Companies

As aforementioned, three complementors classified as ‘Companies’ (see appendix: Company I-III) could be interviewed for the purpose of this master’s thesis.

That said, two interviewees (Company I and Company II) showed interest to participate on the MILLA platform, whereas, one of them (Company III) revealed a negative stance and does not see any added value in joining the platform. This is due to the fact that the company’s business model focuses on educating their own employees and they do not see any use case to implement MILLA into their business model yet. However, since this research’s purpose is to investigate real-world use cases, it is important to also analyse incentives of complementors that initially do not intend to join the platform in order to think of ways to encourage further participation. The two companies who expressed willingness to join MILLA, stated that the primary reasons to join the platform were not of monetary nature. Nevertheless, Company II acknowledged the importance of further monetary incentives by stating that a financial benefit “would be an incentive to provide high quality material and to invest in such content” (May 3, 2019, 08:42.820). This is in line with the statements of Company III, who does not want to join MILLA. The interviewee pointed out that they would consider joining the platform if MILLA could “facilitate an efficient way to reach a [new] customer group” and “if it is not negatively affecting their internal employee educational program” (May 14, 2019).

In regard to direct competition with MILLA as the platform owner, Company I and II acknowledged a market entry as a good enhancement for the platform and do not fear to compete on similar customer groups. However, Company I noted that it will require “planning and structure just to make sure that we're kind of aligned and not taking away from each other because I think we have the same objective” (April 24, 2019, 24:02.930). Company I further elaborated on possible effects a market entry of MILLA could have. In particular, they elaborated on if it could move their focus to different areas that are not covered by MILLA. They acknowledge that it is “hard to predict” but they do see a possibility if they can reach as many and distinct types of customers as they do on their own platform (April 24, 2019, 24:02.930).

48

Company I also acknowledged the importance of MILLA as the platform owner to provide active support in achieving their goals on the platform. More specifically, they see promotional support of their courses by MILLA as an additional factor that could encourage them to further contribute to the platform: “The greater the role of MILLA, the more engaged they can get the community the greater the incentive for us to be active as well and to participate” (April 24, 2019, 17:45.760).

However, they particularly mentioned that MILLA’s support is not a prerequisite to actually join the platform. In addition to that, they stated that such actions by MILLA should be made transparent in a sense that complementors get informed about requirements of how to get promotional support by MILLA. This is in line with the statements of Company III, who elaborates on the “matching character” (May 14, 2019) of MILLA in order to bring users and course providers together. Thus, course providers need to know how to get favourable positions.

A negative position could be observed when speaking about quality assurance or a certification model on MILLA. Company III strictly rejected a possible approach of MILLA to pre-select complementary courses based on certain quality standards. It seems that they do not want a central judge, in form of a governmental body, to evaluate the quality of their courses. Instead, they proposed to let the market decide on quality. Even though Company III is the only source of evidence in this group that elaborated on this issue, it might be relevant to consider since Company III named it as one of the most important factors that impacts their participation on the platform.

From a technical perspective, there appeared to be a consensus with respect to openness of the platform between Company II and III (Company I stated that they do not have the expertise to answer technical related questions). Company II noted that the platform must be designed as “an open platform where content providers are encouraged to deliver content“ (May 3, 2019, 05:35.040). The interviewee further elaborated that “there shouldn't be a vendor lock in so if you put content on the platform you should be able to integrate it on other platforms as well” (May 3, 2019, 09:43.780). This is acknowledged by Company III, who points out the importance of an “easy access” and corresponding open APIs (May 14, 2019). These companies already produce educational content, which is published on their own platforms. Hence, it was examined if they were open to adapt their course content to a different and potentially more complex technical

49

environment. Company II and III clearly stated that they would expect open standards and a more or less frictionless entry. However, Company I and III also noted they would adjust their courses to a more complex infrastructure if they see the “value” to commit themselves on the platform.

During the data collection it became apparent that the main incentive for Company I and II to join the platform is to reach a broader audience. Company I even pointed out that this is “the biggest incentive that we would have if we were to join“ (April 24, 2019,01:37.710). Hence, one could argue that participation can be achieved by an increasing number of users reached on the demand-side of the platform.

In addition to the factors that could potentially impact complementors’ participation on MILLA derived from academic literature, this research seeks to explore further insights that can be possibly added, and thus, enhance the academic picture. That said, it seems that companies are willing to engage more on platforms that are designed in a user-friendly way. Company II, for example, stated that the platform owner could provide support in achieving their personal goals by establishing a platform that is “easy to use platform for the users” (May 3, 2019, 05:35.040). Company III confirmed that statement by noting that “an easy access for the users might be one of the most important points to solve for the platform owner” (May 14, 2019). Another relevant factor that could be identified might relate to the user data the platform owner gathers on their platform. Company II stated that they do want to receive feedback and interact if they decide to offer their courses on the platform.

4.1.1.1 Summary of Findings

To sum up, it appeared that companies with business models differing from that of the platform owner do not necessarily require monetary incentives to join the platform. Instead, the participants stated that they seek to leverage the user base on the platform to present their content to a broader audience. However, there is also indication that the aspect of generating revenue might affect their participation. That said, Company III, which is currently not willing to join the platform, stated to reconsider its decision if the platform owner can provide monetary incentives. In addition to that, Company II noted to increase their efforts if the platform owner can establish a new revenue stream.

50

In addition to that, the companies acknowledged the role of the platform owner to support them in achieving their goals by, for example, promoting their services on the platform. It seems that they do not require promotion, but it would positively affect their participation on the platform.

However, there is also small evidence that an unbalanced and non-transparent promotion can negatively affect their behaviour on the platform. From a technical perspective, it seemed that participation is positively affected by an open platform that supports a frictionless entry of different types of contents. However, the companies seemed to be willing to adjust their contents to the specifications of the platform if they see the value of joining the platform. In addition to the themes identified in academic literature, two further topics could be found that potentially affects complementors’ participation. That said, it seems they require a platform which is designed in a user-friendly way.