Copyright to all papers belong to their authors.
You may post your working papers in any language.
To submit a paper or remove a paper: contact@businessmodelcommunity.com
All downloadable papers are in .doc or Adobe Acrobat pdf format.
To quote these working papers, thank you to use the following form:
Last Name, First Name, (Year). "Title". Business Model Community.
|
Posting |
Author(s) |
Title |
Abstract |
Affiliation |
|
2011 - 12 |
E. Fielt. |
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. |
Queensland University of Technology |
|
|
2011 - 06 |
A. Laifi. |
De la légitimité d'un Business Model innovant : cas de la bibliothèque numérique : CYBERLIBRIS |
L’objectif de ce papier est de caractériser à travers une étude de cas, la légitimité d’un Business Model (BM) innovant. Cette recherche se fonde sur l’étude du cas Cyberlibris, une bibliothèque numérique qui remet en cause un certain nombre de paramètres sectoriels. La rupture susceptible d’être introduite par le nouveau BM étudié se traduit avant tout par un nouveau modèle de revenu, mais aussi par une nouvelle structure des couts, un nouveau système d’offre, de nouvelles ressources et compétences et une nouvelle proposition de valeur. Ce cas extrême permet de comprendre la nature de la légitimité d’un BM innovant, son évolution et les interactions qui peuvent exister entre des ‘‘duels’’ dimension de légitimité/composante de BM. |
EM Normandie |
|
2011 - 05 |
T. Verstraete, E. Jouison-Laffitte. |
The Business Model is a buzzword that appeared with the famous start-ups.The authors adopt a conventionalist approach to explain its nature. They show that a movement that brings into being the entrepreneurial phenomenon, and with it, the seeds of an organization. In real terms, the entrepreneur must go prospecting to convince the owners of the resources he needs for his project to bring them to him, so that he can make an offer of value to the market. They will only join him if they can identify a potential remuneration (both for the offer as a whole and for their own efforts). In other words, the Business Model (BM) is a social artifact that explains organizational impetus, for resources can only be obtained (and hence organized) if a convention is born between the partners. In so doing, the convention makes the entrepreneurial phenomenon observable. In the context of business creation, the BM is this convention. It is, in some ways, a medium for expressing the shared world view of the various stakeholders who will constitute the firm.. |
Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV |
|
|
2011 - 01 |
Lecocq, X., Demil, B & Ventura, J. |
The topic of business models has been flourishing in managerial literature and more recently in the academic sphere. Since 1995, its use has emerged in a multitude of arenas (Gazhiani & Ventresca, 2005). Of course, such construct may be criticized as a new fashion in the management field that could disappear in several years. In this special issue, however, the authors have tried to explore and test the potential power and interest of what seems to be more than a new concept in strategic management. The stance taken by the authors in this issue is noteworthy for two reasons. First, as far as theory is concerned, the authors postulate that talking about business models differs from drawing on traditional concepts from corporate or competitive strategy. This first point has been partially explored and supported empirically by Zott & Amit (2008). They show that the construct of the business model is imperfectly covered by the concepts of strategy. More specifically, the choice of a business model cannot be reduced to the choice of a product/market strategy. The second significant decision made by the authors is to trust practitioners. Indeed, the use of the business model is largely attributable to the practical sphere. This explains the profusion of grey literature produced by consultants, managers and journalists until the end of the 90s, which made the concept fuzzy but at the same time underlines its potential usefulness for day-to-day business. If we concur with Clegg & Starbuck (2009) in accepting recursive relations with practitioners to build knowledge, the practical use of the concept may be a good starting point. Indeed, as a design science, management can aim to put forward artefacts and engage in conversation with practitioners and users. In this introduction, we trace the emergence and development of the business model as a theme in strategic management. To this end, we use Lakatos's view of scientific progress, and especially his concept of 'research program' as recently drawn upon by Edouard and Gratacap (2010) for the concept of 'ecosystem'. In this article, the 'research program' is used in a broad sense because we apply it to a social science, namely management. However, although the business model is not (yet) a theory per se but rather (depending on the approach adopted) a concept or a tool which helps to describe an economic activity, or potentially a 'framework' (Teece, 2007), we demonstrate that it presents the features of a research program. This program is progressive in the sense used by Lakatos. Finally, we try to look ahead and envisage some avenues for the business model as a research program. |
LEM, IAE de Lille, IESEG School of Management, Universidad de Oviedo |
|
|
2010 - 12 |
Y. Shi |
What Business Model Advantage Differs from Competitive Advantage: A Case Study of 7-Eleven Japan |
