BAB 1

Business Model
Definition
As this subject tells us regarding business model, we have a tendency to follow the
business model definition of Rajala and Westerlund (2005) which has the issue of
collaboration:
A business model describes ways of creating value for customers and the way
business turns market opportunities into profit through sets of actors, activities and
collaborations.

e-Business
Business during this age has become several things, included e-business. The term ebusiness usually refers to doing business electronically and includes e-commerce,
e-markets, Internet-based business and any corporations that perform industrial
transactions over the web (Zott et al, 2011). An oversized quantity of literature on ebusiness models centered on the elements of an e-business and strategic promoting in
e-businesses.
The authors behind Business Model Generation, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2002)
give a additional careful analysis of elements for an e- business. Every of their main
four elements of product innovation, customer relationship, infrastructure
management and financials is more shifting into subcomponents to make a a lot of
complete picture.
Then Osterwalder (2004)s ontology self-addressed four areas of a business, that are
product, customer interface, infrastructure management and financial aspects. From
these four main business areas, Osterwalder stone-broke them down any into 9
building blocks, which are bestowed below.

Pillar

Building Block

Description

Product

Value Proposition

Value proposition is what companies provide to

their consumers as products and services

Customer interface

Target Customer

Target customer is what company aims to give

value to

Distribution Channel

Distribution channel is a way that company

keep in touch with its consumers

Pillar

Infrastructure Management

Financial aspects

Building Block

Description

Relationship

Relationship is connection between company

with its consumers

Value Configuration

Value configuration is preparations that

required to be a value creation for consumers

Capability

Capability is the repeated value creation into

consumers from firms ability

Partnership

Partnership is a way companies cooperate to

give value for consumers

Cost Structure

Cost structure is all the means employed in the

business model in moneys field

Revenue Model

Revenue model is an illustration about the way

company makes money with combination of all
revenue flows

A formalized e-business model is required not solely to know the various

components of e-businesses however additionally assists business leaders in
facilitating amendment, human action with totally different stakeholders and
distinctive relevant measures to follow in an e-business (Osterwalder, 2002). Equally
to the generic business model ontology, the e-business model ontology is additionally
divided into four main pillars, that are product innovation, customer relationship,
infrastructure management and financial aspects.

9 Business Model Building Blocks

Product innovation the primary pillar is regarding product connected aspects, that
embrace the worth proposition, the target customers customer receive price|the
worth} and therefore the capabilities the firm desires so as to deliver that value.
Value proposition
Due to ICT technologies, e-businesses get pleasure from a wider type of
opportunities to make and deliver worth to its target customers than ancient brickand-mortal businesses. Osterwalder mentioned three main ways in which ebusinesses will produce worth for its customers and differentiate from competitors,
which are:

Innovation through new, complementary or customized offerings

Lower price than competitors, resulting from cost saving opportunities which are
then passed on to customers

 Premium customer service and relationship from augmentary services that go with
the core offering
Target customer
A business usually caters to the requirements of a selected group of consumers. This
group of client may well be customers (Business-to-consumers, aka B2C) or
businesses (business-to-business, aka B2B) from a selected geographic or
demographic section. Businesses operational on the net have the opportunities to
focus on a wider scope of customer segments compared to traditional offline
businesses because of its virtual characteristics. Digital marketplaces will target a
selected geographic area (e.g. a newspaper ad web site permitting folks to swap used
things within the new york area) or a definite demographic group across numerous
geographic areas (e.g. Odesk, a platform for outsourcing freelancers for specific
knowledge-rich tasks from anyplace within the world). Whereas the opportunities for
e-businesses are overabundant, the competition threats are higher because of low
barriers to enter any market (Porter, 2001).
Capabilities
In order to be able to deliver the worth proposition to customers, businesses have to
be compelled to guarantee to possess necessary capabilities. Capabilities can be
outlined as repeatable patterns of action within the use of assets to make, produce,
and/or provide product and services to a market (Wallin, 2000). within the case of
digital peer-to-peer marketplaces, the corporations don't solely have to be compelled
to possess necessary technical capabilities to confirm the platform to operate
properly and may facilitate all the transactions administrated, however also possess
the power and technology capacities to beat traditional two-sided market hurdles and
make decent network effects.
Infrastructure management Infrastructure management is that the value
configuration system necessary to make and deliver the value proposition. in step
with Osterwalder (2002), the infrastructure management component for e-businesses
includes the activity configuration of the firm, which has worth creation and delivery
activities and relationship between them. Infrastructure management additionally
includes the in-house assets and resources and therefore the firms partner network.
Activity configuration

Value proposition is the outcome of a configuration or set of in-house and out-house

activities and processes that the firm employs. Activity configuration differs from
one kind of business to a different, but in most cases, it includes a value creation
method of service suppliers or brokering and intermediator activities.
Partner network
Partner network is a component within the model that defines that components of the
activity configuration are distributed among the partners of the firm. Strategic
alliances, in any kind, like future supplier-buyer relationships or joint ventures are
important in any business model, because it permits the firm to focus fully on its core
competencies and outsource its non-core competencies and activities to its partner
network. Several different terms are utilized in e-business model literature to indicate
partner networks, Osterwalder cited {some different|another} definitions of partner
networks for e-businesses by other authors, among that are b-webs (Tapscott et al.,
2000), or fluid organizations (Selz, 1999) or value networks (Brandenburger et al.,
1996).
Resources and assets
A firm desires resources and assets so as to make and deliver the value proposition to
its target customers. Resources embrace tangible and intangible resources and human
assets (Grant, 1995). Tangible resources embrace plants, instrumentation and money
reserves. Technology startups typically possess terribly minor quantity of tangible
resources and have a tendency to control on a large quantity of human assets and
intangible resources, like patents, copyrights, reputation, brands and trade secrets.
Customer relationship With the advantage of ICT technologies, e-businesses have
the opportunities to create premium customer relationship. Osterwalder (2002)
mentioned that corporations get a better feel for and understand understanding of
target customers by outlining an info strategy, cultivate new ways in which to deliver
proposition value by covering new and multiple channels and emphasizing the
importance of trust as e-businesses operate largely in a very virtual context with
restricted face-to-face contact.
Information strategy
Osterwalder printed three main objectives of the information strategy. The firm has
to first off outline the strategy of gather customer info and second strategize the way
to leverage this gathered info to make premium customer relationships. The third
goal is to use the data to get new business opportunities and improve customer

