CONTACTS

Ing. Jacopo Manotti

Ph.D. Candidate in Strategy & Entrepreneurship

Research Titled: Strategizing in the New Space Economy: a Business Model Perspective
Politecnico di Milano – Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering Milan, Italy

Researcher, Hi-tech Startups Observatory

Researcher, Space Economy Observatory
Digital Innovation Observatories

Visiting Researcher and Member of the Oxford Space Initiative (OxSI)

Said Business School, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Contacts:
E-mail: jacopo.manotti@polimi.it
LinkedIn: Jacopo Manotti, Politecnico di Milano

2
AGENDA

1.THE SECRET OF MULTISIDED

PLATFORMS

2.SHARING ECONOMY PLATFORMS

THE SECRET OF MULTI-SIDED PLATFORMS
Idle Asset Hunters
DIGITAL PLATFORMS ARE THE «NEW BLACK»
DIGITAL PLATFORMS ARE THE «NEW BLACK»

MULTI-SIDED PLATFORMS The DIGITAL REVOLUTION

Businesses characterized by having two or more
groups of customers, linked through cross-side
network externalities (Katz and Shapiro, 1985).
An intermediary platform managing the system (Evans,
2003).
• Digital technologies provided the infrastructure for
rapid scaling (Huang et al., 2017).
• Their entrance in the market often leads to
disruptive effect on incumbents (Trabucchi et al.,
2019).

Peculiar resource configurations as compared to
traditional businesses (Amit and Han, 2017).
Both sides are customers of the platform - traditionally
one side serves as supply and one as demand
(Täuscher and Laudien, 2018)
• Their digital nature enables them to exploit the
value of wide amounts of data available (Trabucchi
et al., 2017)
• They can reach wide audiences at low cost and thus
expand more easily (Acs et al., 2002).

Their design is more complex than traditional businesses, as they require separate value
propositions that need to be appealing to all sides involved (Muzellec et al., 2015).
BUSINESS MODELS AND MSPS

Business model as unit of analysis in strategy describing the logic of the firm (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010;
Cortimiglia et al., 2016): the architecture of mechanisms that enable to generate added value for one (or more) given
groups of customers, make it available to them, and then seize it back in terms of profits (Teece, 2010). → value is the core
concept around which the firm’s logic revolves

Traditional BMs are now challenged by the rise of MSPs, leveraging digital technologies to adopt novel resource
configurations (Sussan and Acs, 2017) - acting as an intermediary between different kinds of "customers", matching
supply and demand of a given resource (Amit and Han, 2017).

Transition from traditional firms leveraging their internal resources to rework raw materials coming from a supplier and
offer them to the market (Porter and Millar, 1985), to platform companies acting as intermediaries that match suppliers of
ready-to-use products or services with end-users (Priem et al., 2018).

Value stems from the interaction between users and agents (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2018), enabled by positive network
effects occurring between the sides (Katz and Shapiro, 1985) resulting in value co-creation (Sussan and Acs, 2017).

→ how do value mechanisms and their evolution work in MSPs ?

TWO PARADIGMATIC CASES

2008: TRAVEL ON A BUDGET 2009: RIDE HALING PLATFORM

2014: AIRBNB TRIPS - “belong anywhere” • 2014: UBER EATS

2017: AIRBNB CITIZEN • 2019: UBER MOVEMENT

1) SOLVING THE MARKET FRICTION

Source: Trabucchi, Sanasi, Ghezzi and Buganza, 2021

2) EXPLOITING THE CRITICAL MASS

Source: Trabucchi, Sanasi, Ghezzi and Buganza, 2021

3) CAPTURING UNAWARE CO-CREATED VALUE

Source: Trabucchi, Sanasi, Ghezzi and Buganza, 2021

MULTI-SIDED BUSINESS MODEL

• Multiple value creation

and capture flows
• Concept of value
exchange
• Unaware value co-
creation process
• Multi-sided value
proposition as the sum
of the single sides’
value propositions

Source: Trabucchi, Sanasi, Ghezzi and Buganza, 2021

CONCLUSIONS

• Identifying the behavior of value

mechanisms in MSBMs
• Provide guidelines on how to
evolve and innovate platform
BMs
• Once the first two sides are on
board, new idle assets will be
created to be exploited.
• These new idle assets re-open
the cycle: as the value
embedded in emerging idle
assets is available to be
leveraged, new sides may join.

