How much wait-time information should platforms share with their users? Should customers know exactly how long they should expect to wait for a taxi, food delivery or contractor? And should taxis drivers, food delivery executives, or contractors know exactly how long they should expect to wait for a customer?
New research from UCL School of Management suggests that complete transparency is not always the best strategy for digital platforms. In some cases, giving users less precise information about expected delays can help platforms match more customers and service providers.
The paper, by UCL School of Management Assistant Professor Siddharth Singh and co-authors Mohammad Delasay, Mehmet Berat Aydemir and Mustafa Akan, examines how platforms should share delay information in two-sided marketplaces where both customers and providers decide whether to participate.
Platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Instacart and Handy face a constant balancing act. Customers want fast service, while drivers, couriers and contractors want enough demand to justify their time. If either side decides the wait is too long and leaves, the platform loses potential matches.
Speaking about the paper’s publication, Dr Singh said:
“The question of how much information to disclose to platform users is one that platforms regularly face when trying to generate as many matches as possible. But the answer is far from straightforward: what the platform tells customers affects their decision to participate, which in turn affects how long providers wait to be matched, and vice versa.”
The researchers analysed three approaches to delay-information sharing. Platforms could provide no delay information, give a simple binary signal indicating either “immediate match” or “wait,” or provide more detailed information about expected delays. While it might seem that more detailed information would always improve outcomes, the results suggest otherwise.
The study finds that a simple binary message can outperform both complete opacity and full transparency when users are sufficiently patient. Rather than showing the exact queue size or precise expected waiting time, platforms may benefit from telling users only whether they can be matched immediately or whether they will need to wait.
This finding reflects a broader tension between transparency and participation. When users receive highly detailed delay information, some may decide that the wait is too long and leave. By contrast, retaining some ambiguity can encourage users to remain on the platform, increasing the likelihood of successful matches.
The study also shows that users do not always prefer more information in such interdependent participation settings. In some cases, customers may benefit from receiving less information if doing so encourages more providers to stay active. Similarly, customers may prefer providers to receive either more or less information depending on how that information affects provider participation and availability.
The paper, which is forthcoming in Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, highlights an important distinction between traditional service systems and modern platforms. In a restaurant queue or call centre, managers mainly need to consider customer behaviour. On two-sided platforms, however, every information-disclosure decision affects two groups at once, creating feedback loops between customer and provider participation.
The findings may help explain why some platforms are selective about the wait-time or availability information they reveal. Uber, for example, has previously faced criticism from drivers after removing information about nearby vehicle counts, which indicated how much competition (and hence wait) there would be for passengers. While such decisions can appear frustrating to users, the research suggests they may reflect a broader operational challenge: managing participation across both sides of the platform to improve overall matching efficiency.
Read the paper: Delay Information Sharing in Two-Sided On-Demand Platforms
