| dc.description.abstract | This study analyses the extent to which key register open data intermediaries, utilized by real estate
development professionals, create and capture value. By creating specific products or services,
intermediaries create value in the sense that their product or service adds something to the data, that makes it more valuable. Furthermore, they capture value by gaining something from providing their products or services.
The methodology applied in this study can be generalized into two steps. Firstly, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with ten different real estate development professionals to analyse which intermediaries of key registries were used, and why utilizing these intermediaries was valuable from their perspective. Subsequently, these intermediaries were interviewed in a semi-structured manner to provide context regarding value-creation and analyse the applied revenue models to capture value.
In general, the intermediaries featured in this study created value by bridging (1) a legal gap; providing access to key registry data which the end-user otherwise is prohibited from accessing and (2) a technical gap; allowing end-users to view the specific key registry data without any technical knowledge regarding web services or APIs.
The extent of the value that is created by bridging these gaps is dependent on (1) the findability and (2) the specificity of an intermediary. Firstly, the findability is a derivative of the bounded rationality of the end-users, as most end-users are attracted to the first intermediary they can find, regardless of how well it satisfies their needs. Secondly, the specificity of an intermediary is of essential importance, as the interviewed end-users are extrinsically motivated to find an intermediary that lowers their transaction costs. In other words, end-users indicated that they valued the intermediary that gave them their data “with as little clicks as possible” the highest.
Furthermore, intermediaries capture value in a different manner depending on the specific
characteristics of the intermediary. Public sector intermediaries captured value through the budget
financing of overarching organisations that benefited from their existence while private sector
intermediaries captured value through subscription- and fee-based revenue models.
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were formulated:
1. Utilizing a binary distinction between open and closed data is counterproductive, as data is
positioned on an open data spectrum somewhere in between these extremes.
2. Although it is the intermediary that creates the value, the value is constructed through the
perspective of a user and should therefore not be seen in isolation.
3. For intermediaries aspiring to specify their product for real estate development professionals, it
is recommended to focus on (1) lowering transaction costs by making the product as specific as
possible and (2) ensuring findability of the product.
4. For end-users, many of the described problems regarding the usage of intermediaries can be
solved by either (1) investing in technical (GIS-)expertise to utilize API connections of key
registries or (2) inquiring an organisation with technical expertise to build a GIS-viewer specific
to the requirements of the end-users within an organisation. | |