Source: Trabucchi, Sanasi, Ghezzi and Buganza, 2021

SHARING ECONOMY UNICORNS

Sharing Economy unicorns

$108 B $17+ B

$72 B $4,3 B

$62 B $3 B

$20 B $2 B

Source: CB Insights Global Unicorns 2021, NASDAQ

SHARING ECONOMY PLAYERS IN ITALY

In Italy

BeMyEye Helbiz Mimoto

Eni Enjoy Everli ProntoPro

Movi Fazland Moovenda

SHARING ECONOMY “SYNONYMS” FROM THE LITERATURE
LITERATURE REVIEW: THREE RESEARCH STREAMS CROSSED

PSYCHOLOGY
INFORMATION and CONSUMER
SYSTEMS BEHAVIOR

MANAGEMENT
SYNONYMS OF SHARING ECONOMY FROM THE LITERATURE

33
DIFFERENT EXISTING
ACADEMIC DEFINTIONS
DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS EMERGING FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW
“Sharing involves the act and process of
distributing what is ours to others for their use
and/or the act and process of receiving or taking
something from others for our use.”
(Belk, 2007)
“Collaborative consumption is people
coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a
resource for a fee or other compensation.”
(Belk, 2014)
There are two commonalities in these
sharing and collaborative consumption
practices:
1) their use of temporary access non-
ownership models of utilizing
consumer goods and services, and
2) their reliance on the Internet, and
especially Web 2.0, to bring this
about.
(Belk, 2014)
DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS EMERGING FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW
“Collaborative Consumption is enabling
people to realize the enormous benefits
of access to products and services over
ownership, and at the same time save
money, space, and time; make new
friends; and become active citizens once
again.”
(Botsman & Rogers, 2011)
“Collaborative Consumption: a social and
economic system driven by network technologies
that enables the sharing and exchange of assets
from spaces to skills to cars in ways and on a scale
never possible before.”
(Botsman, 2012)
“I define the collaborative economy as a system
that activates the untapped value of all kinds of
assets through models and marketplaces that
enable greater efficiency and access.”
(Botsman, 2014)
THE CONCEPT OF “PEER” AND “PEER-TO-PEER”

PEER PEER-TO-PEER (P2P)

from “par” the Latin word for “equal” The participants of such a
network are resource
providers as well as resource
requestors
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1 2 3 4
FRAME DEFINE CLASSIFY MAP

The antecedents The phenomenon Through a set of Relevant cases

variables
DIGITALLY-ENABLED SHARING ECONOMY:
A MACRO-LEVEL FRAMEWORK
MACRO-LEVEL FRAMEWORK
DIGITALLY-ENABLED SHARING ECONOMY:
A DEFINITION
 Digitally-enabled Sharing Economy
the access-based socioeconomic system, enabled by
digital technologies and matchmaking platforms,
where businesses or individuals get access to, share
and exchange tangible and intangible assets they do
not necessarily own;
and receive a monetary and/or non-monetary
compensation in return.
DIGITALLY-ENABLED SHARING ECONOMY:
A MICRO-LEVEL CLASSIFICATION
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS: SAMPLE AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

195
Startups
26 Italian startups
RESEARCH 169 international startups
SAMPLE
Database sources:
Crunchbase international startups
ALBA (proprietary DB) Italian startups