satisfaction. Data-orientation has not solely become one among the foremost vital
ways of e-businesses however additionally become the culture or way to operate of
many corporations within the digital era.
Feel and serve (distribution channels)
A firm may need to use multiple distribution channels to succeed in its customers.
This component of the metaphysics indicates the firms go-to-the-market channel
strategy - what types of direct and/or indirect channels the firm uses and whether or
not the channels are operated by the firm or provided by third-parties, like an agent
or intermediator. ICT technologies enable corporations to get up-to-date and move
with customers in new and innovative ways in which. Therefore, the distribution
channels, or the implies that the firm feels and serves target customers, ought to be
studied in shut details so as to get new strategies emerged and utilized by innovative
corporations.
Trust, safety and loyalty
This component of the metaphysics is very centrical to e-businesses as they operate
primarily in a very virtual setting. Transactions on the computer network, therefore,
are administrated with a good degree of trust and every one e-businesses have to be
compelled to take this component into thought in their business model. Osterwalder
summarized a set of mechanisms to create trust in e-business setting, that embrace
virtual communities, performance history, mediation services or insurance just in
case of hurt, third party verification and authorization and a transparent privacy
policy. In peer-to-peer digital marketplaces, the trust issue is twofold: trust between
the users and therefore the marketplace platform and trust among users. Thus
additionally to traditional mechanisms employed in e-business corporations,
marketplace platforms have to be compelled to define further mechanisms so as to
resolve the trust and issues of safety among its participants so all transactions are
administrated evidently.
Customer Loyalty
Customer loyalty is important to any business, brick-and-mortal or online because it
is far cheaper to incite existing customers than exploit new ones. in step with (Hamel
(2000), positive relationship dynamics, wherever emotional further as transactional
components within the interaction between the firm and its customers play a central
role in increasing customer loyalty.

Financial aspects The monetary aspects of a firm are the fourth pillar of the
ontology and are influenced by all different components. This pillar includes the
revenue model of the firm, that determines the firms profit model and its price
structure.
Revenue model
Revenue model is that the component that measures the firms ability to translate its
value proposition offered to customers into price. A firms revenue model will
comprise multiple revenue streams with totally different valuation models. valuation
models are a subject mentioned significantly among e-business literature as ICT
technologies have offered net corporations the power to make innovative valuation
mechanisms.
Cost structure
The cost component measure all the expenses the firm incurs whereas making,
promoting and delivering proposition value to customers. every business model
incurs differing types of prices, but what's common is that the strategy to spot and
enable price saving opportunities throughout the value making method. With
applicable use of ICT technologies, corporations will discover and implement new
opportunities to deliver premium customer services and extra worth at comparatively
low prices.
Profit model
As Osterwalder complete, although this component is just the distinction between
revenue model and value structure, it's the expression of the total e-business
ontology. The goal of any firm is to maximise profits, which may be achieved
through maximising revenue by up product innovation and costs relationship,
whereas minimizing prices by effective infrastructure management.
Howe offers the subsequent definition:
Simply defined, crowdsourcing represents the act of a company or institution taking
a function once performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and
generally large) network of people in the form of an open call. This can take the form
of peer-production (when the job is performed collaboratively), but is also often
undertaken by sole individuals. The crucial prerequisite is the use of the open call
format and the large network of potential labourers. (2006a: 5)

Crowdsourcing
Definition
Crowdsourcing is essentially captivated with the internet. The speed, reach,
anonymity, chance for asynchronous engagement, and talent to hold several types of
media content makes the internet a vital necessity for crowdsourcing. Definitely
these processes may be taken offline with some success, however the platform of the
internet elevates the standard, amount, and pace of cooperation, coordination, and
plan generation to a degree that warrants its own classification. Cultures have
invariably been democratic, long before the internet, with roots in democratic
method, collective deciding, and cooperation for survival. however democratic
cultures on the internet fight a brand new quality, a new scale, and new capabilities.
A number of interviews and surveys are conducted at numerous crowdsourcing sites,
with every study asking people in those crowds to elucidate why they participate
(Brabham, 2008b, 2010a, 2010b; Lakhani et al., 2007; Lietsala and Joutsen, 2007).
These studies indicate that there are several common reasons why folks participate,
each intrinsic and outside, however there's no single inducement that applies to any
or all crowdsourcing applications. Drawing from these existing studies, some
motivations for people in crowds that emerge across quite one case include :

the desire to earn money;

to develop ones creative skills;

to network with other creative professionals;

to build a portfolio for future employment;

to challenge oneself to solve a tough problem;

to socialize and make friends;

to pass the time when bored;

to contribute to a large project of common interest;

to share with others; and

to have fun.

Crowdsourcing Typology
Knowledge Discovery and Management Approach In the knowledge discovery
and management approach, online communities are challenged to uncover existing

data within the network, therefore amplifying the invention capabilities of a company
with restricted resources. During this approach, the additional users there are and
therefore the more concerned they're, the higher the system functions, a proven fact
that might fine be applied to most democratic culture phenomena.
Example of the knowledge discovery and management approach is SeeClickFix.
SeeClickFix may be a internet site that enables folks to report non-emergency issues
in their local people, either by exploitation the SeeClickFix internet site or a free
itinerant application. in step with a SeeClickFix advocator, on average, quite forty
percent of problems reportable on the location get resolved (Smith, 2010, para. 13).
The Broadcast Search Approach Broadcast search approaches to crowdsourcing
are destined towards finding the only specialist with time on his or her hands, most
likely outside the direct field of experience of the matter, who is capable of adapting
previous work to supply an answer. In theory, the broader internet forged by the
crowdsourcing organization, the additional doubtless the corporate can come about
the needle within the stack, that one one that is aware of the solution. within the
broadcast search approach, financial rewards are common for people within the
crowd who give an answer to a challenge, although monetary incentive isn't the sole
motivation for these crowds to participate in these arrangements.
The Goldcorp Challenge was a broadcast search crowdsourcing case (Tischler,
2007). Goldcorp, a Canadian gold company, developed the Challenge in March 2000.
By giving quite US$500,000 in prize to twenty five prime finalists WHO known the
foremost gold deposits, Goldcorp attracted more than 475,000 hits to the
Challenges internet site and more than one,400 online prospectors from fifty one
countries registered as Challenge participants (Goldcorp, 2001, para. 6). {the
numerous solutions from the group confirmed many of Goldcorps suspected
deposits and known many new ones, a hundred and ten deposits altogether.
The Peer-Vetted Creative Production Approach The logic of the peer-vetted
creative production approach is that by gap up the creative section of a designed
product to a probably large network of net users, some superior concepts can exist
among the flood of submissions. Peer-vetted creative production is acceptable, then,
for downside finding regarding matters of style and user preference, like aesthetic
and design issues.
User-generated advertising contests, like the Doritos Crash the Super Bowl Contest,
are samples of the peer-vetted artistic production approach (Brabham, 2009), as are

democratic style contests, like Next Stop Design (Brabham et al., 2010). with none
financial incentive or promise to truly construct the winning styles, nearly 3,200
registered users submitted 260 stop shelter designs within the competition.
Distributed Human Intelligence Tasking This can be an applicable approach for
crowdsourcing once a corpus of knowledge is known and therefore the problem isn't
to produce designs, realize information, or develop solutions. Rather, it's applicable
once the matter itself involves process information. as a result of this crowdsourcing
approach is actually the smallest amount creative and intellectually demanding for
people within the crowd, financial compensation may be a common inducement for
participation. Pintarindo gives slot for people like researcher to connect with industry
where they are in mutual needs. Researcher need to be paid by industry while
industry need to develop new product.
The most notable example of the distributed human intelligence tasking approach is
Amazon Mechanical Turk (Barr and Cabrera, 2006). At Mechanical Turk,
Requesters will use the location to coordinate a series of easy tasks they have
accomplished by humans, tasks that computers cannot simply do, like accurately
tagging the content of pictures on the internet for a quest engine. Mechanical Turk
basically coordinates large-scale collections of easy tasks requiring human
intelligence.

