Business model tooling: Where research and practice meet

 This paper is an introduction to a special issue that bundles a series of papers on business model tooling. Business model tools are methods, frameworks or templates to facilitate communication and collaboration regarding Business Model analysis, (re-)design, adoption, implementation and exploitation. 

In this introduction, we position business model tooling in the broader literature, going beyond the mere use of tooling to disseminate academic knowledge. We point out the unique contributions on business model tooling that information systems scholars can bring and give an overview of business model tools and ontologies, 

We sketch a brief research agenda comprising seven research directions: (1) design of tooling; (2) interfaces and usability; (3) evaluation and testing; (4) adoption, diffusion and commercialization of tooling; (5) privacy and security of tool users; (6) the use of tooling in business model education; and (7) future tooling enabled by big data and machine learning.

See here for more information.

The qualities of business models: Thinking about “...ilities”

Most people will be familiar with the ...ilities that IDEO uses for design thinking: desirability, feasibility, viability. In a previous post about the strategic change of business models, I discussed synergy, scalability, flexibility, innovativity, simplicity, and repeatability.

In their recent work (The Invincible Company), Osterwalder and Pigneur position IDEO's ...ilities on their Business Model Canvas and add adaptability to include factors from the business environment. Here I like to present some initial ideas that follow and extend the ideas from Osterwalder and Pigneur.

As presented in the picture below, the basic positioning by Osterwalder and Pigneur is followed, except that their viability (‘earning enough money’) is replaced by profitability (which more directly expresses the monetary focus).

In my perspective, viability is central and is firstly related to the value proposition. The value proposition is often seen as the key element or core component of a business model. As such it seems evident that a key concern should be whether the value proposition is viable or not.

Secondly, viability is also determined by a holistic perspective on the business model (the sum is more than the parts, how do the components fit together). As such, it also brings desirability, feasibility, and profitability together and can be seen as their ‘sweetspot.’

Thirdly, viability is also determined by how the business model fits in its business environment (adaptability) and institutional environment (legitimability). The latter deals with the broader values, logic and rules of social structures that influence stability (and change) in social life.

How should governments respond to Facebook’s Libra initiative?

"How governments should respond to Libra depends on how the company integrates the cryptocurrency into their larger business. We envision Libra being integrated into the company’s broader business model as a basis for offering financial services, or possibly an even broader set of services. Given the increasing social and economic power of large tech firms, governments should proactively start thinking of how to respond to these firms’ entrance into new industries."

See here for more information.

Data-Driven Business Models and Professional Services Firms: A Strategic Framework and Transitionary Pathways

Many organizations and industries are undergoing a significant transformation due to digital technologies. In our research, we study digital business model innovation in relation to Professional Services Firms (PSFs). In this conceptual paper, we contrast the traditional, human-centered, knowledge-intensive business model of PSFs with the new, computer-centered, data-driven business model that is developing due to the rise of big data, advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence. To better understand if, when and how data-driven business models may disrupt PSFs, we provide a strategic framework for identifying and analyzing the options for PSFs in relation to the nature and scope of their value proposition. We suggest several possible transitionary pathways using digital technology for augmentation or automation and the need so scale across services and industries. As such this paper provides valuable insights to academics and practitioners into how PSFs might develop new business models given the nature of their service offerings and industry positions.

See here for more information.

Repainting the business model canvas for peer-to-peer sharing and collaborative consumption

Sharing Economy businesses have become very popular recently but there is little guidance available on how to develop the respective business models. We faced this problem during a consortium research project for developing a service for electric vehicle charging that adopts the paradigm of Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption (P2P SCC)— a specific branch of the Sharing Economy. 

We use Action Design Research (ADR) to develop an adapted version of the Business Model Canvas that is specifically tailored to the needs of P2P SCC business model development. The adapted canvas is then applied to develop a business model for the proposed service. 

The learnings from the development process are formalized into a set of generally applicable guidelines for the development of P2P SCC business models. The resulting guidelines and the adapted canvas provide guidance for both researchers and practitioners who want to either develop new or analyze existing P2P SCC business models.

See here for more information.

