Sunteți pe pagina 1din 185

International Series in Advanced Management Studies

Daniela Andreini
Cristina Bettinelli

Business Model
Innovation
From Systematic Literature Review to
Future Research Directions
International Series in Advanced Management
Studies

Editor-in-chief
Alberto Pastore, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Series editors
Giovanni Battista Dagnino, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
Marco Frey, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy
Christian Grönroos, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland
Michael Haenlein, ESCP Europe, Paris, France
Charles F. Hofacker, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Anne Huff, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland
Morten Huse, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
Gennaro Iasevoli, Lumsa University, Rome, Italy
Andrea Moretti, University of Udine, Udine, Italy
Fabio Musso, University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
Mustafa Ozbilgin, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
Paolo Stampacchia, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
Luca Zanderighi, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

Assistant editor
Michela Matarazzo, Marconi University, Rome, Italy
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15195
Daniela Andreini Cristina Bettinelli

Business Model Innovation


From Systematic Literature Review to Future
Research Directions

123
Daniela Andreini Cristina Bettinelli
Department of Management, Department of Management,
Economics and Quantitative Methods Economics and Quantitative Methods
University of Bergamo University of Bergamo
Bergamo Bergamo
Italy Italy

ISSN 2366-8814 ISSN 2366-8822 (electronic)


International Series in Advanced Management Studies
ISBN 978-3-319-53350-6 ISBN 978-3-319-53351-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017932778

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017


This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature


The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

After the dot-com boom in the 2000s, studies on business models grew dramati-
cally. The main research focus was on identifying and describing the elements or
building blocks of business models. Yet the business model concept’s usefulness
was much criticized (e.g., Porter 2001), and many studies acknowledged the
fuzziness of the term and searched for clearer definitions for the concept to be used
properly (e.g., Magretta 2002; Osterwalder et al. 2005; Shafer et al. 2005).
Within the last decade, the business model research has evolved from static
descriptions to a more dynamic approach, focusing on the development and inno-
vation of business models (see, e.g., Chesbrough 2010; Demil and Lecocq 2010;
Teece 2010). This stream of research considers business model innovation (BMI) to
be a critical source of competitive advantage in an increasingly changing environ-
ment (Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013; Amit and Zott 2012) and one of the most
important determinants of firm performance (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002).
Thus, the field of research on business model innovation has grown fast but has
been developed in silos due to the various disciplines interested in the phenomenon.
An unrestricted search of academic publications using the keyword phrase
“business model innovation” produces hundreds of articles. The interest in this
topic can be seen from the several special issues on business models in academic
journals such as Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (2015), Long Range Planning
(2010, 2013), Industrial Marketing Management (2013), Strategic Organization
(2013), International Journal of Innovation Management (2013), and R&D
Management (2014).
In this context, the authors of this book decided to develop a systematic literature
review in order to identify and integrate the different theoretical perspectives,
analytical levels, and empirical contexts to help us better understand such a com-
plex phenomenon.
It took us two years to develop a systematic literature review of 156 papers on
business model innovation. During this process of analysis, we adopted an
inductive thematic analysis based on an informal ontological classification that
produced 56 key themes. Within each theme, we discuss the thematic patterns,

v
vi Preface

potential inconsistencies and debates, and future directions and opportunities for
research (see Jones et al. 2011).
This book makes a number of contributions. First, we offer a deeper under-
standing of the evolution of research on business model innovation through an
ontological map that identifies the key thematic areas in the literature. Second, we
develop a multilevel model that clarifies the concept of BMI, by identifying its
drivers, contingencies, and outcomes. Third, this review provides clear and specific
directions for future research as well as suggestions about research design, creating
an informative road map for the future.
This book is organized as follows. In the first chapter, we introduce the method-
ology employed to review BMI phenomenon. In particular, in this chapter, we will
define and describe the systematic literature review methodology and its protocols.
Thus, we will provide all the information about the processes we followed to conduct
the ontological and the thematic analysis. As the systematic literature review is a
replicable, scientific, and transparent process, aimed to minimize bias through
extensive searches, in this chapter, we will provide an audit trail of the phases,
strategies, procedures, and decisions we followed to review BMI phenomenon.
In the second chapter, we will disentangle the business model concept and
definition. Since the conceptualization of business model innovation derives
directly from the business model ones, it is important to review and elaborate the
meaning of business model according to different disciplines. In this perspective,
this chapter provides a more unified theoretical conceptualization and framework of
BMs. Accordingly, the reader will find tables and schemes that will help the reading
and the first analysis followed our systematic literature review.
In the third chapter, we will develop the main topic of this book: business model
innovation. We will provide a holistic and integrative review of the current liter-
ature on the dynamics of business model innovation. Thus, this chapter will provide
a deep analysis of the evolution of research on business model innovation, and a
specific examination of the key thematic areas we detected in the literature about
business model innovation. As a result, we will develop an ontological map of the
different thematic areas within the business model innovation research and discuss
the implications for our understanding of business model innovation within each
thematic area.
The fourth and the fifth chapters illustrate a multilevel and a multiperspective
models of BMI, showing how we can delineate different patterns for BMI by levels of
analysis (i.e., individual, team, firm, network, and institutional) and disciplines
(strategic management, organizational studies, marketing, practice-oriented, and
entrepreneurship). This will allow us to summarize and interpret the literature on BMI.
Finally, the sixth chapter will conclude the book with a research agenda that
provides clear and specific directions for future research and also suggestions on
research design to create an informative road map for the future.

Bergamo, Italy Daniela Andreini


Cristina Bettinelli
Preface vii

References

Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53, 41–49.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation:
The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range
Planning, 43, 354–363.
Chesbrough, H. & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value
from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 529–555.
Demil, B. & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency.
Long Range Planning, 43, 227–246.
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N. & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research
(1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26,
632–659.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80, 86–93.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present,
and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16,
1–25.
Porter, M. (2001). Strategy and the internet. Harward Business Review, 79, 62–78.
Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J. & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models. Business
Horizons, 48, 199–207.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43,
172–194.
Acknowledgements

We would thank all those whose support allowed us to write this book.
First of all, Matteo and Claudio and our wonderful families who with patience
and love support our work everyday.
We heartily thank Teea Palo our co-author on other publications on BMI,
Prof. Shaker Zhara who pushed us to develop our ideas, and the reviewers of the
PDW attending the Conference of the Academy of Management in Vancouver in
2015.
Special thanks to the anonymous reviewers of this book and to Prof. Alberto
Pastore and Prof. Marco Frey for their precious support as editors of the
International Series in Advanced Management Studies (SIMA-Springer).
Last but not least, our colleagues and friends Mara and Giuseppe, with whom we
share the burdens and honors of our job.

Daniela Andreini
Cristina Bettinelli

ix
Contents

1 Systematic Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Defining an SLR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Major Tasks and Possible Results of an SLR . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Why Conduct a Systematic Literature Review of BMI?
A Brief Introduction to BMI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 How We Conducted Our SLR on BMI: Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.1 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.2 Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Quantitative Analysis of the Papers Considered
in the SLR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.1 Methodological Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4.2 Industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4.3 Geographical Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.4.4 Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix 1.1: Procedures for Sourcing, Search, Selection
and Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix 1.2: Procedures for Thematic Analysis and Ontological
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 25
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 25
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 27
2.2.1 Definitions of BM Related to Conceptual
Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 31
2.2.2 Definitions of a BM from the BM Architecture
Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 33

xi
xii Contents

2.2.3 Definitions of BM from the Content of BM


Components Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.4 Defining BMs According to Dynamic Perspectives . . . . . . . 38
2.3 What We Discovered About BM Through the SLR on BMI:
Definitions Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4 Evolution of the Concept of BM in BMI Literature
Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2.1 Business Model Innovation Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2.2 Business Model Innovation Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2.3 Business Model Innovation Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.2.4 Tools for Business Model Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.2.5 Business Model Innovation Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.2.6 Business Model Innovation Enablers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.2.7 Business Model Innovation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3.1 Definition of BMI According to the SLR Review . . . . . . . . 75
3.3.2 BMI Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.3.3 BMI Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.3.4 Tools for BMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.3.5 BMI Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.3.6 BMI Enablers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.3.7 BMI Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed in the Systematic
Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.2 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.3 Papers on BMI at the Individual Level of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.4 Papers on BMI at the Team Level of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.5 Papers on BMI at the Firm Level of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.6 Papers on BMI at the Network Level of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.7 Papers on BMI at the Institutional Level of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Contents xiii

5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137


5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.2 BMI from the Perspective of the Strategic Management
Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.3 BMI from the Perspective of Organizational Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.4 BMI from the Perspective of Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.5 BMI from the Perspective of the Entrepreneurship
Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.6 BMI from the Perspective of Practice-Oriented Writers . . . . . . . . . 148
5.7 Multilevel and Multi-perspective Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6 Conclusions and Research Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.2 BMI Framework and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.3 The Integration of Perspectives and Levels of Analysis . . . . . . . . . 163
6.4 Research Agenda in Light of Perspectives and Levels
of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
6.6 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Chapter 1
Systematic Literature Review

Abstract The first chapter of this book introduces the importance of studying
business model innovation (BMI), the methodology we applied to study the subject,
and specific statistics about the literature published in academic and
practice-oriented journals in the last 15 years. Specifically, this chapter offers an
overview of the processes followed for our systematic literature review (SLR) and
the rigorous protocol that includes the three-stage procedure (i.e., planning, exe-
cution, and reporting) suggested by Tranfield et al. (Br J Manag 14:207–222, 2003).
Gathering the most influential pieces on SLRs, this chapter also offers some hints
for conducting a successful SLR and illustrates the benefits associated with doing
so. In addition, this chapter describes the thematic and the informal ontological
classification we adopted to analyze the 156 papers included in our systematic
literature review. Thus, the first section of this chapter defines what is meant by an
SLR. The second section offers an overview of the tasks of an SLR. The other
sections present the process followed for the thematic and ontological analyses that
are central to this work. The final section provides some statistics on the 156 papers
included in our SLR, underlining specific information about the journals that
published the articles, the methodological approaches applied in the papers, the
industries included in the studies, the geographical contexts, and the disciplines that
contributed to the understanding of BMI.

1.1 Introduction

Literature reviews are key elements in every discipline as they provide a summary
of the existing evidence that is needed to inform new academic projects, policy, and
practice. As observed by Tranfield et al. (2003), after World War II, a sharp focus of
attention on the discipline and profession of management has become apparent and
the pace of research has been accelerating accordingly, generating a large volume of
research material. Consequently, literature reviews have emerged as key elements
to foster research in academia, to map existing knowledge production, and to
produce new research questions (Frank and Hatak 2014). More than 10 years ago,
scholars started to notice that literature reviews in the field of management reviews
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1
D. Andreini and C. Bettinelli, Business Model Innovation, International Series
in Advanced Management Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3_1
2 1 Systematic Literature Review

tend to be narrative and often risk becoming mere summaries or descriptions of


extant research with questionable added value and a lack of critical assessment
(Denyer and Tranfield 2009; Tranfield et al. 2003).
To address that criticism, some scholars started to use SLRs, that borrow specific
principles used in the medical sciences and make explicit the protocols, values and
assumptions used while reviewing. Thanks to this shift, SLRs now play an
important role in evidence-based practices (Tranfield et al. 2003; Mulrow 1994).
Systematic reviews differ from traditional narrative reviews in that they adopt a
replicable, scientific and transparent process, intended to minimize bias through
extensive searches and by providing an audit trail of the reviewers steps, strategies,
procedures and decisions (Cook et al. 1997).

1.1.1 Defining an SLR

An SLR can be defined as “a reliable, scientific overview of extant research on a


subject area or topic (Petticrew and Roberts 2006). Its purpose is to identify,
appraise and synthesize all relevant studies using a transparent, replicable process
(Tranfield et al. 2003). Protocols for the literature search, article admittance and
exclusion, and analytical processes are explicated and provide an audit trail of the
processes followed” (Jones et al. 2011: 634).
Systematic literature reviews originated in the medical profession literature, from
the need for more schematized, better organized, evidence-based research and later
spread across social sciences, including management (Denyer and Neely 2004;
Tranfield et al. 2003). An SLR is aimed at bringing together as many existing
evidence-based studies as possible that are relevant to the topic under investigation
regardless of their background (Thorpe et al. 2005). By doing so, an SLR addresses
the current state of art on a specific research topic or research question and makes
suggestions for further research (Frank and Hatak 2014). SLRs are widely regarded
as providing high quality evidence reviews because they require the implementation
of a number of techniques that can minimize bias and error (Tranfield et al. 2003).
As Frank and Hatak (2014) note, the value of an SLR consists in systematically
examining all sources and in describing and justifying what has been done while the
output of non-systematic reviews (i.e., subjective reviews) tends to be based on
partial analysis and risks producing findings that may be inaccurate or even false
(Fink 2010, p. 15).
Thorpe et al. (2005) suggests the basic principles underpinning an SLR can be
summarized as follows:
(1) Transparency: the criteria of relevance for the inclusion or exclusion of studies
must be made explicit, alongside each search string used (i.e., the list of key
words that are entered into the search tools of bibliographic databases) and the
logic behind their selection. This makes it possible to repeat the review, to test
its rigor and eventually update its findings (Thorpe et al. 2005; Denyer and
Neely 2004).
1.1 Introduction 3

(2) Clarity: A clear representation of the process must be granted so that the
audience can make an audit trail (Tranfield et al. 2003).
(3) Focus: The review must ensure that the research question is linked in a con-
sistent way to the selected evidence that informs such a question (Pittaway et al.
2004).
(4) Unification of research and practitioner communities: the review methods are
organized to inform both academic and policy and practitioner perspectives
(Leseure et al. 2004).
(5) Equality: The review aims at avoiding any distinction in principle between the
type and nature of journals (Pittaway et al. 2004).
(6) Accessibility: The reviews are also disseminated in the form of reports and
searchable databases so they are available outside the specialist and academic
community.
(7) Broad coverage: The use of the above indicated principles and of more and
more sophisticated technologies makes it possible to cover a wide variety of
sources.
(8) Synthesis: The SLR must synthetize, compare and link findings from a number
of research fields and through different research methodologies.
The above principles inspired by the work of Thorpe et al. (2005), paint a picture
of SLRs as able to represent a sound, method-guided, replicable and meaningful
synthesis of previous research. We believe it is important to add a principle that
should guide all types of literature reviews: the overall purpose of an SLR is to
critically analyze research literature and to offer direction for developing its
potential in such a way as to clarify the ways available to advance theoretical
understanding (LePine and King 2010).

1.1.2 Major Tasks and Possible Results of an SLR

Literature reviews like an SLR can be extremely useful when a certain topic or
research field is characterized by studies that are heterogeneous in terms of theo-
retical such as approaches and methods. An SLR can be used to pursue any of
several objectives that include highly ambitious tasks such as theory development,
or less ambitious ones like theory evaluation (i.e., drawing conclusions about the
value of existing conceptualizations), analysis of the state of the art, problem
identification (i.e., identifying problems, weaknesses, contradictions, or debates in a
particular research territory), or analysis of the historical development of ideas and
theories. It is important to note that in the case of SLR, theory development is
usually not the main goal, however, successful SLRs pursue more than one task
(Frank and Hatak 2014).
4 1 Systematic Literature Review

A best practice example in this sense is the paper by Jones et al. (2011) which is
indeed a multi-goal and multifaceted SLR and offers a broad overview of two
decades of international entrepreneurship research. This paper has inspired the
current SLR on BMI and provided an important guide during the development of
this project. Jones et al. (2011) work uses a rigorous review protocol and adopts an
inductive approach to identify different thematic areas that have been developed in
international entrepreneurship between 1989 and 2009. Their SLR uses 323
selected academic published articles and identifies 51 first-order themes (i.e., basic
concepts that reveal the subject matter of each article analyzed), these first-order
themes were then were grouped based on their similarity to second-order themes
(i.e., macro concepts that summarize and group first-order themes based on con-
ceptual similarity) and third-order themes (i.e., higher level thematic areas). This
process led to (1) the creation of thematic maps that allowed the authors to effi-
ciently summarize the concepts that emerged; (2) an ontological analysis1 of each
thematic area that allowed the authors to critically review the papers while main-
taining appropriate standards of parsimony and objectivity; (3) a historical recon-
struction of the development of international entrepreneurship research; (4) the
identification of three types of international entrepreneurship research (‘en-
trepreneurial internationalization’, ‘international comparisons of entrepreneurship’,
and ‘comparative entrepreneurial internationalization’). The process followed by
Jones et al. (2011) made it possible to shed light on the common issues and nature
of international entrepreneurship and on the knowledge structures existing in
published papers. This is an important element in that it fosters the development of
theories within a research domain and the identification of a promising research
agenda (Frank and Hatak 2014). For the reasons above, we have selected the paper
by Jones et al. as our best practice example and aim to reproduce its inductive
ontological approach.

1.2 Why Conduct a Systematic Literature Review


of BMI? A Brief Introduction to BMI

BMI is a concept that generally refers to the search by companies for new business
logics and new ways to create and capture value for their stakeholders, moreover, it
refers to finding new ways to generate profits and define value propositions for
customers, partners, and suppliers (e.g., Amit and Zott 2012; Casadesus-Masanell
and Zhu 2013; Comes and Berniker 2008). BMI describes how firms transform
themselves with regard to where they were before and/or the industry convention of

1
According to the Oxford Dictionary, ontology is “a set of concepts and categories in a subject
area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them”. Thus, the ontological
analysis consists in the study of “the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area
or domain” (Oxford Dictionary 2016).
1.2 Why Conduct a Systematic Literature Review of BMI? A Brief … 5

pursuing higher performance and competitive advantage (Kuratko and Audretsch


2013; Morris et al. 2011) to allow the exploitation of opportunities (George and
Bock 2011).
This review will provide an integrative model from the literature on the
dimensions and attributes, drivers, contingencies, and outcomes of BMI. We will
also categorize the literature based on theoretical perspective and level of analysis.
Using this integrative model, we will provide a critical analysis of what we know
and what we need to know about BMI.
The need for a review such as this stems from the rapid growth of the literature
on business models and their usefulness over the past 25 years. Zott et al. (2011)
observed that while the business model construct is becoming more established, we
need to develop a better understanding of BMI and in particular how new business
models are created and existing ones change. Some recent research has attempted to
clarify the concept of business models (e.g., Wirtz et al. 2015; Demil et al. 2015),
providing various perspectives on the changes and innovation affecting them (e.g.,
Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015; Gerasymenko et al. 2015; Martins et al. 2015), but
the literature remains highly fragmented. As Arend (2013, p. 393) noted, confusion
persists because of the lack of “independence of the concept from other levels of
analysis” and of consensus around its drivers and boundaries.
One reason for this fragmentation is that scholars study BMI through different
disciplinary and conceptual lenses and at different levels of analysis. BMI is also
usually considered from one level of analysis at a time. Therefore, we need a
multilevel and multi-perspective review to integrate and synthesize the vast and
diverse literature on BMI in a coherent and comprehensive manner.
Our proposed review integrates the BMI literature from different fields including
strategic management, organizational studies, entrepreneurship, marketing, and
practitioner-oriented literature. Thus, our book makes the following contributions.
First, our review further clarifies the concepts of the BM and BMI, incorporating
drivers, contingencies, and outcomes. This model will enable future research to
improve the understanding of BMI and the underlying conditions through which it
leads to specific outcomes. Second, its multi-perspective and multilevel approach
makes our review a first step toward bridging the divide between disciplines and
levels of analysis in the field. Third, it identifies critical knowledge gaps and
provides suggestions for future research.
Finally, we hope that our systematization can provide insights and guidance for
managers and policy makers. Indeed, it can be a useful tool for managers seeking to
better understand BMI and what the academic and practice-oriented literature tells
us about how BMI is implemented. In addition, this book can inform policy makers
and governments about the antecedents and outcomes of BMI thus providing a
systematic synthesis useful for fostering BMI (for example, the EU has published a
number of Horizon 2020 calls to finance innovation processes). To sum up, this
review on BMI will be a valid instrument that readers can use to learn more about
the state of the art and it will foster future research and activities around the topic.
6 1 Systematic Literature Review

1.3 How We Conducted Our SLR on BMI: Methods

The current SLR differs from previous literature reviews on BMI (Schneider and
Spieth 2013; Foss and Saebi 2017) in two main ways. First, the present review aims
to answer the call for deeper analysis of some aspects of BMI, such as the enablers
for firms developing innovation in an existing business model (BM), the process of
BMI, and the effects of BMI (Zott and Amit 2013: 409). Second, the current review
extends analysis to a wider field of research through the use of a larger set of
keywords related to BMI. The following describes the process of executing the
review and discusses it in detail.
As previously stated, an SLR follows a rigorous method of collecting and
analyzing data. Accordingly, to achieve the aims of developing a deeper under-
standing of BMI, mapping the related themes, and outlining the theoretical
approaches, we developed our research to adhere to the principles of transparency,
clarity, focus, unification of research and practitioner communities, equality,
accessibility, broad coverage, and synthesis (Thorpe et al. 2005; Tranfield et al.
2003).
Moreover, in accordance with recent systematic literature reviews, we followed
the path set by Jones et al. (2011) when conducting an SLR in management studies.
In this way, we enhanced the meta-analysis of collected papers using thematic
analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006), which is an inductive method that permits
investigation and inquiry into both qualitative and quantitative research. Finally, as
suggested by Jones et al. (2011), to synthesize data and contribute to the scientific
knowledge of BMI, we applied an informal ontological classification system
(Chandrasekaran et al. 1999; Jones et al. 2011; Noy and McGuinness 2001; Saab
and Fonseca 2008); the subjective and cultural assumptions of the researchers
involved in this paper influence the categorization of the phenomenon under
consideration.
The thematic analysis in this systematic review did not begin from a theoretical
or a predetermined framework. We have summarized the processes (i.e. planning,
execution, and reporting) of the SLR developed in this book (see Fig. 1.1). This
chapter provides details of the planning and execution phases, while the reporting
phase is the subject of the following chapters.

1.3.1 Planning

The planning phase began with defining the objectives of the SLR. As stated in the
introduction, the review is aimed at understanding the evolution of research on BMI
and analyzing the key thematic areas and their contribution to the knowledge of
BMI.
Thus, we prepared and shared different research proposals with two senior
professors and two peers, experienced both in business model and in systematic
1.3 How We Conducted Our SLR on BMI: Methods 7

Planning Execution Reporting

Sourcing, Reporting SLR


Developing the
searching, processes in
objectives
selecting and appendix 1 and
excluding appendix 2
processes
Preparing and
sharing the
proposal Describing the
Thematic
results in book
analysis and
chapters
ontological
Developing the organization
protocol

Fig. 1.1 Summary of the SLR processes [Authors’ elaboration based on Thorpe et al. (2005)]

literature review methods. In this phase, we received useful feedback about relevant
sourcing, search, selection, and exclusion processes. The experts helped the authors
to determine the typology of sources and the selection process of the papers con-
sidered in this analysis. Employing experts also offered the opportunity to discuss
how to conduct the thematic and the ontological analysis, to guarantee the validity
of our study.

1.3.2 Execution

In management research, assessing the relevance of papers included in a systematic


review is a challenging task; these decisions should be driven in part by the quality
of journals on the subject (Tranfield et al. 2003). For this reason, only papers
published in practitioner and academic peer-reviewed journals were considered in
this research. A number of key bibliographic databases (Scopus, Ebsco, ABI
Proquest Complete, Web of Science) were searched using the search strings.
The ABI Proquest database had the greatest coverage, which is coupled with
functionality and full-article access.
After lengthy consultations, the authors developed search strings (research key-
words) according to the objectives of the systematic review. The concept of BMI
developed in many different research fields such as management, marketing,
entrepreneurship, strategy, technology, operations management, and organizational
studies. Some fields developed different theoretical perspectives and accordingly use
varying terminology. For instance, in entrepreneurship and change management,
8 1 Systematic Literature Review

“business model radicalness” (e.g., Ritala and Sainio 2014) and “business model
change” (e.g., Cavalcante 2014) are commonly used to indicate the introduction of
innovative processes and activities in existing BMs. Since the aim of the systematic
literature review is to gather existing evidence-based research on BMI, regardless of
disciplinary boundaries, language, and location, the current review included multiple
keywords and, therefore, research perspectives. This method also enabled the cap-
ture and understanding of the dynamic nature of the BM in terms of how it relates not
only to innovation but also to newness and radicalness, design, development,
change, transformation, and enhancement. All these terms can refer to innovating
around existing or new BMs and including them helped improve understanding of
the fragmented research field on BMI. As a result, we developed a series of key-
words and exclusion criteria that were built into search strings and entered in the
electronic databases.
This process yielded 1976 citations, of which 1120 were omitted due to repli-
cation. An initial check of the search results revealed that in a number of cases the
elements comprising the strings were not connected to each other. For example, the
“business model” AND “develop*” string search produced a large number of
citations where develop* was used in the abstract but did not refer to BMs.
Therefore, we narrowed the search by using the strings and Boolean operators listed
in Table 1.1.
This process produced 549 citations, of which 151 were omitted due to repli-
cation. We also excluded two papers with anonymous authors, three teaching cases,
three non-English-language papers, and five reports/interviews, to produce a sample
of 385 citations.
Following Thorpe et al. (2005), we read the titles, abstracts, and introductions of
the papers and classified them into three categories: “A” incorporated studies that
were definitely relevant; “B” incorporated studies whose relevance was initially
unclear; and “C” incorporated studies that were not relevant. As shown in Part A of
Appendix 1.1, we followed an interactive process for inclusion and exclusion that
produced a final sample of 1562 Category A papers for thematic analysis.
We conducted data extraction using dual analysis, including descriptive and
interpretative investigations, as shown in Appendix 1.2 (Thorpe et al. 2005;
Tranfield et al. 2003). We recorded general information (i.e., title, authors, publi-
cation details, key words, and abstract) and specific information (i.e., theoretical
perspective, method of analysis, sample, and context of analysis (if any) for each
paper in an Excel file. Then, we evaluated the results of the SLR for evidence of the
confines related to BMI as suggested by Rousseau et al. (2008). We recorded the
definitions and boundaries of the BMI concept as expressed by the authors of each
paper. Finally, we organized the papers chronologically to verify the development
of the phenomenon over time.

2
The period of interest was 2001–2015. Then, we manually added a relevant paper that has been
published in 2017 by Foss and Saebi as their paper includes an important contribution to the topic.
1.3 How We Conducted Our SLR on BMI: Methods 9

Table 1.1 Keyword search results


Keywords used Findings in Findings in Total
abstract title
“business model innovat*” OR “innov* business 163 81 244
model”
“business model chang*” OR “chang* business 23 15 38
model”
“business model novel*” OR “novel* business 5 1 6
model”
“business model advanc*” OR “advance* 0 0 0
business model”
“business model enhanc*” OR “enhance* 0 0 0
business model”
“business model renew*” OR “renew* business 1 2 3
model”
“business model transform*” OR “transform* 3 5 8
business model”
“business model develop*” OR “develop* 24 5 29
business model”
“business model experiment*” OR 3 1 4
“experiment* business model”
“business model evolution” OR “evolution 11 4 15
business model”
“business model upgrad*” OR “upgrad* 0 0 0
business model”
“business model progres*” OR “progres* 0 0 0
business model”
“business model new*” OR “new* business 122 14 136
model”
“business model design” OR “design business 42 10 52
model”
“business model revolut*” OR “revolut* 1 0 1
business model”
“business model creat*” OR “creat* business 13 1 14
model”
Total 410 138 549
Replication n = 151; Exclusion n = 13 549 (total) − 151 (replication) − 13
(exclusion) = 385
Total Papers A, B, C A = 156 B = 86 C = 144

We also performed an analytical and interpretative analysis of the selected papers


following the thematic analysis procedures suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006).
Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns
(themes) derived from data (Braun and Clarke 2006). In an SLR, the themes are the
main concepts on which an article is built and are expressed in the research ques-
tions, definitions, measurements, and results (Jones et al. 2011; Thorpe et al. 2005).
10 1 Systematic Literature Review

In contrast to content analysis, themes are not identified as “the most representative”
or “the most frequently mentioned” concepts, but they do capture important concepts
related to the research objectives (Ryan and Bernard 2000).
As part of a constructionist paradigm,3 thematic analysis is a useful and flexible
tool to approach a fragmented subject such as BMI, as it assists in understanding it,
and the key research areas related to it. After discussing and negotiating how to
conduct the analysis and determine the themes, we conducted an inductive
data-driven thematic analysis without a pre-existing theoretical or coding frame.
This approach requires reading and re-reading data in iterative cycles to identify
themes. The themes identified from the first analysis were diverse so, following
Jones et al. (2011), we applied an interactive process of theme accordance and
categorization to ensure consistency within and across theme categories. In this
process, we developed superordinate classifications containing subclasses of themes
and checked for duplication and redundancy at each level (Jones et al. 2011; Noy
and McGuinness 2001).
The thematic and ontological analysis produced 56 themes. After discussion, we
grouped these into similar first-order (T1), second-order (T2), and, when possible,
third-order themes (T3), followed by a hierarchical and subsequent categorization.
Part D of Appendix 1.2 illustrates the processes followed to validate the thematic
and the ontological analysis. The authors summarized the content of all the con-
sidered 156 papers in this SLR in Appendix 3.1. In the third chapter of this book the
ontological tables will be discussed, illustrating the super-theme order, the
second-order themes, the first-order themes, and the thematic descriptive statements
that resulted from the interactive reconciliation processes.

1.4 Quantitative Analysis of the Papers Considered


in the SLR

As shown in Table 1.2, the 156 papers were published in a variety of journals from
different disciplines ranging from strategy to innovation, and including marketing,
entrepreneurship, organization studies, and practice-oriented journals. The journals
that have been more active in welcoming papers on BMI are Strategy & Leadership
(published by Emerald), International Journal of Innovation Management (pub-
lished by World Scientific), Long Range Planning (Published by Elsevier), and
Research Technology Management (published by the Industrial Research Institute)
all of these publications are listed in Scopus and have a relatively well-established
scientific solidity. In addition, over the past decade top tier journals like Strategic
Management Journal, Research Policy, Journal of Business Research, Industrial

3
The constructionist paradigm is drawn from the constructionist epistemology, according to which
the interpretation of phenomena is a process that includes observers’ personal knowledge and
experience.
1.4 Quantitative Analysis of the Papers Considered in the SLR 11

Table 1.2 Papers divided by Journal


Journals No. of
papers
Strategy & Leadership 11
International Journal of Innovation Management 10
Long Range Planning 10
Research Technology Management 7
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 6
R&D Management 6
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 6
Creativity and Innovation Management 5
Industrial Marketing Management 5
MIT Sloan Management Review 5
European Management Journal 4
Management Decision 4
Research Policy 3
The Journal of Corporate Citizenship 3
Business Strategy and the Environment 2
Chinese Management Studies 2
Energy Policy 2
Info: The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, 2
Information and Media
Journal of Management & Governance 2
Journal of Organizational Change Management 2
Technovation 2
Academy of Marketing Science. Journal 1
Accounting Forum 1
British Journal of Management 1
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 1
Construction Management and Economics 1
Decision Sciences 1
Economics & Sociology 1
Electronic Markets 1
European Journal of Innovation Management 1
European Management Review 1
Health Affairs 1
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1
Industrial and Corporate Change 1
Industrial Management & Data Systems 1
Information Strategy 1
Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 1
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1
(continued)
12 1 Systematic Literature Review

Table 1.2 (continued)


Journals No. of
papers
International Journal of Business and Management 1
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 1
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1
International Journal of Management & Decision Making 1
International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing 1
International Journal of Production Economics 1
International Journal of Technology Management 1
International Studies of Management & Organization 1
Internet Research 1
Journal of Business Research 1
Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations 1
Journal of Enterprising Culture 1
Journal of Global Information Technology Management 1
Journal of Indian Business Research 1
Journal of Industrial Ecology 1
Journal of International Technology and Information Management 1
Journal of Management 1
Journal of Retailing 1
Journal of Service Management 1
Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability 1
Journal of Strategic Marketing 1
Journal of Strategy and Management 1
Journal of Technology Transfer 1
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 1
Modern Economy 1
Organization Science 1
Problems of Economic Transition 1
Small Business Economics 1
Strategic Management Journal 1
Supply Chain Management 1
Systems Research and Behavioral Science 1
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 1
Technology Innovation Management Review 1
The Academy of Management Perspectives 1
The Business Review, Cambridge 1
The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online) 1
The Journal of Management Studies 1
The Service Industries Journal 1
Thunderbird International Business Review 1
Total 156
1.4 Quantitative Analysis of the Papers Considered in the SLR 13

Fig. 1.2 Papers divided by year of publication

Marketing Management, Technovation and Small Business Economics have shown


interest in BMI. This indicates that the quality of the papers reviewed is solid and
increasing in strength over the time span analyzed.
Figure 1.2 presents the 156 publications divided by year of publication. The
figure clearly shows that the number of publications on BMI remained relatively
stable from 2001 to 2009 with an interesting high growth rate in the period 2009–
2015. This growth rate is due to two main factors. First, both academic journals and
practitioners have increasingly become aware that BMI is an important factor in
increasing firm competitiveness (see for example Amit and Zott 2012; Markides
2013). Second, and related to the first reason, interest in the topic has been boosted
by several special issues on BMIs published by academic journals over the
above-mentioned period, those include: Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (2015),
Long Range Planning (2010, 2013), Industrial Marketing Management (2013),
Strategic Organization (2013), International Journal of Innovation Management
(2013), and R&D Management (2014).

1.4.1 Methodological Approaches

The SLR revealed that several methodologies have been used to study the BMI
phenomenon. The methods employed by researchers can be divided in two main
14 1 Systematic Literature Review

Table 1.3 Methodologies employed in BMI studies


Methodologies No. of papers Percentage (%)
Qualitative studies 80 51
Single case-study 30 19
Multiple case-study 22 14
Longitudinal case-study 16 10
Case-study based on interviews 12 8
Quantitative studies 23 15
Survey 15 9.5
Experiments 3 1.5
Longitudinal analysis 5 3
Mixed methods 7 4.5
Literature reviews and conceptual works 6 4
Practice-oriented studies 24 15
Examples and not specified methodology 16 10

categories: qualitative and quantitative methods. The former includes single case
studies, multiple case studies, longitudinal case studies, and interviews, whereas the
latter encompasses surveys, experiments, and the statistical analysis of secondary
data.
Because BMI is a complex new phenomenon, case-based research has been very
useful, especially in the earlier studies. In contrast, quantitative and replicable
research is usually employed to validate concepts and relationships and the use of
mixed methods is particularly suitable to improve the rigor of research addressing
the complexity of the investigated phenomenon.
The methodological approaches adopted in the papers of the SLR merit dis-
cussion. As shown in Table 1.3, of the 156 works analyzed, 80 papers (51% of the
total papers analyzed) used the case-study method and interviews. Specifically, 30
papers adopted a single case-study (19% of the total), 22 papers adopted a multiple
case-study method (14%), 16 papers adopted a longitudinal perspective (10%) and
12 papers conducted interviews (8%).
Twenty-three papers included quantitative analysis (15%), five of which adopted
a longitudinal perspective. Seven papers (4.5%) used mixed methods. Six papers
focused on BMI literature reviews and conceptual studies, 24 were addressed to
practitioners with no aim of contributing to the academic BMI literature, and there
were 16 theoretical papers with no explicit managerial contributions.

1.4.2 Industries

There are many industries represented in BMI studies (see Table 1.4). Specifically,
23 articles declared an aim of developing cross-industry studies, demonstrating the
1.4 Quantitative Analysis of the Papers Considered in the SLR 15

Table 1.4 Industries Industries No. of papers Percentage (%)


investigated in BMI studies
IT 39 25
Not specified 29 18
B2B and B2C services 25 16
Cross-industry studies 23 15
Digital communication 11 7
Manufacturing 11 7
Sustainable technologies 6 4
Energy 5 3
Healthcare 4 3
Food 3 2
Total 156 100

validly of their results in multiple contexts. The most-often analyzed industry was
the technological sector, with 39 articles using technology companies as a source of
evidence for their analysis of BMI. Similarly, 11 articles focused on e-businesses,
regarding the internet and social media as an interaction between digital tech-
nologies and BMI. There were also 25 papers focused on services; that number
being made up of five in the B2B services field, 14 in the B2C equivalent, and the
remainder targeting cross-industry services. Other industries used for this com-
parative research were: manufacturing (11), the energy sector (5), sustainable
technologies (6), healthcare (4) and food (3). Finally, 29 papers did not focus on a
specific industry. In conclusion, publication dates reveal the most up to date
research focuses on technology industries, services, and digital platforms. Similarly,
the digital age has encouraged BMI studies in the context of new and fast growing
online platforms and applications.

1.4.3 Geographical Contexts

The BMI literature shows that the studies have been conducted mostly in Europe,
Asia, and the USA (see Table 1.5). In order to establish which country the study
related to, we controlled for the location of data collection and if not available, we
controlled for the authors’ locations. Thus, location points were gathered according
to where studies took place, if the article utilized case studies, surveys, and
observations. Otherwise, the location of the authors was considered if the article
employed empirical analyses or published secondary data. In the case of literature
reviews and conceptual papers, the location was not considered.
The analysis revealed that even though the term business model was first
developed in practitioners’ studies and published in North American journals,
European researchers started to study the BMI phenomenon earlier. Of the total of
156 papers, 62 studied an European context, with the differences in the distribution
16 1 Systematic Literature Review

Table 1.5 Contexts of BMI studies


Countries No. of papers Percentage (%)
Europe 62 40
Northern European countries 31 20
Central Europe (Germany, Switzerland, France) 13 8
Multiple EU countries 12 7.5
Southern Europe 6 4
American Continent 15 9.6
USA 12 7.5
Canada 2 1
Argentina 1 0.5
Asia 15 9.6
China 7 4
India 3 2
Taiwan 3 2
Japan 1 0.5
Korea 1 0.5
Global 27 17
Not specified 37 24
Total 156 100

as shown in Table 1.5. The studies conducted on the American continent number
15, of which 12 are located in the USA, two in Canada and one in Argentina. There
are also many studies conducted in Asia (15), and China is the leading country with
seven BMI publications, while three were conducted in India, three in Taiwan, one
in Japan and one in Korea. There have been only three attempts to study BMI in
Africa as far as we can detect. Twenty-seven papers analyzed global companies or
employed global survey samples of managers or customers. Finally, 30 papers are
conceptual, practice-oriented, or literature reviews, and so cannot be considered to
belong to specific locations.
The diversity of locations shows the growing importance to research of BMI as a
topic and its ongoing attraction to modern researchers worldwide.

1.4.4 Disciplines

To categorize the papers reviewed by the associated disciplines, we identified four


different disciplines dealing with BMI: strategic management, organizational
studies, marketing, and entrepreneurship. In addition to these disciplines, we have
also recognized a practice-oriented group of papers.
Papers focusing on strategic management dealt with innovative means, strate-
gies, designs, and decisions that a single firm or a network of firms can develop to
1.4 Quantitative Analysis of the Papers Considered in the SLR 17

Table 1.6 Disciplines Industries No. of papers Percentage (%)


represented in BMI studies
Strategic management 43 33
Entrepreneurship 28 22
Practice-oriented 25 19
Marketing 18 14
Organizational studies 16 12
Total 130 100

create and capture value for stakeholders through a BM (e.g., Tongur and Engwall
2014; Zott and Amit 2008, 2010). Organizational studies focused on behaviors,
such as learning, experimentation, and trial-and-error activities on the part of
managers, teams, top managers, and entrepreneurs (e.g., McGrath 2010; Rindova
and Kotha 2001; Freeman and Engel 2007; Nicholls-Nixon et al. 2000; O’Reilly
and Tushman 2008). Considering the customer perspective, marketing studies
analyzed target customers and the related value proposition (Dmitriev et al. 2014;
Wu et al. 2013); new consumption/distribution models (Baumeister et al. 2015) and
new product conceptualization such as the servitization of manufactured products
(Nenonen and Storbacka 2010; Storbacka et al. 2012). Finally, entrepreneurship
literature analyzed disruptive and substantial innovation, which was introduced and
developed to seize new economic opportunities (Gerasymenko et al. 2015;
Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015).
Table 1.6 illustrates the results of our SLR, revealing that most of the papers
belonged to the strategic management discipline (43). The second most populated
field is entrepreneurship (28), followed by practice-oriented papers (25), marketing
(18) and organizational works (16). The rest of the papers were literature reviews or
practice-oriented, and so could not be categorized into one of the above-mentioned
disciplines.

1.5 Conclusion

This chapter presented the SLR as an evidence-based tool for scientific knowledge
creation, both in the medical (Greenhalgh 1997; Davies and Crombie 1998), and
social sciences (Denyer and Neely 2004; Tranfield et al. 2003; Rousseau et al.
2008; Jones et al. 2011).
This book is the result of a literature review that follows a rigorous method of
data collection and analysis, that aims to enhance the understanding of BMI.
Mapping the related themes, and outlining the theoretical approaches, we developed
our research adhering to the principles of transparency, clarity, focus, unification of
research, and practitioner communities, equality, accessibility, broad coverage, and
synthesis (Tranfield et al. 2003; Thorpe et al. 2005).
In this way, we reformed the meta-analysis of the collected papers using a
thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006), an inductive method to study
18 1 Systematic Literature Review

qualitative evidence and research. Finally, in order to synthesize data and contribute
to scientific knowledge, we applied an informal ontological classification
(Chandrasekaran et al. 1999; Noy and McGuinness 2001; Saab and Fonseca 2008;
Jones et al. 2011), where the subjective and cultural assumptions of researchers
affect the phenomenon under scrutiny.
In order to investigate the distribution of BMI research, the first chapter also
provided some descriptive analysis related to BMI literature, such as the publishing
journals, the methodological approaches, the industries investigated by researchers,
the geographical location, and the disciplines under which BMI papers can be
categorized.
The following chapters present the reporting phase of thematic analysis results
(Tranfield et al. 2003), beginning with an analysis of the definitions of BMI.

Appendix 1.1: Procedures for Sourcing, Search, Selection


and Exclusion

A. Source of information
1. Peer-reviewed journal articles only
2. Empirical and conceptual and review.
B. Exclusion criteria
1. Studies focused on business model rather than business model innovation
2. Studies declaring business model innovation in the title and in the abstract
without being its primarily focus
3. Research published in edited books and conference proceedings
4. Editorials
5. Articles discussing business model education or research techniques
6. Case studies for teaching purposes
7. Articles unavailable in the databases.
C. Search method—Keyword research
1. Articles across academic journals with no temporal boundaries
2. Database selection by the keyword search “Business Model Innovation”
using Scopus, Ebsco, ABI Proquest complete and Web of Science
3. ABI Proquest and EBSCO (incorporating Business Source Premiere and
Econlit) resulted the most comprehensive
4. Initial focus on: (a) citation and abstract, and (b) title
5. Keywords initial search
Appendix 1.1: Procedures for Sourcing, Search, Selection … 19

“business model” AND “innovat*”


“business model” AND “chang*”
“business model” AND “novel*”
“business model” AND “advanc*”
“business model” AND “enhanc*”
“business model” AND “renew*”
“business model” AND “transform*”
“business model” AND “develop*”
“business model” AND “experiment*”
“business model” AND “evolution”

6. Keyword realignment

“business model innovat*” OR “innov* business model”


“business model chang*” OR “chang* business model”
“business model novel*” OR “novel* business model”
“business model advanc*” OR “advance* business model”
“business model enhanc*” OR “enhance* business model”
“business model renew*” OR “renew* business model”
“business model transform*” OR “transform* business model”
“business model develop*” OR “develop* business model”
“business model experiment*” OR “experiment* business model”
“business model evolution” OR “evolution business model”
“business model upgrad*” OR “upgrad* business model”
“business model progres*” OR “progres* business model
“business model new*” OR “new* business model”
“business model design” OR “design business model”
“business model revolut*” OR “revolut* business model”
“business model creat*” OR “creat* business model”

7. Deleting repetitions and other documents included in the exclusion list.


D. Search method—Paper selection
1. The authors as a pair read the abstracts and the introductions of all papers
(n = 385) dividing them into A, B, and C categories (A papers are relevant
for the objective of the research, B papers are studies whose relevance was
not initially clear, and C papers are not relevant)
2. After reading every 40 papers the two authors compare and reconcile their
categorization
3. The third author re-assesses the articles excluded by one of the authors but
included by the other author (A papers = 150)
4. Authors re-check all the B papers in order to verify the inclusion in this
category (12 papers are subsequently assessed to belong in category A)
20 1 Systematic Literature Review

5. Final check by two authors verifying the match between papers’ content and
the objectives of the systematic review (7 papers excluded from A category)
6. Only A papers are considered for the thematic analysis (n = 156).

Appendix 1.2: Procedures for Thematic Analysis


and Ontological Organization

A. Data organization
1. Organize A papers in chronological order up until those published in
September 2015.
2. Prepare Excel file to record and compare coding by researchers.
3. The Excel file has to contain the following information respecting the
authors’ language: title, abstract, authors, publication date, publication title,
indication if academic or practitioner publication (yes/no), keywords,
research question, theoretical perspective, sample, research context (sector
or industry), research method, main results, BM definition, BMI definition,
and boundaries.
B. Theme identification
1. Two researchers individually scrutinize each paper to identify the objective
of the paper, research questions, key arguments, research methods, the
business model definition used in the paper, the business model innovation
definition, its theoretical perspective and its presented outcomes.
2. The researchers write a statement individually describing the primary focus
of each paper, paying attention to the conceptual terminology and vocab-
ulary employed by the authors.
3. After reviewing 30 papers, the researchers compare their statements and
discuss how to resolve misalignments (if any).
4. From the statement at least three order thematic categories have to be
identified (T1, T2, and T3).
5. Preliminary names are given to the thematic categories.
6. Definitive category names result from discussions and interactions between
authors, and these thematic categories will be applied for the remaining
papers in the Excel file.
7. After every 30 papers, the researchers align their results for consistency.
C. Ontological organization
1. The authors discuss and agree on the three order thematic categories (T1,
T2, and T3) for each paper.
2. According to an ontological process, from the descriptive statements the
authors gather the thematic categories according to similarities (T1), in the
same vein they form the second-order (T2) and major thematic areas (T3)
forming a taxonomic (subtheme—super-theme) hierarchy.
Appendix 1.2: Procedures for Thematic Analysis and Ontological … 21

3. Authors reviewed material for redundancy or duplication.


D. Interpretation and validation
1. The Excel file records all the descriptive statements, the thematic
(super-theme) category, the second-order and first-order themes for each
paper were ranked chronologically.
2. The thematic and ontological structure was mapped using Mindomo
software.
3. For consistency, the maps were compared with the original Excel file and
Appendix 3.1 inserted in the paper.
4. For each theme, the authors wrote an explanation in order to check the fit
between the content of the paper with the themes, ensuring ontological
consistency.
E. Quality checking
1. Each paper is codified independently by two researchers who paid equal
attention to both.
2. The process was thorough, inclusive, and comprehensive (three thematic
descriptors).
3. The interaction process implied a comparison of the selected themes going
back and forth from the original papers.
4. Authors check for internal coherence, consistency, and distinctiveness.
5. Authors interpret the papers according to their meanings, while maintaining
the vocabulary expressed in the papers as much as possible.
6. Data and themes are paired iteratively.
7. Authors use ontology tables for consistency.
8. The authors have an active role in each phase.

