cases, the manufacturer can benefit from the platform’s incentives to exert compatibility efforts by reducing her efforts. We also identify two effects: the compatibility effect and the service value-added effect. When the relative weight of compatibility is small, the role of platform compatibility diminishes. Consequently, the platform cannot increase technology licensing fees to augment IoT service income, reducing profits. Our results also provide insights into how an IoT platform provider can strategically target a particular IoT service based on their cost characteristics and service level in smart device supply chains.

Keywords

Internet of Things platform / smart device supply chains / system compatibility / investment decisions / platform service pricing

References

[1] AgrawalA, MuthulingamS, RajapaksheT. How sourcing of interdependent components affects quality in automotive supply chains. Production and Operations Management, 2017, 26(8): 1512-1533

[2] AgrawalV, OraiopoulosN. The role of decision rights in codevelopment initiatives. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2020, 22(4): 832-849

[3] AgrawalV, AtasuA, ÜlküS. Leasing, modularity, and the circular economy. Management Science, 2021, 67(11): 6782-6802

[4] AlaeiS, MakhdoumiA, MalekianA, PekeS. Revenue-sharing allocation strategies for two-sided media platforms: Pro-rata vs. user-centric. Management Science, 2022, 68(12): 8699-8721

[5] AlbouqS S, SenA A A, AlmashfN, et al.. A survey of interoperability challenges and solutions for dealing with them in IoT environment. IEEE Access, 2022, 10: 36416-36428

[6] ArbabianM E, ChenS, MoinzadehK. Capacity expansions with bundled supplies of attributes: An application to server procurement in cloud computing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2021, 23(1): 191-209

[7] AscarzaE, HardieB G S. A joint model of usage and churn in contractual settings. Marketing Science, 2013, 32(4): 570-590

[8] BabunL, DenneyK, CelikZ B, McDanielP, UluagacA S. A survey on IoT platforms: Communication, security, and privacy perspectives. Computer Networks, 2021, 192: 108040

[9] CachonG P, FeldmanP. Pricing services subject to congestion: Charge per-use fees or sell subscriptions?. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2011, 13(2): 244-260

[10] CasoJ, ColeZ, PatelM, ZhuW Cybersecurity for the IoT: How trust can unlock value, 2023

[11] ChenL, LiY, SilamuW, et al.. Smart mining with autonomous driving in industry 5.0: Architectures, platforms, operating systems, foundation models, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2023, 9(3): 4383-4393

[12] ChenS, LeeH, MoinzadehK. Pricing schemes in cloud computing: Utilization-based vs. reservation-based. Production and Operations Management, 2019, 28(1): 82-102

[13] ChengH K, LiS, LiuY. Optimal software free trial strategy: Limited version, time-locked, or hybrid?. Production and Operations Management, 2015, 24(3): 504-517

[14] ChungM, SharmaL, MalhotraM K. Impact of modularity design on mobile app launch success. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2023, 25(2): 756-774

[15] DeyD, GhoshalA, LahiriA. Support forums and software vendor’s pricing strategy. Information Systems Research, 2021, 32(2): 653-669

[16] DingL, HuB, KeC, WangT, ChangS. Effects of IoT technology on gray market: An analysis based on traceability system design. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2019, 136: 80-94

[17] GainU. Applying Frameworks for Cognitive Services in IIoT. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2021, 30: 59-84

[18] GangwarM, BhargavaH K. Pricing on-demand services: Alternative ways of combining usage and access fees. Production and Operations Management, 2023, 32(1): 11-27

[19] GargA, DemirezenE M, DoganK, ChengH K. Financial sustainability of IoT platforms: The role of quality and security. Production and Operations Management, 2024, 32(2): 412-431

[20] GopalL, SinghH, MounicaP, MohankumarN, ChallaN P, JayaramanP. Digital twin and IoT technology for secure manufacturing systems. Measurement: Sensors, 2023, 25: 100661

