Designing a Peer-to-Peer Sharing Service as Fuel for the Development of the ElectricVehicle Charging Infrastructure

Martin Matzner, Friedrich Chasin, Moritz von Hoffen, Florian Plenter, and Jorg Becker

University of Muenster, European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS),Munster, Germany

Email: {martin.matzner | friedrich.chasin | moritz.von.hoffen | florian.plenter | joerg.becker}@ercis.uni-muenster.de

Abstract—The general public and politics discuss electricvehicles (EVs) as promising means for achieving clean, carbon-free, and sustainable individual transportation. However, aninsufficient charging infrastructure hampers a rapid diffusionof EVs. At the same time, investors have refrained from devel-oping an EV-charging infrastructure on a large scale becauseof the limited demand for EVs. Against this backdrop, peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing and collaborative consumption (SCC) isa promising strategy with which to address this problem. Thisarticle describes the concept of an IT-based P2P SCC serviceand the research activities needed for its design. We do so byintroducing a novel application of the sharing economy. Ourprimary contribution is to take a step toward finding a solutionfor a problem in the EV domain that is relevant for society. Asecond contribution lies in the introduction and discussion ofpredominantly infrastructure-creating (PIC) P2P SCC servicesand their characteristics.

I. INTRODUCTION

Driven by modern consumers’ tendency to prefer access

to a resource over actual ownership [17, 32], the sharing

and collaborative consumption market has been gaining mo-

mentum in the last couple of years. Thousands of platforms

that facilitate the exchange of various resources between

peer-consumers and peer-providers have emerged. Despite

an increase in academic [3, 26] and public [4, 37] discourse

about what is often called the sharing economy, there are

still opportunities for new peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing and

collaborative consumption (SCC) services to emerge. While

vehicle- and apartment-sharing sites continue to dominate

the market [29], the range of goods is steadily extended by

platforms that offer sharing opportunities for new types of

resources, such as retail spaces (STOREFRONT1), 3D printers

(3D HUBS2), or even dogs (BORROWMYDOGGY3).

One such example is that of fuel for electric vehicles

(EVs). The general public and politicians discuss the use

of EVs as a promising way to achieve a clean, carbon-

free, and sustainable method of individual locomotion and

to mitigate the dependency on fossil fuels—if they are

propelled with electricity generated from renewable sources

[7]. For instance, the German government has declared the

1https://www.thestorefront.com/2https://www.3dhubs.com/3https://www.borrowmydoggy.com/

goal of bringing one million EVs to German roads by 2020

[28]. However, an insufficient charging infrastructure has

hampered the spread of EVs [35, 34], while at the same

time, investors refrain from developing the EV-charging

infrastructure on a large scale because of limited demand

for EVs. This is the circular “chicken-and-egg problem” of

the EV domain. Against this backdrop, P2P sharing is a

promising strategy for creating an infrastructure that scales

well with the number of EVs that are on the road.

The problem of designing an IT-based service that enables

private individuals to share their charging points with other

individuals is multifaceted. A multiplicity of principles of

form and function, including legal analysis, questions of

acceptance, willingness to pay, and organizational structure,

as well as more technical aspects of the issue, such as the

design of processes, IT artifacts, and standard protocols must

be addressed. Against this backdrop, the overall goal of

our research is to design a P2P SCC service that supportsthe development of the EV-charging infrastructure. As this

paper originates from the early phase of an ongoing research

project, it does not present the final results, but the initial

steps to be taken in order reach the final goal. The specific

purpose of this paper is to uncover and to structure the design

research activities needed to achieve the intended outcome.

By doing so, we contribute to research and practice in

several ways. Besides the outline of a possible solution to

the infrastructure problem in the EV domain, we provide

and elaborate upon a collection of design problems that

are associated with the development of a P2P SCC service.

We also contribute to clarifying the nature of P2P SCC by

providing a differentiated view of its characteristics that are

either general, domain-specific, or type-specific. Finally, we

provide a blueprint for an innovative business that can be put

into operation to facilitate the development of the charging

infrastructure for EVs.

The article is structured as follows: Section II provides

background on the notion of infrastructure in general and

charging infrastructure in particular and reports on the

status quo of the EV-charging infrastructure in Germany.

Section III introduces the steps we take to address the

challenge of designing the P2P SCC service for an EV-

charging infrastructure. The constituents of the P2P SCC

2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

1530-1605/16 $31.00 © 2016 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2016.201

1587

service and the collection of the research endeavors for

designing the service at hand are presented in Section IV.

The article concludes in Section V with a discussion of the

results, limitations, and directions for future research.

II. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

A. Infrastructures

There is no single, consistent definition of infrastructure

but a variety of meanings and scopes that makes adoption of

the term for a particular context difficult [14]. The Oxford

Dictionary defines infrastructure as “the basic physical and

organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads,

power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or

enterprise” [30]. Deriving its meaning from infra, meaning

below in Latin, infrastructure can be determined to refer to

an underlying foundation, so it is used to explain the descrip-

tion of all sorts of network-based structures including roads,

pipes for water supply and sewage, railroads, and telecom-

munications [14, 18]. These network-based structures are

usually natural monopolies that require state regulation to

guarantee open and non-discriminatory access for the public

so they generate positive externalities that increase social

well-being and provide economic growth [18]. Infrastructure

is often referred to as traditional infrastructure [18], hardinfrastructure [31], or material infrastructure [14]. Other

classifications include soft infrastructure, such as the reg-

ulatory environment [31], and a further distinction between

institutional (e.g., state laws) and personal infrastructure(e.g., education) [14]. In this article, we subscribe to the

notion of material infrastructure, which refers to the capital

stocks that enable the mobilization and development of

economic agents’ activities [14].

Charging points for EVs are a vital requirement for long-

range EV mobility. Transportation, especially with alterna-

tive fuels like electricity and hydrogen, is a critical factor in

economic development and in coping with global climate

change [19]. Depending on the role that the network of

charging points for EVs—the EV-charging infrastructure—

plays in the overall mobility concept of a society, it can even

be critical infrastructure. The European Union’s definition

of a critical infrastructure is “an asset, system or part thereof

[. . . ] which is essential for the maintenance of vital social

functions, health, safety, security, economic or social well

being of people” [36, p. 77]. Since both electricity and road

transport are named as critical infrastructures [36], charging

infrastructure becomes a critical infrastructure once the use

of EVs is commonplace.

A charging infrastructure provides a way to refuel the

batteries of EVs. With the purchase of an EV, the owner

usually installs a charging point at his or her parking space at

home to charge the EV overnight. Additional public charging

infrastructure is necessary only to facilitate long-range trips

which exceed the EV battery’s range and as a way to mitigate

range anxiety [33]. Whereas in suburban areas 70 percent of

car owners have access to off-street parking where they can

install a charging point, the rate drops below 30 percent

in metropolitan centers [28]. Therefore, the demand for

charging infrastructure depends in part on where the EV

owner lives.

The German Federal Government presented an ambitious

plan to have a million electric vehicles on German roads

by 2020 [28]. However, as of January 2015 only about

130,000 EVs (including hybrids) are on the roads [24], so the

market is far from reaching the goal. Besides stimulating the

demand for EVs, the government must find a way to create

the necessary charging infrastructure. An estimated 950,000

public and non-public charging points would be necessary

to meet the needs of a million EVs [28], approximately

thirty times the number of public charging stations that are

currently available in Germany.

B. Peer-to-peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption

The multiplicity of areas in which peer-consumers and

peer-providers share and consume resources are often sub-

sumed under the all-inclusive term of sharing [11]. In

addition to true sharing [9], sharing can include consumer

transactions like swapping, renting, reselling, co-owning,

lending, and donating [29]. Examples of shared resources

are physical resources like cars [3], digital resources like

computer files [12], and intangibles like experience [22].

Our research focuses on a subset of sharing, the peer-to-peer sharing and collaborative consumption of physicalresources. The rationale for this focus on SCC is based on

the fact that SCC do not involve ownership transfer but only

temporary access to a resource by a peer-consumer [5, 11],

so transactions like swapping and exchange are excluded.

P2P renting—that is, “people coordinating the acquisition

and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compen-

sation” [11, p. 1598] is typically considered part of the

collaborative consumption practices [13]. Conversely, true

sharing, being “the act and process of distributing what is

ours to others for their use and/or the act and process of

receiving or taking something from others for our use” [8,

p. 126] does not involve any sort of reciprocity [25]. While

we focus on the SCC of physical resources, sharing digital

or computational resources is different from sharing physical

resources because sharing physical resources requires some

form of personal interaction that has the potential for social

bonds and/or conflicts [38].

We define a P2P SCC transaction using five characteris-

tics: a) an economic transaction between individuals b) that

does not involve ownership transfer, c) that is on the scale

between sharing and commerce, d) that is enabled by IT,

and e) that requires sharing or collaboratively consuming a

physical object that one of the individuals owns or to which

one of the individuals has access.

In contrast to the major P2P SCC-related topics discussed

by academia, which include theorizing on the phenomenon

1588

itself as well as its scope [3, 12, 9, 10] and understanding

consumers’ motivation to participate in corresponding ser-

vices [5], we take an IS researcher’s perspective and address

the challenge of how to design a certain P2P SCC service.

This endeavour includes the steps of, first, exploring and

understanding the environment the service will take place in

and then, second, developing and building the service itself

including any needed IT and processes.

