Business model innovation from the strategic posture perspective

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to identify the differentiated paths followed by firms to innovate in business models, among four different strategic postures and also to determine the innovation interactions between business model components, among strategic postures. The authors intend to highlight the differentiated patterns of business model innovation (BMI) in each strategic posture and provide guidance to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) managers regarding the suitable alignments of business model components when they innovate in their business model. Design/methodology/approach The research model developed and tested in this work uses a composite model that borrows from the logic of Miles and Snow’s cycle of adaptive strategic choices as well as Demil and Lecocq’s perspective of permanent change within and between components of a business model. The authors’ model is designed first to encompass the differentiated patterns characterizing the relationships between the strategic posture of defender, prospector and analyzer profiles and the related innovation attributes of their business model components. The study was conducted with independent French manufacturing SMEs ranging from 10 to 250 employees in size and having revenues below €50m (European Commission, 2007). The analysed sample includes 169 firms from 14 sectors representative of French manufacturing SMEs. Findings Results confirm the differentiated propensity to adopt specific BMI behaviours among strategic postures. The authors also highlight the differentiated interactions between and within BMI components. These results suggest that SMEs tend to leverage specific BMI components related to their entrepreneurial, engineering and administrative choices. Thus, firms tend to evolve in a posture-specific, path-dependent dynamic consistency in which BMI attributes interact towards a limited set of alternatives, thus anchoring the new business model into strategic choices. It has been shown that the predictability of strategy–BMI alignment is contingent on the level of fit between empirically derived strategic profile attributes and Miles and Snow’s ideal profile attributes. Research limitations/implications This paper investigates strategy–BMI alignments without addressing such alignments from the standpoint of firm performance. Still, performance from a BMI perspective lies in the ability of the firm to sustain the dynamic consistency of its business model components by identifying the effects of change in interactions between and within components on overall BM performance. Further studies should explore dynamic consistency as a means for firms to generate and maintain performance by innovating in their business model when facing specific contingencies. The conceptual framework designed for the present research seems appropriate for conducting such an investigation on the performance implications of strategy–BMI fit. Practical implications This research offers insights regarding manufacturing SMEs seeking guidance when changing business strategy. Indeed, by combining Miles and Snow’s configurational framework of strategic postures with Demil and Lecocq’s RCOV BM framework, the authors provide insights that can bridge the gap between intended strategy and realized strategy. The authors suggest that when realizing new strategic choices, SMEs should favour behaviours of BMI that are likely to fit the new intended strategic posture. Accordingly, the authors introduce a set of field-based BMI alignments specific to firms’ strategic posture to support the strategic management of innovation in SMEs. Originality/value By unravelling the alignments between strategic posture and business model innovation, this work contributes to enlightening the dynamics of Miles and Snow’s adaptive cycle. Indeed, viewing Miles and Snow’s typology from the configurational perspective of BMI provides a clearer picture of the adaptive cycle through which BMI reflects the path-dependent process of the formation of the firm’s strategic posture through the transformation of its business model.

Business model innovation: a review of the process-based literature

“…Others suggest different processes according to the contexts in which the companies are embedded. In this vein, Ammar & Chereau ( 2018 ) suggests different paths to innovate the business model components in small and medium enterprises, while other authors develop models of BM adaptation and innovation to enter new markets (Cao et al, 2018 ; Dunford et al, 2010 ; Landau et al, 2016 ). Stubbs ( 2019 ) focuses on BMI strategies related to socially responsible companies, and Bogers et al ( 2015 ) examine BMI strategies for family-owned companies.…”

Factors determining company performance in the IT industry

“…Doz and Kosonen (2010) add the fact that dramatic shifts of business models in the IT industry take place because of shifts in customer demand. Ammar and Chereau (2018) consider that adapting to the customer's demand can be perceived as a double-sword approach. This means that it can provide a first mover advantage, but it can also influence an organization to lose its primary business focus.…”

The Business Model of Start-Up—Structure and Consequences

“…He found that the long-term survival of the new technology-based firm, which according to the study is identified de facto to start-up, had been significantly affected by the business experience and size of the enterprise (employment). The study by Ammar and Chereau (2018) considers it a research limit if strategy-business model innovation alignments are not investigated along with addressing such alignments from the standpoint of firm performance. These studies hint that looking for a link between the performance of a start-up and its assumptions makes sense, although factors of the business experience and size of the enterprise are not directly related to the business model however they extend the range of relevant factors.…”