This paper introduces a business model framework based on a synthesis of a wide array of diverse business model definitions and related arguments. The intention is to make the theory discussions on business model more useful to the design, development and analysis of actual business models. The synthesis follows the mainstream strategic management theories of profit under competition. The business model framework includes four interrelated component models: the exchange model, the organizational model, the resource model, and the financial model, each with its own strategic logics. Together these component models and their strategic logics describe a comprehensive business model, which enables more meaningful strategic analysis. In order to demonstrate the use of this framework, particularly in comparison with the more traditional competitive analysis, this paper also applies the framework to analyzing the business model of 7-Eleven Japan. It states the additional insights drawn from the comparative analyses, and draws implications for the managerial task of business model design and development. |
Monterey Institute of International Studies |
|
2010 - 11 |
T. Verstraete, E. Jouison-Laffitte. |
Le Business Model est un buzzword apparu avec les fameuses start-up. Les auteurs adoptent une perspective conventionnaliste pour expliquer sa nature. Ils montrent que la convention implique un mouvement faisant apparaître le phénomène entrepreneurial, c'est-à-dire la genèse de l'organisation. En effet, l'entrepreneur doit se déplacer pour convaincre les possesseurs des ressources nécessaires au projet d'apporter ces dernières afin de pouvoir fournir une offre de valeur au marché, ce qu'ils ne feront que s'ils perçoivent des perspectives de rémuneration (celles de l'offre et la leur). Autrement dit, le Business Model est un artefact social expliquant l'impulsion d'une organisation puisque les ressources ne se réunissent (donc ne s'organisent) que si une convention naît entre les partenaires. Ce faisant, la convention rend le phénomène entrepreneurial observable. Dans le cadre de la création d'une firme, le BM est cette convention. Il est en quelque sorte, le medium de l'expression de la vision du "monde commun" aux multiples parties prenantes que devrait constituer l'entreprise |
Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV |
|
|
2010 - 10 |
Zott, C., Amit, R. and Massa, L.. |
The Business Model : Theoretical Roots, Recent Developments, and Future Research |
The paper provides a broad and multifaced review of the received litterature on business models in which we examine the business model concept through multiple disciplinary and subject-matter lenses. The review reveals that scholars do not agree on what a business model is, and that the literature is developing largely in silos, according to the phenomena of interest to the respective researchers. However, we also found some emerging common ground among students of business models. Specifically, 1) the business model is emerging as a unit of analysis; 2) business models emphasize a system-level, holisitic approach towards explaining how firms do business; 3) organizational activities play an important role in the various conceptualizations of business models that have been proposed; and 4) business models seek to explain how value is created and captured. These emerging themes could serve as important catalysts towards a more unified study of business models. |
IESE, The Wharton School |
|
2010 - 10 |
Warnier, V., Demil, B and Lecocq, X. |
Le business model, un support à la créativité de l’entrepreneur. |
Bien que le processus entrepreneurial demande de la rigueur, il est généralement associé à la créativité. L’entrepreneur doit en effet définir, le plus souvent en tâtonnant, les principales caractéristiques de son offre, de sa cible, de son modèle de revenus ou encore de l’organisation de son activité. Une fois l’entreprise créée, le dirigeant se trouve également confronté à la nécessaire évolution des caractéristiques de celle-ci pour des raisons d’adéquation au marché, de croissance ou plus généralement d’opportunités à saisir. Dans cet article, nous défendons l’idée que le business model peut jouer le rôle d’un artefact utile à la créativité d’un entrepreneur lors du lancement d’une nouvelle activité ou dans l’évolution d’une activité existante. A ce titre, il peut être considéré comme un outil de créativité pour l’entrepreneur au même titre que d’autres comme le brainstorming ou les associations d’idées. Constatant la nécessité d’articuler la créativité et les impératifs de performance dans la conduite d’une activité économique naissante ou en transformation, nous proposons une démarche d’élaboration d’un business model sur la base de questions qui visent à stimuler la créativité stratégique de l’entrepreneur. Dans la lignée d’Amabile (1988) , nous définissons simplement la créativité comme la production d’idées nouvelles et utiles dans un contexte donné. Appliquée à l’entrepreneuriat, la créativité stratégique consiste à produire de nouvelles idées génératrices de valeur concernant l’offre, l’organisation de l’entreprise ou son insertion dans l’environnement. Dans cet article, nous montrons ainsi quand et comment constituer ou faire évoluer de manière créative le business model d’une entreprise. Pour cela, nous nous appuyons sur un artefact visuel, le modèle RCOV, qui peut être utilisé par des accompagnateurs de projet de création ou lors de séminaires avec les acteurs de l’entreprise. |
IAE de Lille IESEG School of Management |
|
2010 - 09 |
C.C. Markides and D. Oyon |
Ambidextrous or Stuck in the Middle? How to compete with two business models in the same industry |