III. CROWDSTROM: A DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH

APPROACH

A. Project Setting

CrowdStrom is a publicly funded research project in which

an energy provider and a certification company cooperate

with researchers from the academic disciplines of informa-

tion systems, marketing, and human resource management

to design and implement an innovative P2P SCC service

and accelerate the development of a public EV-charging

infrastructure in Germany.

The project seeks to empower the increasing number of

owners of small and private EV-charging points to make

their assets available to public users in times they do not

need them themselves, scaling with the number of EVs on

the roads, thereby decreasing the need for central investment

into public infrastructure. CrowdStrom seeks to develop

an Internet-based platform that provides essential service

components, such as the authentication of customers as

well as billing and payment processing, in order to network

the peer suppliers, their charging stations, and CrowdStromcustomers.

B. Setup of the Research Agenda

We adopted the Design Science Research (DSR)

paradigm [21, 20] for our research. Design science creates

and evaluates “purposeful IT artifact” [27, p. 78] in order

to solve identified organizational or societal problems. DSR

differs from the pure design of artifacts, because it produces

new scientific knowledge that can be transferred to contexts

other than the one in which it was produced [1].

Hevner [20] suggests a “three cycle view” to summarize

and structure the activities in a DSR project. He distin-

guishes the relevance cycle, the design cycle, and the rigor

cycle as main sequences of activities to be performed in

a DSR project. The relevance cycle includes, first, the

research activities executed in order to better understand the

environment the design outcomes will later be implemented

into. It summarizes, second, field testing activities under-

taken to test the design outcomes’ fit to the environment.

The design cycle summarizes any activities related to the

core construction activities of the processes and technology

artifacts needed for the successful operation of CrowdStrom.

It also includes activities related to the evaluation of the

design outcomes. The rigor cycle comprises, first, research

activities that exploit grounding theories, methods as well

as domain experience and expertise [20] taken from the

related research disciplines’ knowledge bases. Secondly, it

includes activities that add new insights gained along the

design project to the knowledge base.

Accordingly, we approach the set-up of the CrowdStrom

research agenda by uncovering all the research activities

needed to be executed in all the three cycles first. The setup

process includes two phases. In phase one, we derive and

identify the main constituents of a possible EV-charging

infrastructure that adopts the paradigm of P2P SCC. A

constituent in this context is a research activity (and a

corresponding outcome) in the design of the service that

has to be addressed in order to derive a sound solution. In

this phase, we analyze the constituents in regard to whether

their manifestation is specific to the domain of charging in-

frastructure or generic to diverse P2P SCC services. During

the categorization we determined that some of the unique

characteristics of the P2P SCC application scenario cannot

be explained by the specific domain only. Therefore, in

the second phase, we analyze what makes the P2P EV-

charging service a member of a distinct class of P2P SCC

services. Figure 1 provides an overview of our approach

to conceptualizing and designing a P2P SCC service in the

domain of an EV-charging infrastructure.

First, we carried out a thorough conceptualization of a

crowdsourcing-fuelled P2P charging infrastructure sharing

service, CrowdStrom. In the course of this conceptual-

ization, we identified the service’s core components and

categorized them into sets, such as user-related aspects and

legal aspects. Following this categorization, we discussed

which constituents are generic and apply to almost any

P2P SCC service and which are unique to the domain of

an EV-charging infrastructure. Finally, we put the identified

constituents into perspective by including the environment;

particular market characteristics, such as market maturity,

are key factors in the establishment of any P2P SCC service

that seeks to provide an infrastructure-related service.

IV. AGENDA AND PROGRESS OF THE CROWDSTROM P2P

SCC DESIGN

A. Constituents of the CrowdStrom research agenda

Following Hevner’s “three cycle view”, the CrowdStromproject’s research activities are situated in a specific en-

vironment, in which the project’s outcomes will have to

demonstrate their relevance, and they tap into a specific

knowledge base, by which their performance will be in-

formed. Figure 2 exhibits the most relevant elements of the

project’s environment and its knowledge base.

The anticipated environment the future service will act in

is characterized by people and organizations that have a stake

in the CrowdStrom project or that are parts of the service’s

competitive environment; by technologies that are possible

means to achieve the desired service; and by current social

1589

Design of a P2P SCC Service for EV Charging InfrastructureStep Identification of EV-specific and generic constituents Identification of type-specific constituents

Activities • Requirements analysis• Identification of research activities• Mapping of research activities to the design cycle• EV domain analysis• Separating outcomes of the research activities intodomain-specific and general

• EV charging infrastructure market analysis• Comparison with other P2P SCC services• Derivation of a P2P SCC services type based on type-specific constituents of the P2P SCC for EV charginginfrastructure

Outcomes • Set of constituents of the P2P SCC service at hand• Assessment of implications resulting from the EV-specific characteristics of the P2P service at hand

