jurnal
International Journal of Business
and Manegement; Vol. 7, No. 14; 2012 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 Published by Canadian
Center of Science and Education
Business Model Innovation
Leadership: How Do SME’s Strategically Lead Business Model Innovation?
Peter
Lindgren1
1 Department of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Correspondence:
Peter Lindgren, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg
University,
Aalborg, Denmark. Tel: 45-29-79-49-69. E-mail:
pel@m-tech.aau.dk
Received:
January 28, 2012
Accepted: June 6, 2012
Online Published: July 16, 2012
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n14p53
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n14p53
Abstract
When SME´s practice business model (BM) innovation
(BMI), leading strategically BMs through the innovation process can be the
difference between success and failure to a BM. Business Model Innovation
Leadership (BMIL) is however extremely complex to carry out especially to small
and medium size enterprises (SME). There are so many opportunities, pitfalls
and strategies to consider while “the business” has to be operated
simultaneously.
The paper provides a study of BMIL in practise in
SME´s and show different ways of how they handle BMIL and BMIL strategies. The
SME´s were examined through a framework model called the BMIL strategy canvas.
The research approach was action research carried out from 2008 - 2012. Intense
study of 35 US and EU SME´s and 97 of their different BM´s form the empirical
background. The findings represent learning and characteristic of BMIL with a
strong reference to state of the art theory in BM and BMI.
The research reveals that SME´s focus on very
classic BMI approaches and BMIL strategies. SME´s focus in most cases on reactive
“outside in and reactive “inside in” BMIL strategies. SME´s are primarily
focusing on meeting needs and demands of an inside out “predefined” set of user
and/or customer groups. SME´s are reacting to a specific customer or market
demand but the BMIL strategies do often not put them in a better or more
central strategic position in their market and industry – and in the BMI
process.
The research shows some common approaches about
SME´s BMI and BMIL strategy - Specifically, 1) Most SME´s do not formulate
explicitly a BMIL strategy – they are doing BMI rather blindly 2) Very few
SME´s are structured about their BMIL strategy and BMIL strategy process 3)
SME´s focus in their BMIL on very few and often the same building blocks of the
BM - especially the building blocks value proposition, target customer and
value chain [Internal] – often regardless of the actual specific BMIL task,
market demand and context of BMI 4) SME´s often leaves big BM potential behind
because they cannot see the potential and are often not able to capitalised
upon these 5) SME´s is generally in lack of BMIL skills.
Keywords:
business model innovation
leadership, business model, business model innovation strategy 1. Introduction
Business model (BM) and Business Model Innovation
(BMI) has been the focus of substantial attention by both academics and
practitioners (Zott 2011), (Teece 2012). The BM has been the subject of a still
growing number of academic and practitioner-oriented studies. While there has
been an increasing number of papers published, fast growing communities on BM´s
(Business model Communities 2012) and an abundance of conference sessions and
panels on the subject of BM´s, it appears that researchers and practitioners
have yet not researched widely on, what are SME´s BMI strategies and what are
SME´s strategically doing when they practice BMI. Especially the strategic
leadership part of BMI has not yet thoroughly been studied and there is not
much knowledge about how BMI strategically is carried out in SME’s.
There is until now no accepted language for BM
(Zott 2010) and neither for strategic BMI that would allow researchers who
examine strategic BMI through different lenses to draw effectively on each
other’s’ work. The study takes up the challenges by reporting and giving some
first insight to the strategic part of BMI. The paper intend to answer the
research questions
How do SME´s strategically practice BMI?
53
How do SME´s practice BMI leadership (BMIL)?
Which types of BMIL can be identified in SME´s?
The paper begins with a broad and multifaceted
review, which revealed several insights and enables the development of a
generic framework on BM, BMI and strategic BMI. In this context the paper
builds upon a comprehensive review of academic literature including the origin
of the BM concepts, BMI and Strategic Innovation Leadership. The paper ends up
reporting the results of the research and proposing a terminology on strategic
BMIL framework.
2. The
Literature and Definition of Business Model Innovation Leadership
Academia’s have studied both implicit and explicit
assumptions about BM (Magretta 2002, Afuah 2003, Morris 2003, Osterwalder 2004,
Chesbrough 2006, Johnson 2008, Lindgren 2010, Taran 2011, Zott 2010, Teece
2011, Lindgren 2012). In this context our research builds upon the following
terminologies
The Business Inspired by (Abell 1980), (Porter
1985), (Hammel 1985), (Vervest 1995), (Johnson and
Christensen 2010) where we define a business
defined on 7 dimensions:
1)
Value proposition – Value proposition (product, services and process of
service and products) rendered by the business
2)
Customer Groups – user and customer groups served by the business
3)
Value Chain [Internal Part] – Value Chain functions carried out, used to
produce value proposition (products and service) and serve users/ customer
groups in the business
4)
Competences – used technology (product, production, process
technologies), human resource, organizational system, culture used in the
business
5)
Networks – Networks – physical, digital and virtual used in the business
6)
Relations – tangible and intangible relations used in the business
7)
Value formular – value formular for the business
Most Academia covers the term Business Model at an
overall business level. This could be related to the term The core Business
(Abell 1983, Hammel 1995) which is
“How a business idealized construction and intend
for "main" and "essential" business activities we propose
defined related to the 7 business dimensions”
However in our research we found that most business
have a variety of activities in the business – a variety of business models.
These different BM´s can often not be explained strictly by one core business
model – a model of the business. As a consequence a business can be said to
have one or more business models – the multi business model approach (Lindgren
2011). However any of these BM´s can be define as related to a generic Business
Model consisting of 7 generic building blocks that answers some core questions
to each BM
Table 1. 7 Building blocks of a BM (Lindgren 2011)
|
|
Core questions related to BM
|
|
Core building block
|
Building blocks
|
|
|
|
|
Value proposition/s (products,
services and processes) that the
|
What
value proposition do we provide?
|
|
company offers (Physical, Digital, Virtual)
|
|
|
Target users and customer/s, (users customers,
market segments
|
Who do
we serve?
|
|
that the company serves –geographies, physical,
digital, virtual).
|
|
|
Value chain [internal] configuration.(physical,
digital, virtual)
|
What value
chain functions do
we
|
|
|
provide?
How do we provide it?
|
|
Competences
(assets, processes and
activities) that translate
|
What
competences do we provide?
|
|
company’s’ inputs into value for customers
(outputs).(Physical,
|
|
|
digital, Virtual)
|
|
|
Network-
Network and Network
partners (e.g. strategic
|
What is
our network?
|
|
partnerships, supply chains and others (Physical,
digital, virtual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
International
Journal of Business and Management
|
Vol. 7, No. 14; 2012
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relations(s) Relationship(s) (e.g. physical,
digital and virtual
|
What are our relations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
relations, personal, peers). (Physical, digital,
virtual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value formula Profit formula – Both turnover
structure, cost
|
What is
our value formula?
|
|||
|
|
structure and revenue flow and other value
formula. (physical,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
digital, virtual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The BM is considered in most
literature as measurable, objective, and though there are many different
definitions (Taran 2011) and types of Business models (e.g., open and closed
business models (Chesbrough 2008, Lindgren 2011), free business models
(Anderson 2009), internet based business models (Zott 2002), multi business
models (Lindgren 2010) most define business model on a business level and at a
core business level. The paper propose that there is a need for a distinction
between Business, core Business and BM´s to prevent fuzziness and even make the
BM framework useful to a business and especially related to a BMI context.
When a business is considered to have more than one
BM in its Business and the BM´s together forms one or more portfolio(s) of BM´s
in the business (Lindgren 2011) this enables the business to do BMI on both a
building block level, a BM level, a BM portfolio level and a Business level.
BMI can in this context both be valuable and focused on BM on the way to the
market (TO BE) BM and in the market (AS IS) BM illustrated in the model
beneath.
Figure 1. “AS IS” and “TO BE” BM in a business
Source: Lindgren and Saghaug 2011
This calls of course for BMI strategic overview,
analysis, strategies and actions in each individual business, which could be
related to Business Model Innovation Leadership (BMIL).
2.1 Introducing Business Model Innovation
Leadership (BMIL)
Academia´s have thoroughly studied innovation
(Schumpeter 1957, Boer 2001, Ulrich and Eppinger 2000, Tidd 2005, Chesbrough
2005). In this context BMI was proposed defined as the tree of innovation
(Taran 2011) to a Business, as the BM covers all the building blocks a business
can innovate on.
Innovation leadership and management has also been
discussed among academics for many years (Brymann 2004), (Rooke 2005) but not
particular in a BMI context. The literature study on leadership shows that
leadership studies have mainly been focused at the manager and at manager role
when leading the business. In this paper the focus is on the strategic part of
BMIL in particular
55
-
the strategic creative part of BMI – BMI thinking and BMI mindset
related to innovating each building blocks of each BM ( both TO BE and AS IS
(Lindgren 2011)) in the business.
The strategic implementation and action part –
strategic BMI implementation with the aim of achieving and reaching strategic
BMI goals for the business.
The focus on how strategically and proactively to
lead the business and its related BM´s (both “AS IS” and “TO BE” BM´s) into the
core of the BMI process with the aim of gaining access, staying in and gaining
value and influence of the BMI process is regarded as the aim of BMIL. The
BMIL´s strategic goal could hereby be defined as to
-
bringing the business into “the core of the BMI process”
-
bringing the business into a better strategic BMI position in the core
of the BMI process” The core of a BMI process can be defined as
-
Where BMI is actually taking place and where the business(es) has(ve)
the opportunity to join, influence and even strategically lead BMI and the BMI
process.
The opposite – being left outside the core of BMI
process – often leaves businesses with no or reduced opportunities and no or
reduced influence to join and change the BMI process. This position is of
course not a strategic preferable position for a Business.
Managers today pay more and more attention to the
factum that most BM´s are constantly in change – and with more and more speed
(Fine 2005, Lindgren 2011) – BMI are under continuously innovation pressure.
