Where do we find services in enterprise architectures?

In recent years, enterprise architecture (EA) has captured growing attention as a means to systematically consolidate and interrelate diverse IT artefacts in order to provide holistic decision support. Since the emergence of Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), many attempts have been made to incorporate SOA artefacts in existing EA frameworks. Yet the approaches taken to achieve this goal differ substantially for the most commonly used EA frameworks to date.

This paper investigates and compares five widely used EA frameworks in the way they embrace the SOA paradigm. It identifies what SOA artefacts are considered to be in the respective EA frameworks and their relative position in the overall structure. The results show that services and related artefacts are far from being well-integrated constructs in current EA frameworks.

The comparison presented in this paper will support practitioners in identifying an EA framework that provides SOA support in a way that matches their requirements and will hopefully inspire the academic EA and SOA communities to work on a closer integration of these architectures.

See here for more information.

The morphology of service bundling settings

The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of what contextual factors influence the service bundling process in an organizational setting.

Although previous literature contains insights into the mechanisms underlying bundling and the artefacts for performing the bundling task itself, the body of knowledge seems to lack a comprehensive framework for analysing the actual scenario in which the bundling process is performed. This is required as the scenario will influence the bundling method and the IT support. We address this need by designing a morphological box for analysing bundling scenarios in different organizational settings. The factors featured in the box are systematised into a set of four categories of bundling layers which we identify from reviewing literature. The two core layers in the framework are the service bundling on a type level and on an instance level (i.e. configuration).

To demonstrate the applicability and utility of the proposed morphological box, we apply it to assess the underlying differences and commonalities of two different bundling scenarios from the B2B and G2C sectors which stress the differences between bundling on a type and instance level. In addition, we identify several prospects for future research that can benefit from the proposed morphological box.

See here for more information.

Business Model Canvas 2.0

The Business Model Canvas, as described in Business Model Generation by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), is quickly becoming the dominant business model framework (see here for an overview of different frameworks). While the Business Model Canvas is a useful and easy-to-use tool for generating business models, it has certain limitations that I think need to be addressed in the future.

Below is my ‘wish list’ with what I consider the three major areas for improvement.

1. Moving from a product logic to a service logic
2. Moving from firm focus with partnering to constellation focus with networking
3. Moving from a static approach to a dynamic approach

I will address each of these areas in future posts.

Business model archetypes

How familiar are you with different business model archetypes or patterns, such as the 'free' model? Do you always start with a blank sheet when designing a new canvas or would/should you reuse existing models? Or when you analyse an exiting model, would/should you look at what is unique or what it has in common with other models?

Whatever your approach, it is good to be familiar with the individual archetypes that have been identified so far and the classifications (in the form of lists or typologies) used to describe multiple archetypes. Most of this started with trying to describe and understand different e-business models, for example Timmers (1998), Rappa (2000) and Weill & Vitale (2001). Later the specific focus on e-business models became less, although many of the newer models are still associated with the Internet as driver or enabler. Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010) and Johnson (2010) are examples of newer lists that are not e-business focussed.

Next to presenting different lists or typologies and their underlying criteria, some authors also address the application of business model archetypes for business model design and management via, for example,business model composition (Weill & Vitale, 2001), business model decision-making (Morris et al.,2005) and business model maturity (Chesbrough, 2006).

For a more detailed description and discussion see the whitepaper ‘Understanding business models.'

The impact of software-as-a-service on business models of leading software vendors

One of the prominent topics in Business Service Management is business models for (new) services. Business models are useful for service management and engineering as they provide a broader and more holistic perspective on services. Business models are particularly relevant for service innovation as this requires paying attention to the business models that make new services viable and business model innovation can drive the innovation of new and established services. Before we can have a look at business models for services, we first need to understand what business models are. This is not straight-forward as business models are still not well comprehended and the knowledge about business models is fragmented over different disciplines, such as information systems, strategy, innovation, and entrepreneurship. This whitepaper, ‘Understanding business models,’ introduces readers to business models.

This whitepaper contributes to enhancing the understanding of business models, in particular the conceptualisation of business models by discussing and integrating business model definitions, frameworks and archetypes from different disciplines. After reading this whitepaper, the reader will have a well-developed understanding about what business models are and how the concept is sometimes interpreted and used in different ways. It will help the reader in assessing their own understanding of business models and that and of others. This will contribute to a better and more beneficial use of business models, an increase in shared understanding, and making it easier to work with business model techniques and tools.

See here for more information.

A business model approach for moving tele-monitoring and tele-treatment from promise to practice

The availability of new information and communication technologies creates opportunities for new, mobile tele-health services. While many promising tele-health projects deliver working R&D prototypes, they often do not result in actual deployment. We aim to identify critical issues than can increase our understanding and enhance the viability of the mobile tele-health services beyond the R&D phase by developing a business model. The present study describes the systematic development and evaluation of a service-oriented business model for tele-monitoring and -treatment of chronic lower back pain patients based on a mobile technology prototype. We address challenges of multi-sector collaboration and disruptive innovation.

See here for more information.

Business model frameworks

How familiar are you with different business model frameworks? What framework will suit your needs best?

Selecting the right framework may depend upon, amongst others, the purpose (e.g. communication, brainstorming, business plan, system development), the setting (e.g. start-up or established company, organization or network, social or technical) and the type of support required (e.g. modelling language, visualisation, templates, tool support, etc.).

Below you find a list of some of the more well-known and published frameworks:

• The Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur)
• The Four-Box Business Model (Johnson)
• The STOF model (Bouwman, De Vos & Haaker)
• Business Model Schematics (Weill & Vitale)
• Technology/market mediation (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom)
• Entrepreneur’s business model (Morris, Schindehutte & Allen)
• e3-value (Gordijn & Akkerman)

For a more detailed description and discussion see the whitepaper ‘Understanding business models.'.