Conceptualising Business Models: Definitions, Frameworks and Classifications

The business model concept is gaining traction in different disciplines but is still criticized for being fuzzy and vague and lacking consensus on its definition and compositional elements. In this paper we set out to advance our understanding of the business model concept by addressing three areas of foundational research: business model definitions, business model elements, and business model archetypes. 

We define a business model as a representation of the value logic of an organization in terms of how it creates and captures customer value. This abstract and generic definition is made more specific and operational by the compositional elements that need to address the customer, value proposition, organizational architecture (firm and network level) and economics dimensions. Business model archetypes complement the definition and elements by providing a more concrete and empirical understanding of the business model concept. 

The main contributions of this paper are (1) explicitly including the customer value concept in the business model definition and focusing on value creation, (2) presenting four core dimensions that business model elements need to cover, (3) arguing for flexibility by adapting and extending business model elements to cater for different purposes and contexts (e.g. technology, innovation, strategy) (4) stressing a more systematic approach to business model archetypes by using business model elements for their description, and (5) suggesting to use business model archetype research for the empirical exploration and testing of business model elements and their relationships.

See here for more information.

Enterprise social networks : A business model perspective

Enterprise Social Networks continue to be adopted by organisations looking to increase collaboration between employees, customers and industry partners. Offering a varied range of features and functionality, this technology can be distinguished by the underlying business models that providers of this software deploy. This study identifies and describes the different business models through an analysis of leading Enterprise Social Networks: Yammer, Chatter, SharePoint, Connections, Jive, Facebook and Twitter. 

A key contribution of this research is the identification of consumer and corporate models as extreme approaches. These findings align well with research on the adoption of Enterprise Social Networks that has discussed bottom-up and top-down approaches. Of specific interest are hybrid models that wrap a corporate model within a consumer model and may, therefore, provide synergies on both models. From a broader perspective, this can be seen as the merging of the corporate and consumer markets for IT products and services.

See here for more information.

Business Model Canvas or Business Model thinking?

The Business Model Canvas presents us with a great tool for the design and innovation of business models. As with every specific approach or tool, the Canvas can also bias or blind us. This can be caused by the features of the tool itself as well as from the way in which the tool is (wrongly) used.

As with every solution for solving a problem, the features of the Business Model Canvas are determined by the framing and scoping of the problem. This means that compared to other business model frameworks and tools, the Business Model Canvas has certain strengths and weaknesses (see also my discussion on different frameworks here). For example, some of specific areas where the Business Model Canvas could fall short in are related to business networks, service logic and business dynamics.

Another potential hazard with using the Business Model Canvas is that its use gets reduced to just filling out the individual building blocks. This will not provide a holistic perspective on value creation as it omits the relationships between the building blocks, e.g. Dell could offer direct sales because they targeted corporate customers going for a repeat purchase. Moreover, every business model has an underlying rational or story.  This is easily missed when one limits oneself to the individual building blocks. The idea behind Southwest Airlines' business model can be described as making flying an alternative for taking a bus or car.

So while the Business Model Canvas can be very useful for supporting the design and innovation of business models, we should not fall into the trap that we therefore assume that we do not need to also think more broadly about the logic for creating and capturing customer value.

Service-oriented business models: Service as value logic

This post is part of a series that explores service-oriented business models based on different perspectives on service.

Successful firms use business model innovation to rethink the way they do business and transform industries. However, current research on business model innovation is lacking theoretical underpinnings and is in need of new insights. The objective of this paper is to advance our understanding of both the business model concept and business model innovation based on service logic as foundation for customer value and value creation.

We present and discuss a rationale for business models based on ‘service logic’ with service as a value-supporting process and compared it with a business model based on ‘goods logic’ with goods as value-supporting resources. The implications for each of the business model dimensions: customer, value proposition, organizational architecture and revenue model, are described and discussed in detail.

See here for more information.

A simple Business Model Canvas example – The library

Looking for a simple example to learn and teach the Business model Canvas that is not too MBA like? Why not take something familiar like a library? Easy to map out but still very insightful. See the example I included below (as far as I remember it from when I was a kid in the Netherlands).

There are lots of ways to extent this. When you want to explore the commercial side, compare it with a book shop example. Or when you want to discuss the impact of technology, discuss how an e-book library would look like.

