BUSINESS MODELS IN A VUCA ENVIRONMENT

JOHANNES KEPLER

UNIVERSITY LINZ

Altenberger Straße 69

4040 Linz, Austria

jku.at

DVR 0093696

Author

Fabian Kunz

Submission

Institute of Strategic

Management

Thesis Supervisor

Mag.a Dr.in Sabine

Reisinger

Date

May 2021

BUSINESS MODELS IN A

VUCA ENVIRONMENT

Master’s Thesis

to confer the academic degree of

Master of Science

in the Master’s Program

Management

May 13, 2021 II

Statutory declaration

I hereby declare that the thesis submitted is my own unaided work, that I have not used sources

other than those indicated, and that all direct and indirect sources are acknowledged as

references.

This printed thesis is identical with the electronic version submitted.

Linz, May 2021

May 13, 2021 III

Executive Summary:

Influences from technological progress, digitalisation, society's environmental concerns,

geopolitics, and others can cause upheavals in a business environment (Baran & Woznyj, 2020,

p. 2). Economic turbulence, unstable markets and crises can create a change-intensive

environment (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–2). The Corona disease, for example, is disrupting

markets and increasing a company's pressure to survive (Verma & Gustafsson, 2020, p. 253).

Henceforth, it will be interesting to see how businesses realise new business models to fit the

current volatile market environment since the Covid-19 crisis may expose some firms to the

limitations of their existing business models.(Ritter & Pedersen, 2020a, pp. 214–224)

This work intends to inform the reader about the academic approach of business models and

business model innovation that they might better recognise and understand which approaches

and elements exist to benefit their business. Therefore, this thesis addresses the vague definition

of the term "business model" with an overview of different approaches. The query of which

business model approaches exist and what they might look like in a VUCA1 environment were

considered. The following findings are displayed through this work.

Based on research conducted for this thesis, it appears that scholars often try to describe the

concept of a business model by giving a proposed definition and determining the fundamental

components of the business model. It is worth mentioning here that many researchers make

connections to trend topics such as electronic business models, business model innovation, or

sustainability in their contributions to business model research. (Hajiheydari, Talafidaryani,

Khabiri, & Salehi, 2019, pp. 672–673; Hong & Jinho, 2017, pp. 9407–9411; Li, Qiao, & Wang,

2017, pp. 869–887)

Similarities in literature can be found that a business model shows how value is created, how it

leads to profits and which stakeholders are involved (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 672–673).

Hence, after analysing the business model frameworks by Abdelkafi et al., Demil & Lecoq,

Gassman et al., Johnson, Lindgardt et al., Osterwalder & Pigneur, Teece, Wirtz et al., and Yunus

et al., three commonalities in business model framework elements could be identified. A business

model representation usually contains elements of a value proposition, a value capture, and a

value chain. (Belussi, Orsi, & Savarese, 2019, p. 1; Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011, p. 1028)

Regarding the linkage between a business model and a VUCA environment, an environment can

challenge a company's current business model. Therefore, a company might be required to

examine its business model, which could lead to adaptions or even a business model innovation.

1 VUCA is an acronym for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.

May 13, 2021 IV

(Bharadwaj, El Sawy, Pavlou, & Venkatraman, 2013, pp. 471–482; Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020,

pp. 1–3; Teece, 2018; Teece & Linden, 2017, pp. 1–14).

Nevertheless, a VUCA environment can offer possibilities to a business if challenges and changes

can be addressed as opportunities (Saleh & Watson, 2017, pp. 705–724). Thus, a company might

identify opportunities by dealing with new technologies (Caputo, Pizzi, Pellegrini, & Dabić, 2021,

pp. 489–490) and sustainability (Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016, pp. 74–96). Therefore, the factors

of agility, understanding, clarity, and vision might assist in seizing prospects in a VUCA

environment (Saleh & Watson, 2017, pp. 705–724).

Another important aspect might be the digital maturity of a business model that can help to deal

with a VUCA environment's technological requirements (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–2). Also,

the society's demand for sustainability might be adopted in a business model by meeting the triple

bottom line and balance economic, social, and environmental metrics (Schaltegger, Lüdeke-

Freund, & Hansen, 2012, pp. 95–119; Schöggl, Baumgartner, & Hofer, 2017, pp. 1602–1617).

To visualise the findings of this thesis, a business model framework was created. It combines the

selected business model elements with the identified requirements for sizing opportunities in a

VUCA environment. The elements of value proposition, value capture, and value chain could be

identified in most analysed business model frameworks and thus represent the main elements of

the proposed BM. The trend of sustainability might be addressed in the value capture by

incorporating the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental objectives.

Furthermore, it appears that the whole business model elements definitions be shaped by the

factors of vision, digital maturity, and agility to keep pace with the change in a VUCA environment.

In conclusion, this work gives insights into the research areas of business models, followed by

business model frameworks and business model innovation, to support the author's efforts in

finding approaches for a business model in a VUCA environment.

Figure 1: The proposed BM framework (own presentation, 2021)

May 13, 2021 V

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Problem statement ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Objective(s) of the thesis ............................................................................................... 2

1.3. Research questions ....................................................................................................... 3

1.4. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4

1.5. Structure of the thesis .................................................................................................... 5

2. VUCA environment ............................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Definition and characteristics of a VUCA environment ................................................... 8

2.2. Challenges and opportunities in a VUCA environment ................................................ 10

2.2.1. Globalisation ..................................................................................................... 13

2.2.2. Digitalisation ..................................................................................................... 15

2.2.3. Sustainability .................................................................................................... 17

2.3. Interim conclusion ....................................................................................................... 20

3. Approaches in business model research ............................................................................ 22

3.1. Different approaches in business model research ....................................................... 22

3.1.1. Business model as a model .............................................................................. 26

3.1.2. Business model as an activity driven system .................................................... 29

3.1.3. Network oriented conceptualisation of business models ................................... 32

3.1.4. Similarities and differences of approaches in business model research ............ 36

3.2. Business model frameworks ........................................................................................ 38

3.2.1. Abdelkafi et al. .................................................................................................. 39

3.2.2. Demil and Lecocq ............................................................................................. 40

3.2.3. Gassmann et al. ............................................................................................... 42

3.2.4. Johnson & Lafley .............................................................................................. 44

3.2.5. Lindgardt et al. .................................................................................................. 46

3.2.6. Osterwalder & Pigneur...................................................................................... 47

3.2.7. Teece ............................................................................................................... 50

3.2.8. Wirtz et al. ........................................................................................................ 52

3.2.9. Yunus et al. ...................................................................................................... 54

3.2.10. Similarities of the discussed frameworks .......................................................... 57


4. Business model innovation ................................................................................................. 59

4.1. Business model innovation research ........................................................................... 59

4.2. Business model innovation frameworks ....................................................................... 69

4.2.1. Frankenberger et al. ......................................................................................... 69

4.2.2. Geissdoerfer et al. ............................................................................................ 72

4.2.3. Wirtz & Daiser .................................................................................................. 75

May 13, 2021 VI

4.2.4. Ramdani et al. .................................................................................................. 77


5. Discussion and proposed business model framework in a VUCA environment ................... 82

6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 87

6.1. Limitations ................................................................................................................... 89

7. References ......................................................................................................................... 90

List of Figures Figure 1: The proposed BM framework (own presentation, 2021) .............................................. IV

Figure 2: Objective of this thesis (own presentation, 2020) ......................................................... 3

Figure 3: A three-stage secondary data analysis (c.f. Johnston, 2014, pp. 619-626) .................. 4

Figure 4: Structure of argumentation (own presentation, 2021) ................................................... 6

Figure 5: Aspects of the VUCA environment (own presentation, 2021) ......................................20

Figure 6: Business model concept hierarchy (adopted from Osterwalder et al., 2005, p.5) ........28

Figure 7: A business model framework (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, pp. 1340003–1340012) .............39

Figure 8: Business model components & their relationships (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 234) .....41

Figure 9: The magic triangle for business model definition (Gassmann, Frankenberger, & Csik,

2014, p. 2) .................................................................................................................................43

Figure 10: Business model elements (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, p. 24) .......................................44

Figure 11: Six components of a BM (Lindgardt et al., 2009, p. 2) ...............................................46

Figure 12: the business model canvas (c.f. Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 44) .......................48

Figure 13: Business models create value and profits (c.f. Teece, 2010, p. 173) .........................51

Figure 14: Integrated business model (Wirtz et al., 2016, p. 44) ................................................53

Figure 15: Building business models (Yunus et al., 2010, p. 313) ..............................................55

Figure 16: Building social business models (Yunus et al., 2010, p. 320) ....................................56

Figure 17: Similarities in BM frameworks (own figure, 2021) ......................................................57

Figure 18: BMI research model (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 215) ....................................................65

Figure 19: Typology of BMI (adopted from Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 218) ....................................67

Figure 20: The 4I-framework (Frankenberger et al., 2013, p. 265) .............................................70

Figure 21: The Cambridge BMI process (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p. 266) ...............................72

Figure 22: Integrated BMI framework (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, p. 25) ...........................................76

Figure 23: BMI framework with four quarters (Ramdani et al., 2019, p. 94) ................................77

Figure 24: proposed BM framework in a VUCA environment (own presentation, 2021) .............85

May 13, 2021 VII

List of Tables Table 1: Identified BM elements (Authors) .................................................................................82

List of Abbreviations

BE Business Ecosystem

BM Business model

BMI Business model innovation

DBIS Databank-Infosystem

e. g. exempli gratia (for example)

EBSCO Elton Bryson Stephens Company

et al. et alii (and others)

f. folio (and the following)

FDI Foreign direct investment

HR Human Resources

LISSS Literature Search Support Service

p. page

pp. pages

SME Small and medium enterprises

VUCA volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous

May 13, 2021 1/101

1. Introduction

This chapter informs the reader why this work was written and of its intent. To begin, the problem

statement explains what led to the compilation of this thesis to research the topic of business

models in a VUCA environment. The next subchapter will focus on objectives and research

questions. Concluding with a brief description of the methods and structures to show how the

objectives of this master's thesis can be achieved.

1.1. Problem statement

The current market environment may well be described with the acronym VUCA, which stands for

a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambidextrous atmosphere (Baran & Woznyj, 2020, pp. 1–11).

Furthermore, some megatrends like digitalisation, flexible workforce and globalisation have

become more prevalent since the Covid-19 pandemic began. (Linthorst & Waal, 2020, pp. 1–25)

Therefore, a company's possible answer to threats in a volatile environment is to rethink and adjust

its business model.

The current Covid-19 situation shows the limitations of traditional business models in practice

(Verma & Gustafsson, 2020, p. 253). Both the threats and opportunities in the new normal

environment require innovative new approaches. Companies must adapt their business models

to the new market trends conditions. (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020a, pp. 214–224)

A possible approach may lie with scholars and waits to be used by managers (Ricciardi, Zardini,

& Rossignoli, 2016, p. 5492). Ricciardi and his associates (2016, p. 5487) justify the need for

business model innovation in turbulent business environments with the pressure for a company to

survive. Other academics like Timmers (1998, pp. 1–12) started to rethink the business model

term by creating their approach in this regard.

In 1998 Mr Timmers was looking to define the term business model in a way that would help his

research on e-commerce. He considered the concept of a specified business model necessary for

his further work. With his publication, he stated that a business model might be key driven by

technology (Timmers, 1998, pp. 1–12). Timmers explains the term business model, by his

definition approach, as follows:

"An architecture for the product, service and information flows, including a description of the various business

actors and their roles; and a description of the potential benefits for the various business actors; and a description

of the sources of revenues." (Timmers, 1998, p. 4)

May 13, 2021 2/101

Though, many other researchers have attempted to define the term "Business model" (Foss &

Saebi, 2018; Gassmann, Frankenberger, & Sauer, 2017; Johnson, Scholes, & Whittington, 2008;

Kraaijenbrink, 2016; Menkovа & Zozul`ov, 2019; Ritter & Lettl, 2018; Timmers, 1998; Wirtz,

Pistoia, Ullrich, & Göttel, 2016; Zott & Amit, 2010). As many of those attempts of definition are

often fuzzy, some researchers summarised the often-stated components of a business model.

Such attempts show that summarising approaches and frameworks may help further research

(Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 36–54; Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 216–226).

A basic understanding of the term business model seems necessary to dive into the research field

of business model innovation. Thus, some researchers state that an applied business model

approach should serve as a common language to analyse and create various business model

constructions more effective. (Zott et al., 2011, p. 1019)

A business model may be used for innovation or be the subject of innovation (Zott et al., 2011,

p. 1034), leading to the further literature field on business model innovation. Hence, this field's

approach could be of value if applied to navigate one's organisation through current volatile times.

According to Bashir et al., the three primary outcomes of business model innovation in literature

are performance, competitive advantage, and innovation itself. Business model innovation might

help organisations include environmental threats and opportunities in their business model to

better prepare for current market needs. (Bashir, Naqshbandi, & Farooq, 2020, pp. 467–468)

The VUCA environment, intensified by the Covid-19 pandemic, has made businesses seemingly

more interested in answering how a business model can properly guide a company in volatile

markets (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020a, pp. 214–224).

In conclusion, business model research seems relevant to all companies in today's business

environment. A crisis situation might highlight the limitations of a firm's business model and allow

for opportunities to rethink that model. (Ricciardi et al., 2016, pp. 5487–5493)

1.2. Objective(s) of the thesis

The Corona Crisis is disrupting most markets. A need for resilient and future-oriented business

models have emerged (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020a, pp. 214–224). This thesis searches in literature

for approaches, which may indicate if a business model is agile and resilient enough to cope with

market disruptions like the current Covid-19 pandemic.

Therefore, this master thesis delves into the previous findings on the research fields of business

model approaches, followed by business model frameworks and business model innovation

concerning which approaches might fit in a VUCA environment.

May 13, 2021 3/101

In addition, this thesis provides insights into the three research questions' findings. The following

intends to summarise this approach with the presentation found in figure 1.

Figure 2: Objective of this thesis (own presentation, 2020)

Three research questions were explored in the area of business models in a VUCA environment.

Firstly, approaches and frameworks were investigated to capture often studied aspects of

research on business models. Secondly, different business model designs were explored to

determine similarities. Thirdly, BM research findings and VUCA factors were surveyed to assume

recommendations for the design of a business model in a VUCA environment.

1.3. Research questions

The research questions are fostering the leading query of the following matter:

Which business model approaches exist, and how they might look in a VUCA environment?

Literature research based on the concept of Johnston (2014, pp. 619-626) was conducted to try

to answer the following research questions:

i. What are the most studied aspects of research on business models to date?

ii. Which approaches in literature for the design of a business model are similar?

iii. What findings are relevant regarding business models in a VUCA environment?

iii. Scholar similarities regarding the design of a business model in a VUCA environment

ii. Approaches for the design of a business model

i. Most studied aspects of research on business models

Approaches Frameworks

Business models in a VUCA environment

May 13, 2021 4/101

In short, the goal of this thesis is to refine some findings of business model research relevant

within a VUCA environment. Thus, the findings of the conducted research should allow or clarify

some comprehensions concerning business models in volatile environments.

1.4. Methodology

The research methodology of this study involved basically three steps, as illustrated in figure two

below. Thus, Mrs Johnston's (2014, pp. 619–626) manual has guided this thesis's research

process.

Figure 3: A three-stage secondary data analysis (c.f. Johnston, 2014, pp. 619-626)

Following a literature review based on the proceeding of secondary data analysis described by

Johnston (2014, pp. 619–626), the three research questions, as defined in chapter 1.2, were

developed. The following keywords and phrases were used for data gathering to capture the full

span of business models in a VUCA Environment.

• VUCA

• VUCA environment

• business model

• business models in a digital environment

• business models in a volatile environment

• business models in a VUCA environment

• business models AND crisis

• business model framework

• business model framework AND crisis

• business model framework in a VUCA environment

• digital business model framework

• digital business model

• business model strategy

• business model strategy AND crisis

• business model strategy in a VUCA environment

• digital business model strategy

Dataset evaluation

Dataset identification

Research questions development

May 13, 2021 5/101

• business model implementation

• business model implementation AND crisis

• business model implementation in a VUCA environment

• digital business model implementation

• business model innovation

• business model innovation framework

The literature research started by selecting sources. Hence, secondary data primarily from

scientific sources, including current and high rated peer-reviewed journal publications and articles,

were analysed. Various databases and scholarly banks such as Google Scholar, Scopus,

Scinapse, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Wiley Online Library served as the foundation for

collecting input.

The digital literature reference management and knowledge organisation program "Citavi 6"

assisted in managing the collected information. The program was used for organising one's

literature and the upcoming citations during the secondary data analysis process.

Next, for Johnston's (2014, p. 621) recommended dataset identification, a manual screening

process was carried out. This process identified research papers that are thoroughly focused on

business model approaches, business model frameworks regarding aspects and applications in a

VUCA environment.

After that, the collected secondary data were examined for similarities and manifold conclusions

as the third step of dataset evaluation advise. Hence, the collected findings in these processes

serve as a legitimate fundament for answering the research questions. (c.f. Johnston, 2014, pp.

619-626)

After analysing the literature, the scholars' findings were summarised. Finally, the research's

findings were depicted in a proposed business model framework that should provide a quick

insight into current findings concerning the research area of business models in a VUCA

environment.

1.5. Structure of the thesis

After the introduction and a rollout of how the methodology of this master thesis proceeded, this

theoretical work continued with a literature review similar to the approach of Johnston (2014, pp.

619-626) to gather findings in the areas of business models and business model research in a

volatile environment.

May 13, 2021 6/101

An illustration of the conducted literature approach can be seen in figure 3. The following figure

also describes the line of argumentation within this thesis in five main sections.

Figure 4: Structure of argumentation (own presentation, 2021)

The first section deals with the VUCA environment in chapter 2. It describes what the acronym

VUCA stands for and how a VUCA environment might be described. Further, chapter 2 deals with

the characteristics and challenges of a VUCA environment for detecting the external drivers for

business model innovation.

Next, chapter 3 outlines scientific approaches to the term business model. This chapter

determines the basics of how various scientists attempted to describe what the term business

model is, plus what items it might include. It tries to answer the first research question and depicts

which frequently studied designs of a business model exist. It conducts a literature review based

on the previous findings' outcome for researching business model frameworks in chapter 3.2. This

step tends to answer the second research question and serve as an orientation point for applying

business models.

Subsequently, the first two sections have an impact on chapter 4. Chapter 4 argues that a VUCA

environment's fast-changing characteristics, as described in chapter 2, might force companies to

adapt or innovate their business model.

Chapter 4 uses the explained concepts of business models to depict how literature describes BMI,

and this section's discoveries serve later for linking the first with the third research question.

Consequently, chapter 4.2 aims to inform the reader about relevant business model innovation

frameworks for depicturing manuals of adopting a BM to a volatile environment.

2. VUCA environment

3. Approaches in BM research

4. BMI

5. Discussion & proposed

BM framework 6. Conclusion

May 13, 2021 7/101

In chapter five, the findings of the thesis's analysed literature is discussed, and a BM framework

for VUCA environments is proposed. It illustrates how some of this thesis' conducted findings may

be summarized graphically. However, the proposed BM framework is based on subjective

selected elements. Nonetheless, it aims to encourage the reader to consider the practical use of

thinking through the business models for organisations' strategy and the need for further research

in the field of business models in a VUCA environment.

Finally, these approaches' findings are summarised in the sixth chapter and conclude all

recommendable approaches that were dealt with in this thesis. This work aims to give insights into

the research areas of business model approaches, followed by business model frameworks and

business model innovation, to support the reader's efforts in finding approaches for a business

model in a VUCA environment.

May 13, 2021 8/101

2. VUCA environment

Diving into the topic of business models in the particular focus on a VUCA environment, insights

and understanding of the strategic relevance of the VUCA environment shall be given in this

chapter. The characteristics of the acronym VUCA will be displayed, and the features and

challenges of a VUCA environment will be explained with corresponding links to current and

established literature.

2.1. Definition and characteristics of a VUCA environment

The acronym VUCA was previously found within military strategies during the cold war (Fletcher

& Griffiths, 2020, p. 1). In fact, at the end of the 1990s, the acronym emerged in military literature

to signal a profound shift in its operating environment. It reflects certain features and influences of

the Cold War. It is precisely in the context of such military conflicts that one can reflect how

irregularly and erratically an environment can change.

There are some parallels at the conceptual level if one transfers these interactions and tensions

in the strategic and schematic approach to the civilian world - the business environment. For

example, for the business world, one commonality may be that a company competes against

sometimes unknown opponents and does one's best without knowing in detail what is required to

advance in the market. (Baran & Woznyj, 2020, p. 1; Bennett & Lemoine, 2014, pp. 311–312;

Raghuramapatruni & Shanmukha, 2017, p. 16)

However, in a VUCA environment, the long-term goals may conflict with the market's current

pressure. To counteract this, according to Kaivo-oja and Lauraeus (2018, pp. 27–49), a targeted

approach by management is needed to take the right steps at the right moment.

Still, the call to do the right things is more complex to implement and, according to Lawrence

(2013, pp. 1–15), requires a description or even a definition of what the right actions are and how

to carry them out in a meaningful way. Therefore, Kaivo-oja and Lauraeus (2018, p. 38ff) would

find a schematic description of the environment helpful.

A start would be to describe what the term VUCA could mean. VUCA is an acronym for Volatility,

Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity and is a buzzword often used in connection with economic

turbulence, unstable markets, and crises nowadays. These numerous factors of change and their

difficulty-to-predict can weigh on the future of one's organisation. Alternatively, they drive the idea

of preparing or adapting one's own company to such circumstances as far as possible. With this

in mind, Raghuramapatruni & Shanmukha (2017, pp. 16–22) made a study to discover what

decisionmakers would propose in a VUCA environment. Thus, the study participants consisting of

managers and C-levels recommend firms to focus on the capabilities and processes of one's own

May 13, 2021 9/101

business since these can be influenced most. Therefore, companies' skills and competencies are

considered critical in such environments, which is also an aspect that Noonan et al. deemed to be

true (2017, pp. 267–273). Such competences also shape the structure, leadership and

management of organisations in areas of knowledge management and the value culture of a

company. (Noonan et al., 2017, pp. 267–273; Raghuramapatruni & Shanmukha, 2017, pp. 16–

22)

El-Sakty and Osama (2015, pp. 1–2) claim the acronym elements themselves to be the main

characteristics of a VUCA environment. In their view, volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and

ambiguity are even referred to as the drivers for turbulent environments (El-Sakty & Osama, 2015,

pp. 1–2). Raghuramapatruni and Shanmuka (2017, pp. 16–22) agree that the acronym deals with

four influences that can arise in the business environment for this purpose. These influences of

volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity may be described as follows. (Raghuramapatruni

& Shanmukha, 2017, pp. 16–22)

Firstly, the influence of volatility includes, among others, the factors of speed, size, impact and

dynamics. Some situations are unstable, and their duration and temporal extension are somewhat

unpredictable. However, volatile influences can also be classified by, e.g. comparable situations

and traded with suitable action patterns. Examples of such volatile influences are changes in

corporate strategy or changes in key personnel, which can be reflected in the share price. (Bennett

& Lemoine, 2014, pp. 312–314)

Secondly, the influence of uncertainty describes the loss of predictability and plannability of

events and variables. With this influence, information quantities are missing, but the primary

outcome of actions can still be predicted since fundamental influences and probabilities allow

estimates to be made to a certain extent. Nevertheless, changes in an uncertain environment may

lead to substantial industry shifts or even change one's own company. Thus, a catalyst that leads

to a more unstable environment might be the market entry of superior products or a new offer of

a direct competitor on the market. (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014, pp. 314–315)

Thirdly, the influence of complexity describes the chaos and disorder of the environmental

factors. Therefore, a company can perceive and anticipate many of the inherently complex factors

and influences, but sometimes the quantity of such complex factors leads to overload. This

complexity can be illustrated, for example, by the attempt to manage the interaction of various

international branches with the specific local legal regulations from the perspective of the group.

(Bennett & Lemoine, 2014, pp. 315–316)

May 13, 2021 10/101

Fourth, the influence of ambiguity describes the vagueness of causal relationships in a company's

environment. According to this, a situation is unpredictable and requires a certain spontaneity on

the part of organisations to be able to deal with uncertainty. Ambiguous environments can be

seen, for example, when companies go beyond their usual activities and enter (new) markets with

(new) products for a (new) target group. (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014, p. 316)

To summarise, the acronym VUCA stands for the four elements of volatility, uncertainty,

complexity, and ambiguity (Raghuramapatruni & Shanmukha, 2017, pp. 16–22). These four

elements can also be seen as a VUCA environment's characteristics (El-Sakty & Osama, 2015,

pp. 1–2). Furthermore, a company in a VUCA environment relies on its skills and competence to

prepare for and adapt to the environment's circumstances in an effort to reach its full potential

(Noonan et al., 2017, pp. 267–273; Raghuramapatruni & Shanmukha, 2017, pp. 16–22).

2.2. Challenges and opportunities in a VUCA environment

The following sub-chapter describes the challenges and opportunities in a VUCA environment.

These challenges bring both risks and opportunities for companies, so it seems essential to

examine these aspects in this section of the paper to have them in mind before the focus

concentrates on the business model approaches.

