Time2Play - Multi-sided Platform for Sports Facilities:

A Disruptive Digital Platform

Dinis Caldas

, Estrela Ferreira Cruz

1,2,∗

and Ant

onio Miguel Rosado da Cruz

1,2,∗

Instituto Polit

ecnico de Viana do Castelo, 4900-347, Viana do Castelo, Portugal

Centro ALGORITMI, Escola de Engenharia, Universidade do Minho, Guimar

aes, Portugal

Keywords:

Business Model Innovation, Multi-sided Platforms, Digital Transformation, Platform Revolution, Digital

Platforms, Digital Economy, Two-sided Market, Network Effects.

Abstract:

Digital platforms drive disrupting businesses, supported by emerging technological improvements. These

platforms enable new business models that use technology to connect people, organizations and resources in

an interactive ecosystem where all the afﬁliates to the platform can create, add and capture value. This drives us

to an innovative technology-driven business model called multi-sided platforms that is transforming our lives

in ways that would be impossible to think a few decades ago. This new business model, platform-based and

value-driven, enables direct interactions and/or transactions between two or more afﬁliates, enabling network

effects, and consequently increasing the value of the network where afﬁliates belong to. Creating value through

business model innovation is the engine of the success behind this kind of platforms. The main goal of this

project is to build an innovative multi-sided platform to become a reference on the booking of sports facilities

sector bringing together sports facilities’ owners and players. The proposed platform is modeled and presented,

after being characterized through analysing the most similar tools in the market, and comparing them with a

Blue Ocean Strategy tool, namely [yellow tail] value curve.

1 INTRODUCTION

Creating value through business model innovation is

recognized as the main driver of the success of well-

known companies on the global landscape (Amit and

Zott, 2015).

Over the last decades, the success of web-based

platforms prompted the interest of several companies

around the globe. Parker et al. share their vision

about this phenomenon, reﬂecting the major impor-

tance of digital platforms and the way that they rad-

ically changed business. “Platforms are eating the

world. The disruption they are driving is reaching

businesses one industry at a time and is likely to

hit practically all information-intensive industries at

some point” (Parker et al., 2017). This new digi-

tal platform approach is characterized as a disruptive

force, but it can also provide important lessons on

how any business can operate in a more efﬁcient way.

The same authors deﬁnes a digital platform as a busi-

ness model that uses technology to connect people,

organizations, and resources in an interactive ecosys-

∗

Contact Authors.

tem in which remarkable amounts of value can be cre-

ated and exchanged (Parker et al., 2017).

There are several online booking platforms right

now available on the market that are references on

their respective sectors, such as Airbnb, Uber, Book-

ing, Cabify, Lyft, among several other well world-

wide known examples. To the best of our knowl-

edge, there’s not, right now available on the market,

any worldwide known and referenced platform on the

sports facilities booking sector, hindering a prompt

and easy answer to any of the following questions,

“what if I do want to book a sport’s facility, on a given

location, date and time?”, or “what if I do need to

invite more people, to reach a minimum number of

players, and know their availability, to practice a cer-

tain group sport’s modality, on a given location, date

and time?”, or “what if I do own one or more sports

facilities and I want to register and list online any of

my spaces, with all the details about them, including

their availability and price per hour to be booked?”.

And, this is despite the large number of private and

public sports facilities all over the world. To enable

an answer to these questions, we present in this paper

the conceptualization and development of Time2Play,

Caldas, D., Cruz, E. and Rosado da Cruz, A.

Time2Play - Multi-sided Platform for Sports Facilities: A Disruptive Digital Platform.

