The financial sector, as we know it, is radically transforming. As a result of the European regulation PSD2, customers banking data is becoming available for third parties by APIs [Evry n.d]. The traditional banks are now being exposed to competition from FinTechs and BigTech [Evry 2017]. The transformation is on-going and to the tunes of to new technologies, new regulations and new customer demands [Tornjanski et al. 2015]. This study aimed to identify the nature and behavior of the trend leaders, Generation Y (18 to 30 years old), and in the context of open banking, diagnose the transformation of banking services to meet new digital needs.To achieve this, a sequential embedded explanatory methodology was applied. The quantitative phase, identified and generalized the behaviors of Generation Y. The qualitative phase was exploratory, where multiple focus groups (38 individuals) developed the future banking services they request and want. This was analyzed based on Business Model Canvas [Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010] and a new service development framework for customer co-creation [Ozdemir, Trott, and Hoecht 2007]. The results imply that Generation Y, abide to be courted on their conditions and on-demand. They request a further expansion of the banks operational context, to supply with open banking platforms including both financial- and non-financial services. Hence, to meet these requests and remain the primary financial service provider the future banking services most transform into becoming digitally personalized and to seamlessly assist in everyday life. / Finanssektorn, som vi känner till den, förändras radikalt. Som ett resultat av den europeiska förordningen PSD2 blir kundernas bankdata tillgängliga för tredjepartsaktörer via API:er [Evry n.d]. De traditionella bankerna utsätts nu för konkurrens från FinTechs och BigTechs [Evry 2017]. Transformationen pågår och möjliggör för ny teknik, nya regler och nya kundkrav [Tornjanski et al. 2015]. Denna studie syftar till att identifiera trendledarna, Generation Ys (18 till 30 år) natur och beteenden, och inom ramen för open banking, diagnostisera omvandlingen av banktjänsterför att möta nya digitala behov. För att uppnå detta tillämpades en sekventiell inbäddad förklarande metodik. Den kvantitativa fasen identifierade och generaliserade Generations Y: s beteende. Den kvalitativa fasen var undersökande, där flera fokusgrupper (38 individer) utvecklade de framtida banktjänster som de efterfrågar och vill ha. Detta analyserades utifrån Business Model Canvas [Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010] och ett ramverk för utveckling av ny tjänster genom kundsamverkan [Ozdemir, Trott, and Hoecht 2007]. Resultaten påvisar att Generation Y förväntar sig att bli betjänade på sina villkor och begäran. De efterfrågar en framtida expansion av bankernas operativa kontext, till att förmedla öppna plattformar som inkluderar både finansiella och icke-finansiella tjänster. För att möta efterfrågan och förbli den primära finansiella tjänsteleverantören, måste de framtida banktjänsterna transformeras till att bli mer digitala och personanpassade hjälpmedel i vardagen.

Syfte: Det övergripande syftet med uppsatsen är att förstå hur transaktionsplattformar ska lyckas i tidiga stadier. Detta genom att förstå hur en transkansaktionsplattform ska utformas för att kunna attrahera många användare.  Metod: Denna studie har använt en kvalitativ forskningsansats där intervjuerna genomfördes i tre faser. I studien genomfördes intervjuer med 24 svenska bolag och organisationer verksamma i energibranschen. Studien intervjuade två olika användargrupper vilket var beställare och utförare. Utöver det genomfördes även intervjuer med branschkunniga aktörer.  Resultat: Resultatavsnittet är indelat i två delar där första delen handlar om att skapa förståelse för sju faktorer som påverkar intentionen för potentiella användare att adoptera en transaktionsplattform. Här presenteras på vilket sätt dessa faktorer påverkar adoptionsbeslutet samt vilka handlingar som plattformsägaren kan vidta för att öka deras intention att adoptera. I andra delen av resultatavsnittet presenteras ett ramverk som plattformsägaren kan använda i utformningsstadiet. Ramverket handlar om att identifiera intressanta användargrupper samt adressera faktorer som påverkar adoptionsbeslutet.  Teoretiskt och praktiskt bidrag: Befintlig litteratur har sällan i samma studie inkluderat flera faser av plattformars livscykel, utan enbart fokuserat på en fas åt gången. Denna studie bidrar teoretiskt genom att undersöka hur utformningsfasen påverkar adoptionsfasen för transaktionsplattformar. Dessutom bidrar denna studie till litteraturen genom att undersöka tidiga stadier för transaktionsplattformar. Studien fokuserar på utformningsfasen, vilket sällan undersökts i befintlig litteratur. Studien bidrar även praktiskt genom att presentera ett ramverk som kan hjälpa chefer eller entreprenörer vid utformningen av en ny transaktionsplattform. Användning av ramverket kan underlätta hanteringen av höna-och-ägg-problemet som nya transaktionsplattformar alltid möts av.  Begränsningar och framtida forskning: Det finns framför allt två begränsningar med denna studie, vilket öppnar upp för framtida studier. Den första är att den undersökta intervjugruppen är relativt snäv vilket kan leda till branschspecifika resultat. Framtida studier kan därmed undersöka andra branscher och jämföra mot denna studies resultat för att öka generaliserbarheten. Den andra begränsningen är att denna studie enbart intervjuat potentiella användare av transaktionsplattformar och inte nuvarande användare – det vill säga adoptörer. Därmed var intervjuundersökning relativt hypotetisk och mycket fokus lades på vad intervjuobjekten kunde tänka sig. Framtida studier kan därmed även intervjua nuvarande användare av en transaktionsplattform för att vidareutveckla resultatet. / Purpose: The main purpose of the thesis is to understand how transaction platforms can become successful in early phases. This will be achieved by understanding how a transaction platform should be designed in order to attract many users to the platform. Method: This study had a qualitative research approach, and the interviews were performed in three phases. Interviews were made with 24 companies and organizations within the energy industry. Two different user groups were interviews, which was buyers and sellers. Besides that, people