Thoren and Vendel (2019, pp. 298–312) state some points indicating how a VUCA environment

challenges an organisation's management. An example, a VUCA environment can influence

leaders to make decisions under increasingly difficult circumstances. Thoren and his college

imagine that this can lead to strategic changes, mostly incremental; rarely may be perspectives

consulted, other than those of the decision-makers due to deadline restraints (Thorén & Vendel,

2019, pp. 298–312). According to Drew (2006, pp. 241–257), managers try to understand the

complex situation and thus slow down the organisation's response time, which can reduce the

response's effectiveness (Drew, 2006, pp. 241–257). Thus, Thoren and Vendel (2019, pp. 298–

312) see management challenged through a VUCA environment from the lack of understanding

and classification of new situations and the lack of comprehensive information for rational

decision-making and combined time pressure. (Thorén & Vendel, 2019, pp. 298–312).

On the other hand, Evans and Bahrami (2020, p.207) suggest flexibility in dealing with pressure

from the environment. They describe several dimensions of flexibility regarding versatility, agility,

resilience, hedging, robustness, liquidity. Evans and her colleague claim that flexibility is a

dynamic capability that might be able to deal with the turbulence and reactive VUCA environment.

Therefore, businesses should frequently capitalise on short term opportunities to ensure long-term

success. A flexible business adapts, re-invents, and frequently evolves, according to Evans.

(Evans & Bahrami, 2020, p. 207)

May 13, 2021 11/101

To that, Jari and Laraeus (2019, pp. 105–115) perceive the need for digital maturity as a kind of

necessity for companies in times that are well described through the lens of a VUCA environment.

This resulting need for digital maturity, given the time pressure, leads to a challenge for companies

to digital transform (Jari & Lauraéus, 2019, p. 105). However, while digital transformation is a

lengthy, complicated process, digital maturity can reduce some uncertainties and fragility through

data-driven analytical flexibility, as stated by Fletcher and Griffiths (2020, p. 2). Hence, they

prospect digital transformation can respond to a VUCA environment's challenges through

innovation and progress (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, p. 2).

Fletcher and Griffiths (2020, pp. 1–3) state that due to the unrest that gripped markets through the

COVID-19 crisis, organisations' digital maturity may improve with the increasing importance of

digital competencies. Further, they describe digitally mature firms as less fragile and more flexible.

(Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–3)

According to Fenton, Fletcher & Griffiths (2019, 1-15), an organisation's digital maturity creates

an internal environment that seeks to increase stability, security, clarity, and precision. At best,

this approach improves processes throughout the supply chain and create added value for

employees, partner companies and customers (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–2).

Further challenges in the current market encompass many factors, which can lead to increased

uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Some of these factors are influenced by the rise of China's

economy and the decline of the United States in international trade, but also by the ongoing

globalisation processes and the dependencies associated with them. Also, technological progress

(Industry 4.0) is influencing the industry, the economy, and society. (Krauthammer, 1990, p. 1ff.)

Even though a company can be confronted with many challenges in a VUCA environment, these

influences can be described as trends for which the literature also sees opportunities for corporate

success if a company responds to them appropriately (Jari & Lauraéus, 2019, pp. 105–115; Saleh

& Watson, 2017, pp. 705–724). Some aspects which address this issue regarding management

and leadership may be relevant for business model approaches in the latter part of this thesis.

Baran and Wopznyj state in their paper (2020, p. 8) that they have found ten trends that lead to

obstacles for managing a VUCA environment from a firms perspective. Their trends include the

uncertainty of choosing tools for collaboration across a company's locations, the influence of the

economic cycle and governmental actions, the use of big data, HR on a global scale, the different

generations in the workforce, cybersecurity, predictive analytics and demands of the workforce.

(Baran & Woznyj, 2020, pp. 7–10)

May 13, 2021 12/101

Baran and his research partners saw obstacles and dangers to a company's success in the

following points. It can be a hindrance for a company if it does not respond to current

developments. Furthermore, organisational hurdles can lead to inactivity; as a result, customers'

needs may suffer, and some processes may not meet the market's current requirements. (Baran

& Woznyj, 2020, pp. 7–10)

That being said, Baran and Woznyj see companies' opportunities to overcome the previously

described hurdles with specific measures to achieve a more agile organisation. According to them,

it helps a company communicate transparently, optimise internal knowledge management and

cooperation, establish a culture of improvement and learning, focus intensely on customers and

their current requirements, and ensure that the organisation's actions are determined by coherent

strategic coordination. (Baran & Woznyj, 2020, pp. 7–10)

Another approach for coping with challenges in a turbulent environment addresses the VUCA

characteristics. Here, the BEVUCA concept from Saleh and Watson (2017, pp. 705–724)

emphasised that a firm may improve by overcoming the challenges of a volatile, uncertain,

complex, and ambiguous environment. According to this BEVUCA concept, the factors of agility,

understanding, clarity, and vision might cope with the VUCA environments' challenges. Thus, the

BEVUCA acronym stands for business excellence in a VUCA environment since it addresses the

opportunity to improve a firm's business within such a tumultuous setting (Saleh & Watson, 2017,

p. 713).

The BEVUCA framework by Saleh and Watson (2017, p. 717) includes 18 significant factors for

companies to succeed in a turbulent environment. The attempt to see the VUCA environment as

an enabler draws on Bob Johansen's (2012, p. 7 ff) work on new leadership skills for an uncertain

world. Saleh and Watson (2017, pp. 705–724) agree with the approach of addressing the

characteristics of volatility with agility (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014). However, they (2017, p. 714)

argue that the characteristic of ambiguity should be addressed with a vision. In doing so, leaders

can use the effects of a vision to reduce ambiguity in difficult situations and make options appear

clearer with that vision. (Saleh & Watson, 2017, p. 714)

To cope better in the VUCA environment, it helps to look at the critical factors of the BEVUCA

framework by Saleh and Watson (2017, p. 714) from a strategic point of view.

As described earlier, agility can potentially turn challenges into opportunities in volatile

environments. The critical factors of organisational agility, agile KPIs, change management,

dynamic capabilities, innovation and creativity can help. (Saleh & Watson, 2017, p. 714)

May 13, 2021 13/101

The VUCA characteristics of uncertainty can be transformed into a pool of opportunities through

understanding (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014, pp. 311–317; Kaivo-oja & Lauraeus, 2018, p. 353).

Accordingly, dynamic planning and stakeholder management are critical factors for moving

forward through understanding in an uncertain environment. (Saleh & Watson, 2017, p. 714)

The risks and challenges of a complex environment can be mitigated through clarity. Through

knowledge management, organisation structure, and restructuring as critical factors, clarity can

be increased. (Saleh & Watson, 2017, p. 714)

A vision helps to seize opportunities and overcome challenges in an ambiguous environment. A

vision can guide an organisation in decision making by fitting short term actions to the

organisations chosen long term goals. For implementing a vision, organisational culture and

experimentation are critical success factors in reducing ambiguousness. (Saleh & Watson, 2017,

p. 714)

In conclusion, Saleh and Watson (2017, pp. 705–724) emphasise organisations to address VUCA

environments with the success factors of agility, understanding, clarity, and vision. Hence, these

factors intend to detect opportunities in challenges by addressing the specific characteristics as

well as the overall VUCA environment. (Kaivo-oja & Lauraeus, 2018, pp. 27–49; Saleh & Watson,

2017, pp. 705–724)

Next, the following three subchapters will give an insight into how a company in a VUCA

environment can be affected by the impacts of globalisation, digitalisation, and sustainability.

Similar to the previously discussed challenges, the following three impacts might also offer both,

threats and opportunities. (El hilali & El manouar, 2019, pp. 1–6; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2021, pp. 1–

11; Schuh, Patzwald, & Scholz, 2019, pp. 1–15)

2.2.1. Globalisation

Globalisation affects competition, which may confront businesses with a more complicated

innovative environment and increase the higher number of expected and unexpected competitors

(Teece & Linden, 2017, pp. 1–14). Globalisation appears to be a double-edged sword.

Internationalisation offers opportunities for a company, but this development also entails increased

competition and the associated risks. The effects of globalisation include the merge of economic

areas (e.g., EU, NAFTA) and other trade agreements. However, the current increase in trade

conflicts also influences globally active companies' business success, the local supply chain and

price developments. (Petricevic & Teece, 2019, pp. 1487–1512)

May 13, 2021 14/101

Bull-whip effects due to international crises, trade conflicts, or the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, to

name a few examples, illustrate that globalisation can lead to increased uncertainty and

complexity in business models' environments. Buckley shared this view, who furthermore argues

that the ambiguity of opportunities and risks underlines the classification of globalisation as a factor

in the VUCA environment. (Buckley, 2020, pp. 1–13)

Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart argue that globalisation increases uncertainty by enlarged,

multinational supply chains driven by the companies' aim of growth. Thus, they see an increase

in uncertainty and complexity of a business environment by globalisation. (Casadesus‐Masanell

& Ricart, 2010b, p. 139)

Even though e-commerce enables SMEs to operate internationally and take advantage of

markets, Bieger et al. (2011, p. 188) see a need for a company to expand. The authors argue that

organisations' need for growth due to numerous mergers and acquisitions seems to be due to

globalisation (Bieger et al., 2011, p. 188).

Companies try to meet the requirement of growth by actively shaping the internationalisation of

their business. There are a few options to accomplish internationalisation. They include

internationalisation, exporting, contracting, and foreign direct investments, according to Bieger et

al. (2011, p. 196).

Even when internationalisation approaches globalisation as an opportunity, it recognises a global

market environment's uncertainty and complexity as crucial for success or defeat as argued by

Sharma et al. (2020, pp. 188–192). Hence, uncertainty in internationalisation processes might be

raised by time lags that are linked to foreign direct investments. Plus, for global finance, the threats

by contagion effects could have increased. (Cuadros & Ordóñez, 2020, p. 530)

Eduardsen and Marinova (2020, pp. 1–35) argue that internationalisation increases the effort

required to monitor and assess risk factors. They claim that the accompanying risks of

globalisation can require the globally active company to observe, weigh and, if necessary, react

to political, multi-regional, cultural and legal changes and movements. (Eduardsen & Marinova,

2020, pp. 1–35)

Covid-19 has made many companies more aware of their dependence on international markets,

suppliers and partners. Globalisation is so deeply embedded in many companies' supply chains

that it does not seem possible to meet local demand independently. (Thangavel, Pathak, &

Chandra, 2021, pp. 1–4)

May 13, 2021 15/101

For the design of business models in a globalised environment, the elements of internationalised

production and markets might be considered. Plus, market entry modes and resource allocation

could be a helpful substance of international business models. (Rask, 2014, p. 159)

On the other hand, some globalisation approaches combine several core elements of one's

business model with elements from other business models specific to a target market. Thus,

globalised competition might lead to a change in value proposition and the value chain through

global sourcing. Hence, new market segments can be added, and these might need to be

addressed with new market channels. (Rask, 2014, p. 147)

The value chain's globalisation deals with upstream activities that include key activities and key

resources from strategic partnerships and suppliers. These upstream activities deal with cost

efficiency to deliver their share to the value proposition. Thus, the globalisation of the markets can

include international sourcing channels. (Rask, 2014, p. 153)

Still, small adaptions to one's current BM can internationalise the BM to the next level. Ghemawat

(2003, pp. 138–152) assumes that a BM can be internationalised by adjusting BM elements to

new markets. Thus, he suggests adjusting customer relationships, channels, the selection of

customer segments within the value proposition element. He also proposes to modify the value

capture element regarding the cost and revenue model. (Ghemawat, 2003, pp. 138–152)

In summary, it can be said that, inter alia, growth is linked to internationalisation. According to

Bieger and Reinhold (2011, pp. 52–61), quantitative growth in existing business models is limited.

Thus, growth can require an adjustment or further development in the business model to respond

to globalisation through internationalisation. (Bieger et al., 2011, pp. 146–161)

2.2.2. Digitalisation

Another characteristic of a VUCA environment seems to be the impact of digitalisation (Fletcher

& Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–2; Jari & Lauraéus, 2019, pp. 105–115; Kaivo-oja & Lauraeus, 2018,

pp. 27–49). As the theories of Gartner's technology innovation cycle show, technological progress

has a significant impact on business success. In addition to changes in products and services,

new approaches to business models have emerged since the e-commerce opportunities were first

considered (Timmers, 1998, p. 4).

In the last few years, companies in almost all industries have launched various initiatives to apply

new technologies to their operations (Matt, Hess, & Benlian, 2015, p. 339). Hence, key-activities

have been adapted in terms of product and performance, as well as organisational structures.

May 13, 2021 16/101

Therefore, the exploitation and integration of new technologies can significantly impact a company

and go beyond its path. According to Matt et al. (2015, p. 339), new technologies can influence

the product, the supply chain, the sales process and channels. These influences are undertaken

based on the assumption that digitalisation will lead to improvements that can be seen in sales

figures, production and value creation, or the value proposition. (Matt et al., 2015, p. 339)

Digitalisation can change markets and their participants. Thus, organisations worldwide are

striving to adapt their strategies to new markets' needs and speed concerning the development of

new technologies. (Caputo et al., 2021, pp. 489–490)

New technological achievements, such as the internet of things and artificial intelligence, might

lead to market disruptions but still shape the business environment (Fakhar Manesh, Pellegrini,

Marzi, & Dabic, 2021, pp. 289–300). Hence, technological progress generates hyper-competitive

markets but also business opportunities that agile firms can exploit. Well-known examples of

companies that thrive in such a business environment include Airbnb, Uber and Facebook (Ritter

& Lettl, 2018, pp. 1–8; Teece, 2018, pp. 40–49).

In the light of Fenton, Fletcher & Griffiths (2019, p. 1ff.), an organisation's digital maturity creates

an internal environment that seeks to increase stability, security, clarity, and precision. At best,

this approach should improve processes throughout the supply chain and create added value for

employees, partner companies and customers (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–2).

Regarding Ritter and Pederson, digitalisation capability might be defined as "a basis for discussing

how a firm's digitisation capability interacts with its business model to allow for data-enabled

growth, i.e. its digitalisation" (2020b, p. 180). Hence, digital technologies' evolution changes the

value proposition (Gandhi, Thota, Kuchembuck, & Swartz, 2018, pp. 1–9) and its value

demonstration (Syam & Sharma, 2018, pp. 135–146). Further, digitisation capability might affect

all elements in a business model if digitisation capabilities are seen as antecedents to a company's

digitalisation (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020b, p. 181).

According to Ritter and Pederson (2020b, p. 182), a company needs three digital capability

elements. These three dimensions are data, permission, and analytics.

First, data itself is an essential component. In the current market environment, it is vital to obtain,

create, process, store, and share data. Ritter and his colleague point out that data is primarily

commercially viable if created by one's organisation or fully accessible. Uncertainty and complexity

can arise in this dimension of digital capability due to the availability of data (Cao, Duan, & El

Banna, 2019, pp. 72–83), the complexity of data (McAfee, Brynjolfsson, Davenport, Patil, &

Barton, 2012, pp. 60–68), and privacy concerns (Thakur, Qiu, Gai, & Ali, 2015, pp. 307–311).

May 13, 2021 17/101

Second, permission to process data is essential. Data must be handled according to local and

international regulations. These regulations can be a volatile factor, as they change at irregular

intervals and to varying extents by the legislature, as shown in the example of introducing the

European Data Protection Regulation (Tankard, 2016, pp. 5–8). Also, internal company rules and

data protection in the stakeholder network with suppliers and partners must be defined. In addition

to the law and contracts, society's ethical concerns might also be taken into account. (Ritter

& Pedersen, 2020b, p. 181)

Third, an organisation can benefit from data analytics capabilities. These are necessary to

analyse, visualise and report available data. Through data analysis, helpful information can be

extracted from collected data (Gandhi et al., 2018, pp. 1–9). In this way, decisions can be rationally

supported and, with data analytics-supported reporting, can also be presented in a

comprehensible way. (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020b, pp. 181–183)

Another argument of Ritter and Pederson claims that only through the interplay of these three

dimensions of data, permission, plus analytics can value and commercial benefit be derived from

data. Thus, according to these two researchers, a digitised business model design should be

based on the three elements considered as data, permission, and analytics. (Ritter & Pedersen,

2020b, p. 183)

One could say that the technological developments seem to influence the business environment

and business models, plus some researchers see the digital advancements as drivers for business

model innovation (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010a, pp. 195–215; Zott et al., 2011, pp. 1019–

1042). Also, other studies stress digitalisation as a challenger for the further success of business

models and emphasise the BMI to cope with those challenges. (Caputo et al., 2021, pp. 489–501;

Hinterhuber & Nilles, 2021, pp. 1–6; Ritter & Pedersen, 2020b, pp. 180–190)

2.2.3. Sustainability

The influences in a VUCA environment on a company may also include society's increasing

concern about their impact on climate change (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2021, pp. 1–11). This societal

pressure can shape political agendas and influence industry and trade with positive laws and

policies. With this, the value proposition might be judged differently by consumers. (Nizar Abdelkafi

& Täuscher, 2016, pp. 74–96)

The term sustainability is used in many areas, even if there is no universally applicable definition

(Schoormann, Behrens, Kolek, & Knackstedt, 2016, pp. 1–18). Nevertheless, the definition

May 13, 2021 18/101

approach of the World Commission on Environment and Development of the United Nations from

1987 can be used in the economic context. This citation depicts sustainable development as a

"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs" (Emas, 2015, p. 1).

In the development of the research field of sustainability, the three elements of the triple bottom

line became widespread, as argued by Kuhlman and Farrington (2010, pp. 3436–3448). Hence,

to address sustainability, one might have to address the three fields of economic, social, and

environmental areas (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010, pp. 3436–3448).

Lüdeke-Freund (2010, pp. 1–28) states that higher sustainability approaches are mainly

concerned with the more efficient use of production resources and the minimisation of emitted

pollutants and waste. Henceforth, some companies present their achievements and contributions

to sustainability in corporate sustainability reports. With these reports, the public and all company

stakeholders can see how the company operates concerning sustainability. As a trend, companies

might are becoming more and more involved in sustainability activities (Bilan, Pimonenko, &

Starchenko, 2020, pp. 1–7; KPMG, 2017, pp. 1–56).

Also, the sustainability factor seems to be gaining attention among investors (Principles for

Responsible Investment, 2018). According to Carroll (1999, pp. 268–295), sustainable companies

need an intact relationship with various stakeholders. Stakeholders include groups such as

investors, government, NGOs, and others. Gainet (2010, pp. 195–222) adds that internationally

active companies can be influenced by legal systems' sustainability performance, ownership

structure, and firm leverage.

This development can be strongly felt, for example, by the automotive industry and consequently,

its suppliers. Society's focus on sustainability might not only cause products to be manufactured

more ecologically, but can also demand a rethink at the conceptual level. A successful concept

for this might be a life-cycle assessment. An approach that conceptualises a product from its raw

materials beginnings through the entire life cycle of a product, including production, distribution,

use, and end-of-life phases. With this model, a company might be tempted to adapt its business

model accordingly. Such cradle-to-cradle perspectives call for a business model approach that

incorporates a company's network. Thus, applying a network-oriented business model can help

design the cradle-to-grave flows of raw materials and activities over a product's life cycle. With

this concept, the societal demand for sustainable products could be met. (Schöggl et al., 2017,

pp. 1602–1617)

May 13, 2021 19/101

Still, making a business model more sustainable includes some challenges, as Yang et al. (Yang,

Evans, Vladimirova, & Rana, 2017, pp. 1794–1804) imply. In the literature researched, some

challenges for sustainability and the formation of sustainable business models are mentioned.

(Björkdahl & Holmén, 2013, pp. 213–225; Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013, pp. 9–19; Schaltegger

et al., 2012, pp. 95–119; Yang et al., 2017, pp. 1794–1804)

The aforementioned triple bottom line consisting of the balance of economic, social and

environmental goals can make sustainable business models challenging to implement due to their

complexity (Schaltegger et al., 2012, pp. 95–119). Furthermore, the culture of frictions, norms,

rules, and established performance metrics might make it difficult for an organisation's employees

to adapt to the new sustainable approach (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013, pp. 9–19).

Also, finding the means and resources to achieve sustainability is often difficult due to internal

resistance (Björkdahl & Holmén, 2013, pp. 213–225). Even if the necessary funds are raised, the

complexity of the new-to-be integrated technology demands resources (Zott et al., 2011,

pp. 1019–1042). Furthermore, sustainability can require the company and its business

environment with external stakeholders to interact and change considerably (Boons & Lüdeke-

Freund, 2013, pp. 9–19).

Other approaches are also reacting to the increasing importance of sustainability. For example,

moving away from a classic purchase to the use of a product is developing, known as the sharing

economy. To return to the automotive industry's previous example, they offer new business

models, such as short-term car rental, which change the value proposition from owning a car to

travelling a distance. The provider can respond to the sustainability factor, as the environmental

impact of producing the vehicle can now be shared between multiple drivers. (Ciulli & Kolk, 2019,

pp. 995–1010; Hartl, Sabitzer, Hofmann, & Penz, 2018, pp. 88–100)

Furthermore, 19 per cent of the Austrian SME sector is considering transforming its business

model into a more sustainable one. They are convinced this is the right choice to fight climate

change, according to an EY study in 2020 (EY, 2020). Henceforth, these examples give an insight

into how the sustainability factor can influence business models for adapting to sustainability

requirements in a VUCA environment. (Yang et al., 2017, pp. 1794–1804)

May 13, 2021 20/101

2.3. Interim conclusion

This chapter briefly delivered insight into the research area of VUCA environments. In general, the

VUCA environment is characterised by economic turbulence, unstable markets and crises, which

increasingly create a change-intensive and innovative environment (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020,

pp. 1–2). Thus, organisations worldwide are striving to adapt their strategies to the new needs of

markets and the speed of development of new technologies (Caputo et al., 2021, pp. 489–490).

One contemporary challenge is society's increasing concern about climate change impact. This

growing trend can shape the political agenda and influence industry and trade globally through

policies and laws (Nizar Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016, pp. 74–96).

Here, as pointed out in this work's chapter about the VUCA environment, opportunities can arise

from challenges if certain factors play out. The following figure highlights the discovered elements

which may be among such factors.

Figure 5: Aspects of the VUCA environment (own presentation, 2021)

As Saleh and Watson declare, a VUCA environment can offer possibilities to a business if

challenges and changes can be addressed as opportunities. Thus, a company with critical success

factors of agility, understanding, clarity, and vision may seize the prospects in a VUCA

environment (Saleh & Watson, 2017, pp. 705–724).

Further technological progress could generate hypercompetitive markets and business

opportunities that agile companies can exploit (Ritter & Lettl, 2018, pp. 1–8; Teece, 2018, pp. 40–

49). Understandably, a company may triumph in a VUCA environment by focusing on the right

factors (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2021, pp. 1–11; Raghuramapatruni & Shanmukha, 2017, pp. 16–

22).

agility understanding clarity vision

flexibility digital maturity

triple bottom line

• economy

• society

• environment

May 13, 2021 21/101

The threat of uncertainty within VUCA environments and their technological progress on the

markets can be minimised by the degree of a firm's digital maturity. Thus, a digital mature firm is

likely to be a less fragile and a more flexible market participant. (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–

2)

One approach to adopt one's business to societies demand for sustainability might be meeting the

triple bottom line. Therefore, a VUCA environment seemingly has some requirements for a

company to balance economic, social, and environmental metrics. (Schaltegger et al., 2012,

pp. 95–119; Schöggl et al., 2017, pp. 1602–1617)

In conclusion, the VUCA environment seems to demand that a firm fulfil the requirements

mentioned above. That of adopting one's business to market influences and trends to cope with

the challenges of a VUCA environment's turbulent and unstable nature, also supported by Millar

et al. (2018, pp. 5–14).

A VUCA environment can challenge the current business model of a company. Those challenges

might require a company to scrutinise its current business model, which may lead to new adoption

plans or even new business model innovation. This, in turn, may be essential to a company's

continuity. (Bharadwaj et al., 2013, pp. 471–482; Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–3; Teece, 2018;

Teece & Linden, 2017, pp. 1–14).

May 13, 2021 22/101

3. Approaches in business model research

This chapter presents some theories regarding what a business model may be and what it could

do. Later, some of the main developments, links, and similarities of this theoretic approaches are

shown.

A holistic definition of the term "Business model" does not exist yet. Nonetheless, the ideas behind

those definitions are explained in the following sections and may lead the reader to understand

what the term business model may include.

3.1. Different approaches in business model research

In this subchapter, a brief outline of the different business model approaches is presented to guide

the reader towards the following conclusions about differences and similarities in existing

approaches. Thus, various subcategories concerning the research field of business models will

be mentioned.

Many researchers (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, pp. 227–246; Hong & Jinho, 2017, pp. 9407–9411;

Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017, pp. 73–104) believe that the topic of business modelling is now

gaining interest for both academics and practitioners (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, p. 654). Thus,

various attempts to define a business model were conducted in literature, and some researchers

tried to summarise these attempts (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 654–679).

Hajiheydari et al. also understand Teece's (2010, p. 173) attempted definition to be widely

accepted since other researchers claim this definition to be the most cited one with about 109

citations per year (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 4). Thus, Hajiheydari et al. (2019, p. 654) endorse

Teece's view that a business model is the understanding of a business, how value is created,

communicated to customers and how value is captured in the process.

Even though Hajiheydari et al. (2019, pp. 654–679) agree with Teece's (2010, p. 173) definition of

a business model, some scholars see the identity crisis in the research field of business models

and call for a more precise description of the research field, which should be done in a transparent,

reliable, and comprehensive way. (Li et al., 2017, pp. 869–887; Massa et al., 2017, pp. 73–104;

Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 36–54).

According to Hajiheydari et al. (2019, p. 655), since the term business model has become a

buzzword, it is particularly desirable to fill research gaps and delineate the term more clearly. The

research field of business models seems complicated, and there are probably a few reasons for

this. Be it the influence of innovation and digitalisation (Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Tucci, 2005, pp. 1–

25) or the sheer number of research papers that might increase complexity (George & Bock, 2011,

May 13, 2021 23/101

pp. 83–111). Other reasons could be the interdisciplinarity of the research field of business models

between academic and practitioner approaches. (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, p. 657)

Nonetheless, some approaches to reduce BM complexity were attempted by clustering the

research field. Hajheydari et al. (2019, p. 657) recognised the work of George and Bock (2011,

pp. 83–111) regarding thematic clusters. George and Bock (2011, pp. 83–111) highlighted six

themes within the research area of BM as a kind of categorisation.

The first theme describes business models as an organisational design. It refers to Timmers's

previously mentioned definition from 1998, which describes a business model as an architecture

(Timmers, 1998, p. 4). For this theme, the design of a business model is agent-driven or influenced

by emergent firm characteristics. George and Bock (2011, p. 87) approve regarding this theme

that the design might result from the composition of products, activities, and market influences.

Zott and Amit (2008, pp. 1–26) see a connection between firm performance and a well-aligned

business model with the corporate strategy. Plus, the business model as a design seeks to avoid

operational inefficiencies. (George & Bock, 2011, p. 87)

As detected by George and Bock (2011, p. 88), the second theme links a business model with the

resource-based view. According to the resource-based view, an organisation's structure depends

on the asset stocks or its core activities. Therefore, the acquisition and distribution of resources

are essential factors of a business model. Furthermore, Eden and Ackermann (2000, pp. 12–20)

see the business model as a kind of dynamic capital and classify it as one of the intangible assets

of a company. (George & Bock, 2011, p. 88)

The third theme sees business models as an organisational narrative. Therefore, the stories or

conclusions shape in a subjectively descriptive and emergent way the key drivers of organisational

output. According to Magretta (2002, p. 87), a business model collects stories that explain how

the company works. (George & Bock, 2011, p. 89)

The fourth theme depicts business models as a form of innovation. Here it is argued that process

flows are related to the development and usability of technologies. According to Chesbrough and

Rosenbloom (2002, p. 532), a business model creates a framework that enables technological

potentials to be transformed into economic returns via customers and markets. Therefore, the

business model might be a mediator between technological progress and economic value

creation. (George & Bock, 2011, pp. 89–90)

The fifth theme sees business models as opportunity facilitators (George & Bock, 2011, p. 90).

Downing (2005, p. 186) understands a business model as an expectation of how a company can

May 13, 2021 24/101

succeed in its environment. Some frameworks link business models to perceived commercial

potential (Franke, Gruber, Harhoff, & Henkel, 2008, pp. 459–483). Focusing on the business

model's transactive features makes it appear as a process for opportunity exploitation (Amit &

Zott, 2001, pp. 493–520).

The last theme depicts a business model as a transactive structure. The configuration of boundary-

spanning transactions can describe a business model, as detected by George and Bock (2011,

p. 90). A good description of this business model theme might be provided by the definitional

approach of Amit and Zott (2001, p. 493). According to this, a business model creates value by

specifically designing transactions in its content and structure. (George & Bock, 2011, p. 90)

Other researchers made different attempts to structure the BM's research field. Massa et al. (2017,

pp. 73–104) and Zott et al. (2011, pp. 1019–1042) identified three interpretations of the business

model approach in literature. Zott et al. (2011, pp. 1034–1038) see the literature approaches in e-

commerce, strategy, and technology and innovation management. In contrast, Massa et al. (2017,

pp. 76–88) named different three interpretations. They consider business models as attributes of

real firms, as a cognitive or linguistic schema, and as a formal, conceptual representation or

description. Apart from their different interpretations, both Massa and Zott agreed on a business

model as an extension of strategy and called on the research community to clarify this area by

clearly committing to one interpretation in new work. (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 657–658)

To agree upon one interpretation is a challenging task since the history of BM research shows

that views changed over time. Hajiheydari et al. (2019, pp. 654–679) identified three phases within

the course of business model research. According to Hajiheydari et al. (2019, pp. 654–679), three

phases can be identified within the course of business model research over time.

They state that the first phase of digitalisation can roughly be categorised as occurring between

1997 and 2003. Here, e-commerce and the associated business models with the possibilities of

the internet should be the main drivers. (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, p. 667)

Secondly, according to Hajiheydari et al. (2019, p. 667), the phase of the growth of online services

extends from 2003 to 2012, where business models emerge around online services and offerings,

as well as all offerings related to cloud computing.

Third, the data management boom phase began in 2012 and lasted until the period under the

study of Hajiheydari et al. (2019, pp. 654–679). The addition of big data seems crucial in business

models, but other trends, such as the sharing economy and platform economy, also dominate this

phase. (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, p. 667)

They address the three identified phases as time periods in the BM research field (Hajiheydari et

al., 2019, pp. 672–673). According to Hajihedari and his colleagues, there are three main areas in

May 13, 2021 25/101

the research field of business models ordered by themes. For them mainly is research conducted

in the three streams of electronic business models, business model innovation, and sustainable

business models. (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 654–679)

The first stream deals with electronic business models and has the subcategories of IT, e-business

and online commerce. Whereas innovation, strategy and entrepreneurship can be classified in the

field of business model innovation. The third stream is centred around a sustainable business

model and covers areas from sustainable economic development to governance in finance,

operations management and supply chains (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 672–673). Other

researchers have also noted the patterns and insights described above in the field of business

model research. (Hong & Jinho, 2017, pp. 9407–9411; Li et al., 2017, pp. 869–887)

Alternate approaches scan the scholar banks using quantitative methods and identify similar

business models' frogging field patterns. For example, the study by Belussi et al. (2019, pp. 1–19)

provides a quantitative insight into business model scholars. Their work findings provide insights

into the core statements of the most cited academic papers in the literature on the business model

research field each year until 2019. According to the insights of Belussi et al., these most cited

studies are by Teece (2010, pp. 172–194), Zott et al. (2011, pp. 1019–1042), and Amit & Zott

(2010, pp. 216–226).

Belussi et al. (2019, p. 4) found the following business model approach by Teece to be the most

cited. Teece (2010, pp. 172–194) state in his approach that a business model is management's

hypotheses about the needs of customers, how these should be met from the customer's point of

view, how customers will pay for this service, and how a company can provide the best structure

itself to satisfy customers as efficiently and purposefully as possible. (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 4)

Belussi et al. claim that according to Teece (2010, pp. 172–194), the business environment is a

variable that a firm can selectively influence or be influenced by it. (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 4)

The study by Zott et al. (2011, pp. 1019–1042) was the second most frequently noted in the

literature. Belussi also interprets their findings so that the research currents do indeed show

parallels if one disregards their identified categorisation of the three business model scholar silos

with the topic areas of e-business, strategy, and innovation and technology management. (Belussi

et al., 2019, p. 4)

Thus, Zott et al. (2011, pp. 1019–1042) consider a business model a new entity to analyse a

company, noting that the perspective is broader than the organisation's boundaries per se. In their

view, a business model is a generalised approach that seeks to explain how a company conducts

its business with a particular focus on the influence on it of activities of the company itself and its

May 13, 2021 26/101

business partners. In such explanations through a business model, such a model seeks to explain

how value is created and how revenue can be extracted. (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 4)

In third place of the most cited studies on business models, Belussi et al. (2019, p. 4) present the

paper by Amit and Zott (2010, pp. 216–226). Their paper links the existing business model

approaches to the expanding component that has emerged through the internet's technological

progress. Their paper also links the research field of online trade with that of business models and

shows new possibilities of transactions as a kind of Schumpeterian innovation. (Belussi et al.,

2019, p. 4)

Concluding the business models' research field, it can be stated that the business environment is

a variable that the company itself can choose to influence or be influenced by it (Belussi et al.,

2019, p. 4).

It can be divided into thematic subcategories of business model research that deal with e-

business, strategy, sustainability, innovation and technology management. Regardless of

differences in point of views about the BM research, most business model approaches agree that

a business model shows how value is created, how it leads to profits, and which stakeholders are

involved. (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 672–673)

3.1.1. Business model as a model

This approach sees the model as a representation of a firm's strategy, a description of how it deals

with partner relationships, customers and other stakeholders and influences of the environment.

(Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 156–171; Osterwalder et al., 2005, pp. 1–22)

According to the researchers Baden-Fuller and Morgan (2010, pp. 156–171), business models

function like models in other sciences. For example, as in biology, business models can be viewed

like organisms. The business models serve to represent classes of elements in a similar way.

Furthermore, business models can also be seen as schemas in the academic sense, which can

be adapted like economic models or, as in many other sciences, fill the gap between generalising

theories and empirical descriptions.

Concluding, what can be said about business models is their potential use as mediators for

representing the real world for practice and literature. (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 156–

171)

Baden-Fuller and Morgan differentiated the business model conceptualisation into three

approaches - the scale and role models, the scientific models, and seeing business models as

recipes. Depending on the specific purpose and the company under consideration, one or more

May 13, 2021 27/101

of these approaches may be helpful, but none of the three should be preferred across the board.

(Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, p. 157)

The scale and role approach:

This approach distinguishes between scale and role models, according to Baden-Fuller and

Morgan. Scale models are usually short descriptions of real practices such as franchising or the

low-cost airline model. Role models, on the other hand, are examples of business models that

can be imitated. McDonald's or South West Airlines are examples of this. In other words, one

could say those scale models imitate a version of a BM concept, and role models copy the BM of

a company. (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, p. 157)

The scientific approach:

In science, a model is an approach with which one tries to manage missing knowledge to solve

problems ultimately. Sometimes there is a lack of approaches to assign processes and elements

of the real world to basic ideas. In science, a model is a practical approach to expand knowledge

and to understand processes and to be able to evaluate their specific advantages and

disadvantages. (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 162–165)

The recipe approach:

The recipe approach shows how managers can use business models' variations and innovations

to make strategy adjustments more pleasant for their organisation. Hence, the recipe approach is

like architecture to describe a business model. Thus, the model serves as a guide and reference

point to describe to users how to achieve the desired results by which structure and organisation

of the most important elements of business activities, desired results can be achieved. General

principles, the definition of important elements and how they should interact are necessary for this.

(Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 165–167)

Like recipes in the cooking field, recipes of business models try to describe and differentiate how

different variations of business processes and activities of the business world should be arranged

and visualise this with examples. Such examples represent business models that have already

been tested in practice. (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 165–167)

In summary, the recipe approach can help to present business models in a transferable way. Its

descriptive character seemingly helps implementers. Baden-Fuller and Morgan point out that not

every recipe is suitable for all companies and that various combinations and modifications of

elements, but also recipes, can lead to success. (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 165–167)

May 13, 2021 28/101

In addition to these three approaches of business model conceptualisation, another could be

through a taxonomic approach. Henceforth, other researchers tried to order the fuzzy approaches

of business model conceptualisation. Therefore, Osterwalder and his colleagues shared the

following thoughts on business modelling as a model. (Osterwalder et al., 2005, pp. 1–22)

They imagined that business models identify elements and relationships that describe how a

company conducts its business. Hence, business model concepts might be suitable for explaining

a single company's specific aspects through a conceptual perspective. This perspective is then,

in turn, described at the meta-model level using definitions. (Osterwalder et al., 2005, pp. 1–22)

This train of thought was captured as follows.

"A business model is a conceptual tool containing a set of objects, concepts and their

relationships with the objective 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." (Osterwalder et al., 2005, p. 3)

Osterwalder et al. (2005, p. 5) described three classes of business model categories which can

be depicted as in the following figure.

Figure 6: Business model concept hierarchy (adopted from Osterwalder et al., 2005, p.5)

The first category includes those business model concepts that attempt to create an abstract and

comprehensive concept that can describe the real business world. The researchers classify this

class in the self-defined level one of the "overarching business model concepts". Consequently,

business model concepts can be assigned to this level if they contain definitions that describe

what a business model consists of, describe what should fill the content of business models or

concepts that attempt to conceptualise business models with meta-models.

The meta-models, in turn, help to identify elements that could define a business model. Definitions

provide clues as to what a business model might be. (Osterwalder et al., 2005, p. 6)

Level 1: Business model concept

Level 2: Business model type

Level 3: Business model

of a company

May 13, 2021 29/101

The second category comprises those business model concepts that create classification

schemes that elaborate several companies' common features for each model. Osterwalder et al.

(2005, p. 6) place this class in their level two taxonomy of business model concepts. This level

contains many types or meta-model types of business models that are genre-specific but have

universal characterisations. This level range is very diverse, covering concepts that make simple

categorisations as typification and call the resulting type a business model concept. This taxonomy

level also includes the approach of ordering several such business model concepts and capturing

them in meta-models of business model types.

The various meta-models of business model types and individual business model types can serve

as a subgroup of an overarching business model concept from the first category. (Osterwalder et

al., 2005, pp. 5–6)

The third category comprises those business model concepts that extract elements of a particular

practice example and then conceptualise these elements. Osterwalder et al. (2005, p. 6) assign

this class in their level three to the "instance level" of business model concepts. In this level,

detailed practical examples are described, illustrated, and then conceptualised. Thus, specific

companies serve as donors of business model concepts. (Osterwalder et al., 2005, pp. 5–6)

In summary, the approach of business models as models tries to represent the real world

conceptually in order to create added value for practice and literature (Baden-Fuller & Morgan,

2010, pp. 156–171). Previously, the concepts of two researchers were presented.

One is the view of Baden-Fuller and Morgan (2010, pp. 156–171), the other is that of Osterwalder

et al. (2005, pp. 1–25). Baden-Fuller and Morgan (2010, pp. 156–171) differentiate business

model conceptualisation into three approaches - the scale or role models, the scientific models,

and seeing business models as recipes.

Another differentiation of the business model conceptualisation came from Osterwalder et al.

(2005, pp. 1–25), who described a hierarchy of three levels of business model categories. The

business model categories they named from general to detail level are the business model

concept, the business model type, and one company's business model (Osterwalder et al., 2005,

pp. 5–6).

3.1.2. Business model as an activity driven system

Another business model approach is to see business models as an activity-driven system (Zott

& Amit, 2010, pp. 216–226). As mentioned before, this approach is widely spread in the literature,

as Belussi et al. (2019, p. 5) point out in their business models review. This approach

May 13, 2021 30/101

conceptualises a company's business model as a system of co-dependent activities. Henceforth,

Zott and Amit define a business model so that values can be created by using business

opportunities that are gained by structure and the planned steering of transactions. (Zott & Amit,

2010, pp. 216–226)

For describing a firm's activity system, one needs to define what an activity means in the context

of business models. Therefore, Zott and Amit propose that an activity in a company's business

model is the use of employees, the exchange of goods or capital if this is done for reasons that

appear to serve the company's entire system. (Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 216–217)

Consequently, an activity system is a collection of interdependent activities of the company, which

can be carried out by the company under consideration, but also by business partners, suppliers,

dealers, customers, and other stakeholders. Thus, the purpose of the activity system for the

company is to capture a fair share of the total value creation and at the same time to cover the

needs of stakeholders as far as possible. (Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 217)

The dependencies of activities play a central role in this system. These interdependencies are

usually created by the company management when they design the individual activities and their

processes. By consciously connecting the individual activities in terms of the overall context, a

well-thought-out system represents the business model. (Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 217)

This well-thought-out system contains the architecture of how activities are carried out and in

which chronology they take place. Also, this construct describes by whom the activity is carried

out and how the company integrates itself with its activities in its business environment. Therefore,

the relationships with suppliers, research partners, sales partners, customers and other

stakeholders are defined.

The value creation model and the company's revenue model provide the framework for how these

activities are now connected and who is responsible for their execution. (Zott & Amit, 2010,

pp. 217–218)

Even though the revenue model is strongly aligned with the business model, they are still different

concepts. The revenue model complements the business model, just as the pricing strategy

complements the product design. (Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 218)

A business model addresses value creation for all players involved in the activity system, and its

orientation is strongly linked to this. Thus, a business model defines the framework of value

creation by structuring all production into transactions that serve as an upper bound for the

company's value creation potential. (Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 218–219)

May 13, 2021 31/101

If one wants to conceptualise a business model with the activity approach, one should be aware

of the effort involved and the complexity that can arise due to a large number of activities and their

individual shapes. Thus, an activity can be recorded in such detail that it can be, for example, the

act of dealing with customer e-mails. (Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 219)

With this in mind, Zott and Armin point out that activities can be arranged hierarchically and

assigned to business areas by defining superordinate activities or combining several activities.

This hierarchic approach creates clarity and facilitates conceptual considerations in the activity

structure. (Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 219)

In the activity system approach, two basic parameters can be distinguished. The first parameter

is the design elements, which deal with the activities' dependencies and relationships concerning

a network structure's characteristics. The second parameter is the design themes, which deal with

the value creation of the activity system. (Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 220–221)

The first parameter, the design elements, deals with an activity system's content, structure, and

governance and identifies a system's key features. Thus, the content refers to selecting individual

activities of an entity and deals with their impact on the system. Furthermore, the structure refers

to the architecture that describes how individual activities are linked together and evaluates their

importance to the system. Possible structuring can be done, for example, by classifying activities

into categories such as core activity, support activity, or other activity. More, the governance

describes by whom the activities are carried out.

In summary, the first parameter of the design elements is essential for describing the business

model in terms of processes and activities' interaction. (Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 220–221)

The second parameter, the design themes, is concerned with value creation. The design themes

consist of arrangements of the previously described design elements. Four design themes were

called by Zott and Armin (2010, p. 221).

The first, novelty, is concerned with how the addition of new activities or new combinations of

activities can add value to the activity system.

The second, lock-in, deals with concepts of how to lock partners into the system. Weaving in

switching costs through the configuration of activity designs is intended to create reasons for third

parties in the activity system to stay in the network and maintain the system's value creation.

The third, complementarities, describes the idea that combining activities might increase the value

obtained from individual activities for the whole system by combining them. For example, a ready-

made package with coordinated content could entice the customer to purchase all included

services from one activity system.

The fourth, efficiency, is a configuration of activity designs tuned for optimisation and savings

potential and creates added value by minimising transaction costs. (Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 221)

May 13, 2021 32/101

Summarising, this section explained what activities are, how they are combined in different

parameters into systems that can then be understood as a business model. The following

paragraph is a brief explanation of the advantages of using Zott and Amit's approach.

The activity system perspective makes it possible to talk about business models and thus to design

models thoughtfully. It also addresses how a company creates value for its stakeholders, manages

its business, and uses internal factors to position itself in the market. Furthermore, it is a

straightforward way to help managers organise the company's activities and save transaction

costs. This approach also makes it possible to consider the social aspects of the relationships

between the parties in the activity system in conceptualising business processes. It enables a

holistic perspective to see the bigger picture and might develop the business model with a strategic

approach. (Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 224)

3.1.3. Network oriented conceptualisation of business models

Another approach for business models focuses on including the firm's environment in the

conceptualisation. Thus, some researchers talk from business models as networks (Håkansson &

Snehota, 1995, pp. 1–15; Jocevski, Arvidsson, & Ghezzi, 2020, pp. 1051–1067). They focus on

the interconnectedness of organisations in business models within their research.

One view of business models is to focus on business networks. Hakansson & Snehota (1995,

pp. 1–15) considered the relationships of a company based on the role and tasks that a company

performs in the relationships' circles. In the network, a company operates fundamentally on two

levels, according to them. First, a company exchanges elements such as services, resources, and

actors with other companies. Secondly, a company has functions within the relationship level, be

it concerning its organisation, a partner company, or several network actors, as pointed out by

Hakansson & Snehota (1995, pp. 1–15).

Furthermore, they claim that a network approach's basic assumptions are that not all network

participants pursue the same goal, but those with similar action patterns do. Besides, they assume

that every business relationship is based on a profitable exchange for all participants. (Håkansson

& Snehota, 1995, pp. 1–15)

Jocevski et al. (2020, p. 1055) find that a business model concept should include a business

environment's elements and its associated interactions with various organisations. The literature

approach is that some business model concepts consider it fundamental to describe a firm's

interaction with its environment and the associated relationships with other actors in such

networks. (Dellyana, Simatupang, & Dhewanto, 2018, pp. 209–218; Ehret, Kashyap, & Wirtz,

2013, pp. 649–655; Gordijn, Akkermans, & van Vliet, 2000, pp. 257–273; Storbacka, Frow,

May 13, 2021 33/101

Nenonen, & Payne, 2012, pp. 51–78; Turber, vom Brocke, Gassmann, & Fleisch, 2014, pp. 17–

31)

Other researchers reaffirmed the importance of business model concepts concerning the network

approach (Palo & Tähtinen, 2013, pp. 773–782; van der Borgh, Cloodt, & Romme, 2012, pp. 150–

169; Westerlund, Leminen, & Rajahonka, 2014, pp. 5–14; Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 36–54). Jocevski

et al. (2020, p.1056ff.) support the approach that the dimensions of a business model can be better

understood by specific questions (Ikävalko et al.,2018; Turber et al., 2014) and thus use the four

questions of who, what, how and why for concept development. (Jocevski et al., 2020, p. 1058)

The value flow across a business network would be designed concerning orchestration of its

actors' relationships where a network-oriented perspective might support using tools like the four

W-question approach mentioned before, according to Jocevski et al. (2020, pp. 1055–1058). They

conclude that the network-oriented view regarding business models reinforces that there is more

to consider than the company's perspective. (Jocevski et al., 2020, pp. 1055–1058)

Therefore, they stress that interactions between actors are significant in the network-oriented

perspective. Jocevski et al. claim that it is not important where the business model's design starts

because the network's interactions shape the business model's architecture and roles. (Jocevski

et al., 2020, p. 1059)

If some network participants have limited their business model perspective to their own company,

natural conflicts can arise through interactions, according to Jocevski et al. (2020, p. 1059). Then,

in their opinion, these conflicts can be gradually reduced by broadening the perspectives and

adapting the business models of the network participants. (Jocevski et al., 2020, p. 1059)

The following is a brief list of insights from Jocevski et al. (2020, p. 1060) to include the business

model concept's network perspective. They claim that by aligning business models, partners in a

network may gain better insight into how value can be jointly created and perhaps include the

resulting insights in their strategy as well as in approaches to optimise day-to-day business.

(Jocevski et al., 2020, p. 1060)

Palo and Tähtinen (2013, pp. 773–782) stress that the network-oriented business model approach

makes it possible to use jointly generated data and assessments of the network actors to rationally

recognise future business opportunities and, consequently, take advantage of them more

frequently. Furthermore, according to researchers like Suherman and Simatupang (2017, pp. 22–

39), this approach is a suitable tool to include strategic business perspectives. (Jocevski et al.,

2020, p. 1060; Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 36–54)

May 13, 2021 34/101

It is precisely this zooming out from the single firm perspective that makes it possible to look at

and perhaps understand the entire system and its connections as claimed by Jocevski et al. (2020,

p. 1060). With such a broader perspective, Westerlund et al. (2014, pp. 5–14), for example,

generated a business model framework which can be found in the concept of "value design" and

focuses on the creation of value through a conscious architecture of the business model network.


The structure of a business model concept may have changed due to such an expansion of

perspectives. Previously, one usually looked at individual companies, but few tried to depict an

ecosystem of linked companies, according to Jocevski et al. (2020, p. 1060). These researchers

also imagine that this development is due to the realisation that many actors can influence a

business model.

Jocevski et al. (2020, p. 1060) also point out that a business model might be influenced by

elements of network relationships, and reciprocal can influence them as well. In the perspective

of Palo and Tähtinen (2013, pp. 773–782), the elements of network relationships include, for

example, activities, resources, and participants. Consequently, they consider those network

elements as belonging to the business model (Palo & Tähtinen, 2013, pp. 773–782).

Palo and Tähtinen (2013, pp. 773–782) explain why network-based business model concepts

might sometimes be possible to exploit certain situations through efficient pooled resources and

capabilities where other focal-based business model concepts do not consider it rational to provide

an offer because of the resources and activities required to do so. Jocevski et al. (2020, p. 1060)

acknowledge that this opportunity for network-based business models can be detected within a

network-oriented perspective that sees a relational business model.

From a network-oriented perspective, the firms with network-oriented business models create

value together with cooperating companies in the business environment. This cooperation ties in

with technical and business points when the participating companies aim to offer smart services.


Ultimately, it is possible that the collaborating companies expand their scope and scale and thus

adapt their business model to the new influences, according to Harmon and Castro-Leon (2018,

pp. 1–15). Turber et al. (2014, pp. 17–31) see this development as a mindset shift towards service-

dominant logic in business model approaches due to the change from firm-centric to network-

centric perspectives.

May 13, 2021 35/101

Hence, the individual firm's business model could be significant in network-based business

models, as it decides whether and when a company leaves or joins a network. Important for such

decisions is whether the individual firms' business model can be integrated into that of the network

to optimise the system's value creation, according to Van der Borgh et al. (2012, pp. 150–169).

The value drivers can be shaped by the motivations and motives of the network participants.

Westerlund et al. mention that, on the one hand, the individual companies' opportunities and

aspirations shape certain expectations of what they each get from their involvement. On the other

hand, a network has common goals oriented towards the joint creation of value. (Westerlund et

al., 2014, pp. 5–14)

In this business model approach, the value creation must not be carried out within a single

company's framework. The network approach is precisely the dependencies of other actors that

make value creation significant through the network's aggregated activities. (Jocevski et al., 2020,

p. 1061)

The coordination of these activities of different actors should be included in the business model in

this approach. The business model thus shows the value chain and the design of the cooperation

between the network participants. (Ghanbari, Laya, Alonso-Zarate, & Markendahl, 2017, pp. 135–

141; Gordijn et al., 2000, pp. 257–273)

Regarding the role architecture in a network-based business model concept, it can be said that

mostly all network partners gather around a central network steering company. The exact tasks

and role distribution vary from time to time, depending on the network's market demands, so the

companies' roles adapt to the circumstances, as in Ghanbari et al. (2017, pp. 135–141).

In addition to companies and service providers, the end-user can also be involved in decisions in

network-oriented business model concepts. Hence, crowd-driven network-oriented business

models integrate customers into their network and include them in the value creation process

through open-innovation approaches, according to some researchers. (Ehret et al., 2013, pp. 649–

655; Komulainen, Mainela, Sinisalo, Tahtinen, & Ulkuniemi, 2006, pp. 254–270; Storbacka et al.,

2012, pp. 51–78)

In summary, the network-oriented business model concept is based on several companies'

cooperation within a value creation process and covers the coordination of all actors' necessary

activities and processes involved in individual companies. The concept can thus represent the

flow of value in three perspectives in order to describe a good flow of the entire system.

It describes the perspective within the individual companies, the relationships between two

companies, as well as the overview of how all network participants act with each other (Klimanov

May 13, 2021 36/101

& Tretyak, 2019, pp. 117–136). The approach ultimately can help to perceive better the other firms'

different possible roles and the value flows of a network concerning shared value creation.


3.1.4. Similarities and differences of approaches in business model research

There is not yet a uniform definition of a business model, which makes it difficult for science and

managers alike to deal with this field. However, according to some scientists' summarising

approaches (Belussi et al., 2019; Teece, 2010; Zott et al., 2011), quite useful approaches are

emerging. These approaches will be used in the course of this work concerning the requirements

of a VUCA environment.

According to Teece and Linden (2017, pp. 1–14), companies today are confronted with a more

complicated innovative environment and, due to globalisation, have to face a higher number of

competitors, expected and unexpected ones. Therefore, he recommends that companies be clear

about their capabilities before analysing, changing or building new business models. (Teece

& Linden, 2017, p. 4)

One of the essential tools can be the business model approach, which tries to represent a

business's architecture. There are currently many approaches to define the business model

concept, but so far, no uniform one. (Teece & Linden, 2017, pp. 4–5)

The explanatory approach of Teece (2010, p. 173) finds support in literature (Belussi et al., 2019,

p. 4). Teece's business model approach is as follows. A business model describes the logic that

illustrates how a company “creates and delivers value to customers. It also outlines the

architecture of revenues, costs and profits associated with […] delivering that value” (Teece, 2010,

p. 173).

No matter how a model is defined, according to Teece and Linden, a business model can only

survive if there is a balance between factors such as value creation, delivery, and value extraction.

A unity between the company's strategy, culture, and resources must be aligned with the business

model to enable its persistence. (Teece & Linden, 2017, p. 5)

A list of components and factors that might describe a business model can be found in the well-

known scheme of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010, pp. 14–15) as well as the comprehensive

compilation of Schön (2012, pp. 73–78). Schön's approach of the various factors can be roughly

classified into three categories. These categories comprise value creation, the turnover model,

and the cost model.

May 13, 2021 37/101

According to Schön, value creation describes all necessities concerning the product and service,

the targeted customer needs, and the geographical extent to which the service is provided.

(Schön, 2012, pp. 73–78)

Furthermore, the revenue model can deal with pricing, distribution channels and the design of

customer touchpoints. Further, the cost model might describe the key characteristics and

capabilities, activities, fixed assets, and the company network. (Teece & Linden, 2017, p. 5)

As already pointed out, there is no universally valid definition of a business model, although there

are many explanatory literature approaches (Zott et al., 2011, pp. 1019–1042). A business model

has been termed as a statement, description, representation, architecture, conceptual tool or

model, structural template, method, framework, pattern, and set, according to Zott et al. (2011, p.

1022). (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 14)

Belussi et al. (2019, pp. 1–19) describe a business model itself as a systematic and conceptually

rich construct provided with numerous components and actors with complex dependencies and

dynamics. Therefore, depending on the abstraction level used to describe a business model in the

literature, the existing literary findings and studies can be classified into four streams. (Belussi et

al., 2019, p. 14)

The first understands the business model as a model akin to the descriptions in chapter 3.1.1.

Hence, a BM can represent the real world and have its own representation of strategy, partner

relationships, environment, and customer relationships. (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 156–

171; Osterwalder et al., 2005, pp. 1–22) In this context, individual companies are usually used as

examples of a specific business model.

In contrast, the narrative approach explains a business model holistically, intending to create more

understanding and legitimacy for a business model in a general audience without case examples.

(Perkmann & Spicer, 2010, pp. 265–275)

The second stream focuses on graphical frameworks. Consequently, the literature has produced

helpful visual models (Johnson, Christensen, & Kagermann, 2008, pp. 57–68; Lindgardt, Reeves,

Stalk, & & Deimler, 2009, pp. 1–9; Spieth, Schneckenberg, & Ricart, 2014, pp. 237–247; Wirtz et

al., 2016, pp. 36–54), a very well-known one being Osterwalder's (2004, pp. 1–172) business

model approach. Such ontologies can articulate a business model in three ways under approaches

such as that of Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227). Thus, a business model can be represented

as a temporary process, an outcome, and a performance fulfilment method. (Belussi et al., 2019,

p. 14)

May 13, 2021 38/101

The third current in the business model literature can be the meta-model (Belussi et al., 2019,

p. 14). The approach presents decisions and structures as a concept to link business models with

causal loops (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010a, pp. 195–215; Gordijn & Akkermans, 2001,

pp. 11–17).

Belussi et al. (2019, p. 14) consider the fourth current to represent the business model as an

activity-driven system. Here, the relationships and dependencies of a company's many

entrepreneurial actions are more characteristic than decisions and their effects. This current

focuses on an organisation's structure with the influence of specific characteristics - such as

customer loyalty or efficiency. In other words, a company that sets out to create value as efficiently

as possible structures itself differently from a company that prioritises customer loyalty as a

character in its business models. (Belussi et al., 2019, pp. 1–19; Zott et al., 2011, pp. 1019–1042;

Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 216–226)

In summary, this chapter shows that according to Teece and Linden's (2017, pp. 1–14) overview,

it seems to be very important for a business model to structurally establish the balance between

service provision, service delivery, and value creation. Concerning the differences, four broad

trends could be identified. According to these, a business model can be seen as a representation

of the real world as a model, a graphic framework for depicting possible processes, a concept for

representing decisions and structures in a holistic context, or as an activity-driven system. (Baden-

Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 156–171; Belussi et al., 2019, pp. 1–19; Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart,

2010a, pp. 195–215; Zott et al., 2011, pp. 1019–1042)

3.2. Business model frameworks

This sub-chapter deals with some business model Frameworks. The intent is to outline business

model approaches, as mentioned above and explore how they may look like as a model. The

reader can herewith delve deeper into the research area of business models to better envision

how they might utilise such knowledge for their business model.

Therefore, the following sections look in detail at some of the business model frameworks that

have been found to be attractive and helpful in the aforementioned literature of chapter 3.1.

(Belussi et al., 2019, pp. 1–19; Jocevski et al., 2020, pp. 1051–1067; Massa et al., 2017, pp. 73–

104; Teece & Linden, 2017, pp. 1–14; Zott et al., 2011, pp. 1019–1042; Zott & Amit, 2010,

pp. 216–226)

One can reference among the large numbers of business model approaches, the following

frameworks by Abdelkafi et al., Demil & Lecoq, Gassman et al., Johnson, Lindgardt et al.,

Osterwalder & Pigneur, Teece, Wirtz et al., and Yunus et al. have been briefly presented and

May 13, 2021 39/101

analysed to note similarities of the different models. That, in turn, supports chapter 3.3 and seeks

to provide insight into different approaches to modelling business models. Henceforth, the pictorial

representation of business models provided should help the reader better understand business

models' changes. That can be achieved by rethinking and analysing the current business model.

In order to present the upcoming approaches as comparably as possible, each of them begins

with a brief introduction to the work in which the respective author's underlying assumption about

a business model's definition is expressed. Each framework is then presented and described as

a business model. Finally, the essentials elements of the frameworks are briefly summarised.

3.2.1. Abdelkafi et al.

Abdelkafi's meta-model of business models is based on extensive literature research and includes

relevant value dimensions for analysing a business model (Abdelkafi, Makhotin, & Posselt, 2013,

pp. 134003-1 134003-41; Chesbrough, 2007, pp. 12–17). As in the following illustration of

Abdelkafi & Salameh's business model framework, the value proposition as the central element of

a business model can also be recognised in Abdelkafi's definitional approach to business models.

"A business model describes how the company communicates, creates, delivers, and

captures value out of a value proposition." (Abdelkafi, 2012, p. 300)

Figure 7: A business model framework (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, pp. 1340003–1340012)

Starting from the core of the value proposition, the four categories of value communication, value

creation, value delivery, and value capture are arranged in this model. As in previously discussed

business model approaches (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 23; Schön, 2012, pp. 73–78; Zott

& Amit, 2010, pp. 218–219), the value proposition describes the added value that a customer can

May 13, 2021 40/101

experience through the service or products offered. The value creation category deals with the

required business partners, resources, and processes to create the service offering. (Abdelkafi et

al., 2013, p. 1340003-12)

The second category deals with value delivery - to whom and how the service is provided. The

value delivery involves designing the customer segments and relationships as well as the

appropriate distribution channels. (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, p. 1340003-12)

The third category, value capture, looks at cost and revenue structures to demonstrate how profits

will be achieved by delivering the value proposition. The cost structure provides important

information on how much profit can be generated with the incoming sales flows. The revenue

streams deal with pricing and the targeted and actual quantity of products/services sold in this

concept. (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, p. 1340003-13)

The fourth category, value communication, is concerned with channels and content to market the

service or product being offered and inform the customer of its added value. Due to the specific

needs of the different target groups, value communication is the task of conveying these

differences with suitable storylines of the offered value proposition in an attentive, coherent and

understandable way. (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, p. 1340003-12)

Concluding, Abdelkafi's framework offers an analysis opportunity for existing business models to

conceptualise them. Like other approaches (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 23), this framework

reaffirms the value proposition's central role in describing a business model's other factors. Also,

the importance of value communication as a matching criterion for a business model's success

can be identified here. (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, pp. 1340003-1 - 1340003-41)

3.2.2. Demil and Lecocq

The 2010 publicized paper of Demil and Lecoq (2010, pp. 227–246) in the Long Range Planning

Journal is a resource-based model. Henceforth, their model describes the linkages between

different business model areas and how a sustainable value proposition might be created.

Demil and Lecoq described a business model with three main components, which are resources

and competencies, organisational structure, and value proposition. (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 231)

They argue that resources and competencies can be found in every organization independent of

its age or success. Both elements, resources, and competence can be influenced by external

sources, according to the authors. They imagine competencies can distinguish and differentiate

May 13, 2021 41/101

an organization from its competitors. Thus, resources can be developed and formed within the

organisation or sourced externally (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 231).

Demil and Lecoq support the idea that the competencies within an organization come from its

employees and their knowledge partnered with skills. The key for managers might be to use those

resources in the best possible manner. According to Demil and Lecoq, only then can the value

proposition for the customer exist. (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 231)

The organisational structure deals with internal company activities and the interaction with external

organisations to use available resources in the best possible way. According to Demil and Lecoq

(2010, p. 231), the business model deals with the value chain of activities and the value network.

The value network deals with the relationships with stakeholders outside the organisation, such

as customers, partner companies, suppliers, competitors, and others. (Demil & Lecocq, 2010,

p. 231)

The value proposition is the third component in the model and deals with customers' services or

products. Within this component, customer segmentation is carried out to tailor the services

specifically to certain customer groups. (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 231)

Figure 8: Business model components & their relationships (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 234)

The above-depicted business model framework shows the previous mentioned main components

of a business model, according to Demil and Lecocq (2010, p. 234). Subsequently, they combined

components to create the acronym RCOV – standing for resources and competences,

organisation, value proposition. (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 234)

The significance of the said RCOV framework is that the authors see a business model as the

representation of the core components at a specific moment and that the activities within that

model are continually changing.

May 13, 2021 42/101

Through the activities of core activities, activities within the core components, and activities

influenced by the employees of an organisation, the framework emphasise how a business model

is continuously evolving, as suggested by Demil and Lecoq. (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 234)

Baden-Fuller and Morgan (2010, p. 165) have categorised the works of Demil and Lecoq's

approach as ‘business models as recipes’. Hence, Demil and Lecoq's model proves practical and

has a dynamic aspect that might allow companies to explain, define, or reinvent their business

model. (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, p. 165)

The team, Foss and Saebi (2017, p. 213), also highlight the approach of Demil and Lecoq. They

concur that the dynamic consistency of a business model can help to incorporate the role of

organisational capabilities and leadership in supporting the value creation process. The Demil and

Lecoq's framework theory can be used to represent evolutionary BMI, which makes their approach

interesting for the following chapter on the topic of business model innovation. (Foss & Saebi,

2017, p. 218)

In conclusion, this framework demonstrates practical ways in which a business model can achieve

longevity despite continuous revision of its key elements. Demil and Lecoq also address the

revision of revenues and costs as BMI antecedents and distinguish between voluntary (internal)

and market-driven change of the business model. (Wirtz et al., 2016, p. 41)

3.2.3. Gassmann et al.

Gassmann et al. developed the business model whose visualisation is shaped like a triangle

known as the St. Gallen business model. Numerous companies and the Stanford University were

involved in creating the St. Gallen business model navigator, which was beneficial for the

legitimacy and publicity of its findings and results. The project's central discovery is that about 90

per cent of new business models consist of recombination of existing business models'

components. (Gassmann, Frankenberger, & Csik, 2013, p. 17)

Furthermore, 55 different business model schemes were identified, which were considered helpful

as inspiration for new business model creations. In addition to this large number of schemes,

Gassmann et al. limit their business model framework to a more abstract and simpler

representation. They limited their model to four dimensions, which, according to the authors, are

more useful in practice than a more complex model. The model can be seen in the following figure

of a triangle. (Gassmann et al., 2013, p. 5)

May 13, 2021 43/101

Figure 9: The magic triangle for business model definition (Gassmann, Frankenberger, & Csik, 2014, p. 2)

Gassmann et al. build the triangle consisting of four dimensions: the customer, the value

proposition, the value chain, and the revenue model.

The first dimension, the customer, deals with the question of the target customer segment.

Gassmann et al. (2013, p. 6) affirm that the customer should be at the centre of a business model

and that the other dimensions should be developed from there. (Gassmann et al., 2013, pp. 5–6)

The second dimension deals with the value proposition. Gassmann et al. argue that a business

model seeks to answer the experienced value proposition from the customer's perspective. The

value proposition’s offer describes how to satisfy the customer's needs through services or

products. (Gassmann et al., 2013, p. 6)

The third dimension describes the value chain. It answers questions that deal with the production

of services. In this dimension, a business model describes the coordinated use of activities and

resources to produce the offer. (Gassmann et al., 2013, p. 6)

The fourth dimension captures how this business model aims to generate revenue. The financial

dimension includes the cost structure and the revenue mechanisms and processes so that profit

can be skimmed off for its organisation by providing the value proposition. (Gassmann et al., 2013,

p. 6)

Concluding, the triangle business model framework of Gassmann et al. (2013, pp. 1–54) seems

to be a coherent approach for analysing and modelling a business. The three elements of value

proposition, value chain, and revenue model are centred around the targeted customer segment

and shape this triangle’s business model framework as described above. (Gassmann et al., 2013,

pp. 5–6)

May 13, 2021 44/101

3.2.4. Johnson & Lafley

A well-known business model framework, which also serves as an inspiration for further

developments, might be the model by Johnson and his colleagues (Johnson et al., 2008, pp. 57–

68).

In their book, Johnson and Lafley (2010, pp. 1–178) explain a business model's elements in detail.

In addition to their generic meta-model, which is illustrated and described below, they present

three possible categories of business models. Thus, there are solution providers, benefit-creating

processes, and supporting networks as the basis for the value proposition. (Johnson & Lafley,

2010, p. 84)

Johnson and Lafley explain that a business model analyses the customer's problems and

develops suitable solutions as a solution provider. According to them, it satisfies standardised

customer tasks with scalable products and services as a benefit-creating process. Furthermore,

the authors claim that as a supportive network, the business model provides a platform that

enables users to exchange information, supply and demand. (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, p. 84)

Johnson and Lafley (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, pp. 24 ff) describe a business model with the four

elements of the customer value proposition, the profit formula, the key resources and key

processes. They combine the elements of key resources and key processes into one block as

shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Business model elements (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, p. 24)

The three blocks represent the main elements; thus, Johnson and Lafley describe the respective

subgroups in their publication as follows.

The value proposition describes how the company can offer products and services to serve the

customer's problems/needs. The offering should be useful and reliable in meeting customer

demand properly. Within this business model element, the customer value proposition describes

May 13, 2021 45/101

how, for whom, and at what price the offer is provided. Thus, customer segmentation falls within

this element. This block focuses on solving the customer's problems regarding how the solution

provided is offered to the customer and refers here to pricing. (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, pp. 28–

31)

The profit formula deals with how this pricing can be offered and how the company can generate

profit. For this purpose, this business model element deals with the revenue model, the cost

structure and the respective calculations for resource utilisation. (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, pp. 31–

39)

The key resources describe the necessary resources through which the value proposition can be

provided. These resources include professional staff, their skills and experience, but also

technologies, assets such as facilities and machinery. Johnson and Lafley also assign brand

value, financing and partnerships to the key resources of a company. (Johnson & Lafley, 2010,

pp. 39–42)

The key processes deal with a firm's activities through which the value proposition can be routinely

and scalably delivered. These activities include, for example, R&D, marketing, product

development and other corporate processes. According to Johnson and Lafley, the value

proposition is also shaped by key processes such as business rules and success metrics, although

by behavioural norms. (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, p. 40)

Similar to Zott (2011, pp. 1019–1042), Johnson and Lafley argue that organisational innovation

within key processes might have a significant impact on a business model if the profit formula is

affected. They suppose that if one's focus shifts from one of the four elements outlined above to

another, such as a change in the key channels, this will affect the other elements and possibly

lead to further changes. Frameworks like Johnson's can be used to think through and structure

those changes (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 11). However, a change in a business model element will

sometimes not lead to significant changes in the whole business model. Hence, Johnson et al.

(2008, p. 66) state that if the profit formula works with the innovated element, the current business

framework can still be applied.

In conclusion, Johnson and Lafley (2010, pp. 1–178) created a business model and provided a

description grid with the four elements depicted above. Analysing a business model in this way,

they suggest how a new value proposition can be created through the given elements and what

needs to be changed to generate profits with a new value proposition. (Johnson & Lafley, 2010,

pp. 24–72)

May 13, 2021 46/101

3.2.5. Lindgardt et al.

The approach of Lindgardt et al. (2009, p. 2) aims to support the development of business models

that are different from those of competitors to differentiate themselves from the competition. Even

though these three authors' approach belongs to grey literature, it seems important in practice and

subsequently in the research area of business models. (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 14)

Figure 11: Six components of a BM (Lindgardt et al., 2009, p. 2)

Lindgardt and his colleagues describe a business model's elements divided into two categories

as a metamodel, as shown in the figure above. Their framework groups the elements of a business

model into the categories operating model and value proposition. The operating model and the

value proposition each have three elements. (Lindgardt et al., 2009, pp. 1–7)

The operating model consists of the value chain, the cost model, and the organisation. The

operating model describes how this business model generates value and can achieve a turnover

through value creation. According to Lindgardt et al., the value chain describes how the value

creation is architecturally structured and how the clients' needs can be met with a configuration of

activities. This structure also makes it possible to decide which steps are carried out internally or

by suppliers and partners. (Lindgardt et al., 2009, pp. 1–7)

May 13, 2021 47/101

In the cost model object, a company sorts its assets and costs to find out how expenditures are

made within the framework. The cost model thus provides the foundation for price calculations

and decision support for order acceptance. (Lindgardt et al., 2009, pp. 1–7)

As a third object, Lindgardt and his colleagues argue about the importance of organisational

structures and the targeted use and development of employees' skills as a success factor.

(Lindgardt et al., 2009, pp. 1–7)

The value proposition comprises the objects of target segments, product, service offerings, and

the revenue model. This category deals with how sales and revenues can be achieved. Thus, this

category defines who gets what. The target segments’ object defines the target customer groups

with their respective specifications and individual requirements. Lindegardt et al. describe how the

selected target group's needs are satisfied within the object of product and service offerings. And

the last component, the revenue model, describes how the activities can generate revenue for the

company. (Lindgardt et al., 2009, pp. 1–7)

In summary, the meta-model of Lindgardt et al. (2009, pp. 1–8) seems suitable for describing

existing business models as well as for creating new ones. In their publication, the researchers

also include elements that describe how a company can build BMI capabilities. They use the model

described above as a foundation to capture opportunities for optimisation in the current model.

For implementing the new crafted business model, they emphasize that it should be optimised in

at least one of the two described categories of value proposition, the operating model, or the

structure of these within the business system architecture. (Lindgardt et al., 2009, p. 6)

3.2.6. Osterwalder & Pigneur

Business model canvas from Osterwalder is a practical approach to depict a business model. The

model became the practitioner's go-to source for business modelling when it was published in the

book "Business model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and

Challengers" in 2010. Over 470 co-authors from 45 countries contributed to the creation of this

business model framework. (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 14)

In their view, their collaborative framework describes a business model as "the rationale for what

an organisation creates, delivers and values.” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 14)

The model, as depicted below, consists of nine components which are namely the customer

segments, the value propositions, the channels, the customer relationships, the revenue streams,

the key resources, the key activities, the key partnerships and the cost structure. (Osterwalder &

Pigneur, 2010, pp. 16–17)

May 13, 2021 48/101

Figure 12: the business model canvas (c.f. Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 44)

The first component, customer segments, is concerned with target group selection. Osterwalder

and Pigneur (2010) start with the approach of analysing the needs of the different customer groups

and then select those groups as target groups that can be fulfilled most effectively with the forces

of the following eight components. At this point, the business model Canvas sees customer needs'

satisfaction as the central foundation for sustainable value creation. Criteria that can be used to

group customer segments include justifications for specific needs and requirements, accessibility

through certain distribution channels, the need for a specific type of customer relationship,

customer profitability and differentiated willingness to pay. (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 20)

The second component, the value proposition, deals with approaches to provide specific services

for the previously defined customer segments to cover their needs. In order to coordinate this

range of services in the best possible way, the quantitative and qualitative requirements of the

customer segment are recorded. The time-of-service provision and the required price are included

in the quantitative factors. The qualitative demands deal with customer experience requirements,

product design and other factors such as sustainability. The novelty of the offered service

compared to the market contributes to the value proposition when fulfilled. In this case, the

company offers a product that has not been in demand on the market before and thus might

exploits its market position in the sense of a blue ocean strategy. According to Osterwalder and

Pigneur (2010, p. 23), performance and customisation are also criteria for the value proposition.

(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pp. 22–25)

May 13, 2021 49/101

The third component, the channels, concerns how the value proposition can be communicated

and brought to the customers. The right choice of channels in communication, supply chain and

distribution is crucial to reach customer groups in a targeted way. This component takes care of

the customer experience along the customer journey. In this component, activities are defined to

draw customers' attention to their service, guide them to purchase and win their loyalty after the

contract's conclusion. (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pp. 26–29)

The fourth component, the customer relationships, builds on the previously defined components

and tailors them specifically to the individual customer.

The fifth component, the revenue streams, looks at the value creation approach in a business

model. Thus, the revenue streams include the pricing strategy for the different services depending

on the customer segments' willingness to pay. In principle, two approaches to revenue streams

can be considered here. On the one hand, services can lead to payment streams per transaction.

On the other hand, a periodically accruing service fee will lead to recurring payment streams.

Henceforth, the due fee amount can be fixed or variable and linked to specific key figures (e.g.

call minutes). (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pp. 30–33)

The sixth component, the key resources, deals with the assets necessary to enable service

provision. These key resources can be of different origins. They can come from physical assets,

non-physical assets such as intellectual capital, or a solid financial base. (Osterwalder & Pigneur,

2010, pp. 34–35)

The seventh component, key activities, deals with the value proposition to be created by activities.

Such activities deal with production processes, finding solutions for clients, or intermediary

activities, such as operating a platform. (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pp. 36–37)

As the next term key partnerships suggest, it deals with relationships with relevant business

partners and suppliers. This component weighs strategic alliances, partnerships with competitors,

joint ventures, and client relationships to optimise necessary infrastructure, minimise risk, and

complete the service offering. (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pp. 38–39)

The ninth and last component, cost structure, captures all costs in implementing the business

model. According to Osterwalder and Pigneur, a business model's cost structure can vary

significantly in importance depending on the business model approach. If the unique selling point

lies in minimising costs, one speaks of a cost-driven business model. In contrast, if a business

model stands out because of its value creation, it pursues a value-driven approach. (Osterwalder

& Pigneur, 2010, pp. 40–41)

May 13, 2021 50/101

These nine components of a business model help to represent the structure of a business model,

but this framework might not represent the relationships between these components. Thus, this

framework is probably well suited for modular changes in a business model. Due to the lack of

depiction of the interconnections between the various business model components, this

framework seems less suitable for depicting the activity approach (Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 216–

226), the latter emphasising the architecture between these links.

In summary, Osterwalder's business model canvas can present the basic structure of a business

model in new core elements in a short time. Its nine core elements can also be arranged into three

subgroups of a business model. Key partners, key activities and key resources are the

infrastructure of a business model. The value proposition is based on the product/service offered,

formed by the customer relationship, channels, and segments. In addition, cost structure and

revenue form the financial viability. (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pp. 20–44)

3.2.7. Teece

According to Belussi (2019, p. 4 ff), Teece’s (2010, pp. 172–194) BM definition is one of the most

cited ones. It defines how value is delivered to the customer, how payment is made and converted

into profit. Teece's approach provides the so-called architecture or design of a BM. (Belussi et al.,

2019, p. 4)

He defines a business model as follows.

“A business model articulates the logic and provides data and other evidence that

demonstrates how a business creates and delivers value to customers. It also outlines the

architecture of revenues, costs, and profits associated with the business enterprise

delivering that value.” (Teece, 2010, p. 173)

Thus, Teece defines a business model as a conceptual model of a business. However, the

following figure shows the business model design elements, according to Teece (2010, p. 173).

May 13, 2021 51/101

Figure 13: Business models create value and profits (c.f. Teece, 2010, p. 173)

Hence, the framework of Teece is focusing on creating a value proposition and conducting value

capture. The above-depicted model emphasises adding features and technologies into one's offer

and communicating the resulting benefit to the customers. Next, target market segments should

be identified, and the fitting revenue stream will be planned after. After that, a mechanism to

capture value must be added according to his model. (Teece, 2010, p. 173)

In summary, Teece's model states that the value proposition for the customer is the foundation of

a business model. This customer value should entice the customer to pay for this added value

offered. His model also includes an element that describes how the resulting cash flows are

converted into profits. Also, Teece stresses that only a well-designed business model, which

incorporates the named aspects, can guarantee that the value created may also be captured.

According to Teece, it is crucial for innovations to clearly communicate the customer benefits and

plan how this innovation can be profitably brought to the customer. (Teece, 2010, pp. 172–194)

Another point in conducting a successful BM explains Teece (2010, p. 182) that a business model

in itself does not generate a competitive advantage, and one approach to counteract this is to build

barriers. Those barriers can include multiple assets and investments for a business model to work.

He also recommends keeping the details of one’s business model private and use its complexity

to make it insufficient for outsiders to try how one’s business elements have to be combined and

May 13, 2021 52/101

weighted to deliver the aimed value proposition. Teece also recommends designing the business

model so that a changeover from conventional models generates high set-up costs and revenue

foregone. (Teece, 2010, p. 182)

In conclusion, the Teece model (2010, p. 173) focuses on creating a value proposition for

customers and capture value as its follow-up. To do so, it focuses on the two business model

elements of value proposition and value capture.

3.2.8. Wirtz et al.

In the paper published in 2010, Wirtz already set the goal of rebuilding a business model through

a framework and achieving competitive advantage through this systematic construction. After their

comprehensive research, Wirtz et al. defined a business model as listed below.

“A business model is a simplified and aggregated representation of the relevant activities

of a company. It describes how marketable information, products and/or services are

generated by means of a company's value-added component. In addition to the

architecture of value creation, strategic as well as customer and market components are

taken into consideration, in order to achieve the superordinate goal of generating, or rather,

securing the competitive advantage.” (Wirtz et al., 2016, p. 41)

According to their research, Wirtz et al. (2016, p. 44) also systematically presented the required

components of a BM. The following figure illustrates the structuring that they attribute to a business

model.

May 13, 2021 53/101

Figure 14: Integrated business model (Wirtz et al., 2016, p. 44)

Wirtz and his colleagues assign the business model elements to three main components. These

are the strategic components, the customer and market components, and the value creation

components. With the presentation of the BM components, Wirtz and his colleagues also propose

a ranking. They see the main category of strategic components as the most important and rank it

above the customer and market components, followed by the value creation components. (Wirtz

et al., 2016, pp. 42–43)

In turn, the strategic components address three sub-models that comprise strategy, resources,

and the network. The strategy sub-model describes the business model mission, strategic

positions and developments. According to Wirtz et al. (2016, p. 44), the business model's value

proposition is also captured in the strategic model. The resource model includes the description

of core and other competencies, as well as assets. As the third sub-model of the strategic

component, the network model describes business model partners and networks. (Wirtz et al.,

2016, pp. 42–44)

The second main component of the customer and market components deals with the three sub-

models regarding customers, market supply, and revenue. As a result, the customer model

describes the handling of customer relationships, the target groups, as well as the channels and

touchpoints used. The sub-model of the customer and market components covers competitors,

market structure, and one’s firm’s value proposition. The third sub-model incorporates revenue.

The revenue model thus describes the revenue streams and differentiates their components.

(Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 42–44)

May 13, 2021 54/101

The third main component deals with the value creation components and includes the sub-models

of manufacturing, procurement, and finance. The service delivery model explains the production

and process of value generation. It states how processes and activities change lower-valued

inputs to higher-valued outputs. Furthermore, the procurement model covers the resources and

information procurement to ensure value generation. Wirtz et al. (2016, p. 43) argue that through

the effects of globalisation and technological advances in production, the change from a producer

to buyer market leads to the increasing relevance of efficient procurement in a business model.

The third sub-model, the financial model, covers the capital and cost structures. Thus, financial

control and planning aim to secure a smooth capital flow. (Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 42–44)

In summary, the meta-model just described by Wirtz and his colleagues can be used as a starting

point for a detailed analysis of existing models. Wirtz provides a ranking for the interaction of the

components, which schematically arranges the components top-down (Wirtz, 2010, S. 210)

according to the figure above. It prioritises the strategic over the customer and market components

as well as the value creation components, ranked by their influence. (Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 36–

54)

3.2.9. Yunus et al.

The last BM presented in this thesis is the one of Yunus et al. (2010, pp. 308–325). Their approach

in the frameworks of a business model seems to be a formal, conceptual representation. The

model of Yunus et al. (2010, pp. 308–325) introduces a consistent and integrated framework that

depicts how a company produces revenues and profits (Massa et al., 2017, p. 87). The approach

of Yunus et al. is claimed to be a social one and is also used in the sustainable area of business

model research and is thus used as a basic model for example, in Boons and Lübdeke-Freunds’

work on sustainable business model innovation (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013, pp. 9–19).

Yunus et al. define a business model as a construct of the three main components of value

proposition, value constellation, and profit equation. Their framework can be visualised as

followed. (Yunus et al., 2010, pp. 311–312)

May 13, 2021 55/101

Figure 15: Building business models (Yunus et al., 2010, p. 313)

The three components' interplay forms the business model of Yunus et al. (2010, p. 312).

According to its authors, the value proposition defines who the target customers are and what is

offered to them. It aims to convince the clients of the offered service or products. (Yunus et al.,

2010, p. 312)

Yunus et al. point out that the value constellation shows how an offer can reach the customers

and be delivered. Within this component, the internal value chain with all its production and

processing steps is considered, but also the external value chain. In the external value chain,

suppliers and subcontractors are taken into consideration and contribute to the creation of value.

(Yunus et al., 2010, p. 312)

The third component, the profit equation, deals with the financial representation of the components

described above. The profit equation oversees the absorption of generated revenues by the value

proposition. Also, the cost structure and payment flows required for the value constellation are

recorded at this point of the model. (Yunus et al., 2010, p. 312)

As an extension, Yunus et al. enlarged the previously described business model by creating a

social business model. They extended the three components basic model by a fourth component

(see figure 16). The social profit equation now complements the components value proposition,

value constellation, and economic profit equation. (Yunus et al., 2010, pp. 318–319)

Yunus and his colleagues recommend changing a BM in a social BM by their three-step approach.

First, they urge to define the target group of stakeholders more, and the value creation and delivery

are not purely focused on meeting customer needs but include the goals and needs of all

stakeholders. Seemingly a network approach is attained to measure the output of the business

model in a bigger context.

Second, this business model includes other defined goals to achieve social profits in interaction

from an eco-system perspective. They point out to lower the profit orientation. This reduces rivalry

May 13, 2021 56/101

and might allow a company to adopt best practice activities from other network figures, according

to Yunus et al. (2010, pp. 318–319)

Third, the economic profit equation component is no longer primarily aimed at maximising profit

but should be concerned with balancing the cost of capital, according to them. Henceforth, the

changes can be seen in the figure below, which shows Yunus and his colleagues' social business

model. (Yunus et al., 2010, pp. 318–319)

Figure 16: Building social business models (Yunus et al., 2010, p. 320)

The social business model emphasises the increased interaction and relationships of the

individual components. In the previously described business model of Yunus et al. in Figure 16,

the profit equation is the result to which the value proposition and value constellation are aligned

to optimise them in the best possible way.

The social business model, on the other hand, as shown in Figure 17, is different. Here, the

components are viewed from a systematic perspective that attempts to consider all components'

needs and goals. The new, fourth component of the social profit equation aligns the entire

business model with achieving social and environmental profits by operating this business model.

(Yunus et al., 2010, pp. 318–320)

In conclusion, Yunus et al. sustainable business model can provide a basis for building sustainable

business models. Adding the social profit equation component to the three conventional business

model components of value proposition, value constellation, and profit equation transforms a

business model into a more sustainable one. It might respond to sustainability challenges within

a VUCA environment, as described in chapter two. (Massa et al., 2017, p. 96; Yunus et al., 2010,

pp. 308–325)

May 13, 2021 57/101

3.2.10. Similarities of the discussed frameworks

All nine of the frameworks described above have three to four of the same main building blocks.

The "value proposition" element appears in all models and is usually the central building block.

(Abdelkafi et al., 2013, pp. 1340003-1 - 1340003-41; Johnson & Lafley, 2010, pp. 1–178; Teece,

2010, pp. 172–194; Yunus et al., 2010, pp. 308–325). This building block often describes

customer segmentation, i.e. the offer's target group orientation (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, pp. 1–

178).

Another common element is value capture (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, pp. 1340003-1 - 1340003-41;

Teece, 2010, pp. 172–194), also named as profit formula/equation (Johnson & Lafley, 2010, pp.

1-178; Yunus et al., 2010, pp. 308–325), or revenue model (Gassmann et al., 2013, pp. 1–72;

Lindgardt et al., 2009, pp. 1–9).

The third common building block seems to be the value chain (Gassmann et al., 2013, pp. 1–72;

Lindgardt et al., 2009, pp. 1–9). Sometimes the same point is called business resources and

competences (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, pp. 227–246), key resources and processes (Johnson

& Lafley, 2010, pp. 1–178), or value constellation (Yunus et al., 2010, pp. 308–325).

In some frameworks, this third building block is further specified in two or more points (Osterwalder

& Pigneur, 2010, pp. 1–44; Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 36–54). One of its specifications deals with

service creation and is sometimes referred to as value creation (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, pp.

1340003-1 - 1340003-41). The other addresses delivering the service to the customer and is

referred to as value delivery (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, pp. 1340003-1 - 1340003-41).

Figure 17: Similarities in BM frameworks (own figure, 2021)

Therefore, the three main similarities of the nine analysed business model frameworks can be

named value proposition, value capture, and value chain, as depicted in figure 18. According to

the conducted literature review on business model frameworks, a business model's design

seemingly is a version of these three elements. (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 1; Petricevic & Teece,

2019; Teece, 2010, p. 179; Zott et al., 2011, p. 1028)

value proposition

value capture

value chain

May 13, 2021 58/101


The third chapter dealt with business model approaches in research. In sub-chapter 3.1, theories

of what a business model is and how those various theories can be interpreted were presented,

based on findings from the most current and comprehensive sources available. Extensive

research was accomplished to gain insight and knowledge in an effort to shed some light on the

somewhat ambiguous term, business model (Belussi et al., 2019, pp. 1–19; Hajiheydari et al.,

2019, pp. 654–679). This effort reinforced the idea that there is no universally accepted all-in-one

definition of a business model.

Of course, some insight can be gained by comparing the similarities between the scholars, but

each business environment continues to be a variable for any company. Regardless of which one

is used, it is agreed upon by most scholars that a business model approach can guide companies

on a path to create value, increase profits and stakeholder value (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 672–

673). Therefore it is up to each company to choose to influence, be influenced by, or recreate

their business model (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 4).

Certainly, one can also find references in the literature to define a business model as a model

(Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, pp. 156–171; Osterwalder et al., 2005, pp. 1–25), or as an activity

driven system (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 5; Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 216–226), and as a network-

oriented conceptualisation (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 654–679; Jocevski et al., 2020, pp. 1051–

1067; Klimanov & Tretyak, 2019, pp. 117–136). Consequently, these three research approaches

were dissected and clarified in the appendices of section 3.1.

Chapter 3.2 takes on the approach of business models as frameworks and provides an insight

into how different researchers consider the design of a business model in a framework setting.

These frameworks are well suited to illustrate and grant insight on the workings of framework

models. The reader is shown some approaches on how to model, analyse and design business

models.

After presentation and analysis of the business model frameworks by Abdelkafi et al., Demil &

Lecoq, Gassman et al., Johnson & Lafley, Lindgardt et al., Osterwalder & Pigneur, Teece, Wirtz

et al., and Yunus et al., three commonalities in business model approaches of the frameworks

could be identified. Therefore, it can be agreed upon that a business model representation usually

contains elements of a value proposition, value capture and value chain. (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 1;

Zott et al., 2011, p. 1028)

After giving an overview of BM and discussing similarities of various BM, the next chapter

discusses innovations of business models.

May 13, 2021 59/101

4. Business model innovation

This chapter links the previously gained insights of business model research with the influences

of characteristics and challenges of a VUCA environment. Based on the assumption that the

VUCA environment forces business models to adopt to external challenges, the BMI approach

might answer the third research question. Therefore, a few review papers were screened for

detecting often discussed business model innovation approaches. Henceforth, the BMI approach

may develop a BM which is able to deal with the continuous changes of a VUCA environment.

4.1. Business model innovation research

This chapter shows the reader several approaches in literature on how a business model might

be innovated. This renewal process can be termed business model innovation (Bashir et al., 2020,

pp. 457–476). Therefore, this chapter starts with a general overview of the business model

innovation as a research area before it describes research clusters, and then point out a BMI

typology by explaining the BMI research model of Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227).

Beginning with a general overview of the BMI research area it can be said, that the business model

innovation has become a field of interest for many researchers. (Foss & Saebi, 2018; Wirtz et al.,

2016). According to Foss and Saebi (2018), the idea of changing one's business model became

popular seemingly by Mitchell and Coles’ (2003, pp. 15–21) thoughts.

Also, recent Scholars refer to the change or emergence of a business model as business model

innovation, or BMI for short (Zhang et al., 2020, p. 2). BMI is thus an extension of the business

model concept. Similar to the business model, there is still no uniform definition for business model

innovation. (Zhang et al., 2020, p. 2)

Nevertheless, Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227) tried to describe an approach of business

model innovation. According to their approach, a BMI deals with effective changes and new

arrangements of a business model's core properties (2017, pp. 200–227). This description of BMI

was acknowledged by Zhang et al. (2020, p. 2), and they apparently consider it helpful for

someone to begin with BM core properties before they dive deeper into the research field of BMI.

In addition to the arrangements of a BM’s core propertis, Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227)

stressed that organisational change must accompany BMI to be succesful. Organisational change

seems to be relevant for BMI because also Zhang et al. (2020, p. 9) concluded that organisational

performance correlates with the acceptance of BMI from the employees. Hence, they assumed

that a company performs a BMI better with the support of its employees (Zhang et al., 2020, pp. 1–

12).

May 13, 2021 60/101

Concerning the BM core property of value capture, Evans et al. (2017, pp. 597–608) defined three

sustainable values of environmental, social, and economic forms similar to the triple bottom line.

They address that environmental value forms refer to sustainability by including renewable

resources and opportunities to reduce emissions and waste. The social value forms strive to define

diversity and equality, but also the well-being of society as a value to strive, according to Evans et

al. (2017, pp. 597–608). They also claim that economic value forms consider the traditional

economic metrics of profit, profitability, and stability. Thus Evans et al. (2017, pp. 597–608)

conclude that the inclusion of these three sustainable value forms could lead to a sustainable BMI.

Researchers such as Baldassare et al. (2017, pp. 175–186) recommend combining the

aforementioned sustainable BMI with user-driven innovation to successfully design a sustainable

value proposition that also meets customers' needs and demand. According to the researchers,

the user-centred approach provides BMI with tools from the design thinking approach, which can

structure the BMI process with the three stages of inspiration, ideation and implementation.

Ultimately, such a combination of user-driven and sustainable BMI can generate a sustainable

value proposition that is economically and environmentally beneficial. (Baldassarre, Calabretta,

Bocken, & Jaskiewicz, 2017, pp. 175–186)

The general overview of BMI research thus indicates that BMI is an undefined term, as is the BM

(Zhang et al., 2020, p. 2). Possible approaches describe BMI as a process that changes the

components of a BMI, or even its structure (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 200–227). Furthermore, some

scholars recommend that the objectives of a BMI should include sustainability (Baldassarre et al.,

2017, pp. 175–186; Evans et al., 2017, pp. 597–608).

Next, the clusters in BMI research of Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227) and Kraus et al. (2020,

pp. 157–186) are appraised. According to the thesis author, their clusters’ ingredients could depict

possible ideas to aspire the reader of possible starting points for innovating a BM.

For the clustering of BMI research, Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227) identified four streams in

the literature business model innovation's research field and analysed them. They named the four

literature streams BMI’s conceptualisation, organisational change process, outcome, and

consequences (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 207–208).

The first stream deals with the conceptualisation of BMI. It aims to develop models and

classifications that can define BMI (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 207).

May 13, 2021 61/101

The second stream sees BMI as a process of organisational change. According to this, successful

BMI depends on factors such as the company's capabilities, its leadership and its knowledge

development and innovative strength. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 207)

The third stream focuses on the outcome of BMI. Thus, new business models are analysed per

industry, and individual examples are generalised on a conceptual level. (Foss & Saebi, 2017,

p. 207)

The fourth stream looks at the consequences of business model innovation on company

performance and results. Here, a distinction is made between BMI's monetary impact and the

impact on value creation performance. From the financial perspective, one investigates whether

BMI can lead to better earnings and how this can be achieved. From a performance perspective,

the focus is more on the innovative strength of the company. In summary, the fourth stream deals

with BMI consequences in terms of exploitative and exploratory lenses. (Foss & Saebi, 2017,

p. 207)

If one looks at the streams listed, one can recognise different approaches to BMI. Accordingly,

BMI can be seen as a process or as an outcome. Stream two conceptualises BMI as organisational

change, which sees BMI as a conceptualisation of organisational change processes. Alternatively,

streams three and four see BMI as new innovative activities that affect organisational

performance. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 208)

Further findings in BMI research between 2016 and 2019 were analysed and clustered by Kraus

et al. (2020, pp. 157–186). Hence, a BMI can be crucial for building a competitive advantage if the

organisation is to be adapted to this process. The business model regulates costs and revenues

to ensure a sustainable result. A well-implemented BMI can contribute to the company's survival

in the market and market changes. (Kraus et al., 2020, pp. 158–162) Hence, a BMI can aim to

improve value creation in the stakeholders' interest, which can be done by modifying an extant

business model or implementing a new one (Wirtz et al., 2016, p. 3).

Kraus et al. (2020, p. 165) identified four main clusters in the literature. Hence, BMI may be

clustered linked to the topic of environment, products or services, organisational aspects, or social

perspectives. Further, the environmental cluster seems to be the research area with the most

publications and can be subcategorized by the fields of sustainability and new technologies.

(Kraus et al., 2020, pp. 165–166)

The field of sustainability, a sustainable business model innovation, seems to be gaining

importance with a growing population and an increasing need for sustainable business

(Baldassarre et al., 2017, pp. 157–186). Thus, some stakeholders increasingly expect companies

to be sustainable. This approach is argued by Inigo et al. (2017, pp. 515–542), who link long-term

May 13, 2021 62/101

corporate success to environmental and social aspects of organisational activities. The importance

of environmental and social concerns often seems to influence BMI in the literature. (Kraus et al.,

2020, p. 166)

From a sustainability perspective, Yang et al. (2017, pp. 1794–1804) argue that BMI focuses on

the way products or services are produced and offered. In contrast, other scientists (Baldassarre

et al., 2017, pp. 175–186; Evans et al., 2017, pp. 597–608) argue that less attention should be

paid to renewing the products or services themselves.

Still, the main focus of the environment cluster’s subgroup, sustainability, seems to be mainly on

the value proposition (França, Broman, Robèrt, Basile, & Trygg, 2017, pp. 155–166). However,

researchers such as Lüdeke-Freund (2020, pp. 665–681) see a new value proposition as a trigger

to change a business model. One way to make the value proposition more sustainable and

overcome the triple bottom line's obstacle seems to be the approach of servitization, which means

to transform a BM into service-based business models (Wadin, Ahlgren, & Bengtsson, 2017,

pp. 139–150).

Kraus et al. (2020, p. 168) identified the effect of new technology on BMI as an other subcategory

of the environmental cluster in their review. Thus, new technology can influence business models,

like in the renewable energy sector (Karlsson, Halila, Mattsson, & Hoveskog, 2017, pp. 2925–

2934). Therefore, Van Waes et al. (2018, pp. 1300–1312) argues that new energy technologies

empower innovations in value chains and consider that new ownership values could change

customer relationships.

Hence, a crucial technology in some researchers' eyes might be a sharing economy platform (Ciulli

& Kolk, 2019, pp. 995–1010; van Waes et al., 2018, pp. 1300–1312). These new digital

technology-driven platforms can enable private assets to be brought to the market for commercial

purposes. Such platforms create a sharing economy that can have a decisive influence on the

three sustainable value forms described above (Ciulli & Kolk, 2019, pp. 995–1010; Evans et al.,

2017, pp. 597–608). Thus, the sharing economy approach can change ownership and the

perception of the value proposition, plus the associated possibility of optimisation and efficiency.

(Kraus et al., 2020, p. 168)

Next, according to Kraus et al. (2020, pp. 169–170), the second cluster in BMI research deals with

the linkage of products and services with BMI. Hence, Visnjic et al. (2016, pp. 36–52) argue that

a servitization strategy might inspire the service BMI. Thus, a servitization adds additional services

to an existing product offer which probably affect the business model in place. Kraus et al. (2020,

pp. 169–170) argue that such a change from a product to a service-oriented offer aims to improve

May 13, 2021 63/101

the company's competitiveness. According to them, the change from a product-oriented business

model gradually renews itself via product-related services to a use- and result-oriented BM. Next,

a use- and result-oriented BM can develop further into a customer-oriented BM. (Kraus et al.,

2020, pp. 169–170)

One risk that can arise from combining service BMI and product innovation is knowledge loss as

argued by Visnjic et al. (2016, p. 1). But, Visnjic et al. (2016, pp. 36–52) and Rantala et al. (2018,

pp. 46–55) presume that a company can overcome this risk through continuous short-term

benefits and investment in further innovations. In other words, through periodic BMI and the

reinvestment of the short-term benefits created by it, a company can survive in the long run

(Rantala et al., 2018, pp. 46–55; Visnjic et al., 2016, pp. 36–52).

The third cluster in the work of Kraus et al. (2020, p. 171) describes BMI's organisational aspects.

According to Spieth et al. (2016, pp. 403–413), market offerings differ fundamentally in terms of

the business model; these researchers believed that different companies with different business

models can offer similar products. Therefore, a new business model might represents added

value, and BMI can be seen as an opportunity for a company to succeed in the market. (Spieth et

al., 2016, pp. 403–413)

There are different approaches to the conceptualisation and classification of organisational

aspects in BMI. Hence, Clauss (2016, pp. 385–403) depicts three dimensions and ten sub-points

within the BMI concept. According to this, a business model can be renewed through innovation

in value creation, proposition, and capture. (Clauss, 2016, pp. 385–403)

The value creation innovation comprises the sub-items regarding the renewal of capabilities,

technological assets, partnerships, and processes. Furthermore, the dimension of value capture

renews the revenue model, and the value cost structures. In addition, an innovation of the value

proposition can occur through new offers, target groups, channels, and customer relationships.

(Clauss, 2016, pp. 385–403)

Further, a company's organisational culture can establish a value system with which capabilities

and resources for BMI are released in the organisation's collective commitment (Spieth et al.,

2016, pp. 403–413). Thus, employees can decide which opportunities could be used for BMI. If

employees are motivated to identify opportunities, share them within the company and possibly

use those opportunities for the company, a competitive advantage might be gained (Guo, Tang,

Su, & Katz, 2017, pp. 431–442). This view is also shared by Futterer et al. (2018, pp. 64–81), who

see an internal corporate venture as a good form of entrepreneurism concerning BMI.

Basically, the third cluster might express the dependence of possible BMI outcomes on the

respective organisation's circumstances. Thus, Kraus et al. (2020, p. 172) detected the factors of

capabilities, resources, and the company culture as BMI opportunities.

May 13, 2021 64/101

Cluster four describes the emerging field of research on BMI's social perspectives (Kraus et al.,

2020, p. 173). One conceptualisation that captures the social approach to BM and BMI is a

business concept called "social enterprise" (Mongelli & Rullani, 2017, pp. 446–467; Olofsson,

Hoveskog, & Halila, 2018, pp. 70–81).

According to Mongelli and Rullani (2017, pp. 446–467), a social enterprise has a combination of

social and economic components. Such social enterprises aim to generate a social impact that is

economically and ecologically sustainable in the long term as argued by Kraus et al. (2020,

p. 173). Thereof, also other reserchers (Dentchev et al., 2016, pp. 1–4; Olofsson et al., 2018,

pp. 70–81) claim that the BMI can be particularly relevant for existing companies that want to

change their environmental and social impact.

In summary of Kraus et al. (2020, pp. 174–175), it can be said that they identified three dimensions

from the four BMI clusters considered. The authors see affinity to organisational, environmental,

and societal dimensions in the current BMI literature (Kraus et al., 2020, p. 174). Hence, they

suppose that the main drivers for BMI can be new products or services influenced by the three

dimensions. Thus, these researchers argue that the environmental dimension changes the

business environment by external influences, including sustainability and impacts of new

technological advances. Furthermore, the social dimension can draw on influences and factors

from social change, macroeconomic challenges, and the social enterprise principle for BMI.

Further, Kraus et al. (2020, pp. 174–175) argue that an organisational dimension supplements a

BMI by including corporate culture, entrepreneurship, and corporate strategy. Thus, their identified

dimensions focus on organisational, environmental, and societal issues regarding BMI. (Kraus et

al., 2020, pp. 174–175)

According to this thesis author, the BMI research model of Foss and Saebi (Foss & Saebi, 2017,

p. 215) have an understandable typology and might assist in reflecting the depicted BMI

frameworks in the following chapter 4.2.

The model of Foss and Saebi (2017, p. 215) might add clarity in the research field of BMI. Its

authors tempted with this model to offer researchers a framework to address BMI in a processual

context with antecedents before and outcomes after a BMI.

They formulated this research model consisting of four components. These components are

antecedents, BMI, outcomes, and moderators, as shown in the diagram below. (Foss & Saebi,

2017, p. 215)

May 13, 2021 65/101

Figure 18: BMI research model (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 215)

Foss and Saebi (2017, p. 215) mentioned that some influences occur before BMI can be realised

and have an impact on it. These are referred to in the model as antecedents and require attention

to external as well as internal indications of a need for business model innovation. The BMI itself

is distinguished by its degree of novelty and scope. The outcome component is concerned with

financial performance and development, cost savings, and the organisation's innovativeness

under consideration. The moderators influence these three components. (Foss & Saebi, 2017,

p. 215)

Furthermore, the moderators should deal with legal and administrative influences at levels outside

the organisation (macro-level), within the organisation (firm-level), as well as at the personal level

(micro-level), according to the authors. The BMI research models components will be explained

as follows. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 215)

The antecedents’ component deals with external and internal factors. Foss and Saebi (2017,

p. 215) stress these factors as reasons for a company to innovate its BMI. For example,

inconsistencies in the corporate strategy and external influences from competitors or technological

requirements of the market can demand the need for an adjustment of the existing business model

(Doz & Kosonen, 2010, pp. 370–382; Johnson et al., 2008, pp. 57–68; Voelpel †, Leibold, & Tekie,

2004, pp. 259–276).

Foss and her colleague (2017, p. 212) point out that antecedents can also be perceived as

positively as opportunities that require BMI. Such opportunities can arise, for example, from the

possibility of adopting new business models to technological innovations. (Pateli & Giaglis, 2005,

pp. 167–183; Sabatier, Craig-Kennard, & Mangematin, 2012, pp. 949–962; Wirtz et al., 2016,

pp. 36–54)

May 13, 2021 66/101

Hence, Foss and Saebi (2017, p. 215) argue that a BMI’s antecedents can begin with various

preliminary factors, which might be quite different and can arise outside or within the company.

They also propose that external influences usually deal with a change in customer demands, new

technological possibilities, or a change in the target market's competitive situation. To find internal

antecedents Foss and Saebi (2017, p. 215) recommend concepts such as dynamic capabilities

(Teece, 2018, pp. 40–49) and open innovation (Chesbrough, 2010, pp. 354–363).

Next, the BMI component of Foss and Sabi’s model deals with novelty and scope. To begin an

attempt at defining BMI, consider the structure of the business model. For example, Teece's (2010,

p. 172) approach that the business model is an architecture for creating and extracting value

provides a foundation for building BMI. Foss and Saebi (2017, p. 215) claim that the defined

components from the business model literature in chapter three, which can be described as value

proposition, target group identification, and structure of the value chain, and revenue model, can

be useful for BMI. They stress that the architecture of these components is fundamental for

mapping an organisation's process. Hence, the architecture of these components might be

relevant because sometimes the field of BMI research, in different conceptualisations, uses

changes in the structure of these components as the basis for describing BMI (Foss & Saebi,

2017, p. 216).

According to Foss and Saebi, the criterion of scope deals with the extent to which BMI influences

a business model. Thus, it discusses whether a BMI requires the renewal of one component,

several components, or the original business model's entire architecture. (Foss & Saebi, 2017,

p. 210)

Further, Foss and Saebi state that the BMI approach of changing core business activities requires

good planning, and the selection of suitable activities is crucial. However, to achieve the emerging

business model's novelty, these two researchers propose one should focus on significant changes

in core activities to achieve the business model's desired innovation. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 216)

In contrast, the approach to changing the business model architecture is different. Santos et al.

(2009, pp. 1–53) argue that the scope of a BMI may be in the architecture or changing components

of the business model. Here, they refer to the complexity theory that indicates that a change in the

business model can take place in its architecture. (Santos, Spector, & Van der Heyden, 2009,

pp. 1–53)

Whereas in business models with weak connections and dependencies between the individual

components in the BM architecture, Foss and Saebi (2017, p. 216) imagine a change in the

May 13, 2021 67/101

business model is more likely to take place by adapting individual components. Thus, according

to some researchers, changing one component might be sufficient (Schneider & Spieth, 2013,

pp. 1–34; Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 216–226).

However, some researchers like Frankenberger et al. (2013, pp. 249–273) consider the renewal

of several components necessary for a BMI. Also, other studies call for a renewal of the BM

architecture (Velamuri, Bansemir, Neyer, & Möslein, 2013, pp. 1340004-1 - 1340004-25; Yunus

et al., 2010, pp. 308–325). Thus, the literature has several views on the scope of a BMI. (Foss

& Saebi, 2017, pp. 217–218)

The novelty factor is closely related to the general concept of innovation and is also significant for

business models' innovation (Zott & Amit, 2007, pp. 181–199). A well-known classification for the

extent of an innovation’s novelty is the classification like Foss and Saebi found in the theory of the

Schumpeter’s rent (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 216). This classification contained three levels that

related a novelty to one's firm, industry, and the world. Henceforth, Foss and Saebi (2017,

pp. 212–218) distinguished only two stages in such a classification. Thus, they categorize novelty

in perspective to a company or an entire industry (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 216–217). A distinction

is made as to whether the BMI is new for the respective company (Johnson et al., 2008, pp. 57–

68; Osterwalder et al., 2005, pp. 1–25) or even represents a novelty for the respective industry

(Santos et al., 2009, pp. 1–53).

The following table, which presents the typologies of BMIs identified by Foss and Saebi (2017,

pp. 212–218), provides a quick overview of the interplay between the criteria of scope and novelty.

Accordingly, the BMI literature can be grouped into the quarters of evolutionary, adaptive, focused,

and complex renewal of a business model.

Novelty

Scope

Modular Architectural

New to firm evolutionary BMI adaptive BMI

New to industry focused BMI complex BMI

Figure 19: Typology of BMI (adopted from Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 218)

If individual parts of the business model are changed, one typology of Foss and Saebi speaks of

modular changes. If these modular changes are limited to the company itself, they call it

evolutionary BMI. In evolutionary BMI, individual aspects of the business model might be changed

so that they were not yet present in the company under consideration. The innovations in

evolutionary BMI can be supported by examples from other companies that have already tested

desirable aspects in their business processes. Other examples of BMI that look at the business

May 13, 2021 68/101

model's architecture and represent a revolution for a company's own business model are called

adaptive BMI by Foss and Saebi. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 217–218)

In addition to these innovations within the organisation, Foss and Saebi propose that focused and

complex BMIs deal with innovations that could influence the entire industry. Thus, focused BMIs

can refer to those industrial innovations triggered by changes in a company's individual activities

without changing the business model's core characteristics. Such focused BMI can be, for

example, the development of new customer segments that have been neglected by the industry

so far. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 217–218)

Further, Foss and Saebi’s typology of the complex BMI handles the core characteristics of the

business model differently. Thus, the complex BMI might change the business model's

architecture to have a business model structure that no competitor in the same industry has used

before. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 13–21)

After analysing the scope and novelty of a BMI, the next component of Foss and Saebi’s research

model deals with BMI outcomes. Thus, the outcomes component is concerned with financial

performance and innovation. Further, the authors look at outcomes of a BMI regarding the impact

on management. According to them, the motivations for implementing BMI are primarily found in

the possibility of improving the financial aspects of a business model. Although Zhang et al. (2020,

pp. 1–12) established a bridge between BMI and corporate performance, this seems to be a very

complex aspect of research. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 212)

Nevertheless, the outcomes part of financial aspects might arise from a new business model. For

example, Foss and Saebi see a competitive advantage arise if a company sees the interplay of

value creation, delivery, and distribution as an opportunity to create added value through

conscious design. Hence, they suggest that revenue models can be changed through BMI to tap

off profits much more efficiently. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 219)

The moderator component can influence the impact of antecedents on BMI and the impact of BMI

on outcomes. According to Foss and Saebi, moderators have three levels of success. The BMI

can be moderated at a superior level by legal regulations, trade unions, associations, and other.

At the organisational level, leadership, corporate values and culture can play a significant role in

influencing BMI. Also, Foss and Saebi's approach includes employees' perception and influence

as mediators in a BMI. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 200–227)

Summarizing the BMI model of Foss and Saebi of clustering the BMI research, the following can

be mentioned. They try to order the novelty and scope of a BMI with their typology. Thus, one can

May 13, 2021 69/101

use their approach to recognise where BMI can create a competitive advantage and how intense

the change might be on the organisation or industry. Further, their BMI research framework

outlines a terminology for describing the BMI process in four components. Therefore, other

scientists might use Foss and Saebi’s typology with the components of antecedents, BMI,

outcomes, and moderators in their research. (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 200–227)

Subsuming, this subchapter gave insights regarding BMI research. The BMI research is seen as

an extension of the BM research field (Zhang et al., 2020, p. 2). Similar to the term BM, there is

also no valid definition of BMI, but Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227) concluded that BMI deals

with optimisations, changes, and rearrangements of a BM’s components that can be accompanied

by change. Further, the current topics in BMI research show, according to Kraus et al. (2020,

p. 174), an affinity to organisational, environmental, and societal dimensions.

As argued by some researchers (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 200–227; Geissdoerfer, Savaget, &

Evans, 2017, pp. 262–269; Kraus et al., 2020, pp. 157–186), the BMI seems to be one option how

a business can deal with environmental challenges. As earlier captured in chapter two, it seems

recommendable for a business to react to external challenges and capture short term opportunities

to make it run in the long term (Evans & Bahrami, 2020, p. 207). Therefore, the author of this

thesis acknowledges BMI as an approach for firms in a VUCA environment to seize opportunities.

The following subchapter of BMI frameworks depicts some approaches to how researchers tried

to structure a company’s BMI with the aim to inspire the reader how their BMI ideas might be

depicted for implementation.

4.2. Business model innovation frameworks

The following subchapters will depict some BMI frameworks. Like the representation mode in

chapter 3.2, the following sections present some BMI approaches as comparably as possible.

Thus, BMI frameworks are introduced, beginning with a brief opening to the BMI framework's

intentions. The framework is then presented and described. Finally, the essentials of the

framework are briefly summarised.

4.2.1. Frankenberger et al.

Frankenberger, Weiblen, Csik and Gassmann (2013, pp. 249–273) developed the 4I-framework

based on existing innovation management literature and 14 case studies. Their framework

examines the challenges of a BMI and attempts to structure a BMI’s course during the initiation,

ideation, integration, and implementation processes. Like Gassman's (2013, p. 5) BM triangle, the

May 13, 2021 70/101

4I-framework is based on the assumption that a business model includes the four dimensions of

who, what, how, and why. (Frankenberger et al., 2013, p. 254)

However, the four phases of the BMI framework by Frankenberger et al. (2013, pp. 249–273) each

describe a main challenge along the renewal process of a business model as can be seen in the

figure below. Thus, the authors phases of initiation, ideation and integration deal with the design

of the new business model, and implementation with the realisation of the BMI (Frankenberger et

al., 2013, p. 260).

Figure 20: The 4I-framework (Frankenberger et al., 2013, p. 265)

The initiation phase of Frankenberger et al. (2013, pp. 260–261) deals with an analysis of the

company's internal and external environment. This environment can be described as the

ecosystem of the company in question and includes, for example, customers, partners, suppliers,

but also competitors. During this initiation phase, there are two challenges that can shape a BMI.

Accordingly, an understanding of the needs of the various ecosystem participants can be crucial

for one's own company as stated by the authors. For example, changing customer needs may

require a new business model (Frankenberger et al., 2013, p. 260). Here, it seems also important

to recognise the change drivers. According to Frankenberger et al. (2013, p. 261), it is important

for companies to monitor and analyse technological change as well as changes in the business

environment in order to be able to react promptly. New legal framework conditions can also lead

to a need for BMI, as can new products do. (Frankenberger et al., 2013, pp. 260–261)

May 13, 2021 71/101

Next, Frankenberger et al. (2013, p. 261) put the ideation stage that is concerned with creating

ideas for new business models. Therefore, the ideation stage seeks to transform the opportunities

discovered in the initiation stage into feasible designs for new business models. For the ideation

of new business models, an organisation may face three hurdles according to Frankenberger et

al. (2013, p. 261). For example, it might be critical to leave the current business logic aside in

order to be able to consider all possibilities as uninfluenced as possible. In addition, product or

service-oriented thinking and the lack of appropriate tools to develop approaches for new business

models can make it difficult. Frankenberger et al. recommend overcoming the hurdles in the

ideation phase by promoting out-of-the-box thinking, focusing on the business model, and

supporting the ideation process with suitable tools and frameworks. (Frankenberger et al., 2013,

p. 261)

In the integration phase, a new business model is then designed. Hence, Frankenberger et al.

(2013, p. 262) suggest that promising approaches from the ideation stage are taken up and

incorporated into a complete business model with the help of the four dimensions of the BM

framework by Gassmann et al. (2013, p. 5). The alignment of the individual dimensions can be a

crucial process in the integration phase. Thus, Frankenberger et al. (2013, p. 262) recommends

that once the new business model is developed, all affected business partners in the company's

ecosystem have to be informed about the changes. So, the partners have the option of aligning

their systems with the firm’s new business model. Henceforth, Frankenberger et al. (2013, p. 262)

point out that a company should actively manage its business partners and that their agreement

to help shape the change is crucial to the successful implementation of BMI. (Frankenberger et

al., 2013, pp. 262–263)

Once the new business model is created, Frankenberger et al. (2013, p. 263) advise realising BMI

in the following implementation phase. This phase addresses two challenges of BMI, namely

internal resistance and the external complexity of the environment. According to the authors, open

communication and change management are needed to increase the internal readiness to

implement a new business model (Frankenberger et al., 2013, p. 263). Thus, the complexity of a

business environment can be reduced to calculated risk through experimentation and pilot

projects. Frankenberger et al. suggest iterative revisions of the new business model through a

stepwise implementation of the BMI for target markets, customer groups, or business lines. Hence,

they propose that these iterations can help to optimise the new business model in a controlled

way until it is fully implemented throughout the company. (Frankenberger et al., 2013, p. 263)

The 4I-framework thus runs through the four phases that seek to align a new business model with

companies' internal and external needs. The first three phases of initiation, ideation, and

integration create a new business model, which can be realised in the fourth phase of

May 13, 2021 72/101

implementation. The alignment of the analysis of the company ecosystem in the initiation phase

with the identification of new BM approaches in the ideation phase seeks to enable an external fit

of the BMI. An internal fit can be achieved by aligning the ideation and integration phases,

according to Frankenberger et al. (2013, pp. 262–263).

The 4I-framework thus combines iterative feedback and adaptation loops with a seemingly linear

structure in four phases. This framework attempts to structure a BMI for managers to successfully

implement a new business model as supposed by its authors (Frankenberger et al., 2013,

pp. 249–273).

4.2.2. Geissdoerfer et al.

Geissdoerfer, Savaget, and Evans (2017, pp. 262–269) created a BMI framework to better bring

out the sustainable ambitions of companies, which is known as the "Cambridge Business Model

Innovation Process". These three researchers saw implementation as a critical component for

BMI's success and pay particular attention to it in their BMI framework. Thus, starting already in

the first conceptual phases, the Cambridge BMI framework treats the stages of business model

generation in a differentiated way and with the intention of implementation. (Geissdoerfer et al.,

2017, p. 263)

Thereof, the Cambridge BMI framework is structured in three phases, which can be divided into

eight processes. The figure bellow depicts the framework.

Figure 21: The Cambridge BMI process (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p. 266)

May 13, 2021 73/101

Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–266) divided the first phase of concept design into the three

processes of ideation, concept design, and virtual prototyping. The second phase of detail design

contains processes of experimentation, detail design, and piloting. In the third phase of

implementation, the processes of launch and adjustment and diversification take place according

to them. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, pp. 265–266)

The ideation process begins with value proposition ideation and initial concepts. At this point,

Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–266) suggest identifying necessary stakeholder and the

reasons for the BMI. According to the authors, the typical activities here should include the

formulation of a vision or justification for the company’s existence. Plus, they recommend

identifying and define various stakeholders with this. In addition, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017,

pp. 265–266) advise that values and ideas for a possible value proposition are analysed,

evaluated, and selected in the ideation process. Further, they indicate a failed identification of

opportunities and necessary stakeholders as possible challenges. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017,

pp. 265–266)

In the concept design process, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–266) propose a conceptual

development of BM elements. Plus, they suggest that ideas are interwoven and integrated

herewith. In this process, the authors concluded that trends are usually discussed in order to

present the BM components of value creation, value delivery, and value capture for a BM

systematically, as well as for BM elements, according to the current state of knowledge. More,

Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–266) advise that challenges can arise in the concept design

phase from communication failures, lack of trust and consensus among stakeholders, but also

overestimation of the company's innovation capacity. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, pp. 265–266)

The last step in the conception phase of the Cambridge BMI process is the process of virtual

prototyping. Here, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–266) recommend creating, evaluating, and

improving numerous prototypes for a new BM. Also, they suggest increasing quality in the

conception phase by benchmarking with concepts of external origin. According to the authors,

dangers in this step can be the missing or insufficient involvement of important stakeholders and

an oversizing of the prototype in terms of efficiency and materiality. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017,

pp. 265–266)

Next, the experimenting process opens the detail design phase of the Cambridge BMI framework

(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p. 266). Here, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–266) urge to make

critical assumptions to the new BM in field experiments or simulations to minimise risk. For them,

the risk is posed by omitting the experiments or inappropriately conducting and evaluating them.

May 13, 2021 74/101

In addition, Geissdoerfer and his colleagues point out that the experiments should adhere to an

appropriate economic and temporal framework. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, pp. 265–266)

The heart of the detail design phase is the process step of the same name. Here, an in-depth

analysis inspects the details of all BM elements and their activities. Also, the tools for business

transformation are determined. In the detail design process, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–

266) note that the danger of getting lost in the details or ineffective documentation in the BMI

process can be challenging. According to them, it is also a challenge to use all the information

from the previous process steps in the detail design without leaving any gaps. (Geissdoerfer et

al., 2017, pp. 265–266)

If the in-depth analysis allows proceeding, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–266) propose that

the next step, the piloting process, tests the new overall concept in limited areas and target

markets. The authors describe piloting activities can range from planning, implementing,

analysing, and adjusting the new BM. By identifying the potential for improvement and

communicating that the new BM can now be implemented, an organisation shows that its activities

are ready to take the next step, according to Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–266).

If the concept design and detail design phases are successful, the newly developed business

model in the Cambridge BMI framework is ready to enter the implementation phase. Geissdoerfer

et al. (2017, pp. 265–266) recommend beginning implementing the new BMI with the process step

of the launch. Here, the new business model is presented to the entire organisation and

implemented in the relevant divisions and target markets. If the implementation is positive, the

authors imply that the new BM is continuously pushed forward to other areas until it is fully realised

in the entire company. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p. 266)

Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, p. 266) suggest obtaining the necessary information on failure modes

during the launch. In addition, they urge to ensure sufficient funding with room for flexible BMI

timeframes. According to their mind, expectations and communication can be challenging during

the launch (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p. 266).

In the eighth step of the process, attention is paid to establishing the previously prioritised

expectations, original objectives, and the compatibility of the business model with the corporate

strategy. The adjustment and diversification process analyses and evaluates the previous BMI

steps and leads to revisions of BM elements and activities. Here, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, p. 266)

argue that it can be challenging to weigh up when and to what extent changes should be made.

Depending on the extent or need for presumed changes in the new BM, the authors propose that

evaluating the adjustment and diversification process may advocate a re-run of the Cambridge

May 13, 2021 75/101

BMI framework, or to consider the new business model as being currently effective. (Geissdoerfer

et al., 2017, p. 266)

Although the phases and processes appear to be linearly structured, they are intended to be

iterative processes that involve jumping back and forth between process steps as needed as

proposed by Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 265–267). The author note that the framework not only

covers the phases and processes of BMI but also can map common activities and challenges for

each process. Further, Geissdoerfer and his colleagues intend this detailed description of the

processes to represent the BMI in such a way that a company can use the framework to plan and

manage a business model innovation in an implementable way. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017,

pp. 265–267)

In conclusion, the Cambridge BMI framework from Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 262–269) depicts

an iterative approach that begins with the concept design phase and evolves to detail design and

implementation phase before the firm needs a further innovation in its applied BM. Eight processes

that describe activities and challenges in the three phases intend to guide BM architects in a BMI

process (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, pp. 262–269).

4.2.3. Wirtz & Daiser

Wirtz and Daiser integrated various findings of literature regarding BMI in their created BMI

framework (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, pp. 14–34). This BMI framework is an updated version of the

Mahadevan variant published in 2004. The similarities between the two BMI frameworks can be

seen in the basic structure and its division into central and environmental factors. In both

frameworks, the integration of central and environmental factors by incorporating BMI techniques

and tools, information processing, and sense-making seem particularly important. (Wirtz & Daiser,

2017, p. 26)

The figure below shows the integrative BMI framework of Wirtz and Daiser (2017, p. 25). The BMI

elements and factors were taken from the literature (Mahadevan, 2004, pp. 1–6; Voelpel † et al.,

2004, pp. 259–276) and are mainly arranged according to Mahadevan (2004, pp. 1–6).

May 13, 2021 76/101

Figure 22: Integrated BMI framework (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, p. 25)

Hence, Wirtz and Daiser (2017, p. 19) sorted the environmental BMI dimensions into macro and

micro-level dimensions. Thus, they propose that the macro-level dimension includes information

processing and sense-making of external influences of globalisation, new technologies, shifts in

industries or markets, and issues regarding regulations or economics. Further, they suggest that

the micro-level dimension includes BMI techniques and tools for reacting to changing customer

needs, innovation of products or services, competition, or firm dynamics. The central BMI

dimensions in Wirtz and Daiser’s framework (2017, p. 25) include BMI factors and BMI areas.

Thus, the BMI factors use the three question of who, what, and how to identify a new target group,

value proposition, or value constellation (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, p. 26).

Further, Wirtz and his colleague (2017, p. 21) state that BMI components and process should be

addressed individually to be optimized for increased BMI efficiency and effectiveness. A further

component in this BMI framework is dealing with BMI intensity. If BMI factors and areas are

compared with the BMI's current state, the new BM's unprecedented steps and changes can be

noted. (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, pp. 21–23)

The consequences for risks and change efforts seemingly depend on the intensity of the change,

according to Wirtz and Daiser (2017, p. 23). Hence, they argue that the element of BMI intensity

can help plan a BMI (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, p. 23).

May 13, 2021 77/101

However, as outcomes or impact of a BMI, Wirtz and Daiser (2017, pp. 23–24) argue three vital

elements. Thus, the BMI should be sustainable, add competitive advantage, and advance the

company’s value creation and capture. (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, pp. 24–26)

In conclusion, the integrative BMI framework from Wirtz and Daiser (2017, pp. 14–34) includes

literature on well-known components like the BMI factors and combine them with the logic of

Mahadevan (2004, pp. 1–6) regarding central and environmental elements in a BMI. Hence,

linking external with central BMI elements through BMI tools, information processing and sense-

making is seen as a novel approach in BMI frameworks by its authors. (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017,

p. 26)

4.2.4. Ramdani et al.

Ramdani, Binsaif, and Boukrami (2019, pp. 89–108) attempted to create a BMI framework

containing known BMI elements. This framework builds on its creators' views and is not static but

should allow companies to change their business model continuously. The 16 thematic elements,

grouped into four innovation sectors, are designed to enable business model change and

innovation. The elements and building blocks of BMI are based on the findings of Johnson et al.

(2008, pp. 57–68), and Zott and Amit (2010, pp. 216–226). The figure below illustrates the BMI

framework of Ramdani and his colleagues. (Ramdani et al., 2019, pp. 94–95)

Figure 23: BMI framework with four quarters (Ramdani et al., 2019, p. 94)

May 13, 2021 78/101

Thus, the first quarter deals with the value proposition and tries to answer the question of why. In

doing so, this framework’s quarter questions why a customer should be interested in the

company's offer. Ramdani et al. (2019, pp. 89–108) identified value proposition elements,

including the core offer, customer needs, target groups, and perceived customer value. In the

course of a BMI, new customer needs might be identified to develop new target groups. The

decisive factor here is feedback on the customer's perception and evaluation of the service offering

in order to tailor the value proposition to the target group. Ramdani et al. (2019, p. 95) point out

that a BMI can serve unsatisfied needs in the market. Thus, a BMI can increase the customer's

perception of the value proposition through special pricing, customisation, or other adjustments.

(Ramdani et al., 2019, pp. 94–95)

The second quarter deals with the operational value of a business model. It looks at key assets

and processes, partner networks, and distribution channels. Here, the BMI framework questions

how value creation can be improved. This quarter also looks at the company's position in the value

chain and its potential to weigh up possible forms of cooperation in the company network and their

potential. Also, Ramdani et al. (2019, pp. 94–95) see the use of resources as an element of the

operational value. Hence, the authors argue that value can be optimised through changes in

processes and savings in production resources. (Ramdani et al., 2019, pp. 94–95)

The third quarter deals with human capital, i.e. planning which BMI activities should be carried out

by whom. Elements such as organisational learning, skills and competencies, incentives and

training are considered in the context of a BM. (Ramdani et al., 2019, pp. 99–100)

Thus, Ramdani et al. (2019, pp. 99–100) differentiate human capital as a component of

performance creation and see new BM opportunities when ideas come from motivated employees.

Therefore, questioning employees' current roles and activities is an important part of

organisational learning to contribute to the development of a new BM, as argued by Yunus et al.

(2010, pp. 308–325). Thus, Sorescu et al. (2011, pp. 3–16) propose that a change in governance

can lead to BM innovation.

The fourth quarter deals with financial value. Here the BMI framework deals with revenue streams,

cost structure, cash flow, and margins. This quarter clarifies how revenue is achieved and what

changes are possible to generate profits while taking the cost structure into account. In doing so,

the BMI asks to optimise the way a BM generates profits. For example, Ramdani et al. (2019,

pp. 95–100) imagine that BM optimisation could be done by changing the pricing, the choice of

the payer, the type of payment transaction, or the timing of payment. (Ramdani et al., 2019,

pp. 95–100)

May 13, 2021 79/101

Concluding, the BMI framework of Ramdani et al. (2019, pp. 89–108) also addresses the three

BM elements elaborated in chapter three. Thereof, it has increased the value chain's differentiation

as the component that creates value into human and operational components. Ramdani and his

colleagues understand a BMI as the possibility of keeping a company successful by continuously

changing the BM. Thus, they suppose that changes do not have to be of a specific size, but the

impact of changes should be considered in the company's overall system. Hence, possible

changes to any of the 16 components might affect the BM and can lead to a BMI. (Ramdani et al.,

2019, pp. 100–101)


The fourth chapter focused on business model innovation or BMI's. Starting with findings from the

literature field of BMI's, a brief overview of BMI research was presented. Thereafter, four BMI

frameworks were described, providing examples of how some researchers attempt to address

how to innovate a BM.

In subchapter 4.1, the business model innovation research is described in a general overview

before some researchers’ approaches cluster its research field. The insight into Foss and Saebi's

work thus served as a starting point to introduce the reader to the topic of BMI.

Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227) see BMI as an extension of the BM research field. For them,

BMI deals with optimisations, changes and rearrangements of a business model's core

components that can be accompanied by organisational change. The measurability of a BMI's

effectiveness can be mapped to its congruence with firm performance, according to Zhang et al.

(2020, p. 9).

According to Foss and Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227), there are four streams of BMI research found

in current literature. These four streams are titled: conceptualisation, organisational change

process, outcome, and consequences (Foss & Saebi, 2017, pp. 207–208). Depending on novelty

and scope, this conception suggests that a BMI can influence not only the company but the entire

industry of that company, just by changing a BM architecture or parts of it. (Foss & Saebi, 2017,

pp. 212–218)

The literature between 2016 and 2019 gave further findings in the research field of BMI. Kraus et

al. (2020, p. 165) identified four main clusters in the literature. Hence, BMI may be clustered linked

to the topic of environment, products or services, organisational aspects, or social perspectives.

Furthermore, the environmental cluster seems to be the most popular research area. Here, one

will also find most publications broken down mainly into two subcategories: sustainability and new

technologies (Kraus et al., 2020, pp. 165–166). Arising from the four main clusters in BMI within

Kraus et al. (2020, p. 165), three dimensions could be identified. Thus, the current BMI literature

May 13, 2021 80/101

shows an affinity to organisational, environmental, and societal dimensions. (Kraus et al., 2020,

pp. 174–175)

Other BMI frameworks were analysed in chapter 4.2 to depict how some researchers address

BMI. Therein, the approaches of Frankenberger et al. (2013, pp. 249–273), Geissdoerfer et al.

(2017, pp. 262–269), Wirtz & Daiser (2017, pp. 14–34), and Ramdani et al. (2019, pp. 89–108)

are shown.

The 4I-framework from Frankenberger et al. (2013, pp. 249–273) endeavours to address the lack

of comprehensive frameworks that support managers in their efforts to innovate their firms'

business models. In their report, they highlight the challenges during a BMI process for managers.

They believe that a business can restructure its business model innovation process through

initiation, ideation, integration, and implementation. Like Gassman's BM triangle (2013, p. 5), the

4I-framework is based on the assumption that a business model includes the four dimensions of

who, what, how, and why (Frankenberger et al., 2013, p. 254).

The 4I-framework thus runs through the four phases that seek to align a new business model with

companies' internal and external needs. The first three phases of initiation, ideation, and

integration create the new business model, which can be realised in the fourth phase of

implementation. The alignment of the company’s ecosystem analysis in the initiation phase with

the identification of new BM approaches in the ideation phase seeks to enable an external fit of

the BMI. An internal fit can be achieved by aligning the ideation and integration phases.

The BMI framework of Frankenberger et al. (2013, pp. 249–273) thus combines iterative feedback

and adaptation loops with a seemingly linear structure in four phases. The 4I-framework attempts

to structure a BMI for managers to implement a new business model successfully and long-term.

(Frankenberger et al., 2013, pp. 249–273)

The BMI framework from Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 262–269), also known as the Cambridge

BMI process, pays particular attention to implementation to help a firm plan and manage a

business model innovation. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p. 263)

Ergo, the Cambridge BMI process depicts an iterative approach that begins with the concept

design phase and evolves to detail design, then the implementation phase. It concludes that

companies should accomplish these steps in advance to determine if the firm needs further

innovation in its applied BM. Hence, eight processes describe activities and challenges in the three

phases to guide BM architects in a BMI process. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, pp. 262–269)

The BMI framework of Wirtz and Daiser (2017, pp. 14–34) links external with central BMI by

information processing and BMI tools. Thus, it includes external influences on a company's BM

within its framework and emphasises the role of BMI intensity on managing a BMI process.

May 13, 2021 81/101

Furthermore, the outcome of a BMI might result in sustainable and improved competitiveness,

increased value creation and capture. (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, pp. 24–26)

The BMI framework of Ramdani et al. (2019, pp. 89–108) is depicted as a circle that groups the

16 components of the BMI in four quarters: “value proposition, operational value, human capital,

and financial value” (Ramdani et al., 2019, p. 104). It recognises that a BMI has the possibility to

maintain a company’s success by continuously changing the BM. The dimension of the changes

need not be specific in size; however, the impact of those changes on the organisation's overall

structure must be considered before they are implemented. Consequently, any changes to one or

more of the possible 16 components will affect a firm's BM and may encourage BMI. (Ramdani et

al., 2019, pp. 100–101)

To conclude, present-day literature generally sees BMI as a tool to address the multiple challenges

for a company in today's dynamic environment. This conclusion is supported by the works of Foss

& Saebi (2017, pp. 200–227), Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp. 262–269), Kraus et al. (2020,

pp. 157–186).

It can be said that the BMI process aims to assist methods of structured performance. When

properly executed, these methods can form the foundation critical to ensuring a company's

success and longevity. This concept is also well researched and documented by Frankenberger

et al. (2013, pp. 249–273), Ramdani et al. (2019, pp. 100–101), Wirtz & Daiser (2017, pp. 24–26),

to name a few.

After this master thesis gave insights into the research field of business model innovation in this

chapter, in the previous sections in business model research and before in literature regarding a

VUCA environment, the following chapter will discuss its findings.

May 13, 2021 82/101

5. Discussion and proposed business model framework in a VUCA environment

This chapter discusses, based on the literature analysis of this thesis, the different BM elements

(broken down in Table 1), trends of a VUCA environment in terms of sustainability and digital

maturity, to finally develop a BM framework for a VUCA environment. The design of the BM

framework model is based on three hypotheses created by the author for this thesis.

This thesis looked at the different approaches of describing a BM and finally analysed the BM

frameworks studied in chapter 3.2 for similarities. The nine analysed frameworks, though different,

had at the meta-level some similar building blocks. The following table highlights the identified

building blocks of BM frameworks as interpreted by the author.

Researcher(s)

Similar to

BM element

of value

proposition

Similar to BM

element of

value chain

Similar to BM

element of

value capture

Further BM elements

Abdelkafi et al.,

2013

value proposition

value delivery & value creation

value capture value communication

Demil & Lecocq,

2010

value proposition

resources & competences

organisational structure

Gassmann et al.,

2013

value proposition

value chain revenue model target customer segment

Johnson & Lafley,

2010

(customer) value

proposition

key resources & key processes

profit formula

Lindgardt et al.,

2009

value proposition (as

a category)

value chain cost model & revenue model

organization, target segment, product or

service offering

Osterwalder &

Pigneur, 2010

value proposition

cost structure & revenue streams

customer segments, customer relationships, channels, key activities,

key ressources, key partners

Teece, 2010 value capture mechanisms &

revenue streams

product/service, market segments

Wirtz et al., 2016 value creation (as a category)

revenue model & financial

model

strategy model, resources model, network model,

customer model, market offer model,

manufacturing model, procurement model

Yunus et al., 2010 value proposition

value constellation

profit equation

Table 1: Identified BM elements (Authors)

May 13, 2021 83/101

The BM framework building blocks identified in chapter 3.2.10 often serve as core elements for

BM frameworks. Thus, value proposition, value capture, and value chain are considered the first

BM elements of a BM. This is expressed by the first hypothesis of this thesis’s author.

H1: A BM framework should include elements similar or equivalent to value

proposition, value capture, and value chain.

Due to the frequent use of the value proposition building block, it stands out in particular. The

value proposition is defined as a central element in most of the literature researched frameworks

(Abdelkafi et al., 2013, pp. 1340003–1340012; Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 234; Gassmann et al.,

2013, pp. 5–6; Johnson & Lafley, 2010, pp. 24–31; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pp. 22–25;

Yunus et al., 2010, p. 312). Consequently, the value proposition is included as a central element

in the modular set for the author's proposed BM model.

Value capture is another element in this set of building blocks. Although this element is only similar

in the frameworks of Abdelkafi et al. and Teece (Abdelkafi et al., 2013, p. 1340003-13; Teece,

2010, pp. 172–194), it appears analogously in other frameworks as an essential building block

(Gassmann et al., 2013, p. 6; Johnson & Lafley, 2010, pp. 31–39; Lindgardt et al., 2009, pp. 1–7;

Yunus et al., 2010, pp. 312–313). Considering the arguments of Evans et al. (2017, pp. 597–608),

the BM element of value capture with the triple bottom line has grown pursuant to the current

zeitgeist. Thus, value capture in the proposed model should encompass sustainability by breaking

it down into environmental, social, and economic profits, as stated in hypothesis two.

H2: In a VUCA environment, the triple bottom line should be incorporated in the

value capture element of a business model to build an economically, socially, and

environmentally sustainable business.

Through sustainable value capture, the proposed BM hopes to meet the challenge of a VUCA

environment concerning sustainability, as explained in chapter 2.2.

Additionally, the value chain is included in the modular set for the proposed BM due to its

apparently high importance in the BM frameworks under consideration. As explained in Chapter

3.2.10, the literal designation and the level of detail of this element vary. If the level of detail

increases, then some frameworks divide this building block into value creation and value delivery.

(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pp. 1–44; Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 36–54). Thus, the proposed BM

incorporates value creation and value delivery as a breakdown of the value chain element.

The modular set for the proposed BM now includes the elements value proposition, value capture,

and value chain. The element value capture is subdivided into environmental, social, and

economic profits. The value chain element consists of value creation and value delivery.

May 13, 2021 84/101

These selected BM elements can also be seen in other BMI frameworks. Since a VUCA

environment demands fast change and adaptations, the findings of chapter four suggest that a

BM in a VUCA environment should be open for innovation (Bashir et al., 2020, pp. 467–468). The

core components of value proposition, value chain, and value capture were also detected in BMI

frameworks (Ramdani et al., 2019, p. 94; Wirtz & Daiser, 2017, p. 25). Hence, the similarity of the

elements of a BM framework with BMI frameworks appears to make it easier for companies to

adopt a BMI if necessary.

Next, based on the findings in literature researched for this thesis, its author concludes that the

following additional factors from chapter two should be added to the core elements of the proposed

BM. This could prove beneficial for the creation of a BM in a VUCA environment. Thus, he

proposes hypothesis three for a BM framework in a VUCA environment.

H3: A BM should conform to the volatile influences of a VUCA environment by

meeting the criteria of agility, digital maturity, and cohesive vision in the BM element

definitions.

Hence, the digital maturity factor should support the elements in the proposed business model.

As previously explained, digital maturity can optimise a business through data analysis. Thus, the

exchange of data with suppliers, carriers and other business partners enables certain agility with

which the company can react to the challenges and opportunities of the VUCA environment.

(Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–2)

The critical success factors of agility, understanding, clarity, and vision can also help a firm keep

pace with change in a VUCA environment (Saleh & Watson, 2017, pp. 705–724). In the proposed

BM, these success factors tend to represent criteria for determining the BM elements.

The criterion of vision can bring into question the compatibility of the BM element with the

company's vision. However, it verifies the compatibility of the actual goal of the company with the

design of the BM element.

The agility criterion examines the extent to which changes in the design of the BM element would

be possible. It allows a company to react to the opportunities and challenges of a VUCA

environment. In addition, the BM elements should be defined clearly and understandably to reduce

complexity and uncertainty of BM spectators.

Thence, for creating a BM in a VUCA environment, the proposed framework looks at each BM

element to see whether its formulation meets the criteria described.

• Coherent with vision?

• Digital mature?

• Agile?

May 13, 2021 85/101

Finally, the author of this thesis developed a BM framework visualising the discussed findings of

this thesis. It was constructed for a VUCA environment, depicted as followed.

Figure 24: proposed BM framework in a VUCA environment (own presentation, 2021)

The person who wants to use the proposed BM to represent his or her own business is therefore

called the BM creator. In other words, the user of the BM framework is considered the BM creator.

The order of value proposition, value chain, and value capture is at the arbitrary choice of the BM

creator. Therefore, the disclosure of the order is left with a similar intention as in Ramdani et al.

(2019, pp. 89–108) to adopt a business model based on its business environment flexibly.

However, in the author's view, the BM element that is defined first is what the creator sees as most

important because the previously defined one mostly influences the definitions of the other BM

elements.

The proposed BM framework asks the BM creator about the value proposition. Thus, one has to

define what is created by the company that could be of transactional value to potential clients.

Then, the value proposition element asks about the target consumer segment(s). For enhancing

the value propositions compatibility with a VUCA environment, the fitting criteria must match with

its previously defined description. Hence, the criteria ask whether the BM element is defined

coherent with the firm’s vision, whether it is digital mature, plus whether it is adaptable for changes

in the environment to allow an agile reaction.

May 13, 2021 86/101

Furthermore, the value chain element needs to be described. Hence, the BM creator needs to

define how the firm seeks to create value and how it intends to deliver its clients. Thus, the value

creation element describes with what resources, suppliers, and processes the firm aims to create

value. The element of value delivery defines how the selected customer segment(s) can be

addressed. Consequently, value delivery deals with marketing and distribution.

Also, the fitting criteria must match with its previously defined description for enhancing the value

chains compatibility with a VUCA environment. Therefore, the value chain should be digital mature

to reduce risks in a VUCA environment. The BM creator should think about where the value chain

processes could benefit from digitalisation. Thus, e-commerce, digital marketing, data analytics,

and other options could be considered when building a digital mature value chain.

What is more, the value capture element must be defined. This element describes what and how

profit could be captured. Hence, the BM creator defines what kind of profit they seek to achieve

by running this BM, despite economic profit or environmental and social profits. Therefore, cost

and revenue structure need to be designed concerning these value capture intentions.

Furthermore, also the value capture description must match the criteria for enhancing the value

capture compatibility within a VUCA environment.

In summary, a BM framework was created that maps the similarities of BM framework elements

to those of BMI frameworks in the three main elements of value proposition, value chain, and value

capture. The described main elements of the proposed BM framework built on the literature review

in this master thesis (see Table 1).

As several BMI frameworks contain some of these elements, those elements are suitable to follow

adaptations. Especially in a VUCA environment, it appears to be crucial to keep pace with

environmental developments in order to take advantage of opportunities (Evans & Bahrami, 2020,

p. 207). With the hypotheses visualised in the proposed BM framework, this master thesis might

give aspiration for further research in the field of BM related to the VUCA environment.

May 13, 2021 87/101

6. Conclusion

The described approaches for business models, business model innovation, and their relationship

within a VUCA environment were discussed in this thesis. In the following lines, feasible answers

to the proposed research questions briefly summarise the finding within this work.

Research question i:

What are the most studied aspects of research on business models to date?

According to the conducted literature review in this thesis, it would appear that scholars tend to

describe the concept of a BM by giving a proposed definition and determining the fundamental

components of a BM. Once researchers have coined a definition of BM and determined its

constituents, it is not uncommon that they create a model that graphically depicts their

proclamation of research. (Belussi et al., 2019, pp. 1–19; Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 654–679)

Since the research field has no single definition of the term business model, various approaches

have been tested in an effort to define the term (Li et al., 2017, pp. 869–887; Massa et al., 2017,

pp. 73–104; Wirtz et al., 2016, pp. 36–54). Hence, a multitude of researchers has made attempts

to clarify how a BM is to be defined and how to conceptualise that definition. Therefore one can

find specific definitions of a BM in the literature to see it as a model (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010,

pp. 156–171; Osterwalder et al., 2005, pp. 1–25) as an activity driven system (Belussi et al., 2019,

p. 5; Zott & Amit, 2010, pp. 216–226), and as a network-oriented conceptualisation (Hajiheydari

et al., 2019, pp. 654–679; Jocevski et al., 2020, pp. 1051–1067; Klimanov & Tretyak, 2019,

pp. 117–136).

However, one of the most studied aspects of business models focuses on electronic business

models and involves the fields of IT, e-business and online commerce. Whereas innovation,

strategy and entrepreneurship can be classified in the BM aspect of business model innovation.

Another and a rather new aspect of BM research might be sustainability. It covers areas from

sustainable economic development to governance in finance, operations management and supply

chains. (Hajiheydari et al., 2019, pp. 672–673; Hong & Jinho, 2017, pp. 9407–9411; Li et al., 2017,

pp. 869–887)

Research question ii:

Which approaches in the literature for the design of a business model are similar?

Within chapter three, it was concluded that a helpful proposed definition was that of Teece (2010,

pp. 172–194) due to its frequent citation (Belussi et al., 2019, p. 4). Therefore, a business model

can help one to understand a business, how value is created, communicated to customers and

how value is captured in the process (Teece, 2010, pp. 172–194). Therefore, it seems vital for a

May 13, 2021 88/101

business model to structurally establish the balance between service provision, service delivery,

and value creation (Teece & Linden, 2017, pp. 1–14).

Seemingly, most business model approaches agree that a business model specifies how value is

created, how it leads to profits and which stakeholders are involved (Hajiheydari et al., 2019,

pp. 672–673).

After analysing the business model frameworks by Abdelkafi et al., Demil & Lecoq, Gassman et

al., Johnson, Lindgardt et al., Osterwalder & Pigneur, Teece, Wirtz et al., and Yunus et al., three

commonalities in business model approaches of the frameworks could be identified. Thus, a

business model representation is most likely to contain elements of a value proposition, value

capture and value chain. This idea is also supported by Belussi et al. (2019, p. 1) and Zott et al.

(2011, p. 1028).

Research question iii:

What findings are relevant regarding business models in a VUCA environment?

A VUCA environment seems to demand that a firm adjusts one's business to market influences

and trends for coping with the challenges of a VUCA environment's turbulent and unstable nature

(Millar et al., 2018, pp. 5–14). Seemingly, the VUCA environment can stress a company's current

business model and might require a company to examine its business model, which might lead to

adoptions or even a business model innovation, thereby assisting in stabilising the company and

maintaining its continuity. (Bharadwaj et al., 2013, pp. 471–482; Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–

3; Teece, 2018, pp. 40–49; Teece & Linden, 2017, pp. 1–14).

Evidently, a VUCA environment can also offer a wide variety of possibilities to a business if the

challenges are seen as opportunities (Saleh & Watson, 2017, pp. 705–724). For example, the

adoption of new technologies (Caputo et al., 2021, pp. 489–490) or sustainability (Abdelkafi

& Täuscher, 2016, pp. 74–96). Both can reveal a flutter of untapped opportunities.

Therefore, the identified critical factors of agility, understanding, clarity, and vision can help a

company prosper by seizing on the opportunities found in a VUCA environment (Saleh & Watson,

2017, pp. 705–724).

Furthermore, the digital maturity of a BM in today's markets can help a company deal with a VUCA

environment's technological requirements (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020, pp. 1–2). Whereas society’s

demands for sustainability might be better adapted in a BM, thereby meeting the triple bottom line

and balancing economic, social, and environmental metrics (Schaltegger et al., 2012, pp. 95–119;

Schöggl et al., 2017, pp. 1602–1617).

Additionally, the proposed BM framework in chapter 5 might assist firms in a VUCA environment.

With it, the author of this thesis suggests that a BM’s elements should be defined coherent with

May 13, 2021 89/101

the firm’s vision, whether it is digital mature, plus whether it is adaptable for changes in the

environment to allow an agile reaction.

All in all, one could say that BM literature offers numerous approaches that can help a company

adapt its BM to change and challenges. As concluded in this thesis, a company in a VUCA

environment can size opportunities from challenges and become more flexible to external threats.

As a result, one could suggest that a firm with a VUCA environment coherent BM can react

successfully and quickly to changes and crises.

6.1. Limitations

This master thesis was written as a theoretical-based paper by choice; therefore, it is bounded by

the usual limitations of desk research. The literature review was limited by the subjective definition

of search terms and the restriction to the databases Scopus, Scinapse, ScienceDirect, Web of

Science and Wiley Online Library. In addition, only sources to which the Johannes Kepler

University Library provides full-text access were included in the literature review.

Despite a large number of references from established literary sources, this work is limited by the

author's subjectivity, which is due to the methodology of a manual screening process. Thus, the

selection of described VUCA trends as well as critical success factors may therefore appear

incomplete. The limitation to the nine subjective selected frameworks may distort the identified

commonalities of BM framework elements and question the accuracy of the proposed BM

framework. Therefore, it can be recommended that more sources for data collection and objective

selection criteria for the screening process might be considered for further research.

In summary, the findings developed in this thesis face several limitations, especially in terms of

completeness. Nonetheless, this work provides an overview of existing BM approaches,

developed three hypotheses, and proposed a BM based on similarities in popular scholars’

findings. It also encourages the reader to partake in further discussion on the relationship between

BM and VUCA environments.

May 13, 2021 90/101

7. 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(01), 1340003-1 - 1340003-41.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919613400033

Abdelkafi, N. (2012). Open Business Models for the Greater Good – A Case Study from the

Higher Education Context. Die Unternehmung, 66(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.5771/0042-

059x-2012-3-299

Abdelkafi, N., & Täuscher, K. (2016). Business Models for Sustainability from a System

Dynamics Perspective. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 74–96.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615592930

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-

7), 493–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187

Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business Models as Models. Long Range Planning,

43(2-3), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.005

Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N., & Jaskiewicz, T. (2017). Bridging sustainable

business model innovation and user-driven innovation: A process for sustainable value

proposition design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 175–186.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.081

Baran, B. E., & Woznyj, H. M. (2020). Managing VUCA: The human dynamics of agility.

Organizational Dynamics, 100787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100787

Bashir, M., Naqshbandi, M. M., & Farooq, R. (2020). Business model innovation: a systematic

review and future research directions. International Journal of Innovation Science, 12(4),

457–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-06-2020-0081

Belussi, F., Orsi, L., & Savarese, M. (2019). Mapping Business Model Research: A Document

Bibliometric Analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(3), 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2019.101048

Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to

performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311–317.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.01.001

Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital Business

Strategy: Toward a Next Generation of Insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.

https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37:2.3

Bieger, T., Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. zu, & Krys, C. (2011). Innovative Geschäftsmodelle. Berlin,

Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18068-2

Bilan, Y., Pimonenko, T., & Starchenko, L. (2020). Sustainable business models for innovation

and success: Bibliometric analysis. E3S Web of Conferences, 159, 4037.