The demand for BMI is therefore increasing, forcing a greater percentage of
SMEs to make BMI faster in the face of frequently changing BM context and
high-velocity BM environments. This often leaves the Business with the
challenge - How to strategically stay in the core of the BMI process?
These challenge and question was the main
motivation for our research interest and focus about strategic BMI. How do
SME`S really do BMI? And what types of strategic BMI do they really practice?
Although the issue of How to do BMI is not new to BMI studies very few have
addressed the question of How to be strategic about BMI. In this context some
research show that costs, performance and time have been important focus point
for BMI - but not as such in a strategic perspective. In the BMIL framework
other success criteria seems also to be important values, learning, short and
long term perspectives, strategic importance of a specific BMI project with the
aim to bring and keep the business in the core of BMI process.
Many businesses have learned to do BMI and if not,
they could be taught to do BMI. However still many business struggles to
survive and get return on investment of their BMI projects. It seems as if very
few businesses are able to do BMI strategically with advantage to the business.
BMIL – observed in our research-seems indeed to be very complex to practice –
especially to SME´s, because there are so many opportunities, pitfalls and
strategies to follow – together with the fact that there are very few service
tools to support them (Neffics 2010).
Learning from strategic BMI practice is therefore
considered as some first “raw material”, inspiratory and driver to any SME´s
BMI. BMIL – changing BM´s, finding new BM´s and leading them to and in the
market turns out indeed to be quite a different strategic matter related to
previous proposed leadership and innovation leadership strategies and practice.
Why - because BMIL is opposite to previous strategy proposals related to
continuously finding new ways of changing and realizing both “AS IS” and “TO BE”
BM´s.
This does not in particular have to be narrowly
focused on just product and market innovation – but could also innovation of
other building blocks of any BM in the business BM portfolio. BMIL should
preferable therefore be placed at the very strategic level of managing a
business as it address where “AS IS” BM are changed and where “TO BE” BM are
created, captured, delivered and consumed. It is where BMI is taking place,
carried out - before, under and beyond - idea, concept, prototyping, market
implementation. (Lindgren 2012)
BMIL should aim at increasing the SME´s BMI
capability and capacity by optimizing the business BMI investment via creating,
excluding, keeping, upgrading and diminishing value proposition offered, users
and customers served, function in the value chain [internal] served, competence
used, network used, relations and value formula used. The aim is to
strategically improve existing BM´s position and strategically finding new positions
for the BM´s in the business model context.
In BMIL context we differentiate between Business
Model Innovation leadership (BMIL) and Business Model Innovation management
(BMIMA) – as we consider the Leadership part as related to the strategic part
of BMI and management related to the tactical level of BMI. BMIL focus on “How
to strategically and proactively lead
56
the business portfolio of BM and BM innovation activities into the core
of the BM innovation process?”
Business model Innovation Management (BMIMA)
focuses on “How to tactically and proactively lead the business portfolio of BM
and BMI activities through the BM innovation process.”
BMIMA is in our context related to the definition
of management (Cooper 1993, Bessant 1999, Riis and Mikkelsen 2005) whereas BMIL
is related to Hammels (Hammel 1995), Porters (Porter 1985) and Kotlers (2008)
thoughts about strategic leadership. However BMIL goes beyond their definition,
which we will later comment on.
2.2 Business Model Innovation
Leadership (BMIL) and Different Strategy Frameworks
When BMIL is related to both a
strategic creative part - continuously thinking out of the box and stressing
the BMI mindset by questioning every building block of every BM from different
angles or view points and also related to an implementation and action part -
reaching change and business advantage for the business via implementation of a
BMIL strategy it is obvious to analyze, which BMIL strategies are available.
Several academia’s have previous developed different strategy frameworks for
business, competition, innovation, which give us a basis and inspiration for
formulating BMIL strategy framework. However in the context of BMIL it seems as
if there is a need for different strategies. Different strategies to different
BM´s - as the context of BMI today seems very different to every BM. A single
strategy seems not to be appropriated.
However our inspiration and point
of entry to propose such BMIL strategies and framework must build upon a
careful respect and analysis of previous strategy frameworks strength,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The new context of today’s BMI does not
automatically neglects previous achieved strategy knowledge.
3. Introduction to BMIL
Strategies
Before introducing BMIL
strategies we need to comment on some general issues and fundamental conditions
when formulating a BMIL strategy. We do this by exemplifying the BMIL strategy
issues via our use cases.
3.1 Research Methology
The research approach is action
research carried out over 4 years. Intense study of US and EU SME´s and their
different BM´s form the empirical background. Our research is carried out on 35
SME enterprises and 97 of their BMs. The research can only give some indicative
measures of what some SMEs are doing related to their BMs, BMI and BMIL
strategy.
3.1.1 Different BM calls for Different BM Innovation Leadership
Strategies
The different BMs in our use case
research show clearly that each BM calls and could value from different BMIL
strategies. The BMI task, context and success criteria were simply very
different in each BMI case. This is shown with different use cases verifying
different BMIL context and strategies.
The Cancer BM in the Katalabs
case shows an example of this statement, as this BM called for BMI on a network
basis and Katalabs Open space system BM called for more customer innovation.
Each BMI task could be related to BMI on one or more - often more - building
blocks in the BM as shown in the table beneath.
Figure 2.
Katalabs case – BMs related to different BMIL tasks
57
In the Katalabs case the BMIL canvas was
characterized differently for different cases – with the BMIL tasks primarily
at the upper left corner of the BMIL canvas - very much focused on value
innovation-, customer innovation- and value chain BMI – “As IS” BMIL strategy.
Just by making this overview – Business Model
Innovation strategy map - managers responsible for BMI and BMIL strategy could
see and sense what they were really doing related to BMI and what their BMIL
strategy really was about. The “mapping” of their BMI activities and BMIL
strategies – or lack of BMIL strategy could support their strategy thinking and
do better analysis of BMI and BMIL strategies.
This finding motivated us to
study more in detail what other use case businesses were really doing related
to BMI and BMIL strategy.
3.1.2 SMEs BMI Strategy Related to the BMIL Matrix
The cross business and BMI
analysis adds some interesting characteristics to our understanding of SME´s
BMI and BMIL strategy practice and formulation. We found that 51% of the BMI
projects were focused on two BM building blocks - Value Proposition and Target
customer. Adding a third building block - Value Chain - to this shows us that
SMEs BMIL strategy totally can be explain within these 3 building blocks with
68 %.
Figure 3. SMES general BMI focus related to
building blocks in the BM
Focusing on BMI related to “AS IS” BMs, the numbers
show 54% and 74% and for “TO BE” 49% and 62%. The picture looks a bit different
for “TO BE” BM because the network partner and the Relations building block
seem to be more important in Businesses BMI.
Looking at which innovation
leadership lines SME´s chose related to BMI shows that SMEs mainly focus on
Customer Innovation Leadership (CIL), Network Innovation Leadership (NIL) and
Value Innovation Leadership (VIL). Please see the definition of VIL, CIL and
NIL in appendix 1.
Figure 4. SME´s choice of
innovation leadership line related to BMI
58
This support the argument that SME´s are very
traditional and to some level very conservative in their approach to BMI and
choice of BMIL strategy (Hammel 1995). However we saw a clear trend –
especially in 2009 – 2012 towards a more network based approach and focus on
network partner building block in the BM and NIL. SME´s begin to be more aware
of the importance of networks and the network building block - involving more
and more network partner and networks into the BMI process.
As BMI becomes more network based (Taran 2010) the
focus on Network Partners value proposition and their demand for value becomes
more in focus. The innovation leadership line NIL becomes more important.
However more SMEs realized that in this BMI process the network partners demand
for value and output of BMI is not necessarily related to products, services
and profit. They can be very different than for traditional customers demand
for values - products, services and processes of product and services. They
could aim at getting learning, wish to experiment, sustainability and
fulfillment of values to their own customers and/or network partners further
out in different and other BMI processes.
“AS IS” BM compared to “TO BE” BM
seems to have a different Innovation Leadership approach. We registered a small
shift in focus related to “AS IS” and “TO BE” BM during the time periode of our
research.
Figure 5.
SME´s choice of innovation leadership line related to BMI focus on “As IS” and “TO
BE” BM´s
The choice of Innovation
leadership lines is not much different on “AS IS” as “TO BE” BM. However it
seems as if NIL is a bit more in focus on “To Be” BM.
Going through the 24 use cases in our research we
found that each BM had very different BMI tasks and context. BM´s called in
general for different BMIL strategies. In the Kellpo case - a Danish machine
and machine tool producer - we found that the BMI tasks were spread over the
BMIL canvas as illustrated in the figure beneath.
Figure 6.
Kellpo case – BMs related to BMIL task
59
We verified that each of Kellpo´s BM´s called for
different innovation leadership lines/viewpoint perspective to make them move
into a direction of interest of Kellpo. In the model we placed the BM´s where
they are placed at the moment in the BMIL strategy canvas.
We found that each Innovation
leadership line could influent the innovation process in very different ways -
individually but also together. In the table beneath each of the 7 lines of
innovation leadership are presented related to strength, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats.
Table 2. Innovation leadership related to view of BMI
Innovation
|
|
|
Strength
|
|
Weakness
|
Opportunity
|
|
Threats
|
|
|
||
Leadership
lines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value Innovation Focus
|
on
Value
|
innovation
related Focus
|
is seen
from
|
and
|
Isolation
|
|
and
|
|||||
Leadership
|
to each
of the specific BM building inside out perspective and
|
marginalization
|
of
|
|||||||||
|
block
|
|
|
|
the Business
|
/enterprise
|
the BM
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
own
perspective
|
|
BMI
|
based
|
|
on
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
internal
perception of
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how BMI
should be
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carried
out
|
|
|
|
Customer
|
Focus
|
on
|
User and
|
customer
Focus
|
is
|
seen
|
from
|
Too
|
much customer
|
|||
Innovation
|
innovation
|
and
|
their
|
viewpoint outside in perspective –
|
and
|
user
|
driven
|
|||||
Leadership
|
related
to the specific BM building the user or customers side
|
innovation
|
|
|
||||||||
|
blocks.