References

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53, 41–49.
Arend, R. J. (2013). The business model: Present and future—beyond a skeumorph. Strategic
Organization, 11(4), 390–402.
Baumeister, C., Scherer, A., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2015). Branding access offers: The importance
of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, in press, 1–15.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation:
The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2014). Preparing for business model change: The “pre-stage” finding. Journal
of Management and Governance, 18, 449–469.
Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. R., & Benjamins, V. R. (1999). What are ontologies, and why
do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14, 20–26.
22 1 Systematic Literature Review

Comes, S., & Berniker, L. (2008). Business model innovation. In D. Pantaleo & N. Pal (Eds.), From
strategy to execution: Turning accelerated global change into opportunity. Berlin: Springer.
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best
evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126, 376–380.
Davies, H. T., & Crombie, I. K. (1998). Getting to grips with systematic reviews and
meta-analyses. Hospital medicine (London, England: 1998), 59(12), 955–958.
Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ special issue on
business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 1–11.
Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity
performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 131–135.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. London: Sage.
Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration
of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D
Management, 44, 306–321.
Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews: From Internet to paper (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation. Journal of
Management, 43, 200–227.
Frank, H., & Hatak, I. (2014). Doing a research literature review. In A. Fayolle & M. Wright
(Eds.), How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals: A guide to steer your
academic career. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations.
California Management Review, 50, 94–+.
George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 35, 83–111.
Gerasymenko, V., de Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Changing the business model: Effects
of venture capital firms and outside CEOs on portfolio company performance. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 79–98.
Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic
reviews and meta-analyses). British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 672–675.
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–
2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 632–659.
Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9, 323–335.
LePine, J., & King, W. A. (2010). Editors’ comments: Developing novel theoretical insight from
reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35, 506–509.
Leseure, M. J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A., & Denyer, D. (2004). Adoption of promising practices:
A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 169–190.
Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach
us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 313–323.
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of
concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 9, 99–117.
McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43,
247–261.
Morris, M., Kuratko, D., & Covin, J. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation. OH
South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason.
Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 309, 597.
Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2010). Business model design: Conceptualizing networked value
co-creation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2, 43–59.
References 23

Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (2000). Strategic experimentation:


Understanding change and performance in new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 15,
493–521.
Noy, N., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology development 101. Tech report KSL-01-05. Palo
Alto, CA: Knowledge Systems Laboratory Stanford University.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the
innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(28), 185–206.
Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The
cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and
innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 5, 137–168.
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic
capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1263–1280.
Ritala, P., & Sainio, L.-M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and
business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 155–169.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational
science: Assembling the field full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The
Academy of Management Annals, 2, 475–515.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saab, D. J., & Fonseca, F. (2008). Ontological complexity and human culture. Philosophy’s
Relevance in Information Science. Paderborn, Germany.
Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future
research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–34.
Storbacka, K., Frow, P., Nenonen, S., & Payne, P. (2012). Designing business models for co-creation.
In S. L. Vargo & R. F. Lusch (Eds.), Towards a better understanding of the role of value in
markets and marketing, review of marketing research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and
medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7, 257–281.
Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2014). The business model dilemma of technology shifts.
Technovation, 34, 525–535.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14, 207–222.
Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2015). Business models: Origin, development
and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, in press.
Wu, J., Guo, B., & Shi, Y. (2013). Customer knowledge management and IT-enabled business
model innovation: A conceptual framework and a case study from China. European
Management Journal, 31, 359–372.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model:
implications for firm performance. Chicago: Wiley Periodicals Inc.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range
Planning, 43, 216–226.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for
strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11, 403–411.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future
research. Journal of Management, 37, 1019–1042.
Chapter 2
Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Abstract The second chapter of this book focuses on the conceptualization of a


BM and particularly on the definitions and boundaries of BMs that the literature has
proposed over the last 15 years. In the first part of this chapter, we propose different
definitions of BM categorized according to: the conceptual abstraction (i.e.,
strategic, narrative, process-based, and cognitive conceptual abstractions); the BM
architecture (i.e., BM as a structure; BM as a system; BM as a network); the content
of BM components (i.e., strategic activities and managerial decisions; resources;
networks and relationships; and value) and to the dynamic approaches (with par-
ticular focus on strategic management and organizational studies). Finally, we
review all the definitions of BM included in the 156 papers considered for our
systematic literature review of BMI. Thus, according to a brief citation analysis, we
have identified the most influential works on BM that contributed most to the
academic and practice-oriented development of the literature of BMI.

2.1 Introduction

The extensive emphasis placed on business model innovation in both research and
practice, comes from the legitimacy of business models as an academic research
stream. For this reason, this chapter offers an extensive overview of the business
model concept and definitions from various theoretical perspectives.
The chapter begins with a review of the most relevant definitions of a BM in the
literature. The review allowed to propose a conceptual framework that will improve
the common understanding of a BM. It is very important to start with the definition
of BM concept, because BMI literature has developed not only in relation with the
“innovation” term—that can vary according to the adopted theoretical and disci-
pline perspective—but also through different meanings related to the lenses applied
by the authors.
This framework will be also useful to understanding how the BM concept has
developed in BMI literature, and will thus provide detailed information on the BMI
phenomenon and its meanings.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 25


D. Andreini and C. Bettinelli, Business Model Innovation, International Series
in Advanced Management Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3_2
26 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Table 2.1 Selected business model definitions related to the conceptual abstraction of BMs
Author(s), Year Definition Conceptual
abstraction
Chesbrough and The business model is “the heuristic logic that Strategic
Rosenbloom (2002) connects technical potential with the realization of
economic value” (p. 529)
Magretta (2002) Business models are “stories that explain how Narrative
enterprises work.” (p. 4)
Afuah (2003) “The set of activities a firm performs, how it Strategic
performs them, and when it performs them as it uses
its resources to perform activities, given its
industry, to create superior customer value … and
put itself in a position to appropriate the value”
(p. 9)
Teece (2010) “A business model articulates the logic, the data and Strategic
other evidence that support a value proposition for
the customer, and a viable structure of revenues and
costs for the enterprise delivering that value”
(p. 179)
Casadesus-Masanell “A business model is … a reflection of the firm’s Strategic
and Ricart (2010) realized strategy” (p. 195)
Cavalcante et al. “An abstraction of the principles supporting the Process-based
(2011) development of a firm’s core repeated processes”
Aspara et al. (2013) The corporate business model resides primarily in Cognitive
the minds of the corporation’s top managers or top
management team (TMT) members—essentially, it
is the corporate top managers’ perceived logic of
how value is created by the corporation, especially
regarding the value-creating links between the
corporation’s portfolio of businesses (p. 460)
Martins et al. (2015) Business model is an example of a schema, defined Cognitive
as a cognitive structure that consists of concepts and
relations among them that organize managerial
understandings about the design of activities and
exchanges that reflect the critical interdependencies
and value creation relations in their firms’ exchange
networks

The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the conceptualizations


and frameworks adopted to understand BMs. Accordingly, the reader will find four
tables (Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4) that categorize the most prevalent definitions
of a BM taken from the most impactful works, alongside the authors’ definitions,
displayed in chronological order.
Like most of the taxonomies in management studies, the one proposed in this
chapter is neither exhaustive nor is it rigid. We hope the elaborations proposed in
this chapter can advance the studies of BMs and BMI, disentangling some relevant
issues for future research.
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 27

Table 2.2 Selected Definitions of a Business Model Related to its Architectural


Conceptualization
Author(s), Year Definition Architectural
conceptualization
Timmers (1998) The business model is “an architecture of the BM as a structure
product, service and information flows,
including a description of the various business
actors and their roles; a description of the
potential benefits for the various business
actors; a description of the sources of
revenues” (p. 2)
Winter and Szulanski Business models are not the activities, but the BM as a structure
(2001) structures that bind and connect the firm’s core
activity set in service to a specific set of goals
Zott and Amit (2010), The business model depicts “the content, BM as a system
Amit and Zott structure, and governance of transactions
(2001a) designed so as to create value through the
exploitation of business opportunities” (p. 511)
Morris et al. (2005) “Business model is a concise representation of BM as a system
how an interrelated set of decision variables in
the areas of venture strategy, architecture, and
economics are addressed to create sustainable
competitive advantage in defined markets”
(p. 727)
George and Bock “BM is both an enabling and limiting structure BM as a structure
(2011) for the firm’s accumulation and deployment of
resources”
Zott and Amit (2007) “The business model is a structural template BM as a network
that describes the organization of the focal
firm’s transactions with all of its external
constituencies in factor and product markets”
(p. 1)
Palo and Tähtinen “The term networked business model BM as a network
(2013) emphasizes the role of business models in
shaping and mobilizing future collective
action” (p. 774). “A networked business model
guides how a net of firms will create customer
and network value by developing collective
understanding of the business opportunities
and shaping the actions to exploit them”
(p. 775)

2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries

The business model has become a popular concept in both research and practice.
The business model literature has evolved since its very early emergence in the
academic literature (Bellman et al. 1957; Jones 1960). It saw explosive growth
during the dotcom boom, and since then, research on business models has
28 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Table 2.3 Activities and decisions related to the components of BMs [advanced table of BM
components originally developed by Dmitriev et al. (2014) and adapted according to Wirtz et al.
(2016’s) work]
Source BM components Wirtz et al.’s BM
components classification
Amit and Zott Transaction content, transaction structure, Strategic activities
(2001a) transaction governance
Magretta Customer, customer value proposition, Managerial decisions and
(2002) value delivery method, economic logic value outcome
that supports delivery of value to the
customer at an appropriate cost
Chesbrough Value proposition, market segment, Strategic activities,
and revenue generation mechanisms, value managerial decisions,
Rosenbloom chain, complementary assets, cost relationships and value
(2002) structure and profit potential of the outcome
offering, position of the firm within the
value network of suppliers and
customers, competitive strategy
Johnson et al. Customer value proposition, profit Strategic activities,
(2008) formula, key resources, key processes managerial decisions, and
resources
Osterwalder Customer segment, value propositions, Strategic activities,
and Pigneur channels of distribution, customer managerial decisions,
(2010) relationships, revenue streams, key resources, networks and
resources, key activities, key network value outcome
partnerships, cost structure
Santos et al. Set of activities, set of organizational Strategic activities, and
(2009) units, linkages (physical transactions and relationships
human relationships), governance
mechanisms
Teece (2010) Market segment, value proposition, Managerial decisions
mechanism to capture value, isolating
mechanism
Mason and Technology, market offering, network Strategic activities and
Spring (2011) architecture network

continued to grow. There have been attempts to provide a shared understanding of


the business model concept by identifying and distinguishing between the elements
or components of a business model (e.g., Mason and Spring 2011; Osterwalder
et al. 2005; Shafer et al. 2005); by identifying levels (Morris et al. 2005); and
identifying perspectives (Doganova and Eyquem-Renault 2009). Moreover, sys-
tematic literature reviews on business model definitions, have tried to understand
the paradox between outstanding popularity and severe criticism in order to enable
and develop the scholarly discourse on the business model concept (e.g., Klang
et al. 2014).
As Demil et al. (2015) have recently noted, in the literature the BM has not been
treated as a single homogeneous construct. Interestingly, while there is still no
agreement on a single definition, there seems to be consensus on three main aspects:
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 29

Table 2.4 Selected business model definitions related to the content of BM components
Author(s), Definition Discipline
Year
Amit and Zott “A Business model depicts the content, structure and Strategic
(2001a) governance of transactions designed to create value management
through the exploitations of business opportunities”
Afuah (2003) “A business model is a framework for making money. It Strategic
is the set of activities which a firm performs, how it management
performs them, and when it performs them so as to offer
its customers benefits they want and to earn a profit”
Morris et al. A Business model has six fundamental components: value Entrepreneurship
(2005) proposition, customer, internal processes/competencies,
external positioning, economic model, and
personal/investor factors
Osterwalder “A business model is a conceptual tool containing a set of Practice-oriented
et al. (2005) objects, concepts and their relationships with the objective studies
to express the business logic of a specific firm. Therefore,
we must consider which concepts and relationships allow
a simplified description and representation of what value
is provided to customers, how this is done and with which
financial consequences.” (p. 5)
“A business model is a conceptual tool that contains a set
of elements and their relationships and allows expressing
the business logic of a specific firm. It is a description of
the value a firm offers to one or several segments of
customers and of the architecture of the firm and its
network of partners for creating marketing, and delivering
this value and relationship capital, to generate profitable
and sustainable revenue streams” (pp. 17–18)
Johnson et al. Business models “consist of four interlocking elements, Practice-oriented
(2008) that, taken together, create and deliver value” (p. 52). studies
These, according to the authors, are customer value
proposition, profit formula, key resources, and key
processes
Storbacka “The business model concept is argued to be externally Marketing
et al. (2013) oriented and depicts the relationships that firms have with
a variety of actors in their value networks, thus capturing
the change toward networked value creation” (p. 706)

• The BM has been studied in literature as a unit of analysis per se that is useful
for research on boundary-spanning innovation (Zott and Amit 2007);
• In many definitions, a BM is a concept used to represent how firms do business
in a dynamic way (Zott et al. 2011);
• Another common understanding of the BM is as a tool with the main purpose of
the creation, capture, and delivery of value creation (e.g., Amit and Zott 2001b;
Baden-Fuller and Morgan 2010; Chesbrough 2007, 2010; Johnson et al. 2008;
Teece 2010).
30 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

In offering an overview of the definitions of a BM, we took a leaf from the


synoptic literature analysis of BM definitions by Wirtz et al. (2016) and also
reflected the BMI definition proposed by Foss and Saebi (2017), that is, “designed,
novel, and non-trivial changes to the key elements of a firm’s business model and/or
the architecture linking these elements.” We will categorize BM definitions, cre-
ating a four-level conceptual framework. The four levels are:
1. Definitions of BM related to conceptual abstraction: at this level, we will
summarize all the definitions that are based on the nature and conceptualization
of BMs, at a general and conceptual level. These works answer the following
questions: How can we understand the BM? What general level of conceptu-
alization can we use to grasp the essence of a BM?
2. Definitions of BM according to its architecture: these BM definitions describe
the structure and the synthesis of BM architecture. These representations are
usually synthetic and facilitate the common understanding among researchers
and practitioners. The questions related to these BM explanations concern: How
can we represent BM? How can we synthesize the elements of the BMs in a
unified architecture?
3. Definitions of BM according the content of BM components: in these studies,
authors define BMs by detailing the contents of every dimension/component of
a BM. The questions related to these studies are: What are BMs made of? What
are the components and the activities related to a BM?
4. Definitions of BM according to dynamic approaches: these definitions reflect
the dynamic view of BMs. These perspectives do not consider BMs as static
concepts, but are able to capture and underline the dynamic nature of BMs. For
this category we have briefly illuminated the reasons and the rationales related to
changes to BMs and their components. The questions at this last level of
analysis address: Why and how do BMs evolve? Why and how do new BMs
emerge?
As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this chapter is to provide an
overview of the conceptualizations employed to understand BMs. Accordingly,
Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 provide the most prevalent definitions suggested for
the BM taken from the most impactful works, together with the authors’ definitions
and displayed in chronological order.
Before continuing with the description of our framework, a clarification is
necessary. As shown in the tables displayed in this chapter (i.e., Tables 2.1, 2.2,
2.3, and 2.4) a research (author/s) can be mentioned in more than one table or level
of our framework. That would be the case if the same work contributes to the BM
knowledge from different perspectives. For example, Teece (2010) was one of the
first authors recorded as using the cognitive perspective to study BMs, but he also
provided a clear and straightforward BM architecture. For this reason, Teece (2010)
is cited both among authors contributing to the conceptualization of BMs
(Table 2.1) and also among those contributing to the BM architecture (Table 2.2).
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 31

2.2.1 Definitions of BM Related to Conceptual Abstraction

The conceptual abstraction of a phenomenon is strictly related to the lenses through


which researchers investigate the social phenomena. Accordingly, we embrace the
following definition: “a concept is a bundle of meanings or characteristics associ-
ated with certain events, objects, or conditions and used for representation, iden-
tification, communication, or understanding” (Zaltman et al. 1982).
The conceptualization is the basis of knowledge development and concepts are
useful for researchers and marketers because they are the main element of a model
or a theory (Zaltman et al. 1973). For instance, the BM concept, like many other
concepts in management, started as a label, without much content (Grundvåg
Ottesen and Grønhaug 2002), and the role of researchers and managers is to provide
empirical evidence, contextualization, and rules for generalization. The process of
conceptualization thus goes through categorizations and interaction with various
actors (such as, researchers, managers and journalists) in order to find a common
understanding of and meanings for the same phenomena (Rosch 1999).
Below we analyze those definitions of BM that have inspired new insights and
understanding about the nature and essence of BMs in the last 15 years.
Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002) define a BM as a “heuristic logic that
connects technical potential with the realization of economic value”. This definition
embodies the very earliest understanding of BMs. According to these first con-
ceptualizations, BM is a logical tool that strategically helps companies to make
decisions, such as, whether to and if so how to introduce, develop and manage new
technologies in the firm or in new ventures.
Magretta (2002) offers a different abstraction from the same period. That con-
ceptualization sees business models as stories that describe how enterprises work.
These stories can be written by practitioners, developed or gathered and interpreted
by researchers, or built and communicated by mass-media. This interconnection
among different actors, creates knowledge of the BM concept.
These earlier definitions of BMs share a generic understanding of BMs. In
contrast, some authors have considered BMs as an illustration of strategic decisions
(e.g., Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Hamel 2000), and other authors describe
BMs as organizational activities that design the functioning of companies (Magretta
2002; Afuah 2003; Zott and Amit 2010; Osterwalder et al. 2005).
While the BM concept has been institutionalizing its presence in literature, many
authors have clarified the differences between BM and strategy (Amit and Zott
2001a; Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2010; Osterwalder et al. 2005; Tikkanen et al.
2005), improving the knowledge of BMs, through a boundary-setting process on the
meaning of the BM concept. For example, Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2010)
provided their conceptualization of a BM, “a business model is […] a reflection of the
firm’s realized strategy”. From this understanding of BM, a stream of researchers
considered BM as a means of correct implementation of company strategies,
proposing BMs with different holistic representations of the firm’s activities, as we
will see in the next paragraph (Dahan et al. 2010; Osterwalder et al. 2005).
32 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

This debate generated a conceptualization of BMs that unifies organizational


design with a strategy perspective. For example, George and Bock (2011) define the
BM as a structure comprising resource, transactive, and value component dimen-
sions, that allow companies to seize opportunities in the market.
Cavalcante et al. (2011) introduces and develops an alternative, process-based
definition of BM: “an abstraction of the principles supporting the development of a
firm’s core repeated processes.” When referring to processes, the author means
strategy processes managed by top management or owners of firms, and thus
something different from functional organizational processes, such as marketing,
finance, procurement, product development (Tikkanen et al. 2005). Subsequently,
Cavalcante (2014) defines BMs as representations of companies’ core repeated
processes, and provides a taxonomy of BM changes, such as BM creation, exten-
sion, revision, and termination. This alternative dynamic process-based conceptu-
alization of BMs based on their core processes, has been adopted by only a few
authors.
According to the literature analyzed to this point, the essence of BMs can be
synthesized as bundles of decisions, activities, resources and processes that can help
companies exploit opportunities in the market and thus creating value for them-
selves and for their stakeholders. Moreover, from a methodological point of view,
researchers have usually proposed these definitions through deductive approaches,
while consultants have usually adopted normative and inductive approaches.
Recently, a different conceptualization of BMs has developed in literature: the
cognitive perspective on BMs (e.g., Teece 2010; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom
2002; Aspara et al. 2013). In the past, Teece (2010) defined BM as a “cognitive
model not a financial one”. Nevertheless, in his work, this author briefly mentioned
the cognitive approach, but did not develop this conceptualization further.
A later definition of the BM as “a combination of firm-related material structures
and processes that exist objectively (in the world), on the one hand—and intangible,
cognitive meaning structures that exist in the minds of people at different levels of
the organization, on the other” (Aspara et al. 2011: 263) advances the development
of the cognitive conceptualization of BMs. That approach is then taken further by
Martins et al. (2015) in defining a BM as a schema, that is, “cognitive structures that
consist of concepts and relations among them that organize managerial under-
standings about the design of activities and exchanges that reflect the critical
interdependencies and value creation relations in their firms’ exchange networks.”
This conceptualization of a BM consolidated the dynamic understanding of the
concept, overcoming the static perspective on the BM and its components (Wirtz
et al. 2016). The cognitive approach to BM helps understand how BMs can change
firms and help them renew, altering their offerings and the markets in which they
are sold, through the cognitive capabilities of the firm’s managers. Especially in the
entrepreneurship literature, this cognitive approach gives rise to concern, because
BMs should not be understood only as recipes, but the chefs (i.e., the managers),
their intuitions and their metal cognitions have to be taken into consideration in
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 33

order to understand the nature and compositions of BMs (Baden-Fuller and Morgan
2010). Methodologically, using a cognitive approach, the conceptualization of BMs
has to be developed through more inductive research methods, where practitioners
and researchers co-create meanings and how BMs are understood.
This first level of analysis illustrates how the researchers have abstracted BMs so
far and, to the best of our knowledge, few attempts have been made to use other
conceptualizations, such as the relationship, network, or institutional ones
(Dimaggio and Powell 1983; Nenonen and Storbacka 2010). Alternative perspec-
tives could provide new insights into and understanding of the nature and char-
acteristics of BMs.
For instance, BM studies using a network conceptualization, have always con-
sidered networked BM as exchanged relationships (Amit and Zott 2001a) or col-
lective representations (Palo and Tähtinen 2013) among companies. In our literature
review, we have not detected researches that developed a wider relationship per-
spective of the network theory, including external stakeholders such as customers,
competitors and suppliers (Nenonen and Storbacka 2010). BMs, in fact, can be
understood as a model consisting in relationships and interrelations between focal
companies, suppliers, customers, and partners, that together co-create value. These
alternative BM conceptualizations could advance the knowledge about this
phenomenon.

2.2.2 Definitions of a BM from the BM Architecture


Perspective

According to Foss and Saebi (2017), BMs, and in particular BMIs, can be con-
sidered from an architectural point of view and/or as a set of components. In this
paragraph, we will chronologically analyze the BM literature, emphasizing the
architectural characteristic of BMs.
Baden-Fuller and Morgan (2010), following a deep analysis of the descriptions
of BMs, state that “one role of business models is to provide a set of generic level
descriptors of how a firm organizes itself to create and distribute value in a prof-
itable manner”.
In management studies, representations describe the salient firm components,
behaviors and activities and these pictures are able to contemporarily capture
common features and specific peculiarities of firms. BM representations can be used
by researchers and practitioners for several purposes: for definition purposes, for
instance of categorizations and taxonomies; for firm development purposes, such as
experimentations with new BM designs; and for competitive purposes such as
comparisons and differentiations (Baden-Fuller and Morgan 2010). Managers can
use an effective representation of a BM to communicate the strategies of available
to their firm, to share meanings among different actors, and to make decisions.
34 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

The representation of BM has been studied by different disciplines, and in


particular by authors that connect strategic management approaches with organi-
zational ones (Chandler 1990; Amit and Zott 2001a; Zott and Amit 2007, 2008), a
common linkage evident also in entrepreneurship literature (Morris et al. 2005;
George and Bock 2011), as we will see below.
BM representation has a similar meaning to organization design, where
accordingly, it reflects the structure of firm products, activities, and markets decided
by managers (Chandler 1990; Hunt 1970; George and Bock 2011). Accordingly,
the strategic management literature considers the fit between corporate strategy and
the structure of BM fundamental to firm performance (Zott and Amit 2008).
Another definition that underlines the how strategic and organizational standpoints
contribute in conceptualizing BM is the following: “business models represent the
content, structure, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value
through the exploitation of business opportunities” (Amit and Zott 2001a: 511).
Thus, in the early stage of BM research, we can identify a static structural
representation of BMs, where they were understood as an architecture and a
structure as described by (e.g., Timmers 1998), “an architecture of the product,
service and information flows, including a description of the various business actors
and their roles; a description of the potential benefits for the various business actors;
a description of the sources of revenues”. In the same way, according to organi-
zational studies BMs cannot be considered as activities, but the structures that
bound and connect the firm’s core activity set in service to a specific set of goals
(Winter and Szulanski 2001; George and Bock 2011: 9).
Concepts, such as organizational design, structure and activity, typical of
organizational studies (Chandler 1990) have been further developed by
entrepreneurship literature, linking the strategic entrepreneurship perspective with
the organizational one. In this stream, Morris et al. (2005), define BM as a “concise
representation of how an interrelated set of decision variables in the areas of venture
strategy, architecture, and economics are addressed to create sustainable competi-
tive advantage in defined markets”. These authors define BM as a bundle of
interconnected strategic decisions that refer to the following six questions: How to
create value; Who to create value for; What is the source of competence; How to
competitively position; How to make money; What are time, scope and ambitions.
Later, Amit and Zott (2012) further developed their definition to conceptualize a
firm’s business model as “a system of interdependent activities that transcends the
focal firm and spans its boundaries” (Zott and Amit 2010: 216). Thus, according to
this approach, a company’s business model is “a system of interconnected and
interdependent activities that determines the way the firm “does business” with its
customers, partners and vendors” (Amit and Zott 2012: 42).
Unlike more structural definitions, where components are conceived of on the
basis of their causal interactions, the representation of BMs as a system opened the
BM research to new perspectives, such as the synergy between different compo-
nents, and their interconnections beyond the firm. Moreover, with their systematic
perspective, Zott and Amit (2010) also introduced a dynamic vision of a BM
structure, that we will discuss in more details in Sect. 2.2.4.
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 35

Finally, it is important to mention another remarkable representation of BMs: the


network perspective on the BM (Amit and Zott 2001a; Palo and Tähtinen 2013).
The network representation of the BM can be seen to adopt two different
morphologies.
The first one, developed in the work of Amit and Zott (2001a), considers the
network from a transaction-cost economics point of view. Under this perspective,
networked BMs are representations of relationships exchanged for resources and
performances in order to create a networked value in the market. Specifically, “the
business model is a structural template that describes the organization of the focal
firm’s transactions with all of its external constituencies in factor and product
markets” (Zott and Amit 2007: 1). This representation is still firm-centric and
detects all the relationships that the firm can develop outside its boundaries.
The second morphology is synthetized by the term “networked BM”, that is the
representation of common activities, resource, processes and capabilities that firms
in a network have to commonly understand, plan for, and implement. Palo and
Tähtinen (2013: 774–775) state that the “Using the term networked business model
emphasizes the role of business models in shaping and mobilizing future collective
action. A networked business model guides how a net of firms will create customer
and network value by developing collective understanding of the business oppor-
tunities and shaping the actions to exploit them.” According to this perspective,
business models are interfaces that enable interactions between actors, thus BM can
be considered as a representation of a dynamic network (Welch and Wilkinson
2002) that stimulates collective knowledge, understanding and behaviors, internally
in firms and externally from them. At a network level, therefore, a BM represents
how actors plan and conduct business in a collective and interrelated way.
In synthesis, three different main types of BM architectures can be detected in
the literature: a BM as a structure, a BM as a system and a BM as a network as
shown in Table 2.2.

2.2.3 Definitions of BM from the Content of BM


Components Perspective

In this paragraph we took the leaf from Foss and Saebi (2017’s) work, underling the
nature and the characteristics of the components of BMs. In particular, we enhanced
the categorization of BM components identified by Wirtz et al. (2016), also con-
sidering the management discipline in which the works have been introduced. Wirtz
et al. (2016) categorized BM definitions according to the characteristics of the BM
components, namely: strategic activities and managerial decisions; resources; net-
works and relationships and value outcomes.
Accordingly, in order to provide an overview of the main components of BMs,
we propose in Table 2.3 a summary of BM components identified in the literature.
36 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Consistent with the management disciplines stemming from our systematic lit-
erature review (i.e., strategic management, organizational studies, marketing,
entrepreneurship and practice-oriented studies), the BM works usually describe BM
components through different lenses, providing theoretical conceptualizations and
generalizable laws of function. Alternatively, practitioners typically try to be more
explicit, describing the details of BM components, using normative and directive
approaches to the study of BMs. In this paragraph for each component identified by
Wirtz et al. (2016), we will provide both the discipline and the practitioners’
perspectives, when available.
1. Strategic Activities and managerial decisions. Practitioners were among the
early pioneers attempting to identify the components of BMs. For instance,
Hamel (2000), describing the strategic BM components, identified the core
strategies that allow companies to create a competitive structure able to suc-
cessfully introduce technological innovation into the market.
The strategic management literature mainly focuses on BM activities (strategic
activities) that companies must implement to create value and gain a competitive
position in the market (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002). Thus, constructs of
BMs are essential for the understanding of the value creation (Amit and Zott 2001a;
Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002). Zott et al. (2011) added that the strategy
literature of BMs, encompasses the study of value creation, performance, and
competitive advantage. In particular, strategy literature on BMs focused mainly on
the concept of value (Porter 1985, 2000), with particular attention paid to the notion
of value creation and the value proposition, that can generate a unique business
model and thus a substantial competitive advantage.
In contrast, in entrepreneurship studies, BM components are mainly linked to
managers’ decisions (decision-making components) taken to identify and exploit
opportunities inside and outside the company (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002;
Magretta 2002; Ireland et al. 2003). Accordingly, Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart
(2010: 198) explain, business models represent “concrete choices made by man-
agement about how the organization must operate and the consequences of these
choices.” Magretta (2002) identifies the key decisions related to BM components, in
the form of key questions that managers have to answer. Some examples of these
questions are: Who is the customer? What does the customer value? How can we
make money in this business? What is the economic logic that explains how we can
deliver value to customers at an appropriate cost?
In addition, practitioners focus of the decisions managers have to take, in order
to create a “basic architecture underlying all successful businesses” (Johnson 2010).
The same work isolates four main elements of BMs: a customer value proposition, a
profit formula, key resources, and key processes. Accordingly, Osterwalder et al.
(2005) proposed a simplification of the BM design, identifying the core decisions
and activities, such as the value offered by the company, its customers, the archi-
tecture of the firm, its network of partners, the delivering structure and relationship
capital, and generating profitable and sustainable revenue streams.
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 37

2. Resources. The strategic management literature considers strategic activities as


emerging as an outcome of the tangible and intangible resources held by firms.
Firm resources manifest in the control of rare, valuable, and imperfectly imitable
resources that offer differentiation and competitiveness to companies (Barney
1991; Penrose 1959; Demil and Lecocq 2010). Strategic management literature
usually refers to resources as tangible and intangible assets, owned or controlled
by the companies that allow companies to create value and propose value for the
market, and describe them as different from individual resources. When
resources are of concern, strategic management research usually adopts the
resource-based view theoretical approach, as was the case in studies on BMs
(Demil and Lecocq 2010).
Organization and entrepreneurship literature tends to adopt a different approach
that focuses on the main internal resources of companies, and in particular their
organizational capabilities (Demil and Lecocq 2010; Doz and Kosonen 2010), top
management features (Deschamps 2005; Guo et al. 2013) and managerial cognitive
capabilities (Aspara et al. 2011, 2013). Accordingly, the representation of BM
components presented by Morris et al. (2005) introduces resources such as internal
competencies and personal/investor factor, in other strategic activities of the value
proposition, customer external positioning, and the economic model. Finally,
entrepreneurship literature underlines how companies can exploit external resources
provided by venture capitalists or other institutions such as governments, aca-
demics, and industry leaders (Gerasymenko et al. 2015; Miller et al. 2014).
3. Networks and relationships. Most BM studies consider the BM in the context
of a single company, but there have been some research attempts to enlarge the
analysis of BMs to networks. According to the business marketing discipline,
the fundamental concepts are actors and their dyadic, triadic, group, and net-
work relationships (Wasserman and Faust 1994). In BM research, companies
can exploit external resources to create and particularly to co-create value for
actors in the market. Amit and Zott (2001a) studied networked BMs from a
transaction-cost economics point of view, according to which BMs are eco-
nomically exchanged relationships, through which companies exchange infor-
mation, goods and finances, in order to create value in the market. Nenonen and
Storbacka (2010), using a relationship perspective, mentioned customers and
brands as the main external and market resources that companies can exchange,
use, and develop in a networked BM.
According to the entrepreneurship literature, relationships with stakeholders
other than customers and brands are the main concern. Under this perspective, for
instance, relationships with venture capitalists and financial institutions are funda-
mental for the development of new ventures (Gerasymenko et al. 2015; Demil et al.
2015). Accordingly, the important components of a networked BM are the capa-
bilities related to the market, such as entrepreneurial skills and the relationships
with the CEOs of other companies (Guo et al. 2013; Gerasymenko et al. 2015).
38 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

4. Value. Value is recognized as the main purpose of a BM, and this value com-
ponent has been examined through different theoretical lenses: marketing (i.e.,
customer value); economics (i.e., profits and margins); strategy (i.e., competi-
tiveness); the organization (i.e., organizational efficiency), entrepreneurship (i.e.,
innovation) and an institutional lens (i.e., market structure efficiency).
With regard to customer value, many definitions of a BM contain elements
similar to those in the definition of Coombes and Nicholson (2013: 657): “value is
not just something produced, rather it is something that is exchanged and con-
sumed.” According to the marketing literature, customer value goes beyond the
tangible product consumers can touch and feel to the intangibility of a brand’s value
in the eye of a customer causing them to come back repeatedly to repurchase and
remain loyal customers.
BM research focused on firm rents (such as profits and margins), employs
economics approaches when value is related to real economic performance, such as
margin compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and stock price CAGR, profit after
tax and operational margins (e.g., Demil and Lecocq 2010). Other scholars instead
adopt a cognitive approach to BM value, considering not only the real economic
value, but also the economic performance as perceived by managers (Aspara et al.
2010). Strategy literature considers competitiveness and differentiation the most
important value of the BM (Sorescu et al. 2011b; Desyllas and Sako 2013). While
organization studies also consider organizational efficacy and boundaries as the
main value of BMs (Spector 2013; Carayannis et al. 2015). From an entrepre-
neurship perspective, BM value is understood as innovation, social enhancement
and market opportunities (Demil et al. 2015), while institutional perspectives are
more concerned with industry level performance and the effects of BM on the
structure of the industry (Gambardella and McGahan 2010).
Finally, from a marketing perspective, the value is not created only for a single
firm, but value is understood in a networked manner and thus something shared
between stakeholders (Ehret et al. 2013b).
In summary, the main research streams developed in the literature about the
components of BMs (i.e., strategic activities and managerial decisions; resources;
networks and relationships; value) reflect, all the elements that a company has to
develop in order to create and capture value, as shown in Table 2.4.

2.2.4 Defining BMs According to Dynamic Perspectives

The research that defines BMs in a dynamic way, implies that BMs are not static but
continuously or periodically changing in terms of components, relationships, and
structure. This dynamic aspect has a different nature depending on the theoretical
lens applied to the BM. The dynamic vision of the BM is strongly related to the
concept of Business Model Innovation (BMI) that is the subject of this book.
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 39

In this paragraph, we will focus on the theoretical perspectives that help


researchers and practitioners to convey the dynamic essence of the BM, and thus
explain how BMs evolve, change and innovate. Accordingly, with reference to the
definitions that offer a more dynamic view of the BM we will analyze the following
theoretical perspectives: strategic management, marketing, the resource-based view,
dynamic capability, the cognitive approach, and organization theories.
In line with a strategic perspective, we acknowledge the various works by Amit
and Zott who stress how the BM is a system of interconnected and interdependent
activities that shows how the company “does business” (Zott and Amit 2010; Amit
and Zott 2001a, 2012). Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2010) offer a similar
approach, and talk about dynamic interrelations between BM elements. Demil and
Lecocq (2010) argue that “the resources and competences of a firm, its organiza-
tional system and the value propositions it offers are permanently interacting, in
ways that increase or decrease its performance.” More recently, after a review of the
BM definitions, Wirtz et al. (2015), propose a definition that, while summarizing all
the salient elements of the existing definitions, stresses that: “in order to understand
how the firm gains competitive advantage, it is important to analyze the BM from a
dynamic perspective, being aware that, over time, there may be the need for
business model development”.
Another perspective that supports the dynamic nature of the BM, is the life-cycle
perspective. That perspective illuminates the evolutionary phases of BMs, such
“periods of specification, refinement, adaptation, revision, and reformulation”
(Morris et al. 2005).
These definitions of BMs underline the dynamic and strategic nature of BMs,
implying that BMs cannot be static but continuously evolve: “BMs are made up of
components, linkages between components, and dynamics” (Afuah et al. 2001: 4).
BMs have to be dynamic in order to provide enduring value, and other theo-
retical perspectives explain why (internal and external drivers) and how (processes)
BMs change.
In this regard, it is worth mentioning all the theoretical perspectives that
underline the importance of companies identifying and exploiting all the opportu-
nities in the market. For instance, the merging of technological innovation man-
agement and strategy underlines the urge for companies to develop and adopt new
technologies (Amit and Zott 2001a; Wirtz et al. 2010) and/or the need to develop
new ways to commercialize innovations (Gambardella and McGahan 2010).
The dynamic nature of existing BMs has been mainly detected by disciplines
that connect the inner and the external parts of companies, such as marketing and in
particular, the customer and market-orientation perspectives. Established companies
with existing business models, can encounter business inertia that has to be over-
come through a strategic and open attitude to the market. Marketers, for instance,
define the value propositions of companies, as a customer-company interaction,
where value emerges through interaction between these two parties (Ehret et al.
2013a). Accordingly, the dynamic nature of BM components offers an answer to
external inputs, such as changes in customers’ needs and environmental factors.
40 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

In this perspective, customer-orientation and stakeholder-orientation literature


provide notable insights and reveal the processes through which managers can
change BMs.
For instance, BMs develop owing to marketing activities and resources, like
customer intelligence, CRM and other customer-orientation tools (Eriksson et al.
2008; Wu et al. 2013; Brettel et al. 2012). In line with that approach, Sorescu et al.
(2011a) proposed a framework of six design themes with three basic themes for
value creation; customer efficiency, customer effectiveness, and customer engage-
ment and three corresponding themes for value appropriation; operational effi-
ciency, operational effectiveness, and customer lock-in (Sorescu et al. 2011a).
Nevertheless, BMs do not change only because of external inputs, but are also
subject to the influence of internal drivers, that can be of a strategic or a
resource-based nature. Thus, strategic entrepreneurship research addresses the
development of new ventures (Webb et al. 2013) and explains the introduction of
new BMs to the market, explaining how companies “break the rules of the game”
(Markides 1997: 9).
Moreover, from a resource-based view, the dynamic nature of the BM is
explained by internal variables such as resources and capabilities. In particular, the
literature has evolved from the resource-based view approach, to examine the
dynamic capabilities theory as it is applicable to the BM (Mezger 2014). Like the
resource-based view, dynamic capabilities theory defines a BM as a configuration
based on distinct resources and competences (Amit and Zott 2001a; Morris et al.
2005; George and Bock 2011), but the latter approach differs in proposing that
“dynamic capabilities help govern evolutionary fitness, and help shape the business
environment itself” (Teece 2010: 190–191). Thus, dynamic capabilities are internal
resources capable of changing a BM. In this perspective, we can distinguish
between managerial skills, such as managers’ ability to organize, allocate, and
configure firm resources in an effective way; and entrepreneurial skills, defined as
managers’ ability to identify and exploit new business opportunities (Ireland et al.
2001).
Finally, there are other theoretical perspectives that underline how internal
resources and abilities can change BMs, among them, we can identify the learning
and experimentation literature (Rindova and Kotha 2001; McGrath 2010) including
literature on trial-and-error learning (Nicholls-Nixon et al. 2000; O’reilly and
Tushman 2008). These approaches view, “business model development as an initial
experiment followed by constant fine-tuning based on trial-and error learning”
(Sosna et al. 2010: 384). Finally, the managerial cognitive approach (Aspara et al.
2011, 2013) underlines how managers can proactively change BMs through a
systematic process. Table 2.5 summarizes BM definition according to the disci-
plines that applied a dynamic perspective.
Table 2.6 presents a synthetic representation of our findings on the conceptu-
alization and definition of the BM according our four-level conceptual framework
using definitions of BM related to conceptual abstraction, to its representation, to
the components of the BM, and to dynamic approaches. We then analyzed this
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 41

Table 2.5 Definitions of BM According to Dynamic Approaches


Author(s), Definition Discipline
Year
Afuah et al. “BMs are made up of components, linkages between Strategic
(2001) components, and dynamics” (p. 4) management
Demil and “The resources and competences of a firm, its Organizational
Lecocq (2010) organizational system and the value propositions it offers studies
are permanently interacting, in ways that increase or
decrease its performance” (p. 230)
Chesbrough Business model development is constant Organizational
(2010) experimentation and adjustment to changing market studies
environments
Sosna et al. “Business model development is an initial experiment Organizational
(2010) followed by constant fine-tuning based on trial-and error studies
learning” (p. 384)
Amit and Zott “A business model is a bundle of specific activities—an Strategic
(2012) activity system—conducted to satisfy the perceived management
needs of the market, along with the specification of
which parties (a company or its partners) conduct which
activities, and how these activities are linked to each
other” (p. 42)
Wirtz et al. “In order to understand how the firm gains competitive Strategic
(2016) advantage, it is important to analyze the BM from a management
dynamic perspective, being aware that, over time, there
may be the need for business model development”
(p. 41)

taxonomy through the management disciplines presented in this paragraph, and in


particular: strategic management, organizational studies, marketing, entrepreneur-
ship and practice-oriented studies. The result is a synthetic table that can help the
reader navigate the various definitions of a BM and disciplines involved.
As shown in Table 2.6, BMs can be represented in various ways depending on
the discipline that researchers favor, and thus BM content can differ, as can their
dynamics. To be specific, if we consider strategic management studies, they mostly
conceptualize BMs as activities, strategies, and actions that create, deliver, and
capture value for the firm. The representation of BMs according to the strategic
management discipline is well synthetized by Amit and Zott (2012), who intro-
duced the concept of the BM as a system of interconnected and interdependent
activities that shows how the firm does business. While there is some research
investigating how BM activities (i.e., the components of BM: strategic activities
and managerial decisions, resources, networks, and value) interconnect and become
interdependent (see for instance, Velamuri et al. 2013; Yunus et al. 2010), such
analysis remains scarce (Foss and Saebi 2017). According to the strategic man-
agement disciplines, BMs should evolve continuously if they are to respond to
emerging opportunities in the market that managers should strategically identify
and exploit.
42 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Table 2.6 Definitions of BM according to the dynamic approaches


Disciplines Conceptual Representations Contents of Dynamic
abstraction of of BMs BM perspective of
BMs components BMs
Strategic Activities that System of 1. Strategic Dynamic nature of
Management create, deliver interrelated Activities and BMs
and capture activities managerial
value decisions
2. Resources
3. Networks
4. Value
Entrepreneurship Decisions for Representation of 1. Strategic Break the rules of
business decision variables Activities and the game ! BMI
opportunities managerial
decisions
2. Resources
3. Networks
4. Value
Marketing Network of Interfaces that 2. Resources Stakeholder-driven
relationships stimulate 4. Value
and external collective
resources knowledge,
understanding and
behaviors
Organizational Organizational Organization 1. Strategic Learning and
studies activities that design Activities and knowledge
design the managerial approaches
functioning of decisions
firms 2. Resources
Practice-oriented BM as a tool Synthetic 1. Strategic Miscellanea
illustrations Activities and
managerial
decisions
4. Value

Entrepreneurship studies in contrast tend to conceptualize a BM as the set of


decisions that entrepreneurs must take if they are to respond to business opportu-
nities. This discipline is very similar to the strategic management one in terms of the
representation and content of a BM, but entrepreneurship focuses on disruptive
innovation, whether related or unrelated to technologies. Thus, in entrepreneurship,
the dynamics that change BMs are associated with disruptive innovation introduced
and developed inside and outside the firm in order to seize new economic oppor-
tunities (Gerasymenko et al. 2015; Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015).
Studies in marketing conceptualize BMs from a network perspective, consid-
ering the relationship with partners and stakeholders (especially customers) as the
first source of value creation and delivery. Thus, BMs become interfaces that foster
collective knowledge, and the understanding, and behaviors of partners, with whom
2.2 BM Definition and Boundaries 43

the firm can co-create value. Accordingly in the SDL (Vargo and Lusch 2004), for
instance, stakeholders (partners and customers) are the repository of specific
resources and competences that can co-create value with firms, so driving changes
and dynamics in BMs.
Organizational studies, and in particular the BM literature affected by organi-
zational systems/configurations (Siggelkow 2001, 2002), providing insights into the
activity system perspective on BMs (Zott and Amit 2010); the organization of the
core elements and activities through a BM (Morris et al. 2005); determining the
core components of a BM (Demil and Lecocq 2010); and understanding the internal
configurational fit of business model components and the external configurational
fit between the supplier’s and customer’s business models (Nenonen and Storbacka
2010). More importantly, according to the organizational discipline, the dynamic
nature of BMs relates to learning processes such as experimentation and
trial-and-error. This discipline is the one that more than any other explains how BM
components could potentially change.
For practice-oriented studies, BMs are tools that can be used to represent
changes in strategies and tactics undertaken by firms adopting specific normative
models and frameworks (see for instance, Osterwalder 2004; Osterwalder and
Pigneur 2010). Thus, practice-oriented articles focus more on tools and pragmatic
frameworks to explain how to activate the dynamic nature of BMs (Deschamps
2005; Tuulenmäki and Välikangas 2011).

2.3 What We Discovered About BM Through the SLR


on BMI: Definitions Used

As shown in the previous paragraph, the BM concept is used in different ways in


different contexts and disciplines, but looking at the papers included in the BMI
systematic literature review, the objective of this book, some patterns appear.
In particular, of the 156 papers analyzed, it emerged that 43 have some short-
comings in their definition of a BM. Of these papers, 30 directly introduce the
concept of BMI, taking for granted the meaning and the understanding of a BM
without expressly defining them. Among the 43 papers, 13 do not provide any type
of definition of a BM or BMI, which might be explained by these research papers
being published in journals targeted at practitioners.
This result is in line with the findings of Zott et al. (2011) who found a similar
proportion of papers that do not define BM and stressed that this is problematic in
giving rise to a multitude of possible interpretations.
This paragraph will analyze how the BM concept has developed in the 112
papers, that is, the papers on BMI included in our literature review that diligently
define a BM.
Among these 112 papers, 44 explicitly adopt the conceptualization offered by
Amit and Zott, or iterations of it. The authors’ definition from 2001, “the content,
44 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

structure, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value through the


exploitation of business opportunities” (p. 511) has been cited in 24 papers.
The BM definition related to the firm-centric design of activity systems of the same
authors (Zott and Amit 2007, 2008), has been adopted by 15 papers. In this defi-
nition, the main focus is on the concept of transactions designed to create value, that
explain how an organization is linked to external stakeholders, and how the
organization participates in economic exchanges to create value for all partners. The
advanced definition the authors further developed, conceptualizing a firm’s business
model as “a system of interdependent activities that transcends the focal firm and
spans its boundaries” (Zott and Amit 2010: 216), has been cited by 15 papers
included in our systematic literature review. While the most recent definition
according to this approach, a company’s business model is “a system of inter-
connected and interdependent activities that determines the way the company ‘does
business’ with its customers, partners and vendors” (Amit and Zott 2012: 42) has
been adopted by more recent papers (4 in total).
Fourteen papers considered the BM definition by Chesbrough and Rosenbloom
(2002) according to whom the business model is “the heuristic logic that connects
technical potential with the realization of economic value”.
Another BM definition that has been widely included (11 papers in our database)
is that by Morris et al. (2005) according to whom a business model is a “concise
representation of how an interrelated set of decision variables in the areas of venture
strategy, architecture, and economics are addressed to create sustainable competi-
tive advantage in defined markets”. As already underlined in the previous para-
graph, these authors define BM based on strategic decision making, according to six
key questions: How do we create value, who do we create value for, what is our
source of competence, How do we competitively position ourselves, How do we
make money, and What are our time, scope, and time ambitions.
Among the papers that consider and specify BM components, 16 papers con-
sidered the definition by Osterwalder and Pigneur which states that a BM represents
the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value
(Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). While three papers adopted Johnson’s compo-
nents of BM (Johnson 2010). Table 2.6 shows this simplified citation analysis of
definitions of BM.
Ten papers cited Teece (2010), who defined BM based on its functions: “A
business model articulates the logic, the data and other evidence that support a
value proposition for the customer, and a viable structure of revenues and costs for
the enterprise delivering that value”. Among the papers more focused on the
strategic aspects of BM, Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2007, 2010) is also
mentioned among the definitions of a BM (in six papers).
The most recent papers, and in particular entrepreneurship studies, adopt George
and Bock’s definition. Thus, four papers consider BM as “the design of organi-
zational structures to enact a commercial opportunity” (George and Bock 2011: 99).
Finally, as shown in the Table 2.7, a tentative attempt to provide alternative
views of BM was made by Cavalcante et al. (2011), who provided a process-based
analysis that was based on, “an abstraction of the principles supporting the
2.3 What We Discovered About BM Through the SLR on BMI: Definitions Used 45

Table 2.7 Citation analysis of BM definition in 156 papers utilized in our systematic literature
review
Authors Definition No. of
citations
Amit and Zott “The content, structure, and governance of transactions 24
(2001a) designed so as to create value through the exploitation
of business opportunities” (2001: 511)
Zott and Amit (2010) “A system of interdependent activities that transcends 15
the focal firm and spans its boundaries” (p. 216)
Chesbrough and “Heuristic logic that connects technical potential with 14
Rosenbloom (2002) the realization of economic value” (p. 529)
Morris et al. (2005) A business model is a “concise representation of how an 11
interrelated set of decision variables in the areas of
venture strategy, architecture, and economics are
addressed to create sustainable competitive advantage in
defined markets” (p. 727)
Osterwalder and “The rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, 11
Pigneur (2010) and captures value” (p. 14)
Teece (2010) The business model design involves assessments with 10
respect to determining: (1) the identity of market
segments to be targeted; (2) the benefit the enterprise
will deliver to the customer; (3) the technologies and
features that are to be embedded in the product and
service; (4) how the revenue and cost structure of a
business is to be ‘designed’ (and, if necessary,
‘redesigned’) to meet customer needs; (5) the way in
which technologies are to be assembled and offered to
the customer; and (6) the mechanisms and manner by
which value is to be captured, and competitive
advantage sustained. These issues are all interrelated.
They lie at the core of the fundamental question asked
by business strategists—which is how does one build a
sustainable competitive advantage
Zott and Amit (2008) A structural template of how a focal firm transacts with 8
customers, partners, and vendors. It captures the pattern
of the firm’s boundary-spanning connections with factor
and product markets (p. 3)
Zott and Amit (2007) “Novelty-centered business models refer to new ways of 7
conducting economic exchanges among various
participants.” (p. 10)
Zott et al. (2011) BMs explain new network- and activity system–based 5
value creation mechanisms and sources of competitive
advantage (p. 1035)
Osterwalder et al. A BM is composed of nine building blocks: value 5
(2005) proposition, target customer, distribution channel,
relationship, value configuration, core competency,
partner network, cost structure, revenue model
(continued)
46 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Table 2.7 (continued)


Authors Definition No. of
citations
Casadesus-Masanell “The business model is a reflection of the firm’s realized 5
and Ricart (2010) strategy” (p. 1)
Amit and Zott (2012) A BM is, “a system of interconnected and 4
interdependent activities that determines the way the
company ‘does business’ with its customers, partners
and vendors” (p. 42)
George and Bock “The BM is both an enabling and limiting structure for
(2011) the firm’s accumulation and deployment of resources”
(p. 99)
Magretta (2002) “Stories that explain how enterprises work” (p. 82) 4
Zott and Amit (2013) The business model as a new level and unit of analysis 3
for organization and strategy research (p. 409)
Casadesus-Masanell “Business models determine the tactics available to 3
(2011) compete in the marketplace” (p. 107)
Cavalcante et al. “An abstraction of the principles supporting the 3
(2011) development of a firm’s core repeated processes”
(p. 1328)
Chesbrough (2007) “Open Innovation explicitly incorporates the business 3
model as the source of both value creation and value
capture. This latter role of business model enabling the
organization to sustain its position in the industry value
chain over time” (pp. 2–3)
Johnson (2010) The functions of a business model are to: articulate the 3
value proposition, identify a market segment, define the
structure of the value chain, estimate the cost structure
and profit potential, describe the position of the firm
within the value network, and formulate the competitive
strategy
Casadesus-Masanell “A business model is defined as a company’s choice of 1
and Ricart (2007) policies and assets, the governance structure of those
policies and assets, and their consequences, whether
flexible or rigid” (p. 1)

development of a firm’s core repeated processes” (Cavalcante et al. 2011).


However, only three articles adopted this conceptualization. In addition, Magretta
(2002) provided an alternative definition of BM in the form of, “stories that explain
how enterprises work”, but again only four papers followed this definition.
As we can see from Table 2.6, the most important definitions of BM have gained
more than 130 citations, a number greater than the 112 papers utilized for the
citation analysis. This is due to the fact that the same paper sometimes cites more
than one definition of BM.
2.4 Evolution of the Concept of BM in BMI Literature Review 47

2.4 Evolution of the Concept of BM in BMI Literature


Review

In this paragraph, we analyze the definition of BM from a temporal perspective to


show how the BM concept has evolved in the literature on BMI.
We found 25 articles focused on BMI published between 2001 and 2008, and 12
appeared in practitioner journals. In this earlier literature, more than half of the
contributions (16) did not provide any definition of a BM. In the 11 remaining
articles, the authors provided different definitions of a BM, even though all of them
drew from strategic literature, and in particular from the studies investigating the
relationship between digital technology and value creation (Tapscott 2000;
Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Amit and Zott 2001a; Magretta 2002;
Chesbrourgh et al. 2006).
From 2010, the BMI topic became quite popular, and in the same year 19 papers
discussed this issue, and most of them (17) were published in academic journals.
The practitioner papers were focused on finding a “basic architecture underlying all
successful businesses” (Johnson 2010), and simplifying the conceptualization and
design of BM components (Osterwalder 2004).
As academic papers consolidated the structural idea of the BM with the trans-
actional perspectives, as in Zott and Amit (2008’s) statement, “A business model is
a structural template of how a focal firm transacts with customers, partners, and
vendors”—Amit and Zott (2001a), Zott and Amit (2007, 2008) and Chesbrough
and Rosenbloom (2002) became the most cited works.
The year 2010 is a very important one for BMI literature, owing to the Long
Range Planning Special Issue. In the same year, two other advances on the subject
of BMI appeared in the literature, the first related to the systematic view of BM,
exemplified by the definition, “a system of interdependent activities that transcends
the focal firm and spans its boundaries” (Zott and Amit 2010: 216). The second one
developed the dynamic view of BM and the interaction between its components
(Demil and Lecocq 2010; Morris et al. 2005; Afuah et al. 2001).
In the following three years (2011–2015) more than 100 articles on BMI were
published and six special issues of academic journals examined business models.
The host journals were Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (2015), Long Range
Planning (2013), Industrial Marketing Management (2013), Strategic Organization
(2013), International Journal of Innovation Management (2013), and R&D
Management (2014).
In this period, Amit and Zott (2012) continued to advance and consolidate their
definition of the BM, which was used to define and conceptualize BMI.
In the same year, Aspara et al. (2011) introduced an alternative conceptualization
of the BM, one that helped explain the BMI phenomenon. Defining the BM as “a
combination of firm-related material structures and processes that exist objectively
‘in the world’, on the one hand—and intangible, cognitive meaning structures that
exist in the minds of people at different levels of the organization, on the other”
(Aspara et al. 2011: 263). The definition introduces a cognitive perspective on the
48 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

BM, as hinted at by Teece’s earlier statement (2010), “the BM is a cognitive model


not a financial one”, but never developed in literature until Martins et al. (2015’s)
seminal work about the cognitive perspective of BMI.
Martins et al. (2015) defined a BM as a schema, as in “cognitive structures that
consist of concepts and relations among them that organize managerial under-
standings about the design of activities and exchanges that reflect the critical
interdependencies and value creation relations in their firms’ exchange networks.”
This BM definition fostered the development of the conceptualization of BMI, not
only as an answer to external stimuli or as a strategic and rationale of managers, but
as an interpretation of external and internal variables and resources. The interpre-
tative perspective helps answer how BM can change and innovate through repre-
sentations able to make sense of things and create common and communicable
understandings of how organizations create, change, innovate, and exchange value
in the market.
Recently, the definitions of BM have started to incorporate more dynamic
aspects. This induced Schneider and Spieth (2013), in their systematic review of
BMI, to categorize the BM in two different conceptualizations: business model
development and business model innovation.
The first one, business model development, concerns the continuous improve-
ment and innovation that companies must undertake to maintain their competi-
tiveness in the market. This development leads to continuous revisions to existing
BMs. According to the strategic literature, the dynamic nature of the BM must be
maintained to deliver a competitive advantage in the market and to continue to
create value (Zott and Amit 2010; Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013). According
to Schneider and Spieth (2013) the theory that can best explain the continuous
development of BMs is the resource-based view (Barney 1991; Teece 1984;
Penrose 1959) and in particular its advanced form, such as, the dynamic capabilities
perspective on the BM (Teece 2007; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Teece et al. 1997;
Zahra et al. 2006).
The second conceptualization of BMI according to Schneider and Spieth (2013)
is business model innovation. This concept is more related to deliberate decisions of
managers and companies made in the search for opportunities, or alternatively,
when companies have to face uncertainties and changes inside and outside the
organization. Accordingly, Schneider and Spieth (2013) argue that the perspective
that better explains these mechanisms is related to strategic entrepreneurship. This
perspective, according to the authors, help companies and managers to simulta-
neously consider the internal status-quo and the external opportunities (Ireland et al.
2003).
The details of the definition and categorization of BMI will be addressed in the
next chapter of this book.
In summary, many authors claim that BM is not a consolidated concept, and too
many definitions and understandings of the nature of BM exist in literature (see e.g.,
Zott et al. 2011). Nevertheless, no authors raise doubts on the role of the BM and
BMI, as main representations, tools, mechanisms, processes, resources, and nar-
ratives to create, deliver, and transact value for companies and their stakeholders.
2.5 Conclusion 49

2.5 Conclusion

It seems worth noting that the conceptualization of BM seems to be converging on


the idea that a BM represents the logic, or the rationale, that allows the firm to
create value. The level of the logic can reside with the individual manager (Aspara
et al. 2013), the organization (Winter and Szulanski 2001; Amit and Zott 2012), or
the network or value-creating system (Ng et al. 2013; Palo and Tähtinen 2013).
Various nuances of this logic; for example, whether it is represented by decision
variables, by transactions, by activities, or by all of those, and of the related value
creation concept; for example, how it includes value propositions, delivery, cap-
tures concepts, or just refers to the sustainable creation of a competitive advantage,
lead to different ways of defining BM. Interestingly, the above definitions were not
considered by the papers in our database as exclusive; on the contrary most of the
cases cited those definitions simultaneously to support the idea that they are indeed
consistent with the mainstream literature, and just tend to stress different facets of
the same object. One of the problems with this approach is that these BM defini-
tions may be too all-inclusive and make it very difficult to see what the BM is not,
and how it differs from the company value chain in general (Cucculelli and
Bettinelli 2015).

References

Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: Strategies, implementation And profits. USA: Oxford
University Press.
Afuah, A., Tucci, C., & Virili, F. (2001). Modelli di e-business. Acquisire Vantaggi Competitivi
Co.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001a). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
493–520.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001b). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
493–520.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53, 41–49.
Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2010). Business model innovation vs replication:
Financial performance implications of strategic emphases. Journal Of Strategic Marketing, 18,
39–56.
Aspara, J., Juha-Antti, L., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Strategic management of business
model transformation: Lessons from Nokia. Management Decision, 49, 622–647.
Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2013). Corporate business model
transformation and inter-organizational cognition: The case Of Nokia. Long Range Planning,
46, 459–474.
Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business models as models. Long Range Planning, 43,
156–171.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17, 99–120.
Bellman, R., Clark, C. E., Malcolm, D. G., Craft, C. J., & Ricciardi, F. M. (1957). On The
construction of a multi-stage, multi-person business game. Operations Research, 5, 469–503.
50 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Brettel, M., Strese, S., & Flatten, T. C. (2012). Improving the performance of business models with
relationship marketing efforts—An entrepreneurial perspective. European Management
Journal, 30, 85–98.
Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). Business model innovation as lever of
organizational sustainability. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 85–104.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2011). How to design a winning business model. Harvard Business
Review, 89, 1–2.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2007). Competing through business models.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics.
Long Range Planning, 43, 195–215.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation:
The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.
Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. (2011). Business model dynamics and innovation: (Re)
Establishing the missing linkages. Management Decision, 49, 1327–1342.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2014). Preparing for business model change: The “Pre-Stage” finding. Journal
of Management and Governance, 18, 449–469.
Chandler, A. D. (1990). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise.
MIT Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore.
Strategy & Leadership, 35, 12–17.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range
Planning, 43, 354–363.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value
from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off firms. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 11, 529–555.
Chesbrourgh, H., Ahern, S., Finn, M., & Guerraz, S. (2006). Business models for technology in the
developing world: The role of non-governmental organizations. Berkeley: University Of
California, Walter A. Haas School Of Business.
Coombes, P. H., & Nicholson, J. D. (2013). Business models and their relationship with
marketing: A systematic literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 656–664.
Cucculelli, M., & Bettinelli, C. (2015). Business models, intangibles and firm performance:
Evidence on corporate entrepreneurship from Italian manufacturing Smes. Small Business
Economics, In Press, 1–22.
Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration:
Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43, 326–342.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution. In search of dynamic consistency.
Long Range Planning, 43, 227–246.
Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ special issue on
business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 1–11.
Deschamps, J.-P. (2005). Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies. Strategy &
Leadership, 33, 31–38.
Desyllas, P., & Sako, M. (2013). Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from
Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance. Research Policy, 42, 101–116.
Dimaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration
of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D
Management, 44, 306–321.
Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do?: Innovation devices
in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38, 1559–1570.
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for
accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43, 370–382.
References 51

Ehret, M., Kashyap, V., & Wirtz, J. (2013a). Business models: Impact on business markets and
opportunities for marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 649–655.
Ehret, M., Kashyap, V., & Wirtz, J. (2013b). Business models: Impact on business markets and
opportunities for marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 649–655.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Eriksson, C., Kalling, T., Åkesson, M., & Fredberg, T. (2008). Business models for M-Services:
Exploring the e-newspaper case from a consumer view. Journal Of Electronic Commerce In
Organizations, 6, 29–57.
Foss, N., & Saebi, T. (In Press). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far
have we come? And where should we go? Journal of Management.
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation. Journal of
Management, 43, 200–227.
Gambardella, A., & Mcgahan, A. M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General purpose
technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning, 43, 262–271.
George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice, 35, 83–111.
Gerasymenko, V., De Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Changing the business model: Effects
of venture capital firms and outside CEOs on portfolio firm performance. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 79–98.
Grundvåg Ottesen, G., & Grønhaug, K. (2002). Managers’ understanding of theoretical concepts:
The case of market orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 36, 1209–1224.
Guo, H., Zhao, J., & Tang, J. (2013). The role of top managers’ human and social capital in
business model innovation. Chinese Management Studies, 7, 447–469.
Hamel, G. (2000). The end of progress. Business Strategy Review, 11, 69–78.
Hunt, R. G. (1970). Technology and organization. Academy of Management Journal, 13, 235–252.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and
strategic management actions to create firm wealth. The Academy Of Management Executive,
15, 49–63.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The
construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29, 963–989.
Johnson, M. W. (2010). Seizing the white space: Business model innovation for growth and
renewal. Harvard Business Press.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model.
Harvard Business Review, 86, 57–68.
Jones, G. M. (1960). Educators, electrons, and business models: A problem in synthesis.
Accounting Review, 35, 619–626.
Klang, D., Wallnöfer, M., & Hacklin, F. (2014). The business model paradox: A systematic review
and exploration of antecedents. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 454–478.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80, 86–93.
Markides, C. (1997). Strategic innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 38, 9.
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of
concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 9, 99–117.
Mason, K., & Spring, M. (2011). The sites and practices of business models. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40, 1032–1041.
Mcgrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43,
247–261.
Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation:
Insights from an explorative study. R&D Management, 44, 429–449.
Miller, K., Mcadam, M., & Mcadam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: A
stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44, 265–287.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a
unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 726–735.
52 2 Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2010). Business model design: Conceptualizing networked value
co-creation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2, 43–59.
Ng, I. C. L., Ding, D. X., & Yip, N. (2013). Outcome-based contracts as new business model: The
role of partnership and value-driven relational assets. Industrial Marketing Management, 42,
730–743.
Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (2000). Strategic experimentation:
Understanding change and performance in new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 15,
493–521.
O’reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving The
innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(28), 185–206.
Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The
cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78.
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The Business Model Ontology: A proposition in a design science
approach.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries,
game changers, and challengers. Wiley.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present,
and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16,
1–25.
Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2013). Networked business model development for emerging
technology-based services. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 773–782.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Sharpe.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (2000). What is strategy?
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “Morphing”: Competing through dynamic
capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1263–1280.
Rosch, E. (1999). Principles of categorization (pp. 189–206). Concepts: Core Readings.
Santos, J., Spector, B., & Van Der Heyden, L. (2009). Toward a theory of business model
innovation within incumbent firms. Fontainebleau, France: Insead.
Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future
research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–34.
Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models. Business
Horizons, 48, 199–207.
Siggelkow, N. (2001). Change in the presence of fit: The rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz
Claiborne. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 838–857.
Siggelkow, N. (2002). Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 125–159.
Sorescu, A., Frambach, R., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011a). Innovations in
retail business models. Journal of Retailing, 3–16.
Sorescu, A., Frambach, R. T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011b). Innovations in
retail business models. Journal of Retailing, 87, S3–S16.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation
through trial-and-error learning: The naturhouse case. Long Range Planning, 43, 383–407.
Spector, B. (2013). The social embeddedness of business model enactment. Journal Of Strategy
And Management, 6, 27–39.
Storbacka, K., Windahl, C., Nenonen, S., & Salonen, A. (2013). Solution business models:
Transformation along four continua. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 705–716.
Tapscott, D. (2000). The digital divide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Teece, D. J. (1984). Economic analysis and strategic management. California Management
Review, 26, 87–110.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–1350.
References 53

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43,
172–194.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 509–533.
Tikkanen, H., Juha-Antti, L., Parvinen, P., & Juha-Pekka, K. (2005). Managerial cognition, action
and the business model of the firm. Management Decision, 43, 789–809.
Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets, 8, 3–8.
Tuulenmäki, A., & Välikangas, L. (2011). The art of rapid, hands-on execution innovation.
Strategy & Leadership, 39(2), 28–35.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68, 1–17.
Velamuri, V. K., Bansemir, B., Neyer, A.-K., & Möslein, K. M. (2013). Product service systems as
a driver for business model innovation: Lessons learned from the manufacturing industry.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–25.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
Cambridge University Press.
Webb, J. W., Bruton, G. D., Tihanyi, L., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Research on entrepreneurship in
the informal economy: Framing a research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 598–
614.
Welch, C., & Wilkinson, I. (2002). Idea logics and network theory in business marketing. Journal
Of Business-To-Business Marketing, 9, 27–48.
Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730–743.
Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2015). Business models: Origin, development
and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, In Press.
Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin, development
and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49, 36–54.
Wirtz, B. W., Schilke, O., & Ullrich, S. (2010). Strategic development of business models:
Implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the internet. Long Range Planning, 43, 272–
290.
Wu, J., Guo, B., & Shi, Y. (2013). Customer knowledge management and it-enabled business
model innovation: A conceptual framework and a case study from China. European
Management Journal, 31, 359–372.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models:
Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308–325.
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities:
A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 917–955.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. Wiley.
Zaltman, G., Lemasters, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Theory construction in marketing: Some
thoughts on thinking. Wiley.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms.
Organization Science, 18, 181–199.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model:
Implications for firm performance. Chicago: Wiley Periodicals Inc.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range
Planning, 43, 216–226.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for
strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11, 403–411.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future
research. Journal of Management, 37, 1019–1042.
Chapter 3
Business Model Innovation: A Thematic
Map

Abstract The third chapter is the core of this book and it introduces a fine-grained
ontological exploration of BMI. Specifically, this chapter focuses on the results of
our systematic literature review and the related thematic and the ontological anal-
yses of the 156 papers selected for this research. With the help of thematic maps
and ontological tables, the authors illustrate the 56 themes resulting from the
analyses, categorized into seven macro themes: definitions of BMI, drivers of BMI,
outcomes of BMI, barriers to BMI, enablers of BMI, tools of BMI, and processes of
BMI. Moreover, this chapter provides a specific discussion on the conceptualization
of BMI that reveals its dual nature: the first one being connected to the changes to
BM components and the second one to the dynamisms related to the continuous
innovation of BMs. Finally, the paper concludes with specific discussions and
presents a research agenda, and related future research suggestions, for each
macro-theme identified in the systematic literature review (i.e., BMI definitions,
drivers, outcomes, barriers, enablers, tools, and processes).

3.1 Introduction

Business model innovation is a holistic concept used to deal with issues related to
the search for new business logics and new ways for a company to create and
capture value for its stakeholders. It refers to finding new ways to generate profits
and define value propositions for customers, partners, and suppliers (e.g., Comes
and Berniker 2008; Amit and Zott 2012; Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013).
Business model innovation describes how the firm transforms itself with reference
to where it was before and/or to the industry convention to pursue higher perfor-
mance and competitive advantage (Morris et al. 2011; Kuratko and Audretsch
2013) that allow it to exploit opportunities (George and Bock 2011).
Despite the extensive emphasis on business model innovation in both research
and practice, the legitimacy of business models as an academic research stream
has often been criticized. This is largely due to the fragmented and interdisciplinary
nature of the business model concept and business model innovation

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 55


D. Andreini and C. Bettinelli, Business Model Innovation, International Series
in Advanced Management Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3_3
56 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Osterwalder et al. 2005; Shafer et al. 2005;
Teece 2010; Zott and Amit 2013). Research on business model innovation draws on
a range of disciplines and perspectives, such as management and entrepreneurship,
innovation, and organizational studies, as well as marketing. Despite this, it has
been argued that the phenomenon still lacks a solid theoretical foundation and an
intellectual home in social sciences (Teece 2010). This lack of ‘home base’ drawing
on a variety of disciplines and theoretical foundations as well as various contexts
(Schneider and Spieth 2013) is mainly seen as a downside of business model
innovation research hindering the development of the theoretical field. However,
this could also be seen as a richness that only a systematic literature review can
detect.
The wide and fragmented field of literature on the business model concept offers
only a few reviews to date (e.g., Zott et al. 2011; Klang et al. 2014), although they
do generate important and valuable insights into the concept, its scholarly devel-
opment, and future potential. With regards to BMI, Schneider and Spieth (2013) are
among the first researchers to review the academic literature on the topic to identify
patterns, structures and themes to discuss the potential underlying its theoretical
foundations. However, despite its valuable contribution by mapping the young but
fragmented area of literature, the review represents a rather limited view of the field;
business model innovation is used as the only key word, and the review includes
only articles that focus on the innovation of established business models resulting in
a final sample of 35 articles.
Another main contribution to BMI study is the literature review proposed by
Foss and Saebi (2017), who studied 150 works about BMI and provided a deeper
understanding of the definition of BMI, its dimensions, a framework including
drivers, outcomes and moderators, and finally some application fields of BMI.
Despite the undiscussed prominence of this work, the framework we are proposing
in this chapter differs from the one developed by Foss and Saebi (2017) for a
detailed ontological analysis that results in the identification of more than 56 key
themes. Within each theme, we discuss the thematic patterns, potential inconsis-
tencies and debates, and areas that require further elaboration. Thus, this chapter
aims to produce a more holistic and integrative review of the current literature on
the dynamics of business models and their innovation. Hence, the objective of this
chapter is twofold: (1) to understand the evolution of research on business model
innovation, and (2) to analyze the key thematic areas in the literature and their
contribution to understanding business model innovation.
As a result, we develop a thematic map of the different themes emerged within
the business model innovation research, and discuss the implications for our
understanding of business model innovation within each thematic area. We also
provide a set of ontological tables for each of the seven major types emerged about
BMI (i.e., definition, drivers, outcomes, barriers, enablers, tools and processes). The
ontological tables, differently from the thematic maps, illustrate the super-theme
3.1 Introduction 57

order, the second-order themes, the first-order themes, and the thematic descriptive
statements, with a chronology of their emergence, that resulted from the interactive
reconciliation processes. It is extremely important to note that the classifications
that we offer here are done with the aim of offering an overview that is as much as
possible detailed and at the same time effective in systematizing the extant
knowledge on BMI in general. Starting from this classification, other aggregations
and systematizations can be done according to specific aims. So for example, if one
needs to know how the extant literature contributes to the understanding of the
dynamic aspects of BMI, one could focus on the nature of BMI mechanisms and
aggregate the themes and adjust the tables accordingly.
Thus, we interpret the literature according to 56 key themes. Within each theme,
we discuss the thematic patterns, potential inconsistencies and debates (see Jones
et al. 2011). Finally, we present some final conclusions and areas for future
research.

3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review

This chapter presents the results of our systematic literature review and the related
ontological analysis. We reviewed 156 papers and using an inductive thematic
analysis (Jones et al. 2011) identified 56 key themes. Following an ontological and
interactive process between the authors we created a domain ontology of BMI,
capturing first-order themes (T1) and second-order themes (T2), the latter grouped
in thematic areas (or key thematic areas). Compared to previous systematic liter-
ature reviews (Schneider and Spieth 2013), this work analyzed a wider database of
material (i.e., one that includes practitioner works and a wide range of management
journals), and is thus able to show more fine-grained domains of BMI, such as
definitions, drivers, contingencies and outcomes.
A thematic map, created with Mindomo1 (Fig. 3.1) illustrates the 56 key the-
matic (first-order themes) of BMI and helps to visualize and structure the discussion
of the results of our work. The main branches represent the thematic areas, such as
the type of research developed around the subject of BMI. From these thematic
areas extend sub-branches, representing the second-order themes and from these
themes, fine-grained first-order themes, directly derived from the ontological
analysis of the literature review. The numbers in the map refer to the number of
papers classified in each second-order theme. Finally, we have reported an onto-
logical table for each key thematic area, in order to present a detailed visual rep-
resentation of BMI research.
In the process, we illustrate our understanding of the literature of BMIs and for
each theme we discuss the main issues, outlines and discrepancies.

1
www.mindomo.com.
58 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Fig. 3.1 Thematic map of the business model innovation 2001–2015

3.2.1 Business Model Innovation Definitions

While the BMI concept is used in different ways, contexts, and disciplines, some
evolution paths can be identified based on the literature review. In particular, of the
156 papers analyzed, 16 did not provide a definition of BM or BMI. These were
mainly published in journals targeted at practitioners. This result is in line with Zott
et al. (2011), who found a similar proportion of papers in the BM literature stream
that did not define BM. They stressed that this is problematic since it gives rise to a
multitude of possible interpretations.
Analyzing the timeline of BMI definitions shows that (Chesbrough and
Rosenbloom 2002) initiated BMI research, focusing on the relationship between
value creation and BMI. Early papers conceptualized BMI as the introduction of
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 59

technical innovation in an existing corporate BM. Three years later, Morris et al.
(2005) first underlined the transformational nature and development processes of
BMs. Subsequently, Demil and Lecocq (2010) developed a transformational
approach to studying BM evolution, building on the dynamic perspective of BM
components first introduced by Winter and Szulanski (2001). This dynamic
approach was later followed by Chesbrough (2010), Sosna et al. (2010), and
Bohnsack et al. (2014).
In contrast, according to Teece (2010), BMI definition is related to the design
and architecture of value creation, delivery, and capture and underlines constant
change of BMs according to the vision of continuous BMI introduced by Mitchell
and Coles (2003), Mitchell and Bruckner Coles (2004). To provide a comprehen-
sive BMI definition, Zott and Amit (2010) introduced a systems perspective of
novelty-centered BMs, where innovation is related to the newness of BM design
elements, for example, adopting new activities (activity content system), new ways
of linking activities (activity-system structure), and new ways of governing activ-
ities (activity-system governance).
We found that four key research fields interested in BMI (i.e., marketing,
organizational studies, strategic management, and entrepreneurship) view the BMI
concept from distinctive perspectives. In marketing, BMI is mainly conceptualized
as change in the target customer and the related value proposition (Dmitriev et al.
2014; Wu et al. 2013); as a new consumption/distribution model (Baumeister et al.
2015) and as a new product conceptualization such as the servitization of manu-
factured products (Nenonen and Storbacka 2010; Storbacka et al. 2012). In orga-
nizational studies, BMI is mainly conceived as change that managers and
management teams can realize through learning experimentation (e.g., McGrath
2010; Rindova and Kotha 2001) and trial-and-error activities (e.g., Freeman and
Engel 2007; Nicholls-Nixon et al. 2000; O’Reilly and Tushman 2008). In contrast,
in strategic management, BMI is mainly conceptualized as the introduction of
innovative ways to create and capture value for stakeholders of a single or net-
worked company through a BM (e.g., Tongur and Engwall 2014; Zott and Amit
2008, 2010). Finally, in entrepreneurship, BMI is associated with disruptive and
substantial innovation introduced and developed to seize new economic opportu-
nities (Gerasymenko et al. 2015; Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015).
To attempt to make sense of the range of definitions, a number of papers have
focused mainly on how the concept of BMI is defined. This thematic area in the
BMI literature emerged in 2005. A total of 21 publications centered around three
different themes: categorization, essence, and the dynamic and process-based
conceptualization of BMI as shown in Fig. 3.2.
First, most publications (15) within the theme focused on categorizing definitions,
including industry-based categorizations, types of BM change, and categorizations
based on BMI characteristics. Regarding industry-based BMI categorization, papers
have focused on various cases, for instance, new BMs for skills brokerage for
start-ups (Papagiannidis and Li 2005) and e-business (Dubosson-Torbay et al. 2002).
Regarding types of BM change, Cavalcante et al. (2011), distinguished the different
forms of BMI (changes) as BM creation, extension, revision, and termination. BMI
60 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Fig. 3.2 Thematic map of the definition of business model innovation

has also been portrayed as a type of business model design that changes
activity-system elements and themes (Zott and Amit 2010). Finally, BMI has also
been categorized based on its specific characteristics. In this sense, BMI is distin-
guished from product innovation (Bucherer et al. 2012). It has been described as a
mode of service innovation (Wang et al. 2015) and “conventional” and “social” BMs
have been contrasted (Yunus et al. 2010). Further, it has been described in terms of
innovativeness (radicalism, reach, complexity), strategic context (proactiveness),
and organizational setting (openness) (Taran et al. 2015).
Secondly, four publications have discussed the essence of BMI. The evolu-
tionary nature of BMs has been detected in early and rapid internationalization
(Dunford et al. 2010), and at the level of entrepreneurial BMs through change and
value mechanisms (Svejenova et al. 2010). BMI has also been described as the
distinct “capital” of a firm in the form of dynamic capability (Mezger 2014) and a
competitive tool (Bereznoi 2015). Finally, more generally, the literature provides a
dynamic, process-based conceptualization of BMs, which recognizes and integrates
the role of individual agency (Cavalcante et al. 2011) and the role of BMs in
creating links with external partners to access resources, create value, and, in the
end, obtain opportunities for innovation (Ho et al. 2010).
Articles often simultaneously cited multiple references about BMI definitions.
For this reason, there are many nuances in the definitions of BMI in the 156 papers
included in the systematic literature review. The first ontological table (Table 3.1)
shows the key themes defining BMI, as detected in the BMI literature.

3.2.2 Business Model Innovation Drivers

BMI drivers was the first thematic area to emerge in the BMI literature. This area
focuses on the antecedents or elements that lead to BMI. As shown in Fig. 3.3, the
review includes 60 publications in this area that correspond to 19 first-order themes
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 61

Table 3.1 Ontological table of the BMI definitions (2002–2015)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area theme theme
BMI Categorization Industry-based BMIs are categorized 2002
definitions (n = 15) BMI based on the specific
(21) categorization industries and/or empirical
contexts the studies focus
on
Types of BM Different types of BMIs 2010
changes/design according to type of
changes of BMs and the
change in their activities or
BM design
Characteristics Types of BMIs according 2010
to their characteristics
Literature Literature review that 2013
reviews categorize BMI and its
antecedents and outcomes
Dynamic and Unit of Dynamic, process-based 2010
process-based analysis in conceptualization in some
(n = 2) value features of BMI dynamics
co-creation and processes
process
Abstraction of Process-based 2011
company’s conceptualization of BM
core process and types of BM changes
in the process of BMI
Essence of Evolutionary The triggers, mechanisms, 2010
BMI (n = 4) nature changes and processes of
BM evolution
BMI as capital BMI is a distinct 2015
capability/tool of firms

under six different second-order themes: activities, external stakeholders, environ-


mental factors, organizational characteristics, service stream, and miscellaneous.
As illustrated in the ontological table about BMI drivers (Table 3.2), the earliest
theme of drivers reflects the way BMI has been approached as a phenomenon and are
mainly focused on the activities that organizations implement to innovate their BMs.
These activities refer to the work of people, groups, or organizations to achieve BMI.
A focus on the conscious efforts and activities that can lead to BMI is specific to
these drivers. We identified the following activities that drive BMI: knowledge
management (Malhotra 2002), corporate entrepreneurship (Michalski 2003), inno-
vation (Cavalcante 2013; Gambardella and McGahan 2010; Hwang and Christensen
2008; Swatman et al. 2006), BM design (Trimi and Berbegal-Mirabent 2012, Zott
and Amit 2007), marketing (e.g., Lee and Ho 2010), learning (e.g., Sosna et al.
2010), accounting (Huang et al. 2012), and corporate social responsibility
(Dickson and Chang 2015; Morgan 2015). Among these, the most studied themes
62 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Fig. 3.3 Thematic map of the drivers of business model innovation

are marketing, learning, and innovation, which are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Marketing activities is a highly populated sub-theme among the activities driving
BMI. Research has considered how different approaches to the market (Lee and Ho
2010), market analysis (Eriksson et al. 2008), customer knowledge management
(Wu et al. 2013), marketing channels (Cao 2014), and marketing efforts (Brettel
et al. 2012) can lead to BMI. Two main aspects emerged from the papers dealing
with marketing activities. First, market-driven and technology-driven BMI have
different antecedents and are dissimilar, especially regarding the way they are
carried out (Habtay 2012). Second, the papers tend to stress the importance to
successfully innovating BMs of knowing the market (e.g., customer knowledge or
customer-focused practices).
Another populated stream of research is focused on learning, an important
activity driving BMI. Attention has shifted from entrepreneurial learning
(Sanz-Velasco and Saemundsson 2008) to organizational learning (Andries et al.
2013; Andries and Debackere 2013) and, finally, to trial-and-error (Sosna et al.
2010) and experiential learning (Cavalcante 2014; Sinfield et al. 2012; Tuulenmäki
and Välikangas 2011). More recently, creativity and gamification have been
introduced as a special type of a collective learning activity driving BMI (Roth et al.
2015). Interestingly, the literature reveals that learning approaches are affected by
the specific environment in which a firm operates. For example, Sosna et al. (2010)
showed how the environmental situation (economic recession and recent
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 63

Table 3.2 Ontological table of BMI drivers (2001–2015)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area theme theme
BMI Activities Knowledge Knowledge management 2002
Drivers (n = 31) drives BMI and knowledge
(60) brokerage explains
performance heterogeneity
of BMI
CE BMI through the application 2003
(C. venturing) of corporate
entrepreneurship CE
principles
Innovation Technical innovations drive 2006
BMI
Design The role and practices of BM 2007
design for BMI
Marketing Customer Knowledge 2008
Management, Market
Analysis and Market
approaches drive BMI
Learning Experimentation, 2008
organizational learning,
trial-and-error drive BMI
Accounting The effect of target costing 2012
systems to BMI
CSR How corporate responsibility 2015
activities influence business
model innovation
External Partnerships The role of partnerships (see 2007
Stakeholders also co-development and
(n = 6) coopetition) in achieving
new BMs
Venture Venture capital companies 2015
Capital influence the ability of young
ventures to change their
business models
Multiple The impact of multiple 2014
Stakeholders stakeholders’ power and
influence on business model
innovation
Environmental Sustainability Sustainability opportunities 2009
factors (n = 5) drive BMI
Cultural Cultural context as a driver 2015
context of BM change
Organizational Top Top management cognitive 2011
characteristics Management processes and individual
(n = 9) characteristics drive BMI
(continued)
64 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Table 3.2 (continued)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area theme theme
Capabilities Leadership capabilities 2010
enabling the acceleration,
renewal, and transformation
of BMs
Path Path dependencies affect 2014
Dependency BMI
Service (n = 5) Service Value co-creation from a 2013
Dominant SDL perspective drives to
Logic BMI
Service BMI as the shift from a 2009
orientation product-oriented BM to a
service-oriented BM
Miscellanea Mixed and First attempts to identify 2001
(n = 4) not BMI drivers
well-defined
variables

liberalization) can lead firms to introduce trial-and-error learning approaches in


attempts to innovate their BMs. Similarly, Sanz-Velasco and Saemundsson (2008)
stressed the importance of considering how the environment of a firm (in this case,
research-based spin-offs) affects different learning approaches toward BMI.
Regarding innovation activities, scholars have mainly considered technological
(often disruptive) innovation as a driver of BMI (Cavalcante 2013; Habtay 2012;
Swatman et al. 2006) and stressed the need to integrate disruptive technologies with
appropriate BMs (Hwang and Christensen 2008).
Overall, it can be noted that the theme related to activities is guided mainly by
the entrepreneurship literature. This contamination with entrepreneurial literature
has occurred because the use of these activities (e.g., innovation, corporate
entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial learning) is seen as entrepreneurial behavior
itself and because most of the studied firms in papers dealing with BMI operate in
the high-tech sector (e.g., information and communications technology, biotech,
and internet firms) or are entrepreneurial firms (e.g., Zott and Amit 2007).
The second theme regarding drivers of BMI is external stakeholders. Studies
within this theme describe how BMI is driven by firms’ relationships such as those
with venture capital firms and other stakeholders and technological partnerships.
Most papers within this theme are focused on partnerships and show that BMI is
positively affected by building network partnerships (Lindgren et al. 2010; Ng et al.
2013), technological partnerships for co-development (Chesbrough 2007), and
technological collaboration between competing firms (i.e., coopetition) (Ritala and
Sainio 2014). While these papers (directly or indirectly) acknowledge that new
BMs emerge in various contexts in different ways, two main common elements are
apparent. First, technology-based partnerships are an important driver of BMI
and second, to carry out successful BMI, partners need to share the same
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 65

(aligned) values (e.g., in terms of partnerships and corporate values). In addition to


technological partnerships, Gerasymenko et al. (2015) found venture capital firms
had a positive impact on young ventures devising their BMs. More generally, a
multiple-stakeholder perspective on university BMs revealed the influence of
relationships with multiple stakeholders such as the government, academics,
industry, and offices of innovation on BMI (Miller et al. 2014). Based on the two
themes above, research is moving from technology-focused sectors and partner-
ships to other avenues and employing a wider network perspective on BMI drivers
(Gerasymenko et al. 2015; Miller et al. 2014).
In addition, studies of external drivers that can be labeled environmental factors
(the third theme in the ontological analysis) are prevalent in the BMI literature are.
Typically, studies within this theme have examined how sustainability (Birkin et al.
2009; Kiron et al. 2013a, b; Mokhlesian and Holmén 2012) determines the emer-
gence of new BMs. These papers address two key questions: first, whether BMI for
sustainability is a profitable strategy in various sectors (Kiron et al. 2013a, b) and
shows positive effects and second, how the need for sustainability drives BMI in
certain cases, such as sustainable construction (Mokhlesian and Holmén 2012)
sustainable development (Birkin et al. 2009). In addition to the aspect of sustain-
ability, cultural context is another external driver of BMI that addresses the issue of
internationalization that many companies are experiencing and the effect of oper-
ating in new national contexts on BMs (Dalby et al. 2014).
In contrast to the other themes, the fourth theme focuses on internal drivers of BMI
and explores how organizational characteristics, particularly top management fea-
tures (Deschamps 2005; Guo et al. 2013), including managerial cognitive processes
(Aspara et al. 2011, 2013), organizational capabilities (Demil and Lecocq 2010; Doz
and Kosonen 2010), and path dependencies (Bohnsack et al. 2014) lead to BMI.
Overall, there is a relatively strong focus on management features as drivers of BMI.
Further, scholars are paying increasing attention to the cognitive approach, which
suggests that the cognitive processes of managers explain BMI and its drivers. This is
related to path-dependent behaviors of firms that can cognitively constrain or lead to
BMI (Bohnsack et al. 2014). The cognitive approach has spawned the emergence of
longitudinal, in-depth case studies (Aspara et al. 2011, 2013; Demil and Lecocq
2010). This is a promising research strategy as it captures relevant nuances that could
significantly contribute to a better understanding of BMI.
BMI drivers also include important analyses of the service stream (the fifth
theme of the ontological analysis). Papers in this category focus on the increasing
role of services and the transformation of offerings from products to services that
require companies to innovate their BMs. The drivers detected in this category can
be divided into service dominant logic (SDL) and service orientation themes. SDL
is a novel approach to understanding BMI. In this approach, all economic
exchanges are service-for-service exchanges between actors that retain
resource-based capabilities; goods are just the tools used by service-system entities
to bundle their knowledge so as to share their capabilities with others (Maglio and
Spohrer 2013). This change in perspective (viewing all economic exchanges as
service exchanges) is a driver of BMI. Similarly, but without necessarily adopting
66 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

SDL as a theoretical approach, the service orientation theme considers BMI as a


shift from a product-focused BM to a service-focused BM. Accordingly, papers
considering servitization range from those focusing on service innovation as a
driver of BMI (Shelton 2009) to those investigating the integration of specific
services with products as a propeller of BMI (Shelton 2009; Velamuri et al. 2013).
Service orientation is not only applied in the context of firms operating in the
service sector but is also used to explain how manufacturing firms transform their
BMs to move them toward being service-based firms (Storbacka et al. 2013). The
service-stream focus is one of the most recent evolutions within the BMI drivers’
category; most of the papers are relatively recent, and the insights they offer con-
tribute to improve understanding of the dynamics beyond BMI.
Finally, the sixth theme of BMI drivers, miscellaneous, includes papers focused
on BMI drivers that lack a well-defined nature and characteristics. The reason for
this lack of clarity is that these papers were the first attempts to identify BMI drivers
(Chung et al. 2004; Linder and Cantrell 2001; Sanchez and Ricart 2010; Sorescu
et al. 2011).

3.2.3 Business Model Innovation Outcomes

The second main thematic area of research is BMI outcomes (36 papers). As shown
in the thematic map (Fig. 3.4), research within this theme is primarily focused on
economic performance, value, industry level outcomes, and strategic actions.
Within the economic performance theme, most papers are focused on real
economic performance (e.g., Demil and Lecocq 2010; Kiron et al. 2013a, b; Nair
et al. 2012) while others examine perceived economic performance (Aspara et al.
2010; Brettel et al. 2012; Huang et al. 2012; Kiron et al. 2013a, b) and corporate
survival (Velu and Khanna 2013) as BMI outcomes. Within the real economic
performance theme is to be found the first paper that measured BMI economic
performance outcomes (Giesen et al. 2007) by considering firms listed on the stock
exchange and measuring the effects of BMI on the compound annual growth rate of
operating profit margin and stock price. The economic performance measures
employed within this theme are mainly focused on various measures of profit such
as profit margin and market share growth (Nair et al. 2012) or profit after tax and
operating margin (Demil and Lecocq 2010). This category also includes the seminal
work of Zott and Amit (2007), who studied the effects of a novelty-centered BM
design on the market value of firms’ equity. Overall, studies that measured BMI
outcomes by considering real economic performance produced consistent results
that show the positive effects of BMI. Research has continued to grow with studies
in different contexts (e.g., Cucculelli and Bettinelli 2015; Kim and Min 2015).
In contrast, papers that consider perceived economic performance as BMI out-
comes include items to measure the perceived effects of BMI on profitability
(Brettel et al. 2012). In these papers, perceived performance constructs include
items related to perceived market performance and growth over the previous three
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 67

Fig. 3.4 Thematic map of the outcomes of business model innovation

years (Brettel et al. 2012), perceived cost reduction, customer satisfaction, on-time
delivery, and firms’ perceived continuous improvement (Huang et al. 2012)
Corporate survival of new firms (Velu and Khanna 2013) is an emerging theme
within economic performance outcomes of BMI.
Interestingly, and in line with strategic BMI conceptualization, another focus is
on value as an outcome. Value creation for customers (Björkdahl 2009; Sorescu
et al. 2011), including the value creation process (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom
2002), value appropriation (Desyllas and Sako 2013; Sorescu et al. 2011), and
competitiveness (Liu and Jiang 2013; Michalski 2003), is a theme that has attracted
scholarly attention. In studies within this theme, value creation goes hand in hand
with value appropriation (capture); all the papers that have focused on the former
have also considered the latter. Some papers have equated the concept of value
appropriation/capture with the concept of profiting (e.g., Björkdahl 2009; Desyllas
and Sako 2013). Regarding BMI outcomes in terms of competitiveness, both
studies considered BMI a relevant way to increase firms’ competitiveness at the
global level (Liu and Jiang 2013; Michalski 2003).
68 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

At the industry level of analysis, papers have considered the effects of BMI on
industry structure (Gambardella and McGahan 2010) and the creation (together
with the technology) of disruptive innovations (Engel 2011). Finally, papers con-
sidering BMI outcomes were categorized under strategizing, including changes in
organizational boundaries, internationalization, and other strategic level outcomes.
BMI determines changes at an organizational level by modifying organizational
boundaries through insourcing and outsourcing (Spector 2013). In a similar vein,
adapting a BM in foreign markets may explain the success of internationalization
(Bouncken et al. 2015). Other strategic level outcomes include benefits and chal-
lenges. Benefits range from cost reduction and strategic flexibility, specialization
and speed in exploitation of opportunities (Pohle and Chapman 2006), risk sharing,
knowledge development, long-term service stability and diversification of activities
(Monios and Bergqvist 2015) to responsible innovation (as opposed to techno-
logical innovation) (Halme and Korpela 2014). Challenges are related to branding
(Baumeister et al. 2015).
The ontological table of BMI outcomes presents a detailed visual representation
of BMI research (Table 3.3).

3.2.4 Tools for Business Model Innovation

Tools for innovating BMs is the third theme that emerged in the literature. This
category includes a total of 28 publications with three different themes: methods,
artifacts, and sector-specific elaborations (see Fig. 3.5).
Most papers in this theme are focused on the different methods available to help
managers to understand, perform, and manage BMI. These papers are focused on
practical methods and frameworks (e.g., Bouwman et al. 2008; Chesbrough 2007;
Pateli and Giaglis 2005), concepts (e.g., Abraham 2013; Huarng 2013), and
approaches (e.g., Girotra and Netessine 2013) that enhance understanding of BMI.
This stream of literature on BMI emerged in 2005 with practitioner-oriented
guidelines for managers and other practitioners to perform and evaluate BMI (Bate
and Johnston 2005). Some papers focusing on BMI methods emphasize prospective
tools for developing BMI such as the scenario planning method (Bouwman et al.
2008; Pateli and Giaglis 2005). Others propose methodological tools for creating
BMI, such as methodology for pattern-based BMI (Amshoff et al. 2015) and
systems-based methodology (Kiura et al. 2014). In a similar vein, some papers
suggest certain practices as methods for BMI, such as roadmapping to define the
necessary steps and choices in transitioning from a current to a desired business (De
Reuver et al. 2013), and experimental game-like innovation activities for BMI
(Gudiksen 2015). Others are focused on methods for testing and assessing BMI,
such as the business model framework, which assists in assessing current BMs and
the next steps to advance these (Chesbrough 2007), and an assessment tool to
evaluate an organization’s state of readiness for BMI and the potential stress for the
organization (Evans and Johnson 2013). Other publications are focused on
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 69

Table 3.3 Ontological table of BMI Outcomes (2002–2015)


Thematic Second-order First-order theme Theme description Emerged
area theme
BMI Economic Real Economic Quantitative evidence of 2007
Outcomes Performance Performance the impact of BMI on
(36) (n = 17) firm performance
Perceived Managers’ perception of 2010
Economic BMI impacts on the
Performance economic performance
of companies
Corporate survival The effect of the degree 2015
of BMI on new firm
survival
Value Value Creation BMI creates value for 2002
(n = 10) customers and
companies
Competitiveness BMI increases firms’ 2003
competitiveness
Value Value capturing through 2002
Appropriation BMI
Industry level Industry Structure How BMI is driven by 2010
(n = 2) general purpose
technologies and what
the possible
consequences can be at
the firm and sector level
Disruptive BMI to generate 2011
innovation (together with
technology) disruptive
innovations
Strategizing Organizational BM redesign changes 2013
(n = 7) boundaries organizational
boundaries through
insourcing and
outsourcing
Other strategic BMI outcomes are cost 2006
level outcomes reductions and strategic
flexibility, market
strategy actions
Internationalization Ability to adapt a BM 2015
for foreign markets may
explain the success of
internationalization of
born globals

frameworks for managing BMI and related organizational decisions during BMI.
For example, (Amit and Zott 2012) identified and defined specific elements that
practitioners need to consider during BMI development. Other papers suggest
approaches to BMI to assist in innovating BMs and developing understanding of
70 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Fig. 3.5 Thematic map of the tools of business model innovation

the scholarly field. For example, Huarng (2013) proposed the concept of the
two-tier business model, comprising a conceptual and a financial model to assist
entrepreneurs in creating new businesses.
Artifacts is an emerging category within tools for BMI, with only one publi-
cation to date. Eppler and Hoffmann (2012) examined collaborative BM generation
and found that artifacts (i.e., visual templates and physical objects) have the power
to shape the group process of developing new BMs. The third sub-theme represents
sector-specific considerations of BMI tools. The papers within this theme have
studied the hospitality sector (Kandampully 2006); music industry (Vlachos et al.
2006); service in manufacturing industry (Witell and Löfgren 2013); mobile
business and telecommunications (Ghezzi et al. 2010); retail industry (Lange and
Velamuri 2014); fashion industry (Hvass 2015); the sharing economy or collabo-
rative consumption (Matzler et al. 2015); and the base of pyramid markets (Goyal
2014). However, despite the various sectors and contexts, two common themes can
be identified across the papers. First, BMI revolves around current changes in a
specific industry or market, such as servitization in manufacturing (Witell and
Löfgren 2013), the music industry becoming more “mobile” (Vlachos et al. 2006),
or the trend in consumer markets toward sharing and collaboration (Matzler et al.
2015). Second, the proposed tools represent a type of reaction to these changes, or
how firms change or transform their old BMs into new ones (e.g., by changing a
store layout for physical retailers (Lange and Velamuri 2014) or integrating
reselling and reuse of garments into BMs in the fashion industry (Hvass 2015).
Table 3.4 shows the first, the second and the theme descriptions related to BMI
outcomes, as emerged by the ontological analysis.

3.2.5 Business Model Innovation Barriers

More recently, the thematic area labeled BMI barriers (9 papers) has emerged in
2009. Research within this theme is in its infancy. As shown in Fig. 3.6, the focus
of papers within this theme has been on internal (e.g., Chesbrough 2010) and
external barriers (Birkin et al. 2009; Lange et al. 2015).
Papers have identified financial hurdle rates and the need to develop new value
networks targeting new or existing customers (Koen et al. 2011), the main diffi-
culties regarding the development of breakthrough BMs (Koen et al. 2010), and the
various features of network partners (Lindgren et al. 2010).
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 71

Table 3.4 Ontological table of BMI tools (2005–2012)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area theme theme
BMI Methods Methodologies Methodologies that 2005
Tools (n = 18) for managers managers should apply to
(n = 28) develop BMI in
organizations
Artifacts Visual templates Artifacts (visual templates, 2012
(n = 1) and physical physical objects) have the
objects as power to shape the group
shapers of BMI process of developing new
BMs
Sector Specific tools for Specific methodologies that 2006
specific BMI in specific managers should apply to
(n = 9) sectors develop BMI in specific
industries

Fig. 3.6 Thematic map of the barriers to business model innovation

Studies on BMI barriers have analyzed various contexts such as constraints on


BMI for sustainable development (Birkin et al. 2009), challenges in BMI for large,
established incumbent firms (Koen et al. 2010, 2011), and single firms that innovate
their business models to become network-based (Lindgren et al. 2010). The
research that has been produced in these different contexts shows that the internal
barriers to BMI can be of different natures (e.g., the use of time, excessive spe-
cialization, bureaucracy, cognition, leadership etc.) but are mainly rooted in the
firm’s existent business model that tends to shape the approach toward BMI (e.g.,
Koen et al. 2010). Another interesting aspect that seems to emerge from these
papers is that while specific managerial approaches can be adopted to overcome
BMI barriers (e.g., processes of experimentation and effectuation, and change
leadership (Chesbrough 2010) there are some external barriers that the firm cannot
control. For example, in the case of BMI for sustainable development it emerged
that the values of the society where the business model innovators operate (e.g.,
over-consumption, appreciation of nature, inequitable societies, lack of attitudes for
attaining consensus) (Birkin et al. 2009) as well as national institutions (Lange and
Velamuri 2014) can be critical factors for BMI. Other external barriers to BMI were
identified in the form of customer rigidity (Koen et al. 2010, 2011), in the
72 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Table 3.5 Ontological table of BMI barriers (2009–2010)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area theme theme
BMI Internal Organizational Internal barriers to BMI 2010
Barriers (n = 3) barriers to BMI especially those related to
(9) conflicts with existing assets
and BMs
External Societal and External barriers managers 2009
(n = 6) cultural context should overcome to develop
BMI
Network Risks and challenges of 2010
aspects networked business

Fig. 3.7 Thematic map of


the enablers of business
model innovation

dissimilarities in the network partners’ business models (Lindgren et al. 2010), and
the ecosystemic nature of business models (Westerlund et al. 2014). The onto-
logical table (Table 3.5) summarizes the themes related to BMI barriers, as dis-
cussed in this paragraph.

3.2.6 Business Model Innovation Enablers

Another emerging thematic area (eight papers) explores BMI enablers, which
include the elements that assist, support, and facilitate the process of BMI. The
main difference between BMI drivers and enablers is that while the former represent
necessary and/or sufficient conditions for BMI, the latter represent elements that
mainly support BMI.2 As illustrated in the thematic map (Fig. 3.7), some papers
focused on this research topic consider organizational (Hao-Chen et al. 2013;
Simmons et al. 2013) and technological (Berman et al. 2012) enablers of BMI.

2
This distinction between enablers and barriers is particularly useful if one aims at studying the
determinants of BMI by considering main effects and moderators/mediators. Other works aiming
at having an overview of the general processes of BMI can see drivers and enablers as a unique
construct that is positioned in the first part of the BMI process.
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 73

Table 3.6 Ontological table of BMI enablers (2012–2013)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area theme theme
BMI Organizational Organizational Practices and decisions 2013
Enablers (n = 4) enablers of related to organizational
(8) BMI issues and its boundaries
Technological Technological Use of technological 2012
(n = 2) enablers of developments to enable
BMI BMI
Contextual Contextual Context specific 2012
(n = 2) enablers of characteristics and factors
BMI enabling BMI

Others (Christensen et al. 2012) are focused on how contextual enablers (i.e.,
characteristics of the external environment) can play a facilitating role.
While still in its infancy, this research theme includes rigorous papers that
contribute to understanding the topic. The papers within this theme identify specific
enablers. For example, regarding organizational enablers, Simmons et al. (2013)
found in their analysis of industrial projects commercializing digital innovations
that the inscription of value on BMI is facilitated and enabled by marketing
activities such as market sensing and marketing channel selection. Another specific
organizational enabler of successful BMI in manufacturing SMEs is open inno-
vation, which enables internal, innovative ideas to flow outward and external ideas
to flow inward (Hao-Chen et al. 2013). In a similar vein, the exploitation of
combinations of external and internal knowledge (Denicolai et al. 2014) and
organizational design and governance competences (Carayannis et al. 2015) can
also contribute to BMI. Finally, in terms of technological enablers, research has
demonstrated that cloud computing (Berman et al. 2012), social networking sites,
and smart devices (Shin 2014) can enable BMI. So far, papers have examined
contextual enablers in a supportive multiagency operating context (Christensen
et al. 2012) and in low-income segments and emerging markets (Jain 2014). The
ontological table shows all the details about the themes emerged as enablers of BMI
(Table 3.6).

3.2.7 Business Model Innovation Process

The newest thematic area, with 16 publications, focuses on the BMI process. Papers
within this theme have examined the phases of BMI, the conditions and charac-
teristics of the BMI process, imitation, and moderators (Fig. 3.8). All the papers
conceptualize BMs as dynamic and view innovation as a process.
Most publications within the theme focus on the phases of innovating BMs.
Different approaches have been used to distinguish phases in the process, such as
74 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Fig. 3.8 Thematic map of the BM processes of business model innovation 2010–2015

organizational (Sosna et al. 2010; Khanagha et al. 2014), innovation (Bucherer et al.
2012), and network (Palo and Tähtinen 2013). The organizational approach dis-
tinguishes the BMI phases as trial-and-error learning (exploration and exploitation)
(Sosna et al. 2010) and the strategy-making process (Khanagha et al. 2014). The
innovation approach to distinguishing BMI phases identifies phases centered on the
creation and capture of value from innovations (Dmitriev et al. 2014), the com-
mercialization of innovations (Euchner and Ganguly 2014; Leavy 2010), and
product innovation (Bucherer et al. 2012). Finally, under the network approach,
phases are divided based on business network evolution (Palo and Tähtinen 2013),
customer orientation, and value networks (Pynnönen et al. 2012). The importance
of implementing and controlling (i.e., institutionalizing) a BM (see Leavy 2010)
within an organization and the wider market is apparent in the papers.
An additional emerging stream within this thematic area is the conditions and
characteristics of the BMI process, with four publications. The conditions are
market evolution (Holloway and Sebastiao 2010), the timing and necessary char-
acteristics to perform BMI (Giesen et al. 2010), the characteristics of the BMI
process related to the distinction between the front-end and back-end of BMI
(Günzel and Holm 2013), and technological shifts (Tongur and Engwall 2014).
These conditions portray BMI as continuous refinement while shaping and being
shaped by the emergence of the market; hence, the process of BMI is connected to
the market as well as to individual and collective actions (Holloway and Sebastiao
2010; Giesen et al. 2010; Tongur and Engwall 2014).
Imitation is another sub-theme of the BMI process and refers to the final stages
or decisions in that process. Two publications acknowledge the role of imitation in
3.2 Thematic Map of BMI Literature Review 75

relation to the BMI process and outline the risks and opportunities involved in
imitation. Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu (2013) implied that companies should
consider the potential competitive effects and only then make a decision whether to
reveal or conceal the BMI. Looking at the issue from another perspective, and
Enkel and Mezger (2013) discussed cross-industry imitation through the three core
phases of abstraction, analogy identification, and adaptation in the BMI process.
In two of the publications within the BMI process theme, BMI is considered a
moderating process. BMI is a moderator between the reconfiguration of organiza-
tional culture and structure and strategic flexibility (Bock et al. 2012) and between
technology innovation and firm growth (Wei et al. 2014). In these papers, BMI is
viewed as a context and is not the actual focus of the paper; however, its role in
influencing organizational processes is important to understanding BMI. The fol-
lowing section discusses the dimensions and attributes of BMI identified across all
the papers reviewed and provides an introduction to the multilevel model of BMI
we developed based on this review. The ontological table of BMI processes
summarizes the findings related to above mentioned themes (Table 3.7).

3.3 Discussion

We now move on to discuss the implications for our understanding of business


model innovation within each thematic area. In order to complete our discussion,
we created an ontological map (Table 3.8) detailing the themes, their descriptors
and chronology of emergence of each first-level theme. In addition, the study will
identify critical future directions for enhancing our understanding of business model
innovation.

3.3.1 Definition of BMI According to the SLR Review

During our systematic literature review, we have found that the BMI concept is
used in different ways, in different contexts and disciplines, but some evolutionary
paths can be identified based on our review.
The systematic literature review detected a number of references related to the
BMI definition that is almost double to those relating to the BM (109 references for
BMI against 64 references for BM). This evidence indicates that with regard to
defining BMI, the analyzed contributions drew upon a more varied volume of
literature than the one used to define BM. Nevertheless, we have detected two main
patterns in the BMI definitions. The first pattern refers to the dynamic vision of the
BM components and the related created and captured value. The second pattern
concerns the nature and characteristics of innovation, which the BMI definition is
linked to, as explained in the preceding sections.
76 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Table 3.7 Ontological table of BMI processes (2010–2014)


Thematic Second-order First-order theme Theme description Emerged
area theme
BMI Phases Organizational Phases related to 2010
Processes (n = 8) organizational issues
(16) Innovation Phases related to innovation 2012
commercialization, value
capture of innovation, and
product innovation
Networks Phases related to network 2013
and customer relationship
perspectives
Conditions Timing The best timing and process 2010
and to pursue BMI, key success
characteristics factors
(n = 4) Front-end and Distinction between 2013
back-end of BMI front-end and back-end
aspects of BMI, and the role
of organizational learning
Market evolution Entrepreneurial process that 2010
combines effectuation with a
strategic market orientation
to develop BMI
Technology Technological innovation 2014
and BMI are complementary
and should be considered
simultaneously
Imitation Cross-sector imitation Framework of cross-industry 2013
(n = 2) process for BMI
Revealing/concealing Conceal or reveal BMI 2013
BMI
Moderators BMI as moderating BMI effort as a moderator in 2012
(n = 2) context the relationship BM
reconfiguration => strategic
flexibility

In the first pattern of BMI definition (dynamic vision of the BM components and
the related value), the most cited authors are Zott and Amit (2007, 2010) and Amit
and Zott (2001) who introduced the concept of the “novelty-centered business
model” (27 papers in total). According to this perspective, BMI is viewed as a BM
design activity which can alter the way market actors conduct economic exchanges,
drive product innovation and innovate production methods and distribution. In
2010, Zott and Amit introduced a system perspective on the novelty-centered
business model, where the innovation is related to the newness of BM design
elements, such as the adoption of new activities (activity content system), new ways
of linking activities (activity-system structure) and new ways to govern activities
(activity-system governance). Other authors underlined the transformational and the
3.3 Discussion 77

Table 3.8 Ontological map of the BMI literature (2001–2015)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area (T3) theme (T2) theme (T1)
BMI Phenomenon Industry-based BMIs are categorized based 2002
definition per se on specific industries and/or
(21) (n = 15) empirical contexts
Types of BMIs Types of BMIs according to 2010
their characteristics
Functional BMI is a distinct 2015
view of BMI capability/tool of firms
BM-based BMI as Different types of BMIs 2010
(n = 5) changes in BM according to the interrelated
components changes in BM components
Process-based Types of BMI changes 2011
BMI definition related to a process-based
BM conceptualization
BMI Resources Internal Knowledge management, 2001
drivers (n = 25) resources top management
(64) characteristics, leadership
capabilities, path
dependency, corporate
venturing
External Cultural context, venture 2003
resources capital and external
opportunities (e.g.
sustainability)
Activities Learning Entrepreneurial learning, 2003
(28) experimentation,
organizational learning,
trial-and-error drive BMI
Innovation Technical innovations drive 2006
BMI
Design The role and practices of 2007
BM design for BMI
Marketing Customer knowledge 2008
management, market
analysis, market approaches
and service stream drive
BMI
Accounting The effect of target costing 2012
systems to BMI
Relational Partnerships The role of partnerships (see 2007
mechanisms also co-development and
(n = 11) coopetition) in achieving
new BMs
Multiple The impact of multiple 2014
stakeholders stakeholders’ power and
influence on BMI
Miscellanea
(n = 5)
(continued)
78 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Table 3.8 (continued)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area (T3) theme (T2) theme (T1)
BMI Value (n = 8) Value creation BMI creates value for 2002
outcomes customers and companies
(36) Value Value capturing through 2002
appropriation BMI
Economic Real economic Quantitative evidence of the 2007
performance performance impact of BMI on firm
(n = 17) performance
Perceived Managers’ perception of 2010
economic BMI impacts on the
performance economic performance of
companies
Corporate The effect of the degree of 2015
survival BMI on new firm survival
Strategic Organizational BMI outcomes are cost 2006
outcomes outcomes reductions and strategic
(n = 11) flexibility, and
organizational boundaries
through insourcing and
outsourcing
Industry BMI driven by disruptive 2010
structure level innovation provide effects at
the firm and sector level
Market-level BMI outcomes are 2011
innovation competitiveness,
internationalization of
companies and introduction
of disruptive innovations
into the market
BMI tools Methods Methodologies Methodologies that 2005
(n = 28) (n = 19) for managers managers should apply to
develop BMI in
organizations
Sector Specific tools Specific methodologies that 2006
specific for BMI in managers should apply to
(n = 9) specific sectors develop BMI in specific
industries
BMI Internal Organizational Internal barriers to BMI 2010
barriers (n = 3) barriers to BMI especially those related to
(9) conflicts with existing assets
and BMs
External Societal and External barriers managers 2009
(n = 6) cultural context should overcome to develop
BMI
Network Risks and challenges of 2010
aspects networked business
(continued)
3.3 Discussion 79

Table 3.8 (continued)


Thematic Second-order First-order Theme description Emerged
area (T3) theme (T2) theme (T1)
BMI Internal Organizational Practices and decisions 2013
enablers (n = 4) enablers of related to organizational
(8) BMI issues and its boundaries
External Context and Context specific 2012
(n = 5) technological characteristics and
enablers of technological innovation
BMI enabling BMI
BMI Phases of Organizational Phases related to 2010
processes BMI organizational issues
(16) processes Innovation Phases related to innovation 2012
(n = 8) commercialization, value
capture of innovation, and
product innovation
Networks Phases related to network 2013
and customer relationship
perspectives
Conditions Timing The best timing and process 2010
(n = 4) to pursue BMI, key success
factors
Market Entrepreneurial process that 2010
evolution combines effectuation with a
strategic market orientation
to develop BMI
Technology Technological innovation 2014
and BMI are complementary
and should be considered
simultaneously
Types of BMI Front-end and Distinction between 2013
processes back-end of front-end and back-end
(n = 4) BMI aspects of BMI, and the role
of organizational learning
BMI as Framework of cross-industry 2013
imitation imitation processes for BMI
process
BMI as BMI effort as a moderator in 2012
moderator the relationship BM
reconfiguration => strategic
flexibility

development processes of BMs, such as Morris et al. (2005), Demil and Lecocq
(2010), Teece’s (2010) and Sosna et al. (2010). In particular, Morris et al. (2005)
introduced the concept of BM development, which includes the specification,
refinement, adaptation, revision, and reformulation phases of BMs. Demil and
Lecocq (2010) developed a transformational approach in studying the evolution of
80 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

the BM, developing the dynamic prospective on the components of BM firstly


introduced by Winter and Szulanski (2001). Subsequent contributions to the
dynamic perspective include those from Chesbrough (2010), Sosna et al. (2010)
and more recently Bohnsack et al. (2014).
The dynamic perspective on BMI is strictly tied to the concept of value creation.
In particular, Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002) pioneered research on the
relationship between value creation and BMI, analyzing how BMs initiate value
creation and capture from technical innovations. Our analysis unearthed nine papers
referring to Chesbrough and Rosenbloom when defining BMI. Teece’s (2010) BM
definition is related to the design and architecture of value creation, delivery and
capture, and this author also underlined the concept of continuous change in BMs,
according to the BM continuing innovation vision introduced by Mitchell and Coles
(2003, 2004). Teece’s (2010) BMI definition is mentioned in 11 papers.
The second pattern is related to the innovation concept underpinning the defi-
nition of BMI, which changes according to the theoretical and contextual per-
spective implemented. Thus, for instance, in organizational studies, innovation is
intended as learning (Rindova and Kotha 2001; McGrath 2010), and in particular
trial-and-error learning (Nicholls-Nixon et al. 2000; Freeman and Engel 2007;
O’Reilly and Tushman 2008). In contrast, papers drawing on the marketing, and in
particular on SDL, consider innovation from a co-creation perspective (Nenonen
and Storbacka 2010; Storbacka et al. 2012). Other papers, instead, relate their BMI
definitions according to the specific innovation they are investigating; for instance,
the disruptive innovation related to products (Comes and Berniker 2008; Markides
2006). Finally, for some authors innovation refers to specific contexts only such as
mobile music (Vlachos et al. 2006), the hospitality industry (Kandampully 2006),
and the energy sector (Richter 2013).
Finally, more than 30 papers selected for our systematic review cited practitioner
papers in defining BMI. This is despite the fact that most of these practitioner
papers utilized a normative approach to describe BMI, suggesting managerial
activities to create value through BMI without a theoretical foundation and
empirical analysis (see for example Magretta 2002; Johnson et al. 2008).
For these reasons, according to the theoretical or contextual perspective, BMI is
referred to the use of different terms, such as Business Model Transformation,
Business Model Radicalness, and Business Model Change, to name only a few. In
order to capture the nuances of definitions of BMI some authors propose a tax-
onomy of BMIs, thus, Cavalcante et al. (2011) categorized BM changes under BM
creation, BM extension, BM revision and BM termination. While, Giesen et al.
(2007) introduced a framework with three main types of business model innova-
tions: the industry model, revenue model, and enterprise model.
Finally, similarly to the issues found when defining the BM, there are many
competing definitions of BMI that are also often cited simultaneously, emphasizing
the dynamic perspective of BMs and stressing a kind of innovation that changes
according to the theoretical and contextual perspective. For this reason, in the 156
papers selected for this systematic literature review, we found a plethora of nuanced
definitions of BMI.
3.3 Discussion 81

3.3.2 BMI Drivers

BMI drivers were the first thematic area to emerge in the BMI literature. In
accordance with our ontological analysis, this key theme includes six different
second-order themes: activities, external stakeholders, environmental factors,
organizational characteristics, service stream, and miscellaneous.
As it concerns the theme “organizational characteristics”, recently scholars are
paying increasing attention to the cognitive approach, which suggests that the
cognitive processes of managers explain BMI and its drivers. This is related to
path-dependent behaviors of firms that can cognitively constrain or foster BMI
(Bohnsack et al. 2014). As a result, we can identify a rather clear emergence of
longitudinal, in-depth case studies (Aspara et al. 2011, 2013; Demil and Lecocq
2010), that seems to be a promising research strategy as it allows scholars to capture
relevant nuances that could significantly contribute to a better understanding of
BMI.
The theme related to activities seems instead to be steered by the literature on
entrepreneurship, which has occurred both because the use of these activities (e.g.,
innovation, corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial learning) is seen as an
entrepreneurial behavior itself, and because most of the firms studied by the papers
dealing with BMI operate in the high-tech sector (e.g., ICT, biotech, internet firms)
or represent entrepreneurial firms (e.g., Zott and Amit 2007).
The research on external stakeholders, in contrast, is moving from
technology-focused sectors and partnerships to other avenues and employing a
wider network perspective on BMI drivers (Gerasymenko et al. 2015; Miller et al.
2014).

3.3.3 BMI Outcomes

Economic performance, value, industry level outcomes, and strategizing are the
primary research themes within this thematic area. These different themes under
BMI outcomes allow us to identify food for thought for future research. In par-
ticular, while real economic performance may represent the most objective way to
measure BMI outcomes, the risk is that it offers only a partial representation. In
particular, BMI may affect different economic performance indicators (e.g., profits,
productivity, returns on sales, market value) in different ways. This is why it seems
reasonable to suggest that future research includes multiple measures of real eco-
nomic performance.
With regard to perceived economic performance as an outcome of BMI, we can
acknowledge that it may offer a more complete view in that it goes beyond sec-
ondary data and usually explores the performance constructs through different
82 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

items. On the other hand, perceived economic performance may be affected by an


overly optimistic or pessimistic respondent approach toward BMI. For these rea-
sons, it seems appropriate to suggest that future research includes both perceived
and real measures of economic performance in order to gain a more complete and
less biased view of BMI outcomes. Other problems related with how to measure the
outcomes of BMI involve value. While the concepts of value creation are very
important and definitely belong to the theoretical frameworks of BMI, they may
also represent intermediate outcomes and in particular be antecedents of economic
performance. Additionally, the extent to which value capture is conceptually dif-
ferent from a firm generating profits still needs to be clarified, as it can be so much
more than just profits. Finally, BMI innovation outcomes in terms of industry and
organization structure may be endogenous and thus need to be carefully managed in
future empirical research. For example, it may be that it is because of the industry
structure that a firm innovates its business model and this in turn may affect the
structure of the business. How to disentangle these effects is a fascinating challenge
for future research.

3.3.4 Tools for BMI

Further developments on methods concern the conceptualization and approaches to


business model innovation that can assist in innovating business models and
developing our understanding of the scholarly field. For example, Huarng (2013)
proposes the concept of a two-tier business model consisting of a conceptual and a
financial model to assist entrepreneurs in creating new businesses. Abraham (2013)
distinguishes business model innovation from strategic analysis to help practitioners
decide what is appropriate for their situation. In terms of advancing the future
research on BMI, Markides (2013) discusses the management of dual business
models by drawing on the ambidexterity literature.

3.3.5 BMI Barriers

In this thematic area, we encounter papers focused on internal (e.g., Chesbrough


2010) and external barriers (Birkin et al. 2009; Lange et al. 2015).
Future research on BMI barriers could explore different, but no less important
contexts such as small and medium enterprises operating in sectors other than the
hi-tech one, for example in mature industries where BMI could even become the
only solution to avoid the death of a sector. It also seems important to remember
that the ability of a firm to implement BMI depends very much on the features of
the previous business model. Implementing a business model that is designed to
3.3 Discussion 83

facilitate successive BMI may be a key success factor in the future. Clearly,
research on this is needed to clarify whether some business models are more prone
to successfully renew themselves than others, and if so, how so. The few contri-
butions in this stream of research, that offered intriguing insights on BMI barriers,
were mainly practically oriented rather than theoretically.
Finally, there is a need to gather more empirical data to test and further develop
theoretically grounded models; doing so could increase the scientific critical mass
especially on how to overcome internal barriers and on how to neutralize external
ones.

3.3.6 BMI Enablers

Papers focused on this research topic consider internal enablers (Hao-Chen et al.
2013; Simmons et al. 2013) and external enablers (Berman et al. 2012; Christensen
et al. 2012).
Overall, these papers represent a good start; however, to offer a more complete
view of BMI, future research may need to include enablers in far more complex
frameworks (e.g., moderated mediation, multilevel analysis). This new perspective
could allow researchers to simultaneously take into account: (1) various BMI
enablers, (2) various BMI drivers (and how they are conceptually different from
enablers), and (3) various effects of enablers and drivers on BMI (e.g., extent of
BMI, whether BMI occurred or not, the success of BMI).

3.3.7 BMI Process

Papers within this thematic area have examined the phases of BMI, the conditions
and characteristics of the BMI process, imitation, and moderators.
Drawing on the above, there is a clear need for further research on the process of
business model innovation. Of the 12 publications, two are practitioner-oriented
without theoretical or empirical work (Giesen et al. 2010; Leavy 2010).
Empirically, most papers represent qualitative and illustrative case studies
(Bucherer et al. 2012; Sosna et al. 2010; Palo and Tähtinen 2013; Günzel and Holm
2013; Enkel and Mezger 2013; Pynnönen et al. 2012). Only one of the papers is
purely conceptual (Holloway and Sebastiao 2010), and one is a quantitative piece of
work (Bock et al. 2012). Overall, research on the BMI process is still in its infancy
and more work is needed in all respects. Further elaborations on the boundaries of
the business model innovation process would be valuable: such elaborations should
consider the specific activities and practices incorporating temporal issues in
addition to the matters and decisions related to the process.
84 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

3.4 Conclusion

This chapter provides ontological knowledge on BMI, through an integrative


review of the literature since the first time a paper entirely dedicated to BMI
appeared (Linder and Cantrell 2001). From that moment, articles on the subject
multiplied, resulting in a fragmented and diversified literature.
This chapter provided an understanding of the evolution of research on BMI,
revealing how the literature on the drivers (that emerged in 2001) and on the
outcomes of BMIs (that emerged in 2002) developed long before the literature
about BMI as a phenomenon per se (that emerged only in 2005). The research on
BMI became more sophisticated from 2005 on, when researchers began to question
the nature and characteristics of BMI, and five years later, in 2010, there was a more
sophisticated expansion of literature, studying the phases of, and types of processes
involved in BMI. For more details, Appendix shows the list of papers included in
our systematic literature review and their brief description.
Moreover, this chapter, through an ontological analysis of the literature, showed
all the thematic areas that have emerged to date. The key thematic areas mirror the
framework provided by the previous systematic literature review on BMI
(Schneider and Spieth 2013) and present a fine-grained ontological knowledge of
BMI. In so doing, we opened our analysis to the external environment and we did
not limit our analysis on the internal dimensions of the company. Thus, in our
framework the nature of BMI drivers, enablers, outcomes, tools, barriers and pro-
cesses have different sources, such as, the market, the industry, the organization, the
individual, and the network.
Finally, with regard to the definition of BMI, this chapter has contributed to the
knowledge of BMI, underlining the dual nature of BMI. It shows how from one
side, BMI is connected to changes and dynamisms related to the concepts of value
creation and value detention, and from the other, how many authors comprehend
BMI according to the notion of innovation and its declinations.
This work is neither exhaustive nor definitive, as the lively debate on BMI is
ongoing. We acknowledge the fact that other researchers could offer different
insights that would produce different ontological structures. Thus, one limitation of
this research might be its choice not to employ an independent group of researchers
to control its processes and provide an alternative thematic and ontological inves-
tigation. Moreover, going beyond the research objectives of this chapter, we can
argue that the current fragmented state of BMI literature makes it difficult to offer
unique and encompassing theories that could be used to understand and delimit
BMI concept. In the future, a replication of this literature review methodology
would be advisable to understand which are the main theoretical streams that best
can disentangle the BMI concept and thus how BMI can advance different man-
agerial theories.
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 85

Appendix 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed


in the Systematic Literature Review

Title Authors Contribution to BMI


Literature
1 Fifteen years of research on Foss and Saebi Systematic Literature review
business model innovation (2017)a on BMI
2 Born Globals: Investigating Bouncken et al. The paper illustrates the
the influence of their business (2015) distinguishing characteristics
models on rapid of “born global” firms, that
internationalization can result from differences in
their business models and
their ability to adapt to
foreign markets
3 Business model management Chroneer et al. The paper discusses some
typologies-cognitive (2015) management strategies
mapping of business model connected to business models
landscapes and their defining features
4 Business model patterns for Amshoff et al. The paper introduces a
disruptive technologies (2015) pattern-based methodology
for designing business
models
5 Business model innovation Hvass (2015) The paper discusses
through second hand integrating issues around
retailing: A fashion industry resell fashion garments into
case firms’ business models
6 Business model innovation as Carayannis et al. The paper explores how
lever of organizational (2015) organizational sustainability
sustainability can be achieved with BMI
and examines the role that
organizational design,
governance, and different
stakeholders (e.g., customers
and clients) have in the
process. The paper also
explores the ways in which
organizational performance is
influenced by different
business models. BMI
requires the application of
organizational design and
governance competences that
incorporate resources,
dynamic capabilities, and
entrepreneurship to:
(1) develop competitive
advantage and (2) explore
new business opportunities
so that firms can achieve
organizational sustainability
(continued)
86 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
7 Business Model Innovation Bereznoi (2015) The paper illustrates how
in Corporate Competitive corporations will triumph in
Strategy global competition because
they arm themselves with a
business innovation strategy
and have mastered the
practice of renewing business
models, that account for
dynamically changing market
demands and rapidly
developing technologies
8 Branding access offers: The Baumeister et al. This paper suggests BMI
importance of product (2015) presents a number of
brands, ownership status, and challenges for firms:
spillover effects to parent understanding (1) the
brands importance of the brand
(relative to the offer itself) in
access offers, (2) how the
parent brand affects
evaluations of the access
offer and vice versa, and
(3) how these effects can
differ across owners and
non-owners of the brand
9 Plan A’: Analysing business Morgan (2015) The paper explores how
model innovation for corporate responsibility
sustainable consumption in activities are linked to BMI
mass-market clothes
retailing*
10 Business model design Gudiksen (2015) The paper discusses: (1) the
games: Rules and procedures application of game rules,
to challenge assumptions and and (2) procedures that can
elicit surprises challenge business
assumptions and evoke
surprises, that lead to novel
insights on the business
model
11 Adapting to the sharing Matzler et al. The paper explores the ways
economy (2015) to adapt existing business
models or create a new
business model in the sharing
economy
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 87

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
12 Crafting business Amit and Zott The paper introduces the
architecture: The antecedents (2015) application of central ideas
of business model design from the design literature to a
proposed process model for
business model design and
innovation. Goals, templates,
stakeholder activities, and
environmental constraints are
all considered as being
antecedents of BM design.
Four important propositions
are offered to extend the
literature on BM design for
new ventures
13 Explorative versus Osiyevskyy and The paper develops a
exploitative business model Dewald (2015) typology of incumbent
change: The cognitive adaptations to emerging
antecedents of firm-level disruptive BMIs based on
responses to disruptive two generic strategies:
innovation (1) exploratory adaption of a
disruptive business model;
and (2) exploitative
strengthening of the existing
business model. The focus is
on cognitive antecedents of
managerial intentions to
embrace each of these two
adaptation strategies within
BM disruptive innovation
14 Changing the business Gerasymenko et al. This paper suggests venture
model: Effects of venture (2015) capital firms influence the
capital firms and outside ability of young ventures to
CEOs on portfolio company change their business model.
performance The paper focuses on the
design and implementation
challenges of business
models in the context of
young ventures. A venture
capital firm having
experience of business model
change and with the
recruitment of an outside
CEO increases the positive
impact of its involvement
with a venture-
capital-backed portfolio
company
(continued)
88 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
15 Unlocking the hidden value Martins et al. The paper describes how
of concepts: A cognitive (2015) firms can proactively design
approach to BMI new, novel, and innovative
business models—an
offensive rather than
defensive strategy.
Moreover, the paper shows
how business models can be
innovated proactively in the
absence of exogenous
changes, through processes
of generative cognition
16 BMI performance: When Kim and Min The paper studies how the
does adding a new business (2015) incumbent assets and
model benefit an incumbent? managerial choices jointly
influence performance after
new business model is
introduced
17 A BMI typology Taran et al. (2015) The paper introduces four
main types of BMIs:
Open/proactive,
Closed/proactive,
Open/reactive, (Partly)
closed/reactive
18 The ludic drive as innovation Roth et al. (2015) The paper describes how
driver: Introduction to the gamification of managerial
gamification of innovation analysis and decisions drives
BMI
19 Using a “virtual joint Monios and The paper illustrates and
venture” to facilitate the Bergqvist (2015) identifies the key aspects of
adoption of intermodal an innovative BM in Supply
transport Chain Management and how
it can deliver the goals of the
partners
20 Apparel manufacturers and Dickson and Chang This paper analyzes the
the business case for social (2015) business model changes of
sustainability: ‘World class’ ‘world class’ firms for CSR
CSR and BMI activities. The authors
demonstrate that CSR
activities drives BM
adjustment. For BM
adjustment, the authors
intend that the change
regards only one element of
the business model and the
value proposition is excluded
from changes
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 89

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
21 Business models, intangibles Cucculelli and The paper demonstrates how
and firm performance: Bettinelli (2015) the more innovative the BM
Evidence on corporate change, the greater are the
entrepreneurship from Italian effects on performance and
manufacturing SMEs the more robust the positive
moderation role of
intangibles becomes
22 Changing business models Lange et al. (2015) The paper explores how the
and employee representation national institutions of
in the airline industry: A market economies and a
comparison of British strong position for employee
airways and Deutsche representatives are potential
Lufthansa barriers to and influencers of
BMI
23 Modes of service innovation: Wang et al. (2015) The paper illustrates the
A typology relationship between BMI
and product/process
innovation in the service
context
24 BMI: Learning from a Pels and Kidd The paper develops a
high-tech-low-fee medical (2015) framework that expands BMI
healthcare model for the BoP literature by incorporating
environment characteristics
into BMI. Adopting a
bottom-up approach, the
authors highlight three
dimensions of BMI: the
firm-centric, the
environmental, and the
customer-centric
25 A morphological Seidenstricker and This paper introduces a
analysis-based creativity Linder (2014) method that allows the
approach to identify and systematic generation of
develop ideas for BMI: A business model ideas using
case study of a high-tech morphological thinking. This
manufacturing company tool supports the selection,
the consistency, and the
structure of those ideas
26 Toward a capability-based Mezger (2014) The paper illustrates the
conceptualization of BMI: capability-based
Insights from an explorative conceptualization of BMI, as
study a distinctive capability of
firms
27 BMI in practice Euchner and The paper explores the
Ganguly (2014) evolution of risk associated
with BMI
(continued)
90 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
28 BMI in the retail industry: Lange and This paper suggests retailers
Growth by serving the silver Velamuri (2014) can innovate their business
generation models by engaging in three
specific areas: (1) store layout
and physical environment,
(2) intensified customer
service, and (3) increasing
“senior-friendly” product
offerings. Each of these areas
incorporates changes to the
retailers’ traditional business
model
29 BMIs for information and Jain (2014) The paper discusses the
communications characteristics of BMI in
technology-based services low-income segments of
for low-income segments in emerging markets
emerging economies
30 BMI and strategic flexibility: Schneider and The paper illustrates three
Insights from an Spieth (2014) distinct types of BMI (i.e.,
experimental research design value offering innovation,
value architecture innovation,
and revenue model
innovation) and their impact
on different dimensions of
strategic flexibility (i.e.,
resource flexibility,
coordination flexibility, and
variety of managerial
capabilities)
31 Business model renewal and Khanagha et al. The paper explores the
ambidexterity: Structural (2014) adaptation of an established
alteration and strategy organization to respond to
formation process during emerging BM with disruptive
transition to a cloud business potential
model
32 Business model Cao (2014) The paper shows how
transformation in moving to a different aspects of the
cross-channel retail strategy: business model change after
A case study the retailer launches its
cross-channel strategy
33 Creating a new business Kiura et al. (2014) The paper demonstrates the
through applying the use of systems thinking and a
systems-based evolutionary systems-based methodology
learning laboratory approach to create a business model
that includes a more effective
learning cycle by engaging
different individual
stakeholders and their mental
models
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 91

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
34 Creating and capturing value Denicolai et al. The paper discusses how the
from external knowledge: (2014) exploitation of novel
The moderating role of combinations of external and
knowledge intensity internal knowledge can
create and capture value in
new ways
35 Designing business models Westerlund et al. The paper discusses three
for the internet of things (2014) major challenges of
designing ecosystem
business models for the
internet, including the
diversity of objects, the
immaturity of innovation,
and the unstructured
ecosystems—a new designed
tool for “value design” of
ecosystem business models
36 From refining sugar to Short et al. (2014) The paper illustrates how
growing tomatoes bringing together a more
nuanced understanding of
industrial symbiosis with the
progress being made in the
study of sustainable business
models would serve as a
promising bridge between
symbiosis as an ecological
term and business models as
a financially related
expression
37 How small-medium Cucculelli et al. The paper demonstrates how
enterprises leverage (2014) changes in BMs are an
intangibles during recessions. important contingent factor
Evidence from the Italian that explains firm
clothing industry performance
38 Incumbents’ responses to Habtay and The paper illustrates the
disruptive BMI: The Holmén (2014) organizational responses that
moderating role of change according to the type
technology versus of innovation, such as,
market-driven innovation disruptive technology vs.
disruptive market-driven
BMI
39 Understanding the key Goyal (2014) The paper shows how to
characteristics of an develop and introduce an
embedded business model for embedded business model at
the base of the pyramid the base of the pyramid
markets (BoP) in India
(continued)
92 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
40 A six-step approach to BMI Eurich et al. (2014) Applying the principles of
networked thinking, the
paper develops a holistic and
systemic six-step approach
for BMI. This tool allows
practitioners to better
manage, structure,
communicate and evaluate
different business model
designs
41 An exploration of business Dmitriev et al. The paper introduces a model
model development in the (2014) of cyclical and interactive
commercialization of processes of BM
technology innovations development during the
commercialization of
innovations
42 Analysing barriers to Laukkanen and The paper illustrates how to
sustainable BMIs: Innovation Patala (2014) overcome the regulatory,
systems approach market and financial, and
behavioral and social barriers
that prevent BMI
43 National culture and business Dalby et al. (2014) The paper discusses how to
model change—a framework adjust a BM when expanding
for successful expansions into another cultural context
44 New business model creation Shin (2014) The paper argues that
through the triple helix of entrepreneurs, social
young entrepreneurs, SNSs, networking sites, and smart
and smart devices devices are key factors in BM
innovation for social
networking sites.
Entrepreneurial novelty
should concentrate on
combining social networking
site resources with smart
device characteristics
45 Preparing for business model Cavalcante The paper shows how
change: The “pre-stage” Cavalcante (2014) manager initiatives support
finding BM change from the earlier
stage of planning
46 Business models for Bohnsack et al. The paper illustrates the
sustainable technologies: (2014), René impact of incumbent and new
Exploring business model entrant firms’ path-dependent
evolution in the case of behaviors on the
electric vehicles development of new business
models in the electric
vehicles industry
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 93