Limitations of Crowdsourcing
First, for crowdsourcing to achieve success, it should consider a sturdy, active,
impelled crowd. Although a lot of analysis has been done regarding online
communities, there's still no coherent set of best practices for organizations hoping to
create and sustain these types of online communities.
Second, crowdsourcing needs a good deal of transparency and trust on the a part of a
company. To open a challenge to an internet community needs a company to specify
the parameters of a given problem, which can need the organization to reveal its
proprietary information, its inner workings, or its anxieties and weaknesses.
Third, crowdsourcing applications may be manipulated and gamed similar to the
other facet of democratic culture. The success of a corporation like Subvert and
Profit, for example, casts doubt on the organic, democratic virtues of questionable
peer-recommended news aggregation sites like Digg.

Issues of cheating aside, there's a fourth limitation in claiming that a crowdsourcing

method resulted in one thing that the people wished. This limitation concerns
illustration. Since crowdsourcing happens on the internet, and since internet access is
lower among the economically underprivileged and racial and ethnic minorities, we
will never totally claim a design that wins in a very crowdsourcing competition is
what's wished by all.
Lastly, there's a sound criticism that crowdsourcing is consumptive. Compared to the
profits Threadless makes on the sale of its crowd-made product, for example, the
prize earned by winning designers is kind of little. And even terribly massive money
prizes at InnoCentive for prospering solvers doubtless end in huge profits for the
scientific firms who secure the property rights to an invention.

Two-sided Market
Definition
Two-sided platforms are specific multi-sided platforms that bring together two
distinct however mutualist groups of consumers. They produce worth as
intermediaries by connecting these teams (Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Smith, 2010;
Eisenmann, Parker & Van Alstyne, 2006). Despite a stronger understanding of twosided internet markets, wherever one online platform allows interactions between
shoppers (the primary audience of the site), and business customers (e.g. the
advertisers) (Rochet & Tirole, 2003), the various importance given to the business
audience (B2B) and also the consumer audience (B2C) within the business model of
internet ventures has not been clearly known. Moreover, the notion that the selling
strategy orientation towards the B2B and/or the B2C aspect could modification over
time as a business develops has not been thought of. This can be a niche within the
literature, that this text tries to deal with through a study of the interaction between
the B2B and B2C sides of online business ventures and their relative influence over
time on the business models.
The construct of two-sided markets, originally planned in political economy, was
step by step adopted additionally in management and selling. The speculation of twosided markets states that web platforms should get either side of the market on
board so as to be viable (Rochet & Tirole, 2003).
The problem on the internet is that the same, and so one must confirm that aspect
contributes most to the demand of its complement (on the opposite side). The key

question is to see why any party may be part of the net platform. On the buyer aspect,
the motives are often as varied because the edges offered by the net platform; on the
business aspect, the motives are joined to the scale of the audience, its explicit
characteristics and/or the quality of the information collected from this audience. In
any case, it looks that the standard two-sided digital business model sees endconsumers as loss leaders (they get the service for free) and business participants as
subsidisers (they pay to succeed in the audience of end-users).
Free value strategy relies on giving value to customers, that they're not charged.
Andersen proposes that free are often a viable web business model (Andersen,
2009) however it will mean that someone else should pay (e.g. the business side).
This implies that web business models have to be compelled to contemplate the
worth proposition for business partners even as very much like for the buyer
audience (Mahadevan, 2000; Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Smith, 2010). It so follows
that:
P1: Two-sided web platforms have to be compelled to formulate 2 totally different
worth propositions one for the end-user aspect and one for the business aspect.
The construct of reciprocal worth propositions represents a more moderen
development. Glaser (2006, p. 446) claims that if participants within the worth
making method acknowledge that their objectives are complementary instead of
antagonistic, the worth outcomes for all parties are seemingly to be increased.
Through behavior analysis and identification, these information can become valuable
to alternative parties (on the B2B side) and will be monetized. It so follows that:
P2: In two-sided web platforms, end-users are a part of the worth proposition for
business customers and, what is more,
P3: In two-sided web platforms, the monetization of the business model is "B2B
oriented.
Accordingly, within the context of two-sided web platforms, it follows that:
P4: The business model and also the selling strategy orientation (B2B or B2C) of a
two- sided web platform evolve over time.

Characteristics of two-sided markets

This a part of the literature review is devoted to debate the foremost necessary
individual options of two-sided markets. As two-sided markets possess several
options that set them aside from ancient single-sided businesses, platform suppliers

have to be compelled to study these options closely so as to make appropriate ways

for the platform (Nguyen, 2014).
Network externalities Network externalities or network effects are the foremost
mentioned two-sided market feature within the subjects literature. Network
externalities are aforesaid to exist once the utility that a user gets from consumption
of the nice will increase with the quantity of alternative agents intense the nice (Katz,
1985). Network effects lead to a drag that several two-sided market platforms
encounter, that is termed the chicken-and-egg downside, or the matter of reaching
essential mass.
Multihoming Multihoming is that the development in which an area of users on one
or either side adopt many platforms. For instance within the case of credit card
services, a merchant multihomes once they settle for many credit cards for payment.
Within the same method, a shopper multihomes once he or she owns quite one credit
cards to settle on from. The alternative development to multihoming is singlehoming,
that indicates the utilization of 1 single platform for one in all either side. The price
levels tend to be lower in multhoming because the handiness of alternatives for users
tends to pressure competitory platforms to lower their costs (Evans, 2003).
A platform allows or facilitates the interaction of the two sides (buyers and sellers)
who indeed need to interact with one another (Rochet and Tirole, 2006). Two-sided
platforms ought to be distinguished from merchants, like Amazon or Walmart. The
essential distinction between two-sided platforms and merchants is that the proven
fact that merchants take possession of sellers merchandise and take full management
over their sale to shoppers, whereas two-sided platforms leave the management of
the sale method entirely to sellers and solely confirm the connection between sellers
and consumers with a typical marketplace (Hagiu, 2007).

