Strategy & Leadership Business model innovation: it's not just about technology anymore Henry Chesbrough, Article information: To cite this document: Henry Chesbrough, (2007) "Business model innovation: it's not just about technology anymore", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 35 Issue: 6,pp. 12-17, doi: 10.1108/10878570710833714 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878570710833714 Downloaded on: 31 March 2017, At: 02:11 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 37242 times since 2007* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2003),"Innovation in logistic services and the new business model: A conceptual framework", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 Iss 7 pp. 630-650 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030310499295 (2013),"Will business model innovation replace strategic analysis?", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 41 Iss 2 pp. 31-38 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878571311318222 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:332610 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore Henry Chesbrough T herewasatime,notsolongago,when‘‘innovation’’meantthatcompaniesneededto invest in extensive internal research laboratories, hire the most brilliant people they could find, and then wait patiently for novel products to emerge. Not anymore. The costs of creating, developing, and then shipping these novel products have risen tremendously (think of the cost of developing a new drug, or building a new semiconductor fabrication facility, or launching a new product into a crowded distribution channel). Worse, shortening product lives mean that even great technologies no longer can be relied upon to earn a satisfactory profit before they become commoditized. Today, innovation must include business models, rather than just technology and R&D. Business models matter. A better business model often will beat a better idea or technology. Consider Wal-Mart in retailing, Dell in PCs, or Southwest Airlines. But business models are not all the same. To innovate your business model, you must first understand what it is, and then examine what paths exist for you to improve upon it. What is a business model? Every company has a business model, whether they articulate it or not. At its heart, a business model performs two important functions: value creation and value capture. First, it defines a series of activities, from procuring raw materials to satisfying the final consumer, which will yield a new product or service in such a way that there is net value created throughout the various activities. This is crucial, because if there is no net creation of value, the other companies involved in the set of activities won’t participate. Second, a business model captures value from a portion of those activities for the firm developing and operating it. This is equally critical, for a company that cannot earn a profit from some portion of its activities cannot sustain those activities over time. There can be real tensions between the aspects of a business model that create value and those that help to capture a portion of that value. A high-value proprietary technology, for example, easily earns a profit for the firm, if alternatives offer lesser value. But in many circumstances customers are reluctant to buy such products (because of price, limited availability, or delivery or service issues). Yet making the technology more open, which makesit moreappealingtocustomers, makesit hardertocapturevaluefrom theoffering.So these offsetting factors must be balanced. How to define a business model? The term ‘‘business model’’ is often used, but not often clearly defined. Richard S. Rosenbloom, Professor Emeritus of Harvard, and I have developed a specific working definition (see Exhibit 1)[1]. A better business model often will beat a better idea or technology. One benefit of this working definition is that each of its six parameters identifies where innovation might generate new value in an industry. PAGE 12jSTRATEGY & LEADERSHIPj VOL. 35 NO. 6 2007, pp. 12-17, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1087-8572 DOI 10.1108/10878570710833714 Henry Chesbrough is Executive Director, Center for Open Innovation, University of California, Berkeley (chesbrou@ haas.berkeley.edu). He is the author of Open Business Models: How to ThriveintheNewInnovation Landscape (Harvard Business School Press, 2006)andOpenInnovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (HBSP, 2003). Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) B Value proposition. The GE Aircraft engines unit crafted an innovative value proposition when they shifted from selling airlines jet engines to selling them flight hours. This shifted the risk of downtime from the airline customer to GE, and enabled GE to establish a very profitable service operation. B Target market. Ryanair, a growing European discount airline, innovated a different target market by going after leisure travelers, instead of the usual business travelers. B Value chain. Wal-Mart (which targeted an innovative market by going after underserved rural communities in its early days) is celebrated for its management of its supply chain. B Revenue mechanism(s). Xerox got its start in the copier business by leasing its copiers, instead of selling them. Air Products gets paid for the delivery of its industrial gases right to the manufacturing station inside the plant, instead of by the box car. B Value network or ecosystem. Ryanair again innovatedhere, by striking novel arrangements with underutilized regional airports. Ryanair gets a percentage of concessionsalesattheseairports,andinsomecircumstancesevengetspaidforlanding passengers at the airports. B Competitive strategy.. One interesting aspect of business models is how difficult it is for otherstoimitatethem.Manyairlines havetried toemulateSouthwest’slowcostapproach. Most of their attempts have not fared well. Copying the Southwest model apparently creates too many conflicts with the airlines’ established business model. Thus this working definition points the way to certain improvements that can be made to a business model. But more can be done to improve a specific business model if managers think of stages of business model advancement. The Business Model Framework (BMF) is a model that sequences possible business models from very basic (and not very valuable) models to far more advanced (and very valuable) models. Using the BMF, companies can assess where their current business model stands in relation to its potential and then define appropriate next steps for the further advancement of that model. The Business Model Framework Type 1 – Company has an undifferentiated business model. The vast majority of companies operating today do not articulate a distinct business model, and lack a process for managingit.ThesecompaniesareoperatingwithType1businessmodels.Abusinessusing the undifferentiated model competes on price and availability, and serves customers who buy on those criteria. In a word, firms utilizing Type 1 business models are selling commodities, and are doing so in ways that are no different from many, many other firms. They often are caught in the ‘‘commodity trap’’. Think of restaurants and barber shops as examples of this commodity model. Exhibit 1 Functions of a business model The functions of a business model are: 1. Articulate the value proposition, that is, the value created for users by the offering 2. Identify a market segment, that is, the users to whom the offering is useful and for what purpose 3. Define the structure of the value chain required by the firm to create and distribute the offering, anddetermine the complementary assetsneededtosupport the firm’s positioninthischain.This includes the firm’s suppliers and customers, and should extend from raw materials to the final customer 4. Specify the revenue generation mechanism(s) for the firm, and estimate the cost structure and profit potential of producing the offering, given the value proposition and value chain structure chosen 5. Describe the position of the firm within the value network (also referred to as an ecosystem) linking suppliers and customers, including identification of potential complementors and competitors 6. Formulate the competitive strategy by which the innovating firm will gain and hold advantage over rivals VOL. 35 NO. 6 2007jSTRATEGY & LEADERSHIPjPAGE 13 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) Type2 – Companyhassomedifferentiationinitsbusinessmodel.IncompaniesusingType2 business models, the company has created some degree of differentiation in its products or services. This