This study addresses the question of how established organizations develop new business models over time, using a process research approach to trace how four business model innovation trajectories unfold. With organizational learning as analytical lens, we discern two process patterns: "drifting" starts with an emphasis on experiential learning and shifts later to cognitive search; "leaping," in contrast, starts with an emphasis on cognitive search and shifts later to experiential learning. Both drifting and leaping can result in radical business model innovations, while their occurrence depends on whether a new business model takes off from an existing model and when it goes into operation. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory on business models and organizational learning.

This study addresses the question of how established organizations develop new business models over time, using a process research approach to trace how four business model innovation trajectories unfold. With organizational learning as analytical lens, we discern two process patterns: “drifting” starts with an emphasis on experiential learning and shifts later to cognitive search; “leaping,” in contrast, starts with an emphasis on cognitive search and shifts later to experiential learning. Both drifting and leaping can result in radical business model innovations, while their occurrence depends on whether a new business model takes off from an existing model and when it goes into operation. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory on business models and organizational learning.

This study investigates the decision‐making logics used by new ventures to develop their business models. In particular, they focussed on the logics of effectuation and causation and how their dynamics shape the development of business models over time. They found that the effectual decision‐making logic was used dominantly to generate a viable value proposition for a specific customer segment. Causal logic is then used dominantly to define the other business model components in relation to the value proposition and customer segment. When a shortage of resources emerges, causal logic is replaced by an increase in effectual decision‐making again. They concluded that before investing significant resources in a business model it was crucial for firms to reduce, as far as possible, technological and market uncertainty through effectual strategies to avoid high re‐configuration costs later.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse a firm’s internal and external drivers of formal and informal open innovation (OI) practices. To enrich the analysis and to obtain more robust results, the authors checked the study’s hypotheses using samples from two European regions, Navarre (Spain), classified an innovator follower, and Noord-Brabant (Netherlands), an innovator leader. Design/methodology/approach The sample selected includes manufacturing and service firms that completed the Community Innovation Survey for the year 2008 in both regions. The final sample had 1,288 observations from Navarre and 623 observations from Noord-Brabant. The authors consider two OI dimensions, breadth of information sources for informal OI practices and breadth of cooperation agreement for formal OI practices. Finally, the estimates were performed by means of a negative binomial regression. Findings Results indicate that for the internal drivers, product-related motives to innovate and in-house R&D intensity are strong drivers for both formal and informal OI engagement in general, while the influence of process- and environmental-related motives are context dependence. Originality/value This study distinguishes between formal (i.e. cooperation activities) and informal (i.e. external sources of information used for new ideas) inbound OI practices, while most of the literature has focussed on one single type of OI practice. The use of two samples coming from two different European regions allows observe whether the adoption motives of the OI practices are robust independently from the firms’ location or if they vary across regions owing to context dependence.