with high knowledge of the industry were interviewed. Result: The result section is divided in two parts, where the first part intends to create knowledge about seven factors that affects the intention for potential users to adopt a transaction platform. It is described in what way these factors affect the adoption decision and which action the platform owner can take to increase the intention to adopt. In the second part of the result section, a framework is presented that platform owners can use in the design phase. The framework is about identifying interesting user groups and addressing factors that affects the adoption decision. Practical and theoretical contribution: Existing literature has rarely focused on including several phases of the platform's life cycle. Previous studies has therefore only focused on one phase at a time. This study contributes to the literature by investigating how the design phase affects the adoption phase for transaction platforms. Additionally, this study contributes to the literature by investigating the early phase of a platform, which is rare to find in the existing literature. The study contributes practically by providing a framework that can help decision-makers and entrepreneurs to design a new transactional platform. Using the framework can help managers to cope the chicken-and-egg dilemma that new platforms often face.  Limitations and future studies: This study has two limitations that opens for future studies. Firstly, our interview group is relatively narrowed, which can lead to industry-specific findings. Future studies can therefore investigate other industries to compare those findings with this study to identify more general findings. The second limitation is that this study has exclusively done interviews with potential users. Therefore, the interview study was relatively hypothetical, and a lot of focus was on what the interviewees could imagine. Future studies can therefore do interviews with users of an existing transaction platform to develop our framework more.

The study shows that multi-sided markets pose difficulties when the relevant product market is to be defined. These difficulties pertain to two questions. The first question is whether one or several markets should be defined. In this regard, it is not easy to extract a coherent method from the cases examined. Instead, the methods applied give the impression of ad hoc-solutions, where similar circumstances result in dissimilar outcomes. Indeed, it is hard to reconcile the different market definitions in Visa International MIF and MasterCard MIF. The uncertainties are not limited to these two cases, as the methods applied in Google Shopping too give rise to ambiguities. Why was the market for general search engine platforms separated into two distinct product markets, but the market for comparison shopping services encompassed both sides? Unfortunately, this discussion was not present in the decision. This only serves to reinforce the impression that these questions are solved on an ad hoc-basis. A clear method of approaching multi-sided markets is desirable, not least because the enforcement of competition rules must be characterized by consistency and foreseeability. Hopefully, the judgement in Google Shopping will bring further clarity to this. Nonetheless, the conclusion is that one market should be defined when differences between competitive constraints on the two sides are absent. E contrario, this means that two markets should be defined when such differences are present. This is true regardless of the market in question being a transaction or a non-transaction market. This method seems preferable to strictly adhering to the division of multi-sided markets into transaction or non-transaction markets. If the Commission’s analysis is correct in that there are no differences in competitive constraints on the two sides of comparison shopping services, in combination with crossing network effects, the platform’s multi-sidedness is a necessary trait for both sides. This means that a substitute has to be multi-sided in order for it to be included on the relevant product market, which minimizes the risk for false negatives. Vice versa, the definition of two markets allows for one-sided products to be included on the relevant product market, which minimizes the risk for false positives. This is important not only for the binary finding of dominance or non-dominance, but also the degree of dominance. As concluded above, incorrectly defining one market may artificially inflate the degree of dominance into false super-dominance, and incorrectly defining several markets may artificially dilute the degree of dominance. The second question is how substitutability should be measured. It is obvious from the cases examined that qualitative measures are used and not quantitative measures. The products’ characteristics, intended use, purpose, functionalities, users’ perceptions of the product, etc. were given much attention. The SSNIP test was not applied in any of the cases. The first conclusion to be drawn from the examination above is therefore that the difficulties regarding measuring substitutability on multi-sided markets mainly concern quantitative measures. The arguments against applying a SSNIP test related to the cellophane fallacy (in two different forms, one of which was deceivingly similar to the reverse cellophane fallacy) and differences in price sensitivities between the two sides. Network effects present an additional difficulty, which may lead to exaggerated results when measuring substitutability. The second conclusion to be drawn is that there exists a reluctance to apply a SSNIP test in a way that is tailored for multi-sided markets. One method that has been proposed is to apply the test on the total sum paid by both sides, while allowing the intermediary to adjust the increase in price in accordance with its price structure. The categorical dismissal of applying the test in this way suggests that adapted versions have some time to wait before being introduced into case law and decisional practice. If they, as their proponents argue, are a robust way of broadening the evidence of possible substitutability, this is unfortunate. The risk of defining the market overly narrow or overly broad is of course present in this regard as well. A broader spectrum of evidence therefore minimizes the risk of incorrectly finding both dominance and non-dominance.