DOI: 10.5220/0009412902690277

In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2020) - Volume 2, pages 269-277

ISBN: 978-989-758-423-7

269

an online platform that will allow any user to ﬁnd the

availability of sports facilities, to practice a sport’s

modality on a given location, date and time. In addi-

tion, any registered user should be able to invite other

users, either registered or not, in order to reach the

minimum players required to practice a certain sport’s

modality, on a given location, date and time. This

should be possible after organizing an event such as

a football game, for example, where the organizer or

anyone already enrolled in the event should be able

to invite additional users. Moreover, the owner of

each sport’s facility registered on Time2Play will be

able to describe the sport’s facility, providing as much

information as possible to allow the user to decide

which alternatives are the best for their goals. Each

user should have available all the relevant informa-

tion that they might need to book the sport’s facility,

such as the price per hour, accepted payment modali-

ties, images, if it’s an indoor or outdoor facility, what

equipment is available for the practice of the sport’s

modality, and if it’s included on the booking price or

if it’s an additional cost, among other relevant infor-

mation. Time2Play also will provide information on

the weather forecast for a given location and time, to

provide as much information as possible to the user,

to ease their decision process.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 de-

scribes the methodological approach used in this re-

search project. In section 3, some major concepts re-

lated with multi-sided platforms, network value and

structure are presented, mentioning the supporting

major studies. Section 4, describes some related plat-

forms, and analyzes and compares them in detail, be-

tween each other and to the proposed platform. Sec-

tion 5 presents the platform conceptualization. Sec-

tion 6 presents some details on how the models have

been addressed in the implementation, and ﬁnally,

section 7 presents some ideas for future work, to-

gether with the main conclusions.

2 METHODOLOGICAL

APPROACH

This project is structured according Design Science

Research (DSR) methodology that requires the cre-

ation of innovative artifacts in order to solve a spe-

ciﬁc problem on a speciﬁc domain. This method-

ology is based on iterative and sequential approach

through six main activities: problem identiﬁcation

and motivation, objectives deﬁnition, design and de-

velopment, demonstration, evaluation and communi-

cation (Hevner et al., 2004; Cruz et al., 2014). This

iterative process should respect the sequence and or-

der of activities, however, some phases (steps) can be

repeated as many times as required in order to achieve

the best and accurate result possible. So even being on

the iteration evaluation or, even, communication, near

the end of the iterative process, it can go back a few

iterations, to objectives deﬁnition or to design and de-

velopment, if required. But then, going forward, all

the phases will have to be repeated sequentially.

3 INNOVATIVE BUSINESS

MODELS BASED ON

MULTI-SIDED PLATFORMS

The innovation theory is the edge where technolog-

ical improvements meet newer and innovative busi-

ness models. In the earlies of 1942, the economist

Joseph A. Schumpeter described the process of inno-

vation as “the process of industrial mutation that in-

cessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from

within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly

creating a new one” (Schumpeter, 1942). Schum-

peter’s work on innovation theory supports that inno-

vation is the engine of economic growth. However,

there may be cost associated with it, that is the dy-

namic process of innovation that he called as creative

destruction, where successive waves of technological

innovations, or, more precisely, disruptive technologi-

cal changes, can transform existing industries and cre-

ate value by destroying previous economic structures.

Even though, not all innovations result on this cre-

ative destruction process. There are two major types

of innovation: radical (disruptive) and incremental in-

novations. Disruptive innovations are the result of the

creative destruction process described above. Incre-

mental innovations are deﬁned as improvements and

enhancements to a product, process or service with-

out changing them radically (Trott, 2017; Evans and

Schmalensee, 2016). Kaplan’s (Kaplan, 2015) com-

plementary vision of the innovation process supports

the idea that an innovation can simply derive from the

careful analysis of the market. Therefore, on his as-

sessment, “Innovation is not always about coming up

with the next big idea. It might be about combining

existing ideas and parts in a new way”.

Mauborgne and Kim developed a framework fo-

cused on key competitive factors of the, direct or in-

direct, competitors of a company in order to analyze

them very carefully and build an innovative business

model (Mauborgne and Kim, 2005). These authors

agree that the innovative process should be value-

driven, and to achieve this goal one has to understand

what the market is already offering. Thus, this in-

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

270

novative framework, known as Blue Ocean Strategy,

supported for some tools, such as canvas strategy, an-

alyzes what should be created/added, removed, raised

and reduced in order to create a different and valu-

able offer to the market. In a world where business

models are evolving rapidly, and new competitors can

emerge overnight, it is mandatory, for any company,

to innovate in order to stay relevant on the market.