Business model analysis for two-sided platforms

These part of business model analysis for two-sided platforms below are documented
by Nguyen (2014) when adapting business model parts with two-sided market
characteristics which are product innovation, infrastructure management, customer
relationship and financial aspect.
Product innovation Three parts have to be compelled to be taken into consideration:
the value the platform provides to both sides of the market (value proposition), the
profile and characteristics of each the seller and buyer sides of the market (target

customer) and also the ability of the platform so as to repeat the value creation and
delivery processes (capabilities).
Infrastructure management In the business model of a two-sided platform, the
management should build processes and activities that facilitate the 3 crucial aspects:

The quantity and therefore the quality of matches of the two market sides
Communication between the two sides
The supply of however both aspects of the market will exchange value (for
example the exchange of products or service for payments from one side to
another)
Customer Relationship In this pillar of the business model, firstly, the companys
information strategy, which suggests however the corporate gathers and analyzes
information regarding its customers and what they are doing with the information are
going to be examined. Secondly, the channels through that the corporate connects
with its customers and adopt new customers shall be known. Trust and safety are
particularly necessary within the case of cooperative consumption platforms, because
the platform connects strangers in peer-to-peer exchanges and interactions. thus
however the platforms manage trust issue and safety are going to be studied in
additional

depths

compared

to

the

previous

components.

Financial aspects The finance pillar presents the value structure and revenue models
of the corporate. The profit component is that the distinction of the 2 components.
The cost structure is analyzed for the activities and processes made public within the
infrastructure management pillar. For two-sided markets, pricing is usually a problem
and is directly connected to the subsidizing call of the platform.

Peer-to-peer
Definition
What are peer to peer technologies? In keeping with Camp (2002) peers in a very
P2P network are useful machines that may share computing resources like process
power and storage, likewise as files. These peers have equal stature and are
autonomous however will collaborate with each other so as to get services or to
finish giant computing jobs (Triantafillou, et. al. 2003). This differs from the
consumer server paradigm therein it overcomes one in every of the best weaknesses
of that topology, the existence of central points of failure and performance

bottlenecks. In a very P2P system the challenge is that the coordination of the peer
machines with the target of enlarging the pool of resources on the market to those
collaborating within the network.
Platforms are basically info gateways that enhance potency within the economy by
connecting provide and demand in an inefficient market. Platform businesses add
price by providing a medium for 2 parties, typically consumers and sellers, to act and
interact. These users are interested in a platform by indirect network externalities,
that mean the additional users a platform has on one facet, the additional users on the
opposite side are interested in the platform (Economides and Katsamakas, 2006).

Three Kinds of Peer-to-peer System

The peer-to-peer exchange are often any side of life, from capability (e.g.
carpooling), goods, money, skills or services. (Botsman, 2010) organized all their
researched cooperative consumption examples into three kinds of systems:
A) Product service systems: during this system, firms can give product as services
instead of sell them as product. The products that are in camera closely-held are often
shared or rented on a peer-to-peer market. A product service system example is
Zilok.com, a platform that gives peer-to-peer daily rental of technology and
construction tools and instrumentation. the web site arose to resolve the matter that
half U.S. households own power drills, most of that are solely use six to 13 minutes
throughout their time period.
B) Redistribution markets: used or preowned merchandise are moved from
somewhere they're not required to somewhere they're. The preowned merchandise
are often free, swapped or sold. Distribution markets facilitate either prolong goods
usage, re-purpose or recycle them, that are a key variety of property commerce.
C) Collaborative lifestyles: folks with similar desires and interests gather along to
exchange but tangible assets like house, skills, time or cash. These exchanges will
happen on tiny low geographic scale like in a very neighborhood or a town or on a
world scale during which intangible assets are often shared through a digital
platform.

BAB 2

Knoowly as Social Media Q&A for Young People

Knoowly idea has been established from 2 years ago in 2013. Our initial concept is a
social media with question and answer to find reliable knowledge for every people in

Indonesia. We have presented this idea in an entrepreneur event and had pitched this
idea to people in meetup event like StartupLokal, Mobile Monday etc for dozen of
times.

Ideation
We brainstormed Knoowly again on March 2th 2015, we are creating such a concept
that can encourage people to share, to manage knowledge (knowledge management),
to be a center of information and also to solve everyones problem. We have decided
that Knoowly to become no. 1 Q&A site that focused on growing knowledge
community in Indonesia. For starters, we tried to choose our beachhead market in
gadget. After that, we have found some problems such as hard to find buying tips,
hard to find service tutorial, hard to find latest device information and also find usage
tutorial. Knoowly focused on young people with beachhead market such as college
student. We use 3 business models which are affiliation, peer-to-peer and also
leverage customer data combined to create performance-based ads based on
customer data like Google Adwords.

Meeting with Kompas Gramedia

On March 3th 2015, We have met with some representatives from Kompas Gramedia
for the first time to discuss about the future of research in their office in Palmerah.
We talked a lot about what is the main function of Kompas Gramedia research in
Indonesia, especially Litbang Kompas or we usually called Kompas Research and
Development. Kompas Research and Development focused on quick poll and also
statistics consensus in Indonesia like when we oversaw general election these past
years. But compared to our past idea which is Knoowly, a Social Media Q&A similar
with Quora but made exclusively for Indonesian and focused on researcher as in
Indonesia. During those times, our concept cannot be applied in that time because
Kompas Research and Development has already declared that researchers habit is
different than any normal people. In Kompas Research and Development, many
researcher in Kompas Gramedia dont use social media as research management.
They only use it for their personal life, not for knowledge, not for research and
anything else. They are mostly using Scopus when they are researching, not using
any social media. While Knoowly serves as social media and knowledge
management for research, Kompas thinks it is quite difficult to implement because of
researchers behaviour. But this meeting become our reference to our Knoowly

ideation. Then we also ask about advertisement in Kompas Gramedia where they are
still offering WEB ADVERTISING, REGULAR BANNER, RICH MEDIA
BANNER, BLOCKING PROGRAM, MICROSITE, EMAIL BLAST, VIDEO AD to
the advertiser. This ads model is one of the Knoowlys revenue model which we will
implement in Knoowly.

Meeting with JerukNipis.com

On March 5th 2015 We have met with Marketing from JerukNipis.com to talk about
how to implement some marketing strategy into a community based platform.
JerukNipis.com is the first online media portal that provides information about
gadget and build gadget community around it. In this meeting we want to validate
about building community which is our core in Knoowly as community-based
platform too. but the differences are Knoowly moves in Q&A and Social Media field
while JerukNipis.com moves in online media. JerukNipis.com build community
through social media like Facebook, Twitter and mostly through BBM Channel. They
said that they made most traffic comes from BBM Channel while it is quite surprised
to me because Blackberry isnt trending anymore. While Knoowly still conceptualize
the marketing strategy through SEO (Search Engine Optimization), we have more
insight about other marketing channel that we can use through. JerukNipis.com had
14K likes on Facebook and 41.5 followers on Twitter. So, besides using SEO as our
marketing channel, we can also use SMO (Social Media Optimization) to generate
more traffic into our site.

