The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of Openness on the Market Potential of Multi-Sided Platforms: A Case Study of Mobile Payment Platforms
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/154247603322493212 · Cited by 5,642
Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers
Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1593720 · Cited by 1,799
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0323 · Cited by 1,514
The Economics of Two-Sided Markets
Rysman, M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.23.3.125 · Cited by 1,261 · cited 4×
“The growth of multi-sided platforms depends simultaneously on the positive sameside and cross-side network effects (Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005; Rysman, 2009).”
BackgroundInfluentialWest, J. (2003) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00052-0 · Cited by 854
Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software1
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410417 · Cited by 794
Some Empirical Aspects of Multi-sided Platform Industries
Evans, D. S. (2003) · Review of Network Economics · doi:10.2202/1446-9022.1026 · Cited by 605
Innovation, Openness, and Platform Control
Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2757 · Cited by 549
Cited by
The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda
de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3 · Cited by 1,681
Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4 · Cited by 945
Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm1
Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.1.13 · Cited by 624
A critical review of mobile payment research
Dahlberg, T., Guo, J., & Ondrus, J. (2015) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2015.07.006 · Cited by 592
Self-citationConfigurations of platform organizations: Implications for complementor engagement
Saadatmand, F., Lindgren, R., & Schultze, U. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.015 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- Authors
- Ondrus, J., Gannamaneni, A., & Lyytinen, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Information Technology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 260-275
- ISSN
- 0268-3962 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4437
- OpenAlex
- W2067625200
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 34.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Impact of Openness on the Market Potential of Multi-Sided Platforms: A Case Study of Mobile Payment Platforms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/jit.2015.7
- The paper
- Ondrus, J., Gannamaneni, A., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). The Impact of Openness on the Market Potential of Multi-Sided Platforms: A Case Study of Mobile Payment Platforms. Journal of Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.