3 An Exploration of The Business Model Concept's

PhD-Thesis
AN EXPLORATION OF THE BUSINESS MODEL CONCEPT’S

MEANING AND USAGE IN SWITZERLAND: TOWARDS AN
APPLICATION FRAMEWORK
Oliver Stalder
First supervisor: Prof Gerald Watts

Second supervisor: Dr Robin Bell
A thesis submitted to
The University of Gloucestershire
in accordance with the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Business and Management
in the Faculty of Business, Education & Professional Studies
December 2018
ABSTRACT
Although considered a popular and useful tool to support the creation of new enterprises and
to develop existing businesses, the business model concept is used so widely and loosely
that it may have no clear meaning in practice. A thorough literature review showed that the
concept is often discussed theoretically and conceptually but there was a distinct lack of
empirical studies of its conceptualisation and application. This research is intended to
address this limitation in extant knowledge.
The broad research aim was to explore the conceptualisation and application of the business
model concept within three Swiss communities of academics, training and consultancy
professionals and small business owner-managers. Subsidiary aims were to explore the
concept’s perceived limitations, and the ways that members of the three communities have
further refined the concept in order to address to its shortcomings. To fulfil these aims, in-
depth interviews were conducted with samples of 10 academics with expertise in business
models, 13 business support professionals and 12 owner-managers of technology-based
small businesses, all located in the German-speaking part of Switzerland.
The research findings revealed a high level of diversity in the interpretation and application of
the business model concept and in evaluations of its usefulness, both within and across the
three samples. There were some interesting general differences between the samples. The
academics reflected ideas from the literature while support professionals also offered new
application perspectives, but only rarely applied the concept in their work with firms. Only a
few SME owner-managers applied the concept in any way and some were unaware of it.
The contributions include the finding that the business model concept is understood and
applied differently across the three communities, a distinction being made between revenue
and ‘advanced’ concept thinking, and the importance of time and emergence in the
application of business model thinking. It is shown that SMEs are in a different business
model development stage from start-ups and large firms, having different business model
needs. The necessity of a framework assisting managers in the creation and diversification of
revenue streams is proposed. As a final integrative contribution, the thesis concludes with a
conceptual framework differentiating between the two main sub-units ‘value proposition’ and
‘business architecture/logic’ on the one side, and the two main purposes
‘analysis/refinement’ and ‘creation’ on the other side. This four-dimensional framework
reduces complexity in application allows for making better-informed business model
application decisions.
2 / 549
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
At first, my heartfelt thanks go to Prof Gerald Watts and Dr Robin Bell who acted as
supervisors of the present thesis. Not only I thank them for their professional and
methodological inputs needed to conduct and finally accomplish this thesis, but also
for the many inspiring discussions and meetings that finally contributed to my
motivation and understanding of the research topic and process. However, at this
point, I not only would like to thank them for their valuable inputs in the various Skype
meetings we had in the past 2 years, but also for the inspiring in-person meetings
and warm welcomes in Cheltenham, Worcester and Birmingham during my thesis,
which I always have very much appreciated and which are in my best memories.
Many thanks go also to Prof Daniel Huber, who acted as subject advisor and helped
me shaping and challenging emerging ideas regarding the specifics of the Swiss
SME context.
In addition, many thanks go also to my friends and colleagues, in particular to

Christoph Dummermuth, Patrick Stalder and Heiner Kaufmann for the inspiring
discussions we had about my project.
I would also like to thank the team from the University of Gloucestershire, in
Cheltenham, for their excellent support in all project stages, the doctoral modules,
and the annual Doctoral Colloquia they have been organising.
And not at least, many thanks go to the respondents (respondents) who agreed to
participate in my study and thus enabled me to conduct the present research.
3 / 549
DECLARATION
I herewith declare that the content of this thesis is my own work – except where
noted and credited. I further declare that this PhD thesis was created in accordance
with the guidelines and regulations of the University of Gloucestershire. I affirm that
this thesis has not been submitted to any other educational institution in the United
Kingdom or abroad or as part of any other academic award.
All views and opinions tendered in this PhD thesis are solely mine and not, in any
way, those of the University of Gloucestershire.
Signed: Date: 1 December 2018
4 / 549
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 17
1.1 Background to the research ........................................................................ 17
1.1.1 The author’s background relative to the research ................................. 17
1.1.2 The role of business models in non-R&D-intensive firms ...................... 18
1.1.3 The geographical context for the research ............................................ 19
1.2 The business model concept in the literature .............................................. 19
1.2.1 Origins and evolution of the concept ..................................................... 19
1.2.2 The ‘dotcom bubble’ and the proliferation of the concept ...................... 21
1.2.3 The diffusion of the concept to other sectors ........................................ 22
1.2.4 The lack of empirical studies of application ........................................... 23
1.3 Evolution of the research topic .................................................................... 24
1.3.1 The need for an exploratory study ........................................................ 24
1.3.2 Clarification of the research focus ......................................................... 25
1.4 Research aims, objectives and research questions..................................... 26
1.4.1 Research aim ........................................................................................ 26
1.4.2 Research objectives .............................................................................. 26
1.4.3 Research questions .............................................................................. 27
1.5 Structure of the thesis.................................................................................. 27
1.6 A note on terminology .................................................................................. 29
1.6.1 Employed manager ............................................................................... 29
1.6.2 Entrepreneur ......................................................................................... 29
1.6.3 Owner-manager .................................................................................... 29
1.6.4 Start-up ................................................................................................. 30
1.6.5 Start-up founder .................................................................................... 30
2. Literature Review ............................................................................................... 32
2.1 The role of models in business and management ....................................... 32
2.1.1 Economic models.................................................................................. 34
2.1.2 Integrative models................................................................................. 35
2.1.3 Business Models ................................................................................... 38
2.1.4 Sub-system models .............................................................................. 44
2.1.5 Conclusions of the review on the role of models in business ................ 48
2.2 Definitions .................................................................................................... 49
5 / 549
2.2.1 Defining the term ‘business’ .................................................................. 49
2.2.2 Defining the term ‘model’ ...................................................................... 50
2.2.3 Defining ‘Business Model’ ..................................................................... 53
2.3 Importance of the business model concept ................................................. 55
2.4 Influential conceptual business model studies ............................................. 57
2.4.1 Business model frameworks ................................................................. 57
2.4.2 Other influential conceptual business model studies ............................ 63
2.5 Business models versus revenue models ................................................... 65
2.6 Distinguishing between business models and business plans .................... 68
2.7 Business models – a strategic perspective .................................................. 70
2.8 Separating established firms from start-ups ................................................ 74
2.9 Business models and corporate culture ....................................................... 78
2.10 Business models and technology management ....................................... 81
2.11 Creating value through business models ................................................. 84
2.12 Business models and innovation management ........................................ 88
2.13 Business models and complexity theory .................................................. 93
2.13.1 Applying complexity theory to business models .................................... 94
2.13.2 Investigating complex systems ............................................................. 96
2.14 Experimenting with business models ....................................................... 96
2.15 Entrepreneurship as a source of business model creation ....................... 99
2.16 Business models as a teaching instrument ............................................ 103
2.17 A lack of empirical studies ...................................................................... 105
2.18 Empirical studies of business model application .................................... 109
2.18.1 Quantitative research .......................................................................... 110
2.18.2 Case studies ....................................................................................... 111
2.18.3 A Delphi study approach ..................................................................... 111
2.18.4 Action research ................................................................................... 112
2.18.5 Qualitative studies ............................................................................... 113
2.18.6 Discussion of relevant empirical studies ............................................. 116
2.19 Conclusion to the literature review and implications for the research ..... 118
2.19.1 A concept dispersed over many disciplines ........................................ 118
2.19.2 A lack of empirical studies as research gap ........................................ 119
2.19.3 Technology management and the practical contribution ..................... 119
2.19.4 Business model frameworks as output of conceptual studies ............. 120
6 / 549
2.19.5 Business models as highly complex systems ..................................... 120
2.20 Conceptual conclusion of the literature review ....................................... 121
2.20.1 Current knowledge in the 3 communities ............................................ 121
2.20.2 A conceptual framework of the reviewed literature ............................. 126
2.20.3 The framework explained in depth ...................................................... 127
2.20.4 The application of the framework in the present study ........................ 129
2.21 Critical discussion of the current body of literature ................................. 129
3. An exploratory study......................................................................................... 132
3.1 Interviewing 8 Swiss business managers .................................................. 132
3.2 Interview aims and questions .................................................................... 134
3.3 Analysing the interviews ............................................................................ 135
3.3.1 Presenting the findings ....................................................................... 135
3.3.2 Discussion of the findings ................................................................... 136
3.3.3 The case of a start-up ......................................................................... 137
3.4 Conclusions from the exploratory interviews ............................................. 138
4. Methodology and methods ............................................................................... 140
4.1 Philosophical fundamentals ....................................................................... 140
4.1.1 A rationale for the importance of philosophical considerations ........... 140
4.1.2 Phenomena under study ..................................................................... 141
4.1.3 Ontological considerations .................................................................. 142
4.1.4 Epistemological considerations ........................................................... 147
4.2 Research paradigms ................................................................................. 152
4.2.1 Paradigms ........................................................................................... 152
4.2.2 The adopted paradigm ........................................................................ 153
4.2.3 Methodology ....................................................................................... 154
4.3 Research purpose ..................................................................................... 154
4.3.1 Exploratory studies ............................................................................. 154
4.3.2 Descriptive studies .............................................................................. 155
4.3.3 Explanatory studies ............................................................................. 155
4.3.4 Rationale for an exploratory study ...................................................... 156
4.4 Unit of analysis .......................................................................................... 156
4.5 Qualitative and quantitative research ........................................................ 157
4.6 Research designs ...................................................................................... 159
4.6.1 Experiment .......................................................................................... 159
7 / 549
4.6.2 Survey ................................................................................................. 160
4.6.3 Case study .......................................................................................... 160
4.6.4 Action research ................................................................................... 161
4.6.5 Grounded theory ................................................................................. 162
4.6.6 Ethnography........................................................................................ 162
4.6.7 Archival research ................................................................................ 163
4.6.8 Individual interviews ............................................................................ 164
4.6.9 Focus groups ...................................................................................... 164
4.6.10 The adopted research design ............................................................. 165
4.7 Collecting data through guided in-depth interviews ................................... 165
4.8 Sampling ................................................................................................... 167
4.8.1 Introduction: what is sampling and why it is important ........................ 167
4.8.2 Time horizon ....................................................................................... 168
4.8.3 Rationale for a judgmental sampling strategy ..................................... 169
4.8.4 The choice of 3 communities (diversity across the samples) .............. 170
4.8.5 Choice of respondents (diversity within the samples) ......................... 172
4.8.6 Sample profiles ................................................................................... 172
4.8.7 Respondent recruitment ...................................................................... 174
4.9 Ethical considerations................................................................................ 174
4.10 Development of research instruments .................................................... 175
4.10.1 Considerations for developing the interview guide .............................. 175
4.10.2 Lessons learned from the exploratory study ....................................... 177
4.10.3 Conclusions from the exploration study for the interview guide .......... 178
4.10.4 Developing the main categories of the interview guides ..................... 179
4.11 The issue of bias .................................................................................... 180
4.11.1 Addressing the researcher bias .......................................................... 181
4.11.2 Bias in researching academics ........................................................... 182
4.11.3 Bias in researching support professionals .......................................... 183
4.11.4 Bias in researching owner managers .................................................. 184
4.12 Data collection ........................................................................................ 186
4.12.1 Venue ................................................................................................. 186
4.12.2 Data capture ....................................................................................... 186
4.12.3 Transcription ....................................................................................... 187
4.13 Data analysis .......................................................................................... 187
8 / 549
4.13.1 Developing an adapted data analysis process .................................... 189
4.13.2 Step by step description of the analysis process ................................ 192
4.13.3 Rationale for using a mind map based analysis .................................. 200
4.14 Presenting the findings ........................................................................... 200
4.15 Ensuring the quality of the research ....................................................... 201
4.15.1 Quality criteria of quantitative research ............................................... 202
4.15.2 Quality criteria for qualitative research ................................................ 203
4.16 Overview of the research design ............................................................ 205
5. Findings ............................................................................................................ 207
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 207
5.1.1 Chapter structure ................................................................................ 207
5.1.2 Community codes ............................................................................... 207
5.1.3 Quotation codes .................................................................................. 208
5.2 Theme 1: Wide variety of applications and interpretations (A/S/M) ........... 209
5.2.1 Findings in the academic community (A) ............................................ 211
5.2.2 Findings in the support professional community (S) ........................... 212
5.2.3 Findings in the small business owner manager community (M) .......... 214
5.2.4 In-depth investigation of business model application .......................... 216
5.2.5 Contextualizing the findings with literature .......................................... 219
5.2.6 Key findings ........................................................................................ 220
5.3 Theme 2: used in start-ups and large firms but not in SMEs (A/S/M) ........ 221
5.3.4 Contextualizing the findings with the literature .................................... 230
5.3.5 Key findings ........................................................................................ 232
5.4 Theme 3: Developing adapted frameworks (A/S) ...................................... 234
5.4.4 Key findings ........................................................................................ 239
5.5 Theme 4: Soft issues and philosophical considerations (A/S) ................... 240
9 / 549
5.5.3 Contextualizing the findings with the literature .................................... 245
5.5.4 Key findings ........................................................................................ 246
5.6 Theme 5: The importance of revenue thinking (A/S/M) ............................. 247
5.6.3 Findings in the small business owner-manager community (M).......... 251
5.6.5 Key findings ........................................................................................ 254
5.7 Theme 6: The implementation of new business models in practice (A/S) . 256
5.7.4 Key findings ........................................................................................ 266
5.8 Theme 7: Business models and complexity management (A/S) ............... 267
5.8.4 Key findings ........................................................................................ 274
5.9 Theme 8: The role of business models in ecosystems (A/S/M) ................. 275
5.9.5 Key findings ........................................................................................ 282
5.10 Summary and interpretation of the key findings ..................................... 283
5.10.1 A wide variety of applications and interpretations ............................... 283
5.10.2 A tendency for developing adapted frameworks ................................. 284
5.10.3 The role of philosophy in business model thinking .............................. 285
5.10.4 A missing intuitive framework for revenue stream generation ............. 285
5.10.5 Business model application as an emergent phenomenon ................. 286
5.10.6 Managing real world complexity with business models ....................... 288
5.10.7 The role of business models in ecosystems........................................ 289
5.10.8 Owner-managed SMEs are different from start-ups and large firms ... 289
5.11 The key findings in the context of the conceptual literature framework .. 291
10 / 549
5.11.1 A wide variety of applications and interpretations ............................... 292
5.11.2 A tendency for developing adapted frameworks ................................. 292
5.11.3 The role of philosophy in business model thinking .............................. 293
5.11.4 A missing intuitive framework for revenue stream generation ............. 293
5.11.5 Business model application as an emergent phenomenon ................. 293
5.11.6 Managing real world complexity with business models ....................... 294
5.11.7 The role of business models in ecosystems........................................ 294
5.11.8 Owner-managed SMEs are different from start-ups and large firms. .. 294
5.11.9 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 295
6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 296
6.1 Key findings in the context of the research questions................................ 296
6.1.1 Addressing research question 1.......................................................... 296
6.2 Summary of the contributions .................................................................... 307
6.2.1 Contribution 1...................................................................................... 307
6.2.2 Contribution 2...................................................................................... 308
6.2.3 Contribution 3...................................................................................... 308
6.2.4 Contribution 4...................................................................................... 308
6.2.5 Contribution 5...................................................................................... 309
6.2.6 Contribution 6...................................................................................... 309
6.2.7 Contribution 7...................................................................................... 310
6.2.8 Summary of the contributions ............................................................. 310
6.3 Contributions to knowledge in detail .......................................................... 311
6.3.1 Different perceptions and ways of application ..................................... 311
6.3.2 Different interpretations and applications across the communities ..... 313
6.3.3 Two perspectives: ‘narrower sense’ and ‘wider sense’ thinking .......... 321
6.3.4 SME owner-managers have different business model needs ............. 323
6.3.5 A missing framework for designing revenue mechanics ..................... 326
6.3.6 The reality of application: the role of time and emergence .................. 328
6.3.7 A business model application framework (conceptual contribution) .... 331
6.3.8 Positioning the contributions in the business model landscape .......... 344
6.4 Limitations of the research ........................................................................ 346
6.4.1 Limitations regarding the geographical location .................................. 346
11 / 549
6.4.2 A different balance between the samples ........................................... 346
6.4.3 Adapting the interview guide ............................................................... 348
6.4.4 Re-designing the interaction process with the respondents ................ 349
6.4.5 The need for follow-up interviews and focus groups ........................... 349
6.4.6 Limitations of the application framework ............................................. 351
6.4.7 Conclusion: a point for refinement rather than a final product ............. 351
6.5 Implications for future research ................................................................. 352
6.5.1 Including other regions ........................................................................ 352
6.5.2 Further investigating the support professional community .................. 353
6.5.3 Focusing on support professionals specialising on start-ups .............. 353
6.5.4 Using a quantitative study ................................................................... 353
6.5.5 Creating a revenue generation framework .......................................... 354
6.5.6 Investigating business model needs of owner-managed SMEs .......... 355
6.5.7 The reality of application: the role of time and emergence .................. 355
6.5.8 The role of the application framework for future research ................... 356
6.6 Implications for practice ............................................................................. 357
6.6.1 Perceived and applied in many different ways .................................... 357
6.6.2 Ownership structures and succession plans in family firms ................ 358
6.6.3 Changing needs for business model application ................................. 358
6.6.4 The reality of application: the role of time, emergence and maturation 359
6.6.5 The question whether to increase or reduce complexity ..................... 359
6.6.6 Practical impact of the developed application framework ................... 360
6.7 Personal reflection on the research journey .............................................. 361
7. References ....................................................................................................... 363
12 / 549
FIGURES
Figure 1: An extract of the business model innovation map showing the evolution of
different business model archetypes between 1890 and 2013, according to
Gassmann et al. (2013). ........................................................................................... 21
Figure 2: Number of published articles (Zott et al., 2010). ........................................ 22
Figure 3: Conceptual framework of models in business. Author (2018). .................. 34
Figure 4: St Gallen Management Model according to Rüegg-Stürm (2003). ............ 36
Figure 5: Business ecosystem model according to Moore (2006). ........................... 37
Figure 6: Porter's (1985) value chain model. ............................................................ 39
Figure 7: Osterwalder’s (2010) Business Model Canvas. ......................................... 58
Figure 8: Business Model Navigator according to Gassmann et al. (2013). ............. 60
Figure 9: Business Model Creation Questions. Source: Stähler (2013). ................... 61
Figure 10: Four-Box Business Model according to Johnson et al. (2009). ............... 62
Figure 11: The Lean Start-up Process (Blank, 2013). .............................................. 76
Figure 12: Three stages of a business model journey (Christensen, Bartman, et al.,
2016). ....................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 13: Lean Start-up Process (Blank, 2013). ...................................................... 99
Figure 14: Empirical studies reviewed. Source: Author (2016). .............................. 117
Figure 15: Perspectives of the three communities (Author, 2018). ......................... 122
Figure 16: Conceptual framework literature review. Source: Author (2018). .......... 127
Figure 17: Findings from the exploratory study. Source: Author (2016). ................ 135
Figure 18: Academics sample. Source: Author (2017). .......................................... 173
Figure 19: Support professional sample. Source: Author (2017). ........................... 173
Figure 20: Owner-manager sample. Source: Author (2017). .................................. 174
Figure 21: Process of data analysis. Source: Author (2016)................................... 191
Figure 22: High level data aggregation (main themes) for the academic community.
Source: Author (2017). ........................................................................................... 195
Figure 23: High level data aggregation (main themes) for the support professional
community. Source: Author (2017). ........................................................................ 196
13 / 549
Figure 24: High level data aggregation (main themes) for the owner manager
community. Source: Author (2017). ........................................................................ 197
Figure 25: Evidence in the data. Source: Author (2017). ........................................ 199
Figure 26: Dimensions of application derived for the empirical data. Source: Author
(2018). .................................................................................................................... 218
Figure 27: Key findings mapped in the conceptual framework from literature. Author
(2018). .................................................................................................................... 291
Figure 28: Findings around business model application. Source: Author (2018). ... 316
Figure 29: Understanding, application, valuation matrix. Source Author (2018). .... 318
Figure 30: Three stages of a business model journey (Christensen, Bartman, et al.,
2016). ..................................................................................................................... 325
Figure 31: Business model from Johnson & Christensen (2009). ........................... 332
Figure 32: Business model application framework. Source: Author (2018). ........... 334
Figure 33: Framework of business model application. Source: Author (2018)........ 339
Figure 34: Conceptual literature review framework containing the contributions.

Source: Author (2018). ........................................................................................... 345
TABLES
Table 1: Classification of terms and concepts (Guest et al., 2011, p. 50) ............... 188
Table 2: Understanding-Application-Matrix. Source: Author (2017). ....................... 210
14 / 549
GLOSSARY
A Abbreviation of the academic sample (A)
BIM Building Information Modelling
BM Business model
Canvas Abbreviation for Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder, 2010)
CAS Complex adaptive systems
E-newspaper Electronic newspaper
ICT Information and Communication Technology
Intrapreneur An ‘entrepreneur’ within an established firm, having the same

spirit as entrepreneurs normally have.
M Abbreviation of the owner-manager sample (M)
Manager Generic term of a manager. This term is only rarely used in the
present thesis. To be more precise, it is distinguished between
employed manager or owner-manager, since this differentiation
is needed in the present study.
m-servie Mobile service
PhD Philosophical Doctor
Planfabrik The author’s firm
R&D Research and Development
RPV-Theory Theory about resources, processes, and values in a business

model innovation context
S Abbreviation of the support professional sample (S)
15 / 549
SME Small and medium sized enterprise
TA Thematic Analysis
Transaction model An alternative type of business model

visualization/representation using arrows between the building
blocks to show the flow of money, resources and goods.
VPD Value Proposition Designer according to (Osterwalder, Pigneur,
Bernarda, & Smith, 2015)
16 / 549
1. Introduction
In this chapter, the author’s professional background (as a technology-based SME

owner-manager and business school lecturer) is briefly explained and contextualized
with the research topic. A brief introduction shows why business models play a
significant role in technology-based SMEs. Then, the business model concept’s
historical evolution is summarised, followed by the insight that only few empirical
business model studies have been conducted, thus representing a gap in extant
knowledge that the present study is addressing. The need for an exploratory study is
outlined and justified. The rationale for changing the initial research focus is
elaborated: a change from investigating just one community (managers) to three
communities of academics, support professionals and owner-managers. The
research aims and the research questions are then outlined. The chapter ends with
an overview of the thesis document (structure and content).
1.1 Background to the research
1.1.1 The author’s background relative to the research
The author’s professional experience was important in shaping the topic of this
research, so this linkage will be briefly explained. In this section, the author “brackets
himself out of the study by discussing personal experiences with the phenomenon”
(Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 81).
The author has co-founded two firms, in one of which he currently works as co-
owner-manager. In parallel to his entrepreneurial activities he has been acting as
lecturer and supervisor at a university business school and as a coach in
governmental training programs for many years. The focus of his activities has
always been on innovation and business model generation. Based on his own
entrepreneurial journey, he learned about the importance of business model thinking;
in his own business he has successfully changed the business model relative to his
competitors.
However, despite the author’s enthusiasm for the business model concept, sobering
key learning points have been that business model ideas, as taught at business
17 / 549
schools, are by far more complex to apply in practice than was expected, and that
there is still only limited knowledge available to assist SME owner-managers in
making informed business model application decisions. The insights from his
entrepreneurial journey were complemented by learning from coaching business
school students and SME managers. The author’s observation can be summarised
as follows: The term ‘business model’ is often used with no focused meaning in
practice. Accordingly, the aim of the present doctoral project was to better
understand how the business model concept is conceptualised and applied (in
Switzerland) in order to draw inferences that aid understanding of business model
application (contribution to knowledge) and that allow for applying the concept more
successfully in practice (contribution to practice).
Side note: The author started off by undertaking a DBA programme, then transferred
to PhD registration. The rationale for this change was that the author thought, based
on the findings of the study, he could make a wider contribution to knowledge.
Furthermore, the author can envisage a switch to an academic career at some point
in the future and is aware that a PhD degree may be more appropriate to an
academic environment.
1.1.2 The role of business models in non-R&D-intensive firms
Small firms often do not have the knowledge, the infrastructure, nor the resources, to
conduct traditional basic research. Nevertheless, it can be observed that non-R&D-
intensive firms have key positions in the economic value chain and contribute to
innovation and growth (Kirner, Kinkel, & Jaeger, 2009). As recent empirical research
shows, non-R&D-intensive firms are still very innovative (Rammer et al., 2011).
The author posits that business model innovation represents a formidable chance for
such non-R&D-intensive firms to create sustainable competitive advantage. By
contrast to traditional R&D activities in a technical or natural scientific sense,
business model innovations are less resource-intensive – only limited by creativity –
and may have at least the same impact as ‘traditional’ research initiatives may have
these days (however, the most impact may be realised by combining basic research
findings with business model innovation). As discussed later in the literature review
18 / 549
chapter, disruptive innovations (innovations focusing on the low-end segment of
incumbents’ customers – often seemingly unattractive segments to the incumbents)
are almost always business model innovations representing an opportunity for new
market entrants and small firms to compete with incumbent market-dominating firms
(Christensen, 2002).
1.1.3 The geographical context for the research
The samples are mainly located in the German speaking part of Switzerland (two
respondents, an academic and a support professional, recruited through the author’s
professionals network, are located in the French-speaking part). The focus has been
given to technology-based owner-managed SMEs because (1) this type of firm is part
of the ‘backbone’ of the Swiss economy, and (2) because the author is familiar with
these firms, having his ‘professional roots’ in such firms – and, by consequence, also
having his personal and professional network in this domain.
Switzerland is often considered the ‘home of the business model concept’ since local
scholars and authors such as Stähler, Osterwalder, Pigneur, Gassmann have
significantly contributed to the concept’s development and evolution. Accordingly, the
sample containing Swiss academics, technology-based owner-managed SMEs, and
support professionals (as the link between academics and SMEs) reflects a coherent
chain that allows for drawing a consistent ‘360-degree picture’ of business model
interpretation and application in Switzerland.
1.2 The business model concept in the literature
1.2.1 Origins and evolution of the concept
Some discrepancies exist in the literature concerning the origin of the business model
concept. Some authors such as DaSilva and Trkman (2014) argue that the term
‘business model’ was first formally discussed in the year 1957 in an article by
Bellman, Clark, Malcolm, Craft, and Ricciardi (1957) investigating the construction of
business games for training purposes. The first time it was mentioned within a title in
an academic journal was in an article written by Jones (1960) dealing with the
19 / 549
question how business college students should be trained and how new technologies
should best be introduced to them.
Other authors such as Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002) claim that the business
model concept has its origins in Chandler’s seminal book ‘Strategy and Structure’.
Chandler stated that “strategy can be defined as the determination of the basic long-
term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and
the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals” (Chandler, 1962,
p. 13). According to Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002) further predecessors of the
business model concept can be seen in the work of Ansoff (1965) on corporate
strategy and the definition of Andrews (1980) of corporate and business strategy
(Nielsen & Lund, 2014). However, the business model idea was connected ever
since with the idea of representing reality through a model (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014).
From a more practice-oriented perspective Gassmann, Frankenberger, and Csik

(2013a) have analysed the evolution of the business model concept back to the end
of the ninetieth century, arguing that firms such as the Standard Oil Firm
(Rockefeller) already used business model thinking in order to develop their
businesses. For example, Standard Oil innovated by giving oil lamps away for free,
thereby generating revenue from subsequent sales of oil – a so called “razor blade
model”, which was later adapted by firms such as Gillette or Hewlett Packard
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Figure 1 depicts an extract of the ‘Business Model
Innovation Map’, visualising a set of 55 business model archetypes, which have been
used and re-combined in various ways since the early twentieth century (Gassmann
et al., 2013). Each ‘colour line’ in Figure 1 represents a business model and its
development process (or development path) over time; the dots on the line represent
a firm’s adaptation of a specific model. For instance, the availability-leasing model
(orange line) was adapted in 1957 by Selecta, then in 1995 by IBM and in 2005 by
Hilti. Each adaptation may or may not change the model. Furthermore, some
individual models may get in contact or may be unified with other models, such as the
razor-blade-model and the multisided-platform model, unified by firms such as Apple
(i.e. in 2003 by introducing the iTunes platform).
20 / 549
Figure 1: An extract of the business model innovation map showing the evolution of different
business model archetypes between 1890 and 2013, according to Gassmann et al. (2013).
1.2.2 The ‘dotcom bubble’ and the proliferation of the concept
However, the business model concept as we ‘know’ it today was propagated widely
with the rise of NASDAQ stocks and became a buzzword in the Internet bubble era in
the 1990s (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014), and with the rise of e-businesses and the ‘new
economy’ the concept of the business model has proliferated (Amit & Zott, 2001;
Osterwalder, 2004). Not only was it a shift of existing businesses to the Internet but
also, in most cases, the business logic was changed fundamentally, so one could
often hear that traditional ways of doing business would become obsolete (Merrifield,
2000). The rationale is that new elements of a business (such as customer
relationships or revenue mechanisms) could be changed or replaced through
Internet-based ‘components’; and the business model idea supported this way of
thinking insofar that individual elements could be identified and selectively
manipulated and, as a consequence, new business models could be designed.
Accordingly, the term ‘business model’ was originally used to explain the logic of
those new ICT businesses and became popular in this context. However, after the
21 / 549
burst of the so-called ‘Internet bubble’ around the year 2000, the business model
idea seemed to be dead (Osterwalder, 2004).
1.2.3 The diffusion of the concept to other sectors
Since then, the business model concept has been adopted by practitioners and
academics in all areas, well beyond e-businesses, to describe the core logic of a firm
(DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Frankenberger, Weiblen, Csik, & Gassmann, 2012). More
specifically, the business model has been used to describe the overarching logic of
how firms work by illustrating the relationship of individual elements acting together
(Amit & Zott, 2001; Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; McGrath, 2010; Osterwalder &
Pigneur, 2010). A rigorous study of the published literature in academic and non-
academic journals shows that the term ‘business model’ has become popular since
the mid-nineties (Zott , Amit , & Massa, 2010). Figure 2 depicts the rise in use the of
the term business model in both academic and non-academic journals. The number
of publications took off between 1990 and 1995 from almost zero to more than 1000
articles a year in 2010.
Figure 2: Number of published articles (Zott et al., 2010).
22 / 549
To conclude, most definitions of the term ‘business model’ and also of the business
model concept originated in and directly after the Internet bubble era. As the review
shows, the concept does not relate exclusively to Internet based businesses
anymore. However, the argument here is that the idea still has a dot-com or e-
business ‘flavour’, which may have influenced the perception of the idea in practice.
Based on the review of the concept’s history in literature, the author finally concludes
that three main factors may have contributed to the way the concept is perceived
today. Firstly, an ambiguous historical origin and evolution, the concept’s meteoric
rise in the dot-com and e-business era, associated with its steep fall directly after the
burst of the so-called Internet bubble. Secondly, the business model idea may
accordingly be strongly related to a myriad of unsuccessful new venture stories. And
finally, an extension of the concept to all kind of business domains. Thus, the concept
has gone through turbulent times in the past 20 years and may still be in a phase of
consolidation.
Questions may arise as to why the business model concept has become that popular
in both academia and practice. The author’s argument here is that the concept’s
popularity is primarily based on intuitive and easily understandable frameworks,
above all the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas, which may have contributed significantly to
the concept’s popularity today (the most prominent models and frameworks are
reviewed in Chapter 2). On the other hand, digitalisation has brought about new
phenomena, which could no longer be understood and explained using traditional
management concepts. New ideas were needed, representing the birth of the
business model concept; hence, the emergence of business model thinking is
inseparable from the challenge digital technologies have made to existing managerial
concepts (Stähler, 2002).
1.2.4 The lack of empirical studies of application
The term ‘business model’ is often broadly defined or unspecific (Osterwalder,

Pigneur, & Tucci, 2005), or authors give no clear definition when using it (Timmers,
1998). Yet, based on its popularity many disciplines are interested in the idea, which
has led to many industry-specific understandings (Günzel & Holm, 2013).
Accordingly, business models can be described in various ways; hence, there is a
23 / 549
wide variety of interpretations of the term ‘business model’ (Page, 2014) and
numerous applications such as strategy, entrepreneurship, marketing, or business
communication (Klang, Wallnöfer, & Hacklin, 2014). However, most business model
studies remain conceptual and theoretical (Hacklin, Minato, & Kobayashi, 2015), and,
as can be observed with other nascent fields – such as small enterprise and
organisational science – a lack of empirical studies leads to an increasing number of
concepts (Lambert, 2015).
To conclude, the point here is that there exists a tension between the various
applications of the concept on the one hand, and the foremost conceptual/theoretical
research on the other. The argument is that the concept should be refined by specific
industries or communities working with it in order to be useful. Thus, an empirical
exploration of how the business world really understands, perceives and applies the
concept represents an important gap in extant research.
1.3 Evolution of the research topic
1.3.1 The need for an exploratory study
Based on the author’s observations of interpretation and practical application of the

business model concept, and a gap identified in the literature (a lack of empirical
studies regarding the business world‘s perception and application of the business
model concept), the purpose of this research project is exploration, since “an
exploratory study is a valuable means to finding out ‘what is happening; to seek new
insights; to ask questions and to assess phenomena in a new light’ (Robson, 2002, p.
59, cited in Saunders, 2009, p. 139).
The phenomena under study are the ways in which the business model concept is
understood, perceived and applied in the Swiss business world; hence, a set of
various highly complex phenomena to be investigated (understanding, perception,
application). These phenomena will be explored in a new light by investigating the
three communities of academics, support professionals, and small business owner-
managers, a choice of sample forming a coherent link between academia and
practice. Accordingly, the research purpose and research design must allow for a
broad exploration of these phenomena. This has been achieved by an exploratory
24 / 549
research purpose, combined with a research design based on individual interviews.
This represents an approach that meets the underlying philosophical considerations
and allows for accessing respondents’ thoughts as they emerge, within the paradigm
of social constructionism, as discussed in Chapter 4.
1.3.2 Clarification of the research focus
At the beginning of the project, the author intended to investigate managers (with no
distinction between employed or owner-managers), since the argument was that
managers, no matter of which type, represent those people who finally apply
business models in practice. At the beginning of the present study, the author had an
excellent opportunity to interview 8 managers as part of an exploratory preliminarily
study. 5 out of 8 SME managers were interviewed in a business model workshop
organised by a governmental innovation promotion agency, where the author acted
as a coach. All 5 managers were employed managers. The interviews were
complemented by 3 respondents of the author’s network (1 employed manager, 1
owner-manager, 1 start-up manager). The initial focus of the study, namely to
investigate SME managers (mostly employed managers), then has changed due to
the findings of this preliminary study. A key learning point was that only limited
diversity and new insights can be found in firms managed by employed managers.
Accordingly, the research focus was clarified and adapted as follows.
Firstly, based on the author’s experience with academics and support professionals –
as part of his university career – he concluded that more diverse ideas and
perspectives would be gained by means of a sampling design consisting of several
different communities. Accordingly, the sample was expanded to include academics,
support professionals (as the link between the academic and the practical world), and
SME owner-managers, which may represent a coherent chain between academia
and practice.
Secondly, the focus of the management community was changed towards owner-
managers. The rationale for the shift from employed to owner-managers was that
owner-managers were assumed be more interested in new concepts, tending to be
more ‘innovative’ since they develop their own businesses for which they feel
25 / 549
responsibility, in comparison with employed managers who may see their position in
a more temporary way, focusing on short-time success (financially motivated) and
shareholder interests. This assumption was reinforced by the author’s personal
background and situation as an owner-manager, always being interested in new
ideas and developing his business through innovation. Following this line of
reasoning, more diverse ideas were expected to be found in the owner-manager
community.
1.4 Research aims, objectives and research questions
1.4.1 Research aim
The research aim derived from the author’s observation that the term ‘business
model’ may have no focused meaning in practice and the lack of empirical studies
revealed in the literature review. The broad aim of the research was to explore the
interpretation and application of the business model concept by means of an
empirical study and thus to develop an original contribution to knowledge.
1.4.2 Research objectives
The specific objectives of the research were threefold. First, the project aims to
increase understanding of the ways in which the business model concept is
conceptualised and applied in three Swiss communities; the technology-based small
business owner-manager world, the community of academics dealing with business
models in their research, and the support professional community. As further
elaborated in the methodology chapter, business support professionals and local
academics have been selected to complement small business owner-managers in
order to increase information and diversity, a research design that allows for drawing
a coherent “360-degree picture” between academia and practice. Secondly,
limitations of the business model concept are explored and discussed. Third,
adaptations of the concept, as performed by the three communities (based on
perceived shortcomings), are investigated. Thus, the following research objectives
have been formulated:
26 / 549
1. To explore the conceptualisation and application of the business model
concept by Swiss academics, training and consultancy professionals and
small business owner-managers.
2. To investigate the shortcomings and limitations of the business model
concept, as perceived within the three communities.
3. To understand how members of the three communities have further developed
the business model concept in order to deal with the concept’s limitations.
1.4.3 Research questions
Based on the research aims, the following research questions have been posed,
each addressing the three research aims using a funnel-like approach, focusing the
questions down from a broad descriptive question (RQ1) to increasingly more
specific questions (RQ2 and RQ3):
• RQ1: How is the business model concept perceived, conceptualised and

applied within the three Swiss communities of local academics, business
support professionals, and technology-based small business owner-
managers?
• RQ2: What are the shortcomings and limitations of the business model
concept, as perceived within the three communities?
• RQ3: How has the business model concept been adapted or further developed
within the three communities?
1.5 Structure of the thesis
Chapter 1 – Introduction: The author’s personal and professional background is

outlined as starting point of the research. The research topic is introduced, the
necessity of the research is discussed, elaborated and justified, and the research
aims as well as the research questions are presented, before finally giving an
overview of the thesis document.
Chapter 2 – Literature review: A comprehensive narrative-style literature review

presents the current state of knowledge, starting from broad topics currently widely
discussed in the business model world, narrowing down to more specific ideas at the
27 / 549
periphery of the concept (such as complexity theory). Then, a special focus is given
to empirical and conceptual studies conducted in the field – the conclusions have
been used to inform the methodological chapter. Finally, a research gap revealing a
lack of empirical business model studies is presented and discussed.
Chapter 3 – Exploratory study: This chapter is devoted to an exploratory study

discussing the results of 8 exploratory interviews with Swiss SME managers. This
‘preliminary study’ was conducted to better understand and learn more about the
diversity of perceptions and applications of the business model concept. At the start
of the project, little was understood about this diversity – so this study was designed
to inform the research design, as documented in Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 – Methodology and methods: In this chapter, the philosophical and

methodological fundamentals for the main study are discussed and developed by
outlining various alternative research purposes and strategies and justifying the
choices made. A special focus is given to the sampling strategy, justifying the choice
of a judgmental (purposive) approach. In total, 35 respondents were interviewed (10
academics, 13 support professionals, 12 owner-managers). The choice of
respondents is discussed in this chapter. The development of the research
instruments and the data analysis process are also part of this chapter, as well as a
discussion of specific quality criteria.
Chapter 5 – Findings and discussion: The findings are discussed following the
themes identified in the data analysis. 8 main themes are revealed. Conclusions are
drawn for each theme and discussed community by community. Chapter 5 closes
with a summary of the findings and the author’s interpretation – bringing in his own
voice.
Chapter 6 – Conclusions: The research questions are answered and contributions to

knowledge and practice are presented and discussed. The limitations of the research
are discussed, as well as a further research agenda. The chapter closes with the
author’s personal reflection on the research journey.
28 / 549
1.6 A note on terminology
In Switzerland, especially in colloquial language, there is sometimes confusion

between the terms ‘entrepreneur’, ‘start-up founder’, ‘manager’, ‘owner-manager’ and
‘start-up’. For instance, an entrepreneur is not just a new venture founder and a new
venture founder is not necessarily a start-up founder. This section clarifies the way
the terms are used in the present thesis.
1.6.1 Employed manager
A manager with no (or only minor) shareholding in the firm he manages – i.e.
someone for whom the management position is a paid job. He or she could easily
change employment when offered a better opportunity.
1.6.2 Entrepreneur
On the one hand, the term is often used for someone having founded his own new
business. On the other hand, it can also be used synonymously with owner-manager.
The term is avoided in the present thesis when discussing the samples. The author
understands the term ‘entrepreneur’ following the entrepreneurship literature, as
someone who not simply ‘manages’ a new or existing business, but as someone who
explores and exploits new opportunities – no matter whether he is the owner or
employed in the firm. The author sees himself and his firm as entrepreneurial.
However, the respondents in the interviews are not always easily identified as
entrepreneurs or as owner-managers. Additionally, someone having founded a start-
up may also be an entrepreneur in this above sense. Accordingly, the terms owner-
manager or start-up founder are preferred; just to be clear, although some of them
may in fact be entrepreneurs in the above sense too.
1.6.3 Owner-manager
An owner-manager is owner or shareholder (co-owner) of the firm he or she

manages. It does not matter whether he is owner of a new or an existing firm (often
owner of a family business). In the present thesis, entrepreneurs are also called
owner-managers, since the two groups are often hard to distinguish from each other.
29 / 549
By contrast, start-up founders are clearly distinguished from traditional me-too
business founders (see the following sub-sections).
1.6.4 Start-up
Historically, the term start-up was used for each type of new business / new venture,
so each new firm was labelled a ‘start-up’. Today, in some languages, countries and
contexts, the term ‘start-up’ refers to a special type of new firm, which aims at
developing a new innovative business model around a new product or service. In this
sense, a start-up is a newly emerged and fast growing business that aims at
developing and evaluating a scalable business model (Katila, Chen, & Piezunka,
2012; Robehmed, 2013). Although some start-ups have developed into large and
influential firms, most of them fail (Griffith, 2014), so there are high (financial) risks
start-ups must take. As a consequence, alternative forms of investments such as
seed capital, crowd founding, business angels etc. are needed, rather than traditional
bank funding. In the present work the definition from Blank (2013) has been applied,
understanding a start-up as a temporary organisation looking for a new viable,
repeatable and scalable business model (where the emphasis is on repeatable and
scalable). The rationale for the choice of the Blank (2013) definition is as follows: The
work of Blank, who frequently collaborates with Osterwalder, has mainly influenced
the way the start-up concept is understood at Swiss business schools, as perceived
by the author.
The term start-up, as used in the present thesis, refers to a special type of new
venture. This also reflects the author’s usage of the term start-up in practice, based
on the way he perceives the term to be used in Switzerland, in the contexts in which
he is active.
1.6.5 Start-up founder
Based on the considerations of the term start-up, managers having founded their
own me-too business, such as an engineering office with no changes in the business
model relative to its competitors – particularly regarding repeatability and scalability –
have been labelled owner-managers rather than start-up founders. Thus, firms who
30 / 549
aim at realising high rates of growth, based on an innovative business model (that
aims at scalability), are referred to as start-ups (3 such firms have been included in
the sample). By contrast, in the same sample the founder of an architectural office
operating a standard business model for his sector has been labelled as an ‘owner-
manager’ rather than a ‘start-up founder’ even though he only recently founded his
business (about 3 years ago).
31 / 549
2. Literature Review
The chapter begins with a review of the role of models in business. Then, a set of
definitions are discussed, incorporating the three key terms ‘business’, ‘model’, and
‘business model’, drawing conclusions of the very nature of the business model
concept regarding the basic terms building it up. The review then elaborates the
importance of the business model concept, and starts with widely discussed business
model issues such as revenue thinking, strategy, technology management, the role of
business models in start-ups, value creation using business model thinking, or
entrepreneurship as source of new business models. Thus, themes in the context of
which the business model concept has become popular, and currently is popular. But
also, themes and aspects at the periphery of the concept are addressed and
reviewed, such as complexity theory, the considerations of futurist Jeremy Rifkin
regarding a ‘zero marginal cost society’ (Rifkin, 2014), and the role that business
models could play in such a society.
The review then narrows down to more specific topics by investigating existing
empirical and conceptual studies in the field. The chapter concludes that there are
only few empirical studies in the business model domain, and this lack of empirical
studies has been identified as a viable research gap to be addressed. Furthermore,
the literature review reveals arguments as to why business models are very complex
concepts and so their perception and application involve complex sets of phenomena
– an insight, which is further elaborated in the methodology chapter.
The present literature review is a narrative style rather than a systematic review. The
rationale is that business models are a recent arrival in the management world. Ideas
are distributed over many disciplines, not yet fully structured. Accordingly, a narrative
style review allows for a richer exploration of dispersed concepts and ideas.
2.1 The role of models in business and management
As a preparation for an in-depth investigation of the business model concept in the

present literature review, the role of models in business and management will be
reviewed in this section. This brief review will aim to contextualise the business
model concept within a wider landscape of models. A broad literature review in terms
32 / 549
of possible types of models in the business domain reveals various bodies of
knowledge, in which these models are researched and presented. Accordingly,
models are embedded in economic literature, business literature, small business and
entrepreneurship literature, and in highly specialised sub-domains (i.e. business
processes, marketing, innovation management, customer behaviour, performance
management, etc.).
Based on the analysis of the various types of models and respective bodies of
knowledge, a 4-way classification can be developed as follows:
1. Type 1: macro-economic models. These models deal with the economy of

whole countries but also with the interaction of multiple national economies.
2. Type 2: ‘integrative models’. these are models that conceptualise firms within
their economic context and broader ecosystem.
3. Type 3: business models that conceptualise entire businesses, with the
individual firm as the unit of analysis. (These models are the focus of this
study).
4. Type 4: ‘business sub-system models’. These models conceptualise aspects
of a business within the boundaries of an individual firm, such as business
process and knowledge management models. These models may also
connect with the external environment in specific areas, such as project
management or supply chain models.
Although this conceptualization has emerged in this review, it is introduced at the

beginning of the present section since it provides a structure for a more detailed
examination of the role of models in business. There is a plethora of models across
these categories, with a high level of diversity. The author therefore considers a
discussion on a broad conceptual level adequate for the purpose of contextualisation,
since reviewing every model that has been introduced into the business world would
be disproportionate to this thesis, and furthermore would not necessarily provide
additional insights.
Figure 3 depicts the developed conceptual framework illustrating the several model
types described in literature. The present review discusses the 4 types and the
relationship between them.
33 / 549
Figure 3: Conceptual framework of models in business. Author (2018).
As discussed above, the aim of the present review is not to provide an exhaustive list
of every model that has ever been developed within the business domain but to
provide a conceptual overview of the role of different categories of model. This
facilitates a discussion of the business model concept relative to other ‘model
constructs’ and the contextualisation of the business model concept within a wider
‘model landscape’.
2.1.1 Economic models
The first category, represented by economic models, includes concepts such as the
following:
• Business Cycle Models, which deal with business cycles of entire economies,
addressing questions such as whether countries “... who trade more with each
other have more closely synchronized business cycles?” (Kose & Yi, 2006, p.
268).
• ARCH/GARCH Models. These represent a category of statistical models that
deal with time series analysis. They are used to solve financial problems in
economic contexts, showing whether investments increase or decrease per
time period (Engle, 2001).
34 / 549
• Standard Volatility Models are used in decision-making processes in modern
finance theory. They are used for derivative pricing purposes. They are based
on parameter estimation techniques. ARCH Models are also a category of
volatility model. A differentiating factor between volatility models is their ability
to deal with different frequencies in the data – hence with data processing
speed (Andersen & Bollerslev, 1998).
• Open Economy Models deal with driving forces of business cycles in
economies (Christiano, Trabandt, & Walentin, 2011).
This non-exhaustive list of economic models (there are many more described in the
literature) shows that economic models play an important role in attempting to predict
behaviour on a larger scale. The focus of such models is the whole economy. They
are used to predict short and long-term behaviour, offering various outputs
depending on the interests of those using them (financial experts, national
economists, etc.).
Economic models are mostly quantitative in nature, using the language of

mathematics and statistics. The purpose of economic models is not only to
understand market dynamics but also to predict future behaviour. The quality of such
models may be measured by the predictive power they have (i.e. for financial
forecasts).
2.1.2 Integrative models
Integrative models are considered another type of model with a special role. Their
purpose is to unify broader economic ideas at the level of the firm. One of the most
prominent kind of integrative models is the so called ‘St. Gallen Management Model’,
which was first published by Ulrich (1972) and further developed by Rüegg-Stürm
(2003). Figure 4 depicts the St. Gallen Management Model, which unifies society,
nature, and technology, with the economic context, in which the firm is positioned at
the centre. Processes, strategy, structure and culture, as well as innovation
35 / 549
(optimisation or renewal) finally make up the business standing at the centre of the
model1.
Figure 4: St Gallen Management Model according to Rüegg-Stürm (2003).
Beside the well-established St. Gallen model, there are plenty of additional
‘integrative’ or business ecosystem models. One of which, for example, is the model
from Moore (2006), emphasizing the technology factor, arguing that firms act
together through technological platforms that set up the ecosystem. He argues that
technological firms might build up an ecosystem in which organisations can flourish
(Moore, 2006). He understands the following factors to be determinants of an
ecosystem model:
• Actors.
• Relations between actors.
• Performance.
• Dynamics.
• Strategies and behaviour of actors.
1 In the St. Gallen Management Model the firm, as a unit, is represented by processes (management,
business, support), strategy, structure and culture, as well as by an innovation perspective (renewal or
optimisation). This can be seen as an alternative form of a business model or as an antecedent of it,
since the St. Gallen Model is older than most currently popular business model frameworks.
36 / 549
He further distinguishes between 3 spheres of a firm and its business ecosystem:
core business, extended enterprise, and business ecosystem. Figure 5 depicts the
business ecosystem model introduced by Moore (2006).
Figure 5: Business ecosystem model according to Moore (2006).
Moore (2006) argues that firms must be analysed through an ecosystem perspective.
The sum of individual firms acting together in an ecosystem, mainly through
technological platforms, is the new unit of analysis as a whole. This unit finally not
only determines the success of the network but also the success of the individual
firms too.
An additional class of integrative models are entrepreneurship models such as

‘Entrepreneurial Intention Models’ as described by Krueger Jr., Reilly, and Carsrud
(2000). The argument here is that entrepreneurs do not solely focus on their
37 / 549
organisation but are concerned about value for the society in which they engage.
They sense ‘what is in the air’ and detect trends as basis for their organisation (or for
building up a new venture). Hence, entrepreneurial models may form a link between
an organisation and its environment, since entrepreneurial ideas often originate in
society.
Integrative models have several roles. Above all, they provide understanding in a
systemic way. Accordingly, the well-known St. Gallen Management Model is
qualitative in nature. It helps to improve understanding of the issues in multiple
dimensions that a firm is confronted with. It can be also be seen as a reflection-aiding
model, that provides students and practitioners with a holistic picture of a firm.
2.1.3 Business Models
2.1.3.1 Adapting a ‘building block perspective’
Business models, as we know the term today (e.g. represented by the Canvas), can
clearly be separated from economic or ecosystem models since they just represent
the firm. They were deliberately designed to represent the scope of a firm – they first
appeared in the late 1990s. This was a time when new Internet-based phenomena
could not be explained anymore (using existing tools at the time), so a new concept
was needed. This was the birth of the business model concept (Stähler, 2002). The
role of such business models is to break down an organisation into its constituent
parts, showing relationships between the individual elements. This provides
understanding and reveals a broader perspective. Although business models are
‘closed systems’, they possess connecting elements with the environment, e.g.
through the building block key partners (in the case of the Canvas).
Focusing on the individual firm as the unit of analysis, one refers to the business
model concept. As the literature shows, there are many definitions and frameworks.
The most popular these days in Europe, as outlined by Wagner et al. (2015), are the
Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) and the Business Model
Navigator (Gassmann, Frankenberger, & Csik, 2013).
38 / 549
However, the business model concept also has a tradition in the US with authors
such as Linder and Cantrell (2001) focusing on the revenue side of business models,
focusing on technology management and open business models (Chesbrough, 2004;
Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002), or Christensen (2002) focusing on the ‘disruptive’
side of business models. However, their models are conceptual in nature – they have
not developed easily understandable frameworks such as the Osterwalder (2010)
Canvas.
2.1.3.2 Porter’s value chain model
In Porter’s value chain model, the production of goods is arranged as a linear

sequence of tasks. These tasks create value, therefore require resources and are
connected through processes. The value chain concept was first introduced in
Michael Porter’s seminal book ‘Competitive Advantage’ (Porter, 1985). Figure 6
depicts the value chain concept visually. On the one hand, there is a set of primary
activities such as inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, etc. On the other
hand, there are several support activities arranged orthogonally. These are firm
infrastructure, human resource management, technology development, or
procurement.
Figure 6: Porter's (1985) value chain model.
39 / 549
Porter’s value chain model can be considered a special type of business model as it
divides a business into primary and support activates. These activities can be
visualized using building blocks.
However, compared to the currently popular business model concepts such as the
Osterwalder (2010) Canvas, the value chain model is an activity model organised in
processes, whereas business models outline the building blocks (elements) of a
business. One of these building blocks may consist of key activities. Furthermore,
building blocks may be connected through activities of any type. In summary,
although building blocks may be used to visualise Porter’s value chain model, it is
essentially a process model and not a static business model. in the sense of the
present thesis (see the discussion in section 2.2, defining the term ‘business model’).
2.1.3.3 Business plans as future projections of a firm
In a way, a business plan is a model of a firm’s future position and performance in the
market. Accordingly, a business plan is a document that clarifies where you want to
be with your firm in the future (Horan, 2004) and how to get there. There is a
separate section devoted to the difference between business models and business
plans (see section 2.6).
2.1.3.4 The balanced scorecard as a model to steer business activities
The term strategy became popular in the 1960s and since then, ‘strategy’ has
entered almost every domain in business. However, in the 1980s and 1990s people
started to realise that there was a lack of knowledge in how to implement and apply
strategic concepts. As a response to this, the ‘balanced score card’ framework was
developed by Kaplan and Norton (1996).
The aim of the balanced scorecard is to assist managers in finding an optimal

balance between long-term strategy and the required measures – the strength of the
concept lies in its balance and a clear focus on application (Horváth & Kaufmann,
1998). It is an ideal instrument to fulfil the needs of strategic measurement systems
including financial and non-financial measures (Norreklit, 2000). Within the balanced
score card model, vision and strategy of a firm are determined by the following four
main perspectives: financial, customers, internal processes, learning and growth
40 / 549
(Kaplan & Norton, 2000). Kaplan et al. (2000, p.1) argue that four main
characteristics of a balanced score card stand out:
1. “It is a top-down reflection of the company’s mission and strategy.

2. It is forward-looking.
3. It integrates external and internal measures.
4. It helps you focus.”
The balanced score card has always been tightly linked with strategy, i.e. as an
instrument to align management processes to the strategy (Kaplan & Norton, 2001).
However, its application was also expanded to other areas such as supply chain
management – areas in which a clear performance management is needed (Stölzle,
Heusler, & Karrer, 2001).
To conclude, a balanced scorecard is considered a firm-level business model since it

reduces a firm to four main dimensions of interest (financial, customers, internal
processes, learning and growth). These four dimensions offer different perspectives
of equal importance. In some way, the balanced scorecard is an antecedent of
current business model frameworks such as the Canvas (Osterwalder, 2004). As
such, the four main dimensions of the balanced score card represent key building
blocks, or antecedents, of the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas (cost structure, customers,
key processes, value proposition). Furthermore, the Canvas inherited the idea of a
‘balance’ between internal and external activities, or between ‘value’ and ‘cost’, from
the balanced score card too.
2.1.3.5 Numerical modelling
Business models may be represented using building blocks showing the way a
business works in a reductionist way by visualising how the various elements act
together. However, a business may not only be modelled using building blocks and
visual techniques, but also using numbers. There are two main ways of using
numbers (normally, but not exclusively) financial measures, to model a business. On
the one hand, a historical analysis can model the past performance of a business,
using financial statements such as a profit and loss (or revenue) statement or a
balance sheet. On the other hand, future performance can be modelled by using
41 / 549
spreadsheets to generate detailed forecasts of parameters such as sales, costs,
profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheets. When properly integrated, these
forecasts can provide a very detailed model of the future development of a business.
The balance sheet
According to Demerjian (2011, p. 180) “The balance sheet views the valuation of
assets and liabilities as the principal focus of financial reporting”. In the static
balance-sheet theory, one argues that the balance is the most important part of the
accounting system (Leimgruber & Prochinig, 2002). The balance sheet is considered
an important instrument for determining the net assets, for giving account to investors
in terms of how their money is invested, and for displaying assets that cover liabilities
(Leimgruber & Prochinig, 2002).
Forecast analyses are considered a special type of balance sheet model too.
Forecast models of different types are used, such as sales forecasts or cashflow
forecasts. Especially in new venture settings (but also for new products in existing
firms etc.) forecasts are an important fund rising instrument an must include the
following aspects: The expected turnover and net profit for the first year. The loan to
be paid per year and how long it takes pay it off entirely. Furthermore, expectations
for the second and the following years are often included (Blackwell, 2011).
To conclude, some type of balance sheets are static in nature and regulated in terms
of form and content. Others, such as forecast models, may contain dynamic
perspectives too (such as dynamic payback). They all allow for evaluating a firm
making it comparable with other firms of the same type. The balance sheet is
considered a business model in its own right focusing on financial aspects only.
Compared to the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas – and other similar models – it is not
designed to show how constituent parts of a firm act together (such as mapping the
business architecture), but is it shows a firm’s financial situation. These are two
totally different purposes each of these models was designed to - but both are
‘models of a business’.
42 / 549
Spreadsheets
Spreadsheets, represented by software tools such as Microsoft Excel, may be the

most frequently applied form of modelling used in business management.
Spreadsheets are often used as a decision-making instrument, mainly applied in

financial analysis, budgeting, and forecasting (Teo & Tan, 1999). Accordingly,
spreadsheets “(…) have made a major contribution to financial analysis and problem
solving processes” (Kruck & Sheetz, 2001, p.1). Spreadsheets allow for exploring
alternatives, or as stated by Grossman (2007, p. 1) “Spreadsheets are a powerful
modelling language, allowing strategic rapid model change, and enabling exploratory
modelling”. Furthermore, they are an ideal instrument for simulating business
experiments (Seila, 2005). Grossman (2006, p. 18) summarised as follows:
“Spreadsheets are the primary vehicle for analytical work in business, are
advantageous for modelling and model representation, and are used by management
science practitioners as well as end-user modellers”.
However, spreadsheets are not easy to use (Grossman, 2006), but decisions made
using spreadsheets may have huge impact for the organisations; accordingly,
accuracy is extremely important (Kruck & Sheetz, 2001). It was shown that
inaccurate spreadsheet models may have impact on a firm’s competitiveness and
profitability (Teo & Tan, 1999). It is widely acknowledged that there are many
possible sources of errors when working with spreadsheets and there exists
consensus that these errors must be eliminated. On the one hand, Powell, Baker,
and Lawson (2008) investigated errors in spreadsheet models concluding that there
are plenty of possible error sources, such as mistakes in logic, incorrect ranges in
formulas, incorrect cell references, confused range names, incorrectly copied
formulas, etc. On the other hand, a set of ideas was proposed to minimize errors,
such as cell protection, test for reasonableness, establishing good development
practice, or error discovery software (Panko, 2008).
Spreadsheets are also widely used in business education. As such, spreadsheet

modelling was used successfully to teach finance (Holden & Womack, 2000). The
use of spreadsheets does not require learning new approaches, such as necessary
43 / 549
with specialised software. Spreadsheets are easy to understand, and students mostly
have prior knowledge before their courses. Accordingly, spreadsheets are often used
as a tool for simulation (Evans, 2000). Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic (as
programming language) are part of the Office portfolio so these tools are widely
spread and easily accessible (Palocsay & Markham, 2002). However, it could be
observed with undergraduate students using Microsoft Excel that they had difficulties
with the transition from real world statements to mathematical models. These
problems reside in the domain of selecting, initializing, and relating variables
(Kadijevich, 2009).
To conclude, the application area of spreadsheets is just limited by creativity. They

can be used to model (simulate) business sub models, but also complete firms –
depending on the expertise of those using it. Accordingly, spreadsheets are classified
as business models since they allow for modelling whole businesses. In contrast to
the currently popular frameworks such as the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas the
following points can be made:
• Firm models, or business models, using spreadsheets are often much more
individual models developed from scratch compared with standardised
frameworks (although there are many pro-forma spreadsheet frameworks
available, depending on the area of interest such as in the finance domain).
However, the Canvas could be re-built using spreadsheets or used as
template.
• Spreadsheet models are quantitative in nature. The Canvas shows building
blocks visually, in a qualitative way. Spreadsheet models consist of
parameters that allow for numerically simulating a business.
2.1.4 Sub-system models
There is a plethora of models in the fourth domain, the ‘sub model’ stage (type 4). A
selection of such models is provided in the following list:
Business Investment Models (Oliner, Rudebusch, & Sichel, 1995).

Business Process Models are among the most popular models in the business
domain. They encompass domains such as “(…) different process management
44 / 549
approaches like Lean Management, Activity-based Costing, Total Quality
Management, Business Process Reengineering, Process Innovation, Workflow
Management, and Supply Chain Management“ (Becker, Rosemann, & Von Uthmann,
2000, p.2).
Change management and leadership models, introducing models of how to bring
about technological change in organisations (Orlikowski & Hoffman, 1997) and
Kotter’s 8-Step Process for Leading Change (Kotter, 1996).
• Customer Choice Behaviour Models, by explicitly modelling the customers’

behaviour using mathematical means (Talluri & Van Ryzin, 2004).
• HR competency models aiming at improving HR professionals’ effectiveness
as business partners in complex networks (Caldwell, 2008).
• Corporate Performance Models describing social corporate performance,
focusing on the three questions: “(1) What is included in social corporate
performance? (2) What are the social issues the organisation must address?
(3) What is the organisation’s philosophy or mode of social responsiveness?”
(Carroll, 1979, p. 497).
• Decision Making Models in business organisations, dealing with decision
making theory as originally a discipline of economics (Simon, 1979).
• A model of knowledge management in organisations. It is a model that builds
on the differentiation of explicit and tacit knowledge. The model consists of
“the individual, the small group, the organization, and the interorganizational
domain” (Hedlund, 1994, p. 73).
• Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow (2003) investigated a wide variety of project
management models across 10 industries revealing the use of many highly
developed project management models in practice.
• Stakeholder Management Models are used to enhance corporate performance
(Berman, Wicks, Kotha, & Jones, 1999).
• Supply Chain Models in e-business including dimensions such as supplier
relationships, real-time decision making distribution, pricing, and customization
(Swaminathan & Tayur, 2003).
• Business Modelling with UML. UML is a conceptual language from the
45 / 549
software development domain, then was transferred in the business context to
model business processes (Eriksson & Penker, 2000).
• Plenty of models were introduced in business to support product development
(Nijssen & Lieshout, 1995). “These models and methods include
brainstorming, focus group, in-home use test, limited rollout, etc.” (Nijssen &
Lieshout, 1995, p. 27).
• Models have also been used in litigation since “The use of modelling is one
method by which presentation of complex and multifaceted elements of a
given factual situation is simplified. Modelling is a product of the scientific
environment and is the application of scientific attitudes and associated
techniques to the study of operations” (Eastin, 1975, p. 610).
• Pricing models are used to set up prices in certain complex constellations
including its competitive environment (Chari, Kehoe, & McGrattan, 2000).
• Models of strategic choice: The Ansoff Matrix is a planning tool for firm growth
through product and market extension. It offers 4 main strategies (Ansoff,
1957): market penetration, market development, product development and
diversification. The well-known Boston Matrix (BCG) describes the life-cycle of
a product/service. Each life-cycle represents different levels of risks and
returns. Four categories must be distinguished: question marks, stars, cash
cows, and dogs. A firm should manage a balanced portfolio between the four
categories (Ioana, Mirea, & Balescu, 2009). In addition to the basic version of
the Ansoff and the BCG matrices many derivatives of them were developed.
Furthermore, in the domain of strategic choice Porter has developed a model
consisting of three generic strategies: either low cost, differentiation, or focus.
The important thing with the three strategies is that firms must avoid to be
‘stuck in the middle’ (Dess & Davis, 1984).
• The SWOT analysis was developed in the 1960s at Harvard Business School
(Kotler, Berger, & Bickhoff, 2010). The SWOT analysis is part of strategy
processes. In particular, SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
threats) is about internal and external assessment and seeking a fit between
the two perspectives (Hill & Westbrook, 1997).
• Market dynamics models: These include diffusion models such as the diffusion
of the marketing concept (Mahajan, Muller, & Bass, 1991), or the diffusion of
46 / 549
innovations (Rogers, 2003). In a technology context, Gartner’s Hype Cycle
model was developed: a model which “characterizes the typical progression of
an emerging technology from overenthusiasm through a period of
disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology's relevance
and role in a market or domain” (Linden & Fenn, 2003, p.5).
• Several market segmentation models are proposed in the literature, one of
which was developed and introduced by Kotler, Keller, and Bliemel (2007),
who differentiates between 4 levels of segmentation. The two extreme levels
are follows. Level 1: a zero-segmentation, in which there is no difference
between various groups of customers. Level 4: An atomic-segmentation
building up independent segments for each individual customer (levels 2 and 3
are in between). Another model was proposed by Lombriser and Abplanalp
(1998) introducing the concept of Strategic Business Units2 that are used to
serve different customer segments.
• Environmental analysis models: A popular model of this category is the
Porter’s Five Forces model. This model integrates potential new competitors,
existing competitors in the sector, substitution products, suppliers, and
customers (Grundy, 2006).
• Models for the creation of new markets, such as the Blue Ocean Strategy
Model (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). This model suggests that companies can
succeed by capturing uncontested market space (‘Blue Oceans’), by contrast
to areas, in which competitors fight for dominance (‘Red Oceans’).
• Risk management models of all kind, often in form of mathematical
(stochastic) models (Goh, Lim, & Meng, 2007).
The list is non-exhaustive. There are many more additional sub-system models
distributed across specialised business areas. The present review can only provide
an overview of them by showing some popular ideas but cannot afford to be
comprehensive. It shows that many currently popular management models/concepts
are part of the sub-system model domain, e.g. models of strategic choice such as the
Ansoff or the BCG matrices, SWOT analyses, market segmentation models, market
2 In the original language: SGF – Stategisches Geschäftsfled.
47 / 549
dynamic models, etc. The role of these models is to manage a business from a
specific perspective.
2.1.5 Conclusions of the review on the role of models in business
The review demonstrates that business models are a late arrival in a much broader
model landscape applied to the business and management contexts. It shows that
the various models were often developed independently from each other, leading to a
plethora of models located in various domains (in silos). Above all, there are
countless models in the ‘sub-system model’ domain, having various roles that
depend on the area of interest of the respective researcher having developed the
model. The business model concept in some way offers an integrative framework,
unifying many of the various ideas in a single overarching framework (such as the
combination of business processes with customer behaviour). Since the business
model concept is located ‘at the centre’ of the model landscape, it also bridges sub-
system models with economic models. This may explain why business models have
become popular in so many domains: they serve as a unifying unit for many domains.
Although often considered as ‘new’, the idea of modelling a business has existed
ever since, it has already existed before the concept that we refer to today as ‘the
business model concept’ was developed. These include tools and frameworks such
as spreadsheets, balance sheets, balanced scorecards, or business plans; all of
which have in common that they can be used to ‘model’ a business in some way
(according to a specific area of interest). What is ‘new’ is a model that deconstructs a
firm into standardised building blocks – and a visual representation that can assist
the understanding of interactions. This way to think about a business was necessary
with the rise of the Internet, when existing models (whatever type of) could not
explain current phenomena at the time, such as new revenue logic induced by
digitalisation. However, some of the ‘older’ concepts, such as the balanced
scorecard, were used as source of inspiration for frameworks such as the
Osterwalder (2010) Canvas.
The present thesis deals with ‘type 3’ business models. More precisely, it deals with a
special type of ‘type 3’ business models, with those dividing a business into its
48 / 549
constituent parts. This type of model is what we label ‘business model’ today (refer to
the definition section in 2.2). The best-known representational framework of this type
of model is the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas. The next chapter starts with some
definitions regarding the terms ‘business’, ‘model’, and ‘business model’.
2.2 Definitions
2.2.1 Defining the term ‘business’
On the one hand, according to Dicksee (1910), the term business means earning
profits for those who conduct a certain activity. Stephenson and Mintzer (2008, p. 13)
define business as, "The regular production or purchase and sale of goods
undertaken with an objective of earning profit and acquiring wealth through the
satisfaction of human wants". The online business dictionary provides a more
elaborated definition of the term ‘business’ defining it as “An organization or
economic system where goods and services are exchanged for one another or for
money. Every business requires some form of investment and enough customers to
whom its output can be sold on a consistent basis in order to make a profit.
Businesses can be privately owned, not-for-profit or state-owned. An example of a
corporate business is PepsiCo, while a mom-and-pop catering business is a private
enterprise” (BusinessDictionary.com, 2017).
On the other hand, Peter Drucker often used to start business debates or interviews
with the question: What is a business? To him, people most often answered: an
organisation aiming at making profit – which is, according to him, considered totally
wrong (Watson, 2002). Instead, “If you want to know what a business is, you have to
start with its purpose, which must be found outside the business itself - in society,
since a business enterprise is an organ of society” (Watson, 2002, p. 55).
Accordingly, for Drucker, “There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to
create a customer” (Drucker, 2001, p. 22). However, from a value creation
perspective, Drucker argues that a business is an organization that “adds value and
creates wealth” (Watson, 2002, p. 55).
Perhaps surprisingly, only few definitions of the term ‘business’ are covered by
literature. However, existing definitions have in common that business is about
49 / 549
earning profits by selling something that initially has been produced or purchased.
Nevertheless, the author argues that Drucker’s perspective plays a significant role,
since the first question of an organisation should be posed about its purpose, deeply
touching the values of a society by including a contextual perspective. Thus, there is
also a philosophical dimension, which is considered an important component in
business model thinking, as will be discussed later.
2.2.2 Defining the term ‘model’
The following high-level definitions may be applied to get a first picture of what the
term ‘model’ could mean:
• “A description of static and/or dynamic characteristics of a subject area,

portrayed through a number of views (usually diagrammatic or textual)”
(Jackson, 1995).
• “A model is an abstraction of something for the purpose of understanding it
before building it” (Blaha & Rumbaugh, 2005).
However, by investigating the question in more depth it can be concluded that a

model is a concept, which is used in various ways in many disciplines – most
applications and definitions are part of natural scientific domains adapting (post)
positivistic perspectives. The concept may have its origins in physics, and then has
been adapted by other disciplines in sciences and engineering. The following review
shows several definitions from various domains.
The first to use models in physics to structure thoughts and as thinking models – by
mapping ‘reality’ in an abstract way – was René Descartes (1596-1650). Since then,
models have also become important for instruction purposes. (Etkina, Warren, &
Gentile, 2006). Hestenes (1987) advocated models in physics education by
suggesting that “A model is surrogate object, a conceptual representation of real
thing. The models in physics are mathematical models, which is to say that physical
properties are represented by quantitative variables in the models” (Hestenes, 1987,
p. 440, cited in Etkina et al., 2006, p. 34). Hence, physicists may have a common
understanding of what a model is (Etkina et al., 2006):
50 / 549
a) It is a simplified version of reality, where scientists decided which elements to
neglect.
b) A model is either descriptive or explanatory. Explanatory models are based on
analogies with objects we are more familiar with.
c) A model must have predictive power.
d) However, its predictive power has limitations.
In the engineering domain, Bézivin and Gerbé (2001) define the term ‘model’ as
follows: “A model is a simplification of a system built with an intended goal in mind.
The model should be able to answer questions in place of the actual system” (Favre,
2004, p. 2), or, alternatively, “A model is a coherent set of formal elements describing
something (for example, a system, bank, phone, or train) built for some purpose that
is amenable to a particular form of analysis” (Mellor, Clark, & Futagami, 2003, p. 15).
In computer science, a model describes objects or phenomena in systematic ways.
Thereby the model shares characteristics with the real-world counterpart. It allows for
systematic investigation. Normally, models are represented as posits, data, and
inferences presented visually. Models may have the form of mathematical terms,
simulations (computer), or in material form, and are often used to construct scientific
theories (Börner, Boyack, Milojević, & Morris, 2012). Different types of models are
distinguished according to Börner et al. (2012):
• Qualitative and quantitative models. While qualitative models use verbal

descriptions, quantitative models “express units of analyses, their
interrelations and dynamics using properties susceptible of measurement“
(Börner et al., 2012, p. 4).
• Deductive vs. inductive models. On the one hand, deductive models work top
down, from the general to the more specific. On the other hand, inductive
models work from inside out, from the particular to the more general.
• Deterministic vs. stochastic models. Deterministic models are used for
description where the initial state is determined. A given input will always end
in the same output. Stochastic models cannot predict the exact behaviour but
the probability of an output.
51 / 549
• Descriptive models vs. process models. Quantitative models can be sub-
divided in these two categories. With descriptive models, outputs are
described using maps, tables, or charts. Process models “aim to capture the
mechanisms and temporal dynamics by which real-world networks are
created” (Börner et al., 2012, p. 4).
• Universal models vs. domain-specific models. Universal models aim at
describing phenomena over several disciplines. Domain-specific models aim
to replicate something in a given domain.
In biology models are often related to mathematical models that allows for regression
(Motulsky & Christopoulos, 2004). Accordingly, a model can be defined as follows: “A
model is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Unlike scientific hypotheses, a model is
not verifying directly by an experiment. For all models are true and false…. The
validation of a model is not that it is ‘true’ but it generates good testable hypotheses
relevant to important problems” (Levins, 1966, p. 421).
Savenije (2009) distinguishes between scientists and engineers as having different

views on models. From the perspective of a scientist: “It is a hypothesis of the real
world’s functioning, codified in quantitative terms: a model of thought reflecting our
theory. This hypothesis needs to be tested against empirical evidence“ (Savenije,
2009, p. 159). From the perspective of an engineer: “A model is essentially a tool; a
tool based on a theory, but still a tool“ (Savenije, 2009, p. 159). Furthermore, for the
engineering discipline, authors such as Kleppe, Warmer, and Bast (2003) argue that
the element of language must be included as basis for defining models that allow for
computer generated automations: “A model is a description of a (part of) written in a
well-defined language. A well-defined language is a language with well-defined form
(syntax), and meaning (semantics), which is suitable for automated interpretation by
a computer” (Favre, 2004, p. 2). According to an epistemological understanding, a
model is “empirical in that it tries to re-evaluate the importance of experiments, of the
situation, and of the instruments used, in the continuing production of models, but
also empirical in that it tries to produce an epistemology of “science in action,” and
not according to the more or less “scholastic” description that some classical
epistemologists may have produced” (Sensevy, Tiberghien, Santini, Laubé, & Griggs,
2008, p. 425). In the business domain, models can be used to classify businesses, as
52 / 549
blueprints for scientific investigations, but also as recipes for creative managers.
Business models as models are useful since they may have multiple roles and are
useful for mediating purposes (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010).
Based on the growing importance of model development (e.g. in domains such as

information technologies) the debate has developed as to what is a model and what
is not (Kühne, 2005). Accordingly, the argument is that a model must have the
following properties according to the reasoning of Stachowiak (1973):
• It must be based on an original.