Source: Hi-tech Startups Observatory, 2018

CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES
1) SHARING VOCATION

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Not peer-to-peer Not peer-to-peer Peer-to-peer
+ + +
One to many Many to many Many to many
Platforms owning the Platforms act as match- Platforms act as match-
shared asset act as service makers between users of makers between peers.
providers. different kinds.
1A) PEER-TO-PEER OR NOT PEER-TO-PEER

Peer-to-peer Not peer-to-peer

Users can get any role in Users cannot exchange
the sharing process. roles in the sharing
process (e.g., they are
two different actor types)
1B) ROLE OF THE PLATFORM IN THE SHARING PROCESS

Match-making Ownership of the

Many to many
The platform only acts as an
intermediary making demand and
offer meet.
shared asset
One to many
The platform owns the asset and
users can make use of it.
2) TYPE OF ACTORS INVOLVED

ASSUMPTIONS:
• P2P: Peers
When actors on the demand and supply sides are the same type of actor
• Sharing originates in the consumer side
The sharing phenomenon is stronger if the supplier is a consumer
• Mixed models are closer to a consumer configuration
When both businesses and consumers can stand on one of the sides, business actors behave more
similarly to consumers
• Supply side drives classification
The actor standing on the supply side of the relationship has a stronger impact on the nature of the
sharing phenomenon

C2C B2B B2B2C C2B B2C

3) PRICING STRUCTURE

ASSUMPTIONS:
• User perspective
What are the costs users need to bear when using the platform?
• With multiple revenue streams use a weighted average
Platforms normally have more than one revenue stream: calculating their
average groups polarized solutions and leaves more diversified ones in the
middle

Free Sale of Freemium Consumption Subscription with Subscription Flat

complementary fee threshold + subscription
services + Consumption fee rate
Consumption fee
beyond
threshold
4) TANGIBILITY LEVEL

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Service Product-service Bundle Product
Services such as A combination of one or more Different types of goods
transportation, delivery, products and services that can such as money, space,
hospitality, care, … only be offered together vehicles, energy, objects, ...
5) NR. OF SIDES INVOLVED IN THE SHARING PROCESS

2 sides sharing 2 sides sharing 3 sides

Typical sharing configuration +
1 not sharing
sharing
All three sides take part to
Configuration where two sides
the sharing process,
actively take part to the sharing
although normally with two
process, while one only benefits
different value propositions
from it.
 CLASSIFICATION OUTCOMES:
MAPPING SHARING ECONOMY COMPANIES AND
STARTUPS
1) PSEUDO-SHARING

Nr. of sides involved in

Tangibility level Actors type Sharing vocation Pricing structure
the sharing process

• Consumption fee
Low
High 2 sides sharing B2C • One to many
• Flat subscription
rate
• Roles are not • Subscription +
(Goods) Consumption fee
exchangeable
2) GIG ECONOMY

Nr. of sides involved in

Tangibility level Actors type Sharing vocation Pricing structure
the sharing process

Low C2C High • Consumption fee

2 sides sharing • Flat subscription
B2B • Many to many rate
(Services) • Exchangeable roles
3) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Nr. of sides involved in

Tangibility level Actors type Sharing vocation Pricing structure
the sharing process

2 sides sharing
B2B Medium
Low or
C2B • Many to many
• Consumption fee
• Flat subscription
2 sides sharing + rate
(Services) 1 not sharing B2C • Roles are not
exchangeable
4) POOLING ECONOMY

Nr. of sides involved in

Tangibility level Actors type Sharing vocation Pricing structure
the sharing process

Medium 2 sides sharing C2C

High • Consumption fee
• Flat subscription
(Product-service • Many to many rate
bundles) • Exchangeable roles
5) P2P LENDING

Nr. of sides involved in

Tangibility level Actors type Sharing vocation Pricing structure
the sharing process

C2C High
High 2 sides sharing B2B • Consumption fee
• Many to many
(Goods) B/C2B/C • Exchangeable roles
TAKEAWAYS

Sharing Economy
It is here to stay.
THANKYOU

CONTACT INFORMATION LEGAL NOTES