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
47 Coopetition for radical Ritala and Sainio The paper describes the effect
innovation: Technology, (2014) of coopetition on different
market and business-model types of radical innovations,
perspectives so demonstrating how
coopetition enhances BMI
and business model
radicalness
48 Articulating growth and Coblence and The paper discusses the
cultural innovation in art Sabatier (2014) impact of BMI drivers
museums: The Louvre’s identified both in the
business model revision literature (i.e., technology,
competition, environment,
customers, profitability,
architecture) and in the
context of creative industries
and cultural innovation on
BM components
49 The business model dilemma Tongur and The paper explains the
of technology shifts Engwall (2014) dynamics at the intersection
between technology and
business models.
Overcoming the technology
shift and adopting a more
market-oriented approach are
critical challenges for
innovative firms
50 The changing university Miller et al. (2014) The paper demonstrates that
business model: A BMI is a result of the
stakeholder perspective influence of multiple
stakeholders and
environmental pressures
51 Preparing for business model Cavalcante The paper addresses the
change: The “pre-stage” Cavalcante (2014) “pre-stage” activity of
finding potential business model
change, characterized by
processes of experimenting
and learning. These processes
can subsequently trigger
actual business model change
52 Proposal of an innovative Pourabdollahian The paper proposes an
business model for and Copani (2014) innovative business model to
customized production in support hospitals seeking
healthcare customized production in
healthcare
(continued)
94 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
53 The fit between technological Wei et al. (2014) The paper illustrates how the
innovation and business novelty-centered business
model design for firm model design moderates the
growth: Evidence from China relationship between
technology innovation and
firm growth
54 Apple’s changing business Lazonick et al. In reporting the story of
model: What should the (2013) Apple Corporation, the paper
world’s richest company do underlines the changes in the
with all those profits? business model (defined as
the interaction of strategy,
organization, and finance)
and the consequences for
firm innovativeness and
performance
55 BMI: Propositions on the Andries and The paper explores the effect
appropriateness of different Debackere (2013) of learning processes on BM
learning approaches renewal/improvement
56 Applications of the business Lambert and The paper discusses studies
model in studies of enterprise Davidson (2013) on BMI and illustrates the
success, innovation and enablers and drivers of BMI
classification: An analysis of
empirical research from 1996
to 2010
57 Corporate business model Aspara et al. (2013) The paper introduces
transformation and managerial cognitive
inter-organizational processes as the main driver
cognition: The case of Nokia of corporate business model
transformations
58 Simultaneous Andries et al. The paper suggests distant
experimentation as a learning (2013) search and simultaneous
strategy: Business model experimentation lead to
development under variety in business models
uncertainty
59 BMI: What can the Markides (2013) In line with the ambidexterity
ambidexterity literature teach literature, the paper discusses
us? the solutions to manage dual
BMs (separation of units that
have implemented BMI from
those that have retained
traditional BMs)
60 BMI for sustainable energy: Richter (2013) The paper proposes that
German utilities and managing the innovative
renewable energy venture with a new business
model in a separate unit of
the corporation, is an optimal
strategy to manage BMI
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 95

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
61 Overcoming organizational Hao-Chen et al. The paper explores how open
inertia to strengthen BMI (2013) innovation enables the
change of organizational
inertia to create BMI and
improve firm performance
62 From service for free to Witell and Löfgren The paper discusses how
service for fee: BMI in (2013) strategies related to either
manufacturing firms incremental or radical BMI
can be used to make a
successful transition from
service for free to service for
fee
63 A two-tier business model Huarng (2013) This study proposes a
and its realization for two-tier business model
entrepreneurship (consisting of a conceptual
model and a financial model)
useful for entrepreneurs
creating a new business
64 BMI for sustainability Girotra and The paper introduces a
Netessine (2013) pedagogical tool to identify
new sustainable business
models
65 Tools for managing Evans and Johnson The paper illustrates a
early-stage BMI (2013) two-stage approach
(risk-return and innovation
readiness levels) to assess the
potential of early-stage ideas
that require business model
shifts toward radical
innovation
66 Customer knowledge Wu et al. (2013) The paper demonstrates how
management and IT-enabled technology enables the
BMI: A conceptual customer knowledge that
framework and a case study drives BMI
from China
67 Business modeling for Liu and Jiang The paper addresses BM
entrepreneurial firms: Four (2013) design and how different
cases in China designs affect firms’
competitive advantage in
China
68 The role of top managers’ Guo et al. (2013) Adopting a value network
human and social capital in perspective, the paper
BMI discusses how individual
characteristics of managers
(human and social capital)
influence BMI
(continued)
96 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
69 Understanding the impact of Cavalcante (2013) The paper demonstrates how
technology on firms’ a new technology affects a
business models firm’s BM and its innovation
activities. Four different
types of business model
change (business model
creation, extension, revision,
and termination) are
discussed
70 A service science perspective Maglio and This paper is the first attempt
on BMI Spohrer (2013) to illustrate how the service
dominant logic can accelerate
BMI
71 Solution business models: Storbacka et al. The paper originates the
Transformation along four (2013) concept of “solution business
continua model continua,” where firms
change their BMs and
address opportunities and
challenges
72 Outcome-based contracts as Ng et al. (2013) The paper illustrates the role
new business model: The role of partnership and
of partnership and value-driven relational assets
value-driven relational assets in achieving new
outcome-based contracts
BMs
73 Inscribing value on BMIs: Simmons et al. The paper demonstrates how
Insights from industrial (2013) the value inscription
projects commercializing supported by marketing
disruptive digital innovations activities contributes to BMI
74 Networked business model Palo and Tähtinen The paper introduces and
development for emerging (2013) explains the BMI process
technology-based services consisting of business net and
opportunity development
phases
75 BMI in India Velu and Khanna The paper contributes to
(2013) understanding BMI based on
industries, firm types, and the
newness of innovation
76 Service orientation: Nair et al. (2013) The paper reveals and
Effectuating BMI discusses the relationship
between service orientation
and BMI
77 The innovation bottom line Kiron et al. (2013a) The paper explores how firms
are changing their BMs in
response to sustainability
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 97

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
78 BMI and competitive Casadesus The paper examines the
imitation: The case of Brea-Solís et al. decision to conceal a new
sponsor-based business (2015) BM from the market or to
models reveal it is driven by the
competitive reactions that can
act as drivers and/or barriers
to BMI
79 Will BMI replace strategic Abraham (2013) The paper illustrates the
analysis? differences between BMI and
strategic analysis
80 BMIs for electric mobility— Abdelkafi et al. The paper discusses the
What can be learned from (2013) generation of BMI in the
existing business model electric mobility sector by
patterns? transferring BM patterns
across different industries
81 BMI and third-party alliance Velu and Khanna The paper shows that new
on the survival of new firms (2013) firms with a high or low
extent of BMI are more likely
to survive for longer than
new firms with a moderate
extent of BMI
82 BMI: Towards an integrated Schneider and Literature review on BMI
future research agenda Spieth (2013)
83 One size does not fit all— Günzel and Holm The paper contributes to
Understanding the front-end (2013) understanding the BMI
and back-end of BMI processes in incumbent firms
faced with a disruptive
technology. Learning
activities can help distinguish
between front-end and
back-end processes of BMI
84 Business model road De Reuver et al. The paper introduces a BM
mapping: A practical (2013) road mapping process,
approach to come from an defining the steps and choices
existing to a desired business in transitioning from an old
model to a new BM
85 Imitation processes and their Enkel and Mezger The paper illustrates a
application for BMI: An (2013) framework of cross-industry
explorative study process for BMI
86 Product service systems as a Velamuri et al. The paper shows how by
driver for BMI: Lessons (2013) integrating specific services
learned from the with products firms can
manufacturing industry develop BMI
87 Profiting from BMI: Desyllas and Sako The paper introduces
Evidence from (2013) business method patenting as
pay-as-you-drive auto a way to capture value from
insurance BMI
(continued)
98 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
88 The social embeddedness of Spector (2013) This paper suggests
business model enactment investments in social capital
become salient when BMI
changes organizational
boundaries through
insourcing and outsourcing
activities
89 The benefits of Kiron et al. (2013b) The paper explores how BMI
sustainability-driven can transform sustainability
innovation in a profitable business
90 Target costing, BMI, and Huang et al. (2012) The paper discusses the effect
firm performance: An of target costing systems on
empirical analysis of Chinese BMI and the moderating role
firms of cross-functional teams
91 BMI in entrepreneurship Trimi and The paper discusses the role
Berbegal-Mirabent and practices of BM design
(2012) for entrepreneurs
92 Impact of knowledge Nair et al. (2012) According to this paper, the
brokering on performance more the knowledge-based
heterogeneity among resource accumulation of the
business models BM is spread, the more the
BM is exposed to the
generated ideas and the better
is the performance of the BM
93 Business model changes and Mokhlesian and The paper illustrates how a
green construction processes Holmén (2012) green construction (e.g.,
sustainable construction)
changes BM elements, and
how these elements are
related to each other
94 A firm-level analysis on the Habtay (2012) The paper explores the
relative difference between typology of
technology-driven and technology-driven and
market-driven disruptive market-driven BMI, and
BMIs identifies factors that inhibit
or enable disruptive BMI
95 Can innovative business Christensen et al. The paper illustrates the
models overcome resistance (2012) conditions required for BMI
to electric vehicles? Better to overcome resistance in the
place and battery electric cars electric car mobility field
in Denmark
96 Emerging business models Ghezzi et al. (2010) The paper introduces the
and strategies for mobile “BM design reference
platform providers: a framework” to develop BMI
reference framework for mobile platform providers
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 99

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
97 Does method matter? An Eppler and The paper demonstrates how
experiment on collaborative Hoffmann (2012) artifacts (visual templates,
business model idea physical objects) have the
generation in teams power to shape the group
process of developing new
BMs
98 Managing customer-driven Pynnönen et al. The paper introduces a
BMI (2012) framework for customer-
driven BMI. The paper also
discusses tools to implement
and manage such BMI
99 How cloud computing Berman et al. The paper shows how firms
enables process and BMI (2012) can use cloud technology to
impact company and industry
value chains, and also the
customer value propositions
100 Towards systematic BMI: Bucherer et al. The paper discusses the
Lessons from product (2012) similarities and differences
innovation management between BMI and product
innovation
101 Improving the performance Brettel et al. (2012) The paper demonstrates how
of business models with the performance of
relationship marketing efforts efficiency-centered business
—An entrepreneurial models increases with greater
perspective marketing efforts while the
performance of
novelty-centered business
models increases with a
lesser degree of such
marketing effort
102 Creating value through BMI Amit and Zott The paper introduces a
(2012) system-based BMI definition
and identifies different types
of BMI and processes,
suggesting questions to be
considered during the
development of BMI
103 The effects of culture and Bock et al. (2012) Using BMI as a context, the
structure on strategic paper demonstrates the
flexibility during BMI relationship between the
strategic flexibility and firm
performances, with BMI
effort as a moderator. It
suggests that if firms focus
their innovation efforts on
business models, the negative
effect of reconfiguration on
the probability of achieving
strategic flexibility will be
reduced
(continued)
100 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
104 How to identify new business Sinfield et al. This paper introduces
models (2012) business model
experimentation as a way to
use experiments to examine
new business model
possibilities
105 Business model dynamics Cavalcante et al. The paper discusses the
and innovation: (Re) (2011) process-based
establishing the missing conceptualization of BMI
linkages with the related challenges
and drivers. Different types
of BM changes are also
considered
106 Innovations in retail business Sorescu et al. Adopting a conceptual point
models (2011) of view, this paper illustrates
BMI in retailing, the design
components involved,
possible outcomes, and
drivers
107 Accelerating corporate Engel (2011) The paper proposes BMI
innovation: Lessons from the used alongside technology
venture capital model can assist chief technology
officers to generate disruptive
innovations
108 The three faces of BMI: Koen et al. (2011) The paper illustrates the
Challenges for established barriers to BMI (e.g., risks of
firms building a value network, and
the financial hurdle rate).
This work also proposes a
classification of BMI
109 Strategic management of Aspara et al. (2011) Adapting cognitive theory to
business model BMI, the paper discusses
transformation: lessons from how BMI is driven by
Nokia corporate level market
mechanisms that allow
cognitive exchanges and
build on existing capabilities
110 The art of rapid, hands-on Tuulenmäki and The paper explores how BMI
execution innovation Välikangas (2011) can be successfully employed
with a high-speed
experimentation approach
111 The role of BMI in the Holloway and This paper sets out and
emergence of markets: A Sebastiao (2010) discusses BMI processes
missing dimension of
entrepreneurial strategy?
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 101

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
112 Breakthrough innovation Koen et al. (2010) The paper explores the five
dilemmas key dilemmas that large firms
face in pursuing BMI
113 A system for innovating Leavy (2010) The paper explains the
business models for process-steps determining
breakaway growth how to develop an innovative
business model
114 BMI and sources of value Sanchez and Ricart This work illustrates the
creation in low-income (2010) factors influencing BMI in
markets low-income markets
115 A framework for analyzing Lee and Ho (2010) The paper explains how to
BMI in mobile commerce develop business models in
mobile commerce with an
analysis of the key elements,
the costs, the revenues and
the growth components and
the context effects
116 Business model replication Dunford et al. The paper illustrates the BMI
for early and rapid (2010) emergence and evolution
internationalisation: The ING processes in early and rapid
direct experience internationalization
117 From single firm to Lindgren et al. The paper illustrates how
network-based BMI (2010) new business models can
evolve through networks,
discussing the challenges and
emerging issues
118 Value co-creation in business Ho et al. (2010) This work is about the
models: Evidence from three dynamics and mechanisms of
cases analysis in Taiwan new BM designs as source of
corporate innovation, and
competitiveness
119 When and how to innovate Giesen et al. (2010) The paper proposes and
your business model discusses the best timing and
processes to develop BMI,
enlightening the related key
success factors
120 Business model design: An Zott and Amit This paper illustrates the BM
activity system perspective (2010) design elements and BM
design themes, where BMI is
one of the themes of BM
design
121 Business model evolution: In Demil and Lecocq The paper discusses BMI as
search of dynamic (2010) the interaction between BM
consistency components and dynamic
consistency (i.e., a capability
to increase performance
during the process of BMI)
(continued)
102 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
122 Business-model innovation: Gambardella and The paper explores how BMI
General purpose technologies McGahan (2010) and industry structural
and their implications for changes are driven by general
industry structure purpose technologies and the
possible consequences at firm
and sector levels
123 Building social business Yunus et al. (2010) The paper illustrates the
models: Lessons from the lessons learned from the
Grameen experience development of the social
business model and
highlights similarities with
BMI
124 BMI: Opportunities and Chesbrough (2010) This work explores the
barriers barriers to BMI, such as
conflicts with existing assets
and business models, and the
role of cognition in
understanding these barriers.
The paper provides the
possible solutions and
examples
125 Embedding strategic agility: Doz and Kosonen The paper explains the
A leadership agenda for (2010) concrete leadership actions
accelerating business model that enable the
renewal meta-capabilities needed to
accelerate the renewal and
transformation of business
models
126 BMI through trial-and-error Sosna et al. (2010) This work addresses the BMI
learning: The Naturhouse drivers and processes
case focusing on trial and error. It
suggests the aim should be to
learn from firms that are
developing new retail-market
business models
127 An individual business model Svejenova et al. The paper analyses the BMI
in the making: A chef’s quest (2010) developed by chef and
for creative freedom gastronomic innovator Ferran
Adria. The work discusses
the triggers, mechanisms, and
changes related to this
particular form of BMI
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 103

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
128 How do latecomer firms Wu et al. (2010) The paper illustrates that
capture value from disruptive firms operating in developing
technologies? A secondary countries can create
business-model innovation secondary BMI owing to
perspective their knowledge of local
customers. Consequently,
those firms can devote more
resources than some of their
competitors to marketing
their BM, as they do not need
to develop a new strategy
129 Strategy and business model Ghezzi et al. (2010) This paper proposes a
design in dynamic framework (a tool) that
telecommunications identifies drivers of
industries: A study on Italian potentially disruptive change
mobile network operators and their implications for the
BM designs of Italian mobile
network operators. The
proposed framework helps to
relate disruptive change
factors to business model
dimensions, aimed to
develop emergent strategies
130 BMI versus replication: Aspara et al. (2010) The paper explores how the
Financial performance strategic emphasis on BMI
implications of strategic and on the replication of a
emphases new BM can impact financial
performance
131 Technology Björkdahl (2009) This paper addresses
cross-fertilization and the technology
business model: The case of cross-fertilization, which
integrating ICTs in needs to be accompanied by
mechanical engineering business model changes to
products achieve increased economic
value performance in terms
of profitable growth. The
relationship changes are
accentuated differently
depending on the dimension
of the firm
(continued)
104 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
132 A new business model for Birkin et al. (2009) The paper demonstrates that
sustainable development: An if it is to be successful, any
exploratory study using the new business model for
theory of constraints in sustainable development has
Nordic organizations to work more on societal and
value issues than on technical
and managerial ones. The
paper also discusses the
constraints affecting any
other new business model,
such as, time, problems with
the ‘market model’,
recognizing a ‘good cause’
independently of cost
considerations, vested
interests, excess
specialization at the level of
individual knowledge,
bureaucracy within firms,
over-consumption, lack of an
appreciation of nature,
inequitable societies, and
societies lacking the
mechanisms and attitudes to
achieve consensus
133 Integrating product and Shelton (2009) This paper discusses how a
service innovation deep knowledge of customer
needs and its subsequent
integration into an
organization, together with
partnerships outside the firm,
can form the basis of a shift
from a product-focused BM
to a product and
service-focused BM
134 Disruptive innovation in Hwang and The paper illustrates how to
health care delivery: A Christensen (2008) create BMI, disruptive
framework for technological innovation has
business-model innovation to be integrated in the
different types of BMs
(solution shops,
organizational processes and
network) typically used in the
health industry
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 105

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
135 A business model for IPTV Bouwman et al. The paper considers the
service: A dynamic (2008) external forces that influence
framework the choices involved in the
business model for IPTV
(digital television). Forces
cited include the technology
driving IPTV BMs and the
market dynamics and
regulatory conditions. These
elements are considered to
develop a scenario analysis
able to assist firms in
choosing the right BMI
136 Business models for Eriksson et al. The paper explores the
M-services: Exploring the (2008) implications of consumer
E-newspaper case from a points of view on developing
consumer view new business models
137 Entrepreneurial learning in Sanz-Velasco and The paper discusses two
academic spin-offs: A Saemundsson main learning behaviors
business model perspective (2008) (based on experience and
based on external relations),
capable of driving essential
BM changes. In the
meanwhile, the paper
explores how environment
affects the two learning
behaviors
138 BMI: it’s not just about Chesbrough (2007) The paper describes how all
technology anymore firms need to continuously
innovate their BM. Tests are
a way to verify if a new BM
is likely to be successful.
Leadership, internal
cooperation, separate
organizational resources and
customer perspectives are
components of this BMI test
139 Three ways to successfully Giesen et al. (2007) The paper discusses how,
innovate your business model firms need three types (or
combinations) of BMI, which
are related to: industry,
revenue, enterprise models
and networking lead to
deliver successful financial
results
(continued)
106 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
140 Business model design and Zott and Amit The paper describes the
the performance of (2007) design of new
entrepreneurial firms boundary-spanning
organizational forms.
Business model design (not
the action of designing but
the type of BM, termed BM
themes) affects the
performance of firms with the
environment exerting a
moderating effect. The
authors demonstrate that the
novelty-centered business
model design affects the
performance of
entrepreneurial firms
141 Innovating business models Chesbrough and This paper illustrates how to
with co-development Schwartz (2007) create BMI through
partnerships co-development partnerships,
which can improve
innovation effectiveness
142 IBM’s global CEO report Pohle and The paper illustrates how
2006: BMI matters Chapman (2006) BMI has become one of the
most important priorities for
CEOs. Strategic partnerships
and organization structure
changes topped the list of
most significant BMIs. The
outcomes are related to cost
reductions and strategic
flexibility
143 Drawing emerging business Vlachos et al. The paper proposes a
models for the mobile music (2006) methodology based on an
industry alternative business model
that helps configure a
business model change
144 The new customer-centred Kandampully The authors propose a
business model for the (2006) framework to support firms
hospitality industry in the hospitality industry to
innovate their BM (by
becoming customer-centered
and service-oriented) and
thus to achieve market
leadership and profitability.
The framework comprises:
(1) efficiencies through
service unbundling,
(2) creative usage of
technology and, (3) external
orientation and internal
coordination
(continued)
APPENDIX 3.1: Summaries of the Papers Analyzed … 107

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
145 The changing digital content Swatman et al. The paper provides an
landscape: An evaluation of (2006) overview and assessment of
e-business model the best internet-based
development in European business models in the media
online news and music and music industries
146 Different leadership skills for Deschamps (2005) The paper discusses how
different innovation strategies leadership forms and skills
drive BMI: top-down forms
of leadership and pragmatic
skills help in creating
external collaborations,
which are essential to drive
BMI
147 Skills brokerage: A new Papagiannidis and The authors present a new
model for business start-ups Li (2005) business model for start-ups
in the networked economy
148 Responsible innovation Buhman et al. The paper explains how BMI
toward sustainable (2005) is a less expensive resource
development in small and than technological innovation
medium-sized enterprises: A for responsible innovation in
resource perspective SMEs
149 Technology Pateli and Giaglis The paper develops a
innovation-induced business (2005) scenario planning tool to
model change: A define the changes in BM and
contingency approach the contingency factors that
help managers assess the best
form of BMI for the company
150 Strategic frontiers: The Bate and Johnston The paper proposes a
starting-point for innovative (2005) managerial method to find
growth strategic frontiers that can
change the BM of the
company. Defining,
exploring, and discovering
the value of the strategic
frontiers are elements of this
practice
151 Networked enterprise: A new Chung et al. (2004) The paper proposes that
business model for global networked enterprises for
sourcing global sourcing can spur BMI
for firms
152 E-service innovations Michalski (2003) The paper discusses how in
through corporate the business of industrial
entrepreneurship e-services (global technology
firms) firms can develop BMI
through the application of
corporate entrepreneurship
principles (e.g.,
entrepreneurship and
corporate venturing)
(continued)
108 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

(continued)
Title Authors Contribution to BMI
Literature
153 The role of the business Chesbrough and The business model unlocks
model in capturing value Rosenbloom latent value from a
from innovation: Evidence (2002) technology, but its logic
from Xerox Corporation’s constrains the subsequent
technology spin-off firms search for new and
alternative models for other
technologies. This is an
implicit cognitive dimension
overlooked in most discourse
on the topic
154 Enabling knowledge Malhotra (2002) The paper explores BMI in
exchanges for e-business the e-business context,
communities highlighting the role of
knowledge management
(KM) and the importance of
balancing KM in BM design
and KM to the emergence of
BMs
155 E-business model design, Dubosson-Torbay The paper proposes the
classification, and et al. (2002) degree of innovation in a BM
measurements is an element that contributes
to defining the BM in the
e-business context
156 Five business-model myths Linder and Cantrell The paper illustrates the
that hold firms back (2001) myths around BM and how
they jeopardize firm
competitiveness
a
The period of interest was 2001–2015. But we manually added a relevant paper published in 2017
by Foss and Saebi as it makes an important contribution to the topic

References

Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., & Posselt, T. (2013). BMIs for electric mobility—What can be
learned from existing business model patterns? International Journal of Innovation
Management, 17, 1–42.
Abraham, S. (2013). Will BMI replace strategic analysis? Strategy & Leadership, 41, 31–38.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7),
493–520.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through BMI. Mit Sloan Management Review, 53, 41–
49.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model
design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 331–350.
Amshoff, B., Dülme, C., Echterfeld, J., & Gausemeier, J. (2015). Business model patterns for
disruptive technologies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19, 1540002.
Andries, P., & Debackere, K. (2013). BMI: Propositions on the appropriateness of different
learning approaches. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22, 337–358.
References 109

Andries, P., Debackere, K., & Van Looy, B. (2013). Simultaneous experimentation as a learning
strategy: Business model development under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
7, 288–310.
Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2010). BMI Vs replication: Financial performance
implications of strategic emphases. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18, 39–56.
Aspara, J., Juha-Antti, L., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Strategic management of business
model transformation: Lessons from Nokia. Management Decision, 49, 622–647.
Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2013). Corporate business model
transformation and inter-organizational cognition: The case of Nokia. Long Range Planning,
46, 459–474.
Bate, J. D., & Johnston, R. E., Jr. (2005). Strategic frontiers: The starting-point for innovative
growth. Strategy & Leadership, 33, 12–18.
Baumeister, C., Scherer, A., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2015). Branding access offers: The importance
of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands. Journal of The
Academy of Marketing Science, 1–15.
Bereznoi, A. (2015). BMI in corporate competitive strategy. Problems of Economic Transition, 57,
14–33.
Berman, S. J., Kesterson-Townes, L., Marshall, A., & Srivathsa, R. (2012). How cloud computing
enables process and BMI. Strategy & Leadership, 40, 27–35.
Birkin, F., Polesie, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). A new business model for sustainable development: An
exploratory study using the theory of constraints in nordic organizations. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 18, 277–290.
Björkdahl, J. (2009). Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: The case of
integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Research Policy, 38, 1468–1477.
Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D. M. (2012). The effects of culture and structure on
strategic flexibility during BMI. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 279–305.
Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2014). Business models for sustainable technologies:
Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy, 43, 284–
300.
Bouncken, R. B., Muench, M., & Kraus, S. (2015). Born globals: Investigating the influence of
their business models on rapid internationalization. International Business & Economics
Research Journal, 14, 247–256.
Bouwman, H., Meng, Z., Van Der Duin, P., & Sander, L. (2008). A business model for IPTV
service: A dynamic framework. Info, 10, 22–38.
Brea-Solís, H., Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Grifell-Tatjé, E. (2015). Business model evaluation:
Quantifying Walmart’s sources of advantage. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 12–33.
Brettel, M., Strese, S., & Flatten, T. C. (2012). Improving the performance of business models with
relationship marketing efforts—An entrepreneurial perspective. European Management
Journal, 30, 85–98.
Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards systematic BMI: Lessons from product
innovation management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 183–198.
Buhman, C., Kekre, S., & Singhal, J. (2005). Interdisciplinary and Interorganizational Research:
Establishing the Science of Enterprise Networks. Muncie: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Cao, L. L. (2014). Business model transformation in moving to a cross-channel retail strategy: A
case study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18, 69–95.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation:
The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.
Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). BMI as lever of organizational sustainability.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 85–104.
Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. (2011). Business model dynamics and innovation: (Re)
establishing the missing linkages. Management Decision, 49, 1327–1342.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2013). Understanding the impact of technology on firms’ business models.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 285–300.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2014). Preparing for business model change: The “pre-stage” finding. Journal
of Management and Governance, 18, 449–469.
110 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Chesbrough, H. (2007). BMI: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35,
12–17.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). BMI: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43, 354–363.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value
from innovation: Evidence from xerox corporation’s technology spin-off firms. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 11, 529–555.
Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating business models with co-development
partnerships. Research Technology Management, 50, 55–59.
Christensen, T. B., Wells, P., & Cipcigan, L. (2012). Can innovative business models overcome
resistance to electric vehicles? Better place and battery electric cars in Denmark. Energy Policy,
48, 498–505.
Chroneer, D., Johansson, J., & Malmstrom, M. (2015). Business model management
typologies-cognitive mapping of business model landscapes. International Journal of
Business and Management, 10, 67–80.
Chung, W. W. C., Yam, A. Y. K., & Chan, M. F. S. (2004). Networked enterprise: A new business
model for global sourcing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sequoia S.A.
Coblence, E., & Sabatier, V. (2014). Articulating growth and cultural innovation in art museums:
The Louvre’s business model revision. International Studies of Management & Organization,
44, 9–25.
Comes, S., & Berniker, L. (2008). Business model innovation. In D. A. P. Pantaleo (Ed.), From
strategy to execution: Turning accelerated global change into opportunity. Berlin: Springer.
Cucculelli, M., & Bettinelli, C. (2015). Business models, intangibles and firm performance:
Evidence on corporate entrepreneurship from Italian manufacturing SMEs. Small Business
Economics, 45, 329–350.
Cucculelli, M., Bettinelli, C., & Renoldi, A. (2014). How small-medium enterprises leverage
intangibles during recessions. Evidence from the Italian clothing industry. Management
Decision, 52, 1491–1515.
Dalby, J., Lueg, R., Nielsen, L. S., Pedersen, L., & Tomoni, A. C. (2014). National culture and
business model change—A framework for successful expansions. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, 22, 463–483.
De Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., & Haaker, T. (2013). Business model roadmapping: A practical
approach to come from an existing to a desired business model. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 17, 1–19.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution. In search of dynamic consistency.
Long Range Planning, 43, 227–246.
Denicolai, S., Ramirez, M., & Tidd, J. (2014). Creating and capturing value from external
knowledge: The moderating role of knowledge intensity. R&D Management, 44, 248–264.
Deschamps, J.-P. (2005). Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies. Strategy &
Leadership, 33, 31–38.
Desyllas, P., & Sako, M. (2013). Profiting from BMI: Evidence from pay-as-you-drive auto
insurance. Research Policy, 42, 101–116.
Dickson, M. A., & Chang, R. K. (2015). Apparel manufacturers and the business case for social
sustainability: World class CSR and BMI. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2015, 55–72.
Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration
of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D
Management, 44, 306–321.
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for
accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43, 370–382.
Dubosson-Torbay, M., Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2002). E-business model design,
classification, and measurements. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44, 5–23.
Dunford, R., Palmer, I., & Benveniste, J. (2010). Business model replication for early and rapid
internationalisation: The ING direct experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 655–674.
Engel, J. S. (2011). Accelerating corporate innovation: Lessons from the venture capital model.
Research Technology Management, 54, 36–43.
References 111

Enkel, E., & Mezger, F. (2013). Imitation processes and their application for BMI: An explorative
study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 13400051–134000534.
Eppler, M. J., & Hoffmann, F. (2012). Does method matter? An experiment on collaborative
business model idea generation in teams. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 14,
388–403.
Eriksson, C., Kalling, T., Åkesson, M., & Fredberg, T. (2008). Business models for M-services:
Exploring the E-newspaper case from a consumer view. Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations, 6, 29–57.
Euchner, J., & Ganguly, A. (2014). BMI in practice. Research-Technology Management, 57, 33–
39.
Eurich, M., Weiblen, T., & Breitenmoser, P. (2014). A six-step approach to BMI. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18, 330–348.
Evans, J. D., & Johnson, R. O. (2013). Tools for managing early-stage BMI. Research Technology
Management, 56, 52–56.
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation. Journal of
Management, 43, 200–227.
Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations.
California Management Review, 50, 94–.
Gambardella, A., & Mcgahan, A. M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General purpose
technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning, 43, 262–271.
George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 83–111.
Gerasymenko, V., De Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Changing the business model: Effects
of venture capital firms and outside CEOS on portfolio company performance. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 79–98.
Ghezzi, A., Balocco, R., & Rangone, A. (2010). How to get strategic planning and business model
design wrong: The case of a mobile technology provider. Strategic Change, 19, 213–238.
Giesen, E., Berman, S. J., Bell, R., & Blitz, A. (2007). Three ways to successfully innovate your
business model. Strategy & Leadership, 35, 27–33.
Giesen, E., Riddleberger, E., Christner, R., & Bell, R. (2010). When and how to innovate your
business model. Strategy & Leadership, 38, 17–26.
Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2013). BMI for sustainability. Manufacturing & Service Operations
Management, 15, 537–544.
Goyal, S. (2014). Understanding the key characteristics of an embedded business model for the
base of the pyramid markets. Economics and Sociology, 7, 26–40.
Gudiksen, S. (2015). Business model design games: Rules and procedures to challenge
assumptions and elicit surprises. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 307–322.
Günzel, F., & Holm, A. B. (2013). One size does not fit all—Understanding the front-end and
back-end of BMI. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–35.
Guo, H., Zhao, J., & Tang, J. (2013). The role of top managers’ human and social capital in BMI.
Chinese Management Studies, 7, 447–469.
Habtay, S. R. (2012). A firm-level analysis on the relative difference between technology-driven
and market-driven disruptive BMIs. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Habtay, S. R., & Holmén, M. (2014). Incumbents’ responses to disruptive BMI: The moderating
role of technology vs. market-driven innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Innovation Management, 11(18), 289–309.
Halme, M., & Korpela, M. (2014). Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in
small and medium-sized enterprises: A resource perspective. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 23, 547–566.
Hao-Chen, H., Mei-Chi, L., Lee-Hsuan, L., & Chien-Tsai, C. (2013). Overcoming organizational
inertia to strengthen BMI. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 977–1002.
Ho, Y.-C., Fang, H.-C., & Lin, J.-F. (2010). Value co-creation in business models: Evidence from
three cases analysis in Taiwan. The Business Review, 15, 171–177.
112 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Holloway, S. S., & Sebastiao, H. J. (2010). The role of BMI in the emergence of markets: A
missing dimension of entrepreneurial strategy? Journal of Strategic Innovation and
Sustainability, 6, 86–101.
Huang, H.-C., Lai, M.-C., Kao, M.-C., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Target costing, BMI, and firm
performance: An empirical analysis of Chinese firms. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 29, 322–335.
Huarng, K.-H. (2013). A two-tier business model and its realization for entrepreneurship. Journal
of Business Research, 66, 2102–2105.
Hvass, K. K. (2015). BMI through second hand retailing: A fashion industry case. Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 2015, 11–32.
Hwang, J., & Christensen, C. M. (2008). Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: A
framework for business-model innovation. Millwood: The People To People Health
Foundation, Inc., Project Hope.
Jain, R. (2014). BMIs for information and communications technology-based services for
low-income segments in emerging economies. Journal of Global Information Technology
Management, 17, 74–90.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model.
Harvard Business Review, 86, 57–68.
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–
2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 632–659.
Kandampully, J. (2006). The new customer-centred business model for the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18, 173–187.
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity:
Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a cloud business model.
R&D Management, 44, 322–340.
Kim, S. K., & Min, S. (2015). BMI performance: When does adding a new business model benefit
an incumbent? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 34–57.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013a). The innovation bottom
line. Mit Sloan Management Review, 54, 1–21.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013b). The benefits of sustainability-driven
innovation. Mit Sloan Management Review, 54, 69–73.
Kiura, T., Bosch, O. J. H., Nguyen, N. C., Shirasaka, S., & Maeno, T. (2014). Creating a new
business through applying the systems-based evolutionary learning laboratory approach.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31, 696–707.
Klang, D., Wallnöfer, M., & Hacklin, F. (2014). The business model paradox: A systematic review
and exploration of antecedents. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 454–478.
Koen, P. A., Bertels, H., Elsum, I. R., Orroth, M., & Tollett, B. L. (2010). Breakthrough
innovation dilemmas. Research Technology Management, 53, 48–51.
Koen, P. A., Bertels, H. M. J., & Elsum, I. R. (2011). The three faces of BMI: challenges for
established firms. Research Technology Management, 54, 52–59.
Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9, 323–335.
Lambert, S. C., & Davidson, R. A. (2013). Applications of the business model in studies of
enterprise success, innovation and classification: An analysis of empirical research from 1996
to 2010. European Management Journal, 31, 668–681.
Lange, K., Geppert, M., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Becker-Ritterspach, F. (2015). Changing business
models and employee representation in the airline industry: A comparison of British airways
and Deutsche Lufthansa. British Journal of Management, 26, 388–407.
Lange, V. G., & Velamuri, V. K. (2014). BMI in the retail industry: Growth by serving the silver
generation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18,
310–329.
Laukkanen, M., & Patala, S. (2014). Analysing barriers to sustainable BMIs: Innovation systems
approach. International Journal Of Innovation Management, 18.
References 113

Lazonick, W., Mazzucato, M., & Tulum, Ö. (2013). Apple’s changing business model: What
should the world’s richest company do with all those profits? Accounting Forum, 37, 249–267.
Leavy, B. (2010). A system for innovating business models for breakaway growth. Strategy &
Leadership, 38, 5–15.
Lee, C.-S., & Ho, J. C. (2010). A framework for analyzing BMI in mobile commerce. Journal of
International Technology and Information Management, 19, 37-Ii.
Linder, J. C., & Cantrell, S. (2001). Five business-model myths that hold firms back. Strategy &
Leadership, 29, 13–18.
Lindgren, P., Taran, Y., & Boer, H. (2010). From single firm to network-based BMI. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12, 122–137.
Liu, Y., & Jiang, W. (2013). Business modeling for entrepreneurial firms: Four cases in China.
Chinese Management Studies, 7, 344–359.
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2013). A service science perspective on BMI. Industrial Marketing
Management, 42, 665–670.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review 80(5), 86–93.
Malhotra, Y. (2002). Enabling knowledge exchanges for E-business communities. Information
Strategy, 18, 26–31.
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 23(1), 19–25.
Markides, C. C. (2013). BMI: what can the ambidexterity literature teach us? The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 27, 313–323.
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of
concepts: A cognitive approach to BMI. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 99–117.
Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2015). Adapting to the sharing economy. Mit Sloan
Management Review, 56, 71–77.
Mcgrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43,
247–261.
Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability-based conceptualization of BMI: Insights from an
explorative study. R&D Management, 44, 429–449.
Michalski, T. (2003). E-service innovations through corporate entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Management & Decision Making, 4, 194–209.
Miller, K., Mcadam, M., & Mcadam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: A
stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44, 265–287.
Mitchell, D., & Coles, C. (2003). The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing business
model innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 24, 15–21.
Mitchell, D. W., & Coles, C. (2004). Business model innovation breakthrough moves. Journal of
Business Strategy, 25, 16–26.
Mokhlesian, S., & Holmén, M. (2012). Business model changes and green construction processes.
Construction Management and Economics, 30, 761–775.
Monios, J., & Bergqvist, R. (2015). Using a “virtual joint venture” to facilitate the adoption of
intermodal transport. Supply Chain Management—An International Journal, 20, 534–548.
Morgan, E. (2015). ‘Plan A’: Analysing BMI for sustainable consumption in mass-market clothes
retailing. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 57, 73–98.
Morris, M., Kuratko, D., & Covin, J. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation. Oh
South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a
unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 726–735.
Nair, S., Nisar, A., Palacios, M., & Ruiz, F. (2012). Impact of knowledge brokering on
performance heterogeneity among business models. Management Decision, 50, 1649–1660.
Nair, S., Paulose, H., Palacios, M., & Tafur, J. (2013). Service orientation: Effectuating BMI. The
Service Industries Journal, 33, 958–975.
Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2010). Business model design: Conceptualizing networked value
co-creation. International Journal of quality and Service Sciences, 2, 43–59.
114 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Ng, I. C. L., Ding, D. X., & Yip, N. (2013). Outcome-based contracts as new business model: The
role of partnership and value-driven relational assets. Industrial Marketing Management, 42,
730–743.
Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (2000). Strategic experimentation:
Understanding change and performance in new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 15,
493–521.
O’reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the
innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(28), 185–206.
Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The
cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present,
and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 1–
25.
Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2013). Networked business model development for emerging
technology-based services. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 773–782.
Papagiannidis, S., & Li, F. (2005). Skills brokerage: A new model for business start-ups in the
networked economy. European Management Journal, 23, 471–482.
Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2005). Technology innovation-induced business model change: A
contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 167–183.
Pels, J., & Kidd, T. A. (2015). Business model innovation. International Journal of
Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 9, 200–218.
Pohle, G., & Chapman, M. (2006). Ibm’s global ceo report 2006: BMI matters. Strategy &
Leadership, 34, 34–40.
Pourabdollahian, G., & Copani, G. (2014). Proposal of an innovative business model for
customized production in healthcare. Modern Economy, 5, 1147.
Pynnönen, M., Hallikas, J., & Ritala, P. (2012). Managing customer-driven BMI. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 1–13.
Richter, M. (2013). BMI for sustainable energy: German utilities and renewable energy. Energy
Policy, 62, 1226–1237.
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic
capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1263–1280.
Ritala, P., & Sainio, L.-M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and
business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 155–169.
Roth, S., Schneckenberg, D., & Tsai, C. W. (2015). The ludic drive as innovation driver:
Introduction to the gamification of innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24,
300–306.
Sanchez, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). BMI and sources of value creation in low-income markets.
European Management Review, 7, 138–154.
Sanz-Velasco, S. A., & Saemundsson, R. G. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning in academic
spin-offs: A business model perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, 8, 15–35.
Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). BMI: towards an integrated future research agenda.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–34.
Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). BMI and strategic flexibility: Insights from an experimental
research design. International Journal of Innovation Management, 18, 1440009.
Seidenstricker, S., & Linder, C. (2014). A morphological analysis-based creativity approach to
identify and develop ideas for BMI: A case study of a high-tech manufacturing company.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18, 409–424.
Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models. Business
Horizons, 48, 199–207.
Shelton, R. (2009). Integrating product and service innovation. Research Technology
Management, 52, 38–44.
References 115

Shin, J. (2014). New business model creation through the triple helix of young entrepreneurs,
SNSs, and smart devices. International Journal of Technology Management, 66, 302–318.
Short, S. W., Bocken, N. M., Barlow, C. Y., & Chertow, M. R. (2014). From refining sugar to
growing tomatoes. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18, 603–618.
Simmons, G., Palmer, M., & Truong, Y. (2013). Inscribing value on BMIs: Insights from
industrial projects commercializing disruptive digital innovations. Industrial Marketing
Management, 42, 744–754.
Sinfield, J. V., Calder, E., Mcconnell, B., & Colson, S. (2012). How to identify new business
models. Mit Sloan Management Review, 53, 85–90.
Sorescu, A., Frambach, R. T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011). Innovations in
retail business models. Journal of Retailing, 87, S3–S16.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). BMI Through trial-and-error
learning: The Naturhouse case. Long Range Planning, 43, 383–407.
Spector, B. (2013). The social embeddedness of business model enactment. Journal of Strategy
and Management, 6, 27–39.
Storbacka, K., Frow, P., Nenonen, S., & Payne, P. (2012). Designing business models for
co-creation. In S. L. Vargo & R. F. Lusch (Eds.), Towards a better understanding of the role of
value in markets and marketing, review of marketing research. UK Emerald Group Publishing:
Bingley.
Storbacka, K., Windahl, C., Nenonen, S., & Salonen, A. (2013). Solution business models:
Transformation along four continua. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 705–716.
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the making: A
chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43, 408–430.
Swatman, P. M. C., Krueger, C., & Van Der Beek, K. (2006). The changing digital content
landscape: An evaluation of e-business model development in european online news and
music. Internet Research, 16, 53–80.
Taran, Y., Boer, H., & Lindgren, P. (2015). A BMI typology. Decision Sciences, 46, 301–331.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43,
172–194.
Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2014). The business model dilemma of technology shifts.
Technovation, 34, 525–535.
Trimi, S., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2012). BMI in entrepreneurship. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8, 449–465.
Tuulenmäki, A., & Välikangas, L. (2011). The art of rapid, hands-on execution innovation.
Strategy & Leadership, 39, 28–35.
Velamuri, V. K., Bansemir, B., Neyer, A.-K., & Möslein, K. M. (2013). Product service systems as
a driver For BMI: Lessons learned from the manufacturing industry. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 17, 1–25.
Velu, C., & Khanna, M. (2013). BMI in India. Journal of Indian Business Research, 5, 156–170.
Vlachos, P., Vrechopoulos, A., & Pateli, A. (2006). Drawing emerging business models for the
mobile music industry. Electronic Markets, 16, 154–168.
Wang, Q., Voss, C., Zhao, X. D., & Wang, Z. Q. (2015). Modes of service innovation: A
typology. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115, 1358–1382.
Wei, Z. L., Yang, D., Sun, B., & Gu, M. (2014). The fit between technological innovation and
business model design for firm growth: Evidence from China. R&D Management, 44, 288–
305.
Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2014). Designing business models for the internet
of things. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4, 5–14.
Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730–743.
Witell, L., & Löfgren, M. (2013). From service for free to service for fee: BMI in manufacturing
firms. Journal Of Service Management, 24, 520–533.
Wu, J., Guo, B., & Shi, Y. (2013). Customer knowledge management and it-enabled BMI: A
conceptual framework and a case study from China. European Management Journal, 31,
359–372.
116 3 Business Model Innovation: A Thematic Map

Wu, X., Ma, R., & Shi, Y. (2010). How do latecomer firms capture value from disruptive
technologies? A secondary business-model innovation perspective. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 57, 51–62.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models:
Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308–325.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms.
Organization Science, 18, 181–199.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model:
implications for firm performance, Strategic Management Journal. Chicago: Wiley Periodicals
Inc.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range
Planning, 43, 216–226.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for
strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11, 403–411.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future
research. Journal of Management, 37, 1019–1042.
Chapter 4
Multilevel Analysis of Business Model
Innovation

Abstract This chapter introduces a multilevel analysis of BMI that flows from the
thematic and ontological analyses of the 156 papers included in the systematic
literature review. Five different levels of analysis emerged from the studies: indi-
vidual (e.g., entrepreneurs and employees); team (e.g., top management); firm (e.g.
companies and organizations), network (e.g., partnerships and consortia), and the
firm’s institutional environment (e.g., industry, market, sector, or society). These
levels of analysis are discussed in order to improve our understanding of BMI and
to stimulate future research. The tables and the multilevel issues examined in this
chapter reveal that most existing knowledge on BMI is concentrated on a single
level of analysis at a time, moreover the majority of the papers use the firm as the
level of investigation. Accordingly, this chapter contributes to the development of
the BMI literature, highlighting for each level of analysis, the related research gaps,
and offering specific suggestions—a road map for future research—to address each
of these knowledge gaps.

4.1 Introduction

This section synthesizes the findings of our systematic literature review, showing
how we can delineate different patterns for BMI by levels of analysis (i.e. indi-
vidual, team, firm, network, and institutional).
According to the previous chapters of this book (Chaps. 2 and 3), we adopt the
BMI definition proposed by Foss and Saebi (2017), BMI is conceptualized as
“designed, novel, and non-trivial changes to the key elements of a firm’s business
model and/or the architecture linking these elements”. Typically, these actions are
influenced and implemented by actors at different levels of analysis: (1) individual
(e.g., entrepreneurs, employees); (2) team (e.g., top management); (3) firm (e.g.,
companies, organizations) (4) network (e.g., partnerships, consortia), and (5) the
firm’s institutional environment (e.g., industry, market, sector, or society). This is
why many managerial disciplines have begun to study the BM as a unit of analysis,

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 117


D. Andreini and C. Bettinelli, Business Model Innovation, International Series
in Advanced Management Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3_4
118 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

which is distinct from, and at the same time involves, the firm, industry, or network
(Zott et al. 2011).
Our review therefore reveals not only that BMI literature focuses on one level of
analysis at a time but that this choice of level of analysis is typically accompanied
by a reliance on different angles, making the integration and accumulation of
findings difficult.