differentiation can also lead to a different business model from that of the Type1company,allowingthecompanytotargetacustomerother thanthosethatbuysimply upon price and availability (such as a performance-oriented customer). This allows the Type2companytoserveadifferentandlesscongestedmarketsegmentfromthatservedby its Type 1 counterpart. The Type 2 company may lack the resources and staying power to invest in the supporting innovations to sustain its differentiated position. This gives rise to the pattern of so-called ‘‘onehit wonders’’, where acompanyor inventor hasa successfulfirst product, but isunable to follow up this success with additional products of similar success. Many technology startup companies fall into this type. Type 3 – Company develops a segmented business model. The company now can compete in different segments simultaneously. More of the market is thus served, and more profit is extracted from the market as well. The price sensitive segment provides the volume base for high volume, low cost production. The performance segment supplies high margins for the business. Other niches can now be addressed, creating a stronger presence in the distribution channels. The firm’s business model now is more distinctive and profitable, which supports the firm’s ability to plan for its future via product and technology roadmaps. While its greater level of planning helps the Type 3 company avert the one-hit wonder syndrome, problems still remain. The Type 3 firm remains vulnerable to any major new technical shift beyond the scope of their current business and innovation activities, and also tomajorshiftsinthemarket.Thinkofamature,verticallyintegratedindustrialcompany,asan example of this kind of model. Or in the IT space, think of an ERP system that is deeply connected tobusiness processes, buthas fewwaysto linkin other softwareontop ofits own code. Type 4 – Company has an externally aware business model. In this business model, the company has started to open itself to external ideas and technologies in the development and execution of the business. This unlocks a significantly greater set of resources available to such a company. The roadmaps of the Type 4 firm provide a shopping list of needs within the firm for external ideas and technologies. Relationships with outsiders help identify external projectsthat fulfill someoftheseneeds.Thisreducesthecostofservingthebusiness,reducesthetimeittakes to get new offerings to market, and shares the risks of new products and processes with external parties. Internal roadmaps are now shared with suppliers and customers on a frequent basis. This enables the firm to make much more systematic use of innovative ideas from suppliers and from customers. It also allows suppliers and customers to plan their own activities in concert with the innovative activities of the firm. Companies that make it a practice to share real-time information with their suppliers exemplify this approach. Type 5 – Company integrates its innovation process with its business model. In a Type 5 model, the company’s business model now plays a key integrative role within the company. Suppliers and customers now enjoy formalized institutional access to the firm’s innovation process, and this access is now reciprocated by the suppliers and customers. Customers and suppliers now share their own roadmaps with the company, giving the company much better visibility into the customers’ future requirements. In this stage, companies begin to experiment more directly with the business model itself. Type 5 companies now take the time to understand the supply chain all the way back to the basic raw materials, as they look for major technical shifts or cost reduction opportunities. Type 5 companies also invest substantial resources to study ‘‘the customer’s customer’’ to learn about the deeper unmet needs and opportunities in the market. Some experimentation is conducted on alternative distribution channels, and indeed, upon alternative PAGE 14jSTRATEGY & LEADERSHIPjVOL. 35 NO. 6 2007 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) configurations of the business model. Companies that are moving from offering products to offeringservices,andarebringinginexternaltechnologiestosupportthisnewapproachare examples of Type 5 models. Type 6 – Company’s business model is an adaptive platform. The Type 6 business model is an even more open and adaptive model than types 4 or 5. This ability to adapt requires a commitment to experimentation with one or more business model variants. This experimentation can take a number of different forms. Some companies utilize corporate venture capital as a means to explore alternative business models in small startup companies. Some utilize spin-offs and joint ventures as means to commercialize technologies outside of their own current business model. Some have created internal incubators to cultivate promising ideas that are not yet ready for high volume commercialization. In Type 6 firms, key suppliers and customers become business partners, entering into relationshipsinwhichbothtechnicalandbusinessriskmaybeshared.Thebusinessmodels ofsuppliersarenowintegratedintotheplanningprocessesofthecompany.The companyin turn has integrated its business model into the business model of its key customers. Intel, Microsoft and Wal-Mart are examples here. Oneimportant capability that enables this integration of business models throughoutavalue chain is the ability of the company to establish its technologies as the basis for a platform of innovation for that value chain. In this way, the company can attract other companies to invest their resources, expanding the value of the platform without consuming extra investment by the platform maker. For example, anyone making software for PCs, accessories for iPods, or games forcell phones is indirectly contributing to the value of each of these platforms[2]. Improving your own business model The Business Model Framework can help you generate an assessment of your current business model. Be objective about identifying the stage where your business is right now. Then look at the attributes of the next stage of the framework. They provide some guidelines for how to advance your business model further. If you have already achieved a level 5 or level 6 model, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that your model is likely to be very profitable and hard to imitate. The bad news is that no great business model lasts forever. Xerox’s highly successful leasing model waslaterupsetbyJapanesefirmsenteringthemarketwithasimplercopierwithreplaceable cartridges that could be sold through retailers. As another example, pharmaceutical companies are finding that the blockbuster drug business model is becoming prohibitively expensive. The large market segments are saturated, the costs of R&D are rising steeply, and the failure rate has been disappointingly high. Future markets will be smaller, more highly targeted (and effective), and this new approach will require different processes to develop and launch drugs successfully. So at any stage of the framework, a company is going to need to think hard about how to sustainandinnovateits businessmodel.Thisbringsustoanotherdimensionofthe problem. ‘‘The Business Model Framework (BMF) is a model that sequences possible business models from very basic (and not very valuable) models to far more advanced (and very valuable) models.’’ VOL. 35 NO. 6 2007jSTRATEGY & LEADERSHIPjPAGE 15 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) Why don’t more companies innovate their business models? Inmyobservations,manyorganizationshavea‘‘businessmodelinnovationleadershipgap.’’ Thatis,noonepersonintheorganizationgaphastheauthorityandthecapabilitytoinnovate the business model. Think of your own company: who is responsible for business-model innovation? It can’t be left to the chief technology officer and his or her staff alone; business-model innovation clearly requires involvement of top leadership. Yet who within the company, other thanthe CEO, is responsiblefor allthe ways the businesscreatesvaluein its products and services and captures that value in the form of revenue from its customers? Certainly the chief financial officer needs to be involved, both for measuring accurately the resultsof the model and forcommunicating these results to outside investors. The marketing leadership focuses on brand development and channels of distribution. The chief legal officer has a role to play, particularly when intellectual property is an important contributor to the ability to capture value fromthe model. But no one of these people has the ability to drive the entire business. In some businesses, a general manager or division president may have complete responsibility for the financial performance of a business unit. Even here, though, thereoften are sharp limits to the ability of these managers to innovate their business models. Some companies,forinstance,puttheirgeneralmanagersthroughtwo-yeartothree-yearrotations running specific businesses, increasing the size of the businesses the managers run over time. This is too short a time frame to create new business models. It takes more time than that to develop business-model experiments, obtain clear results, interpret and understand the results,andthencarryout abroaddeploymentofthoseresults.Littlewonder,then, thatmost general managers simply stay with the current business model, and show top management their ability to grow the business within the constraints of that model. In turn, the CEO typically delegates responsibility for the business model to the general manager of the business unit. Allthisinertiaisreinforcedbythefactthatthetopmanagersoftheorganizationreachedtheir current level of responsibility by executing within the current business model. So that model is familiar and reassuring to them. They know in their bones what its strengths are, and how best to exploit those advantages. And they are less comfortable with anything that differs from this model. And the more radically different a potential new model is, the more data needs to be provided to justify its consideration. All too often, the result is that the established business model becomes unchallengeable. Nurturing a new business model isn’t easy, but it can be done Business model innovation is difficult, but it can be done. One great example is that of IBM, which saw the need for innovation in its business model and effectively reinvented. In the 1960s and 1970s, IBM was a very large, enormously successful, extremely well managed company.ButbyJanuary of1993,thecompanywasinneedofanewapproach.Thatmonth, IBM announced what was then the largest loss in US corporate history, $5 billion for 1992, along with the latest in a string of layoffs. Soon after that announcement, IBM fired its chief executive officer and brought in the first outside CEO the company had ever had in its history, Lou Gerstner. IBM’s business-model innovation was born out of this financial crisis. Once IBM realized that it had to change its business model, it began a fervent hunt for new revenuesources. One experiment was to offer IBM’s semiconductor lines to act as a foundry forothercompanies’products.Thisbroughtinnewrevenueandincreasedtheutilizationrate of IBM’s equipment and facilities. IBM’s need to generate greater profits also led it to rethink its whole approach to managing its patents and technology. The company was able to raise hundredsof millions of dollars a year by licensing its intellectual property. However, the most successful experiment was the discovery that IBM’s expertise could be the basis for a services business, taking care of customers’ IT needs. More than half of the company’s $90 billionrevenuein2006camefromitsIBMGlobalServicesarm,abusinessthatdidn’texist15 years earlier. PAGE 16jSTRATEGY & LEADERSHIPjVOL. 35 NO. 6 2007 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) Ideally, of course, a company will figure out how to innovate its business model before it is compelled to act by financial stress. To begin with, an organization must give a senior manager the resources and authority to define and launch business-model experiments. This will require cooperation from many other parts of the organization. Once the data from these experiments are received, that senior executive can decide which experiments to continue, which new ones to initiate, and whether and when enough information exists to justify the wider adoption of a new business model. Companies also need ways to protect their business-model experiments internally – so that they don’t directly compete with the mainstream initiatives within the company. One way to do this is by funding these experiments with a separate pool of money set aside specifically for thispurpose.Thisstep preventstheseprojectsfrom beingperceivedastakingresources away from immediately rewarding initiatives. Once a new business model demonstrates real potential, the company needs to deploy that model more widely. This is another stage of testing: Can the new business model work at higher volume and greater scale of operation? If it can, its expansion increases the competition for resources between the new model and the established model (which, remember,hasbeenprovedsuccessfulover manyyears,andoftenthetopexecutivesofthe company owe theircareersuccess to the current model). While the competition between the two models can no longer be avoided at this stage, it can and must be managed. Each model deserves a chance to demonstrate its continued viability. Customers will ultimately be the final arbiter of whether one is better than the other. In many cases, though, theremay be market segments in which each business model works well,andthustheycanco-exist.AtBarnesandNoblebooksellers,forexample,itisnowclear that many of the company’s customers prefer to buy books online, while other customers prefertogototheirlocalB&Nbookstore,perusetheshelves,andpurchasetheirbooksatthe register. B&N now employs both business models as valuable ways to serve its market. There is no way to know today exactly what your company’s future business model will look like. The only way forward is to conduct some experiments, gather the evidence, identify the most promising direction and then run some further experiments. Later, a promising model will have to be scaled up, and integrated across the company. If this sounds expensive and time-consuming, it is. But the better perspective is to evaluate the cost of competing in the market with an obsolete business model, against other companies who made the investments and took the risks to innovate a superior business model. Seen this way, investing in business model innovation is money well spent. Notes 1. Source, H. Chesbrough, Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard Business School Press, 2006, chapter 5. 2. For two excellent recent books on the topic of platforms and building the surrounding ecosystem, see Annabelle Gawer and Michael Cusumano, Platform Leadership (Harvard Business School Press, 2002), and Marco Iansiti and Roy Levien, The Keystone Advantage (Harvard Business School Press, 2004). VOL. 35 NO. 6 2007jSTRATEGY & LEADERSHIPjPAGE 17 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) This article has been cited by: 1.Cinzia Battistella, Alberto F. De Toni, Giovanni De Zan, Elena Pessot. 2017. Cultivating business model agility through focused capabilities: A multiple case study. Journal of Business Research 73, 65-82. [CrossRef] 2.ArbussaAnna Anna Arbussa [email protected] Anna Arbussa is an Associate Professor at the Department of Business Administration and Product Design of the University of Girona. She received her PhD from the same institution in 2001. She has worked on various European projects on electronic payments systems and published articles in the field of technological innovation and technology management. She is currently also working on public health management and on human resources management. BikfalviAndrea Andrea Bikfalvi [email protected] Andrea Bikfalvi is, teaching, a Research Staff in the Department of Business Administration and Product Design at the University of Girona (Spain). She holds a PhD in Business Administration. She is currently the Deputy Director of the Chamber of Commerce Chair of Family Business at the same university. During her trajectory she conducted several research projects for the regional government of Catalonia, Spain, as well as a series of EU projects. Her main research interest is in holistic approaches of innovation in all types of organisations –mainly, but not limited to – public administration, private enterprises and education. She published research in international journals such as Technovation, Service Business, European Journal of International Management, Journal of Organizational Change Management and the Journal of Family Business Strategy. MarquèsPilar Pilar Marquès [email protected] Pilar Marquès is an Associate Professor of Strategic Management and Family Business at the Faculty of Economics of the University of Girona, where she is the Director of the Chamber of Commerce Chair of Family Business and the Masters in Entrepreneurship and Business Development. She has developed her research on innovation and corporate social responsibility especially in family firms. Her work has been published in international journals such as Family Business Review, Technological Forecasting and Social Change and the Journal of Family Business Strategy among others. Department of Business Administration and Product Design, University of Girona, Girona, Spain . 2017. Strategic agility-driven business model renewal: the case of an SME. Management Decision 55:2, 271-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 3.B. Baldassarre, G. Calabretta, N.M.P. Bocken, T. Jaskiewicz. 2017. Bridging sustainable business model innovation and userdriven innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design. Journal of Cleaner Production 147, 175-186. [CrossRef] 4.Marco Perona, Nicola Saccani, Andrea Bacchetti. 2017. Research vs. Practice on Manufacturing Firms’ Servitization Strategies: A Gap Analysis and Research Agenda. Systems 5:1, 19. [CrossRef] 5.Jessica Lagerstedt Wadin, Kajsa Ahlgren, Lars Bengtsson. 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 . [CrossRef] 6.HolzmannPatrick Patrick Holzmann [email protected] BreiteneckerRobert J. Robert J. Breitenecker [email protected] SoomroAqeel A. Aqeel A. Soomro [email protected] SchwarzErich J. Erich J. Schwarz [email protected] Department of Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship, Alpen-Adria-Universitat Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria . 2017. User entrepreneur business models in 3D printing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 28:1, 75-94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 7.Raimundo Díaz-Díaz, Luis Muñoz, Daniel Pérez-González. 2017. Business model analysis of public services operating in the smart city ecosystem: The case of SmartSantander. Future Generation Computer Systems . [CrossRef] 8.R. Sandra Schillo, Jeffrey S. Kinder. 2017. Delivering on societal impacts through open innovation: a framework for government laboratories. The Journal of Technology Transfer . [CrossRef] 9.Federico Adrodegari, Nicola Saccani. 2017. Business models for the service transformation of industrial firms. The Service Industries Journal 37:1, 57-83. [CrossRef] 10.Kul Bhushan C. Saxena, Swanand J. Deodhar, Mikko RuohonenBusiness Model Innovation 35-60. [CrossRef] 11.Anne S. Tsui, Yingying Zhang, Xiao-Ping ChenBuilding a Company with Teamwork and Co-operation, Diversity and Unity 85-104. [CrossRef] 12.Karin Tollin, Antonia Erz, Jesper VejThe strategic viewpoints of innovation and marketing teams on the development of novel functional foods 63-83. [CrossRef] 13.Kul Bhushan C. Saxena, Swanand J. Deodhar, Mikko RuohonenThe Business Model Concept and Its Use 13-34. [CrossRef] 14.Danielle Dupont, Ariel Beresniak, Mats Sundgren, Andreas Schmidt, John Ainsworth, Pascal Coorevits, Dipak Kalra, Marc Dewispelaere, Georges De Moor. 2017. Business analysis for a sustainable, multi-stakeholder ecosystem for leveraging the Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) platform in Europe. International Journal of Medical Informatics 97, 341-352. [CrossRef] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) 15.Xenia Ziouvelou, Panagiotis Alexandrou, Constantinos Marios Angelopoulos, Orestis Evangelatos, Joao Fernandes, Nikos Loumis, Frank McGroarty, Sotiris Nikoletseas, Aleksandra Rankov, Theofanis Raptis, Anna Ståhlbröst, Sebastien ZieglerCrowd-Driven IoT/IoE Ecosystems: A Multidimensional Approach 341-375. [CrossRef] 16.Lesley A. ClackStrategies with Service Business Model Innovation 21-30. [CrossRef] 17.Romana Rauter, Jan Jonker, Rupert J. Baumgartner. 2017. Going one's own way: drivers in developing business models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 140, 144-154. [CrossRef] 18.Daniela Andreini, Cristina BettinelliBusiness Model Innovation: A Thematic Map 55-116. [CrossRef] 19.Daniela Andreini, Cristina BettinelliConclusions and Research Agenda 159-176. [CrossRef] 20.Artur Caetano, Gonçalo Antunes, João Pombinho, Marzieh Bakhshandeh, José Granjo, José Borbinha, Miguel Mira da Silva. 2017. Representation and analysis of enterprise models with semantic techniques: an application to ArchiMate, e3value and business model canvas. Knowledge and Information Systems 50:1, 315-346. [CrossRef] 21.Angela Caridà, Monia Melia, Maria ColurcioBusiness Model Design and Value Co-creation: Looking for a New Pattern 339-361. [CrossRef] 22.Ashish Malik, Vijay PereiraTheorising Human Capital Formation for Innovation in India’s Global Information Technology Sector 221-249. [CrossRef] 23.Daniela Andreini, Cristina BettinelliBusiness Model Definition and Boundaries 25-53. [CrossRef] 24.Daniela Andreini, Cristina BettinelliBMI from the Perspective of Five Disciplines 137-158. [CrossRef] 25.GERRIT REMANE, ANDRE HANELT, JAN F. TESCH, LUTZ M. KOLBE. 2017. THE BUSINESS MODEL PATTERN DATABASE — A TOOL FOR SYSTEMATIC BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation Management 21:01, 1750004. [CrossRef] 26.Daniela Andreini, Cristina BettinelliMultilevel Analysis of Business Model Innovation 117-135. [CrossRef] 27.Seppo Kuula, Harri HaapasaloContinuous and Co-creative Business Model Creation 249-268. [CrossRef] 28.Andreas Engelen, Clara von GagernUnternehmensbezogene Tools der Opportunity Recognition 21-86. [CrossRef] 29.Tamami Komatsu Alessandro Deserti Francesca Rizzo Manuela Celi Sharam Alijani Social Innovation Business Models: Coping with Antagonistic Objectives and Assets 315-347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 30.SVEN M. LAUDIEN, BIRGIT DAXBÖCK. 2016. THE INFLUENCE OF THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS ON BUSINESS MODEL DESIGN: A QUALITATIVE-EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS. International Journal of Innovation Management 20:08, 1640014. [CrossRef] 31.Alex Yang-chan Hsu, Brian King, Dan Wang, Dimitrios Buhalis. 2016. In-destination tour products and the disrupted tourism industry: progress and prospects. Information Technology & Tourism 16:4, 413-433. [CrossRef] 32.CHRISTIAN ARNOLD, DANIEL KIEL, KAI-INGO VOIGT. 2016. HOW THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS CHANGES BUSINESS MODELS IN DIFFERENT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES. International Journal of Innovation Management 20:08, 1640015. [CrossRef] 33.Guiwen Liu, Kaijian Li, Dong Zhao, Chao Mao. 2016. Business Model Innovation and Its Drivers in the Chinese Construction Industry during the Shift to Modular Prefabrication. Journal of Management in Engineering 04016051. [CrossRef] 34.Francesca Ricciardi, Alessandro Zardini, Cecilia Rossignoli. 2016. Organizational dynamism and adaptive business model innovation: The triple paradox configuration. Journal of Business Research 69:11, 5487-5493. [CrossRef] 35.Jinhyo Joseph Yun, Jeongho Yang, Kyungbae Park. 2016. Open Innovation to Business Model. Science, Technology and Society 21:3, 324-348. [CrossRef] 36.Yuan-Chieh Chang, Min-Nan Chen. 2016. Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan. Research Policy 45:9, 1845-1857. [CrossRef] 37.Ricarda B. Bouncken, Viktor Fredrich. 2016. Good fences make good neighbors? Directions and safeguards in alliances on business model innovation. Journal of Business Research 69:11, 5196-5202. [CrossRef] 38.Martin Geissdoerfer, Nancy M.P. Bocken, Erik Jan Hultink. 2016. Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process – A workshop based on a value mapping process. Journal of Cleaner Production 135, 1218-1232. [CrossRef] 39.Craig Standing, Jan Mattsson. 2016. “Fake it until you make it”: business model conceptualization in digital entrepreneurship. Journal of Strategic Marketing 1-15. [CrossRef] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) 40.Ying Li, Changjie Zhan, Martin de Jong, Zofia Lukszo. 2016. Business innovation and government regulation for the promotion of electric vehicle use: lessons from Shenzhen, China. Journal of Cleaner Production 134, 371-383. [CrossRef] 41.Jean-François Rougès, Diane Poulin, Benoit Montreuil. 2016. Comment trois organisations ont géré l’innovation de leur modèle d’affaires autour de la mobilité et du e-commerce. Logistique & Management 24:3-4, 171-178. [CrossRef] 42.Barbara Bigliardi, Francesco Galati. 2016. Which factors hinder the adoption of open innovation in SMEs?. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28:8, 869-885. [CrossRef] 43.Ricarda B. Bouncken, Viktor Fredrich. 2016. Business model innovation in alliances: Successful configurations. Journal of Business Research 69:9, 3584-3590. [CrossRef] 44.Philipp Ebel, Ulrich Bretschneider, Jan Marco Leimeister. 2016. Leveraging virtual business model innovation: a framework for designing business model development tools. Information Systems Journal 26:5, 519-550. [CrossRef] 45.Anahita Baregheh School of Business, Nipissing University, North Bay, Canada Jennifer Rowley Department of Information and Communications, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK David Hemsworth School of Business, Nipissing University, North Bay, Canada . 2016. The effect of organisational size and age on position and paradigm innovation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 23:3, 768-789. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 46.Sarel Gronum, John Steen, Martie-Louise Verreynne. 2016. Business model design and innovation: Unlocking the performance benefits of innovation. Australian Journal of Management 41:3, 585-605. [CrossRef] 47.Sven M. Laudien, Birgit Daxböck. 2016. Path dependence as a barrier to business model change in manufacturing firms: insights from a multiple-case study. Journal of Business Economics 86:6, 611-645. [CrossRef] 48.Günter Fandel, Kai-Ingo Voigt. 2016. Editorial. Journal of Business Economics 86:6, 575-577. [CrossRef] 49.Patrick Spieth, Sabrina Schneider. 2016. Business model innovativeness: designing a formative measure for business model innovation. Journal of Business Economics 86:6, 671-696. [CrossRef] 50.Ulrike Baumöl, Linda Hollebeek, Reinhard Jung. 2016. Dynamics of customer interaction on social media platforms. Electronic Markets 26:3, 199-202. [CrossRef] 51.Na Jiao, Steve Evans. 2016. Secondary use of Electric Vehicle Batteries and Potential Impacts on Business Models. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 33:5, 348-354. [CrossRef] 52.Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez-Sanchez, Jacobo Gomez-Conde. 2016. The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on process and organizational innovation. Review of Managerial Science 10:3, 487-510. [CrossRef] 53.Pennie Frow, Janet R. McColl-Kennedy, Adrian Payne. 2016. Co-creation practices: Their role in shaping a health care ecosystem. Industrial Marketing Management 56, 24-39. [CrossRef] 54.William Jones, Mahesh Sooriyabandara, Mike Yearworth, Angela Doufexi, R. Eddie Wilson. 2016. Planning For 5G: A Problem Structuring Approach for Survival in the Telecoms Industry. Systems Engineering 19:4, 301-321. [CrossRef] 55.Martin E. Wainstein, Adam G. Bumpus. 2016. Business models as drivers of the low carbon power system transition: a multilevel perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 126, 572-585. [CrossRef] 56.Christian Landau, Amit Karna, Miriam Sailer. 2016. Business model adaptation for emerging markets: a case study of a German automobile manufacturer in India. R&D Management 46:3, 480-503. [CrossRef] 57.Mohammad H. Rezazade Mehrizi, Mojtaba Lashkarbolouki. 2016. Unlearning Troubled Business Models: From Realization to Marginalization. Long Range Planning 49:3, 298-323. [CrossRef] 58.Patrick Spieth, Dirk Schneckenberg, Kurt Matzler. 2016. Exploring the linkage between business model (&) innovation and the strategy of the firm. R&D Management 46:3, 403-413. [CrossRef] 59.Himanshu Gupta, Mukesh Kumar Barua. 2016. Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 107, 69-79. [CrossRef] 60.Baoliang Hu, Wenqing Chen. 2016. Business model ambidexterity and technological innovation performance: evidence from China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28:5, 583-600. [CrossRef] 61.Anish Purkayastha Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India Sunil Sharma Department of Business Policy, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, India . 2016. Gaining competitive advantage through the right business model: analysis based on case studies. Journal of Strategy and Management 9:2, 138-155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 62.Nabil Amara, Norrin Halilem, Namatié Traoré. 2016. Adding value to companies' value chain: Role of business schools scholars. Journal of Business Research 69:5, 1661-1668. [CrossRef] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) 63.Steve Burt, Ulf Johansson, John Dawson. 2016. International retailing as embedded business models. Journal of Economic Geography 16:3, 715-747. [CrossRef] 64.Thorsten Helms. 2016. Asset transformation and the challenges to servitize a utility business model. Energy Policy 91, 98-112. [CrossRef] 65.Dorra Yahiaoui ,Hela Chebbi Sarah Philipson Department of Business Administration, University of Gävle, Gävle, sweden . 2016. Radical innovation of a business model. Competitiveness Review 26:2, 132-146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 66.Michaela Sprenger, Tobias Mettler, Robert Winter. 2016. A viability theory for digital businesses: Exploring the evolutionary changes of revenue mechanisms to support managerial decisions. Information Systems Frontiers . [CrossRef] 67.Luís Farinha, João Ferreira, Borges Gouveia. 2016. Networks of Innovation and Competitiveness: A Triple Helix Case Study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 7:1, 259-275. [CrossRef] 68.Nigel Roome, Céline Louche. 2016. Journeying Toward Business Models for Sustainability. Organization & Environment 29:1, 11-35. [CrossRef] 69.Christian Gärtner Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Chair of Organization Theory, Helmut-SchmidtUniversity, Hamburg, Germany Oliver Schön E.ON Inhouse Consulting GmbH, Essen, Germany . 2016. Modularizing business models: between strategic flexibility and path dependence. Journal of Strategy and Management 9:1, 39-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 70.Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen, Wencke Gwozdz, Kerli Kant Hvass. 2016. Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and Organisational Values within the Fashion Industry. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef] 71.Vassilis Barkoukis, Katerina Kartali, Lambros Lazuras, Haralambos Tsorbatzoudis. 2016. Evaluation of an anti-doping intervention for adolescents: Findings from a school-based study. Sport Management Review 19:1, 23-34. [CrossRef] 72.Eugenia Rosca, Marlen Arnold, Julia C. Bendul. 2016. Business models for sustainable innovation – an empirical analysis of frugal products and services. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef] 73.JinHyo Joseph Yun, DongKyu Won, EuiSeob Jeong, KyungBae Park, JeongHo Yang, JiYoung Park. 2016. The relationship between technology, business model, and market in autonomous car and intelligent robot industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 103, 142-155. [CrossRef] 74.F. Zingrebe, Michael Stephan, S. LorenzGeschäftsmodellinnovationen in der deutschen Automobilindustrie im Zukunftsfeld der Elektromobilität 43-61. [CrossRef] 75.Jad Asswad, Georg Hake, Jorge Marx GómezOvercoming the Barriers of Sustainable Business Model Innovations by Integrating Open Innovation 302-314. [CrossRef] 76.Nabyla Daidj, Linda Salahaldin. 2016. The impact of cognitive radio technology on mobile network operators' interorganizational networks and business models. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 27:2, 101-109. [CrossRef] 77.Zvezdan VukanovićBusiness Model Research Agenda Positioning: Conceptual Frameworks, Functions, Benefits, Rationale, Dynamics, Performance, and Economic Feasibility 5-66. [CrossRef] 78.Oliver Gassmann, Karolin Frankenberger, Roman SauerIntroduction 1-5. [CrossRef] 79.Oliver Gassmann, Karolin Frankenberger, Roman SauerLeading Business Model Research: The Seven Schools of Thought 7-46. [CrossRef] 80.Dominik Paulus-Rohmer, Heike Schatton, Thomas Bauernhansl. 2016. Ecosystems, Strategy and Business Models in the age of Digitization - How the Manufacturing Industry is Going to Change its Logic. Procedia CIRP 57, 8-13. [CrossRef] 81.Kaveh Abhari, Elizabeth J. DavidsonCreative Co-production: The Adaption of an Open Innovation Model in Creative Industries 119-130. [CrossRef] 82.Sabine Löbbe, Gerhard JochumThriving Despite Disruptive Technologies: A German Utilities’ Case Study 323-341. [CrossRef] 83.Erno Vanhala, Jussi KasurinenImproving the Length of Customer Relationships on the Mobile Computer Game Business 116-132. [CrossRef] 84.Federico Adrodegari, Nicola Saccani, Christian Kowalkowski. 2016. A Framework for PSS Business Models: Formalization and Application. Procedia CIRP 47, 519-524. [CrossRef] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) 85.Antonio Ghezzi, Andrea CavallaroBusiness Model Change and Refinement along Business Model Lifecycle: Evidences from a Multiple Case Study on Mobile Telecommunications New Ventures 1477-1486. [CrossRef] 86.Thierry Rayna, Ludmila Striukova. 2016. From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: How 3D printing is changing business model innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 102, 214-224. [CrossRef] 87.Yan Li, Maria Holgado, Steve EvansBusiness Model Innovation in State-Owned and Private-Owned Enterprises in China 528-535. [CrossRef] 88.김김김, 김김김. 2015. A Study on Social Responsibility Model of Public Institutions in Korea: Focusing on Business Model of Social Enterprise Connected with KOSPO’ Samcheok Green Power. Korean Comparative Government Review 19:4, 1-30. [CrossRef] 89.JinHyo Joseph Yun. 2015. How do we conquer the growth limits of capitalism? Schumpeterian Dynamics of Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 1:1. . [CrossRef] 90.Petra Gsodam, Romana Rauter, Rupert J. Baumgartner. 2015. The renewable energy debate: how Austrian electric utilities are changing their business models. Energy, Sustainability and Society 5:1. . [CrossRef] 91.Valentina Della Corte, Alessandra Iavazzi, Chiara D’Andrea. 2015. Customer involvement through social media: the cases of some telecommunication firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 1:1. . [CrossRef] 92.Junghee Han, Okjoo Cho. 2015. Platform business Eco-model evolution: case study on KakaoTalk in Korea. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 1:1. . [CrossRef] 93.Naoshi Uchihira, Hirokazu Ishimatsu, Shigeaki Sakurai, Yoshiteru Kageyama, Yuji Kakutani, Kazunori Mizushima, Hiroshi Naruse, Susumu Yoneda. 2015. Service innovation structure analysis for recognizing opportunities and difficulties of M2M businesses. Technology in Society 43, 173-182. [CrossRef] 94.Ioanna Deligianni, Irini Voudouris, Spyros Lioukas. 2015. Do Effectuation Processes Shape the Relationship Between Product Diversification and Performance in New Ventures?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice n/a-n/a. [CrossRef] 95.Ryan Rumble Vincent Mangematin Grenoble Ecole de Management (GEM), Grenoble, France Business Model Implementation: The Antecedents of Multi-Sidedness 97-131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 96.Florian Waldner a Marion K. Poetz b Christoph Grimpe b Markus Eurich c aDepartment of Business Administration, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria bDepartment of Innovation and Organizational Economics, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark cDepartment of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Antecedents and Consequences of Business Model Innovation: The Role of Industry Structure 347-386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 97.JinHyo Joseph Yun Division of IT Convergence, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology (DGIST), Daegu, Korea WooYoung Jung Division of IT Convergence, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology (DGIST), Daegu, Korea JeongHo Yang Division of IT Convergence, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology (DGIST), Daegu, Korea . 2015. Knowledge strategy and business model conditions for sustainable growth of SMEs. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 6:3, 246-262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 98.Michael Blaschke, Maurus L. Wuetherich, Uwe V. Riss, Petros PapakostasBusiness Model Management System Design: Manifesto, Requirements, and Prototype 153-160. [CrossRef] 99.Mokter Hossain, K. M. Zahidul Islam. 2015. Ideation through Online Open Innovation Platform: Dell IdeaStorm. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 6:3, 611-624. [CrossRef] 100.Yuandi Wang, Zhao Zhou, Lutao Ning, Jin Chen. 2015. Technology and external conditions at play: A study of learningby-licensing practices in China. Technovation 43-44, 29-39. [CrossRef] 101.Qiang Wang China Europe International Business School, Shanghai, China Chris Voss Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Xiande Zhao Department of Economics and Decision Sciences, China Europe International Business School, Shanghai, China AND School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China Zhiqiang Wang Institute of Supply Chain Integration and Service Innovation, School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China . 2015. Modes of service innovation: a typology. Industrial Management & Data Systems 115:7, 1358-1382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 102.Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen Copenhagen Business School, Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Copenhagen, Denmark. Sarah Netter CBS Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark. . 2015. Collaborative consumption: business model opportunities and barriers for fashion libraries. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 19:3, 258-273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) 103.Sune Gudiksen. 2015. Business Model Design Games: Rules and Procedures to Challenge Assumptions and Elicit Surprises. Creativity and Innovation Management 24:2, 307-322. [CrossRef] 104.Tina Saebi, Nicolai J. Foss. 2015. Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. European Management Journal 33:3, 201-213. [CrossRef] 105.Patrick Holzmann. 2015. Geschäftsmodellinnovation. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 63:2, 183-189. [CrossRef] 106.Kirsi Niinimäki, Esben Pedersen, Kerli Hvass, Lisbeth Svengren-HolmFashion Industry and New Approaches for Sustainability 453-474. [CrossRef] 107.Yariv Taran, Harry Boer, Peter Lindgren. 2015. A Business Model Innovation Typology. Decision Sciences 46:2, 301-331. [CrossRef] 108.Violetta Gerasymenko, Dirk De Clercq, Harry J. Sapienza. 2015. Changing the Business Model: Effects of Venture Capital Firms and Outside CEOs on Portfolio Company Performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 9:1, 79-98. [CrossRef] 109.Oleksiy Osiyevskyy, Jim Dewald. 2015. Explorative Versus Exploitative Business Model Change: The Cognitive Antecedents of Firm-Level Responses to Disruptive Innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 9:1, 58-78. [CrossRef] 110.2015. WITHDRAWAL : Füller, Johann; Hutter, Katja; Hautz, Julia; and Matzler, Kurt; Open Innovation within Company Boundaries: What Motivates and Hinders Employees to Engage in Internal Innovation Communities. Journal of Product Innovation Management 32:2, 306-306. [CrossRef] 111.Elias G. Carayannis, Stavros Sindakis, Christian Walter. 2015. Business Model Innovation as Lever of Organizational Sustainability. The Journal of Technology Transfer 40:1, 85-104. [CrossRef] 112.Olof Sivertsson, Joakim Tell. 2015. Barriers to Business Model Innovation in Swedish Agriculture. Sustainability 7:2, 1957-1969. [CrossRef] 113.Yingying Zhang, Yu ZhouThe Rise of China: Innovation or Cost Leader 1-14. [CrossRef] 114.Adam Jabłoński. 2015. Design and Operationalization of Technological Business Models. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 63:3, 927-935. [CrossRef] 115.Maarten van Limburg, Jobke Wentzel, Robbert Sanderman, Lisette van Gemert-Pijnen. 2015. Business Modeling to Implement an eHealth Portal for Infection Control: A Reflection on Co-Creation With Stakeholders. JMIR Research Protocols 4:3, e104. [CrossRef] 116.Richard Cuthbertson, Peder Inge Furseth, Stephen J. EzellInnovation Ability 85-95. [CrossRef] 117.Ke Rong, Guangyu Hu, Yong Lin, Yongjiang Shi, Liang Guo. 2015. Understanding business ecosystem using a 6C framework in Internet-of-Things-based sectors. International Journal of Production Economics 159, 41-55. [CrossRef] 118.Marlena Grabowska. 2015. Innovativeness in Business Models. Procedia Computer Science 65, 1023-1030. [CrossRef] 119.Mosad Zineldin, Valentina VasichevaBanking and Financial Sector in the Cloud: Knowledge, Quality and Innovation Management 178-194. [CrossRef] 120.Carlos M. DaSilva, Peter Trkman. 2014. Business Model: What It Is and What It Is Not. Long Range Planning 47:6, 379-389. [CrossRef] 121.Hannu Saarijärvi School of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Christian Grönroos CERS Centre for Relationship Marketing and Service Management, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Hannu Kuusela School of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland . 2014. Reverse use of customer data: implications for servicebased business models. Journal of Services Marketing 28:7, 529-537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 122.Samuel W. Short, Nancy M.P. Bocken, Claire Y. Barlow, Marian R. Chertow. 2014. From Refining Sugar to Growing Tomatoes. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18:5, 603-618. [CrossRef] 123.Arbaiah Abdul Razak, Peter A. Murray, David Roberts. 2014. Open Innovation in Universities: The Relationship Between Innovation and Commercialisation. Knowledge and Process Management 21:4, 260-269. [CrossRef] 124.Elias G. Carayannis, Evangelos Grigoroudis, Stavros Sindakis, Christian Walter. 2014. Business Model Innovation as Antecedent of Sustainable Enterprise Excellence and Resilience. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 5:3, 440-463. [CrossRef] 125.Guangyong Xu, Jingjing WangNonlinear ANP sorting method applying in evaluation of enterprise's sustainable innovation capability 559-562. [CrossRef] 126.Ales Novak. 2014. Business Model Literature Overview. FINANCIAL REPORTING :1, 79-130. [CrossRef] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) 127.Baoliang Hu. 2014. Linking business models with technological innovation performance through organizational learning. European Management Journal 32:4, 587-595. [CrossRef] 128.Morten Rask. 2014. Internationalization through business model innovation: In search of relevant design dimensions and elements. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 12:2, 146-161. [CrossRef] 129.Samantha Sharpe, Renu Agarwal. 2014. Strengthening Industrial Ecology’s Links with Business Studies: Insights and Potential Contributions from the Innovation and Business Models Literature. Resources 3:2, 362-382. [CrossRef] 130.김김김, 김김김. 2014. Case study on startup consulting with students of entrepreneuship graduate and undergraduate. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship 9:2, 23-33. [CrossRef] 131.SÉRGIO ANDRÉ CAVALCANTE. 2014. DESIGNING BUSINESS MODEL CHANGE. International Journal of Innovation Management 18:02, 1450018. [CrossRef] 132.Satu Pätäri, Kirsi Sinkkonen. 2014. Energy Service Companies and Energy Performance Contracting: is there a need to renew the business model? Insights from a Delphi study. Journal of Cleaner Production 66, 264-271. [CrossRef] 133.Göran Roos. 2014. Business Model Innovation to Create and Capture Resource Value in Future Circular Material Chains. Resources 3:1, 248-274. [CrossRef] 134.René Bohnsack, Jonatan Pinkse, Ans Kolk. 2014. Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy 43:2, 284-300. [CrossRef] 135.Dina Dellyana, Togar M. Simatupang. 2014. Existing Music Business Model in Indonesia in Search of New Income Sources. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 115, 407-414. [CrossRef] 136.Dr Daniel Kindström, Dr Christian Kowalkowski Daniel Kindström Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden Christian Kowalkowski Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland . 2014. Service innovation in product-centric firms: a multidimensional business model perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 29:2, 96-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 137.Talya Miron-Shatz, Itamar Shatz, Stefan Becker, Jigar Patel, Gunther Eysenbach. 2014. Promoting Business and Entrepreneurial Awareness in Health Care Professionals: Lessons From Venture Capital Panels at Medicine 2.0 Conferences. Journal of Medical Internet Research 16:8, e184. [CrossRef] 138.Ilan BijaouiModels of Economic Development 32-60. [CrossRef] 139.Gernot Lechner, Marc Reimann. 2014. Impact of product acquisition on manufacturing and remanufacturing strategies. Production & Manufacturing Research 2:1, 831-859. [CrossRef] 140.Andrea Giessmann, Philipp Kyas, Pasi Tyrvainen, Katarina StanoevskaTowards a Better Understanding of the Dynamics of Platform as a Service Business Models 965-974. [CrossRef] 141.Vinzent Rudtsch, Jürgen Gausemeier, Judith Gesing, Tobias Mittag, Stefan Peter. 2014. Pattern-based Business Model Development for Cyber-Physical Production Systems. Procedia CIRP 25, 313-319. [CrossRef] 142.Réjean Landry, Nabil Amara, Jean-Samuel Cloutier, Norrin Halilem. 2013. Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models. Technovation 33:12, 431-449. [CrossRef] 143.Chunxia Ye, Xiang Yu, Wei Li. 2013. Empirical Analysis on Evolution and Small World Effect of Chinese EnterpriseEnterprise Patent Cooperation Network: From the Perspective of Open Innovation. Information 4:4, 398-410. [CrossRef] 144.Dean Johnson, Cara Wrigley, Karla Straker, Sam BucoloDesigning innovative business models: Five emerging meta-models 70-77. [CrossRef] 145.Anja Krabye, Judy Matthews, Cara Wrigley, Sam BucoloFrom production to purpose-Using design led innovation to build strategic potential in a family-owned SME 37-46. [CrossRef] 146.Mario Richter. 2013. Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and renewable energy. Energy Policy 62, 1226-1237. [CrossRef] 147.Yixin Cai, Hewu Wang, Qiang Ye, Minggao OuyangAnalysis of two typical EV business models based on EV taxi demonstrations in China 1-6. [CrossRef] 148.Hao-Chen Huang National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Taiwan, ROC Mei-Chi Lai National Taiwan University, Taiwan, ROC Lee-Hsuan Lin Yuan-Ze University, Taiwan, ROC Chien-Tsai Chen National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Taiwan, ROC . 2013. Overcoming organizational inertia to strengthen business model innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management 26:6, 977-1002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) 149.Kristina Heinonen, Maria Holmlund, Tore Strandvik Lars Witell Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden Martin Löfgren Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden . 2013. From service for free to service for fee: business model innovation in manufacturing firms. Journal of Service Management 24:5, 520-533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 150.Youmin Xi and Xiaojun ZhangHai GuoSchool of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China Jing ZhaoSchool of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China Jintong TangJohn Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA. 2013. The role of top managers' human and social capital in business model innovation. Chinese Management Studies 7:3, 447-469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 151.Sérgio André CavalcanteAarhus School of Business – ASB, Centre for Organizational Renewal and Evolution – CORE, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 2013. Understanding the impact of technology on firms’ business models. European Journal of Innovation Management 16:3, 285-300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 152.Philip H. Coombes, John D. Nicholson. 2013. Business models and their relationship with marketing: A systematic literature review. Industrial Marketing Management 42:5, 656-664. [CrossRef] 153.Maureen Benson-Rea, Roderick J. Brodie, Herbert Sima. 2013. The plurality of co-existing business models: Investigating the complexity of value drivers. Industrial Marketing Management 42:5, 717-729. [CrossRef] 154.Karl A. Stroetmann. 2013. Achieving the integrated and smart health and wellbeing paradigm: A call for policy research and action on governance and business models. International Journal of Medical Informatics 82:4, e29-e37. [CrossRef] 155.Frank Boons, Florian Lüdeke-Freund. 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 9-19. [CrossRef] 156.Martina Musteen, Mujtaba Ahsan. 2013. Beyond Cost: The Role of Intellectual Capital in Offshoring and Innovation in Young Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37:2, 421-434. [CrossRef] 157.Jacob Buur, Bernd Ankenbrand, Robb Mitchell. 2013. Participatory business modelling. CoDesign 9:1, 55-71. [CrossRef] 158.VIVEK K. VELAMURI, BASTIAN BANSEMIR, ANNE-KATRIN NEYER, KATHRIN M. MÖSLEIN. 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. [CrossRef] 159.SABRINA SCHNEIDER, PATRICK SPIETH. 2013. BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION: TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA. International Journal of Innovation Management 17:01, 1340001. [CrossRef] 160.Sanna Mutka, Pertti Aaltonen. 2013. The impact of a delivery project's business model in a project-based firm. International Journal of Project Management 31:2, 166-176. [CrossRef] 161.Amir Bonakdar, Tobias Weiblen, Christina Di Valentin, Theresa Zeissner, Anton Pussep, Markus SchiefTransformative Influence of Business Processes on the Business Model: Classifying the State of the Practice in the Software Industry 3920-3929. [CrossRef] 162.Hao-Chen Huang, Mei-Chi Lai, Meng-Chun Kao, Yi-Chun Chen. 2012. Target Costing, Business Model Innovation, and Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis of Chinese Firms. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 29:4, 322-335. [CrossRef] 163.D.M. Halemane, F. JanszenBusiness model innovation for entrepreneurs 456-459. [CrossRef] 164.Yang Liu, Jiang Wei, Ying YingLinking business model innovation, strategy and technology innovation: A case study 553-557. [CrossRef] 165.Gilbert Lenssen, Luk Van Wassenhove, Simon Pickard and Joris‐Johann LenssenMark EspositoAssociate Professor of Business and Society in the Department of People, Organizations and Society, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble, France Amit KapoorHonorary Chairman of the Institute for Competitiveness, Gurgaon, India Sandeep GoyalDoctoral Candidate at the Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. 2012. Enabling healthcare services for the rural and semi‐urban segments in India: when shared value meets the bottom of the pyramid. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 12:4, 514-533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 166.Hans C. Curtius, Karoline Künzel, Moritz Loock. 2012. Generic customer segments and business models for smart grids. der markt 51:2-3, 63-74. [CrossRef] 167.Sam SolaimaniFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Harry BouwmanFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands and Institute for Advanced Management Systems Research, Abo Akademi University, Turku, Finland. 2012. A framework Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) for the alignment of business model and business processes. Business Process Management Journal 18:4, 655-679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 168.Anastasia Tsvetkova, Magnus Gustafsson. 2012. Business models for industrial ecosystems: a modular approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 29-30, 246-254. [CrossRef] 169.Christian NielsenAndreas BjörkeAcademy of Sustainable Development of Science and Technology, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden. 2012. Is there happiness therein? BM and HRCA for self‐employed. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 16:2, 95-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 170.김김김, 김김김. 2012. Development Business Model Six Principles and Application Smart-Work Business. The e-Business Studies 13:2, 203-222. [CrossRef] 171.Eva Bucherer, Uli Eisert, Oliver Gassmann. 2012. Towards Systematic Business Model Innovation: Lessons from Product Innovation Management. Creativity and Innovation Management 21:2, 183-198. [CrossRef] 172.Cinzia BattistellaDepartment of Electric, Managerial and Mechanical Engineering, University of Udine, Udine, Italy Gianluca BiottoDepartment of Electric, Managerial and Mechanical Engineering, University of Udine, Udine, Italy Alberto F. De ToniDepartment of Electric, Managerial and Mechanical Engineering, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 2012. From design driven innovation to meaning strategy. Management Decision 50:4, 718-743. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 173.Yuandi Wang, Wim Vanhaverbeke, Nadine Roijakkers. 2012. Exploring the impact of open innovation on national systems of innovation — A theoretical analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79:3, 419-428. [CrossRef] 174.Giovanni Schiuma, Daniela Carlucci and Antonio LerroRéjean LandryManagement, Laval University, Québec, Canada Nabil AmaraManagement, Laval University, Québec, Canada. 2012. Elucidation and enhancement of knowledge and technology transfer business models. VINE 42:1, 94-116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 175.Hua Wang, Chris KimbleBusiness Model Innovation and the Development of the Electric Vehicle Industry in China 240-253. [CrossRef] 176.Jeaneth Johansson, Malin Malmström, Diana Chroneer, Maria Ek Styven, Anne Engström, Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn. 2012. Business Models at Work in the Mobile Service Sector. iBusiness 04:01, 84-92. [CrossRef] 177.Zhu Naixiao, Huang Chunhua. 2012. Research on Open Innovation in China. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management 3:1, 65-71. [CrossRef] 178.Paul LillrankDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, School of Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland Minni SärkkäDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, School of Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland. 2011. The service machine as a service operation framework. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 4:3, 274-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 179.Kai-Ingo Voigt. 2011. Special topic: strategic innovations. Review of Managerial Science 5:4, 263-264. [CrossRef] 180.Florian Lüdeke-Freund, Moritz Loock. 2011. Debt for brands: tracking down a bias in financing photovoltaic projects in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production 19:12, 1356-1364. [CrossRef] 181.Christoph Zott, Raphael Amit, Lorenzo Massa. 2011. The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management 37:4, 1019-1042. [CrossRef] 182.Abdullah Basiouni, Rod McNaughtonInnovation in e-business models: A net-enabled business innovation cycle (NEBIC) theory perspective with empirical evidence 114-120. [CrossRef] 183.Wan Xing, Xuan Ye, Lv Kui. 2011. Measuring convergence of China's ICT industry: An input–output analysis. Telecommunications Policy 35:4, 301-313. [CrossRef] 184.Jonathan C. Ho, Fang-Mei Tseng, Chung-Shing LeeService Business Model Innovation: A Conceptual Model and a Framework for Management Consulting 247-251. [CrossRef] 185.Florian Lüdeke-Freund, Moritz LoockWhat Kinds of Photovoltaic Projects Do Lenders Prefer to Finance? 107-124. [CrossRef] 186.Daniel Kindström. 2010. Towards a service-based business model – Key aspects for future competitive advantage. European Management Journal 28:6, 479-490. [CrossRef] 187.PETER T. GIANIODIS, S. C. ELLIS, E. SECCHI. 2010. ADVANCING A TYPOLOGY OF OPEN INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation Management 14:04, 531-572. [CrossRef] 188.Rita Gunther McGrath. 2010. Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach. Long Range Planning 43:2-3, 247-261. [CrossRef] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT) 189.Christoph Zott, Raphael Amit. 2010. Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning 43:2-3, 216-226. [CrossRef] 190.E. Gummesson, C. Mele and F. PoleseSuvi NenonenHanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Kaj StorbackaHanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland. 2010. Business model design: conceptualizing networked value co‐creation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 2:1, 43-59. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 191.Mika Horttanainen, Juha Kaikko, Riikka Bergman, Minna Pasila-Lehtinen, Janne Nerg. 2010. Performance analysis of power generating sludge combustion plant and comparison against other sludge treatment technologies. Applied Thermal Engineering 30:2-3, 110-118. [CrossRef] 192.ERIK G. HANSEN, FRIEDRICH GROSSE-DUNKER, RALF REICHWALD. 2009. SUSTAINABILITY INNOVATION CUBE — A FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE SUSTAINABILITY-ORIENTED INNOVATIONS. International Journal of Innovation Management 13:04, 683-713. [CrossRef] 193.Ángeles Montoro-Sánchez. 2009. Competitive dynamics and business models in service business: a promising research subject. Service Business 3:4, 311-318. [CrossRef] 194.Reema KhuranaInstitute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad, India and Vijay V. MandkeCIIR, Pune, India. 2009. Business process modeling with information integrity. Business Process Management Journal 15:4, 487-503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 195.Lingyun Wang, P. Jaring, Arto WallinDeveloping a conceptual framework for business model innovation in the context of open innovation 453-458. [CrossRef] 196.Maria Rosita Cagnina, Michele Poian. 2009. Beyond e-business models: the road to virtual worlds. Electronic Commerce Research 9:1-2, 49-75. [CrossRef] 197.Samuel Grandval, Benjamin Morisse. 2009. L'architecture des compétences centrée efficience : un choix risqué ? Le cas Général Motors. Management & Avenir 28:8, 123. [CrossRef] 198.Qiuying ChenA Value-Oriented Framework of Business Models Innovation 426-430. [CrossRef] 199.Brian Harmer, Pak Yoong. 2008. Opportunistic Bargains: Exploring an Unusual B2C E-commerce Model. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 10:2, 25-36. [CrossRef] 200.Nordine BenkeltoumBibliographie 215-228. [CrossRef] 201.A Dynamic Vision of Value Chains 156-182. [CrossRef] 202.Jarmila Šebestová, Zuzana PalováSupport of Social Innovations: 165-187. [CrossRef] 203.Job Taminiau, Joseph Nyangon, Ariella Shez Lewis, John ByrneSustainable Business Model Innovation: 140-159. [CrossRef] 204.Guido Bortoluzzi, Patrizia de Luca, Francesco Venier, Bernardo BalboniInnovation Scope and the Performance of the Firm 551-568. [CrossRef] 205.Zhu Naixiao, Huang ChunhuaResearch on Open Innovation in China 714-720. [CrossRef] 206.Don Scott-KemmisBusiness Innovation 209-240. [CrossRef] 207.Jiban Khuntia, Mohan Tanniru, John ZervosExtending Care Outside of the Hospital Walls: 603-620. [CrossRef] 208.Michaela SprengerE-Health Business Models 157-168. [CrossRef] 209.Arash NajmaeiBusiness Model 100-131. [CrossRef] Downloaded by La Trobe University At 02:11 31 March 2017 (PT)