Here I will focus on comparing the elements of the two models without making too much of a judgement. Next to these differences in elements, the business model canvas makes the use of a graphical template which is not the case for the four-box framework. For a more extensive review of Johnson's book 'Seizing the White Space' I refer to Anders Sundelin's review on his Business Model Database blog, which also includes an interesting comment of Johnson.
A preliminary comparison of the elements of the two models shows that they overlap substantially. I have identified five main differences so far:
- The most prominent difference seems to be that that the four-box framework does not have a separate customer box as the canvas has a customer pillar, but includes this to some extent in the value proposition box, where customer segments are identified based on the job-to-be-done and the offering also include the access, which relates to the channels.
- The value proposition box also includes a financial aspect in terms of the payment scheme, which is in the revenue stream building block of the canvas.
- The profit formula box is more extensive than the financial pillar of the canvas including two key metrics: target unit margin and resource velocity. Whether or not this should be positioned in the business model or in the financial analysis of a more elaborated and detailed business plan following the business model, will depend upon the purpose and situation when using the models.
- The same can be said about the business rules, behavioural norms and success metrics, which Johnson discusses as part of the processes box and also as connection to the day-to-day operations.
- While the business model canvas has key partnerships as one of its nine building blocks, the four-box framework puts it under key resources and does not distinguish it as an explicit business model element.
No comments:
Post a Comment