4.2 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

Of the 156 papers analyzed for the systematic literature review, the objective of this
book, we could place 132 of them into the various cells representing different levels
of analysis (Table 4.1). We have identified five levels of analysis that have been the
main focus of the analyzed papers: the individual, team, firm, network, and insti-
tutional levels.
The field of BMI involves multiple levels of analysis, which are necessary to
understand the dynamics within organizations because people do not act in isola-
tion. In other words, individuals (e.g., entrepreneurs, employees, owners) influence
their environment (e.g., the teams, networks, firms, and context they belong to) and
are also influenced by their environment.
At the individual level of analysis, research typically involves the study of
learning, perception, creativity, cognition, motivation, personality, cooperative
behavior, deviant behavior, and ethics; at this level of analysis, the focus usually
draws heavily upon psychology and entrepreneurship theories (Ostroff and Judge
2012).
At the team level of analysis, research involves the study of group dynamics,
intra- and intergroup conflict and cohesion, leadership, roles, power, norms, and
interpersonal communication (e.g., Molloy et al. 2010). At this level of analysis,
scholars usually use sociological and socio-psychological approaches.
At the firm level of analysis, research involves the study of topics such as firm
culture, firm structure, cultural diversity, inter-organizational cooperation and
conflict, change, technology, and external environmental forces (Foss and Saebi
2015). At this level of analysis, BMI research usually draws upon strategic man-
agement, entrepreneurship, and organizational behavior theories.
At the network level of analysis research in general includes social interaction
(of individuals acting on behalf of their organizations), relationships, collective
action, connectedness, cooperation, collaboration, and trust. By network we mean
“a set of nodes and the set of ties representing some relationship, or lack of rela-
tionship, between the nodes.” We would also point out that the content of the
relationships between nodes is “limited only by a researcher’s imagination” (Brass
et al. 2004, p. 795).
At the institutional level of analysis, research typically addresses at least one of
Scott’s (1995) three pillars of institutions: the regulative, normative, and
cultural-cognitive. The regulative pillar deals with explicit regulatory processes—
4.2 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation 119

Table 4.1 Papers categorized based on the various levels of analysis*


Levels of References
analysis
Individual Cavalcante (2014), Svejenova et al. (2010), Aspara et al. (2013), Sosna et al.
(2010), Sanz-Velasco and Saemundsson (2008), Kiura et al. (2014), Girotra
and Netessine (2013), Guo et al. (2013), Giesen et al. (2010), Pohle and
Chapman (2006), Engel (2011), Tuulenmäki and Välikangas (2011),
Eriksson et al. (2008), Deschamps (2005), Osiyevskyy and Dewald (2015),
Martins et al. (2015), Chroneer et al. (2015)
Team Eppler and Hoffmann (2012), Doz and Kosonen (2010)
Firm Wu et al. (2010), Dunford et al. (2010), Björkdahl (2009), Aspara et al.
(2010, 2011), Zott and Amit (2007, 2010), Kim and Min (2015), Sanchez
and Ricart (2010), Nair et al. (2012, 2013), Ho et al. (2010), Demil and
Lecocq (2010), Habtay (2012), Eurich et al. (2014), Dickson and Chang
(2015), Coblence and Sabatier (2014), Bouncken et al. (2015), Ramendra
Singh et al. (2015), Schneider and Spieth (2014), Hvass (2015), Jain (2014),
Amshoff et al. (2015), Khanagha et al. (2014), Denicolai et al. (2014),
Cucculelli et al. (2014), Morgan (2015), Cavalcante (2014), Pourabdollahian
and Copani (2014), Halme and Korpela (2014), Ghezzi et al. (2015), Tongur
and Engwall (2014), Wei et al. (2014), Roth et al. (2015), Goyal (2014),
Andries and Debackere (2013), Hao-Chen et al. (2013), Chesbrough (2007,
2010), Pateli and Giaglis (2005), Bohnsack et al. (2014), Andries et al.
(2013), Markides (2013), Dalby et al. (2014), Witell and Löfgren (2013),
Maglio and Spohrer (2013), Storbacka et al. (2013), Ng et al. (2013),
Velamuri et al. (2013), Desyllas and Sako (2013), Pynnönen et al. (2012),
Brettel et al. (2012), Dmitriev et al. (2014), Baumeister et al. (2015), Lange
and Velamuri (2014), Cao (2014), Simmons et al. (2013), Kiron et al. (2010,
2011, (2013a, b), Leavy (2010), Sinfield et al. (2012), Giesen et al. (2007),
Berman et al. (2012), Bate and Johnston (2005), Euchner and Ganguly
(2014), Matzler et al. (2015), Huarng (2013), Michalski (2003), Amit and
Zott (2015), Bucherer et al. (2012), Richter (2013), Evans and Johnson
(2013), Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu (2013), Enkel and Mezger (2013),
Abdelkafi et al. (2013), De Reuver et al. (2013), Lazonick et al. (2013),
Shelton (2009), Günzel and Holm (2013), Gudiksen (2015), Taran et al.
(2015), Seidenstricker and Linder (2014), Velu (2015), Cucculelli and
Bettinelli (2015), Habtay and Holmén (2014), Wang et al. (2015), Mezger
(2014), Gerasymenko et al. (2015)
Network Yunus et al. (2010), Spector (2013), Chung et al. (2004), Westerlund et al.
(2014), Monios and Bergqvist (2015), Palo and Tähtinen (2013), Lindgren
et al. (2010), Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007), Ritala and Sainio (2014),
Cavalcante (2013), Shin (2014)
Institutional Liu and Wei (2013), Bouwman et al. (2008), Gambardella and McGahan
(2010), Carayannis et al. (2015), Kandampully (2006), Swatman et al.
(2006), Hwang and Christensen (2008), Birkin et al. (2009), Vlachos et al.
(2006), Malhotra (2002)
*25 papers could not be classified because they did not take an explicit position in terms of
perspective
120 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

rule-setting, monitoring, and sanctioning activities that force firms to comply with
the rules for reasons of expediency—and the enforcing body. The normative pillar
emphasizes norms and values with which actors comply due to a feeling of social
obligation and social expectations. The cultural-cognitive pillar focuses on how
individuals respond to stimuli from the environment’s culture and on shared
understanding.
Table 4.1 categorizes the papers analyzed according to the levels of analysis
adopted. Not surprisingly, the preferred level of analysis for papers analyzing BMI is
the firm, with a total of 91 papers. Overall, the individual level has been applied by 17
papers while the network level of analysis and the institutional one have each been
used in 11 papers. Finally, the level of analysis least often adopted is the team one.

4.3 Papers on BMI at the Individual Level of Analysis

Overall, we have 17 papers whose focus is on the individual level of analysis,


meaning the focus is on individuals who are mainly part of the management team or
are entrepreneurs.
Specifically, the papers that analyze managers consider how managerial initia-
tives enable BM change from the earlier stage of planning (Cavalcante 2014), how
managerial cognitive processes influence corporate business model transformations
(Aspara et al. 2013), and how managers’ individual characteristics’ (human and
social capital) influence BMI from a value network perspective (Guo et al. 2013).
Another relevant stream of research focuses on cognitive antecedents of managerial
intentions to embrace strategies to BM disruptive innovation (Osiyevskyy and
Dewald 2015). In a similar vein, but with the entrepreneur as a unit of analysis,
Chroneer et al. (2015) consider the BM management strategies implemented by
entrepreneurs (Chroneer et al. 2015).
A second group of papers has used leaders as their unit of analysis. Engel (2011)
as explores the role of Chief Technology Officers in implementing BMI (Engel
2011); others have considered how company leaders should learn to experiment
with BMI (Tuulenmäki and Välikangas 2011); the key success factors of leaders
who successfully implemented BMI (Giesen et al. 2010); how business leaders seek
and find new ways to adapt their BMs to remain competitive in their current
industry (Pohle and Chapman 2006); and how leadership forms and skills drive
BMI (Deschamps 2005).
A third group of researchers has considered individuals’ learning processes. This
group of work considers the pedagogical tools available to individuals to foster the
ability to implement sustainable BMI (Girotra and Netessine 2013); how BMI can
occur in the absence of exogenous changes, through processes of generative cog-
nition (Martins et al. 2015); the main learning behaviors (based on experience and
based on external relations) that lead to essential BM changes (Sanz-Velasco and
Saemundsson 2008); the importance of trial-and-error learning; the impact of the
different types of learning that take place during BMI, and the knowledge-transfer
4.3 Papers on BMI at the Individual Level of Analysis 121

mechanisms from individuals to the organization and vice versa (Sosna et al. 2010).
Finally, a recent stream of research has studied the use of systems thinking and the
importance of learning cycles that engage different individual stakeholders and their
mental models (Kiura et al. 2014).
Again, using the individual unit of analysis, some interesting new patterns have
appeared in the recent literature. Specifically, we witnessed the emergence of the
concept of individual business model innovation that describes sets of activities,
organizing, and strategic resources that individuals employ to pursue their interests
and motivations, and to create and capture value in the process (Svejenova et al.
2010, p. 409). In addition, scholars have examined the possible implications of
consumer views on developing new BMs (Eriksson et al. 2008).
Table 4.2 synthesizes the main studies on the individual level of analysis, and
reveals how research on managers is mainly focused on psychological aspects;

Table 4.2 BMI at the individual level of analysis


Author Main findings Key points
Cavalcante (2014) Management initiatives enable BM change Managers’ initiatives
from the earlier stage of planning
Guo et al. (2013) Managers’ individual characteristics (human Managers’ characteristics
and social capital) influence BMI from a
value network perspective
Aspara et al. Managerial cognitive processes influence Managers’ cognition
(2013) corporate business model transformations
Osiyevskyy and Cognitive antecedents of managerial Managers’ cognition
Dewald (2015) intentions are the root of BM disruptive
innovation based on explorative and
exploitative strategies
Martins et al. How business models can be innovated Managers’ cognition
(2015) proactively in the absence of exogenous
changes through processes of generative
cognition
Engel (2011) BMI in combination with technology as a Entrepreneurs and Top
tool for Chief Technology Officers to Management’s initiative
generate disruptive innovations
Giesen et al. The key success factors of leaders who Entrepreneurs and Top
(2010) successfully implement BMI Management’s initiatives
Tuulenmäki and A high-speed experimentation approach Entrepreneurs and Top
Välikangas drives BMI Management’s learning
(2011) approach
Sanz-Velasco and Two main learning behaviors (based on Individual learning
Saemundsson experience and on external relations) lead to
(2008) essential BM change
Girotra and Pedagogical tool to identify a new Individual learning
Netessine (2013) sustainable business model
Sosna et al. BMI drivers and processes have a specific Individual learning
(2010) focus on trial-and-error learning in a firm’s
new retail-market business model
122 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

those focused on entrepreneurs and top managers are related to decisions and
behaviors (such as experimentation, decisions/actions, and innovative initiatives);
finally works focused on the individual level mainly concern learning and knowl-
edge aspects (i.e. learning processes and cycles, learning behaviors, and knowledge
transfer).

4.4 Papers on BMI at the Team Level of Analysis

Very few papers (2) adopt the team as a main level of analysis. The first one (Eppler
and Hoffmann 2012) considers how effective divergent and convergent group
processes lead to BMI. The authors frame their contribution in the growing body of
literature on artifacts (such as visual templates, physical objects, and sketches) and
show that they can support collaboration, creativity, and innovation in teams.
Specifically, the authors show that artifacts have an impact on perceived group
collaboration, perceived creativity, and the decision to adopt a BMI idea. Their
theorizing was tested with an experiment with managers who were asked to develop
BMI using different types of artifacts. The results show that team level features such
as collaboration increase with the use of digital visual business model templates,
and that this artifact decreases creativity and willingness to adopt the BMI idea
generated (Eppler and Hoffmann 2012).
Another interesting contribution is that by Doz and Kosonen (2010). In this case
the authors describe strategic agility (i.e., the capability of developing BMI) as the
interplay on the part of top management among three ‘meta-capabilities’: strategic
sensitivity, leadership unity, and resource fluidity. All these three capabilities lie at
the top management team level and Doz and Kosonen propose a repertoire of
actions enabling them to facilitate the renewal and transformation of BMs (Doz and
Kosonen 2010).
Interestingly the idea that emerges from the papers using the team level of
analysis is that BMI is the result of a collective process and requires coordinated
actions especially at the upper echelon. Considering the promising ideas that
emerged in these two papers, we feel we can suggest that more research is needed
on this side. Table 4.3 illustrates BMI at the team level of analysis.

Table 4.3 BMI at the team level of analysis


Author Main findings Key points
Eppler and Artifacts (visual templates, physical objects) have the Management
Hoffmann power to shape the group process of developing new team
(2012) BMs
Doz and Specific leadership actions enabling the Top
Kosonen (2010) meta-capabilities needed to accelerate the renewal and management
transformation of business models team
4.5 Papers on BMI at the Firm Level of Analysis 123

4.5 Papers on BMI at the Firm Level of Analysis

The largest proportion of the papers in this analysis (91) study BMI by considering
the firm level of analysis. This does not mean that other levels have been utterly
overlooked by these papers, in many cases other levels are mentioned but the major
focus and unit of concern remains the organization/firm. Scholars adopting the firm
as the main level of analysis, have observed various aspects.
A first group has observed firm-level behaviors that occur in BMI such as
incumbent and new entrant firms’ path-dependent behaviors (Bohnsack et al. 2014);
firm distant search and simultaneous experimentation (Andries et al. 2013); firms
using experiments to examine in advance new BM options (Sinfield et al. 2012);
and firm knowledge-based resource accumulation (Nair et al. 2012). Others have
simply analyzed BMI by considering the firm as the main actor: some have
observed how companies change their BMs in response to demands for sustain-
ability (Kiron et al. 2013b) and how they profit from sustainability through BMI
(Kiron et al. 2013a). Others have studied BMI at particular moments in the firms
under investigation: BMI during early and rapid firm internationalization (Dunford
et al. 2010); BMI during firm commercialization of innovations (Dmitriev et al.
2014); and BMI when the firm expanded into another cultural context (Dalby et al.
2014). Finally some scholars have considered firm strategy in general in an attempt
to reveal how a firm’s strategic emphasis on BMI and on replication of a new BM
affect financial performance (Aspara et al. 2010). Related to this, some have
focused on the role of the firm’s capabilities in and for BMI representing dynamic
consistency as a capability to increase performance during BMI (Demil and Lecocq
2010) and illustrating the capability-based conceptualization of business model
innovation, as a distinct capability of firms (Mezger 2014).
A second group of researchers has considered firm-level strategies and solutions
for BMI, and/or during BMI such as the organizational separation of units
(Markides 2013); the use of technology to foster the customer knowledge that
drives BMI (Wu et al. 2013; Tongur and Engwall 2014); and the implementation of
a firm-level service dominant logic to accelerate BMI (Maglio and Spohrer 2013).
Others have studied solution business model continua where firms change their
BMs and face opportunities and challenges (Storbacka et al. 2013); the role of
firm-level partnership and value-driven relational assets in achieving BMI (Ng et al.
2013); and firm value inscription supported by marketing activities that contributes
to BMI (Simmons et al. 2013). Among the solutions that firms can implement
during and in support of BMI, scholars have also considered firm business model
patenting as a way to capture value from BMI (Desyllas and Sako 2013); firm
marketing efforts (Brettel et al. 2012); the exploitation of novel combinations of
firm external and internal knowledge to create and capture value in new ways
(Denicolai et al. 2014); and the joint influence of firm incumbent assets and man-
agerial choices (Kim and Min 2015).
An important stream of research has shed light on firm-level design activities:
design of new boundary-spanning organizational forms and how novelty-centered
124 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

business model design affects the performance of entrepreneurial firms (Zott and
Amit 2007); BM design antecedents (Amit and Zott 2015); and young ventures
design and implementation challenges related to BM (Gerasymenko et al. 2015).
Again, in this stream researchers have studied how firms can proactively design
new, novel, and innovative BMs through processes of generative cognition (Martins
et al. 2015); the role that organizational design, governance, and different stake-
holders (e.g., customers, clients) have in the BMI process (Carayannis et al. 2015);
and how the novelty-centered business model design moderates the relationship
between technology innovation and firm growth (Wei et al. 2014). Table 4.4
visually synthesizes all the firm-level actions considered when studying BMI, these
are categorized based on how they have been interpreted by the various authors
(e.g., as behaviors, as solutions, as strategies etc.).

4.6 Papers on BMI at the Network Level of Analysis

The group of papers adopting the network as the main unit of analysis all have
something in common; they consider networks as drivers, contexts, and or facili-
tators of BMI.
In particular, Palo and Tähtinen (2013) explore the interesting issues related to
the development of a networked business model for emerging technology-based
services, while Chung and colleagues explore how a networked enterprise for
global sourcing generated BMI (Chung et al. 2004). Other examples include the
paper by Lindgren and colleagues explaining the development of new BMs through
networks considering the related challenges and emerging issues (Lindgren et al.
2010). Similarly Cavalcante’s work explores how companies can use a technology
platform with partner companies in a consortium to extend their existing business
models (Cavalcante 2013) while Chesbrough and Schwartz study how to establish
BMI through co-development partnerships, which can improve innovation effec-
tiveness (Chesbrough and Schwartz 2007; Monios and Bergqvist 2015).
Others have focused on new issues related to BMI and networks such as social
networking sites-based BM innovation (Shin 2014), or the challenges of BMI in the
emerging context of the Internet of Things (IOT) (Westerlund et al. 2014), the
development of Social Business (Yunus et al. 2010), or the consequences of BMI
for investments in social capital and on organizational boundaries (Spector 2013).
To sum up, networks are identified as a key element of BMI and the literature is
starting to emphasize their roles and positions as proactive units in the processes
that lead to BMI. The papers analyzed reveal that research that uses the network as
a unit of analysis still tends to examine the network through one or a few firm
members, usually the hub firm or the founding members of the network. It is
interesting to note however that among more recent papers are a number that try to
go beyond this and consider other (if not all) actors in the business net (e.g., Palo
and Tähtinen 2013). We believe this approach is as important as the type of unit of
4.6 Papers on BMI at the Network Level of Analysis 125

Table 4.4 BMI at the firm level of analysis


Author Main findings Key points
Bohnsack et al. The impact of incumbent firms’ and new entrants’ Firm-level
(2014) path-dependent behaviors on the development of new behaviors
business models
Andries et al. The drivers and effect of organizational learning Firm-level
(2013) approaches to BM renewal/improvement behaviors
Sinfield et al. Implementation of experiments to examine new Firm-level
(2012) business model opportunities in advance behaviors
Kiron et al. Profiting from sustainability through BMI Firm-level
(2013b) behaviors
Dunford et al. How BMI emergences and evolves in early and rapid Firm-level
(2010) internationalization processes behaviors
Dalby et al. Adjusting BMs when companies expand into other Firm-level
(2014) cultural contexts behaviors
Aspara et al. BMI is driven by corporate level market mechanisms Firm-level
(2010) that allow cognitive exchanges and build on existing behaviors
capabilities
Mezger (2014) Illustrating the capability-based conceptualization of Firm-level
business model innovation, as a distinct capability of behaviors
firms
Markides Solutions to manage dual BMs (separation of units with Firm-level
(2013) BMI from traditional BM) from the ambidexterity strategies and
literature solutions
Tongur and The dynamics of the intersection between technology Firm-level
Engwall (2014) and business models strategies and
solutions
Maglio and Service dominant logic can accelerate BMI Firm-level
Spohrer (2013) strategies and
solutions
Storbacka et al. Applying solution business model continua, firms Firm-level
(2013) change their BMs and face opportunities and challenges strategies and
solutions
Ng et al. (2013) The role of partnership and value-driven relational Firm-level
assets in achieving new OBC BMs strategies and
solutions
Desyllas and Business method patenting as a means to capture value Firm-level
Sako (2013) from BMI strategies and
solutions
Brettel et al. The performance of efficiency-centered business Firm-level
(2012) models increases with greater marketing efforts while strategies and
the performance of novelty-centered business models solutions
increases with a lesser degree of such marketing efforts
Denicolai et al. Exploitation of novel combinations of external and Firm-level
(2014) internal knowledge to create and capture value in new strategies and
ways solutions
(continued)
126 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

Table 4.4 (continued)


Author Main findings Key points
Kim and Min Incumbent assets and managerial choices jointly Firm-level
(2015) influence performance after new business model strategies and
addition in ways neither can in isolation solutions
Zott and Amit There are BM design elements, and BM design themes. Firm-level
(2007) BMI as one of the themes of BM design design
activities
Amit and Zott Application of central ideas from the design literature to Firm-level
(2015) a proposed process model for business model design design
and innovation activities
Gerasymenko The design and implementation challenges of business Firm-level
et al. (2015) models in the context of young ventures design
activities
Carayannis Examines how organizational sustainability can be Firm-level
et al. (2015) achieved with BMI and the role of organizational design
design, governance, and different stakeholders (e.g., activities
customers, clients) in the process

analysis, because a number of actors construct a business net and the processes of
BMI are surely affected by the variety of expectations, needs, and motivations of
each and all of them. A brief summary is offered in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 BMI at the network level of analysis


Author Main findings Key points
Palo and BMI process consisting of business net and opportunity Network
Tähtinen (2013) development phases
Chung et al. Networked enterprise for global sourcing creates new Network
(2004) BMI in firms
Lindgren et al. The development of new business models through Network
(2010) networks
Chesbrough Firms can test BMI through leadership, internal Cooperation
(2007) cooperation, separate organization resources, and with
customers
Monios and The key aspects of an innovative BM in Supply Chain Cooperation
Bergqvist (2015) Management and how it achieves the goals of the
partners
Shin (2014) Entrepreneurs, social networking sites and smart devices Emerging
are key factors of BM innovation with social networking issues
sites
Westerlund et al. The challenges for BMI based on the IOT Emerging
(2014) issues
Yunus et al. Lessons learned from Social Business Model Emerging
(2010) development and the similarities with BMI issues
Spector (2013) When BM redesign changes organizational boundaries Emerging
through insourcing and outsourcing, investments in issues
social capital become salient
4.7 Papers on BMI at the Institutional Level of Analysis 127

4.7 Papers on BMI at the Institutional Level of Analysis

Papers adopting the institutional level of analysis have tended to implicitly or


explicitly consider how external forces/pressures cause, interact, or intervene in
BMI. Typically, this group of papers takes into consideration some particular
contexts, analyzes their features and dynamics and then studies how BMI occurs
because of them. The contexts analyzed are usually emerging economies or new
sectors. In particular, Liu and Wei examine the unique context in China, and offer
some recommendations on how to innovate BMs and on how different BMI affect
firms’ competitive advantages in China (Liu and Wei 2013). Hwang and
Christensen (2008) instead focus on the health industry and on how disruptive
technological innovation has to be integrated in different types of BMs to create
BMI, while Malhotra takes the e-business market as a unit of analysis (Malhotra
2002).
Others again study the following contexts: the digital music market (Vlachos
et al. 2006); the hospitality industry (Kandampully 2006); and the news and music
industries (Swatman et al. 2006) and explore how their characteristics affect BMI.
In a similar vein, Bowman and colleagues study how BMI can occur in the digital
television market and the institutional forces that intervene during the process in
terms of regulatory environment, industry structure, and consumer attitudes toward
digital television services (Bouwman et al. 2008). Another important contribution is
that by Gambardella and McGahan (2010) who study how BMI and industry

Table 4.6 BMI at the Institutional Level of Analysis


Author Main findings Key points
Liu and Wei (2013) BM design and how different designs affect firms’ Geographical
competitive advantages in China context
Hwang and Disruptive technological innovation has to be Industry
Christensen (2008) integrated in different BMs in the health industry to context
create BMI
Malhotra (2002), With regard to BMI in E-business, the role of Industry
Vlachos et al. (2006) knowledge management (KM) and the importance context
of balancing KM for design and KM for emergence
Kandampully (2006) A framework enabling firms in the hospitality Industry
industry to innovate their BMs context
Swatman et al. Overview and assessment of the best internet-based Industry
(2006) business models in the news and music industries context
Gambardella and How BMI and industry structural changes are Industry
McGahan (2010) driven by General Purpose Technologies and the structural
possible consequences at the firm and sector level change
Birkin et al. (2009) Any new business model focused on sustainable Cultural
development must fit more with cultural contexts context
and values than with technical and managerial
issues
128 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

structural changes are driven by general purpose technologies and the possible
consequences at the firm and sector level (Gambardella and McGahan 2010). Here
the units of analysis are two (firm and sector/institution) but our interpretation
suggests that the sector is the main focus of the research. This paper represents a
first attempt to produce an analysis of BMI considering the institutional level, and
given the dearth of studies at this level of analysis and the importance of contextual
influences for BMI, we hope to encourage more research at this level.
Finally, another important stream of research has dealt with external pressures
toward sustainability. We cite for example Birkin and colleagues according to
which successful BMI needs to take into account societal and value issues in
addition to technical and managerial ones (Birkin et al. 2009). A brief summary is
offered in Table 4.6.

4.8 Conclusion

Our multilevel BMI model outlined above is useful for summarizing and inter-
preting the literature. This section integrates existing knowledge about BMI across
perspectives and levels of analysis. Table 4.1 categorizes the analyzed papers
according to their main perspectives and levels of analysis. We identified five
perspectives: strategic management, organizational studies, marketing,
practice-oriented, and entrepreneurship and five level of analysis: individual, team,
firm, network and institutional.
Table 4.1 reveals that most existing knowledge about BMI is fragmented since
76% of the 156 papers adopt a single level of analysis and the majority of those use
the firm as the level of investigation. This fragmentation is exacerbated by the
adoption of different perspectives. For example, while researchers studying BMI at
the network level of analysis tend to adopt a marketing (e.g., Palo and Tähtinen
2013) or entrepreneurship perspective (Gerasymenko et al. 2015), authors focusing
on the institutional level of analysis tend to adopt a strategic management
(Gambardella and McGahan 2010) or practice-oriented perspective (Hwang and
Christensen 2008). Therefore, our review reveals not only that the BMI literature
focuses on one level of analysis at a time but also that the choice of level of analysis
is typically accompanied by a reliance on different perspectives, making the inte-
gration and accumulation of findings difficult.
In short, the main knowledge gap, related to disciplines and levels of analysis,
refers to the need to conduct research on BMI that goes beyond the firm level and
specifically addresses the underlying mechanisms of BMI at the individual, team,
network, and institutional levels of analysis. This can be achieved with integrative
research that expands the knowledge held on each level. In particular, meso levels
represent highly promising research avenues such as the abovementioned team and
network levels of analysis.
References 129

References

Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., & Posselt, T. (2013). Business model innovations for electric
mobility—What can be learned from existing business model patterns? International Journal
of Innovation Management, 17, 1–42.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model
design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 331–350.
Amshoff, B., Dülme, C., Echterfeld, J., & Gausemeier, J. (2015). Business model patterns for
disruptive technologies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19, 1540002.
Andries, P., & Debackere, K. (2013). Business model innovation: Propositions on the
appropriateness of different learning approaches. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22,
337–358.
Andries, P., Debackere, K., & van Looy, B. (2013). simultaneous experimentation as a learning
strategy: Business model development under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
7, 288–310.
Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2010). Business model innovation vs replication:
Financial performance implications of strategic emphases. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18,
39–56.
Aspara, J., Juha-Antti, L., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Strategic management of business
model transformation: Lessons from Nokia. Management Decision, 49, 622–647.
Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2013). Corporate business model
transformation and inter-organizational cognition: The case of Nokia. Long Range Planning,
46, 459–474.
Bate, J. D., & Johnston, R. E., Jr. (2005). Strategic frontiers: The starting-point for innovative
growth. Strategy & Leadership, 33, 12–18.
Baumeister, C., Scherer, A., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2015). Branding access offers: The importance
of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 1–15.
Berman, S. J., Kesterson-Townes, L., Marshall, A., & Srivathsa, R. (2012). How cloud computing
enables process and business model innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 40, 27–35.
Birkin, F., Polesie, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). A new business model for sustainable development: An
exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 18, 277–290.
Björkdahl, J. (2009). Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: The case of
integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Research Policy, 38, 1468–1477.
Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2014). Business models for sustainable technologies:
Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy, 43,
284–300.
Bouncken, R. B., Muench, M., & Kraus, S. (2015). Born globals: Investigating the influence of
their business models on rapid internationalization. International Business & Economics
Research Journal, 14, 247–256.
Bouwman, H., Meng, Z., van der Duin, P., & Sander, L. (2008). A business model for IPTV
service: A dynamic framework. Info, 10, 22–38.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and
organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795–817.
Brettel, M., Strese, S., & Flatten, T. C. (2012). Improving the performance of business models with
relationship marketing efforts—An entrepreneurial perspective. European Management
Journal, 30, 85–98.
Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards systematic business model innovation:
Lessons from product innovation management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21,
183–198.
Cao, L. L. (2014). Business model transformation in moving to a cross-channel retail strategy:
A case study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18, 69–95.
130 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). Business model innovation as lever of
organizational sustainability. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 85–104.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation:
The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2013). Understanding the impact of technology on firms’ business models.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 285–300.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2014). Preparing for business model change: The “pre-stage” finding. Journal
of Management and Governance, 18, 449–469.
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore.
Strategy & Leadership, 35, 12–17.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range
Planning, 43, 354–363.
Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating business models with co-development
partnerships. Research Technology Management, 50, 55–59.
Chroneer, D., Johansson, J., & Malmstrom, M. (2015). Business model management
typologies-cognitive mapping of business model landscapes. International Journal of
Business and Management, 10, 67–80.
Chung, W. W. C., Yam, A. Y. K., & Chan, M. F. S. (2004). Networked enterprise: A new business
model for global sourcing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sequoia S.A.
Coblence, E., & Sabatier, V. (2014). Articulating growth and cultural innovation in art museums:
The Louvr’s business model revision. International Studies of Management & Organization,
44, 9–25.
Cucculelli, M., & Bettinelli, C. (2015). Business models, intangibles and firm performance:
Evidence on corporate entrepreneurship from Italian manufacturing SMEs. Small Business
Economics, 1–22.
Cucculelli, M., Bettinelli, C., & Renoldi, A. (2014). How small-medium enterprises leverage
intangibles during recessions. Evidence from the Italian clothing industry. Management
Decision, 52, 1491–1515.
Dalby, J., Lueg, R., Nielsen, L. S., Pedersen, L., & Tomoni, A. C. (2014). National culture and
business model change—A framework for successful expansions. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, 22, 463–483.
de Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., & Haaker, T. (2013). Business model roadmapping: A practical
approach to come from an existing to a desired business model. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 17, 1–19.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution. In search of dynamic consistency.
Long Range Planning, 43, 227–246.
Denicolai, S., Ramirez, M., & Tidd, J. (2014). Creating and capturing value from external
knowledge: The moderating role of knowledge intensity. R & D Management, 44, 248–264.
Deschamps, J.-P. (2005). Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies. Strategy &
Leadership, 33, 31–38.
Desyllas, P., & Sako, M. (2013). Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from
Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance. Research Policy, 42, 101–116.
Dickson, M. A., & Chang, R. K. (2015). Apparel manufacturers and the business case for social
sustainability: World class CSR and business model innovation. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 2015, 55–72.
Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration
of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D
Management, 44, 306–321.
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for
accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43, 370–382.
Dunford, R., Palmer, I., & Benveniste, J. (2010). Business model replication for early and rapid
internationalisation: The ING direct experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 655–674.
Engel, J. S. (2011). Accelerating corporate innovation: Lessons from the venture capital model.
Research Technology Management, 54, 36–43.
References 131

Enkel, E., & Mezger, F. (2013). Imitation processes and their application for business model
innovation: An explorative study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17,
13400051–134000534.
Eppler, M. J., & Hoffmann, F. (2012). Does method matter? An experiment on collaborative
business model idea generation in teams. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 14,
388–403.
Eriksson, C., Kalling, T., Åkesson, M., & Fredberg, T. (2008). Business models for M-services:
Exploring the E-newspaper case from a consumer view. Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations, 6, 29–57.
Euchner, J., & Ganguly, A. (2014). Business model innovation in practice. Research-Technology
Management, 57, 33–39.
Eurich, M., Weiblen, T., & Breitenmoser, P. (2014). A six-step approach to business model
innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18, 330–
348.
Evans, J. D., & Johnson, R. O. (2013). Tools for managing early-stage business model innovation.
Research Technology Management, 56, 52–56.
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2015). Business model innovation: The organizational dimension. Oxford
University Press.
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation. Journal of
Management, 43, 200–227.
Gambardella, A., & McGahan, A. M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General purpose
technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning, 43, 262–271.
Gerasymenko, V., de Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Changing the business model: Effects
of venture capital firms and outside CEOs on portfolio company performance. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 79–98.
Ghezzi, A., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Frank, A. G. (2015). Strategy and business model design in
dynamic telecommunications industries: A study on Italian mobile network operators.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 346–354.
Giesen, E., Berman, S. J., Bell, R., & Blitz, A. (2007). Three ways to successfully innovate your
business model. Strategy & Leadership, 35, 27–33.
Giesen, E., Riddleberger, E., Christner, R., & Bell, R. (2010). When and how to innovate your
business model. Strategy & Leadership, 38, 17–26.
Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2013). Business model innovation for sustainability. Manufacturing
& Service Operations Management, 15, 537–544.
Goyal, S. (2014). Understanding the key characteristics of an embedded business model for the
base of the pyramid markets. Economics and Sociology, 7, 26–40.
Gudiksen, S. (2015). Business model design games: Rules and Procedures to challenge
assumptions and elicit surprises. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 307–322.
Günzel, F., & Holm, A. B. (2013). One size does not fit all—Understanding the front-end and
back-end of business model innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17,
1–35.
Guo, H., Zhao, J., & Tang, J. (2013). The role of top managers’ human and social capital in
business model innovation. Chinese Management Studies, 7, 447–469.
Habtay, S. R. (2012). A firm-level analysis on the relative difference between technology-driven
and market-driven disruptive business model innovations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Habtay, S. R., & Holmén, M. (2014). Incumbents’ responses to disruptive business model
innovation: The moderating role of technology vs. market-driven innovation. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(18), 289–309.
Halme, M., & Korpela, M. (2014). Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in
small and medium-sized enterprises: A resource perspective. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 23, 547–566.
Hao-Chen, H., Mei-Chi, L., Lee-Hsuan, L., & Chien-Tsai, C. (2013). Overcoming organizational
inertia to strengthen business model innovation. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 26, 977–1002.
132 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

Ho, Y.-C., Fang, H.-C., & Lin, J.-F. (2010). Value co-creation in business models: Evidence from
three cases analysis in Taiwan. The Business Review, 15, 171–177.
Huarng, K.-H. (2013). A two-tier business model and its realization for entrepreneurship. Journal
of Business Research, 66, 2102–2105.
Hvass, K. K. (2015). Business Model Innovation through Second Hand Retailing: A Fashion
Industry Case. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2015, 11–32.
Hwang, J., & Christensen, C. M. (2008). Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: A
framework for business-model innovation. Chevy Chase: The People to People Health
Foundation, Inc., Project HOPE.
Jain, R. (2014). Business model innovations for information and communications
technology-based services for low-income segments in emerging economies. Journal of
Global Information Technology Management, 17, 74–90.
Kandampully, J. (2006). The new customer-centred business model for the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18, 173–187.
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity:
Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a cloud business model.
R & D Management, 44, 322–340.
Kim, S. K., & Min, S. (2015). Business model innovation performance: When does adding a new
business model benefit an incumbent? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 34–57.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013a). The innovation bottom
line. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54, 1–21.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013b). The benefits of sustainability-driven
innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54, 69–73.
Kiura, T., Bosch, O. J. H., Nguyen, N. C., Shirasaka, S., & Maeno, T. (2014). Creating a new
business through applying the systems-based evolutionary learning laboratory approach.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31, 696–707.
Koen, P. A., Bertels, H., Elsum, I. R., Orroth, M., & Tollett, B. L. (2010). Breakthrough
innovation dilemmas. Research Technology Management, 53, 48–51.
Koen, P. A., Bertels, H. M. J., & Elsum, I. R. (2011). The three faces of business model
innovation: Challenges for established firms. Research Technology Management, 54, 52–59.
Lange, V. G., & Velamuri, V. K. (2014). Business model innovation in the retail industry: Growth
by serving the silver generation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, 18, 310–329.
Lazonick, W., Mazzucato, M., & Tulum, Ö. (2013). Apple’s changing business model: What
should the world’s richest company do with all those profits? Accounting Forum, 37, 249–267.
Leavy, B. (2010). A system for innovating business models for breakaway growth. Strategy &
Leadership, 38, 5–15.
Lindgren, P., Taran, Y., & Boer, H. (2010). From single firm to network-based business
model innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12,
122–137.
Liu, Y., & Wei, J. (2013). Business modeling for entrepreneurial firms: Four cases in China.
Chinese Management Studies, 7, 344–359.
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2013). A service science perspective on business model innovation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 665–670.
Malhotra, Y. (2002). Enabling knowledge exchanges for e-business communities. Information
Strategy, 18, 26–31.
Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach
us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 313–323.
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of
concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 9, 99–117.
Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2015). Adapting to the sharing economy. Mit Sloan
Management Review, 56, 71–77.
References 133

Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation:


Insights from an explorative study. R & D Management, 44, 429–449.
Michalski, T. (2003). E-service innovations through corporate entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Management & Decision Making, 4, 194–209.
Molloy, J. C., Ployhart, R. E., & Wright, P. M. (2010). The myth of the micro-macro divide:
Bridging system-level and disciplinary divides. Journal of Management, 37, 581–609.
Monios, J., & Bergqvist, R. (2015). Using a “virtual joint venture” to facilitate the adoption of
intermodal transport. Supply Chain Management-an International Journal, 20, 534–548.
Morgan, E. (2015). ’Plan A’: Analysing business model innovation for sustainable consumption in
mass-market clothes retailing. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 57, 73–98.
Nair, S., Nisar, A., Palacios, M., & Ruiz, F. (2012). Impact of knowledge brokering on
performance heterogeneity among business models. Management Decision, 50, 1649–1660.
Nair, S., Paulose, H., Palacios, M., & Tafur, J. (2013). Service orientation: Effectuating business
model innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 958–975.
Ng, I. C. L., Ding, D. X., & Yip, N. (2013). Outcome-based contracts as new business model: The
role of partnership and value-driven relational assets. Industrial Marketing Management, 42,
730–743.
Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The
cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78.
Ostroff, C., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Perspectives on organizational fit. Hove, UK: Psychology
Press.
Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2013). Networked business model development for emerging
technology-based services. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 773–782.
Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2005). Technology innovation-induced business model change: A
contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 167–183.
Pohle, G., & Chapman, M. (2006). IBM’s global CEO report 2006: Business model innovation
matters. Strategy & Leadership, 34, 34–40.
Pourabdollahian, G., & Copani, G. (2014). Proposal of an innovative business model for
customized production in healthcare. Modern Economy, 5, 1147–1160.
Pynnönen, M., Hallikas, J., & Ritala, P. (2012). Managing customer-driven business model
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 1–13.
Ramendra Singh, D., Pels, J., & Kidd, T. A. (2015). Business model innovation: Learning from a
high-tech-low-fee medical healthcare model for the BOP. International Journal of
Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 9, 200–218.
Richter, M. (2013). Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and
renewable energy. Energy Policy, 62, 1226–1237.
Ritala, P., & Sainio, L.-M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and
business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 155–169.
Roth, S., Schneckenberg, D., & Tsai, C. W. (2015). The ludic drive as innovation driver:
Introduction to the gamification of innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24,
300–306.
Sanchez, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). Business model innovation and sources of value creation in
low-income markets. European management review, 7, 138–154.
Sanz-Velasco, S. A., & Saemundsson, R. G. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning in academic
spin-offs: A business model perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, 8, 15–35.
Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). Business model innovation and strategic flexibility: Insights
from an experimental research design. International Journal of Innovation Management, 18,
1440009.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Foundations for organizational science.
London: A Sage Publication Series.
134 4 Multilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation

Seidenstricker, S., & Linder, C. (2014). A morphological analysis-based creativity approach to


identify and develop ideas for BMI: A case study of a high-tech manufacturing company.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18, 409–424.
Shelton, R. (2009). Integrating product and service innovation. Research Technology
Management, 52, 38–44.
Shin, J. (2014). New business model creation through the triple helix of young entrepreneurs,
SNSs, and smart devices. International Journal of Technology Management, 66, 302–318.
Simmons, G., Palmer, M., & Truong, Y. (2013). Inscribing value on business model innovations:
Insights from industrial projects commercializing disruptive digital innovations. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42, 744–754.
Sinfield, J. V., Calder, E., McConnell, B., & Colson, S. (2012). How to identify new business
models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 85–90.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation
through trial-and-error learning: The naturhouse case. Long Range Planning, 43, 383–407.
Spector, B. (2013). The social embeddedness of business model enactment. Journal of Strategy
and Management, 6, 27–39.
Storbacka, K., Windahl, C., Nenonen, S., & Salonen, A. (2013). Solution business models:
Transformation along four Continua. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 705–716.
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the making: A
Chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43, 408–430.
Swatman, P. M. C., Krueger, C., & van der Beek, K. (2006). The changing digital content
landscape: An evaluation of e-business model development in European online news and
music. Internet Research, 16, 53–80.
Taran, Y., Boer, H., & Lindgren, P. (2015). A business model innovation typology. Decision
Sciences, 46, 301–331.
Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2014). The business model dilemma of technology shifts.
Technovation, 34, 525–535.
Tuulenmäki, A., & Välikangas, L. (2011). The art of rapid, hands-on execution innovation.
Strategy & Leadership, 39, 28–35.
Velamuri, V. K., Bansemir, B., Neyer, A.-K., & Möslein, K. M. (2013). Product service systems as
a driver for business model innovation: Lessons learned from the manufacturing industry.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–25.
Velu, C. (2015). Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms.
Technovation, 35, 1–11.
Vlachos, P., Vrechopoulos, A., & Pateli, A. (2006). Drawing emerging business models for the
mobile music industry. Electronic Markets, 16, 154–168.
Wang, Q., Voss, C., Zhao, X. D., & Wang, Z. Q. (2015). Modes of service innovation: A
typology. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115, 1358–1382.
Wei, Z. L., Yang, D., Sun, B., & Gu, M. (2014). The fit between technological innovation
and business model design for firm growth: Evidence from China. R & D Management, 44,
288–305.
Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2014). Designing business models for the internet
of things. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4, 5–14.
Witell, L., & Löfgren, M. (2013). From service for free to service for fee: Business model
innovation in manufacturing firms. Journal of Service Management, 24, 520–533.
Wu, J., Guo, B., & Shi, Y. (2013). Customer knowledge management and IT-enabled business
model innovation: A conceptual framework and a case study from China. European
Management Journal, 31, 359–372.
Wu, X., Ma, R., & Shi, Y. (2010). How do latecomer firms capture value from disruptive
technologies? A secondary business-model innovation perspective. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 57, 51–62.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models:
Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308–325.
References 135

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms.
Organization Science, 18, 181–199.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range
Planning, 43, 216–226.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future
research. Journal of Management, 37, 1019–1042.
Chapter 5
BMI from the Perspective of Five
Disciplines

Abstract This chapter categorizes the 156 papers included in our systematic
analysis according to the disciplines to which they belong. Our thematic and
ontological analyses identified five different disciplines dealing with BMI: strategic
management, organizational studies, marketing, and entrepreneurship. In addition
to these, we have the practice-oriented group of papers. This chapter is organized as
follows, each section considers one of the five different disciplines and first ana-
lyzes how BMI is treated in it by reviewing the main research questions, the
theoretical perspectives, and the methodologies employed in the papers considered
in our systematic literature review. Specifically, we will discuss the papers most
cited in each field and their contribution to the knowledge on BMI. Finally, the
chapter presents the categorization of the papers according to their main perspec-
tives and levels of analysis (illustrated in the fourth chapter of this book), providing
a specific research agenda for future research.

5.1 Introduction

In categorizing the managerial disciplines, we have not considered papers on


innovation and change management if they did not refer explicitly to any form of
innovation of the business model. While this decision to focus on the labeling of the
business model may have led to the exclusion of papers that indirectly referred to
BMI without using the BM label, this strategy allowed us to guarantee the
appropriate level of focus that is needed in an SLR (Thorpe et al. 2005). Thus,
acknowledging the limitation of this issue, we underline that for the purpose of this
systematic literature review we have considered only contributions which explicitly
address BMI.
Table 5.1 presents the papers considered in our systematic literature review
arranged according to the five disciplines reflecting our analysis. Most of the papers
belong to the strategic management discipline (n = 43), the second most populated
field is entrepreneurship (n = 28), followed by practice-oriented papers (n = 25),
marketing (n = 18) and organizational works (n = 16).