• Derivation of a specific type of P2P SCC services• Assessment of the implications resulting from the serviceat hand belonging to the specific type of P2P SCC services

Section IV-A IV-B

Figure 1: Setup of the CrowdStrom Research Agenda

I

Develop / Build

Environment IS Research Knowledge BasePeople

Organizations

Technologies

Social Trends and Regulatory Framework

Foundations and Methodologies

• IS Design Research

• Service Research

• Consumer Behavior Research

• Policy makers• Project participants

• Potential peers• Peer users• Peer providers

• EVs and charging infrastructure

• Authentication• Payment

• Mobile computing• Location-based computing

• Sustainability• Sharing

• The law

P2P SCC Service for EV Charging

Infrastructure

Justify / Evaluate

II III

• Charging infrastructure operators

• Roaming service providers• Electricity suppliers

• Charging information providers

• Charging infrastructure manufacturers

Figure 2: DSR cycles [20] applied to the CrowdStrom project

trends as well as the regulatory framework, both of which

frame the design activities.

People relevant to the design of the service include—next

to the project participants themselves—potential peer-users

and peer-providers that may participate in the CrowdStromservice in the near future as well as policy-makers that

impact on the development of the charging infrastructure

market, on technology standardization processes, or on the

legal framework of the EV domain.

Organizations to consider are partners and competitors

in the markets for energy and transportation: charging in-

frastructure operators, roaming service providers, electricity

suppliers, charging information providers, and charging in-

frastructure manufacturers.

Technology provides the means for the researcher in

achieving solutions to the identified problem. The set of

relevant technologies includes in our case the EVs, the hard-

ware and software the charging spots comprise of as well

as the technology to connect them. Furthermore, technology

stacks for user authentification, payment, mobile computing,

and location-based computing will be important to consider.

Finally, the research process has to be seen against the

background of certain social trends and a certain regulatoryframework that will impact on the way in which design

decision are made in this project. The following aspects

stand out: the described societal trend of “sharing”; “sus-

tainability”, which has become an excepted economic and

societal principle; and current legislative requirements that

restrict the project’s solution space.

Table I provides a summary of the design research activ-ities and the expected research outcomes that are planned to

be executed while traversing through the three DSR cycles.

Each of the research activities provides the foundation for

subsequent activities. Taken together, the research activities

1590

describe the project’s overall design research process. For

instance, the analysis of user-related and provider-related

aspects of the resulting artifact, such as the peer users’

willingness-to-pay and their acceptance of the service, en-

able us to formulate the objectives of the technical artifact,

which are addressed in the prototype development phase and

checked in the evaluation phase.

Table I: Research activities in the CrowdStrom project

Design researchactivities

Expected research outcomes

Res

earc

hPr

ogre

ss

⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐�

User-relatedaspects

Acceptance, willingness-to-pay,role models

Provider-relatedaspects

Incentives, organizationaldevelopment, role models

Legal aspects Grid technology, calibration,energy supplier obligations

Environmentalaspects

Assessment of the economic,ecological, and socialenvironments

Service design Procedural and technical designprinciples, standardization

Prototypedevelopment

Prototyping of modules, interfaces,mobile applications, OCPP centralsystem

Evaluation Implications, continuousimprovement

The research activities and research outcomes included in

Figure 2 (and in Table I) accordingly are described in more

detail in the following.User-Related Research Activities.: The foundation of the

user-related research activities is a sound definition of possi-

ble user roles, which describe the characteristics, demands,

and obligations of a typical user. The term willingness-to-pay identifies what people are “willing to pay” if using

a charging point (including the parking space) and how

much revenue is expected and required to be generated from

the CrowdStrom business to facilitate a profitable operation.

Acceptance, a major factor in the successful operation of

CrowdStrom, builds on the analysis of comparable busi-

ness models, such as car-sharing. What potential customers

demand and how these demands are affected by pursuing

a crowdsourcing approach must be determined, including

reservations about electrical mobility and how to mitigate

these reservations.Provider-Related Research Activities.: An important as-

pect of such an SCC service is sufficient incentives for

providers to share their privately held charging points. In-

centives typically have one or both of two drivers: money (or

money equivalent) and reputation. Therefore, what potential

providers deem as appropriate profit—social or monetary—

must be determined. The size of monetary incentives must

be estimated carefully, as margins are thin in view of an

average price of roughly 30 euro cents per kilowatt hour.

The location of a charging point must also be taken into

account when determining the price structure, as a station

that is located close to the city center is likely to attract

more customers than a parking lot in a rural or suburban

area. The definition of the roles of a provider, again, serves

as the basis for all research activities.

Legal Research Activities.: Given that CrowdStrom is to

be operated in Germany, it is subject to various legal risks

in different areas of this country’s law including energy law,

public law and data protection [15]. For instance, as soon as

someone sells electricity by providing access to his or her

charging point, regulations for electricity suppliers apply.

Beside this and other EV-specific challenges in the areas

of grid technology, calibration, energy-supplier obligations,

further general legal aspects affect the design of the Crowd-Strom service including customer protection, taxation, fair

competitions and data-protection.

Environment-Related Research Activities.: CrowdStrom

needs to be situated within the economic, ecological and

social environments. From the economic point of view,

CrowdStrom represents a P2P SCC service that is part

of what is often called the Sharing Economy [3, 23].

Businesses within sharing economy build upon abandoning

the notion of ownership [5]. By doing so they challenge

traditional enterprises and represent a distinct phenomenon

in the overall economic environment [11]. Therefore, re-

search activities are required in order to address the role

of CrowdStrom as a representative of the P2P SCC class

of service in the economic environment. CrowdStrom has

an inherent potential to contribute to a more sustainable

ecological environment. Especially when the operation of

EVs is combined with the use of local renewable energy

sources for the charging of the vehicles, CrowdStrom can

become an important ingredient in the process of achieving

more sustainable mobility solutions. Research activities must

be preformed in order to assure that these potentials are

realised. Last but not least, research needs to address the

connection of CrowdStrom to the social environment. As

every P2P SCC service, CrowdStrom can have both desirable

and undesirable effects on the social environment [4]. A

better understanding of the conditions when a P2P SCC

service can become harmful for the social environment can

be used to achieve a better service design for CrowdStrom.

Service Design.: The procedural and technical designprinciples and standardization provide important guidelines

for how the resulting P2P service should be conceptualized.

To capture all facets of the CrowdStrom service, all perceiv-

able transactions and information exchange schemes must

be conceptualized, formalized, and eventually implemented.

Many aspects of the service, such as authorization and

billing, must be addressed in this context. Moreover, existing

standards must be analyzed and any shortcomings identi-

fied, along with resolutions to these limitations. The Open

1591

Charge Point Protocol (OCPP), an open (quasi-) standard

that specifies the communication between the individual

charging points and the central system, is responsible for the

authorization of valid users, clearing the charging point, and

logging transactions, among other responsibilities. Relevant

standardization efforts in the domain of Near Field Commu-nication (NFC) or upcoming charging protocols and regula-

tions, such as the ISO 15118, which deals with vehicle-to-

grid communication, must be followed closely and adopted

in a timely way after official ratification.

Prototype Development Research Activities.: In order to

provide a proof-of-concept for the conceptualized P2P SCC,

all resulting design artifacts must be considered and an

eventual prototype implemented. The CrowdStrom service

portfolio is comprised of an interface in the form of a

web portal that consumers and providers use to register

and administer their data, mobile applications for two major

mobile operating systems (to ease reservations for charging

points and the initiation of a charging session), and an OCPP

central system, which is responsible for the communication

from and to a charging point. A prototype must be developed

for these three components that acknowledged the informa-

tion contained in the knowledge base (cf. Figure 2). The final

outcomes are individual applications – the mobile applica-

tions and server modules like the web portal backend and the

central system – that incorporate all findings of the previous

design research activities. Finally, all developed prototype

artifacts resemble the CrowdStrom service and provide a

framework to ensure that all intended functionalities and

requirements have been addressed.

Evaluation Research Activities.: The resulting prototype

must be evaluated to ensure that all required functionalities

are in place and working as specified. The evaluation also

provides feedback about the functioning of the prototypes in

order to identify shortcomings, flaws, and bugs. Hence, there

is a continual improvement cycle between development and

evaluation that is iterated until all requirements are covered

and working satisfactorily.

In summary, the research activities are influenced by the

setting within the EV infrastructure domain. Obviously, stan-

dardization and legal aspects of the solution are particularly

dependent on the setting, whereas considerations related to

the willingness to pay are more generic, as the outcomes

achieved can be transferred to other comparable scenarios.

Hence, all outcomes can be positioned on a continuum based

on how tightly the corresponding research activity is coupled

to the domain of EVs and the EV-charging infrastructure.

The resulting continuum, including the research activities, is

depicted in Figure 3.

B. External factors and their implications

Domain-specificity as a lens through which to study

P2P SCC services, as outlined in Section IV-A, is useful.

However, as we gained additional insights into the EV-

charging infrastructure domain, we still could not explain

all the specifics of the CrowdStrom P2P SCC that appear

to be beyond the domain specifics. A combination of two

aspects of CrowdStrom, market maturity [6] and whether

the service provides access to an individual resource or an

infrastructure of resources, appears to shift the service to a

special category of P2P SCC services.

