Managing business model renewal

Sandström, Christian; Osborne, Ralf Geert

doi:10.1504/ijbsr.2011.042094

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It requires entrepreneurs and managers to 1) understand the "deep truth" about the fundamental needs of customers and how competitors are or are not satisfying those needs; 2) understand all technical and organizational possibilities for improvements; 3) make many informed guesses about the future behavior of customers and competitors as well as about costs; and 4) make requisite adjustments to the existing business model only after considerable trial and error learning (Sosna et al, 2010;Teece, 2010). The key disruptive BMI adoption challenges are to find out how new products and services create and distribute value across the actors in a firm's value network and how the different actors' incentives need to be aligned with the new value distribution (Markides, 2006;Sandström and Osborne, 2011;Sandström, 2010).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Entrepreneurship, Disruptive Business Model Innovation Adoption, and Its Performance: The Case of the Newspaper Industry

Karimi¹,

Walter²

2016

Long Range Planning

208

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Entrepreneurship, Disruptive Business Model Innovation Adoption, and Its Performance: The Case of the Newspaper Industry

Karimi¹,

Walter²

2016

Long Range Planning

208

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Teece (2010) talks in this context about business model reshaping, adjusting, redefinition, and adaptation of configuration. Business model changes are also referred to in the literature as business model innovation (Chesbrough, 2010;Gambardella & McGahan, 2010;Zott et al, 2011), evolution or reformulation (Morris et al, 2005), redesign (Osterwalder, 2004), dynamism Ferreira et al, 2013), renewal or reconfiguration (Chesbrough, 2010;Sandstrom & Osborne, 2011). We refer to it in the context of our argument as business model reconfiguration, which can take form through changes in various dimensions of the business model (Osterwalder, 2004).…”

Section: Service Infusion Process As a Business Model Reconfigurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the service infusion process as a business model reconfiguration

Forkmann

Ramos

Henneberg

et al. 2017

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study conceptualizes service infusion as a business model reconfiguration by using a process perspective. Service infusion is therefore understood as a process affecting the business model dimensions of transaction content, structure, and governance. The servicerelated reconfiguration of the business model is explained by underlying knowledge conversion mechanisms, which provide insights into the development of reconfiguration capacities as important enablers for business model change. Furthermore, this study introduces the concept of service defusion as an important counterpart to service infusion. Both concepts together are found to fully capture firms' strategic options with respect to their service offering components (transaction content), their engagement with, and disengagement from, important business partners (transaction structure), and also their interactions with these important business partners (transaction governance). The conceptually derived understanding of the service infusion process and mechanisms are exemplified via a multiactor longitudinal illustrative case study. A conceptual grounding for understanding service infusion processes for further theory and concept development is provided, and managers gain an understanding of how to effectively manage the processes underlying service-related business model reconfigurations.

show abstract

“…The research dealing with industrial networks and social mechanisms (CAT2) is less developed, representing about one quarter of all the relevant papers (31.5 per cent) (including the first search profile on causation). Another overall conclusion is that the two areas of boundary issues and social mechanisms hardly overlap; we have only identified two cross-categorized papers that appear in both: Sandström and Osborne (2011) and Crespin-Mazet et al (2014).…”

Section: A Review Of the Literature On Industrial Network As Complex Adaptive Economic Systemsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The paper by Sandström and Osborne (2011) appeared in the results using both causation and boundary as search strings and addresses business model renewal. This piece of research uses industrial network theory to explain why the business model had to be renewed when a company introduced a new product.…”

Section: A Review Of the Literature On Industrial Network As Complex Adaptive Economic Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding business networks from a mixed network and system ontology position

Prenkert

2017

IMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ontological implications of combining network and system ontology to conceptualize industrial networks as the empirical manifestations of complex adaptive economic systems. Design/methodology/approach This paper contributes with a systematic discussion on how network and system ontology can be combined to produce better understandings of business networks. It also provides a review of the state-of-the art research literature on the topic as a starting point for the discussion. Findings Findings indicate that networks may be enclosed in each other constituting sub- and supra-networks comprising increasing complexity. In these cases, sub-networks that are black-boxed can be seen as entities in themselves producing inputs and outputs to the supra-network. Networks, once they become black-boxed, can assume the functions of generative mechanisms within a wider supra-network. Research limitations/implications This research is conceptual in nature and needs to be complemented with empirical research. In addition, the literature review used one database complemented with papers from the IMP journal. A wider search could reveal additional research that can be of relevance for the development of the field. Originality/value This paper addresses the ontological and methodological issues arising from a mixed system and network ontology. These issues are commonly ignored or dealt with indirectly in extant literature. For any accumulation of knowledge in the field to be possible, the explication of a mixed ontology is important as it have conceptual and methodological consequences. Adopting such a mixed ontological position provides an ontology in line with empirical research of business practice.

show abstract

Managing business model renewal

Cited by 16 publications

References 28 publications

Corporate Entrepreneurship, Disruptive Business Model Innovation Adoption, and Its Performance: The Case of the Newspaper Industry

Corporate Entrepreneurship, Disruptive Business Model Innovation Adoption, and Its Performance: The Case of the Newspaper Industry

Understanding the service infusion process as a business model reconfiguration

Understanding business networks from a mixed network and system ontology position

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About