Focus on innovating with
|
|
|
|
No
|
Business
|
in
|
the
|
||||
|
the
user and customer to the next
|
|
|
|
BMI
|
|
|
|||||
|
step on
the users or
customers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
innovation
process in their BM(s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Value
Chain
|
Focused
on value chain innovation Focus is seen from inside Unpacking of
|
Too
|
Much
focus
|
on
|
||||||||
Innovation
|
and the
value
|
chains
|
view point
in perspective – the value Value Chain
|
Value Chain
|
BMI
|
Leadership
|
related
to each BM block.
|
|
chain
Internal perspective [Internal]
|
demands
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
demands
|
|
|
|
Competence
|
Focused
on competence innovating - Focus is seen from inside Unpacking of
|
Too
|
|
much
|
||||||||||
Innovation
|
technology-, HR-,
|
organisational
in perspective
|
–
|
the competence
|
competence
|
BMI
|
||||||||
Leadership
|
system
|
and
|
culture
|
innovation
competence
|
|
internal demands
|
demands
|
|
||||||
|
related
to each BM building block
|
perspective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Network
|
Focused
|
on
|
network
|
innovating Focus
|
is
|
seen
|
|
from Unpacking of
|
Too
|
much
|
Network
|
|||
Innovation
|
related
to each BM building block
|
outside
|
in
|
perspective
– network partner
|
BMI
demands
|
|||||||||
Leadership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the
network side
|
|
BMI demands
|
|
|
|
||
Relationship
|
Focus
on relation and relationship Focus
|
is
|
seen
|
|
from Unpacking of
|
Too
|
much
|
relations
|
||||||
Innovation
|
innovating
|
to
|
each
|
BM building outside in and inside out
Relations
|
BMI
demands
|
|||||||||
Leadership
|
block
|
|
|
|
|
|
perspective
|
–
|
|
very demands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
complex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Process
|
Focus
|
on
|
process
|
innovation
|
– Focus
|
is
|
seen
|
|
from Increasing the
|
Complex
|
and
|
|||
innovation
|
looking
|
|
innovation
|
related
|
to
horizontal
|
outside
|
in BMI field
|
breaking the
core
|
||||||
Leadership
|
different
processes and in different perspective – the process
|
business
area
|
||||||||||||
|
time
perspectives both before, under perspective side
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
and
after the specific BM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 Innovation Leadership Related
to Different Point of Time in BMI Life Cycle
The use case research showed that the 7 building
blocks in a BM could be related to all Innovation Leadership lines so that each
Innovation Leadership line could really work with each of the 7 building block
at a certain point in the innovation process – “the point of time in the BM
lifecycle”. This not to say that this was optimal done always by the
businesses. There are strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related
to all innovation leadership lines and their effect are very much dependent on
the BMI task and BMI context. Those responsible for BMIL strategy formulation must
be aware of this and learn about this through learning and practice.
60
Katalabs was e.g. initially not focusing much on
customer and customer innovation leadership but instead on getting users to
their BM. We found that this was changed by Katalabs, as Katalabs began to run
out of sweat money. Katalabs was “stucked” in their BMI strategy. Katalabs had
to focus much more on getting users to become customers and especially have
users to help develop the Katalab platform to attract other customers.
Some of Katalabs BMs had only users and no
customers, which initially was not an issue to Katalabs because they believed
that the users would eventually lead them to the customers – and then venture
capital (Like Facebook case – and Face book BMIL strategy). This BMIL strategy
was changed over time as Katalabs began to run out of free resources – and “sweat
money”. They kept themselves as a running business by earning money on other
BM´s (Cancer BM, Bornhom BM e.g.) in their BM portfolio and also by giving
those working on the new BM (Kataspace BM) “futures”. However they were
eventually forced to change BMIL strategy and had to change BMIL focus by
focusing more on customer innovation leadership and network innovation
leadership. (Lindgren 2012)
3.2.1 Orchestrating Innovation Leadership Lines Related to BMIL
The Aikon case showed us quit another but very
interesting thing related to BMIL practice. Aikon managers were, unlike some of
the other use cases, focused much more on using two innovation leadership lines
at the same time - Customer Innovation Leadership and Network Innovation
Leadership, in the BMIL canvas – simultaneously. They target particularly the
customer building block in each of their individual BMs but in two different
innovation leadership lines. This was amongst others due to the fact that Aikon
had already the capacity and competence on value proposition innovation –
especially products innovation - and value chain innovation leadership but they
were in deep lack of critical mass of customers.
Figure 7. Aikon case –
orchestrating innovation leadership to the BMI task related to time of BMI
Via orchestrating of two
innovation leadership lines – the customer innovation leadership with the
network innovation leadership line - and combining focus on customers with a
focus on network partners building block in two of their other BMs, Aikon
gained access to more and better customers to their BM hereby.
Further they choose to eliminate two BMs because
they were not generating profit. Aikon wanted to achieve focus in their overall
business innovation – their portfolio of BM´s. Therefore the glass kitchen and
the health info system were faced out of their BM portfolio. A very radical
BMIL excluding strategy was registered as Aikon choose taking a whole BM out of
the BM portfolio. A more incremental BMIL strategy would have been just to
change some of the building blocks in the BMs but Aikon managers could not see
which building block and how to change these.
The challenge to the AIKON enterprise but also to
other use cases studies was always to carefully analyze the BM innovation task
related to each BM and then choose between multitude and variable lines of
innovation leadership. To do this Aikon was in lack of a BMIL service tool that
could show them different scenarios and analysis of the BMIL task. This could
be developed with different BMIL strategy scenarios visualized in a BMIL
61
service tool.
3.2.2 A network- Relationship and Process Oriented BMIL Task
The Infolink Case solved the BMI challenges in ways
different than for the use cases that we described so far, namely primarily via
orchestrating Network-, Relationship-, and Process innovation leadership.
Infolink used their network and relations to get new customers, new suppliers
and new knowledge partners. They focused specifically on relationship
innovation leadership to continuously increase their BM platform. We tried to
illustrate this in the figure beneath.
Figure 8.
Infolink case – BMIL canvas
The green marked area shows where Infolink puts
their main BMIL strategy effort. Infolink is very special, when compared with
many of the other enterprises, because Infolink, in most cases, does not pay
network partners for supplying their Infolinks business and business models.
The network partners make their business indirectly and as a synergy effect out
of the present users at Infolinks courses.
Hereby we discovered some relations in BMI that are
not the same as those inside the BM – building block 6 in our original business
model framework. These relations go beyond the relations inside a BM and these
are now under research in our research group.
3.3 BMIL – A Vertical and
Horizontal Dimension of BMIL
In some of the use cases we studied we found that
businesses were trying to look out of their existing BM and even business. They
consider both vertical and horizontal process dimension to their BM. We
illustrate this by two examples.
3.3.1 A Vertical Dimension of BMIL Strategy
In the Provital case the business commenced to
develop a BM for the water cleaning sector. However they soon were contacted by
other businesses and potential customers operating in other industries – smoke
cleaning, car wash line of business and others about using their BM in other
line of businesses. This we tried to illustrate in the figure beneath as a
vertical dimension of BMIL strategy.
62
Figure 9. Provital case – vertical BMIL
Provital considered to move into two other
industries with their BM – or adjusted existing BM – to these industries. In
2012 Provital moved into the smoke cleaning industry with their BM with success
and they tried also to move into the Car wash water industry – however at the
moment with no success. The BM was in the last case not developed enough to be
accepted in this market.
3.3.2 A Horizontal Dimension of BMIL
In the Infolink case company consider BMI via
looking forwards- and backwards the existing BMI process. We named this the
Horizontal dimension of BMIL – because Infolink looks for new BM´s
opportunities along the existing BMI process – or more specific in the
lifecycle of the BM and considers what happens before, during and after the BM
consumption process. By doing this Infolink´s “eyes” were suddenly opened up to
new BMI potentials, which may – may not be taken into consideration and later
integrated in the Infolink BM portfolios. In Infolink case Infolink found that
entrepreneurs after 5th phase courses wanted to learn more. However
Infolink did not have a BM for this marked. Infolink began BMI idea generation
on this and found that they had to develop a “TO BE” BM that was very different
to their “AS IS” and existing BM. The potential new BM was however out of scope
with their existing Business BM portfolio. Inforlink is still considering
whether this BM should be adopted in their BM portefolio.
This BMI process opened Infolinks mind to new BMI
possibilities - new customer groups, new value chain systems e.t.c. but on a
horizontal BMIL level.
4. Discussion
The challenge to SMEs formulating BMIL strategies
seems in a globalized world to be even harder, more complex and more risky.
Our case research showed that many businesses was
placed outside the core of BMI and therefore suffered and often played a
secondary and not very attractive role in the BMI process (Katalabs, Kellpo,
Aikon and Provital case). Some enterprise we studied were even marginalized by
BMI and their value proposition or even BMs were “cruelly” copied by customers,
suppliers or competitors, when they had gained and “drained ” the most
important values and competences (sometimes core competences) of the business
enterprise (Kellpo, The Machine builders).
At least the enterprises mentioned above knew about
this and could begin to do something about it by formulating or changing their
BMIL strategy (Lindgren 2012). Worse is however if the companies cannot see
that they are left out of or beginning to be left out of - the core of BMI.
Then they miss opportunities or are slowly dragging their business out of
business (Kotler 1984).
The above mentioned context and position of our
study on SME´s BMI context is not special to SMEs as such. The position big
companies as e.g. Facebook, Google and Apple have today of course, gives them
some competitive advantage because they, today, are placed inside the core of
the BMI process. However, even they have to struggle with their BMIL to keep
them inside the core of the innovation process. Even these mastodons
63
are in risk of having their BM´s copied. They also
have to think carefully about BMIL. A look into how Apple, Google, Facebook,
Microsoft and Amazone struggle to keep them self as strategic BMI leaders and
thereby in the core of BMI. (Lindgren 2012) shows very well that BMIL is not
just a matter for SME´s
BMIL – showed indeed in our research to be a
challenge and sometimes a very complex thing to handle for leaders responsible
for BMI. Especially startup businesses - types as Katalabs and Aikon - were
often hung up in daily survival activities and lack of information together
with lack of analytical tools preventing them to think about strategic BMI.