Market Maturity.: The level of a market’s development

is a central external factor in introducing a new product or

technology into a market [6]. Although EVs are not new

to the market, the market for an EV-charging infrastruc-

ture is still young and developing, with various available

technologies—connector technologies, battery types, and

charging infrastructure protocols—each struggling to breach

its niche existence. The EV infrastructure’s current status

as a developing market provides an opportunity for a novel

service like CrowdStrom to enter the market. As many local

and regional power-supply companies have begun providing

EV-charging infrastructures, the market is fragmented into

several unconnected supply networks that are concentrated

around urban areas. Consequently, CrowdStrom, as a P2P

SCC service for an EV-charging infrastructure, must enter

direct competition with extant providers that operate in

urban areas. However, in the rural and suburban areas that

constitute the predominant part of the potential market,

CrowdStrom would take the role of an exclusive provider, as

these areas are not yet profitable for commercial providers.

This role of a predominantly exclusive service is not unique

to the EV charging domain. A similar market situation

exists around new P2P SCC services that offer 3D printing

services. Unlike prominent P2P SCC services like AIRBNB

and UBER, 3DHUBS offers a service that does not compete

with any other existing service.

Access to Infrastructure.: Market maturity alone is not

sufficient to describe the specifics of P2P SCC services like

CrowdStrom. Although P2P SCC services for printing are

also situated in a young market, they are still fundamentally

different from an EV-charging service. A broad and wide-

ranged (critical) infrastructure can be created by opening

private charging points for the general public. A private

charging point may have an important role in providing

energy for the owner’s EV, but it does not advance the

society as a whole, and neither does a 3D printing service.

However, when a network of private charging stations is

introduced, a single, private charging point becomes a part of

a valuable infrastructure that is relevant for the operation of a

whole society that has chosen electric mobility as a primary

mode of transportation. In the hierarchy of requirements

for the operation of the society, the need for a sustainable

mobility concept is clearly higher than the need for 3D

printing services. This is why Germany’s political agenda

includes developments in electric mobility and why the city

of Amsterdam introduces programs that imply the right of

1592

EV-specificGeneric

StandardizationSLegal AspectsAcceptanceWillingness-to-payWRoles … …

Figure 3: Continuum of EV-specific and generic constituents

its citizens to have access to a charging station [2].

The combination of an immature market and a service

that provides access to an infrastructure defines what we

call a predominantly infrastructure-creating (PIC) P2P SCC

service. Figure 4 illustrates the introduction of a P2P SCC

service into a mature market with an existing infrastructure

and into an immature market with a limited or absent

infrastructure. In the first case the introduction of a P2P

SCC service can create additional infrastructure, although

the majority of peer-providers will challenge the existing

infrastructure. A good example is the traditional hotel in-

frastructure that was challenged by P2P SCC newcomers

like AIRBNB and HOMEAWAY, as additional infrastructure

was created by newcomers in areas where no hotel industry

was present (e.g., in remote areas). In the second case a

P2P SCC is introduced to a market like the EV-charging

infrastructure market that is less developed. In this case, the

majority of newly introduced peer-providers represent addi-

tional infrastructure, rather than competition to an existing

infrastructure.

These fundamentally different entry points have implica-

tions for the constituents of a P2P SCC service that are

unique to the type of service, cannot be explained by the

domain specifics, and are characteristic of the PIC P2P

SCC. The design of the CrowdStrom service demonstrates

these unique characteristics. We found the acceptance of

the P2P SCC service for EV-charging to be structurally

different from the acceptance of P2P SCC services that do

not belong to PIC P2P SCC services [16]. While value

for the money for the peer-user has been identified as

central to the success of traditional services, this aspect

plays a less significant role in the case of CrowdStrom,

as no established price structure exists for EV-charging.

Moreover, the legal environment is different for the PIC

P2P SCC [15]. Since many governments consider access to

infrastructure a basic right, the majority of popular services

like Uber and Airbnb are fighting against accusations of

unfair competition. This legal issue is absent in the case of

a PIC P2P SCC, as the introduction of a service of this kind

can fit into governments’ political agendas. An example is

the decision of a local government in Amsterdam to include

the provision of a public charging station into the set of

fundamental rights: every owner of an electric car has the

right to request a public charging station near his place of

residence [2].

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The establishment of an extensive EV-charging infrastruc-

ture is undeniably a worthwhile effort, especially in light

of the ongoing effort to increase the share of electricity

generated using renewable energy sources. Because of the

limited demand for EVs that results from limited access to

charging stations, investors have refrained from potentially

risky investments in the charging infrastructure, which leads

to a paradoxical situation where the potential EV buyer is

waiting for the charging infrastructure and potential investors

are waiting for more people to buy EVs. The CrowdStromproject contributes to overcome this situation by adopting

a crowdsourcing approach in the manner of the sharing

economy to design a P2P service for sharing private charging

stations.