The growing frequency with which new and disruptive business models have invaded established industries in the last twenty years has brought to the fore an old strategy question: “How could a company compete with two business models in the same industry at the same time?” We argue that the standard answer given in the literature—which is to put the second business model in a separate business unit—is not enough to ensure success. Based on our own research, we provide a roadmap on how companies ought to approach this issue. |
London Business School HEC Lausanne |
|
2010 - 07 |
Charles Baden-Fuller and Mary S. Morgan |
Drawing on research undertaken in the history and philosophy of science, with particular reference to the extensive literature which discusses the use of models in biology and economics, we explore the question ‘Are Business Models useful?’ We point out that they act as various forms of model: to provide means to describe and classify businesses; to operate as sites for scientific investigation; and to act as recipes for creative managers. We argue that studying business models as models is rewarding in that it enables us to see how they embody multiple and mediating roles. We illustrate our ideas with reference to practices in the real world and to academic analyses, especially in this Long Range Planning Special Issue on Business Models. |
Cass Business School, London School of Economics and the University of Amsterdam |
|
|
2010 - 07 |
D.J. Teece |
Whenever a business enterprise is established, it either explicitly or implicitly employs a particular business model that describes the design or architecture of the value creation, delivery, and capture mechanisms it employs. The essence of a business model is in defining the manner by which the enterprise delivers value to customers, entices customers to pay for value, and converts those payments to profit. It thus reflects management’s hypothesis about what customers want, how they want it, and how the enterprise can organize to best meet those needs, get paid for doing so, and make a profit. The purpose of this article is to understand the significance of business models and explore their connections with business strategy, innovation management, and economic theory. |
University of Pennsylvania |
|
|
2010 - 07 |
Bernd W. Wirtz, Oliver Schilke and Sebastian Ullrich |
There is virtually a consensus that, to remain competitive, firms must continuously develop and adapt their business models. However, relatively little is known about how managers can go about achieving this transformation, and how, and to what extent, different types of business models should be adapted. To illustrate the differential effect of environmental changes on different business model types, this article draws from the ‘4C’ Internet business model typology to elaborate on how a recent wave of changes on the Internet e the emergent Web 2.0 phenomenon e is affecting each of its four business model types. We argue that Web 2.0 trends and characteristics are changing the rules of the ‘create and capture value’ game, and thus significantly disrupt the effectiveness of established Internet business models. Since systematic empirical knowledge about Web 2.0 factors is very limited, a comprehensive Web 2.0 framework is developed, which is illustrated with two cases and verified through in-depth interviews with Internet business managers. Strategic recommendations on how to what extent different Web 2.0 aspects affect each business model type are developed. Executives can use the ideas and frameworks presented in the article to benchmark their firm’s efforts towards embracing the changes associated with the Web 2.0 into their business model. |
Speyer University and University of California |
|
|
2010 - 07 |
Muhammad Yunus, Bertrand Moingeon and |
Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience |
Grameen bank, founded in 1976, has both pioneered the development of micro-finance, and created nearly 30 businesses designed to alleviate poverty. The article traces the gradual development of Grameen’s expertise in formulating social business models, which require new value propositions, value constellations and profit equations, and as such, resembles business model innovation. The article presents five lessons learned from this experience: three are similar to those of conventional business model innovation e challenging conventional thinking, finding complementary partners and undertaking continuous experimentation; two are specific to social business models: recruiting social-profit-oriented shareholders, and specifying social profit objectives clearly and early. We suggest these new business models e where stakeholders replace shareholders as the focus of value maximization e could empower capitalism to address overwhelming global concerns |
Grameen Bank, HEC Paris |
|
2010 - 07 |
Nicolas M. Dahan, Jonathan P. Doh, Jennifer Oetzel |
Corporate-NGO Collaboration: Co-creating New Business Models for Developing Markets |
Multinational enterprises (MNEs) face a range of challenges when entering developing countries, including the need to adapt their business models to local markets’ cultural, economic, institutional and geographic features. Where they lack the tangible resources or intangible knowledge needed to address these challenges, MNEs may consider collaborating with non-profit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to help facilitate new modes of value creation. In such cross-sector partnerships, parties contribute complementary capabilities along each stage of the value chain to develop products or services that neither could produce alone, creating and delivering value in novel ways while minimizing costs and risks. Our conceptualization broadens the business model concept to incorporate cross-sector collaborations, arguing such partnerships can create and deliver both social and