Meeting with KompasKarier.com

On March 5th 2015 we met with Marketing Communication from KompasKarier.com

to learn more about event organizing which build community for long-term in
Indonesia.We learned this kind of business to seek more opportunities of expanding
Knoowly into another beachhead market. KompasKarier.com is an online
recruitment that focused on Indonesian people. KompasKarier.com helps people to
connect between jobseeker and corporate candidate. In KompasKarier.com, we can
see many events and also recruitment website at the same time. And also, their event
is the biggest event in Indonesia, if you are searching job expo. They are winning in
building community through event. And from here, we can implement some skills
from them especially about event organizer. They taught me how to create an event
especially in low budget. The steps are idea and concept, determine the audience,

create the agenda, find the right venue, invite free speaker, find partners, find
sponsors, use free marketing and media partner, use free website, and choose event
management software wisely.

Meeting with Microsoft

On March 6th 2015, we met with representative from microsoft that in charge with
education sales with many universities in Indonesia. From our discussion with
representative Microsoft we validate our concept which is marketplace for research
in Indonesia. He said that in Indonesia, research cannot be applicable because the
government isnt fully supported of research program. The situation is different with
the other countries, where research is appreciated and support the country
development in the future. He was a lecturer too in Sampoerna University, where he
is doing a lot of research and taking grant from government. He told us from two
perspective, industry and also academic where he experienced both things. Microsoft
in the world didnt do any research in Indonesia except market research. Market
research isnt done by Microsoft but by hiring global market research agencies such
as Nielsen, etc. Microsoft itself has grant program that helps researcher around the
world called Microsoft Azure for Research.

Meeting with Sukan Makmuri Kaskus

On March 20th 2015, we met with Sukan Makmuri, CEO of Kaskus. We just met
through meetup events and we would like to validate some ideas that similar with
Kaskus. Kaskus is the largest online community in Indonesia and excellently build
the biggest community in Indonesia. We are having a chat about research condition
in Indonesia compared to outer countries. Outside countries have grant which gives
donation in a form of money and free education to some researchers who took the
grant program. In MIT, there was a licensing department who offers patents to
companies, we could learned how to have that in Indonesia. Meanwhile, he told us
about the secret of Kaskus that can be implemented in Knoowly, such as : 1)
Language: this is a bulletin board where the contributors (Indonesians) write in their
mother tongue (Bahasa Indonesia). There is no language barrier that prevents users
from expressing their mind and communicating with each other. 2) Anonymity:
unlike Facebook, Kaskus does not force users to use their real identity. This is
obviously a double edged sword, but that's outside of what was being asked in this
question so I won't delve further. 3) Non-moderated nature: in its initial stage, users

can post virtually anything in the forum in an unrestricted/unmoderated manner. This

was proven to pose certain legal issues to the site, and later on Andrew Kaskus
decided to elect several moderators from the user base community to manage
content. 4) Sectarianism: there seemed to be some pent-up anger among the many
racial and religious groups in Indonesia. The non-moderated and anonymous nature
of the site made it possible for users to express their feeling unabashedly through the
site's Fight Club forum. 5) Porn: the site initially gained a significant amount of users
from its Buka-Bukaan (losely translated "Taking Off Clothes") forum. This is a place
where users curate pornographic images from other websites. And then we compared
our business model which is affiliation that similar with Kaskus Ad, advertising
system that owned by Kaskus. Kaskus AD is an advertising facility in Kaskus forum
with many ease of use and flexibility to control the budget with high impression and
also freedom to choose placement in desired forum page. Ads that showed can be
text or image, supported image. This facility is given to Kaskus member and also
KasPay account holder. In Knoowly, we choose affiliation as one of our business
model. We can learn from Kaskus AD where Kaskus AD has certain benefits
include : 1) Flexibility of budget, require at least Rp 10.000,- to advertise on Kaskus,
2) Customised Ad, where we can choose our desired placement and Packaged Ad,
where we can choose ads package from Kaskus, 3) Large coverage. In short
sentence, Knoowly can implement this affiliation model as we have designed and
this proves that affiliation model works in Indonesia especially on community-based
website.

Pintarindo as Research-based Marketplace

On March 15th 2015, we changed Knoowly into Pintarindo, a research marketplace
where people like researcher from academic can sell their own research to industry.
The concept is that simple but we have to make sure the concept is validated through
next meetings. The concept is changed because Knoowly have to gather expert which
cant be done by the concept before. We need another platform like Pintarindo to
attract the researcher first to join into our platform. Pintarindo has 2 main business
model which is two-sided market and peer-to-peer. We targeted two main users such
as academic researcher and industry that need research. In the next few meetings, we

gathered new information, new insights, new validation that can be implemented into
Pintarindo.

Meeting with Hery Harjono Muljo, Research Administration Section

Head from Binus University
On March 27th 2015, we met with Hery from Binus University. We have discovered
some new insights and also some validation result of our concept. In Indonesia, a
research rarely become physical product because of bad research ecosystem in
Indonesia where facilities are nearly zero. Interestingly, he told us that student
research is far sellable than lecturer research. This fact validate our research
marketplace idea that already focus on young researcher such as college student.
When we validate two-sided market, we discover unique facts that in Indonesia,
there are still zero platform that similar like this one. But sadly research selling
model isnt realistic, because the ones that can be sold through this platform or any
other shops have to be patented through government which takes really long day.
Other models that we have already thought like grant platform and request based are
optional to be executed. Another point which he mentioned is industry have to see
the history of researcher or institution who is joining with our platform. At this time,
it is not implemented in our idea. Mostly companies have their internal researchers
but they often need outsources which becomes our advantage to our business. The
next thing is industries in Indonesia are way too many and we need to make a certain
specific fields which becomes our beachhead market. Another point that have been
validated is our crowdsourcing model has to be worked out because of Pintarindos
personal branding advantages. Our platform, Pintarindo becomes the only platform
in Indonesia that made for researcher. It is not made only for researcher, but for
industry too. Industry can connect with researcher and vice versa. According to Hery,
this is good because by now, there are no platform that connect industry with
researcher excellently. Researcher need to connect with industry to improve research
application in Indonesia. In the real case, industries are hardly find expert which
become as our as-is condition while our platform didnt offer access to expert finding
in a quick phase than the as-is condition. This kind of business has become our
opportunity to move these idea into the next phase.

Meeting with Rida Zuraida, Head of Laboratory Industrial Engineering

from Binus University

On March 27th 2015, we met Rida who gives a lot of insights about research industry.
She stated that researchers in Binus focus on pure research not the applied one where
we can create application from our research. In Binus, Industrial Engineering Faculty
has many project offers from industry. University researchers cant accept a lot of
projects since they mostly focus on teaching.