During the conceptualization of the P2P SCC service

for an EV-charging infrastructure, we identify integral con-

stituents of the process of implementation. We showed that

the situation for services that seek to provide access to

infrastructure differs from that of conventional P2P SCC

services that provide access to or share a certain resource,

such as an apartment or a tool. A trait of PIC services that

differentiates them from typical P2P SCC services is that

PIC services address under-developed or even undeveloped

markets. Therefore, no other market players are challenged,

and there is no cannibalism among rival players. For in-

stance, in the aftermath of the rise of AIRBNB and UBER,

in addition to increased availability of (comparatively) inex-

pensive accommodations and taxi services, protests and legal

disputes came up and entire branches of the economy were

shaken up. Hence, PIC P2P SCC can be seen as the “bright

side” of the sharing economy, as the underlying motivation

is to enable access to a unique grid, rather than assaulting

an established industry.

As in all research, the presented work is not without

limitations, which suggest opportunities for future research.

First, we discussed an ongoing research object. Accordingly,

the three DSR cycles (relevance, design, rigor) are not yet

executed entirely and probably need to be extended by

further activities later. This does not lessen the value of

the presented research, as we were able to derive the first

characteristics for our service to be developed. While we

made good progress in analyzing the environment, we could

not yet execute any field tests (relevance). The construction

1593

Mature market / Infrastructure Immature market / Infrastructure

Before P2P SCC service introduction

After P2P SCC service introduction

New infrastructure

Competition

P2P SCC service provider

Figure 4: Introduction of P2P SCC service in the domain of infrastructures

of processes and IT artifacts started, but evaluation activities

did not (design). We tapped in to the knowledge base to

assist the design activities, but could not yet add additional

domain knowledge (rigor). Second, we discussed specific

properties assumed to be valid for a class of P2P services that

we called PIC. For the moment, however, these properties

were inferred from the CrowdStrom project only. Future

research therefore will have to investigate other PIC settings

in order to see if our observations hold true in those settings

as well. Third, taking the two limitations discussed before

together, executing the DSR cycles entirely and performing

cross-case replications will allow us to elevate the discussed

observations by theorizing on design outcomes and design

processes in P2P sharing services. Fourth, this paper does

not focus on the results of the research project and does not

provide a detailed overview over the projects progress. To

address this limitation, further research to identify the key

enablers and obstacles for our design vision is planned. As

this is a federally funded consortium research project, reports

with detailed descriptions of the progress accomplished in

the project are provided to the project sponsor on a regular

basis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper has been written in the context of the research

project CrowdStrom4. The project is founded by the German

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), pro-

motion sign 01FK13019E. We thank the project management

agency German Aerospace Center (PT-DLR).

REFERENCES

[1] van Aken, J.E.: Management research based on the

paradigm of the Design Sciences: The quest for field-

tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of

Management Studies 41(2), 219–246 (2004)

4The research project’s website can be accessed athttp://www.crowdstrom.de/.

[2] Amsterdam Government: City government web

page (2015), http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/local/

official-matters/city-government, last visited Sep. 15,

2015

[3] Andersson, M., Hjalmarsson, A., Avital, M.: Peer-to-

peer service sharing platforms: Driving share and share

alike on a mass-scale. In: Baskerville, R., Chau,

M. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference

on Information Systems (ICIS 2013). pp. 2964–2978.

Milan, Italy (2013)

[4] Baker, D.: Don’t buy the ’sharing economy’ hype:

Airbnb and Uber are facilitating rip-offs (2014),

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/

27/airbnb-uber-taxes-regulation, The Guardian online,

last visited Sep. 15, 2015

[5] Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G.M.: Access-based consump-

tion: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer

Research 39(4), 881–898 (2012)

[6] Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Mistretta, M.: Decision-

making in energy planning. application of the Electre

method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable

energy technology. Renewable Energy 28(13), 2063–

2087 (2003)

[7] Becker, T.A., Sidhu, I., Tenderich, B.: Electric vehicles

in the United States: A new model with forecasts to

2030. Tech. rep., University of California, Center for

Entrepreneurship & Technology, Berkeley, CA (2009)

[8] Belk, R.: Why not share rather than own? The Annals

of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science 611(1), 126–140 (2007)

[9] Belk, R.: Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research

36(5), 715–734 (2010)

[10] Belk, R.: Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0.

The Anthropologist 18(1), 7–23 (2014)

[11] Belk, R.: You are what you can access: Sharing and

collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business

Research 67(8), 1595–1600 (2014)

1594

[12] Benkler, Y.: Sharing nicely: On shareable goods and

the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic

production. The Yale Law Journal 114(2), 273–358

(2004)

[13] Botsman, R., Rogers, R.: What’s Mine Is Yours – How

Collaborative Consumption Is Changing the Way We

Live. HarperCollins, New York City, NY (2010)

[14] Buhr, W.: What is infrastructure? Volkswirtschaftliche

Diskussionsbeitrage. Tech. Rep. No. 107-03, Univer-

sity of Siegen, Siegen, Germany (2003)

[15] Chasin, F., Matzner, M., Lochte, M., Wiget, V., Becker,

J.: The law : The boon and bane of IT-enabled peer-

to-peer sharing and collaborative consumption services

peer-to-peer services in a uncertain legal environment.