economic value, which can be mutually reinforcing. We highlight, in particular, the competencies and resources NGOs can bring to such partnerships, including market expertise, legitimacy with clients/customers, civil society players and governments, and access to local expertise and sourcing and distribution systems. Beyond contributing to particular value chain activities, NGOs and companies can offer missing capabilities to complete each other’s business models, or even co-create new and innovative multiorganizational business models. We stress four strategic imperatives for the success of corporate-NGO developing market partnerships e innovative combinations of firm and NGO resources and skills; the importance of trust-building, and of fit between the two organizations’ goals; and supporting and understanding the local business infrastructure and environment. |
Villanova School of Business, Kogod School of Business at American |
|
2010 - 07 |
T. Verstraete and E. Jouison-Laffitte |
L'entrepreneuriat est désormais, et de façon croissante, identifié comme une voie d'insertion possible pour les étudiants. En témoinge l'invitation lancée par le 30 novembre 2009 par le Directeur général pour l'enseignement supérieur et l'insertion professionnelle qui demandait aux universités de communiquer les coordonnées de "référents entrepreneuriat" à identifier au sein des BAIP (bureau d'aide à l'insertion professionnelle). Dans ce cadre, la mission des référents serait d'orienter les étudiants vers des carrières entrepreneuriales (création, reprise, intrapreneuriat) . |
Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV |
|
|
2010 - 06 |
C. Seelos |
Theorizing and Strategizing with Models: Generative Models of Business Models |
The ambiguity around model-based science is witnessed by the proliferation of meanings of the term business model. We argue that a clearer specification of the analytical, theoretical and ontological validity of models is an opportunity to learn about and understand complex organizational phenomena more systematically. We apply this to research on social entrepreneurship and pro-poor business models that has been criticized as being atheoretical and conceptually ambiguous. Business models are presented as narratives that integrate various actors, actions, stories, and outcomes without a clear perspective of why these elements were selected and what we can learn from them. This paper outlines an explicit modeling process as an investigative tool that enables transparent and systematic theorizing of business models. Using an illustrative case study, we develop a generative model that accounts for the social mechanisms that explain how business models achieve multiple strategic objectives and multiple dimensions of economic and social value creation. |
IESE Business School |
|
2010 - 05 |
E. Moyon and X. Lecocq |
The relationship between structure and agency is a central issue in institutional change. Greenwood and al. (2002) depicted institutional change as a process encompassing multiple stages. However interactions between stages of institutionalization and agency towards institutions have been overlooked. The aim of this paper is to fill in this theoretical gap by focusing on the relationship between the process of institutional change and the actors’ strategic behaviour. Based on research on the music industry, we observed co-evolution between the actor level and the field level by identifying three consequences of the incumbents’ actions on the institutional change process (alternative practices selection, alternative practices modification and process duration) and three consequences of coercive pressures on agency (strategic adjustment, traditional practices modification and legitimization) |
IAE de Lille IESEG School of Management |
|
|
2010 - 04 |
Y. Shi and T. Manning |
This paper develops a business model framework by integrating common substances and features among the various business model definitions in the literature. The model consists of four basic and interrelated elements: the exchange model, the organizational model, the resource model, and the financial model. The objective is to make business model descriptions more coherent with major perspectives on strategic management as well as more conducive to entrepreneurial practice. The paper also introduces a general structure to describe business model risks, which incorporates risks to the value of market, firm’s share of that value and the competitive sustainability at the model element, relationship and system levels. We hope that the business model framework and risk structure become useful tools for business model design and evaluation. |
The Monterey Institute |
|
|
2010 - 03 |
J.D. Thompson and I.C. MacMillan |
This thought piece proposes a framework for addressing the challenges of poverty and human suffering so widespread around the world. Based on the WSWP action research program, we suggest that visionary businesses can play a role in creating new business models that open up new markets, and simultaneously attend to societal wealth improvements. This framework should be of great interest to global firms intent on creating new markets for their own futures. One of the critical problems managers face in opening up new markets is to maintain fiduciary responsibility in the face of little, if any, market information. We consider such environments to be characterized by significantly high - or near-Knightian - uncertainty, and propose a framework for designing business models that simultaneously attend to the planning and project evaluation concerns of such firms, as well as the societal needs of the activity's proposed beneficiaries.