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015904037

Björkdahl, J., & Holmén, M. (2013). Business model innovation–the challenges ahead.

International Journal of Product Development, 18(3), 213–225. Retrieved from

https://www.inderscience.com/info/dl.php?filename=2013/ijpd-3536.pdf

Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-

the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9–19.


May 13, 2021 91/101

Buckley, P. J. (2020). The theory and empirics of the structural reshaping of globalization.

Journal of International Business Studies, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00355-5

Cao, G., Duan, Y., & El Banna, A. (2019). A dynamic capability view of marketing analytics:

Evidence from UK firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 72–83.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.08.002

Caputo, A., Pizzi, S., Pellegrini, M. M., & Dabić, M. (2021). Digitalization and business models:

Where are we going? A science map of the field. Journal of Business Research, 123, 489–

501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.053

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct.

Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. Retrieved from

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000765039903800303

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010a). From Strategy to Business Models and onto

Tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.01.004

Casadesus‐Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010b). Competitiveness: business model

reconfiguration for innovation and internationalization. Management Research: Journal of the

Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 8(2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/1536-

541011066470

Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore.

Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570710833714

Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range

Planning, 43(2-3), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010

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. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.3.529

Ciulli, F., & Kolk, A. (2019). Incumbents and business model innovation for the sharing economy:

Implications for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 995–1010.


Clauss, T. (2016). Measuring business model innovation: Conceptualization, scale development,

and proof of performance. R&D Management, 47(3), 385–403.

https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12186

Cuadros, A., & Ordóñez, J. (2020). Globalisation: Recent traits and challenges. The World

Economy, 43(3), 530–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12883

Dellyana, D., Simatupang, T. M., & Dhewanto, W. (2018). Managing the Actor’s Network,

Business Model and Business Model Innovation to Increase Value of the Multidimensional

Value Networks. International Journal of Business and Society, 19(1), 209–218. Retrieved

from http://www.ijbs.unimas.my/images/repository/pdf/vol19-no1-paper14.pdf

Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency.

Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.004

Dentchev, N., Baumgartner, R., Dieleman, H., Jóhannsdóttir, L., Jonker, J., Nyberg, T., . . . van

Hoof, B. (2016). Embracing the variety of sustainable business models: social

entrepreneurship, corporate intrapreneurship, creativity, innovation, and other approaches to

sustainability challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 1–4.


May 13, 2021 92/101

Downing, S. (2005). The Social Construction of Entrepreneurship: Narrative and Dramatic

Processes in the Coproduction of Organizations and Identities. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 29(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00076.x

Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding Strategic Agility. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3),

370–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006

Drew, S. A. (2006). Building technology foresight: using scenarios to embrace innovation.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(3), 241–257.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060610678121

Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2000). Mapping distinctive competencies: A systemic approach.

Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(1), 12–20.

https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600909

Eduardsen, J., & Marinova, S. (2020). Internationalisation and risk: Literature review, integrative

framework and research agenda. International Business Review, 29(3), 1–35.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101688

Ehret, M., Kashyap, V., & Wirtz, J. (2013). Business models: Impact on business markets and

opportunities for marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 649–655.


El hilali, W., & El manouar, A. (2019, April). Unlocking digitalization’s possibilities: reaching

sustainability by adopting the right digital strategy. In 2019 International Conference on

Wireless Technologies, Embedded and Intelligent Systems (WITS) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.

https://doi.org/10.1109/WITS.2019.8723793

El-Sakty, K. G., & Osama, E. (2015). IMPROVING SUPPLY CHAIN PERFORMANCE USING

‘VUCA’ DRIVERS. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 9(1).

Emas, R. (2015). The concept of sustainable development: definition and defining principles.

Brief for GSDR, 2015. Retrieved from

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5839gsdr%202015_sd_concept_def

initon_rev.pdf [dl: 24.02.2021].

Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A., & Barlow, C. Y.

(2017). Business Model Innovation for Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for

Creation of Sustainable Business Models. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5),

597–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939

Evans, S., & Bahrami, H. (2020). Super-Flexibility in Practice: Insights from a Crisis. Global

Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 21(3), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-

020-00246-6

EY (2020, February 27). Wie sich das Klima im Mittelstand wandelt. EY. Retrieved from

https://www.ey.com/de_at/unlocking-ambitions-of-private-businesses-and-their-owners/wie-

sich-das-klima-im-mittelstand-wandelt [dl: 28.01.2021].

Fakhar Manesh, M., Pellegrini, M. M., Marzi, G., & Dabic, M. (2021). Knowledge Management in

the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Mapping the Literature and Scoping Future Avenues. IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(1), 289–300.

https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2019.2963489

Fenton, A., Fletcher, G., & Griffiths, M. (Eds.) (2019). Strategic Digital Transformation: a results-

driven approach: Routledge. Retrieved from

https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=pBTADwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT13&ots=n6oK

May 13, 2021 93/101

QAhlWx&sig=YuaEL4xA5E6_cm1TvYOsEarKXCk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false [dl:

25.12.2020].

Fletcher, G., & Griffiths, M. (2020). Digital transformation during a lockdown. International

Journal of Information Management, 55, 102185.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102185

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation.

Journal of Management, 43(1), 200–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316675927

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2018). Business models and business model innovation: Between

wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 9–21.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.006

França, C. L., Broman, G., Robèrt, K.‐H., Basile, G., & Trygg, L. (2017). An approach to

business model innovation and design for strategic sustainable development. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 140, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.124

Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2008). Venture Capitalists’ Evaluations of

Start-Up Teams: Trade-Offs, Knock-Out Criteria, and the Impact of VC Experience.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 459–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6520.2008.00236.x

Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., Csik, M., & Gassmann, O. (2013). The 4I-framework of business

model innovation: A structured view on process phases and challenges. International Journal

of Product Development, 18(3), 249–273.

Futterer, F., Schmidt, J., & Heidenreich, S. (2018). Effectuation or causation as the key to

corporate venture success? Investigating effects of entrepreneurial behaviors on business

model innovation and venture performance. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 64–81.


Gainet, C. (2010). Exploring the Impact of Legal Systems and Financial Structure on Corporate

Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(S2), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-

011-0854-5

Gandhi, S., Thota, B., Kuchembuck, R., & Swartz, J. (2018). Demystifying data monetization.

MIT Sloan Management Review, 1–9.

Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Sauer, R. (2017). A primer on theoretically exploring the

field of business model innovation. The European Business Review.

Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2013). Geschäftsmodelle entwickeln: 55

innovative Konzepte mit dem St. Galler Business Model Navigator. München: Hanser.

Retrieved from http://www.hanser-

elibrary.com/action/showBook?doi=10.3139/9783446437654

https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446437654 [dl: 04.02.2021].

Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2014). The business model navigator: 55 models

that will revolutionise your business. Harlow, England, London, New York, Boston, San

Francisco: Pearson. Retrieved from

https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/224941/7/Business%20Model%20Navigator%20working%20

paper.pdf [dl: 04.02.2021].

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., & Evans, S. (2017). The Cambridge Business Model Innovation

Process. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.033

May 13, 2021 94/101

George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The Business Model in Practice and its Implications for

Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83–111.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00424.x

Ghanbari, A., Laya, A., Alonso-Zarate, J., & Markendahl, J. (2017). Business Development in the

Internet of Things: A Matter of Vertical Cooperation. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(2),

135–141. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2017.1600596cm

Ghemawat, P. (2003). Semiglobalization and international business strategy. Journal of

International Business Studies, 34(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400013

Gordijn, J., & Akkermans, H. (2001). Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE

Intelligent Systems, 16(4), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.941353

Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H., & van Vliet, H. (2000). What’s in an Electronic Business Model? In

(pp. 257–273). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39967-4_19

Guo, H., Tang, J., Su, Z., & Katz, J. A. (2017). Opportunity recognition and SME performance:

The mediating effect of business model innovation. R&D Management, 47(3), 431–442.


Hajiheydari, N., Talafidaryani, M., Khabiri, S., & Salehi, M. (2019). Business model analytics:

technically review business model research domain. Foresight, 21(6), 654–679.

https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-01-2019-0002

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London:

Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/nayan_kadam/post/how-can-

business-organizations-relate-the-organizations-strategy-to-its-resources-and-

environment/attachment/5c6b5993cfe4a781a58122b4/as%3a727828123377679%40155053

9155678/download/h%c3%a5kansson%2c+h%c3%a5kan+and+and+i.+snehota%2c+eds.+%

281997%29.pdf [dl: 24.01.2021].

Harmon, R. R., & Castro-Leon, E. G. (2018). Service innovation in the cloud: Implications for

strategy development. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and

Technology (PICMET), 1–15. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.23919/PICMET.2018.8482002

Hartl, B., Sabitzer, T., Hofmann, E., & Penz, E. (2018). “Sustainability is a nice bonus” the role of

sustainability in carsharing from a consumer perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202,

88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.138

Hinterhuber, A., & Nilles, M. (2021). DIGITAL transformation, the HOLY GRAIL and the

disruption of business models. Business Horizons. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.042

Hong, R. J., & Jinho, C. (2017). Knowledge Structure by Keyword Network Analysis: Focusing

on Business Model Research Topics. Advanced Science Letters, 23(10), 9407–9411.

https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.9713

Inigo, E. A., Albareda, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability:

exploring evolutionary and radical approaches through dynamic capabilities. Industry and

Innovation, 24(5), 515–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1310034

Jari, K. O., & Lauraéus, T. (2019). Analysis of 2017 Gartner’s Three Megatrends to Thrive the

Disruptive Business, Technology Trends 2008-2016, Dynamic Capabilities of VUCA and

Foresight Leadership Tools. Advances in Technology Innovation, 4(2), 105–115. Retrieved

from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228834685.pdf [dl: 26.12.2020].

May 13, 2021 95/101

Jocevski, M., Arvidsson, N., & Ghezzi, A. (2020). Interconnected business models: present

debates and future agenda. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(6), 1051–1067.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2019-0292

Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy (8. ed.). Harlow:

FT Prentice Hall.

Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model.

Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 57–68. Retrieved from

http://syv.pt/login/upload/userfiles/file/reinventing%20your%20business%20model%20hbr.pdf

#page=57 [dl: 25.01.2021].

Johnson, M. W., & Lafley, A. G. (2010). Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for

Growth and Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gbv/detail.action?docID=5181935 [dl: 08.02.2021].

Johnston, M. P. (2014). Secondary Data Analysis: A Method of which the Time Has Come.

Qualitative & Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3, 619–626. Retrieved from http://www.qqml-

journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/169

Kaivo-oja, J. R. L., & Lauraeus, I. T. (2018). The VUCA approach as a solution concept to

corporate foresight challenges and global technological disruption. Foresight, 20(1), 27–49.

https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-06-2017-0022

Karlsson, N. P., Halila, F., Mattsson, M., & Hoveskog, M. (2017). Success factors for agricultural

biogas production in Sweden: A case study of business model innovation. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 142, 2925–2934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.178

Klimanov, D., & Tretyak, O. (2019). Linking business model research and marketing: New

network-based approach to business model analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial

Marketing, 34(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-2017-0330

Komulainen, H., Mainela, T., Sinisalo, J., Tahtinen, J., & Ulkuniemi, P. (2006). Business model

scenarios in mobile advertising. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising,

3(3), 254–270. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2006.010739

KPMG (2017, October 12). Corporate Responsibility Reporting Survey 2017. KPMG. Retrieved

from https://home.kpmg/au/en/home/insights/2017/10/corporate-responsibility-reporting-

survey-2017.html [dl: 24.02.2021].

Kraaijenbrink, J. (2016). SAVING STRATEGY: OF BABIES, BATHWATER, AND BUSINESS

MODELS. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Kraaijenbrink/publication/309674251_Saving_Str

ategy_Of_Babies_Bathwater_and_Business_Models/links/581cb0bd08ae12715af20449.pdf

[dl: 04.12.2020].

Kraus, S., Filser, M., Puumalainen, K., Kailer, N., & Thurner, S. (2020). Business Model

Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Innovation and

Technology Management, 17(06), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877020500431

Krauthammer, C. (1990). The Unipolar Moment. Foreign Affairs, 70(1), 23.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20044692

Kuhlman, T., & Farrington, J. (2010). What is Sustainability? Sustainability, 2(11), 3436–3448.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436

Lawrence, K. (2013). Developing leaders in a VUCA environment. UNC Executive Development,

1–15. Retrieved from http://laszlo-

May 13, 2021 96/101

zsolnai.net/sites/default/files/3/documents/Reading%203%20Developing-leaders-in-a-vuca-

environment.pdf [dl: 27.12.2020].

Li, X., Qiao, H., & Wang, S. (2017). Exploring evolution and emerging trends in business model

study: a co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 111(2), 869–887.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2266-5

Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G., & & Deimler, M. S. (2009). Business Model Innovation:

When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game. The Boston Consulting Group, 1–9.

Retrieved from https://image-

src.bcg.com/Images/BCG_Business_Model_Innovation_Dec_09_tcm81-121706.pdf [dl:

20.04.2021].

Linthorst, J., & Waal, A. de (2020). Megatrends and Disruptors and Their Postulated Impact on

Organizations. Sustainability, 12(20), 8740. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208740

Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2010). Towards a Conceptual Framework of ‘Business Models for

Sustainability’. Proceedings of ERSCP-EMSU Conference 2010 – Knowledge Collaboration

and Learning for Sustainable Innovation., 1–28. Retrieved from DOI:

10.13140/RG.2.1.2565.0324

Lüdeke‐Freund, F. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and business models:

Integrative framework and propositions for future research. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 29(2), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2396

Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–93.

Mahadevan, B. (2004). A framework for business model innovation. IMRC Conference,

Bangalore, 1–6. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/B-

Mahadevan/publication/228466168_A_Framework_for_Business_Model_Innovation/links/0de

ec53032ccca8cbe000000/A-Framework-for-Business-Model-Innovation.pdf [dl: 30.03.2021].

Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research.

Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73–104. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0072

Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital Transformation Strategies. Business &

Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-

5

McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T. H., Patil, D. J., & Barton, D. (2012). Big data: the

management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60–68. Retrieved from

https://wiki.uib.no/info310/images/4/4c/mcafeebrynjolfsson2012-bigdata-

themanagementrevolution-hbr.pdf [dl: 23.03.2021].

Menkovа, K., & Zozul‘ov, O. (2019). APPROACHES TO FORMING ENTERPRISES’

BUSINESS-MODELS. Marketing and Digital Technologies, 3(4), 32–39.

https://doi.org/10.15276/mdt.3.4.2019.3

Millar, C. C. J. M., Groth, O., & Mahon, J. F. (2018). Management Innovation in a VUCA World:

Challenges and Recommendations. California Management Review, 61(1), 5–14.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618805111

Mitchell, D., & Coles, C. (2003). The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing business

model innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), 15–21.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660310504924

Mongelli, L., & Rullani, F. (2017). Inequality and marginalisation: Social innovation, social

entrepreneurship and business model innovation. Industry and Innovation, 24(5), 446–467.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1295365

May 13, 2021 97/101

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2021). Humanizing strategy. Long Range Planning, 102070.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102070

Noonan, M., Richter, G., Durham, L., & Pierce, E. (2017). Learning and the digital workplace:

What? So what? Now what? Strategic HR Review, 16(6), 267–273.

https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-09-2017-0061

Olofsson, S., Hoveskog, M., & Halila, F. (2018). Journey and impact of business model

innovation: The case of a social enterprise in the Scandinavian electricity retail market.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.081

Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology a proposition in a design science

approach: Doctoral dissertation, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des hautes études

commerciales, 1–172. Retrieved from

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30373644/thebusiness-model-

ontology.pdf?1356515806=&response-content-

disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Business_Model_Ontology_a_propositio.pdf&Expir

es=1609269011&Signature=FCDFwwDVUJWUySVvNqY9SujJ7KEUbn2Bqa0g8hHAu~a-

P5tauVqce01KYb1Tna2-eJ5gOH4NAkA0n2i6JqaThRcx6A0G8zoVF4-

F9ax9KnfiNVUYgPS0fnMuw4J9gamk5hSb2Rpi52QtVPYFfTg34HLuVNqVT06JQYRj2J7YJo

SYKq-r9HMYpgj3yQbrVxVinEwBa6I0yCe1fZLAcZTtBTjk70pXBGKoKTfikckliRzyoV8cDMBj-

dgSqrvovofhI8D412seefWFgR0gy4MiwcUGjBpaZhOeXdZhuA39WVVLtUzaSJ4cHRFFEZYP

3E9WgfT~17nWY0fBu8FNFnzg0g__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA [dl:

29.12.2020].

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. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01601

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries,

game changers, and challengers: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from

https://books.google.at/books?hl=de&lr=&id=UzuTAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=Osterwa

lder+A,+Pigneur+Y+(2010)+Business+model+generation:+a+handbook+for+visionaries,+gam

e+changers,+and+challengers.+Wiley,+Hoboken,+NJ&ots=yYBVxiJc_v&sig=jLkzYRySn6aW

qV5fR6L0uDU8wOE#v=onepage&q&f=false [dl: 27.12.2020].

Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2013). Networked business model development for emerging

technology-based services. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 773–782.


Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2005). Technology innovation‐induced business model change: A

contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2), 167–183.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510589589

Perkmann, M., & Spicer, A. (2010). What are business models? Developing a theory of

performative representations. In N. Phillips, G. Sewell, & D. Griffiths (Eds.), Research in the

Sociology of Organizations. Technology and organization: Essays in honour of Joan

Woodward (Vol. 29, pp. 265–275). Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-

558X(2010)0000029020

Petricevic, O., & Teece, D. J. (2019). The structural reshaping of globalization: Implications for

strategic sectors, profiting from innovation, and the multinational enterprise. Journal of

International Business Studies, 50(9), 1487–1512. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00269-

x

May 13, 2021 98/101

Principles for Responsible Investment (2018). Annual Report, 1–92. Retrieved from

https://d8g8t13e9vf2o.cloudfront.net/Uploads/g/f/c/priannualreport_605237.pdf [dl:

24.02.2021].

Raghuramapatruni, R., & Shanmukha, r. (2017). The Straits of Success in a VUCA World. IOSR

Journal of Business and Management, 16–22. Retrieved from

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jbm/papers/Conf.17016-2017/Volume%201/3.%2016-22.pdf

Ramdani, B., Binsaif, A., & Boukrami, E. (2019). Business model innovation: a review and

research agenda. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 89–108.

https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-06-2019-0030

Rantala, T., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., & Havukainen, J. (2018). The effect of sustainability in the

adoption of technological, service, and business model innovations. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 172, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.009

Rask, M. (2014). Internationalization through business model innovation: In search of relevant

design dimensions and elements. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 146–161.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-014-0127-3

Ricciardi, F., Zardini, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2016). Organizational dynamism and adaptive

business model innovation: The triple paradox configuration. Journal of Business Research,

69(11), 5487–5493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.154

Ritter, T., & Lettl, C. (2018). The wider implications of business-model research. Long Range

Planning, 51(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.005

Ritter, T., & Pedersen, C. L. (2020a). Analyzing the impact of the coronavirus crisis on business

models. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 214–224.


Ritter, T., & Pedersen, C. L. (2020b). Digitization capability and the digitalization of business

models in business-to-business firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing

Management, 86, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.019

Sabatier, V., Craig-Kennard, A., & Mangematin, V. (2012). When technological discontinuities

and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs

industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5), 949–962.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.12.007

Saleh, A., & Watson, R. (2017). Business excellence in a volatile, uncertain, complex and

ambiguous environment (BEVUCA). The TQM Journal, 29(5), 705–724.

https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2016-0109

Santos, J., Spector, B., & Van der Heyden, L. (2009). Toward a theory of business model

innovation within incumbent firms. INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France, 1–53. Retrieved from

10.2139/ssrn.1362515

Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2012). Business cases for sustainability:

The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International Journal of

Innovation and Sustainable Development, 6(2), 95–119.

Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business MODEL INNOVATION: Towards AN INTEGRATED

FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(01), 1–

34. https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961340001X

Schöggl, J.‐P., Baumgartner, R. J., & Hofer, D. (2017). Improving sustainability performance in

early phases of product design: A checklist for sustainable product development tested in the

May 13, 2021 99/101

automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1602–1617.


Schön, O. (2012). Business model modularity–a way to gain strategic flexibility? Controlling &

Management, 56(2), 73–78.

Schoormann, T., Behrens, D., Kolek, E., & Knackstedt, R. (2016). Sustainability in business

models–a literature-review-based design-science-oriented research agenda. Research

Papers, 134, 1–18. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/134/ [dl: 24.02.2021].

Schuh, G., Patzwald, M., & Scholz, P. (2019, October). Methodology for the Design of

Technology Strategies in a Volatile Business Environment. In 2019 60th International

Scientific Conference on Information Technology and Management Science of Riga Technical

University (ITMS) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITMS47855.2019.8940751

Sharma, P., Leung, T. Y., Kingshott, R. P. J., Davcik, N. S., & Cardinali, S. (2020). Managing

uncertainty during a global pandemic: An international business perspective. Journal of

Business Research, 116, 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.026

Sorescu, A., Frambach, R. T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011). Innovations in

Retail Business Models. Journal of Retailing, 87, S3-S16.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.04.005

Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Matzler, K. (2016). Exploring the linkage between business

model (&) innovation and the strategy of the firm. R&D Management, 46(3), 403–413.


Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation - state of the

art and future challenges for the field. R&D Management, 44(3), 237–247.


Storbacka, K., Frow, P., Nenonen, S., & Payne, A. (2012). Designing Business Models for Value

Co-Creation. Special Issue–Toward a Better Understanding of the Role of Value in Markets

and Marketing, 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2012)0000009007

Syam, N., & Sharma, A. (2018). Waiting for a sales renaissance in the fourth industrial

revolution: Machine learning and artificial intelligence in sales research and practice.

Industrial Marketing Management, 69, 135–146.


Tankard, C. (2016). What the GDPR means for businesses. Network Security, 2016(6), 5–8.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-4858(16)30056-3

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning,

43(2-3), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003

Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1),

40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007

Teece, D. J., & Linden, G. (2017). Business models, value capture, and the digital enterprise.

Journal of Organization Design, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-017-0018-x

Thakur, K., Qiu, M., Gai, K., & Ali, M. L. (2015). An Investigation on Cyber Security Threats and

Security Models. In M. Qiu, T. Zhang, & S. Das (Eds.), Second IEEE International Conference

on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing/IEEE International Symposium of Smart Cloud : 3-5

November 2015, New York, New York : Proceedings. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

https://doi.org/10.1109/cscloud.2015.71

May 13, 2021 100/101

Thangavel, P., Pathak, P., & Chandra, B. (2021). Covid-19: Globalization—Will the Course

Change? Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 1-4.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262920984571

Thorén, K., & Vendel, M. (2019). Backcasting as a strategic management tool for meeting VUCA

challenges. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(2), 298–312.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-10-2017-0072

Timmers, P. (1998). Business Models for Electronic Markets. COMMERCENET, 1–12.

Turber, S., vom Brocke, J., Gassmann, O., & Fleisch, E. (2014). Designing Business Models in

the Era of Internet of Things. In (pp. 17–31). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

319-06701-8_2

Van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2012). Value creation by knowledge‐based

ecosystems: evidence from a field study. R&D Management, 42(2), 150–169. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00673.x

Van Waes, A., Farla, J., Frenken, K., Jong, J. P. de, & Raven, R. (2018). Business model

innovation and socio-technical transitions. A new prospective framework with an application

to bike sharing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1300–1312.


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(01), 1340004-1 – 1340004-25.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919613400045

Verma, S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in

the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal of Business

Research, 118, 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.057

Visnjic, I., Wiengarten, F., & Neely, A. (2016). Only the Brave: Product Innovation, Service

Business Model Innovation, and Their Impact on Performance. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 33(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12254

Voelpel †, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2004). The wheel of business model reinvention:

How to reshape your business model to leapfrog competitors. Journal of Change

Management, 4(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1469701042000212669

Wadin, J. L., Ahlgren, K., & Bengtsson, L. (2017). Joint business model innovation for

sustainable transformation of industries – A large multinational utility in alliance with a small

solar energy company. Journal of Cleaner Production, 160, 139–150.


Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2014). Designing Business Models for the

Internet of Things. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5–14.

Wirtz, B., & Daiser, P. (2017). Business model innovation: An integrative conceptual framework.

Ournal of Business Models, 5(1), 14–34.

Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business Models: Origin, Development

and Future Research Perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36–54.


Yang, M., Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., & Rana, P. (2017). Value uncaptured perspective for

sustainable business model innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1794–1804.


May 13, 2021 101/101

Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building Social Business Models:

Lessons from the Grameen Experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 308–325.


Zhang, H., Xiao, H., Wang, Y., Shareef, M. A., Akram, M. S., & Goraya, M. A. S. (2020). An

integration of antecedents and outcomes of business model innovation: A meta-analytic

review. Journal of Business Research, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.045

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial

Firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0232

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model:

Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.642

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long

Range Planning, 43(2-3), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future

Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311406265

BUSINESS MODELS IN A VUCA ENVIRONMENT

Documents

Transcript of BUSINESS MODELS IN A VUCA ENVIRONMENT