A multi-sided platform can only succeed if a critical mass of users can join. This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a platform's success. However, there is a limited understanding of the factors that contribute to reaching such critical mass. In this study we identify ways to determine the market potential of a platform and to reach critical mass. We particularly enrich past studies by exploring how the openness of a platform influences market potential. We examine openness at three levels – provider, technology, and user level – and ask the question: to what extent can opening (or closing) each level increase or decrease a platform's market potential? The provider level recognizes the strategic involvement of key stakeholders that provide a platform. The technology level is concerned with the interoperability of a platform across different technologies. The user level relates to what extent a platform discriminates different segments of the customer base. On the basis of analytical modeling and theoretical analysis, we formulate four propositions concerning the effects of openness on platforms’ market potential. We illustrate the strength of propositions through a confirmatory case study, which is informed by five theoretically sampled cases. The cases illustrate cogently the effects of opening different levels of a multi-sided platform. In conclusion, we propose a decision model that can assist decision making concerning the opening of a platform to catalyze its growth.
BaldwinC.Y., and WoodardC.J. (2009). The Architecture of Platforms: A unified view, in GawerA. (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 19–44.
BoudreauK. (2010). Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control, Management Science56 (10): 1849–1872.
12.
BoudreauK.J., and HagiuA. (2008). Platform Rules: Multi-Sided platforms as regulators, in GawerA. (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation, London: Edward Elgar, pp. 163–191.
13.
BradfordT., and HayashiF. (2007). Complex Landscapes: Mobile Payments in Japan, South Korea, and the United States, Payments System Research Briefing. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Available at: http://www.kc.frb.org/PUBLICAT/PSR/Briefings/PSR-BriefingSept07.pdf, (accessed 20 February 2015).
14.
CaillaudB., and JullienB. (2003). Chicken & Egg: Competition among intermediation service Providers, The RAND Journal of Economics34 (2): 309–328.
15.
CeccagnoliM., FormanC., HuangP., and WuD.J. (2012). Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The case of enterprise software, MIS Quarterly36 (1): 263–290.
16.
ChakravortiS., and RosonR. (2006). Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets: The case of payment networks, Review of Network Economics5 (1): 118–142.
17.
ChauP.Y.K., and PoonS. (2003). Octopus: An e-cash payment system success story, Communications of the ACM46 (9): 129–133.
EconomidesN., and KatsamakasE. (2006). Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry, Management Science52 (7): 1057–1071.
26.
EconomidesN., and TågJ. (2012). Network Neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis, Information Economics and Policy24 (2): 91–104.
27.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, The Academy of Management Review14 (4): 532–550.
28.
EisenmannT.R. (2008). Managing Proprietary and Shared Platforms, California Management Review50 (4): 31–53.
29.
EisenmannT., ParkerG., and AlstyneM. (2006). Strategies for Two-Sided Markets, Harvard Business Review84 (10): 92–101.
30.
EisenmannT.R., ParkerG., and Van AlystyneM. (2009). Opening Platforms: How, when and why? in A. Gawer (ed.)Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 131–162.
31.
EisenmannT., ParkerG., and Van AlstyneM. (2011). Platform Envelopment, Strategic Management Journal32 (12): 1270–1285.
EvansD.S. (2003). Some Empirical Aspects of Multi-Sided Platform Industries, Review of Network Economics2 (3): 191–209.
34.
EvansD.S. (2009). How Catalysts Ignite: The economics of platform-based start-ups, in GawerA. (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp 99–129.
35.
EvansD.S. (2012). Governing Bad Behavior by Users of Multi-Sided Platforms, Berkeley Technology Law Journal27 (2): 1201–1250.
36.
EvansD.S., HagiuA., and SchmalenseeR. (2006). Invisible Engines, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
37.
EvansD.S., and SchmalenseeR. (2007). The Industrial Organization of Markets with Two-Sided Platforms, Competition Policy Internat3 (1): 151–179.
38.
EvansD.S., and SchmalenseeR. (2010). Failure to Launch: Critical mass in platform businesses, Review of Network Economics9 (4): 1–26.
GabszewiczJ., and WauthyX. (2004). Two-sided markets and price competition with multi-homing, CORE Discussion Paper No. 2004030.
43.
GaryL. (2004). Is there A Multisided Market in Your Future?Harvard Management Update9 (5): 3–5.
44.
GawerA. (2009). Platforms, Markets and Innovation: An introduction, in GawerA. (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 1–16.
45.
GawerA., and CusumanoM.A. (2002). Platform Leadership, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
46.
GawerA., and HendersonR. (2007). Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from intel, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy16 (1): 1–34.
47.
GreensteinS. (1996). Invisible Hand Versus Invisible Advisors: Coordination mechanisms in economic networks, in NoamE., and NishuilleabhainA. (eds.) Private Networks, Public Objectives, Amsterdam and New York: North-Holland, pp 135–161.
48.
HagiuA. (2006a). Pricing and Commitment by Two-Sided Platforms, The RAND Journal of Economics37 (3): 720–737.
HansethO., and LyytinenK. (2010). Design Theory for Dynamic Complexity in Information Infrastructures: The case of building internet, Journal of Information Technology25 (1): 1–19.
MahajanV., MullerE., and BassF.M. (1990). New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A review and directions for research, Journal of Marketing54 (1): 1–26.
61.
MarkusM.L. (1987). Toward a ‘Critical Mass’ Theory of Interactive Media: Universal access, interdependence and diffusion, Communication Research14 (5): 491–511.
OndrusJ., LyytinenK., and PigneurY. (2009). Why mobile payments fail? Towards a dynamic and multi-perspective explanation, in 42th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'09) (Big Island, HI, 5–8 January); Big Island, HI: IEEE Computer Society. 1–10.
67.
OndrusJ., and PigneurY. (2009). Near Field Communication: An assessment for future payment systems, Information Systems and e-Business Management7 (3): 347–361.
68.
OzcanP., and SantosF.M. (2014). The Market that Never Was: Turf wars and failed alliances in mobile payments, Strategic Management Journal, advance online publication 19 May, doi:10.1002/smj.2292.
69.
ParkerG., and Van AlstyneM.W. (2005). Two-Sided Network Effects: A theory of information product design, Management Science51 (10): 1494–1504.
70.
ParkerG., and Van AlstyneM.W. (2010). Innovation, openness & platform control, in Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (Cambridge, MA, 7–11 June); New York: Association for Computer Machinery. 95–96.
PousttchiK. (2008). A Modeling Approach and Reference Models for the Analysis of Mobile Payment Use Cases, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications7 (2): 182–201.
RosonR. (2005). Two-Sided Markets: A tentative survey, Review of Network Economics4 (2): 142–160.
80.
RysmanM. (2009). The Economics of Two-Sided Markets, Journal of Economic Perspectives23 (3): 125–143.
81.
SarkerS., and LeeA.S. (2002). Using A Positivist Case Research Methodology to Test Three Competing Theories-in-Use of Business Process Redesign, Journal of the Association for Information Systems2 (1): 237–252.
82.
ShapiroC., and VarianH.R. (1998). Information Rules: A strategic guide to the network economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
TiwanaA., KonsynskiB., and BushA.A. (2010). Research Commentary – Platform Evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics, Information Systems Research21 (4): 675–687.
VenkateshV., MorrisM.G., DavisG.B., and DavisF.D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly27 (3): 425–478.
