Repainting the Business Model Canvas for Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption

This research paper discusses the development of a service for electric vehicle charging that adopts the paradigm of Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption (P2P SCC) and the adapted version of the Business Model Canvas that is specifically tailored to the needs of P2P SCC business model development.

Association for Information Systems
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)
Research Papers ECIS 2017 Proceedings
Spring 6-10-2017
REPAINTING THE BUSINESS MODEL
CANVAS FOR PEER-TO-PEER SHARING
AND COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION
Florian Plenter
University of Muenster, ERCIS, Münster, Germany, [e-mail]
Erwin Fielt
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, [e-mail]
Moritz Hoffen
University of Muenster, ERCIS, Münster, Germany,, [e-mail]
Friedrich Chasin
University of Muenster, ERCIS, Münster, Germany, [e-mail]
Michael Rosemann
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, [e-mail]
Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2017_rp
This material is brought to you by the ECIS 2017 Proceedings at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion
by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [e-mail].
Recommended Citation
Plenter, Florian; Fielt, Erwin; Hoffen, Moritz; Chasin, Friedrich; and Rosemann, Michael, (2017). "REPAINTING THE B
MODEL CANVAS FOR PEER-TO-PEER SHARING AND COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION". In Proceedings of the 25th
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, June 5-10, 2017 (pp. 2234-2249). ISBN
978-989-20-7655-3 Research Papers.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2017_rp/142

REPAINTING THE BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS FOR
PEER-TO-PEER SHARING AND COLLABORATIVE
CONSUMPTION
Research Paper
Florian Plenter, University of Muenster, ERCIS, Münster, Germany,
[e-mail]
Erwin Fielt, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia,
[e-mail]
Moritz von Hoffen, University of Muenster, ERCIS, Münster, Germany,
[e-mail]
Friedrich Chasin, University of Muenster, ERCIS, Münster, Germany,
[e-mail]
Michael Rosemann, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia,
[e-mail]
Abstract
Sharing Economy businesses have become very popular recently but there is little guidance available
on how to develop the respective business models. We faced this problem during a consortium research
project for developing a service for electric vehicle charging that adopts the paradigm of Peer-to-Peer
Sharing and Collaborative Consumption (P2P SCC)—a specific branch of the Sharing Economy. We
use Action Design Research (ADR) to develop an adapted version of the Business Model Canvas that
is specifically tailored to the needs of P2P SCC business model development. The adapted canvas is
then applied to develop a business model for the proposed service. The learnings from the develop-
ment process are formalized into a set of generally applicable guidelines for the development of P2P
SCC business models. The resulting guidelines and the adapted canvas provide guidance for both re-
searchers and practitioners who want to either develop new or analyze existing P2P SCC business models.
Keywords: Business Models, Business Model Canvas, Sharing Economy, Peer-to-Peer Sharing and
Collaborative Consumption, Action Design Research
1 Introduction
The Sharing Economy has become ubiquitous in our daily lives. Not only in media coverage on legal dis-
putes and enraged taxi drivers who protest against Uber’s latest market entry, but especially on its growing
market share: Suddenly, we find ourselves in a world where the largest provider for accommodation does
not own a single room and the largest taxi provider does not own a single car (McRae, 2015). Originally
describing the communication between two or more computers (Gassmann et al., 2014), technological
development like the Internet, personal computers, and smartphones enabled peer-to-peer to become the
underlying concept of a plethora of services that enable shared access to almost all thinkable resources,
ranging from power tools and 3D-printers (3dhubs.com) to private jets (Sharejetexchange.com), and even
pets (borrowmydoggy.com).
We summarize these concepts under the term of Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption
(P2P SCC). While we see new P2P SCC services being introduced to the market every day, many of them
are not made to last and leave the market as quick as they appeared in the first place.
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
Developing a new P2P SCC service, a proper development and evaluation of the service’s business
model is crucial for future market success. Business model research has received much attention lately,
especially in the field of information systems (Fichman et al., 2014; Veit et al., 2014). Amongst the many
frameworks and tools available to support the process of describing, developing, and evaluating a business
model, the Business Model Canvas (BMC) by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) is very popular. One factor
for the BMC’s popularity and success lies in its simplicity and its universal applicability to almost all
types of business models. When it comes to very specific business models, this advantage may soon
become a disadvantage, as important factors cannot be adequately described using the traditional BMC.
We find that this is potentially the case for the archetype of P2P SCC business models.
We gained first-hand experience of this issue during the development process of CrowdStrom—a novel
P2P SCC service for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. At an early point of the development process,
team members comprising researchers and practitioners from the consortium research project met in a
series of workshops to develop the service’s business model. While applying theBMC to describe the
business model, we faced several challenges matching the workshops’ results regarding the proposed
business model to the BMC. The challenges mainly referred to the different customer roles in P2P SCC—
the peer-provider and the peer-consumer and the resulting implications for the whole business model.
Recognizing special characteristics of P2P SCC business models, we set out to identify aspects that have
to be considered when developing aP2P SCC business model. We will thus answer the following research
questions:
1. What are the key dimensions and characteristics of a P2P SCC business model?
2. How can the analysis and the design of P2P SCC business models be supported?
We use the Action Design Research (ADR) method (Sein et al., 2011) that combines the strengths of
Design Science Research (DSR ) (Hevner et al., 2004) and Action Research (AR) (Susman et al., 1978)
to generate design knowledge by building and evaluating information technology ( IT ) artifacts in an
organizational setting (Sein et al., 2011).ADR comprises four stages of Problem Formulation (1), Building,
Intervention, and Evaluation (2), Reflection and Learning (3), and Formalization of Learning (4) (Sein
et al., 2011) which are applied as follows. After having identified the ill fit ofP2P SCC business models
to traditional tools for business model development (1: Problem Formulation), we identified dimensions
and corresponding characteristics of P2P SCC services and used them in a series of iterative workshops
to derive an adapted version of the BMC specifically designed for the application within the domain of
P2P SCC. This adapted version was consequently used to develop the business model for CrowdStrom
(2: Building, Intervention, and Evaluation). Results from stages 1 and 2 were continuously reflected
and led to the extension of the knowledge base (3: Reflection and Learning). From the characteristics of
P2P SCC as well as project specific learnings from the adapted canvas and its subsequent application to
CrowdStrom, we derived a set of guidelines for developing P2P SCC business models as a formalized
learning that can be applied to a broader class of problems (4: Formalization of Learning) (Sein et al.,
2011).
We contribute to research on business models and P2P SCC in presenting the guidelines for the
development of P2P SCC. Our contribution to practice lies in the adapted BMC that is easily applicable
to any business entity that aims at developing or analyzing P2P SCC business models.
2 Research Background
2.1 Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption
In the last decade, the term “Sharing Economy” has gained popularity and has been used to refer
to various phenomena. Most businesses that claim their belonging to the Sharing Economy have in
common that they enable others access or utilization of an asset. Concrete instantiations are however based
on different economic transactions such as “true sharing” (Belk, 2014a), swapping, renting, reselling,
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2235