• It only reflects (relevant) properties of the original.
• With respect to some properties the model can be used instead of the original.
By adapting a rather positivistic perspective, business models could be characterised

by using the categories from Börner et al. (2012), arguing that business models are
quantitative models, top-down working in a deductive manner, probabilistic, process-
based, and universally applicable, aiming at describing phenomena over many
disciplines. However, from a constructivist’s perspective, the definition from
Stachowiak (1973) is considered more sensible – at least in a first approximation –
since business models aim at mapping the internal structure of a business reflecting
some important properties for that business. Regarding the selected properties the
model can be used instead of the original. However, to satisfy a constructivist’s point
of view the insight of Box, Hunter, and Hunter (1978) could be considered a
necessary addition, arguing that models by definition are wrong but some of them
might be useful. An insight, which is interpreted that models can help structuring
basic assumptions but reality is always too complex to be fully mapped by any model.
2.2.3 Defining ‘Business Model’
There is a plethora of literature contributing to the definition of the business model

concept (Lambert & Davidson, 2013). Starting with one of the probably most often
cited definitions, Osterwalder, Pigneur, and Tucci (2005, pp. 17-18) define the
business model in a holistic way as “a conceptual tool that contains a set of elements
and their relationships and allows expressing the business logic of a specific firm. It is
53 / 549
a description of the value a firm offers to one or several segments of customers and
of the architecture of the firm and its network of partners for creating, marketing, and
delivering this value and relationship capital, to generate profitable and sustainable
revenue streams”. Based on the work of Osterwalder the seminal and bestselling
book ‘Business Model Generation’ (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) was published and
the definition of Osterwalder has become widespread – one can argue that simply
through this work the business model idea has become popular.
While the definition of Osterwalder has a clear focus on the organisation, other
authors such as Timmers (1998, p. 2) expands this view by defining a business
model in a boundary-spanning way as “an architecture of the product, service and
information flows, including a description of the various business actors and their
roles; a description of the potential benefits for the various business actors; a
description of the sources of revenues”. Since organisations are embedded in
contexts, this boundary-spanning definition from Timmers can be used as a
complement to Osterwalder’s definition.
Moving from static considerations toward a dynamic view, the business model
concept can be understood from an entrepreneurial perspective as “the content,
structure, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value through the
exploitation of business opportunities” (Amit & Zott, 2001, p. 511). Since the business
model concept has extensively been described in technology contexts, a further
definition is: “The heuristic logic that connects technical potential with the realization
of economic value” – following the reasoning of Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002,
p. 529). Beside a technological perspective a business model can also be used to tell
a firm’s story such as outlined in the seminal Harvard Business Review Article from
Magretta (2002, p. 4): “Business models are stories that explain how enterprises
work. A good business model answers Peter Drucker’s age-old questions: Who is the
customer? And what does the customer value? It also answers the fundamental
questions every manager must ask: How do we make money in this business? What
is the underlying economic logic that explains how we can deliver value to customers
at an appropriate cost?” However, from a traditional strategic stance a business
model is a representation of decision variables in order to create sustainable
competitive advantage (Morris, Schindehutte, & Allen, 2005), or “a business model is
54 / 549
[...] a reflection of the firm realized strategy” (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2011, p.
195). Based on the various perspectives such as technology, entrepreneurship or
strategy, authors started focusing on value creation by describing a business model
as a customer value proposition standing at the core surrounded by a profit formula,
key resources and key processes (Johnson et al., 2009; Teece, 2010).
Most business model definitions contain aspects such as value creation (value
proposition), value capturing (generating revenues and profit out of a value
proposition), and the relationship between individual elements. Furthermore, various
authors consider the value proposition the epicentre around which the whole
business model should be organised (Johnson et al., 2009; Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2010; Osterwalder et al., 2015). A wide range of definitions has been developed as
the concept has been researched in a wide range of domains.
In relation to the terms ‘business’ and ‘model’ as reviewed in the previous two sub-
sections, it can be concluded, from a philosophical perspective, that most definitions
understand models adapting a realist, or (post) positivistic perspective. Hence, it is
about an abstract representation of a real-world object/construct, a business, reduced
to its most relevant aspects. The term ‘business’ itself is only rarely taken into
consideration by existing definitions; the rationale may be that the term business itself
has not been extensively discussed in literature.
The following section deals with the possibly most important question; whether the
business model concept is relevant at all, and, derived from this, which domains are
most affected by the concept.
2.3 Importance of the business model concept
From a traditional strategic perspective, business models serve as basis for new
competitive advantages since they allow for breaking down the individual elements of
a business (which often have been considered inseparable), enabling for creatively
(re-)combining those elements or linking them with new components to create
strategic advantage. Each organisation is argued to have a business model
describing the way it does business (Voelpel, Leibold, & Tekie, 2004). Hence,
business model thinking is especially important in environments where ‘the rules of
55 / 549
the game’ change quickly (Voelpel et al., 2004), namely in the domain of ‘disruptive
innovations’ which almost always are business model innovations (Christensen,
2002). Accordingly, business model changes can be seen as ‘paradoxical’ since
those changes may represent the basis for destroying or ‘cannibalising’ the existing
business. As a consequence, through a comprehensive and cohesive understanding
of the business model concept and its components, it can be used as source of
competitive advantage (Voelpel et al., 2004).
In the same way Hamel and Trudel (2001) argue that business model thinking has
become crucially important since today’s business environments are unstable and
affected by continuous and complex change. What is more, change is no longer
additive, but discontinuous, abrupt, and seditious (Hamel & Trudel, 2001).
Accordingly, based on major shifts in the environment such as disintegration and
privatisation, radical improvements in telecommunication, digitalisation of information,
and employee mobility, organisations have to adjust and transform their business
model in order to stay competitive (Voelpel et al., 2004). Thus, as a cutting edge
example, the business model concept may be used for the commercial exploitation of
new applications in the area of the Internet of Things (Dijkman, Sprenkels, Peeters, &
Janssen, 2015). Generally, the idea of value creation is tightly linked to the business
model concept. Various authors claim that a business model, at its core, deals with
value creation, value capture and value delivery. Therefore, as a conceptual tool, a
business model serves as a blueprint showing how a business functions (Günzel &
Holm, 2013). In the start-up and entrepreneurship domain, business model thinking
can lead to more informed decisions in the context and management of new ventures
(Trimi & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2012). Thus, business models hold promise as unifying
units of analysis for theory development in areas such as innovation or
entrepreneurship (Morris et al., 2005). A further argument for the increasing
popularity of the concept is reflected by the fact that the concept not only is used in
its ‘core domains’ such as strategy or new venture creation but also has found its way
into areas rather ‘far off’ such as financial reporting regulations. According to the UK
Corporate Governance Code (UKGCG) the business model is characterised as the
basis on which the firm generates or preserves value over the longer term (Page,
2014).
56 / 549
2.4 Influential conceptual business model studies
Since the argument has emerged that most business model studies are conceptual in
nature, the present section reviews and discusses influential studies of this type. The
section first concentrates on the most relevant business model frameworks. In a
second step, other influential conceptual business model studies are reviewed.
2.4.1 Business model frameworks
In the German speaking part of Europe two business model frameworks have
become most popular and may represent the basis of business model thinking in
practice (Wagner, Tilly, Bodenbenner, Seltitz, & Schoder, 2015): the Canvas from
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) and (2) the Navigator from Gassmann et al. (2013).
Additionally, two often used and cited frameworks are the question-based framework
from Stähler (2013)3 considering soft skill factors (which may be ignored in other
frameworks), and the four-box model from Johnson et al. (2009). However, there are
countless supplementary frameworks described in literature, which are theoretical or
highly complex so that they may have only limited significance in practice such as the
process based business model framework developed by Wirtz (2010).
2.4.1.1 The Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder)
According to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) a business model consists of a

framework, called Canvas, containing 9 building blocks (Figure 7). The left side of the
Canvas represents ‘efficiency’, the right side ‘value’ (Maurya, 2010). The 9 building
blocks, namely key partners, key activities, key resources and cost structure (on the
‘efficiency side’), and value proposition, customer segments, customer relationships,
channels and revenue streams (on the ‘value side’), represent the elements each
business consists of. Through analysing those elements as well as their interactions
managers and entrepreneurs can better understand the working mechanisms of their
3 Some ideas described in Osterwalder’s dissertation (Osterwalder, 2004) are based on the work of
Stähler (2002), who is among the first scholars having dealt with the business model concept in the
German speaking part of Europe (or even worldwide). However, based on the huge success of
Osterwalder’s work, in particular the best selling book ‘Business Model Generation’ (Osterwalder,
2004), the work of Stähler seem to have fallen in oblivion.
57 / 549
business gaining new perspectives. Accordingly, the reorganisation of the various
building blocks allows them to innovate their existing business models. In the start-up
domain, it is argued that the most important building blocks are the customer value
proposition and the customer segments, so the main aim of each entrepreneur is
achieving ‘product market fit’ between these two components (Blank & Dorf, 2012).
Figure 7: Osterwalder’s (2010) Business Model Canvas.
The 9 building blocks were developed in Osterwalder’s dissertation (Osterwalder,

2004). Between 2004 and 2010 the concept and the Canvas were further developed
and expanded to industries different to e-business by incorporating 400 business-
practitioners from all over the world acting as co-authors of the seminal book
‘Business Model Generation’ (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). The Canvas from
Osterwalder is the most commonly known and most widely applied business model
ideation method in business model creation (Griol-Barres & Martinez, 2013;
Hoffmann, 2013). Beside the original version, a lean Canvas for beginners was
proposed (Maurya, 2010) as well as a an advanced Canvas suggesting supporting
questions to be asked before mapping a business model (King, 2010). However,
according to the author’s experience in the domain (application in many workshops),
58 / 549
those adapted frameworks have also been criticized since the original idea of a
balance sheet, making up the Canvas, is violated.
An additional tool, the ‘Value Proposition Designer’, was introduced for supporting
the process of customer value creation (Osterwalder, 2012; Osterwalder et al., 2015).
It has been learned through application practice that value proposition design is
different from business design (business logic/architecture) – a finding that has led to
a new tool called ‘Value Proposition Designer ‘(VPD), conceptualised as a plugin for
the Canvas. However, both concepts (Canvas and VPD) do not comment on the
different nature of the value proposition and the business logic/architecture, and
neither whether both concepts should be conceptually separated to reduce
complexity in practical application.
The most positive properties of the Canvas are its simplicity, practice-orientation and
an easy way of reconfiguring and reusing the individual components, hence
designing new business model alternatives based on a relatively small number of
basic building blocks. However, no broad size of competition, no formulation of
business goals, or no taking into account of KPI are negative points (Ching, 2013).
The argument here is that the Canvas can be used as a framework to analyse
existing businesses. It is often applied to create new business ideas. The author
questions whether such a framework can include the required real-world complexity
for creation purpose. Accordingly, he posits the Canvas’ usefulness for analysis but
not for creation.
Nevertheless, the Canvas consists of a well-defined and manageable number of

elements (9 building blocks). Beside its well-defined granularity, the strength of the
model is that interdependencies can easily be visualised, patterns identified and
archetypes discussed. Based on the author’s practical experience, the Canvas has
become the ‘quasi standard’ in the Swiss start-up scene.
2.4.1.2 The Business Model Navigator (Gassmann)
The business model Navigator (Frankenberger et al., 2012; Gassmann et al., 2013)
contains four elements describing for dimensions as follows: WHAT, HOW, WHO,
REVENUES. Furthermore, Gassmann investigated the evolution of business models
59 / 549
(Gassmann, 2012) and proposed 55 generic business model archetypes (Gassmann
et al., 2013). Any existing business model, Gassmann argues, can be described by
using these patterns. The argument here is that the model from Gassmann is not
intuitive. Furthermore, it cannot be used for visualising the business logic – the 4
elements are too generic and only useful for discussing business models on more
abstract meta levels; a major drawback in order to compare the 55 archetypes.
What’s more, the archetype concept doesn’t seem to be throughout consistent: since
some firms, such as Google, are overrepresented, used to demonstrate successful
implementations of several models simultaneously within the same firm. However, a
counterargument here is that a firm normally runs only one (dominant) business
model since each model is associated with a unique set of resources, values and
processes (Christensen, 2002); this idea is further elaborated in the strategy section.
Figure 8: Business Model Navigator according to Gassmann et al. (2013).
Figure 8 shows the business model Navigator consisting of the four leading questions
what, why, how and who as well as the three main components of each business
model: the value proposition, the profit mechanism and the value chain.
2.4.1.3 A question based framework (Stähler)
Stähler has developed a model consisting of the value architecture, the value
proposition, the revenue model as well as the team and its values. It is organised in a
Canvas-like framework. The purpose is asking questions (Figure 9), which are
60 / 549
relevant in a business model conception phase (Stähler, 2002, 2013). In contrast to
other models, Stähler describes business models as social systems where the
following often ignored concepts may play fundamental roles too. (a) Tipping points:
Ideas, diseases, but also business models, may spread as viruses do. Key
characteristics are contagious behaviour, little changes have big effects and all
happens in a hurry (Gladwell, 2002). (b) Diffusion: The significance of diffusions of
innovations in social systems (Rogers, 2003). Rogers explains how innovations
spread and adopt in social systems. Four interrelated building blocks represent the
basis of the diffusion process: Innovation, communication channels, time and social
systems. Stähler points out that the system, as a whole, must fit with the customer by
arguing that business models have to be considered highly complex social systems
and not just a linear superposition of individual elements. These considerations
bridge to the systemic and complexity section in this document.
Figure 9: Business Model Creation Questions. Source: Stähler (2013).
61 / 549
The argument here is that the model from Stähler contains relevant aspects for
explaining the complex social dimension.
2.4.1.4 The four-box model (Johnson)
The four-box model from Johnson (Johnson, 2010; Johnson et al., 2009) describes
business models as 4 building block frameworks consisting of the customer value
proposition, key resources, key processes, and the profit formula (Figure 10). The
customer value proposition (CVP) is based on the famous ‘job-to-be-done’ concept
(Christensen, 2004), arguing that customers don’t buy products or hire services but
are interested in what the products or services finally fulfil (example: we do not buy a
drilling machine for the sake of drilling, we are interested in the hole it drills
(Christensen, 2004)). Johnson’s four-box model is well founded in practice and
intuitively understandable. A major drawback may be that the model cannot (easily)
be used to visually map the business logic/architecture. By contrast, it is much more
a thinking model.
Figure 10: Four-Box Business Model according to Johnson et al. (2009).
The four-box model can be understood as and indication to support the idea that the
value proposition and the business architecture/logic should conceptually be
separated. While most of the currently popular conceptual frameworks tend to include
the value proposition, ‘putting’ it at the centre (such as the Canvas), the four-box
62 / 549
model allows for a conceptual separation. Although Johnson puts emphasis on value
proposition design too, the model still allows for unbundling the value proposition and
the business logic/architecture. The four-box model describes the main building
blocks as individual units having influence on each other.
Beside the four-box model, there is further evidence that a conceptual separation of
the value proposition and the business architecture/logic might be sensible:
1. First, Osterwalder developed the Value Proposition Designer (VPD)

(Osterwalder et al., 2015) as a plugin for the Canvas (as discussed in section
2.4.1.1). He realised, through practical application, that value proposition
development in some way is different from business architecture/ logic. Value
proposition design requires for different tools and approaches. However, both
sub units (value proposition and logic/architecture) are still tightly linked within
of the Canvas and the VPD as plugin.
2. Second, the lean start-up literature (Blank, 2013) suggests to deal with both
concepts in sequence proposing an approach to first achieve product market
fit (value proposition), and then scaling up the business (business
logic/architecture).
To conclude, some models and concepts indicate that a separation between the
value proposition and business architecture/ logic could be reasonable. However, the
respective authors do no explicitly comment on this separation in a conceptual way –
they just refer to it by suggesting a sequential application order.
2.4.2 Other influential conceptual business model studies
Beside the most popular frameworks there are plenty of other influential authors who
have significantly contributed to the conceptual business model literature. Focusing
on the influence of technology, Henry Chesbrough has proposed the BMF
framework: ‘‘The Business Model Framework (BMF) is a model that sequences
possible business models from very basic (and not very valuable) models to far more
advanced (and very valuable) models” (Chesbrough, 2007, p. 15). Accordingly,
Chesbrough categorises business models in 6 types, ranging from type 1 (firm has
an undifferentiated business model) to type 6 (firm’s business model is an adaptive
63 / 549
platform). Furthermore, Chesbrough (2010) identified barriers in business model
creation such as conflicts with existing assets. In order to overcome these barriers
Chesbrough emphasizes the importance of experimenting and effectuation with new
business models as the only viable action strategy. As a contribution to the
innovation management discipline, Chesbrough (2007) points out that innovation
must include business model thinking rather than just focusing on technology as well
as research and development activities – Chesbrough is also considered an
influential thinker regarding Open Innovation, which is discussed in 2.11. A
categorising approach was applied by Timmers (1998), who addresses the question
as to what emerging Internet business models are by classifying 11 different
business models (business-to-business and business-to-customer): e-shop, e-
procurement, e-mall, e-auction, trust service, info-brokerage, value chain service
provider, virtual business community, collaboration platform, third party marketplace,
value chain integrator. Therefore, Timmers (1998, p. 2) defines a business model in a
boundary-spanning way as “an architecture of the product, service and information
flows, including a description of the various business actors and their roles; a
description of the potential benefits for the various business actors; a description of
the sources of revenues”. Another conceptual model was developed by Tikkanen,
Lamberg, Parvinen, and Kallunki (2005) introducing a generic framework illuminating
managerial cognition. The model consists of material aspects (strategy and structure,
network, operations, finance and accounting), the belief system (reputational
rankings, industry recipe, boundary beliefs, product ontologies) and business model
evolution.
Although there are numerous conceptual studies dealing with business model
definitions and frameworks – many more than any review could ever encompass, the
argument is that the business model concept has increasingly become popular
through the bestselling book from Osterwalder, titled ‘Business Model Generation’, in
which the ‘Canvas’ was introduced. However, many ideas contributing to the
‘Canvas’ were addressed and discussed in literature before, ideas not only unified by
the Canvas, but becoming easily understandable and applicable by a wide audience
– one of the merits of Osterwalder’s work. Osterwalder synthesised existing ideas
and produced an appealing model embedded in an even more appealing book. Thus,
64 / 549
three stages must be distinguished: (up to 2010) Business model ideas and concepts
published before the ‘Canvas’ having influenced the work of Osterwalder – above all
the work and ideas of Stähler – the publication of the seminal book ‘Business Model
Generation’ (introducing the Canvas) in the year 2010, and, starting from 2010 up to
date, ideas and concepts following the ‘Canvas’. Since 2010, a plethora of authors
and scholars have adapted the Osterwalder (2010) model and developed their own
‘enhanced’ models, by taking advantage of the concept’s popularity. The following
section reviews the way in which business models and revenue models are often
used interchangeably.
2.5 Business models versus revenue models
Many people relate the business model concept to financial dimensions such as
creating revenues (Al-Debei & Avison, 2010), hence, the revenue model has often
been interchangeably used with the term ‘business model’ as stated by Morris et al.
(2005): “It also leads to confusion in terminology, as business model, strategy,
business concept, revenue model, and economic model are often used
interchangeably”.
Following this reasoning, Morris et al. (2005) argue that at the most rudimentary level
the term business model is understood and also defined as an economic model
consisting of the revenue creation logic incorporating revenue sources, pricing
methodologies, cost structures, margins and expected volumes. This idea can be
demonstrated by comparing different statements of several authors from the early
days of business model thinking, where the two terms were used interchangeably as
follows:
• “Technology managers must expand their perspectives, to find the right

business model, or ‘the architecture of revenue’, in order to capture value from
that technology. Failure to do so will cause technologies to yield less value to
the firm than they might otherwise” (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002, p.
530).
• “A firm’s logic of making money is pretty fundamental. Just because some
people went overboard with ill-considered investments based on flimsy
65 / 549
evaluation methods in the recent past does not mean that we should throw
business model thinking away” (Linder & Cantrell, 2001, p. 13).
As an interim conclusion, the author argues that these quotations explicitly show the
revenue concept to be the core of early business modelling. This is either illustrated
by using the business model concept as a means to exploit technologies, or by
arguing the concept to be the general logic of how to make money. These citations
are from the years 2001 and 2002, which were still the early days of business model
research. Concepts focusing on a value proposition perspective followed later,
starting off between the years 2003 and 2005, as discussed later in the review (for
instance in section 2.11).
Revenue thinking is often associated with early day business model thinking (Ballon,
2007). However, while Internet start-ups may understand business modelling as ‘how
to make money’, established firms may understand a much more diverse picture of
interrelated elements working together (Linder & Cantrell, 2001).
The terms business and revenue model are often used interchangeably but are
essentially two different concepts. A remaining question now is for what purpose
revenue models are used? A degree of consensus between authors has been
achieved that a revenue model is part of a business model but it cannot be used
standalone to describe a business and the way it captures value (Zott, Amit, &
Massa, 2011). DaSilva & Trkman (2014, p. 7) argue that “a revenue model describes
the revenue sources, their volume and distribution“. The revenue model can be
understood as embedded in the profit formula, consisting of revenue model, cost
structure, margin model and inventory turnover. The profit formula defines how to
create value for itself while creating value for the customer (Johnson et al., 2008).
Furthermore, the revenue model is often considered an instrument to capture value.
But what is ‘value’ in this sense? Porter defines value as: “The amount buyers are
willing to pay for what a firm provides them. Value is measured by total revenues…. a
firm is profitable if the value it commands exceeds the costs involved in creating the
product” (Porter, 1985, p. 38). Accordingly, the value propositions provide the volume
and structure of revenues (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010). In the same line of
reasoning, Chesbrough (2007) has outlined 6 potential functions of a business
66 / 549
model, one or which has been described as specifying the revenue mechanisms, as
well as estimating the costs so that potential profits can be estimated, based on given
value propositions (Chesbrough, 2007).
On the one hand, following the ideas of Linder (2000) the business model concept
can be understood as a tool that explains revenue generation, but on the other hand,
it can be seen as an instrument explaining the way a business works, hence making
relations explicit (Al-Debei, El-Haddadeh, & Avison, 2008). According to traditional
perspectives “Revenues are the ‘bottom line’ of a business model” (Alt &
Zimmermann, 2001, p. 7), hence the revenues must be carefully composed, adopting
a mid- and long-term perspective (Alt & Zimmermann, 2001). The revenue model
concept is used to refer to specific ways a firm generates revenues (Amit & Zott,
2010), or, more precisely, “The revenue model refers to the specific ways a business
model enables revenue generation for the business and its partners” (Amit & Zott,
2012, p. 46). Accordingly, managers must ask the question “What revenue model fits
with the firm’s business model to appropriate part of the total value it helps create?”
(Amit & Zott, 2012, p. 47). Kindström (2010, p. 482) follow the same reasoning by
stating that revenue mechanisms, as a substantial part of a business model, are
considered as “The mechanism that is used to appropriate the value created (in the
form of a revenue stream)”. The revenue model is often used as an embedded sub-
system model within the business model.
• As such, Gassmann et al. (2013) have introduced a four question framework

(4I-framework): questions concerning the what, who, how and value. The
fourth question, the ‘value’ question, includes the revenue model. Based on
this framework, 55 business model archetypes have been identified, 34 of
which have been evaluated as dealing with revenue mechanisms.
• The revenue model is considered one of 7 sub-system models within a
business model: it “Describes the logic of what, when, why, and how the firm
receives compensation in return for the products” (Petrovic et al., 2001, p. 3).
Accordingly, Petrovic et al. (2001) refers to the revenue model as the
‘business logic’.
67 / 549
• A study looking for relationships between business model innovation and firm
performance has revealed 3 types of business model innovations: (1) industry
models, (2) enterprise models, and (3) revenue models (Zott et al., 2010).
Revenue model innovation can be understood as an “innovation in the way
revenues are generated, for example through re-configuration of the product-
service value mix or new pricing models” (Zott et al., 2010, p. 24).
Business models are also often used interchangeably with business plans, which
build up on revenue considerations too. However, business models and business
plans are two concepts to be distinguished, as further described in the following
section.
2.6 Distinguishing between business models and business plans
Business plans are often considered an important instrument regarding the

investment in new businesses since a widely spread argument is that new ventures
can just grow through financing (venture capital) from investors (Heucher, 2002).
Therefore, a business plan is a short document outlining where you want to be with
your firm in the future (what you want it to achieve and how you will achieve it).
Therefore, it should answer five questions (Horan, 2004):
1. What are you trying to build?

2. Why will customers buy it (the product or service)?
3. What measures should be used to measure the success?
4. How will the business be built?
5. What is the work that needs to be done?
Heucher (2002) divides a business plan into a set of categories as follows: executive
summary, product or service, founding team, marketing, business system and
organisation, realisation plan, risk analysis, finance plan. Business plans are widely
known by new businesses since they are supported by universities, governmental
support institutions, consultants and in literature (Karlsson & Honig, 2009). For
several reasons, most professional investors only support new businesses on the
basis of a professionally written business plan. The business plan shows whether the
founders have thought through their business, highlights knowledge gaps,
68 / 549
encourages the founders to make decisions, serves as a communication instrument,
shows the required resources, and represents a ‘dry run’ before going real (Heucher,
2002).
A study by Mason and Stark (2004) investigated the investment criteria of bankers,
venture capital fund managers and business angels in the UK on the basis of
business plans. While bankers exclusively consider financial aspects, venture capital
fund managers and business angels also have a focus on market issues.
Furthermore, business angels also consider entrepreneurial aspects such as the
founding team. However, the effectiveness and usefulness of business plans has
been questioned. Empirical research of entrepreneurs in Sweden has shown that
there is no positive outcome in terms of profitability for those new ventures writing a
business plan in their first two years compared to ventures with no business plans
(Honig & Karlsson, 2004). Another empirical case study conducted in a university
incubator shows that founders only rarely refer back to or update their business plans
they have produced in the early founding phase of their venture (Karlsson & Honig,
2009). Blank and Dorf (2012, p. 35) go even a step further to say that “No business
plan survives first contact with customers” – thus, it is a waste of time to write one.
The business plan has been critiqued because some investors want to see one
because they have learned about it at business school, but in fact a business plan is
nothing else than a set of unproven hypotheses. Instead, founders are encouraged to
map their assumptions (also called ‘business hypotheses’) on the Osterwalder (2010)
Canvas and verify them through customer feedback (Blank & Dorf, 2012). This is
where the business plan and the business model concept get in contact with each
other. According to the ‘Lean Start-up Movement’ (see 2.7) the business model
concept is especially well-suited to formulate a set of business hypotheses an
entrepreneur needs to verify with his customers. This process is much more dynamic
than a business plan since the hypotheses may be revised within a week’s time.
Major changes are called ‘pivots’. This process allows for developing new businesses
much more time and cost efficiently compared with business model-based long-term
planning approaches (Ries, 2011).
The author’s argument here is that business plans are not part of the present
research project because they can clearly be differentiated from business models.
69 / 549
While business models simply describe the logic or architecture of a business,
business plans are more complex documents that may perform many functions,
including formulating and communicating appropriate strategies and plans,
forecasting outcomes, assessing profitability, evaluating requirements for funding and
other resources, and so on. However, it should perhaps be acknowledged that a
business plan is also a ‘business model’ in its broadest sense. However, it is in
essence a conceptualisation of a business’s future performance and development
and thus a portrayal of a dynamic phenomenon, whereas a business model provides
a snapshot of a business’s architecture at a particular point in its development.
2.7 Business models – a strategic perspective
On the one hand, the terms ‘business model’ and ‘strategy’ are two different
concepts, not just regarding semantics (Yip, 2004). On the other hand, the terms are
often used interchangeably (Magretta, 2002). Business models describe how the
individual elements of a business fit together but they do not include an important
aspect of strategy: competition (Magretta, 2002). Strategy, however, refers to
dynamic activities trying to change either a market or a firm’s business model (Yip,
2004). In a traditional view, according to Porter (1996), strategy essentially consists
of
• operational effectiveness (performing activities better than rivals);

• the productivity frontier (the maximum value a firm can deliver at a given cost);
• competitive convergence (the more indistinguishable firms are from another);
• and strategic positioning (different activities from rivals or performing similar
activities in different ways).
Strategic competitive advantage may determine the success or failure of a firm.

Competitive advantage is achieved by delivering products or services customers
want by offering them at lower costs or with a superior value compared to the
competition (Porter, 2008). However, the argument here is that new Internet based
business models allow for competing strategies, thereby challenging conventional
wisdom. In particular, everything can be sourced from global markets and is therefore
nullified as source of competition (Porter, 1998), which particularly means, for
70 / 549
example, that through the globalisation and the Internet each firm has access to low-
wage areas and can therefore outsource supporting areas such as the IT department
to India; while this outsourcing required sophisticated knowledge and connections to
the respective countries a few years ago, it has become generally accessible through
technologies such as the Internet. By contrast, a business model can be considered
a reflection of a firm’s realized strategy. In simple competitive configurations the two
notions may be used simultaneously but may differ “when there are important
contingencies upon which a well-designed strategy must be based” (Casadesus-
Masanell & Ricart, 2010, p. 1). Thus, emerging strategy literature understands a firm
as a bundle of resources and capabilities, which finally are reflected by the business
model concept (Amit & Zott, 2001).
Many attempts have been undertaken to unify the two concepts, for instance via
debating partnerships. Afuah (2000) poses the question what happens when
technological change renders the capabilities of partners and competitors obsolete?
Complementary to this line of reasoning, Bock, Opsahl, George, and Gann (2012)
argue that partner reliance may reduce a firm’s strategic flexibility while innovating
the business model. With a similar partner-centred perspective, the Open Source
Movement – as a special form of new business models (see 2.11) – has always been
challenging strategic thinking since it is an affront to well received theories of
individual motivation and task coordination (Bonaccorsi, Giannangeli, & Rossi, 2006).
A further issue at the interface of business models and strategy is the question as to
whether a firm may have more than one dominant business model simultaneously (in
parallel). Based on Christensen’s RPV theory (RPV: Resources, Processes, Values)
a firm can just run one dominant business models since existing resources,
processes and values would not allow a second model to emerge and flourish since
the ‘immune system’ of the firm does not accept potentially disruptive models with a
new different ‘DNA’ (Christensen, 2002). The RPV theory may be particularly
powerful in the context of disruptive business models; the latter are used to explain
how new market entrants ‘attack’ incumbent firms in their low-end segments (see
2.11). Thus, many firms avoid creating disruptive business models since they fear to
cannibalise their existing model; an aspect that has become an important strategic
challenge with the rise of the business model concept (Amit & Zott, 2010).
71 / 549
Consensus regarding disruptive technologies has been achieved, insofar that a firm
confronted with strategic discontinuities and disruptions would be well advised to
think about changing its business model4 (Tikkanen et al., 2005). However, firms’
abilities of pursuing several business models simultaneously has been widely
discussed and challenged. Markides and Charitou (2004) posit the possibility of
running two business models simultaneously while integrating them enough so that
maximum synergies can be exploited. The same line of argumentation is used by
Mitchell and Coles (2003), arguing that business model innovation can be viewed as
a parallel way of outperforming competition in a way as it is done in sports: pursuing
the existing model by simultaneously developing a new, which equals ‘faking your
competitor’ who follows your old model. Hence, in order to identify the trade-offs of
different business model alternatives, they have to be compared in terms of classical
strategic considerations such as competitiveness and efficiency (Brousseau &
Penard, 2007).
A further perspective to the idea of handling different business models comes from
Markides (2013), who posits that the question whether a firm can run two or more
business models simultaneously lacks a theoretical foundation by proposing the
integration of ideas from ambidexterity literature, addressing three principal areas
that may allow for dealing with more than one business model at the same time:
1. Spatial separation, meaning that two ‘seemingly incompatible’ activities are

separated in two independent units, which raises the question of how to exploit
synergies between the two competing activities.
2. Temporal separation, meaning that a firm can undertake two ‘seemingly
incompatible’ activities but not at the same time (such as exploration or
exploitation activities).
3. Contextual ambidexterity, which means that “the organization ought to design
the appropriate context that would encourage and support each employee to
achieve an appropriate level of balance among the conflicting demands on his
or her time and attention” (Markides, 2013, p. 316). An idea that links to
4 The nature of disruption is further elaborated in 2.11.
72 / 549
system thinking as further elaborated in the systems theory/complexity
section.
A major problem in this debate is that decision makers are normally faced with an
enormous range of business model alternatives to choose from. This choosing
process is called the ‘intelligence phase’ of decision making (Hayes & Finnegan,
2005). The debate of running (or testing) several business models should be opened
up through including the perspective of opportunities provided by new technologies
such as the Internet, which can support or damage a firm’s strategy. Accordingly,
Porter (2001) posits that the best way of integrating the Internet is
• to complement rather than to cannibalise the existing business model,

• and to create systemic advantage, which cannot easily be copied by
competitors.
The strategic influence of the Internet has been manifested in the process of
continuously developing and adapting business models; it has become a core activity
of remaining competitive, particularly in the context of the Web 2.0 where the ‘rules of
the game’ of creating and capturing value have fundamentally changed by disrupting
conventional Internet business models (Wirtz, Schilke, & Ullrich, 2010). In the debate
of strategy, business models and the Internet, knowledge and information
management has raised attention since the business model concept can be
particularly useful in explaining the relation between information systems and
strategy (Hedman & Kalling, 2003), and because information is an important strategic
resource in business modelling, so information has to be adequate and correct for
discussing model alternatives. Nevertheless, each business may be viewed under
many deviant perspectives (Eriksson & Penker, 2000), which causes a dilemma, in
particular by considering business models as highly complex systems with missing
information as an inherent characteristic (see 2.12).
Furthermore, linking the knowledge management perspective to the innovation and

entrepreneurship domain, Week (2000) finds that business model innovation has a
strategic component regarding knowledge management since the traditional
information processing mechanisms are challenged by radical changes in the
73 / 549
business environment. Finally, contemplating business model innovation and strategy
through an entrepreneurial lens, business model and strategy thinking may be unified
in that novelty-centricity coupled with traditional strategic considerations such as
product market strategies, cost leadership or early market entry can enhance firm
performance (Zott & Amit, 2008), concluding that entrepreneurship and strategy are
both focused on creating wealth, hence both disciplines are not only engaged but
also deeply anchored in business model thinking (Ireland, Hitt, Camp, & Sexton,
2001). As established markets have become even more saturated, firms have turned
to emerging markets in order to create wealth in those countries too, which requires
new strategies combined with new business models (London & Hart, 2004).
Due to “confusion around generic strategy deployment, lack of dynamism and its
vacuous treatment of customer-centricity” (Mansfield & Fourie, 2004, p. 35), and
since the success of electronic ventures is largely believed to be determined by the
underlying business model (Alt & Zimmermann, 2001), the business model concept
has induced the conclusion by many practitioners that it may be the only viable
concept predicting success (Mansfield & Fourie, 2004). So, it can be concluded that
the two concepts are different but reinforce each other in many areas. As this
discussion shows, an integrative framework merging the two concepts might be
useful. However, the business model concept has its origins in the technology sector,
in particular in the Internet industry. Although it has been emancipated from its ‘roots’,
a review of the technology perspective helps to form a better understanding the idea.
Accordingly, one of the following sections is devoted to business models in the
technology management context. However, the next section discusses the separation
of established firms and start-ups - an issue that also has strategic implications.
2.8 Separating established firms from start-ups
As Klang et al. (2014) stated, the term ‘business model’ is suffering from a paradox
between outstanding popularity and severe criticism. In practice everyone is currently
talking about business models; however, taking a random sample of business people
only few may in fact know what a business model really is, or it is like the old saying
about teenage sex: “everyone talks about it all the time; everyone boasts about how
well he or she is doing it; everyone thinks everyone else is doing it; almost no one
74 / 549
really is; and the few who are are fumbling their way through it incompetently” (Klang
et al., 2014, p. 454). Thus, the business model concept is considered fuzzy and
vague and there is only limited consensus concerning its compositional parts.
Because there is a wide variety of interpretations of the term ‘business model’, a
firm’s business model may be the result of a social negotiation process (Page, 2014).
Accordingly, the argument here is that reducing the vagueness and fuzziness of the
understanding of the business model concept is to better understand in which types
of firms it is applied. This may help drawing a more concrete picture of the context in
which it is used, making the term less fuzzy. Two models have been identified in
literature, the Blank (2013) start-up model, and the Christensen (2016) business
model journey model, which contribute to the understanding of possible application
contexts. The models are elaborated and discussed in the present section.
Of particular interest are start-ups, in the context of which the business model
concept has become a quasi-standard and is currently part of many MBA curricula
(Nobel, 2011). Ideas based on the Canvas (as a visual framework of the business
model concept), developed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), and on fast learning
cycles based on ‘lean’ ideas, as described by Ries (2011), the Lean Start-up concept
– at the centre of which the business model concept is located – has become popular
and can be summarised as follows (Blank, 2013, p. 4): “Lean Start-up favours
experimentation over elaborate planning, customer feedback over intuition, and
iterative design over traditional ‘big design up front’ development”. According to Blank
(2013) the Lean Start-up process consists of 2 main process phases:
1. The search process consists of customer discovery by sketching out

hypotheses using the Business Model Canvas. Based on the business
hypotheses a ‘Minimal Viable Product’ (MVP) is built and tested with real
customers. Based on what has been learned, the business model hypotheses
are changed by ‘pivoting’ the business model and sketching out a new Canvas
accordingly (Ries, 2008-2013).
2. The second step, called the execution phase, consists of customer creation,
once the product is refined enough to sell. The focus changes to build up the
firm by setting up a business model that allows for scaling, and the transition
from a start-up to a ‘traditional’ firm.
75 / 549
Blank and Dorf (2012) point out that start-ups are not small versions of large firms.
Instead, managing a start-up requires different skills and values. After the transition
from a start-up into a large firm, the managing team has often to be exchanged (due
to a paradigm shift in terms of skills and values). Figure 11 depicts the Lean Start-up
process showing the two main, but fundamentally different phases, ‘search’ and
‘execution’.
Figure 11: The Lean Start-up Process (Blank, 2013).
To conclude, the ideas behind the Lean Start-up concept consist of separating start-
ups (more concerned about ‘search’) and large firms (more concerned about
‘execution’). In the search phase, the focus is on validating viable customers and
further developing an idea, including so-called pivots, using the business model
concept as a visual framework. Once having established ‘product-market-fit’ the
strategy has to change towards execution, where different skills are needed (Blank &
Dorf, 2012).
Supporting the idea that start-ups are not just small versions of large firms but are
located in a different development stage, Christensen, Bartman, and Van Bever
(2016) distinguish 3 stages of a business model journey (Figure 12). In the first stage,
the ‘creation phase’, most activities are concentrated on developing a viable value
proposition and the required resources (called the start-up phase). In the second
stage, called ‘sustaining innovation’, firms must develop their processes to scale up
the model. In the third phase, the ‘efficiency phase’, firms develop their profit formula.
76 / 549
Figure 12: Three stages of a business model journey (Christensen, Bartman, et al., 2016).
The three-stage model from Christensen provides a solid line of argumentation

explaining the absence of business model thinking in established firms since they are
in a different development stage, compared to start-ups. However, for start-ups, as a
current study shows (Najmaei, 2016), there is only little solid empirical knowledge
about how to develop a viable business model from scratch, although the topic is
currently ‘hot’ in the new venture community. Case studies conducted in the
Australian IT start-up environment have identified 3 phases: (1) idea generation, (2)
strategic commitment and selecting ideas, (3) market tests. Established firms, on the
other hand, most certainly are in the third, the efficiency phase.
A further argument here is that exploiting the business model idea requires
knowledge and experience in dealing with concepts. A study from Sääskilahti (2016)
has empirically investigated the use of concepts in firm’s innovation activities, using
samples ranging from a micro size up to a globally acting Finnish manufacturing firm.
They concluded that firms have problems developing concepts in general, hence are
more product-oriented, often struggling in developing services. In small firms, the
success of a product depends on evolutionary developments by an entrepreneur
rather than dedicated innovation activities. This study is considered relevant since it
addresses the phenomenon that firms have difficulties using and applying theoretical
77 / 549
concepts in practice, the business model concept being considered a particular
instance of such a concept. Rather than using abstract concepts, managers often rely
on prior experience and heuristics when confronted with changes in their business
model, which has been learned by investigating cognitive factors explaining decision
making in small businesses (Osiyevskyy & Dewald, 2015).
Although only little has been said in literature about the way small business owner-
managers conceptualize and apply the business model concept in practice, it has
been learned that there is only little consensus what the term business models really
means, but that the term (and the concept) is popular in the start-up context.
Nevertheless, start-ups are not just small versions of large firms; neither in terms of
required activities nor in terms of their culture. Rather than using concepts,
established firms (particularly small firms) often rely on their experience and on
heuristics. It can be concluded that, on the one hand, we still have only little
knowledge about the conceptualisation and use of the business model concept in
established firms, and, on the other hand, that start-ups (to the context of which a lot
of business model literature has been devoted) are different. Furthermore, and even
more fundamentally, the literature shows that small business owner-managers may
have problems working conceptually, which may also influence the way they deal
with business model ideas. In all, it is important to recognise the very different nature
of established firms and start-ups.
2.9 Business models and corporate culture
The discussion about corporate culture may begin with the question ‘What is culture?’
This question can be answered using the following definition: "Culture is the set of
habitual and traditional ways of thinking, feeling and reacting that are characteristic of
the way a particular society meets its problems at a particular point in time"
(Lasswell, Lerner, & Fisher, 1951, p. 89). Accordingly, corporate culture, as a sub-
concept of culture, can formally defined as “an attitude, policy, rule, course of conduct
or practice existing within the body corporate generally or in the part of the body
corporate in which the relevant activities take place“ (Belcher, 2006, p. 2), or as
argued, “most authors agree that ‘corporate culture’ refers to the set of values beliefs
and behaviour patterns that form the core identity of an organization” (Denison, 1984,
78 / 549
p. 5). What is more, Schein (2010), who is considered one of the leading authors in
the domain, states that corporate culture “stands up against any organizational test,
in any sector, remaining unambiguous, practical and complete. Schein states that an
organization's culture is the pattern of shared, fundamental beliefs held by the
leaders of the organization” (Schein, 2010, cited in Hall, 2002, p. 2). Taking the cognitive
dimension into account, Greenberg, Baron and Greenberg (1997) argue that
corporate culture is ”a cognitive framework consisting of attitudes, values,
behavioural norms, and expectations’’ (Greengberg et al., 1979, cited in Sadri & Lees,
2001, p. 854). By including belief systems “corporate culture is a collection of uniform
and enduring beliefs, customs, traditions and practices shared and continued by
employees of a corporation” (Hai, 1986, p. 162). To summarise, a strong culture may
have the following characteristics, according to Mowat (2002):
• Internally consistent
• Widely shared, and
• Makes it clear what appropriate behaviour is.
Many aspects and debates in the business world touch on the concept of corporate
culture. For instance, cultural intensity and homogeneity have been identified as
having influence on a firm’s growth capacity (Calori & Sarnin, 1991). Furthermore,
corporate culture is argued to have significant influence on mergers and acquisitions
since cultural differences may play a crucial role in merger failures (Bouwman, 2013).
It has been empirically shown that corporate culture has a significant influence on a
firm’s sustainability (Eccles, Ioannou, & Serafeim, 2012). What is more, corporate
culture may have a positive influence on knowledge management (Demarest, 1997).
The positive impact of congruent values between different people on a firm’s
performance has empirically been evaluated and verified (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins,
1989). Corporate culture and reward systems are two tightly linked, complementary
concepts, to be used for directing members to achieving a firm’s strategic goals (Kerr
& Slocum, 1987). A relationship between corporate culture and quality management
has been revealed as well (Irani, Beskese, & Love, 2004). Corporate culture is also
discussed in the firm performance debate. The cultural traits of a firm have positive
influence on its performance (Denison, 1990), and the performance of employees
79 / 549
does not just depend on stated cultural values but it is much more important that they
act in consistency of cultural norms that are consistent with the values of a firm.
Accordingly, key cultural values include integrity, collaboration, and adaptability
(Graham, Harvey, Popadak, & Rajgopal, 2017). Participation, as an additional aspect
of corporate culture, is also argued to positively influence a firm’s performance
(Denison, 1984). However, corporate culture is something complex and only hard to
be measured. Some argue that it is something to be intuitively sensed rather than
empirically measured (Denison, 1984).
Regarding business model innovation, corporate culture is considered a strategic

asset to be seen as a key differentiating factor of a successful business model
(Flamholtz & Randle, 2012). It encourages innovation by tolerating openness to new
ideas, fault tolerance, agility and responsiveness, diverse teams, or broad
background and perspective (Bucherer, Eisert, & Gassmann, 2012). Accordingly,
good ideas need openness for experiments to survive within an organisation. An
appropriate corporate culture must allow for experimentation as well as having
diverse social networks behind the official hierarchy, which may allow that several
executives can say ‘yes’ (Wolcott & Lippitz, 2007). In a broader innovation sense,
“one way to consider business model innovation is to view it as a potential aspect of
a firm’s (innovative) corporate culture or capacity/capability” (Aspara, Hietanen, &
Tikkanen, 2010, p. 3). On the other hand, the role of corporate culture on business
model innovation raises new questions such as different corporate functions, human
resources, marketing, leadership, or finance (Spieth, Schneckenberg, & Ricart,
2014).
In the new venture or start-up context – which is considered particularly important in

the business model domain – the development of a corporate culture in an early
phase, where internal processes and structures do not yet exist, is considered
fundamentally important. It is about developing a corporate identity, which
encompasses corporate culture, corporate design, corporate behaviour, and
corporate communication; hence, concepts, which are all interrelated (Rode 2005). In
a new venture environment “corporate culture is the carrier of stories and gossip that
spread information about valued behaviour and ‘heroic myths’ around the
organization” (Rode & Vallaster, 2005, p. 123). The following definition is considered
80 / 549
especially interesting in a new venture sense, where experimentation is considered a
key characteristic to be part of the culture: Corporate culture is “a pattern of basic
assumptions invented, discovered or developed by a given group as it learns to cope
with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well
enough to be valid and to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
think and feel in relation to these problems” (Hampden-Turner, 1990, p. 12). Since
business model innovations often are disruptive innovations (Christensen, 2002), the
latter depend – amongst other factors – on corporate culture too (Assink, 2006).
The argument here is that the concept of corporate culture represents a prerequisite
for experimentation, and tolerance for failures, two ideas crucially important in early
business model development (Blank, 2013) – whether in start-ups or established
firms (e.g. in the context of developing new business units, as discussed later).
Furthermore, an appropriate culture allows for ‘sensing what is in the air’, an
important aspect of entrepreneurship and opportunity detection – as basis for new
business models. Since corporate culture is something to be intuitively sensed rather
than measured (Denison, 1984), it is much more associated with philosophy than
with natural sciences. From a soft factor concept as discussed in the present sub-
section, the review continues with more ‘tangible’ an idea, hence business models
and technology management.
2.10 Business models and technology management
“When Apple introduced the iPod, it did something far smarter than wrap a good
technology in a snazzy design. It wrapped a good technology in a great business
model” (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 1). In order to improve the alignment of business
strategy with the organisation and its technology the business model concept serves
as an overarching framework (Osterwalder et al., 2005). Furthermore, the business
model concept is considered a useful construct for investigating opportunities for
market exploitation of technologies (Pateli, 2003). Although business model thinking
has detached from the e-business context (from where it emerged), it cannot be
denied that even through the openness and connectivity of the Internet and the
availably of the respective technology a wide variety of new business models in all
areas has become possible (Timmers, 1998). Timmers (1998, p. 10) makes this
81 / 549
explicit by stating that “Information and communication technology enables a wide
range of business models“.
According to the author’s interpretation, as an interim conclusion, this paragraph

contains several key aspects regarding the rise of the business model concept.
Through the proliferation of new technologies, above all the Internet, new business
models became possible. For instance, new ways to interact with customers or new
pricing strategies could suddenly be realised. Accordingly, the business model
concept became an important and indispensable instrument to understand new
economic realities that developed in the early days of the Internet business.
Since not all firms could take advantage from the Internet and its possibilities,
Stewart and Zhao (2000) noted that there are two categories of ‘losers’ influenced by
new Internet-based business models:
1. Those firms who do not understand how the Internet influences their business.
2. And those who have not the resources to change their business.
Based on steadily growing technological developments web-based business models

offer increasingly more improved and flexible solutions, which often are subsumed
under the term Web 2.0 (Weinhardt, Anandasivam, Blau, & Stößer, 2009). Generally
spoken, technical changes may render firms existing capabilities obsolete making
them losing their competitiveness (Afuah & Tucci, 2000). On the one hand,
answering solely with improved technological solutions to changing environments is
considered inappropriate these days since even great technologies cannot
compensate for the shortening product life cycles and their ability to create profit
before commoditization (Chesbrough, 2007). Technological innovations alone do not
guarantee success anymore – only through coupling with a viable business model
their success rate can be sustainably increased (Alt & Zimmermann, 2001; Teece,
2010). However managers of established or new ventures are confronted with huge
uncertainties in their technological environment (Camponovo & Pigneur, 2003). As
such, it has been shown that repeated partnerships have a negative influence on the
performance, particularly in environments of great technological uncertainties
(Goerzen, 2007).
82 / 549
To conclude, the environment is recognised as an important variable regarding the
uncertainties and the complexity in technological innovations (firm, business models,
stakeholder, environment). This issue will be further discussed later by introducing a
systemic perspective on business models. The argument here is that the complex
behaviour of business models represents a core debate of technology management
as well as an area of cutting-edge research since there are still gaps in knowledge of
how business models emerge – a discussion which finally leads to the idea of
conducting market experiments, building the bridge to the start-up and
entrepreneurship domain (as discussed later). Although technology may not be the
core of business model thinking anymore these days, current developments such as
3D printing, the Internet Of Things5, and digitalisation end up in the currently popular
‘Industry 4.0’ debate, which may bring the technology perspective back on the table.
Nevertheless, these new technologies may have unprecedented consequences on
the whole economy, hence on future business models – in fact, the argument is that
they already have huge implications but many firms may not have realised how to
deal with them or even whether to deal with them at all. Hence, another point here is
that Industry 4.0 will force firms to reflect much more intensively on their existing and
on possible new business models. Accordingly, the area where business model
thinking originally emerged from will be of crucial importance in future too. However,
the debate about Industry 4.0 may not be solely a technological debate since the
concept of value drives this development too (see 2.11). As a consequence, the
Industry 4.0 world may be even more complex than what we know today.
Accordingly, the argument is that managers and entrepreneurs are better off learning
how to deal with highly complex social systems, an issue reflected in the complexity
debate later in this document.
5 The Internet of things is a term often used in the digitalisation Industry 4.0 debate. It refers to an
Internet, which is connected with ‘real life’ object having a certain degree of intelligence and
communicating with each other. A prominent example in this context is the refrigerator independently
ordering food when necessary.
83 / 549
Side note – the technology debate in relation to the sector of the author’s firm
In the context of the author’s firm, the building technology sector is currently
confronted with technological changes subsumed under the term industry 4.0. First,
the whole building construction process is questioned since new technologies are
about to emerge, such as enabling pre-fabricated construction, an idea often
discussed in the context of ‘Building Information Modelling’ (which partly stands
opposite to existing practices of building houses), an idea affecting current business
models. Second, photovoltaic systems are continuously expanding to the building
technology sector since new elements such as e-mobility have become part of the
context. Third, technology firms from various outside sectors (such as Google or
Swisscom) enter the market with new highly interlinked products such as advanced
building automation solutions (using the Internet), potentially disrupting existing
market structures.
Furthermore, the idea of selling building technology infrastructures as a service is a

hot debate these days too – rather than selling energy production and distribution
systems to homeowners, the argument is that they would be provided with such
systems paying fees for its utilisation – as a service model. Such concepts – enabled
through and combined with new web-based technologies – could totally change the
logic of the sector. What can be observed these days, most incumbent firms in the
building technology domain still have no strategies to deal with these challenges.
Although business model considerations become increasingly important, they do not
find their way to the respective firms. As a consequence, we should try to make the
concept more tangible and better understandable for entrepreneurs so that people
realise its importance and take advantage of its strengths (not just to consider it
‘theoretical stuff’) – an aspect the present research aims to make a contribution.
2.11 Creating value through business models
The business model concept is inseparable from ‘value creation’ and ‘a firm’s value
proposition’ since a viable business model is always centred on a customer value
proposition (Johnson et al., 2008). The customers and the value proposition therefore
represent the core of a business model – each value proposition can be further
84 / 549
divided in customer jobs (‘jobs to be done’ as part of the Osterwalder (2015) Value
Proposition Designer) as well as pains and gains associated with these jobs
(Christensen, 2004; Osterwalder et al., 2015). In this line of argumentation, a
business model can be understood as a firm’s underlying core logic, describing the
way a firm creates and captures value (Shafer, Smith, & Linder, 2005). According to
Kambil, Ginsberg, and Bloch (1997) it is important to understand what is meant by
value in the business model context. Value in the sense of a value proposition can be
understood as the way in which “items of value, such as products and services as
well as complementary value-added services, are packaged and offered to fulfil
customer needs” (Kambil, Ginsberg, & Bloch, 1997, cited in Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2003, p. 4). Accordingly, “modelling and mapping value propositions helps better
understanding the value a firm wants to offer its customers and makes it
communicable between the various stakeholders” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2003, p.
1).
The author’s argument here is that creating value through business models, adapting
a value proposition perspective, is part of a ‘second development wave’ – that began
between the years 2003 and 2005. In the early days of the business model concept,
revenue thinking dominated the area (see section 2.5). Then, authors such as
Osterwalder or Christensen incorporated the value proposition concept, so that today
the business model idea is mainly influenced by value proposition thinking. Through
the raise of the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas and the ‘Value Proposition Designer’
(Osterwalder, 2015), value proposition-centred thinking has significantly contributed
to the business model’s popularity (at least in the Swiss start-up context). Revenue
perspectives are still included, but are no longer dominant.
However, creating value propositions have become complex through the invention of
information and communication technologies – firms act in even more complex
networks and offer their products and services through a multitude of diverse
channels (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2003), even more specialising the economy (Wirtz
& Ehret, 2012). With this in mind, knowledge plays a dominant role since knowledge-
intensive firms have to create unique value in a complex landscape, which is very
much unlike of the context of industrial firms (Sheehan & Stabell, 2007).
85 / 549
The idea of value creation may not be used as a stand-alone concept; instead, the
literature shows that it is embedded in various other disciplines such as technology
management, strategy, entrepreneurship and design thinking as follows.
• Value creation is often related to technology – a tribute to its origins since

business models play a key role by capturing value from great technologies
(Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). The rise of such new technologies,
particularly the Internet, has formed complex knowledge-intensive landscapes.
As a consequence, the rising business model concept, itself a ‘child’ of new
technologies or even a new technological paradigm (Internet), has been used
as the theoretical foundation for value capturing in such contexts (Amit & Zott,
2001), not only for single firms but also for networks of actors (Gordijn &
Akkermans, 2001).
• The idea of value capturing using the Internet not only is supported by a
business model perspective but also by business strategy since integrating the
Internet in the process of developing new products and services may
substantially create value for customers, which has been defined as
competitive advantage (Porter, 2001). However, to separate the two concepts,
business models are argued to be the ‘sine qua non’ of value creation, while
strategy deals with creating sustainable competitive advantages (Mansfield &
Fourie, 2004).
• A business model creates value through the employment of technological
opportunities, or as stated by Chesbrough (2002, p. 2): “A successful business
model unlocks latent value from a technology.” This is often performed by
entrepreneurs, because value creation is strongly linked to the concept of
entrepreneurship since entrepreneurs create value by using new tools such as
business models in order to create new types of organisations and to make
sense of unlikely opportunities (George & Bock, 2012). For instance, in social
businesses, where entrepreneurs or ‘entrepreneurial minded’ firms engage,
value propositions with new value constellations and profit formulas are
created and implemented (Yunus, Moingeon, & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010).
Thus, not only may the business model idea be used for creating value but
also for capturing that value (Chesbrough, 2012).
86 / 549
• Last but not least, the ability to create and capture that value through customer
understanding is part of a design thinking approach. A business model is
argued to be an abstraction of a firm’s strategy based on Porter’s (1996)
theory by creating and delivering value to its customers (Seddon, Lewis,
Freeman, & Shanks, 2004).
Strictly speaking, a business model is a firm’s core logic of creating value to

customers (Linder, 2000), which means that different activities of a firm are
orchestrated for creating value to customers using the business model concept
(Demil & Lecocq, 2010). However, creating value through business model design by
focusing on the customers follows a comprehensive process of gaining customer
insights, ideation, visual thinking, prototyping, storytelling, and scenario development
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). In addition, Urban and Von Hippel (1988) suggest a
lead user approach, allowing for crating maximum value for potential customers by
investigating people developing their own solutions for problems where no solutions
are still available; hence, lead users are people often considered at the forefront of
an emerging trend (the ‘avant-garde’). Given the complexity of today’s business
environments, firms have to create value for a large group of stakeholders and have
to capture value for themselves (Sosna, Trevinyo-Rodríguez, & Velamuri, 2010). One
can argue that value creation is the core activity of a firm per se since perfect
competition and equilibrium must be considered an idealised and misleading idea;
instead, customers just want products and solutions fulfilling their perceived needs
(Teece, 2010). Thus, business models are geared toward total value creation for all
parties (Zott & Amit, 2010). By complementing this perspective of ‘total value
centricity’ a shift in the concept of value creation is discussed towards value
appropriation by linking some drivers of value creation to firm performance (Amit &
Zott, 2012).
An indication of the importance of the value concept is the latest book ‘Value
Proposition Design’ from Osterwalder et al. (2015), devoted solely to the two basic
business model building blocks ‘Value Proposition’ and ‘Customer Segment’. These
days, creating value propositions is an appealing and popular idea. However, the
complexity of the value creation process is high and far from fully understood. More
research is needed by focusing on value creation (and capturing) by understanding
87 / 549
the business model as a boundary-spanning systemic activity system (Zott et al.,
2011) – an aspect linking to the systemic and complexity section because a viable
working value proposition is often described in literature as the result of a complex
non-linear process leading to the interaction of individual elements in a stable ‘fit-
configuration’. Regarding the distinction of value creation and capture there is a
current debate how far business models try to explain how value is created, not just
captured (Zott et al., 2011). Another debate deals with the distinction between value
and price. Some economists and futurists such as Jeremy Rifkin predict a future
where goods tend to cost 'nothing' since they are produced everywhere and anytime
using technologies such as 3D-printing and the Internet of things (Rifkin, 2014) – As
a consequence the end of capitalism is predicted. The question here arises which
new business models will be employed to make ‘profit’ in this new world, whatever
profit may be there. Thus, the point is that the concept of value may play the
dominant role in future business models since, according to authors such as Rifkin,
goods will be exchanged rather than sold. As a consequence, elements in today’s
business models must be re-conceptualised, for instance the role of partners,
resources, activities, cost structures and revenues may change fundamentally.
Accordingly, new technologies ‘democratising’ the world may further increase the
significance of the value concept, because goods may be exchanged on the value
they create. Additionally, value thinking also represents the core of innovation
management.
2.12 Business models and innovation management
The concept of innovation management was first introduced by Schumpeter in the

1930s. According to his definition core innovation is the new combination of
productive resources (Schumpeter, 1934). Since World War 2 there has been an
evolution from the technology perspective in the 1950s to social network and
complexity perspectives transforming information into knowledge in the 1980s
(Hidalgo & Albors, 2005). The complex nature of innovation – the focus in the 1990s
and 2000s – makes it impossible to identify a simple and widely applicable algorithm
(Ortt & van der Duin, 2008, p. 15). Innovation management is used in various
disciplines. Each research community such as economics, technology management
88 / 549
or sociology has their own perspective (Kusiak, 2007). Thus, the idea of innovation
has been adapted and researched by many disciplines dispersing the concept over a
wide area of interests leading to a wide variety of research agendas. As a
consequence, there has never been identified a ‘best way’ to manage innovation
since industries differ too much (Tidd, 2001). Although there are differences in
research focus and variations in the way innovation is defined, multidisciplinary
consensus has been achieved in that it is about the creation and adoption (including
commercialisation) of something new. Some streams focus on new ideas, methods
or devices; others concentrate on processes. These processes can be understood as
linear or complex, with multiple, cumulative and conjunctive progressions of
convergent, parallel and divergent activities (Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997).
Innovation management is stretched from idea generation to product
commercialisation (McAdam & McClelland, 2002).
With the concept of disruptive innovations business models may first have found their
way into the discipline. The ’disruption theory’ explains why less ‘powerful’ (it terms of
features of products or services), but cheaper solutions, combined with new business
models, can change the dominant business logic of a whole industry and why
incumbent market leaders may disappear within a few years, defeated by entrants.
The theory, first introduced in Clayton Christensen’s bestselling book ‘The Innovators
Dilemma’ (Christensen, 2002), concludes that implementing new business models
may be a chance for new market entrants to challenge and defeat industry leaders.
Disruptive innovations are an important concept to understand the power of new
business models in established industries, especially to understand business model
innovation as a chance for new ventures in established, highly saturated markets
(Christensen, 2002). Consequently, the capacity of a firm to capture value not only
depends on the development of new technologies anymore but on its capability to
innovate its business model (Teece, 2010). Based on this insight, innovation must
include business model thinking rather than just focusing on technology and R&D
(Chesbrough, 2007). However, Lepore (2014) states that the disruption theory has
also been massively critiqued since:
• it has become a buzzword explaining ‘everything’ these days with no meaning

in practice anymore,
89 / 549
• and, methodologically, Christensen has not used data from successful firms
but searched for reasons why firms fail using data from unsuccessful firms so
his findings could only be used as anecdotal stories at best. Hence the
disruption theory would be a short-term business phenomenon without any
empirical foundation; the long-term study of young technology-based firms
would be needed.
Innovation is considered a complex phenomenon per se making broad survey-based

investigations and statistical evaluations difficult since only very few firms are really
able to create ‘true’ (radical or disruptive) innovations. At the forefront of innovation
research, anecdotal stories or case studies are considered most suitable from which
to learn (Huber, Kaufmann, & Steinmann, 2015).
Beside disruption, ‘open innovation’ has become indispensable in the innovation

discipline (particularly in the business model context), which can be understood as
the third step in evolving systems innovation (Van der Meer, 2007). In its origins,
open innovation can be defined as a concept to open the innovation process by
including knowledge from outside the firm as well as excluding internal knowledge to
the outside (making knowledge created in firm accessible to other firms). Through
this process, the firm enhances its ability to create innovations. Henry Chesbrough,
professor at University of California, Berkley, introduced the concept in 2003
(Chesbrough, 2003). The core idea is that the locus where knowledge is created
does not necessarily always equal the locus of innovation (Gassmann & Enkel,
2006). Three major open innovation processes can be identified within the literature
(Gassmann & Enkel, 2006):
• The outside-in process, in which firms integrate external knowledge,

• the inside-out process, where firms sell their ideas, e.g. by licensing
intellectual property,
• and the coupled-process meaning that firms work in alliances.
The idea of open innovation can be advanced in the area of business models by
establishing co-development partnerships. As a consequence, costs can significantly
be reduced, innovation outputs expanded and new markets opened up. This process
90 / 549
requires new approaches to intellectual property management, licensing or spinning-
off (Chesbrough, 2006; Chesbrough & Schwartz, 2007).
Apart from the two currently dominant concepts of disruption and open innovation, a
couple of other, less well-known ideas have emerged. One is the understanding of
business models as having a mediating role affecting technological innovation
through organisational learning (Hu, 2014). Another is that steadily raising risks and
costs of technological innovations have to be compensated by business model
initiatives (Faber et al., 2003). It has widely been argued that the integration of
business model thinking may strengthen the impact of technological developments
(Gambardella & McGahan, 2010), because the concept contributes to the
construction of new ‘techno-economic networks’ (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault,
2009), supporting the investment in complementary assets, which may change the
scope of a firm by simultaneously increasing their innovation capabilities in new
areas (Jacobides, Knudsen, & Augier, 2006). However, firms focusing on product
development have been defeated by firms using business model innovation initiatives
that may or may not be disruptive, but often Internet-based (O'reilly, 2007). Thus,
firms concentrate even more on business model innovation rather than solely
focusing on product innovation as a complementary perspective. Amit and Zott
(2012) identified three ways of performing business model innovation:
1. Adding new activities such as forward integration,

2. combining existing activities in new ways,
3. changing components of existing activities.
By widening up the perspective from the single firm to the ecosystem, three main
types of business model innovations can be distinguished: innovations in industry
models, in revenue models and in enterprise models (Giesen, Berman, Bell, & Blitz,
2007), which also changes the debate towards a more strategic perspective since
there is an increasing tendency for incumbents to respond with business model
innovations to new market entrants (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2007)6. On the
6 Whether those entrants follow a disruptive positioning cannot be determined. According to the theory
of Christensen, incumbents would most probably not react on disruptive competition since they are
‘just’ losing customers at the lower end of the segment, i.e. customers that tens to to be the most
91 / 549
other hand, Chapman, Soosay, and Kandampully (2003) argue (especially for the
service industry sector) that competing through business models will be of limited
significance since firms have to entirely think on behalf of the customer by delivering
and producing an outcome that surpasses customers’ present expectations, which go
far beyond the traditional offering by adding value through rich new functionalities
(Timmers, 1998). The role of value creation in the business model innovation context
has widely been discussed by authors such as Johnson et al. (2009) and
Osterwalder et al. (2015), seeing the value proposition the core of each business
model, Christensen (2004) by introducing the customer job concept, or Urban and
Von Hippel (1988) suggesting lead user studies.
A further current issue in the innovation debate is that firms not only explore internal
innovation opportunities but are looking at the peripheries for innovative ideas by
cooperating with competitors and complementary firms. Above all a boundary-
spanning tendency of exploration instead of exploitation can be observed
(Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu, 2010) – similar to the open innovation approach but in
a more systemic sense. Hence, business model innovation should be considered a
boundary spanning process per se (Amit & Zott, 2010). Accordingly, two approaches
to innovating the business model are distinguished and have been described. While
a static one focuses on the coherence between the business model components the
dynamic approach is more transformational using the business model concept as a
tool to initiate change within the organisation (Demil & Lecocq, 2010). Accordingly,
business model innovation needs experimentation and investment, so firms need to
understand which tools make sense in the experimental, emerging and time-evolving
world (McGrath, 2010; Morris et al., 2005). This dynamic approach strongly links to a
systemic perspective of business models – an aspect that is further elaborated in the
next section.
profitable, so incumbents may even increase their performance by giving away those low-end
customers. However, the question as to what extent firms recognise disruptive challengers and react
‘appropriately’ is still an unanswered question – not least because disruption is a buzzword these days
that is interpreted in a wide variety of ways.
92 / 549
To conclude, the innovation discipline shows at least three different ways of
understanding the business model concept within one discipline. It serves as a
conceptual device for explaining the power of disruptive innovations, as a framework
for anchoring open innovation, or as a device for dealing with value creation and
capture. Each concept brings out different main points: the focus on a modified value
proposition combined with adapted revenue streams (disruption), the focus on
activities, resources and partnerships (open innovation), and the focus on achieving
product-market-fit (value capturing) (Blank, 2013). This shows contrasting (and
possibly competing) perspectives within the innovation management discipline,
contributing to the argument that business models may be perceived, conceptualised
and applied in highly diverse ways. Furthermore, some of the ideas used in
combination with business model considerations such as disruption theory have also
been critiqued (Lepore, 2014); the argument is that ideas such as disruption theory
are based on business models, a concept that itself does not yet have a strong
foundation. Furthermore, the innovation discipline (particularly regarding business
models) is strongly linked to strategy, especially when it comes to decisions of
launching new business models: choosing the most promising model, how to
implement a possible disruptive business model (in the existing organisation, as a
new division, as a new ventures, etc.) and how to react to disruptive challengers, and
running only one dominant or several different business models in parallel, are
aspects linking innovation management and strategy. This in essence illustrates the
complexities within which the business model discussion is embedded.
2.13 Business models and complexity theory
Business models are argued to be highly complex social systems. Complex systems
are considered systems made up of a large number of parts that have many
interactions (Simon, 1996). Complexity theory emerged after World War 2 based on
the success of feedback control devices. Complexity theory was founded by basic
disciplines such as cybernetics, catastrophe theory, chaos theory, philosophy of
organisms and neural networks (Anderson, 1999; Manson, 2001). Three major
divisions have been identified:
1) ‘Algorithmic complexity’, in the form of mathematical complexity theory.

93 / 549
2) ‘Deterministic complexity’ which deals with chaos and catastrophe theory.
3) ‘Aggregate complexity’ which is concerned with how individual elements work
in concert to create systems with complex behaviour (Manson, 2001).
Additionally, on the basis of modelling complex behaviour emerging from interactions

of individuals, the concept of complex adaptive systems (CAS) has emerged. CAS
can be summarised as an outcome that is produced by a dynamical system
comprising agents at a lower level of aggregation. Self-organising agents are partially
connected via feedback loops; co-evolutionary processes can be observed at the
edge of chaos; recombination and system evolution over time through the entry, exit
or transition of agents (Anderson, 1999). Critics argue that evidence of emergence is
only just gaining empirical foothold (Goldberg & Markóczy, 2000). Thus, ant colony
algorithms, as a common example of emergence, are governed by biochemical rules.
Individual humans, however, are complex systems in their own right. Whether
complexity theory can account for this is still unclear (Smith, 2005). However, in
complex systems the components act together as a whole in a new and dynamic way
and respond with their environment; they create a functioning whole by the
interaction of its components, which finally leads to a new ‘self’. One speaks of ‘self-
organisational’ behaviour or ‘emergence’ (Bodenschatz, 2009).
2.13.1 Applying complexity theory to business models
Breaking down the theoretical considerations to the concrete business context means
understanding organisations as continuously changing organisms to be treated as
complex structures with inherent time-paced evolution mechanisms (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1997), so the development of a business model follows an evolutionary
path (Tikkanen et al., 2005). The ‘dominant logic’ of a firm, of the market, or of the
whole ecosystem, may act as a filter, which induces instability in a firm because firms
are non-linear in nature and create mental models of non-rationality (Bettis &
Prahalad, 1995). The idea of ‘fit’ has been discussed in the context of complexity
since business models emerge over time and adapt to a fit configuration with the
environment. A business model’s environment and the way the firm interacts with its
environment plays a critical role in the business model building process (Morris et al.,
2005). Furthermore, the effectiveness of a business model in value creation can be
94 / 549
understood as the level of fit between internal activities and the firm’s environment
such as the suppliers’ and customers’ business models (Gummesson, Mele, Polese,
Nenonen, & Storbacka, 2010), and business model evolution can be seen as a ‘fine
tuning’ process involving emergent changes between its constituent parts (Demil &
Lecocq, 2010). Accordingly, business model design can be understood as a complex
undertaking since different complex requirements (such as technology, organisation,
finance) come together and must be balanced. Changes in one domain affect other
domains in unpredictable ways (Faber et al., 2003). In environments of high
complexity and uncertainty (à la Schumpeter) decisions from rationally acting
managers can be deferred and have unpredictable consequences (Amit &
Schoemaker, 2012).
In the complexity debate, the boundaries of a firm represent an important strategic

variable by understanding a firm’s dynamics and its innovation process (Teece, 1986)
– this links the complexity debate back to the strategy discussion. The success of a
business model depends on other innovators and its environment and the location of
the firm relative to its ecosystem (Adner & Kapoor, 2010). By pursuing the ecosystem
argument not only business models (as the unit of analysis) should be considered
complex systems but also firms aggregated in business networks and markets
forming whole ecosystems, within which business models overlap as constituent
parts and actions on each stage of the systems influence the whole – in possibly
unpredictable ways (Mason & Spring, 2011).
Dynamic capabilities, the ability to adapt, appropriate knowledge management and

leadership are fundamentally important ‘leverage points’ allowing for interacting in
such otherwise ‘uncontrollable’ systems. Through dynamic capabilities a firm not only
adapts to its environment but also influences this environment through its own
actions (Teece, 2007). An adaptive organisational firm, often also referred to
‘dynamic community’, has the capability for quickly adapting to changing
circumstances (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 2001). Furthermore, managing complexity in
business models is argued to be a question of leadership that can make dynamic
decisions and handle complex situations (Smith, Binns, & Tushman, 2010).
Additionally, a firm’s knowledge base must continuously be adapted and must be
95 / 549
current enough in order to deal with the uncertainties of the environment (Sosna et
al., 2010).
In complex systems, an initial phase of exploration followed by refinement and

coordination leads to a higher performance (Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003). Therefore,
a firm’s internal structure must allow for managing different cultures – allowing for
managing the exploitation and exploration phase – simultaneously (Huber et al.,
2015), an aspect that links back to the idea of ambidexterity, as discussed in 2.5.
2.13.2 Investigating complex systems
To conclude, examining the way business models are shaped and adapted over time
reflects a cross-disciplinary research stream shaping and consolidating the business
model on a pivotal level, allowing for a better understanding of the systemic nature of
business models and the value capturing process (Zott & Amit, 2013). Based on
Kruse’s (2013) classification, the author’s argument is that business models are
‘unstable’ and ‘complex’ systems (many interlinked elements and the future of the
system cannot be predicted based on its past), where self-organisation may be the
only viable action strategy. Thus, based on the law of Ashby (1957), the argument is
that researching highly complex concepts or ‘problem systems’ requires at least the
same level of complexity as the ‘problem system’.
The next section deals with launching market experiments through trial and error.
Although trial and error may not cover the full range of challenges induced by the
complex nature of business models, it is considered much more manageable in
practice compared to the more abstract theories from complexity literature.
2.14 Experimenting with business models
As outlined above, firms adapt their business model to the needs of an even more
complex competitive environment (Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu, 2010). By doing so,
successful firms ‘play’ with a wide variety of low-cost probes (business models or
business model building blocks) enabling them to learn from the market, which is by
far more effective than planning or reaction (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). Developing
business models calls for a ‘discovery driven’ rather than an ‘analytical’ approach
96 / 549
since business model development requires massive experimentation; there is no
understanding at the outset who will be winning (McGrath, 2010). Managers and
entrepreneurs face great uncertainty in their business model development process so
classic planning approaches are not just unhelpful, they may be disastrous (McGrath
& MacMillan, 1995).
From a theoretical perspective, business model development is the managerial

equivalent to scientific experiments: stating a business hypothesis, testing, and
adapting if necessary (Magretta, 2002). The process of experimentation and
effectuation is strongly coupled with leadership by transforming the business model
(Chesbrough, 2010). However, the question as to what such an experiment should
encompass is conjectural, because experimenting with business models through
organisational modularity differs greatly from just following changing purposes (Djelic
& Ainamo, 1999). However, the core idea of experimenting is that business model
components are like a set of Lego blocks; managers and entrepreneurs can
experiment with those building blocks and create completely new business models
limited only by their creativity and the availability of the respective blocks
(Osterwalder et al., 2005). A series of such small experiments enhances the learning
by minimizing the risks (Yunus et al., 2010).
Experimenting with business models has become popular in the start-up scene,
represented by concepts such as the Lean Start-up idea, which has attracted much
attention since 2008 through the blog ‘www.startuplessonslearned.com’ of Eric Ries,
in which Ries has been publishing his experiences from the process of founding a
new venture and developing the basics of the Lean Start-up concept (Ries, 2011). He
has developed a methodology to shorten the product development cycle and
eliminating waste in the value creation process by formulating hypotheses, launching
market experiments, building ‘Minimal Viable Products’7 (MVPs), pivoting and
learning from customers. The ‘lean’ idea is based on lean manufacturing, a concept
7 By using ‘Minimal Viable Products’ (abbr. MVPs) entrepreneurs can test how potential customers
react to new products and services. As MVPs normally are mock-ups, prototypes or even PowerPoint
slides entrepreneurs can produce at low costs in a short time period, allowing for learning fast and
cheaply.
97 / 549
originally introduced in the Japanese car industry in the 1980s (Krafcik, 1988 ), and
ideas about market experiments such as the concept of discovery driven planning
(McGrath, 2000, 2010). Simultaneously, Steve Blank, mentor of Eric Ries, Silicon
Valley serial entrepreneur and Stanford Professor, has identified patterns by
analysing his own entrepreneurial journeys and developed a methodology by
introducing a process consisting of customer discovery, customer validation,
customer creation and firm building (Blank, 2006, 2014). Steve Blank has unified his
own ideas with those of Eric Ries by creating the Lean Start-up concept (Blank, 2013;
Blank & Dorf, 2012). Ideas from other authors (researchers and practitioners) in the
area of business model creation in uncertain environments either influenced the
concept or contributed additional elements. The business model Canvas
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), for instance, is used to formulate business
hypotheses (Blank & Dorf, 2012). The mantra of the Lean Start-up concept can be
summarised as follows (Blank, 2013, p. 4): “Lean Start-up favours experimentation
over elaborate planning, customer feedback over intuition, and iterative design over
traditional ‘big design up front’ development”. According to Blank (2013) the Lean
Start-up process consists of 2 main process phases:
1. The search process consists of customer discovery by sketching out

hypotheses using the Business Model Canvas. Based on the business
hypotheses, a “Minimal Viable Product” (MVP) is built and tested with real
customers. Based on what has been learned, the business model hypotheses
are changed by ‘pivoting’ the business model and sketching out a new Canvas
accordingly (Ries, 2008-2013).
2. The second step, called the execution process, consists of customer creation:
once the product is refined enough to sell. The focus changes to build up the
firm by setting up a business model that allows for scaling, and the transition
from a start-up to a traditional firm.
It is important to point out that start-ups are not small versions of large firms. Instead,
managing a start-up requires different skills, values and world-views. After the
transition from a start-up into a traditional firm, in most cases the management team
has to be exchanged (Blank & Dorf, 2012). Figure 13 depicts the Lean Start-up
process.
98 / 549
Figure 13: Lean Start-up Process (Blank, 2013).
The Lean Start-up process has become popular in the start-up scene and part of
many MBA curricula (Nobel, 2011). Critics question the new entrepreneurial culture in
delivering unfinished products (MVPs) and fast customer feedback with only exit
strategies in mind (McGinn, 2012). The most promising element, however, is the
concept of validated learning in all components and details of a business model; not
only “experiments” are learning sources but also qualitative interviews or
observations (Breuer & Mahdjour, 2012).
To conclude, gaining feedback from customers, testing and iterating, are promising
approaches to adapt business models much faster (Iqbal, 2012). However, until now,
the author’s argument is that the Lean Start-up concept has never been subject to
thorough evaluation through academic research. Furthermore, trial and error action
strategies can be interpreted as inappropriate in highly complex social systems
(Kruse, 2013). Alternatively, entrepreneurship, as outlined in the next section,
explains the way business models are created through a more traditional lens,
focusing on individuals or teams looking for and exploiting opportunities often derived
from their personal contexts. Nevertheless, similarities of the two concepts can be
found in the way new venture founders experiment in the market.
2.15 Entrepreneurship as a source of business model creation
Entrepreneurship – as a possible source of new business models – is broadly defined

in various disciplines looking at different aspects such as cognition, learning and
opportunity discovery. Nevertheless, none of them captures the whole picture of what
entrepreneurship is (Breslin, 2008). Critics of entrepreneurship as a research
99 / 549
discipline argue that key elements are subjects of other fields. They further critique a
lack of conceptual framework (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). However, a
consensus has been achieved that entrepreneurship is more than just starting up
new businesses. It is a process in which some (learnable) skills are highly relevant.
Environmental factors that foster the detection of opportunities and the motivation to
detect them are fundamentally important. Those factors are interlinked and reinforce
each other (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). According to Stevenson and Jarillo (1990),
entrepreneurship research can be divided in three main streams.
1. What happens when entrepreneurs act: an economic view first described by

Schumpeter (Schumpeter, 1934).
2. Why they act: a sociological view founded in the 1960s by McClelland
(McClelland, 1961).
3. How they act: how entrepreneurs can achieve their aims.
A business model orientated perspective claims that the main aim of

entrepreneurship is discovering new opportunities and exploiting existing ones
(Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu, 2010), about entrepreneurial cognition leading to
opportunity creation and organizational outcomes (George & Bock, 2011), about
wealth creation (Ireland et al., 2001), and also about value creation (Amit & Zott,
2010). However, business models have been used as ‘templates’, supporting
imitation or comparison by entrepreneurs, investors and partners. Such business
model templates are often used as examples in public press articles to show
successful entrepreneurial stories (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009). To be
broken down, each entrepreneurial venture either explicitly or implicitly employs a
particular business model where the environment is a variable of choice selected and
possibly shaped by the entrepreneur (Teece, 2010). The question why business
models are important and relevant can be addressed by the entrepreneurship
concept and answered by referring to Peter Drucker’s age-old question: “Who is the
customer? And what does the customer value?” A business model also answers the
fundamental questions every entrepreneur must ask: “How do we make money in this
business? What is the underlying economic logic that explains how we can deliver
value to customers at an appropriate cost?” (Magretta, 2002, p. 4). As stated by
Drucker and Drucker (2007) developing and implementing new business models is
100 / 549
one of the core tasks of an entrepreneur since “entrepreneurs shift resources from
areas of low productivity and yield to areas of higher productivity and yield” (Drucker,
2007, cited in Nirjar, 2011, p. 26).
However, developing entrepreneurial ideas must be considered equal to business

model development, since it deals with the interplay of factors such as people and
resources. Thus, an entrepreneur can be imagined as a movie director bringing all
elements of a business model together into play (Faltin, 2001, 2008, 2011). The core
of business model innovation in an entrepreneurial sense is creatively (re-) combining
existing business model components in new ways. An entrepreneur sees potential
and opportunities in something that already exists and creates value by changing the
context and by offering the same with a new business model to new customers
(Faltin 2001). This point was made very explicit by Faltin (2001, p. 60) when he
argues that: “Entrepreneurs are actors (…), who discover opportunities in the market,
recombine production factors and processes in order to develop new an more
efficient business models, compared with existing structures”.8 In particular, in
founding a new business, entrepreneurs deal with business model design at the very
beginning of their entrepreneurial endeavour (Zott & Amit, 2010).
As an interim conclusion, the author argues that business model thinking can be
used as an ideal entrepreneurial instrument. The interesting thing here is that
entrepreneurs do not necessarily need to develop a new product or service, in the
sense of conducting basic research, but they can build on existing products and
services, offering them with a new business logic. For example, they can produce
products differently or in different places, sell them over alternative channels, can use
different or new partners, etc. Based on this, new businesses can emerge. This is
what authors such as Faltin say and what they understand by entrepreneurship.
Accordingly, analysing and refining existing business logic may serve as basis for
new entrepreneurial ventures. An excellent example for illustration is the ‘Tee-
Kampagne’ (Faltin 2008): Faltin has launched a business selling tea by applying a
8
The original quotation can be found in German as follows (Faltin, 2001, p. 60). “Entrepreneure sind die Akteure,
die im Sinne Schumpeters, Kirzners, Drucker und Hayeks (vgl. den Aufsatz „Markt als Entdeckungsverfahren“
aus dem Jahre 1968) Marktchancen entdecken, Produktionsfaktoren und -prozesse neu kombinieren und so
innovative, gegenüber den bestehenden Strukturen effizientere Geschäftsmodelle entstehen lassen“.
101 / 549
different business logic. The tea is sold in higher quantities compared to existing
sellers. Furthermore, he just sells one sort of tea but the highest quality (Darjeeling).
The tea is just sold on the web. This makes the ‘Tee Kampagne’ unique representing
a case in point of a business model innovation.
Furthermore, business models can also be understood as ‘opportunity facilitators’

where they serve as a link between entrepreneurial opportunity appraisal and its
exploitation by designing organisational structures (based on the business model
concept) to enact a commercial opportunity (George & Bock, 2011). Assessing such
opportunities may be facilitated by creating a number of alternative business model
approaches to be contrasted and discussed (Leschke, 2013) – and the choice of the
‘right’ business model may influence a venture’s performance (Zott & Amit, 2007).
Additionally, business models can be categorized into static and dynamic. Because
of human activities, the dynamic approach is favoured since business model
components are always in interaction (Demil & Lecocq, 2010). Activities and
interactions define how business models really work; they form relationships within
the model and among partner networks (Nielsen & Montemari, 2013). Considering
business models as ‘living organisms’ consisting of human individuals performing
interacting activities, the question of personal characteristics arises and is
controversially discussed in literature (Jacobsen, 2003; Read & Sarasvathy, 2005).
On the one hand, personality traits or psychological characteristics combined with
environmental circumstances are considered key success factors in entrepreneurship
(Jain, 2013). On the other hand, based on the complex nature of business models, it
is argued that there has never been found evidence of entrepreneurial success
factors such as characteristic traits. Instead, entrepreneurship is argued to be a
complex social phenomenon where the interaction and interdependence of various
components are fundamentally important (Jacobsen, 2003). It is argued that the
performance of a business depends on many variables making the analysis highly
complex (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005).
Consensus for explaining entrepreneurial success has been achieved in terms of

individuals’ background, experience and skills (Ripsas, 2004). It can be observed
nevertheless that, very often, the individual’s background serves as starting point, not
102 / 549
market needs (Faltin, 2001). Furthermore, the character and resilience of an
entrepreneur plays a dominant role when it comes to the question whether to stop
searching and end the experiment or to continue (Sosna et al., 2010), a circumstance
which may significantly contribute to the success of a (new) venture, or the
implantation of a new business model.
To conclude, entrepreneurship is a comprehensive discipline anchored in various

fields of research such as strategy, since entrepreneurs are faced with different
(competing) business model alternatives from which to make choices or to run
several models simultaneously – an idea controversially discussed in the strategy
domain. Considering entrepreneurship from a dynamic perspective, systemic aspects
become relevant because new venture creation is not just a matter of combining
various elements in a linear way; by contrast, those elements may interact
systemically making complexity theory and its implications highly relevant (e.g. trial
and error vs. self-organisation). The business model concept may have adopted
quickly in the domain in order to explain phenomena such as value capturing but also
to argue that business model generation may be an activity that entrepreneurs have
been doing ever since; hence the business model in fact may be nothing really new
but just a new label for an existing activity – however, the argument here is that
through the introduction of the concept so far implicit activities may have become
explicit.
2.16 Business models as a teaching instrument
The business model concept, most often represented by the Osterwalder (2010)
Business Model Canvas, has found its way into classrooms as an accepted method
for entrepreneurship education (Kaufmann, 2016). The Osterwalder (2010) Business
Model Canvas is integrated in curricula as a tool for illustrating (fictional) business
model ideas. Furthermore, the Canvas serves as a tool to present the ideas in front
of the class and helps evaluating feedback from peer students (Jaroschinsky &
RÓZSA, 2015). In university classrooms (such as the Harvard Business School),
students are often taught to apply the Lean Start-up methodology in combination with
the business model concept; the business model concept is used to formulate
business hypotheses to be tested in the market (Nobel, 2011). A study in Australia
103 / 549
has investigated the current state of entrepreneurial education in the Australian
higher education sector. One of the findings was that out-dated business plan
thinking has been replaced by the Ries (2011) Lean Start-up methodology and the
Osterwalder (2010) business model Canvas (Maritz, Jones, & Shwetzer, 2015).
Entrepreneurial ideas do not develop in people’s minds at first when entering the
business world – as often assumed – but tend to be forming out in an early stage of
socialisation. Since entrepreneurs keep our economy going, it is important to
teaching entrepreneurial thinking to the young. By learning key competences
regarding entrepreneurial self-employment, new business models must be
developed, discussed and applied (Lindner, 2015). However, ever since, there has
been a debate whether entrepreneurship can be taught at all. Having concluded ‘yes’
it can be, there has been a debate which pedagogy would be most suitable. Current
research has revealed the Osterwalder (2010) business model Canvas to be an
appropriate instrument for teaching ideas such as entrepreneurial finance (Jackson,
Scott, & Schwagler, 2015). The Canvas has been identified to be particularly useful
because it meets six characteristics. According to Neck and Greene (2011) “it
provides a set of transferable skills and techniques for new venture creation; students
walk away with a toolkit applicable for all start-ups; is founded on and reinforces the
creative problem solving process; relies on iterations for optimal results; encourages
experimentation; and is practiced again and again – not just in one class but across
the curriculum” (Jackson et al., 2015, p. 100).
Due to radical new educational offerings on the Web, as radical new ways of (free)
online learning programmes have raised, a rapid shift and evolution of online
entrepreneurial educational opportunities has been observed. In these environments,
the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas has been used for developing and outlining business
model ideas; ideas which then have been graded by peers (Welsh & Dragusin,
2013).
As the literature shows, the business model concept is a recent arrival in the
management world, as such in teaching entrepreneurship. The literature reveals that
business models are mostly represented by the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas and are
often used in combination with the Ries (2011) Lean Start-up methodology, as this
104 / 549
combination offers a new thinking paradigm of how new ventures should be created
– by developing minimal viable products to be quickly tested in the market with
minimal waste of time and resources (the Canvas is often used as a blueprint for
formulating ‘business hypotheses’ to be tested in the market using the Lean Start-up
methodology). A finding which also reflects the author’s experience in the domain.
Since only few studies can be found regarding the application of business models in
entrepreneurship training and education, this domain would offer opportunities for
future research too.
As could be shown, the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas is the most often used
framework in entrepreneurial education. However, there are other frameworks too –
mostly as the product of conceptual studies.
2.17 A lack of empirical studies
Although the concept has emerged in the mid-nineties only, it has widely spread and
has been adapted by many disciplines, such as strategy, technology management,
value creation, innovation management, complexity theory, start-up and venturing,
and entrepreneurship.
An argument is that these days, it is ‘trendy’ to talk about business models because
the term is generally used “to show that we know what a firm does” (Goethals, 2011,
p. 47). The business model concept is seen by many scholars as something
managers use to explain various phenomena (Zott et al., 2011). The dramatic
increase in the number of publications referring to the business model concept and to
the term ‘business model’ clearly indicates a high interest in the idea (Ghaziani &
Ventresca, 2005). Based on its popularity many disciplines see potential by
integrating the business model concept in their reasoning, which has led to many
industry-specific understandings (Günzel & Holm, 2013). Trimi and Berbegal-
Mirabent (2012) consider business models popular by academics and practitioners,
but literature suffers from a lack of serious research in the domain, so they see a
plenty of definitions with an insufficient theoretical grounding of the concept and no
generally accepted definition of the term ‘business model’; As a consequence, the
105 / 549
term is often used interchangeably with concepts such as ‘business strategy’ and
‘economic model’.
Based on its popularity in a wide range of disciplines, the concept has not only been
used but also understood differently. In the academic domain business models “have
yet to develop a common and widely accepted language that would allow
researchers who examine the business model construct through different lenses to
draw effectively on the work of others” (Zott et al., 2011, p. 1020). Hence, the term
business model is often broadly defined or unspecific (Osterwalder et al., 2005), or,
authors give no definition when using it (Timmers, 1998); hence, there is still much
confusion about the nature of business models (Shafer et al., 2005). Accordingly,
DaSilva and Trkman (2014, p. 2) argue that “It is time to relearn what the term
‘business model’ encompasses and prove its relevance and utility to both the
academic and the business community”, not least because researchers often view
the business model concept subjectively (Al-Debei & Avison, 2010). Furthermore,
practitioners are often overwhelmed by the task of developing – or even at
understanding – their business model; the topic is hyped in the popular press and
there is a lack of proven knowledge in practice (Frankenberger, Weiblen, Csik, &
Gassmann, 2013). Since the term ‘business model’ is used widely only little has been
said on the business world’s perception of the use of business models (Osterwalder
& Pigneur, 2004). Accordingly, business model innovation is perceived difficult; not
only do firms understand the term business model inconsistently but also (as a
consequence) are they incapable of understanding their current business model, so
they do not recognise when changes would be necessary nor how to perform those
changes (Johnson et al., 2008).
On a high level of abstraction, consensus has been achieved in the academic world
that business models reflect “management’s hypothesis about what customers want,
how they want it and what they will pay, and how an enterprise can organise to best
meet customer needs, and get paid for doing so” (Teece, 2010, p. 191). Klang et al.
(2014) brought in an additional perspective arguing that the term ‘business model’ is
suffering from a paradox between outstanding popularity and severe criticism. Thus,
the business model concept is considered fuzzy and vague and there is only limited
consensus concerning its compositional parts. Because there is a wide variety of
106 / 549
interpretations of the term ‘business model’, a firm’s business model may be the
result of a social negotiation process (Page, 2014).
Since the business model concept is understood in various ways among researchers
and practitioners, the argument is that there may exist a wide array of meanings, or
as stated by Magretta (2002, p. 6) “Today, ‘business model and ‘strategy’ are among
the most sloppily used terms in business; they are often stretched to mean everything
– and end up meaning nothing”. Supporting this view, DaSilva and Trkman (2014)
argue that there has been achieved no consensus about the meaning of the term
‘business model’, which often encompasses everything, including strategy, economic
model or revenue model. Hence, the relationship between these similar terms and
the term ‘business model’ remains unclear, and the term is used erroneously and
haphazardly among managers (Goethals, 2011). Thus, due to the absence of a
common definition of the business model concept, the meaning is evolving through
research and practical applications (Lambert, 2015). The term is a relatively recent
arrival in the management literature, and often a generic term carrying an
intermediate level of details – compared to other areas such as economic theories of
a firm. Accordingly, business models are considered always subjective since different
perceptions exist of what a firm does (Page, 2014).
Taken the term’s broad understanding and meaning, hence its fuzziness, the
legitimation of the term has generally been questioned (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014); a
result of the fact that business models are mostly studied without explicitly defining
the concept (Zott et al., 2010). Through a theoretical literature analysis DaSilva and
Trkman (2014) concluded that the business model terminology has been criticised
from three main perspectives. The business model concept as an idea of the dot-com
area with questionable success stories, poor management practices from this
Internet bubble era have been linked to the business model idea, and the fuzziness
associated with its meaning has divided the opinions about its value and usefulness
in the management field. Additionally, Klang et al. (2014) see a paradox between the
concept’s simultaneous popularity and criticism so they argue that the similarity of
separation and attachment of publications forms the main antecedent of this paradox.
Thus, recurrent themes represent the core of the concept upon which scholars build
their specific meaning of the label ‘business model’. Klang et al. (2014) argue that
107 / 549
simultaneity of publications under the same term result in a core understanding and
in tensions. The core reflects the meaning academics and practitioners create when
confronted with the term ‘business model’. This core constitutes of recurrent themes.
The relationship of the concept to the concept of strategy, the relationship of the
concept to the notion of value, and the relationship of the concept to other concepts
that specify its nature and consider the perception and application of the business
model concept as a phenomenon. However, the proliferation of the term ‘business
model’ was motivated by new technologies, mainly Internet related. Accordingly,
publications have adopted the terminology in order to describe the way firms make
business. Broken down, the validity of the concept has been questioned arguing that
it invites faulty thinking and as having a thin conceptual base, and definitions have
been developed to the individual researchers’ perspectives (Klang et al., 2014; Zott
et al., 2010). Furthermore, the concept has been critiqued insofar that it would be an
“invitation for faulty thinking and self-delusion” (Porter, 2001, p. 13), “There is still
much confusion about what business models are and how they can best be used”
(Shafer et al., 2005, p. 199), and “The literature is developing in silos, according to
the phenomena of interest of the respective researcher” (Zott et al., 2011, p. 1019).
To conclude, the argument is that a wide variety of concepts in various domains has
led to a plethora of understandings, perceptions, meanings, and applications of the
business model concept, and despite its vagueness the term has become an
indispensable part of managerial vocabulary (Tikkanen et al., 2005). As can be
observed with other nascent fields such as small enterprise and organisational
science, a lack of empirical studies may lead to an increasing number of concepts
(Lambert, 2015), accordingly “In the absence of careful empirical analysis, a plethora
of conceptually based models have emerged” (Hanks, Watson, Jansen, & Chandler,
1993). Already Osterwalder and Pigneur (2004) noticed that only little research has
conducted in order to describe the confrontation between the business model
concept and the business world. Yet, more than 10 years later Hacklin et al. (2015)
found that there is still no consistent consensus regarding the business model
construct and that only few empirical studies around the business model idea have
conducted. Hence, empirical studies may generate the link between business models
and other organisational phenomena such as performance (which the business
108 / 549
model concept is used for as an instrument of reasoning); yet, most business model
studies remain conceptual and theoretical in nature. Im and Cho (2013) go even a
step further to say that a lack of empirical studies has limited the concept’s use for
practical purposes; Lambert and Davidson (2013) see a tendency of an emergence
of empirical research, which either tests the concept or is exploratory in nature.
Accordingly 69 empirical research papers have been investigated for the period 1996
and 2010 by identifying three dominant themes: Business models as the basis for
enterprise classification, business models and enterprise performance, and business
model innovation (Lambert & Davidson, 2013). Having identified a lack of empirical
studies, the next section is devoted to a selection of the few empirical studies that
have been conducted in the business model domain.
2.18 Empirical studies of business model application
Only few empirical studies have been conducted in the business model domain, or as
argued by Hacklin et al. (2015, p. 1): “Much of the empirical research around the BM
(business model) rests on anecdotal evidence.“ Those which have been conducted
followed various methodological schools (Lambert & Davidson, 2013).
This statement form Hacklin is particularly important for the present research. It offers
the voice of another researcher in the field, very explicitly supporting the author’s
conclusion (on the current body of literature) that very little empirical research has
been conducted in the business model domain. It not only highlights a lack of
empirical studies but also indicates that a lot of current business model research
builds on anecdotal evidence.
This section introduces and summarizes a selection of the few existing empirical
studies using different research approaches. This section will inform the methodology
chapter, where alternative research purposes and research strategies are discussed.
The review starts with quantitative approaches, then narrows down to qualitative
studies conducted in the domain. The section closes with a discussion of the most
relevant studies identified.
109 / 549
2.18.1 Quantitative research
In a quantitative research project, Eriksson, Kalling, Åkesson, and Fredberg (2008)

explored the e-newspaper case from a consumer view. They aimed at exploring
points of view by dealing with the implications of the consumer perspective on future
m-service innovations on business models, finally proposing an integrated
framework. An online survey at three Swedish newspapers was conducted,
incorporating 3,626 respondents. Because the e-newspaper concept was expected
to be poorly understood by the respondents, additional information was provided to
them. A non-probability sample approach was used. The participating respondents –
with a strong opinion to the subject – were expected to be overrepresented, an issue
to be corrected in the data evaluation.
George and Bock (2011) investigated ‘The business model in practice and its
implications for entrepreneurship research’. The aim of the study consisted of
reframing the business model concept through an entrepreneurial lens. A discourse
analysis of 151 surveys with practising managers was conducted. The survey asked
two open-ended questions to the respondents:
1. “What is a business model?”

2. “What is your firm’s business model?”
The responses were analysed using discourse analysis (also often referred to as
content or textual analysis) and categories and sub-categories were developed. In
order to develop and test the inductive research strategy, exploratory interviews were
conducted in which the respondents were asked to describe their business models.
Beside survey-based studies, business models have also been researched using
secondary data analysis techniques or mixed method approaches consisting of an
exploratory study (framing the content of the study), followed by the main phase
analysing quantitative secondary data found in databases, such as performed by the
study from Moyon and Lecocq (2010). The aim of this study was to investigate the
interactions of organisational change and the actors’ strategic behaviour. The
research was conducted in two stages. The first stage encompassed 17 semi-
structured interviews with experts from the field confronted with change in the music
110 / 549
industry, allowing for better understanding of the context as basis for the second
stage, the main study. In the second stage, secondary data were collected that
allowed for understanding the behaviour of two selected major firms. Therefore, all
articles dealing with strategic responses toward change in the period of 1997 to 2000
that could be found in public sources (databases) were collected and analysed.
2.18.2 Case studies
Highly complex research topics can be investigated using case study approaches as
demonstrated by Kindström (2010). This study was about product-based firms
moving towards a service-based business model to increase firm competitiveness.
Comparing and contrasting cases is an approach that allows for dealing with complex
problems and situations. Mezger (2014) used six case studies to demonstrate how
firms systematically pursue business model innovation, arguing that current business
model research lacks a conceptualisation of core elements and relevant
organisational capabilities. An inductive case study research strategy was applied,
aiming at analysing complex processes in organisations. The case studies were used
to compare and contrast data, allowing for developing richer and more valid theory.
Complex problems may not only be investigated by the means of interviews but also
by a mixed method research approach, as emphasized by Feller, Finnegan, and
Hayes (2008). This research examines a network of open source firms cooperating
and delivering the ‘whole product’ by investigating the influence of participation on
the business model development of the participating firms. The emerging
phenomenon of business network firms has been explored via single case study
method, which allows for exploring relationships between variables in their given
context.
2.18.3 A Delphi study approach
A Delphi study represents another research approach, which has been applied in the
business model research domain. The study ‘A network based perspective on
business models for emerging technology-based services’, conducted by Ulkuniemi,
Pekkarinen, Palo, and Tähtinen (2011), is based on such a Delphi approach, which
111 / 549
aimed to identify the generic elements of a business model in the technology-based
field, and developed a networked business model. A qualitative Delphi study using
expert’s opinions in a structured communication process was used to identify and
empirically ground a framework. Data collection was by means of questionnaires,
which were sent to the experts in two rounds.
Delphi studies allow a group of experts to deal with complex problems where
opposing views are debated around complex issues (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Loo,
2002). “The method was chosen for this study as there are various definitions of the
concept of business model and thus also a variety of its core elements. The Delphi
empirically grounds the concept with a variety of views, perceptions, and opinions of
managers that use the concept in their everyday practice“ (Ulkuniemi et al., 2011, p.
380).
2.18.4 Action research
Another approach, standing out as a research strategy on its own right (as a special
form of case study design), was chosen by Heikkilä et al. (2015), using action
research in order to investigate the setting up of a new network-based business
model in four cases in the Finnish eHealth sector, jointly providing a new service.
Although action research is considered an alternative methodology, this study
represents an interesting approach to dealing with complexity. In the study by
Heikkilä et al. (2015), an integrative framework and a set of corresponding
performance indicators were proposed. Accordingly, new empirical knowledge was
contributed by combining the business model concept with performance evaluation.
Broken down, this study concludes that existing frameworks such as the Canvas
should be complemented by performance metrics; this has been evaluated in a
design science (action research) project consisting of 4 participating firms. The
originality of this study is the use of an action research approach to innovate a
business model framework.
112 / 549
2.18.5 Qualitative studies
Already in 2004, Osterwalder recognised in his doctoral project that the business
model concept may be perceived and used differently in practice. Thus, he
investigated the use of the business model concept through interviews (Osterwalder
& Pigneur, 2004). Although the paper has never been published in a journal it is
considered relevant to the present research since it deals with a broadly similar
research aim by investigating the business world’s perception and use of business
models. The paper states that the term ‘business model’ is widely used in practice
with no clear meaning. In the research, 8 managers, from different sectors and firm
sizes, and 3 consultants were interviewed about possible uses of the business model
concept. The study was exploratory in nature. However, before the interviews had
been conducted, the respondents were provided with an a priori framework, the
business model ontology developed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2004), which
served as an instrument for structuring the interviews. In total, 11 semi-structured
interviews were conducted, recorded, transcribed, and coded for developing
emerging themes. Although their study appears to be close to this research in terms
of the chosen methodology and sample – and because they also argued that the
business world does not understand and use the business model concept
consistently – it differed greatly in an important aspect of its design. Essentially,
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2004) focused on investigating the strengths of their own
developing model, introducing it to the respondents at the outset, which then
represented the main issue of the discussion – accordingly, their study was more
deductive in nature because it aimed at testing an already existing idea.
By contrast, in the present study, the respondents are not provided with an existing
conceptualisation or framework, hence, it is more inductive in nature. Furthermore,
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2004) did not explain the logic of their sample (which
seems to be chosen following a judgmental strategy but without justification) nor did
they explain what they meant by ‘concepts’ and ‘tools’, which they used to structure
their study. By contrast, the present study aims at obtaining maximum diversity
among and between the samples (as outlined later), an aspect that was not
discussed in the Osterwalder (2004) paper.
113 / 549
Another study conducted by Combe, Mason, and Mouzas (2012) aimed at
investigating the perception of business models through interviews. The study
examined the flexibility of different business models to achieve higher firm
performance. Therefore, a matched-pair sample of 20 high and low-performing firms
were investigated and compared (10 of each type). The study explored the flexibility
offered by alternative business models; hence an exploratory-descriptive research
design was applied using in-depth semi-structured interviews as a data collection
method allowing for collecting the richest data. The open questions dealt with the way
firms adapted their business model and how they perceived their models’ link to
market orientation. However, the managers were not asked directly about their
business model but to describe their network architecture and market focus. The
samples were chosen following a judgmental sampling strategy by identifying ‘key
respondents’ who can provide the most genuine insights into the research issue. The
interviews were taped, transcribed and analysed using methods of inductive
reasoning and comparative methods. Codes were developed looking for factors
having influenced a firm’s ability to achieve a customer and competitor focus.
The complexity of business model research was addressed by an empirical

qualitative study conducted by Storbacka (2011), who aimed at developing an
adapted business model framework with their study. The research aim was to
develop a solution business model framework, which allows for designing solution
business models by categorising capabilities and management practices. The
research was conducted by including a group of ten firms from different industries.
The research followed an abductive strategy; hence, a combination of induction and
deduction. The aim was to finding matching patterns, which included going forth and
back between the framework, data sources and analysis – an approach that allows
for matching theory and reality in a non-linear, path-dependent way by systematically
combining empirical observations with insights from literature. The research was
conducted in three phases:
1. Framework development
2. Explication of capabilities
3. Interpretation
114 / 549
In total 10 interviews with experienced senior managers were conducted. The
respondents were selected following a purposive sampling approach building on the
responses of previous interviews, which allowed for building the framework during
interview progression. The data were analysed by building emerging categories. In
order to increase the trustworthiness of the developed framework, full-day research
workshops were held in the participating firms aiming at getting comments to the
developed framework.
Wallnöfer and Hacklin (2013) conducted a qualitative study in Switzerland. Their

research deals with an early stage perspective by introducing the business model as
an early stage marketing narrative device towards potential business angels. The
research investigated the role of the business model in the decision-making process
of business angels. Therefore, 17 business angels were interviewed using in-depth,
semi-structured problem-centric interviews, which were divided in two parts:
• Firstly, the professional track and the investment history of the respondents,
familiarisation of the business angels with the business model concept
(between steps 1 and 2).
• Secondly the investment behaviour of the business angels with reference to
the business model perspective.
The research purpose was exploration so the interviews were loosely structured with
the aim of exploring the different meanings, perceptions and interpretations of
business angels with respect to the underlying research question. Based on the
theoretical argument that early ventures still lack external validation from the market,
the group of respondents, considered the most critical in this stage, was carefully
selected. The sample was chosen following a pre-defined set of 3 critical
characteristics (early stage investors, seeking active of passive investments, in the
context of the German speaking part of Switzerland). The interviews were recorded,
transcribed and coded. The analysis was guided by the research question, with no a
priori hypothesis. The aim was to identify emerging patterns and dominant themes,
by comparing categories.
115 / 549
Bukh and Nielsen (2010) conducted a study that focused on the health care sector.
This research deals with the way financial analysts understand the strategy of health
care firms, and which elements form the basis of a health care firm’s business model.
The empirical part of the study consisted of semi-structured interviews covering four
themes, which were identified via literature review. The researchers accordingly
explored the analysts’ backgrounds, experience and specialisation, then investigated
perceptions about the strategy, value creation etc. of a firm which is part of the
analysts’ portfolio, about information that is used to interact with the firms, and the
use of annual reports. The interviews were structured using a guide with pre-
determined questions consisting of themes and sub-themes. However, the analysts
were able to create their own structure during the interview.
2.18.6 Discussion of relevant empirical studies
Figure 14 summarises the empirical business model studies, which have been
reviewed in the previous sub-sections. Three of them have been rated as highly
relevant for the present study and are discussed in-depth as follows.
116 / 549
Figure 14: Empirical studies reviewed. Source: Author (2016).
Essentially, the empirical part of the present research has been mainly inspired by
the following empirical studies covering several relevant methodological aspects of
the project, as discussed in the previous sections. The Combe et al. (2012) study
forms an important pillar of the present project because it shows that semi-structured
interviews represent a viable research instrument in exploratory studies, a comparing
or triangulating approach increases the validity and credibly of the research, a
judgmental sampling strategy is appropriate in order to get maximum richness of
data, and inductive reasoning combined with comparative methods represent an
adequate instrument of analysis.
The study from De Reuver and Haaker (2009) was useful as inspiration in the
process of exploring the contexts and the individuals’ backgrounds in a first step,
then turning to the main questions of the research in a second step. Thus, the
argument is that the individual backgrounds and experiences play a significant role to
the way the business model is perceived and applied.
117 / 549
The Wallnöfer and Hacklin (2013) study is a main pillar of the present project design
too since it explored the views, perceptions and meanings of business angels using
loosely structured interviews (in the Swiss context), which is in many areas close to
the research aim of the present study (despite different social actors and research
questions). This study is particularly interesting because the research was conducted
in two parts: part one dealing with the respondents’ backgrounds – aiming at better
understanding the various contexts – and part two, the business angels’ investment
behaviour, as the main part of the study. This again backs the argument that the
respondents’ contexts and backgrounds represent an inevitable contextual variable
to be included. Finally, and most importantly, the samples were judgmentally selected
– to provide maximum richness of data – according to the following three selection
criteria: early stage investors, seeking active or passive investments, in the context of
the German speaking part of Switzerland. This approach can be adapted to the
present project as follows: academics, support professionals and small-business
owners having an affinity to a technical environment, working with small businesses,
in the context of the German speaking part of Switzerland. Additionally, Wallnöfer
and Hacklin (2013) used thematic analysis in order to build codes, themes and find
patterns in the data. Thematic Analysis – or a slightly adapted version of it – also
builds up the backbone of analysis of the present thesis, as further elaborated and
justified in the methodology chapter.
2.19 Conclusion to the literature review and implications for the research
2.19.1 A concept dispersed over many disciplines
The business model concept first became popular in the Internet bubble era in the
late 1990s but has rapidly become a tool of analysis for businesses of all kind, so
these days it has promising implications in a dispersed landscape of various
disciplines such as strategy, entrepreneurship, technology management, or new
venture creation. The concept’s popularity is also reflected by a plethora of definitions
scholars have developed (often in silos), supporting the author’s observation that the
term ‘business model’ is used with only limited meaning in practice; an observation
that represents the starting point of the present research project.
118 / 549
Thus, the business model concept is often used interchangeably with concepts such
as business plans, business process models or strategy. However, business plans,
for instance, are argued to be an instrument for collecting venture capital in an early
phase of a new venture, while business models describe the logic of a business. A
business model is also different from strategy; nevertheless, the two concepts
reinforce each other in many areas such as in terms of the question how many
business models a firm can run simultaneously. Zott et al. (2011) posit that a
conceptual consolidation of the business model concept is needed as basis for more
cumulative research, which also includes a further ‘integration’ of the still young
business model concept in traditional research streams such as strategy.
2.19.2 A lack of empirical studies as research gap
As shown in the study conducted by Lambert and Davidson (2013) the argument is
that most empirical research deals with areas such as classification, performance
and innovation, but the arguably most basic question, how the term ‘business model’
is perceived and understood, and how the concept is applied by social actors
confronted with the idea, remains unaddressed. Building on the argument that
“scientific fields are word systems created and maintained through a process of
negotiation between adherents to alternative theoretical languages” (Astley, 1985, p.
499), Klang et al. (2014) argue that key terms in management – such as the term
‘business model’ – are part of that conceptual language. Accordingly, the
comprehension of the term ‘business model’ may be the product of linguistic
conventions rather than empirical observations. Thus, the argument here is that
bridging the gap between those linguistic conventions and empirical data dealing with
the way the business model concept is conceptualised and applied in practice,
represents a viable research gap.
2.19.3 Technology management and the practical contribution
Furthermore, and highly relevant for the present research – representing the practical
anchor point – business models are strongly related to the world of new technologies.
For example, the Swiss building technology sector – the context of the author’s firm –
is confronted with challenges, i.e. induced by the fourth industrial revolution (industry
119 / 549
4.0), which means that the business model debate has become more important than
ever, particularly regarding the disruptive potential of many Internet-based
technologies.
As a case in point, several disruptive ‘threats’ can be observed. As an example,

engineering offices tend to focus on higher market segments, while installation firms
start offering planning services in areas traditionally occupied by engineering offices
– a phenomenon described in Christensen’s seminal (2002) book ‘The innovator’s
dilemma’. Hence, confronted with disruptive challenges, engineering offices (such as
the author’s firm PlanFabrik) need to reconfigure their business models in order to
stay competitive in the longer term rather than ‘escaping’ to seemingly more lucrative
segments. As a consequence, the present project is important because it aims at
better understanding the business world’s perception of the business model concept,
an aspect that finally allows for deriving implications of how to apply the concept
more effectively in practice.
2.19.4 Business model frameworks as output of conceptual studies
On the one hand, a lack of empirical studies dealing with way the business model
concept is conceptualised and applied in practice has been identified as a research
gap. On the other hand, a plethora of conceptual studies has been conducted thus
far, many of which offering frameworks. Particularly important is the Osterwalder
(2010) framework called ‘Business Model Canvas’, which may have significantly
contributed to the business model concept’s popularity. Accordingly, the argument
here is that we must distinguish two periods: the time before, and the time after the
Canvas. Although the Canvas unifies existing ideas, the way they are presented are
new and appealing. Combined within an attractive, practice-orientated book
containing interesting examples of application (famous business success stories),
Osterwalder succeeded in making the concept popular.
2.19.5 Business models as highly complex systems
Not only are business models used in various disciplines but they are also highly
complex constructs. As a consequence, investigating the understanding and use of
120 / 549
business models is a complex endeavour. Thus, the author concludes that the
research process finally requires a qualitative approach that allows for including
complexity rather than reducing it. This means integrating many diverse perspectives
in an exploratory study in order to better understand the concept’s perception and
application. Hence, the need for inclusion of many diverse perspectives in order to
achieve maximum richness and diversity of data represents the starting point of the
research design.
2.20 Conceptual conclusion of the literature review
2.20.1 Current knowledge in the 3 communities
As can be concluded from the literature review, there are only few empirical studies
in the business model domain. Moreover, no researcher has explored perception and
understanding of the business model concept within the three communities of
academics, support professionals, and owner-managers (as those three groups using
and applying the business model concept). The present research addresses these
gaps. This section offers an idea what will be found when the research questions
(see 1.4.3) of the present study are applied to the literature.
Figure 15 depicts several bodies of knowledge including the three communities’

perspectives on current business model knowledge as provided by the literature.
These bodies of knowledge are:
• Business books.
• Conceptual studies.
• Empirical research.
• Anecdotal writing.
121 / 549
Figure 15: Perspectives of the three communities (Author, 2018).
The three communities’ perspectives are shown in different colours. There are
overlapping areas, which are identified by the overlapping ovals in Figure 15. In the
following sub-sections the three communities’ perspectives are elaborated step by
step.
2.20.1.1 Academics
There is a plethora of conceptual studies in the literature, mainly produced by

academics. Academics are those people that ultimately have the most impact on the
business model concept as they have produced most of the extant literature in the
domain and continue to do so. Currently, there is a tendency of developing new or
adapted frameworks. The literature further shows that the business model concept
was adapted by academics in many field fields – since it offers an integrative
perspective for many domains it was widely applied. By consequence, current
literature mainly reflects the ideas of academics – ideas often developed in silos and
on the conceptual level.
Academics do no work in isolation. There are various examples of collaborative

developments between academics and the business world. Quite often, the
122 / 549
perspectives from managers are included, but finally interpreted by academics. Such
examples are Christensen’s famous job-to-be-done concept as a tool to develop
value propositions (Christensen, Hall, Dillon, & Duncan, 2016), or Chesbrough who
developed the open innovation concept with firms such as Xerox (Chesbrough,
2003). Swiss academics such as Gassmann also have strong relationships with the
business world; for instance firms such as Hilti were included when the 55 business
model archetypes were developed (Gassmann, Frankenberger, & Csik, 2013).
However, one has to be careful to differentiate between ‘real’ empirical work and
anecdotal stories told by academics, which are often included in American business
model literature.
Empirical fieldwork has been done in various areas, often informing the perspective
of academics. For instance, there was research on the way the business model
concept is used for entrepreneurial marketing (Wallnöfer & Hacklin, 2013), the way
the concept can be reframed through an entrepreneurial lens (George & Bock, 2011),
to investigate organisational change (Moyon & Lecocq, 2010), or to identify generic
elements of business models (Ulkuniemi et al., 2011) – to name just a few. These
studies were conducted following various methodological schools. Case studies,
such as those conducted by Kindström (2010), show how firms use the concept, for
instance to improve competitive advantage. Academics bring in their perspectives by
conducting such research and writing papers and reports.
Some academics not only publish papers but also produce business books. These
books can be informed by anecdotal stories, by empirical research, or by reflection
and personal opinions. Academics are those who work on the conceptualisation of
the business model concept. They further research the concept’s historical evolution,
are concerned about definitions, and develop new or adapted frameworks. On the
application stage, they investigate different domains of application and reflect on the
purpose of business models – however, there are only a few integrative works, since
most academics apply the concept to their own area of interest, so the concept tends
to be researched in silos. Academics dominate the concept’s development on all
stages. However, currently most popular is the development of new or adapted
frameworks.
123 / 549
To conclude, the perspectives of academics have found their way in the business
model domain in many ways: conceptual studies (often developed in silos), anecdotal
‘research’, empirical studies, or business books. One could assume that this
community may be best represented by the literature – or when interested in the
academics’ perspectives on business models, one might readily conclude to simply
review the literature. However, the present research goes beyond this by explicitly
talking with a sample of academics in the domain – not least in order to establish
whether the literature represents them adequately (primarily in the Swiss context).
2.20.1.2 Support professionals
In broad terms, the community of support professionals is very diverse. On the one
hand, it includes huge consulting/support institutions, such as McKinsey, Boston
Consulting Groups (BCG), or PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), often collaborating
with universities. An example of an often cited publication on business model
innovation is by Lindgardt et al. (2009) from BCG.
As such, the conceptualisation of the business model concept has mainly been co-
influenced by the support professional world, so their perspectives are dominantly
reflected by the literature. The argument here is that they not only bring in new ideas
discovered in their work with practitioners, but also have considerable influence on
the work of academics as sources of inspiration.
There are also support professionals who test their (former) ideas in practice – by
consequence, new or adapted concepts flow back to the literature. Examples are the
entrepreneurship book by Stähler (2014) or the Value Proposition Designer (VPD)
from Osterwalder et al. (2015), a plugin for the Canvas, which was developed in
consulting practice outside academia, in collaboration with the University of
Lausanne. Both are examples of former Swiss academics who have influenced the
concept’s evolution by reflecting and refining ideas from their former academic
career. They write business books inspired by their practical experience and learning.
Support professionals are mostly concerned with the application of the business
model concept, which is reflected by the publications of this community. Some of
124 / 549
them have contributed to the definition or the conceptualisation of the concept in their
former careers as academics.
To conclude, support professionals’ perspectives are either represented directly

through their own publications in the scientific domain, indirectly through collaborating
with universities, or through business books in which they reflect best practice. It is
mainly the ideas and perspectives of support professionals working in large
consulting firms, or from individuals with a strong academic background, that have
found their way to the extant literature. However, most support professionals,
especially in the SME support domain, are not of this type and their ideas are not
reflected in the literature thus far. Accordingly, because the present study has a
strong focus on the small business world, it makes an original contribution by
investigating their perspectives and application practice.
2.20.1.3 Owner managers
Managers, mostly from large firms, do collaborate with universities, so ideas are
exchanged at this level and their perspectives find their way to the literature, for
instance through interviews in case studies or through questionnaires in quantitative
studies, or just based on discussions and exchange with academics – sometimes
also as basis for anecdotal stories. However, the author’s argument is that their
voices flow in indirectly, as they are those people being researched, such as in the
study conducted by Kindström (2010). In Switzerland, universities tend to collaborate
with large firms rather than SMEs. Accordingly, executives of large firms have
influenced the business model literature, e.g. through the work of Osterwalder (2004)
or Gassmann (2013). By contrast small business managers are under-represented in
the currently dominant business model literature. The practical side of business
model application at present is mainly dominated by research on large firms.
Furthermore, there are many examples or experienced managers writing articles
about business model application in the popular or business press, or of managers
being interviewed within these publications, so the broader literature contains plenty
of ideas from managers beyond those within the academic literature.
The literature also offers a plethora of business perspectives form the start-up and
new venture domain. A famous example is Eric Ries, who commented on his
125 / 549
entrepreneurial journey in a blog9 and finally developed the lean start-up concept
(Ries, 2011). Another example is Steve Blank, a Silicon Valley serial entrepreneur
condensing his experiences in a new methodology of business model application
(Blank, 2013). This body of knowledge is concerned with the application of the
business model concept.
To conclude, there are ‘direct’ perspectives form large firm managers in the literature,
often from managers writing articles or in interviews outside the academic literature.
These managers mostly reflect on business model application issues and indirect
perspectives can be found within empirical studies. By contrast, the literature
contains plenty of start-up and new venture stories in the business model application
domain – however, these are mostly dominated by US Silicon Valley Internet firms. In
comparison, the voices of Swiss SME owner-managers regarding business models
are only rarely represented in the literature, offering ground for an original
contribution to be made with the present research.
2.20.2 A conceptual framework of the reviewed literature
The present sub-section offers a conceptual overview of the literature showing what
is known about business models on a thematic level. On a condensed level, the
reviewed literature can be mapped using the following three dimensions:
1. Topic development.
2. Theoretical stage.
3. Application stage.
The current body of knowledge, not only represented by the literature but also by
practical experience, builds up the basis of the three stages. The practical experience
is shaped and influenced by the individuals applying the concept in practice.
Figure 16 depicts a visual representation of the business model landscape according
to the literature review. Concepts from the literature are in black, while the practical
context is marked in blue.
9 www.startuplessonslearned.com (retrieved on July 2018).
126 / 549
Figure 16: Conceptual framework literature review. Source: Author (2018).
2.20.3 The framework explained in depth
2.20.3.1 Topic development
The first level, the development stage, deals with the business model’s historical
development, its roots in the first US Internet bubble era, and shows that business
models were initially used to think about revenue compositions. The present thesis
argues that Switzerland is the ‘home’ of many influential contributions to the concept,
especially ideas around the value proposition perspective (while early US
publications mainly focused on revenue compositions).
2.20.3.2 Theoretical stage
The second level, the theoretical stage, not only deals with the various definitions of
the business model concept but also refers to the basic terms ‘business’ and ‘model’
– two terms making up the business model idea. It investigates the role of models in
the business world in general. Furthermore, the theoretical stage deals with
127 / 549
frameworks – the three most popular of which are shown in the diagram (although
there are many more in the literature). Frameworks thus form the theoretical
grounding of the concept. They not only help to understand what the business model
actually ’is’ but have also contributed greatly to the concept’s popularity in practice –
above all through the rise of the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas.
2.20.3.3 Application stage
The third level, labelled the application stage, describes the purpose of business
model application: the business model concept is used as teaching instrument, to
develop ideas, to plan businesses, or to create and capture value (as non-exhaustive
list). The concept is used in various domains such as strategy, innovation
management, technology management, small business management etc. The
literature shows that the concept was developed in silos, which is illustrated by its
application in a broad landscape of areas. Additionally, the application stage also
offers ideas of how to implement a new businesses model, on a process level. The
most popular ideas in this context are the Steve Blank (2013) Lean Start-up
methodology and discovery-driven planning ideas proposed by McGrath (2010).
2.20.3.4 The basis of the framework
The 3-stage conceptual framework presented above is grounded in the current body
of knowledge. The literature shows that business models have mainly been
researched on a conceptual level, so a lack of empirical studies represents a
research gap in the domain. It also shows and addresses the issue that the concept
was developed in silos dispersed over a wide variety of domains.
Not only the body of literature but also the author’s practical experience supports the
conceptual framework. The author has been working for many years with the
business model concept. He has identified it to be a popular idea in the Swiss
business world (particularly in the start-up domain). However, the concept often has
no clear meaning and ‘real’ business models are highly complex and only barely
possible to be developed using simple frameworks – an insight that represents a key
motivation to investigate the topic.
128 / 549
2.20.4 The application of the framework in the present study
The framework is used as an instrument for structuring the present thesis. As such, it
links the current stage of knowledge (literature review) with the findings from the data
and the final conclusions.
1. In the literature review chapter: It provides a conceptual landscape of the

reviewed literature. It shows the various bodies of knowledge on a conceptual
level – how they are positioned relative to each other – and provides structure,
clarity, and understanding. It offers a basis for a critical discussion of the
current literature.
2. In the findings chapter: It is used to ‘position’ the main findings (that emerged
in data). Therefore, the main findings are depicted in the framework as an
extra dimension. Furthermore, the framework is used to discuss the findings
form the data in the context of the contributions to be made.
3. In the conclusion chapter: It is used as a ‘positioning tool’ for the final
contribution of the present study. The final contribution is anchored in the
existing business model landscape, finally determining the scope of the
research.
2.21 Critical discussion of the current body of literature
The business model concept offers an appealing approach to structure a complex

reality in a straightforward way, reducing reality to a few building blocks. A
considerable part of extant literature is devoted to frameworks that deconstruct a
business into its constituent parts. However, the concept’s reductionist character may
lead to ‘simplistic’ applications in mechanistic ways. On the other hand, its
reductionist character may explain the concept’s popularity, since the author’s
argument is that many people feel comfortable using models, perhaps particularly
those with a natural scientific or engineering background, as models have proved to
be highly effective in the technical domain. Side note: In this context, it is worth noting
that many people in core positions in Swiss SMEs have a technical background,
which can be explained by the Swiss dual education systems offering attractive
perspectives for those starting off their career with vocational training. Those
129 / 549
embarking in a technical career are confronted with drawings, schemes and models
early on, an effect that manifests in the form of broad familiarity with model-based
thinking.
From a scholarly perspective, the business model concept offers new ground and a
new and appealing concept to investigate phenomena of various domains in a new
light. This shows through a wide variety of application areas and application
purposes, making up a considerable body of current business model literature. Since
the concept is a new arrival in the management world, it offers academics of any type
an excellent opportunity to make an original contribution in their fields – often through
adapted frameworks. This explains the huge volume of definitional and conceptual
studies dispersed over many areas. However, this explosion of conceptual studies
and frameworks has only limited significance for practice, since managers tend to be
overloaded with all the may frameworks in use.
The existing body of literature reveals two eras in business model development. Up
to the early 2000s and the popularity of Osterwalder’s work, most of which was
condensed in his dissertation (Osterwalder, 2004), business modelling was mainly
dominated by revenue and business logic thinking. But then the value proposition
perspective dropped in and changed the concept’s positioning – in academia and in
practice. Due to the popularity of the value proposition’s centricity, the original ideas
of the concept (revenue and business logic) faded in the background. One can argue
that value proposition thinking is attractive and appealing for those using business
models – much more than the ‘technical’ business logic is. But on the other hand,
through the inclusion of the value proposition idea, the concept’s complexity took off
since value proposition design is a highly complex idea in its own right. Hence, two
rather complex ideas (business logic and value proposition design) were unified in a
single concept. Paradoxically, they were unified within a framework that reduces a
very complex reality to a few building blocks.
To summarise:
• One the one hand, the business model concept reduces the complexity of
reality, making it both helpful in simplifying reality but at the risk of becoming
130 / 549
simplistic. On the other hand, people often feel comfortable and familiar
working with models and their reductionist character – since models have
proved to be effective in other domains such as engineering.
• The business model concept is a new idea that is appealing for academics of
all kinds, which has resulted in various areas of application.
• The inclusion of two complex concepts (business logic and value proposition)
has produced an even more complex concept. Through the value proposition
centricity of the business model and an appealing framework (particularly the
Canvas), it has become popular in practice.
• A popular reductionist approach finally has led to some interesting phenomena
in practice, whereby people have started to simplify reality in their business
development activities.
To conclude, the literature review not only reveals the dominance of conceptual
studies and anecdotal stories within the existing body of knowledge
concerning business models, but also highlights a significant deficit of
empirical studies. In particular, because of this deficit, understanding of how the
business model concept is perceived and applied in practice is very limited. This gap
offers opportunities for empirical research among users of the business model
concept, such as in the present study.
131 / 549
3. An exploratory study
The origin of the present research project is represented by the author’s observation
that the term ‘business model’ is used with no clear meaning in practice. This
observation has been verified by a comprehensive literature review, revealing a lack
of empirical studies in the business model domain. The focus of the present chapter
is an exploratory study comprising 8 preliminary interviews, which complement the
author’s personal observations and the literature review. The interviews were
conducted in the period between June and September 2015.
The author had an excellent opportunity for interviewing 5 managers from different
firms in a business model workshop, organised by a governmental innovation-
promoting agency, where he acted as a coach. These interviews have been
complemented by 3 interviews with managers from the author’s personal network.
This initial study, following a grounded theory based approach (aiming at achieving
saturation of data), was initiated to better understand the business model concept’s
perception and application in practice.
Since nobody knew at the very beginning of the present research what ‘diversity’
really means in the business model perception and application context, the present
exploratory study served at gaining an initial idea of that diversity; the findings served
to informing the research design of the main study, as discussed in Chapter 4.
3.1 Interviewing 8 Swiss business managers
A total of 8 SME managers were interviewed: 5 interviews (with employed managers)

were conducted in a business model workshop and an additional 3 interviews were
conducted with managers from the author’s personal network (1 employed manager,
1 owner-manager, 1 start-up manager). The interviewed managers are responsible
for firms with between 5 and 110 years in business and have between 1 and 400
employees. The 5 SME managers who were interviewed in a business model
workshop have in common that they had learned about the term ‘business model’, or
the business model concept, before signing up for the workshop. All firms were from
different sectors (most within a technology-based context), and were represented by
132 / 549
executives or board members. The managers of the following firms were interviewed
(short summary):
Firm Short description Contact
1 Firm in the packaging business (one of the Swiss market leaders Workshop
in terms of innovative packaging solutions), almost 110 years in
business with around 400 employees.
2 Firm in the software development business (systems for online Workshop

learning courses), almost 5 years in business with around 5
employees.
3 Firm in the process engineering and waste management Workshop

business, almost 15 years in business with around 35
employees.
4 Firm dealing with the development and engineering of electronic Workshop

components for industrial solutions, almost 40 years in business
with around 25 employees.
5 Firm acting as distributor of specialised cables for the Workshop

telecommunication sector, almost 30 years in business with
around 150 employees.
6 Trading firm for alternative energy systems such as solar hot Network
water systems, almost 5 years in business with 1 employee.
7 Established Swiss engineering office (electrical and energy Network

engineering), almost 65 years in business with 160 employees.
8 Swiss/US Internet start-up (social media sector), almost 3 years Network

in business with 5 employees.
133 / 549
Except for the start-up (firm 8), all firms are technology-based. Interview data from
the firms 6 to 8 (from the author’s network) are enriched with more contextual
information than the interview data from the business model workshop (since the time
for conducting the interviews was limited there). However, the workshop represented
an excellent opportunity for gathering high quality first hand data and to get access to
a variety of firms from different sizes and sectors.
3.2 Interview aims and questions
The interviews aimed at gaining an understanding as to whether the respondents:
• know the term ‘business model’;

• know the business model concept the way it has been described/defined in
literature (academic, business or specialist literature);
• know or work with any of the currently popular business model frameworks
(such as the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas or the Gassmann (2013) Navigator);
• use any other related business or management concept(s);
• understand the emergence of their existing/running business model and the
dominant model of their sector such as their competitor’s model;
• have implemented business model innovation initiatives.
Accordingly, the following questions were posed to the respondents:
1) What do you understand by the term ‘business model’?

2) Which tools do you use in order to describe/analyse your existing business
model?
3) Can you describe your existing business model (in your own
words/concepts/ideas)?
4) How has your existing business model evolved?
5) What were key events in the forming process of your business model / what
are key components in your business model / what is special in your business
model?
6) Have you ever started any business model innovation initiative(s)? If yes,
which one and why. If not – why not?
134 / 549
3.3 Analysing the interviews
3.3.1 Presenting the findings
The responses were analysed using a matrix mapping the responses (Figure 17).
The responses to the closed questions were coded by using a four-category coding
system: yes, no, don’t know (based on the firms’ answers no clear categorisation
possible), and no information available (e.g. the circumstances didn’t allow for
elaborating a certain issue). Important qualitative responses are further elaborated by
using references (r) and quotations (q). The firms from the business model workshop
were familiar with the term ‘business model’ since they already had learned about the
concept’s existence before participating at the workshop. Hence, this group may be
biased in terms of former knowledge about business model idea (as further
elaborated below).
Figure 17: Findings from the exploratory study. Source: Author (2016).
135 / 549
3.3.2 Discussion of the findings
In essence, the majority of the firms were aware of the term ‘business model’.
However, beside the start-up (r14) only one firm was informed about the concept as
described in literature (r4) – this firm knew the Osterwalder (2010) Business Model
Canvas.
On the one hand, just one out of the 8 firms had ever applied a framework such as
the Canvas or the Navigator in practice (r15) – it was a start-up. On the other hand, 7
out of 8 firms had their own (alternative) ideas associating a specific meaning to the
term ‘business model’, such as linking the idea to the Blue Ocean Strategy (r5);
customer, product, cost and revenue analysis (r6); value chain analysis (r7);
customer as central unit of analysis in combination with the value chain (r8);
customer and value proposition (r9); a marketing and stakeholder model combined
with environmental and political spheres (r10); a business process model that aims at
achieving service-market-fit (r11).
Three firms have an understanding of how the dominant logic of their business has
evolved: “It has grown organically” (q1), “Market forces have shaped the running
business model towards a ‘standard model’ of the sector although we tried to make
things differently” (q2), and “’Evolutionary forces’ have formed the existing business
model, which has not significantly changed for almost 40 years or longer” (q3).
Three firms may have running business model innovation initiatives although not
under the label ‘business model innovation’ (r12). One firm (the start-up) explicitly
focuses on the development of a new business model as a main source of
differentiation (r17).
At first glance, a formal business school education may play a role in terms of
answering the question whether a manager knows the business model. The sample
was far from representative of the business population as a whole, nor was there
comprehensive contextual information available, e.g. regarding the backgrounds of
the managers, Nevertheless, in three cases the executives had a formal business
school training but had not learned about the business model concept (as described
in the literature); this may have two reasons:
136 / 549
1. They went to business school more than 15 years ago when the business
model idea did not exist in any elaborated form;
2. Depending on the specialisation many business school curricula do not
discuss the business model idea in detail.10
By contrast, the only ‘real’ start-up (following the definition from Blank and Dorf
(2012) stating that a start-up is temporary organisation looking for a repeatable
scalable business model) is actually familiar with the concept and has already worked
with respective frameworks such as the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas or the
Gassmann (2013) Navigator, although the founders had no formal business school
education.
3.3.3 The case of a start-up
The analysis of the start-up very closely reflects the authors’ experience in the field.
The business model idea has become popular in the start-up community through the
Silicon Valley Internet start-up ‘industry’, inspired by the work of influencing
entrepreneurs and scholars such as Steve Blank (Blank, 2006, 2013; Blank & Dorf,
2012) and Eric Ries (Ries, 2011). But above all, the Canvas developed by Alex
Osterwalder (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) may have significantly contributed to the
popularity of the business model idea in the start-up community. In Switzerland,
business model workshops are part of almost every start-up promoting and funding
program, so the concept (and so the Canvas) has become very popular. The analysis
of firm 8 reflects this insight since the founder had no formal business school training
but knew the business model concept and had already extensively worked with it.
10 For instance, as illustrated by a selected Swiss business school (university), 4 areas of

specialisation are offered (general management, international management, innovation management,
business creation) whereby only in two of them (innovation management, business creation) the
business model idea is discussed comprehensively and in just one (business creation) the students
are encouraged to actively work with the business model Canvas of Osterwalder.
137 / 549
3.4 Conclusions from the exploratory interviews
In summary, most of the interviewed firms knew the term ‘business model’. This
reflects the author’s perception that the term is currently popular in the Swiss
business world, but, as a possible bias, also shows that most managers were
interviewed in a business model workshop context, assuming they must have learned
about the term in front of the workshop/interviews. Although the managers knew the
term, they were not necessarily familiar with the concept as described in literature
(academic, business, and specialist literature), nor have they ever applied a business
model framework in practice. However, all firms (except the start-up) have their own
(alternative) interpretations of the term ‘business model’ – interpretations that may
have emerged and developed through the interaction with the researcher. Those
interpretations range from different management concepts such as the Blue Ocean
Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005), to various kinds of business process models and
marketing instruments, up to some isolated business model components such as
customer value propositions (‘isolated’ components, compared to the 9 building
blocks of the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas). Furthermore, it has been learned that
some firms have a concrete idea how the dominant business model of their sector
has evolved and about the way their business model has found its place in this
ecosystem.
A first key learning from the interviews is the insight that each firm is different, leading
to a high level of complexity and ambiguity. This manifests in a huge number of
variables such as different firm ages, individual histories, specific sectors they are
doing business in (even among firms operating in technical domains there is an
enormous variety of different (sub-) sectors), ownership and management structures,
firm cultures, resources, processes and values (RPV) finally determining the
business model they employ – an idea linking to the RPV-theory from Christensen
(Christensen, 2002), claiming that business models are determined by these RPV-
factors. Thus, the point here is that the managers were very different from each other
regarding the way they perceived, understood and applied the business model
concept in practice. As a consequence, there were many variables and rich
contextual information to be included and discussed. This has immediate implications
to the methodology of the main study: on the one hand, quantitative empirical
138 / 549
research strategies such as positivistic or post-positivistic survey approaches
isolating individual variables by building hypotheses are inappropriate because such
variables cannot be isolated since we only have a very limited understanding about
the perception of the business model concept in practice. Instead, a qualitative
approach allowing for dealing with complex multi-variable phenomena in even more
complex contexts is required – an approach that allows for accessing the
respondents’ thoughts, and that allows for investigating maximal diversity of ideas,
A second key learning point is that the level of diversity to be explored (of the
business model concept’s perception, and above all the concept’s application, in
Switzerland) is limited by interviewing business managers only. Although it was
recognised that each firm is different, having its own history, culture, etc. (making an
investigation highly complex), the exploratory study also revealed that only limited
diversity regarding the business model concept’s perception and application can be
uncovered focusing on business managers only – firms may know the term, but
gaining diverse ideas about its application is another issue. In the exploratory study,
a grounded theory based approach was applied and saturation of data – regarding
the business model concept’s perception and application – could already be
achieved in the sample of 8 respondents.
Accordingly, as a key learning point, the sample of the main study would have to be
adapted by including owner-managed firms rather than firms managed by employed
managers; the rationale was the idea that diversity may be enhanced focusing on
owner-managers since this group should be more interested in new concepts as they
develop their own business. The second learning was to adapt the research design
of the main study by including two additional communities (support professionals and
owner-managers). A research design that allows for building a coherent chain
between academia and practice, for drawing a “360-degree picture” and for
enhancing diversity.
139 / 549
4. Methodology and methods
The present chapter describes the setup of a methodological research design (for an
empirical inquiry), which aims at best answering the research questions by
addressing the phenomena under study. It builds upon a thorough literature review
(chapter 2) and the learnings gained from an exploratory preliminary study (chapter
3).
4.1 Philosophical fundamentals
4.1.1 A rationale for the importance of philosophical considerations
As basis of every social research study, the philosophical fundamentals must be

discussed because “whether we are aware of it or not, we always bring certain beliefs
and philosophical assumptions to our research” (Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 15). There
is a set of three main arguments why philosophical considerations form the backbone
of a viable research design or, as succinctly stated by Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and
Jackson (2012, p. 17): “There are at least three reasons why an understanding of
philosophical issues is very useful. First, it can help to clarify the research designs.
This not only involves considering what kind of evidence is required and how it is to
be gathered and interpreted, but also how this will provide good answers to the basic
questions being investigated in the research. Second, knowledge of philosophy can
help the researcher to recognize which designs will work and which will not (…).
Third, it can help researchers identify, and even create, designs than may be outside
his or her past experience. It may also suggest how to adapt research designs
according to the constraints of different subject or knowledge structures”.
For the present study, a profound consideration of philosophical issues helps in

forming a coherent link between the phenomena, the research questions, the
research design, the data and the findings. If the research design is built upon a
sound philosophical foundation, these are more likely to be in balance and the
findings are more likely to provide credible answers to the research questions – in
this research, the way the business model concept is perceived and applied in
practice.
140 / 549
4.1.2 Phenomena under study
Derived from (1) the author’s observation of only limited significance of the concept in
practice, (2) from a thorough literature review revealing a lack of empirical business
model studies, representing a viable research gap, and (3) from an exploratory study
giving a first impression of diversity in the business model perception and application
context, the research aims and the research questions have been developed. The
underlying phenomena to be addressed can be described as follows:
“The way people perceive and apply the business model concept”.
These phenomena are considered elusive because people interpret the business
model concept in whatever way they think may be appropriate in their given contexts
and situations. This represents the starting point in a consideration of the ontological
issues (what is reality) and epistemological issues (how to get knowledge about this
reality).
Before entering discussion of these ontological and epistemological issues, some

fundamental thoughts regarding various dimensions of complexity of the phenomena
under study need to be considered. Since the phenomena under study have been
characterised as multi-dimensional, the following aspects define the various
dimensions.
• Firstly, we are confronted with a set of several diverse phenomena: the way
the business model concept is perceived, understood, and the way it is
applied, represent different phenomena to be researched. These phenomena
are diverse in nature since they address different levels of understanding, but
are also interrelated in a complex way since they build up on each other. The
perception and understanding may form the basis, upon which application
issues are built. Accordingly, the idea of application is located on a higher level
of complexity.
• Several communities to be investigated (academics, support professionals,
owner-managers) – each including individuals confronted with the various
phenomena – represent a second additional dimension of complexity.
141 / 549
• In a third dimension, various ideas of understanding and different ways of
application are to be uncovered within the various communities. However, not
only the communities (as a unit), but also the individuals within the
communities may understand and deal with the concept differently, in their
own idiosyncratic way. What is more, they are embedded in unique contexts,
forming and influencing understanding and application of the concept.
• Fourthly, the various phenomena (perception, understanding and application
of the concept) have their own idiosyncratic meanings for individuals within the
communities. What is more, the ideas to be uncovered are not ‘hard facts’ to
be ascertained using ‘measuring procedures’ inspired by methods of the
natural sciences, but perceptions, meanings, motives, and perhaps emotions,
all of which existing in people’s minds.
To conclude, the phenomena to be investigated encompass a high degree of

complexity, organised within several highly complex dimensions.
The phenomena were also expected to be diverse in nature, both within and between
the three communities of academics, business support professionals and business
owner-managers. Furthermore, as was discovered within the exploratory interviews,
some of the opinions had not previously been expressed verbally and resided at the
tacit level, requiring discussion to elicit them. These insights inform the ontological
and epistemological considerations as discussed in the following sub-sections.
4.1.3 Ontological considerations
4.1.3.1 Introduction
Ontological considerations deal with an assumption of the nature of reality,

concentrating on “what’s out there to know?” (Grix, 2002, p. 180). They are “claims
and assumptions that are made about the nature of social reality, claims about what
exists, what it looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with each
other. In short, ontological assumptions are concerned with what we believe
constitutes social reality” (Blaikie, 2010, p. 8). Arguing that reality is an object of our
interpretation, Berger and Luckman (1994, p. 33) state that “everyday life presents
142 / 549
itself as a reality interpreted by men and subjectively meaningful to them as a
coherent world. As sociologists we take this reality as the object of our analyses“.
4.1.3.2 Ontological perspectives
In literature, several types of ontological perspectives are described, in different

forms. On the one hand, Blaikie (2010) distinguishes between four main types of
realist perspectives (shallow, conceptual, depth, and subtle), all of which having in
common that phenomena do exist independently from us (albeit with different
manifestations and with different nuances). On the other hand, relativist ontology
sees reality as the construction of our mind, and social reality made up of shared
interpretations. Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) see four main ontological positions:
Realism (single truth; facts exist and can be revealed), internal realism (truth exist but
is obscure; facts are concrete, but cannot be accessed directly), relativism (there are
many ‘truths’; facts depend on the viewpoint of the observer), nominalism (there is no
truth; facts are all human creations). Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2011)
distinguishes between objectivism, as social entities exist independently of social
actors, and subjectivism, by understanding the meanings that individuals attach to
social phenomena. Braun and Clarke (2013) see ontology on a continuum ranging
from realism (a pre-social reality exits that we can access through research), critical
realism (a pre-social reality exits but we can only partially know it), and relativism
(reality is dependent on the ways we come to know it).
As the various sources (and authors) show, on the highest level of abstraction there
are two main concepts defining ontological positions (realist and relativist). However,
they are often labelled differently, such realism and objectivism on the one side, and
idealism, relativism, or subjectivism, on the other side of the spectrum. In summary:
1. A realist perspective considers reality independently from us, with a single

truth and facts to be revealed, with pre-social reality that exists and can be
accessed.
2. A relativist perspective understands reality as a construction of our mind,
based on shared interpretations, no truth existing, by meanings individuals
attach to social phenomena.
143 / 549
4.1.3.3 Considerations of the research context
As discussed above, the phenomena under study in this research are how the
business model concept is perceived, understood and applied by members of three
communities. The ontological assumption of reality here concerns people’s subjective
attitudes and evaluations of the business model concept, their perceptions of the idea
and their beliefs about what business models really are. Furthermore, these
ontological assumptions must include people’s personal evaluations of the
usefulness of business models, their beliefs about how the concept can be applied,
for the solutions to which problems they think it can be used, which strengths and
shortcomings they attribute to the business model concept, and beliefs about how it
should be adapted to overcome these shortcomings. These fundamental ideas are
further elaborated in the following paragraphs.
Since ontology deals with the nature of reality, the argument is that we have not just
one, but multiple realities to deal with, as comprehensively discussed by Berger and
Luckman (1994, p. 35): “I am conscious of the world as consisting of multiple
realities. As I move from one reality to another, I experience the transition as a kind of
shock. This shock is to be understood as caused by the shift in attentiveness that the
transition entails. Waking up from a dream illustrates this shift most simply. Among
the multiple realities there is one that presents itself as the reality par excellence.
This is the reality of everyday life.“ Following this line of reasoning, the business
model concept can be seen as an everyday life reality. This reality is not a concept
that only exists in an isolated way in peoples’ minds, but is formed through social
interaction as “the reality of everyday life further presents itself to me as an
intersubjective world, a world that I share with others. This intersubjectivity sharply
differentiates everyday life from other realities of which I am conscious. I am alone in
the world of my dreams, but I know that the world of everyday life is as real to others
as it is to myself. Indeed, I cannot exist in everyday life without continually interacting
and communicating with others” (Berger and Luckman, 1991, p. 37). Following these
arguments, reality of the perception and understanding of the business model
concept not only exists only in the minds of individuals, but is also shared with other
social actors. Thus, the business model concept only can exist within a society that
includes multiple social interactions.
144 / 549
Based on the above ontological considerations regarding the nature of the business
model concept, special attention shall be given to social constructionism, by
contemplating it through an ontological lens, hence focusing on ideas in peoples‘
minds (constructionism is also part of the epistemological discussion, since it
represents a basic epistemological position). The phenomena we are looking at are
formed in peoples’ minds because people read, follow debates, listen to others,
immerse themselves in educational environments, in short, are confronted with
various types of social interactions with others. As argued by Boghossian (2001, p.
3), “money, citizenship and newspapers are transparent social constructions because
they obviously could not have existed without societies“. The same is true for
business models. The concept is given subjective meaning through multiple social
interactions, through social construction between various actors and through
personal reflection.
The business model concept is considered an object of everyday life in the worlds of
special groups of social actors (such as owner-managers, support professionals, and
academics). However, what does everyday life mean in their contexts? Berger and
Luckman present an answer for this question, as “the world of everyday life is not
only taken for granted as reality by the ordinary members of society in the
subjectively meaningful conduct of their lives. It is a world that originates in their
thoughts and actions, and is maintained as real by these“ (Berger and Luckman,
1994, p. 33). However, we not only use our thoughts, but also our experience,
backgrounds, and above all, our everyday interactions with others to form our
idiosyncratic really: “We invent concepts, models, and schemes to make sense of
experience, and we continually test and modify these constructions in the light of new
experience. Furthermore, there is an inevitable historical and sociocultural dimension
to this construction. We do not construct our interpretations in isolation but against a
backdrop of shared understandings, practice, language, and so forth” (Schwandt,
1994, p. 197).
This insight supports the idea of changing perceptions and meanings during social
interactions. However, ideas and phenomena may change in the social discourse. A
realist perspective does not accept this. For the realist, ideas are consistent and non-
changing. Data are independent of the researcher. In contrast, following the ideas of
145 / 549
social constructionism, the meaning and understanding of what a business model
concept ‘is’ and what it might be used for may be built through the interaction
between social actors – such as research respondent and researcher.
4.1.3.4 The adopted ontological perspective
For the purposes of this research, the business model is considered a concept that
first has to be built, constructed (or further developed, or maybe adapted, depending
on prior knowledge) in the minds of respondents, and the outcome of this process is
highly idiosyncratic and may have resulted differently if discussed in another setting
or context. This argument is backed by the reasoning of Boghossian (2001, p. 1),
because “to say of something that is socially constructed is to emphasize its
dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves, It is to say: This thing could
not have existed had we not built it; and we need to have built it at all, at least not in
the present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different
needs, values, or interests, we might well have built a different kind of thing, or built
this one differently“.
The business model is a socially constructed concept, which would not exist without
society, in which it has meaning and can contribute to developing new or improving
existing firms. A concept constructed by social interaction.
To conclude, the ‘reality’ of the business model concept only exists in peoples‘ minds
and cannot exist independently from us. There is therefore no single truth about what
a business model ‘is’. Moreover, the reality of the concept is not static but is subject
to continuous change through social interaction. For these reasons, a realist
perspective is considered an inappropriate position.
By contrast, the business model concept is a social construction – accordingly,

meaning is given to it through social interaction of many kinds. As such, the research
process, investigating the perception of the business model concept, further shapes
and develops its understanding by the respondents. Accordingly, the adopted
ontological perspective is that of relativism.
Terminological note: Constructionism is widely considered an epistemological

position, although it is anchored in both ontological considerations (ideas in peoples’
146 / 549
minds) and epistemological considerations (accessing constructed data). In the
literature, these concepts are not used consistently, since social constructionism may
be part of both ontological and epistemological discussions, but social
constructionism is sometimes also referred to as a paradigm.
4.1.4 Epistemological considerations
4.1.4.1 Introduction
Epistemological considerations are concerned with the ways of how to access

knowledge about the phenomena under study. They deal with “what and how can we
know about it?” (Grix 2002, p. 180). More specifically, epistemology is about “the
possible ways of gaining knowledge of social reality, whatever it is understood to be.
In short, claims about how what is assumed to exists can be known” (Blaikie, 2010,
p.8). Thus, it is an assumption about the most appropriate way to build knowledge
based on the ontological assumption concerning the nature of reality.
There is a strong link between assumptions concerning reality and the knowledge we
can build about it. Berger and Luckmann (1991, p. 13) see “reality as a quality
appertaining to phenomena that we recognize as having a being independent of our
own volition (we cannot 'wish them away'), and to define 'knowledge' as the certainty
that phenomena are real and that they possess specific characteristics”. In other
words, given the possibility of accessing characteristics of phenomena, by gaining
knowledge about them they become part of reality. Thus, it is important to deepen
understanding of the way knowledge can be built concerning the phenomena under
study, in this research the perception and application of the business model concept.
However, “knowledge is socially distributed and the mechanism of this distribution
can be made the subject matter of a sociological discipline“ (Berger and Luckman,
1994, p. 28).
4.1.4.2 Epistemological perspectives
Blaikie (2010) distinguishes between several types of epistemological perspectives:

• Empiricism, which sees knowledge as produced and verified by the use of
human senses.
147 / 549
• Rationalism, which understands knowledge as produced by the direct
examination of the structure of human thoughts.
• Falslificationism, which understands knowledge production as a process of
trial and error.
• Neo-realism, which sees knowledge produced as the causes of observed
regularities.
• Constructionism, seeing producing knowledge as the outcome of social
scientists reinterpreting every-day knowledge into a technical language.
• Conventionalism, in which scientific theories are created by scientists as
convenient tools for dealing with the world.
As some combinations of ontological and epistemological assumptions are often

used in pairs, the idealist ontology and the constructionism epistemology are often
seen in combination (Blaikie, 2010). Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) distinguishes
between positivism (independent observer, irrelevant human interests, explanations
must demonstrate causality, concepts need to be defined so that they can be
measured, etc.) and social constructionism (the observer is part of what is being
observed, human interests as the main driver of science, explanations as increasing
the general understanding of the situation, concepts should incorporate stakeholder
perspectives, etc.). Saunders et al. (2011) see positivism as working in the tradition
of the natural scientist, as objects exist independently of our knowledge (realism),
and interpretivism, by understanding differences between humans as social actors.
Braun and Clarke (2013) distinguish between positivism, as a straightforward
relationship between the world and our perception of it (closely aligned with
empiricism, separating the observer and what is being observed), and
constructionism, as the world and what we can know of it may change. But also,
truths and meanings change. There is no one truth we can access; there are
‘knowledges’ rather than knowledge.
To conclude, most authors distinguish different epistemological perspectives on a

continuum ranging from positivism to constructionism, also by using different labels
for these terms. Some authors, such as Blaikie (2010), make some more nuanced
distinctions within classical perspectives. In the following discussion, the two main
148 / 549
perspectives of positivism and constructionism are used to discuss and contrast
epistemological thinking.
1. Positivism, with an independent observer, concepts to be measured, a direct

relationship between our world and our perception of it, data capturing aligned
with ideas from the natural sciences, and perception and meanings that are
static, which do not change.
2. Constructionism, as knowledge based on the interpretation of our everyday
world (reading a book, watching a debate, discussing, or any other form of
social interaction) forms the understanding of an issue, with the observer
being part of what is observed, concepts incorporating the stakeholders‘
perceptions, changing truths and meanings, and knowledges rather than
knowledge. The data are co-created through the interaction between
researcher and respondents; hence, they are socially developed.
Constructionism contrasts with positivism since it “opposes the naïve realist
and empiricist epistemology that holds that there can be some kind of
unmediated, direct grasp of the empirical world and that knowledge (i.e., the
mind) simply reflects or mirrors what is ‘out there’” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 197).
However, some authors refer to interpretivism rather than constructionism in
order to discuss the counterpoint to positivism. Interpretivism acknowledges
knowledge not to be complete and comprehensive, hence interpretation is
needed, while constructionism builds on the idea that knowledge is co-created,
through the interaction between researcher and respondent. Knowledge is
thus always the product of social interaction.
Terminological note: Since constructionism may be understood through ontological,

epistemological and paradigmatic perspectives, contemplating it through an
epistemological lens means accessing the data constructed in people’s minds.
149 / 549
4.1.4.3 Considerations of the research context
To meet the research aims and answer the research questions, it is necessary to
build understanding about how people perceive, evaluate and apply the business
model concept. The epistemological assumption must follow that knowledge can best
be built by accessing the respondent’s thoughts, as it requires an exploration of the
their subjective beliefs.
However, there are two further complications to this process. The first is that an
interaction with respondents shapes the understanding of the business model
concept of both the respondent and the researcher, since “I know that there is an
ongoing correspondence between my meanings and their meanings in this world,
that we share a common sense about its reality“ (Berger and Luckman, 1994, p. 37).
An important additional point, making the knowledge gathering process a highly

complex endeavour, is the argument that ideas about the business model concept
are not only part of people’s explicit knowledge, but also reside at the tacit level.
Polanyi (2009) recognises the importance of tacit knowledge by stating that “I shall
consider human knowledge by starting from the fact that we can know more than we
can tell” which means that we must distinguish between tacit knowledge and explicit
or codified knowledge (Gertler, 2003). Tacit knowledge is a complex idea, however,
“one of the characteristics of tacit knowledge is that it is difficult to write it down, or to
formalize” (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001, p. 812). Furthermore, tacit knowledge is
argued to be personal knowledge, having a cognitive dimension, consisting of mental
models individuals follow in certain situations (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001).
Accordingly, people may ‘know’ more about business models than they can
articulate. They may have heard about the term although the issue is not really
developed in their mind, so it may not be fully understood when talking about it.
Supporting this view, “only a small part of the totality of human experiences is
retained in consciousness. The experiences that are so retained become
sedimented, that is, they congeal in recollection as recognizable and memorable
entities“ (Berger and Luckman, 1994, p. 85). Since knowledge of the business model
concept may be only partly in the domain of explicit knowledge (and partly in the
domain of tacit knowledge), some respondents may start seriously thinking about the
150 / 549
concept when talking about it – when prompted to do so. This means that their
thoughts and ideas develop and mature in the reflection process, when accessing
this knowledge.
What is more, not all respondents may have the same initial understanding of the
business model idea; they do not have the same prior (tacit or explicit) knowledge.
Some of them, who are already working with the concept (predominantly academics
and support professionals), may have a more refined understanding, i.e. familiarity
with the ideas described in literature, may already have had debates, or their own
experiences with the concept, and may already have (rigorously) reflected on it. On
the other hand, those either just having heard about the concept, having read an
article or having witnessed a discussion about it, having a vague, diffuse
understanding of the idea, may have to develop and refine their own ideas when
confronted with the concept – ideas based on fragmented information they have in
mind only start their maturation at this stage. Accordingly, people may have ideas
located somewhere on a wide continuum ranging from completely explicit to solely
tacit knowledge (or most probably a mixture of both). This manifests in different levels
of consciousness of data. Accordingly, in some way, data collection is a kind of a
knowledge transformation process (‘catalyst’) in that a mixture of prior tacit and
explicit knowledge becomes explicit – through reflection. During data collection, there
may be some sort of circular idea forming processes in people’s minds resulting in
more concrete ideas – ideas that may not have been considered before.
4.1.4.4 The adopted epistemological perspective
The underlying principle of positivism is that knowledge is directly accessible in ways

aligned with the natural science methods, assuming that knowledge is static and
does not change. By contrast, a constructivist perspective accepts the changing,
evolving nature of knowledge, which is not static but part of an ongoing learning
process, influenced by social interaction, in this case with the researcher
investigating the topic.
The reasons for adopting a relativist ontological perspective for this research were
explained above (4.1.3.4). In summary, this was that the business model concept is
a product of social construction, one that cannot exist without society, existing in
151 / 549
peoples’ minds and shaped by social interaction. Given this view of the nature of the
phenomena under study, the epistemological position adopted in the present
research is constructionism, satisfying the need for accessing knowledge that is both
formed and drawn out as an ongoing interactive process.
In this sense, data collection is part of a dynamic face-to-face situation, where both
the respondent and the researcher influence each other, as: “every expression of
mine is oriented towards him, and vice versa, and this continuous reciprocity of
expressive acts is simultaneously available to both of us. This means that, in the
face-to-face situation, the other's subjectivity is available to me through a maximum
of symptoms“ (Berger and Luckman, 1994, p. 43). Hence, face-to-face interactions
are considered the most important form of social interaction, since “the most
important experience of others takes place in the face-to-face situation, which is the
prototypical case of social interaction. All other cases are derivatives of it“ (Berger
and Luckman, 1994, p. 43). To conclude, the research thus requires an interactive
situation to access the data but it is an inescapable fact that the researcher helps to
form and develop the respondent’s stated views. Moreover, through the interaction
both the respondent and researcher will learn to think in new ways.
4.2 Research paradigms
4.2.1 Paradigms
“A paradigm is a conceptual framework within which scientific (and other) theories

are constructed, and within which scientific practices take place. Major changes in
thought and practice have been referred to as paradigm shifts” (Braun and Clarke,
2013, p. 333). The term paradigm often leads to confusion since “it tends to have
multiple meanings” (Saunders et al., 2011, p. 118). Paradigms are often used to
summarise and clarify ontologies and epistemologies (Saunders et al., 2011).
Saunders et al. (2011) proposes 4 main paradigms for analysing social theory:
(1) Interpretive (we as humans attempt to make sense of the world around).
(2) Functionalist (ontology of objectivism, rational explanations of particular
problems).
152 / 549
(3) Radical humanist (subjectivist and radical change dimension, with a
subjectivist ontology).
(4) Radical structuralist (achieving fundamental change based on the analysis of
organisation phenomena, adopting an objectivist perspective).
Blaikie (2010) distinguishes between classical and contemporary research

paradigms. ‘Classical’ paradigms include:
• Positivism, which “regards reality as consisting of discrete events that can be

observed by the human sense” (Blaikie, 2010, p. 97).
• Critical rationalism which “rejects sensory experience as a secure foundation
for scientific theories thus making ‘pure’ observation impossible” (Blaikie,
2010, p. 98),
• Classical hermeneutics, which “arose as a way of discovering the meaning of
ancient texts and then, through a number of phases, developed into
alternative positions” (Blaikie, 2010, p. 98).
• Interpretivism, in which “social reality is regarded as the product of its
inhabitants, it is a world that is interpreted by the meanings respondents
produce and reproduce as a necessary part of their everyday activities
together” (Blaikie, 2010, p. 99).
Guba (1990) sees a research paradigm consisting of three elements as follows:
• Ontology – What is reality?

• Epistemology – How do you know something?
• Methodology – How do you go about finding it out?
4.2.2 The adopted paradigm
Following the structure provided by Guba (1990), the ‘paradigm’ of the present study
is unified under a relativist ontology, constructivist epistemology, and a single
interviewing-based methodology. Adopting one of Blaikie’s (2010) ‘classical’
paradigms, the present research will be conducted under the paradigm of
interpretivism. This paradigm is congruent with the adopted ontological and
epistemological perspectives as discussed and justified above. To recap, this is
153 / 549
because the phenomena under study (perceived meanings, evaluation and
application of the business model concept) are socially constructed within and
between the communities that will be the focuses of the study.
4.2.3 Methodology
Methodological considerations must answer the question of “how can we go about

acquiring that knowledge?” (Grix 2002, p. 180). Accordingly, “methodology is
concerned with logic, potentialities and limitations of research methods, so the term is
often confused and used interchangeably with the research methods themselves”
(Grix, 2002, p. 179).
According to Guba (1990), methodology is the third component of a paradigm, being

the broad approach to conducting an enquiry. A researcher is faced with a large
number of possible methods and techniques for sampling, data collection, analysis
and other aspects of the research. All of these involve choices, although these
choices may be limited or constrained by the chosen paradigm.
A further influence on methodology is the purpose of the research, which is

discussed below, after which the research design will be considered in more detail.
4.3 Research purpose
According to Saunders et al. (2011), there are three basic types of research purposes
to be distinguished, namely exploration, description, and explanation. These are
outlined and contextualised for the present research below.
4.3.1 Exploratory studies
“An exploratory study is a valuable means to finding out ‘what is happening; to seek
new insights; to ask questions and to assess phenomena in a new light” (Saunders et
al., 2011, p. 139). Familiarity with the phenomena under study must be gained to
understand what is happening as part of a complex learning process; hence the
problem has not yet been clearly defined. Accordingly, the research “seeks to find out
how people get along in the setting under question, what meanings they give to their
154 / 549
actions, and what issues concern them. The goal is to learn 'what is going on here?'
and to investigate social phenomena without explicit expectations" (Schutt, 2011, p.
11).
The purpose of this research is exploratory. One defining characteristic is that there
is very limited extant knowledge, in the form of previous empirical studies of the
perceived meaning, evaluation and application of the business model concept.
Accordingly, the research will be breaking new ground, with few guidelines provided
by prior research. The aim is to gain an initial understanding of the phenomena under
study, rather than to develop causal explanations or generalizable knowledge.
4.3.2 Descriptive studies
According to Saunders et al. (2011, p. 140) “the object of a descriptive study is ‘to
portray an accurate profile of persons, events or situations”. “Descriptive work aims
to ‘give voice’ to a topic or a group of people, particularly those we know little about”
(Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 174). Furthermore, “this may be an extension of, or a
forerunner to, a piece of exploratory research or, more often, a piece of explanatory
research” (Saunders et al., 2011, p. 140). A descriptive study could perhaps have
been used to characterise and portray the people using the business model concept.
This could have been a valid alternative in researching categories of users, for
instance to portray those who successfully makes use of the concept. However,
given the aim of the present study – to gain initial understanding through embracing
and exploring diversity – a descriptive study is not appropriate, although it could be a
useful element of a pre-study.
4.3.3 Explanatory studies
“Studies that establish causal relationships between variables may be termed

explanatory research” (Saunders et al., 2011, p. 140). Explanatory studies could be
used with prior ideas in mind to be tested, for instance as part of a survey – verifying
or falsifying previously developed hypotheses, using a questionnaire, for instance –
or an experimental study, by isolating variables to be tested in terms of cause and
effect relationships. However, this contrasts significantly with the present situation
155 / 549
where no prior ideas regarding the phenomena under study exist. While explanatory
studies deal with causal relationships, theory building is a ‘higher level’ purpose
based upon causal relationships, providing a whole picture of how everything fits
together within an integrated framework. However, given the lack of extant
knowledge, dealing with causal relationships is not currently a viable research
purpose and neither is theory building.
4.3.4 Rationale for an exploratory study
The fundamental argument for an exploratory study is that there is very limited extant
knowledge of the phenomena under study, due to a lack of prior empirical research.
The topic is therefore new and so ideas appropriate to serve as a basis for
hypotheses do not yet exist. Instead, many diverse perspectives must first be
uncovered, which justifies an exploratory research purpose and design.
Due to the research purpose of exploration, no universal laws are expected to be

developed as research outcomes. By contrast, the outcomes are context bound, help
better understanding of particular phenomena (perception, understanding and
application of the business model concept) within specific communities. It allows for
drawing conclusions about which aspects of the business model idea are most
relevant when working with people belonging to the investigated communities. It will
also facilitate a better understanding the usefulness of the concept, its perceived
strengths and weaknesses, and which ways of application are most promising – and
also why they are. Accordingly, the findings are not to be generalized. Nevertheless,
conclusions can be drawn and inferences can be made to other contexts; but, by
contrast to generalizable theories, it is up to the reader to evaluate whether the
findings fit in the context he is interested in; hence, to decide which findings may be
transferable.
4.4 Unit of analysis
“The unit of analysis is the entity that forms the basis of a sample” (Easterby-Smith et
al., 2012, p. 65). According to the literature, ontological and epistemological
perspectives may determine the importance of defining the unit of analysis: “In
156 / 549
positivist forms of research, including multiple case studies informed by an internal
realist perspective, it is important to be clear about the unit of analysis in advance,
because this is the basis for collating data that will subsequently be analysed”
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 65). Having a clear idea about the unit of analysis at
the very beginning of the project is regarded less relevant when adopting a
constructivist perspective as “it is not essential in constructivist forms of research, but
with highly unstructured data it can help to provide an initial guidance for analysis”
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 65).
However, in the present research project, defining the unit of analysis is considered
important because, based on the question as to what reality actually is, how it
manifests, and how knowledge can be built about it (ontological and epistemological
questions), the argument is that the ‘places’ where the investigated phenomena exist
are peoples‘ minds. The phenomena therefore cannot exist independently from
people or from society, and perceptions and beliefs concerning the business model
are forms through social interactions of many kinds. Due to these considerations, the
unit of analysis must be individual people, as these phenomena can only be
investigated by researching individuals, since perception, understanding and
evaluation are characteristics of individual people.
Accordingly, the research is focused on individual actors, who are both the ‘owners’
of the phenomena under study and also the ultimate reason for their uniqueness and
diversity. It must be acknowledged that the social context in which individuals are
embedded plays an important role in the formation of their perceptions, meanings
and understandings. However, researching these contexts would not contribute to
answering the research questions, since the phenomena to be understood are
located in peoples‘ minds only. Accordingly, this research does not aim to build an
understanding of these social contexts but about exploring the perceptions, beliefs
and evaluations made by individual actors within those social contexts.
4.5 Qualitative and quantitative research
The discussion of qualitative and quantitative research may start with some
definitions. Braun et al. (2013, p. 3) defines qualitative research as: “The most basic
157 / 549
definition of qualitative research is that it uses words as data, collected and analysed
in all sorts of ways”. By consequence, quantitative research is understood as follows:
“Quantitative research uses numbers as data and analyses them using statistical
techniques” (Braun et al., 2013, p. 4). These views are supported by Saunders et al.
(2009, p. 151) stating that “quantitative is used predominantly as a synonym for any
data collection technique or analysis procedure that generates or uses numerical
data”, whereas qualitative “(…) generates or uses non-numerical data”.
Both types of research, qualitative and quantitative, are often associated with specific
paradigms and are differently applied among various disciplines. On the one hand,
“by qualitative we mean that it relies primarily on human perception and
understanding” (Stake, 2010, p. 11). On the other hand, “by quantitative we mean
that its thinking relies heavily on linear attributes, measurements, and statistical
analysis” (Stake, 2010, p. 11). Easterby-Smith et al. (2013) assign ‘numbers and
facts (collected in experiments)’ as well as ‘number and words (collected in surveys)’
to a positivistic epistemology – with an ontology of realism. They assign ‘words and
numbers (in cases and surveys)’ as well as ‘discourse and experience (engagement
and reflexivity)’ to constructionism – with an ontology of relativism. This explains why
quantitative paradigms often dominate the natural sciences (i.e. in experimental
settings), and that qualitative paradigms are anchored in disciplines such as
sociology or psychology (i.e. in a reflexivity-based design). However, there are also
overlapping areas such as argued by Stake (2010, p. 11): “But each of the divisions
of science also has a qualitative side, in which personal experience, intuition, and
scepticism work alongside each other to help refine the theories and experiments”.
Alternatively, qualitative and quantitative research is sometimes regarded as ‘two
sides of the same coin’ complementing each other or, as stated by Braun et al.
(2013, p. 5): “Qualitative methods can be used as precursor for quantitative
research”.
Qualitative, quantitative or mixed method designs are equally suitable to accessing

respondent’s thoughts, for instance in form of a questionnaire in a quantitative study.
However, the main argument for a purely qualitative approach to be applied in the
present research lies in the exclusive ability of qualitative studies to accessing
people’s thoughts and ideas as they emerge, evolve, develop, and get mature in their
158 / 549
minds during the research process. Accordingly, depending on the respondents’ prior
knowledge on business models (there are different levels of explicit or tacit
knowledge among the various respondents), the chosen design must allow for data
co-creation between the researcher and the respondents, following the paradigm of
social-constructionism (as elaborated in section 4.1 philosophical fundamentals) –
only a qualitative design can afford this. Secondly, there is a need for flexibility in the
process of data collection. Interesting new themes that emerge during the interaction
between researcher and respondent must be given the opportunity to be flexibly
pursued and investigated in-depth – while collecting and/or co-creating the data.
To conclude, basic philosophical considerations about the nature of business model

perception and application phenomena, the way knowledge can be built about it,
calls for a qualitative design, which allows for accessing respondents’ thoughts as
they evolve, in an interactive way. Possible research designs could be action
research, focus groups, or individual interviews, as further elaborated in the following
section.
4.6 Research designs
4.6.1 Experiment
Experimental designs traditionally are inspired by the natural sciences. Easterby-

Smith et al. (2012, p. 40) see experimental designs as follows: “Classic experimental
method involves random assignment of subjects to either an experimental or a
control group. Conditions for the experiment group are then manipulated by the
experimenter/researcher in order to assess their effect in comparison with the control
group who are receiving no unusual conditions”. Experiments are normally
associated with an explanatory research purpose. The prerequisites of an experiment
are prior hypotheses or models to be tested (i.e. causal relations between variables).
Because of the lack of prior knowledge, an experimental design is not applicable to
the present exploratory project.
159 / 549
4.6.2 Survey
A survey is a research technique by which a standardised research instrument such

as a questionnaire is employed consistently across a substantial sample. Surveys are
normally used within a quantitative research design: “The survey strategy is usually
associated with the deductive approach (…). It tends to be used for exploratory and
descriptive research. Surveys are popular as they allow the collection of a large
amount of data form a sizable population in a highly economical way (…), often using
a questionnaire” (Saunders et al., 2011, p. 144). As with experiments, surveys are
normally part of an explanatory research purpose.
Surveys may also be used within an exploratory study, for example to capture a large
range of data of limited depth in order to build an initial picture of diversity. However,
this would not apply to the present study, whose emphasis is depth, rather than
breadth. Depth of data is necessary to meet the research aim of understanding the
respondents’ perceptions, evaluations and thoughts on the application of the
business model concept. Moreover, these thoughts will almost certainly evolve and
mature during the data collection process, when a mixture of tacit and explicit
knowledge becomes more explicit through a reflection-based transformation process.
A questionnaire would not be able to capture ideas as they evolve in this way and
much more flexible, intervention-based methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus
groups, are needed.
4.6.3 Case study
A case study can be defined as “a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded

context” (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013, p. 28). Robson and McCartan (2016,
p. 178) define a case study as “a strategy for doing research which involves an
empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real-life
context, using multiple sources of evidence”. Case study research is about
investigating particular contemporary phenomena in a real-life context. One of the
key features of a case study is that it “relies on multiple sources of evidence, with
data needing to converge in a triangulation fashion” (Yin, 2014, p. 17). In a case
study design a small number of units of study are selected, often in a natural setting,
160 / 549
not requiring particular data collection methods, to be used for wider generalisations,
and can be used for theory development (Blaikie, 2010).
The present research could be conducted using a case study research design. For
instance, a number of case study firms could be recruited. It could be followed the
owner-manager and other employees in their application of the BM concept.
Alternatively, a number of case studies based on business support professionals
working with client firms could be developed. However, by applying a case study
design the sample would be limited – due to a limited time budget of a doctoral
project – which would finally mean to sacrifice the diversity of data.
4.6.4 Action research
According to Herr and Anderson (2005, p. 3) “action research is inquiry that is done
by or with insiders to an organisation or community, but never to or on them. It is a
reflective process, but it is different from isolated, spontaneous reflection in that it is
deliberately and systematically undertaken, and generally requires some form of
evidence be presented to support assertions”.
The perception and understanding of the business model concept could be

investigated using an action research approach. For instance, the author could
accompany students (or university graduates, respectively), recruited from his
network, who develop their own business as an action researcher, as he coaches
these founders regarding business model issues. The way their understanding and
application of the concept evolves – and why it evolves – could be investigated in
several cases in a longitudinal fashion. Studying (exploring) a maturation process on
a new venture journey could show ‘when’ and ‘what for’ the business model concept
is most useful, and also, how and why the perceptions and evaluations change over
time. On the other hand, the sample would also be limited, so diversity would be
sacrificed. The main reason why action research was rejected as a research design
was that the exploratory study had reinforced the importance of extending the sample
to the three communities of owner-managers, business support professionals and
academics.
161 / 549
4.6.5 Grounded theory
The term grounded theory describes a study in which theory is ‘grounded in the data’,
rather than adopted from pre-existing literature. Grounded theory is sub-divided into
several categories, one of which – the classic version – is called ‘Full Grounded
Theory’, an approach that aims at theory building from the data (Braun & Clarke,
2013). “Full Grounded Theory aims to build a theory from the data. Therefore,
theoretical sampling is used, saturation is achieved and similar concepts are grouped
together into categories and used to generate a theory” (Braun & Clarke, 2013,
p. 176). A key idea of grounded theory is that “theory development does not come
from ‘off the shelf’, but rather is generated ‘grounded’ in the data from respondents
who have experienced the process” (Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 83).
As the literature shows, grounded theory is close to the research purpose of

explanation (showing casual relations and theory building) rather than exploration,
following very strict procedures. Accordingly, grounded theory is considered less
relevant for the present project, which does not aim at theory-building but at exploring
diverse ideas using flexible, interactive methods for data collection.
Side note: Saturation of data is a concept from the school of grounded theory
(Creswell & Poth, 2017). In the exploratory study, the aim was to achieve saturation
within the sample of 8 managers regarding their understanding of the business model
concept, in order to obtain an initial understanding of what diversity could mean in the
research context (for more details refer to chapter 3). The concept of saturation was
useful because it offered the argument that interviewing additional but similar
respondents would most probably not provide additional information.
4.6.6 Ethnography
Ethnography is the study of people interacting within groups, such as communities,

organizations, tribes, clubs or other subdivisions of society. As such, its focus is the
exploration of cultural phenomena. “The key principle of ethnography is that the
researcher should become part of the group under study in order to understand the
meanings and significances that people give to their behaviour and that of others”
162 / 549
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 51). An ethnography research “focuses on an entire
culture-sharing group. (…), Typically, it (the group) is large, involving many people
who interact over time.” (Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 90).
Given the opportunity to get immersed in a context to be studied for a certain time,
this approach would certainly be an interesting strategy. The question is whether
phenomena regarding perception and application of the business model are an
appropriate topic for an ethnography approach. Compared with investigating
indigenous people living on an island, by spending many years with them, for
example, the phenomena of business model perception and application may be
difficult to access by indirect means. The focus of the study would have to change,
for instance by immersion in a start-up environment and accompanying the team day
by day over an extensive period of time (but not by intervening in the scene such as
with action research). This could be an alternative approach to investigate business
model development, although by addressing different research aims and questions.
However, for several reasons, ethnography is not an appropriate research design for
the present study. Although it is reasonable to argue that business models are
cultural products, and perhaps even that the concept itself is reflective of Swiss
national culture, it would be difficult to answer the research questions without specific
intervention. Even if it were feasible to access the focal phenomena using an
ethnographic approach, it would be impractical to research the three communities of
academics, business owner-managers and support professionals in the course of a
single study.
4.6.7 Archival research
Archival research involves the study of documentary evidence. “It is not always
necessary to gather new data when conducting research. An enormous amount of
data already exists in the public domain as corporate and government reports, and as
statistical and financial databases that can be accessed online” (Easterby-Smith et
al., 2012, p. 50). Due to a lack of empirical studies in the business model domain,
archival research would provide only little new knowledge about contemporary
phenomena of business model perception, understanding and application. As the
literature review shows, previous research, with the aim of summarizing existing
163 / 549
knowledge, has already put together and compared existing empirical business
model studies – revealing a research gap regarding knowledge of how the business
model concept is perceived and applied. Another approach could consist of
investigating non-academic records about business models (such as newspapers or
non-academic journals), firm knowledge such as white papers, webpage and blog
entries, or practitioner conference papers. However, exploration of the core
phenomena requires methods to access peoples’ knowledge in a way that accepts a
mixture of tacit and explicit knowledge to be consolidated during the information
capturing process. Only an interactive design allows for dealing with the complexity
investigating respondents’ thoughts and their ideas, as they evolve and mature in the
data collection process. The analysis of archival records would not facilitate this.
4.6.8 Individual interviews
Individual interviews are considered a research design in its own right. The
importance of in-depth interviews is “the opportunity for the researcher to probe
deeply to uncover new clues, open up new dimensions of a problem and secure
vivid, accurate inclusive accounts that are based on personal experience” (Easterby-
Smith et al., 2012, p. 131). In individual interviews the motives, meanings and
perceptions of individuals, confronted with a topic or phenomenon of interest are
accessed. Particularly in combination with an exploratory research purpose, that aims
at achieving maximum richness of data and maximum diversity of perspectives,
interviewing individuals is considered an adequate research design. By contrast to
case studies, it is not about investigating contexts. But individual interviews allow for
accessing the thoughts of respondents as they develop. An approach ideally suited
to investigate the perception of phenomena.
4.6.9 Focus groups
A focus group is a group of research respondents convened for the purpose of a

discussion that is guided by the researcher. “Interviews need not necessarily take
place on a one-to-one basis, and for some types of investigation, group interviews
can be very useful. They take the form of loosely structured ‘steered’ conversations”
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 133). A key benefit is that it has the potential for
164 / 549
additional insights being generated through interaction between the respondents.
For the purposes of this study, focus groups could indeed serve as a potentially
interesting data collection method, as groups comprising members of the three
communities could create interesting for a discussion.
However, the intended respondents in this study (academics, business owner-

managers and business support professionals) are all very busy people and
organising a setting to bringing various of these people together would be difficult to
achieve. Accordingly, although possible in principle – and while providing valuable
data – the use of focus groups has been ruled out of the present study because of
this practical difficulty.
4.6.10 The adopted research design
To conclude, an individual interview design was chosen for this research, due to its
characteristics as a design that best allows for investigating the phenomena under
study. The reasons have been addressed in the above discussion; to summarize,
they are:
• An in-depth interview offers the best opportunity to explore the phenomena

under study, namely respondents’ beliefs about the nature of the business
model concept, its applicability and its usefulness. This is because these
beliefs are likely to be highly diverse, potentially idiosyncratic and to some
extent held at the tacit level.
• Interviews best allow for an interactive approach, facilitating access to
respondent‘s thoughts as they emerge, develop, evolve, and mature during
the interview, guided by the researcher in a social interaction process.
4.7 Collecting data through guided in-depth interviews
The choice of appropriate data collection methods deals with the question “Which
precise procedures can we use to acquire the knowledge?” (Grix, 2002, p. 180). In
the present study the data were collected through guided, in depth-interviews
because in exploratory studies in-depth interviews are useful to “find out what is
happening and to seek insights” (Saunders et al., p. 322). The aim is to gain insights
165 / 549
into the phenomena under study by exploring the views, perceptions and opinions of
respondents through the language they use (Blaikie, 2010; Easterby-Smith et al.,
2012). Generally, according to Stake (2010, p. 95), for a qualitative researcher the
main purposes of interviews are:
1. “Obtaining unique information or interpretation held by the person interviewed;

2. Collecting a numerical aggregation of information from many persons;
3. Finding out ‘a thing’ the researcher was unable to observe themselves”.
In addition, interviews are ideally suited to experience-type research questions, but

also for exploring understanding and perception – and construction-type research
questions (Braun & Clarke, 2013). First, the exploratory nature of the study
represents the rationale for conducting in-depth interviews. Second, the researched
topic is highly relevant for the author in his working environment and the
phenomenon to be investigated have emerged in his professional context, so a
further point here is that “Interviews are especially well-suited when the respondents
have a personal stake in the topic aiming at exploring understanding, perception or
construction of things but also in order to explore practice-type research questions”
(Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 81).
Among the qualitative interviews ‘guided interviews’ are argued to be the most
suitable in combination with interviews investigating interpretations, perspectives and
attitudes of respondents (also often referred to as ‘experts’). An interview guide
therefore contains pre-defined issues to be discussed in the interview. However,
neither the concrete formulation nor the order of the questions is considered binding.
More importantly, a natural course of conversation is to be established (Gläser &
Laudel, 2010). If the purpose is to investigate a so far poorly understood
phenomenon, the exact type of question(s) has first to be learned, including the way
to ask the questions (Schensul, Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999). Accordingly, the
whole interviewing process may be fluid so that the researcher is making adjustments
in real time (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2011). Hence, the interview guide is
developed and iteratively refined based on the learnings from some preliminary
interviews (exploratory study chapter 3) but also continuously refined in the course of
the whole interviewing process.
166 / 549
As a further point, it was acknowledged in an earlier discussion that business model
knowledge has both tacit and explicit components, possibly with fluid boundaries at
the outset, but mature through reflection during the interview. Consequently, the data
collection methods must be interactive in nature, allowing for information gathering as
it develops through an interactive process between researcher and respondent.
Loosely structured in-depth interviews facilitate this.
To conclude, due to the diverse types of knowledge people may possess concerning
the business model concept, a research design that allows for capturing this
knowledge is required. Accordingly, survey-based questionnaires or fully structured
interviews are not suitable for this because these instruments are not flexible enough
to allow the respondents to develop their knowledge in an interactive way or to
combine their idiosyncratic fragments of tacit and explicit knowledge through
reflection and argumentation. Semi-structured interviews (or focus groups, as an
alternative) are much better suited for collecting such types of data.
4.8 Sampling
4.8.1 Introduction: what is sampling and why it is important
When data can be collected for the whole population, no sampling is necessary
(Blaikie, 2010). If there is no possibility of investigating the whole population, the
question must be posed as to whether statistical inferences are to be made from the
sample and whether the sample must be representative. This, in most cases,
separates quantitative (statistical) studies from exploratory studies. While quantitative
studies often aim at drawing conclusions about pre-defined populations, exploratory
studies, such as the present project, may aim at achieving maximum richness, variety
and diversity of data because the purpose of such studies is finding out what is going
on. This suggests that sampling may a have a different meaning across types of
study and the research questions to be answered.
In the present project, the research questions aim at investigating three communities
in an exploratory way. Sampling is important because it must ensure diversity of
respondents among and within the samples. Accordingly, the research design must
allow for achieving this diversity. Consequently, probability sampling approaches,
167 / 549
used to draw conclusions about a population, are not appropriate because statistical
choices would randomly select the respondents with no criterion of diversity. Diversity
could only be guaranteed by interviewing a sufficient number of randomly selected
respondents but this would require more time and processing capacity than is
available.
In contrast, a purposive or judgemental sampling strategy allows the researcher to

construct a sample as appropriate to the research aim. The aim of this study is to
gain an initial understanding of the different experiences and beliefs of respondents
concerning the business model concept. To achieve this within the constraints of the
study, it is important to achieve a high level of diversity in the sample. The
respondents must then be carefully selected with a view to the unique information
and insights that they can contribute, that allow for illuminating the phenomenon from
multiple perspectives. The best way to ensure this is a judgemental sampling
approach, by which the researcher decides who to include in the sample – a decision
to be made based on his knowledge and experience in the field.
4.8.2 Time horizon
Two time dimensions are distinguished. Having a ‘snapshot’ character, one refers to
a cross-sectional study. Having a ‘diary’ perspective, one refers to longitudinal
studies (Saunders et al., 2011). The time dimension is an important factor in setting
up a viable sampling approach because it defines whether follow-up sessions are an
integral part of the study, or a voluntary extension – useful for gaining interesting
extra information.
• Cross-sectional studies: They are about “a particular phenomenon (or

phenomena) at a particular time” (Saunders et al., 2011, p. 155). The aim of
the present project is to draw a coherent “360-degree-picture” of the business
model concept’s perception, understanding and application in Switzerland,
calling for a cross-sectional study. The project does not aim at studying the
way the concept’s perception evolves or develops over time. By contrast, it is
about making a ‘snapshot’ of the current situation. This provides an argument
for a cross-sectional study.
168 / 549
• Longitudinal studies: “The main strength of longitudinal research is the
capacity that it has to study change and development” (Saunders et al., 2011,
p. 155). A longitudinal study can be discussed along two dimensions in the
present study. First, an argument would be that it calls for an alternative
research aim (including different research questions). The research would
have to concentrate on questions dealing with the evolution of the concept’s
perception and application, for instance as part of a study accompanying start-
ups on their journey over a longer period.
The rationale for the choice of a cross sectional approach is that an aim of the study
is to include as much diversity as possible rather than understanding the dynamics of
a longitudinal study. While the latter would be a laudable aim, it is not possible to
accommodate both within the constraints of this doctoral study, so a cross-sectional
study is better suited to the initial task of mapping diversity. Moreover, other research
designs might make better use of a longitudinal study. For example, a dynamic
understanding of the emergence and development of a business model might be
gained through an action research project, in which a researcher had direct
involvement in a start-up business, or one, which she or he was advising.
4.8.3 Rationale for a judgmental sampling strategy
When it comes to gaining empirical evidence the leading question is “Which data can
we collect?” (Grix, 2002, p. 180). Generally, exploratory studies are a means for
generating primary data based on non-probabilistic samples (Guest et al., 2011).
Furthermore, according to a constructivist’s stance focusing on meaning and
understanding within the particular, the selection of cases or larger theoretical or
methodological designs are less relevant (Moses & Knutsen, 2012). Accordingly, the
samples are collected following a purposive (judgemental) sampling strategy
(Saunders et al., 2011). A judgmental sampling strategy is not about generalisations
but about generating “insight and in-depth understanding of the topic of interest”
(Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 56). Samples are selected according to the information
they can contribute; hence, different ‘types’ of respondents are not sampled in order
to generalise to other entities of ‘that type’ (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Instead, important
169 / 549
are inclusion and exclusion criteria: “who or what do we want to hear from, and who
or what do we not want to hear from” (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 56).
For the present project, the rationale is that the author is best able to judge which
respondents are most suitable to answer the research questions, to meet the
research objectives and to provide most diversity of data. A possible use of the
judgmental (or purposive) sampling approach is to select a variety of different types
of cases for in-depth investigation. However, diversity shall be achieved along two
dimensions: (1) across different communities – also as basis for comparison and
triangulation – and (2) within the communities. Accordingly, the sampling must be
considered ‘two dimensional’, as outlined below.
4.8.4 The choice of 3 communities (diversity across the samples)
Derived from the research questions, the methodological aim of the present thesis is
to achieve maximum diversity of data regarding the way the business model concept
is perceived and applied in Switzerland. Based on the findings of 8 exploratory
interviews, maximum diversity cannot be achieved through investigating managers
only; a grounded theory based approach showed saturation in the way the business
model concept is perceived and applied in this very community (see chapter 3 for
more detail).
Consequently, the research design of the main study has been refined; it has been
concluded that an adapted design should allow for drawing a “360-degree picture” of
the business model concept’s perception and application. Accordingly, three
communities that comprise a logical and consistent chain between academia and
practice have been chosen for study. Based on the author’s activities as an
entrepreneur, business school lecturer, and innovation coach, he not only has
connections in the owner-manager world, but also to academics and support
professionals. Due to his in-depth understanding of these two additional groups
through his professional activities (as a coach he has also been in contact with
numerous support professionals), a second pre-study (exploration study) was not
considered necessary.
170 / 549
The rationale for opting for sampling from these three communities was as follows:
1. Swiss local academics: Switzerland is considered the ‘homeland’ of the

business model concept, through scholars such as Pigneur, Osterwalder,
Gassmann, Stähler, and Tucci. Accordingly, ideas in the conceptual domain
from the academic community are expected to enrich the data. Those
academics included in the research deal with business models as part of their
research activities. Thus, only academics with a professional foothold in this
particular domain were included in the sample frame.
2. Swiss support professionals delivering training, advice and funding to (small
business) entrepreneurs. The rationale for selecting this community is that its
members may represent the link between academics and practitioners, insofar
that they often have an academic background. This allows them to
systematically observe and critically reflect on what happens in practice –
most often are up to date in terms of new ideas (such as the business model
concept), and have a strong foothold in practice through their extensive
collaboration with the business world (advising/consulting/funding). In several
ways, this community may represent the bridge between academia and
practice.
3. Small business owner-managers: The third sample is represented by the
business world, which is focused on small technology-based businesses. The
rationale is that the author has its professional background in this area and is
co-owner of a firm in that sector. Furthermore, technology-based firms
represent an important pillar of the Swiss economy, and technology-based
firms are assumed to have a high affinity to frameworks and models. A further
rationale for narrowing down to owner-managed firms links back to the
exploration study, namely the finding that employed managers made only little
contribution to diversity. This insight supported the idea that owner-managers
(rather than employed managers) may be different since the development of
their own business makes them more open for new concepts and ideas.
To conclude, the sampling follows a funnel-like structure by incorporating academics

dealing with the concept on a high level of abstraction on the one hand, and a very
focused group of business people on the other end of the spectrum. The gap
171 / 549
between those two groups is bridged by support professionals, ‘talking the language’
of both sides. Accordingly, the choice of sample not only allows for achieving
diversity of data, but also represents a coherent chain between academia and
practice.
4.8.5 Choice of respondents (diversity within the samples)
Not only high diversity of information shall be achieved among the samples, but also
within the samples. The following considerations form the basis of selection of the
different interview respondents.
1. Respondents that allow for achieving maximal richness and diversity of data,
through contemplating the business model concept from as many diverse
perspectives as possible.
2. Respondents to be recruited through the author’s personal network, which is
based on the following areas of activities:
(1) network in the new venture and start-up domain,
(2) network based on his activities at university,
(3) network based on his activities as coach in governmental teaching
programs,
(4) friends (some of whom working as consultants or entrepreneurs), and
(5) also respondents that could be acquired through ‘blind inquiries’ based on
their special knowledge they can contribute in a certain domain.
3. The number of respondents for each group has been determined following
Creswell and Poth (2017, p. 78): “The exploration of a group of individuals who
have all experienced the phenomenon. Thus, a heterogeneous group that may
vary in size from 3 to 4 individuals to 10 to 15”.
4.8.6 Sample profiles
Accordingly, 10 local academics were selected for an interview (Figure 18). In order
to achieve maximum variety, varied disciplines were considered such as strategic
foresight, marketing, finance, technology management, social sciences, online
marketing, or design at the school of arts. The main criterion of inclusion was that
172 / 549
their research in some way focuses on business models, either as a main topic or, at
least at the periphery.
Figure 18: Academics sample. Source: Author (2017).
As Figure 19 depicts, 13 support professionals from various disciplines dealing with

the business model idea were selected for interview. Following the criterion of
achieving maximum richness of data, support professionals from different areas such
as strategy, finance, funding, marketing, governmental innovation support, innovation
management, business book authors, early adopters, (business) philosophy, or future
management have been included. The main criterion of inclusion was that they work
with Swiss small business owner-managers in their consulting practice, ideally in
technology-based sectors.
Figure 19: Support professional sample. Source: Author (2017).
173 / 549
In total, 12 technology-based small business owner-managers were selected for
interview. The aim here consisted of gaining interview partners from firms with a
varying number of employees and a varying time in business. Three out the sample
(M3, M5, and M10) are considered start-ups following the definition of Blank and Dorf
(2012) in that a start-up is a temporary organisation looking for a new viable business
model. The main criteria of inclusion were that the sample should include different
firm sizes and ages, that the businesses were related to a technical domain and
located in the Swiss German part of Switzerland.
Figure 20: Owner-manager sample. Source: Author (2017).
4.8.7 Respondent recruitment
The research respondents were recruited through the author‘s personal networks
(small business and university contexts), either directly or on the recommendation of
other members of the networks. 9 of the 35 respondents were invited to interview by
telephone or in person, as they were members of the author's closer network (i.e.
friends or colleagues). The remaining 26 were recruited by email for the interview. In
total, 31 email requests were necessary as there were 5 non-responses but no direct
refusals.
4.9 Ethical considerations
All social research involves some ethical issues. According to Blaikie (2010), good
ethical practice includes the ensuring of voluntary participation, the right to withdraw
at any time, obtaining informed consent of research respondents, protecting the
174 / 549
interests of the research respondents (protecting privacy, ensuring anonymity and
conducting the research with integrity (i.e. research conducted according to
acceptable standards). Braun and Clarke (2013) see four main ethical principles to
be addressed, namely respect, competence, responsibility, and integrity. Solutions to
ethical issues can be summarised as follows, paraphrased from Easterby-Smith et al.
(2012, p. 95):
• Avoidance of harm to the respondents, whether physical or psychological.

• Respecting the respondents’ dignity.
• Fully informed consent.
• Protection or respondents’ privacy.
• Ensuring the confidentiality of data.
• Protecting the respondents’ anonymity.
• Avoiding deception regarding the nature of the research and the aims.
• Clarifying possible conflicts of interest.
• Ensuring honesty and transparency.
In this study, the most important ethical issues were resolved as follows. The
respondents were clearly informed about the purpose of the research and the way
the data were to be used, right at the beginning of the project. The respondents were
given the chance to withdraw from the interviews at any time. Furthermore, their
anonymity was guaranteed. Some respondents would have accepted to be cited by
name after having signed off the respective text passages on their own initiative; an
issue which has been addressed by treating all respondents anonymously as an
overall research standard. In all, the ethical standards of the University of
Gloucestershire have been followed.
4.10 Development of research instruments
4.10.1 Considerations for developing the interview guide
The literature review reveals that the business model concept is used in various
management disciplines. This finding can be confirmed by an exploratory study
revealing a wide range of different understandings, conceptualisations and
175 / 549
applications in areas such as innovation, strategy, business plans and processes, or
entrepreneurship, hence a high variety of variables making the research highly
complex. The following issues have been addressed in order to deal with the
complex nature of the investigated phenomena:
• First, the business model concept is highly complex in itself, since the
individual elements that are often unified within a framework (such as the
Canvas from Osterwalder) do not interact linearly but are interlinked in highly
complex ways, producing emergent properties.
• Secondly, various dimensions of the phenomena are to be taken into
consideration, as discussed in 4.1.2 above.
• Third, considerations regarding the nature of knowledge (tacit, explicit) must
be considered, such as discussed in 4.1.4 above.
• Fourth, the research instrument must allow for capturing ideas as they emerge
and develop in peoples’ minds when prompted to consider the business model
concept.
In summary, these considerations show that the research should be approached as a

highly complex learning process. Although there is a debate about the complex
nature of business models in literature, the review shows that complexity themes
represent a topic at the periphery of most empirical business model research
initiatives. By contrast, the literature review and the exploration study show the
importance of this debate, since each firm is different, leading to a plethora of highly
interlinked variables. As the review shows, only few studies recognise that
extraordinary high level of complexity inherent in the topic.
Accordingly, the chosen methodological design aims at exploring diverse

perspectives, achieving maximum richness and diversity of data, so conducting in-
depth interviews finally must allow for accessing the respondents’ thoughts as ideas
emerge.
176 / 549
4.10.2 Lessons learned from the exploratory study
The following questions used in the exploratory study are well suited for use in the
main fieldwork, as they were understood and could be readily answered by the
respondents:

2) Which tools do you use to describe/analyse your existing business model?
3) Can you describe your existing business model (in your own
words/concepts/ideas)?
The following question proved to be more complex:
4) How has your existing business model evolved?
Respondents who had founded their firm could answer this fourth question; however,
for those respondents managing an established firm that may have been in business
for decades, question 4 was harder to answer. From a methodological perspective,
question 4 must address the challenges of dealing with post-hoc justifications. As a
consequence, questions addressing historical developments should be avoided.
Furthermore, answering questions regarding business model evolution, having a time
dimension, would call for a longitudinal research strategy, such as an action research
approach, rather than a cross-sectional design.
The respondents also found it difficult to answer the following rather complex
questions:
5) What were key events in the formation process of your business model / what
are key components in your business model / what is special in your business
model?
6) Have you ever started any business model innovation initiative(s)? If yes,
which one and why. If not – why not?
First, question 5 contains two elements, it should be formulated as 2 separate

questions. Combining these aspects in one question is rather confusing and leads to
unclear answers. Furthermore, in question 5, the ‘key’ events the respondents should
177 / 549
remember in most cases cannot be assessed and interpreted adequately in
retrospect. Thus, there is a danger of post-hoc justification, which means that there
may exist a ‘time bias’ in the respondents’ interpretations so that they selectively
remember isolated facets, and create new stories, which in retrospect draw a
coherent picture – which in fact may not represent reality (Salow, 2017). Accordingly,
a longitudinal design would be more appropriate for this question too. Question 6
implicitly assumes that the respondents have a clear idea about the business model
concept – if they do not (as was found to be the case), it is not wise to ask this
question. Since business model innovation builds upon the concept of business
models (the understanding of its perception and application is the subject of the
present study), introducing another complex term (innovation) building upon the term
business models, is too complex a question.
4.10.3 Conclusions from the exploration study for the interview guide
Broken down, there are some important conclusions regarding the development of
the questions building up the interview guide.
• Asking about past events in the business model development process is

difficult since the respondents may not remember the details or may construct
‘stories’ in a post event justification manner. Managers in firms running the
same business for decades may not be able to reconstruct the way their
business model has evolved.
• During the evaluation of the exploration study, it has been learned that rich
contextual information plays an important role in understanding the
conceptualisation and application of the business model concept; such
contextual information contributes to the diversity within the sample. Such
information may contain the respondent’s backgrounds (education, prior jobs,
the way they learned about the concept), contextual information about the
firms (such as resources, processes, values) and the firms’ environments.
However, the type and extent of contextual information must be adapted for
the individual groups to be interviewed (academics, support professionals,
small business owner-managers).
178 / 549
• The questions shall not be too narrow since the interviews must allow for free
discussions, in which emerging topics can be investigated in-depth. The
exploratory nature of the research must allow topics to emerge, must allow for
accessing respondents’ thoughts as their ideas develop, and must allow for
selectively “digging deeper” when interesting ideas emerge.
4.10.4 Developing the main categories of the interview guides
Derived from the research questions and the exploratory interview guide the following
‘main’ categories have been developed and used to build up the interview guides for
the main study. However, the interview guides were slightly adapted for each
community. For instance, academics and support professionals may develop their
own frameworks, whereas business owner-managers may feel more comfortable by
talking about their current business model in a concrete manner rather than
discussing abstract concepts. More broadly, it should be recalled that the author has
close professional connections with both the academic and support professional
communities. On the basis of this familiarity, it was decided that the same interview
guide would be appropriate for both samples.
• Understanding of the term ‘business model’.

• Application of the business model concept.
• The respondent’s background.
• Elements of a business model.
• First contact with the business model concept.
• Related concepts.
• Strengths.
• Weaknesses.
• Conceptualisation and contextualisation.
• Existing business logic (owner-manager sample).
• Business model challenges ahead (owner-manager sample).
These main categories link back to the research questions and will also be used for
structuring the data analysis process. The three interview guides are documented in
appendix 1.
179 / 549
4.11 The issue of bias
Bias is an important issue in all forms of research, as a researcher may exert an

influence on the nature and quality of data collected in a study in many ways, both
consciously and unconsciously. This can arise at any stage in research design and
execution, from the framing of research questions, through the philosophical
assumptions made about the nature of the study, to the choice of data collection
techniques and the data collection process itself, as well as in the analysis of the
data. At each stage of the design of this study, the researcher has been aware of
these issues and has attempted to eliminate bias. However, data collection through
interviews, particularly in face-to-face contexts, raises some particular issues of
possible bias through influencing the responses of the respondents. Saunders et al.
(2011, p. 326) explain this as follows: “This is where the comments, tone or non-
verbal behaviour of the interviewer create bias in the way that respondents respond
to the questions being asked. This may be where you attempt to impose your own
beliefs and frame of reference through the questions you ask”.
There is potential for bias of this kind in any form of face-to-face research but it is of
special importance when planning interactive, in-depth interviews with an exploratory
purpose, as in this study. In this context, the researcher effectively becomes the
‘research instrument’, through which data for the study is collected (Poggenpoel &
Myburgh, 2003). In such a situation, a researcher must be particularly careful not to
influence respondents’ responses, for example by expressing strong personal
opinions or values, or by suggesting a desired response.
The exploratory study for this research revealed a particular source of potential bias
of this type, where it was found that SME owner-managers tend to have limited
familiarity with the business model concept (see 3.4). Moreover, it was also
recognised that knowledge of the concept and its application was incomplete and
that some of it resided at the tacit level. During the interview, therefore, some of this
tacit knowledge was accessed and converted to the explicit domain by a process of
social construction that necessarily involved some degree of co-creation.
180 / 549
As this issue had become evident during the exploratory study, the researcher was
aware of the potential for bias and was careful not to take the lead during the
interview process, particularly when interviewing the business owner-managers.
However, it is acknowledged that an element of bias is inevitable during interactive
interviewing, especially when responses are effectively co-created.
4.11.1 Addressing the researcher bias
The researcher was a potential source of bias in several dimensions, as discussed

below:
1. Bias on the topic level. Based on the literature, through discussions with
peers, and due to his own practical experience, the author has developed his
frame of reference before embarking the empirical part of the study
(interviews). This had influence on the interview guide and on the themes that
were explored in the interviews.
2. Bias by the choice of the respondents. The respondents were selected based
on the author’s frame of reference of who could contribute to the research in
order to achieve maximum diversity. His frame of reference may have limited
the choice of maximum diverse respondents.
3. Bias while conducting the interviews. Based on the existent knowledge the
researcher decided which ideas are ‘interesting’ and worth being further
investigated. The ideas the researcher considered to be new or worth
exploring depend on his frame of reference, which was influenced through the
literature, through debates, practical experiences, but also on prior interviews.
This latter aspect means that the researcher’s frame of reference changed
during the interviewing process so that different ideas were further explored in
early and late stage interviews.
4. Bias in analysing the data. In the process of analysing the data the bias not
only was influenced by the frame of reference from literature, debates,
practice, and reflection, but also from the empirical data. The researcher was
more influenced by ideas from certain respondents compared with others.
Some concepts resonated more with the researcher’s own ideas than others
did. This may have influenced the way the data were coded and analysed.
181 / 549
Accordingly, the several dimensions of bias were addressed as follows:
1. Cross checking the interview guide by other business model academics. Are
there important issues ignored by reference to the research questions?
Developing a broad literature review including themes at the periphery.
2. First, the list of respondents was cross-checked by some selected academics
and support professionals from the authors network. Second, the list was also
consolidated with the literature. Again, a broad range of themes, also the
periphery, is important at this stage too.
3. A few early stage respondents were contacted a second time since the frame
of reference has changed during the research process. They were asked for
clarification on certain issues. Early stage respondents were selected carefully
and thoughtfully; they mainly consisted of people the researcher has easily
access to.
4. Ideas were not only further pursued based on the author’s judgment as being
most interesting but also on considering how often the theme was mentioned
by different respondents across different communities. The number of
occurrences was used as a kind of ‘low-pass filter’, limiting the passing on of
ideas which were only interesting for the researcher but have no broader
meaning in the samples.
4.11.2 Bias in researching academics
Bias may have occurred during the interviews with the academic sample for the
following reasons:
1. Academics may be biased by their theoretical knowledge from literature. They

may also mix up theoretical ideas and cases described in literature with their
personal practical knowledge on which they reflect.
2. When researching the academic sample, the researcher could be biased
through his theoretical understanding of business models too, so the research
process (the interviews) might concentrate on issues which are in the domain
of common sense. New ideas could then emerge only rarely.
182 / 549
Accordingly, these dimensions of possible bias were addressed as follows:
1. Asking academics about their own practical experience, e.g. from research
projects or consulting activities (some academics are part time consultants).
Deliberately asking them to reflect on these experiences rather than talking
about ideas in the literature.
2. Preparing questions in the guide that explicitly prompt a discussion regarding
the practical level of application. Confronting academics with standard
application situations before exploring into their experiences with them.
4.11.3 Bias in researching support professionals
Bias may have occurred during the interviews with the support professional sample
for the following reasons:
1. Support professionals may be biased by negative experiences using the

business model concept or models in general. They may have applied the
concept in a complex and difficult context that has shaped their thinking, so
they conclude it to be an inappropriate idea in general. Or, by contrast, they
may have used it successfully, so tend to overestimate its usefulness.
2. Peers having used the concept in a successful or unsuccessful way may have
influenced their thinking, since support professionals often act in a dense
network of other consultants. ‘Myths’ may influence the community.
3. Support professionals tend to have the ability to carefully and critically reflect
on their application of the concept in practice. However, most support
professionals have developed their own ‘best practice’. Some have ideas and
techniques the business model concept fits within; some have developed
ideas and techniques contradicting the business model idea. The challenge
therefore is to learn enough about the consultants’ background and
experience relative to the business model concept and its application.
1. Asking the support professionals about more than one application scenario
and to reflect on these different situations. Finding out about critical
183 / 549
experiences (if any) and the way these experiences have influenced their
frame of thinking, in order to bracket out the effects of these events.
2. Asking them about their own experiences and about experiences of others
(and also about experiences reported in the literature), to bracket out ideas
from third parties.
3. Learning more about their current practice. What type of customers do they
provide training and support with? What methods do they use? Do they also
use other models, or do they avoid the application of models in general? Were
they party to the early development stage of business models or have they
started using them only since the rise of the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas?
Such type of extra information helped in framing important statements. Such
information was also important to build community sub groups – an approach
that proved to be effective in analysing the data.
4.11.4 Bias in researching owner managers
Bias may have occurred during the interviews with the owner-manager sample for the
following reasons:
1. Owner-managers often have only limited knowledge about the business model
concept – ideas described in the literature are only rarely known. These ideas
mainly reside on the tacit level, so they may mix up the business model
concept with many other things they spontaneously associate with the term
‘business model’.
2. Even those who already may have learned about the concept – in debates
with peers, on conferences, in an article, etc. – often tend to ignore ideas such
as business models. arguing them to be ‘theoretical stuff’. This tends to create
bias in their judgment of the concept’s applicability and usefulness.
3. Researching owner managers: The main task of the researcher was to
develop implicit knowledge (from the tacit level) to become explicit. He
therefore had to encourage respondents to talk about business models, even
though they may not be familiar with the concept, without influencing them with
existing frameworks or tools. This proved to be difficult. Due to the exploratory
nature of the study, the respondents were not to be prompted with existing
184 / 549
frameworks such as the Canvas. However, the researcher had to co-create
knowledge by not influencing the respondents. This represented the most
difficult issue to overcome in avoiding bias.
1. Asking ‘why questions’ such as ‘Why do you think this or that has something to
do with the business model concept?’ Asking ‘why questions’ often made
respondents reflect on what they said and encouraged them to revise or refine
their statements. Through asking such questions the researcher could indicate
that something is not complete with the provided answers on a subtle level,
without guiding the answer in a certain direction – perhaps at a subconscious
level such direction is still possible, though this is difficult to control. As it
showed multiple times, embarking on a reflective process proved to be a
successful strategy, since most practitioners began to understand what a
business model could be – at least parts of the concept, such as the revenue
logic, could often be identified.
2. Asking owner-managers whether they have also learned about (or
experienced) examples of ‘theoretical stuff’ to be useful rather than useless.
Some respondents embarked on a reflection process resulting in some new
and interesting ideas of business model understanding and application.
3. First, the researcher confronted the respondents with the term business
model. In the case of only limited ideas about the business model concept,
which was often the case, the researcher asked the owner managers to
explain the logic and architecture of their business. This question encouraged
them to embark on a complex reflective process, sometimes further stimulated
by the researcher asking ‘why questions’. The outcome of this strategy was
that most owner managers started off by talking about their customers, what
they sell to them, or in what business they are in, and how they create
revenues. Most of them began realising what business models could be all
about while reflecting on their own business’s logic, often exploring the
revenue logic of their business. They then ‘connected the dots’ with ideas
residing in the tacit domain. They managed to draw a more comprehensive
picture of the business model: a picture they had created in the interview
185 / 549
(often for the first time!). Asking about the business logic proved to be a
straightforward question to co-create knowledge without too much influence
over the respondents. The idea of asking owner managers about their existing
business logic was provided by a professor of empirical social research out of
the author’s private network, who was contacted to cross-check the interview
guide.
4.12 Data collection
4.12.1 Venue
The interviews with academics were conducted either at their university, via Skype,
or in a restaurant close to the University where they work. Support professionals
were interviewed in public places such as in restaurants, at different universities to
which the author has access and where he could book a room, in the author’s office,
by means of Skype or telephone, or in their own office location (1 case). Small
business-owner managers were all interviewed within their businesses. The author
visited all of them personally; in many cases a company visit was offered after the
interview.
4.12.2 Data capture
Each respondent was asked permission for the electronic recording of the interview;
all respondents gave their consent. The data were captured using guided, semi-
structured interviews. All but four of the interviews were conducted face-to-face; the
remaining four were conducted via Skype or telephone in line with the respondents’
preferences (three business support professionals and one academic). All of the
interviews except for two were conducted in the respondent’s and author’s mother
tongue of German, while two were conducted in English. One of the latter was with a
respondent from the French speaking part of Switzerland; the interview was
conducted in English due to the limited French knowledge of the author. The second
interview in English was with a Swiss-German professor who preferred English, as
this was considered the business language he normally uses in such contexts.
186 / 549
4.12.3 Transcription
During the interview process journal notes were taken. All interviews were audio-
recorded and fully transcribed. All interviews were summarised (condensed) in
English within a maximum of 2 pages each.
The permission was granted in all cases. Each of the interviews was transcribed in
the original language. Initially an administrative assistant was asked to carry out the
transcription, but found it difficult to deal with the terminologies. As a consequence,
all interviews were transcribed by the author (including the one first transcribed by the
administrative assistant, since due to these difficulties, many mistakes in meaning
were found). The transcription process required a time multiple of between 5 and 8 (1
hour of interview time equals between 5 and 8 hours of transcription). Depending on
the language style and speed of speech, considerable differences were noticed
regarding this factor – some interviews were easy, others much more difficult to
transcribe.
4.13 Data analysis
In exploratory analyses, the focus is on what emerges from the interaction between
the researcher and the respondents. Hence, the content of that interaction forms the
development of themes and identification of themes (Guest et al., 2011). The
interview data were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using the NVivo
software package, aiming at assigning codes for relevant text passages,
summarising these codes to categories and identifying concepts within the categories
inspired by the ‘3 C-Methodology’ (Gläser & Laudel, 2010). Accordingly, the method
for analysing the data was thematic analysis; a method designed to identifying key
themes in text. These themes are transformed into codes and aggregated in a
codebook; consequently, thematic analysis is considered “the most useful in
capturing the complexities of meaning within a textual data set” (Guest et al., 2011, p.
11). Thematic analysis can best be described as a method “for providing a systematic
approach for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns – themes – across a
dataset” (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 178).
187 / 549
However, thematic analysis is “relatively unique among qualitative analytic methods
in that it only provides a method for data analysis; it does not prescribe methods for
data collection, theoretical positions, epistemological or ontological frameworks. It
really is just a method” (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 178). It is especially useful, in
combination with interviews, when the respondents have a personal stake in the
topic, which represents a strong argument for applying thematic analysis in the
present research project. On the one hand, the topic is strongly anchored in the
author’s professional context, on the other hand, it is compatible with the data
collection method. The data were analysed in order to identify themes and concepts
and to construct typologies by comparing different sources from different research
stages and between the cases. Table 1 depicts the main concepts of Thematic
Analysis (Guest et al., 2011, p. 50):
Data: The textual representation of a conversation, observation,

or interaction.
Theme: A unit of meaning that is observed (noticed) in the data by

a reader of the text.
Code: A textual description of the semantic boundaries of a

theme or a component of a theme.
Coding: The process by which a qualitative analyst links specific

codes to specific data segments.
Table 1: Classification of terms and concepts (Guest et al., 2011, p. 50)
The data were analysed following a 6-phase thematic analysis approach as follows
(adapted from Braun and Clarke (2006)):
1. Familiarising yourself with your data: Transcribing data, reading and rereading
the data, noting down ideas.
2. Generating initial codes: Coding interesting features of the data in a

systematic fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant to each
code.
188 / 549
3. Searching for themes: collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data
relevant to each potential theme.
4. Reviewing themes: Checking the themes work in relation to the coded extracts
(Level 1) and the entire data set (Level 2), generating a thematic ‘map’ of the
analysis.
5. Defining and naming themes: Ongoing analysis to refine the specifics of each
theme, and the overall story the analysis tells; generating clear definitions and
names for each theme.
6. Producing the report: The final opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid,
compelling extract examples, final analysis of selected extracts, relating back
of the analysis, to the research question, and to literature. Producing a
scholarly report of the analysis.
Themes emerging within the three groups/samples are analysed individually (within
the group/sample), then compared with each other or merged in order to look for
themes, respectively.
To conclude, the rationale for analysing the data using thematic analysis lies in its
relatively flexible procedure that doesn’t follow strictly pre-defined procedures, as it
would be the case with other techniques such as grounded theory (Braun & Clarke,
2013). Therefore, it is an ideal research instrument for relatively inexperienced social
researchers such as the author. However, thematic analysis is an established
method on its own right compatible with the constructionist epistemology (Braun &
Clarke, 2006; Guest et al., 2011).
4.13.1 Developing an adapted data analysis process
While thematic analysis formed the basis of the data analysis process, the author
adapted the procedures described in the literature, tailoring a unique procedure,
which best meets the specific needs of the project, and, above all, reflecting the
author’s way of thinking. For instance, the data were not only analysed using NVivo
software, but were structured using a traditional ‘analogue’ mind map technique
(using pencil and paper), as well as using an Excel spreadsheet for visualisation
purposes. The rationale is that the complexity – and a huge amount of data – could
189 / 549
better be managed using visual approaches since the author is very much a visual
thinker. The logic and use of this combination of analysis techniques is explained
below.
The overall aim of the analysis process is “to focus on describing what all
respondents have in common as they experience a phenomenon. The basic purpose
of phenomenology is to reduce individual experiences with a phenomenon to a
description of the universal essence (a ‘grasp’ of the very nature of thing).” (Creswell
& Poth, 2017, p. 76). Since the way the business model concept in perceived and
applied is considered an elusive phenomenon, the process described in this chapter
was designed to ‘grasp’ the very nature of the phenomena under study, based on
common experiences among and within the three groups.
The leading idea behind the newly designed (or adapted) thematic analysis (TA)
process is that in phenomenology, “data analysis can follow systemic procedures that
move from the narrow units of analysis (e.g. significant statements), on to broader
units of analysis (e.g. meaning units), and on detailed descriptions that summarize
two elements, ‘what’ the individuals have experienced and ‘how’ they have
experienced it” (Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 79). Accordingly, the process has been
designed to systematically structure the data from the ‘narrow units of analysis’ by
inductively identifying themes in the data – based on the respondents experiences –,
and comparing the findings in order to form broader meanings, representing the
“essence as the culminating aspect of a phenomenological study” (Creswell & Poth,
2017, p. 79).
Accordingly, the whole analysis process was aligned to the idea of “going through the
data, and highlight significant statements, sentences or quotes that provide an
understanding of how the respondents have experienced the phenomenon”. Next,
“the researcher develops clusters of meaning from these significant statements into
themes” (Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 82). In the following section, the data analysis
process is outlined step by step, as depicted in Figure 21.
190 / 549
Figure 21: Process of data analysis. Source: Author (2016).
However, the process, as depicted in Figure 21, builds up on the ideas of TA, hence
structuring the data, building codes and themes to be compared. Finally, a process
containing 8 subsequent steps has been developed. The steps are organised in 4
main categories as follows (coloured structure on the left side of the figure):
191 / 549
1. Structuring the data.
2. Identifying emergent themes.
3. Comparing the identified themes, developing subgroups of the involved
respondents (subgroups within the communities).
4. Linking the themes back to the original data in order to find those text
passages building the themes up.
In the following section, the 8 steps of the data analysis process are outlined in detail,
justifying the choice of methods within each step. The four categories listed above
(containing the 8 steps) are used to structure the section.
4.13.2 Step by step description of the analysis process
4.13.2.1 Step 1 – Writing condensed summaries
A condensed summary of each interview was written containing the main aspects of
each interview. The original interviews were conducted and transcribed in German,
while the summaries were written in English. The summaries can be found in
Appendix 3. An example of an original transcript is documented in Appendix 2.
4.13.2.2 Step 2 – Linking the raw interview data with the interview guides
Relevant text passages within the interview raw data were linked to the main
categories, building up the structure of the interview guide. Hence, the categories
were derived from the research questions. Related text passages were linked to the
categories using NVivo. The respective text passages, linking to the main categories,
were exported from NVivo into a MS Word document. An example can be found in
Appendix 4.
4.13.2.3 Step 3 – Developing emerging themes in the data using mind maps
All text passages associated with a certain category (interview guide) were exported
from NVivo into a MS Word file (as described in step 2). This was done for each
community. The result consisted of about 10 individual files for each of the 3
communities to be printed out (in total, around 30 files have been produced, for an
example see Appendix 4). Themes were identified inductively using a traditional
‘analogue, by hand’ mind map technique. In total, the result of this stage was a set of
192 / 549
around 50 mind maps containing emerging themes for each of the 3 communities.
For illustration purposes, three mind maps can be found in Appendix 5.
4.13.2.4 Step 4 – Consolidating and cleaning up the emerged themes
The identified themes were transferred from the mind maps into MS Word
documents. The structure of each document is organised as follows:
(1) Community (A/S/M).
(2) Themes (emerged in the data).
(3) Individual statements/ideas from respondents (building up the identified themes)
A first consolidating/cleaning process was applied in this stage (see Appendix 6).
4.13.2.5 Step 5 – Comparing the emerged themes
The themes were transferred into an Excel file and compared (between the
communities) – they have been evaluated showing which themes were unique (within
a community) and which were part of more than one community. Some first ideas for
high level main themes (meta themes) were developed.
Based on a huge number of emerging themes, a filter mechanism was applied as

follows. Themes that were either relevant in more than one community or new in the
business model context (according to the author’s valuation and based on the
literature review) were used for further investigation. The respective Excel
spreadsheet containing the various themes and their valuation is depicted in
Appendix 6.
4.13.2.6 Step 6 – Developing sub-groups within each community
Sub-groups in each of the 3 communities were developed. A detailed analysis of the

themes within the sub-groups was conducted using Excel – the relevance of a certain
theme within and between the various sub-groups could be shown (Appendix 6).
Therefore, 3 levels of categories have been used:
1. A theme is exclusively relevant for a certain community.

2. A theme has mainly been discussed within a certain sub-group but is also
relevant for other sub-groups.
3. A theme cannot be associated to a sub-group.
193 / 549
The following sub-groups have been identified.
For the academic community (A):
• A1: Have developed their own framework (5/10).

• A2: Working with existing models/frameworks (5/10).
For the support professional community (S):
• S1: Using business models as thinking models (7/10).

• S2: Seeing people and their values at the centre, a philosophical perspective
(3/10).
• S3: No use of the business model concept (3/10).
For the owner manager community (M):
• M1: “Classic” Start-up (3/12), according to the definition of Blank and Dorf
(2012).
• M2: New venture but no start-up (3/12).
• M3: Traditional family business or management buy-out (5/12).
• M4: Listed firm (1/12).
The sub-categories were developed based on the author’s judgment by comparing

the emerged themes as described in step 5. Simple statistical means such as
counting the number of themes within a sub-group have been applied to compare
and sort out competing sub-group alternatives. However, advanced statistical means
such as correlation analysis techniques (e.g. to mathematically prove the relevance
of a sub-group/theme) have not been applied because of the exploratory nature of
the present research project and the aim of identifying rich (new) ideas that may not
yet be statistically significant. The development of the various sub-groups is shown in
Appendix 6.
4.13.2.7 Step 7 – Developing main themes on an aggregated level
The data were finally aggregated within a mind map providing an overview of all
categories and (sub-) themes. Figure 22 shows the main themes that were
developed for the academic sample. Those themes are:
194 / 549
1. Wide variety of applications and interpretations.
2. Developing adapted frameworks.
3. Philosophical considerations.
4. The importance of revenue thinking.
5. The implementation of new business models in practice.
6. Business models and complexity management.
7. The role of business models in ecosystems.
8. Business models are used in start-up not in SMEs
Figure 22: High level data aggregation (main themes) for the academic community. Source:
Author (2017).
The same process was carried out with respect to the support professional
community. Figure 23 shows the main themes that were developed for the academic
samples. Those themes are:

2. Developing adapted frameworks.
3. Philosophical considerations.
5. The implementation of new business models in practice.
6. Business models and complexity management.
195 / 549
8. Business models are used in ‘start-ups’ but not in SMEs.
The main themes discussed in the support professional community are the same as
in academic sample. However, the issues discussed under the various themes are
different, as discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
Figure 23: High level data aggregation (main themes) for the support professional community.
Source: Author (2017).
Finally, Figure 24 shows the main themes that were developed for the owner-
manager samples. Those themes are:

4. Business models are used in start-up not in SMEs.
196 / 549
Figure 24: High level data aggregation (main themes) for the owner manager community.
Source: Author (2017).
In the owner-manager community, only a limited number of main themes were

discussed. The main themes are all the same for the three investigated communities.
The rationale is that emerging themes have been developed before the three
samples were separated. Hence, the main themes represent the findings on their
highest possible level of abstraction. Accordingly, due to the volume and richness of
data various sub-themes have emerged, which are considerably different across all
three communities (see chapter 5).
4.13.2.8 Step 8 – Linking the themes back to the respective text passages
The developed main themes were linked back to the data as a basis for analysis,
interpretation and discussion. Accordingly, each theme was traced back to the
respective text passages (building up the themes) containing relevant information
and statements from the respondents. The relevant text passages were identified
using the condensed summaries and the original data.
The following paragraph shows the visualisation and valuation of relevant text
passages – exemplified with theme 8. The very same procedure has been applied for
all themes identified. Figure 25 shows an overview of the text passages dealing with
the conceptualisation and application of the business model concept in SMEs, start-
ups and large established firms.
197 / 549
In the vertical axis, the 35 respondents are listed, organised into the main
communities: academics (A1 to A10), owner-managers (M1 to M12), and support
professionals (S1 to S13). Furthermore, the main communities are sub-divided, which
is marked with different shades of grey (sub-groups). In the horizontal axis, the total
number of text passages per respondent is shown, ranging from 1 to 10. Each text
passage has been labelled using a unique code. For instance, the code ‘A2S2’ is the
second relevant text passage of respondent A2. S stands for the code of the theme
analysed (each main theme has been labelled with a specific letter). An example of
the passages referring to a specific topic can be found in Appendix 7.
198 / 549
Figure 25: Evidence in the data. Source: Author (2017).
199 / 549
4.13.3 Rationale for using a mind map based analysis
At the centre of the data analysis process stands a visual ‘by hand’ mind map
technique (steps 3 and 7). Mind maps have been used because:
• Using mind map techniques allows for dealing with highly complex data where
no pre-defined structure exists. The structure has been developed linking
related themes from different respondents visually, finally showing aggregated
high-level themes at a glance.
• Mind maps assisted and promoted visual thinking rather than just textual
thinking. The author feels more comfortable using visual techniques and new
themes were better identified this way (according to his characteristic as a
visual thinker).
• The use of various colours is considered helpful because it allows for
distinctively marking themes and ideas in the different ‘analogue’ mind maps.
This way of analysing the data provides an additional ‘dimension’ (the colour),
which proved to be useful to a visual thinker.
4.14 Presenting the findings
The research is reported by following a linear-analytic structure aiming at identifying

the research questions. An orienting paragraph informs the reader about the main
findings (Guest et al., 2011), and the ‘cases’ or respondents, respectively, are
presented by discussing the following criteria (adapted from Anderson (2010)):
• Criteria for selecting each of the respondents (maximum diversity in the data).
• A description of the study samples.
• Sufficient data (including key statements of the respondents) so that the

reader can assess whether the interpretation is supported by the data.
• Discussion of the data in relation to any previous research and theory.
• Discussion of the transferability to other settings.
200 / 549
• Presentation and discussion of deviant findings.
• Discussion of strengths and limitations.
• Comparisons between the samples, if adequate.
• Discussion of relevant literature in relation to the data and the conclusions.
• Reflection and discussion of the influence of the researcher on the data.
Since the data are highly complex and many equally valid ways of presenting them
are possible, the first step is to find the ‘anchor’ of the research (what leads the story
such as the main finding), upon which the rest follows logically (Guest et al., 2011).
Tables are used as anchors in order to introduce a section, e.g. by showing
questions asked to respondents including the most common themes identified in
responses associated with a specific question (Guest et al., 2011). Another
complementary way for presenting the findings is concept mapping, hence a diagram
showing the relationship between different concepts (Guest et al., 2011).
4.15 Ensuring the quality of the research
In exploratory research it is crucially important to conduct quality checks in order to

gain some sense of whether what emerges is likely to be more or less inclusive of
what may have potentially emerged (Guest et al., 2011). Accordingly, the present
section is organised in two parts as follows:
• First, quantitative research criteria, normally used to discuss research quality,

are outlined, and a rationale is provided why they are not applicable for the
present study.
• Second, more appropriate qualitative criteria are introduced and
contextualised with the specifics of the present study.
201 / 549
4.15.1 Quality criteria of quantitative research
4.15.1.1 Reliability
Reproducibility and stability of the data: “Will similar observations be reached by

other observers?” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 78). The argument is that reliability
is a non-appropriate criterion for judging qualitative research since it originates in a
realist stance, assuming that there is only one reality out there, to be removed from
context; however, following a constructionist philosophy there are many realities and
a context-bound nature of reality (Braun & Clarke, 2013). However, in a much
broader context by incorporating ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘dependability’, some version
of reliability becomes applicable (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Additionally, all possible
influences on the research are considered by keeping a journal, regularly reflecting
on the process and looking for rival explanations (Yin, 2014).
4.15.1.2 Validity
Honesty and genuineness of the research data: “Have a sufficient number of

perspectives been included?” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 78). Does the research
show what it aims to show (Braun & Clarke, 2013)? Since validity refers to the idea of
how accurate the research may capture reality, the concept of validity is problematic
with qualitative research since many realities are acknowledged (Braun & Clarke,
2013). However, Braun and Clarke (2013) distinguish between four types of validity:
(1) construct, (2) internal, (3) external, and (4) ecological validity. Thus, the argument
is that the ecological validity should be considered the most relevant in qualitative
studies because “it tends to gather data in ways that are less removed from the real
world than quantitative measures” (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 280).
4.15.1.3 Generalizability
In term of generalizability the question to be posed is: “Is the sample sufficiently
diverse to allow inferences to other contexts?” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 78).
Since the aim of the present study is not statistical but analytical generalizability (Yin,
2014), or theory building, respectively, the findings cannot be broadly generalised. In
qualitative research, a concept more often used than ‘generalizability’ is
‘transferability’, referring to “the extent to which (aspects of) qualitative research can
202 / 549
be transferred to other groups of people and contexts” (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p.
282). Hence, it is important to describe the specific contexts, respondents and
circumstances so that the reader can decide to what extent the findings are
applicable in his own context (Braun & Clarke, 2013); thus, “the burden of transferring
results is placed on the reader” (Lincoln, 1985, cited in Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 282).
4.15.2 Quality criteria for qualitative research
Braun and Clarke (2013) offer quality criteria for qualitative research, namely
‘member checking’ and ‘triangulation’.
4.15.2.1 Member checking
Member checking refers to the practice of checking one’s own analysis with the
respondents and can therefore be considered some kind of qualitative version of
‘reliability’ – by checking whether the results are credible and dependable, from the
respondents’ view (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Hence, member checking has been
considered as a type of ‘credibility check’ (Lincoln, 1985). Furthermore, the findings
are compared and interpreted by looking for rival explanations providing alternate
explanations of the phenomena observed (Yin, 2014). In summary, member
checking, hence returning to the sources (respondents), represents an additional
iteration cycle increasing the ‘reliability’ of the findings.
4.15.2.2 Triangulation
Triangulation is referred to the use of different data collection techniques (Saunders

et al., 2011) but also to gathering the multiple views and perspectives from diverse
individuals (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). Thus, triangulation may become the way of
capturing multiple voices and truths to the topic, instead of just using the one ‘right’
result (Braun & Clarke, 2013). In the present study, the views and perspectives from
three different samples are used for triangulation purposes by comparing the findings
from the three communities (samples).
Besides member checking and triangulation, the author has found that the two
criteria authenticity and trustworthiness, as often used for ensuring the quality of
203 / 549
qualitative studies. Accordingly, the next two-sub-sections are devoted to outlining
and contextualising these two criteria with the present study.
4.15.2.3 Authenticity
As a quality criterion for qualitative research, the concept of authenticity has been
applied. “Authenticity involves convincing the reader that the researcher has a deep
understanding of what was taking place in the organisation” (Easterby-Smith et al.,
2012, p. 53).
Through the author’s long-standing experience in the start-up domain and as a

university lecturer in the innovation domain, he is very familiar with the business
model concept, the way it is perceived and applied in practice. Accordingly, he has a
deep understanding of what is going on in this very context – and within the various
communities interviewed.
4.15.2.4 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness has been described as a concept consisting of 4 criteria: credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability. “(…) Researchers seek to satisfy
four criteria. In addressing credibility, investigators attempt to demonstrate that a true
picture of the phenomenon under scrutiny is being presented. To allow transferability,
they provide sufficient detail of the context of the fieldwork for a reader to be able to
decide whether the prevailing environment is similar to another situation with which
he or she is familiar and whether the findings can justifiably be applied to the other
setting. The meeting of the dependability criterion is difficult in qualitative work,
although researchers should at least strive to enable a future investigator to repeat
the study. Finally, to achieve confirmability, researchers must take steps to
demonstrate that findings emerge from the data and not their own predispositions”
(Shenton, 2004, p. 63).
In the present study, the four criteria have been addressed as follows:
1. Credibility: Presenting a true picture, which is achieved by contextualising the

findings with literature and by comparing the findings among and between the
communities. Furthermore, the findings have been discussed with some
204 / 549
respondents, which allowed for enhancing the perspectives on what has been
found.
2. Transferability: The applicability of the findings to other contexts is left to the
reader. However, the respondents’ backgrounds and their current position
within their organisation is part of the contextual information provided by the
study, as well as the sampling design of focusing on clearly defined samples
achieving maximum richness of data. This allows the reader to draw
conclusions for his own context.
3. Dependability: As discussed in the philosophical issues discussed of the
present study, the respondents have not developed their ideas independently
from the researcher (social constructivist epistemology) so a possible
repetition of the very same study (or, more precisely, the findings of the study)
is barely possible. On the other hand, the methods of evaluation and analysis
follow clearly defined procedures, making the process traceable, which would
allow other researchers to achieve similar (but not the same) findings. The
conditions for this would be that the same data basis is available and the same
analysis procedures are followed.
4. Confirmability: A rigorous process of analysis and contextualisation of the
findings (with the respective text passages, but also with literature) ensures
that the findings have emerged from the data and are not a construction of the
researcher’s mind. However, as outlined in the limitations section, there may
be some ‘weak noise’ concepts that have been lost in the analysis process
(filtered out) since concepts stated repeatedly by different respondents were
treated with priority – due to the sheer amount of data, some filter mechanisms
were needed.
4.16 Overview of the research design
The present chapter has revealed the complexity of the phenomena under study
(perception, use, and application of the business model concept), which are complex
along several dimensions, such as (1) the existence of not only one but multiple
interrelated phenomena (perception, understanding, application), (2) diversity of
perceptions by the various respondents, (3) various meanings the business model
205 / 549
concept may have for the various people, and (4) that everything happens in peoples’
minds. The business model concept has been recognised to be part of both tacit and
explicit knowledge, which may not yet be fully developed, but matures as people talk
about it.
As there may or may not exist prior ideas about the understanding, perception and
application of the business model concept, creating knowledge by accessing
respondents’ thoughts in an exploratory way, clearly assign the present project the
purpose of an exploratory study. Hence the research is not about description or
explanation, such as proving causal relations or theory building, but about exploring
“what is going on here”.
Due to the exploratory research purpose, the data collection method must allow for
accessing respondents’ thoughts as they emerge, as they develop, through an
interactive way (researcher-respondent). Survey-based questionnaires and
structured interviews would not allow for this, so semi-structured interviews were
considered the most adequate research strategy.
A cross-sectional rather than a longitudinal study design best meets the research
purpose and strategy, since the aim is drawing a coherent “360-degree-picture” of the
current situation regarding the perception, understanding and application of the
business model concept, rather than exploring changes of perception etc.
The rationale for a judgemental sampling approach is that the author can best decide
which respondents to include for achieving maximum diversity within and across the
three communities of academics, support professionals and SME owner-managers.
Thematic analysis (TA) allows for developing themes as they emerge in the data in a
structured yet flexible way, since TA is not a methodology, but ‘just’ a method. An
adapted version of TA was proposed in order to best address the project’s
characteristics (high level of complexity) and the author’s trait as a visual thinker.
206 / 549
5. Findings
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Chapter structure
In this chapter, a number of themes that emerged from the data analysis process are
outlined and discussed. A discussion of each theme forms a major section (5.1, 5.2
etc.) which is organised as follows:
• Firstly, the findings are presented for each community (i.e. academics,
business support professionals and owner-managers) in sequence. The
emergent findings are discussed by linking the ideas back to the interview
data, using quotations linked to a unique code (see 5.1.3), making the text
passages traceable.
• Secondly, the findings are contextualised within the literature, with an
accompanying discussion that clarifies which findings are in accordance with
the current literature and which are complementary and/or contradictory to it.
• Thirdly, the main findings are presented in a condensed way, community by
community.
The concluding section of the chapter provides a summary of the key findings. It thus
represents a basis for answering the research questions and clarifying the
contributions to knowledge in the final chapter.
5.1.2 Community codes
Throughout the chapter, the codes A, M and S refer to the three communities as
follows:
A: Academics.
M: Small business owner-managers.
S: Business support professionals.
207 / 549
5.1.3 Quotation codes
The respondent quotations are referenced by a coding system that was used
throughout the analysis and is explained in 4.12.2.8 above. In brief, the code
identifies the respondent (initial letter/number combination), the theme category
(following letter) and the passage in the interview that relates to the theme (numerical
passage number).
For example, quotation code A1F3 identifies the interview passage as follows:
• A = respondent 1 from the academic community.

• F = Theme code F: ‘Developing adapted frameworks’
• 1 = The third passage in the interview transcript for respondent A1 that relates
to theme F.
Many respondents made related points within the same theme category more than
once during the interview. Where this occurs, the quotation reference is of the format
A1F1-F3 if the references are contiguous, or A1F1,F3,F6 if they are non-contiguous.
The following theme codes were used:
• A: A wide variety of interpretations and applications.

• S: Used in start-ups but not in SMEs.
• F: Developing adapted frameworks.
• P: Soft issues and philosophical considerations.
• R: Considering revenue thinking important.
• I: The implementation of business models in practice.
• C: Business models and complexity management.
• E: The role of business models in ecosystems.
208 / 549
5.2 Theme 1: Wide variety of applications and interpretations (A/S/M)
Table 2 depicts a cross-reference matrix linking the understanding and application of

the business model concept with the various respondents. The table contains the
multifaceted views and perceptions on the term ‘business model’, which emerged in
the 35 interviews. In total, 23 different ways of understanding and 38 ways of
application could be identified. In the matrix, the respondents are referenced to their
individual understanding and application, as in the following example:
A4 (a professor of finance) understands the concept consisting of “The three

dimensions of strategy, structure and culture” (line 4) and applies it for
“analysing the core value chain” (row 3).
Some special entries (combinations) are marked with numbers (coloured in blue)
rather than respondent references; this is the case if more than one respondent
understands and applies the concept identically (there is a legend showing the
respective respondents). Furthermore, cells marked in red stand for negative
quotations. The following abbreviations are used: academics (A), support
professionals (S), owner-managers (M).
209 / 549
Table 2: Understanding-Application-Matrix. Source: Author (2017).
The results are presented using a table (matrix) because due to a high variety of
perspectives clusters of themes can only hardly be built and assigned to communities
such as done with the other 7 main themes discussed in the present chapter. In the
following sub-sections, the various themes are presented in the community in which
they emerged. Due to a plethora of data, a filter was applied. Those ideas were
included for further considerations, which are unique and not yet covered or widely
discussed in the existing literature (selection according to the author’s judgment). The
aim is to provide new additional perspectives and insights. Accordingly, the research
questions will be answered focusing on new perspectives that the three communities
may bring in the business model debate rather than repeating those already outlined
in the literature.
5.2.1 Findings in the academic community (A)
The following interpretations have emerged in the academic community:
1. How to track your money / revenue mechanisms (A/S/M).

2. Business modelling is strategy (A/S).
3. Abstract representation of an organisation / business (A/S/M).
4. Three dimensions strategy, structure and culture (A).
5. A resource-based view (A).
6. About how an organisation creates value for its stakeholders (not monetary
only) (A).
7. Business theory, rent seeking strategy (A).
8. The link of a product and the value it creates for a firm (A).
9. The smallest unit of a business to be defined so that a business works (A).
10. Canvas from Osterwalder (A/S/M).
Some unique insights are that business models must be seen as a ‘three-pole’
consisting of strategy, value and culture. Furthermore, the academic community has
a resource-based view of the business model concept, anchored in business theory,
hence rent-seeking strategies are included.
The following applications have been identified in the academic community:
1. Analysing a business (A/S).

2. Transforming / re-inventing a business (A/S/M).
3. Analysing the core value chain (A).
4. A means to deal with complexity (A/S).
5. A checklist for start-up compensating experience (A).
6. Reframing problems (A).
7. Highly dynamic sectors, reinvention of the BM quickly (A).
8. Developing scenarios / thinking in alternatives (A/S).
9. Communication tool (A/S/M).
10. Internal document serving for a pitch (A).
11. A teaching instrument (A/S).
12. The nucleus of a ("wicked") problem (A).
13. Developing ideas (A/M).
The academic community applies the business model concept as a checklist for
compensating for gaps in experience and knowledge for new business founders.
They also use the business model concept to deal with complexity; however, there is
a debate whether complexity is included or reduced. The concept also serves at re-
framing problems since the argument here is that after having really understood a
problem, solutions can be developed (business models are considered solutions in
this context). A further unique insight is that complex problems often are ‘wicked
problems’ (a term known from design science), hence problems that cannot be
solved applying any existent concept. Hence ‘wicked problems’ must be solved from
scratch each time. The question is whether business models are suitable for this type
of problem.
5.2.2 Findings in the support professional community (S)
The following interpretations have emerged in the support professional community:

2. Business modelling is strategy (A/S).
5. Transaction model (S/M).
6. Tightly associated with marketing (S/M).
212 / 549
7. Lean Canvas from Ash Maurya (S).
8. The value chain (S/M).
9. Value proposition, customer benefit, revenue mechanisms, cost structure (S).
10. "The story of how you create, deliver, and capture value" (S).
11. Ownership structures of a firm (S/M).
12. Something big reduced to something small (S).
Some unique insights are provided by support professionals, advocating the idea that
business models may reflect the ownership structure of a firm. Furthermore, support
professionals have controversially discussed the aspect of having something big to
be reduced to something small, and vice versa. The debate is whether information
may be lost through reduction since business models are complex social systems to
be treated differently from technical systems.
The following applications have been identified in the support professional

community:
1. Analysing a business (A/S).

3. A means to deal with complexity (A/S).
4. Developing scenarios / thinking in alternatives (A/S).
6. A teaching instrument (A/S).
7. Showing the flow of resources in an ecosystem (S/M).
8. Lean Start-up approach - formulation hypotheses to be tested (S).
9. Collaboration tool (S).
10. In combination with other tools such as PEST analysis (S).
11. The implementation of a firm's future strategy (S).
12. Sensitization (S).
13. Sketching out early stage ideas (S).
14. Working with customers (S) → negative quotation.
15. A thinking model (S/M).
16. Gaining deep customer understanding, philosophical questions (S).
17. Understanding pains and gains (S) → negative quotation.
213 / 549
18. Taking responsibilities for whole systems (S).
19. Sharing the same language (S/M).
20. A means to storytelling (S).
21. A means to develop a new business (S/M).
22. Developing innovations based on existing businesses (S).
23. Having emerging ideas (S).
24. Future management framework (S).
The support professional community sees business models – such as the academic
community – as a means of dealing with complexity, although there is a debate
whether complexity is included reduced. They also address the flow of resources
within an ecosystem by following a dynamic perspective. However, most existing
models are considered static in nature. A support professional also stated that the
business model concept should be used for sensitisation only since the concept itself
(such as the Canvas) would be too complex an idea for most small owner-managers
to be easily understood in full, but sensitisation would help them in evaluating the
usefulness of the concept for their given situation. A further perspective that emerges
within the support processional community relates to ‘philosophical’ considerations,
which must represent the starting point of a business model journey. Further ideas
focus on how something new, such as a new business model, may emerge, as an
incubation process. This is an idea that contrasts with traditional planning processes.
Additionally, support professionals often use the business model concept just as a
thinking model, not including it directly in their daily work with clients (SME firms)
because SMEs mostly have a running model, so they tend to react against ideas that
question their model.
5.2.3 Findings in the small business owner manager community (M)
The following understandings have emerged in the owner manager community:

4. Transaction model (S/M).
214 / 549
5. Tightly associated with marketing (S/M).
6. The value chain (S/M).
7. Ownership structures of a firm (S/M).
8. Reorganisation of a firm (M).
9. Mission statement (M).
10. Something like gear wheels of a watch (M).
11. Tightly linked with the business plan (M).
12. A business model is not something static, rather it is always changing (M).
Such as the support professional community, owner-managers also relate the

concept to ownership structures. In this context, they emphasize succession plans.
An entrepreneur handing over his firm to the next generation may set up a different
business model compared to someone intending to sell his firm – aiming at
generating highest possible profit. This has also a lot to do with reorganisations or the
mission statement. A respondent considered the business model like gear wheels of
a watch. This view may imply a rather static understanding of the concept,
comparable to technical designs, a perspective relating to the complexity debate,
hence to the question how much complexity an abstract representation such as a
business model can actually include.
The following applications have been identified in the owner manager community:

3. Showing the flow of resources in an ecosystem (S/M).
4. A thinking model (S/M).
5. Sharing the same language (S/M).
6. A means to develop a new business (S/M).
7. Developing ideas (A/M).
8. Analysing the 'job-to-be-done' (Christensen) (M).
9. How to move in the market, fulfilling customer needs (M).
10. Understanding the point of sales (M).
11. Software industry (M).
12. Scaling the business (M).
215 / 549
13. Blurring prices (M).
14. To say "...this is not our business model" (M).
Regarding the application of the business model concept, the owner manager
community links the concept to several practical-oriented ideas. They use the
concept to show the flow of resources in an ecosystem. However, most frameworks
are considered static rather than dynamic, so they use so-called transaction models
rather than static representations such as the Canvas (an input from the start-up sub-
community). They often do not use the business model directly in their daily work, but
use it as a thinking model, such as support professionals do. Furthermore, they use
the business model concept as an instrument that allows them to better understand
the point of sales, having direct contact with their customers. Another issue, which is
still rarely debated in literature (according to the author’s judgment), is the scaling
process of business models as well as ‘blurring’ of prices, which means that an offer
should not be too transparent for customers: An example is selling service units
rather than hours since the costs per hour are easily comparable making a firm easily
exchangeable. Another interesting input is from an entrepreneur (established Swiss
engineering office), who has never heard about the business model concept, using
the term only to say “…this is not our business model” (M11S2). This is often said
when someone has an idea that is not in line with what the firm does.
5.2.4 In-depth investigation of business model application
The various dimensions of business model application were further analysed.

Therefore, the 38 applications, as resulted in the empirical data and as depicted in
table 2 in the present chapter 5.2, were further analysed, re-grouped and condensed.
By consequence, 20 dimensions of business model application could be identified
(across the three communities). The 20 dimensions of application were further
categorised using an inductive approach of analysis. As the investigation revealed,
on the highest level of abstraction, four dimensions can be built. One the one hand,
these four dimensions contain 2 main business model sub units:
1. Value proposition: Business modelling is about dealing with value

propositions (customer value).
216 / 549
2. Business architecture/architecture/logic: Business modelling is about
business architecture/logic, consisting of key resources, key processes, and
the profit formula.
On the other hand, 2 main application purposes could be identified, which the
business model concept is used for:
1. Analysis: Business model thinking is used to analyse value propositions and

business architecture/logic.
2. Creation: The business model concept is used to create new value
propositions and new business architecture/logic.
Figure 26 depicts the 20 refined application dimensions and the four ‘meta
dimensions’ (main sub units and main application purposes). This analysis is
important for the main contribution of the present thesis representing the empirical
ground.
217 / 549
Figure 26: Dimensions of application derived for the empirical data. Source: Author (2018).
Although the respondents’ various application purposes can be categorised and

conceptualised in four dimensions, they were mixed up in the data. In the interviews,
the respondents made no comments on such categories. In some cases it may not
be obvious which category (purpose and sub unit) can best be associated to the 20
dimensions of application. Accordingly, the interview data were consulted to make a
correct allocation (following the meaning that was given by the respondents).
218 / 549
5.2.5 Contextualizing the findings with literature
Since the business model concept is understood in various ways among researchers
and practitioners, the argument is that there may exist a wide array of meanings, or
as stated by Magretta (2002, p. 6) “Today, ‘business model and ‘strategy’ are among
the most sloppily used terms in business; they are often stretched to mean everything
– and end up meaning nothing”. Since the term ‘business model’ is used very widely,
only little has been said on the business world’s perception of the use of business
models (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2004). The concept has been critiqued insofar that it
would be an “invitation for faulty thinking and self-delusion” (Porter, 2001, p. 13),
“There is still much confusion about what business models are and how they can
best be used” (Shafer et al., 2005, p. 199), and “The literature is developing in silos,
according to the phenomena of interest of the respective researcher” (Zott et al.,
2011, p. 1019).
Accordingly, it is time to relearn what the term ‘business model’ encompasses and
prove its relevance and utility to both the academic and the business community, not
least because researchers often view the business model concept subjectively (Al-
Debei & Avison, 2010). Due to the absence of a common definition of the business
model concept, the meaning is evolving through research and practical applications
(Lambert, 2015). The term is a relatively recent arrival in the management literature,
and often a generic term carrying an intermediate level of details – compared to other
areas such as economic theories of a firm. Accordingly, business models are
considered always subjective since different perceptions exist of what a firm does
(Page, 2014). Practitioners are often overwhelmed by the task of developing – or
even at understanding – their business model; the topic is hyped in the popular press
and there is a lack of proven knowledge in practice (Frankenberger et al., 2013).
Accordingly, business model innovation is perceived difficult; not only do firms
understand the term business model inconsistently but also (as a consequence) are
they incapable of understanding their current business model, so they do not
recognise when changes would be necessary nor how to perform these changes
(Johnson et al., 2008).
219 / 549
The literature confirms the empirical data and vice versa: regarding the
understanding and application of the business model concept, a plethora of different
ideas can be found in practice. This means for the three communities investigated:
35 respondents provided 34 (23) interpretations, and 51 (38) ways of application.
(Note: the numbers in brackets are adjusted with double entries). However, many
ideas are already reflected by existing literature (see literature review). Although the
Canvas may have become a ‘quasi standard’ in some communities (e.g. the start-up
world) there still exist a wide variety of additional ideas tightly linked to the term
‘business model’. Some ‘uncommon’ (in literature not yet elaborated) aspects have
been outlined representing the main output of the present section, in combination
with the finding that a plethora of ideas are tightly linked with the term ‘business
model’.
5.2.6 Key findings
5.2.6.1 Academics
10 different Interpretations and 13 different ways of application were provided by 10

academics, reflecting the view of literature, namely that the term business model has
no consensual meaning.
However, the academic community addresses new insights in that two conflicting
ideas were discussed:
1. Using the business model concept for resource-based rent seeking strategies.
2. Applying the concept for re-framing complex problems.
Furthermore, a special type of complex problems, so-called ‘wicked problems’, was

discussed in the academic sample. However, the business model concept was also
questioned by academics to be a viable approach to solve such ‘wicked problems’.
12 different interpretations and 24 different ways of application were provided by 13

support professionals, the community with by far the most associations. New insights
were revealed in that ownership structures should be included in the business model
220 / 549
debate. This reflected a more complex set of underlying issues, including culture,
values and goals.
Furthermore, whether the use of business models includes or reduces real-world

complexity represents a conceptual issue of debate. Support professionals also
relate business modelling to ecosystem thinking. They pose deep philosophical
questions that each entrepreneur should ask, and suggest the business model
concept to be a thinking model, only to be used for sensitisation, but never to be
applied in the work with SME clients.
5.2.6.3 Owner-managers
12 different Interpretations and 14 different ways of application were provided by 12

support professionals, reflecting the view of literature too, in that the term business
model has no clear meaning.
A new input from the owner manager community is that business models should
reflect ownership structure and succession plans – finally defining the choice of a
viable business model. They also use the business model concept for better
understanding of ecosystems and the point of sales. Furthermore, a good business
model should allow for ‘blurring’ prices. The finding that one entrepreneur uses the
term only to say “…this is not our business model” (M11S2), very well reflects
Christensen’s (2001) RPV theory (resources, processes, values).
5.3 Theme 2: used in start-ups and large firms but not in SMEs (A/S/M)
In the academic community the following themes have emerged in the data and will
be further elaborated as follows.
5.3.1.1 Start-ups as the nucleus of the business model concept
According to a professor of sustainability, the Osterwalder Canvas may usefully serve

as compensating for gaps in experience:
221 / 549
“The Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010b) Canvas has become part of the basic
repertoire in the start-up and the new venture community: The business model is
some kind of check list that allows to compensate for missing experience“ (A5S1).
A professor of innovation management has observed that big firms are also
interested in business modelling:
“New specialised knowledge has been developed so that it can be observed that
there is an increasing interest of established large firms in specific start-up
knowledge, ideas such as business model thinking” (A1S2).
5.3.1.2 Changing existing business models
A professor of international marketing pointed out that changing existing business

models is only barely possible:
“An argument is that through the work of Osterwalder, the business model concept
has become popular. Based on the work of Osterwalder, there are many people who
know the term business model today. However, there are still just very few who really
manage to take advantage of the essential things of the concept (‘the essential
things’ are considered revenue thinking). An argument is that most firms have their
dominant business model which they feel comfortable with, but ….adding a new one,
forget it” (A2S2-S3).
A professor of empirical innovation research supports this line of argumentation:
“Although the business model concept is considered useful in a start-up context, it is

considered inadequate for transforming an existing business from model A to model
B! Instead, transforming an existing business model must be seen as an individual
and unique endeavour, where such a framework may not be useful at all since most
entrepreneurs deal with their business model intuitively correctly, without the need for
a formalised concept” (A3S2).
A professor of finance provides an argument why business models cannot easily be

changed – the concept is considered too radical an idea for most managers, who
were trained in other management paradigms:
222 / 549
“A rationale for why business models cannot easily be changed could be a main
weakness of the Canvas, namely the fact that ‘traditional managers’ are not able to
cope with it. It is too radical. They feel more comfortable with more traditional models
such as the general St. Gallen model. If managers can choose they almost always
decide for alternatives allowing them to expand their hierarchy. But new business
models are to be found in processes. This causes disorientation” (A4S2).
5.3.1.3 Role of the sector a firm is in
A marketing professor links business models with the sector a firm is in:
“The value of business modelling depends on the sector a firm is in. Hence, business
model thinking may be particularly interesting in highly dynamic sectors where you
have to reinvent your firm and your services at a high pace” (A7S1).
This view is supported by a professor of international marketing, although he argues

that, due to the specifics of the sector, static business model frameworks may be not
flexible enough:
“I have never worked with a business model framework in a real context (consulting
or firm teaching activities) as I have never used the business model concept in
practice. Instead, at the beginning the business system is analysed. This is more
flexible and confronts the realities of a specific sector” (A2S2).
In the support professional community, the following themes have emerged in the
data and are accordingly discussed below.
5.3.2.1 Mainly used in start-ups
An experienced governmental innovation coach sees business models as important

in the early stages of a start-up:
“In early stage start-ups, the Canvas has replaced the business plan. At the very
beginning firms sketch out their ideas using the Canvas” (S4S7).
223 / 549
Complementing this view, an internationally acting innovation consultant sees the
Canvas as a standard tool in the start-up scene:
“The Canvas has become a standard tool in the start-up community, not only in
Switzerland, but worldwide” (S9S2).
The very same consultant, who had developed a business model framework in his
earlier career as an academic, restricted his framework to the context of start-ups
and large firms:
“SMEs were ignored. Essentially, even today I have only few contacts with SMEs”
(S9S1).
5.3.2.2 SMEs do not actively work with the BM concept
An early business model evangelist and business school lecturer sees only little
evidence that business models are popular in SMEs:
“In most established firms there are still no standard business modelling processes”
(S1S2).
This insight is supported by a strategy consultant:
“Most firms have not yet realised that they should put their business model on paper.
They may have a business plan they revise regularly by (just) changing the numbers
in it. Many CEOs use ‘proven best practice’ structures and tools so they only care
about new concepts when their organisation is in crisis” (S2S2).
The rationale may be that for most firms the daily business has priority, so they do
not deal with concepts such as the business model. Accordingly, a respondent who
works as governmental innovation consultant (he has coached several hundred SME
firms in his career) has so far never received feedback from firms regarding their
application of the business model concept. He doubts that firms really go into the
details. He has never seen a firm actively working with the business model concept:
“The problem is that you have to work with these 9 building blocks. You have to
understand them; this takes time and energy. It is not that easy and firms do not
224 / 549
normally invest time for this. I have worked with several hundred firms in the past 10
years and have learned that most firms (SMEs) do not have the resources to deal
with such concepts, particularly firms in the range of 1 to 30 people. Not a single firm
I know has ever actively worked with the business model concept” (S4S2-S4).
Furthermore, it is argued that “although firms know the concept, they do not work with
it – working with it is a different thing” (S4S5).
An experienced small firm coach argues similarly:
“Missing resources are a current topic according to the support professional

community: SMEs do not often work with the business model concept because they
do not have the required resources to do so” (S3S2).
Another innovation consultant stated that he has never used any of these tools (such
as the business model concept) in his daily work with customers. He just uses them
as mental models, as thinking models:
“When you have customers with a working firm you must be careful not to say to
them, hey, your business model is rubbish. Neither can you use theoretical models
they do not understand. They need revenues, instantly” (S7S2).
An experienced innovation consultant, university lecturer and business book author

supports this view by arguing that business models may scare people:
“An aspect is that the business model concept will never be commercially interesting
for consultants; an insight which often has been misunderstood. The rationale is
simple: We scare people with business model thinking. Many people would
experience some sort of cognitive dissonance by reflecting on their job, asking the
question ‘does it make sense what I do?’” (S8S1).
Even though some firms may apply the concept, it is questioned whether the concept
is applied properly in practice:
“Based on my experiences of how people apply the SWOT framework in practice, I

question the correct application of the Canvas by most firms” (S13S1).
225 / 549
5.3.2.3 The role of consultants
The support professional community also discusses the role of consultants. An

experienced small business coach and former management member of a quoted
Swiss firm (more than 3000 employees) states that firms often rely on consultants
when changing their business model:
“When it comes to business model considerations, most managers (not

entrepreneurs!) heavily rely on consultants because such discussions (about
business model) are often uncomfortable – and consultants can easily be dismissed
if necessary” (S3S2).
Furthermore, one respondent (a consultant himself) stated that he mostly works with
technology-based firms, in most cases not SMEs but big firms where consultants act
as catalysts:
“The rationale is that, normally, bigger firms have a higher affinity to external
consulting services. I have learned that technology-based firms are ahead in terms of
innovation, compared to other sectors, such as banking” (S10S1).
5.3.2.4 Firm type and sector
A governmental innovation coach argues that business model thinking is not

adequate for each and every firm type:
“The business model concept is not suitable for each and every (type of) firm. This
simply does not work. A small firm with production facilities can normally not just get
rid of its infrastructure following a new business model. An Internet business is
different, of course, also in terms of its scalability. Not every firm is scalable” (S4S6).
It is further argued that business model thinking is especially important in highly

dynamic sectors:
“However, the concept is particularly useful in sectors with rapid modifications such
as the telecom industry” (S9S3).
226 / 549
In the owner manager community the following themes have emerged in the data and
are further elaborated in the discussion.
5.3.3.1 Business models in the start-up community
A clean technology start-up founder considers the business model concept very
useful for developing his business:
“Basically, in the start-up context the business model concept has been popular for
many years. Thanks to Osterwalder the idea has become a standard concept”
(M3S1).
This same respondent further considers the concept to be very useful for his
business. But he also considers another aspect important, business model
innovation:
“I try to find combinations that allow for new products combined with new business
models. This is what I feel really fascinated about and what motivates me working on”
(M3S2-S3).
As a high-tech serial start-up (co-) founder (and co-owner of more than 10 start-ups),
another respondent is familiar with the Canvas from Osterwalder, a well-established
framework that he considers to be widely used in the start-up scene. However:
“The application of the Canvas depends on the task at hand. When developing a new
business, the Canvas may be useful. However, to adapt a critical perspective people
often are not interested in ‘theoretical stuff’; they want to talk about practice. In the
high-tech IT sector, the Canvas is widely used. In a start-up, the business model is
simply the ‘thing’. It is all about business modelling. Hence, the business model
concept is considered a useful tool, as long as properly and carefully applied (using
sticky notes! – and not online tools)” (M10S1-S6).
Another respondent, an entrepreneur with an established firm in the furniture

business (with around 30 employees), stated:
227 / 549
“In fact I do not know any (business model) frameworks such as the Canvas. I
assume that established SMEs (such as my own firm) are confronted with different
issues than start-ups” (M8S1).
5.3.3.2 No use of business models
In the owner-manager community (except for the ‘start-up’ owner-managers who

have recently founded their business), the business model concept is not very
popular as an idea. An ICT engineering entrepreneur argued:
“Since I had a good order situation most of the time in the past 20 years I have never
really cared about such concepts. Only recently, in crisis time, I have started thinking
about such ideas” (M1S1).
A respondent, owner of an established SME, stated that:
“… I have not yet used a business model or any other management framework or
concept at all” (M2S2).
An architect (with 3 employees) argued that he never had time enough for concepts
such as the business model:
“The rationale is that I simply have never had time for this and there are no obvious
added values to do so. I run a business as an architect; this essentially is my
business model – even not in the founding process of my office I have used a
management concept, since at the beginning there was no plan, but there was plenty
of work to do. I have been working hard all the time, day and night, but for the ‘real
work’ rather than the organization of my office” (M6S3-S4).
Essentially, the owner of a mid-sized SME (around 200 employees) stated:
“The term ‘business model’ or the business model as a concept on its own right does
simply not exist in my vocabulary; the only exception is to say .... ’this is not our
business model’ (when a new idea does not fit with current or possible new
activities)” (M11S2).
228 / 549
Another argument from an respondent who had used the concept at the very
beginning of his entrepreneurial career was:
“Today, he has all these things in mind and knows exactly how the market functions
and how his competitors act, so the model would not be necessary and useful for him
anymore” (M4S2).
5.3.3.3 Ways of understanding and using business models
Those using the business model concept describe its application in various ways,
such as described by a start-up founder in the building technology sector:
“The Canvas may be applied either to use it as a means for developing ‘wild’ ideas
from scratch (the way it tends to be primarily used), or we can use it for reflecting on
an idea very much in detail by focusing on specific elements such as the value
proposition and the customer segments” (M5S3).
Another respondent, co-owner of a big-sized SME with 700 employees, sees value in
understanding the point of sales:
“The point of sales is considered a firm’s most worthwhile element. This is also where
competitive advantages originate. Mostly, firms develop their business model based
on existing capabilities. However, they also deal with new technologies that may
become a threat for the existing model in the future. Models such as the Canvas are
just thinking models. We have structured our firm using a system directly derived
from the Balanced Score Card” (M7S2-S4).
A serial high-tech entrepreneur and shareholder of more than 10 start-ups argues:
“The Canvas, on the other hand, can be useful for developing something new, hence
new ideas from scratch. On the other hand, once having a running business, the
Balanced Score Card is considered a more viable concept” (M10S3).
Furthermore, as argued by a large firm manager with more than 1,000 employees:
229 / 549
“The customers are willing to pay because they have an added value. However, such
business models usually do not last forever. In short, the less I have to invest for this
added value, the better the business model is” (M9S2).
5.3.4 Contextualizing the findings with the literature
On the one hand, the literature reveals that the business model idea has become
popular in the start-up context (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), simultaneously
concluding that start-ups are not just small versions of large firms but have their own
‘spirit’ (Blank, 2013; Blank & Dorf, 2012; Ries, 2011). In the start-up and
entrepreneurship domain, business model thinking can lead to more informed
decisions (Trimi & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2012). Furthermore, in the start-up and new
venture context the business model concept has become a quasi-standard and is
currently part of many MBA curricula (Nobel, 2011). On the other hand, the concept
is widely used in large firms, as demonstrated by plenty of literature in domains such
as technology management (Johnson et al., 2008; Pateli, 2003) or innovation
management (Chesbrough, 2007; Christensen, 2002). However, a current model
from Christensen, Bartman, et al. (2016) shows a 3-stage business model journey,
leading to the argument that SMEs are located in the second or third stage of the
Christensen (2016) model, caring more about efficiency rather than creation, so are
not primarily concerned about developing value propositions as start-ups.
Furthermore, the start-up development model from Blank (2013) argues that start-ups
and established (mainly large) firms are fundamentally different.
A tool for start-ups: The data show that each community assigns business modelling
with start-ups. There are plenty of arguments ranging from developing new creative
business ideas using the Canvas, up to the insight that existing firms must first get rid
of their existing model before implementing a new one. These ideas are also
reflected by the literature where the main purpose of a start-up is often described as
finding a new viable business model (Blank, 2013; Blank & Dorf, 2012; Christensen,
Bartman, et al., 2016). Once having found a working model, a firm must change its
‘mode’ from search to implementation. The argument here is that established SMEs
mostly have a working business model, so they are in the implementation state;
230 / 549
hence business model thinking is regarded as less relevant, since the firm would first
have to get rid of its existing model, which is often too demanding a task.
Significance of the sector: According to members of the academic and the support
professional communities, a firm’s sector plays a dominant role. Business modelling
is argued to be most important in highly dynamic high-tech domains and Internet-
based firms, where scalability is important. This idea is also discussed in the
literature (business models as enablers of new technologies). However, most
established SMEs are in rather static environments – compared to high-tech Internet-
based start-ups; this line of argumentation may serve to explain the absence of
serious business model thinking, by simultaneously contrasting start-ups and
established firms.
Not used in established SMEs: Whereas most other themes may indirectly explain
the absence of business model thinking in established SMEs, this point very directly
provides insights regarding a lack of business model thinking. The rationales stated
by the respondents are multifaceted, ranging from having no resources available due
to full-time engagement in the daily business, to a lack of understanding of the
concept, up to philosophical issues provoking a cognitive dissonance with existing
activities. On the one hand, the literature acknowledges that the concept is still fuzzy
and vague, so accordingly there is no common / shared understanding. On the other
hand, the absence of the business model concept in established SMEs (in contrast to
start-ups and large firms) has not yet been addressed explicitly by the literature, thus
representing a research gap.
Changing business models: The academic community argues that changing an

existing business model would be too demanding a task for most firms, therefore the
concept is just relevant for start-ups. This argumentation is in line with the literature
stating that business model thinking depends on the phase a firm is in, finally
reinforcing the finding that established SMEs do not deal with the business model
concept. On the other hand, large firms experiencing disruption at the low end of their
customer base are forced to think in the business model dimension as well – an
argument discussed in literature, based on the thinking of Christensen (2002).
However, compared with SMEs, the argument here is that large firms may have the
231 / 549
required resources at hand that allow them to actively deal with business model
thinking.
The role of consultants: The support professional community sees a special role of
consultants in the business model development process as they may act as ‘catalyst’
within a firm. The use of consultants may show that business modelling is a very
demanding task that deeply touches the values of a firm, an insight, which is in line
with the finding that business models may have a philosophical dimension, which
many entrepreneurs tend to ignore. The literature lacks acknowledgement and
discussion of this issue.
Various ways of application: In the owner-manager community some additional

insights of the various ways the business model concept is applied have emerged in
the data by investigating the concept’s application in SMEs, reinforcing a perspective
provided by the literature, namely, that the concept has still no clear meaning, making
it intangible and, as a consequence, applied in various ways.
5.3.5 Key findings
5.3.5.1 Academics
Start-ups, as organisations looking for a new business model, are widely discussed
by academics and also well reflected in literature, for instance by Blank (2013).
Academics also take a firm’s sector into consideration, arguing that highly dynamic
industries must be more concerned about business models, an idea to be found in
innovation and technology management literature. This confirms that the business
model concept is relevant for large firms.
Findings from the academic community add to literature by revealing that we must
distinguish between start-ups, established firms and SMEs – a finding that is even
better reflected by the support professional community. Since the process of finding a
new viable business model is part of a start-up journey, established firms must first
get rid of their existing business model, making the adoption of a new one much
more complicated.
232 / 549
The key finding here, not yet covered by the existing business model literature, is that
the business model concept is only rarely used by established SMEs. By contrast, it
is a popular concept in the start-up community. Most of the interviewed support
professionals do not know any SME firms actively working with it nor do they use the
model in their work with clients (SME firms), but use the model as a thinking model.
The start-up model from Blank (2016) and the 3-stage ‘business model journey’
model from Christensen (2016) reinforce this finding, since a start-up is different from
established firms regarding the values and the tasks to be fulfilled, namely from
developing working value propositions (product-market fit) and efficiency or scaling.
Support professionals working with large firms state that the business model concept
has become popular in large firm contexts and that some frameworks have been
developed exclusively for large firms, simultaneously neglecting SMEs.
On the one hand, all the interviewed start-ups used the business model concept
(above all the Canvas from Osterwalder), a finding that can be confirmed by literature
since business modelling has become part of each MBA curricula.
On the other hand, in the interviewed sample, there were only few established owner-
managed SMEs knowing the business model concept and not a single one actively
using it by applying a business model framework – a confirmation of what academics
have indicated and what support professionals have extensively debated. Those
having learned about the concept have no clear understanding about the meaning of
the term ‘business model’, an aspect also reflected by literature in that the concept is
not used coherently. Furthermore, business practitioners regard the concept as
theoretical, not addressing their problems. At this point, the Christensen (2016)
model can also be used to show that established SMEs are in the second or third
phase of the business journey model, hence caring more about processes
(efficiency) and scaling (profit formula).
Regarding their business model development actives, SMEs and their specific
situation have neither been addressed conceptually nor empirically by existing
233 / 549
literature – in contrast to the business model concept’s application in start-ups and
large firms.
5.4 Theme 3: Developing adapted frameworks (A/S)
5.4.1.1 Expanding and complementing the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas
Inspired by the Canvas, a professor of strategic management has developed his own
3 x 3 matrix as an adapted business model framework:
“The Canvas is used but, due to its limitations, an adapted framework has been
developed. This framework is primarily used in the start-up context, consisting of a 3
x 3 matrix containing resources, values, the potential of value, and the realization of
value. Compared to the Canvas the framework is much more focused on the value
architecture and the planning and realization of new businesses. The Canvas is
considered descriptive but ignores the implementation of such a ‘mechanism’
(firm/start-up). The problem with the Canvas is the illusion that people think they
understand what is going on – relatively quickly. However, this is considered a big
problem. They do not understand it. This is the essence of working with 40-50 start-
ups a year” (A1F1).
The same line of reasoning, namely that the ‘Canvas’ should be re-structured and
complemented by additional fields, is applied by a professor of entrepreneurship,
arguing:
“There are many models, the most popular is from Osterwalder (Canvas), but I have
developed my own too. My model consists of 7 “keys” to be defined, namely
customers, product, market development, money, competition, resources, and the
team. The various models are similar. Nevertheless, the competition is missing in
Osterwalder’s model, for instance” (A9F1).
However, the Canvas has also been used for developments and adaptations without
major modifications. A professor for sustainability has only slightly further developed
the Canvas:
234 / 549
“I have mapped the theory of impact into the Canvas, the most well-known
framework, hence creating an ‘impact business model’” (A5F1).
5.4.1.2 Simplifying the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas
Not only has the Canvas has been expanded or modified, but simplified versions of it
have also been proposed. The three dimensions of ‘strategy, structure and culture’
may be put together in building up a business model:
“We always see the three dimensions strategy, structure and culture. You cannot
change one of them without influencing the others too” (A4F1).
But the Canvas also served as basis for a design thinking-based adaptation:
“The 9 fields of the Canvas are always difficult to understand by students, so I have
developed a simplified 4-quadrant model, at the centre of which stands always the
question ‘who can we create value for’? Starting from the value proposition, I have
designed a 4-quadrant learning cycle/model (Q1: empathy, Q2: creativity, Q3:
realisation, Q4: check). Within a typical session, a cycle of the model can be worked
through – this is considered important” (A6F1).
5.4.1.3 Critical voices regarding the development of adapted frameworks
Perhaps one of the most prominent adaptations of the Canvas is known as the St.
Gallen Business Model Navigator. However, there are also critical voices within the
academic community regarding the adaptation of new business model frameworks,
such as stated by a professor of global marketing and strategy:
“The St. Gallen framework is very theoretical and not very useful. It is a framework for
the sake of a framework” (A2F1).
From a design researcher’s perspective models often are to be developed

individually, they should be created each time from scratch:
“Models always imply generalisation, an idea often resisted at the school of design
and arts. By contrast, ‘models’ are to be developed individually. However, there are
some students starting with the Canvas (particularly in the entrepreneurship domain),
who then develop their own model out of it” (A10F1-F2).
235 / 549
5.4.2.1 Having developed their own framework or adaptation
In terms of developing adapted frameworks, an early business model evangelist

advocates for combining different models:
“Combining the Canvas and the transaction model has proved to be highly effective.
‘We need a new type of model that allows for zooming in and out between different
levels, such as in technical 3D-plans’” (S1F1-F2).
Another respondent, a former business model researcher, having developed a

business model framework, advocates developing industry-specific patterns rather
than new models:
“The development of my framework was restricted to the context of start-ups and

large firms. Today, developing plug-ins for existing tools is considered superior to
developing adapted models, since each tool has its purpose. Rather than creating
newly adapted models, investigating industry-specific patterns (using existing tools) is
considered far more valuable an approach for academics in the domain. Me and my
team try to create tools that are useful for practitioners” (S9F1-F3).
A management consultant, describing himself a philosophical ‘impulsator’, has

developed a model too, although emphasising different perspectives:
“Many important questions have already been answered. However, individuals often
do not turn their individual answers into a ‘Welt-Frage’ (a question to the world).
Entrepreneurs do exactly this. They are interested in the world. By contrast, those
having answers for everything (know-it-alls) are considered cowards when they do
not formulate questions out of it; hence, it is all about giving something back to the
world! This way of thinking is some sort of business model thinking too; I just have
not named it like that” (S11F1).
Another respondent specialized in future management has developed his own

adapted framework to deal with the future:
236 / 549
“A model consisting of ‘future glasses’ to deal with diverse perspectives. The
business model concept is included in this future management framework” (S13F1).
5.4.2.2 Critical voices regarding adapted frameworks
The development of new, adapted frameworks is discussed controversially in the

support professional community. As an innovation consultant and lecturer stated:
“Creating another adapted model framework is ‘academic masturbation’. Instead, it

would be much more sensible to think from the customer” (S8F1).
Another management consultant and member of a Swiss business angel association

argued that we do not need more than a few models:
“We currently could see a trend that each university (interested in the domain)
develops its own Canvas. Essentially, the Canvas from Osterwalder and the Lean
Canvas from Ash Maurya are brilliant tools, also as a means for communication. I
take notice of other (adapted) models but do not integrate them in my work” (S7F1).
In the support professional community, it is often referred to the Osterwalder (2010)

Canvas, or, as stated by another respondent, a strategy consultant added a
criticicism that models rarely contain new ideas:
“The currently most popular framework is from Osterwalder. He substantially has not
invented something new but combined existing concepts to a new big picture and
developed it further focusing on customers and the value proposition. There are also
other frameworks such as the Navigator from Gassmann, but most of them are
adaptations of Osterwalder” (S2F1).
Gassmann developed another well-known framework called ‘Business Model

Navigator’ (or just ‘Navigator’). However, according to an innovation consultant and
business book author, this framework does not really represent a business model:
“ …it is not clear whether the model from Gassmann is really a model. It could even
be just an index. Hence, ‘the work from Gassmann, including the business model
road map and the archetypes are interesting, very interesting, for historians’” (S10F1-
F2).
237 / 549
As the literature reveals, a plethora of business model definitions and frameworks

has been developed in the past 20 years since business model research has mainly
focused on conceptual studies (Klang et al., 2014; Lambert & Davidson, 2013). Some
of the possibly best known frameworks have been developed by authors such as
Chesbrough (2007), Johnson et al. (2008), Wirtz (2010), Osterwalder and Pigneur
(2010), Gassmann et al. (2013), or Stähler (2013).
The data confirm the view of the business model literature in that the Canvas has
become the best-known framework (Wagner et al., 2015). The data furthermore
confirm the literature in that personally-driven developments have been made, as can
be seen by authors such as Chesbrough (2006), Chesbrough (2007), or Timmers
(1998). The data also support the literature by showing that business modelling has
its origins in the first US Internet bubble (Timmers, 1998), also revealing that some of
the first publications in the domain focused on revenue perspectives, such as in the
work of Linder and Cantrell (2001).
The data have revealed that some academics have simplified the business model
concept, since it is considered too complex and not suitable for solving certain
complex problems. This idea is neglected by the existing business model literature.
The data further show that the academic community is divided into two sub-groups:
1. Those having developed their own models, which were mostly based on the
Canvas. They either have expanded the Canvas, since their argument is that
there are missing elements in it, or reduced it because it is considered too
complex a concept.
2. Those questioning the adaptation of existing models, either with the argument
that business modelling is still a question of revenue generation, that existing
models are well suitable and no changes are needed, or that models must be
questioned per se regarding their usefulness in solving today’s complex
problems.
The research revealed a similar division within the support professional community,
within which there were also two sub-groups: those having developed their own
238 / 549
model and those questioning such developments or adaptations. However, the
argument of the latter group is a little different from that put forward by the
academics, emphasizing more practical issues: since the Canvas would have proved
to be a useful model, why should they use another? It is better to just concentrate on
one framework. This view, which can be interpreted as a concern regarding the
capacity for absorbing various models in the practitioner market, has not yet been
addressed by the current business model literature. Furthermore, support
professionals also emphasize that models must be easily understandable and
applicable in practice, a clear shortcoming of some of the models described in the
literature.
5.4.4 Key findings
5.4.4.1 Academics
The research has revealed two sub-groups in the academic community; those having
developed their own model by supporting the idea of further enhancing existing
frameworks and those resisting this idea. As the literature shows, developing
frameworks is fashionable – there are frameworks based on the Canvas but also very
different frameworks.
The research uncovers and adds to literature: The proponents of developing adapted
frameworks, on the one hand, may be more located in the worlds of design thinking
and value proposition development. Their models either simplify existing frameworks,
arguing that frameworks such as the Canvas would be too complex, or expand
existing frameworks with the argument that there are missing elements. The model’s
critics, on the other hand, often argue that business modelling should be limited to
revenue thinking, and that generalisation, as an inherent characteristic of models,
must be questioned per se.
Support professionals can also be divided into two sub-groups; those supporting and
those resisting framework development. Furthermore, although it might be
fashionable to develop adapted models, the argument of the critics is that the
practical world would not have the capacity for dealing with various models
239 / 549
simultaneously, nor would an adapted model help in dealing with revenue aspects.
On the other hand, the proponents argue that models must address the needs of
practitioners; to meet this need, visual, easily understandable models are required.
5.5 Theme 4: Soft issues and philosophical considerations (A/S)
This section considers the comments made by respondents concerning two related
sub-themes:
• ‘Soft issues’ that address behavioural topics such as learning, culture,

imagination and emotion.
• ‘Philosophical issues’ that address such issues as raison d’être, purpose and
underlying meanings.
When talking about business models, we must take into account the cultural
dimension at the periphery of philosophical considerations, or, as stated by a
professor of finance:
“Today it is important to recognise the networked character of our world. Therefore it

is important to work on a shared culture. Team cultures are still highly
underestimated. Being dialogue-oriented and giving feedbacks will be a key element
in the future. The argument here is that culture may also influence creativity, which is
considered a key ingredient of business modelling” (A10P2-P4).
Culture and creativity may be a means to solve complex ‘problems’. In his projects, a
professor of business development argues that he always tries to focus on the
problem right at the beginning:
“… But, what exactly is the problem? Very often the problem must be (re-) framed.
We should not try to find solutions too quickly; instead we must try to better
understand the problem. Accordingly, ‘We have to ‘construct’ other people’s
perceptions in a way that they end up saying this is good solution’” (A6P1-P3).
240 / 549
According to a professor of sustainability, business models are a means to posing the
right-to-exist-question, a question, which is considered philosophically motivated:
“On a more abstract level, by adapting a resource-based perspective, a business

model finally answers the right-to-exist-question (raison d’être) of a firm” (A5P1).
However, even the word ‘model’ may be questioned philosophically, since, according
to a design researcher, things are always questioned in the arts domain:
“Models imply structure of orientation. In the design institute these ‘structures’ are
influenced by the arts, they are used less strictly. At the art academy things are
always questioned. Accordingly, models per se are of only limited relevance. People
do not start thinking with the model but instead with an idea. Design Thinking is a
concept of this nature, starting from the nucleus of an idea” (A10P1-P2).
It was widely felt that the human factor is underestimated in the business model
debate. As an experienced small business coach stated:
“It is always important to treat customers as ‘humans’ to be understood. On the other

hand, it was accepted that the Canvas (as a representation tool) is ideally suited in
education contexts, where you want to quickly have complete ‘solutions’ – in an
exercise, for instance. But reality is more complex and market structures may change
daily because there are never firms doing business with each other - there are
always people doing business with each other; something often ignored. Once
having your business model in mind means continuously leaving your comfort zone
(especially as a start-up). It is part of the game to continuously review the unpleasant
side of what you do; having the will for this is essential” (S3P1-P3).
Regarding philosophical considerations to be made, a management consultant

added:
“But business model thinking is also about a firm’s right to exist (“raison d’être”).
Furthermore, we cannot plan everything. There is a factor called ‘luck’ and a saying
‘A fool with a tool is still a fool’. The customers do not want you to be a fool. Humans
241 / 549
should not be reduced to tools; a human vs. tool situation must be avoided” (S7P1-
P3).
An experienced business model consultant and business book writer further argues
that the focus of business modelling has changed from purely mechanistic
perspectives towards ‘soft’ philosophical considerations:
“20 years ago, the human factor was ignored in business model thinking (as a trained
computer scientist). But the team and entrepreneurial spirit are ‘new’ elements I have
added in the past few years, as my perspective has changed. Developing a passion
for something is key today. However, people in general do not like to question
themselves. Nevertheless, you have to find your place in the world. It is not about
values to be written down on a piece of paper, these are the values to be lived within
a firm. Business modelling is often just a question of values. In many sectors,
everyone acts rationally. But no one is motivated to say, hmm, can we do it
differently? This way of thinking is required. We finally need a passion for what we
do. This is business model thinking” (S8P5-P8).
Another respondent, a philosophically-orientated business support professional

(describing himself as a ‘philosophical impulsator’), argues similarly. He emphasises
the importance of being inspired by an idea and the role of ‘the heart’, although
acknowledging that this may sound strange in an economic context:
“Being inspired by an idea is important although it may sound strange in an economic

context. But without inspiration you are just a ‘Kopf-Füssler’ (a creature that is only
head and feet: a cephalopod, i.e. without a heart). Without passion for something,
you get demotivated. There are factors from inside – called ‘vergällen’ (denature) –
and from outside, which may paralyze you. Often, people bypass the heart question.
But in long-term, you need the heard, the passion for something. Having passion for
something also includes suffering, it is not about just having fun. It is different.
Passion includes suffering. A heart not just beats for itself, it needs a task, something
sensible to do. It mustn’t end in itself. Our economy, can it really afford to ignore the
‘heart question’? However, it is not an economic question at first glance. Can it afford
to ‘dehumanize humans’? Based on medical statistics the argument is that it cannot,
242 / 549
but it still does. We have to send ideas to the subconscious, a forced anaesthesia,
not waking it up all the time. Suddenly, something new is about to emerge, as we can
see in the history of science. You send your questions to sleep and wake up with an
answer in mind! People must develop loyalty to their questions, not giving up too
quickly. By the way, it may also be interesting to investigate which internal and
external demotivating factors influence business models. Humans do not just want to
learn from the world but they also want to give something back to the world. This is
considered some kind of basic rhythm, maybe a world formula. It is an interval
between appropriation and communication. Maybe what drives evolution, possibly an
old principle?” (S11P7-P11).
An experienced innovation coach and consultant argued that we must learn to accept
contradictions a basis for setting up new business models:
“Most models are too complex rather than being transparent, hence revealing
contradictions. Quite often, his customers (i.e the business owner’s) expect him to
calm a messy situation, but in fact I usually cause much more trouble! Not every
client can cope with that. Accordingly, a business model is also a means to question
existing assumptions! People focusing on security only have problems with that. A
business model is like a sculpture. For the visitors contemplating it, the sculpture is
complete, is perfect, but not so for the artist. For him, it is never perfect. Story telling
is another interesting instrument in order to think about new customers. Although
often misused and misunderstood these days, it helps, or forces you, to think your
concept through rigorously. However, the problem with the business model concept
is that it is still associated with the world of economics where everything is reduced to
cause and effects” (S5P1-P8).
Other respondents made an interesting semantic point, questioning the meaning of

‘business’ itself:
“However, the possibly most basic question is: What is a ‘Geschäft’ (a business)? (in
German the word ‘Geschäft’ is used for a business but also for a single deal. It is not
that clear what ‘Geschäft’ means; and business model is translated as ‘Geschäfts-
Modell’)” (S6P1).
243 / 549
A former business model academic, consultant and business book author sees giving
meaning and asking deep philosophical questions as key to business modelling:
“Referring to the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas the value proposition represents more
fundamental values than just the product; the latter may change over time but the
fundamental values are constant. Or, as Steve Jobs once said: ‘Everything is
changing. Everything. The product. Everything. But what we stand for, what our
values are, has not changed for the last 20 years. We inspire people for great work’.
Only few people understand this difference. The value proposition is what you stand
for in your life. This is a philosophical question and has nothing to do with pains and
gains. Accordingly, business model thinking is about creating something new and
therefore we need soft skills, philosophical approaches. Business modelling is about
gaining a deep customer understanding and about values within a firm. It is rather
strange that we separate the value proposition and the customers segments – as
done in the Osterwalder (2010) model. I cannot make a marriage proposal to a
woman I do not know! This is really important. ‘The value proposition is all about
giving meaning’” (S8P1-P3).
A philosophical consultant sees a danger of missing reality by reducing something

big to something small:
“’I am trying to develop situational intelligence’, something important for

entrepreneurs. It is about “smelling” questions, something gaseous standing in the
room, which has not yet condensed into something tangible. A model can be
understood like a compass, but no one goes hiking for the sake of the compass.
Essentially, everything starts with a question, an innovation, for instance. Let’s say,
we have a so-called ‘Welt-Frage’ (a question to the world) for which I may have an
answer, my personal answer, the ‘Ich-Antwort’. This ‘Ich-Antwort’ can be understood
as an invention (not innovation!), based on which I pose a ‘Ich-Frage’ (my question to
the world). To answer the ‘Ich-Frage’ I look for a ‘Welt-Antwort’ (a response from the
world to my question). Depending on the reaction of the world the result could be an
innovation. People very often do not take time to get involved with the world to
explore and discover an answer. Real entrepreneurs do exactly this. They have
answers, but they formulate a question to the world – based on their answers – and
244 / 549
see what happens. No doubt, the step from the ‘Ich-Antwort’ to the ‘Welt-Frage’ is
risky. By contrast, just having an answer for something is quite easy. However,
entrepreneurs are interested in humans and in observing them, ‘smelling’ and
discovering what is in the ‘air’” (S11P1-P6).
5.5.3 Contextualizing the findings with the literature
The academic community links philosophical considerations to the business model

domain: They refer to corporate culture, problem re-framing, the right-to-exist
question (raison d’être), and the idea that business models are emergent phenomena
rather than the product of conscious planning.
Support professionals put humans at the centre of business model thinking, as they
associate passion and inspiration with philosophical thinking, as well as a deep
customer understanding and value creation. The value creation concept has
extensively been discussed in literature by authors such as Johnson et al. (2008),
Osterwalder et al. (2015), Teece (2010), or Zott and Amit (2010). Value creation is
also part of the entrepreneurship literature, in which Drucker’s age-old question of
‘What does the customer value?’ has been addressed (Drucker & Drucker, 2007).
However, only limited attention has been given in business model literature to
‘philosophical’ ideas, such as the importance of being inspired, developing passion
for something, or sending ideas to the subconscious first, from where innovations –
and subsequently new business models – may emerge. At the periphery of this
debate the literature includes the concept of corporate culture by emphasizing the
need for tolerance and accepting failures as basis for business model
experimentation (Wolcott & Lippitz, 2007). A culture of experimentation and launching
market experiments is considered particularly important for validating new business
models, a concept widely outlined in the start-up literature (Blank, 2013). However,
corporate culture is something to be ‘intuitively sensed’ rather than measured
(Denison, 1984). This may link the concept to philosophy, social sciences, sociology,
psychology etc. rather than to the natural sciences or to economics. The lack of
philosophical considerations may be traced back to the business model concept’s link
to traditional economics.
245 / 549
5.5.4 Key findings
5.5.4.1 Academics
Academics relate philosophical questions to areas such as problem (re-)framing,

using design thinking approaches or value (proposition) development. They also
address the ‘right to exist’ question, which can be associated with philosophical
considerations, since there is no ‘right or wrong’ but a question of specific values and
worldviews. Existing business model literature only rarely covers these ideas.
A further point is that some academics accept the generalizing nature of models
arguing that even through having ‘all’ at a glance, achieved through reduction,
complexity can be successfully managed.
Others question whether business models are the product of conscious planning.
They may be the product of an emergent process, which is often influenced by
philosophical perspectives such as having passion for an idea. This debate also
complements existing business model literature.
Support professionals tend to discuss philosophical considerations frequently, by

going much deeper than we could perhaps expect from the literature. They deal with
aspects such as developing passion for something, or being inspired by an idea as
basis for new business models.
However, the human factor is discussed in domains such as entrepreneurship

literature, focusing more on entrepreneurial success factors. Nevertheless, the point
here is different since it touches on deep philosophical stances and values such as
not only taking responsibility for isolated customer problems but for the whole
‘problem chains’, whole systems, or complete solutions, by developing a passion for
customers and their problems.
Furthermore, philosophical considerations are also about ‘swallowing’ problems,

sending them to the subconscious, so that solutions can emerge over time. These
aspects are relatively new in the business model domain, where business models are
246 / 549
still understood as rather ‘mechanical’ concepts – influenced by their origin from
economics.
5.6 Theme 5: The importance of revenue thinking (A/S/M)
An academic with expertise in sustainability management considers the way the

business model concept is perceived to be very much influenced by Osterwalder and
his Canvas:
“The way the business model concept is perceived has changed, mainly influenced
by the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas; from purely revenue thinking towards a holistic
picture” (A5R1).
In recognition that Osterwalder has significantly contributed to the concept’s

popularity today, a professor of global strategy and marketing states that many
people have replaced strategy with business models, by neglecting the revenue
aspect:
“Because we collapse the two terms unfortunately we do not spend enough time on
the revenue model” (A2R7).
Accordingly, another academic, a professor of strategic foresight and innovation

management, adds that we must distinguish between narrower and wider sense
thinking:
“A narrow definition using a colloquial approach focusing on the question ‘how to

make money’ and a wider sense definition focusing on other aspects such as value
proposition” (A1R1).
The importance of revenue thinking is supported by an academic in the online

marketing and social media domain since business model thinking has allowed new
revenue mechanisms such as ‘the long tail’ to emerge:
“Varying products may be used to influence the business model such as creating
long-tail products” (A8R1).
247 / 549
According to a professor of global marketing and strategy, business modelling is all
about revenue thinking:
“Business models are about the question of how to make money, hence the
configurational strategy of a firm. ‘I think the real creativity is to think very hard about
the revenue streams’” (A2R1-R4). He further adds: “Accordingly, only few people
manage to take advantage of the essentials of the concept. ‘We should always start
thinking with the revenue flow at the beginning and then go out’” (A2R6).
Another academic, a professor of investment marketing, supports this view by linking

business models with rent-seeking strategies:
“Following the revenue-based line of argumentation, the main aim of a business

model is to optimize the rent-seeking strategy, how to best exploit the market
according to a resource-based view” (A7R1-R3).
The question now is when the best moment is for thinking about revenue models
because:
“Before thinking about revenues, there are decisions to be made beforehand”

(A9R1).
However, an academic in the design thinking and art domain adds that we must
expand the concept of revenues to other dimensions:
“However, revenue thinking may not always be adequate nor it may be limited to
monetary revenues only: for example, in the domains of arts and social enterprise
revenue thinking (monetary) is not so important” (A10R1).
This idea of expanding the revenue concept is also supported by a professor of

empirical innovation research:
“Revenues need not necessarily be monetary in nature; we can also have prestige or
social recognition as ‘revenue’” (A3R1).
248 / 549
A sub-group within the support professional community argues that business model
thinking is essentially revenue thinking since:
“The aim of a firm is to create value and to monetize this value” (S1R1).
A Swiss pension fund manager supports this view as follows:
“At the most fundamental level business modelling is about revenue generation”
(S12R1).
A future management consultant argues similarly:
“The business model concept defines the logic of revenue generation” (S13R2).
Another innovation consultant and business school lecturer support this idea:
“Core business modelling is still thinking about revenue mechanisms although many
people think about value propositions. ‘…the business model finally answers the
question how do you make money? This also influences the value proposition; how
do you charge something etc.’” (S10R4).
An innovation and management consultant argues that firms need revenues

instantly, this is why revenue thinking may be that important, at the same time
providing an argument why the business model concept may be not so important for
firms:
“Firms need revenues, instantly. Therefore, they do not care about business models”
(S7R1).
Another perspective from an innovation consultant includes a market perspective in

the debate:
“Since most products have become commodities we must think about alternatives
making the price war irrelevant, blurring the product prices” (S10R1). Furthermore,
the same respondent summarises that: “There is a link between innovation and
business models since everything must be considered a business today. Therefore,
249 / 549
‘It is important to think things through rigorously, particularly regarding your financial
situation’” (S10R4-R5).
An experienced marketing and sales coach further emphasizes:
“Once having a product/service that fits to a customer need, firms must do some
maths so that money can be earned” (S3R1).
To enrich the debate, a strategy consultant links available resources of a firm with a
profit perspective:
“Having resources with which a firm wants to generate profits and rents may be a
starting point of a new business initiative” (S2R1).
However, not only a firm’s internal resources are a key factor, but also the
competitive context of a firm plays a significant role when discussing revenue
aspects:
“A firm’s capability to make money depends on the sector the firm is in. We normally
have tremendous differences of margins in different markets” (S6R2).
However, there are also critical voices regarding the revenue concept, as argued by
a philosopher:
“Money should not be the motivation for entrepreneurship. Those who are motivated
by money do have a problem, not necessarily an economic problem, but a
philosophical one” (S11R1).
Similarly, an experienced start-up coach and small firm sparring partner is sceptical
towards ideas focusing on earning money quickly:
“Business models that promise earning a lot of money quickly are hyped these days
but are not sustainable” (S3R3).
A further critical perspective comes from a strategy consultant, arguing that

academics only have limited financial background to successfully deal with revenue
aspects:
250 / 549
“What is more, since business models are developed by academics with only limited
financial background, many revenue concepts are mixed up” (S2R2).
5.6.3 Findings in the small business owner-manager community (M)
In contrast to the academic and support professional communities, the owner-

manager respondents did not discuss revenue generation conceptually. The way
they generate their revenues was an aspect accorded high priority and was outlined
thoroughly, very much in detail. Revenue themes are among the most widespread
ideas owner-managers had when confronted with the term ‘business model’.
Owner-managers associate the term business model with diversification of revenue

streams. The term ‘diversification’ was used not only in the sense of new
products/services but also (and mainly) of new ways to ‘exploit’ existing
products/services:
• “Add-on products/services complementing the traditional main product”

(M7R1).
• “Offering more specialized and diversified ways to use the product, not just
new products but also reworked products as part of the recycling process”
(M7R3).
• “Exploiting the potential of the existing market by not just selling new products
but also integrating the whole recycling process” (M7R2).
• “It is all about creating added value which customers are willing to pay for”
(M9R1).
• “Offering the whole range of services rather than just serving a niche is an
advantage today” (M1R2).
• “Customers are interested in complete solutions rather than specialized niche
products; hence, the product line must continuously be expanded and
diversified” (M4R3).
• “Having different product lines is also important regarding risk management; in
case of problems with a product line, you have others too” (M12R3).
251 / 549
Furthermore, SME owner-managers try to use developments in modular ways. The
aim is to re-use resources in new combinations.
• “Modular offerings are an ideal means for selling upgrades” (M3R1).

• Modular products can be re-used for other customers as well (M8R1).
• “A good business model allows for creating additional value with limited effort
– at limited internal costs” (M9R2).
Firms may have to change their dominant revenue generation logic or alternatively
use several different revenue mechanics, adapted to a specific situation, i.e.
depending on the customer or on the project character:
• “For instance, in the context of a tool management service the model was
changed from free to paid” (M7R1).
• “Various forms of revenues are used, depending on the type of project and
customer: based on total construction costs (fix price or flat rate), or paid per
hour (preferred model)” (M6R2).
• “Internally subsidized, in early pre-project phases, where you have to sell your
project first” (M6R3).
• “Various revenue models are used: Getting paid per hour, according to the
total construction costs, or using a flat rate model” (M11R1).
An additional aspect is that firms also think about ways that allow for making prices
opaque, such as in the service business:
• “Firms should sell their products using a flat rate model, making the price
opaque. However, this requires an excellent knowledge of internal processes.
Entrepreneurs should be distinguishing what is profitable and what is fun”
(M10R3-R4).
• “The unit of measurement has changed from hours to square meters, making
the price opaque” (M5R1).
• “General contractors selling buildings at a fixed price – making individual costs
opaque” (M6R4).
• “Customers often prefer flat rate agreements – due to cost security” (M1R1).
252 / 549
An important issue is the generation of recurrent incomes, since firms are often
interested in up-selling:
• “Digitalization, combined with business model thinking, offers new

opportunities for generating recurrent revenues” (M3R3).
• “Business modelling is about creating recurring revenues and about creating
additional value for customers” (M10R2).
• “New services are used to generate new revenue streams” (M9R3).
• “New ‘innovative’ products are often door openers for existing ones” (M2R3).
The academic community sees a shift in business model thinking. Originally, revenue
considerations were the driver behind business models. Business models first
appeared in the 1990s US Internet bubble (Osterwalder, 2004). Some relevant (early
stage) papers in the domain – around the year 2000 – deal predominantly with the
revenue aspect, such as the publication from Linder and Cantrell (2001). Today there
is a trend towards ‘advanced’ concepts such as value proposition thinking (with
associated concepts such as design thinking). The revenue model is to be
considered a sub-system model of the business model rather than a stand-alone
concept (Amit & Zott, 2001; Kindström & Kowalkowski, 2014). It has become a
substantial part of many currently popular business model frameworks such as the
Canvas from Osterwalder (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) or the Navigator from
Gassmann (Gassmann et al., 2013). Not only is the business model concept
designed to describe the logic of revenue generation (revenue mechanics) but also it
has been used as a tool to capture value (often also related to revenue thinking), in a
sense of Porter’s definition “The amount buyers are willing to pay for what a firm
provides them. Value is measured by total revenues…. A firm is profitable if the value
it commands exceeds the costs involved in creating the product” (Porter, 1985, p.
38).
Based on the interview data, the following revenue thinking-based categorisation can
be made:
253 / 549
1) ‘Narrow sense’ business models, just focusing on revenue generation.
2) ‘Wide sense’ business models, including additional ideas such as the value
proposition.
There is no consensus in the academic and the support professional community

whether business model thinking should concentrate on narrower or wider sense
considerations only. The proponents of the narrower sense idea argue that firms
should think harder about diversifying their revenue streams and about exploiting
their market. This first stream agrees with early stage authors/scholars in the
business model domain (in the first US Internet-bubble era). On the other hand, the
proponents of the wider sense idea see more value in expanding and enhancing the
concept, so feel more inclined towards ideas complementing the traditional, revenue-
based approach. Most academics within this latter stream have also developed their
own frameworks (see 5.3).
While the academic and the support professional community discuss the revenue
model conceptually, the owner-manager community see revenue ideas in very
hands-on ways, describing various alternative possibilities of how to deal with
revenue aspects in relation to their business – explained by real examples. This
practice-oriented perspective represents an opportunity for more research devoted to
frameworks that may assist business practitioners in their revenue diversification
activities, not least because literature still lacks such easily applicable (e.g. visual)
frameworks and practitioners tightly link the revenue concept with business models.
5.6.5 Key findings
5.6.5.1 Academics
In the academic community two main lines of reasoning must be distinguished:
1. Those relating the business model concept to revenue thinking (narrower

sense).
2. Those having a broader understanding of the concept including ideas such as
value proposition design or design thinking (wider sense).
254 / 549
Those having developed their own models/frameworks tend to advocate a wider
sense perspective, while the narrower sense group tends to apply market exploitation
thinking, linking their ideas back to the initial purpose of the business model, hence
the question as ‘how to make money’. This differentiation of views complements the
existing business model literature.
The distinction of ‘narrower’ and ‘wider’ sense thinking can also be applied for the
support professional community. This group regards revenue thinking as important,
since firms need revenues quickly. However, there is also a debate whether
monetisation is the only source of ‘revenues’ to be earned rather than including other
dimensions too (the term revenue may be understood more broadly, for instance
non-profit organisation may have different standards).
What has been found in the present research, a finding that complements existing
literature, is that owner-managers of established SMEs (as distinct from start-ups)
often relate the term ‘business model’ to revenue thinking, not by describing abstract
concepts but by outlining their business logic, particularly the revenue creation logic,
in concrete, hands-on ways. The author therefore concludes that the owner-manager
group would benefit from a revenue creation framework, since this group intuitively
relates business models with revenue mechanics. In contrast, wider sense models
are not only rarely known within this sub-community but are also not seen to be
useful tools.
However, the start-up sub-group is different and reflects the views described in the
existing literature. They mostly work with the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas. Many start-
up entrepreneurs are taught to use business models as part of start-up training or
educational courses such as MBA programmes.
255 / 549
5.7 Theme 6: The implementation of new business models in practice (A/S)
5.7.1.1 A learning process
A professor of strategic management and innovation sees business modelling as an

emergent process:
“Developing a new business model is a development process, a trial and error

process, which needs time and money. It is a maturation process. The business plan
contains a business model but is a much more comprehensive document, also
including the whole realization part” (A1I1).
Accordingly, a design researcher sees culture as an important aspect of business

model implementation, so they have included such thinking in their study programs:
“A trial and error culture, as well as working with drafts, is part of some study
programs at universities right at the beginning” (A10I4).
Business models can be compared with the implementation of strategy – to be

reconstructed ex-post; it is not a process of conscious planning, as a professor of
sustainability management argued:
“A good strategy can only be constructed in retrospect. You cannot plan this. It is the
same with the business model. It is more an ‘error’ than a ‘trial and error’ process
because you will learn things, which you did not have any hypotheses for” (A5I3).
In a similar way the director of an ‘arts and entrepreneurship’ programme stated:
“Most of the master’s students in the programme essentially need the entire training
time to ‘just’ frame the problem to be solved. Then, changing their attention to the
business world is something different. Accordingly, people do not start thinking with
the model but with an idea. Design Thinking is a concept in the domain. Starting from
the nucleus of an idea” (A10I1-I3).
Another perspective on a learning process may be that we always have to look for
the impossible and then count back, as outlined by a professor of marketing:
256 / 549
“An excellent tool therefore is ‘Triz Ariz’ from Altshuller. Creatively solving problems.
It is the exact opposite of the Canvas by creating fantasy worlds and then counting
back until it becomes doable” (A7I2).
5.7.1.2 Start-ups vs. established firms
A professor for empirical innovation research considers the business model concept
to be inadequate as a tool to transform an existing firm but more suitable for start-
ups:
“Start-ups have many advantages: they can look for an adequate business model
right from the beginning while established firms must get rid of their existing model
first, something which is much more demanding. Hence, for a start-up the
development of a new business model is part of the journey” (A3I1-I2).
However, for start-ups possibly the most fundamental problem we have concerns the
scalability of business models, as outlined by a professor of entrepreneurship:
“We are not able to push promising business models with a lot of money such as the
Americans do (example: Aribnb. This idea was originally developed and implemented
in Lausanne, Switzerland). We spend a lot of money in research and development
but do not push the market. It is not a business model problem we have but an
execution problem, hence pushing and scaling the model, investing money. This is
where we still have to learn” (A9I1).
5.7.1.3 An inside-out (or resource-based) perspective
From a resource-based perspective, a professor for sustainability sees the allocation

of resources an important issue:
“Business modelling means sustainability of a business, hence viability, and in

particular, ensuring that it always has the resources it needs. Theory of impact is
about thinking through the whole value chain, about causes and effects within this
chain” (A5I2).
From an inside-out perspective, the business model is about analysing the core value
chain, as stated by a professor of finance:
257 / 549
“Just saying ‘let’s put the customer at the centre’ is not enough. Instead, steering the
whole process including financial and process-based considerations would be
necessary. Furthermore, agile forms of collaboration are needed in order to establish
entrepreneurial ‘cells’ within an organisation, as a basis for an inside-out process”
(A4I2).
In terms of an internal perspective, the resource-based advantage theory is linked

with business models:
“Taking an internal view, the “resource based advantage theory“ is a good starting
point for a firm (to think about its business model) by reflecting which resources do
we have and what can we do with it” (A7I1).
A professor of international marketing argues similarly by understanding internal

processes and resources the starting point for business modelling:
“Internal processes and resources may also be the starting point of revenue thinking.
However, the unfortunate thing is that we do not think hard enough today about the
revenue compositions, that this is a choice and not inherited from our grandparents.
By following this line of argumentation, we can conclude that with the question ‘how
can I change my value proposition’ you will not be able to find the solution. The
solution originates somewhere else (in the revenue composition); the value
proposition is an excellent means with which to communicate with your customers”
(A2I1-I2).
Furthermore, a professor of finance links internal perspectives with external ones:
“Business models must change from inside, which, however, is only possible with
inputs from the outside. Therefore, the most important element is a culture of self-
responsibility within a firm” (A4I1-I3).
Accordingly, using a model for mapping internal structures, no matter which model,
requires compromises to be made:
“In the discussion of how to set up a new business model, the Osterwalder (2016)
Canvas and the Gassmann (2013) Navigator are often referred to. However,
258 / 549
projecting reality into a terminology is only possible with compromises, no matter
which model we use therefore” (A5I1).
At this stage of discussing internal structures using models, the Navigator was
compared with the Canvas by an online marketing researcher as follows:
“The Navigator has a set of advantages regarding analysis, implementation and

testing of business models, it also supports the work with scenarios. Hence, the
Navigator is much more a process than the Canvas. Furthermore, the Navigator is
much better suited when we start with existing models. It allows for developing
alternatives and variants. With the Canvas you start from scratch” (A8I1).
Similarly, the networked character of our world today is associated with the business
model concept and may be connected with an internal perspective:
“Complementing the inside out perspective, the concept of emergence has been
discussed. Today strategy and business modelling must be seen as something that
emerges from inside out. Hence, agile models are needed such as those
implemented by Japanese firms producing industry robots. Firms there have realized
that they must be agile these days. However, this cannot be achieved through
executives sitting in their offices on the 5th floor. Thinking from the customers, from
the base, is required. I once joined a course teaching the respondents in
collaborating in groups with no hierarchy. This is how future business models will
emerge. To be successful with such emergent phenomena we need people with
different skills to be brought together. Today it is important to recognise the network
character of our world. Therefore it is important to work on a shared culture.” (A4I4-
I5).
5.7.2.1 Can business models consciously be developed?
An argument in the support professional community is that business models cannot

consciously be created. Such a view was provided by a governmental innovation
consultant, who has coached several hundred SMEs in his career:
259 / 549
“Creating a real ‘disruptive’ innovation is an illusion (disruptive innovations are
considered business model innovations – see the literature review). How many firms
do exist, which successfully launched a disruptive innovation, worldwide, described in
literature? Not many. It is exactly the same with business models. We first have to
think hard when, for what purpose, and in particular for what type of firm does it make
sense to innovate the business model” (S4I2).
Accordingly, the Canvas is an inadequate tool for developing new business models,
as argued by an innovation consultant and business school lecturer:
“It (the model) can be used for visualization purposes once the model has been
created or for existing models. Most examples provided by Osterwalder are
constructed ex-post. They cannot be derived directly from the Canvas” (S10I1).
However, a problem in this debate is that people still tend to think in the product
domain:
“People tend to think in product categories rather than in the business model
dimension” (S9I1).
Nevertheless, as argued by another consultant and innovation book author, the

problem is that the term business model is often used imprecisely and often
understood mechanically so its application is difficult:
“A further argument why business models are hard to be ‘created’ can be found in the
use of the term ‘business model’ per se. Such as business models there are two
additional buzzwords, namely innovation and sustainability, both are used in a
“wishy-washy” way, losing their strength. The business model concept is applied
rather mechanically following the building blocks from Osterwalder without thinking
about the philosophical fundamentals behind it. Finally, the business model is nothing
else than a conscious reduction to one specific question: what job do I solve.
Everything else such as the market is left out consciously” (S8I2-I4).
260 / 549
5.7.2.2 Strategic decision-making
Basically, new business ideas can be created from two different places, as outlined
by a strategy consultant:
“On the one hand, you may have a problem to be solved, a ‘disturbing factor’. On the
other hand, you may have resources (capital, production) you want to use for
generating profit or rents; hence a strategic decision. By the way, it is like strategy,
you only see whether it works after many years in business; so viable strategies are
often ‘constructed’ ex-post. Accordingly, most running strategies are just ‘rubbish’.
What we need is the ability to learn and adapt quickly. Although the best strategies
and business models ‘emerge between the ears’, the business model concept allows
for writing ideas down and making them tangible” (S2I1-I2).
As argued by a future management consultant, a business model represents a firm’s

strategy:
“A business model may also be considered the implementation of a firm’s future

strategy. It is the concrete implementation of what the firm currently does. However,
before the business model comes into play it is important to define a mission, a
crystal-clear positioning and a vision” (S13I1).
Another consultant, an early business model evangelist and business school lecturer,
stated that he was currently working on ideas that allow for validating business
models as part of a strategic implementation plan. Therefore, the Lean Start-up
methodology was applied:
“In this ‘methodology’ the Business Model Canvas represents the starting point and is
used to formulate the most critical business hypotheses. It is a scientific approach
aiming at minimizing risks and seeking the highest possible rents by doing many
(cheap) learning cycles. It is about testing and validating new business models in the
market. It is always about minimizing risks, a hot topic in the innovation context per
se” (S1I1).
261 / 549
5.7.2.3 People and the team
The quality of the application of the business model concept depends on the people
using it, as stated by an innovation consultant:
“The more relevant background they have, the more they know about the
complexities in the market, and the more they can take advantage out of it. Generic
tools such as the Canvas are like a screwdriver. You can do anything with it, not just
driving screws but also hammering dawn nails or using it as a fixation for grilling
sausages” (S5I3).
The president of a private investment fund and former university director further
emphasized the importance of the team:
“On the one hand, in professional fund investments, having a good management
team is the absolute prerequisite before money is spent. Accordingly, a good product
to be sold in a ‘good’ market is by far not enough” (S6I1).
A strategy consultant expands the role of people to the idea that CEOs often neglect
new ideas:
“They delegate the new concepts to their subordinates who have to find solutions
quickly, ignoring the time this process normally requires. This is why so many sectors
are really in crisis” (S2I3).
Accordingly, sensitization for new ideas is considered important, as outlined by a

seasoned governmental innovation coach:
“It is not about working with the concept all the time but the firms must understand
something is going on in this area. By contrast, firms work on their business model
intuitively. They may ignore one or the other building block; this is why sensitization is
important. The business model concept is considered useful as a means for
sensitization, but not more” (S4I1-I3).
Another respondent, an innovation consultant and business book author, links people
with the concept of learning:
262 / 549
“Another issue is that in some businesses there is no learning curve, the same
mistakes are made again and again. However, people do ignore such findings
categorically” (S8I3).
Furthermore, another innovation consultant sees the implementation tightly linked

with internal firm structures:
“Although many firms are aware of current topics such as the business model
concept, they have problems with its implementation. The problems are internal
structures preventing firms from doing something new. Taking this into account, I use
a technique called ‘structured creativity’, hence combining creativity with analytical
sessions. They look for the nucleus of a possible innovation, in most cases building
on something existing. Starting something from scratch is extremely difficult” (S10I3-
I4).
5.7.2.4 Entrepreneurship
An innovation consultant and business book author links entrepreneurship with

business modelling as follows:
“On the one hand, entrepreneurship means that we must always have all elements in
mind, all the time. People tend to focus on products only. This is still a problem.
However, it does not matter where to start as long as you end up dealing with all of
the 9 building blocks of the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas” (S9I2).
Similarly, a management consultant and business angel member emphasises the

importance of ‘entrepreneurial execution and focus’:
“On the other hand, the success of a business has finally nothing to do with the
Canvas. It is all about entrepreneurial execution. It is about the value you offer to
your customers and about focus; leaving out irrelevant things is important. You can
influence your luck through an excellent execution. You must be active so you will
automatically meet people who can help you. Accordingly, an important issue for
start-ups is ‘focus’. The business model is less important. It is all about focus and a
good execution. You can be highly successful with an unattractive business model
when the execution is brilliant (e.g. selling used cars). Nevertheless, a good
263 / 549
execution combined with a good business model is the key for a sustainable
successful business” (S7I1-I2).
By emphasizing the role of entrepreneurship, a private investment fund manager and

management consultant points out the importance of the gut feeling:
“We also have to remember that there are highly successful entrepreneurs who have
never heard anything about business models but have founded ‘empires’; they have
brilliant visions and strategies; they have a gut feeling for the market” (S6I3).
From a professional investor’s perspective, entrepreneurial means that the market,

the products, and the team are to be equally considered:
“Is the team committed and do they tell a credible story? Their story must
demonstrate a strategic intent and they must be able to see the future in a credible
way. Above all, these points must be convincing and coherent” (S12I1).
5.7.2.5 An emerging phenomenon
An experienced innovation consultant states that dealing with contradictions is

important in complex environments, so that new business models can emerge:
“Often there is no direct path to a business model vision. By contrast, you sometimes
have to go ways that seems to be contradicting, at first glance. This is not adequate
anymore in our complex world today. The younger generation is much better able to
cope with such ambiguity. At the same time, most people think that loops are a waste
of time. But in fact, they are not! Today there are ‘things’ we cannot understand
intellectually. We must delegate them to our subconscious so we have to put things
aside. Solutions often emerge when not actively worked on the problem” (S5I1-I2).
Leaving your comfort zone is also considered part of an emergent process, as stated
by a new venture coach and business sparring partner:
“Simultaneously, having your business model in mind means continuously leaving

your comfort zone (especially as a start-up). It is part of the game to continuously
have a look at the unpleasant side of what you do; having the will for this is essential”
(S3I2).
264 / 549
Not at least, the time factor is crucially important when discussing emergence in a
systemic sense, as stated by a private investment fund manager and former
university director:
“Another dimension is time. How (if at all) is the time dimension included in business
models? The relationship between elements in a model change over time, hence the
model is changing. This is a systemic perspective. Time is very important” (S6I2).
Setting up new business models is regarded as a learning process based on market

experiments through trial and error (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; McGrath, 2010). The
implementation of a new business model is described in start-up literature; in
particular, the lean-start-up concept has gained much attention in the start-up
community (Blank, 2013; Blank & Dorf, 2012). In this context, the Canvas from
Osterwalder is used for sketching out early stage business hypotheses to be
empirically verified (Blank, 2013; Ries, 2011). Inside-out thinking, on the other hand,
is argued to be associated to the entrepreneurship discipline, where “entrepreneurs
shift resources from areas of low productivity and yield to areas of higher productivity
and yield” (Drucker & Drucker, 2007). Accordingly, entrepreneurs develop new
business models from inside out, based on existing capabilities and resources.
Business modelling is often regarded as equal to entrepreneurship since each
entrepreneur must deal with the interplay of factors such as people and resources by
acting as some sort of movie director bringing all elements of a business model
together into play (Faltin, 2011). The implementation of a business model is
furthermore considered a consequence of strategic decisions (Magretta, 2002).
The academic community sees the implementation of a new business model in three
dimensions:
1. As a learning process.
2. Start-ups are different to established firms.
3. As an inside out process.
265 / 549
While each of those three dimensions are reflected in the literature, they are
discussed in different contexts. In this research, these three dimensions were
highlighted by different academic respondents as dimensions of business model
innovation.
The support community addresses different themes. They question whether business
models are the product of conscious planning processes – such as debated in
strategy literature, for instance by Magretta (2002). They further discuss the role of
people and their skills and values, philosophical considerations, entrepreneurial
activities, and the implementation as an emergent phenomenon. The question
separating a conscious planning and an emergent phenomenon is addressed by
complexity literature arguing that complex organisations may emerge, with the need
for a ‘solution system’ to be more complex than the ‘problem system’ (Ashby, 1957).
The implementation of a new business model is considered an emergent
phenomenon rather than the outcome of a linear process; an aspect which links
implementation issues and philosophical considerations – this represents an insight
that has not yet been addressed by existing business model literature.
5.7.4 Key findings
5.7.4.1 Academics
Various ideas and disciplines were associated with the business model
implementation process, such as launching market experiments, distinguishing start-
ups and established firms in terms of their position in the business model journey,
entrepreneurship as source of new business models, strategic considerations, or
philosophy, as a concept at the periphery. These ideas are widely reflected by
existing literature.
By contrast to ideas already published in the existing literature, the data from the
academics have revealed that setting up a new business model must be considered
an emergent phenomenon rather than the outcome of a linear process. What is more,
successful business model implementations are often only explained ex-post.
Additionally, business modelling can be understood as a problem re-framing concept.
266 / 549
Those ideas have not yet been addressed or just explained at the periphery of
existing business model literature.
As an empirical study, this research has generated some unique insights into the
perspectives of business support professionals. The investigated support
professional community presents additional ideas such as putting humans at the
centre, considering philosophical issues key aspects, and considering the
implementation process an emergent phenomenon, not to be solved intellectually,
but the result of an incubation process – an idea that is also reflected by the
academic community. These latter ideas are only rarely addressed by literature but
represent insights from support professionals reflecting their daily work with business
practitioners.
To conclude, putting the debate on a higher level of abstraction, what the two
communities (academics and support professionals) say is that business models are
all too often understood mechanistically, the product of linear thinking rather than the
result of a complex learning process. Philosophical considerations may help
understanding business model application a highly dynamic process of opportunity
detection and exploitation where the business model concept is too simplified a
model or a tool, respectively.
5.8 Theme 7: Business models and complexity management (A/S)
5.8.1.1 Framing the problem
Business modelling is also considered a problem-framing process. However, the

tension consists between reducing complexity on the one hand, and by not making
the problem too simple on the other, or, as stated by a professor for
entrepreneurship:
“The challenge generally (when developing a tool) is to create an instrument that

allows to quickly ask the ‘right’ questions in practice. Therefore a reduced 4-quadrant
model based on the Canvas was developed (but even simpler than the Canvas). We
267 / 549
need instruments which are simple enough so that we can easily use them but they
mustn’t be too simple so they still include enough complexity. This is the great
challenge. Or as Einstein once said: ‘Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler’”
(A6C1).
In the art and design community, as the director of a design and entrepreneurship
program stated, individuality is considered essential to dealing with complex
problems, so-called ‘wicked problems’:
“The students mostly use visualisation techniques in order to visualize complicated

problems, but they do it individually, each time from scratch. This is influenced by an
artists’ tradition, in which an artist distinguishes himself through his work.
Furthermore, in design there is a category of problems, which have to be solved each
time from scratch, so-called ‘wicked problems’ – and setting up a new business may
also be a wicked problem. This is what designers are interested in. Wicked problems
cannot be solved using algorithms. There are no models to solve these problems.
They have to be solved from inside out. Most complex problems we have these days
are considered wicked problems” (A10C1-C2).
5.8.1.2 Various elements acting together
Based on the various elements acting together, making business models highly
complex, a professor for entrepreneurship and strategic foresight argued:
“People do not manage to deal with the complexity inherent in a business model.
People do not know how the 9 building blocks act together” (A1C1).
By contrast, a professor for sustainability argued that the Canvas would be a perfect
means to deal with complexity through integrating otherwise loosely structured
elements:
“… because you always have to deal with the model as a whole, not just with
elements of it (as often seen with business plans)” (A5C2).
268 / 549
5.8.1.3 Dealing with uncertainty
An aspect addressed by the complexity discussion is uncertainty. The argument here

is that reflection is fundamentally important in order to activate an organization’s
transformative capacity, an issue outlined by a professor of sustainability:
“Complexity can only be managed by complexity. In innovative contexts you must

learn to accept complexity and uncertainty. You have to accept several dimensions,
which can be equally correct, there is no right or wrong anymore (as often assumed
earlier). And reflection is therefore a means to deal with complexity. An excellent
means to deal with complexity is a group reflection methodology derived from
systems thinking. This prevents you from simplifying at an early stage showing you
alternative perspective. This increases the needed complexity in the problem finding
process” (A5C1).
Uncertainty may also be induced by incomplete information, as a professor of

marketing argued:
“Another issue is that decisions are always made on an incomplete information basis.
Business models need correct information to be evaluated but managers are
incapable of getting this information. Even worse, we have big data these days,
which is considered the solution for this problem – a complete misconception! Let us
take the Canvas. Based on what do you put information in the 9 building blocks? This
is the birth of the resource-based view. This prevents you from being paralysed
through analysis. Instead, you try to make the maximum of what you really know”
(A7C1).
Not at least, uncertainty and complexity is related with chance, as a professor of

entrepreneurship summarised:
“An additional element of a business model – and a further aspect of uncertainty –

should be ‘chance’. However, the respondent (a professor of entrepreneurship
having developed his own framework) has not added this element because we
cannot do anything with it. Furthermore you always need a bit of luck” (A9C1).
269 / 549
5.8.2.1 The strength of reducing complexity
An early business model evangelist argued that reducing complexity through

abstraction allows you to deal with highly complex systems:
“Reality is always considered more complex than the business model. Nevertheless,
it is legitimate to deal with reality on a higher level of abstraction (flight altitude) since
even this abstraction allows for coping with such highly complex systems because
you always have the ‘whole’ in mind” (S1C1).
A management consultant argues similarly:
“As an early adopter of the business model concept it is used ever since. I consider it
an excellent tool to deal with complexity through reduction” (S7C1).
By consequence of its reductionist character, a new model that allows for zooming in
and out would be needed, as an early business model evangelist and business
school lecturer stated:
“A further way to reducing complexity may consist of working with scenarios.

Scenarios are often used to map different alternative contexts. Therefore, scenarios
are used to discuss different possible futures in order to develop models of
ecosystems based on which the most important hypotheses can be validated”
(S1C3).
By contrast, a philosopher provided a divergent perspective on reducing reality into a

model:
“A model has the character of something big reduced to something small. As a

consequence, having it in small, we can just scale it. This may be a brilliant approach
in the technical domain but its application in social systems must be questioned. With
a small model of reality there is a danger of missing ‘real reality’” (S11C1).
270 / 549
5.8.2.2 Reality is more complex
A strategy consultant argues that a business model cannot cover everything:
“The strength of the Canvas is that it can easily be used as a means to generate new
ideas, as some sort of guideline. However, this is also its main weakness. It does not
cover ‘everything’ and each firm must be considered different” (S2C1).
Although tools such as the Canvas are popular, real expertise can only be achieved
through experiencing the concept’s application, as an innovation consultant argued:
“These days, the business model concept is also a hot topic at business schools. A
little bit of theory is always useful but it is much more important that students work it
through in real cases in order to understand the inherent complexities” (S5C4).
Accordingly, the quality of business model application depends on those using such
concepts, as outlined by another innovation consultant:
“Taking up the argument that people are using the concept, the quality of the
business model application depends on those using it “(S5C3).
However, the design of the tools such as the Canvas is argued to be too simplistic,
as stated by a future management consultant:
“The Canvas from Osterwalder is just too simplistic. It is popular, easy

understandable for everyone, but maybe too simple. I also know the model from
Gassmann in which basic business models have been described (55 archetypes).
These archetypes are also often called ‘meta chances’, hence chances already
thought ahead” (S13C1).
Nevertheless, real expertise depends on the application of business model concepts

in practice, as argued by another consultant:
“Based on the complex nature of the business model idea, I have learned (in my
workshops) that even people using the concept for years still learn new aspects.
Accordingly, it has become good practice to show firms what good business models
are and how to think in alternatives” (S9C3).
271 / 549
Business modelling also means questioning oneself, something people generally do
not like to do, as argued by an innovation consultant:
“The argument here is that people in general do not like to question themselves! But
they love having 55 business model archetypes; however, in fact there is an endless
number of different business models since each firm is different, there are not just 55.
Dealing with this high level of complexity can also be labelled entrepreneurship”
(S8C2).
Beside the Canvas from Osterwalder or the Navigator from Gassmann, market
structure models were also discussed since they may map more complex contexts,
as a SME coach outlined:
“Additionally to the models from Osterwalder and Gassmann the idea of market
structure models has been discussed arguing that the market structure model may be
better suited since it allows for more complex considerations. The market structure
model offers additional perspectives incorporating competitors, regulations, etc. It
shows how a system is actually structured” (S3C1).
A philosopher provided a divergent perspective regarding the model idea per se – by

comparing ‘idealists’ and ‘model-fanatics’:
“We have to distinguish between idealists and the model-fanatics. Idealists consider
what life tells them, are able to react on something emerging. Controversially, models
paralyze since we have the ‘model-security’. Hence, we are not able to get involved
in something that emerges” (S11C2).
5.8.2.3 Dealing with uncertainty and contradictions
Today we must learn to accept contradictions – even this allows us to deal with the
complexities of our time, as argued by an experienced innovation consultant:
“Essentially, a business model describes the organisation of a business. Business

models describe how to act in the market but, on the other hand, must also be
considered a process, ranging from the simple idea up to its complex implementation
in the market. This is a highly dynamic process. This includes a lot of complexity.
272 / 549
Complexity means that we must learn to deal with contradictions. Not having a
solution right at the beginning. This is in contrast to a traditional economic view
aiming at reducing everything to simple cause and effect relations.” (S5C1).
5.8.2.4 Systems thinking and dynamic systems
The president of a private investment fund and former university director knows the
Canvas from Osterwalder as well as the Navigator from Gassmann and introduces a
systemic perspective on these tools:
“From a systemic perspective, models with arrows show the flow of resources and
are more dynamic, hence the Canvas is considered a rather static model. Probably, a
single model cannot afford to be used for everything, so combining different models
may be more adequate (unifying static and dynamic views)” (S6C1).
Another innovation consultant and business book author argues that there is no
single way to use the business model concept, emphasizing the concept’s systemic
nature:
“The Canvas is either used to establish a common language or to re-invent the firm.
This is what I have learned in large firms. In both cases the concept is used
differently. There are so many ways to use the concept; it is impossible to make
general statements. However, the concept is particularly useful in (highly dynamic)
sectors with fast modifications such as the telecom industry” (S9C2).
The academic community recognises the complex nature of business models. They
see business models as a type of problem to be continuously (re-)framed in an
iterative way. They understand the various building blocks as many interrelated
elements acting together in non-linear ways, and see uncertainty, associated with
non-linear behaviour and non-predictability, as inherent characteristics of complex
systems (such as business models).
Essentially, there is a dominant but controversial debate in the support professional

community regarding business models and complexity. While some argue that
273 / 549
through using models such as the Canvas, complexity becomes manageable through
reduction. However, others argue that model-based reduction leads to over-
simplification.
According to the debate in the literature, the argument is, on the one hand, that
‘solution systems’ must be more complex than ‘problem systems’ so reduction may
lead to oversimplification (McGrath, 2010; Morris et al., 2005). On the other hand,
reduction may be appropriate in order to understand the constituent parts of a
problem, the basic mechanisms making up a system (Simon, 1996). Business
support professionals see the business model concept as a means to deal with
contradictions. The argument here is, according to literature, that contradictions may
be a characteristic of complexity, since complex systems behave non-predictively,
often producing contradicting outcomes (Ninck, Büriki, Hungerbühler, & Mühlemann,
2004).
A further point discussed in both the academic and the support professional
communities is the controversy as to whether having all the elements in mind at once
may help dealing with complexity. This perspective is in line with literature,
particularly the law of Ashby (1957), which states that we need ‘solution systems’ that
are more complex than the ‘problem systems’.
5.8.4 Key findings
5.8.4.1 Academics
The academic community understands business models as systems consisting of

various elements acting together in non-linear ways. This is a view which existing
literature reflects very well.
However, an idea not yet covered is that academics link complex problem re-framing
with the business model concept (as a re-framing tool). A further aspect
complementing existing literature is the debate as to whether business models are
useful to reduce complexity, or, by contrast, whether business models may help to
increase complexity through showing ‘everything at a glance’.
274 / 549
The same debate as in the academic community, namely whether to increase

complexity in a system by applying the business model concept, or to reduce
complexity with the danger of over-simplification, is discussed in the support
professional community.
Furthermore, and complementing the literature, support professionals relate

philosophical issues to complexity management. They propose the idea of
swallowing problems and sending them to the subconscious as part of an incubation
process. Additionally, they see business models as a means to dealing with
contradictions and uncertainties – often characterising the complexity of our world
today.
5.9 Theme 8: The role of business models in ecosystems (A/S/M)
A professor of innovation and strategic foresight argues that business models are not
isolated any more but part of a wider ecosystem:
“The ecosystem idea becomes more and more important. In the Canvas, you have
building blocks such as partners and customers. This idea is by far out-dated. Today
the various players are considered to sit ‘somewhere in a cloud’ without clear borders
making them indistinguishable according to a traditional view. Everything is very fluid
today. Hence, the question not only is whether someone is a partner or a customer
(or both) but whether he is also a key resource simultaneously. In this context, we
have to clearly differentiate between cooperation and co-creation. With co-creation,
we do not have to share values but collectively create something new” (A1E1).
Furthermore, an online marketing researcher discussed an outside-in perspective,

especially for platform-based businesses, finally leading to an ecosystem
perspective:
“These days, the traditional concept of the firm ‘that creates value’ must be
questioned because it is hard to distinguish between what comes really from inside
275 / 549
and what from outside. Through blurring borders business models tend to change
towards ecosystems. In ecosystems, you have overlapping ‘clouds’ of business
models. You may have 5 or 6 business models running simultaneously, which is in
contrast to the traditional business model literature stating that a firm can run only
one dominant business model. However, the different business models are close to
each other, but they are different. Through new online platforms and ecosystems
even small firms will have the chance to participate, to take advantage of various
channels. Today, only large firms have the resources to do that. Existing tools have
not yet succeeded at integrating the ecosystem. In ecosystems customers can be
partners and vice versa. We have various sectors consisting of strong ecosystems
such as the healthcare system. Most existing business model concepts use an ‘old
language’ that is not adequate anymore for dealing with the emergent ecosystem
perspective” (A8E1-E3).
A professor of finance emphasizes the network character of our world today; an

aspect influencing ecosystem thinking through the exchange of values between
various stakeholders:
“We need dialogues in our networks that allow the integration of all stakeholders, this
is important. Establishing trust in the process is important. Just giving orders from the
top does not work anymore. Hence, to be successful we need people with different
skills to be brought together. Today it is important to recognise the network character
of our world. Therefore, it is important to work on a shared culture.” (A4E1-E2).
An early-day business model evangelist promoted the importance of ecosystem

thinking by visualizing the flow of resources between various stakeholders; an idea
finally leading to the concept of transaction models:
“It is about creating value within a business ecosystem. Within an ecosystem, it is

very useful and sensible to visualize the flow of resources. Therefore, I use
transaction models. Furthermore, scenarios are often used to map different
alternative contexts (and ecosystems). However, the Canvas cannot be used to map
out the ecosystem, a strong weakness of the tool. Furthermore, different levels of
276 / 549
complexity cannot be ‘zoomed in and out’, an additional weakness. On the other
hand, there is no model that allows for combining different business models, dealing
with the interaction in ecosystems” (S1E1-E3).
But ecosystem thinking also means taking responsibility for whole systems, as
argued by an innovation consultant and business book author:
“Years ago we had advanced systems thinking at the HSG. This has been lost since
science is becoming more and more focused, losing a holistic view of the whole. It is
about taking responsibility for whole systems, not just for parts in it. This is what
customers finally value.” (S8E1).
An innovation consultant and former researcher points out that we still face a gap in
knowledge of how business models work in ecosystems:
“From a research perspective, we still face a gap regarding business models and
ecosystems, showing how to create value as a network, rather than individually.
However, the gap may be expanded to the question, why do firms use business
model thinking, what are the triggers? Many large firms state that their environment
has changed. They have to react” (S9E1-E2).
One respondent, a philosopher, provided an alternative dimension to the ecosystem

idea:
“A firm is embedded in a context since the basic question is: Why do we make
business? It is a declaration of love to the world and to the people living in it”
(S11E1).
5.9.3.1 Specialisation in a customer network
An ICT entrepreneur argues that networks are important today as source of relevant
information:
“An aspect of ecosystem thinking is the information-gathering process, which has

become much more complex these days. Most competitors may have a bigger
277 / 549
network since they are just bigger, offering the whole range of services required in
the domain rather than just serving a niche. This is considered an advantage these
days (more and more). I have learned that working with partners is not a viable
approach to deal with this new situation because you cannot establish the needed
pricing homogeneity (as the competitors internally have). However, the main
challenge will be to work out better strategies that allow for getting the required
project information” (M1E1).
A regional milk processing firm owner-manager sees one of the big challenges ahead
in the trend of chain formation – as a form of ecosystem:
“The trend of chain formation. Customers cooperate by concentrating their purchase.

So, you can participate in a competition process rather than acting as total supplier.
This implies a downward pressure on the prices” (M2E1).
A clean technology entrepreneur uses transaction models to map out ecosystems

since the business model concept is considered too static a concept:
“The business model concept is very static a tool. Quiet often, we need tools that
allow for showing the flow of resources and money. Therefore, I work with the
transaction model. Potential investors are interested in dynamic perspectives as well.
They want to see the flow of money and resources within ecosystems. You also have
to visualise partner networks and the flow between the different actors” (M3E1).
The owner-manager of a cutting tool manufacturer (500 employees) addresses

ecosystem thinking as follows:
“Our firm is more and more focusing on models using data from anywhere in the
process (data mining) that allow for better controlling the tool management process,
i.e. automatically determining when customers need to revise their tools. Accordingly,
you will even more become co-responsible for the customer’s success” (M7E1-E3).
The owner and CEO of an electrical engineering firm (250 employees) stated that
new players will come into play as existing markets shift:
278 / 549
“The interfaces between the disciplines start blurring and will have to be managed
differently compared to what we know today, so established engineering offices may
only be able to fulfil a small part of the whole – not the full range anymore. In this new
way of constructing buildings, we will build in highly modular ways, comparable to the
automotive industry (more on this later). Today, my collaborators need competences
in all fields ranging from strategy, to leading people on the site up to financial and
controlling skills. This may change in the future so that you will have people
managing the concepts, and people only responsible for the details, hence a new
level of specialisation. The construction sector will be similar to software development
with clearly defined interfaces, rather than the automotive industry, as often referred
to” (M11E1-E2).
5.9.3.2 Working with external institutions
Another aspect of ecosystems consists of getting inspiration and ideas from outside,
such as stated by a cutting tool manufacturer (500 employees):
“It is considered important to work with associations and to collaborate with

universities as source of inspirations and new ideas” (M7E2).
The owner of a furniture production firm (30 employees) applies the same line of
reasoning by stating that they consult external sources:
“We consult designers, engineers or universities if needed – when highly specialized

know-how is required. But also, plenty of inputs from our customers serve as a basis
for innovations. We often develop new products jointly with our customers so we can
get worthwhile external knowledge” (M8E1).
5.9.3.3 Embedded in a wider environment
Not only the immediate context is considered, but also the wider environment
(economy, state, nation, etc.). The owner of a small clean technology trading office (1
person) stated:
“The business plan is an instrument that allows for mapping the business model. A
framework called the Marketing-Core-Model (‘Marketing-Kernmodell’) was often
used. It shows the elements you may be able to influence, then elements you cannot
279 / 549
influence, then the environment, the economic situation etc. Basically, it is how you
are embedded in an ecosystem. I have used this model as a means to working out
my positioning, relative to my competitors” (M4E1).
What is more, as argued by a greenhouse farmer (160 employees), ecosystem

thinking may also include governmental regulations to be taken into account:
“The challenges ahead are the Swiss agricultural politic including importation and
custom taxes but also the costs of the harvesters, which are much higher than in the
rest of Europe. Another challenge are public initiatives such as a current one aiming
at protecting the ground water so agriculture should be prohibited in some areas”
(M12E1-E2).
Ecosystems are addressed in various dimensions such as to describe radical

changes in the environment of a firm (Voelpel et al., 2004). Week (2000) finds that
business model innovation has a strategic component regarding knowledge
management since the traditional information processing mechanisms are challenged
by radical changes in the business environment. Environmental factors are also
argued to foster the detection of opportunities, and the motivation to detect them is
fundamentally important. Those factors are interlinked and reinforce each other
(Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). The role of ecosystems is also widely discussed in
complexity literature since the success of a business model depends on other
innovators and its environment and the location of the firm relative to its ecosystem
(Adner & Kapoor, 2010).
Most importantly for the present context, ecosystem thinking is further addressed by
innovation literature suggesting that a firm should widen up its perspective from an
inside to an ecosystem view depending on the type of innovation to be addressed,
such as industry models, revenue models or enterprise models (Giesen et al., 2007).
Firms should not only explore their internal innovation opportunities but also look at
the peripheries in order to gain innovative ideas by cooperating with competitors and
complementary firms (Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu, 2010). The open innovation idea
states that firms not only develop their ideas internally but also use external
280 / 549
resources for creating inventions and possibly innovations – but also export their
inventions (e.g. in form of licensing) if an and idea may be more valuable in another
context (Chesbrough, 2004). Another issue may be addressed by strategy literature
since the question whether a firm may have more than one business model
simultaneously (Christensen, 2002). More research is needed by focusing on value
creation (and capturing) by understanding the business model as a boundary-
spanning systemic activity system (Zott et al., 2011).
To complement existing business model literature, the academic community

discusses today’s business models as sitting ‘somewhere in the cloud’ and business
models are not ‘stand-alone’ constructs anymore but embedded in an environment.
Furthermore, business models are often overlapping each other, and a firm may have
more than one dominant business model at once. The debate whether a firm may run
more than one business model simultaneously, a hot topic in strategy literature
(Christensen, 2002), is addressed as well in the debate of overlapping models. It is
further argued that people with different skills must be brought together to face
complex environments – an issue reflected in complexity literature (Casadesus-
Masanell & Zhu, 2010).
Some support professionals understand the Canvas an inappropriate tool for dealing
with ecosystems because it is considered static, not showing the dynamics within
systems, such as the flow of resources; therefore, the transaction model is often used
as a complementation of the Canvas – an aspect that adds to existing literature.
Furthermore, support professionals argue that firms should take responsibilities for
whole systems (or eco-systems) rather than just parts in it, which is what customers
finally value. Furthermore, giving something back to the system might be considered
“a declaration of love to the world and to the people living in it” (S11E1), as a rather
philosophical perspective not yet covered by literature. Those ideas referring to the
complex nature of ecosystems are covered by literature considering business models
part of a wider ecosystem (Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu, 2010).
The owner manager community discussed the ecosystem idea in a hands-on way.
They see themselves embedded in a wider value chain network, use external
resources for inspiration and widen ecosystem thinking not just to their industry but
281 / 549
also to the governmental level. Their ideas are reflected and conceptualised in the
complexity literature because they see themselves embedded in a complex network
(Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu, 2010), and in the innovation literature in terms of
getting external inputs, as outlined in domains such as open innovation (Chesbrough,
2004).
5.9.5 Key findings
5.9.5.1 Academics
Academics address many disciplines dealing with the ecosystem concept, such as
composing teams that allow for increasing internal complexity to respond to an even
more complex environment – an idea which is also reflected by complexity literature.
But they also refer to the question whether a firm can run more than one business
model simultaneously (Christensen, 2002), an aspect widely discussed in literature,
even though not yet reflected in the ecosystem context.
Furthermore, some of the the academic community understand firms to be sitting

somewhere in the cloud, recognising business models from different firms as
overlapping constructs, often as part of a platform idea. This is an insight that is only
rarely covered by literature.
Support professionals discussed philosophical aspects in the ecosystem context,

such as “… a declaration of love to the world and to the people living in it” (S11E1).
They consider the Canvas an inappropriate tool since it lacks a dynamic perspective.
This represents an input that adds to existing literature. Furthermore, members of the
support professional community argue that firms should take responsibility for whole
systems. Systemic thinking may have been lost in the past years through the
dominance of an even more specialising economy. The idea of specialisation versus
systems thinking has not yet been debated in business model literature.
Owner-managers relate the ecosystem idea to very concrete everyday situations

such as collaborating with external research institutions, integrating knowledge from
282 / 549
external specialists if needed, or widening up the value chain for partners and
suppliers. All these ideas are covered by existing literature.
In contrast, what can be learned is that the ecosystem concept is a very popular idea
today within the owner-manager community. The author concludes that a clear
definition of what an ecosystem really is, particularly in the business model context, is
still missing, as the term ecosystem tends to be used very broadly; this may
represent a viable area for further research.
5.10 Summary and interpretation of the key findings
The present section summarises the key findings, which serves as basis for
answering the research questions and the contributions to knowledge in the final
chapter. Furthermore, the author interprets the findings by bringing in his own voice.
5.10.1 A wide variety of applications and interpretations
5.10.1.1 Summary
Academics: 10 different Interpretations and 13 different ways of application were

provided by 10 academics, mostly reflecting the view of literature.
Support professionals: 12 different interpretations and 24 different ways of

application were provided by 13 support professionals. Support professionals are the
community with by far the most diverse ideas.
Owner-managers: 12 different Interpretations and 14 different ways of application

were provided by 12 support professionals.
5.10.1.2 Interpretation
The research has revealed that there still is no common understanding and no
standardised application of the business model concept. The most diverse ideas
have emerged in the support professional community. The rationale is that this latter
group represents those people tightly linked with both academia and practice.
Support professionals may represent a group familiar with abstract and conceptual
thinking. Through their closeness to practice they not only observe how firms deal
283 / 549
with the business model concept but also have the ability to critically reflect on it.
Based on their idiosyncratic reflections we see a high variety of ideas, offering
opportunities to learn more about the business model concept.
5.10.2 A tendency for developing adapted frameworks
5.10.2.1 Summary
Two groups of academics have been revealed. On the one hand, those having
developed or refined models and frameworks. They mainly focus on ‘advanced’
concepts such as design thinking and value proposition development (‘advanced’
compared to revenue thinking). They regard revenue thinking ‘old school’ business
modelling. On the other hand, those academics using existing frameworks, or no
frameworks at all think in the revenue domain too.
Support professionals can be divided in two sub-groups; those supporting and those
denying the need for framework development. Some argue that business
practitioners would take advantage of more refined, intuitive tools (such as the
Canvas), while others see business practitioners already overloaded with the models
we have.
The business model concept is a relatively new arrival in the management world that
is not yet fully understood, For academics, this offers opportunities for research and
conceptual studies, and to profit from a popular idea that offers room for
contributions. This process finally results in numerous new (conceptual) frameworks.
In contrast, business practitioners are often caught and absorbed in their daily
business. They have no time and no resources to adapt new concepts. Furthermore,
many business practitioners may have problems with abstract thinking; they are
practitioners so they tend to react against new ideas unless they can see their
benefits to practice. Thus, many of them refuse the business model concept and see
no need for any frameworks. A gap between academia and practice opens up at this
stage.
284 / 549
5.10.3 The role of philosophy in business model thinking
5.10.3.1 Summary
Academics tend to relate philosophical considerations to the ‘right to exist’ question

(raison d’être) and emphasize the reductionist character of models. This may not be
appropriate a concept for many business problems we have, and especially not for
complex problems to be solved (one academic describes these as ‘wicked
problems’). Furthermore, they see earning money as not the only purpose of a
business.
Philosophical considerations are widely discussed in the support professional

community. These professionals emphasize the need for developing passion for
something, e.g. a new business, or being inspired by an idea as a basis for new
business models. It is about ‘swallowing’ problems, sending them to the
subconscious, so that solutions can emerge over time. Sometimes it is also about
suffering for the development of an idea.
Creating a new business model is more an ‘art’ than a ‘science’ – there are no
‘scientific laws’ to be applied guaranteeing successful business model application.
Business model implementation strongly depends on the individual’s ability to learn
and to reflect. And in some way philosophy is reflection. This may explain why
philosophical ideas have prominently found their way in business model thinking –
philosophical ideas offer lines of reasoning and argumentation for solving complex
problems that cannot be solved using ‘scientific’ approaches (‘scientific’ as derived
from economics or natural sciences).
5.10.4 A missing intuitive framework for revenue stream generation
5.10.4.1 Summary
On its highest level of abstraction, there are two main ways the business model
concept has been interpreted in the academic community. Those understanding the
concept according to Osterwalder (2010), putting value proposition design at the
centre, and those understanding it according to a firm’s revenue logic, following the
285 / 549
question ‘how to make money’ – which is where business modelling originated at the
time of the dot.com explosion. Some academics consider revenue thinking to be the
true purpose of a business model.
Support professionals consider revenue thinking important, since it is argued that

firms need revenues quickly. However, there is also a debate whether revenue could
be understood in a broader sense, also including the needs of non-profit
organisations (where revenue can be measured differently from money).
The interviewed owner-managers found it easy to describe the revenue logic of their
firm. They felt comfortable with revenue thinking. By contrast, many of the
interviewed owner-managers felt uncomfortable with the business model concept,
such as described by Osterwalder (2010). It was considered ‘theoretical stuff’. Start-
ups are different; their understanding tends to be primarily influenced by the ideas of
Osterwalder and less focused on revenue aspects only.
Business practitioners are aware of the importance of revenues and liquidity. They
know that ‘money is king’ and running out of liquidity may kill their firm. As a
consequence, they care much about developing their income streams. Although
considered highly important in practice, there has not yet been developed an intuitive
tool – such as the Canvas – assisting managers in their revenue diversification
activities. Accordingly, the author proposes a framework to be developed, possibly as
a plug-in for the Canvas, based on a morphological box splitting the revenue concept
in its basic constituent parts. Such a box would allow for creatively re-combining
existing and developing new income streams.
5.10.5 Business model application as an emergent phenomenon
5.10.5.1 Summary
An additional and important theme was not initially included in the coding but
emerged from the analysis later and indirectly, through continued reflection on the
data, the ongoing analysis and the author’s personal experience. Several
respondents made the point, in differing ways, that a specific business model is an
286 / 549
emerging phenomenon, rather than one that is decided on at the outset of a planning
process, and that this may be a lengthy process in its own right. In other words, a
business model is the outcome of a complex learning and maturation process that
requires time to complete.
In terms of business model application, the interviewed academics reflect ideas

described in literature, such as launching market experiments (the Lean Start-up
approach) or distinguishing between start-ups and existing firms. On the other hand,
the data have also revealed that academics see business model application as an
emergent phenomenon and that business modelling must be seen as a complex
problem re-framing (and understanding) activity.
Support professionals consider business model application an emergent

phenomenon, a complex learning process, a process of maturation, not to be rushed.
As can be seen in the history of science (as an analogy), new ideas are the
outcomes of maturation processes rather than conscious planning. They consider it a
process that cannot be solved intellectually. Furthermore, most of the famous
business model application stories would just be explained ‘ex-post’.
Since business models are a recent arrival in the management world, there are only
few proven ideas offering models and procedures of how to successfully implement
new business models. As academics often refer to those few ideas described in
literature, support professionals reflect on their own experience, which shows that
business model application is a complex learning process, a process of maturation.
Furthermore, an argument here is that new venture founders should prioritize their
tasks. Prioritization means following sequences rather than thinking all elements of a
business model framework through thoroughly right at the beginning of the planning
process.
An argument often provided by support professionals is that business models are

used to explain successful businesses ex-post. The author posits that we only have a
few examples that demonstrate the usefulness of the concept in business
development. Since some firms (such as start-ups and large firms) have only just
287 / 549
started working with the business model concept we may know more about its real
usefulness for business planning and development in the future. It is also worth
noting that this offers plenty of opportunities for future research projects.
5.10.6 Managing real world complexity with business models
5.10.6.1 Summary
In the academic community, there is a debate as to whether business models may

help increasing real-world complexity through showing ‘everything at a glance’,
having a checklist-like effect for those not familiar with business ideas. Others
advocate for simplified models, reducing real world complexity, so that founders may
concentrate on the essential things, such as focusing on the value proposition at first.
The argument of many support professionals is that we must ‘swallow’ problems;

send them to the subconscious as part of an incubation process. We need detours
and must accept contradictions since there are no linear paths. Developing an
understanding for non-cause-and-effect behaviour (often against ‘best practice’ in
academia) in the context of business modelling may help dealing with complexity.
Complexity has been widely addressed. Two main perspectives have been revealed:
including and reducing real-world complexity. The argument here for adopting one or
the other perspective is that it depends on where to start a business model initiative.
New venture founders (such as university graduates) may be better off focusing on a
sequence of well-defined steps to follow (for example starting with the value
proposition and the customer segments) and then work from there. Experienced
entrepreneurs may map out the model of their business and then focus on the
element that needs attention, such as the revenue mechanics, by always having the
whole picture in mind (adapting a holistic view).
288 / 549
5.10.7 The role of business models in ecosystems
5.10.7.1 Summary
As some academics argue, today we often are confronted with business models
‘sitting somewhere in a cloud’. They recognise business models from different firms
as overlapping each other rather than stand-alone constructs (especially in digital
businesses). In this context, they address the question whether a firm can run more
than one business model, an aspect also controversially discussed in literature.
In terms of ecosystem thinking, support professionals consider the Canvas an

inappropriate tool since there may be a lack of dynamic perspectives. Furthermore,
the support professional community argues that firms should take responsibility for
whole systems rather than just parts in it; this is what customers finally value.
Owner managers widely address ecosystems by referencing to very concrete

situations, such as collaborating with external research institutions, integrating
knowledge from external specialists if needed, or widening up the value chain for
partners and suppliers.
Most business model frameworks are static in nature. Many frameworks (such as the
Canvas) have an ecosystem interface with the key partners. However, for mapping
an ecosystem, the author considers the business model concept an inappropriate
tool. Business models, by definition, map the business logic, from an internal
perspective and with the firm as entity of analysis. For mapping ecosystems, market
structure models may be more useful. One should not use a hammer for tightening
screws. As such, business models have not been designed to map ecosystems,
although there are interfaces between the concepts.
5.10.8 Owner-managed SMEs are different from start-ups and large firms
5.10.8.1 Summary
Academics distinguish between start-ups and large firms. They argue business
modelling is part of a start-up journey. However, changing an existing business
289 / 549
model is considered difficult. They emphasize the concept’s importance in highly
dynamic markets.
Support professionals argue that the business model concept is only rarely used by
established SMEs. On the other hand, it is a popular concept in the start-up
community. Most of the interviewed support professionals do not know any SME firm
managers actively working with business model frameworks nor do they use the
model in direct contact with their client firms. Some support professionals argue that
the business model concept is often used in large firms, also based on their
consulting experience.
In the interviewed sample, there were only few owner-managers of established SMEs
who were aware of the business model concept and one actively applying any kind of
business model framework. Start-ups tend to be different; they use the concept
frequently because they have been taught to do so at business school and at start-up
weekends.
Even though owner-managers of SMEs may know the term business model, or the
business model concept, they do not recognise it useful for their current problems.
They are different from start-ups, for which the business model concept is a very
important tool today – also being taught as such by business schools. They are also
different from large firms, many of which actively work with the business model
concept. The rationale for this may be the circumstance that SMEs are in in the
second and third phase of the Christensen (2016) model, having already created a
viable value proposition and having found their position in their market – maybe
already years or decades ago – hence they are concerned about ‘sustaining
innovations’ and ‘efficiency’. Compared to large firms, they do not have the resources
to be active in all three phases. And start-ups, by definition, are in the first phase –
which is where business modelling is considered important because in this phase it is
all about developing value propositions and customer segments – activities that are
often seen core to business modelling today.
290 / 549
5.11 The key findings in the context of the conceptual literature framework
The key findings from the data analysis are mapped in the conceptual framework,
which was developed as a conclusion of the literature review. Figure 27 depicts the
conceptual framework and the findings; the latter are mapped relative to their
individual position within the framework (marked in green).
Figure 27: Key findings mapped in the conceptual framework from literature. Author (2018).
In the following sub-sections, the key findings are discussed in the context of a
possible final contribution to be made. However, the thesis aims at making two types
of contributions:
1. Several ‘sub contributions’. These are ‘typical’ contributions of an exploratory

study aiming at breaking new ground by outlining new ideas that emerged in
the data and that are elaborated and contextualised with the literature. These
contributions reside more on the descriptive level – they are neither
291 / 549
conceptual nor generalizable in nature since the reader must interpret and
transfer them into his own context. These ‘sub contributions’ represent the
backbone of the thesis. One of them, the most robust, serves as basis for the
final conceptual contribution so it will be conceptually further developed.
2. A final conceptual contribution that aims at generalising the most promising
finding of the thesis in an integrative way. This final conceptual contribution
sets the anchor of the thesis by positioning the research in a certain domain.
In the following sub sections, the several main findings, which have emerged in the
data, are evaluated in terms of their suitability for a final conceptual contribution to be
made.
5.11.1 A wide variety of applications and interpretations
This finding can best be located at the interface between the theoretical and the
application stage. It not only includes understanding issues, but also deals with the
use of the business model concept. This finding provides an empirically grounded set
of applications the business model concept is used for.
A final contribution, i.e. in form of a business model classification framework, may

enrich extant knowledge since people do not yet fully understand how to best apply
the business model concept – it also encourages the business world to make more
informed business model decisions and to more systematically take advantage of the
concept. Such a contribution may consist of business model application categories to
be further classified and analysed, represented in a conceptual framework. Since
they are tightly linked with the research questions, the interview data offer rich
insights that support the development such a conceptual contribution.
5.11.2 A tendency for developing adapted frameworks
As the data show, it is currently popular to develop new adapted frameworks – above
all in the academic community. Since ‘everyone’ currently deals with adapted
business models (creating new building blocks or re-arranging the logic of existing
elements), a final contribution in this area must be questioned. Not at least because
292 / 549
the data show that practitioners are already overloaded with the various models we
have at present.
5.11.3 The role of philosophy in business model thinking
This finding represents a new domain in which the business model concept may be
explored and further researched. It is located on the application stage dealing with
application processes. On the one hand, this finding may offer plenty of possibilities
for an original final contribution. Philosophical considerations are a hot topic in the
support professional community – and partly in the academic group. On the other
hand, compared to other findings, i.e. a wide variety of applications and
interpretations, this finding is less grounded in the data and leaves too much room
open for an integrative contribution; one that aims at condensing rather than
expanding ideas.
5.11.4 A missing intuitive framework for revenue stream generation
This finding is also located on the theoretical stage. The same reasoning can be
applied as for the tendency of developing adapted frameworks – in short, a new or
adapted business model framework representing the business model concept in
another (slightly) different way is not necessary these days and therefore not
considered an original contribution to be made.
5.11.5 Business model application as an emergent phenomenon
This finding is an issue that mainly emerged in the support professional community. It
would allow for an original final contribution in the domain of managing business
model application processes. It is the only finding dealing with application processes.
However, such a contribution would be most tentative since it has a lot to do with soft
factors and reflection. As a final conceptual contribution and as the anchor point of
the present research, this theme is not enough grounded in the data, since it is not
covered by all three communities. Nevertheless, it reflects the authors own
experience in the field.
293 / 549
5.11.6 Managing real world complexity with business models
This finding represents a high-level theme of reflection, which was addressed by

academics and support professionals. Although representing an interesting issue on
the application stage, it is difficult to make a contribution in this domain – no matter
which type of contribution (sub or conceptual contribution). The rationale is that the
complexity concept, as discussed in the data, is an abstract idea that may include
‘everything’ so it finally has no clear and no focused meaning. Such as the term
business model, the term complexity must be seen an elusive idea that first needs
clarification.
5.11.7 The role of business models in ecosystems
The academic and the owner manager community mainly have brought about this
finding. Mapping ecosystems is considered an application purpose located on the
application stage. Although ecosystem considerations are of growing importance,
they represent a ‘system’ outside the business – explaining what is exterior a firm
and how firms are interlinked and react with their environment. However, the present
research concentrates on the business model concept with the individual firm as unit
of analysis. The ecosystem concept is considered an important issue to be
connected with, as a concept at the periphery, but is excluded from further
investigation because it is outside the scope, or the ‘system borders’, of the present
research.
5.11.8 Owner-managed SMEs are different from start-ups and large firms.
All three communities support this finding so it is well grounded in the data. It
represents an important insight, not only according to the author’s own experience
and expertise in the field, but also based on member checking (a quality criteria of
qualitative research), as conducted in July 2018. An academic (professor of
innovation management) and a support professional (strategy and innovation coach)
from the author’s network were contacted in order to discuss this issue. Both of which
regard this finding as a new and highly relevant insight.
294 / 549
The present finding offers opportunities to make the business model concept more
accessible for small firms. A contribution would be in the domain of business model
application. It could consist of a conceptual framework that helps SMEs refining their
business model-based activities by addressing their specific needs. This finding
potentially represents a promising area for both types of contributions (final
conceptual contribution and sub-level contribution). In a final integrative contribution,
this finding could also be combined with the first finding (applied widely and loosely).
5.11.9 Conclusion
Sub contributions are possible to be made on several findings. For a final conceptual
contribution the following findings are considered most promising (for a rationale see
discussion above):
1. A wide variety of applications and interpretations.

2. Owner-managed SMEs are different from start-ups and large firms.
However, the most robust final conceptual contribution may be built upon the first
finding, ‘a wide variety of applications and interpretations’. This finding is tightly linked
with the research questions and there is enough empirical evidence available. All
three communities support this finding. The finding offers an excellent basis
(literature, data, practical experience and expertise) for a relevant integrating
conceptual contribution in the business model application domain. The business
model concept still lack of understanding and experience in the way it is applied. A
framework structuring and clarifying application ideas, providing methodological
security, is need in the academic and in the practical world.
295 / 549
6. Conclusion
The conclusion chapter aims to revisit and answer the research questions and
present the contributions to knowledge that have resulted from the research. Due to
the complexity of the findings, those relating to each of the three communities are
discussed one by one. The contributions to knowledge are outlined, using a structure
as follows: (1) presenting the finding as basis of the contribution, (2) giving evidence
from the empirical data, (3) the contribution is contextualised within the literature. A
separate sub-section is devoted to condensed summaries of the contributions.
Limitations of the research are discussed before an agenda for future research
activities is proposed. Contributions to practice are then discussed before the chapter
concludes with the author’s personal reflection on his research journey.
6.1 Key findings in the context of the research questions
In the present section, the key findings are presented in the context of the research
questions. Each research question is discussed in turn.
6.1.1 Addressing research question 1
RQ1: How is the business model concept perceived, conceptualised and applied
within three Swiss communities consisting of local academics, business support
professionals, and technology-based small business owner-managers?
6.1.1.1 Academics
Two main perspectives
Out of 10 interviewed academics, 10 different interpretations and 13 different

applications have been revealed. Most academics build their understanding upon the
existing business model literature. A considerable number of academics apply the
concept for solving or re-framing complex problems. Another group uses it as a
concept for resource- and revenue-based considerations such as rent-seeking
strategies. Accordingly, on a high level of abstraction, their personal
conceptualisations can be divided into two main categories:
296 / 549
1. A ‘narrower sense’ perspective, focusing on revenue mechanics. This
perspective includes new revenue creation, and the diversification of existing
income streams.
2. A ‘wider sense’ perspective, enhancing the business model concept with
additional ideas such as value proposition development, using design thinking
approaches.
Those academics arguing for wider sense thinking have often developed their own
(adapted) framework. Those not having developed or adapted any frameworks
(building their understanding upon existing frameworks) also see revenue thinking an
important purpose of the business model concept. Among the interviewed academics
there are some just focusing on revenue mechanics.
Complexity management as a central theme
Academics consider business models as systems made up of various elements

acting together in non-linear, non-predictable ways. A long-lasting debate is whether
complexity can be satisfactorily embraced using the business model concept, or
whether business models should be used to reduce real-world complexity.
Academics also refer to special complex problem types such as ‘wicked problems’.
Wicked problems must be solved each time from scratch – a concept that has been
described by design science.
Business model application
Academics have discussed the implementation of new business models in three

categories:
(1) A trial and error (learning) process.

(2) Start-ups as sources of new business models.
(3) As an emergent phenomenon, based on existing resources and capabilities.
Academics argue that business models may be useful for start-ups. They consider it
ideally suitable for creatively developing ideas, and as a communication tool. By
contrast, they tend to see the existing business models of established firms as much
more difficult to be changed or transformed. However, as a professor of
297 / 549
entrepreneurship argued, there is an increasing interest in start-up methodologies
(such as business model thinking) to be applied within large firms, as part of business
development programs. Furthermore, academics argue that business modelling
would be especially important in highly dynamic markets – mostly in the context of
large firms.
6.1.1.2 Business support professionals
Many diverse perspectives
Out of 13 interviewed support professionals, 12 different interpretations and 24

different applications have been revealed; accordingly, support professionals were
found to have the most diverse perspectives and ideas. Although many ideas are
informed by literature, support professionals proved to have various additional ideas
complementing literature. Among other things (see the findings chapter), they apply
the model for visualising the flow of resources, for sensitisation, for raising soft issues
and philosophical questions, as thinking models, or for describing ownership
structures (an idea not yet described in literature, which was also addressed by
owner-managers). Support professionals mostly refer to the Osterwalder (2010)
Canvas. However, they do not use the concept in their work with clients, i.e.
businesses with whom they are working.
Soft issues and philosophical considerations using the business model concept
Business support professionals have a strong focus on soft issues and philosophical
considerations when applying the business model concept, such as putting the
human factor at the centre, arguing for the importance of ‘passion’ and being inspired
by a business idea, for a deep customer understanding, and the importance of the
subconscious as a means for dealing with contradictions. They argue that a new
business only rarely follows a direct path but instead takes many detours. There are
also mechanisms leading to loops as necessary learning cycles – and they are not a
waste of time. Core business modelling is considered a process of reflection rather
than cause and effect reasoning.
298 / 549
Including or reducing real-world complexity
Complexity themes have been widely discussed by support professionals, such as

the debate whether real-world complexity can be included or must be reduced by
applying models. They debate whether something big can actually be reduced to
something small and then be scaled back (in a social system context), such as has
successfully been done in the natural science and engineering domain. Furthermore,
support professionals emphasize the importance of systems thinking, hence having
the whole in mind, reflecting on the whole system, rather than just parts of it.
Using existing or developing adapted frameworks
In the business support professional community there are two groups. The first group
has developed their own adapted models. They see a need for more refined tools for
practitioners. A second group argues that additional models would not provide any
added value, since practitioners are already overloaded with the models we already
have, including frameworks such as the Osterwalder Canvas.
Distinguishing between revenue thinking and more ‘advanced’ ideas
In terms of core business modelling, two lines of reasoning could be uncovered:
(1) Those advocating revenue thinking as the main business model purpose. The
argument here is that business modelling finally is nothing else than thinking
revenue compositions through thoroughly and creatively. In short, it reflects the
way a business makes money.
(2) Those who question a sole focus on revenue thinking, arguing that business
models should not be exclusively about monetary aspects but much more about
the many ‘philosophical’ questions that surround any business. They argue that
earning money is by far not the only purpose of a business. They consider
creating value above monetary aspects an important aim of business modelling.
They consider that developing a passion for problem-solving is one of the main
drivers of business model thinking.
299 / 549
Business model application in practice
Support professionals question whether business models can be consciously

planned. They interpret business model application as an emergent phenomenon
rather than the product of conscious planning. Accordingly, a common argument in
the support professional community is that they apply the concept to map out
business ideas in order to quickly understand what is going on in a given context.
They use the concept (mostly the Canvas) as a thinking model by mapping a given
situation in their mind, which allows for understanding and thinking through business
realities quickly. The business model concept is also considered useful for
sensitisation, to show business practitioners that there are new ideas that might be
useful for them. However, most support professionals avoid using any frameworks in
direct contact with clients (see 6.2.4). Nonetheless, a few support professionals in the
sample, particularly those working with large firms, consider the concept useful as a
communication tool.
6.1.1.3 Small business owner-managers
Different interpretations
Among the 12 small business owner-managers interviewed, 12 different

interpretations of the business model concept and 14 different applications were
revealed. Start-up founders and large firm managers tend to be well informed by
literature, while the SME owner-managers in the sample were relativey uninformed.
Among other applications, SME owner-manages apply the concept for better
understanding the point of sales, for ‘blurring’ prices or just to say “…this is not our
business model” (M11S2). Their association with the term ‘business model’ also
encompasses ownership structures and succession plans (an idea also discussed by
support professionals).
Distinguishing between start-ups, SMEs and larger firms
As was revealed by the interviews, three main groups of businesses must be

differentiated in terms of familiarity with, and application of, the business model
concept:
300 / 549
(1) Start-ups, understanding and using the concept (mostly the Canvas).
(2) Established SMEs, mostly not understanding nor applying the concept.
(3) Large firms, understanding and working with the concept (mostly the Canvas).
Start-ups typically encountered the business model concept at an early stage, often
during start-up training or within an incubator. In contrast, owner-managers of
established small businesses had much more limited exposure to the concept. As
was emphasised by the business support professionals and demonstrated by the
pilot study, employed managers in larger firms tended to have a strong familiarity with
the concept, typically gained through education, training and prior employment.
Importance of revenue thinking
The small firm owner-managers who were less familiar with the business model
concept tended to relate revenue thinking with the term ‘business model’.
Accordingly, most of the interviewed owner-managers could easily outline the very
specific revenue logic of their business.
Ecosystems thinking
When confronted with the business model concept, some owner-managers related it
to ecosystems thinking. They focused, in very hands-on ways, on specialisation in
customer networks, working with external institutions as source of inspiration and
solution developments, and the increasing importance of government policy.
RQ2: What are shortcomings and limitations of the business model concept, as
perceived by the three communities?
6.1.2.1 Academics
Neglecting dynamic perspectives
The business model concept is often considered inappropriate for dynamic

environments. Accordingly, several academics saw difficulties with representing and
visualising the flow of money and resources with static frameworks such as the
301 / 549
Canvas. As a consequence, they considered it useful to combine transaction models
with static frameworks.
Side note: The idea of transaction models was also addressed by some support
professionals and start-up founders. This shows the link between the communities as
many start-up founders have been trained by academics as part of their business
school education, and later by support professionals on their entrepreneurial journey.
Inappropriate building block design
Some academics, such as two professors of entrepreneurship, saw missing building

blocks, or an inappropriate arrangement of these blocks, as the main flaw of most
existing frameworks. For instance, they argued that the team should represent the
core of a business model framework. However, one academic argued that value
propositions couldn’t be separated from customer segments, as they are
conceptually interrelated (this separation was considered one of the major flaws of
the Canvas and some other popular frameworks). A further argument, provided by a
professor of design thinking, is that most existing models contain too many building
blocks (such as the Canvas), so they are not easily understandable.
Application technologically out-dated
Two professors argued that existing business model frameworks were mainly used
on paper, using pens and sticky notes. In their view, this was technologically out-
dated in comparison with the potential of modern software applications.
Side note: By contrast, in the support professional and the owner-manager (start-up)
world there are arguments that the Canvas is only a sensible tool when used
analogously, on paper, with sticky notes. Their view was that people need to interact
with each other in front of the Canvas, sharing ideas; this was seen the most valuable
effect of application of the Canvas.
Not including real-world complexity
There is a controversial debate as to whether business models include real-world

complexity. Some argue that real-world complexity cannot be mapped using any type
302 / 549
of model – reality is always much more complex than what a model could ever
include. Thus, the concept’s usefulness is called into question.
Ignoring the emergent nature of business models
In the support professional community there is a debate regarding the time factor in
business modelling. Some argue that creating a new business model is an emergent
process, or phenomenon, that must not be rushed, but in which ideas must be sent to
the subconscious to mature, a process that requires time in the form of learning
cycles. In their view, this aspect is neglected by existing frameworks, often giving the
impression that new businesses are just the product of linear planning by sketching
ideas out on a framework. Additionally, business modelling is considered a
consequence of a deep customer understanding, which cannot be gained through
using business model frameworks – nor was investigating pains and gains, as
proposed by Osterwalder (2013), considered an appropriate approach.
Successful business models are just explained ‘ex-post’
A further point of critique by several support professionals is that business models

cannot be planned using frameworks; by contrast, frameworks are almost always
used ex-post to explain the logic of a successful business, the founders of which
would only rarely have heard something about such concepts. Moreover, only few
examples would be known (also in literature) where a business was successfully set
up based on conscious planning using models and frameworks. Instead, it is much
more usefully considered an emergent process.
An inappropriate tool for managing complexity
Some support professionals argue that through using a business model framework
(such as the Canvas), the whole picture becomes apparent and allows for dealing
with complexity, through ‘having everything at a glance’. However, others argue that
reality can never be adequately mapped using models. Accordingly, there is a debate
as to whether business models are useful or harmful for dealing with complexity.
One philosophically-inclined respondent questioned whether, in social contexts,
303 / 549
something large can be reduced to something small and then scaled back again.
Thus, the applicability of an approach successfully applied in the engineering domain
(using models and plans) to the business context is questionable.
Only rarely applied in practice
An experienced (start-up) consultant said that he worked with the Canvas, but just as
a thinking model, as a means to quickly analyse a business, to quickly get an
overview in his mind, but never in direct contact with client firms. Another innovation
consultant argued that only novice consultants use models or frameworks in their
work with clients – and then are surprised that customers do not follow their
suggestions. The rationale is that working with models in direct contact with client
firms may demonstrate incompetence of the consultant.
Furthermore, a governmental innovation coach, having worked with hundreds of

SMEs in all sectors, claimed to have never seen any SMEs actively applying the
business model concept in practice because such concepts would simply be too
complicated, and that business practitioners would simply not have the time to deal
with them.
Ecosystems thinking
Ecosystems are considered important in the world of support professionals by

showing the flow of resources, by taking an integrated view of whole systems, and
finally, as one respondent stated, by “giving something back as a declaration of love
to the world and the people living in it” (S11E1). However, the business model
concept is often argued to be a stand-alone concept, inadequately integrated within
broader ecosystems (i.e. only few interfaces are defined).
Missing dynamic perspectives
Start-up owner-managers often use the Canvas, or other representational

frameworks, in combination. They often distinguish between static and dynamic
perspectives. For dynamic considerations, one of the interviewed start-up
304 / 549
entrepreneurs considers most existing models, or frameworks (such as the Canvas),
not appropriate so he uses transaction models (showing the flow of resources using
arrows) in combination with the Canvas.
Neglecting revenue thinking
SME owner-managers (except start-ups) often gravitated to revenue perspectives.

For those having a strong revenue focus, existing models may offer only limited entry
points. As a consequence, they consider business models ‘theoretical stuff’ or only
useful for start-ups.
RQ3: How has the business model concept been adapted or further developed by
the three communities – based on their perceived limitations and shortcomings?
6.1.3.1 Academics
Frameworks compensating for the shortcomings of the Canvas
Some academics have adapted and further developed existing frameworks. Some
proponents of ‘wider sense’ business model thinking have created their own
frameworks, often due to perceived shortcomings of the Canvas (all respondents
referred to the Canvas as a framework of reference). For instance, they have created
models containing additional building blocks, such as the team standing at the
centre, or have re-arranged the building blocks in their own adapted frameworks,
which would allow for better reflecting their individual needs, depending on their
specific domain of research.
Models with a reduced number of building blocks
One professor felt that most frameworks, such as the Canvas, contain too many
components (building blocks), so he has developed a reduced model to be easily
grasped and understood, based on his experience with business students at
university. His model has a strong focus on design thinking and on value proposition
creation with just four basic building blocks. The argument here is that a business
305 / 549
model journey should start by concentrating on the customer problem to be solved,
rather than all the other elements at once (as in many popular frameworks).
Online tools taking advantage of current Internet technologies
Two professors of entrepreneurship have developed online tools assisting business

founders with mobile solutions, arguing that just using a framework on a piece of
paper would technologically be by far out-dated and no viable online solutions would
exist yet. A currently popular tool co-developed by Osterwalder (strategyzer.com)
was held to ignore important opportunities offered by online resources, such as
linking with funding platforms.
Using the Canvas as basis for adaptations
A further group of academics used existing models as basis for their own
developments and adaptations, such as a professor for sustainability management,
who created an ‘impact business model’ based on impact theory, arguing that
building upon a commonly accepted, widely known framework, would be most fruitful.
Accordingly, the Canvas has been identified as the most commonly accepted
business model representation and visualization tool.
‘Narrower sense’ group making no developments or adaptations
A further group of academics, such as a professor of marketing and a professor of

global business, put revenue considerations at the centre of business model thinking.
Most proponents of this sub-group, advocating for ‘narrower sense’ thinking, have not
adapted nor further developed any models or frameworks. They tend to use different
representational models, such as market structure models, each time developed from
scratch, depending on the specifics of the situation at hand.
Adding or adapting building blocks
A few support professionals, above all those with an academic background, have
developed or adapted their own frameworks, using the same arguments as the
academic community; adding additional building blocks (such as the team) or re-
306 / 549
arranging building blocks (relative to the Canvas) in different ways to better meet
their specific needs. There is one respondent who develops plugins for the Canvas –
one who works with large firms and start-ups (but with only limited experience with
SMEs). What is more, some support professionals combine static models, such as
the Canvas, with dynamic models, such as the transaction model, in order to add
dynamic behaviour – an idea that has also been identified by start-up owners and
academics. This again shows the link between the communities as academics and
support professionals deliver training to start-up founders.
Denying the need for the development of adapted models
There are also several support professionals who deliberately refuse the
development of additional frameworks arguing that people in practice are already
overloaded with the various existing models. Some support professionals, one of
whom is an experienced marketing consultant, prefer alternative ways for the
visualization of business situations by applying market structure models, the model
being created from scratch each time.
Neither SME owner-managers nor start-up founders had adapted or further

developed any models.
6.2 Summary of the contributions
6.2.1 Contribution 1
The business model concept is perceived and applied in many different ways in
Switzerland.
Although Switzerland might be considered the homeland of the business model

concept, the research contributes to knowledge by showing that the concept is
understood, perceived and applied in many different ways, both in academia and in
practice. This has been demonstrated for three Swiss communities of academics,
business support professionals, and small-business owner-managers, representing a
coherent ‘chain’ between academia and practice.
307 / 549
The business model concept is perceived and applied differently across the three
communities of academics, support professionals, and owner-managers.
The research contributes to knowledge by revealing that the three communities are
very different in regard their business model understanding, perception and
application. While academics tend to reflect ideas described in the literature, support
professionals tend to add new ideas and perspectives based on their own
observations and reflections in practice, complementing existing literature. Owner
managers only rarely apply the business model concept in practice, nor are they
widely informed by theoretical ideas from literature.
Revenue mechanics, although considered ‘old school’ business modelling, still play
an important role today.
Two main perspectives, ‘narrower’ and ‘wider’ business model thinking (as described
by a professor of entrepreneurship), could be identified on a high level of abstraction.
‘Narrower’ means focusing on revenue mechanics and rent-seeking strategies;
‘wider’ includes additional concepts such as value proposition design or design
thinking. Although revenue aspects are often regarded as early day business model
thinking, the research not only shows the idea still to be ‘alive’ but also to still be
highly relevant these days.
Owner-managed SMEs are different from start-ups and large firms regarding their
business model needs. They represent a category of business that is not yet
addressed.
Thus, owner-managed SMEs must be treated separately in the business model

debate. While start-ups and large firms widely use the concept in practice (as found
in the literature and in the empirical data), the research indicates that most Swiss
308 / 549
technology-based SMEs neither know of nor use the concept. This finding enriches
and enhances the Christensen (2016) business model journey, with more in-depth
Swiss market data showing that SMEs are in the sustaining innovation and efficiency
phase rather than in the creation process (creation equals to start-up thinking in this
context).
The need for a missing framework for the creation of new revenue streams and the
optimisation of existing ones has been identified.
The research has revealed that most technology-based owner-managed SMEs

consider revenue thinking highly relevant, although revenue models are often argued
to be ‘old school’ business modelling. As a contribution, the research has identified
the need for a still missing visual, intuitive framework for discussing, elaborating and
creating revenue mechanics. This should be an easily understandable framework
comparable to the Canvas, maybe as a plug-in for the Canvas, assisting business
practitioners in their revenue creation and diversification activities.
Business model development is an emergent phenomenon, a complex process of

learning and maturation, rather than the product of conscious planning.
The present research contributes to knowledge by proposing a set of factors finally

influencing the time it takes to successfully establish a working new business model.
These factors encompass passion and inspiration, learning and understanding whole
systems rather than just parts in it, accepting the need for emergence and maturation
– a process that may take considerable time. This finding complements existing
literature in the entrepreneurship or start-up domain by emphasizing the role of time
in knowledge building processes (in the business model context). This contribution
contradicts the widespread existing belief that new businesses may be built by simply
filling out one of the several existing business model frameworks, where time factors
play a minor role.
309 / 549
An application framework consisting of 4 dimensions is introduced. These

dimensions differentiate between 2 main business model sub-units (value proposition
and business logic/architecture) and between 2 main application purposes (creation
and analysis/refinement).
Contribution 7 is different from the other contributions (1 to 6) through its conceptual

nature. It provides a more generalizable contribution to knowledge, offering a 4-
dimensional framework incorporating various aspects to be considered when dealing
with the application of the business model concept. Such aspects are business aims,
tools (concepts and frameworks) to apply, processes to follow, or different levels of
complexity to consider. The framework assists academics and practitioners in making
more informed business model application decisions.
6.2.8 Summary of the contributions
Contributions 1 to 6 have in common that they are in line with the exploratory nature
of the study, in adapting the paradigm of social constructionism. They break new
ground by revealing ideas and problems not yet addressed or neglected by extant
literature. They facilitate understanding in the domain and offer a basis for in-depth
reflection, i.e. as basis for future investigations.
However, adapting a critical perspective, i.e. considering the research from a realist’s
stance, the argument may be that these conclusions are all interesting and break
new ground, but there can be made more out of it. There are plenty of data and
reflections that could be used for ‘creating’ something integrative – something original
on a conceptual level. Accordingly, these contributions may serve as basis for further
conceptualisations, theory building, or maybe model development showing causal
relationships. They offer a starting point rather than a final product.
Accordingly, contribution 7 builds upon business model perception and application

(contributions 1 and 2) unifying different dimensions of the problem and transfers the
findings onto a conceptual level that allows for more generalizable implications. As
such, it provides a concluding anchor point for the thesis.
310 / 549
6.3 Contributions to knowledge in detail
The contributions to knowledge are discussed following a structure of three parts.

First, the main finding is presented. Second, evidence from the empirical data is
outlined, and third, the contribution is presented by contextualising the finding with
relevant literature.
6.3.1 Different perceptions and ways of application
6.3.1.1 Finding
Although business model ideas first emerged more than 20 years ago, and although
Switzerland is in some way considered the homeland of the concept because local
academics and authors such as Stähler, Osterwalder, Pigneur, Tucci, Frankenberger
or Gassmann have shaped the concept’s evolution, the business model idea is still
perceived and applied in many different ways, distributed across a wide spectrum of
various disciplines.
6.3.1.2 Evidence from the empirical data
Various different interpretations and applications have been revealed in the three
communities:
• Academics: 10 interviews, 10 different interpretations, and 13 different

applications.
• Support professionals: 13 interviews, 12 different interpretations, and 24
different applications.
• Small business owner-managers: 12 interviews, 12 different interpretations,
and 14 different applications.
6.3.1.3 Contribution
Since the early stage of the business model debate, the term has been
acknowledged to have many meanings, as exemplified by Magretta (2002, p. 6):
“Today, ‘business model’ and ‘strategy’ are among the most sloppily used terms in
business; they are often stretched to mean everything – and end up meaning
nothing”. Some years further on, after the concept has been further developed, not
311 / 549
only the term ‘business model’ but also the concept of business model innovation is
still perceived as difficult. Not only do firms understand the term business model
inconsistently but also (as a consequence) many are incapable of understanding
their current business model, so they do not recognise when changes would be
necessary, nor how to perform these changes (Johnson et al., 2008).
An argument advocating a dispersed business model landscape is the following

statement: “The literature is developing in silos, according to the phenomena of
interest of the respective researcher” (Zott et al., 2011, p. 1019). The term is argued
to be a relatively recent arrival in the management literature, and often generic,
carrying an intermediate level of detail, compared with other areas such as economic
theories of a firm. Accordingly, business models are considered always subjective
since different perceptions exist of what a firm does (Page, 2014). What is more, due
to the absence of a common definition of the business model concept, the meaning is
evolving through research and practical applications (Lambert, 2015). Not only there
is no common understanding in the academic world, but also practitioners are often
overwhelmed by the task of developing – or, more fundamentally, of understanding –
their business model; the topic is hyped in the popular press and there is a lack of
proven knowledge in practice (Frankenberger et al., 2013).
Authors such as Magretta (2002), Johnson (2008) or Zott (2011) commented on a

dispersed perception, understanding and application of the business model concept,
but with no comments on systematic empirical research. Accordingly, the present
study contributes to knowledge by providing current empirical evidence supporting
the idea of a heterogeneous business model perception, understanding and
application. It not only confirms – specifically for the Swiss German context – what
the literature discusses in general, but also makes a contribution by outlining that a
wide array of interpretations, perceptions and meanings exists in the three groups of
academics, support professionals, and small business owner-managers. Particularly
in Switzerland, a common understanding was anticipated, since Switzerland is
considered the homeland of the business model concept – an assumption that has
been undermined.
312 / 549
6.3.2 Different interpretations and applications across the communities
6.3.2.1 Finding
The three investigated communities, of academics, business support professionals,

and technology-based SME owner managers, were found to have different
perceptions, interpretations, and ways of application of the business model concept.
Some academics apply the concept for solving or re-framing complex problems,
including the creation of new or re-framing of existing value propositions using
methods such as design thinking. Others use the concept for resource-based
considerations including rent-seeking strategies.
It is in the support professional community that the most diverse ideas regarding the
concept’s application have emerged. For instance, support professionals apply the
business model concept for visualizing the flow of resources, for sensitisation
purposes, as a means to reflecting soft issues and philosophical considerations, or as
a thinking model. However, most of them do not use the concept in their work with
customers. What is more, they claim to have only rarely seen SME managers actively
working with the business model concept. Additionally, their interpretation
encompasses several issues that are not yet addressed, such as ownership
structures, or the debate as to whether something big can really be reduced to
something small in a social system context.
Owner-managers only rarely use the business model concept. Those who do, apply
the concept for better understanding the point of sales, for ‘blurring’ prices or just to
say “…this is not our business model” (M11S2). Their association with the term
‘business model’ further encompasses ownership structures and succession plans –
an idea already outlined by support professionals. The rationale is that business
model development is based on personal interests of the owner. What is more, some
owner-managers have spontaneously linked the term ‘business model’ with revenue
thinking. By contrast, start-ups are different. They associate the concept with value
creation and value proposition design, as taught at business schools and start-up
courses.
313 / 549
Traditional perspectives of business model application consider the concept to be a

useful tool for investigating opportunities in the market, and for exploiting new
technologies (Pateli, 2003). Business model thinking is especially important in
environments where ‘the rules of the game’ change quickly (Voelpel et al., 2004),
namely in the domain of disruptive innovations (Christensen, 2002). Due to its
historical roots, the revenue model has often interchangeably been used with the
term ‘business model’ (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Faber et al., 2003; Johnson et al.,
2008; Morris et al., 2005; Petrovic et al., 2001).
Current ideas of application see the business model concept to be inseparable from
value creation and a firm’s value proposition since a viable business model is always
customer value proposition centred (Christensen, 2004; Johnson et al., 2008;
Osterwalder et al., 2015). What is more, business modelling is considered the
managerial equivalent to scientific experiments: stating a business hypothesis,
testing, and adapting it if necessary (Magretta, 2002). This view has mainly gained a
foothold in the start-up world where founders are encouraged to map their
assumptions (also called ‘business hypotheses’) on the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas
and verify them through customer feedback (Blank & Dorf, 2012). As a conceptual
tool, a business model serves as blueprint showing how a business functions (Günzel
& Holm, 2013). In the start-up and entrepreneurship domain, business model thinking
can lead to more informed decisions in the context and management of new ventures
(Trimi & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2012). Successful business model templates are often
used as examples in the popular press to showcase successful entrepreneurial
stories (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009).
As an application in educational settings, the business model concept, most often

represented by the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas, has found its way into classrooms as
an accepted method for business education (Kaufmann, 2016). The Osterwalder
(2010) business model Canvas is integrated in curricula as a tool for illustrating
(fictional) business model ideas. Furthermore, the Canvas serves as a tool to present
business ideas in front of the class and helps in evaluating feedback from peer
students (Jaroschinsky & Rozsa, 2015).
314 / 549
The contribution to knowledge here is that the three communities of academics,
support professionals, and owner-managers are different from each other regarding
their business model understanding, perception and application. The literature mainly
comments on business model application in general. It does not distinguish between
different groups of social actors (communities), but distinguishes between different
types of firms, above all start-ups and large firms. It furthermore addresses various
areas of application, such as market exploitation, value creation, revenue generation,
or as a tool for educational purposes. The present research adds to the literature by
offering three different perspectives from three different communities. The research
reveals that academics tend to reflect the ideas provided by literature, mainly
focusing on value proposition design or revenue logic, while support professionals
tend to offer new insights – based on their own observations and reflections from
practice. In the owner-manager community, there is little understanding of the
business model concept as we find it described in literature.
Building on the contributions above, the following two sub-sections are devoted to in-
depth ideas of the three communities. The sub-sections are structured as follows:
• A map of findings is drawn (6.3.2.4).

• Each community’s understanding of the business model concept is outlined in
terms of how they understand it, use it and value it (6.3.2.5).
6.3.2.4 A map of key findings concerning business model application
A set of key findings concerning differences in understanding, application and evaluation

of the business model concept across the three investigated communities of academics,
support professionals, and owner-managers were derived from the empirical data (for
the details of analysis refer to section 5). The analysed data were condensed and
further examined. The result is a map containing several phenomena as depicted in
Figure 28. The map shows different colours for the three communities. Similar
findings across different communities are identified by overlapping circles, which form
the clusters or ‘groups’ that are discussed below.
315 / 549
Figure 28: Findings around business model application. Source: Author (2018).
Some of the findings can be classified into groups, not only within the communities,
but also across them:
▪ Group 1: Findings dealing with the development of new or adapted

frameworks. These findings are in the academic and the support professional
community. They also manifest in the development of online tools finally
leading to an explosion of new models.
▪ Group 2: The finding is that support professionals and start-up founders
combine static frameworks (such as the Canvas) with dynamic perspectives,
such as overlapping business model frameworks with transaction models.
▪ Group 3: The finding is that SME owner managers do not use the business
model concept in their work. First, this finding is supported by the investigated
owner-managers who do not use it in their work. Second, support
316 / 549
professionals do not use business models in direct contact with their client
firms. Third, most of the investigated support professionals have never seen
SME firms working with the business model concept.
There is an additional ‘isolated’ finding as follows:
▪ The business model concept is currently very popular in the Swiss start-up
context.
To conclude, the various phenomena reside on the application level of the business
model concept. Accordingly, observations for which we still have no answers mostly
reside on the application rather than the definition part of the business model idea.
This supports the finding from the literature review showing a plethora of conceptual
studies mainly dealing with definitions and frameworks. By contrast, there are only
few empirical studies that focus on application issues.
6.3.2.5 Understanding, application and evaluation of the business model concept
The phenomena that emerged in the data are tightly linked with the following
dimensions directly derived from the research questions:
▪ Understanding.
▪ Usage (application).
▪ Evaluation.
Figure 29 serves as a framework to present each community’s understanding of the

business model concept in terms of how they understand it, use it and evaluate it.
This framework allows for discussing the communities in the context of the above
dimensions. It provides a clear idea of how the business model concept is
understood and used in Switzerland. Such a comparison among the three
communities (i.e. those using the business model concept) has not been made in
previous research and thus makes an original contribution to knowledge.
317 / 549
Figure 29: Understanding, application, valuation matrix. Source Author (2018).
318 / 549
In the following paragraphs the main points of the framework are briefly summarised
and discussed community by community. The most significant aspects are finally
compared between the communities.
Academics
Academics tend to develop new or adapted models; a tendency that has finally led to
an explosion of concepts. Academics are well informed by the literature, mostly
referring to the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas. They most often use existing models as
basis of their own developments. They apply the business model concept to coach
start-ups or to communicate ideas. Furthermore, they use the concept as a means to
deal with complexity. Academics are among those criticising the concept in various
dimensions (some examples as follows): it does not include real-world complexity,
does not cover dynamic perspectives, is less useful for SMEs than for start-ups, and
may have an inappropriate building block design, an argument often used to justify
their own developments.
Support professionals
Some support professionals also tend to develop their own models (mainly those with
an academic background). However, most of them do not use the concept in direct
contact with their clients nor do they know any SME firms actively using it. Such as
the academics, they are mostly informed by the literature but have built their own
knowledge through application in practice and through reflection – this is a key
characteristic of support professionals. They often use the concept to quickly
understand business ‘situations’, and for reflecting complex situations. However,
some of them also use the Canvas in combination with transaction models – to get a
dynamic perspective. Support professionals are sceptical towards the idea of
reducing reality by using models. By contrast, they emphasize the need for passion,
inspiration and lifeblood. They argue that business models are not the result of
conscious planning but of an emergent maturation process. Hence, business model
creation is considered a phenomenon that only can be explained ex-post. They use
the model for analysis, or as thinking model, but not in direct contact with their clients.
319 / 549
Owner-managers
The business model concept is useful for start-ups but only rarely used in established
SME firms. On the one hand, start-up owners are informed by the literature and they
most often refer to the Canvas. On the other hand, SME owner-managers are not
informed about the concept as described in literature, but often refer to business
logic/architecture when reflecting on the term ‘business model’. Start-up founders use
the concept for ideation processes, to develop business ideas, or for communication
issues. They also combine static models with dynamic perspectives, by overlapping
the Canvas with the transaction model. Start-up founders consider the business
model concept to be a useful tool. However, it lacks dynamic and ecosystem
perspectives. SME owner-managers often consider the business model concept
‘theoretical stuff’, or just useful for start-ups. However, some of them associate it with
ownership structures and succession plans; ideas not yet included in the extant
literature of business models. Start-up founders are those using the concept exactly
as it is described in the literature – to develop and implement new business ideas.
Comparing the communities
Both academics and support professionals tend to adapt or develop their own
models. However, only support professionals made the point that models should not
be used in direct contact with customers – an insight that emerged from actively
working with client firms. Support professionals and start-up founders commented on
the idea of unifying static and dynamic perspectives in a similar way – as learned
from using the concept in practice. All three communities agreed that the business
model concept might not be used, or be useful, for SME owner-managers.
Academics mainly refer to the literature and to the Osterwalder (2010) Canvas.
Support professionals are different since they additionally reflect a lot on their own
consulting practice and expertise. Through this experience and reflection, they have
generated their own idiosyncratic knowledge, which often contrasts with ideas from
the literature. Differently from start-up founders, academics and support professionals
more frequently question various characteristics of the business model concept. As
such, they both commented on the complex real-world behaviour and whether
models may include this complexity. Support professionals go a step further to pose
320 / 549
philosophical and soft issue questions and put passion and inspiration at the centre
of business modelling. Start-up founders consider the concept a worthwhile planning
tool as is, while SME owner-managers regard it as ‘theoretical stuff’.
6.3.3 Two perspectives: ‘narrower sense’ and ‘wider sense’ thinking
6.3.3.1 Finding
On a conceptual level, two dominant perspectives of the business model concept

have been revealed – two perspectives that tended to emerge in the academic and
the support-professional community:
1. A ‘narrower sense’ perspective, focusing on revenue mechanics. This

perspective includes new revenue creation, and the diversification of existing
income streams.
2. A ‘wider sense’ perspective, enhancing the concept with additional ideas and
frameworks, such as value proposition development using design thinking
approaches, etc. Wider sense business modelling has also been labelled as
advanced business model thinking.
The understanding of the concept within the academic community can be divided into
two categories (the term ‘narrower’ and ‘wider’ were used by a professor of
entrepreneurship):
1. ‘Narrower sense’ thinking, focusing on revenue mechanics.

2. ‘Wider sense’ thinking, including additional elements such as design thinking
or value proposition design.
Those academics having developed their own (adapted) frameworks tend to

advocate a wider sense perspective. Among those not having developed (or
adapted) a framework, there are academics who see revenue thinking as the
main/only purpose of business model application.
As in the academic community, there are also two main perspectives in the support
professional community. There are those advocating wider sense thinking (although
321 / 549
labelled differently, such as advanced thinking). This group also supported the
development of new frameworks and the refinement of existing ones. By contrast,
there was also a sub-group of support professionals who argued that revenue
thinking is the real business model application.
SME owner-managers have not made such a clear distinction between wider and
narrower senses. However, some owner-managers tightly link the term ‘business
model’ with revenue thinking.
The business model concept became a buzzword in the Internet bubble era in the
1990s (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014), and with the rise of e-businesses and the ‘new
economy’ the concept of the business model has proliferated (Amit & Zott, 2001;
Osterwalder, 2004). Ever since, the business model concept has raised attention
from practitioners and academics in many fields, not only e-businesses, to describe
the core logic of a firm (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Frankenberger et al., 2012). The
business model has been used to describe the overarching logic of how firms work
by illustrating the relationship of individual elements acting together (Demil & Lecocq,
2010; McGrath, 2010). The term business model is often used interchangeably with
revenue model (Ballon, 2007; DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Faber et al., 2003; Johnson
et al., 2008), a reminder of its origins in the first US Internet-bubble era (Osterwalder,
2004). It is argued that the revenue model must be considered a sub-system model
of the business model rather than a stand-alone concept (Amit & Zott, 2001;
Kindström & Kowalkowski, 2014). It has become a component of most currently
popular business model frameworks, such as the Canvas from Osterwalder
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) or the Navigator form Gassmann (Gassmann et al.,
2013). In the early days of the business model concept, the revenue model was
considered core ‘business logic’ (Petrovic et al., 2001).
Today, the relevance of revenue thinking has changed. The business model concept
has been expanded to various areas and applications, such as to be used as basis
for a start-up evaluation methodology (Blank, 2013), or for developing value
propositions using design thinking methods (Osterwalder et al., 2015). Furthermore,
various frameworks have been developed for the technology management sector
322 / 549
(Chesbrough, 2007) or for thinking beyond the borders of a firm via an open business
model approach (Chesbrough, 2006). Other frameworks have also taken aspects of
managerial cognition into account (Tikkanen et al., 2005).
The concept of ‘narrower sense’ and ‘wider sense’ thinking reflects the concept’s
historical development from purely revenue-centred ideas in the 1990s, up to value
proposition development today. The present research contributes to knowledge and
adds to literature by showing, based on empirical Swiss data, that both perspectives
are still present these days and have their relevance, both in academia and in
practice. According to current literature, especially based on the famous works of
Blank (2013) or Osterwalder (2010, 2015), one could assume that revenue
perspectives would have been important in the early days of the business model
idea, in the 1990s and around 2000, but then have lost their relevance. This
assumption is undermined by the empirical findings of the present study.
6.3.4 SME owner-managers have different business model needs
6.3.4.1 Finding
On the one hand, the business model concept is a popular idea in the start-up
domain and is widely used in large firms. On the other hand, Swiss SME owner-
managers have given only limited attention to the concept thus far. Accordingly,
SMEs are different regarding their business model needs and activities.
The argument in the academic community is that business models are useful for
start-ups. By contrast, they see existing business models of established firms much
more difficult to be changed. Furthermore, academics argue that business modelling
would be important in highly dynamic markets (in the context of large firms).
Academics do not often work with SMEs.
Support professionals regard the business model concept useful for start-ups and
large firms but do not recognise it as applicable for established SMEs. Some of them
(one of whom who has already coached hundreds of small firms in his career) have
323 / 549
never seen any SMEs actively working with the concept (or indeed with any
comparable framework).
The empirical data from the owner-manager sample have revealed three groups of
businesses to be differentiated according to their understanding and use of the
business model concept:
1) Start-ups, understanding and using the concept (mostly the Canvas).

2) Established SMEs, with a limited understanding of the concept. They only
rarely apply business model frameworks in practice.
3) Large firms, understanding and working with the concept (mostly the Canvas).
On the one hand, the business model idea has become popular in the start-up
context (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). However, start-ups are not just small versions
of large firms but have their own purpose and spirit (Blank, 2013; Blank & Dorf, 2012;
Ries, 2011). In the start-up and entrepreneurship domains, business model thinking
can lead to more informed decisions (Trimi & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2012). Furthermore,
in the start-up and new venture context the business model concept has become a
quasi-standard and is currently part of many MBA curricula (Nobel, 2011). According
to Blank (2013), the aim of a start-up is to develop product-market fit, hence to find a
viable business model (search phase). Once having found a working business model,
the organisation must be transformed from a developing organisation into a firm (they
expect start-ups to be transformed in large firms through high growth rates), caring
about scaling and efficiency (execution). Due to changing values and skills before
and after the transition, managers may have to be exchanged at this point (i.e. ‘start-
up managers’ need to be replaced by ‘execution managers’).
On the other hand, the concept is widely used in large firms, as demonstrated by
plenty of literature in domains such as technology management (Johnson et al.,
2008; Pateli, 2003) or innovation management (Chesbrough, 2007; Christensen,
2002). Christensen, Bartman, et al. (2016) distinguish 3 stages of a business model
journey (Figure 30). In the first stage, the ‘creation phase’, it is all about developing a
viable value proposition and the required resources (this is also often called the start-
324 / 549
up phase). In the second stage, called ‘sustaining innovation’, firms must develop
their processes to scale up the model. In the third phase, the ‘efficiency phase’, firms
develop their profit formula.
Figure 30: Three stages of a business model journey (Christensen, Bartman, et al., 2016).
As a contribution to knowledge, the research shows that three groups of firms must
be distinguished regarding their business model needs, namely start-ups, SMEs, and
large firms. Plenty of business model literature has been devoted to start-ups and
large firms. Based on empirical data, the present research adds a third group to be
considered in the debate: SMEs, which are different from the other groups. This is a
contribution which builds upon existing literature, i.e. by adding to the Christensen
(2016) model, showing that each of the three stages is associated with a company
development stage. While start-ups are situated in the creation phase, large firms act
in all three phases – they not only optimize their existing business but also create
new businesses. By contrast, SMEs are just located in the second and third phase,
caring about sustaining innovation and efficiency, but not about creation – they have
found their position in the market, but often do not have the resources to act in all
three phases simultaneously including the creation of new businesses, such as large
firms do. The present research is one of only few studies addressing the business
325 / 549
model needs of technology-based SMEs and perhaps the first of this type for the
Swiss context.
6.3.5 A missing framework for designing revenue mechanics
6.3.5.1 Finding
Although sometimes called ‘old-fashioned’ business modelling, revenue models are

still popular in all three communities. Owner-managers often tend to describe the
revenue logic of their business when confronted with the term ‘business model’.
Although widely debated in early-day business model literature, the revenue concept
still lacks easily applicable visual frameworks.
6.3.5.2 Evidence in the empirical data
Some academics see rent-seeking strategies and revenue thinking core business
modelling. For instance, one respondent, a professor for global marketing and
strategy, put it in a nutshell as follows: “I think the real creativity is to think very hard
about the revenue streams” (A2R4). Accordingly, only few people manage to take
advantage of the essentials of the concept (A2R6); thus, “we should always start
thinking with the revenue flow at the beginning and then go out” (A2R6). The support
professional community also have adherents of the revenue concept, such as stated
by an innovation consultant: “The aim of a firm is to create value and to monetize this
value” (S1R1). Owner-managers confirm this perspective indirectly by outlining their
revenue logic when confronted with the term ‘business model’. However, a serial
entrepreneur argued that we should distinguish “what is profitable and what is fun”
(M10R4), backing the idea that revenue thinking is still an important – maybe the
most important – variable in a business model.
The term business model is often used interchangeably with revenue model (Ballon,
2007; DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Faber et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2008). However,
the business model idea may have its origins in revenue thinking, a concept initially
discussed in the first US Internet-bubble era (Osterwalder, 2004). It is argued that the
revenue model is to be considered a sub-system model of the business model rather
326 / 549
than a stand-alone concept (Amit & Zott, 2001; Kindström & Kowalkowski, 2014). Not
only is the business model concept designed to describe the logic of revenue
generation (revenue mechanics) but also it has been used as a tool to capture value
(often also related to revenue thinking), in a sense of Porter’s definition “The amount
buyers are willing to pay for what a firm provides them. Value is measured by total
revenues…. a firm is profitable if the value it commands exceeds the costs involved
in creating the product” (Porter, 1985, p. 38). Magretta (2002, p. 5) stated, “When
business models do not work, it is because they fail either the narrative test (the story
does not make sense) or the numbers test”. The argument here is that most existing
frameworks such as the Osterwalder (2010) Business Model Canvas, or the
Osterwalder (2013) Value Proposition Designer, mainly focus on the ‘story side’ of a
business model. Although revenue streams are outlined and discussed in early
literature, a clear focus has been given to the value proposition in current literature,
hence focusing on the ‘narrative story’. Accordingly, the argument is that the revenue
side, hence the ‘number test’, has been conceptually integrated in most currently
popular business model concepts but the development of an easily applicable
framework, for instance a plug-in for the Canvas, has been ignored.
Advanced business model ideas, for instance focusing on value proposition design,
may have significantly contributed to the business model concept’s popularity – and
have influenced the way the concept has been perceived, investigated and further
developed. Nevertheless, the concept’s roots in the revenue domain seem to be
neglected in current literature (but covered by early-day literature) although still
offering opportunities for research, not at least since revenue aspects offer an ideal
entry point for practitioners, who (still) have these ideas in mind.
Accordingly, the present research contributes to knowledge by having identified the

need for an easily understandable, intuitive visual revenue development framework,
assisting firms in their revenue creation and diversification activities. The literature
lacks such a framework, although revenue mechanics have widely been discussed
conceptually in early day business model literature. As the literature review shows,
the dilemma is that early day business model frameworks, focusing on revenue
mechanics, tend to be theoretical and abstract in nature – barely applicable for
business practitioners. Osterwalder was among the first to develop intuitive tools
327 / 549
(such as the Canvas or the Value Proposition Designer), created for a broader
audience. Accordingly, there is a gap between ‘theoretical’ early (revenue centred)
studies and frameworks, and currently popular intuitive, visual frameworks for value
proposition design. The necessary framework could close this gap, i.e. in form of a
plug-in for the Canvas, and could provide real value for business practitioners
struggling with the development or diversification of revenues they often need so
urgently. Furthermore, such a framework could increase the popularity of the
business model concept in the SME owner-manager context, offering a new entry
point for this community.
6.3.6 The reality of application: the role of time and emergence
6.3.6.1 Finding
Business model application should start with a deep consideration of the role of time
in the application process. The data have revealed that the time it takes to create a
new working business model is by far longer than often expected and almost always
underestimated. Furthermore, the data have revealed business model application to
be an emergent phenomenon rather than the product of conscious planning.
Time must be seen as the factor making business model creation a journey – in other
words, an emergent phenomenon. This incorporates ideas often coupled with soft
issues and philosophical considerations including culture, individuality, problem (re-)
framing, or the right to exist question. These aspects have been most widely
discussed in the support professional community, putting the human factor at the
centre, arguing for the importance of passion and being inspired by a business idea,
for a deep customer understanding, and the importance of the subconscious to deal
with contradictions. All these aspects finally influence and determine the time it takes
(duration) to successfully establish a new business model in the market – and new
venture founders may often underestimate this time (no matter whether intrapreneur
or entrepreneur).
328 / 549
Business models are argued to be always customer value proposition centred

(Johnson et al., 2008; Osterwalder et al., 2015), describing the logic upon which a
firm creates and captures value (Shafer et al., 2005). The argument here is that
forming viable value propositions take time; often need many time-consuming loops
of iteration. This argument is supported by Urban and Von Hippel (1988), suggesting
a lead user approach that allows for creating maximum value for potential customers
by investigating people developing their own solutions for problems where no
solutions yet exist; hence, lead users are people often considered at the forefront of
an emerging trend (the ‘avant-garde’). Identifying such lead users allows for building
upon the learnings and ideas of others, with the effect of saving time.
Complexity management helps understanding a firm to be a highly complex social

system (Hamel & Trudel, 2001) consisting of various sub-systems interacting with
each other in non-linear ways (Simon, 1996). Time is a crucially important variable in
complex systems, in that it (co-)defines non-linear and unexpected behaviour of
constituting sub-units (Ninck et al., 2004).
A further concept advocating for the time dimension is entrepreneurship, which is

about discovering opportunities (Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu, 2010; Faltin, 2001;
Ripsas, 2004): an idea that refers to a deep customer understanding, which may
evolve over time. This view is supported by Günter Faltin, professor in Berlin and
possibly one of the most influential entrepreneurship scholars in the German-
speaking part of Europe, emphasizing the importance of time and maturation of a
new business model by recognizing that a new venture (or a new business model) at
least requires 15‘000 hours of (iterative) thinking, distributed over many years, to
become mature (Faltin, 2008). Furthermore, the start-up literature provides ideas of
how to deal with business model problems to be solved by formulating business
model hypotheses to be tested in the market – as a means of time-efficiently testing
business ideas (Blank, 2013; Ries, 2011).
The contribution to knowledge is an empirically-backed insight showing that

developing new business models must address the time dimension as part of a
complex learning process. This aspect has not yet been explicitly addressed in the
329 / 549
literature. Evidence of the importance of time can be found at the business model
concept’s periphery, such as in entrepreneurship or in start-up literature. However,
the findings of this research contribute to knowledge in a different way by going a
step further, by proposing time as a core issue to be addressed. The research offers
concrete and hands-on ‘time factors’ influencing the time between a first business
idea and a working business model:
• Passion and being inspired by an idea. Identifying a core passion for

something (an idea, topic, etc.) as part of a complex learning process is an
emerging, time-consuming phenomenon.
• Understanding whole systems rather than just parts in it – and developing
passion for whole problem systems. This includes an understanding of
markets, market dynamics, market structures and the competition. This
process of gaining a deep understanding of relevant details is inevitably time-
consuming.
• Accepting time for solutions to emerge by ‘swallowing’ problems – sending
them to the subconscious and allowing the subconscious the time it needs to
produce solutions.
• Accepting intervals between appropriation and communication, and interaction
between founders and the world around them – as new ideas must exchange
information as part of a diffusion process.
• Root building – as ideas must get anchored in their contexts and
environments.
• Incubation cycles – as a basis for emerging processes, as ideas mature.
• Living with contradictions and uncertainty – so loops are not a waste of time
(as often considered so in practice) but an important, time consuming, learning
cycle.
These factors complement current practice at business schools and start-up

events/weekends (but also current literature describing business models as teaching
instruments), where students are often taught to fill out one of the various existing
business model frameworks – as the ‘evident’ success factor – but thereby neglecting
the role of time.
330 / 549
6.3.7 A business model application framework (conceptual contribution)
As the data show (see 5.2), various phenomena, challenges and unsolved problems
can be found in the domain of business model application.
• The domain of ‘understanding’ is well served by various existing and

developing concepts and frameworks. As such, it is ‘fashionable’ in the
academic world to develop new or adapted frameworks.
• Most of the findings generated by the present research are located the
application domain (see 6.3.2.4). This suggests that we still need more and in-
depth research and understanding of the way the business model concept is
applied in practice.
Rather than developing more refined models or frameworks, the author argues that it
is more interesting to know how existing frameworks can successfully be applied in
practice. Therefore, application issues need more attention. Accordingly, the area of
business model ‘application’ is the main focus of the main final conceptual
contribution made in this thesis (contribution 7).
6.3.7.1 Interpreting the empirical data
The final conceptual contribution is located in the application domain of the business
model concept. It aims at further investigating the finding that the business model
concept is applied in many ways within and across the three communities of
academics, support professionals and owner-managers. This finding not only is
anchored in the literature and in the empirical data (see section 5.2), but also reflects
the author’s observations in practice and his reflections – as the concept is used with
only limited consensus as to its meaning. The final conceptualisation aims at making
a more generalizable contribution to assist academics and practitioners in making
more informed business model application decisions.
The analysis of the empirical data has revealed two main dimensions for
differentiation (the analysis process is outlined in section 5.2.4.):
• 2 main sub units (value proposition and business architecture/logic).
331 / 549
• 2 main purposes of business model application (analysis/refinement and
creation).
On the one hand, the separation between value proposition and business
architecture/logic, as emerged from the data, is not new. Support can be found in the
four-box model from Johnson & Christensen (2009), as depicted in Figure 31. This
model consists of four sub-system models: the value proposition, key resources, key
processes, and profit formula. It shows that the value proposition can conceptually be
unbundled from the business architecture/logic. In the present document, this four-
box model will inspire the conceptualisation made in the following sections.
Accordingly, the business architecture/logic consist of the key resources, key
processes, and the profit formula. (For a more nuanced discussion of the four-box
model refer to section 2.4 in the literature review).
Figure 31: Business model from Johnson & Christensen (2009).
On the other hand, what is new in the present contribution is the idea (or insight) of
separating 2 main sub-units and 2 main application purposes. This allows for creating
a framework that sheds new light on business model application in 4 dimensions.
Such a framework is presented and discussed in the following sub-section.
332 / 549
6.3.7.2 Conceptual framework of business model application
The 2 main sub-units (value proposition and business architecture/logic) and 2 main
application purposes (analysis/refinement and creation), as emerged from the data
(see 5.2.4) and discussed above, are summarised and visualised using a conceptual
framework consisting of 4 application stages (see Figure 32).
In short, the stages 1 and 2 deal with the two main sub-units and the two main
application purposes to be distinguished. After having reflected on the sub-units and
the main application purposes relative to the ‘business problem’ at hand, appropriate
tools (stage 3) and processes (stage 4) can be chosen. Following these four stages
may help thinking more clearly and more rigorously about the business model idea
and thus may facilitate the use of the concept in a more informed way.
The 4-stage process framework proposed below represents the first conceptual
contribution of this thesis, providing an overview of the uses and applications of the
business model concept. The second conceptual contribution will go a step further
and will deal with the 4 stages in much more depth, using a table-format framework
that will be presented in 6.3.7.3.
333 / 549
Figure 32: Business model application framework. Source: Author (2018).
In stage 1 we distinguish between two main sub units (the value proposition and the
business architecture/logic). In stage 2 we further distinguish between two main
purposes of business modelling (analysis/refinement and creation). From the author’s
experience in the field, it is most common that value propositions are ‘created’ (i.e.
new products or services are developed) and that business architecture/logic is
‘analysed and refined’ (i.e. optimisation tasks or pricing strategies). However, value
propositions can be analysed as well (e.g. as preparatory work for creation), and new
business architecture/logic can be created too (e.g. in a start-up configuration, details
follow later). However, business architecture/logic creation is considered most
demanding since it includes the highest possible level of complexity – the argument
334 / 549
is that only few SME firms deal with business architecture/logic creation, an issue
that is supported by the data, as some thoughtful academics and support
professionals reflected on it (e.g. see 5.10.8).
As discussed later in this section, the debate may open up as to whether value
propositions should actually be part of business modelling. There are some good
arguments (in this section but also in 6.3.7.3) to separate value proposition design
(as an activity) from business modelling, although the value proposition is an
indispensable part of the business model concept. The conceptual inclusion of the
value proposition in the business model concept, but its separation when it comes to
actively working on it, must be considered a paradox, which the present contribution
aims to resolve.
In stage 2 the business aims have to be adjusted with the business model initiative.
These can either be refining existing or developing new products or services. But it
can also encompass the adjustment of business model elements (i.e. for optimisation
purposes) or the set-up of a disruptive business model organised as an external
start-up.
Once having achieved alignment between purpose and business aim, appropriate
concepts, tools and frameworks can be chosen. This is stage 3. In this stage we
evaluate whether value proposition design, marketing instruments, or the
Osterwalder (2010) Canvas should be applied. Ideas for appropriate concepts and
tools to be applied will are provided in the table framework in section 6.3.7.3.
In stage 4, the application process must be defined. This process may be either
linear or highly iterative and reflective in nature. Ideas for possible process types to
be applied in different dimensions are provided in the tabular framework in section
6.3.7.3. The debate of different process types will include a discussion of complexity
too. Depending on the business model application purpose, different levels of
complexity must be considered. This is an issue that will be elaborated too in section
335 / 549
6.3.7.3.Conclusion and contextualisation
The analysis of the data (see 5.2.4) shows that we may distinguish between two main
business model sub-units and two main application purposes. Based on the author’s
reflection on this insight, on the data, and on his experience in the domain, the
above-presented framework was created (Figure 32). This framework has some
implications as follows.
On the one hand, both ideas (value proposition and business architecture/logic) are
equally relevant and must be considered in parallel. On the other hand, it is arguable
that we should not work on both simultaneously. When creating and launching a new
product, we are well advised to employ business architecture/logic that we already
know; hence an architecture/logic from existing businesses in the domain (from the
own business or from analogue businesses).
By contrast, when we aim at creating a new business architecture/logic we should

build on a given value proposition (product or service), not developing a new one in
parallel as well. This insight is supported by existing entrepreneurship literature
suggesting the use of ‘components’ to build a new business, re-arranging them in
new and more efficient or more valuable ways (Faltin, 2010)11. The author suggests
conceptually separating value proposition design from business modelling. The
rationale is as follows:
• Business modelling is understood as working on the business

architecture/logic, in which the value proposition is a constant parameter.
Business architecture/logic consists of key processes, key resources, and the
profit formula (Johnson et al., 2009). Working on the business
architecture/logic can be labelled business design.
• Value proposition design is an engineering, design, and marketing task –
located in different domains that overlap in a multidisciplinary way. Although
11 However, new business constellations providing value through optimised business logic also have
influence on the value proposition through a better price, or the like. This shows that the variables are
all linked with each other. The present conceptualisation acknowledges the systemic nature of each
social system such as a business. However, such indirect influences are conceptually different from
value proposition creation, as we know it from the Value Proposition Designer (VPD), for instance.
336 / 549
part of the business model concept (as the two sub concepts may influence
each other), value propositions should conceptually be separated. The
paradox thing here is that value propositions stand at the centre of most
business model concepts but should be separated in the business modelling
application process. Such a separation reduces complexity and contributes to
a better understanding of the business model idea because it brings about
clarity.
The idea of conceptually separating the value proposition from business

architecture/logic is supported by extant start-up literature – although not articulated
that explicitly. First, Blank (2013) suggests to first achieve product market fit
(developing the value proposition and making it compatible with a customer segment)
before looking for new business architecture/logic. This supports the present
conclusion, since the two sub-concepts are conceptually related but often mixed up –
but they are ‘logically’ different since they reside in different domains, and working on
them simultaneously is too complex a task to be successfully handled in most cases.
Second, the Osterwalder (2013) ‘Value Proposition Designer’ (VPD) represents a

plugin for the Osterwalder (2013) Canvas. In some way, it separates the value
proposition from the business architecture. However, it still assumes both concepts to
be applied simultaneously and in parallel. This is where the above-presented
framework, as a conceptual contribution (based on empirical findings and developed
through the author’s reflection on the data), contrasts by suggesting a clear
separation.
As a final conclusion, or perhaps a meta-reflection, a separation, at least on the level

of a thinking model, would make the two concepts better understandable and would
enhance transparency. The above presented framework argues that ‘value
proposition design’ and ‘business design’ are different disciplines, requiring different
approaches, skills and mind-sets.
337 / 549
6.3.7.3 In-depth conceptualisation using a table format application framework
Introducing the framework
The 4 stages of the business model application framework above (Figure 32, see
6.3.7.2), are further elaborated, organised, enriched, and visualised using a
conceptual table framework (Figure 33). The basis is still the separation of the 2 main
sub-units (value proposition and business architecture/logic) and 2 main application
purposes (analysis/refinement and creation). This separation finally results in 4
dimensions.
In the framework (Figure 33), these four dimensions (horizontal axis) are enriched
with additional contextual information (vertical axis), as such the purpose of
application, business aim, relevant concepts, application processes, usefulness in a
new venture context, and complexity of application (using 3 levels).
338 / 549
Figure 33: Framework of business model application. Source: Author (2018).
A finding from the research was that without such a conceptualisation the four
dimensions tend to be mixed up, which reduces the power of the business model
concept. Furthermore, the framework above helps to explain the business model
concept’s loose and unfocused interpretation and application in practice (as
discussed in the introduction section), because there is no structure today of how to
339 / 549
classify the various ideas forming the business model concept. In the next section,
the vertical dimensions are elaborated. They provide contextual information making
the framework a useful instrument for more informed business model application
decisions.
Commenting on the vertical dimensions of the framework
In the following list the vertical dimensions of the framework are outlined.
• The first 4 dimensions represent the main components of a business model:

value proposition, key resources, key processes, and profit formula. This is a
categorisation developed by Johnson et al. (2009). Depending on the adopted
perspective, they can either be variable (v) or constant (c).
• Purpose of application: This shows what a business model concept can
essentially be used for (purpose). The two main application purposes
‘analysis/refinement’ and ‘creation’ resulted from the empirical data (see 5.2.4
figure 27). In the present framework, they are applied to both business model
sub-units: to the value proposition concept and to the business
architecture/logic.
• Business aim: Outlining the business aim of the 4 horizontal dimensions. Each
dimension has its own business aim(s). For example, the aim of creating a
new value proposition is to launch a new product (or product line). However,
the creation of a new product may also serve as basis for a new venture. In
parallel, refining an existing value proposition may form the basis for a new
venture too. The framework not only shows that each dimension may include
different business aims, but also a variety of overlapping aims between the
various dimensions (e.g. a new venture my be the aim of various dimensions).
• Concepts and frameworks from the literature and the data: This dimension is
core. There is a plethora of concepts (tools and frameworks) that are used in
the business model world – often applied in un-reflected ways. This dimension
provides structure and clarity in terms of the application of existing business
model tools and frameworks, and assigns some of the most popular tools to a
conceptual classification (in the present framework the concepts and
frameworks from the literature review and the empirical data are used). As it
340 / 549
can be observed, the various concepts and tools are often mixed up, so they
may end up meaning nothing. The present conceptualisation suggests and
hypothesizes a new classification scheme. Some concepts and frameworks
are better suited in the context of new product development. Others may be
well designed to analyse and refine an existing business, but not to develop
new business architecture. The present table offers a starting point of a
possible classification – the various concepts and frameworks are classified
according to the author’s judgment. This represents a basis for further
investigations and debates (future research agenda).
• Application processes: Similar to the concepts and tools, application
processes are used in un-informed ways too. According to the author’s
interpretation of the empirical data and his expertise in the domain, the various
application process types are mixed up and are often applied without reflection
(especially in practice). The point here is that not each application process
type is generally applicable for any business model task or any business
model application purpose. For example, analysing a business model is more
located in the linear domain compared to creating a new one; the latter is a
highly complex learning process, one that needs iteration, emergence, and
reflection. Some support professionals commented on the emergent nature of
business model application. The framework offers a classification of various
application processes (according to the author’s judgment). This classification
represents a basis for further debates and a future research agenda.
• New venture context: Each of the four dimensions may serve as basis for a
new venture. For example, analysing and improving an existing value
proposition may represent an ideal basis for a new business. As such,
analysing and refining existing business architecture/logic is a good starting
point for a new firm as well, for instance when it comes to produce something
in a more cost-effective way – an idea often described in entrepreneurship
literature (Faltin, 2011). By contrast, setting up a new business
architecture/logic, which crucially changes the ‘rule of the game’ in the market,
maybe ‘disruptive’ in nature, requires a robust start-up configuration because
resources, processes and values cannot easily be changed in existing firms,
as outlined in the RPV theory (Christensen, 2002).
341 / 549
• Complexity of application: The framework offers a classification using 3
different levels. Level 3 means the highest possible level of complexity
(emergent processes, maturation, complex learning through reflection, no
guidelines, no linear thinking). Level 2 refers to complex learning processes
and iteration cycles. Level 1 means a moderate level of complexity where
linear processes can be applied. In the following paragraphs, the 3 levels of
complexity are further elaborated.
Different levels of complexity must be acknowledged when dealing with the business
model concept. The author has decided on a 3-level classification hypothesis. The
rationale is that in the proposed framework (Figure 33) two process activities (of two
dimensions) are assumed to be equal complex (level 1), while two other dimensions
include more complexity (level 2 and 3), as outlined in the following paragraphs. This
classification represents a first attempt to structure complexity in business model
application processes.
• Level 1 is to analyse existing business architecture/logic. Here we may use

concepts and tools such as the Canvas. However, understanding existing
business architecture/logic may be complex too, since there are many
variables involved. In a working business these variables are tightly linked and
have been fine-tuned in an incremental process, often over many years. But
compared with designing the architecture/logic of a new business, the
analysis/refinement of an existing one is may be relatively straightforward but
may also be constrained by past decisions and investment.
• Level 1 also encompasses the analysis of the value proposition. This may be
applied in the context of a market or competitor analysis, or as a pre-study for
creating a new value proposition. However, understanding customer needs is
also a complex task, often containing subtle customer insights. On the one
hand, the job-to-be-done concept described by Ulwick (2002) and
Christensen, Hall, et al. (2016) represents an excellent framework at this
stage. On the other hand, empirical social research is another instrument for
analysing existing value propositions.
342 / 549
• Level 2 is to create a new value proposition. This is a very complex task,
which involves many disciplines, such as engineering, design, sociology, or
marketing. It may involve many cycles of iteration and reflection.
• Level 3 is to create new business architecture/logic and to implement this in
the market (when combined with a new value proposition it includes the
highest level of complexity). Most of the existing tools – such as the
Osterwalder (2010) Canvas or the Gassmann (2013) Navigator – may be
helpful for analysis/refinement or ideation purposes (up to a certain degree).
However, when it comes to the application of new business architecture/logic,
eventually combined with a new value proposition, the inherent complexity is
more than such models can deal with. However, many start-up courses
suggest doing exactly this. By contrast, ideas such as discovery-driven
planning (McGrath, 2010) or entrepreneurial thinking – i.e. according to Faltin
(2001) – are more adequate concepts at this stage.
In summary, it is important to note that the framework (Figure 33) is not all-
encompassing. It is a hypothesis, or a set of hypotheses, as the first attempt of this
kind, to bring in structure in business model application, by offering categories that
facilitate the business model concept’s application. There are many more ideas that
can be associated with the various dimensions – and there are perhaps additional
dimensions to be included. As such, the framework provides an invitation to other
researchers for making refinements and extensions (see also section 6.8.8 on future
research).
6.3.7.4 Contribution to knowledge
The final conceptual contribution of the thesis is a conceptualisation of the term

‘business model’ in two main sub-system units (value proposition and business
architecture/logic) and two main application purposes (analysis/refinement and
creation). This categorisation is unique and adds to extant literature with an original
conceptual framework.
In the extant literature (and in practice) it remains unclear whether business

modelling is an analysis/refinement or a creation task. On the one hand, according to
the author’s expertise and reflection on the data, most existing business model
343 / 549
frameworks may be well designed to analyse a business. On the other hand,
business model concepts and frameworks are only partially applicable to the creation
of a new business model in the market – only few successful examples are known
that show successful creation – as thoughtfully reflected (and supported) by some
support professionals (for details see data analysis in chapter 5). The research adds
to the extant literature with the hypothesis that most existing and currently popular
concepts and tools (i.e. Canvas, Navigator, VPD, job-to-be-done) are only useful for
analysis/refinement but not for creation.
The present research further suggests the separation of the value proposition from
the business architecture/logic – at least as a thinking model. The value proposition
represents a parameter within a business model, but actively working on it is more an
engineering, design, or marketing task. A conceptual separation would facilitate the
concept’s perception and understanding. It would help resolving a paradox in extant
start-up literature (such as Blank (2013), where value proposition development and
business architecture/logic development are conceptually separated but interwoven
in terms of application – arguably due to a missing differentiation between creation
and analysis/refinement.
6.3.8 Positioning the contributions in the business model landscape
The 7 contributions are mapped in the business model literature landscape (Figure
34) representing the conceptual framework that was developed in the literature
review (see section 2.20.2). This conceptual framework links the contributions with
extant literature and the current body of business model knowledge (as reviewed in
the present thesis). The various contributions are depicted in red boxes. A numbering
system is used that refers to the sections in this chapter in which the various
contributions are outlined and discussed in detail.
344 / 549
Figure 34: Conceptual literature review framework containing the contributions. Source: Author (2018).
The final main conceptual contribution, as outlined in section 6.3.7, is located at the
application stage. It bridges ‘application purposes’ and ‘application domains’ by
offering a new refined thinking model of how to apply the business model concept in
practice more effectively. The developed framework is not a business model
framework in a ‘traditional sense (Osterwalder, Stähler, etc.) but an application
framework so it is not located at the theoretical stage. It reduces ambiguity in the
perception and understanding of the business model concept. The final conceptual
contribution (6.3.7) essentially builds upon the two earlier contributions 6.3.1
(perceived in many ways) and 6.3.2 (applied differently).
345 / 549
6.4 Limitations of the research
6.4.1 Limitations regarding the geographical location
The research was restricted to the German-speaking part of Switzerland – with a few
respondents from the western, French speaking part – more precisely, it was limited
to north-western Switzerland and the area of Zürich. A slightly different picture may
have emerged by expanding the research to other Swiss regions. Particularly
interesting would have been the Western (French speaking) part of Switzerland,
since some universities such as the HEC Lausanne or the EPFL Lausanne have
actively contributed to the formation of the business model concept. Moreover, the
French-speaking part of Switzerland in many ways has different cultural
fundamentals, which would have enriched the data of the present work. Furthermore,
the eastern part of Switzerland – with very specialised and strong industrial clusters
in sub-regions such as the Rhine Valley – could have contributed interesting,
complementing, or perhaps contrasting perspectives.
Since Switzerland is considered in some way the homeland of the business model
concept, its use and application may be different from other countries. Of particular
interest could be other German speaking countries (Germany and Austria), since the
very same ideas are often spread equally in these three countries. More broadly, in
order to get a more contrasting and diverse picture, ideas and perspectives from
different cultural backgrounds – such as France or the UK (for instance) might also
have revealed additional diversity within the findings.
The restricted geographical focus of the study is highlighted here as a limitation of the
research, because it may have limited the diversity of the findings. On the other hand,
and arguably more importantly, it is also considered a notable strength of the present
study design, since it was conducted in the region that may reasonably be described
as the ‘homeland’ of the business model concept.
6.4.2 A different balance between the samples
At the beginning of the research project, based on exploratory interviews, diversity

was expected to be found in a research design made up of three communities of
346 / 549
academics, support professionals, and owner-managers, representing a coherent
chain between academia and practice that allows for drawing a ‘360-degree picture’.
However, it has been learned that academics often are detached from business
practice, mainly having two lines of argumentation: ‘narrower sense’ and ‘wider
sense’ business modelling, providing not as much diversity as initially expected. At
the other end of the spectrum, owner-managers have a very limited view of the
business model concept (except start-ups) since most of them do not know the
meaning of the concept nor the term ‘business model’ itself, often just associating it
with revenue thinking. In summary, they do not know much about the business model
idea – and not really about the way the concept has been described in literature.
Thus, their contribution to diversity in the data regarding the concept’s perception and
application is limited.
By contrast, business support professionals have a wide variety of perspectives and

ideas – most of them have already worked with the concept in some way. They
represent the link between academia and practice; not only are they familiar with
‘high level’ concepts but also with practical application issues – most support
professionals have an academic background and have the ability to critically evaluate
concepts and their meaning in practice. Accordingly, new and diverse ideas about
business models and their application have mainly emerged within this community.
At the beginning of the present study, little was known about what diversity really
means in the context of investigating the phenomenon of perception and application
of the business model concept. In retrospect, if the author were tasked with the re-
design of the study, much more focus would be given to support professionals in
order to increase the diversity of perceptions and ideas. Hence, the sample size of
academics and owner-managers would be reduced, while the sample size of support
professionals would be increased.
Another possible limitation is that only a few start-ups and just one large firm were
directly involved in the study. This is a limitation, since the results have revealed
major differences in awareness and application of the business model concept
across three categories of firms, namely start-ups, SMEs, and large firms. On
347 / 549
reflection, it would have been interesting and useful to have increased the
representation of start-ups and large firms within the sample.
Data on large firms were only available through accessing the thoughts of academics
and support professionals working with them, hence, the way large firms use the
business model concept was evaluated indirectly. More primary data collected
directly through interviews with large firms would also have enriched the study.
6.4.3 Adapting the interview guide
One important finding of this research is that three groups of firms must be
distinguished in the business model debate: start-ups, established SMEs, and large
firms – an insight that did not exist at the beginning of the project. Based on this
learning, the interview guide would be refined accordingly, tailoring it to address the
specific needs and situations of each of the three types of firm. In the interviews, the
respondents often referred to all three groups, or mixed them up within a discussion.
Accordingly, a tailored guide and questions would have enabled a more clearly
focused discussion, which may have provided a more precise picture of the views of
members of each group.
As another aspect, the questions in the interview guide proved to be appropriate for
respondents already familiar with the business model concept, such as academics
and support professionals. Although the questions for business owner-managers
were different from those for academics and support professionals, being adapted in
the light of the exploratory study, they still turned out to be difficult to answer for many
of the participating owner-managers. In retrospect, it is clear that when interviewing
owner-managers (except start-ups, who were well acquainted with the concept), it
would be more fruitful to focus on their existing knowledge, not by asking questions
about theoretical or abstract concepts. Instead, it could be more productive to discuss
more practical, hands-on issues, such as different revenue channels they employ;
however, as a consequence this would lead to adapted research questions focusing
on concrete aspects rather than a broad conceptual understanding. Accordingly,
small-business owner-managers must not be seen an adequate group for exploring
diverse ideas about business model understanding, perception and application –
348 / 549
although they are concerned with business model application issues, they tend not to
reflect on it conceptually.
6.4.4 Re-designing the interaction process with the respondents
As elaborated in the methodological chapter, to answer the research questions it was

necessary to access a mixture or tacit and explicit knowledge, depending on a
respondent’s level of prior familiarity and experience with the business model
concept. Answers were therefore formed through interaction with the researcher, as
the interview was an opportunity to reflect and respondents may have developed or
refined their ideas when talking about the concept. In short, the answers may have
been socially constructed through the interaction with the researcher. Although the
present study has been designed following the paradigm of social constructionism,
the true meaning and the consequences of these concepts have become evident
when practically applied.
A key finding of the study is that different levels of prior knowledge exist in and
among the various communities, so that the richness of ideas and perspectives is not
equally balanced between the samples. To the researcher, influencing the answers
through interaction became an important issue because the style of interaction with
each respondent was adapted each time individually. If tasked with the re-design of
the study, more attention would be given to interaction issues. An exploratory study
would concentrate much more on the way the data have been ‘co-created’ through
social interaction. The findings then would inform the interview guides and would
allow the creation of more nuanced questions and more adapted styles of interaction
with individuals. The point here is that designing and flexibly adapting the interaction
process is considered a high-level qualitative researcher skill that needs to be
developed and mastered. The author sees himself has having embarked on a
complex learning process to be continuously refined in future projects.
6.4.5 The need for follow-up interviews and focus groups
It has been learned that the support professional community represents the group
with the most diverse ideas and perspectives concerning the business model
349 / 549
concept. Accordingly, more in-depth understanding of the business model concept
and its application in practice would have been gained through follow-up interviews
with some selected support professionals, such as those supporting start-ups in the
business model application process, or those who are familiar with revenue
diversification. At the beginning of the research it was not apparent that three groups
of owner-managers must be distinguished (start-ups, SMEs, large firms).
Accordingly, follow-up interviews would have contributed more specialised in-depth
knowledge about these three groups. Furthermore, by bringing some selected
support professionals (or academics, or owner-managers, or a mix of them) together
in a focus group, an insightful debate may have been initiated regarding special
issues such as business model understanding, design, application, but also
regarding expanded and new ideas, such as the role of time and emergence.
Through using a follow-up focus group research design – for instance as part of a
longitudinal study – individuals would have informed and reinforced each other,
which would have allowed for achieving richer information regarding special issues
and new ideas.
In retrospect, the sample size consisting of 35 respondents provided a huge amount

of very complex data, so in-depth information was limited. Accordingly, a smaller
number of initial interviews within each community, as part of a first interview round,
could have been more adequate an approach – showing in which community the
most diversity can be found. This first interview round would then have followed by
more in-depth interviews or focus groups, respectively. This would have provided: (1)
more diversity, and (2) more focused findings and in-depth discussions of interesting
emergent themes, such as the role of time and emergence (see contribution section).
Based on what has been learned, a rather smaller number of 4 to 6 initial (first round)
interviews in each community could be ideal for such a sequential research design. In
short, if the author were tasked with the redesign of the study, the research design
would be optimised with the aim of uncovering the maximum diversity of data, and
only then digging deeper within groups and areas where the most interesting ideas
emerged.
350 / 549
6.4.6 Limitations of the application framework
On the one hand, the framework offers an original contribution to business model
application knowledge. On the other hand, the conceptual nature of this finding is
also its main limitation. It needs more empirical refinement and evaluation (such as
in-depth exploration or verification of the underpinning hypothesis), as further
outlined in the future research section (6.5.8). The conceptual framework aims at
making a generalizable contribution to knowledge, so it must be validated in a
broader context. Its viability and robustness must be tested in various business
situations and contexts. Although the author applied the framework in different
scenarios, designed as thought experiments, and in discussions with respondents
(member-checking), only well-designed empirical research can finally prove its
applicability.
6.4.7 Conclusion: a point for refinement rather than a final product
To conclude, the limitations show that the present research must be considered a
point for refinement as part of a further research agenda rather than a final product.
The following aspects represent a summary of the limitations, offering a starting point
for a further research agenda (as discussed in 6.5):
• The research was limited to the German-speaking part of Switzerland.

• The diversity of the samples was limited since it was unknown at the beginning
of the project what diversity really means regarding business model perception
and application in Switzerland.
• The samples were not optimally ‘balanced’ since support professionals offer
more diverse perspectives and ideas than academics do and, above all, can
contribute much more than can small business owner-managers.
• The questions within the interview guide tended to be designed for
respondents with prior business model knowledge. However, in the light of the
finding that owner-managers (with the exception of start-up owners) tend to
have very limited awareness of the concept, this should have been addressed
using questions that build on a more practical understanding.
351 / 549
• Since the respondents’ answers and ideas were socially co-created through
interaction with the researcher, a special focus would be given to a more
nuanced way and style of interaction with the various communities, if tasked
with the re-design of the research. However, adapting the interaction
individually, for each respondent, is considered a high-level interviewing skill,
which will be further refined in future research projects.
• Follow-up interviews and focus groups would have allowed for gaining richer,
more in-depth, and more diverse perspectives on specific emerging themes
within a selected sub-sample – such as support professionals. Accordingly,
the research could usefully be split into 2 phases (1st: exploring sources of
diversity and 2nd: digging deeper). This way, the total number of interviews
could be reduced while simultaneously gaining more in-depth richness of data.
6.5 Implications for future research
6.5.1 Including other regions
The research was limited to the German speaking part of Switzerland. Accordingly, a
further research agenda may aim at understanding the perception and application of
the business model concept in other geographical areas. Therefore, other Swiss
regions would be included, such as the French speaking part, but also other
European countries. In particular, the French speaking part of Switzerland would be
promising, since universities in this area have contributed to the development of the
business model concept.
Further research may adapt the same methodology as applied in the present study.
Individual interviews or, alternatively, focus groups could be conducted. In the French
part of Switzerland, the academic sample could be expanded, since local academics
in this region have contributed to the development of the business model concept (as
it exists in the literature). However, the samples of other regions would mainly consist
of support professionals as this group was found to contribute the most diversity of
ideas.
352 / 549
6.5.2 Further investigating the support professional community
As the research has revealed, the greatest diversity and richness of ideas was found
within the support professional community. Accordingly, a further research aim would
be to get a richer and more diverse picture or business model perception and
application within this community. The research would focus on enhancing diversity
of perspectives and ideas, more in-depth understanding of already revealed topics,
and gaining additional new insights. Accordingly, two different research designs
could be applied:
(1) New respondents could be recruited in order to enhance diversity and to gain
additional insights. An exploratory pre-study could be valuable in identifying
consultants in areas not yet covered by the present research.
(2) More in-depth data could be gained through conducting follow-up interviews or
through focus groups with selected respondents in order to elaborate specific
themes.
6.5.3 Focusing on support professionals specialising on start-ups
First, the research has revealed that creating new business models is one of the
main purposes of a start-up. Second, the research has also revealed that support
professionals represent the group with the most diverse ideas and perspectives.
Accordingly, future research may aim at investigating support professionals
specialised on advising start-ups. They could be investigated by individual interviews
or focus group settings.
6.5.4 Using a quantitative study
Further research may also consist of a quantitative study that aims at generalising
the findings. Some selected issues may be picked out – such as the importance of
revenue thinking in the owner manager community, the importance of time and
emergence when founding a new business, or the applicability of the developed
framework (therefore refer to section 6.3.7) – as a basis for a survey-based
questionnaire, that allows for making inferences for a selected, pre-defined
353 / 549
population. Accordingly, the purpose of such a study would consist of explanation
rather than exploration.
6.5.5 Creating a revenue generation framework
The research has revealed that the business model concept is mainly understood in
two different ways: narrower and wider sense thinking, with narrow-sense thinking
focusing on revenue generation. Although the revenue perspective is often labelled
as ‘out-dated’ thinking, this study has shown that revenue perspectives still have their
relevance and a right to exist, not at least since established SMEs often relate their
business model understanding to revenue thinking. The aim of further research could
be to better understand the role of revenue mechanics and how they are created and
diversified, and to develop a framework assisting SME managers in their respective
activities (an intuitive framework such as the Business Model Canvas within the
‘wider sense’ domain). To further investigate this aspect, the following research
approaches may be used, also in combination:
(1) Further research may aim at better understanding revenue mechanics. Therefore,
longitudinal case studies, in which the researcher accompanies entrepreneurial firms
and observes their development, may be used to investigate the formation of a new
firm’s revenue structure.
(2) A new sample of respondents could be interviewed in an exploratory study that

focused on revenue creation and diversification themes. An initial pre-study would
guide the sample design by revealing which groups of people could provide most
interesting and diverse ideas, then follow-up interviews or focus groups would be
initiated in order to explore these ideas more deeply.
(2) An intuitive framework like the Canvas, or a plug-in for the Canvas, could be
developed12; either based on a literature review or on pre-research studies, and
12 Such a framework could consist of a morphological box decomposing revenue mechanics in their
constituent parts (as introduced in chapter 5.9). Such a framework would allow for creatively designing
and re-combining revenue streams. Such a framework could be developed and iteratively further
developed.
354 / 549
gradually refined through a set of action research initiatives with several
entrepreneurial firms. Then, the developing framework could continuously be further
refined in iterative learning cycles.
6.5.6 Investigating business model needs of owner-managed SMEs
The research has revealed that Swiss owner-managed SMEs are different from start-
ups and large firms regarding their business model needs and activities. Accordingly,
the aim of further research may consist of developing a business model innovation
framework assisting SMEs in evaluating their position within the Christensen (2016)
business model journey. This may help firms in making more informed business
model decisions.
Further research in this domain may focus on investigating SMEs, as the group
whose business model needs are least investigated and understood, as revealed in
the present work. An exploratory study would focus on better understanding the
business model needs of owner-managed SMEs. As many diverse ideas as possible
would have to be revealed in an exploratory study design. This could be achieved by
interviewing owner-managers and support professionals closely working with owner-
managers. The findings of the exploratory study could then be synthesized in a
framework to be iteratively further developed, i.e. by applying an abductive research
approach in form of an action research setting (or several action research settings).
6.5.7 The reality of application: the role of time and emergence
The research has revealed the importance of time and emergence in the business
model building process. However, existing literature has only addressed this issue at
the periphery. Further research would aim at gaining a more in-depth understanding
of the time-dependent knowledge-building processes in the business model
application context. For instance, the following research designs could be applied:
(1) More in-depth research in the form of follow-up interviews or focus groups could
be conducted, to better understand the concept of ‘emergence’ by interviewing
relevant actors having experience with business model application of firms in
practice, such as support professionals.
355 / 549
(2) Further research could also consist of longitudinal case studies investigating firms
on their business model application journey (e.g. university spin-offs), focusing on
emergence and the role of time. The aim of such a study may be to better understand
the sequence13 of dealing with business model elements (rather than the whole
model), as part of a very complex learning process.
6.5.8 The role of the application framework for future research
The developed framework (according to section 6.3.7) resides on the conceptual

level by hypothesizing the separation of the following ideas:
1. Separating the value proposition form the business architecture/logic.

2. Separating analysis/refinement from creation.
This offers plenty of future research opportunities:
• In-depth interviews or focus groups with support professionals (and maybe

academics) would allow for further refining the developed framework. These
people would be confronted with it. Such an approach would seek for
confirmation by further exploring new aspects. It would show whether the
framework reflects the respondents’ practical experiences and how to make
adjustments, if necessary.
• A case study or action research approach would be an ideal instrument to
investigate the ways in which small firms or start-ups perform, by first applying
the suggested framework as a thinking model. Different cases could be
researched and compared, as well as reflected with existing literature. Such
an approach may include an abductive perspective by going back and forth
between the framework and data as an approach for making incremental
improvements.
• In an experimental setting, two groups of business school students (for
instance) could be investigated. One group, the control group, would use the
13 New venture founders may be better off focusing on specific elements of a business model in their
founding stage (sequences). They may start with the opportunity and then expand to other business
model building-blocks rather than focusing on the whole model right at the beginning.
356 / 549
business model concept in a ‘traditional’ way, as applied these days. The other
group would first be reflecting on the sub-system units and the purpose as
suggested by the developed framework – and also about the use of
appropriate tools (such as the Canvas). Both groups would be tasked with the
same problem to be solved. Accordingly, inferences could be made in terms of
the framework’s usefulness.
• Cause and effect relationships between various assumptions could be
developed and mapped in a model, to be empirically validated using a
questionnaire-based quantitative research design. The following two main
hypotheses could be verified:
o H1: If people differentiate between value proposition and business
architecture/logic, the level of complexity in business model application
can significantly be reduced.
o H2: If people differentiate between analysis/refinement and creation,
existing tools and frameworks can be used significantly more
effectively.
6.6 Implications for practice
6.6.1 Perceived and applied in many different ways
Since there are many widely dispersed interpretations and ways of application, a
common understanding of the business model concept cannot be taken for granted
when working with firms. Instead, a clear definition of the term, its meaning and ways
of applications, must be introduced and should be ‘negotiated’ when working with
business practitioners. As it has been learned from the study, support professionals
and other people delivering training and support to SME managers should confront
their client firms with business model frameworks carefully, recognising the
importance of understanding the managers’ familiarity with these frameworks in
particular, as well as their general feelings about abstract models.
357 / 549
6.6.2 Ownership structures and succession plans in family firms
It has been learned that ownership structures and succession plans (succession
plans often change ownership structures) can play a dominant role regarding
business modelling in owner-managed SMEs. For instance, when a firm is acquired,
resulting in a new ownership structure, the new owner-manager must ensure that the
business model still works for him, so existing partnerships must be maintained –
partnerships are often tightly linked with a firm owner through personal relationships.
The new owner must have access to the same products and services with the same
(pricing) conditions. Losing existing products and services may influence the
customer segments, and may influence the business model. In the case of firm
integration/acquisition (bought by a larger firm, for instance) new products may
become available for possibly better conditions, which again results in a business
model change. And finally, the financing conditions and availability of additional
capital must be guaranteed for the new owner. These are business model issues that
owner-managers and support professionals should consider when confronted with
changing ownership structures.
6.6.3 Changing needs for business model application
Start-ups, small owner managed SMEs, and large firms are different from each other
regarding their business model needs and business modelling activities. Before
thinking about business models, one should take into consideration the type of firm,
as well as the business model journey phase that a firm is currently in – e.g.
according to the Christensen (2016) model. The most important aspect here is that
SME owner-managers are different from start-up and large firm managers regarding
their business model needs.
There are two important implications for practice. The first is that SME owner-
managers working on their existing business model are better off focusing on
optimisation, i.e. working on their revenue streams. SMEs interested in creating a
new business area may consider ideas from the start-up literature too. They may
start dealing with value proposition design as well. The second implication is for
those delivering training and advice to owner-managed SMEs (academics and
358 / 549
support professionals): Revenue thinking may represent an entry point for discussing
business model issues when working with SME owner-managers who are
inexperienced with the business model concept or consider it to be ‘theoretical stuff’
that is not usefully applicable to their businesses.
6.6.4 The reality of application: the role of time, emergence and maturation
Firms interested in business model development, innovation, re-creation, or

application, are well advised to think in the time dimension at the very beginning of
their project. People who aim at embarking on a model application journey should
question their initial time schedule for this – a business idea normally takes much
more time to develop than initially planned, since it needs time for emergence, for
maturation, ideas must be swallowed and sent to the subconscious, ideas need time
for root building and to get anchored in their environments, and iterative loops are not
a waste of time but necessary learning cycles.
Therefore, business practitioners should ask questions such as whether there is

enough passion and inspiration for an idea. Those people applying the business
model concept (no matter whether entrepreneur or intrapreneur) should start by
asking themselves whether there is ‘enough’ passion and inspiration, whether they
are ready and willing to be suffering for the project, and whether they work in a
cultural environment that allows for this. Moreover, they must take a very clear view
of the challenges of learning and knowledge-building, not only in terms of information
sources and research techniques, but of the time that this will require.
6.6.5 The question whether to increase or reduce complexity
The complexity debate revealed in the present research shows that reality is always
more complex than what any type of model can ever map. Accordingly, a business
model is never reality, but through showing various elements (such as the 9 building
blocks of the Canvas) entrepreneurs may have a whole picture at a glance, providing
a more complete view of the whole than what people could ever have in mind without
using a framework – at least as a checklist that compensates for missing experience.
359 / 549
On the other hand, the application of a new business model may start with a focus on
the opportunity, since new business founders cannot think of all the various elements
simultaneously; hence starting with some selected elements may be more fruitful at
the very beginning (in the sense of reducing complexity). The research has revealed
a debate as to whether business models may help through increasing complexity or,
by contrast, whether they should be used to reduce complexity in an informed way.
One means to deal with complexity is reflection. Owner-managers should establish