|
Wharton Business School, University of Pennsylvania |
|
|
2010 - 02 |
M. Perkmann and A. Spicer |
What are Business Models? Developing a Theory of Performative Representations |
Despite a rich extant literature, it is unclear what business models are. We assess three dominant conceptions of business models in the academic literature: as transactional structures, value extracting devices and mechanisms for structuring the organization. To overcome the shortcomings of these approaches, we draw on theories of performativity, social typecasting and managerial cognition. We propose an alternative conception of business models as performative representations that work in three ways: as narratives that convince, typifications that legitimate, and recipes that guide social action. Rather than actual features of firms, business models are representations that allow managers to articulate and instantiate the value of new technologies. |
Imperial College Business School University of Warwick |
|
2010 - 01 |
A. Gambardella and A. M. McGahan |
This article describes a business model that is growing in prevalence and that carries novel implications: the development of general-purpose technologies for licensing to downstream specialists. In their archetypical format, these general-purpose technologies are constructed in ways that can be employed by different potential downstream licensees, and can accommodate their different strategies. This strengthens the hand of innovative firms in the rising markets for knowledge-based assets, and can be expected to improve their ability to capture a greater share of the value their technology creates. The innovation of business model designed for licensing such technologies will have unpredictable, but inevitable, consequences for industry structure and organizational capabilities, as well as for the content and context for the upstream science. |
University Luigi Bocconi University of Toronto |
|
|
2009 - 12 |
R. Casadesus-Masanell and J.E. Ricart |
The notion of business model has been used by strategy scholars to refer to “the logic of the firm, the way it operates and how it creates value for its stakeholders.” On the surface, this notion appears to be similar to that of strategy. We present a conceptual framework to separate and relate business model and strategy. Business model, we argue, is a reflection of the firm’s realized strategy. We find that in simple competitive situations there is a one-to-one mapping between strategy and business model, which makes it difficult to separate the two notions. We show that the concepts of strategy and business model differ when there are important contingencies upon which a well-designed strategy must be based. Our framework also delivers a clear separation between tactics and strategy. This distinction is possible because strategy and business model are different constructs. |
Harvard Business School IESE Business School |
|
|
2009 - 12 |
H. Chesbrough |
Companies commercialize new ideas and technologies through their business models. While companies may have extensive investments and processes for exploring new ideas and technologies, they often have little if any ability to innovate the business models through which these inputs will pass. This matters - the same idea or technology taken to market through two different business models will yield two different economic outcomes. So it makes good business sense for companies to develop the capability to innovate their business models. This paper explores the barriers to business model innovation, which previous academic research has identified as including conflicts with existing assets and business models, as well as cognition in understanding these barriers. Processes of experimentation and effectuation, and the successful leadership of organizational change must be brought to bear in order to overcome these barriers. Some examples of business model innovation are provided to underline its importance, in hopes of inspiring managers and academics to take these challenges on. |
UC Berkeley |
|
|
2009 - 12 |
H. Itami and K. Nishino |
Killing Two Birds with One Stone: Profit for Now and Learning for the Future |
A ‘business model’ is commonly seen as composed of two elements: a business system and a profit model. While the latter often gains the higher profile, the former is arguably the real ‘meat’ of a firm's business model. Not only does it act as the ‘system of works’ that actually produces and delivers the firm's products or services, it is also the locus where a firm can learn about its operations and the behaviors of its suppliers and customers. This learning can accumulate to represent a considerable competitive advantage, one that risks being wasted if activities are unwisely unbundled. While the profit model earns revenues for the short term, the business system learns information for the longer term: a successful business model must aim for both these outcomes. |
Tokyo University of Science |
|
2009 - 11 |
P. J. Williamson |
Cost Innovation: Preparing for a ‘Value-for-Money’ Revolution |
Some of established businesses' most ubiquitous and profitable business models are increasingly being challenged by a new breed of emerging market players. Rather than simply focusing on cut-priced, undifferentiated offerings, emerging country multinationals are deploying their cost advantages in creative ways to deliver high technology, variety and customisation at minimal price premiums, and to redirect niche offerings towards volume segments. This amounts to the emergence of a new type of generic strategy: ‘cost innovation’. Meanwhile, fundamental changes in global market structures are afoot which favour these new, and the confluence of these forces is creating a global ‘value-for-money’ revolution. Incumbents will require new types of responses to survive and prosper – but the pre-requisite for any effective response is a shift in mindset about the new business models required to succeed in the future. |
University of Cambridge |
|
2009 - 11 |
Y.L. Doz and M. Kosonen |
Embedding Strategic Agility: A Leadership Agenda for Accelerating Business Model Renewal |
Strategic discontinuities and disruptions usually call for changes in business models. But, over time, efficient firms naturally evolve business models of increasing stability - and therefore rigidity. Resolving this contradiction can be made easier by developing three core meta-capabilities to make an organization more agile: strategic sensitivity, leadership unity and resource fluidity. This article reviews the underlying determinants of these capabilities, based on detailed research undertaken in a dozen companies who were reconceiving their business models - among others, Nokia, easyGroup, HP, SAP and Kone are used as examples. We propose a repertoire of concrete leadership actions enabling the meta-capabilities needed to accelerate the renewal and transformation of business models. To organize our argument we borrow the three main dimensions of the strategic agility framework presented in our earlier work, and develop corresponding vectors of leadership actions, each of which can enhance a firm’s ability to renew its business models. |
INSEAD |
|
2009 - 11 |
R. G. McGrath |
The business model construct offers a fresh way to consider strategy in uncertain, fast-moving and unpredictable environments. In contrast to more conventional perspectives, business model analysis facilitates a more fine-grained comparison of performance across firms, creating a better foundation for the explanation of performance differences between firms. Experimentation and learning – a ‘discovery driven’ approach are crucial to identifying and executing against new business models. |
Columbia Business School |
|
|
2009 - 10 |
T. Verstraete and E. Jouison-Laffitte |
The Business Model, a Relevant Concept in Entrepreneurship Training |
The Business Model concept, born during the New Economy era, is now largely used by both academics and practitioners. The main efforts to conceptualize the Business Model are done by researchers in entrepreneurship. Invented in entrepreneurial context, it seems interesting to make it a useful concept for entrepreneurs. In the University of Bordeaux (France), the Business Model has been introduced as a key concept in entrepreneurship teaching courses. We will first remind the conceptualization of the Business Model we defend (a business convention or institution relative to the generation, the remuneration and the share of value – the GRD Model) and then explain how the Business Model is used with and by students and with what results. The Business Model has also been used with entrepreneurs in a research protocol founded on the action research method. |
Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV |
|
2009 - 07 |
C. Zott and R. Amit |
Designing Your Future Business Model: An Activity System Perspective |
Building on the received literature, we conceptualize a firm’s business model as a system of interdependent activities that transcends the focal firm and spans its boundaries. The activity system enables the firm to create value in concert with its partners but also to appropriate a share of the value created. Anchored on theoretical and empirical research, we suggest two sets of parameters that activity systems designers need to consider: design elements—content, structure and governance—that describe the architecture of an activity system; and design themes— novelty, lock-in, complementarities and efficiency—that describe the sources of the activity system’s value creation. |
IESE, Wharton |
|
2009 - 06 |
B. Demil and X. Lecocq |
The business model concept generally refers to the articulation between different areas of a firm's activity designed to produce a proposition of value to customers. Two different uses of the term can be noted. The first is the static approach - as a blueprint for the coherence between core business model components. The second refers to a more transformational approach, using the concept as a tool to address change and innovation in the organization, or in the model itself. We build on the RCOV framework - itself inspired by a Penrosian view of the firm – to try to reconcile these two approaches to consider business model evolution, looking particularly at the dynamic created by interactions between its business model's components. We illustrate our framework with the case of the English football club Arsenal FC over the last decade. We view business model evolution as a fine tuning process involving voluntary and emergent changes in and between permanently linked core components, and find that firm sustainability depends on anticipating and reacting to sequences of voluntary and emerging change, giving the label ‘dynamic consistency’ to this firm capability to build and sustain its performance while changing its business model. |