[21] GopalakrishnanS, MattaM, CavusogluH. The dark side of technological modularity: Opportunistic information hiding during interorganizational system adoption. Information Systems Research, 2022, 33(3): 1072-1092

[22] GuptaA, JukicB, StahlD O, WhinstonA B. An Analysis of incentives for network infrastructure investment under different pricing strategies. Information Systems Research, 2011, 22(2): 215-232

[23] HuangH, HeY, LiD, LiS. Competing multinationals’ backshoring decisions: Tax arbitrage versus production reliability tradeoff. European Journal of Operational Research, 2023, 311(2): 515-532

[24] HuangH, HuM, KauffmanR J, XuH. The power of renegotiation and monitoring in software outsourcing: Substitutes or complements?. Information Systems Research, 2021, 32(4): 1236-1261

[25] HuangH, LiZ, LiuD, XuH. Auctioning IT contracts with renegotiable scope. Management Science, 2022, 68(8): 6003-6023

[26] HuangK W, SundararajanA. Pricing digital goods: Discontinuous costs and shared infrastructure. Information Systems Research, 2011, 22(4): 721-738

[27] HuiK L, KeP F, YaoY, YueW T. Bilateral liability-based contracts in information security outsourcing. Information Systems Research, 2019, 30(2): 411-429

[28] JainT, HazraJ. Hybrid cloud computing investment strategies. Production and Operations Management, 2019, 28(5): 1272-1284

[29] JiY, WangR, GouQ. Monetization on mobile platforms: Balancing in-app advertising and user base growth. Production Operation Management, 2019, 28(9): 2202-2220

[30] KammounM A, HajejZ, RezgN. A multi-level selective maintenance strategy combined to data mining approach for multi-component system subject to propagated failures. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2022, 31: 313-337

[31] KumarA, SharmaS, GoyalN, SinghA, ChengX, SinghP. Secure and energy-efficient smart building architecture with emerging technology IoT. Computer Communications, 2021, 176: 207-217

[32] KumarM, ChoubeyV K, RautR D, JagtapS. Enablers to achieve zero hunger through IoT and blockchain technology and transform the green food supply chain systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2023, 405: 136894

[33] LadasK, KavadiasS, LochC. Product selling vs. pay-per-use service: A strategic analysis of competing business models. Management Science, 2022, 68(7): 4964-4982

[34] LeeJ, KrishnanV, ShinH. Business models for technology-intensive supply chains. Management Science, 2020, 66(5): 2120-2139

[35] LiB, KumarS. Should you kill or embrace your competitor: Cloud service and competition strategy. Production and Operations Management, 2018, 27(5): 822-838

[36] LiC, TomlinB. After-sales service contracting: Condition monitoring and data ownership. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2022, 24(3): 1494-1510

[37] LiJ, ChenY, ChenY L, ZhangW, LiuZ. A smart energy IoT model based on the Itsuku PoW technology. Results in Engineering, 2023, 18: 101147

[38] LiT, ChenL, JiaF, TangO. The development of an industry environment for the Internet of things: Evidence from China. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2022, 71: 3166-13178

[39] LiX, ZhangZ. Internet of things network security improvement investment: The role of platform and smart device manufacturer. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2024 1-17

[40] LiX, MaS, ZhangZ. Friends or Foes? The effect of IoT platform entry into smart device market under quantity discount pricing contract. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2024, 71: 10984-10997

[41] LiuH, XuT, JingS, LiuZ, WangS. The interplay between logistics strategy and platform’s channel structure design in B2C platform market. European Journal of Operational Research, 2023, 310(2): 812-833

[42] LiuN, ZhangR, LiuB. Contracting and diagnostic test for new product development under uncertain production reliability. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2022, 173(October): 108740

[43] MaB J, ZhangY, LiuS, JiangY, HeY, YanK. Operational strategies for IoT-enabled Brick-and-Mortar retailers in a competitive market. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2022, 173: 108665

[44] MaD, SeidmannA. Analyzing software as a service with per-transaction charges. Information Systems Research, 2015, 26(2): 360-378

[45] ManyikaJ, ChuiM, BissonP, WoetzelJ, DobbsR, BughinJ, AharonD. The Internet of things: Mapping the value beyond the hype. McKinsey global institute. McKinsey Glob Inst, 2015 3

[46] NouraM, AtiquzzamanM, GaedkeM. Interoperability in Internet of things: Taxonomies and open challenges. Mobile Networks and Applications, 2019, 24(3): 796-809

[47] NunezM A, BaiX, DuL. Leveraging slack capacity in IaaS contract cloud services. Production and Operations Management, 2021, 30(4): 883-901

[48] RahmaniM, RoelsG, KarmarkarU S. Team leadership and performance: Combining the roles of direction and contribution team leadership and performance. Management Science, 2018, 64(11): 5234-5249

[49] SahaR L, SinghaS, KumarS. Does congestion always hurt? Managing discount under congestion in a game-theoretic setting. Information Systems Research, 2021, 32(4): 1347-1368

[50] ShiY, YuH, YuY, YueX. Analytics for IoT-enabled human-robot hybrid sortation: An online optimization approach. Production and Operations Management, 2021 1-19

[51] SooriM, ArezooB, DastresR. Internet of things for smart factories in industry 4.0, a review. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 2023, 3: 192-204

[52] SuiR, ZhangX, DanB, ZhangH, LiuY. Bilateral value-added service investment in platform competition with cross-side network effects under multihoming. European Journal of Operational Research, 2023, 304(3): 952-963

[53] SunC, JiY. For better or for Worse: Impacts of IoT technology in e-commerce channel. Production and Operations Management, 2022, 31(3): 1353-1371

[54] TanB, AndersonE G, ParkerG G. Platform pricing and investment to drive third-party value creation in two-sided networks. Information Systems Research, 2020, 31(1): 217-239

[55] Vilas-BoasJ L, RodriguesJ J P C, AlbertiA M. Convergence of distributed ledger technologies with digital twins, IoT, and AI for fresh food logistics: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 2023, 31: 100393

[56] WangJ, ShinH. The impact of contracts and competition on upstream innovation in a supply chain. Production and Operations Management, 2015, 24(1): 134-146

[57] WangY, YinR, ChenX, WebsterS. Investment efforts under complementary sourcing: The role of market risk and endogenous pricing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2022, 24(5): 2595-2610

[58] WuC, JinC, VeeraraghavanS. Designing professional services: Pricing and prioritization. Production and Operations Management, 2023, 32(8): 2579-2595

[59] WuD J, DingM, HittL M, DingM. IT implementation contract design: Analytical and experimental investigation of IT value. Information Systems Research, 2013, 24(3): 787-801

[60] XinM, ChoudharyV. IT investment under competition: The role of implementation failure. Management Science, 2019, 65(4): 1909-1925

[61] XinM, SundararajanA. Nonlinear pricing of software with local demand inelasticity. Information Systems Research, 2020, 31(4): 1224-1239

[62] YalcinT, OfekE, KoenigsbergO, BiyalogorskyE, OfekE. Complementary goods: Creating, capturing, and competing for value. Marketing Science, 2013, 32(4): 554-569

[63] YangM, JacobV S, RaghunathanS. Cloud service model’s role in provider and user security investment incentives. Production and Operations Management, 2021, 30(2): 419-437

[64] ZhangZ, NanG, TanY. Cloud services vs. Onpremises software: Competition under security risk and product customization. Information Systems Research, 2020, 31(3): 848-864

[65] ZhuW, XieJ, XiaY, WeiL, LiangL. Getting more third-party participants on board: Optimal pricing and investment decisions in competitive platform ecosystems. European Journal of Operational Research, 2023, 307(1): 177-192

[66] ZovkoK, EriL, PerkoviT, et al.. IoT and health monitoring wearable devices as enabling technologies for sustainable enhancement of life quality in smart environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2023, 413: 137506

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany