We examined Business Model (BM) designs-performance relationship and the moderating effects of firm age and external environment on this relationship. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of simultaneously operating dual BM designs (i.e. novelty and efficiency) on firm performance and contingent effect of firm age on this relationship. Based on data from 241 Indian SMEs, our findings highlighted that BM novelty was of greater benefit to younger SMEs compared to mature SMEs, while BM efficiency was of greater benefit to more mature SMEs. The environmental dynamism positively moderated the relationship between BM novelty and performance but it negatively moderated the relationship between BM efficiency and performance. We also found that BM efficiency is more beneficial in a low, rather than a high, munificent environment but we found environmental munificence did not moderate the BM novelty and SME performance relationship. Finally, we found simultaneous deployment of BM novelty and BM efficiency resulted in an enhancement of performance among mature SMEs compared to younger SMEs. Our study not only adds to the limited literature on BMs in SMEs but also helps practicing managers and entrepreneurs to make informed choices about their BMs.

We would like to thank the Editors and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions during the review process. They have engaged in a constructive dialogue and this has helped us to improve the manuscript substantially.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between business‐level strategy and organisational performance and to test the applicability of Porter's generic strategies in explaining differences in the performance of organisations.Design/methodology/approachThe study was focussed on manufacturing firms in the UK belonging to the electrical and mechanical engineering sectors. Data were collected through a postal survey using the survey instrument from 124 organisations and the respondents were all at CEO level. Both objective and subjective measures were used to assess performance. Non‐response bias was assessed statistically and it was not found to be a major problem affecting this study. Appropriate measures were taken to ensure that common method variance (CMV) does not affect the results of this study. Statistical tests indicated that CMV problem does not affect the results of this study.FindingsThe results of this study indicate that firms adopting one of the strategies, namely cost‐leadership or differentiation, perform better than “stuck‐in‐the‐middle” firms which do not have a dominant strategic orientation. The integrated strategy group has lower performance compared with cost‐leaders and differentiators in terms of financial performance measures. This provides support for Porter's view that combination strategies are unlikely to be effective in organisations. However, the cost‐leadership and differentiation strategies were not strongly correlated with the financial performance measures indicating the limitations of Porter's generic strategies in explaining performance heterogeneity in organisations.Originality/valueThis study makes an important contribution to the literature by identifying some of the gaps in the literature through a systematic literature review and addressing those gaps.

No abstract

PurposeThis study aims to examine the moderating effects of external environment and organisational structure in the relationship between business‐level strategy and organisational performance.Design/methodology/approachThe focus of the study is on manufacturing firms in the UK belonging to the electrical and mechanical engineering sectors, and respondents were CEOs. Both objective and subjective measures were used to assess performance. Non‐response bias was assessed statistically and appropriate measures taken to minimise the impact of common method variance (CMV).FindingsThe results indicate that environmental dynamism and hostility act as moderators in the relationship between business‐level strategy and relative competitive performance. In low‐hostility environments a cost‐leadership strategy and in high‐hostility environments a differentiation strategy lead to better performance compared with competitors. In highly dynamic environments a cost‐leadership strategy and in low dynamism environments a differentiation strategy are more helpful in improving financial performance. Organisational structure moderates the relationship of both the strategic types with ROS. However, in the case of ROA, the moderating effect of structure was found only in its relationship with cost‐leadership strategy. A mechanistic structure is helpful in improving the financial performance of organisations adopting either a cost‐leadership or a differentiation strategy.Originality/valueUnlike many other empirical studies, the study makes an important contribution to the literature by examining the moderating effects of both environment and structure on the relationship between business‐level strategy and performance in a detailed manner, using moderated regression analysis.