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 137


D. Andreini and C. Bettinelli, Business Model Innovation, International Series
in Advanced Management Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3_5
138 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

Table 5.1 BMI papers categorized based on multiple perspectives*


Perspectives References
Strategic Cavalcante (2014), Svejenova et al. (2010), Eppler and Hoffmann (2012),
management Wu et al. (2010), Dunford et al. (2010), Björkdahl (2009), Aspara et al.
(2010), Zott and Amit (2010), Kim and Min (2015), Sanchez and Ricart
(2010), Nair et al. (2012), Ho et al. (2010), Demil and Lecocq (2010),
Habtay (2012), Eurich et al. (2014), Dickson and Chang (2015), Coblence
and Sabatier (2014), Bouncken et al. (2015), Ramendra Singh et al.
(2015), Schneider and Spieth (2014), Hvass (2015), Jain (2014), Amshoff
et al. (2015), Khanagha et al. (2014), Denicolai et al. (2014), Cucculelli
et al. (2014), Morgan (2015), Pourabdollahian and Copani (2014), Halme
and Korpela (2014), Ghezzi et al. (2015), Tongur and Engwall (2014),
Wei et al. (2014), Roth et al. (2015), Goyal (2014), Yunus et al. (2010),
Spector (2013), Chung et al. (2004), Westerlund et al. (2014), Monios and
Bergqvist (2015), Liu and Wei (2013), Bouwman et al. (2008),
Gambardella and McGahan 2010)
Organizational Aspara et al. (2013), Sosna et al. (2010), Sanz-Velasco and Saemundsson
studies (2008), Kiura et al. (2014), Girotra and Netessine (2013), Doz and
Kosonen (2010), Andries and Debackere (2013), Hao-Chen et al. (2013),
Chesbrough (2010), Pateli and Giaglis (2005), Zott and Amit (2007),
Bohnsack et al. (2014), Andries et al. (2013), Markides (2013), Dalby
et al. (2014), Carayannis et al. (2015)
Marketing Guo et al. (2013), Witell and Löfgren (2013), Maglio and Spohrer (2013),
Storbacka et al. (2013), Ng et al. (2013), Nair et al. (2013), Velamuri et al.
(2013), Desyllas and Sako (2013), Pynnönen et al. (2012), Brettel et al.
(2012), Aspara et al. (2011), Dmitriev et al. (2014), Baumeister et al.
(2015), Lange and Velamuri (2014), Cao (2014), Simmons et al. (2013),
Palo and Tähtinen (2013), Lindgren et al. (2010)
Practice-oriented Giesen et al. ((2007, 2010), Pohle and Chapman (2006), Engel (2011),
Tuulenmäki and Välikangas (2011), Eriksson et al. (2008), Deschamps
(2005), Kiron et al. (2013a, b), Koen et al. (2010, 2011), Leavy (2010),
Sinfield et al. (2012), Chesbrough (2007a), (2007), Berman et al. (2012),
Bate and Johnston (2005), Euchner and Ganguly (2014), Matzler et al.
(2015), Chesbrough and Schwartz (2007), Kandampully (2006), Swatman
et al. (2006), Hwang and Christensen (2008), Birkin et al. (2009), Vlachos
et al. (2006), Malhotra (2002)
Entrepreneurship Osiyevskyy and Dewald (2015), Martins et al. (2015), Chroneer et al.
(2015), Huarng (2013), Michalski (2003), Amit and Zott (2015), Bucherer
et al. (2012), Richter (2013), Evans and Johnson (2013),
Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu (2013), Enkel and Mezger (2013), Abdelkafi
et al. (2013), De Reuver et al. (2013), Lazonick et al. (2013), Shelton
(2009), Günzel and Holm (2013), Gudiksen (2015), Taran et al. (2015),
Seidenstricker and Linder (2014), Velu (2015), Cucculelli and Bettinelli
(2015), Habtay and Holmén (2014), Wang et al. (2015), Mezger (2014),
Gerasymenko et al. (2015), Ritala and Sainio (2014), Cavalcante (2013),
Shin (2014)
*24 papers could not be classified because they did not take an explicit position in terms of
perspective
5.1 Introduction 139

Papers belonging in these fields tend to focus on particular theoretical per-


spectives. For example, papers published in the field of organizational studies
mainly use learning, behavioral, or organizational design theories (e.g., Aspara
et al. 2013, Markides 2013), whereas those adopting strategic management per-
spectives use theories of value creation (e.g., Björkdahl 2009), the resource-based
view (e.g., Svejenova et al. 2010), or activity systems (Zott and Amit 2010).
The objective of this chapter is to reveal the main theoretical perspectives uti-
lized in the papers considered in our systematic literature review by discipline, thus
the methodologies utilized to study BMI, the evolution of knowledge about BMI,
and main results in each field.

5.2 BMI from the Perspective of the Strategic


Management Discipline

The 43 papers under the strategic management discipline are works that mainly
consider strategies that lead to, or facilitate BMI, and/or the strategic consequences
of BMI.
Among the strategic management papers are some seminal contributions to start
the debate when it was in its infancy (e.g., Teece 2010; Zott and Amit 2010; Demil
and Lecocq 2010). While it is not possible to identify a unique subject of debate, we
can see at least two streams in the discourses that strategic management scholars
have been (and are) proposing: the first related to the strategic drivers and outcomes
of BMI and the second to the processes that lead to BMI.
Here we find studies that consider the effects of product/service innovation on
BMI (Björkdahl 2009), the effects of managers’ initiatives on BMI (Cavalcante
2014), the effects of technology on BMI (Gambardella and McGahan 2010), the
underlying factors influencing the degree of business model innovation in
low-income markets (Sanchez and Ricart 2010), or what affects BM flexibility and
BM performance (Nair et al. 2012). In this vein, authors have also researched how
the initiatives taken in the context of an emergent technology affect companies’
business models (with a focus on the pre-stage of business model change)
(Cavalcante 2014).
The second one addresses questions related to the “How” of BMI instead: what
are the processes that lead to BMI? Here we find for example work that studies the
processes through which a BM emerged and evolved (Dunford et al. 2010), the
design strategies and operating mechanisms of the business models (Ho et al. 2010),
how a BM evolves, looking at the interactions between its building blocks and
external variables with a transformational approach (Demil and Lecocq 2010), how
BMI interacts in the relationship between investments in research and development
and advertising and firm performance during recessions (Cucculelli et al. 2014), and
the dynamics of this intersection between technology and business models (Tongur
and Engwall 2014).
140 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

Our systematic literature review revealed that the main theoretical approaches
deployed to answer the research questions mentioned above are: theories of value
creation (e.g., Björkdahl 2009); the resource-based view (e.g., Svejenova et al.
2010); activity systems (Zott and Amit 2010); and more recently the cognitive
approach (e.g., Martins et al. 2015).
The theories of value creation first appeared in strategic management literature.
According to this perspective, companies can create value in the market through the
development of a new BM owing to the introduction of new technologies (e.g.,
Björkdahl 2009) or when forced by external contingencies (Bouwman et al. 2008);
or in partnership with other actors in the market to co-create innovative value for
stakeholders (Ho et al. 2010).
The resource-based view is the most utilized perspective in the management
field. It holds that companies can develop a new BM owing to the accumulation of
knowledge inside the organization (Nair et al. 2012); Demil and Lecoq (2010),
adopting Penrose’s view of the firm as bundle of resources, developed a model
explaining the BMI processes. Gambardella and McGahan (2010), in contrast,
consider BMI to be the commercialization of knowledge-based assets.
The activity systems approach (also known as the BM design approach) follows
the conceptualization of BM proposed by Zott and Amit (2010) “BM is a system of
interdependent activities that transcends the focal firm and spans its boundaries”
(Zott and Amit 2010: p. 216). The researchers adopting this systematic vision of
BMI are interested in studying the intra-firm dynamics of BMI (e.g., Spector 2013);
the external forces influencing the BMI system, such as the impact of multiple
stakeholders’ power (e.g., Miller et al. 2014); and the organizational processes that
modify the nature, the structure of the BM activities and their interconnections
(Cavalcante 2014).
In recent years, a cognitive approach arose in the strategic management litera-
ture, according to which BMIs are managers’ interpretations and re-interpretations
of external and internal variables and resources (Martins et al. 2015). Thus, BMs
change not only because of external and internal stimuli, but also owing to man-
agers’ and entrepreneurs’ cognitive and intellectual abilities and skills.
In terms of the main approach adopted in this field, a vast majority of papers are
qualitative (31 out of 43), whereas conceptual or descriptive contributions account
for six contributions, and quantitative papers five. Among the group of qualitative
papers, most adopt a case study approach. For example, Cavalcante (2014) ana-
lyzed four Danish companies with 19 interviewees of middle managers; Sanchez
and Ricart (2010) studied seven business ventures; Dunford and colleagues focused
on a single-case study of ING Direct (Dunford et al. 2010); as did Demil and Lecoq
who studied Arsenal football club, (Demil and Lecocq 2010); Ho and colleagues
analyzed three firms in Taiwan (Ho et al. 2010). These are only a few examples, and
what they all seem to have in common is that the authors strived to offer in-depth
analyses, often underpinned by long-term research to present a longitudinal
perspective.
In addition to this very populated group we find conceptual papers like the one
by Zott and Amit (2010) that focuses on BM design and asserts that through
5.2 BMI from the Perspective of the Strategic Management Discipline 141

focusing on activity system, companies are able to design better BMs (Zott and
Amit 2010); or the paper by Gambardella and McGahan that describes how tech-
nology change is related to BMI (Gambardella and McGahan 2010).
Finally, among the very few quantitative papers we mention as an example the
work by Kim and Min who have analyzed 131 publicly traded store-based retailers
(Kim and Min 2015), or the contribution by Cucculelli and colleagues who ana-
lyzed 376 Italian clothing SMEs during the period 2000–2010 (Cucculelli et al.
2014).
In terms of sectorial focus, also in this case we find various papers considering
hi-tech sectors. For example, Cavalcante analyses a new technology—the European
Global Satellite Navigation System (GNSS) (Cavalcante 2014); and Nair and col-
leagues focus on the airline industry (Nair et al. 2012). Interestingly the range of
sectors considered seems to be greater than we found in the entrepreneurship
group. Sectors analyzed include banking (Dunford et al. 2010; Yunus et al. 2010),
football (Demil and Lecocq 2010), the automotive industry (Tongur and Engwall
2014), gastronomy (Svejenova et al. 2010), clothing (Cucculelli et al. 2014), and
the retail sector (Kim and Min 2015). Finally, a few articles consider various sectors
simultaneously (e.g., Sanchez and Ricart 2010; Björkdahl 2009).

5.3 BMI from the Perspective of Organizational Studies

There are 15 papers included in our systematic literature review appearing since
2005 that are ascribable to the organizational discipline. Although articles under the
organizational studies discipline appeared later than those under other disciplines,
those articles do make significant contributions.
In particular, this discipline seems to convey specific research objectives related
to BMI, such as the link between organizational design and BMI (e.g., Zott and
Amit 2007); how organizational behaviors influence BMI (e.g., Bohnsack et al.
2014); the relationship between different experimentation and learning approaches
and BMI (Andries and Debackere 2013); the role of individuals and teams in
shaping BMI (e.g., Aspara et al. 2013). In the last two years, cultural studies related
to BMI have also emerged in this field (e.g., Dalby et al. 2014).
At the early stage of BMI research in the organizational studies discipline,
authors focused on the link between organizational design and BMI. Zott and
Amit’s (2007) seminal work opened the research on this theme, demonstrating how
two particular business model designs—efficiency centered and novelty centered—
affect the performances of companies. In this stream, Carayannis et al. (2015)
studied how external stakeholders, in particular customers and partners, affect the
innovation processes of different BM designs. Other authors showed how specific
organizational tools drive choosing among different BMI designs. Pateli and Giaglis
(2005), for instance, proposed “scenario planning” as a useful tool to identify the
most relevant changes in BMs.
142 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

Among researchers interested in identifying the organizational behaviors related


to BMI, we would mention the path dependency evolution of BMs (Bohnsack et al.
2014), the ambidexterity choice in managing BMI (Markides 2013), and organi-
zational inertia as the main barrier to BMI (Hao-Chen et al. 2013).
Another two main objectives related to BMI can be detected in organizational
studies: the role of experimentation and learning processes in affecting BMIs
(Andries et al. 2013); and the influence of individuals and teams on the evolution
and creation of new BMIs (e.g., Aspara et al. 2013).
Representatives of the experimentation and learning approaches are Andries and
Debackere (2013) and Andries et al. (2013) who demonstrated how experience,
experimentation, and other learning tactics affect BMI. Sanz-Velasco and
Saemundsson (2008), in contrast investigate how entrepreneurs learn and develop
new BMs, while Sosna et al. (2010) describe how trial-and-error processes help
develop firms’ BMs at different stages. Among the authors investigating the
influence of individuals and teams on BMI, Aspara et al. (2013) demonstrate how
executives’ cognitive processes affect corporate BM transformation decisions; Doz
and Kosonen (2010) analyze the role of CEOs and their leadership teams in the
acceleration process of companies’ BMs. Finally, in recent years, cultural studies
related to BMI appeared under the organizational discipline. For instance, Dalby
et al. (2014) combine BM and national culture in order to better understand how
companies have to change their BMs in different national contexts.
Our initial analysis shows how the articles categorized in the organizational
discipline investigate BMI from different points of view, leading to the adoption of
multiple theoretical lenses.
Generally, we can say that all the papers in the organizational study discipline
agree with the BM design perspective in the way they conceptualize BMI (Zott and
Amit 2010, 2001).
In particular, papers focused on BM governance, adopt a BM design approach
(Zott and Amit 2010, 2001) providing evidence of the linkage between organiza-
tional design and the BM, mostly in terms of the BM incorporating innovation and
radical change characteristics (e.g., Zott and Amit 2007).
Organizational behavior research varies in studying BMI by way of path
dependency theory (Bohnsack et al. 2014); ambidexterity theory (Markides 2013);
and the organizational inertia approach (Hao-Chen et al. 2013). Papers interested in
organizational learning processes implement cognitive theoretical approaches when
the level of analysis is on an individual echelon (e.g., Aspara et al. 2013), while
learning theories appear in studies related to experimentation and trial-and-error at
the organizational level (e.g., Sosna et al. 2010). Hofstede’s framework (1994) is
one of the first attempts to adopt a cultural approach to BMI, as described by Dalby
et al. (2014).
Methodologically, also in this discipline we report a larger number of qualitative
research methods.
There are very few papers based on a single-case study methodology, although
one notable example is the cultural approach paper by Dalby et al. (2014). The
more commonly used methodology is the multiple case study to study
5.3 BMI from the Perspective of Organizational Studies 143

organizational behaviors (e.g., Doz and Kosonen 2010) and organizational learning
(e.g., Sanz-Velasco and Saemundsson 2008). In the same way, longitudinal case
studies emerge in works dealing with the relationship between learning organiza-
tional processes and BMIs (Aspara et al. 2013; Sosna et al. 2010). Bohnsack et al.
(2014) employed a longitudinal case study in their organizational behavior study.
Some authors combined the longitudinal with multiple case study methods.
Notably, Andries and Debackere (2013) applied a longitudinal case study method to
six ventures active in various industries, all of them facing considerable levels of
market and technological uncertainty and developing a variety of BMs to address
their situation. Finally, there are a few papers adopting an econometric analysis. For
instance, Zott and Amit (2007) created a panel of 190 firms listed on the U.S. or
European public exchanges, and monitored them between 1996 and 2000.
In terms of sectorial focus, the organizational discipline shows the same pattern
of industries depicted in other disciplines, where IT is the most often represented
(Chesbrough 2010; Doz and Kosonen 2010; Aspara et al. 2013; Bohnsack et al.
2014, Dalby et al. 2014). Other industries investigated in the organizational field
include education—and particularly university spin-offs, (Sanz-Velasco and
Saemundsson 2008)—and dietary supplement retailing chains (Sosna et al. 2010).

5.4 BMI from the Perspective of Marketing

Papers related to the marketing discipline represent 33% of the studies considered in
our systematic literature review (n = 18).
Marketing research on BMI investigates how companies can create and deliver
value for stakeholders, and particularly for customers. As actual and potential
customers change in a continuously changing environment, firms have to modify
their BMs to improve the value proposed and delivered to the market. Thus,
marketing papers on BMI mainly focus on three main themes: customer value
creation, commercialization of BMI (value delivery and capture) and customer
knowledge to deliver better segmentation and targeting.
• As regards customer value creation, marketing scholars investigate value cre-
ation through BMs in terms of new technologies. Where value can be ascribed
to new business processes through new technologies and thus business model
innovation (Simmons et al. 2013). Moreover, Sorescu et al. (2011), for instance,
proposed a framework of six design themes to be used to innovate business
models with three basic themes around customer value creation; customer
efficiency, customer effectiveness, and customer engagement and three corre-
sponding themes around value appropriation; operational efficiency, operational
effectiveness, and customer lock-in (Sorescu et al. 2011). Another theme related
to new ways to create value, is value co-creation, incorporating how value
emerges through company-customer interaction, which is also known as
value-in-use (Anderson et al. 2009). This concept also highlights the interactive
144 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

relationship between customers and firms, assisted by digital technologies that


in turn generate more opportunities for companies to purvey value in terms of
co-created products and services.
• In relation to the commercialization of BMI and related innovations theme,
value delivery and capture are two focuses of marketing literature dealing with
BMI. Articles with these focuses seek to find how to commercialize BMI and
related innovations (see for instance Witell and Löfgren 2013; Dmitriev et al.
2014). More recently, Baumeister et al. (2015) studied the role of brand in the
introduction of a new BM to the market. The commercialization theme is also
related to servitization, since services have become a major aspect of BMI in
recent years. By shifting from products to product-service systems, firms can
better satisfy customers’ needs and attract new customers by escaping the trap of
consistent, mundane business activities (Velamuri et al. 2013; Nair et al. 2013).
• With regards to the theme of segmentation and targeting, when targeting a new
way of innovating within the business model, firms must remain conscious of
the market environment. Thus, business models should take into account the
role of users in addition to paying customers and the value of a reciprocal gain in
turn (Ehret et al. 2013). Market orientation and customer knowledge are the key
processes that can drive successful BMI. Thus, for instance, some authors
investigate how IT can deliver customer knowledge in order to develop BMI
(see e.g., Wu et al. 2013).
In terms of theoretical perspectives, the papers in the marketing literature utilize
several theoretical lenses, and among the most relevant, in numerical and impact
terms, are the following: the market orientation, relationship perspective, service
dominant logic (SDL), and networking theory.
As regards the market-orientation perspective, it is one of the first theories
marketers utilized to analyze the BMI phenomenon, and it reflects three areas of
orientation: customer orientation, competitor orientation, and inter-department
coordination to help firms take account of market conditions (Huang et al. 2012).
Under this perspective, BMI occurs when the environment and customers change,
thus it is important for the companies to monitor customer behaviors, preferences,
and attitudes, in order to anticipate market dynamics and remain competitive in the
market (Wu et al. 2013).
Underpinning the SDL is the finding that in recent years companies have shifted
from a goods dominant logic, where firms sell a tangible product and expect a
return, to the newly identified SDL, where firms sell exchange of “service for
service” (Vargo and Lusch 2004). In this context, the BMI concept is mainly related
to this dominant shift—where, for instance, companies do not sell products but
solutions—thus this mindset change is itself BMI (Maglio and Spohrer 2013;
Storbacka et al. 2013).
As, shown in Chap. 2, BMs can be understood as a model consisting in rela-
tionships and interrelations between focal companies, suppliers, customers, and
partners, that together co-create value. Marketing literature takes into consideration
two main types of relationships that can create BMI: customer-firm relationships
5.4 BMI from the Perspective of Marketing 145

and networks. In the former, value is co-created and the customer-firm relationship
is a means to achieve successful BMI, and thus firms and customers have to invest
in specific relational assets (Ng et al. 2013; Brettel et al. 2012). In the latter,
customer and network value is a collegial activity where customers, competitors,
and suppliers combine to plan and develop BMI in a collective and interrelated
way.
With regard to the method of inquiry, most papers utilize qualitative methods,
among which we can mention the multiple case study (7); longitudinal case study
(3), single-case study (1), grounded theory (1) and one conceptual paper (1). Six
papers use a quantitative method, of which five utilize a survey as a research design
strategy and the other adopts an experiment as its method of inquiry.
Methodologically, of the 18 articles in the marketing discipline, three mention
general and varied sectors. As in the other disciplines, the most used research
design is the case study, and most of the research is still in its early stages. In the
marketing discipline as elsewhere, case studies help authors to gather in-depth
insights into a specific company and to identify the specific issues of BMI on
external concepts such as customers, the environment, competitors, and partners.
The industry most often examined in the articles found in the marketing disci-
pline was the technological sector with six articles referencing it. Similarly, four
articles focused on the service sector as empirical examples of BMI. The remaining
industries used for this comparative research were manufacturing (2) and retailing
(2).

5.5 BMI from the Perspective of the Entrepreneurship


Discipline

Papers belonging to the entrepreneurship field tend to focus on entrepreneurial


behaviors, start-ups, early-stage firm development, innovation activities,1 and cor-
porate entrepreneurship. In total, we detected 28 papers published in
entrepreneurship journals.
In terms of the intellectual evolution of entrepreneurship papers we note that the
entrepreneurship group examining BMI is relatively young, with the majority of
papers being published after 2010. The lines of investigation are all related to
typical entrepreneurship topics such as BMI to assist entrepreneurship (e.g., Huarng
2013), and to support new firms (e.g., Velu and Khanna 2013); BMI for firms
involved in new market entry (e.g., Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013); BMI as a

1
For parsimony reasons the papers related to innovation and technology management were
included as a sub-group of the entrepreneurship discipline. It is important to note that a large
amount of contributions on BMI include analyses of technology and technological innovation. Our
findings show that the latter is mostly seen as a driver of BMI. In many cases, technological sectors
are also considered as the most suitable ones to study BMI as BMI occurs quite often in such
contexts.
146 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

corporate entrepreneurship action in established firms (e.g., Cucculelli and


Bettinelli, 2015); explorative versus exploitative BMI in response to disruptive
innovations (e.g., Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015); and BMI in venture capital firms
(e.g., Gerasymenko et al. 2015). Overall, it seems that, while there is not a neat and
unique line of investigation, in entrepreneurship studies BMI is mainly associated
with various forms of disruptive and substantial innovations introduced and
developed to seize new economic opportunities.
The theoretical perspectives deployed in this field are related to: the combination
of innovation theories and BM studies (e.g., Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013)
especially those developed up until 2013. From 2014 new theoretical perspectives
emerged, such as the activity systems approach applied to BMI for new ventures
(Amit and Zott 2015; Gerasymenko et al. 2015); the dynamic capability approach
(Mezger 2014); and the cognitive perspective (e.g., Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015).
Authors investigating new ventures using a combination of innovation theories
and BM studies, focus on how to introduce innovations through various BMI
alternatives, such as imitation (e.g., Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013; Enkel and
Mezger 2013) or coopetition (e.g., Ritala and Sainio 2014; Enkel and Mezger
2013). Other authors seek to establish the boundaries between product innovation
and BMI by determining their similarities and differences (e.g., Bucherer et al.
2012).
The entrepreneurship discipline seems to agree on the activity systems approach
as applied to BMI for new ventures (Amit and Zott 2015). Thus, there are multiple
papers applying and advancing the studies on BM design, notably Gerasymenko
et al. (2015), who analyze the design and implementation of BMI in young ven-
tures, and Günzel and Holm (2013) who investigated the processes of BMI in new
ventures.
The dynamic capability perspective is the evolution of the resource-based view
that is able to identify and describe the internal resources required to change BMs
(Mezger 2014). Finally, the cognitive perspective (Aspara et al. 2011, 2013)
underlines how managers can proactively change BMs through a systematic pro-
cess. These last two perspectives are in their infancy, but the number of citations
suggests a keen interest in these internal and human-based drivers of BMI on the
part of researchers.
While entrepreneurship papers have used a variety of methods, a large majority
of them (12 out of 25) have favored a qualitative approach. Among those, the use of
multiple cases is the most popular method. Examples range from multiple
semi-structured explorative interviews with representatives of various organizations
(Richter 2013), to more detailed multiple case analysis (Mezger 2014; Enkel and
Mezger 2013; Bucherer et al. 2012), including retrospective case studies (Taran
et al. 2015).
Single-case studies have also been adopted by a smaller group of scholars
(Lazonick et al. 2013; Seidenstricker and Linder 2014) sometimes with a purely
illustrative aim (De Reuver et al. 2013).
Entrepreneurship scholars have also implemented other variations of qualitative
analysis such as action research with intervention experiments (with business
5.5 BMI from the Perspective of the Entrepreneurship Discipline 147

games) during one- or two-day design workshops. In this interesting research, BMI
was studied from the perspective of business case owners and invited participants
who engaged in several consecutive design games, each related to a set of business
model components (Gudiksen 2015). Another article performed qualitative analysis
using secondary data about service innovation projects in a major mobile telecom
company (Wang et al. 2015). Others in turn have simply performed semi-structured
interviews with serial entrepreneurs to dig deeper into BMI strategies (Chroneer
et al. 2015).
Far less popular are works adopting solely quantitative methods (3 out of 25). In
this case the sources of information are surveys (Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015) or
some integrations of various sources. For example, Velu and Khanna (2013)
integrated annual reports with data from press releases to study 129 new firms
between 1995 and 2004 (Velu and Khanna 2013). Cucculelli and Bettinelli
meanwhile integrated archival financial data with survey data from 376 small and
medium-sized Italian enterprises over the period 2000–2010 (Cucculelli and
Bettinelli 2015).
In addition to solely qualitative and solely quantitative papers, we also note the
emergence of pieces of work using multi-method approaches. These seem very
promising in that they allow for a better appreciation of the multiple aspects of
BMI. For example, Gerasymenko et al. collected data from the following sources:
(1) surveys answered by general partners of venture capital firms (VCFs) (2) the
VCFs’ financial reports to their shareholders; (3) online sources, and (4) interviews
with managers of venture capital backed portfolio companies (Gerasymenko et al.
2015). Likewise, Günzel and Holm combined interview data with archival data
sources, and their notes taken at events, workshops, and conferences over the period
2002–2011(Günzel and Holm 2013). A similar approach was adopted by Habtay
and Holmén who integrated case studies with surveys (Habtay and Holmén 2014).
Finally, a number of authors have proposed conceptual papers, mainly to the-
orize and discuss the nature of BMI (Evans and Johnson 2013; Abdelkafi et al.
2013; Shelton 2009; Martins et al. 2015), others have proposed less popular
approaches like a game-theory model (Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013), con-
ceptual theory development seeking support from illustrative cases (Huarng 2013;
Amit and Zott 2015), or purely descriptive papers (Michalski 2003).
In terms of sector focus, we found that papers emerging from the
entrepreneurship perspective, have largely favored the high technology sectors.
Such papers tend to select specific high tech sub-sectors: Information
Technology and software (Lazonick et al. 2013; De Reuver et al. 2013), the mobile
service sector (Chroneer et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015), the internet (Huarng 2013),
aerospace (Evans and Johnson 2013), electric mobility (Abdelkafi et al. 2013),
audio and electric solutions (Taran et al. 2015), information and communication
technologies (ICT) and biotechnology (Gerasymenko et al. 2015), renewable
energy in the electric power sector (Richter 2013), and finally brewing technology
(Seidenstricker and Linder 2014). Others have instead preferred a more general
approach focusing on high tech in general and including various sub-sectors
(Habtay and Holmén 2014).
148 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

Interestingly, even in cases where the sector focus was not on high tech
industries, the analysis pertained to how a firm from a non-high tech sector could
take advantage of technological innovations through BMI. For example, Velu and
Khanna studied 129 new firms operating between 1995 and 2004 in the US bond
market following the advent of internet technology (Velu and Khanna 2013),
Mezger (2014) and Günzel and Holm (2013) focused on six case studies from the
specialized publishing industry and on three Danish newspapers respectively
(Günzel and Holm 2013; Mezger 2014); both these sectors underwent huge changes
following the advent of technological innovation. Similarly Amit and Zott use nine
illustrative cases from the peer to peer lending industry (a sector that took advantage
of new internet BMs) (Amit and Zott 2015). Notably, only a few articles consider
BMI in more traditional contexts such as small- and medium-sized Italian enter-
prises in the clothing industry (Cucculelli and Bettinelli 2015), or firms belonging
to the real estate brokerage industry (Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015).
Finally, we mention a small group of authors who examined BMI from on a
range of industries simultaneously such as services and manufacturing (Enkel and
Mezger 2013).

5.6 BMI from the Perspective of Practice-Oriented


Writers

The papers under the practice-oriented category are those written by, or mainly for
practitioners. Understandably, we do not find papers with the typical research
question-theory-methods-results structure in this group. We find instead pieces with
various structures that contain reports of surveys (e.g., Kiron et al. 2013a, b,
Berman et al. 2012; Vlachos et al. 2006), descriptions (e.g., Hwang and Christensen
2008; Chesbrough 2007a, b), experience-based recommendations (e.g., Engel 2011;
Koen et al. 2011; Tuulenmäki and Välikangas 2011), exploratory case-based
analysis (e.g., Koen et al. 2010, Birkin et al. 2009), or selected best practice cases
(Giesen et al. 2007). Because of the aims and structures of these papers, it is not
possible to identify a specific sector focus. Similarly, the discourses presented in
this group of papers are different from the more academic oriented types.
A first group of authors has answered the general question: How can a company
implement successful BMI? In this area we have authors who have (similarly to the
entrepreneurship field but with a more practical focus) focused on the use of new
technologies such as cloud tech (Berman et al. 2012) or on the implementation of
supportive strategies such as co-development (Chesbrough and Schwartz 2007).
Others have instead simply offered their perspectives on how BMI can be suc-
cessfully implemented (Sinfield et al. 2012); developed a BMI typology to better
explain the complex set of factors that distinguishes three types of business model
innovations and their associated challenges (Koen et al. 2011); or considered the
conditions, capabilities, and characteristics that support the design and execution of
5.6 BMI from the Perspective of Practice-Oriented Writers 149

successful BMI (Giesen et al. 2010). In this group we also have practitioner ori-
ented reports on successful examples of BMI (Leavy 2010; Pohle and Chapman
2006).
A second group has explored the practical applications of BMI in specific
contexts such as large companies (Koen et al. 2010), healthcare services (Hwang
and Christensen 2008), mobile services (Eriksson et al. 2008), the hospitality
industry (Kandampully 2006), the digital content market (Swatman et al. 2006), the
online music industry (Vlachos et al. 2006), and e-commerce (Malhotra 2002).
A third group has offered a set of practical suggestions and concrete steps and
recipes to attain BMI. These are methods, approaches, and tactics such as the use of
experiments that promote radical rethinking (Tuulenmäki and Välikangas 2011),
the adoption of a systematic approach (Euchner and Ganguly 2014), the use of a
Business Model Framework (BMF) for nurturing BM innovation (Chesbrough
2010), the adoption of a three-type system to describe distinctive but often com-
plementary types BMI (Giesen et al. 2007), or the venture capital model (Engel
2011).
Finally, a last group of contributions deals with sustainability issues. Birkin and
colleagues for example identified a new business model for sustainable develop-
ment (Birkin et al. 2009). Kiron and colleagues explained how organizations tackle
sustainability-related challenges—ranging from resource scarcity to customer
demands for healthier products—with innovations that create business value (Kiron
et al. 2013a), and also presented the perspectives of many executives who believe
BMI derived from sustainability demands is associated with higher profits (Kiron
et al. 2013b).

5.7 Multilevel and Multi-perspective Analysis

In order to conclude our discussion on the level of analysis (Chap. 4) and theo-
retical perspectives, we have summarized our results in Table 5.2. The table pre-
sents the categorization of the papers considered in our systematic literature review,
according to their main perspectives and levels of analysis adopted. In summary, we
can state that among the papers belonging to the strategic management field, two
mainly use an individual level of analysis, one uses the team level, 32 adopt the firm
level, five the network, and three the institutional level of analysis. Of the 16 papers
belonging to the organizational studies discipline, five use the individual level, one
the team level, nine focus on the firm level of analysis, five adopt the network
perspective, and three the institutional level.
The marketing group of papers focus mainly on three levels: one uses the
individual level, 15 the firm level, and two the network level. The same can be said
for the entrepreneurship papers: they have focused on three levels: four use the
individual level of analysis, 23 the firm level, and three the network level. Finally,
of the practice-oriented papers, six use an individual level, 12 a firm level, and three
a network level.
150 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

Table 5.2 BMI papers categorized based on multiple perspectives and levels of analysis
Individual Team Firm Network Institutional
Strategic 2, 166 96 167, 177,174, 150, 162, 82, 37, 212,
management 159, 506, 148, 271, 161
89,155, 160, 92, 564,
528, 532, 533, 534, 604
538, 540, 547, 548,
550, 551, 561, 574,
586, 587, 588, 589,
590, 593, 597, 598,
602
Organizational 16, 165, 164 14, 22, 163, 258, 4, 542
studies 218, 560, 235, 18, 19, 580
26
Marketing 38 23, 41, 42, 43, 48, 45, 153
75, 76, 31, 98, 44,
110, 530, 535, 545,
552
Practice-oriented 158, 243, 83, 137, 145, 147, 239 248, 249,
136, 141, 62, 116, 225, 226, 206, 186,
214, 252 103, 262, 544, 529 246, 295
Entrepreneurship 503, 505, 25, 284, 500, 504, 5, 40,
549 105, 20, 29, 63, 74, 581
70, 73, 12, 194, 72,
537, 526, 527, 541,
554, 576, 579, 601
*The numbers represent our codification of papers. 24 papers could not be classified because they
did not take an explicit position in terms of perspective

Table 5.2 reveals that the BMI literature focuses on one level of analysis at a
time and its study is fragmented through the lenses of several theoretical
perspectives.

5.8 Conclusion

The results of this chapter open up the debate on future developments in research
both within and across the above-mentioned disciplines.
The strategic management perspective could benefit from more research that
expands the analysis of the strategic input elements that result in BMI. Possible
developments include a finer grained consideration of strategies that could be
achieved by considering different strategies simultaneously to see how they interact
(e.g., innovation in tandem with market orientation and design activities). In
addition, the strategic management literature could also be advanced owing to
contributions that delve into the outcomes of BMI in terms of performance. In this
5.8 Conclusion 151

sense, more quantitative studies that systematically measure the effects of BMI on a
longitudinal basis could be helpful. Answering these questions could also con-
tribute to a better understanding of the processes that leads to BMI.
Scholars interested in organizational studies could target boosting the interesting,
yet still developing, streams focusing on the relationships between organizational
design and BMI and, between behavioral and/or psychological aspects and BMI. As
indicated above, these two streams have already received attention but there
remains potential for development. It would be interesting to shed light on the
(possibly) circular dynamics that emerge in the organization when considering the
above-mentioned aspects. In other words, a better understanding of how organi-
zational design affects and is affected by cognitive processes before, during, and
after BMI would be welcome.
The marketing perspective includes interesting (even if not very numerous)
papers that lay the ground for promising further research, specifically on customer
value creation and on the commercialization of the outcomes of BMI. Challenging
research questions in this area relate to how the co-creation of customer value
together with the application of the SDL might foster new types of BMI. Answering
these questions could offer a broader view of the role that market-related issues play
in the understanding of BMI.
Scholarship from the entrepreneurship field has traditionally tended to focus on
start-ups and innovation activities, but new research avenues are also emerging in
the corporate entrepreneurship area and in the analysis of established firms. The
latter topic seems to have particular potential for interesting research within the
discipline; for example, on delivering a better understanding of how BMI differs
between start-ups and more established firms.
Finally, the practice-oriented papers offer stimulating ideas to develop research
questions. Owing to their nature these papers aim to address practical problems and
issues that emerge during the BMI process. Further work might seek to explain how
the papers in this field could contribute to a better understanding of the BMI
concept. In addition, these papers include several key insights into the identification
of new BMI dynamics.
The major research topics presented in the above-mentioned disciplines focus on
a number of different aspects. At the same time, some overlaps (such as the focus on
concepts of value creation, capture, and design) also exist. Therefore, considering
the major streams that we summarized above, an intriguing potential for integration
across perspectives arises. In other words, challenging research questions could be
identified if we started integrating the extant research agendas presented in the
different disciplines. For example, BMI could be studied by integrating the
entrepreneurship and marketing literatures to learn how users’ entrepreneurship
leads to particular forms of BMI and how those might be extended to other fields.
152 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

References

Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., & Posselt, T. (2013). Business model innovations for electric
mobility—What can be learned from existing business model patterns? International Journal
of Innovation Management, 17, 1–42.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
493–520.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model
design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 331–350.
Amshoff, B., Dülme, C., Echterfeld, J., & Gausemeier, J. (2015). Business model patterns for
disruptive technologies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19, 1540002.
Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & Narayandas, D. (2009). Business market management:
Understanding, creating, and delivering value.
Andries, P., & Debackere, K. (2013). Business model innovation: Propositions on the
appropriateness of different learning approaches. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22,
337–358.
Andries, P., Debackere, K., & van Looy, B. (2013). Simultaneous experimentation as a learning
strategy: Business model development under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
7, 288–310.
Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2010). Business model innovation vs replication:
Financial performance implications of strategic emphases. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18,
39–56.
Aspara, J., Juha-Antti, L., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Strategic management of business
model transformation: Lessons from Nokia. Management Decision, 49, 622–647.
Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2013). Corporate business model
transformation and inter-organizational cognition: The case of Nokia. Long Range Planning,
46, 459–474.
Bate, J. D., & Johnston, R. E., Jr. (2005). Strategic frontiers: The starting-point for innovative
growth. Strategy & Leadership, 33, 12–18.
Baumeister, C., Scherer, A., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2015). Branding access offers: The importance
of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 1–15.
Berman, S. J., Kesterson-Townes, L., Marshall, A., & Srivathsa, R. (2012). How cloud computing
enables process and business model innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 40, 27–35.
Birkin, F., Polesie, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). A new business model for sustainable development: An
exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 18, 277–290.
Björkdahl, J. (2009). Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: The case of
integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Research Policy, 38, 1468–1477.
Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2014). Business models for sustainable technologies:
Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy, 43,
284–300.
Bouncken, R. B., Muench, M., & Kraus, S. (2015). Born globals: Investigating the influence of
their business models on rapid internationalization. International Business & Economics
Research Journal, 14, 247–256.
Bouwman, H., Meng, Z., van der Duin, P., & Sander, L. (2008). A business model for IPTV
service: A dynamic framework. Info, 10, 22–38.
Brettel, M., Strese, S., & Flatten, T. C. (2012). Improving the performance of business models with
relationship marketing efforts—An entrepreneurial perspective. European Management
Journal, 30, 85–98.
Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards systematic business model innovation:
Lessons from product innovation management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21,
183–198.
References 153

Cao, L. L. (2014). Business model transformation in moving to a cross-channel retail strategy:


A case study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18, 69–95.
Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). Business model innovation as lever of
organizational sustainability. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 85–104.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation:
The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2013). Understanding the impact of technology on firms’ business models.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 285–300.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2014). Preparing for business model change: The “pre-stage” finding. Journal
of Management and Governance, 18, 449–469.
Chesbrough, H. (2007a). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore.
Strategy & Leadership, 35, 12–17.
Chesbrough, H. (2007b). The market for innovation: Implications for corporate strategy.
Berkeley: University of California, Walter A. Haas School of Business.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range
Planning, 43, 354–363.
Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating business models with co-development
partnerships. Research Technology Management, 50, 55–59.
Chroneer, D., Johansson, J., & Malmstrom, M. (2015). Business model management
typologies-cognitive mapping of business model landscapes. International Journal of
Business and Management, 10, 67–80.
Chung, W. W. C., Yam, A. Y. K., & Chan, M. F. S. (2004). Networked enterprise: A new business
model for global sourcing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sequoia S.A.
Coblence, E., & Sabatier, V. (2014). Articulating growth and cultural innovation in art museums:
The Louvre’s business model revision. International Studies of Management & Organization,
44, 9–25.
Cucculelli, M., & Bettinelli, C. (2015). Business models, intangibles and firm performance:
Evidence on corporate entrepreneurship from Italian manufacturing SMEs. Small Business
Economics, 1–22.
Cucculelli, M., Bettinelli, C., & Renoldi, A. (2014). How small-medium enterprises leverage
intangibles during recessions. Evidence from the Italian clothing industry. Management
Decision, 52, 1491–1515.
Dalby, J., Lueg, R., Nielsen, L. S., Pedersen, L., & Tomoni, A. C. (2014). National culture and
business model change—A framework for successful expansions. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, 22, 463–483.
de Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., & Haaker, T. (2013). Business model roadmapping: A practical
approach to come from an existing to a desired business model. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 17, 1–19.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution. In search of dynamic consistency.
Long Range Planning, 43, 227–246.
Denicolai, S., Ramirez, M., & Tidd, J. (2014). Creating and capturing value from external
knowledge: The moderating role of knowledge intensity. R & D Management, 44, 248–264.
Deschamps, J.-P. (2005). Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies. Strategy &
Leadership, 33, 31–38.
Desyllas, P., & Sako, M. (2013). Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from
Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance. Research Policy, 42, 101–116.
Dickson, M. A., & Chang, R. K. (2015). Apparel manufacturers and the business case for social
sustainability: World class CSR and business model innovation. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 2015, 55–72.
Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration
of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D
Management, 44, 306–321.
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for
accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43, 370–382.
154 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

Dunford, R., Palmer, I., & Benveniste, J. (2010). Business model replication for early and rapid
internationalisation: The ING direct experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 655–674.
Ehret, M., Kashyap, V., & Wirtz, J. (2013). Business models: Impact on business markets and
opportunities for marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 649–655.
Engel, J. S. (2011). Accelerating corporate innovation: Lessons from the venture capital model.
Research Technology Management, 54, 36–43.
Enkel, E., & Mezger, F. (2013). Imitation processes and their application for business model
innovation: An explorative study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17,
13400051–134000534.
Eppler, M. J., & Hoffmann, F. (2012). Does method matter? An experiment on collaborative
business model idea generation in teams. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 14,
388–403.
Eriksson, C., Kalling, T., Åkesson, M., & Fredberg, T. (2008). Business models for M-services:
Exploring the e-newspaper case from a consumer view. Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations, 6, 29–57.
Euchner, J., & Ganguly, A. (2014). Business model innovation in practice. Research-Technology
Management, 57, 33–39.
Eurich, M., Weiblen, T., & Breitenmoser, P. (2014). A six-step approach to business model
innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18,
330–348.
Evans, J. D., & Johnson, R. O. (2013). Tools for managing early-stage business model innovation.
Research Technology Management, 56, 52–56.
Gambardella, A., & McGahan, A. M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General purpose
technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning, 43, 262–271.
Gerasymenko, V., de Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Changing the business model: Effects
of venture capital firms and outside CEOs on portfolio company performance. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 79–98.
Ghezzi, A., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Frank, A. G. (2015). Strategy and business model design in
dynamic telecommunications industries: A study on Italian mobile network operators.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 346–354.
Giesen, E., Berman, S. J., Bell, R., & Blitz, A. (2007). Three ways to successfully innovate your
business model. Strategy & Leadership, 35, 27–33.
Giesen, E., Riddleberger, E., Christner, R., & Bell, R. (2010). When and how to innovate your
business model. Strategy & Leadership, 38, 17–26.
Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2013). Business model innovation for sustainability. Manufacturing
& Service Operations Management, 15, 537–544.
Goyal, S. (2014). Understanding the Key Characteristics of an embedded business model for the
base of the pyramid markets. Economics and Sociology, 7, 26–40.
Gudiksen, S. (2015). Business model design games: Rules and procedures to challenge
assumptions and elicit surprises. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 307–322.
Günzel, F., & Holm, A. B. (2013). One Size does not fit all—Understanding the front-end and
back-end of business model innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17,
1–35.
Guo, H., Zhao, J., & Tang, J. (2013). The role of top managers’ human and social capital in
business model innovation. Chinese Management Studies, 7, 447–469.
Habtay, S. R. (2012). A firm-level analysis on the relative difference between technology-driven
and market-driven disruptive business model innovations. S. R. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Habtay, S. R., & Holmén, M. (2014). Incumbents’ responses to disruptive business model
innovation: The moderating role of technology vs. market-driven innovation. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(18), 289–309.
Halme, M., & Korpela, M. (2014). Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in
small and medium-sized enterprises: A resource perspective. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 23, 547–566.
References 155

Hao-Chen, H., Mei-Chi, L., Lee-Hsuan, L., & Chien-Tsai, C. (2013). Overcoming organizational
inertia to strengthen business model innovation. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 26, 977–1002.
Ho, Y.-C., Fang, H.-C., & Lin, J.-F. (2010). Value co-creation in business models: Evidence from
three cases analysis in Taiwan. The Business Review, 15, 171–177.
Hofstede, G. (1994). The business of international business is culture. International Business
Review, 3, 1–14.
Huang, H.-C., Lai, M.-C., Kao, M.-C., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Target costing, business model
innovation, and firm performance: An empirical analysis of chinese firms. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 29, 322–335.
Huarng, K.-H. (2013). A two-tier business model and its realization for entrepreneurship. Journal
of Business Research, 66, 2102–2105.
Hvass, K. K. (2015). Business model innovation through second hand retailing: A fashion industry
case. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2015, 11–32.
Hwang, J., & Christensen, C. M (2008). Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: A
framework for business-model innovation. Chevy Chase: The People to People Health
Foundation, Inc., Project HOPE.
Jain, R. (2014). Business model innovations for information and communications
technology-based services for low-income segments in emerging economies. Journal of
Global Information Technology Management, 17, 74–90.
Kandampully, J. (2006). The new customer-centred business model for the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18, 173–187.
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity:
Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a Cloud business
model. R & D Management, 44, 322–340.
Kim, S. K., & Min, S. (2015). Business model innovation performance: When does adding a new
business model benefit an incumbent? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 34–57.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013a). The innovation bottom
line. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54, 1–21.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013b). The benefits of sustainability-driven
innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54, 69–73.
Kiura, T., Bosch, O. J. H., Nguyen, N. C., Shirasaka, S., & Maeno, T. (2014). Creating a new
business through applying the systems-based evolutionary learning laboratory approach.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31, 696–707.
Koen, P. A., Bertels, H., Elsum, I. R., Orroth, M., & Tollett, B. L. (2010). Breakthrough
innovation dilemmas. Research Technology Management, 53, 48–51.
Koen, P. A., Bertels, H. M. J., & Elsum, I. R. (2011). The three faces of business model
innovation: Challenges for established firms. Research Technology Management, 54, 52–59.
Lange, V. G., & Velamuri, V. K. (2014). Business model innovation in the retail industry: Growth
by serving the silver generation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, 18, 310–329.
Lazonick, W., Mazzucato, M., & Tulum, Ö. (2013). Apple’s changing business model: What
should the world’s richest company do with all those profits? Accounting Forum, 37, 249–267.
Leavy, B. (2010). A system for innovating business models for breakaway growth. Strategy &
Leadership, 38, 5–15.
Lindgren, P., Taran, Y., & Boer, H. (2010). From single firm to network-based business model
innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12,
122–137.
Liu, Y., & Wei, J. (2013). Business modeling for entrepreneurial firms: Four cases in China.
Chinese Management Studies, 7, 344–359.
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2013). A service science perspective on business model innovation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 665–670.
Malhotra, Y. (2002). Enabling knowledge exchanges for e-business communities. Information
Strategy, 18, 26–31.
156 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach
us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 313–323.
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of
concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 9, 99–117.
Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2015). Adapting to the sharing economy. Mit Sloan
Management Review, 56, 71–77.
Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation:
Insights from an explorative study. R & D Management, 44, 429–449.
Michalski, T. (2003). E-service innovations through corporate entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Management & Decision Making, 4, 194–209.
Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: A
stakeholder perspective. R & D Management, 44, 265–287.
Monios, J., & Bergqvist, R. (2015). Using a “virtual joint venture” to facilitate the adoption of
intermodal transport. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20, 534–548.
Morgan, E. (2015). ‘Plan A’: Analysing business model innovation for sustainable consumption in
mass-market clothes retailing. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 57, 73–98.
Nair, S., Nisar, A., Palacios, M., & Ruiz, F. (2012). Impact of knowledge brokering on
performance heterogeneity among business models. Management Decision, 50, 1649–1660.
Nair, S., Paulose, H., Palacios, M., & Tafur, J. (2013). Service orientation: Effectuating business
model innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 958–975.
Ng, I. C. L., Ding, D. X., & Yip, N. (2013). Outcome-based contracts as new business model: The
role of partnership and value-driven relational assets. Industrial Marketing Management, 42,
730–743.
Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The
cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78.
Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2013). Networked business model development for emerging
technology-based services. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 773–782.
Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2005). Technology innovation-induced business model change: A
contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 167–183.
Pohle, G., & Chapman, M. (2006). IBM’s global CEO report 2006: Business model innovation
matters. Strategy & Leadership, 34, 34–40.
Pourabdollahian, G., & Copani, G. (2014). Proposal of an innovative business model for
customized production in healthcare. Modern Economy, 5, 1147–1160.
Pynnönen, M., Hallikas, J., & Ritala, P. (2012). Managing customer-driven business model
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 1–13.
Ramendra Singh, D., Pels, J., & Kidd, T. A. (2015). Business model innovation: Learning from a
high-tech-low-fee medical healthcare model for the BOP. International Journal of
Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 9, 200–218.
Richter, M. (2013). Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and
renewable energy. Energy Policy, 62, 1226–1237.
Ritala, P., & Sainio, L.-M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and
business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 155–169.
Roth, S., Schneckenberg, D., & Tsai, C. W. (2015). The ludic drive as innovation driver:
Introduction to the gamification of innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24,
300–306.
Sanchez, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). Business model innovation and sources of value creation in
low-income markets. European Management Review, 7, 138–154.
Sanz-Velasco, S. A., & Saemundsson, R. G. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning in academic
spin-offs: A business model perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, 8, 15–35.
References 157

Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). Business model innovation and strategic flexibility: Insights
from an experimental research design. International Journal of Innovation Management, 18,
1440009–1440030.
Seidenstricker, S., & Linder, C. (2014). A morphological analysis-based creativity approach to
identify and develop ideas for BMI: A case study of a high-tech manufacturing company.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18, 409–424.
Shelton, R. (2009). Integrating product and service innovation. Research Technology
Management, 52, 38–44.
Shin, J. (2014). New business model creation through the triple helix of young entrepreneurs,
SNSs, and smart devices. International Journal of Technology Management, 66, 302–318.
Simmons, G., Palmer, M., & Truong, Y. (2013). Inscribing value on business model innovations:
Insights from industrial projects commercializing disruptive digital innovations. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42, 744–754.
Sinfield, J. V., Calder, E., McConnell, B., & Colson, S. (2012). How to identify new business
models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 85–90.
Sorescu, A., Frambach, R. T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011). Innovations in
retail business models. Journal of Retailing, 87, S3–S16.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation
through trial-and-error learning: The naturhouse case. Long Range Planning, 43, 383–407.
Spector, B. (2013). The social embeddedness of business model enactment. Journal of Strategy
and Management, 6, 27–39.
Storbacka, K., Windahl, C., Nenonen, S., & Salonen, A. (2013). Solution business models:
Transformation along four Continua. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 705–716.
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the making: A
Chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43, 408–430.
Swatman, P. M. C., Krueger, C., & van der Beek, K. (2006). The changing digital content
landscape: An evaluation of e-business model development in European online news and
music. Internet Research, 16, 53–80.
Taran, Y., Boer, H., & Lindgren, P. (2015). A business model innovation typology. Decision
Sciences, 46, 301–331.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43,
172–194.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and
medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7, 257–281.
Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2014). The business model dilemma of technology shifts.
Technovation, 34, 525–535.
Tuulenmäki, A., & Välikangas, L. (2011). The art of rapid, hands-on execution innovation.
Strategy & Leadership, 39, 28–35.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68, 1–17.
Velamuri, V. K., Bansemir, B., Neyer, A.-K., & Möslein, K. M. (2013). Product service systems as
a driver for business model innovation: Lessons learned from the manufacturing industry.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–25.
Velu, C. (2015). Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms.
Technovation, 35, 1–11.
Velu, C., & Khanna, M. (2013). Business model innovation in India. Journal of Indian Business
Research, 5, 156–170.
Vlachos, P., Vrechopoulos, A., & Pateli, A. (2006). Drawing emerging business models for the
mobile music industry. Electronic Markets, 16, 154–168.
Wang, Q., Voss, C., Zhao, X. D., & Wang, Z. Q. (2015). Modes of service innovation: A
typology. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115, 1358–1382.
158 5 BMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines

Wei, Z. L., Yang, D., Sun, B., & Gu, M. (2014). The fit between technological innovation and
business model design for firm growth: Evidence from China. R & D Management, 44,
288–305.
Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2014). Designing Business models for the
internet of things. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4, 5–14.
Witell, L., & Löfgren, M. (2013). From service for free to service for fee: Business model
innovation in manufacturing firms. Journal of Service Management, 24, 520–533.
Wu, J., Guo, B., & Shi, Y. (2013). Customer knowledge management and IT-enabled business
model innovation: A conceptual framework and a case study from China. European
Management Journal, 31, 359–372.
Wu, X., Ma, R., & Shi, Y. (2010). How do latecomer firms capture value from disruptive
technologies? A secondary business-model innovation perspective. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 57, 51–62.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models:
Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308–325.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms.
Organization Science, 18, 181–199.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range
Planning, 43, 216–226.
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Research Agenda

Abstract This chapter concludes our work by summarizing all the results derived
from the analyses illustrated and discussed in the previous chapters. This chapter
contributes to the knowledge of business model innovation (BMI) in three ways.
First, we review the integrative framework related to the drivers, contingencies, and
outcomes of BMI that was complemented with a deep analysis of theoretical
perspectives and future research. Second, we propose an integrated multilevel
(individual, team, firm, network and institutional) and multidisciplinary (strategic
management, organizational studies, marketing, entrepreneurship, and practice-
oriented) framework for BMI. Third, these perspectives of analysis facilitate the
development of a comprehensive research agenda that can stimulate future studies
on BMI from different perspectives, such as, a deeper BMI conceptualization, a
wider and mixed usage of research methods, more integrative studies able to
integrate level of analysis and a multidisciplinary understanding of BMI. These
future contributions can improve the knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of
BMI, and particularly of its drivers, outcomes, and contingencies.