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
co-owning, lending, or donating (Owyang et al., 2013). While the concept of sharing assets with others has
been customary in families or communities for a very long time, the advent of modernIT and information
systems (IS s) introduced a new era for sharing and thus the rise of the Sharing Economy (Codagnone and
Martens, 2016; Gassmann et al., 2014). The ability to offer an asset via Internet-enabled marketplaces
opened up an unprecedentedly great audience and also lead to a sharp decrease in transaction costs (e.g.,
for information gathering and coordinating the transaction).
Today, the Sharing Economy has grown into a ubiquitous phenomenon and has entered (and sometimes
disrupted) many markets like transportation (e.g., Uber), accommodation (e.g., Airbnb), lending (e.g.,
Lending Club), labor mediation (e.g., TaskRabbit), goods (e.g., sharetribe), and services (e.g., 3D Hubs).
Sharing Economy is a relatively young phenomenon and there is a multitude of terms used to describe it
or its sub-phenomena, with many of them often used interchangeably and inconsistently (Codagnone and
Martens, 2016). Some examples are “collaborative consumption” (Botsman, 2013; Botsman and Rogers,
2010), “access-based consumption” (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2014a), or “the mesh” (Gansky,
2010). An important distinction is whether the transaction results in a permanent transfer of ownership or
is just of temporary nature. The focus on transactions that exclude the transfer of ownership and focus
on temporary access instead is identified in the literature as a general trend (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012;
Frenken et al., 2015) and helps differentiatingP2P SCC transactions from traditional business transactions
like selling or reselling.
The second important distinctive feature is whether the transaction is unilateral or includes some
kind of compensation, which is typically monetary. Belk (2014a,b) differentiates “true sharing” that
does not involve any reciprocity from “pseudo-sharing” which represents short-term rental activities or a
business relationship that makes use of the sharing vocabulary. According to Botsman and Rogers (2010,
p.17) “collaborative consumption” can be seen as “traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting,
gifting, and swapping, redefined through technology and peer communities”. This also highlights another
important aspect—the participation of private individuals (i.e., peers) at both ends of the transaction, which
is facilitated by an intermediary. Another categorization by OECD (2015) differentiates Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
selling, P2P sharing, and crowdsourcing.
The focus of our research lays on Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption that represent
a subset of the Sharing Economy. More specifically, P2P SCC transactions do not involve the transfer
of ownership and thus exclude sale, swapping, or exchange. They can be further differentiated into
sharing (without compensation) and collaborative consumption (with compensation). Hence, P2P SCC
can be defined using the following characteristics (Von Hoffen et al., 2015): a) an economic transaction
between individuals, b) that does not involve ownership transfer, c) vary on the scale between sharing and
commerce, d) that is enabled by IT, and e) requires a physical object that is owned by a peer-provider who
grants access to it.
Figure 1 shows a morphological box that provides a structured view on the different economic
transactions that can be performed on the IT-enabled marketplaces. Furthermore, it depicts possible
P2P SCC transactions and thus represents the scope of this paper. In aP2P SCC transaction, no permanent
transfer of ownership takes place, but the type of relationship between the participants of an economic
transaction can be either qualitative (Sharing) or quantitative (Collaborative Consumption). Additionally,
a physical resource is involved and required in the transaction. In Figure 1, manifestations that are not
considered to belong to the class of P2P SCC are included to show the complete spectrum but are greyed
out (i.e., where resource owner takes value of “only business” or where resource is “intangible”)1.
2.2 Business Models
Business models are a highly researched topic that has become increasingly relevant in business and
management in general (Wirtz et al., 2016; Zott et al., 2011) as well as in information systems (Fichman
1 To avoid the redundant description of the dimensions within the morphological box, we included the description of the
remaining dimensions into the Table 1
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2236

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
Figure 1. Representation of Different Economic Transactions Performed Through IT-enabled
Marketplaces
et al., 2014; Veit et al., 2014). Especially the emergence of new technologies is identified as a driver for
the development of new or the transformation of traditional business models (Pateli and Giaglis, 2004;
Teece, 2010). The business model concept is not only a management tool for analyzing current business
logic and planning strategic decisions, but also valuable for communicating a business’s idea to investors
(Burkhart et al., 2011).
The literature offers a plethora of definitions of the term business model and while none of them is
generally accepted, most have the creation of (customer) value at their core (Fielt, 2013). Chesbrough
(2006, p.108) states that a business model performs two important functions: value creation and value
capture. We use the definition provided by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010, p.14), according to which “a
business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value”.
To better understand, analyze and develop a business model, it is necessary to understand the composi-
tional elements describing what a business model is made-off. There are many frameworks for describing a
business model such as theBMC (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), the Four Box Business Model (Johnson
et al., 2006), the STOF model (Bouwman et al., 2008), or Business Model Schematics (Weill and Vitale,
2001). The BMC is probably the most widely accepted and established framework that can be used for
describing, discussing, and designing business models. It supports innovative design techniques and tools
like customer insights, ideation, visual thinking, prototyping, or storytelling (Osterwalder and Pigneur,
2010). Moreover, the BMC has a solid foundation in the Business Model Ontology (Osterwalder, 2004),
which synthesizes most of the other business model frameworks and elements at that time (e.g., Afuah and
Tucci, 2000; Hamel, 2002; Magretta, 2002). TheBMC (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010) consists of nine
elements, which are represented in a visual template: (1) an organization serves one or several Customer
Segments, (2) it seeks to solve customer problems and satisfy customer needs with Value Propositions, (3)
Value Propositions are delivered to customers through communication, distribution, and sales channels,
(4) Customer Relationships are established and maintained with each Customer Segment, (5) Revenue
Streams result from Value Propositions successfully offered to Customer Segments, (6) Key Resources are
the assets required to offer and deliver the previously described elements, (7) by performing a number of
Key Activities, (8) some activities are outsourced and some resources are acquired outside the enterprise
via Key Partnerships, and (9) the business model elements result in the Cost Structure.
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2237

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
Specific types of business models, such as peer-to-peer sharing, have received considerable attention in
past business model research. Business model archetypes have been discussed individually or collectively
as part of a classification (e.g., Gassmann et al., 2014; Johnson, 2010).
Early research focuses on peer-to-peer file sharing as the first instances of IT -enabled peer-to-peer
sharing (Hughes et al., 2008; Krishnan et al., 2006; Kwok et al., 2002). With the rise of typical Sharing
Economy business models, the focus of the research shifted towards specific archetypes of Sharing
Economy business models like virtual communities (Lechner and Hummel, 2002), shared mobility (Cohen
and Kietzmann, 2014), sustainability (Bocken et al., 2014), or trade between two enterprises (Cho et al.,
2014). Sometimes classifications make use of business model frameworks to systematically describe each
business model archetype, as abstract presentation or exemplary instantiation, with the help of the business
model framework, for example, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) use the BMC template to describe the
multi-sided platform business model with Google as example. What is missing in research on Sharing
Economy business models is a holistic approach to the topic that describes business models from the
Sharing Economy or more specifically P2P SCC and offers guidance to researchers and practitioners
alike in designing and developing such business models. Putting it in the words of Cohen and Kietzmann
(2014, p.294), “there is a dearth of research of how sharing economy business models work, what their
sustainability impacts are, and how they are able to align incentives with key stakeholders to ensure
longevity of their operations”.
A Sharing Economy platform can be seen as a two-sided market or two-sided network as a platform
connecting two groups of users that form supply and demand for a certain product or service (Eisenmann
et al., 2006). Although there is vast literature also covering specific aspects of these business models
(Eisenmann et al., 2006; Keskin and Kennedy, 2015; Rochet and Tirole, 2003; Rysman, 2009), there is
no general overview on how to develop a business model, especially not one that considers the special
characteristics of P2P SCC.
3 Building, Intervention, and Evaluation
Analogously to the joint research project’s composition, the ADR team consisted of researchers from
several departments (Information Systems, Marketing, and Business Administration) and practitioners
from the industry partners. The IS researchers also take the roles of designers of the business model as
well as developers of the underlyingIT solution. After the initial problem had been identified, we searched
the literature as well as the organizational experience from the industry partners for existing solutions
to our problem. We considered other theories (e.g., on two sided markets), but always came back to the
BMC due to its general applicability, its ease of use, and its familiarity with the industry partners. We
then decided to alter the BMC so that it would fit to our problem and subsequently followed the stages of
ADR to develop the adapted BMC for P2P SCC.
The adapted canvas was developed during workshops in several iterations, where problems and
potential improvements were discussed with the ADR team. Based on these grounds, possible design
alterations were discussed and a temporary version concluded for each workshop. The temporary version
of the canvas would then be more extensively tested by the practitioners whose feedback on the temporary
canvas’ would then be the basis for a subsequent workshop. Figure 2 shows the stages ofADR that were
performed and their respective outcomes. In the following, we present the process and outcomes of the
stage of Building, Intervention, and Evaluation.
3.1 Dimensions of P2P SCC Business Models
Whereas the morphological box in Figure 1 is intended to provide an overview of different forms
of economic transactions taking place in the Sharing Economy, the following Table 1 summarizes and
describes individual dimensions of P2P SCC business models. This set of dimensions is derived from
the extant literature and is partially adapted and extended to improve the fit to P2P SCC. Moreover,
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2238

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
Problem Formulation
▪ Misfit of Business Model Tools to P2P SCC
Building, Intervention, and Evaluation
▪ Characteristics of P2P SCC Business Models
▪ Adapted Canvas for P2P SCC Business Models
▪ Application of Adapted Canvas to CrowdStrom
Reflection and Learning
▪ Iterative Workshops
Formalization of Learning
▪ Guidelines for the Development of P2P SCC Business Models
1
2 3
4
Figure 2. ADR Process and Outcomes
the findings from a comprehensive survey on 517 P2P SCC platforms are taken into account. These
platforms were sieved out from a large compilation of Internet-enabled platforms that were listed as
Sharing Economy platforms on the two popular Sharing Economy repositories mesh2 and collborative
consumption3 . During the sieving process, all platforms were discarded that do not comply with the
previously mentioned definition ofP2P SCC. After a thorough inspection of the resulting set of platforms,
additional and complementing dimensions were identified. Subsequently, these dimensions were combined
with the characteristics found in the literature. The resulting dimensions and corresponding characteristics
have been evaluated by using them to describe and classify the total of 517 P2P SCC platforms.
Dimension Description
Resource
Type
According to the stated definition of P2P SCC, the resource that is subject to a transaction corresponds to a
physical resource that can be either consumable (e.g., something to eat) or reusable (e.g., a car or bicycle).
Intangible resources hint at services that do not belong to the class of P2P SCC and can be either digital
(e.g., mp3 files) or one’s spare time during which a person is willing to do complete someone else’s task,
comprising all services that to not require a physical resource (e.g., baby-sitting).
Sharing
Pattern
Andersson et al. (2013) name the sharing pattern, comprising of the longitude of the planning horizon and
the uniqueness of the sharing instance, distinguishing deferred, recurrent, and immediate. Deferred P2P SCC
services require an individual planning and longer planning horizon for a unique sharing instance (e.g.,
ridesharing for longer trips). The pattern recurrent refers to a one-time planning horizon that enables the
repeated occurrence of the sharing (e.g., a series of rideshares). The pattern immediate refers to a short
planning horizon for every sharing instance (e.g., on-demand ridesharing).
Platform
Role
The dimension of platform role describes how the platform facilitates the transaction by bringing together
supply (peer-provider) and demand (peer-user) for the shared resource. Hafermalz et al. (2016) propose to
differentiate the following three ways a platform can support the sharing activity: As a meeting space, where
the platform enables the communication between members and leaves it to them to find a suiting partner
for a transaction (e.g., Couchsurfing). On a market place, the platform acts as an intermediary that enables
the transactions between peer-provider and peer-user (e.g., Airbnb). When the platform takes the role of a
matchmaker, it actively connects supply and demand according to specified criteria (e.g., Uber).
Consumer
Involvement
The customer’s involvement in the consumption experience can vary (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). The
consumer can either have no or limited involvement and receive a full-service, or be actively involved in a
self-service like a self-storage.
Money Flow Payment for the transaction—if involved—is described by the dimension money flow. The payment can
either be performed directly between peer-user and peer-provider as a C2C transaction or facilitated via the
platform or a service provider attached to the platform as C2B2C. If the platform is operated for profit that is
generated by charging either peer-provider or peer-user, it will usually facilitate the payment to easily retain
the charged fees per transaction.
2 Homepage mesh: http://meshing.it/ (accessed: 2017-04-21)
3 Homepage Collaborative Consumption:http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/(accessed: 2017-04-21)
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2239

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
Sustainability Sustainability is a very important component of P2P SCC services and is usually distinguished into three cat-
egories, namely environmental, economical, and social (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010). These categories
are adopted and used by the platform providers to promote their business. By sharing a resource with others,
its utilization is increased, theoretically resulting in less resources being required overall and thus increased
environmental and economic sustainability. This is related to a phenomenon often named when talking about
the rise of the Sharing Economy: the consumers’ shift in mentality away from ownership towards pure util-
ity, e.g., using a car sharing service instead of buying a car. Even though, the theoretical argument of an
increased environmental sustainability is doubtful as it may also lead to a higher consumption in total (Ver-
boven and Vanherck, 2016), it is still used for marketing to attract customers (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012).
Economic sustainability meaning lower prices or higher earnings for platform users is arguably the main
motivation for customers. Many platforms also advertise with the community aspect (e.g., to “feel at home
everywhere” (Airbnb, 2016a) instead of the anonymity of a hotel), thus addressing their social sustainability.
Resource
Owner
The owner of a resource can either be private, business or both. This dimension represents one of the core
issues in the current discussion on legal and social problems of P2P SCC services. Many platforms claim
to be facilitating the transaction only between private individuals, but drawn from the market success, the
boundaries between private and business have become blurred. Private individuals become more and more
business-like, e.g., working full-time, paying taxes, and sometimes even employing other people (as seen
with Uber drivers). The other observation is that real businesses have discovered the P2P SCC platforms
as channel to attract new customers and are increasingly offering their services on the platform as a peer-
provider (e.g., a hotel offering their rooms on Airbnb).
Trust The platform’s contribution to trust is a crucial part of P2P SCC platforms in order to facilitate a transaction
between two strangers. Trust can be provided directly through or enabled by the platform. Offering value-
added services like the provision of an insurance or guarantees, checking the users for certain quality criteria
(e.g., peer-provider’s cars have to fulfill certain requirements to be eligible for participation in Uber (Uber,
2016)), or facilitating the payment are means for the intermediary to provide trust through the platform.
Another possibility is to provide certain tools on the platform which enable the community itself to contribute
to trust. Trust on P2P SCC platforms can be generated in three forms that go beyond the common trust in a
corporate service provider. These new forms of trust can provide a strong counterpart to established forms of
trust in traditional B2C models. Trust the majority tools provide transparent insights into the judgements of
the majority as one form of trust. Models involve users and are based on their expression of preferences, e.g.,
by users rating (Keymolen, 2013), vouching for (Lauterbach et al., 2009) or referring each other (Jøsang et al.,
2007). Trust known users refers to the assumption that users rather trade with known (trusted) stakeholders
(e.g., rather rent out their apartment to a friend or a friend of a friend). This is why platforms like Airbnb
incentivize the public display of Facebook friends or at least the number of connections (Airbnb, 2016b).
Depending on the resource sought after, the trusted pool of “friends” might not be able to provide the required
service. In such cases, the concept of trust users like me can be used to derive trust by finding an alter ego.
These means are not exclusive, but can be combined to establish a higher level of trust. The necessary level
of trust highly depends on the type of resource being shared and what possible risks peer-users and peer-
providers perceive by sharing the resource.
Market
Mediation
If and how P2P SCC platforms are operated for profit is described in market mediation (Bardhi and Eckhardt,
2012). Further differentiating the for profit manifestation, platforms can generate profit indirect through ad-
vertisement or customer data or direct by charging the peer-users, the peer-providers, or both. The manifes-
tation of the market mediation is strongly correlated with the type of relationship between peer-provider and
peer-user: the only way for platforms facilitating a qualitative relationship (i.e., sharing) to make profit is to
charge the user or provider a fee for accessing the platform, since the transactions itself do not include any
compensation. Platforms facilitating a quantitative relationship however can make use of all available means
to generate profit, especially by charging the peer-provider as well as the peer-consumer a small part of each
transaction’s value.
Table 1. Dimensions of P2P SCC Business Models
3.2 Adapted Canvas for P2P SCC
In a series of workshops, theADR team applied changes to the originalBMC and evaluated the changes
by applying it to CrowdStrom. We present the final outcome of the adaptedBMC for the development
and description of P2P SCC services. We describe the changes made to the originalBMC resulting in the
adapted canvas and its impact for the business model as a whole. We distinguish between changes made
of the canvas and in the canvas. Changes of the canvas comprise of changes to the structure, where single
elements have been added, edited, or removed. Changes in the canvas are changes related to the content of
a single element, where instructions, information, or possible tools and methods are added.
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2240

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
A challenge during the development process of the adapted canvas was to include all relevant changes
for P2P SCC, while keeping as much of the structure of the original canvas as possible. As the arrangement
of the elements in the originalBMC has important implications for the content and application, we tried to
assume as many of these arrangements as possible. For any user knowing the originalBMC, the adapted
BMC will seem familiar in many aspects, which will be helpful when using it for the first time. Two major
changes were made in the adapted BMC : First, the differentiation of peer-provider and peer-user with
regard to the value propositions and the respective channels and relationships through which this value
proposition is realized. Second, the peer-provider has its own small version of the BMC that underlines
his need for an own, viable business model. The adapted BMC for P2P SCC is shown in Figure 3.
The elements of Key Partners, Key Activities, Key Resources, Cost Structure, and Revenue Streams
remain unchanged from the original BMC. Regarding changes in the canvas, two elements are affected:
In Key Resources, a special focus is on the IT platform, as it enables the transactions in the first place
and takes the central role in connecting or even matching supply and demand. The Revenue Streams
highly depend on if and how the intermediary plans to generate profit. Revenue can be generated directly
from the user and/or provider or indirectly from third parties. The way the intermediary generates his
revenue directly influences the revenue and thus possible profits of the peer-provider. Splitting up the
Value Propositions of the intermediary into one for the peer-provider and one for the peer-user with the
respective relationships and channels is one major adjustment that was made. It enables the intermediary
to consider the different goals and needs of the two customer groups. The individual value propositions
for the Provider Segment and User Segment are communicated via the respective relationships and
channels, where the IT platform, again, plays a central role. User Segment describes the user, whose
role and involvement typically does not differ much from the user in traditional B2C relationships. The
Provider Segment describes the peer-provider and his role and involvement in the overall business model.
It is important to consider the peer-provider’s own business model and its viability to safeguard his
participation. The peer-provider usually faces costs for providing the access to the shared resource (Cost
Structure), and, depending on the type of relationship, he also has Revenue Streams.
The peer-provider’s business model includes his own Value Propositions towards the peer-user that is
communicated and facilitated via own Channels in the Provider-User Relationships. A central part of the
provider’s value proposition is the Core Resource, which is the physical resource that peer-provider grants
access to (e.g., a room or a whole apartment for Airbnb or a car for Uber). The sharing of the resource is
enabled by Complementary Activities and Complementary Resources. One may argue, the peer-provider’s
value proposition to the peer-user is already covered by the value propositions of the intermediary to user
segments. It is however important to explicitly include peer-provider’s value proposition into its business
model, as it forces the intermediary to better understand and thus address the peer-provider’s goals and
needs. Once the provider-user relationship is established, the peer-provider may also try to further expand
it outside of the platform with the same or additional resources (e.g., an Uber driver giving the passenger
his business card for transportation services or offering extra services like snacks or beverages on board).
This conduct has to be considered and may or may not be tolerated by the intermediary.
3.3 Application of Adapted Canvas to CrowdStrom
The motivation in the CrowdStrom project stems from the current lack of a widespread, publicly
accessibly charging infrastructure for electric vehicles (EVs) which is, next to immature battery technology,
seen as one of the main reasons why sales of EV s remain sluggish in spite of diverse governmental
subsidies. Enabling private persons and small business to share their existing charging infrastructure with
a broad public via CrowdStrom is seen as one way to address this problem. Not only could it substantially
increase the amount of publicly available charging stations for EVs, it may also reduce the total costs of
ownership for the charging infrastructure as, by becoming a peer-provider in the CrowdStrom network,
the owner can generate additional revenues from an otherwise idle asset. Table 2 presents the CrowdStrom
business model by giving a brief description of each element of the adapted BMC.
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2241

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
BMC Element Manifestation within CrowdStrom Project
Key Partners Manufacturers of EV charging stations, charging infrastructure providers, roaming providers for
charging stations, charging station directory providers, EV car dealers, insurance providers,
third-party billing providers.
Key Resources IT infrastructure: web platform, mobile application, back-end solution controlling charging
infrastructure, human resources for IT, service, and administration.
Key Activities Charging station setup, IT development, IT infrastructure operation and maintenance, customer
acquisition and support, marketing.
Cost Structure Costs for acquisition and maintenance of IT infrastructure, costs for human resources, insurance and
marketing. Costs for using third-party billing services. Partnership costs.
Revenue Streams Retain share of each transaction from peer-provider and peer-user, revenue from referring
value-added services from key partners (e.g., insurance companies) and sale of anonymized user data.
Value Propositions to
Providers
Offering provider’s charging station to a broad network of users, billing process for all charging
processes, web platform with individualized functions, overview of charging statistics, setting
individual price and opening times, low maintenance effort after initial set-up, dynamic price
recommendation mechanisms, efficient marketing of charging stations.
Provider Relationships Provide right incentives (i.e., monetary and social) for provider to participate, offer services and
technical advice for connecting the charging station to the network.
Provider Channels Web platform, service hotline, and personal support services from technicians. Approaching potential
providers through partners who sell EVs by offering CrowdStrom-ready charging stations.
Value Proposition to
Users
Access to a broad network of charging stations and a comfortable solution for finding, reserving, and
navigating to a charging station. Also convenient billing and parking spots in attractive areas are
offered. A rating mechanism allows for rating of charging stations and filtering of providers based on
aggregated ratings.
User Relationships Mostly automated processes, but also personal assistance via service hotline available. Proactively
inform about attractive charging possibilities in the relevant area.
User Channels Web platform, both desktop and mobile applications. Providing a information and support hotline
and periodic newsletters.
Provider Segments Private EV owners with their own charging station and parking space at home, small business
offering a charging station to their customers, operators of charging infrastructure looking for a
billing solution.
Complementary
Activities
Integration of a charging station into charging network, set individual prices and opening times,
maintain parking space and charging station, coordinate repairs for own charging station.
Core Resources Charging station with Internet connection and RFID card reader plus publicly accessible parking
spot.
Complementary
Resources
Internet access and electricity supply. Type of the Internet access is not important and can be either
home Internet connection or a cellular connection.
Providers’ Value
Propositions
EV owners can use charging station and parking spot for a fee. The offering is time-based meaning
that the user pays the charging station owner for the time spent occupying the charging station.
Provider-User
Relationships
Usually anonymous because no personal interaction is necessary, but community aspect is important
due to same areas of interest (e.g., technical aspects, EVs, environmental sustainability).
Provider-User
Channels
Via web platform and in some cases through personal interaction. A major part of the relationship is
maintained through the rating and review system.
Provider Cost Structure Acquisition, installation, and maintenance of charging station and parking space; costs for Internet
connectivity, administrative costs, taxes on profits.
Provider Revenue
Streams
Fees for the time spent at a charging station. A part of this revenue is however transferee to the
intermediary.
User Segments Drivers of an EV in need of a charging station and businesses operating EV fleets.
Table 2. Business Model of CrowdStrom as per adapted canvas
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2242

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
Provider
Relationships
Provider
Channels
User Segments
Cost Structure
Key Partners
Revenue Streams
User
Relationships
User
Channels
Provider-User
Relationships
Provider-User
Channels
Providers’ Value Propositions
Comple-
mentary
Activities
Core
Resource(s) Provider
Cost
Structure
Provider
Revenue
Streams
Provider Segments Comple-
mentary
Resources
Peer-provider-related business model elements
Key Resources
Key Activities
Value
Propositions
to Providers
Value
Propositions
to Users
Figure 3. The Adapted Business Model Canvas for Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative
Consumption
4 Discussion of Guidelines for P2P SCC Business Models
In accordance with the ADR method and the principle of generalized outcomes for the stage of formaliza-
tion of learning, we formalize the learnings from stage 3 into general solution concepts applicable to a
class of problems—the development of business models for the archetype ofP2P SCC (Sein et al., 2011;
Van Aken, 2004). Combining the identified dimensions and corresponding characteristics ofP2P SCC
and the specific learnings from developing the adapted canvas, we derive a set of guidelines for the design
and development of business models for the archetype of P2P SCC that could also be characterized as
design principles (Sein et al., 2011). Table 3 summarizes the guidelines.
First, it is crucial to evaluate whetherP2P SCC is a suitable approach for the chosen business. Although
we see an increasing variation in the types of resources available throughP2P SCC, not every resource can
easily be shared. Factors impeding the sharing may stem from the macro environment in terms of political,
economic, social, technological, or legal factors. Nevertheless, we have seen many P2P SCC business
model continue to operate despite these impeding factors. Therefore, advantages and disadvantages of
P2P SCC for the particular type of resource shared in a particular environment need to be considered (1).
Once P2P SCC is identified as a suitable approach for the planned business, there are high-level
design choices to be made, as P2P SCC comprises various manifestations with severe implications for
the business model. The platform can either be operated to generate profit or, driven by altruistic or
sustainability motives, refrain from profit generation and generate only enough income to sustain itself.
If the platform is to be operated for profit, it can be generated in two ways. First, the profit can be
generated directly by either charging the users for a transaction (e.g., transaction fee) or periodically
for accessing the community (e.g., membership fee). Indirect profit on the other hand can come from
leveraging the community itself and the data it generates (e.g., by advertising). Correlating to the way
of revenue generation is the type of relationship between the platform’s users: a qualitative relationship
(no compensation) is usually operated by non-profit organizations (e.g., Couchsurfing). Whether peer-
providers expect to be compensated for sharing a resource depends on the type of resource. However,
there are examples where the same type of resource is offered without any compensation (accommodation:
Couchsurfing, transportation: classical Hitchhiking) or through monetary compensation (accommodation:
Airbnb, transportation: Uber). Concluding, if and how profit is to be generated and if the users’ relationship
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2243

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
amongst each other is to be of a qualitative or quantitative nature has important implications for the
resulting business model (2).
Depending on the exact manifestations of the business model, there can be significant differences
between the customer groups of peer-provider and peer-user. While the peer-user often does not differ
much from a regular customer in traditional business model archetypes, the peer-provider has special
needs and requirements like his aim to generate revenue from participating or the need safeguard the assets
shared. Recognizing these differences will allow the intermediary to address the needs of his customer
groups of peer-provider and peer-user individually (3).
The major difference of P2P SCC business models to traditional business models is the dependency on
the peer-provider in terms of the core resources and possible complementary resources and activities that a
peer-provider has to contribute in order to propose a value to a peer-user. Therefore, it is crucial to clearly
distinguish between internal parts of the business model of the intermediary and those that are external
and belong to the domain of a peer-provider. However, it is important to consider the peer-provider-related
business model elements as part of the overall business model. The reason for it lays in the fact that both
the intermediary and the peer-provider contribute to a formation of a value proposition to the peer-user.
A business model that fails to reflect the exact role of a peer-provider in the process of value creation is
prone to failure (4).
The key element of P2P SCC business models may also be its biggest weakness: the dependency on
the participation of the peer-provider as was already highlighted in the guideline (3). Incentivizing the
peer-provider to participate in the P2P SCC is thus crucial for the intermediary. Analogous to the type of
relationship, we differentiate qualitative and quantitative incentives. Qualitative incentives include aspects
like being part of a community, improving the social status by participating, or various sustainability
aspects, e.g., contributing to a P2P SCC to save resources or reduce carbon emissions, e.g., by offering
ridesharing (environmental sustainability). Regarding quantitative incentives (usually monetary compen-
sation), it is important to recognize the peer-provider has his own business model. When deciding whether
or not to participate, the peer-provider will consider possible revenues and possible costs to decide on the
viability of his own business model. Incentives for the peer-provider’s participation can be qualitative,
quantitative or a combination of both. In addition, the intermediary can also provide additional support to
the peer-provider for increasing its revenues (e.g., by helping the peer-provider differentiate themselves)
and/or decreasing its costs (e.g., making it easier to do business so reducing the time) (5).
A specific feature of P2P SCC business models in the Sharing Economy is that they are often staged
models due to the unlocking of different affordances, which come with the growing social capital that
results from the increased number of users. Against this background, a business model lifecycle for
providers can be differentiated into three main stages.
The initial challenge of a Sharing Economy is that its utility correlates with the size of its user base.
Thus, a platform in its infancy needs to have a business model with a value proposition of its initial users
who derive limited benefits from peer-to-peer interactions. Thus, in this stage, the model has rather the
features of a B2C business model. For example, a platform might allow a user to record and analyze a
specific set of private data, and the user would derive value from this service. At this stage, there are no
network effects as the user interacts independently with the provider. In the second stage, the users would
reach out to the growing community of the P2P SCC platform and start interacting with each other. This
is the core of the business model and value is now derived within the community. This leads to direct
network effects, i.e., the larger the community the higher is the value for the user. In the third stage, once
the community derived a reasonable size, it derives a value in its own for third parties. In addition to the
internal peer-to-peer interactions, third party providers could be attracted by the nature of the community
and develop an interest in offering their community-tailored services. This is the stage of indirect network
effects, i.e., the larger the size of the community, the higher is its value for such third party providers (6).
In order to connect strangers and enable them to share or collaboratively consume a resource, it is
important for the platform to facilitate trust between peer-provider and peer consumer. Depending on the
shared resource’s value and how sensitive it is to both parties, the required level of trust may vary. The
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2244

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
platform can facilitate trust by adding services like a warranty or providing tools on the platform that
enable the building of trust in between users like rating or vouching (7).
IT is already the core component of every P2P SCC platform, but as it is continuously developing,
it offers increased possibilities for the sharing of new resources. While Uber’s business model was first
enabled by a broad availability of smartphones, the advance of the Internet of Things (IoT) will enable
plenty of new resources to be shared and thus also enable a multitude of new business models (8).
No. Guideline
1 Consider advantages and disadvantages of adopting P2P SCC depending on the type of resource
shared.
2 Decide if and how profit is to be generated and decide on the type of relationship between
peer-providers and peer-users.
3 Recognize and individually address differences between peer-provider and peer-user.
4 Differentiate between internal and externalized (to peer-provider) elements of the business model.
5 Consider appropriate incentives for the peer-provider to participate.
6 Consider the business model lifecycle and network effects relevant for the peer-provider and
revenue streams for the intermediary.
7 Enable and foster the building of trust between peer-provider and peer-user and decide upon suitable
trust-building mechanisms.
8 Look out for technological developments that enable new resources to be shared.
Table 3. Guidelines for Developing P2P SCC Business Models
5 Conclusion & Outlook
During the development of a Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption for EV charging, we
faced the problem that the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010) did not perfectly fit
to our needs for the description and development of our business model. Looking for guidance in the
literature, we found that most research on P2P business models focuses on P2P file sharing or on single
constituents like sustainability or mobility and that no holistic approach for the archetype of P2P SCC
has been proposed yet. In order to address this gap, we used ADR to develop an adapted BMC, which is
well-suited to address the specific characteristics of P2P SCC. The adapted canvas was iteratively refined
in the course of multiple applications in a series of workshops with the academic and industry partners
of a research consortium. The resulting canvas integrates specific characteristics ofP2P SCC platforms
that were derived from an empirical survey of 517 P2P SCC platforms. We exhibit the final canvas’ fit by
applying it to the initial problem of developing the business model of the CrowdStrom research project.
Formalizing the learnings from the ADR development process, we derive guidelines that are generally
applicable for the development ofP2P SCC business models. Through the changes made to the canvas,
especially distinguishing the intermediary’s value propositions to the peer-provider and peer-user, as well
as adding elements to represent the peer-provider’s own business model, the adapted canvas provides a
better fit to P2P SCC business models.
The guidelines and the adapted canvas are relevant for researchers and practitioners alike, as they
provide guidance during the analysis, design and development ofP2P SCC business models. However,
this research is not without limitations. This research focused on P2P SCC as a subset of business models
available in the Sharing Economy and thus excluded other archetypes that are based on the sharing or
collaborative consumption of intangible resources or require a permanent transfer of ownership. Business
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2245

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
models that consider the sharing or collaborative consumption of intangible resources like digital resources
or provisioning of what could be considered neighborhood assistance (e.g., errands or baby-sitting) require
a specifically tailored BMC that requires specific adjustments—but our proposed canvas provides a good
starting point in this context. For instance, with regard to neighborhood assistance, the element of core
resource would be superfluous in the canvas.
Certainly, the information system of the organization was identified as the central component for
implementing any business model in the domain of P2P SCC services. Against this background, business
modeling can be used to deduct requirements and thereby help to develop and design the information
system that realizes the business model (Eriksson and Penker, 2000). For the example of CrowdStrom, we
relied on the final business model gained using the adapted canvas to derive an initial set of requirements
for the IS to be developed.
With regard to future research, one needs to remark, that the adapted canvas has so far only been
applied to the one case presented in this paper. Further applications and evaluations are required to confirm
its general applicability. In the spirit of ADR and its principles, further applications can be understood
as additional iterations of the cycle. For the BIE stage, the principle of guided mergence emphasizes the
influence of organizational use and new participants on the artifacts initial design (Sein et al., 2011) which
may result in new learnings which in turn and can bring about subsequent changes to the canvas as well as
the derived guidelines.
Acknowledgement
The research leading to these results has received funding from the RISE Programme of the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme under REA grant agreement no. 645751 (RISE-BPM H2020-MSCA-
RISE-2014). The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions
and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made
of the information contained therein.
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2246

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
References
Afuah, A. and C. Tucci (2000). Internet Business Models and Strategies. New York, USA, p. 384.
Airbnb (2016a). Feel at Home Everywhere: The Beauty of Immersive Travel.URL : https://www.airbnb.
com/stories/reykjavik/feel-at-home-everywhere(visited on 11/27/2016).
— (2016b). What is the Social Connections feature? URL : https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/
article/198/what-is-the-social-connections-feature (visited on 11/27/2016).
Andersson, M. et al. (2013). “Peer-to-Peer Service Sharing Platforms: Driving Share and Share Alike on a
Mass-Scale.” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013).
Bardhi, F. and G. M. Eckhardt (2012). “Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing.” Journal
of Consumer Research 39 (December), 881–898.
Belk, R. (2014a). “Sharing Versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2 . 0.” Anthropologist 18 (1), 7–23.
— (2014b). “You Are What You Can Access: Sharing and Collaborative Consumption Online.” Journal
of Business Research 67 (8), 1595–1600.
Bocken, N. M. P. et al. (2014). “A Literature and Practice Review to Develop Sustainable Business Model
Archetypes.” Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 42–56.
Botsman, R. (2013). The Sharing Economy Lacks a Shared Definition. URL : http://www.fastcoexist.
com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-definition%7B%5C#%7D4(visited on
11/27/2016).
Botsman, R. and R. Rogers (2010). What’s Mine Is Yours - How Collaborative Consumption Is Changing
the Way We Live. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Bouwman, H. et al. (2008). Mobile Service Innovation and Business Models, pp. 1–327.
Burkhart, T. et al. (2011). “Analysing the Business Model Concept - A Comprehensive Classification of
Literature.” In: Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems. Shanghai, China,
pp. 1–19.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). “Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape.”
The Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (4), 406–408.
Cho, M. J. et al. (2014). “Business Model for the Sharing Economy between Enterprises.” Advances in
Economics, Law and Political Sciences Business, 181–189.
Codagnone, C. and B. Martens (2016). “Scoping the Sharing Economy : Origins , Definitions , Impact
and Regulatory Issues.” JRC Technical Reports (September), 1–58.
Cohen, B. and J. Kietzmann (2014). “Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy.”
Organization & Environment 27 (3), 279–296.
Eisenmann, T. et al. (2006). “Strategies for Two- Sided Markets.” Harvard Business Review 84 (10), 12.
Eriksson, H. and M. Penker (2000). Business Modeling With UML: Business Patterns at Work. New York,
p. 12.
Fichman, R. et al. (2014). “Digital Innvoation as a Fundamental And Powerfull Concept In the Information
Systems Curriculum.” MIS Quarterly 38 (2), 1–15.
Fielt, E. (2013). “Conceptualising Business Models: Definitions, Frameworks and Classifications.” Journal
of Business Models 1 (1), 85–105.
Frenken, K. et al. (2015). Smarter Regulation for the Sharing Economy.URL : https://www.theguardian.
com/science/political-science/2015/may/20/smarter-regulation-for-the-sharing-
economy(visited on 11/27/2016).
Gansky, L. (2010). The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing. New York City, NY: Penguin Group
US.
Gassmann, O. et al. (2014). The Business Model Navigator: 55 Models that will revolutionise your
Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, p. 387.
Hafermalz, E. et al. (2016). “Exploring Dimensions of Sharing Economy Business Models Enabled by IS:
An Australian Study.” In: Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Wollongong, pp. 1–11.
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2247

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
Hamel, G. (2002). “Leading the Revolution: How to Thrive in Turbulent Times by Making Innovation a
Way of Life.” Executive Book Summaries 22 (12), 1–8.
Hevner, A. R. et al. (2004). “Design Science in Information Systems Research.” MIS Quarterly 28 (1),
75–105.
Hughes, J. et al. (2008). “An Analytical Framework for Evaluating Peer-to-Peer Business Models.”
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 7 (1), 105–118.
Johnson, M. W. (2010). Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal.
Vol. 26. 5. US: Harward Business Press, p. 240.
Johnson, M. W. et al. (2006). “Reinventing Your Business Model.” Harvard Business Review (December),
1–143.
Jøsang, A. et al. (2007). “A Survey of Trust and Reputation Systems for Online Service Provision.” Decis.
Support Syst. 43 (2), 618–644.
Keskin, T. and D. Kennedy (2015). “Strategies in smart service systems enabled multi-sided markets: Busi-
ness models for the internet of things.” Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, 1443–1452.
Keymolen, E. (2013). “Trust and Technology in Collaborative Consumption. Why it is Not just About
You and Me.” In: Bridging distances in technology and regulation. Ed. by R. E. Leenes and E. Kosta.
Osterwijk, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 135–150.
Krishnan, R. et al. (2006). “Digital Business Models for Peer-to-Peer Networks: Analysis and Economic
Issues.” Review of Network Economics 6 (2), 194–213.
Kuhlman, T. and J. Farrington (2010). “What is Sustainability?” Sustainability 2 (11), 3436–3448.
Kwok, S. H. et al. (2002). “Peer-to-Peer Technology Business and Service Models: Risks and Opportuni-
ties.” Electronic Markets 12 (3), 175–183.
Lauterbach, D. et al. (2009). “Surfing a Web of Trust: Reputation and Reciprocity on CouchSurfing.com.”
In: 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. Vol. 4. Vancouver,
BC, Canada, pp. 346–353.
Lechner, U. and J. Hummel (2002). “Business Models and System Architectures of Virtual Communities:
From a Sociological Phenomenon to Peer-to-Peer Architectures.” International Journal of Electronic
Commerce 6 (3), 41–53.
Magretta, J. (2002). “Why Business Models Matter.” Harvard Business Review (April), 114–127.
McRae, H. (2015). Facebook, Airbnb, Uber, and the unstoppable rise of the content non-Generators.
URL : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae/facebook-
airbnb-uber-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-content-non-generators-10227207.
html(visited on 11/27/2016).
OECD (2015). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Osterwalder, A. (2004). “The Business Model Ontology: A Proposition in the Design Science Approach.”
Dissertation. University of Lausanne, p. 160.
Osterwalder, A. and Y. Pigneur (2010). Business Model Generation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Self
Published, p. 281.
Owyang, J. et al. (2013). The Collaborative Economy. Tech. rep. San Maeto, CA: Altimeter Group.
Pateli, A. G. and G. M. Giaglis (2004). “A Research Framework for Analyzing eBusiness Models.”
European Journal of Information Systems 13 (August), 302–314.
Rochet, J. C. and J. Tirole (2003). “Platform competition in two-sided markets.” Competition Policy
International 10 (2), 180–218.
Rysman, M. (2009). “The Economics of Two-Sided Markets.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives
23 (3), 125–143.
Sein, M. K. et al. (2011). “Action Design Research.” Management Information Systems Quarterly 17 (4),
229–239.
Susman, G. I. et al. (1978). “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 23 (4), 582–603.
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2248

Plenter et al. / Business Models for P2P SCC
Teece, D. J. (2010). “Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation.” Long Range Planning 43 (2-3),
172–194.
Uber (2016). Vehicle Requirements Chicago. URL : https : / / www . uber . com / drive / chicago /
vehicle-requirements/ (visited on 11/27/2016).
Van Aken, J. E. (2004). “Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The
Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules.” Journal of Management Studies 41 (2),
219–246.
Veit, D. et al. (2014). “Business Models - An Information Systems Research Agenda.” Business &
Information Systems Engineering 1 (6), 45–53.
Verboven, H. and L. Vanherck (2016). “The Sustainability Paradox of the Sharing Economy.” uwf
UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 1–12.
Von Hoffen, M. et al. (2015). “Designing an Ontology-based Web Directory for the Discovery of Sharing
and Collaborative Consumption Platforms.” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Business Informatics (CBI 2015), pp. 108–115.
Weill, P. and M. R. Vitale (2001). Place to Space: Migrating to Ebusiness Models. US: Harvard Business
Review Press, p. 1.
Wirtz, B. W. et al. (2016). “Business Models: Origin, Development and Future Research Perspectives.”
Long Range Planning 49 (1), 36–54.
Zott, C. et al. (2011). “The Business Model : Recent Developments and Future Research.” Journal of
Management 37 (4), 1019–1042.
Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 2017 2249