Meeting with Nielsen

On March 31th 2015, we met Putu, Research Manager from Nielsen Consulting
Indonesia. In this meeting we want to validate from industry perspective to answer
the question : Will industry pay to use this platform ? In Nielsen, company does
know what they need, what research that can actually help them. The market answer
for research in Indonesia depends on the economy condition in Indonesia. Another
condition about research in Indonesia and why company prefer foreign research
consultant is Indonesian people in certain companies believe foreign people is much
smarter than Indonesian people. From this fact, we know that Pintarindo is having
trouble with finding its user base from Indonesia. Then we asked about differences
between research consultant. She told us that methodology is the one thing that
remain important to be differentiation. So, if the client is knowing a lot about
research, they will choose Nielsen because of its methodology. By this statement, we
can know that Pintarindo has to have methodology as differentiation to its researcher.
Another point is Indonesian lecturer cannot build their own portfolio, so in Knoowly,
they can build it easily on our system. The next question is how a research can be
told as a great one. A research can be great if they are solving the problem. For
example, if the research topic is health, then the parameter works on its solution
which is the patient is healthy again by its research. And we asked if industry want to
buy some research and the problem is in Indonesia, and Putu said the probability is
about 1%. This fact become one of our thoughts to change the model.

Pintarindo as Request-based Research Marketplace

On March 30th 2015, we changed Pintarindo main concept into request-based
research marketplace. The concept is similar with freelancer.com but focused on
researcher. We changed it because the previous model is hard to be accepted by
industry and research condition in Indonesia where we dont know what industry
expects from research in Indonesia. But we changed it to industry -

centered

where we serve the industry first. We add some features like LinkedIn feature, where

researcher can put their own portfolio and history profile to be shown to industry,
Search feature to look up researcher and also their researches. We have 3 main
business models in peer-to-peer and two-sided market. We used peer-to-peer to be a
transaction between researcher and industry while we used two-sided market because
we have two main market in this platform such as researcher and industry. in this
platform we focused on academic researcher in Kopertis 3 area which located in DKI
Jakarta and near DKI Jakarta.

Meeting with Hery Harjono Muljo, Research Administration Section

Head from Binus University
On April 8th 2015, we met with him again to discuss about research market
condition. And also we have found several research development in another
university like in Universitas Indonesia, they have Pusat Riset UI to be target of our
customers. Then we discuss about how to gain data for our researcher and he told us
to create partnership with Kopertis and DIKTI. And we validate our new concept to
him and he told us it was a good idea because LIPI has a similar conference that
spent a lot of money to make one. Our business serves as substitute for as-is
condition of LIPI.

Meeting with Jajat Sudrajat, Product Development Senior Officer at

BINUS Institutional Development and Collaboration Center
On April 10th 2015, we met with Jajat to discuss about grant potential in our
platform. Is grant can be another alternative model for our platform instead requestbased research marketplace ? We get a visualisation of lecturer who interested in
research from him and also grant concept that can be implemented in our product.
We also know what is the process to achieve grant from DIKTI for lecturer.

Meeting with Bahtiar S. Abbas, Vice Rector Research & Technology

Transfer BINUS University
On April 24th 2015, we met with Bahtiar to discuss business and research
opportunity. We showed the presentation and also the prototype to him and gained
some feedback. Industry isnt familiar with academic. Industry hardly to see journal
because its not their habit to check on journal. Industry mostly focused on
marketing, selling while on product research, transferred to another country e.g.
Japan when we are researching about motorcycle. In Indonesia, industry requested

research but not much. Research funds usually comes from government than
industry. In Indonesia, industry will be likely to request food, pharmacy and nature
research. Industry like Kalbe partnered with academic institute. In Indonesia, patent
awareness is very low so our platform will be hardly to executed. Indonesias patent
isnt recognized by other countries. Our platform needs to focus on LinkedIn with
Academia features where people can see other peoples research and history easily.

Meeting with Sasa Sofyan, LIPI

On May 12th 2015, we met with Sasa Sofyan, a researcher from LIPI. We discuss about this
platform and we discuss a lot about monetizing framework. He told us about tangible and
intangible. While framework for tangible pricing is easy, framework for intangible pricing is
quite hard. Government still havent the framework for monetizing. Sasa is interested into
collaborating with Pintarindo to make the framework and invite some researcher into our
platform to get publicity. This statement approve validation to the market such as LIPI
researcher. However, because of failed framework for intangible pricing, our commission
model for Pintarindo cannot work out.

Meeting with Hery Harjono Muljo, Research Administration Section

Head from Binus University
On May 13th 2015, we met with Hery, to discuss additional features of Pintarindo
and validate our business model. There are HKI (Hak Karya Publikasi), IP
(Intellectual Property), Patent to improve trust in our site. So with low trust in our
site and additional element to improve trust in researcher can be another idea to
implement in Pintarindo.

Meeting with Anindito Subagyo, Dissemination and Intellectual Capital

Section Head Binus University
On May 15th 2015, we met with Anindito, to discuss about legal and patent and also validate
our business model. He added suggestion to us to add NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) to
our platform. Because our platform has low security and confidentiality. Anindito said to not
implement transaction inside the website. And also he told us that he had many outsourced
project from outside that validate our business which has outsourced project.

Meeting LIPI
On May 20th 2015, we met with LIPI in Cibinong, to discuss open partnership with
LIPI. We presented about our prototype to them and we are discussing about many
things. First, LIPI is concerned to be member of us where they need to publish their

researcher in internet. So it is aligned with our business process. Then we have new
insight which is subscription. This business model is recommended by researchers in
LIPI.

Meeting Business Innovation Center

On May 20th 2015, we met with LIPI in Cibinong, to discuss open partnership with
LIPI. We presented about our prototype to them and we are discussing about many
things. First, LIPI is concerned to be member of us where they need to publish their
researcher in internet. So it is aligned with our business process. Then we have new
insight which is subscription. This business model is recommended by researchers in
LIPI. Third, researchers are lazy to update their profile on the internet.

Meeting with Ferdy

On May , we met with Ferdy to discuss about research condition in Indonesia. We
discover researchers behaviour. According to Ferdy, researchers didnt like to write
especially academic researcher. They didnt like to update their profile because of
their busy jobs. So by these facts, we discover that researchers didnt like to update
their profile on the internet.

Meeting with BPPT

On May , we met with BPPT to discuss about research condition in Indonesia. We
discover researchers behaviour. According to Ferdy, researchers didnt like to write
especially academic researcher. They didnt like to update their profile because of
their busy jobs. So by these facts, we discover that researchers didnt like to update
their profile on the internet.

Pintarindo as Research-based Product Marketplace

On July 6th 2015, after several meetings, we decide to change our model into
research-based product marketplace. We changed the model into this kind of form
because research-based product marketplace improve the trust which become the
most problem in our entire validation. Our research-based product marketplace offers
some features that mostly highlight the product itself rather than the people which
mostly implemented in previous model. We would like to implement crowdsourcing,
two-sided market and peer-to-peer in our new business form.