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.'.

A business model definition

A business model describes the value logic of an organization in terms of how it creates and captures customer value (Fielt, 2011).

The definition is related to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), but with 'customer' value and without 'delivering' value. The definition is well aligned with Chesbrough (2006), Johnson (2010), and Teece (2010).

While most authors are not very explicit about what they mean with value, most definitions seem to refer to mean 'customer value' (i.e. value for the customer). We excluded 'delivering' value from the definition as we see delivering value as part of creating value. Customer value implies use value, which cannot be created without being delivered.

We see the identification of the different elements of a business model, such as the value proposition, resources or revenues, not as part of the business model definition, but as part of the business model framework. A framework operationalizes the definition and makes it more concrete and specific. This creates some flexibility as there can be multiple, different specific frameworks while adhering to a single, generic definition. This caters for the use of the concept for multiple purposes and in different contexts, and the development of the concept over time.

While the business model has a specific organization as its focus, we want to make explicit that often this focal organization operates in an organizational network and that the organizational network can play a prominent role in creating and capturing value. If this is the case then the network will be included in the business model. However, the network will still be from the perspective of the focal organization.

An organization can have multiple business models, either in time (sequentially) or at the same time (simultaneously). While outside the scope of the current discussion, this requires understanding of synergies and conflicts between business models and creates a need for business model portfolio management and business model lifecycle management.

We also leave open the possibility that the organization is a profit or non-profit organization. Capturing value will often be about financial revenue models that contribute to the monetary bottom-line of the organization. However, we do not want to exclude a broader perspective than profitability including also social responsibility and environmental sustainability.

See the 'Understanding business models' whitepaper (pdf here) for more information.

References

Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Fielt, E. (2011). Understanding business models (Business Service Management whitepaper volume 3). Brisbane, Australia: Smart Services CRC. Available via: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/41609/
Johnson, M. W. (2010). Seizing the white space: Business model innovation for growth and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers: (self-published).
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.

Alternative Business Model Canvas templates – The two-sided business model

I have been exploring the use of the BMG Business Model Canvas and possible alternative canvas templates that do not change the core concepts or the language of Business Model Generation (BMG) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). A first experiment with respect to co-creation can he found here and a second experiment with (service) bundling can be found here.

One of the patterns in the BMG book is the multi-sided platform, The core idea is that there are distinct types of customers, e.g. eBay has buyers and sellers. Note that this should not be confused with differentiating between different customer segments. Because the value proposition, channels, relationships and customer segments can be quite different per group, it may sometimes be useful to use a canvas that more explicitly differentiated between different groups. This is most easily for two-sided markets (a specific type of multi-sided platform), like eBay, where there will be two different customers groups. Two examples of an alternative canvas templates are provided below.




See here for more information on different approaches to business models.

What do we mean with business model?

While the growing attention for business models and business model innovation is a positive development, it also stresses the need for better understanding what we mean with the business model concept. 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. We need to further develop our conceptualisation of business models by discussing and synthesising business model definitions, frameworks and archetypes from different disciplines.

I tried to contribute to this development by the whitepaper ‘Understanding business models.' 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.

Why is business model innovation challenging?

Business model innovation is challenging because it is a form of innovation that has not been often explicitly recognized and presents significant challenges for organizations.

‘When executives think of innovation, they all too often neglect the proper analysis and development of business models which can translate technical success into commercial success’ (Teece, 2010).

Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002) warn that the current business model as dominant logic can hinder organizations in defining new business models because ‘the choice of business constrains other choices, filtering out certain possibilities, even as other prospects are logically reinforced.’ In line with this, Zott and Amit (2007) state that more established firms may be more constrained by path dependencies and inertia than more entrepreneurial firms.

According to Johnson et al. (2008) companies are confronted with two challenges. Firstly, there is a lack of understanding into the dynamics and process of business model development in general. Secondly, most companies do not understand their existing business model well enough to determine when they can leverage it and when a new model is required.

References

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(3), 529-555.

Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 50-59.

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199.

Service-oriented business models: A holistic perspective

The Business model Canvas below illustrates effectively that when we think about service-orientation from a business model perspective, we have a more broader view than just the service offering itself.