IAE DE Lille IESEG Lille LEM |
|
|
2009 - 06 |
V. Mangematin |
PME de Biotechnologie : Plusieurs Business Models en Concurrence(french) |
Les biotechnologies sont un des secteurs émergents dont le développement repose sur la création de PME intensives en recherche. Dans tous les pays, le mouvement de création d'entreprises s'est amplifié au cours des dix dernières années. Ainsi, en 1999, les USA comptent environ 1400 PME de biotechnologie contre 1200 pour l'Europe selon Ernst and Young (Ernst&Young, 2000). En France, il s'est créé entre 1998 et 2000 plus de PME de biotechnologie que pendant les 10 années précédentes, soit 100 entreprises. Cependant, ces PME connaissent des développements très inégaux, tant en termes de croissance du chiffre d'affaires que d'augmentation du nombre d'employés. Quelques réussites exemplaires comme Chiron (USA), Genetech (USA), Celera Genomics (USA), Cell Tech (UK), ou Nicox (France) côtoient de nombreuses firmes qui restent plus petites. Les entreprises de biotechnologie sont-elles amenées à croître ou bien à disparaître? Existe-t-il des trajectoires différentes ou sont-elles à différents stades de développement sur une même dynamique? Quels sont les ressorts du développement de l'ensemble du secteur ? |
INRA/SERD, Université Pierre Mendès France |
|
2009 - 05 |
O. Ammar M-H Charki |
The introduction of Online Reverse Auctions in interorganizational relationships was at the origin of supplier’s distrust against industrial buyers. The majority of suppliers perceive ORA as a great shift in their relationships with buyers. We suggest a model which deals about suppliers reactions through the reconsideration of their business model in order to fit the introduction of ORA. |
Coactis Laboratory - Lyon 2 EDHEC Lille |
|
|
2009 - 04 |
V. Mangematin S. Lemarié J-P Boissin D. Catherine F. Corolleur R. Coronini and M. Trommetter |
Development of SMEs and heterogeneity of trajectories: the case of biotechnology in France |
Biotechnology is an emergent sector based on the creation of research-intensive Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). While some SMEs are growing, most of them remain small, even those set-up several years ago. What is the pattern of development of the biotech sector? What are the patterns of development of ?rms? Studies on the development of high-tech SMEs have focused on a business model, in which entrepreneurs rely on growth forecasts to persuade capital investors (business angels and venture capitalists) to invest in a radical innovation project. Firms aim for a world market to industrialise their innovation, and initial public offering (IPO) enables initial investors to make pro?ts that offset risky initial investment. While this model is appealing, it is simply one of the possible models of biotechnology development. Some ?rms are not designed to experience exponential growth, and choose to target local markets. Moreover, not all ?rms have the ambition of being listed on the stock exchange. Based on an in-depth analysis of the business and development of 60 French biotech SMEs, this article identi?es two business models. By de?ning the development trajectories of each of these models, it highlights the temporary nature of the emergent model. |
INRA/SERD, Université Pierre Mendès France |
|
2009 - 04 |
O. Ammar |
Strategy and Business Models: between confusion and complementarities |
Our present research, as an academic approach, tries to shed light on the relation between strategy and Business Models. This would be possible if we succeed in situating the two concepts on parallel levels that enable us to view the difference between them and so clear up the confusion that undermines their relation. We do not aim to suggest a unique perception of strategy and Business Models. Nevertheless, our intent is to delimit their analytic dimensions and the field of their interaction. This attempt mobilises the main academic research into strategy and the Business Model concept. Instead of defining an axiomatic of strategy as proposed by Fréry (2004), we attempt to define the analytic dimensions of strategy and confront them with those of Business Models. The confrontation would lead us to suggest a more fair comparison, not between the Business Models and the strategy as a discipline but between Business Models and similar business concepts which belong to the field of strategy. |
Coactis Laboratory - Lyon 2 |
|
2009 - 04 |
V. Mangematin |
The creation of start-ups during the past ten years raises questions on the future of these new biotech firms (DBFs) in France and in Europe. Will consolidation occur in Europe and, if so, when? Will maturity of the biotech sector be accompanied by the progressive disappearance of many of these firms and the growth of a few of them? Will the sector be structured along the same lines as the automobile industry, with large firms with a high capacity for integration of research performed elsewhere and a large number of specialised firms? What will the future be of the hundreds of small firms which focus on the local or regional market, especially service oriented firms? |