BAB 3

Crowdsourcing
As stated in Chapter 1, crowdsourcing is essentially captivated with the internet. The
speed, reach, anonymity, chance for asynchronous engagement, and talent to hold
several types of media content makes the internet a vital necessity for crowdsourcing.
Pintarindo as a Research-based Product Marketplace requires speed, reach, and also
talent makes this platform require business model called crowdsourcing as we have
mentioned earlier. And also we can learn from Kaskus which use crowdsourcing as
one of their business model to Pintarindo which focused on marketplace too. Based
on above studies, some motivations for people in crowds that emerge across quite
one case include :

the desire to earn money;

to develop ones creative skills;

to network with other creative professionals;

to build a portfolio for future employment;

to challenge oneself to solve a tough problem;

to socialize and make friends;

to pass the time when bored;

to contribute to a large project of common interest;

to share with others; and

to have fun.

Pintarindo have many elements as stated above like the desire to earn money, to
develop ones
creative skills, to contribute to a large project of common interest, to network with
other creative
professionals and to share with others. According to Hery researcher needs to
network with
industry. This statement proves that we need to make a platform where researcher
connect with
industry.
Knowledge Discovery and Management Approach In the knowledge discovery
and management approach, online communities are challenged to uncover existing
data within the network, therefore amplifying the invention capabilities of a company
with restricted resources. During this approach, the additional users there are and
therefore the more concerned they're, the higher the system functions, a proven fact
that might fine be applied to most democratic culture phenomena. The more user are,
the more knowledge can be built through Pintarindo which become our most concern
thing in Pintarindo. Pintarindo is an online community that build to gather people
that appreciate knowledge and build this community to be our strength. User can find
certain research in Pintarindo especially research that displayed in researchers
profile portfolio.
The Broadcast Search Approach Broadcast search approaches to crowdsourcing
are destined towards finding the only specialist with time on his or her hands, most
likely outside the direct field of experience of the matter, who is capable of adapting
previous work to supply an answer. The user that registered in Pintarindo platform
can sell their own research product which means become their own reward. They can
connect to Pintarindo to get industrial research network and also publicity. According
to Kaskus, any of their members who join loves to express their mind in Kaskus,
besides that they can sell anything on there as a reward for themselves.
The Peer-Vetted Creative Production Approach The logic of the peer-vetted
creative production approach is that by gap up the creative section of a designed
product to a probably large network of net users, some superior concepts can exist
among the flood of submissions. Pintarindo gives a chance for its users or
researchers to express their portfolio and profile design. According to Hery,
researcher loves to express their research on the network .

Distributed Human Intelligence Tasking Different still from the previous cases is
that the distributed human intelligence tasking approach to crowdsourcing. This can
be an applicable approach for crowdsourcing once a corpus of knowledge is known
and therefore the problem isn't to produce designs, realize information, or develop
solutions. Pintarindo can use this approach where research that uploaded will be
shown in Pintarindo so people can lookup for research.

Two-Sided Market
As stated above, two-sided platforms are specific multi-sided platforms that bring
together two distinct however mutualist groups of consumers. Despite a stronger
understanding of two-sided internet markets, wherever one online platform allows
interactions between shoppers (the primary audience of the site), and business
customers (e.g. the advertisers) (Rochet & Tirole, 2003), the various importance
given to the business audience (B2B) and also the consumer audience (B2C) within
the business model of internet ventures has not been clearly known.
P1: Two-sided web platforms have to be compelled to formulate 2 totally different
worth propositions one for the end-user aspect and one for the business aspect.
Pintarindo has 2 main customers which is researcher and also industry. According to
Bahtiar, to improve researcher's life, we need a platform where they can connect and
express themselves which means Pintarindo can be a bridge for researcher.
P2: In two-sided web platforms, end-users are a part of the worth proposition for
business customers. Pintarindo has end users which means when another end users
side increase then another side too. They are both needed. According to Sasa Sofyan
from LIPI, collaboration between researcher and industry are needed, otherwise the
platform isnt working out.
P3: In two-sided web platforms, the monetization of the business model is "B2B
oriented. Pintarindo is a B2B Model where industry connect directly into researcher.
P4: The business model and also the selling strategy orientation (B2B or B2C) of a
two- sided web platform evolve over time. Pintarindo is evolved through model from
crowdsourcing, subscription and many model in the future.

Peer-to-peer
In a very P2P system the challenge is that the coordination of the peer machines with
the target of enlarging the pool of resources on the market to those collaborating
within the network.

A) Product service systems: during this system, firms can give product as services
instead of sell them as product. The products that are in camera closely-held are often
shared or rented on a peer-to-peer market. Based on this statement, Pintarindo is not
exactly the type of this peer-to-peer type. Because Pintarindo isnt offering any
service but only research product.
B) Redistribution markets: used or preowned goods are moved from somewhere
they're not required to somewhere they're. The preowned goods are often free,
swapped or sold. Distribution markets facilitate either prolong goods usage, repurpose or recycle them, that are a key variety of property commerce. Based on this
statement, Pintarindo is not exactly the type of this peer-to-peer type. Because
Pintarindo isnt offering any preowned goods.
C) Collaborative lifestyles: folks with similar desires and interests gather along to
exchange but tangible assets like house, skills, time or cash. These exchanges will
happen on tiny low geographic scale like in a very neighborhood or a town or on a
world scale during which intangible assets are often shared through a digital
platform. This peer-to-peer type is exactly Pintarindo. Pintarindo is a community of
researcher and industry that interested in exchange research product.

BAB 4

CONCLUSION

At the end of this paper, we would like to thank you for all partners that have set up
meeting with us easiliy and freely to meet. Every validation we did in each meeting
resulted change of business model until we have decided we will go with research
product marketplace where researcher can sell their own research that have been
implemented into product. For me, I had 3 main business models in mind that we can
used for this platform which is crowdsourcing, two-sided market and peer-to-peer.
We combined these 3 main business model to create a new business opportunity for
Pintarindo outside the past business model. I decided to use crowdsourcing because
we need researcher as our main user to write and upload their own research in our
system because my system requires a balanced people between researcher and
industry. Researcher in our platform function as content provider. If we cant use
researcher, then our platform will have abstract customer. Then I decided to choose
two-sided market because Pintarindo consists of two main markets which are
industry and researcher. It was chosen because it was complementary to each other
from user mutual benefit. Without availability of the researcher, then there is no
industry to join and vice versa. And the last business model that I chose is peer-topeer. In peer-to-peer require the coordination of the peer machines with the target of
enlarging the pool of resources on the market to those collaborating within the
network which means creating platform for two sides for example in Pintarindo,
require industry as a buyer and researcher as seller.
Finally, with three business model that we have chosen, we hope this model is works
and applied for Pintarindo.

Triantafillou, P., Xiruhaki Ch., Koubarakis M., Ntarmos N. Towards High

Performance Peer-to-Peer Content and Resource Sharing Systems, Proceedings of
st
the 1 Biennial Conference on Innovation Data Research, Asilomar California,
January 5-8, 2003.