This gave the businesses big challenges and waste of resources to bring
themselves back into the core of the BM innovation process.
These businesses were in lack of time and resources
to perform BMIL. They tried however to seek different ways to achieve a better
position for their existing “TO BE” and “AS IS” BM´s positions related to the
core of the BMI processes. These BMIL strategy choices were however not always
coordinated and did not always bring them into a better strategic position -
long time business advantage. The challenge – or paradox - as startup business
is often that you need to survive and are often living from day to day
simultaneously with the necessity at the same time that you need to do BMIL.
Often the enterprises knew they had to do BMIL to survive but they were really
not capable to do this because of the above mentioned.
Some case enterprises we studied jump to solve
their general Business situation via bringing new BMs into the BM portfolio.
This often turned out not to solve the BMI task of the business, drained
resources from the business and disturbed the overall focus of BMIL strategy in
the business.
To set up the right “mixture” of different Business
Model innovation leadership lines in a BMIL strategy that fits different BM´s
needs BMIL carried out with excellence. From our case studies we could register
that different innovation leadership lines combination could empower but also
diminish the BMIL strategy success and effect. Therefore it is necessary to
find, learn and practice how to “construct” the right mixture of innovation
leadership lines and also find which focus on the building blocks in the
specific BM to innovate. SME managers responsible for BMIL strategy have to
make and have to have the possibility to do more scenarios of BMIL strategy
before choosing final BMIL strategy. There are always more strategic roads to
follow – and no one fits all BMI contexts. To do these BMIL scenarios SME´s
seems to need better BMIL service tools and quicker BMIL analytical tools that
can give them BMI overview related to possible BMIL strategies, possible BMI
strategy consequences, possible BMIL strategy results and control of chosen
BMIL strategy performance.
On behalf of these observations in the use cases we
have commenced the development of proposals for BMIL strategy service tool by
developing a questionnaire and toolbox for BMIL strategy formulation. We have
supported this with some supporting BMIL analyzing tools, which we expect have
to be updated and increased with other tools in the future. The tools are
related to where we initially believe they are best suited to help the managers
of BMIL. All of this is going to be presented in autumn 2012.
5.
Conclusion
The generic BMIL strategies drawn from our research
on the SME cases show a first picture of what SME´s strategically do and how
they practice Business model innovation leadership. Via a careful analysis of
SME´s different BMIL approaches - their strategic BMI tasks, contexts and their
BMIL vision, mission, goals and strategies we analysed each of their BM´s. The
strategic BMI task analyse shows
-
BMI is carried out in businesses in many different ways related to the
various BMI tasks. However very few of the enterprises we investigated do BMIL
and very few have really a BMIL strategy.
-
What the SME´s are targeting and not targeting related to existing BM(s)
and new BM(s) today (AS IS). It also shows quiet clearly what SME´s do and what
they can/will/could do/target through strategic BMI (To Be). BM and Innovation
Leadership literature SME have until now mainly considered BMI as development
of the value proposition in the BM and on single BM perspective (from Idea to
market implementation) of BMIL. SME´s are generally doing the same according to
our research and their BMIL strategy and practice is mainly build around a
single business and BM strategy approach.
In our proposed BMIL framework this is define as
value innovation leadership approach and strategy. Value innovation leadership
is focused on the business viewpoint – an inside out viewpoint – related to the
7 building blocks of the BM. Our research also shows that the BMI is primarily
built upon and focused on managing product-, service and process innovation
processes –– the upper corner part of value innovation leadership- . This is in
the BMIL framework just a very small part of the real BMIL potential and
indicates that Businesses are not really using the full potential of BMI and
BMIL strategies.
Today it
is the task for managers at the BMIL level to manage and do the process of strategically
BMIL thinking,
64
decision and formulating the future BMIL strategy.
They also at the same time have to secure implementation of the BMIL strategy.
It was documented that different BMI strategies are often interrelated with
each other and there is also often a very strong relationship between different
building blocks and even BM´s in a Business BM portfolio. Different BM is
related to other BM and this is often built in to SME´s BMIL strategy during
the BMIL process.
On behalf and based on our European and US business
cases a first conceptual frame work model of BMIL and BMIL strategy was
developed; where 7 lines of Innovation Leadership (BMI viewpoints) were
identified and then related to the 7 building blocks in the BM. The framework
tries to extend, build upon and go beyond previous existing BMI strategy views,
issues and tools.
BMIL focuses on the strategic part of BMI –
Question Why, What and how should a business do strategic BMI. BMIL seeks to
optimize the business investment in BMI focusing on both short- and long-term
success criteria of the business – with the aim of moving the business
strategically in to “the core of the BMI process” and hereby get business
advantage as a result of BMI.
BMIL focus on strategically innovating the BM both
from the external side of the business enterprise – Value innovation
leadership, Customer innovation leadership and Network innovation leadership –
and Internal side of the enterprise –Value chain innovation leadership,
Competence innovation leadership. BMIL leadership cover the whole BMI process -
“the tree of innovation” (Taran et al. 2009) - considering all building blocks
in the business model as objects for innovation related to the 7 lines of
innovation leadership. BMIL consider both the leadership and the strategy part
of BMI in this context.
BMIL further consider in a time perspective the
entire BMI process before, under and after each BMI has(ve) taken place –
process innovation leadership. BMI leadership (BMIL) focuses on Relation
innovation leadership related to each individual BM building block in the
enterprise. Finally which was not covered deeply in this paper BMIL also focus
on innovation leadership across different BM both those who are on their way to
the market or are already living their life on the market – the horizontal
dimension of BMIL.
The framework model propose managers responsible
for BMI to carry out BMIL via including 3 main focus areas
1)
Generate and recognize new BM idea and BM concepts – continuous BM
innovation at the “frontend” of the BMI innovation process.
2)
Leading strategically BMI via orchestrating different strategic lines of
innovation leadership, combining and catching these BMIL lines synergy effects
and focusing on isolating the significantly most valuable new BMI ideas and
bring them right to the market and beyond.
3)
Bring BMIL up to a point of leading a multitude of BM – via the multi
business model platform – both before, under and after the BMI process has
taken place – continuous BMIL.
6.
Further Research
New methods and more research to better encompass
SME´s BMI and BMIL strategies is highly needed. Especially we believe that more
digitalization of SME´s BM´s and BMIL strategy process will give better
knowledge about these issues. The digitalization of the BM will also give
possibilities for BMI leaders to apply and see BMI scenarios and effects of
their BMIL strategies.
References
Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. (2003). Internet Business Models and Strategies.
Boston: McGraw Hill Irwin.
Boer, H.,
& During, W. E. (2001). Innovation - What innovation? A comparison between
product, process and organisational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1-3), 83-107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2001.002956
Bryman,
A. (2004). Qualitative research on
Leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The Leadership Quarterly
Elsevier INC.
Chesborough, H. (2007). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape.
Boston:
Harvard Business School.
Hammel G. (2007). Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCWHFqNKH40
Lindgren P. (2011). NEW Global ICT-based Business Models. The River Publishers Series
in Standardisation.
65
Lindgren,
P., Rasmus J., Kristin F. S., & Yariv T. (2011). Towards a sixth generation of business model innovation models. 12th International CINet Conference Århus –
Doing More with Less Publication.
Lindgren,
P., Taran, Yariv., & Boer, H. (2010). From single firm to network based
business model innovation. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12(2), 122-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2010.034417
Lindgren,
P., & Yariv T. (2011). A Futuristic Outlook on Business Models and Business
Model Innovation in a Future Green Society. Journal
of Green Engeenering Journal of Green Engineering, 1-10.
Lindgren,
P., Yariv T., & Kristin F. S. (2011). Business model innovation leadership
- How to strategically lead Business Model innovation? Journal of Strategic Communication and Computer (JCC). Chicago:
David Publishing Company.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter? Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86-92.
Morris,
M., Schmindehutte, M., & J. Allen. (2003). The entrepreneur’s business
model: toward a unified perspective. Journal
of Business Research, 58(6), 726-735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.001
Osterwalder,
A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, L. C. (2004). Clarifying
business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of AIS, No. 16, pp. 1-25.
Scharmers,
C. Otto. (2009). Therory U: Leading from
the Future as It Emerges. San Francisco: Berret – Koehler publisher.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1957). Capitalism,
Socialism and Democracy. Harper Perennial.
Taran.
(2011). Re-thinking it All: Overcoming
Obstacles to Business Model Innovation Center for Industrial Production. Ph.D Thesis, Aalborg
University.
Teece, D.
J. (2010). BusinessModels, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
Tidd, J.,
Bessant, J. B., & Pavitt, K. P. (2005). Managing
Innovation. Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2000). Product Design and Development (2nd ed.). Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Zott C.,
Amit R., & Massa L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Development and
Future Research. Journal of Management.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311406265
Zott, C.,
& Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business
model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 29, 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.642
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2009). The business model as the engine of
network-based strategies. In P. R. Kleindorfer
&
Y. J. Wind (Eds.), The network
challenge (pp. 259-275). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010).
Designing your future business model: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa,
L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research.
Retreived from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1674384
Appendix 1. Innovation Leadership lines
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Innovation Leadership view points
|
Definition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value Proposition Viewpoint
|
Value Proposition in focus
|
|
|
User and Customer Viewpoint
|
User and customer in focus
|
|
|
Value Chain Viewpoint – Internal
|
Value Chain in focus
|
|
|
Competence Viewpoint
|
Competence in focus
|
|
|
Network Viewpoint
|
Network and network partner in focus
|
|
|
Relation Viewpoint
|
Relation in focus
|
|
|
Process Viewpoint
|
Process of BM in focus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66
|
International Journal of Business
and Manegement; Vol. 7, No. 14; 2012 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 Published by Canadian
Center of Science and Education
Business Model Innovation
Leadership: How Do SME’s Strategically Lead Business Model Innovation?
Peter
Lindgren1
1 Department of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Correspondence:
Peter Lindgren, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg
University,
Aalborg, Denmark. Tel: 45-29-79-49-69. E-mail:
pel@m-tech.aau.dk
Received:
January 28, 2012
Accepted: June 6, 2012
Online Published: July 16, 2012
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n14p53
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n14p53
Abstract
When SME´s practice business model (BM) innovation
(BMI), leading strategically BMs through the innovation process can be the
difference between success and failure to a BM. Business Model Innovation
Leadership (BMIL) is however extremely complex to carry out especially to small
and medium size enterprises (SME). There are so many opportunities, pitfalls
and strategies to consider while “the business” has to be operated
simultaneously.
The paper provides a study of BMIL in practise in
SME´s and show different ways of how they handle BMIL and BMIL strategies. The
SME´s were examined through a framework model called the BMIL strategy canvas.
The research approach was action research carried out from 2008 - 2012. Intense
study of 35 US and EU SME´s and 97 of their different BM´s form the empirical
background. The findings represent learning and characteristic of BMIL with a
strong reference to state of the art theory in BM and BMI.
The research reveals that SME´s focus on very
classic BMI approaches and BMIL strategies. SME´s focus in most cases on reactive
“outside in and reactive “inside in” BMIL strategies. SME´s are primarily
focusing on meeting needs and demands of an inside out “predefined” set of user
and/or customer groups. SME´s are reacting to a specific customer or market
demand but the BMIL strategies do often not put them in a better or more
central strategic position in their market and industry – and in the BMI
process.
The research shows some common approaches about
SME´s BMI and BMIL strategy - Specifically, 1) Most SME´s do not formulate
explicitly a BMIL strategy – they are doing BMI rather blindly 2) Very few
SME´s are structured about their BMIL strategy and BMIL strategy process 3)
SME´s focus in their BMIL on very few and often the same building blocks of the
BM - especially the building blocks value proposition, target customer and
value chain [Internal] – often regardless of the actual specific BMIL task,
market demand and context of BMI 4) SME´s often leaves big BM potential behind
because they cannot see the potential and are often not able to capitalised
upon these 5) SME´s is generally in lack of BMIL skills.
Keywords:
business model innovation
leadership, business model, business model innovation strategy 1. Introduction
Business model (BM) and Business Model Innovation
(BMI) has been the focus of substantial attention by both academics and
practitioners (Zott 2011), (Teece 2012). The BM has been the subject of a still
growing number of academic and practitioner-oriented studies. While there has
been an increasing number of papers published, fast growing communities on BM´s
(Business model Communities 2012) and an abundance of conference sessions and
panels on the subject of BM´s, it appears that researchers and practitioners
have yet not researched widely on, what are SME´s BMI strategies and what are
SME´s strategically doing when they practice BMI. Especially the strategic
leadership part of BMI has not yet thoroughly been studied and there is not
much knowledge about how BMI strategically is carried out in SME’s.
There is until now no accepted language for BM
(Zott 2010) and neither for strategic BMI that would allow researchers who
examine strategic BMI through different lenses to draw effectively on each
other’s’ work. The study takes up the challenges by reporting and giving some
first insight to the strategic part of BMI. The paper intend to answer the
research questions
How do SME´s strategically practice BMI?
53
How do SME´s practice BMI leadership (BMIL)?
Which types of BMIL can be identified in SME´s?
The paper begins with a broad and multifaceted
review, which revealed several insights and enables the development of a
generic framework on BM, BMI and strategic BMI. In this context the paper
builds upon a comprehensive review of academic literature including the origin
of the BM concepts, BMI and Strategic Innovation Leadership. The paper ends up
reporting the results of the research and proposing a terminology on strategic
BMIL framework.
2. The
Literature and Definition of Business Model Innovation Leadership
Academia’s have studied both implicit and explicit
assumptions about BM (Magretta 2002, Afuah 2003, Morris 2003, Osterwalder 2004,
Chesbrough 2006, Johnson 2008, Lindgren 2010, Taran 2011, Zott 2010, Teece
2011, Lindgren 2012). In this context our research builds upon the following
terminologies
The Business Inspired by (Abell 1980), (Porter
1985), (Hammel 1985), (Vervest 1995), (Johnson and
Christensen 2010) where we define a business
defined on 7 dimensions:
1)
Value proposition – Value proposition (product, services and process of
service and products) rendered by the business
2)
Customer Groups – user and customer groups served by the business
3)
Value Chain [Internal Part] – Value Chain functions carried out, used to
produce value proposition (products and service) and serve users/ customer
groups in the business
4)
Competences – used technology (product, production, process
technologies), human resource, organizational system, culture used in the
business
5)
Networks – Networks – physical, digital and virtual used in the business
6)
Relations – tangible and intangible relations used in the business
7)
Value formular – value formular for the business
Most Academia covers the term Business Model at an
overall business level. This could be related to the term The core Business
(Abell 1983, Hammel 1995) which is
“How a business idealized construction and intend
for "main" and "essential" business activities we propose
defined related to the 7 business dimensions”
However in our research we found that most business
have a variety of activities in the business – a variety of business models.
These different BM´s can often not be explained strictly by one core business
model – a model of the business. As a consequence a business can be said to
have one or more business models – the multi business model approach (Lindgren
2011). However any of these BM´s can be define as related to a generic Business
Model consisting of 7 generic building blocks that answers some core questions
to each BM
Table 1. 7 Building blocks of a BM (Lindgren 2011)
|
|
Core questions related to BM
|
|
Core building block
|
Building blocks
|
|
|
|
|
Value proposition/s (products,
services and processes) that the
|
What
value proposition do we provide?
|
|
company offers (Physical, Digital, Virtual)
|
|
|
Target users and customer/s, (users customers,
market segments
|
Who do
we serve?
|
|
that the company serves –geographies, physical,
digital, virtual).
|
|
|
Value chain [internal] configuration.(physical,
digital, virtual)
|
What value
chain functions do
we
|
|
|
provide?
How do we provide it?
|
|
Competences
(assets, processes and
activities) that translate
|
What
competences do we provide?
|
|
company’s’ inputs into value for customers
(outputs).(Physical,
|
|
|
digital, Virtual)
|
|
|
Network-
Network and Network
partners (e.g. strategic
|
What is
our network?
|
|
partnerships, supply chains and others (Physical,
digital, virtual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
International
Journal of Business and Management
|
Vol. 7, No. 14; 2012
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relations(s) Relationship(s) (e.g. physical,
digital and virtual
|
What are our relations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
relations, personal, peers). (Physical, digital,
virtual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value formula Profit formula – Both turnover
structure, cost
|
What is
our value formula?
|
|||
|
|
structure and revenue flow and other value
formula. (physical,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
digital, virtual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The BM is considered in most
literature as measurable, objective, and though there are many different
definitions (Taran 2011) and types of Business models (e.g., open and closed
business models (Chesbrough 2008, Lindgren 2011), free business models
(Anderson 2009), internet based business models (Zott 2002), multi business
models (Lindgren 2010) most define business model on a business level and at a
core business level. The paper propose that there is a need for a distinction
between Business, core Business and BM´s to prevent fuzziness and even make the
BM framework useful to a business and especially related to a BMI context.
When a business is considered to have more than one
BM in its Business and the BM´s together forms one or more portfolio(s) of BM´s
in the business (Lindgren 2011) this enables the business to do BMI on both a
building block level, a BM level, a BM portfolio level and a Business level.
BMI can in this context both be valuable and focused on BM on the way to the
market (TO BE) BM and in the market (AS IS) BM illustrated in the model
beneath.
Figure 1. “AS IS” and “TO BE” BM in a business
Source: Lindgren and Saghaug 2011
This calls of course for BMI strategic overview,
analysis, strategies and actions in each individual business, which could be
related to Business Model Innovation Leadership (BMIL).
2.1 Introducing Business Model Innovation
Leadership (BMIL)
Academia´s have thoroughly studied innovation
(Schumpeter 1957, Boer 2001, Ulrich and Eppinger 2000, Tidd 2005, Chesbrough
2005). In this context BMI was proposed defined as the tree of innovation
(Taran 2011) to a Business, as the BM covers all the building blocks a business
can innovate on.
Innovation leadership and management has also been
discussed among academics for many years (Brymann 2004), (Rooke 2005) but not
particular in a BMI context. The literature study on leadership shows that
leadership studies have mainly been focused at the manager and at manager role
when leading the business. In this paper the focus is on the strategic part of
BMIL in particular
55
-
the strategic creative part of BMI – BMI thinking and BMI mindset
related to innovating each building blocks of each BM ( both TO BE and AS IS
(Lindgren 2011)) in the business.
The strategic implementation and action part –
strategic BMI implementation with the aim of achieving and reaching strategic
BMI goals for the business.
The focus on how strategically and proactively to
lead the business and its related BM´s (both “AS IS” and “TO BE” BM´s) into the
core of the BMI process with the aim of gaining access, staying in and gaining
value and influence of the BMI process is regarded as the aim of BMIL. The
BMIL´s strategic goal could hereby be defined as to
-
bringing the business into “the core of the BMI process”
-
bringing the business into a better strategic BMI position in the core
of the BMI process” The core of a BMI process can be defined as
-
Where BMI is actually taking place and where the business(es) has(ve)
the opportunity to join, influence and even strategically lead BMI and the BMI
process.
The opposite – being left outside the core of BMI
process – often leaves businesses with no or reduced opportunities and no or
reduced influence to join and change the BMI process. This position is of
course not a strategic preferable position for a Business.
Managers today pay more and more attention to the
factum that most BM´s are constantly in change – and with more and more speed
(Fine 2005, Lindgren 2011) – BMI are under continuously innovation pressure.
The demand for BMI is therefore increasing, forcing a greater percentage of
SMEs to make BMI faster in the face of frequently changing BM context and
high-velocity BM environments. This often leaves the Business with the
challenge - How to strategically stay in the core of the BMI process?
These challenge and question was the main
motivation for our research interest and focus about strategic BMI. How do
SME`S really do BMI? And what types of strategic BMI do they really practice?
Although the issue of How to do BMI is not new to BMI studies very few have
addressed the question of How to be strategic about BMI. In this context some
research show that costs, performance and time have been important focus point
for BMI - but not as such in a strategic perspective. In the BMIL framework
other success criteria seems also to be important values, learning, short and
long term perspectives, strategic importance of a specific BMI project with the
aim to bring and keep the business in the core of BMI process.
Many businesses have learned to do BMI and if not,
they could be taught to do BMI. However still many business struggles to
survive and get return on investment of their BMI projects. It seems as if very
few businesses are able to do BMI strategically with advantage to the business.
BMIL – observed in our research-seems indeed to be very complex to practice –
especially to SME´s, because there are so many opportunities, pitfalls and
strategies to follow – together with the fact that there are very few service
tools to support them (Neffics 2010).
Learning from strategic BMI practice is therefore
considered as some first “raw material”, inspiratory and driver to any SME´s
BMI. BMIL – changing BM´s, finding new BM´s and leading them to and in the
market turns out indeed to be quite a different strategic matter related to
previous proposed leadership and innovation leadership strategies and practice.
Why - because BMIL is opposite to previous strategy proposals related to
continuously finding new ways of changing and realizing both “AS IS” and “TO BE”
BM´s.
This does not in particular have to be narrowly
focused on just product and market innovation – but could also innovation of
other building blocks of any BM in the business BM portfolio. BMIL should
preferable therefore be placed at the very strategic level of managing a
business as it address where “AS IS” BM are changed and where “TO BE” BM are
created, captured, delivered and consumed. It is where BMI is taking place,
carried out - before, under and beyond - idea, concept, prototyping, market
implementation. (Lindgren 2012)
BMIL should aim at increasing the SME´s BMI
capability and capacity by optimizing the business BMI investment via creating,
excluding, keeping, upgrading and diminishing value proposition offered, users
and customers served, function in the value chain [internal] served, competence
used, network used, relations and value formula used. The aim is to
strategically improve existing BM´s position and strategically finding new positions
for the BM´s in the business model context.
In BMIL context we differentiate between Business
Model Innovation leadership (BMIL) and Business Model Innovation management
(BMIMA) – as we consider the Leadership part as related to the strategic part
of BMI and management related to the tactical level of BMI. BMIL focus on “How
to strategically and proactively lead
56
the business portfolio of BM and BM innovation activities into the core
of the BM innovation process?”
Business model Innovation Management (BMIMA)
focuses on “How to tactically and proactively lead the business portfolio of BM
and BMI activities through the BM innovation process.”
BMIMA is in our context related to the definition
of management (Cooper 1993, Bessant 1999, Riis and Mikkelsen 2005) whereas BMIL
is related to Hammels (Hammel 1995), Porters (Porter 1985) and Kotlers (2008)
thoughts about strategic leadership. However BMIL goes beyond their definition,
which we will later comment on.
2.2 Business Model Innovation
Leadership (BMIL) and Different Strategy Frameworks
When BMIL is related to both a
strategic creative part - continuously thinking out of the box and stressing
the BMI mindset by questioning every building block of every BM from different
angles or view points and also related to an implementation and action part -
reaching change and business advantage for the business via implementation of a
BMIL strategy it is obvious to analyze, which BMIL strategies are available.
Several academia’s have previous developed different strategy frameworks for
business, competition, innovation, which give us a basis and inspiration for
formulating BMIL strategy framework. However in the context of BMIL it seems as
if there is a need for different strategies. Different strategies to different
BM´s - as the context of BMI today seems very different to every BM. A single
strategy seems not to be appropriated.
However our inspiration and point
of entry to propose such BMIL strategies and framework must build upon a
careful respect and analysis of previous strategy frameworks strength,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The new context of today’s BMI does not
automatically neglects previous achieved strategy knowledge.
3. Introduction to BMIL
Strategies
Before introducing BMIL
strategies we need to comment on some general issues and fundamental conditions
when formulating a BMIL strategy. We do this by exemplifying the BMIL strategy
issues via our use cases.
3.1 Research Methology
The research approach is action
research carried out over 4 years. Intense study of US and EU SME´s and their
different BM´s form the empirical background. Our research is carried out on 35
SME enterprises and 97 of their BMs. The research can only give some indicative
measures of what some SMEs are doing related to their BMs, BMI and BMIL
strategy.
3.1.1 Different BM calls for Different BM Innovation Leadership
Strategies
The different BMs in our use case
research show clearly that each BM calls and could value from different BMIL
strategies. The BMI task, context and success criteria were simply very
different in each BMI case. This is shown with different use cases verifying
different BMIL context and strategies.
The Cancer BM in the Katalabs
case shows an example of this statement, as this BM called for BMI on a network
basis and Katalabs Open space system BM called for more customer innovation.
Each BMI task could be related to BMI on one or more - often more - building
blocks in the BM as shown in the table beneath.
Figure 2.
Katalabs case – BMs related to different BMIL tasks
57
In the Katalabs case the BMIL canvas was
characterized differently for different cases – with the BMIL tasks primarily
at the upper left corner of the BMIL canvas - very much focused on value
innovation-, customer innovation- and value chain BMI – “As IS” BMIL strategy.
Just by making this overview – Business Model
Innovation strategy map - managers responsible for BMI and BMIL strategy could
see and sense what they were really doing related to BMI and what their BMIL
strategy really was about. The “mapping” of their BMI activities and BMIL
strategies – or lack of BMIL strategy could support their strategy thinking and
do better analysis of BMI and BMIL strategies.
This finding motivated us to
study more in detail what other use case businesses were really doing related
to BMI and BMIL strategy.
3.1.2 SMEs BMI Strategy Related to the BMIL Matrix
The cross business and BMI
analysis adds some interesting characteristics to our understanding of SME´s
BMI and BMIL strategy practice and formulation. We found that 51% of the BMI
projects were focused on two BM building blocks - Value Proposition and Target
customer. Adding a third building block - Value Chain - to this shows us that
SMEs BMIL strategy totally can be explain within these 3 building blocks with
68 %.
Figure 3. SMES general BMI focus related to
building blocks in the BM
Focusing on BMI related to “AS IS” BMs, the numbers
show 54% and 74% and for “TO BE” 49% and 62%. The picture looks a bit different
for “TO BE” BM because the network partner and the Relations building block
seem to be more important in Businesses BMI.
Looking at which innovation
leadership lines SME´s chose related to BMI shows that SMEs mainly focus on
Customer Innovation Leadership (CIL), Network Innovation Leadership (NIL) and
Value Innovation Leadership (VIL). Please see the definition of VIL, CIL and
NIL in appendix 1.
Figure 4. SME´s choice of
innovation leadership line related to BMI
58
This support the argument that SME´s are very
traditional and to some level very conservative in their approach to BMI and
choice of BMIL strategy (Hammel 1995). However we saw a clear trend –
especially in 2009 – 2012 towards a more network based approach and focus on
network partner building block in the BM and NIL. SME´s begin to be more aware
of the importance of networks and the network building block - involving more
and more network partner and networks into the BMI process.
As BMI becomes more network based (Taran 2010) the
focus on Network Partners value proposition and their demand for value becomes
more in focus. The innovation leadership line NIL becomes more important.
However more SMEs realized that in this BMI process the network partners demand
for value and output of BMI is not necessarily related to products, services
and profit. They can be very different than for traditional customers demand
for values - products, services and processes of product and services. They
could aim at getting learning, wish to experiment, sustainability and
fulfillment of values to their own customers and/or network partners further
out in different and other BMI processes.
“AS IS” BM compared to “TO BE” BM
seems to have a different Innovation Leadership approach. We registered a small
shift in focus related to “AS IS” and “TO BE” BM during the time periode of our
research.
Figure 5.
SME´s choice of innovation leadership line related to BMI focus on “As IS” and “TO
BE” BM´s
The choice of Innovation
leadership lines is not much different on “AS IS” as “TO BE” BM. However it
seems as if NIL is a bit more in focus on “To Be” BM.
Going through the 24 use cases in our research we
found that each BM had very different BMI tasks and context. BM´s called in
general for different BMIL strategies. In the Kellpo case - a Danish machine
and machine tool producer - we found that the BMI tasks were spread over the
BMIL canvas as illustrated in the figure beneath.
Figure 6.
Kellpo case – BMs related to BMIL task
59
We verified that each of Kellpo´s BM´s called for
different innovation leadership lines/viewpoint perspective to make them move
into a direction of interest of Kellpo. In the model we placed the BM´s where
they are placed at the moment in the BMIL strategy canvas.
We found that each Innovation
leadership line could influent the innovation process in very different ways -
individually but also together. In the table beneath each of the 7 lines of
innovation leadership are presented related to strength, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats.
Table 2. Innovation leadership related to view of BMI
Innovation
|
|
|
Strength
|
|
Weakness
|
Opportunity
|
|
Threats
|
|
|
||
Leadership
lines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value Innovation Focus
|
on
Value
|
innovation
related Focus
|
is seen
from
|
and
|
Isolation
|
|
and
|
|||||
Leadership
|
to each
of the specific BM building inside out perspective and
|
marginalization
|
of
|
|||||||||
|
block
|
|
|
|
the Business
|
/enterprise
|
the BM
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
own
perspective
|
|
BMI
|
based
|
|
on
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
internal
perception of
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how BMI
should be
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carried
out
|
|
|
|
Customer
|
Focus
|
on
|
User and
|
customer
Focus
|
is
|
seen
|
from
|
Too
|
much customer
|
|||
Innovation
|
innovation
|
and
|
their
|
viewpoint outside in perspective –
|
and
|
user
|
driven
|
|||||
Leadership
|
related
to the specific BM building the user or customers side
|
innovation
|
|
|
||||||||
|
blocks.
Focus on innovating with
|
|
|
|
No
|
Business
|
in
|
the
|
||||
|
the
user and customer to the next
|
|
|
|
BMI
|
|
|
|||||
|
step on
the users or
customers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
innovation
process in their BM(s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Value
Chain
|
Focused
on value chain innovation Focus is seen from inside Unpacking of
|
Too
|
Much
focus
|
on
|
||||||||
Innovation
|
and the
value
|
chains
|
view point
in perspective – the value Value Chain
|
Value Chain
|
BMI
|
Leadership
|
related
to each BM block.
|
|
chain
Internal perspective [Internal]
|
demands
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
demands
|
|
|
|
Competence
|
Focused
on competence innovating - Focus is seen from inside Unpacking of
|
Too
|
|
much
|
||||||||||
Innovation
|
technology-, HR-,
|
organisational
in perspective
|
–
|
the competence
|
competence
|
BMI
|
||||||||
Leadership
|
system
|
and
|
culture
|
innovation
competence
|
|
internal demands
|
demands
|
|
||||||
|
related
to each BM building block
|
perspective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Network
|
Focused
|
on
|
network
|
innovating Focus
|
is
|
seen
|
|
from Unpacking of
|
Too
|
much
|
Network
|
|||
Innovation
|
related
to each BM building block
|
outside
|
in
|
perspective
– network partner
|
BMI
demands
|
|||||||||
Leadership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the
network side
|
|
BMI demands
|
|
|
|
||
Relationship
|
Focus
on relation and relationship Focus
|
is
|
seen
|
|
from Unpacking of
|
Too
|
much
|
relations
|
||||||
Innovation
|
innovating
|
to
|
each
|
BM building outside in and inside out
Relations
|
BMI
demands
|
|||||||||
Leadership
|
block
|
|
|
|
|
|
perspective
|
–
|
|
very demands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
complex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Process
|
Focus
|
on
|
process
|
innovation
|
– Focus
|
is
|
seen
|
|
from Increasing the
|
Complex
|
and
|
|||
innovation
|
looking
|
|
innovation
|
related
|
to
horizontal
|
outside
|
in BMI field
|
breaking the
core
|
||||||
Leadership
|
different
processes and in different perspective – the process
|
business
area
|
||||||||||||
|
time
perspectives both before, under perspective side
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
and
after the specific BM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 Innovation Leadership Related
to Different Point of Time in BMI Life Cycle
The use case research showed that the 7 building
blocks in a BM could be related to all Innovation Leadership lines so that each
Innovation Leadership line could really work with each of the 7 building block
at a certain point in the innovation process – “the point of time in the BM
lifecycle”. This not to say that this was optimal done always by the
businesses. There are strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related
to all innovation leadership lines and their effect are very much dependent on
the BMI task and BMI context. Those responsible for BMIL strategy formulation must
be aware of this and learn about this through learning and practice.
60
Katalabs was e.g. initially not focusing much on
customer and customer innovation leadership but instead on getting users to
their BM. We found that this was changed by Katalabs, as Katalabs began to run
out of sweat money. Katalabs was “stucked” in their BMI strategy. Katalabs had
to focus much more on getting users to become customers and especially have
users to help develop the Katalab platform to attract other customers.
Some of Katalabs BMs had only users and no
customers, which initially was not an issue to Katalabs because they believed
that the users would eventually lead them to the customers – and then venture
capital (Like Facebook case – and Face book BMIL strategy). This BMIL strategy
was changed over time as Katalabs began to run out of free resources – and “sweat
money”. They kept themselves as a running business by earning money on other
BM´s (Cancer BM, Bornhom BM e.g.) in their BM portfolio and also by giving
those working on the new BM (Kataspace BM) “futures”. However they were
eventually forced to change BMIL strategy and had to change BMIL focus by
focusing more on customer innovation leadership and network innovation
leadership. (Lindgren 2012)
3.2.1 Orchestrating Innovation Leadership Lines Related to BMIL
The Aikon case showed us quit another but very
interesting thing related to BMIL practice. Aikon managers were, unlike some of
the other use cases, focused much more on using two innovation leadership lines
at the same time - Customer Innovation Leadership and Network Innovation
Leadership, in the BMIL canvas – simultaneously. They target particularly the
customer building block in each of their individual BMs but in two different
innovation leadership lines. This was amongst others due to the fact that Aikon
had already the capacity and competence on value proposition innovation –
especially products innovation - and value chain innovation leadership but they
were in deep lack of critical mass of customers.
Figure 7. Aikon case –
orchestrating innovation leadership to the BMI task related to time of BMI
Via orchestrating of two
innovation leadership lines – the customer innovation leadership with the
network innovation leadership line - and combining focus on customers with a
focus on network partners building block in two of their other BMs, Aikon
gained access to more and better customers to their BM hereby.
Further they choose to eliminate two BMs because
they were not generating profit. Aikon wanted to achieve focus in their overall
business innovation – their portfolio of BM´s. Therefore the glass kitchen and
the health info system were faced out of their BM portfolio. A very radical
BMIL excluding strategy was registered as Aikon choose taking a whole BM out of
the BM portfolio. A more incremental BMIL strategy would have been just to
change some of the building blocks in the BMs but Aikon managers could not see
which building block and how to change these.
The challenge to the AIKON enterprise but also to
other use cases studies was always to carefully analyze the BM innovation task
related to each BM and then choose between multitude and variable lines of
innovation leadership. To do this Aikon was in lack of a BMIL service tool that
could show them different scenarios and analysis of the BMIL task. This could
be developed with different BMIL strategy scenarios visualized in a BMIL
61
service tool.
3.2.2 A network- Relationship and Process Oriented BMIL Task
The Infolink Case solved the BMI challenges in ways
different than for the use cases that we described so far, namely primarily via
orchestrating Network-, Relationship-, and Process innovation leadership.
Infolink used their network and relations to get new customers, new suppliers
and new knowledge partners. They focused specifically on relationship
innovation leadership to continuously increase their BM platform. We tried to
illustrate this in the figure beneath.
Figure 8.
Infolink case – BMIL canvas
The green marked area shows where Infolink puts
their main BMIL strategy effort. Infolink is very special, when compared with
many of the other enterprises, because Infolink, in most cases, does not pay
network partners for supplying their Infolinks business and business models.
The network partners make their business indirectly and as a synergy effect out
of the present users at Infolinks courses.
Hereby we discovered some relations in BMI that are
not the same as those inside the BM – building block 6 in our original business
model framework. These relations go beyond the relations inside a BM and these
are now under research in our research group.
3.3 BMIL – A Vertical and
Horizontal Dimension of BMIL
In some of the use cases we studied we found that
businesses were trying to look out of their existing BM and even business. They
consider both vertical and horizontal process dimension to their BM. We
illustrate this by two examples.
3.3.1 A Vertical Dimension of BMIL Strategy
In the Provital case the business commenced to
develop a BM for the water cleaning sector. However they soon were contacted by
other businesses and potential customers operating in other industries – smoke
cleaning, car wash line of business and others about using their BM in other
line of businesses. This we tried to illustrate in the figure beneath as a
vertical dimension of BMIL strategy.
62
Figure 9. Provital case – vertical BMIL
Provital considered to move into two other
industries with their BM – or adjusted existing BM – to these industries. In
2012 Provital moved into the smoke cleaning industry with their BM with success
and they tried also to move into the Car wash water industry – however at the
moment with no success. The BM was in the last case not developed enough to be
accepted in this market.
3.3.2 A Horizontal Dimension of BMIL
In the Infolink case company consider BMI via
looking forwards- and backwards the existing BMI process. We named this the
Horizontal dimension of BMIL – because Infolink looks for new BM´s
opportunities along the existing BMI process – or more specific in the
lifecycle of the BM and considers what happens before, during and after the BM
consumption process. By doing this Infolink´s “eyes” were suddenly opened up to
new BMI potentials, which may – may not be taken into consideration and later
integrated in the Infolink BM portfolios. In Infolink case Infolink found that
entrepreneurs after 5th phase courses wanted to learn more. However
Infolink did not have a BM for this marked. Infolink began BMI idea generation
on this and found that they had to develop a “TO BE” BM that was very different
to their “AS IS” and existing BM. The potential new BM was however out of scope
with their existing Business BM portfolio. Inforlink is still considering
whether this BM should be adopted in their BM portefolio.
This BMI process opened Infolinks mind to new BMI
possibilities - new customer groups, new value chain systems e.t.c. but on a
horizontal BMIL level.
4. Discussion
The challenge to SMEs formulating BMIL strategies
seems in a globalized world to be even harder, more complex and more risky.
Our case research showed that many businesses was
placed outside the core of BMI and therefore suffered and often played a
secondary and not very attractive role in the BMI process (Katalabs, Kellpo,
Aikon and Provital case). Some enterprise we studied were even marginalized by
BMI and their value proposition or even BMs were “cruelly” copied by customers,
suppliers or competitors, when they had gained and “drained ” the most
important values and competences (sometimes core competences) of the business
enterprise (Kellpo, The Machine builders).
At least the enterprises mentioned above knew about
this and could begin to do something about it by formulating or changing their
BMIL strategy (Lindgren 2012). Worse is however if the companies cannot see
that they are left out of or beginning to be left out of - the core of BMI.
Then they miss opportunities or are slowly dragging their business out of
business (Kotler 1984).
The above mentioned context and position of our
study on SME´s BMI context is not special to SMEs as such. The position big
companies as e.g. Facebook, Google and Apple have today of course, gives them
some competitive advantage because they, today, are placed inside the core of
the BMI process. However, even they have to struggle with their BMIL to keep
them inside the core of the innovation process. Even these mastodons
63
are in risk of having their BM´s copied. They also
have to think carefully about BMIL. A look into how Apple, Google, Facebook,
Microsoft and Amazone struggle to keep them self as strategic BMI leaders and
thereby in the core of BMI. (Lindgren 2012) shows very well that BMIL is not
just a matter for SME´s
BMIL – showed indeed in our research to be a
challenge and sometimes a very complex thing to handle for leaders responsible
for BMI. Especially startup businesses - types as Katalabs and Aikon - were
often hung up in daily survival activities and lack of information together
with lack of analytical tools preventing them to think about strategic BMI.
This gave the businesses big challenges and waste of resources to bring
themselves back into the core of the BM innovation process.
These businesses were in lack of time and resources
to perform BMIL. They tried however to seek different ways to achieve a better
position for their existing “TO BE” and “AS IS” BM´s positions related to the
core of the BMI processes. These BMIL strategy choices were however not always
coordinated and did not always bring them into a better strategic position -
long time business advantage. The challenge – or paradox - as startup business
is often that you need to survive and are often living from day to day
simultaneously with the necessity at the same time that you need to do BMIL.
Often the enterprises knew they had to do BMIL to survive but they were really
not capable to do this because of the above mentioned.
Some case enterprises we studied jump to solve
their general Business situation via bringing new BMs into the BM portfolio.
This often turned out not to solve the BMI task of the business, drained
resources from the business and disturbed the overall focus of BMIL strategy in
the business.
To set up the right “mixture” of different Business
Model innovation leadership lines in a BMIL strategy that fits different BM´s
needs BMIL carried out with excellence. From our case studies we could register
that different innovation leadership lines combination could empower but also
diminish the BMIL strategy success and effect. Therefore it is necessary to
find, learn and practice how to “construct” the right mixture of innovation
leadership lines and also find which focus on the building blocks in the
specific BM to innovate. SME managers responsible for BMIL strategy have to
make and have to have the possibility to do more scenarios of BMIL strategy
before choosing final BMIL strategy. There are always more strategic roads to
follow – and no one fits all BMI contexts. To do these BMIL scenarios SME´s
seems to need better BMIL service tools and quicker BMIL analytical tools that
can give them BMI overview related to possible BMIL strategies, possible BMI
strategy consequences, possible BMIL strategy results and control of chosen
BMIL strategy performance.
On behalf of these observations in the use cases we
have commenced the development of proposals for BMIL strategy service tool by
developing a questionnaire and toolbox for BMIL strategy formulation. We have
supported this with some supporting BMIL analyzing tools, which we expect have
to be updated and increased with other tools in the future. The tools are
related to where we initially believe they are best suited to help the managers
of BMIL. All of this is going to be presented in autumn 2012.
5.
Conclusion
The generic BMIL strategies drawn from our research
on the SME cases show a first picture of what SME´s strategically do and how
they practice Business model innovation leadership. Via a careful analysis of
SME´s different BMIL approaches - their strategic BMI tasks, contexts and their
BMIL vision, mission, goals and strategies we analysed each of their BM´s. The
strategic BMI task analyse shows
-
BMI is carried out in businesses in many different ways related to the
various BMI tasks. However very few of the enterprises we investigated do BMIL
and very few have really a BMIL strategy.
-
What the SME´s are targeting and not targeting related to existing BM(s)
and new BM(s) today (AS IS). It also shows quiet clearly what SME´s do and what
they can/will/could do/target through strategic BMI (To Be). BM and Innovation
Leadership literature SME have until now mainly considered BMI as development
of the value proposition in the BM and on single BM perspective (from Idea to
market implementation) of BMIL. SME´s are generally doing the same according to
our research and their BMIL strategy and practice is mainly build around a
single business and BM strategy approach.
In our proposed BMIL framework this is define as
value innovation leadership approach and strategy. Value innovation leadership
is focused on the business viewpoint – an inside out viewpoint – related to the
7 building blocks of the BM. Our research also shows that the BMI is primarily
built upon and focused on managing product-, service and process innovation
processes –– the upper corner part of value innovation leadership- . This is in
the BMIL framework just a very small part of the real BMIL potential and
indicates that Businesses are not really using the full potential of BMI and
BMIL strategies.
Today it
is the task for managers at the BMIL level to manage and do the process of strategically
BMIL thinking,
64
decision and formulating the future BMIL strategy.
They also at the same time have to secure implementation of the BMIL strategy.
It was documented that different BMI strategies are often interrelated with
each other and there is also often a very strong relationship between different
building blocks and even BM´s in a Business BM portfolio. Different BM is
related to other BM and this is often built in to SME´s BMIL strategy during
the BMIL process.
On behalf and based on our European and US business
cases a first conceptual frame work model of BMIL and BMIL strategy was
developed; where 7 lines of Innovation Leadership (BMI viewpoints) were
identified and then related to the 7 building blocks in the BM. The framework
tries to extend, build upon and go beyond previous existing BMI strategy views,
issues and tools.
BMIL focuses on the strategic part of BMI –
Question Why, What and how should a business do strategic BMI. BMIL seeks to
optimize the business investment in BMI focusing on both short- and long-term
success criteria of the business – with the aim of moving the business
strategically in to “the core of the BMI process” and hereby get business
advantage as a result of BMI.
BMIL focus on strategically innovating the BM both
from the external side of the business enterprise – Value innovation
leadership, Customer innovation leadership and Network innovation leadership –
and Internal side of the enterprise –Value chain innovation leadership,
Competence innovation leadership. BMIL leadership cover the whole BMI process -
“the tree of innovation” (Taran et al. 2009) - considering all building blocks
in the business model as objects for innovation related to the 7 lines of
innovation leadership. BMIL consider both the leadership and the strategy part
of BMI in this context.
BMIL further consider in a time perspective the
entire BMI process before, under and after each BMI has(ve) taken place –
process innovation leadership. BMI leadership (BMIL) focuses on Relation
innovation leadership related to each individual BM building block in the
enterprise. Finally which was not covered deeply in this paper BMIL also focus
on innovation leadership across different BM both those who are on their way to
the market or are already living their life on the market – the horizontal
dimension of BMIL.
The framework model propose managers responsible
for BMI to carry out BMIL via including 3 main focus areas
1)
Generate and recognize new BM idea and BM concepts – continuous BM
innovation at the “frontend” of the BMI innovation process.
2)
Leading strategically BMI via orchestrating different strategic lines of
innovation leadership, combining and catching these BMIL lines synergy effects
and focusing on isolating the significantly most valuable new BMI ideas and
bring them right to the market and beyond.
3)
Bring BMIL up to a point of leading a multitude of BM – via the multi
business model platform – both before, under and after the BMI process has
taken place – continuous BMIL.
6.
Further Research
New methods and more research to better encompass
SME´s BMI and BMIL strategies is highly needed. Especially we believe that more
digitalization of SME´s BM´s and BMIL strategy process will give better
knowledge about these issues. The digitalization of the BM will also give
possibilities for BMI leaders to apply and see BMI scenarios and effects of
their BMIL strategies.
References
Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. (2003). Internet Business Models and Strategies.
Boston: McGraw Hill Irwin.
Boer, H.,
& During, W. E. (2001). Innovation - What innovation? A comparison between
product, process and organisational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1-3), 83-107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2001.002956
Bryman,
A. (2004). Qualitative research on
Leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The Leadership Quarterly
Elsevier INC.
Chesborough, H. (2007). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape.
Boston:
Harvard Business School.
Hammel G. (2007). Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCWHFqNKH40
Lindgren P. (2011). NEW Global ICT-based Business Models. The River Publishers Series
in Standardisation.
65
Lindgren,
P., Rasmus J., Kristin F. S., & Yariv T. (2011). Towards a sixth generation of business model innovation models. 12th International CINet Conference Århus –
Doing More with Less Publication.
Lindgren,
P., Taran, Yariv., & Boer, H. (2010). From single firm to network based
business model innovation. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12(2), 122-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2010.034417
Lindgren,
P., & Yariv T. (2011). A Futuristic Outlook on Business Models and Business
Model Innovation in a Future Green Society. Journal
of Green Engeenering Journal of Green Engineering, 1-10.
Lindgren,
P., Yariv T., & Kristin F. S. (2011). Business model innovation leadership
- How to strategically lead Business Model innovation? Journal of Strategic Communication and Computer (JCC). Chicago:
David Publishing Company.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter? Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86-92.
Morris,
M., Schmindehutte, M., & J. Allen. (2003). The entrepreneur’s business
model: toward a unified perspective. Journal
of Business Research, 58(6), 726-735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.001
Osterwalder,
A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, L. C. (2004). Clarifying
business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of AIS, No. 16, pp. 1-25.
Scharmers,
C. Otto. (2009). Therory U: Leading from
the Future as It Emerges. San Francisco: Berret – Koehler publisher.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1957). Capitalism,
Socialism and Democracy. Harper Perennial.
Taran.
(2011). Re-thinking it All: Overcoming
Obstacles to Business Model Innovation Center for Industrial Production. Ph.D Thesis, Aalborg
University.
Teece, D.
J. (2010). BusinessModels, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
Tidd, J.,
Bessant, J. B., & Pavitt, K. P. (2005). Managing
Innovation. Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2000). Product Design and Development (2nd ed.). Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Zott C.,
Amit R., & Massa L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Development and
Future Research. Journal of Management.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311406265
Zott, C.,
& Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business
model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 29, 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.642
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2009). The business model as the engine of
network-based strategies. In P. R. Kleindorfer
&
Y. J. Wind (Eds.), The network
challenge (pp. 259-275). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010).
Designing your future business model: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa,
L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research.
Retreived from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1674384
Appendix 1. Innovation Leadership lines
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Innovation Leadership view points
|
Definition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value Proposition Viewpoint
|
Value Proposition in focus
|
|
|
User and Customer Viewpoint
|
User and customer in focus
|
|
|
Value Chain Viewpoint – Internal
|
Value Chain in focus
|
|
|
Competence Viewpoint
|
Competence in focus
|
|
|
Network Viewpoint
|
Network and network partner in focus
|
|
|
Relation Viewpoint
|
Relation in focus
|
|
|
Process Viewpoint
|
Process of BM in focus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66
|
Komentar
Posting Komentar