Grenoble Management School |
|
|
2009 - 04 |
M.A. Cusumano |
The Changing Software Business : Moving from Products to Services |
A dramatic shift is under way in the enterprise-software industry as established vendors embrace services in the wake of declining product revenues. It remains to be seen whether life-cycle dynamics or business model choices are behind the long-term trend. |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
|
2009 - 02 |
R. Casadesus-Masanell and J.E. Ricart |
In this article a business model is defined as the firm choices on policies, assets and governance structure of those policies and assets, together with their consequences, be them flexible or rigid. We also provide a way to represent such business models to highlight the dynamic loops and to facilitate understanding interaction with other business models. Furthermore, we develop some tests to evaluate the goodness of a business model both in isolation as well as in interaction with other business models of different organizations, be those competitors, complements, suppliers, partners, etc. |
Harvard Business School |
|
|
2009 - 02 |
L. Plé, X. Lecocq and J. Angot |
Customer-Integrated Business Models: A Theoretical Framework |
The aim of this paper is to try and contribute to the understanding of where and how the customer fits in the business model. In a first part, we underline the gaps of the BM literature as far as the customer is concerned, and highlight the reasons why it is necessary to reintegrate him. The second part presents the concept of customer participation, the motivations of the customer to participate, and the way firms can make the customer become a resource. The third and final part presents a theoretical framework of what we call Customer-Integrated Business Models (CIBM), which we exemplify with two case studies: Build-A-Bear Workshop and www.mymajorcompany.com. |
IAE DE Lille IESEG Lille LEM |
|
2008 |
E, Jouison |
L’Operationnalité du Business Model en Contexte de Création d’Entreprise |
Thèse |
Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV |
|
2008-07 |
L. Lehmann-Ortega and J-M Schoettl |
L’objectif de cette communication est de mobiliser le concept de busines model pour analyser les mécanismes d’une concession, qui consiste à confier à un opérateur généralement privé un service public. Cette étude porte sur le cas de la concession de la Tour Eiffel, contrat de concession qui remonte à la fin du 18 e siècle. |
GSCM CEROM Montpellier |
|
|
2008-05 |
V.Chanal and M-L Caron-Fasan |
How to invent a new business model based on crowdsourcing: the Crowdspirit Case |
We were associated in the project from the very outset up to the strategic analysis of a startup: Crowdspirit. The company’s concept is based on the outsourcing of the entire R&D process to a community of designers and users, in the domain of consumer electronics. |
Université de Grenoble |
|
2008-05 |
V.Chanal and M-L Caron-Fasan |
How to explore new business models for technological innovations |
Technological innovation projects must be accompanied by upstream strategic analysis on the related value creation model. It can be shown that generally successful technological innovations have also involved business model innovation. |
Université de Grenoble |
|
2008-05 |
L. Lehmann-Ortega |
L’objectif est de définir le business model en ancrant le concept dans la théorie, afin de lui faire gagner en robustesse, et ainsi le rendre plus utile encore aux managers. Nous montrons qu’il intègre différents paradigmes qui se juxtaposent habituellement en stratégie et qu’il constitue un nouvel outil complémentaire aux outils stratégiques existants. |
GSCM CEROM Montpellier |
|
|
2008-05 |
L. Lehmann-Ortega and J-M Schoettl |
From buzzword to managerial tool: the role of Business Models in strategic innovation |
Innovation is an old and very broad theme in management literature. But most of the time it is only dealt with in relation to innovative products or technologies. Now this sort of approach can lead to a fragmentary understanding of the process, which is why some researchers favour a more comprehensive one. |
GSCM CEROM Montpellier |
|
2008-04 |
Warnier V., Lecocq X. and Demil B. |
Le business model est un concept qui s’est largement diffusé parmi les praticiens alors que les chercheurs en stratégie s’en sont peu préoccupés. ... |
IAE DE Lille, LEM |
|
|
2008-04 |
B. Demil and X. Lecocq |
Au-delà de la protection des droits de propriété par le dépôt de brevets et de marques, une stratégie de droits de propriété doit questionner l’exploitation des actifs en termes de génération de revenus et d’organisation |
IAE DE Lille, LEM |
|
|
2008-04 |
X. Lecocq, B. Demil and V. Warnier |
Un modèle parcimonieux de description et d’analyse d’un business model (le modèle RCOA) est proposé |
IAE DE Lille, LEM |
|
|
2006-06 |
T. Verstraete and E, Jouison |
The entrepreneur’s main problem is to convince stakeholders to adhere to his project. We can explain this crucial point for the success of the future business through the entrepreneur’s ability of persuasion aming at obtaining resource holders’support: to “transform” them into stakeholders, making them adhere to the business convention he proposes is necessary. |
Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV |