Despite the popularity of platform models in consumer-oriented industries like ridesharing and accommodation, the construction equipment industry is an environment that has not received enough attention. This study creates an integrated conceptual framework for sharing-economy platforms in this sector. Construction equipment industry is capital-intensive, diverse, safety-critical, and closely linked to project schedules, in contrast to standardized and low-risk services. Such factors, thus create special operational and informational constraints that restrict the direct transferability of current sharing-economy models. Inspired by these gaps, the paper conceptualizes a two-way digital platform that links equipment users (small contractors) and owners (big contractors and dealers), with a focus on generating shared value through better coordination and use of idle assets. Along with important operations management levers like speed, pricing, availability, and suitability, as well as bundled service packages like skilled operators, maintenance, and insurance, the suggested framework incorporates information management dimensions like information sharing, quality, correctness, symmetry, and continuity. In asset-heavy, project-based environments, the framework delineates how platform design decisions influence users’ behavioral intention to adopt by specifically taking asset specificity, downtime risk, and service bundling into account. The study provides a theory-driven basis for subsequent empirical research and platform design in capital-intensive businesses, expanding the scope of sharing-economy studies beyond traditional service-centric contexts.
- Open Access
- Article
Connecting Users and Providers in the Construction Equipment Industry: A Conceptual Framework Motivated by the Ridesharing Industry
- Mohit Goswami *,
- Ramkumar M. Arputham
Author Information
Received: 11 Dec 2025 | Revised: 13 Feb 2026 | Accepted: 11 Mar 2026 | Published: 23 Mar 2026
Abstract
Keywords
ridesharing | sharing economy | construction equipment | information management | operations management
References
- 1.
Hamari, J.; Sjoklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059.
- 2.
Yu, J.J.; Tang, C.S.; Shen, Z.J.M.; et al. A Balancing Act of Regulating On-Demand Ride Services. Manag. Sci. 2020, 66, 2975–2992.
- 3.
Rong, K.; Sun, H.; Li, D.; et al. Matching as Service Provision of Sharing Economy Platforms: An Information Processing Perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 171, 120901.
- 4.
Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Liu, W.; Du, N.; et al. Sustainable ridesharing routing and scheduling problem: An efficient multi-objective adaptive large neighborhood search. Ann. Oper. Res. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-025-06477-z.
- 5.
Fang, B.; Ye, Q.; Law, R. Effect of sharing economy on tourism industry employment. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 57, 264–267.
- 6.
Boxall, K.; Nyanjom, J.; Slaven, J. Disability, hospitality and the new sharing economy. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. 2018, 30, 539–556.
- 7.
Boateng, H.; Kosiba, J.P.B.; Okoe, A.F. Determinants of consumers’ participation in the sharing economy A social exchange perspective within an emerging economy context. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 718–733.
- 8.
Banjaafar, S.; Bernhard, H.; Courcoubetis, C.; et al. Drivers, Riders, and Service Providers: The Impact of the Sharing Economy on Mobility. Manag. Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3909.
- 9.
Moon, Y. Uber: Changing the Way the World Moves; HBS No. 5-317-109; Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 2017.
- 10.
Lee, Y.W.; Strong, D.M.; Kahn, B.K.; et al. AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment. Inf. Manag. 2002, 40, 133–146.
- 11.
Shang, S.S.C.; Wu, Y.L.; Li, E.Y. Field effects of social media platforms on information-sharing continuance: Do reach and richness matter? Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 241–255.
- 12.
Nadeem, W.; Juntunen, M.; Shiraji, F.; et al. Consumers’ value co-creation in sharing economy: The role of social support, consumers’ ethical perceptions, and relationship quality. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 151, 119786.
- 13.
Mustafa, S.Z.; Kar, K.A.; Janssen, M.F.W.H.A. Understanding the impact of digital service failure on users: Integrating Tan’s failure and Delone and McLean’s success model. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102119.
- 14.
Zhou, H.; Benton, W.C. Jr. Supply chain practice and information sharing. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 1348–1365.
- 15.
IBEF Report. Available online: https://www.ibef.org/download/Construction-Equipment-January-2017.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2025).
- 16.
Wu, J.; Zeng, M.; Xie, K. Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms: The influence of motivations, perceived trust, and past experience. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 2688–2707.
- 17.
Faqih, K.M.S. An empirical analysis of factors predicting the behavioral intention to adopt Internet shopping technology among non-shoppers in a developing country context: Does gender matter? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 30, 140–164.
- 18.
Tamilmani, K.; Rana, N.P.; Nunkoo, R.; et al. Indian Travellers’ Adoption of Airbnb Platform. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 24, 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10060-1.
- 19.
Yan, R.; Zhang, K.Z.K.; Yu, Y. Switching from hotels to peer-to-peer accommodation: An empirical study. Inf. Technol. People 2019, 32, 1667–1678.
- 20.
Song, J.; Baker, J.; Wang, Y.; et al. Platform adoption by mobile application developers: A multimethodological approach. Decis. Support Syst. 2018, 108, 26–39.
- 21.
Gurvich, I.; Lariviere, M.; Moreno, A. Operations in the On-Demand Economy: Staffing Services with Self-Scheduling Capacity. In Sharing Economy. Springer Series in Supply Chain Management; Hu, M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01863-4_12.
- 22.
Wirtz, J.; Ehret, M. Asset-Based Strategies for Capturing Value in the Service Economy. In Handbook of Service Science, Volume II; Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98512-1_35.
- 23.
Taylor, T.A. On-Demand Service Platforms. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2018, 20, 704–720.
- 24.
Choi, T.M.; Shu, G.; Na, L.; et al. Optimal pricing in on-demand-service-platform-operations with hired agents and risk-sensitive customers in the blockchain era. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 284, 1031–1042.
- 25.
Wang, R.Y.; Strong, D.M. Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1996, 12, 5–33.
- 26.
Delone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30.
- 27.
Petter, S.; DeLone, W.; McLean, E. Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 236–2008.
- 28.
Gorla, N.; Somers, T.M.; Wong, B. Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2010, 19, 207–228.
- 29.
Pavlou, P.A.; Liang, H.; Xue, Y. Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A Principal-Agent Perspective. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 105–136.
- 30.
Zhou, H.; Benton, W.C. Jr. Supply chain practice and information sharing. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 1348–1365.
- 31.
Bessen, J. Learning by Doing: The Real Connection between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth; Yale University Press: London, UK, 2015.
- 32.
Horenbeek, A.V.; Pintelon, L.; Muchiri, P. Maintenance optimization models and criteria. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2010, 1, 189–200.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Suite 4002 Level 4, 447 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
General Inquiries: info@sciltp.com