In: Thomas, O.; Teuteberg, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the

12th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik

(WI 2015). Osnabruck, Germany (2015)

[16] Chasin, F., Matzner, M., Todenhofer, L., Becker, J.:

To share or not to share: Towards understanding the

antecedents of participation in IT-enabled sharing ser-

vices. In: Proceedings of the 23rd European Confer-

ence on Information Systems (ECIS 2015). Munster,

Germany (2015)

[17] Firnkorn, J., Muller, M.: Selling mobility instead of

cars: New business strategies of automakers and the

impact on private vehicle holding. Business Strategy

and the Environment 21(4), 264–280 (2012)

[18] Frischmann, B.M.: An economic theory of infras-

tructure and commons management. Minnesota Law

Review 89, 917–1030 (2005)

[19] Gul, T., Kypreos, S., Turton, H., Barreto, L.: An

energy-economic scenario analysis of alternative fuels

for personal transport using the Global Multi-regional

MARKAL model (GMM). Energy 34(10), 1423–1437

(2009)

[20] Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science

research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems

19(2), 87–92 (2007)

[21] Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design

science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly

28(1), 75–105 (2004)

[22] John, N.A.: The social logics of sharing. The Commu-

nication Review 16(3), 113–131 (2013)

[23] Kassan, J., Orsi, J.: The legal landscape of the

sharing economy. Journal of Environmental

Law & Litigation 27(1), 1–20 (2012),

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

db=lgs&AN=77049452&lang=de&site=ehost-live

[24] Kraftfahrtbundesamt: Der Fahrzeugbestand am 1.

Januar 2015 (2015), http://www.kba.de/DE/Presse/

Pressemitteilungen/2015/Fahrzeugbestand/pm5 fz

bestand pm komplett.html, press release (in German),

last visited Sep. 15, 2015

[25] Lessig, L.: Access-Based Consumption: The Case of

Car Sharing. Penguin Press, New York City, NY (2008)

[26] Malhotra, A., van Alstyne, M.: The dark side of the

sharing economy. . . and how to lighten it. Communi-

cations of the ACM 57(11), 24–27 (2014)

[27] March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science

research on information technology. Decision Support

Systems 15(4), 251–266 (1995)

[28] NPE: Progress report of the German national platform

for electric mobility (third report). Tech. rep., Berlin

(2012), http://nationale-plattform-elektromobilitaet.

de/fileadmin/user upload/Redaktion/Third

Progressreport NPE.pdf, last visited Sep. 15, 2015

[29] Owyang, J., Tran, C., Silva, C.: The

collaborative economy. Tech. rep., Altimeter

Group, San Maeto, CA (2013), http://www.

lsed-wealth.org/media/sal/pages media/112/f5

collabecon-draft16-130531132802-phpapp02.pdf,

last visited Sep. 15, 2015

[30] Oxford Dictionaries: Infrastructure definition (2015),

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de/definition/

englisch/infrastructure, last visited Sep. 15, 2015

[31] Portugal-Perez, A., Wilson, J.S.: Export performance

and trade facilitation reform: Hard and soft infrastruc-

ture 40(7), 1295–1307 (2012)

[32] Rifkin, J.: The Age of Access: The New Culture of

Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life Is a Paid-For

Experience. Jermey P. Tarcher/Putna, New York City,

NY (2000)

[33] Schroeder, A., Traber, T.: The economics of fast charg-

ing infrastructure for electric vehicles. Energy Policy

34, 136–144 (2012)

[34] Steinhilber, S., Wells, P., Thankappan, S.: Socio-

technical inertia: Understanding the barriers to electric

vehicles. Energy Policy 60, 531–539 (2013)

[35] Sweda, T., Klabjan, D.: An agent-based decision sup-

port system for electric vehicle charging infrastructure

deployment. In: Proceedings of the Vehicle Power

and Propulsion Conference (VPPC 2011). Chicago, IL

(2011)

[36] The Council of the European Union: Council Directive

2008/114/EC on the identification and designation of

European critical infrastructures and the assessment of

the need to improve their protection (2008)

[37] The Economist: The rise of the sharing economy

(2013), http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/

21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy,

last visited Sep. 15, 2015

[38] Wittel, A.: Qualities of sharing and their transfor-

mations in the digital age. International Review of

Information Ethics 15(9), 3–8 (2011)

1595