Disruption by design? Classification framework for the archetypes of disruptive business models

Abstract

The current scholarly debates highlight the role of business models for understanding the dynamics inherent to disruptive innovations. Additionally, research on business models argues for similarities between business models, as they are shared by multiple competitors and across industries. Despite the recent advancements in both debate streams, a consolidation of the research on the underlying similarities of disruptive business models is lacking. Such a consolidation would allow learning from previous waves of disruption, ultimately informing theory and practice to cope with the increasing pace and impact of disruptive innovations. Consequently, this study systematically identifies 122 disruptive business models that have been discussed in the literature during 2006–2019. Based on qualitative content analysis, we then develop a classification framework and propose five archetypes of disruptive business models: (1) matchmakers, (2) standardizers, (3) service providers, (4) open collaborators, and (5) performance reducers. We make a twofold contribution to the discussions around the hitherto tentatively specified business models underlying disruptive innovations, thus emphasizing the contingency of the phenomenon. First, we discuss how the identified archetypes are inducing disruptive dynamics. Second, we elaborate on how the archetypes are constituting paths towards disruption.

Enacting disruption: how entrepreneurial ventures innovate value propositions to increase the attractiveness of their technologies

“…In light of this, we identify how aspiring disruptors enact their disruptive ambitions. Our findings suggest aspiring disruptors can be differentiated from existing incumbents via value proposition design considerations rather than technological aspects (Schmidt and van der Sijde, 2022).…”

“…, 2018; Hopp et al. , 2018; Schmidt and van der Sijde, 2022). We contribute to this discourse by consolidating existing theoretical insights on VPI examining the configuration of disruptive value propositions by identifying new VPI tactics.…”

“…The academic discourse has evolved from the pivotal argument by Christensen et al (2018) that DI causes market shifts due to business-model innovation; it now includes the configuration and strategic management of disruptive business models (Christensen et al, 2018;Hopp et al, 2018;Schmidt and van der Sijde, 2022). We contribute to this discourse by consolidating existing theoretical insights on VPI examining the configuration of disruptive value propositions by identifying new VPI tactics.…”

50+ years of R&D Management: a retrospective synthesis and new research trajectories

“…Some interesting recent contributions in R&D Management relate to the role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Buratti et al, 2022) and innovation ecosystems (Wikhamn and Styhre, 2023), along with studies examining complementary innovation and generativity afforded by digital platforms (Hilbolling et al, 2020). Furthermore, platforms and ecosystems are being integrated with a classic topic in R&D Management – business model innovation (see, e.g., Schmidt and van der Sijde, 2022; Schneckenberg et al, 2022). Orchestration .…”

Technological sensing and response capabilities as drivers for radical innovation in the context of apocalyptic uncertainty

“…Davcik et al (2021) find that SMEs' technological and marketing capabilities have significant effects on their performance in the international marketplace. Others highlight the role of suitable human resource practices, organizational learning culture, and knowledge sharing (Naqshbandi et al, 2023) and the importance of disruptive business models (Schmidt and van der Sijde, 2022) in the adoption of innovative technologies by SMEs. However, despite growing evidence about the importance of adopting technological innovation to improve SMEs' overall performance, there is little research on the impact of the technological capabilities of SMEs on their ability to respond to unexpected economic crises (Sharma et al, 2020).…”