It’s important to understand that an innovative busi-

ness model can either create a new market or allow

a company to create and exploit new opportunities on

existing markets (Still et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2006).

3.1 Multi-sided Platforms

In 2003, Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole stud-

ied an innovative technology-driven business model

based on direct interactions between two or more af-

ﬁliates (Rochet and Tirole, 2003). The disruptive

power of web-based platforms is transforming our

lives in ways that would have been impossible a few

decades ago. In 2014, Jean Tirole received the No-

bel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for a num-

ber of important accomplishments, but mostly due to

his pioneering contributions to the new economics of

multi-sided markets. Multi-sided platforms are de-

ﬁned as technologies, applications or services that

create value by enabling and facilitating direct inter-

actions and/or transactions between two or more afﬁl-

iates (multiple sides) (Rochet and Tirole, 2003; Am-

strong, 2006), (Hagiu and Wright, 2015). On multi-

sided platforms, users and groups can be thought of as

nodes and the major role of the platform is to enable

direct and valuable interactions between them.

The main questions on this innovative business

model are how many sides to bring on board and what

kind of ties to establish between afﬁliates. So, looking

to the current market offer it’s important to understand

what the market is already providing, on which terms,

and deﬁne the new business model, either creating

a new market, or just competing on existing ones,

creating and exploiting new opportunities. Among

the best-known examples of multi-sided platforms,

we can mention Airbnb, bringing together residence

owners and renters; Uber, enabling direct interactions

between professional drivers and passengers; Face-

book, brings on board users, advertisers and afﬁliated

third-party sites; and, Amazon, eBay and Alibaba, en-

abling direct interactions between buyers and sellers

(Parker et al., 2017; Evans and Schmalensee, 2016).

Moreover, Airbnb, Amazon and Uber are examples of

successful multi-sided platforms that are worldwide

recognized, not only by their customers, but as well

by Boston Consulting Group (BCG), on their annual

report as most innovative companies.

Key features characterizing a multi-sided platform

are the capacity to enable direct interactions between

two or more sides that are afﬁliated with the plat-

form, there is value (co)creation for the intervenient,

is a value-based platform and enable network effects

(Parker et al., 2017; Evans and Schmalensee, 2016;

Rochet and Tirole, 2003; Hagiu and Wright, 2015).

Enabling interactivity, connectivity and the cre-

ation of ties helps users to derive value from the net-

work, turning the network more attractive to poten-

tial new subscribers. This phenomenon is called net-

work effect and represents a new economic achieve-

ment, driven by technological innovation. Network

effects, sometimes referred as Metcalfe’s Law, are

also known as network externalities or, as demand-

side economies of scale. They occur on situations

where a product or service becomes more valuable

to the user as the density or the number of users

increases (Bellaﬂame and Peitz, 2016) (Veljanovski,

2007). Value co-creation is a very important concept

related with network effects, since users or groups can

be considered a valuable part of the value chain (cre-

ation, addition and exchange) to the network that they

belong to (de Oliveira and Cortimiglia, 2017). Based

on the basic key features described above, it’s easy to

understand that a single afﬁliation is not sufﬁcient to

deﬁne a multi-sided platform. Amazon adopted, for

several years, a business model of pure retailer but

decided to move over a multi-sided platform business

model as growth strategy, by enabling and facilitat-

ing direct interactions by third-party sellers with buy-

ers using exclusively their own platform (Gawer and

Cusumano, 2015).

3.2 Understanding the Network Value

and Structure

When network effects are present, understanding the

key sources of the network’s value, is important to

understand the structure of the network itself. The

value of a product or service increases as the number

of users grow. Thus, network effects are among the

most powerful strategic and key resources that can be

delivered by technology-based innovation (Adner and

Kapoor, 2009). In (Hariharan, 2016), different theo-

ries and approaches are presented and compared, re-

lated to network-effects-value, in order to measure the

effective value of a network. Even being totally dif-

ferent theoretical approaches, and based on a distinct

value deﬁnition premises, they converge and agree on

an extremely signiﬁcant conclusion, for network ef-

fect theory: that the network value is directly related

with the network size. The ﬁrst network value ap-

Time2Play - Multi-sided Platform for Sports Facilities: A Disruptive Digital Platform

271

proach mentioned on their study is known in the lit-

erature as Sarnoff’s law, and it defends that, in broad-

cast networks, the value of the network is linearly

proportional to the number of viewers. The network

value is represented by,

NetworkValue = N (1)

(where N is the number of network nodes or users).

The second approach is known as Metcalfe’s law

(Li, 2008), perhaps one of the most worldwide rec-

ognized network value theories. Metcalfe’s law, de-

Figure 1: Metcalfe’s Law (Extracted from (Li, 2008)).

picted in Figure 1, is the most widely accepted model,

to explain the “web-effect”. This theory, named af-

ter Robert Metcalfe, co-inventor of the Ethernet and

co-founder of 3Com, pointed out that the value of

a telephone network grows nonlinearly as the num-

ber of subscribers of the network increases, making

more connections among subscribers possible. The

original theory was trying to explain the logic be-

hind the sale of networking cards, that the cost of the

cards was proportional to the number of devices in-

stalled and the value of the network was proportional

to the square of compatibility of communicating de-

vices. Thus, this theory defends that the value of the

network is proportional to the square of the number of

connected users. This may be expressed algebraically

as having a cost of N and a value of N

NetworkValue = N

(2)

Metcalfe’s Law is a useful way of encapsulating how

network effects create value for those who participate

in a network, as well as for those who own or manage

the network. Based on this approach, the steady state,

or breakeven-point, is deﬁned as critical mass, after

which the network will become self-sustainable and

produce further growth by itself.

The third, and last, theory presented on their study

was the Reed’s law, which defends that the network

value can increase exponentially with the size of the

network. Algebraically, this is represented by,

NetworkValue = 2

(3)

For all above expressions, just note that N needs to

be greater than one, since when there’s only one node

in a network no connections are possible. This study

concludes that the more people are connected to a net-

work, the more valuable the network is to each person

that is part of it, regardless of the typology of the net-

work. This principle is a phenomenon called direct

network effect, also referred as a positive direct net-

work externality, since the value achieved by the in-

creasing number of the network members results on a

positive effect to the entire network.

Establishing a valuable ecosystem around the net-

work can help to sustain and stay relevant to their

members in the long term. The network structure af-

fects the network value in multiple ways. First, when

designing a network, the priority should be on cre-

ating a structure that provides every user the ability

to interact with each other, in order to maximize the

connections within the network, increasing value to

the user. There are some exceptions, such as when

on a network it is allowed to restrict user interactions

by creating restrictive groups. Even thought, while

being part of these restricted groups, the users can

still continue adding and capturing value to their re-

stricted group members, thus beneﬁtting by being part

of that sub-network. The only difference would be

that they’re not sharing this value with the entire net-

work. Thus, the network structure affects how mem-

bers can position themselves inside the network and

how they can capture or add value. Therefore, on a

closed network, the network effects are more limited

than on an open network, where the network effects

grow exponentially (Evans and Schmalensee, 2016;

Bellaﬂame and Peitz, 2016; Veljanovski, 2007). The

way ties are built between users and groups inside the

network impacts on how much they can derive value

from the network (Bellaﬂame and Peitz, 2016; Vel-

janovski, 2007).

4 RELATED WORK

Even if not considered a reference on this sector, there

are a few platforms that enable booking a sports facil-

ity. Of these, we have selected three that we consid-

ered to have the most disrupting features.

The ﬁrst platform is AirCourts

(www.aircourts.com), a Portuguese company

that has as core business the development of an

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system designed

speciﬁcally for the management of sports facilities

and, additionally, they provide the possibility of

registering, listing and booking a sport’s facility

on-line. This is the only sports facilities related

booking platform in Portugal that we were able to

ﬁnd. According to the information available on their

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

272

Figure 2: [yellow Tail] Value Curve for Analyzing the “competition” in Booking Platforms for Sport Facilities.

own website they have registered near six hundred

sports facilities, all located in Portugal. This is an

extremely low number considering the amount of

sports facilities, private and public, that are currently

available. This might be due to the fee that is charged

to have access to the software, which might be a

barrier to increase the number of sports facilities

registered and to potential new clients.

The second platform is Prenota un Campo

(www.prenotauncampo.it), a web-based platform that

allows to register, list and book sports facilities. This

is a free Italian platform, with only Italian clients, and

the core business is the booking of sports facilities.

The third platform is OpenPlay (openplay.net).

This is not a free platform and the registration is

mandatory to have access to the functionality. It is

based in the United Kingdom and the core business is

a management platform for sports facilities and book-

ings. However, they don’t have a single list where

to consult any sport’s facility registered on the plat-

form. We have considered this platform as relevant

for this comparative analysis since, from the manage-

ment perspective, it is very complete, intuitive and

useful, since it has several dashboards that can give

fast and easy access to relevant data.

The state of the art is analyzed through the use of

a tool available in the Blue Ocean Strategy approach

(Mauborgne and Kim, 2005). We will use the canvas

strategy, which is a diagnostic and action framework,

that identiﬁes positive and negative key factors and

features, and we’ll represent the output graphically.

This graphic is known as [yellow tail] value curve and

provides a representation of a company relatively to

their direct or indirect competitors, or even, to a rep-

resentative market segment and the strategic direction

that we want to deﬁne to our company (Mauborgne

and Kim, 2005). In this analysis, the competitors are

the three above identiﬁed platforms in the sports fa-

cilities booking sector (see Figure 2).

While selecting the above platforms, we have de-

ﬁned a set of key factors and features that we consid-

ered the most relevant in order to build a successful

booking platform for sports facilities. For that, an ex-

tensive research has been made on what similar plat-

forms, even belonging to different sectors, are offer-

ing to their users. We tried to understand the way each

platform is creating and capturing value for/from each

user. Then we decided which key features the new

Time2Play platform should have. Additionally, and

respecting the premises of this framework we have

decided, as well, what features to create as innova-

tive elements. Those key factors and features are the

following:

• Closed platform;

• Price of non-Premium services;

• Notiﬁcations;

• Book a sport facility [end user];

• List a sport facility [owner];

• Pay per booking [owner];

• Rating of sport facilities;

• Dashboards [users, owners and administrators];

• Organize an event;

• Invite registered/non-registered users to an event;

Each key factor and feature described previously is

evaluated in a range from low to high, comparing the

three platforms mentioned above. Additionally, we

have evaluated on the same scale, the same factors

and features for our new platform Time2Play, as well,

and deﬁned the strategy. Figure 2 represents the [yel-

low tail] value curve for the three above mentioned

platforms together with Time2Play. The factors pre-

sented above are being compared, for each platform,

and are presented in the horizontal axis. An important

Time2Play - Multi-sided Platform for Sports Facilities: A Disruptive Digital Platform

273

Figure 3: Use Cases Diagram for the Time2Play Platform.

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

274

and valuable part of this representation is that, based

on the evaluation for each company, it should be de-

cided what to eliminate, reduce, raise and create/add

in order to achieve what we think is the optimum for

the Time2Play platform.

From this analysis, reading the [yellow tail] value

curve presented in Figure 2, the platform being pro-

posed should provide the new differentiating features

of organizing a sport’s event and inviting players for

that event, while raising functionalities for booking

and rating a sports’ facility or listing facilities and

bookings, reducing notiﬁcations for any type of user,

and eliminating features such as being a closed plat-

form, where users must pay for accessing the plat-

form, or paying for non-premium services.

5 PLATFORM

CONCEPTUALIZATION

In this section we model the Time2Play platform us-

ing UML. Figure 3 presents the Use Cases diagram

for Time2Play. There, four user proﬁles are mod-

eled as actors, namely Owner (owner of sports facili-

ties), Player (user that looks for facilities to book), IT

Admin (platform administrator), and Unlogged User

(anonymous user that did not log into the system). Be-

sides these, three external APIs or servers are also

modeled as actors, as prescribed by UML, namely

a geocoding API, a weather API and a mail server.

The use cases modeled in the diagram represent the

pieces of functionality that the Time2Play applica-

tion provides to each user proﬁle. Each use case is

further speciﬁed in (Caldas, 2019), identifying its in-

volved actors, actors’ goals, use case pre- and post-

conditions, the normal course of events during the in-

teraction between actor and system, etc..

Domain entity models are central artifacts on the

domain analysis and design of any software solution.

This model presents a graphical representation that

characterizes each entity class and the way they’re

related to each another, in order to meet the deﬁned

requirements (see Figure 4).

In this model we can devise three distinct user

types: administrators, players and the space owners.

The space owner owns a sports facility. The player

searches for and books a sports facility, and may in-

vite other players, registered or not in the platform. A

sports facility has some equipment to lend. An equip-

ment can be used on several bookings and a booking

can use several equipment. An invitation respects to a

booking. Also, a user will belong to a given location

(Location table) and country (Country table).

Each booking will be related to a given sport facil-

ity and a given sport modality, on a given location and

country. The availability of a sport facility will be de-

ﬁned based on an associated schedule. Each booking

can contain some equipment, associated to a sports

facility, which may be booked together with it.

Related with each sports facility, there’s also the

payment types accepted and an image gallery.

The host of a given booking (player that created

the booking) will be able to invite other users to attend

to the event created. There are three distinct statuses

available for the invite process that are ‘No answer’,

‘Accepted’ and ‘Declined’. All accepted invitations

are considered Registered for the event.

Every registered user will be able to rate a sports

facility where they already attended to a given sport

event. Every time a sports facility is rated, an arith-

metic average is calculated, and the result is rendered

every time that the sports facility is returned on a

search. If the sports facility hasn’t been rated yet, a

message will be displayed to the user informing that

“No evaluation is available” (see (Caldas, 2019)).

6 PLATFORM VALIDATION

In this subsection we explore and demonstrate two of

the most representative UCs scenarios, and how these

are accomplished in the developed application.

When accessing the Time2Play application, a user

sees a ﬁrst page (landing page), which is not authen-

tication protected. This means that any unlogged or

unregistered user has access to this page and is able

to search for all the available sports facilities for a

given sport modality, location and date. Figure 5

shows the landing page, which also corresponds to

UC.04 (Search facility), where a sport’s facility may

be searched. Any unlogged user will be able to search

for a sport facility to practice a sport modality on

a given location and date (UC.04: Search facility).

However, the booking and invite functionalities will

be only available after successfully logged as a Player.

The “New Booking” page displays all the results

retrieved by the query along with the information re-

lated to each sport facility that matches the search cri-

teria, and renders some data related with the weather

forecasts matching the location and date selected. The

“Book now” button, on each result, will redirect the

user to the New Booking: Conﬁrmation web page,

where some details can be added.

Here, we have showed how two UCs scenarios

are accomplished in the developed application. For a

complete set of scenarios, please see (Caldas, 2019).

Time2Play - Multi-sided Platform for Sports Facilities: A Disruptive Digital Platform

275

Figure 4: Conceptual Domain Model for Time2Play Platform.

Figure 5: Search Facility Page (Landing Page).

7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

Businesses are changing fast on the global landscape,

and innovative business models are transforming the

economy. Multi-sided networked markets are a result

of these innovative processes. Interactive ecosystems

are being created enabling direct interactions between

two or more afﬁliates, empowering network effects

where value co-creation and exchange is a key source

to the network where they belong to. Establishing a

valuable ecosystem around the network can help to

sustain and stay relevant on the long term. Network

effects are one of the most powerful key strategic as-

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

276

sets that can be created by technology innovation.

This paper reports the conceptualization of a

multi-sided platform for sports’ facilities. It started

by contextualizing multi-sided platforms as disrupt-

ing businesses, enabled by digital technologies, and

by identifying the sports’ facilities booking market

segment as an opportunity to be developed and inves-

tigated through a multi-sided platform, since there’s

no worldwide known and referenced web-based plat-

form on the sports facilities booking sector. The main

goal of the reported project was the conceptualization

and building of an innovative multi-sided platform

that, we hope, will become a reference on the booking

of the sports facilities sector, bringing together sports

facilities’ owners and players.

The exponential growth of mobile devices will

drive us to consider, on a further stage, the develop-

ment of a mobile application.

We consider as well, as further development,

the creation of a tournament management system

within the Time2Play platform, covering several

sports modalities. This point will be a valuable as-

set to our core platform, as a Premium service, for

providing, on a single platform, as much relevant ser-

vices as possible, related with the practice of sports.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This publication is based on the MSc research work

of the ﬁrst author (Caldas, 2019).

REFERENCES

Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2009). Value creation in inno-

vation ecosystems: how the structure of technologi-

cal interdependence affects ﬁrm performance in new

technology generations. In Strategic Management.

Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2015). Creating value through busi-

ness model innovation. Technical report.

Amstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets.

The RAND Journal of Economics 37.

Bellaﬂame, P. and Peitz, M. (2016). Platforms and network

effects. Edward Algar Publisher Limited.

Caldas, D. L. (2019). Disruptive digital platforms: a multi-

sided approach - an online booking system for sports

facilities. Master’s thesis, I. P. de Viana do Castelo.

Cruz, E. F., Machado, R. J., and Santos, M. Y. (2014).

Derivation of data-driven software models from busi-

ness process representations. In 9th Int. Conference on

the Quality of Information and Communications Tech-

nology, pp 276–281. IEEE Compute Society.

de Oliveira, D. T. and Cortimiglia, M. N. (2017). Value

co-creation in web-based multisided platforms: A

conceptual framework and implications for business

model design. In Business Horizons.

Evans, D. S., Hagiu, A., and Schmalensee, R. (2006). Invis-

ible engines: how software platforms drive innovation

and transform industries. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Evans, D. and Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers, The

new economics of multisided platforms. Harvard BRP.

Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. A. (2015). How companies

become platform leaders. In MIT Sloan M. Review.

Hagiu, A. and Wright, J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms.

International Journal of Industrial Organization.

Hariharan, A. (2016). All about network effects. https://

a16z.com/2016/03/07/all-about-network-effects/.

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Jinsoo, P., and Ram, S. (2004).

Design science in information systems research. MIS

Quarterly, 28(1):75 – 105.

Kaplan, S. (2015). The Business Model Innovation Factory:

how to stay relevant when the World is changing. John

Wiley & Sons.

Li, G. (2008). Economic sense of metcalfe’s law. In WWW

2008, Beijing, China., pages 21–25.

Mauborgne, R. and Kim, W. C. (2005). Blue Ocean Strat-

egy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and

Make Competition Irrelevant. CPI Group.

Parker, G. G., Alstyne, M. W. V., and Choudary, S. P.

(2017). Platform Revolution: How Networked mar-

kets are transforming the economy and how to make

them work for you. Wall Street Journal.

Rochet, J.-C. and Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition

in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Eco-

nomic Association, 1:990–1029.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and

Democracy. London: Routledge.

Still, K., Sepp

anen, M., Korhonen, H., Valkokari, K.,

Suominen, A., and Kumpulainen, M. (2017). Busi-

ness model innovation of startups developing multi-

sided digital platforms. In 2017 IEEE 19th Conference

on Business Informatics (CBI), Greece, pp 70–75.

Trott, P. (2017). Innovation Management and New Product

Development. Number 978-1-292-16540-0. Prentice

Hall, 6th edition.

Veljanovski, C. (2007). Network effects and multi-sided

markets. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Time2Play - Multi-sided Platform for Sports Facilities: A Disruptive Digital Platform

277