Camp, J. Peer to Peer Systems, The Internet Encyclopedia, Hossein Bidgoli,(ed.)

John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, New Jersey, Spring 2003.
Economides, N. and Katsamakas, E. (2008), "Two-sided competition of proprietary
vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry",
Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 7, July 2006, pp. 10571071
Botsman, R. (2010), "Beyond Zipcar: collaborative consumption.(Idea Watch)."
Harvard Business Review, Oct, 2010, Vol.88(10), p.30(1) 88(10): 30.
Brabham, D. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving. An
Introduction and Cases. Convergence : The International Journal of Research into
New Media Technologies, 14(1), 75-90.
Jeff Howe, 2006a. Crowdsourcing: A Definition, Crowdsourcing: Tracking the
Rise of the Amateur (Weblog, 2 June), at
http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/cs/2006/06/crowdsourcing_a.html, accessed 15
September 2010
Grant, R. M. (1995), "Contemporary Strategy Analysis." Malden MA: Blackwell.
Daren C. Brabham, 2008b. Moving the Crowd at iStockphoto: The Composition of
the Crowd and Motivations for Participation in a Crowdsourcing Application, First
Monday, volume 13, number 6, at
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2159/1969,
accessed 15 September 2010.
Wallin, J. (2000), Operationalizing Competencies, 5th Annual International
Conference on Competence-Based Management, Helsinki, June 10-14.
Hamel, G. (2000), "Leading the evolution." Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Porter, M. (2001), Strategy and the Internet, Harvard Business Review, 79 (3):
pp.62-78.
Daren C. Brabham, 2010a. Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving:
Leveraging the Collective Intelligence of Online Communities for Public Good.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Utah.
Daren C. Brabham, 2010b. Moving the Crowd at Threadless: Motivations for
Participation in a Crowdsourcing Application, Information, Communication &
Society, volume 13, number 8, pp. 1122-1145.

Karim R. Lakhani, Lars Bo Jeppesen, Peter A. Lohse, and Jill A. Panetta, 2007. The
Value of Openness in Scientific Problem Solving, Harvard Business School
Working Paper, number 07-050, at http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-050.pdf,
accessed 15 September 2010.
Katri Lietsala and Atte Joutsen, 2007. Hang-a-rounds and True Believers: A Case
Analysis of the Roles and Motivational Factors of the Star Wreck Fans, In: Artur
Lugmayr, Katri Lietsala, and Jan Kallenbach (editors). MindTrek 2007 Conference
Proceedings. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University of Technology, pp. 25-30.
Abbe Smith, 2010. SeeClickFix Celebrates 50G Issues Reported, New Haven
Register (7 August), at Crowdsourcing 21
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/08/07/news/aa3_neseeclickfix080710.txt,
accessed 18 March 2011.
Brandenburger, A., Nalebuff, B. (1996), Co-opetition, New York: Doubleday.
Selz, D. (1999), Value Webs: Emerging forms of fluid and flexible organizations.
Thinking, organizing, communicating and delivering value on the Internet,
Dissertation at the University of St.Gallen, Switzerland, Bamberg: Difo-Druck OHG.
Tapscott, D., A. Lowi, D. Ticoll (2000), Digital Capital - Harnessing the Power of
Business Webs, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Linda Tischler, 2007. He Struck Gold on the Net (Really), Fast Company (19
December), at http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/59/mcewen.html, accessed 15
September 2010.
Goldcorp Challenge Winners!, 2001. The Goldcorp Challenge, at
http://www.goldcorpchallenge.com/challenge1/winnerslist/challeng2.pdf, accessed 2
February 2008.
Daren C. Brabham, Thomas W. Sanchez, and Keith Bartholomew, 2010.
Crowdsourcing Public Participation in Transit Planning: Preliminary Results from
the Next Stop Design Case, paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Daren C. Brabham, 2009. Crowdsourced Advertising: How We Outperform
Madison Avenue, Flow: A Critical Forum on Television and Media Culture, volume
9, number 10, at http://flowtv.org/?p=3221, accessed 15 September 2010.
Jeff Barr and Luis Felipe Cabrera, 2006. AI Gets a Brain: New Technology Allows
Software to Tap Real Human Intelligence, ACM Queue, volume 4, number 4, pp.
24-29.

Julie Bosman, 2006. Chevy Tries a Write-Your-Own-Ad Approach, and the Potshots
Fly, New York Times (4 April), at
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/business/media/04adco.html, accessed 18
March 2011.
Rajala and Westerlud (2005). Business Models: A new perspective on knowledge
intensive services in the software industry. In 18th Bled eCommerce Conference
eIntegration in Action. Bled, Slovenia, 1-15.
Osterwalder, A. (2002), An E-business Model Ontology for Modelling E-business,
th

15

Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, e-Reality: Constructing the Economy,

July 17-19, 2002.

Osterwalder, A. (2004), The business model ontology A proposition in a design
science approach, Doctoral Dissertation, Universite de Lausanne.
Walter, T. and Back, A. Crowdsourcing as a Business Model: An Exploration of
Emergent Textbooks Harnessing the Wisdom of Crowds. 2010. In: 23rd Bled
eConference.
Rochet, J., and J. Tirole (2006), "Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report." The
RAND Journal of Economics 37(3): 645-667.
Hagiu, A. (2007), "Merchant or Two-Sided Platform?", Review of Network
Economics, 2007, Vol.6(2) 6(2).
Evans, D. (2003), The Antitrust Economics of Multi-sided Platform Markets, Yale
Journal on Regulation, Vol. 20:325, 2003.
Katz, M. and Shapiro, C. (1985), Network Externalities, Competition, and
Compatibility, The American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 3. (Jun., 1985), pp.
424-440.
Timmers, P. (1999). Electronic Commerce: Strategies and Models for Business-toBusiness Trading (p. 288). Chichester: John Wiley.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Smith, A. (2010). Business Model Generation
(p.288). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two-sided
markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 92-101.
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets.
Journal of the European Economics Association, 1(4), 990-1029.

Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Models Matter A Conversation with Robert

Redford. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86-92.
Fish, T. (2009). My Digital Footprint: A two sided digital business model where your
privacy will be someone elses business! (p. 189). London, UK: FutureText.
Andersen, C. (2009). Free: the future of a radical price (p. 274). Hyperion.
Mahadevan, B. (2000). Business models for Internet-based e-commerce: AN
ANATOMY. California Management Review, 42(4), 5569.
Glaser, S. (2006). The value of the manager in the value chain. Management
Decision, 44(3), 446.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Smith, A. (2010). Business Model Generation
(p.288). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Mason, K., & Spring, M. (2011). The sites and practices of business models.
Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 1032-1041.
Nguyen, G. (2014). Exploring collaborative consumption business models - case
peer-to-peer digital platforms.