6.1 Introduction

Interest in BMI is growing rapidly. To help promote systematic and rigorous


research, a primary objective of this book is to make knowledge of BMI more
accessible to a broader audience by summarizing, interpreting and integrating the
heterogeneous and vast BMI literature into a single state-of-the-art review.
To reach these objectives, we analyzed 1120 papers on the topic and selected
156 relevant papers published in peer-reviewed journals. We reviewed these works
using a systematic literature review (SLR), an evidence-based tool for scientific
knowledge creation (Jones et al. 2011; Rousseau et al. 2008; Tranfield et al. 2003).
Following the SLR protocols, we followed the principles of transparency, clarity,
focus, unification of research and practitioner communities, equality, accessibility,
broad coverage, and synthesis (Thorpe et al. 2005; Tranfield et al. 2003).

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 159


D. Andreini and C. Bettinelli, Business Model Innovation, International Series
in Advanced Management Studies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3_6
160 6 Conclusions and Research Agenda

The result is an integrative framework derived from the literature on the drivers,
contingencies, and outcomes of BMI, complemented with a deep analysis on the-
oretical perspective and level of analysis. Using this integrative model, we provided
a critical analysis of what we know and what we need to know about BMI.
Some recent research has attempted to clarify the concept of business models
(e.g., Wirtz et al. 2015; Demil et al. 2015), providing various perspectives on their
change and innovation (e.g., Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015; Gerasymenko et al.
2015; Martins et al. 2015), but the literature remains highly fragmented. As Arend
(2013, p. 393) noted, confusion persists because of the lack of “independence of the
concept from other levels of analysis” and of consensus around its drivers and
boundaries.
One reason for this fragmentation is that scholars study BMI through different
disciplinary and conceptual lenses and at different levels of analysis. BMI is also
usually considered from one level of analysis at a time. It is primarily studied at the
firm level, rather than the individual, institutional, or network level of analysis.
Our proposed review integrates the BMI literature from fields including strategic
management, organizational studies, entrepreneurship, and marketing as well as
practitioner-orientated literature. It makes the following contributions. First, our
integrative model clarifies the concept of BMI, by identifying drivers, contingencies
and outcomes through an ontological approach. This model will enable future
research to improve our understanding of how to measure BMI and the underlying
conditions under which it leads to specific outcomes. Second, we address the need
for multi-perspective models of BMI (Morris et al. 2005). Third, our multilevel
approach means our review also helps bridge the divide between levels of analysis
in the field of management (Molloy et al. 2010; Aguinis et al. 2011).

6.2 BMI Framework and Future Research

The first result of our SLR, followed by an ontological and thematic analysis, is a
theoretical framework encompassing a number of themes that we hereafter further
summarize in terms of drivers, contingencies, and outcomes of BMI (see
Table 6.1).
As discussed in Chap. 3,1 the first thematic area that emerged from the BMI
literature was drivers of BMI. These are activities, networking and cooperation,
environmental factors, and organizational characteristics. Overall, there is a rela-
tively strong focus on management activities as drivers of BMI in the literature. The
adoption of a service-oriented approach is one of the most recent developments;
most of the papers reviewed are relatively recent and the insights they offer may
contribute to a further understanding of the dynamics that lie beyond BMI.

1
The complete research agenda of themes is discussed in the third chapter of this book.
6.2 BMI Framework and Future Research 161

Table 6.1 BMI thematic areas according to the SLR


Thematic area Description of themes
BMI drivers Activities refer to the work of a person, group, or organization to achieve
BMI, and include: knowledge management (Malhotra 2002; Nair et al.
2012), corporate entrepreneurship (Michalski 2003), innovation (Swatman
et al. 2006; Hwang and Christensen 2008; Gambardella and McGahan 2010;
Cavalcante 2013), BM design (Trimi and Berbegal-Mirabent 2012; Zott and
Amit 2007), marketing activities (e.g., Lee and Ho 2010), learning (e.g.,
Sosna et al. 2010), accounting (Huang et al. 2012), and adoption of a service
logic (e.g., Maglio and Spohrer 2013; Storbacka et al. 2013)
Networking and cooperation drivers describe how BMI is positively
affected by building network partnerships (Lindgren et al. 2010; Ng et al.
2013), co-development technological partnerships in general (Chesbrough
and Schwartz 2007), and collaboration between competing firms, i.e.,
coopetition (Ritala and Sainio 2014)
Environmental factors. This theme focuses how sustainability (Birkin et al.
2009; Kiron et al. 2013a) and green economy (Mokhlesian and Holmén
2012) have determined the emergence of new business models
Organizational characteristics. Papers focusing on this theme focus on
organizational capabilities (Demil and Lecocq 2010; Doz and Kosonen
2010), top management features (Deschamps 2005; Guo et al. 2013) and
managerial cognitive processes (Aspara et al. 2011, 2013)
BMI Processes. Publications distinguish the phases in BMI based on trial and
contingencies error (Sosna et al. 2010), implementation and institutionalization (Leavy
2010), product innovation (Bucherer et al. 2012), customer orientation
(Pynnönen et al. 2012), as well as business network evolution and business
opportunity creation (Palo and Tähtinen 2013)
Tools for BMI includes papers which focus on the types of methods for
managers to understand, perform and manage BMI. For example, papers
focus on practical methods and frameworks, such as scenario-planning and
road mapping (e.g., Bouwman et al. 2008; Chesbrough 2007; Pateli and
Giaglis 2005); and artifacts, which are an emerging category (Eppler and
Hoffmann 2012)
Enablers include all the elements that can assist, support, and facilitate the
process of BMI. Papers focusing on this research topic consider how
managerial (Hao-Chen et al. 2013; Simmons et al. 2013), and technological
practices (Berman et al. 2012) and the external environment (Christensen
et al. 2012) can enable BMI
Barriers. The focus of papers on BMI barriers is mainly on internal and
external barriers (Birkin et al. 2009), organizational barriers (Chesbrough
2010), and various practical aspects that constrain business model
innovation (Koen et al. 2010, 2011; Lindgren et al. 2010)
(continued)
162 6 Conclusions and Research Agenda

Table 6.1 (continued)


Thematic area Description of themes
BMI outcomes Economic performance. In the economic performance theme we can find
papers focusing on the on real economic performance (e.g., Demil and
Lecocq 2010; Nair et al. 2012; Kiron et al. 2013a) and other scholars
considered instead perceived economic performance as BMI outcomes
(Brettel et al. 2012; Aspara et al. 2010; Kiron et al. 2013b; Huang et al.
2012)
Value. Another focus is on value as an outcome. Value creation for
customers (Sorescu et al. 2011; Björkdahl 2009), the value creation process
(Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002), value appropriation (Sorescu et al.
2011; Desyllas and Sako 2013) and competitiveness (Michalski 2003; Liu
and Jiang 2013) were themes that attracted scholar’s attention. In this
literature, value creation goes hand in hand with value appropriation
(capture): all the papers that focus on the former also considered the latter. In
some cases, the concept of value appropriation/capture is equated to the
concept of profiting (e.g., Desyllas and Sako 2013; Björkdahl 2009). With
regards to BMI outcomes in terms of competitiveness, both the contributions
consider BMI as a relevant element to increase firms’ competitiveness at a
global level
Industry. One of the possible outcomes of BMI refers to the effects of BMI
on the structure of the industry (Gambardella and McGahan 2010)

Research investigating in depth whether these dynamics can be extended to all


business contexts and how they may occur is particularly promising.
With regard to the contingencies of BMI, they encompass BMI processes, tools,
enablers, and barriers. The most recent thematic area focuses on the process of
BMI, a topic that is still in its infancy. Further elaboration on the boundaries of the
BMI process would be valuable; specifically, the precise activities incorporating
temporal issues in addition to those related to the process. Tools supporting BMI is
another thematic area here, one focusing on the methods used by managers to
understand, perform, and manage BMI. Understandably, research under this theme
is practitioner-oriented, but could benefit from a practice-based approach, identi-
fying BMI practices and their related artifacts and tools. BMI enablers include all
the elements that can assist, support, and facilitate the process. Future research
might need to include enablers in far more complex frameworks (e.g., moderated
mediation and multilevel analysis) that could allow us to simultaneously take
account of (1) BMI enablers, (2) BMI drivers (and how they are conceptually
different from enablers), and (3) the effects of enablers and drivers on BMI (e.g., the
extent of BMI, whether it occurred or not, and success levels). Finally, research on
the barriers to BMI remains limited. The few studies published to date that offer
intriguing insights into BMI barriers are mainly practitioner-oriented or conceptual.
More empirical data are required to test and further develop theoretically-grounded
models that could inspire empirical research on how to overcome internal barriers
and neutralize external ones. The ability of a firm to undertake BMI depends very
much on the features of the previous business model. Implementing a business
6.2 BMI Framework and Future Research 163

model designed to facilitate BMI may be a key success factor in the future, and
research is needed to clarify whether and how some business models are more
prone to successful renewal than others.
The BMI outcomes theme includes real and perceived economic performance,
value, and industry effects. Real economic performance may be the most objective
way to measure BMI outcomes, but it offers only a partial representation of the truth.
BMI can affect different economic performance indicators (e.g., profits, productivity,
returns on sales, market value) in different ways. Future research might need to
include several measures of economic performance. Value creation definitely
belongs in the BMI theoretical frameworks; it represents intermediate outcomes as
well as being an antecedent of economic performance. Finally, BMI innovation
outcomes, in terms of industry and organization structure, may be endogenous and
need to be carefully managed in future empirical research. For example, industry
structure may drive a firm to innovate its business model and this in turn may affect
firm structure. Disentangling these effects is a challenge for future research.

6.3 The Integration of Perspectives and Levels of Analysis

Having presented the theoretical framework, we offered an integration of what we


know about BMI across perspectives and levels of analysis.
The actions referred to the changes, decisions, and actions taken to innovate an
existing BM or introduce a new one, and are typically influenced and implemented
by actors at different levels of analysis: (1) individual (e.g., entrepreneurs and
employees); (2) team (e.g., top management); (3) network (e.g., partnerships and
consortia), and (4) the firm’s institutional environment (e.g., industry, market,
sector, and society). In addition to the levels of analysis, we also identified five
different perspectives: strategic management, organizational studies, marketing,
practice-oriented, and entrepreneurship. Papers adopting each of these perspectives
tend to focus on particular theories.
The main findings of the multilevel and multi-perspective analysis are summa-
rized in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 suggests that most of what we know about BMI is fragmented, given
that 76% of the 156 papers adopt a single level of analysis with the majority of
papers using the firm as a level of investigation. This fragmentation is exacerbated
by the use of the different perspectives. For example, while researchers studying
BMI at the network level of analysis tend to adopt marketing (e.g., Palo and
Tähtinen 2013) or entrepreneurship perspectives (Gerasymenko et al. 2015),
authors focusing on the institutional level of analysis have tended to adopt a
strategic management (Gambardella and McGahan 2010) or a practice-oriented
perspective (Hwang and Christensen 2008). Our review therefore reveals not only
that the BMI literature focuses on one level of analysis at a time, but that the choice
of level of analysis is typically accompanied by a reliance on different angles,
making the integration and accumulation of findings difficult.
Table 6.2 BMI papers categorized based on multiple perspectives and levels of analysis
164

Individual Team Firm Network Institutional


Strategic Cavalcante (2014), Eppler and Wu et al. (2010), Dunford Yunus et al. (2010), Liu and Wei (2013),
management Svejenova et al. (2010) Hoffmann et al. (2010), Björkdahl Spector (2013), Bouwman et al. (2008),
(2012) (2009), Aspara et al. (2010), Chung et al. (2004), Gambardella and
Zott and Amit (2010), Kim Westerlund et al. McGahan (2010)
and Min (2015), Sanchez and (2014), Monios and
Ricart (2010), Nair et al. Bergqvist (2015)
(2012), Ho et al. (2010),
Demil and Lecocq (2010),
Habtay (2012), Eurich et al.
(2014), Dickson and Chang
(2015), Coblence and
Sabatier (2014), Bouncken
et al. (2015), Ramendra
Singh et al. (2015), Schneider
and Spieth (2014), Hvass
(2015), Jain (2014), Amshoff
et al. (2015), Khanagha et al.
(2014), Denicolai et al.
(2014), Cucculelli et al.
(2014), Morgan (2015),
Cavalcante (2014),
Pourabdollahian and Copani
(2014), Halme and Korpela
(2014), Ghezzi et al. (2015),
Tongur and Engwall (2014),
Wei et al. (2014), Roth et al.
(2015), Goyal (2014)
(continued)
6 Conclusions and Research Agenda
Table 6.2 (continued)
Individual Team Firm Network Institutional
Organizational Aspara et al. (2013), Sosna Doz and Andries and Debackere Carayannis et al. (2015)
studies et al. (2010), Sanz-Velasco Kosonen (2013), Hao-Chen et al.
and Saemundsson (2008), (2010) (2013), Chesbrough (2010),
Kiura et al. (2014), Girotra Pateli and Giaglis (2005),
and Netessine (2013) Zott and Amit (2007),
Bohnsack et al. (2014),
Andries et al. (2013),
Markides (2013), Dalby et al.
(2014)
Marketing Guo et al. (2013) Witell and Löfgren (2013), Palo and Tähtinen
Maglio and Spohrer (2013), (2013), Lindgren
Storbacka et al. (2013), Ng et al. (2010)
et al. (2013), Nair et al.
(2013), Velamuri et al.
(2013), Desyllas and Sako
(2013), Pynnönen et al.
(2012), Brettel et al. (2012),
Aspara et al. (2011),
6.3 The Integration of Perspectives and Levels of Analysis

Dmitriev et al. (2014),


Baumeister et al. (2015),
Lange and Velamuri (2014),
Cao (2014), Simmons et al.
(2013)
Practice-oriented Giesen et al. (2010), Pohle Kiron et al. (2013a, b), Koen Chesbrough and Kandampully (2006),
and Chapman (2006), et al. (2010), (2011), Leavy Schwartz (2007) Swatman et al. (2006),
Engel (2011), Tuulenmäki (2010), Sinfield et al. (2012), Hwang and Christensen
and Välikangas (2011), Chesbrough (2007), Giesen (2008), Birkin et al.
Eriksson et al. (2008), et al. (2007), Berman et al. (2009), Vlachos et al.
Deschamps (2005) (2012), Bate and Johnston (2006), Malhotra (2002)
(2005), Euchner and Ganguly
165

(2014), Matzler et al. (2015)


(continued)
Table 6.2 (continued)
166

Individual Team Firm Network Institutional


Entrepreneurship Osiyevskyy and Dewald Huarng (2013), Michalski Ritala and Sainio
(2015), Martins et al. (2003), Amit and Zott (2015), (2014), Cavalcante
(2015), Chroneer et al. Bucherer et al. (2012), (2013), Shin (2014)
(2015) Richter (2013), Evans and
Johnson (2013),
Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu
(2013), Enkel and Mezger
(2013), Abdelkafi et al.
(2013), De Reuver et al.
(2013), Lazonick et al.
(2013), Shelton (2009),
Günzel and Holm (2013),
Gudiksen (2015), Taran et al.
(2015), Seidenstricker and
Linder (2014), Velu (2015),
Cucculelli and Bettinelli
(2015), Habtay and Holmén
(2014), Wang et al. (2015),
Mezger (2014),
Gerasymenko et al. (2015)
The numbers represent our codification of papers. 25 papers could not be classified because they did not take an explicit position in terms of perspective
6 Conclusions and Research Agenda
6.3 The Integration of Perspectives and Levels of Analysis 167

This review offers useful frameworks incorporating a classification of BMI


drivers, outcomes, and contingencies. This classification provides a common lan-
guage for BMI researchers, regardless of their chosen level of analysis and theo-
retical perspectives. Moreover, in classifying the literature based on the level of
analysis and theoretical perspective, we have provided a building block that we
hope will guide future BMI research efforts in a more systematic fashion.

6.4 Research Agenda in Light of Perspectives and Levels


of Analysis

The review provided in this book can be used to identify important knowledge gaps
in the BMI literature. This section describes these gaps, and the next section offers
specific suggestions—a road map for future research—to address each of these
knowledge gaps.
First, the review reveals many nuances of BMI definitions, and many papers cite
multiple instances simultaneously. To avoid confusion and increase the robustness
of this field of research, it is important that future papers clarify their position in
terms of perspective (i.e., the BMI context, level of analysis, and definition of
BMI).
Second, the review reveals many studies adopt the firm as the level of analysis
while studies that adopt the individual, team, network, or institutional level are
relatively underrepresented. Despite promising results in reporting individual-level
drivers of BMI such as cognition (Aspara et al. 2013; Osiyevskyy and Dewald
2015), a better understanding is needed of the drivers, processes, and outcomes that
occur when teams and networks implement BMI. Moreover, although BMI takes
place at the organizational level of analysis, individual actors and teams actually
strategize on, make decisions about, and execute BMI initiatives. While we
acknowledge that the organizational dimension is essential in the study of BMI
(Foss and Saebi 2015) and organizations are the common tie that binds manage-
ment scholars (Molloy et al. 2010), we believe there would be far more to study if
other levels of analysis were also examined.
Another interesting research area is the link between managerial team features
(i.e., diversity, education, and demographic characteristics) and managerial-team-
level outcomes in terms of BMI (e.g., the ability to learn from previous BMI and the
ability to design new and effective BMs) and how this relationship is mediated by
individual-level variables (i.e., individual employees’ postures and attitudes). An
additional interesting research question is how disparate, individual-level features
(e.g., attitudes or heuristics) instantiate themselves in collective actions leading
to BMI.
In addition, the open issue of what constitutes organizational boundaries (Felin
et al. 2015) stresses the importance of the BM as a unit of analysis per se that is
useful for research on boundary-spanning innovation (Zott and Amit 2007). Thus, it
168 6 Conclusions and Research Agenda

is reasonable to suggest that this second knowledge gap can be narrowed by


research addressing the BM as an integrative unit of analysis for exploring BMI in a
more consistent way. For example, it would be interesting to further explore the
roles of individual-level and interactional factors (i.e., the factors pertaining to the
interactions within an organization and between an organization and other actors) in
the process of organizing and defining not only BM boundaries but also the
potential for BMI (Felin et al. 2015; Foss and Saebi 2015).
With regard to how different levels of analysis could be bridged, prior research
has outlined specific processes to follow when conducting multilevel research
(John 2005; Kozlowski and Klein 2000; Ployhart and Schneider 2005). Molloy
et al. (2010) stresses the importance of first articulating the units of theory (i.e., the
level at which the focal construct is conceptualized to exist), measurement, and
analysis (i.e., the unit of analysis at which the construct is assessed). The present
review makes a valuable contribution to the literature by providing important means
to identify how constructs and processes operate across levels and perspectives
(see Chap. 4).
In addition to the suggestions offered above, there are future opportunities in
terms of research methods that could help advance the BMI research field. This
helps to identify the third research gap, which the following section explores in
more detail.
Third, there is a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms of BMI. In
other words, we know a lot about the drivers and the outcomes of BMI but rela-
tively little about how they are connected, about BMI contingencies (i.e., barriers
and enablers), and, more importantly, about the BMI process. More research is
required to bridge this third knowledge gap, which refers to the need to increase
understanding of how BMI drivers are linked with BMI outcomes.
Finally, the previous gaps related to conceptual and substantive issues point to
knowledge gaps relating to methodological issues. First, the review reveals a lack of
congruence between the nature of the BMI construct and many of the research
designs and the measurement and data analysis tools used to study BMI empiri-
cally. As indicated previously, methodological approaches to BMI tend to primarily
rely on inductive case studies and to focus on the unidimensional aspects of BMI at
one level of analysis at a time. While case-based research can be useful for
investigating complex new phenomena, the time is ripe for more quantitative and
replicable research that contributes to validating concepts and relationships. The use
of mixed methods is also particularly suitable at this stage of the development of the
BMI literature and could increase the rigor of research while also addressing the
complexity of the phenomenon under investigation. In sum, there is a need to
expand the methodological repertoire used for BMI research; the use of additional
methodological approaches could be instrumental in increasing the scientific
credibility of this field and in addressing each of the aforementioned knowledge
gaps.
6.5 Conclusion 169

6.5 Conclusion

This book gathers, synthesizes, and interprets the BMI literature from its inception
until 2015, with the objective of contributing to the literature in three ways: first,
clarifying the BM and BMI domain; second, providing a multilevel analysis of the
BMI literature; third providing a multi-perspective analysis, and finally suggesting a
research agenda for future research. The main goal is to go beyond the analysis and
interpretation of existing papers, and using the extensive resource of the BMI
literature, to improve knowledge of the nature and dimensions of BMI, and thereby
to disentangle different perspectives and levels of analysis.
Through a systematic search of the literature, we found and reviewed 156
papers. Compared to previous SLRs on BMI (Schneider and Spieth 2013), this
work analyzes a wider database of papers (i.e., by including practitioner works and
a wide range of management journals) and hence can illustrate more finely-grained
domains of BMI.
The results of this ontological analysis can advance both current understanding
and the ongoing debate surrounding the BMI concept. In particular, the SLR
contributes to the ongoing BMI debate by highlighting the perspective silos in
which BMI literature has developed. We hope that this overview can help
researchers address BMI from multiple perspectives in future work.
The current work is neither exhaustive nor definitive, as the ongoing debate on
BMI is still lively and topical. Using a rigorous protocol and an ontological
organization (instead of content analysis or a predetermined framework of analysis),
we have followed a replicable and valid method for analyzing the BMI literature.
By clarifying the fragmented BM and BMI concepts, we have contributed to
knowledge on topical and under-researched themes and provided an alternative
perspective for analysis. Furthermore, we demonstrated how the BMI literature has
progressed from practitioner-oriented and normative approaches to more scientific
and theoretical contributions, even though the theory-building process of this field
is still underdeveloped.

6.6 Limitations

We acknowledge that other researchers could deliver different insights and produce
different ontological structures. Thus, one limitation of this research might be its not
employing an independent group of researchers that could control and provide
alternative thematic and ontological investigation. We selected the articles that refer
specifically to the concept of BMI, and in so doing excluded for instance innovation
and change management papers if they did not explicitly refer to BMI. This
decision derived from the methodology and the objectives set for this book, such as
contributing to the understanding of BMI as a phenomenon per se.
170 6 Conclusions and Research Agenda

Moreover, going beyond the research objectives of this book, we argue that the
current fragmented state of BMI studies makes it difficult to categorize papers in
silos, and that the validity of our method is based on the researchers’ discussion,
negotiation, and agreement. Future research, employing SLR, could add a check
procedure, by asking an external team of researchers to assess a random sample of
codes.

References

Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., & Posselt, T. (2013). Business model innovations for electric
mobility—what can be learned from existing business model patterns? International Journal of
Innovation Management, 17, 1–42.
Aguinis, H., Boyd, B. K., Pierce, C. A., & Short, J. C. (2011). Walking new avenues in
management research methods and theories: Bridging micro and macro domains. Journal of
Management, 37, 395–403.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model
design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 331–350.
Amshoff, B., Dülme, C., Echterfeld, J., & Gausemeier, J. (2015). Business model patterns for
disruptive technologies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19, 1540002.
Andries, P., & Debackere, K. (2013). Business model innovation: Propositions on the
appropriateness of different learning approaches. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22,
337–358.
Andries, P., Debackere, K., & van Looy, B. (2013). Simultaneous experimentation as a learning
strategy: Business model development under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
7, 288–310.
Arend, R. J. (2013). The business model: Present and future—beyond a skeumorph. Strategic
Organization, 11(4), 390–402.
Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2010). Business model innovation vs replication:
Financial performance implications of strategic emphases. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18,
39–56.
Aspara, J., Juha-Antti, L., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Strategic management of business
model transformation: Lessons from Nokia. Management Decision, 49, 622–647.
Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2013). Corporate business model
transformation and inter-organizational cognition: The case of nokia. Long Range Planning,
46, 459–474.
Bate, J. D., & Johnston, R. E. Jr. (2005). Strategic frontiers: The starting-point for innovative
growth. Strategy & Leadership, 33, 12–18.
Baumeister, C., Scherer, A., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2015). Branding access offers: The importance
of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, in press, 1–15.
Berman, S. J., Kesterson-Townes, L., Marshall, A., & Srivathsa, R. (2012). How cloud computing
enables process and business model innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 40, 27–35.
Birkin, F., Polesie, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). A new business model for sustainable development: An
exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 18, 277–290.
Björkdahl, J. (2009). Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: The case of
integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Research Policy, 38, 1468–1477.
References 171

Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2014). Business models for sustainable technologies:
Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy, 43,
284–300.
Bouncken, R. B., Muench, M., & Kraus, S. (2015). Born Globals: Investigating the influence of
their business models on rapid internationalization. International Business & Economics
Research Journal, 14, 247–256.
Bouwman, H., Meng, Z., van der Duin, P., & Sander, L. (2008). A business model for IPTV
service: A dynamic framework. Info, 10, 22–38.
Brettel, M., Strese, S., & Flatten, T. C. (2012). Improving the performance of business models with
relationship marketing efforts - An entrepreneurial perspective. European Management
Journal, 30, 85–98.
Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards systematic business model innovation:
Lessons from product innovation management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21,
183–198.
Cao, L. L. (2014). Business model transformation in moving to a cross-channel retail strategy: A
case study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18, 69–95.
Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). Business model innovation as lever of
organizational sustainability. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 85–104.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation:
The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2013). Understanding the impact of technology on firms’ business models.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 285–300.
Cavalcante, S. A. (2014). Preparing for business model change: the “pre-stage” finding. Journal of
Management and Governance, 18, 449–469.
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore.
Strategy & Leadership, 35, 12–17.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range
Planning, 43, 354–363.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value
from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 529–555.
Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating business models with co-development
partnerships. Research Technology Management, 50, 55–59.
Christensen, T. B., Wells, P., & Cipcigan, L. (2012). Can innovative business models overcome
resistance to electric vehicles? Better place and battery electric cars in Denmark. Energy Policy,
48, 498–505.
Chroneer, D., Johansson, J., & Malmstrom, M. (2015). Business model management typologies-
cognitive mapping of business model landscapes. International Journal of Business and
Management, 10, 67–80.
Chung, W. W. C., Yam, A. Y. K., & Chan, M. F. S. (2004). Networked enterprise: A new business
model for global sourcing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sequoia S.A.
Coblence, E., & Sabatier, V. (2014). Articulating growth and cultural innovation in art museums:
The Louvre’s business model revision. International Studies of Management & Organization,
44, 9–25.
Cucculelli, M., & Bettinelli, C. (2015). Business models, intangibles and firm performance:
Evidence on corporate entrepreneurship from Italian manufacturing SMEs. Small Business
Economics, in press, 1–22.
Cucculelli, M., Bettinelli, C., & Renoldi, A. (2014). How small-medium enterprises leverage
intangibles during recessions. Evidence from the Italian clothing industry. Management
Decision, 52, 1491–1515.
Dalby, J., Lueg, R., Nielsen, L. S., Pedersen, L., & Tomoni, A. C. (2014). National culture and
business model change—A framework for successful expansions. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, 22, 463–483.
172 6 Conclusions and Research Agenda

Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution. In search of dynamic consistency.
Long Range Planning, 43, 227–246.
Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ special issue on
business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 1–11.
Denicolai, S., Ramirez, M., & Tidd, J. (2014). Creating and capturing value from external
knowledge: The moderating role of knowledge intensity. R & D Management, 44, 248–264.
Deschamps, J.-P. (2005). Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies. Strategy &
Leadership, 33, 31–38.
Desyllas, P., & Sako, M. (2013). Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from
Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance. Research Policy, 42, 101–116.
Dickson, M. A., & Chang, R. K. (2015). Apparel manufacturers and the business case for social
sustainability: World class CSR and business model innovation. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 2015, 55–72.
Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration
of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D
Management, 44, 306–321.
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for
accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43, 370–382.
Dunford, R., Palmer, I., & Benveniste, J. (2010). Business model replication for early and rapid
internationalisation: The ING direct experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 655–674.
Engel, J. S. (2011). Accelerating corporate innovation: Lessons from the venture capital model.
Research Technology Management, 54, 36–43.
Enkel, E., & Mezger, F. (2013). Imitation processes and their application for business model
innovation: An explorative study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17,
13400051–134000534.
Eppler, M. J., & Hoffmann, F. (2012). Does method matter? An experiment on collaborative
business model idea generation in teams. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 14,
388–403.
Eriksson, C., Kalling, T., Åkesson, M., & Fredberg, T. (2008). Business models for M-services:
Exploring the E-newspaper case from a consumer view. Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations, 6, 29–57.
Euchner, J., & Ganguly, A. (2014). Business model innovation in practice. Research-Technology
Management, 57, 33–39.
Eurich, M., Weiblen, T., & Breitenmoser, P. (2014). A six-step approach to business model
innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18,
330–348.
Evans, J. D., & Johnson, R. O. (2013). Tools for managing early-stage business model innovation.
Research Technology Management, 56, 52–56.
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and
organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 9, 575–632.
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2015). Business model innovation: The organizational dimension,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gambardella, A., & McGahan, A. M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General purpose
technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning, 43, 262–271.
Gerasymenko, V., de Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Changing the business model: Effects
of venture capital firms and outside CEOs on portfolio company performance. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 79–98.
Ghezzi, A., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Frank, A. G. (2015). Strategy and business model design in
dynamic telecommunications industries: A study on Italian mobile network operators.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 346–354.
Giesen, E., Berman, S. J., Bell, R., & Blitz, A. (2007). Three ways to successfully innovate your
business model. Strategy & Leadership, 35, 27–33.
References 173

Giesen, E., Riddleberger, E., Christner, R., & Bell, R. (2010). When and how to innovate your
business model. Strategy & Leadership, 38, 17–26.
Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2013). Business model innovation for sustainability. Manufacturing
& Service Operations Management, 15, 537–544.
Goyal, S. (2014). Understanding the key characteristics of an embedded business model for the
base of the pyramid markets. Economics and Sociology, 7, 26–40.
Gudiksen, S. (2015). Business model design games: Rules and procedures to challenge
assumptions and elicit surprises. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 307–322.
Guo, H., Zhao, J., & Tang, J. (2013). The role of top managers’ human and social capital in
business model innovation. Chinese Management Studies, 7, 447–469.
Habtay, S. R. (2012). A firm-level analysis on the relative difference between technology-driven
and market-driven disruptive business model innovations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Habtay, S. R., & Holmén, M. (2014). Incumbents’ responses to disruptive business model
innovation: The moderating role of technology vs. market-driven innovation. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(18), 289–309.
Halme, M., & Korpela, M. (2014). Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in
small and medium-sized enterprises: A resource perspective. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 23, 547–566.
Hao-Chen, H., Mei-Chi, L., Lee-Hsuan, L., & Chien-Tsai, C. (2013). Overcoming organizational
inertia to strengthen business model innovation. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 26, 977–1002.
Ho, Y.-C., Fang, H.-C., & Lin, J.-F. (2010). Value co-creation in business models: Evidence from
three cases analysis in Taiwan. The Business Review, 15, 171–177.
Huang, H.-C., Lai, M.-C., Kao, M.-C., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Target costing, business model
innovation, and firm performance: An empirical analysis of Chinese firms. Canadian Journal
of Administrative Sciences, 29, 322–335.
Huarng, K.-H. (2013). A two-tier business model and its realization for entrepreneurship. Journal
of Business Research, 66, 2102–2105.
Hvass, K. K. (2015). Business model innovation through second hand retailing: A fashion industry
case. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2015, 11–32.
Hwang, J., & Christensen, C. M. (2008). Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: A
framework for business-model innovation, Chevy chase: The people to people health
foundation, Inc., Project HOPE.
Jain, R. (2014). Business model innovations for information and communications
technology-based services for low-income segments in emerging economies. Journal of
Global Information Technology Management, 17, 74–90.
John, C. H. S. (2005). Multi-theoretical mixed-level research in strategic management. Research
methodology in strategy and management, 197.
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–
2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 632–659.
Kandampully, J. (2006). The new customer-centred business model for the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18, 173–187.
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity:
Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a cloud business model.
R & D Management, 44, 322–340.
Kim, S. K., & Min, S. (2015). Business model innovation performance: When does adding a new
business model benefit an incumbent? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 34–57.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013a). The innovation bottom
line. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54, 1–21.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013b). The benefits of sustainability-driven
innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54, 69–73.
Kiura, T., Bosch, O. J. H., Nguyen, N. C., Shirasaka, S., & Maeno, T. (2014). Creating a new
business through applying the systems-based evolutionary learning laboratory approach.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31, 696–707.
174 6 Conclusions and Research Agenda

Koen, P. A., Bertels, H., Elsum, I. R., Orroth, M., & Tollett, B. L. (2010). Breakthrough
innovation dilemmas. Research Technology Management, 53, 48–51.
Koen, P. A., Bertels, H. M. J., & Elsum, I. R. (2011). The three faces of business model
innovation: Challenges for established firms. Research Technology Management, 54, 52–59.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes.
Lange, V. G., & Velamuri, V. K. (2014). Business model innovation in the retail industry: Growth
by serving the silver generation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, 18, 310–329.
Lazonick, W., Mazzucato, M., & Tulum, Ö. (2013). Apple’s changing business model: What
should the world’s richest company do with all those profits? Accounting Forum, 37, 249–267.
Leavy, B. (2010). A system for innovating business models for breakaway growth. Strategy &
Leadership, 38, 5–15.
Lee, C. S., & Ho, J. C. (2010). A framework for analyzing business model innovation in mobile
commerce. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 19, 37-II.
Lindgren, P., Taran, Y., & Boer, H. (2010). From single firm to network-based business model
innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12,
122–137.
Liu, Y., & Jiang, W. (2013). Business modeling for entrepreneurial firms: Four cases in China.
Chinese Management Studies, 7, 344–359.
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2013). A service science perspective on business model innovation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 665–670.
Malhotra, Y. (2002). Enabling knowledge exchanges for e-business communities. Information
Strategy, 18, 26–31.
Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach
us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 313–323.
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of
concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 9, 99–117.
Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2015). Adapting to the sharing economy. Mit Sloan
Management Review, 56, 71–77.
Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation:
Insights from an explorative study. R & D Management, 44, 429–449.
Michalski, T. (2003). E-service innovations through corporate entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Management & Decision Making, 4, 194–209.
Mokhlesian, S., & Holmén, M. (2012). Business model changes and green construction processes.
Construction Management and Economics, 30, 761–775.
Molloy, J. C., Ployhart, R. E., & Wright, P. M. (2010). The myth of the micro-macro divide:
Bridging system-level and disciplinary divides. Journal of Management, 37, 581–609.
Monios, J., & Bergqvist, R. (2015). Using a “virtual joint venture” to facilitate the adoption of
intermodal transport. Supply Chain Management-an International Journal, 20, 534–548.
Morgan, E. (2015). ‘Plan A’: Analysing Business model innovation for sustainable consumption in
mass-market clothes retailing. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 57, 73–98.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a
unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 726–735.
Nair, S., Nisar, A., Palacios, M., & Ruiz, F. (2012). Impact of knowledge brokering on
performance heterogeneity among business models. Management Decision, 50, 1649–1660.
Nair, S., Paulose, H., Palacios, M., & Tafur, J. (2013). Service orientation: Effectuating business
model innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 958–975.
Ng, I. C. L., Ding, D. X., & Yip, N. (2013). Outcome-based contracts as new business model: The
role of partnership and value-driven relational assets. Industrial Marketing Management, 42,
730–743.
References 175

Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change:
The cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78.
Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2013). Networked business model development for emerging
technology-based services. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 773–782.
Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2005). Technology innovation-induced business model change: A
contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 167–183.
Ployhart, R., & Schneider, B. (2005). Multilevel selection and prediction: Theories, methods, and
models. Handbook of personnel selection, 495–516.
Pohle, G., & Chapman, M. (2006). IBM’s global CEO report 2006: Business model innovation
matters. Strategy & Leadership, 34, 34–40.
Pourabdollahian, G., & Copani, G. (2014). Proposal of an innovative business model for
customized production in healthcare. Modern Economy, 5, 1147–1160.
Pynnönen, M., Hallikas, J., & Ritala, P. (2012). Managing customer-driven business model
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 1–13.
Ramendra Singhpels, D., Pels, J., & Kidd, T. A. (2015). Business model innovation: Learning
from a high-tech-low-fee medical healthcare model for the BOP. International Journal of
Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 9, 200–218.
Richter, M. (2013). Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and
renewable energy. Energy Policy, 62, 1226–1237.
Ritala, P., & Sainio, L.-M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and
business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 155–169.
Roth, S., Schneckenberg, D., & Tsai, C. W. (2015). The Ludic drive as innovation driver:
Introduction to the gamification of innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24,
300–306.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in Management and organizational
science: Assembling the field full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The
academy of management annals, 2, 475–515.
Sanchez, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). Business model innovation and sources of value creation in
low-income markets. European management review, 7, 138–154.
Sanz-Velasco, S. A., & Saemundsson, R. G. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning in academic
spin-offs: A business model perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, 8, 15–35.
Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). Business model innovation and strategic flexibility: Insights
from an experimental research design. International Journal of Innovation Management, 18,
1440009–1440030.
Seidenstricker, S., & Linder, C. (2014). A morphological analysis-based creativity approach to
identify and develop ideas for BMI: A case study of a high-tech manufacturing company.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18, 409–424.
Shelton, R. (2009). Integrating product and service innovation. Research Technology
Management, 52, 38–44.
Shin, J. (2014). New business model creation through the triple helix of young entrepreneurs,
SNSs, and smart devices. International Journal of Technology Management, 66, 302–318.
Simmons, G., Palmer, M., & Truong, Y. (2013). Inscribing value on business model innovations:
Insights from industrial projects commercializing disruptive digital innovations. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42, 744–754.
Sinfield, J. V., Calder, E., McConnell, B., & Colson, S. (2012). How to identify new business
models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 85–90.
Sorescu, A., Frambach, R. T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011). Innovations in
retail business models. Journal of Retailing, 87, S3–S16.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation
through trial-and-error learning: The naturhouse case. Long Range Planning, 43, 383–407.
Spector, B. (2013). The social embeddedness of business model enactment. Journal of Strategy
and Management, 6, 27–39.
176 6 Conclusions and Research Agenda

Storbacka, K., Windahl, C., Nenonen, S., & Salonen, A. (2013). Solution business models:
Transformation along four continua. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 705–716.
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the making: A
Chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43, 408–430.
Swatman, P. M. C., Krueger, C., & van der Beek, K. (2006). The changing digital content
landscape: An evaluation of e-business model development in European online news and
music. Internet Research, 16, 53–80.
Taran, Y., Boer, H., & Lindgren, P. (2015). A business model innovation typology. Decision
Sciences, 46, 301–331.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and
medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7, 257–281.
Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2014). The business model dilemma of technology shifts.
Technovation, 34, 525–535.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14, 207–222.
Trimi, S., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2012). Business model innovation in entrepreneurship.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8, 449–465.
Tuulenmäki, A., & Välikangas, L. (2011). The art of rapid, hands-on execution innovation.
Strategy & Leadership, 39, 28–35.
Velu, C. (2015). Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms.
Technovation, 35, 1–11.
Vlachos, P., Vrechopoulos, A., & Pateli, A. (2006). Drawing emerging business models for the
mobile music industry. Electronic Markets, 16, 154–168.
Wang, Q., Voss, C., Zhao, X. D., & Wang, Z. Q. (2015). Modes of service innovation: A
typology. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115, 1358–1382.
Wei, Z. L., Yang, D., Sun, B., & Gu, M. (2014). The fit between technological innovation and
business model design for firm growth: Evidence from China. R & D Management, 44,
288–305.
Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2014). Designing business models for the internet
of things. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4, 5–14.
Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2015). Business models: Origin, development
and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, in press.
Witell, L., & Löfgren, M. (2013). From service for free to service for fee: Business model
innovation in manufacturing firms. Journal of Service Management, 24, 520–533.
Wu, X., Ma, R., & Shi, Y. (2010). How do latecomer firms capture value from disruptive
technologies? A secondary business-model innovation perspective. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 57, 51–62.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models:
Lessons from the grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308–325.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms.
Organization Science, 18, 181–199.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range
Planning, 43, 216–226.

S-ar putea să vă placă și