settings in which teams applying the business model concept have the opportunity to
reflect on their journey. They need an environment that allows for learning. And they
need a culture that supports making mistakes, and which accepts that iterative are
not a waste of time but important opportunities for learning. People then may decide
which approach to take (including or reducing complexity). This is a decision
depending on many variables. One of the most important variables may be the
question whether to launch a new business, or whether to optimise an existing one.
The author advocates a complexity-reducing approach when starting a new venture
(first focusing on the opportunity and then expand), and for an approach that includes
complexity when optimising an existing business model.
6.6.6 Practical impact of the developed application framework
The developed application framework (see section 6.3.7) may have considerable
implications for practice. It offers an approach to separate two main sub-system units
(value proposition and business architecture/logic) and two main application
purposes (analysis/refinement and creation). This provides clarity and transparency
for those applying the business model concept in practice.
Business practitioners should first reflect on the business aim and the possible
impacts the business model concept may have on their goals – questions such as the
following should first be asked: For what exactly is the business model concept a
viable concept to deal with the problem(s) at hand? Based on such considerations,
practitioners may be less likely to mix up the various tools and frameworks included
in the business model concept.
360 / 549
The developed framework (see section 6.3.7) was first tested in the context of the
author’s firm by applying it to current and past business situations and reflecting on
them (by the author and his management team). On the one hand, it could be
concluded that analysis and refinement activities from both dimensions, namely value
proposing and business architecture/logic, often are tightly linked. On the other hand,
creating a new value proposition or creating a new business architecture/logic from
scratch (e.g. for a disruptive innovation) are completely different. Reflecting on very
concrete situations of the author’s firm (a Swiss SME with 5 years in business) value
propositions are often slightly adapted (e.g. introducing a complementary service, or
a new feature), and small changes in the business architecture/logic are regularly
made too (e.g. new partners, or an adapted pricing strategy). Both dimensions often
go hand in hand. By contrast, creating something totally new (either value proposition
or business architecture/logic) is very rare – an insight that might be transferable to
other SMEs as well. If the managing team from the author’s firms was tasked to
create a new product or a new business architecture/logic from scratch, it would act
completely differently from what it does when analysing and refining existing ones.
The developed framework very well reflects these concrete situations. This small
‘case study’ supports the conceptual separation in 4 dimensions, as suggested by
the developed application framework (see section 6.3.7).
6.7 Personal reflection on the research journey
In retrospect, the most difficult parts of the research journey were to identify a
research gap, to formulate the research questions, and to develop an appropriate
research design. With many ideas of possible business model research projects in
mind at the very beginning of the doctoral journey, the research project, as presented
in this document, took far longer and has become far more complex an endeavour
than initially expected. Not only relevant theoretical inputs about research philosophy,
reviewing literature, or the choice of methodologies and methods, had first to be
developed, but also the time a doctoral project needs for maturation was
underestimated. Accordingly, the following ideas, as widely discussed in the interview
data as well (above all in support professional community), must be considered the
mantra of any research endeavour too: we first have to swallow a problem, send it to
361 / 549
the subconscious, and allow it the time it needs for root building, and for emergence.
Furthermore, it is an iteration process of communication and appropriation between
an individual and the world – so inputs from as many people as possible (such as
supervisors, at conferences, discussions with friends etc.) help shaping and forming
an idea. Such as water erodes or ‘shapes’ the form of rocks over millions of years,
the interaction with the world shapes an idea over time – if it gets the required time to
do so. As a consequence, just as with a new venture, it has been learned that a
doctoral project needs motivation, passion, inspiration, and sometimes suffering, as
well as a lot more time that was initially envisaged.
Accordingly, a major learning point for future highly complex projects is the
importance of building up networks within the domain, interacting with like-minded
people, and allowing something to emerge over time. It is important to recognise that
such projects should not be rushed. In contrast, occasionally putting the project aside
for a while may help to get a fresh view on it. I had just such a break of about 3
months between 2016 and 2017. This experience showed me the importance of
interacting with my own thoughts for a while, hence the ability to reflect on what has
been reflected on a few months before. This kind of meta-level reflection is
considered a worthwhile experience and a striking argument for allowing things the
time they need to get mature – however, this insight may be a counter-trend in a
world where time cycles tend increasingly to be compressed.
362 / 549
7. References
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the
structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new
technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306-333.
Afuah, A. (2000). How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of
technological change?
Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2000). Internet business models and strategies: Text and
cases: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Al-Debei, M. M., & Avison, D. (2010). Developing a unified framework of the business
model concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 359-376.
Al-Debei, M. M., El-Haddadeh, R., & Avison, D. (2008). Defining the business model
in the new world of digital business. School of Information Systems,
Computing and Mathematics;.
Alt, R., & Zimmermann, H.-D. (2001). Introduction to special section-business
models. Electronic Markets-The International Journal, 11(1), 1019-6781.
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for
operationalization. Journal of management studies, 38(6), 811-829.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (2012). Z STRATEGIC ASSETS AND
ORGANIZATIONAL RENT. Strategische Managementtheorie, 14, 325.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(6-7), 493-520. doi:10.1002/smj.187
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 53.
Amit, R. H., & Zott, C. (2010). Business model innovation: Creating value in times of
change.
Andersen, T. G., & Bollerslev, T. (1998). Answering the skeptics: Yes, standard
volatility models do provide accurate forecasts. International economic review,
885-905.
Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American
journal of pharmaceutical education, 74(8).
Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science.
organization Science, 10(3), 216-232.
Andrews, K. R. (1980). The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Homewood, Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin. Inc.
Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 35(5),
113-124.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy: business policy for growth and expansion:
McGraw-Hill Book.
Ashby, R. W. (1957). An Introduction to Cybernetics (Vol. 2). London: Chapman &
Hall Ltd.
363 / 549
Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2010). Business model innovation vs
replication: financial performance implications of strategic emphases. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 18(1), 39-56.
Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.
Astley, W. G. (1985). Administrative science as socially constructed truth.
Administrative science quarterly, 497-513.
Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business models as models. Long Range
Planning, 43(2), 156-171.
Ballon, P. (2007). Business modelling revisited: the configuration of control and
value. info, 9(5), 6-19.
Baron, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and
Managing the Human Side of Work: Color Transparencies: Prentice Hall.
Bäuml-Roßnagl, M.-A. (1997). Sinnennahe Bildungswege als aktuelle
Bildungsaufgabe.
Becker, J., Rosemann, M., & Von Uthmann, C. (2000). Guidelines of business
process modeling Business Process Management (pp. 30-49): Springer.
Belcher, A. (2006). Imagining how a company thinks: What is corporate culture.
Deakin L. Rev., 11, 1.
Bellman, R., Clark, C. E., Malcolm, D. G., Craft, C. J., & Ricciardi, F. M. (1957). On
the construction of a multi-stage, multi-person business game. Operations
Research, 5(4), 469-503.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in
the sociology of knowledge: Penguin UK.
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder
orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management
models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,
42(5), 488-506.
Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and
extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5-14.
Bézivin, J., & Gerbé, O. (2001). Towards a precise definition of the OMG/MDA
framework. Paper presented at the Automated Software Engineering,
2001.(ASE 2001). Proceedings. 16th Annual International Conference on.
Blackwell, E. (2011). How to Prepare a Business Plan: Create Your Strategy;
Forecast Your Finances; Produce That Persuasive Plan: Kogan Page
Publishers.
Blaha, M., & Rumbaugh, J. (2005). Object-oriented modeling and design with UML:
Pearson Education Upper Saddle River.
Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing Social Research–The Logic of Anticipation (2010: John.
Blank, S. (2006). The Four Steps to the Epiphany - Successful Strategies for
Products that Win (Vol. 2). Stanford: Lulu.com.
364 / 549
Blank, S. (2013). Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything. Harvard Business
Review.
Blank, S. (2014). steveblank.com. Retrieved from http://www.steveblank.com
Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The Startup Owner's Manual - The Step-by-Step Guide
for Building a Great Company (Vol. 1). California: K&S Ranch, Inc. Publishers.
Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D. M. (2012). The effects of culture and
structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. Journal of
management studies, 49(2), 279-305.
Bodenschatz, E. (2009). Complex Systems. Retrieved from http://www.mpg.de
website:
Boghossian, P. (2001). What is social construction?
Bonaccorsi, A., Giannangeli, S., & Rossi, C. (2006). Entry strategies under competing
standards: Hybrid business models in the open source software industry.
Management Science, 52(7), 1085-1098.
Börner, K., Boyack, K., Milojević, S., & Morris, S. (2012). An introduction to modeling
science: Basic model types, key definitions, and a general framework for the
comparison of process models. Models of science dynamics, 3-22.
Bouwman, C. H. (2013). The role of corporate culture in mergers & acquisitions.
Box, G. E., Hunter, W. G., & Hunter, J. S. (1978). Statistics for experimenters: an
introduction to design, data analysis, and model building (Vol. 1): JSTOR.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for
beginners: Sage.
Breslin, D. (2008). A review of the evolutionary approach to the study of
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 399-
423.
Breuer, H., & Mahdjour, S. (2012). Lean Venturing: Entrepreneurial Learning to
Model and Grow New Business. Paper presented at the 5th ISPIM Innovation
Symposium - Stimulating Innovation: Challenges for Management, Science &
Technology, Seoul.
Brousseau, E., & Penard, T. (2007). The economics of digital business models: a
framework for analyzing the economics of platforms. Review of Network
Economics, 6(2).
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking
complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting
organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-34.
Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards systematic business
model innovation: lessons from product innovation management. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 21(2), 183-198.
365 / 549
Bukh, P. N., & Nielsen, C. (2010). Understanding the health care business model: the
financial analyst’s point of view. Journal of health care finance, 37(2), 8-25.
BusinessDictionary.com. (2017). Definiton of the Term Business. Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com
Caldwell, R. (2008). HR business partner competency models: re‐contextualising
effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(3), 275-294.
Calori, R., & Sarnin, P. (1991). Corporate culture and economic performance: A
French study. Organization studies, 12(1), 049-074.
Camponovo, G., & Pigneur, Y. (2003). Business Model Analysis Applied to Mobile
Business. Paper presented at the ICEIS (4).
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate
performance. Academy of management review, 4(4), 497-505.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2007). Competing through business models.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models
and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 195-215.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2011). How to Design A Winning Business
Model. Harvard Business Review.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2010). Business Model Innovation and
Competitive Imitation: Citeseer.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the
American enterprise. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge.
Chapman, R. L., Soosay, C., & Kandampully, J. (2003). Innovation in logistic services
and the new business model: a conceptual framework. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 33(7), 630-650.
Chari, V. V., Kehoe, P. J., & McGrattan, E. R. (2000). Sticky price models of the
business cycle: can the contract multiplier solve the persistence problem?
Econometrica, 68(5), 1151-1179.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School
Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing Open Innovation. Research Technology
Management, 47(1), 23-26.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Business Models - How to Thrive in the New
Innovation Landscape. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School
Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: it's not just about technology
anymore. Strategy & leadership, 35(6), 12-17.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long
Range Planning, 43(2), 354-363.
Chesbrough, H. (2012). Why companies should have open business models. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 48(2).
366 / 549
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in
capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's
technology spin‐off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529-
555.
Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating Business Models with Co-
Development Partnerships. Research Technology Management, 50(1), 55-59.
Ching, H. Y. (2013). Criticisms, Variations and Experiences with Business Model
Canvas. European Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Research, 1(2), 26-37.
Christensen, C., Hall, T., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Competing against luck.
HBX Connext. Harvard Business School, Boston, 6.
Christensen, C. M. (2002). The Innovators Dilemma. New York: Harper Business.
Christensen, C. M. (2004). Seeing What's Next - Using the Theories of Innovation to
Predeict Industry Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Christensen, C. M., Bartman, T., & Van Bever, D. (2016). The Hard Truth About
Business Model Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(1), 31.
Christiano, L. J., Trabandt, M., & Walentin, K. (2011). Introducing financial frictions
and unemployment into a small open economy model. Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, 35(12), 1999-2041.
Cocchi, A. (2013). The Emerging Properties of Business Models: A systemic
Approach.
Combe, I., Mason, K., & Mouzas, S. (2012). Flexible business models. European
Journal of Marketing, 46(10), 1340-1367.
Cooke-Davies, T. J., & Arzymanow, A. (2003). The maturity of project management
in different industries: An investigation into variations between project
management models. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6),
471-478.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches: Sage publications.
DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: what it is and what it is not.
Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379-389.
De Reuver, M., & Haaker, T. (2009). Designing viable business models for context-
aware mobile services. Telematics and Informatics, 26(3), 240-248.
Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management. Long Range
Planning, 30(3), 321374-322384.
Demerjian, P. R. (2011). Accounting standards and debt covenants: Has the “balance
sheet approach” led to a decline in the use of balance sheet covenants?
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(2-3), 178-202.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: in search of dynamic
consistency. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 227-246.
Denison, D. R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational
dynamics, 13(2), 5-22.
367 / 549
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness: John
Wiley & Sons.
Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984). Porter's (1980) generic strategies as
determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 467-488.
Dicksee, L. R. (1910). Business Organisation: Longmans, Green, and Company.
Dijkman, R., Sprenkels, B., Peeters, T., & Janssen, A. (2015). Business models for
the Internet of Things. International Journal of Information Management, 35(6),
672-678.
Djelic, M.-L., & Ainamo, A. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms in the
fashion industry: a historical and comparative study of France, Italy, and the
United States. organization Science, 10(5), 622-637.
Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do?:
Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10),
1559-1570.
Drucker, P. (2001). The essential Drucker: In one volume the best of sixty years of
Peter Drucker: New York: Harper Collins.
Drucker, P. F., & Drucker, P. F. (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice
and principles: Routledge.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2012). Management research: Sage
Publications.
Eastin, C. P. (1975). The Use of Models in Litigation: Concise or Contrived. Chi.-Kent
L. Rev., 52, 610.
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The impact of a corporate culture of
sustainability on corporate behavior and performance: National Bureau of
Economic Research Cambridge, MA, USA.
Engle, R. (2001). GARCH 101: The use of ARCH/GARCH models in applied
econometrics. Journal of economic perspectives, 15(4), 157-168.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation:
exploring the pheonomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.
Eriksson, C. I., Kalling, T., Åkesson, M., & Fredberg, T. (2008). Business models for
m-services: Exploring the e-newspaper case from a consumer view. DIGITAL
INNOVATION IN THE VALUE NETWORKS OF NEWSPAPERS, 146.
Eriksson, H.-E., & Penker, M. (2000). Business modeling with UML. Business
Patterns at Work, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
Etkina, E., Warren, A., & Gentile, M. (2006). The role of models in physics instruction.
The physics teacher, 44(1), 34-39.
Evans, J. R. (2000). Spreadsheets as a tool for teaching simulation. INFORMS
Transactions on Education, 1(1), 27-37.
Faber, E., Ballon, P., Bouwman, H., Haaker, T., Rietkerk, O., & Steen, M. (2003).
Designing business models for mobile ICT services. Paper presented at the
368 / 549
Workshop on concepts, metrics & visualization, at the 16th Bled Electronic
Commerce Conference eTransformation, Bled, Slovenia.
Faltin, G. (2001). Creating a Culture of Innovative Entrepreneurship. Freie Universität
Berlin.
Faltin, G. (2008). Kopf schlägt Kapital - Die ganz andere Art, ein Unternehmen zu
gründen (Vol. 7). München: Carl-Hanser-Verlag.
Faltin, G. (2010). Kopf schlägt Kapital. Die ganz andere Art, ein Unternehmen zu
gründen. Von der Lust, ein Entrepreneur zu sein.“Hanser Wirtschaft,
München.
Faltin, G. (2011). Das Gestalten von Geschäftsmodellen als Kern des
Entrepreneurship (Business Model Creation as Core Entrepreneurial Activity)
Working Papers of the Institute of Management Berlin at the Berlin School of
Economics and Law (HWR Berlin), 61.
Favre, J.-M. (2004). Towards a basic theory to model model driven engineering.
Paper presented at the 3rd Workshop in Software Model Engineering, WiSME.
Feller, J., Finnegan, P., & Hayes, J. (2008). Delivering the'whole product': business
model impacts and agility challenges in a network of open source firms.
Journal of Database Management, 19(2), 95.
Flamholtz, E. G., & Randle, Y. (2012). Corporate culture, business models,
competitive advantage, strategic assets and the bottom line: Theoretical and
measurement issues. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting,
16(2), 76-94.
Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., Csik, M., & Gassmann, O. (2012). The 4I-framework
of business model innovation: a structured view on process phases and
challenges. Manuscript prepared for the International Journal of Product
Development (IJPD) special issue on Business Models.
Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., Csik, M., & Gassmann, O. (2013). The 4I-framework
of business model innovation: A structured view on process phases and
challenges. International Journal of Product Development, 18(3-4), 249-273.
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular
corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229-1249.
Gambardella, A., & McGahan, A. M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General
purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range
Planning, 43(2), 262-271.
Gassmann, O. (2012). Aus Alt mach Neu. Harvard Business Manager.
Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2006). Open Innovation - Die Öffnung des
Innovationsprozesses erhöht das Innovationspotentil. zfo wissen, 3(75. Jg),
132-138.
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2013). Geschäftsmodell entwickeln -
55 innovative Konzepte mit dem St. Galler Business Model Navigator.
München: Carl Hanser Verlag.
369 / 549
George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The Business Model in Practice and its Implications
for Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1),
83-111. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00424.x
George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2012). Models of opportunity: How entrepreneurs design
firms to achieve the unexpected: Cambridge University Press.
Gertler, M. S. (2003). Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the
undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of economic geography, 3(1),
75-99.
Ghaziani, A., & Ventresca, M. J. (2005). Keywords and cultural change: frame
analysis of business model public talk, 1975–2000. Paper presented at the
Sociological Forum.
Giesen, E., Berman, S. J., Bell, R., & Blitz, A. (2007). Three ways to successfully
innovate your business model. Strategy & leadership, 35(6), 27-33.
Gladwell, M. (2002). The Tipping Point - How Little Things Can Make a Big
Difference. New York: Back Bay Books.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse
(Expert interviews and qualitative context analysis): Springer-Verlag.
Goerzen, A. (2007). Alliance networks and firm performance: The impact of repeated
partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 487.
Goethals, F. G. (2011). Mindfully innovating your business model. Gestion 2000,
28(5), 47-61.
Goh, M., Lim, J. Y., & Meng, F. (2007). A stochastic model for risk management in
global supply chain networks. European Journal of Operational Research,
182(1), 164-173.
Goldberg, J., & Markóczy, L. (2000). Complex rhetoric and simple games.
Emergence, 2(1), 72-100.
Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A Review of Innovation Research in
Economics, Sociology and Technology Management. International Journal of
Gordijn, J., & Akkermans, H. (2001). Designing and evaluating e-business models.
IEEE intelligent Systems(4), 11-17.
Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., Popadak, J., & Rajgopal, S. (2017). Corporate culture:
Evidence from the field. Retrieved from
Griffith, E. (2014). Why startups fail, according to their founders. Fortune Magazine,
September, 25.
Griol-Barres, I., & Martinez, D. (2013). A self-assessment tool for Business Models
and Automatic Generation of Business Opportunities.
Grix, J. (2002). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research.
Politics, 22(3), 175-186.
370 / 549
Grossman, T. A. (2006). Integrating spreadsheet engineering in a management
science course: A hierarchical approach. INFORMS Transactions on
Education, 7(1), 18-36.
Grossman, T. A. (2007). Spreadsheet engineering: A research framework. arXiv
preprint arXiv:0711.0538.
Grundy, T. (2006). Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter's five forces model.
Strategic Change, 15(5), 213-229.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog: Sage publications.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis:
Sage.
Gummesson, E., Mele, C., Polese, F., Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2010).
Business model design: conceptualizing networked value co-creation.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(1), 43-59.
Günzel, F., & Holm, A. B. (2013). One Size Does Not Fit All—Understanding The
Front-End And Back-End Of Business Model Innovation. International Journal
of Innovation Management, 17(01), 1340002.
Hacklin, F., Minato, N., & Kobayashi, T. (2015). The business model bank:
conceptualizing a database structure for large-sample study of an emerging
management concept. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.01427.
Hai, D. (1986). Organizational Behavior: Experiences and Cases. St. Paul: West
Publishing.
Hall, D. (2002). You've Got to Conform to Create: The Implications of Corporate
Culture on. Paper presented at the Workshop on Innovation in Government.
Hamel, G., & Trudel, J. D. (2001). Leading the revolution: No longer published by
Elsevier.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Creating corporate culture: from discord to harmony.
Hanks, S. H., Watson, C. J., Jansen, E., & Chandler, G. N. (1993). Tightening the
life-cycle construct: A taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-
technology organizations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 5-5.
Hayes, J., & Finnegan, P. (2005). Assessing the of potential of e-business models:
towards a framework for assisting decision-makers. European Journal of
Operational Research, 160(2), 365-379.
Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N‐form corporation.
Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 73-90.
Hedman, J., & Kalling, T. (2003). The business model concept: theoretical
underpinnings and empirical illustrations. European Journal of Information
Systems, 12(1), 49-59.
Heikkilä, M., Solaimani, S., Soudunsaari, A., Hakanen, M., Kuivaniemi, L., &
Suoranta, M. (2015). Performance estimation of networked business models:
case study on a Finnish eHealth Service Project. Journal of Business Models
(2014), 2(1), 71-88.
371 / 549
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for
students and faculty: Sage.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American
journal of physics, 55(5), 440-454.
Heucher, M. (2002). Planen, gründen, wachsen: mit dem professionellen
Businessplan zum Erfolg (Planning, Founding, Growing - How to be
Successful Using a Business Plan): Redline Wirtschaft bei Ueberreuter.
Hidalgo, A., & Albors, J. (2005). Innovation management techniques and tools: a
review from theory and practice.
Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: it's time for a product recall. Long
Hoffmann, F. (2013). Visual Business Model Ideation. (Doctor of Philosophy in
Management), University of St. Gallen, Zürich. (4154)
Holden, C., & Womack, K. (2000). Spreadsheet modeling in finance and investment
courses.
Honig, B., & Karlsson, T. (2004). Institutional forces and the written business plan.
Journal of management, 30(1), 29-48.
Horan, J. (2004). The one page business plan. Berkeley, CA: The One Page
Business Plan Company.
Horváth, P., & Kaufmann, L. (1998). Balanced Scorecard-ein Werkzeug zur
Umsetzung von Strategien. Harvard Business Manager, 20, 39-50.
Hu, B. (2014). Linking business models with technological innovation performance
through organizational learning. European Management Journal, 32(4), 587-
595.
Huber, D., Kaufmann, H., & Steinmann, M. (2015). Bridging the Innovation Gap-
Bauplan des innovativen Unternehmens: Springer-Verlag.
Im, K., & Cho, H. (2013). A systematic approach for developing a new business
model using morphological analysis and integrated fuzzy approach. Expert
Systems with Applications, 40(11), 4463-4477.
Ioana, A., Mirea, V., & Balescu, C. (2009). Analysis of service quality management in
the materials industry using the bcg matrix method. Amfiteatru Economic
Journal, 11(26), 270-276.
Iqbal, A. (2012). Book Review: ADAPT – why success always starts with failure.
International Journal of Innovations in Business 2012.
Irani, Z., Beskese, A., & Love, P. (2004). Total quality management and corporate
culture: constructs of organisational excellence. Technovation, 24(8), 643-650.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating
entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. The
academy of Management executive, 15(1), 49-63.
Jackson, M. (1995). Software requirements & specifications: a lexicon of practice,
principles and prejudices: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
372 / 549
Jackson, W. T., Scott, D. J., & Schwagler, N. (2015). Using the business model
canvas as a methods approach to teaching entrepreneurial finance. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 18(2), 99.
Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation:
Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures.
Research Policy, 35(8), 1200-1221.
Jacobsen, L. K. (2003). Bestimmungsfaktoren für Erfolg im Entrepreneurship.
(Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktorin der
Philosophie (Dr. phil.)), Freie Universität Berlin.
Jain, R. (2013). A Review of Facilitators, Barriers and Gateways to Entrepreneurship:
Directions and Future Research. South Asian Journal of Management, 30(3),
123-163.
Jaroschinsky, A., & RÓZSA, J. (2015). Kompetenzorientierte Didaktik der
Entrepreneurship Education.
Johnson. (2010). Seizing the White Space - Business Model Innovation for Growth
and Renewal. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Johnson, Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2009). Reinventing Your Business
Model. Harvard Business Review.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your
business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 57-68.
Jones, G. M. (1960). Educators, electrons, and business models: a problem in
synthesis. Accounting Review, 619-626.
Kadijevich, D. (2009). Simple spreadsheet modeling by first-year business
undergraduate students: Difficulties in the transition from real world problem
statement to mathematical model. Paper presented at the Mathematical
applications and modeling in the teaching and learning of mathematics:
Proceedings the 11th International Congress on mathematical Education,
Mexico.
Kambil, A., Ginsberg, A., & Bloch, M. (1997). Rethinking Value Propositions. New
York, NYU Center for Research on Information Systems.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Putting the balanced scorecard to work:
Harvard Business Review OnPoint.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from
performance measurement to strategic management: Part II. Accounting
horizons, 15(2), 147-160.
Karlsson, T., & Honig, B. (2009). Judging a business by its cover: An institutional
perspective on new ventures and the business plan. Journal of business
venturing, 24(1), 27-45.
Katila, R., Chen, E. L., & Piezunka, H. (2012). All the right moves: How
entrepreneurial firms compete effectively. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
6(2), 116-132.
373 / 549
Kaufmann, M. (2016). Die Business Model Canvas als Lehrmethode der
ökonomischen Bildung.
Kerr, J., & Slocum, J. W. (1987). Managing corporate culture through reward
systems. The academy of Management executive, 1(2), 99-107.
Kim, C. W., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy - How to Create
Unontested Market Space and Make the Competiton Irrelevant. Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Kindström, D. (2010). Towards a service-based business model–Key aspects for
future competitive advantage. European Management Journal, 28(6), 479-490.
Kindström, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2014). Service innovation in product-centric firms:
A multidimensional business model perspective. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 29(2), 96-111.
King, R. (2010). Advanced Business Model Canvas: 3 Questions You Must Ask
Before Mapping Your Business Model. Retrieved from
http://businessmodelhub.com/profiles/blogs/advanced-business-model-canvas
Kirner, E., Kinkel, S., & Jaeger, A. (2009). Innovation paths and the innovation
performance of low-technology firms—An empirical analysis of German
industry. Research Policy, 38(3), 447-458.
Klang, D., Wallnöfer, M., & Hacklin, F. (2014). The business model paradox: A
systematic review and exploration of antecedents. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 16(4), 454-478.
Kleppe, A. G., Warmer, J. B., & Bast, W. (2003). MDA explained: the model driven
architecture: practice and promise: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Kose, M. A., & Yi, K.-M. (2006). Can the standard international business cycle model
explain the relation between trade and comovement? Journal of international
Economics, 68(2), 267-295.
Kotler, P., Berger, R., & Bickhoff, N. (2010). The quintessence of strategic
management. What You Really Need to Know to Survive in Business, Berlin.
Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., & Bliemel, F. (2007). Marketing-management: Strategien für
wertschaffendes Handeln: Pearson Deutschland GmbH.
Kotter, J. P. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
Kruck, S. E., & Sheetz, S. D. (2001). Spreadsheet accuracy theory. Journal of
Information Systems Education, 12(2), 93-108.
Krueger Jr, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of business venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Kruse, P. (2013). next practice - Efolgreiches Management von Instabilität
(Successful Management of Instability)
. Offenbach: GABAL management.
Kühne, T. (2005). What is a Model? Paper presented at the Dagstuhl Seminar
Proceedings.
Kusiak, A. (2007). Innovation: The Living Laboratory Perspective. Computer-Aided
Design & Applications, 4(6), 863-876.
374 / 549
Lambert, S. (2015). The importance of classification to business model research.
Journal of Business Models, 3(1).
Lambert, S. C., & Davidson, R. A. (2013). Applications of the business model in
studies of enterprise success, innovation and classification: An analysis of
empirical research from 1996 to 2010. European Management Journal, 31(6),
668-681.
Lasswell, H. D., Lerner, D., & Fisher, H. H. (1951). The policy sciences: Recent
developments in scope and method: Stanford University Press.
Leimgruber, J., & Prochinig, U. (2002). Das Rechnungswesen als
Führungsinstrument: Verlag SKV.
Lepore, J. (2014, 23 June 2014). What the gospel of innovation gets wrong.
Leschke, J. (2013). Business Model Mapping: Application and Experience in an
Introduction to Entrepreneurship Course. Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, 16(Special Issue, 2013), 77-91.
Levins, R. (1966). The strategy of model building in population biology. American
scientist, 54(4), 421-431.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75): Sage.
Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003). Understanding Gartner’s hype cycles. Strategic
Analysis Report Nº R-20-1971. Gartner, Inc.
Linder, J. (2000). Changing business models: surveying the landscape.
Linder, J. C., & Cantrell, S. (2001). Five business-model myths that hold companies
back. Strategy & leadership, 29(6), 13-18.
Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G., & Deimler, M. S. (2009). Business model
innovation. When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game, The Boston
Consulting Group, Boston, MA.
Lindner, J. (2015). Entrepreneurship Education für Jugendliche. GW-Unterricht,
140(4), 3949.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications
(Vol. 29): Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
Lombriser, R., & Abplanalp, P. A. (1998). Strategisches management. Visionen
entwickeln. Strategien umsetzen. Erfolgspotentiale ausbauen. Zürich (Versus.
London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2004). Reinventing strategies for emerging markets:
beyond the transnational model. Journal of international business studies,
35(5), 350-370.
Loo, R. (2002). The Delphi method: a powerful tool for strategic management.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(4),
762-769.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Models Matter. Harvard Business Review.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Bass, F. M. (1991). New product diffusion models in
marketing: A review and directions for research Diffusion of technologies and
social behavior (pp. 125-177): Springer.
375 / 549
Mansfield, G., & Fourie, L. (2004). Strategy and business models–strange
bedfellows? A case for convergence and its evolution into strategic
architecture. South African Journal of Business Management, 1.
Manson, S. M. (2001). Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity theory.
Geoforum, 32(3), 405-414.
Maritz, A., Jones, C., & Shwetzer, C. (2015). The status of entrepreneurship
education in Australian universities. Education+ Training, 57(8/9), 1020-1035.
Markides, C., & Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A
contingency approach. The academy of Management executive, 18(3), 22-36.
Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: what can the ambidexterity
literature teach us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313-
323.
Mason, C., & Stark, M. (2004). What do investors look for in a business plan? A
comparison of the investment criteria of bankers, venture capitalists and
business angels. International Small Business Journal, 22(3), 227-248.
Mason, K., & Spring, M. (2011). The sites and practices of business models.
Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 1032-1041.
Maurya, A. A. (2010). Why Lean Canvas vs Business Model Canvas? Retrieved
from http://practicetrumpstheory.com/2012/02/why-lean-canvas/
McAdam, R., & McClelland, J. (2002). Individual and team- based idea generation
within innovation management: organisational and research agendas.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2), 86-97.
doi:10.1108/14601060210428186
McClelland, D. C. (1961). 77ie achieving society: Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McGinn, D. (2012). Too Many Pivots, Too Little Passion. Harvard Business Review,
134-135.
McGrath, R. G. (2000). Exploaratory Learning, Innovative Capacity and the Role of
Managerial Oversight. Academy of Management Journal,, 44(1), 118-131.
McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: a discovery driven approach. Long Range
Planning, 43(2), 247-261.
McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (1995). Discovery driven planning: Wharton
School, Snider Entrepreneurial Center.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to
corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its
relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 74(3), 424.
Mellor, S. J., Clark, T., & Futagami, T. (2003). Model-driven development: guest
editors' introduction. IEEE software, 20(5), 14-18.
Merrifield, D. B. (2000). Growth strategies for the "new" economy. Research-
Technology Management, 43(6), 9-11.
376 / 549
Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability‐based conceptualization of business model
innovation: insights from an explorative study. R&D Management, 44(5), 429-
449.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Sage.
Mitchell, D., & Coles, C. (2003). The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing
business model innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), 15-21.
Moore, J. F. (2006). Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The antitrust
bulletin, 51(1), 31-75.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur's business model:
toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 726-735.
Moses, J. W., & Knutsen, T. L. (2012). Ways of knowing: Competing methodologies
in social and political research: Palgrave Macmillan.
Motulsky, H., & Christopoulos, A. (2004). Fitting models to biological data using linear
and nonlinear regression: a practical guide to curve fitting: Oxford University
Press.
Mowat, J. (2002). Corporate Culture. The Herridge Group, 3.
Moyon, E., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Co-evolution between stages of institutionalization
and agency: the case of the music industry’s business model. Management
international/Gestiòn Internacional/International Management, 14(4), 37-53.
Najmaei, A. (2016). How Do Entrepreneurs Develop Business Models in Small High-
Tech Ventures? An Exploratory Model from Australian IT Firms.
Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 6(3), 297-343.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and
new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.
Nielsen, C., & Lund, M. (2014). A Brief history of the business model concept.
Available at SSRN.
Nielsen, C., & Montemari, M. (2013). The Role of Human Resources in Business
Model Performance: The Case of Network-Based Companies. Forthcoming in
Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 16(2), 142-164.
Nijssen, E. J., & Lieshout, K. F. (1995). Awareness, use and effectiveness of models
and methods for new product development. European Journal of Marketing,
29(10), 27-44.
Ninck, A., Büriki, L., Hungerbühler, R., & Mühlemann, H. (2004). Systemik -
Vernetztes Denken in komplexen Situationen (Vol. 4). Zürich: Orell Füssli
Verlag.
Nirjar, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship Development: Sanbun Publishers.
Nobel, C. (2011). Teaching a 'Lean Startup' Strategy. Retrieved from Harvard:
Norreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of
some of its assumptions. Management accounting research, 11(1), 65-88.
O'reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the
next generation of software. Communications & strategies(1), 17.
377 / 549
Oliner, S., Rudebusch, G., & Sichel, D. (1995). New and old models of business
investment: a comparison of forecasting performance. Journal of Money,
Credit and Banking, 27(3), 806-826.
Orlikowski, W., & Hoffman, D. (1997). An improvisational model for change
management: The case of groupware technologies. Inventing the
Organizations of the 21st Century, 265.
Ortt , J. R., & van der Duin, P. A. (2008). The evolution of innovation management
towards contextual innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management,
11(4), 522-538. doi:10.1108/14601060810911147
Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Inducements, impediments, and immediacy:
exploring the cognitive drivers of small business managers' intentions to adopt
business model change. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1011-
1032.
Osterwalder, A. (2004). THE BUSINESS MODEL ONTOLOGY A PROPOSITION IN
A DESIGN SCIENCE APPROACH. (Docteur en Informatique de Gestion),
Université de Lausanne, Lausanne.
Osterwalder, A. (2012). Value Propositon Designer. Retrieved from
http://businessmodelalchemist.com/blog/2012/09/test-your-value-proposition-
supercharge-lean-startup-and-custdev-principles.html
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2003). Modeling value propositions in e-Business.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th international conference on
Electronic commerce.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2004). Investigating the Use of the Business Model
Concept through Interviews. Paper presented at the ICEB.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation. Hoboken, New
Jersey: WILEY.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2015). Value Proposition
Design: How to Create Products and Services Customers Want: John Wiley &
Sons.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins,
present, and future of the concept. Communications of the association for
Information Systems, 16(1), 1.
Page, M. (2014). Business models as a basis for regulation of financial reporting.
Journal of Management & Governance, 18(3), 683-695.
Palocsay, S. W. P. S. W., & Markham, I. S. M. I. S. (2002). Teaching Spreadsheet
Teaching Spreadsheet-Based Decision Support Based Decision Support
Systems with Visual Basic for Applications Systems with Visual Basic for
Applications. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal,
20(1), 27.
Panko, R. R. (2008). Spreadsheet errors: What we know. what we think we can do.
arXiv preprint arXiv:0802.3457.
Pateli, A. (2003). A framework for understanding and analysing ebusiness models.
BLED 2003 Proceedings, 4.
378 / 549
Petrovic, O., Kittl, C., & Teksten, R. D. (2001). Developing business models for
ebusiness. Available at SSRN 1658505.
Poggenpoel, M., & Myburgh, C. (2003). The researcher as research instrument in
educational research: A possible threat to trustworthiness?(A:
research_instrument). Education, 124(2), 418-423.
Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension: University of Chicago press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior
performance. 1985. New York: FreePress.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Published November.
Porter, M. E. (1998). Cluster and the new economics of competition.
Porter, M. E. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harward Business Review, 79, 62-78.
Porter, M. E. (2008). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior
performance: Simon and Schuster.
Powell, S. G., Baker, K. R., & Lawson, B. (2008). A critical review of the literature on
spreadsheet errors. Decision support systems, 46(1), 128-138.
Rammer, C., Köhler, C., Murmann, M., Pesau, A., Schwiebacher, F., Kinkel, S., . . .
Som, O. (2011). Innovationen ohne Forschung und Entwicklung. Eine
Untersuchung zu Unternehmen, die ohne eigene FuE-Tätigkeit neue Produkte
und Prozesse.
Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. (2005). Knowing what to do and doing what you know:
Effectuation as a form of entrepreneurial expertise. (IMD 2005-17). Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Ries, E. (2008-2013). Startuplessenslearned. Retrieved from
http://www.startuplessonslearned.com
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup - How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous
Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. New York: Crown
Business.
Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the
collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ripsas, S. (2004). Von der Idee zum innovativen Geschäftsmodell. [EXIST-
Workshops Entrepreneurship Education].
Robehmed, N. (2013). What Is A Startup? Forbes Media & Entertainment.
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research: John Wiley & Sons.
Rode, V., & Vallaster, C. (2005). Corporate branding for start-ups: The crucial role of
entrepreneurs. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(2), 121-135.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (Vol. 5). New York: Free Press.
Rüegg-Stürm, J. (2003). Das neue St. Galler Management-Modell: Grundkategorien
einer integrierten Managementlehre: der HSG-Ansatz (Vol. 2): Haupt.
Sääskilahti, M. (2016). Business Model Based Concept Generation-Understanding,
creating and managing concepts in business.
379 / 549
Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing corporate culture as a competitive
advantage. Journal of Management Development, 20(10), 853-859.
Salow, B. (2017). Partiality and Retrospective Justification. Philosophy & Public
Affairs, 45(1), 8-26.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Research methods for business
students, 5/e: Pearson Education India.
Savenije, H. (2009). HESS Opinions" The art of hydrology". Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences, 13(2), 157-161.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2): John Wiley &
Sons.
Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential ethnographic
methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires (Vol. 2): Rowman
Altamira.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. An inquiry into Profits,
Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Schutt, R. K. (2011). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of
research: Pine Forge Press.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry.
Handbook of qualitative research, 1, 118-137.
Seddon, P. B., Lewis, G. P., Freeman, P., & Shanks, G. (2004). The case for viewing
business models as abstractions of strategy. The Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 64.
Seila, A. F. (2005). Spreadsheet simulation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of
the 37th conference on Winter simulation.
Sensevy, G., Tiberghien, A., Santini, J., Laubé, S., & Griggs, P. (2008). An
epistemological approach to modeling: Cases studies and implications for
science teaching. Science education, 92(3), 424-446.
Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models.
Business horizons, 48(3), 199-207.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of management review, 25(1), 217-226.
Sheehan, N. T., & Stabell, C. B. (2007). Discovering new business models for
knowledge intensive organizations. Strategy & leadership, 35(2), 22-29.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research
projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized,
decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and
adaptation. organization Science, 14(6), 650-669.
Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The
American economic review, 69(4), 493-513.
380 / 549
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial: MIT press.
Smith, A. C. (2005). Complexity theory for organisational futures studies. foresight,
7(3), 22-30.
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models:
Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2),
448-461.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model
innovation through trial-and-error learning: The Naturhouse case. Long Range
Planning, 43(2), 383-407.
Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation–
state of the art and future challenges for the field. R&D Management, 44(3),
237-247.
Stachowiak, H. (1973). Allgemeine modelltheorie.
Stähler, P. (2002). Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Ökonomie (Vol. 2). Köln: Josef
Eul Verlag.
Stähler, P. (2013). Business Model Canvas - Knowing the Value within Your
Business Model is Vital. Retrieved from http://blog.business-model-
innovation.com/category/business-model-canvas/
Stähler, P. (2014). Das Richtige gründen: Werkzeugkasten für Unternehmen:
Murmann Verlag.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work: Guilford Press.
Stephenson, J., & Mintzer, R. (2008). Ultimate Homebased Business Handbook:
Entrepreneur Press.
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship:
entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17-27.
Stewart, D. W., & Zhao, Q. (2000). Internet marketing, business models, and public
policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(2), 287-296.
Stölzle, W., Heusler, K. F., & Karrer, M. (2001). Die Integration der Balanced
Scorecard in das Supply Chain Management-Konzept (BSCM). Logistik
Management, 3(2-3), 73-85.
Storbacka, K. (2011). A solution business model: Capabilities and management
practices for integrated solutions. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5),
699-711.
Swaminathan, J. M., & Tayur, S. R. (2003). Models for supply chains in e-business.
Talluri, K., & Van Ryzin, G. (2004). Revenue management under a general discrete
choice model of consumer behavior. Management Science, 50(1), 15-33.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for
integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6),
285-305.
381 / 549
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and
microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range
Planning, 43(2), 172-194.
Teo, T. S., & Tan, M. (1999). Spreadsheet development and ‘what-if’analysis:
quantitative versus qualitative errors. Accounting, Management and
Information Technologies, 9(3), 141-160.
Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: environment, organization and
performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169-183.
Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J.-A., Parvinen, P., & Kallunki, J.-P. (2005). Managerial
cognition, action and the business model of the firm. Management Decision,
43(6), 789-809.
Timmers, P. (1998). Business Model for Electronic Markets. Focus Theme Electronic
Markets, 8(2), 3-8.
Trimi, S., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2012). Business model innovation in
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
8(4), 449-465.
Ulkuniemi, P., Pekkarinen, S., Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2011). A network perspective
on business models for emerging technology-based services. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 26(5), 377-388.
Ulwick, A. W. (2002). Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business Review,
80(1), 91-98.
Urban, G. L., & Von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analyses for the development of
new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569-582.
Van der Meer, H. (2007). Open innovation–the Dutch treat: challenges in thinking in
business models. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(2), 192-202.
Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2004). The wheel of business model
reinvention: how to reshape your business model to leapfrog competitors.
Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 259-276.
Wagner, T., Tilly, R., Bodenbenner, P., Seltitz, A., & Schoder, D. (2015).
Geschäftsmodellinnovation in der Praxis: Ergebnisse einer Expertenbefragung
zu Business Model Canvas und Co (Business Model Innovation in Practice:
Expert Interiews about the Business Model Canvas etc.).
Wallnöfer, M., & Hacklin, F. (2013). The business model in entrepreneurial marketing:
A communication perspective on business angels' opportunity interpretation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 755-764.
Watson, G. H. (2002). Peter F. Drucker: Delivering value to customers. Quality
Progress, 35(5), 55.
Week, B. (2000). Knowledge management and new organization forms: a framework
for business model innovation. Knowledge management and virtual
organizations, 2-19.
382 / 549
Weill, P., & Vitale, M. (2002). What IT infrastructure capabilities are needed to
implement e-business models. MIS quarterly Executive, 1(1), 17-34.
Weinhardt, C., Anandasivam, A., Blau, B., & Stößer, J. (2009). Business models in
the service world. IT professional(2), 28-33.
Welsh, D. H., & Dragusin, M. (2013). The new generation of massive open online
course (MOOCS) and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Institute
Journal, 9(1), 51.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business
performance: a configurational approach. Journal of business venturing, 20(1),
71-91.
Wirtz, B. W. (2010). Business model management. Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Wirtz, B. W., Schilke, O., & Ullrich, S. (2010). Strategic development of business
models: implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the internet. Long
Wirtz, J., & Ehret, M. (2012). Service-based business models: transforming
businesses, industries and economies. Serving customers: Global services
marketing perspectives.
Wolcott, R. C., & Lippitz, M. J. (2007). The four models of corporate
entrepreneurship. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 75.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications.
Yip, G. S. (2004). Using strategy to change your business model. Business Strategy
Review, 15(2), 17-24.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business
models: lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2),
308-325.
Zahra, S., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research:
Encouraging dialogue and debate. Academy of management review, 26(1), 8-
10.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of
entrepreneurial firms. organization Science, 18(2), 181-199.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business
model: implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,
29(1), 1-26.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: an activity system perspective.
Long Range Planning, 43(2), 216-226.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust
construct for strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11(4), 403-411.
Zott , C., Amit , R., & Massa, L. (2010). The Business Model: Theoretical Roots,
Recent Developments, and Future Research. (WP-862).
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and
future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1019-1042.
383 / 549
Appendix
An exploration of the business model concept's meaning and

usage in Switzerland: towards an application framework
PhD-Thesis
Oliver Stalder
December 2018
384 / 549
1. Interview guides ............................................................................................... 387
1.1 Guide for interviewing the academics (sample 1) ...................................... 387
1.2 Guide for interviewing the business support professionals (sample 2) ...... 388
1.3 Guide for interviewing the small business owner-managers (sample 3) .... 389
2. Example of an interview transcript .................................................................... 391
2.1 S11 – Philosophical ‘Impulsator’ ................................................................ 391
3. Condensed interview summaries ..................................................................... 419
3.1 A1 - Professor for Strategic Foresight, Innovation and Entrepreneurship .. 419
3.2 A2 – Professor for Global Marketing and Strategy .................................... 421
3.3 A3 – Professor for Empirical and Social research ..................................... 423
3.4 A4 – Professor of Finance ......................................................................... 425
3.5 A5 – Professor for Sustainability................................................................ 428
3.6 A6 – Professor for Business Development and Project Management ....... 430
3.7 A7 – Professor for Capital Goods Marketing / Think Tank Member........... 432
3.8 A8 – Lecturer in Online Marketing / Open Innovation Researcher ............ 434
3.9 A9 – Professor for Entrepreneurship ......................................................... 436
3.10 A10 – Design Researcher (Design and Entrepreneurship) ........................ 439
3.11 S1 – Early Evangelist (Consultant, Lecturer, Start-up Founder) ................ 442
3.12 S2 – Strategy and Innovation Consultant (High Military Officer) ................ 445
3.13 S3 – Coach and Sparring Partner (for SMEs) ........................................... 448
3.14 S4 – Governmental Innovation Promoting Agent ...................................... 451
3.15 S5 – Innovation Consultant ....................................................................... 454
3.16 S6 – Innovation Consultant and Private Investment Fund President ......... 457
3.17 S7 – Coach and Start-up Consultant (Business Angel Member) ............... 460
3.18 S8 – Consultant, Inventor of the First Business Model Framework ........... 463
3.19 S9 – Entrepreneur, Coach, Speaker and Business Book Author .............. 466
3.20 S10 – Innovation Consultant, Lecturer, Innovation Book Author ............... 469
3.21 S11 – Philosophical ‘Impulsator’ ................................................................ 472
3.22 S12 – Swiss Pension Fund Investor .......................................................... 476
3.23 S13 – Consultant for Future Orientation .................................................... 477
3.24 M1 – IT Infrastructure Engineering Office .................................................. 479
3.25 M2 – Regional Milk Processing Company ................................................. 481
3.26 M3 – Renewable Energy Start-up.............................................................. 484
3.27 M4 – Sales Company of Energy Products ................................................. 487
385 / 549
3.28 M5 – Floor Heating Start-up ...................................................................... 489
3.29 M6 – Architectural Office ........................................................................... 492
3.30 M7 – Cutting Tool Manufacturer ................................................................ 495
3.31 M8 – Furniture Manufacturer ..................................................................... 498
3.32 M9 – High Voltage Installation and Supply Company ................................ 500
3.33 M10 – Serial Founder and Professional High Tech Investor ..................... 503
3.34 M11 – Traditional Electrical Engineering Office ......................................... 506
3.35 M12 – Vegetable Farmer (Greenhouse Plantation) ................................... 509
4. Example Nvivo export (linking data to main themes)........................................ 512
5. Mind map examples ......................................................................................... 517
5.1 Support Professionals (S): Application (How) ............................................ 517
5.2 Support Professionals (S): Application (Purpose)...................................... 518
5.3 Support Professionals (S): Understanding ................................................ 519
6. Data consolidation ............................................................................................ 520
6.1 Group: A (academics)................................................................................ 520
6.2 Group: S (support professionals) ............................................................... 526
6.3 Group: M (owner managers) ..................................................................... 534
6.4 Comparison oft the themes (using MS Excel) ........................................... 539
6.5 Subgroups and themes within the subgroups (example academics) ......... 540
6.6 Meta analysis............................................................................................. 541
7. Example for linking text passages .................................................................... 542
386 / 549
1. Interview guides
1.1 Guide for interviewing the academics (sample 1)
Opening / contextual questions:
1) What are your research domain and your main/special area of interest?
2) What is your professional background?
3) What is your educational background (PhD, MBA, etc.)?
4) When and in which contexts (professional, educational) have you first learned
about the term ‘business model’?
5) What relationship do you have to technology-based small businesses in
Switzerland (or possibly even to the building technology sector)?
Main questions:

7) Do you associate specific concepts/frameworks with your understanding of the
term?
8) Which different business model concepts/frameworks do you know(beside
your own, if appropriate) and what are their strengths and weaknesses?
9) Have you ever applied the business model concept in practice:
a) If yes, which concepts and frameworks have you used and why
(strengths/weaknesses/…)?
b) If yes, do you think there is something missing in the
concepts/frameworks you have been applying so far?
c) If no, why not?
10) How do you think do support professionals understand the term ‘business
model’?
11) How do you think do small business owner-managers understand the term
‘business model’?
12) How do you think do small business owner-managers apply the business
model concept in practice?
13) Do you think the business model concept is a useful managerial concept?
a) If yes, why do you think so?
387 / 549
b) If no, why not?
Closing question:
14) Is there something else you associate with the term ‘business model’?
1.2 Guide for interviewing the business support professionals (sample 2)
1) What is your area of specialisation (in which you deliver support)?

3) What is your educational background (engineering training, MBA, PhD, etc.)?
5) What relationship do you have to technology-based small businesses in
Switzerland (or possibly even to the building technology sector)?
Main questions:

term?
8) What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the various concepts
you know?
9) Do you think the concept is particularly interesting for specific sectors or types
of organisations?
10) Have you ever applied the business model concept in your support activities:
c) If no, why not?
11) How do you think do academics understand the term ‘business model’?
12) How do you think do small business owner-managers understand the term
‘business model’?
388 / 549
13) How do you think do small business owner-managers apply the business
model concept in practice?
b) If no, why not?
Closing question:
1.3 Guide for interviewing the small business owner-managers (sample 3)
1) Can shortly describe your firm?

2) How long have you been working for the firm and in what positions, functions,
and roles?
4) What is your educational background (engineering training, MBA, etc.)?
Main questions part 1 (theoretical/conceptual):

term?
(If not applicable→ jump to question 10)
8) Have you ever applied the business model concept in practice:
c) If no, why not?
389 / 549
b) If no, why not?
10) (If applicable) How do you think do academics and business support
professionals understand and use the business model concept in practice?
Main questions part 2 (practical – as supplement or complement to questions 5-9):
11) Can you describe the logic of your business?

12) Can you describe the logic of your competitors’ businesses (strong and weak
competitors)?
Closing question:
390 / 549
2. Example of an interview transcript
2.1 S11 – Philosophical ‘Impulsator’
(I: Wie lautet ihr Spezialisierungsgebiet, was machen Sie?) 3:40
Ich habe zwei Schwerpunkte, einerseits eher einen Fach-Philosophischen. Beim

Fach-Philosophischen möchte ich aber versuchen, nicht ein Fachidiot zu werden,
sondern ganz viele Disziplinen und Fragestellungen miteinander zu verbinden. Aus
meiner Sicht ist die Philosophie ein „Nicht-Fach“. Sie ist einfach für das zuständig,
wofür sich sonst niemand zuständig fühlt. Das ist eben auch die Kunst vom
Philosophen, dass er Fragen stellt, zu deren Beantwortung er nicht auf existierendes
Wissen zurückgreifen kann. Auch nicht, um eine definitive Antwort zu geben, sondern
der Seitenblick, auch auf andere Bereiche. Sich in diesem Zusammenhang den
existenziellen Fragen zuwendet. Für mich persönlich ist das existenzielle auch immer
die Offenheit für spirituelle Fragen. Fragen, für die ich jetzt nicht wie im Beruf eine
gewisse Grundfertigkeit haben muss, sondern eher eine Grundausrichtung im Leben
darstellen. Das ist der eine Schwerpunkt. Der andere ist, dass ich finde, die
Philosophen müssen nicht nur in den Worten, oder in der diskursiven Kompetenz,
brillant sein, sondern auch im Leben. Sie müssen auch im Leben Dinge anstossen.
Man könnte fast sagen, Philosophen müssen auch ein wenig unternehmerisch
werden. Das ist ein anderer Punkt. Und aus dem ist das Philosophicum entstanden.
Also das Philosophicum ist nicht aus Aktien, die ich bekommen habe, sondern ist
eine Eigeninitiative. Und Philosophen sind ohne unternehmerische Kompetenzen aus
meiner Sicht nicht zukunftsfähig. Das ist der zweite Punkt. Da bin ich auch unterwegs
und immer interessiert, wo man wieder neue Sachen anstossen kann. Wo redet man
nicht darüber, sondern macht es auch. Daraus schöpfe ich je länger je mehr auch für
die philosophische Frage im engeren Sinne. Lebenspraxis und die Erkenntnisfrage
erfordern sich gegenseitig.
(I: Dann bieten Sie das auch als eine Art Dienstleistung für Unternehmen an, wenn
ich das richtig verstehe?) 6:20
391 / 549
Genau. Ich habe gerade im April, war ich die meiste Zeit nicht hier im Philosophicum,
sondern habe 5 bis 6 Unternehmensseminare im Ausland durchgeführt. Also, nicht
dass ich nur Unternehmen philosophisch berate, sondern das Selbstverständnis hat
etwas Unternehmerisches. Wie ein Arzt, der nie den Kontakt mit seinen Patienten
sucht oder wie ein Philosoph, der sich nie mit den existenziellen Fragen, nur über
das Wort, sondern auch über Taten definiert, ist nicht so eine glaubwürdige Figur.
(I: Mein philosophischer Background ist eher bescheiden. Am meisten habe ich mich
wohl mit wissenschafts-philosophischen Themen wie Konstruktivismus oder
Positivismus auseinander gesetzt.) 7:20
Ich finde auch, eine fachphilosophische Ausbildung ist sehr wertvoll, aber sie genügt
einfach nicht. Sie ist quasi wie der technische Aspekt der Philosophie. Ist nicht
genügend. Es ist ja auch, wenn Sie unternehmerisch unterwegs sind, ist der fach-
technische Anteil um ein Unternehmen zu führen nicht ausreichend. Es muss noch
etwas anderes dazukommen. Das kann man nicht so lernen, wie man eine gewisse
Terminologie lernen kann. Für mich ist es eine riesige Frage, wie die Philosophie, die
ja Vermenschlichung des Menschen anstrebt, wie eine solche Philosophie heute eine
ausser-universitäre Existenz noch hätte. Auf das kommt es an. Es geht ja nicht
darum, dass Philosophie an der Uni gelehrt wird, sondern dass die Philosophie als
Denkangebot an die Menschen gerichtet werden kann.
(I: Finde ich sehr interessant. Habe mir auch schon überlegt, mich nach dieser
Ausbildung evtl. dem Thema Philosophie noch etwas mehr anzunähern, weil es
bietet Stoff zum Nachdenken, wo man sonst nicht einfach zu dazukommt.) 8:40
So habe ich es auch mit dem Hochschulkurs in Luzern. Da habe ich auch versucht,
eine Perspektive einzubringen, die etwas über den Tellerrand hinausblickt. Die
Fähigkeit zu geben, den Horizont zu erweitern und nicht nur Anwendungswissen zu
392 / 549
geben, sondern situative Intelligenz zu entwickeln, also auch, und das ist jetzt wieder
etwas für Unternehmer, Fragen zu wittern, die im Raum sind. Also Fragen auf die
Spur zu kommen, die im Raum sind aber noch nicht eine feste Form bekommen
haben. Das ist der ganze Bereich der Kreativität.
(I: Ich glaube, die Innovations-Leute haben ja auch so ein Modell von gasförmig,
flüssig fest, …..) 9:35
…..ja, vielleicht kommen wir noch darauf zurück, zur Innovation.
(I: Auf jeden Fall Patrick war sehr begeistert von ihrer Vorlesung! Thema
Geschäftsmodell: ist Ihnen Geschäftsmodell ein Begriff, wissen Sie noch, wann und
in welchem Kontext sie diesen Begriff das erste Mal gehört haben?) 9:50
Diesen Ausdruck kenne ich so beiläufig. Habe mir gerade heute überlegt, was heisst
das eigentlich, Geschäftsmodell? Ich habe es immer so verstanden, das
Geschäftsmodell ist so eine Art visualisierbarer Strategieplan für die Wertschöpfung,
in einem konkreten Anwendungsgebiet. Aber ich brauche diesen Ausdruck nicht. Es
ist für mich kein Basisausdruck. Ich brauche ihn wie nicht. Rein aus den
Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Ich brauche ihn nicht im Alltag. Ich frage nicht nach dem
Geschäftsmodell. Was steckt dahinter und für wen. Ich brauche ihn nicht, habe
andere Ausdrücke.
(I: Aber das ist demnach auch Ihr Verständnis, wenn Sie das so hören, dass es ein
Strategieplan ist, den man versucht zu visualisieren.) 11:20
Ja. Und ein bestimmtes Modell, eine bestimmte Vorstellung, wie man ein
Unternehmen grundstrukturiert.
393 / 549
(I: Z.B. in Form von Archtetypen?) 11:50
Oder in Form von Abläufen, oder Besitz, von zentral aus oder der Peripherie. In
Deutschland ist ja immer die Frage, da gibt es grosse Unternehmen, die eher
denken, man müsse vom Zentrum aus gehen bis in die letzte Ader einer Filiale, oder
andere, die sagen, das sei die programmierte Stupidität, weil man müsse von den
Filialen aus die Impulse ins Unternehmen holen. Weil dort der Kundenkontakt ist. Ein
ganz wichtiger Punkt. Das verbinde ich im weitesten Sinne auch mit
unterschiedlichen Geschäftsmodellen.
(I: Sie sehen also nicht nur das Geschäft, sondern auch den Kontext rund herum?)
12:40
Ja, weil das ist jetzt eine philosophische Frage. Was ist überhaupt der Sinn vom
Wirtschaften? Was ist der Sinn von einem Unternehmen? Und ein Unternehmen ist
nicht Selbstzweck. Es ist nicht, dass man sich selber gut findet, es ist, jetzt ein wenig
hoch formuliert, eine Liebeserklärung an die Welt und an die Menschen. Und man
will das nicht nur als Behauptung in die Welt stellen, sondern man möchte auch
etwas machen. Wenn man das ein wenig so sieht, gegenüber dem verwahrlosten
Begriff vom Unternehmertum. Weil wir heute mit dem Unternehmerischen und dem
Wirtschaftlichen den Egoismus vollkommen verbinden. An und für sich finde ich das
auch nicht unternehmerisch gedacht, auch nicht wirtschaftlich, langfristig gesehen.
Dann ist es nicht einmal ökonomisch gedacht.
(I: Dass man also möglichst nur das Geld in den Vordergrund setzt?) 13:40
Ja, das finde ich völlig verkehrt. Weil das Geld ist ja nur deshalb so nötig, weil es
nicht das Wichtigste ist. Das Geld ist ja nie das Ziel des unternehmerischen
Handelns, sondern es braucht Geld, damit unternehmerisches Handeln möglich ist.
Es ist ja eine völlige Zielverfehlung, eine Mittel-Zweck-Perversion, was heute läuft.
394 / 549
Wenn man das sogar auf Hochschul-Ebene so lehrt. Das ist eine Begriffs-Verwirrung.
Es gibt noch viele solcher Mittel-Zweck-Verkehrungen. Wenn man beim
medizinischen Handeln, wenn man merkt, dass der Arzt etwas verschreibt, das nicht
im Sinne des Patienten ist, sondern ganz andere Bedürfnisse befriedigt, dann ist das
etwas hoch Problematisches. Wenn man es aber im Unternehmerischen so macht,
heisst es häufig, du bist erfolgreich. Eigentlich müsste man sagen, du hast ein
Problem. Nicht, dass du ein wirtschaftliches Problem hast, aber der Sinn, ein
philosophisches Problem, du hast nicht den Sinn erfasst, von dem, was er macht.
Um das noch zu sagen. Es gibt ja so eine hyperkritische Haltung, die sagt, ja die
Wirtschaft, die denkt ohnehin nur ans Geld. Machen wir doch lieber etwas anderes,
das nichts mit Wirtschaft zu tun hat. Aber das ist für mich eigentlich eine Kapitulation.
Da räumt man eigentlich das Feld. Das ist an und für sich wie der Missbrauch zur
Diskreditierung des Gebrauchs. Wenn ich sehe, dass jemand etwas falsch versteht,
muss ich nicht diesen Missbrauch dazu missbrauchen, das falsch Verstandene preis
zu geben. Damit lasse ich alles fahren. Deshalb ist es mir schon wichtig, dass man
aus einer philosophisch existenziellen Perspektive versucht, das Wirtschaften neu zu
denken und nicht einfach als den Hort der Egoisten abzuschreiben.
(I: Ich denke auch bei uns ist das Geld verdienen nicht im Vordergrund. Im Gegenteil.
Hätte ich meine vorherige Stelle behalten, so wäre ich finanziell besser gestellt. Geld
ist gleichwohl immer eine knappe Ressource und man muss überlegen, wie setzt
man sie ein.) 16:00
Ja, genau.
(I: Und wenn man die gesamte Bilanz auf 10 Jahre hinaus anschaut, wäre man in
einem Angestellten-Verhältnis finanziell wohl weiter.) 16:25
Und darum müsste man doch die jungen Menschen zum Unternehmerischen
ermutigen und nicht sagen, geht doch einfach immer auf die sichere Seite.
395 / 549
(I: Fängt ja auch schon dort an, dass schon 20-jährige über ihre Vorsorge
nachdenken. Ich meine, das zwingt einem ja dazu, den sicheren Weg zu wählen.)
16:50
Klammer auf. Was denken Sie zum bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen?
(I: Ich bin irgendwie gespalten zu diesem Thema…..) 16:55
…. okay, ich auch. Ich habe genau so gut Argumente dafür, wie auch sehr Gute
dagegen. Aber es ist mir jetzt gerade in den Sinn gekommen, weil Sie gesagt haben,
wegen der Altersvorsorge. Es wäre eine politische Idee, dass man den Menschen
sagen würde, vergesst die Altersvorsorge, ihr müsst nicht daran denken. Vergesst
das wirklich. Ihr könnt draussen übernachten, ist egal, macht einfach euer Ding. Wir
zahlen aber jährlich etwas für eure Altersvorsorge ein. Ich bin überzeugt, wenn die
Leute nicht diese Angst hätten, sie würden mit 65 an der Aare oder am Rhein zelteln
müssen, dann hätte dies unglaubliche Impulse für die Wirtschaft. Weil viele machen
etwas nicht, aus Angst, sie würden die Pensionskasse verlieren.
(I: Es ist ja verrückt, wie viele 20 bis 30-Jährige sich heute schon um die dritte Säule
usw. kümmern……) 18:20
Ja, genau.
(I: Sie haben gesagt, sie würden das Wort Geschäftsmodell in ihrem Alltag nicht
gebrauchen. Stört sie vielleicht etwas am Begriff selbst?) 18:05
Ich finde, es gäbe bessere Ausdrücke. Geht es nur um das Geschäft, das ist das
396 / 549
erste bei dem, was man mit dem Geschäftsmodell ansprechen müsste. Ist es nicht
schon eine gewisse Vereinseitigung? Und wenn, beim Modell hat für mich häufig den
Charakter, entweder vom Grossen im Klein-Massstab. Also wenn man es im kleinen
hat, muss man es nur noch grösser machen. Das ist im Technischen ja absolut
nachvollziehbar, aber im Geschäftsmodell geht es ja auch um interaktive und sozial
relevante Strukturierungen. Dann hat man das Feeling, jetzt hat man ja ein Modell,
jetzt muss man es ja nur noch machen und sehen nicht, die wesentlichen Sachen
wissen wir nicht, bevor wir sie nicht machen. Das heisst, dass wir gerade bei den
entscheidenden Sachen nicht die Sicherheit eines Modells haben können, um
produktiv unterwegs zu sein, also wenn das Modell ein kleines Vorbild wird von der
Realität, besteht die Gefahr, dass man die Realität verfehlt. Das ist wie die
Modellrechnung. Es gibt wahnsinnig viele Modelle. Aber die Welt hat die Eigenschaft,
dass sie sich relativ wenig darum kümmert. Das ist interessant. Auch Lebensmodelle,
Vorstellungen wie es sein sollte, das Leben funktioniert anders. Dass man den
Modellbegriff selbst kritisch angehen muss. Es ist ein guter Diener aber schlechter
Herr, sozusagen. Es ist ein gutes Hilfsmittel, aber kann nicht leitend sein.
(I: Dass man durch die Reduktion der Komplexität wesentliche Aspekte verliert?)
20:15
Ja, und die Fähigkeit, auf die Komplexität zu antworten. Dass man sich quasi wie an
etwas klammert. Und in der Alltagspraxis eher so eine Vorstellung hat, wie es sein
sollte, aber diese Vorstellung ist jetzt nicht unbedingt befruchtend für das, was man
macht, sondern lenkt davon ab zu sehen, was jetzt gerade passiert. Dann gibt es das
Titanic-Syndrom, völlig klar, er hat alles korrekt gemacht, korrekt, man kann nicht
sagen, er hätte sich nicht an das Modell gehalten, er hat sich vielleicht zu sehr an
das Modell gehalten. Auch bei politischen Systemen sieht man das häufig, dass man
das Modell lieber hat als die Realität. Das darf grundsätzlich nicht passieren. Das
unterscheidet einen Idealist von einem Fanatiker, oder von einem Modell-Fanatiker.
Ein echter Idealist entscheidet sich für etwas, weil er für das Leben etwas machen
möchte. Er hat immer nicht nur den Blick für das, woran er sich orientiert, sondern
auch den Blick, wofür er sich orientiert, und das ist das Leben. Und wenn das Leben
397 / 549
eine andere Aufgabenstellung hat, sagt er nicht, „das geht dich nichts an, Leben“ und
macht dem Leben einen Vorwurf und klammert sich an das, woran er sich orientiert,
sondern versucht entsprechend, auf das zu antworten. Das ist für mich, ich komme
dann noch darauf, der dialogische Charakter vom Unternehmer. Und Modelle haben
dort ein Problem, wo sie uns diese Fähigkeit wie paralysieren, weil wir die Modell-
Sicherheit haben, wir klammern uns an das Modell, und verlieren die Bereitschaft auf
das Nicht-Antizipierbare, auf das aktuell sich zeigende sich einzulassen.
(I: Das Ganze kommt halt auch aus einem naturwissenschaftlich-technischen

Kontext, wo man durch Reduzieren der Realität auf ein Modell gewisse Erfolge
hatte…..) 22:20
Deshalb habe ich das Interaktive betont. Ich kann mir gut vorstellen, dass bei der
Betonung nicht allzu menschlicher Faktoren das auch sinnvoll ist. Aber das
Geschäftsmodell ist ja eine durch Menschen hervorgebrachte Wertschöpfung. Das
sind Menschen, die ihre Aufgabe darin haben.
(I: Es ist durchaus so, dass ich für das Thema Geschäftsmodell, das Modellhafte
generell, durch meinen technisch geprägten Background eine besondere
Begeisterung hatte….) 22:55
Ich kann das schon nachvollziehen. Das wäre auch spannend für eine Diskussion
oder einen Beitrag, indem man sagt, welche Welterklärungs-Modelle haben wir.
Welche Lebens-Sinn-Modelle haben wir. Es gibt bspw. 7 Lebens-Sinn-Modelle. Die
einen sehen so und so aus, die andern so. Es kann etwas Attraktives haben, indem
man sagt, welches sind die Grundmodelle, oder die Grundformen, vom
Philosophieren. Es gibt 9 oder 12 oder 17, oder was sind die Grundformen der
Intelligenz, gibt es 9, oder 10 vielleicht? Gibt es 12? Es gibt ja ganz Unterschiedliche.
Auch die Fähigkeit, ein Bild für etwas zu finden, kann ich gut verstehen, und es ist ja
ein guter Diener, wenn ich mir jetzt überlege, was sind die Grundmodelle religiöser
398 / 549
Systeme? Welches sind die Grund-Vorstellungen? Dann ist es vielleicht sinnvoll,
auch heuristisch, dass man in kurzer Zeit gewisse Grundstrukturen erkennt, vielleicht
auch in kurzer Zeit gewisse wiederkehrende Problempunkte erkennt. Aber das
Problem taucht dann auf, wenn man meint, man habe damit die religiöse Praxis, oder
die existenzielle Praxis, oder die unternehmerische Praxis in irgendeiner Form schon
antizipiert. Weil die muss immer noch gemacht werden und sich am Leben
bewähren. Auch hier wieder der Ausdruck „Gute Diener aber schlechte Herren“. Das
ist doch so ein Volkssprichwort, ein guter Diener aber ein schlechter Herr. Es dient
uns, aber wenn es Herrschaft über uns bekommt, dann schadet es. Also es gibt viele
Sachen, die gute Diener sind, aber schlechte Herren. Das Geld zum Beispiel. Es ist
auch ein guter Diener, aber ein schlechter Herr.
(I: Verstehe ich, wenn man nur in der Gelddimension denkt, ist man vermutlich auch
nicht sehr glücklich. Es hat ja auch didaktische Zwecke, damit die Leute verstehen,
woraus besteht ein Unternehmen überhaupt.) 25:20
Ja, und es würde mich Wunder nehmen, einmal zu hören, von Ihnen zum Beispiel,
oder dass sie es kommentieren, was gibt es eigentlich für Grundmodelle, was sind so
die vasalen Geschäftsmodelle?
(I: Ihrer Frage vorerst etwas ausweichend, was sich in den letzten Jahren
durchgesetzt hat, ist der Canvas von Osterwalder. Ich kann das kurz aufskizzieren
(—> wird aufskizzieret und erläutert).) 25:25
Und gibt es Modelle, die man eindeutig als veraltet oder inadäquat bezeichnet?
(I: Es gibt alternative Frameworks, z.B. von St. Gallen gibt es eines, vom Prof.
Gassmann, ein Dreiecksmodell mit den 4 wesentlichen Fragen zum Geschäft (wird
erläutert). In der Literatur gibt es zahlreiche weitere Konzepte und Modelle, die
meisten beziehen sich über die Dreiecksbeziehung Value Proposition, Customers,
399 / 549
Value Architecture. Das ist im wesentlichen der Kern.) 27:45
Deshalb ist das mit der Orientierung, dass es eine Orientierung gibt, auch zur
Problembeschreibung, damit man besser sieht wo, vielleicht? Wenn ein Bedarf da ist,
den Blick darauf zu lenken, ist eben das Modell hilfreich, ist wie ein Kompass. Ein
Kompass kann helfen, aber man geht ja nicht wandern wegen dem Kompass. Dass
man es nicht überschätzt. Das, was ich im Kurs an der HSLU dargestellt habe, auch
ein Geschäftsmodell. Also, ich kann das ganz kurz zeigen. Und zwar auf sehr viele
Bereiche, ich muss eine Frage hören, ich muss überhaupt eine Frage haben. Es
muss ein Wesen sein, das Fragen hat, das Fragen hört, die in der Luft liegen. Das
sind so Fähigkeiten, wo man noch fast keine Worte dafür hat, aber das ist auch bei
jeder wissenschaftlichen Innovation, dass jemand eine Frage stellt, die andere noch
nicht haben. Dass jemand auch nachvollziehen kann, dass andere Fragen haben, wo
die anderen noch gar nicht gemerkt haben, dass die Frage bei ihnen besteht. Und
schon anfängt, eine Antwort zu bilden. Also, kann man sagen, Weltfrage (macht
Skizze). Und dann, suche ich, sagen wir eine Ich-Antwort. Dann mache ich aus
dieser Ich-Antwort, das ist eigentlich die Invention, dann kommt die Innovation, das
heisst, aus der Ich-Antwort bilde ich eine Ich-Frage, in der ich die Welt-Antwort
suche. Das heisst, auf eine real konkrete Frage versuche ich, eine Idee zu
entwickeln, aus der ich ein Produkt, oder was auch immer, weiterentwickle und,
indem ich es auf den Markt bringe, merke, wie die Welt darauf reagiert. Das ist quasi
ein grunddialogischer Bezug. Jetzt ist es auch noch dreigeteilt. Da unten ist der
Bereich, wofür man tätig ist, da der Bereich - es gibt doch das Bild mit Kopf, Herz,
Hand und Fuss - hier den Kopfbereich, Herzbereich, dann Hand und Fuss (zeichnet
es auf Skizze ein). In der Philosophie die Freiheit des Denkens, Freiheit des Willens,
und über diesen Bereich sage ich dann gleich etwas, und Freiheit des Handelns. Und
das heisst nicht zufällig Handeln. Handeln und Handel sind ganz eng zusammen.
(I: Also das wirtschaftliche Handeln und das Handeln als solches (Verb)?) 31:50
Ja. Das ist nicht zufällig. Wie auch beim Begriff der Ökonomie. Und der mittlere
400 / 549
Bereich ist wie ein Herzbereich, das heisst wie kann ich eine Weltfrage in eine Ich-
Antwort und eine Ich-Frage in eine Weltantwort verwandeln. Das ist dieser Bereich,
der häufig im Unternehmerischen nicht diskutiert wird, aber sehr relevant ist. Die
Leute haben nicht die Geduld, sich mit einer Weltfrage auseinander zu setzen, oder
haben keine Zeit, um eine Antwort zu finden. Oder umgekehrt, sie haben eine
Antwort in eine Ich-Frage, also in eine eigene Frage an die Welt entwickelt, aber
resignieren hier, oder hier, oder hier (zeigt auf Skizze). Das ist wie das dialogische
Bild der drei Bereiche Handlungsfreiheit, Handelsexzellenz, Willensexzellenz,
Herzbereich und Erkenntnis. Exzellenz Kopfbereich, in einer Inventionsbewegung, in
eine Innovation (Verlauf auf Skizze). Innovation als Verwirklichung.
(I: Also auch zwischen Invention und Innovation. Nach meinem bisherigen
Verständnis ist die Invention die Erfindung, während die Innovation die erfolgreiche
Vermarktung beinhaltet?) 33:20
Ja, und genau das ist der Punkt, wenn man als Unternehmer eine Frage hat, oder
merkt, dass andere eine Frage haben, ein Bedürfnis haben nach etwas, dann sagt,
hmm, interessant. Macht dann gedanklich, merkt, die brauchen vielleicht
Mineralwasser, oder Flaschen, dann bilde ich eben eine Antwort, will aber nicht mich
geniessen und sagen, ich bin ein Supergenie, weil auf alle die Fragen habe ich
schon die Antwort, ist doch gut. Ich bin der Beste…… Nein! Er macht den Sprung
und will aus dieser Antwort wiederum eine Frage machen, an die Welt, so dass die
Welt darauf antworten kann, ja oder nein sagen kann. Oder was soll das!
(I: Die Frage an die Welt ist also zum Schauen, kommt das, was man anbietet an. Es
kommt ein Feedback zurück und man macht entsprechend eine Anpassung.) 34:25
Ja, und häufig ist es so, und das würde ich als eine unternehmerische Grundfähigkeit
bezeichnen, dass man ein unendliches Menschen-Interesse hat, dass man gut
Menschen beobachten kann, was sie eigentlich….., das ist dieser Bereich da
401 / 549
(Skizze). Also, eine Sensibilität haben, was in der Luft liegt. Was könnte jetzt……. Ich
sage den Studenten auch immer, sie sollen Ideen-Bücher…., sollen Fragen
aufschreiben. Was ist jetzt in der Luft? Was müsste man jetzt? Das trifft für
unternehmerische, geistige, politische Prozesse zu. Dass man ein Interesse hat,
Bedürfnisse von Menschen, Nöte, zu erfassen. Dann kann man vielleicht auf das
etwas entwickeln. Aber das ist noch immer die stille Seite, die finanziell auch nicht so
riskante. In dem Moment, wo ich aber aus meiner Ich-Antwort eine Ich-Frage….,
wenn ich z.B. in der Bildungs-Landschaft gewisse Fragen sehe, wo das
Philosophicum eine mögliche Antwort wäre, das habe ich vor 30 Jahren schon
gewusst. Der Schritt da hinunter (Skizze) ist aber sofort ein Schritt Richtung Realität,
das heisst mit ganz neuen Risiken verbunden, das ist nicht einfach die Verlängerung
von dem (Skizze). Wie ein Wechsel, es kostet plötzlich etwas. Also der Weg von der
Welt-Frage in meine Denk-Stube ist nicht so riskant wie umgekehrt, also von meiner
Denk-Stube, oder von der Forschungsabteilung, in die Realisierung.
(I: Es sind ja vielleicht auch nicht immer die gleichen Leute, die auf dieser oder jenen
Seite stärker sind (Skizze), wenn ich es einmal ‚stärker‘ nennen darf?) 36:45
Ja, also was eindeutig der Fall ist, ist, dass diese Seite wird unter sogenannten Phil.
1-er etwas belächelt. Wir sind ja zuständig, für die Fragen die richtige Antwort zu
finden. Das ist ja unser Job. Wir haben ja die Antwort für fast alles, wenn die Deppen
nicht da wären, die……(lächelt). Gut. Es ist ein grosser Fehler, eine grosse
Überheblichkeit. Weil, aus meiner Sicht, glaube ich, dass für Welt-Fragen die
Antworten schon längstens da sind. Nur, wir den haben nicht den Mut, aus den
Antworten eine persönliche Frage an die Welt zu machen, und zu sagen, ich setze
mich ein. Ich sollte die Antwort haben, aber es ist keine Frage mehr an die Welt.
Wäre es eine Frage an die Welt, käme ich sofort auf diese Seite. Dann würde es
mich nämlich überhaupt nicht interessieren, dass ich jetzt eine Antwort habe auf eine
Weltfrage, sondern es würde mich interessieren, ob diese Antwort zu einer
persönlichen Ich-Frage, oder zu einem persönlichen Anliegen zu machen, damit ich
der Welt etwas geben kann. Der Schritt von der linken zur rechten Seite, das ist ein
Grundintervall, ein existenzieller Sprung quasi, in eine manifestierte Welt, da muss
402 / 549
ich Welt-Interesse haben. Ich bilde aus Welt-Interesse meine Antworten. Ich muss
Weltinteresse haben. Der Kopf muss das Herz erreichen. Ich muss mich erwärmen
können, für das, was mir einleuchtet. Erst dann komme ich in die Handlungs…..
(I: Wenn ich es nicht umsetze sondern nur weiss, komme ich plötzlich in die Situation
zu sagen oder festzustellen, das ist ja ein gutes Geschäft, diese Idee hatte ich auch
schon mal gehabt…..und vielleicht hatte ich sie wirklich schon einmal, aber keine
Frage daraus gestellt!) 38:50
Genau. Das ist noch lustig. Der Kopf ist vielleicht befriedigt. Für alle Fragen habe ich
gute Antworten. Das ist ein Selbst-Genuss, den ich durchaus nachvollziehen kann
und allen gönnen kann. Aber als ganze Person, als ganze Existenz, auf die Dauer ist
man dann einfach auf gut Deutsch ein Klugscheisser, wo eigentlich eine Antwort hat,
aber ein Weichei und ein Feigling, weil er die Antworten nicht zu einer persönlichen
Verbindlichkeit erklärt, die ihn befähigt, für die Welt etwas zu tun. Weil da macht er
nur für sich etwas, indem er sagt, ich bin super, ich habe die Antwort. Die Welt hat
noch nichts davon, überhaupt nichts. Das ist wie ein Kreuz, man kann von der Linken
zur Rechten, aber man kann auch von oben nach unten (Skizze). Also wie der Weg
vom Kopf in die Welt, oder von der Welt in den Kopf, oder da kann man auch sagen,
das ist quasi wie eine Konzentration, man kann es auch als Pyramide darstellen
(skizziert), da ist das Weltinteresse, ich mache es zu einer Antwort, und da muss ich
wieder die Bereitschaft haben, quasi aus alle dem, was mich interessiert, eine
konkrete Handlung machen. Mir gefällt das Bild nicht so…., das gefällt mir
besser….., es geht eigentlich darum, wie etwas zu verdichten, und da geht es darum,
wie etwas zu schenken.
(I: Wie in der Kreativität die Öffnungs- und Schliessungsprozesse?) 40:35
Ja, genau.
403 / 549
(I: Interessant. Irgendwie passt es ja auch hier hinein…..) 40:50
….ja, es ist….., es muss auch. Die unterschiedlichen Modelle, das wäre vielleicht
noch interessant, was diese gemeinsam haben. Das sind wie Grund…., wie Grund-
…., da kann ich ihnen gelegentlich auch etwas schicken darüber. Es ist eben wie
eine existenzielle Urszene, ein menschliches Ur-Phänomen, dem habe ich einfach
nicht Geschäftsmodell gesagt.
(I: Und die Leute, die das Canvas entwickelt haben, haben ja auch ein Plugin gebaut.
Dieses befasst sich mit der Value Proposition und den Customer Segments (als zwei
Kern-Bereiche im Canvas). Dabei wird auf die drei Aspekte Pains, Gains und Jobs to
be done eingegangen (Idee am Canvas erläutert). Also könnte das Ganze auch in
dieses Konzept hinein interpretiert werden?) 41:25
Ja.
(I: Auch, wie nimmt man überhaupt etwas wahr, wozu man eine Frage stellen
könnte?) 42:10
Es gibt zwei Vereinseitigungen……Jetzt gibt es die, die sagen, jetzt will ich etwas
unternehmen, ganz schnell, ich will Geschäft machen. Die gehen direkt in die rechte
Seite hinein, ohne die Linke. Das ist genauso verkehrt, wie das, was ich vorhin
geschildert habe, dass es Leute gibt, die nur auf der Linken sein wollen aber nicht
auf der Rechten, wie ich vorhin geschildert habe. Es gibt auch den falschen
Aktivismus. Es geht ja nicht darum, dass du um jeden Preis ein Geschäft machst,
sondern ob das eine sinnvolle Perspektive ist, „hast du eine Frage?“. Du musst
zuerst auch eine Frage hören, bevor du die Antwort geben kannst. Das gibt es
natürlich auch, dass sie bereits eine Antwort haben, aber sie haben sie noch nicht als
eine Antwort auf eine Frage identifiziert, die ich kenne. Das gibt es ja auch. Es gibt ja
Ideen, die jemand hat, man aber noch gar nicht weiss, dass diese schon die Lösung
404 / 549
auf ein Problem ist. Die Idee ist da, aber man hat das Problem noch nicht. Das ist der
Sinn von Ideen-Büchern, dass man Dinge aufschreibt, und plötzlich ist man im Leben
mit etwas konfrontiert und merkt, das ist ja genau die Frage, auf die ich die Antwort
habe.
(I: Das stimmt, das sieht man immer etwa wieder. Das sind so eine Art vier
Quadranten und in jedem kann der Starpunkt sein.) 43:30
Ja. Es kann auch sein, dass man durch den Erfolg, den etwas hat, unerwartet, dass
man etwas anbietet und die Leute beginnen zu strahlen, dass man auch von da aus
zu neuen Ideen kommen kann. Das ist mir ja vielleicht gar nicht aufgefallen, aber die
fahren ja völlig auf das ab…..
(I: Das ist dann oftmals auch, wennj es einen Hype ist um etwas…..) 44:00
…..ja, und wenn man in einem Kundengespräch plötzlich merkt, hmm, die haben ja
völlig Freude an dem…..und man plötzlich merkt, dass das Kerngeschäft, das wir
anbieten, die gar nicht so interessant finden, sondern etwas anderes. Also es könnte
auch sein, dass der Zuspruch durch die Welt, also durch die positive Welt-Antwort
wieder neues Innovations-Potential entstehen kann.
(I: Dass man da zurück und da zurück geht, aber dass man von da nach da geht, das
passiert wahrscheinlich weniger (auf Skizze)?) 44:35
Ja, wobei, es kann sein, dass durch Negativ-Erlebnisse viele aufhören, Interesse an
der Welt zu entwickeln. Da müsste man bei einem Gespräch mit einer solchen
Person fragen, ob sie schon einmal gescheitert sei. Wenn sie es sind und immer
noch mögen, haben sie wahnsinnige Qualifikationen. Scheitern und neu anfangen
beweist höchste Exzellenz. In der Regel bekommt man nicht die Antwort, mit der
405 / 549
man gerechnet hat. Man versucht ein Konzert zu machen und kein Schwein
interessiert sich dafür und geht dann nach Hause, um die Gitarre zu versagen. Oder
sagt, nein, die Musik interessiert mich nicht mehr. Im Negativen gibt es den Wechsel,
dass die Bereitschaft, Weltfragen zu hören, unterbrochen wird. Dass man sich gar
nicht mehr mit etwas befassen will, weil man Misserfolge erlebt hat. Oder eben
immer wieder neu versucht, weil die Liebe zur Welt grösser ist, als die eigene
Enttäuschung, das ist ein grundunternehmerisches Plädoyer.
(I: Es ist ja in der Schweiz auch so, dass Startup-Gründer, die gescheitert sind, kaum
noch eine zweite Chance erhalten. In den USA nimmt man dagegen lieber
jemanden, der schon einmal gescheitert ist, weil der hat genau diese Qualitäten und
man weiss, er will.) 46:10
Ja genau.
(I: Nebst den Erfahrungen, die er beim Scheitern gesammelt hat.) 46:30
Also damit kann man noch viel verbinden. Aber auch, die Verbindung von Kopf, Herz,
Hand und Fuss. Wie komme ich von da wo ich stehe, in der Wahrnehmung von dem
was passiert, zu Ideen. Und wie komme ich von neuen Ideen zu dem, was in die
Handlung fliesst. Das ist die mittlere Region, die häufig übersehen wird. Darum, es
wirkt wie ein Vier-Modell, aber es ist weitaus mehr als ein Vier-Modell, weil die Mitte
ist weitaus wichtiger. Von da nach oben. Ich muss auch gewisse Fähigkeiten
entwickeln, die nicht nur technisch sind, sondern auch seelische Fähigkeiten. Also
ich muss Geduld haben……, es ist eine riesige Palette, von menschlichen, von allzu
menschlichen Faktoren, die ich berücksichtigen muss.
(I: Ist dann das Herz eine Art wie eine Barriere?) 47:25
406 / 549
Das Herz ist für viele die grösste Prüfung, weil es vermittelt, aber wenn es nicht
vermittelt, wirkt es immer negativ. Also es kann eine Weltfrage mit der Suche zu
einer Ich-Antwort vermitteln. Aber ja, genau, wenn da etwas nicht stimmt, ist der
Kreislauf unterbrochen. Dann bin ich nur noch ein „Kopf-Füssler“. Dann, ah Strategie,
ist gut, liebe deinen nächsten wie dich selbst, gut, dann noch so ein schöner Satz,
Leitbild, hingehängt, ganz hoch, und unten nur noch operativ tätig. Aber wenn man
mich fragt, hör mal, bist du eigentlich dabei, schlägt dein Herz noch dafür, was du da
machst, muss ich sagen nein, das brauche ich doch gar nicht. Es kommt doch nicht
mehr darauf an, was ich mache, und ich habe es ja bereits unterschrieben, dass das
Leitbild gut ist.
(I: Da kommt ja auch voll der Begriff ‚Herzblut‘ ins Spiel, dass man für etwas
Herzblut hat?) 48:35
Es tönt zwar manchmal etwas sentimental, wenn man mit Unternehmern über ihr
Herzblut spricht, aber ich meine es wirklich nicht sentimental, ich meine es ganz
konkret. Wenn ich das Herz nicht bei der Sache habe, wenn ich es nicht mit dem
Herzen verbinden kann, bin ich auch nicht mehr ein verantwortungsvolles Wesen. Ich
kann mich gerade so gut aus dem Unternehmen wegstehlen. Ich bin dann gar nicht
mehr präsent. Ich bin dann wirklich nur noch ein Kopf-Füssler, wo sich als Person
verabschiedet hat, sich selber akzeptiert hat, aus dem Staub gemacht hat, als reale
Person.
(I: Da ist auch die Passion drin, die man für etwas hat.) 49:30
Ja, genau. Darum, für die Fähigkeit, Weltfragen zu hören, muss ich auch die
Fähigkeit haben, das zu nähren und Geduld haben, bis ich eine Antwort auffinde.
Darum kann ich wie von innen diese Prozesse torpedieren oder sabotieren. Ich kann
mich quasi intern wie extern demotivieren. „Vergällen“. Man kann sich selber madig
machen. Ich weiss nicht, wie man das auf Englisch sagt. Man kann wie die Freude
407 / 549
an etwas sich selber verderben. Es kann also sein, dass es von aussen verdorben
wird. Man hätte also hier die Möglichkeit, sichtbar zu machen, wenn das jetzt der
innere Kreis ist, und das von aussen, gibt von aussen Demotivatoren, aber auch von
innen (skizziert auf). Es gibt nicht nur den Aussendruck, es gibt auch den
Selbstdruck. Oder es gibt nicht nur den äusseren…., den Faktor von aussen,
Paralysatoren von meinem unternehmerischen Handeln, sondern ich kann das selber
sabotieren, oder paralysieren, oder lähmen. Also da ist auch das drin, Verstand.
(I: Also wenn man jetzt im Canvas die Beziehung Value Proposition und Customer
Segments, z.B. als Plugin, nimmt, so muss man sagen, es ist eine Art technische
Abstraktion, weil das Zwischending hier (Skizze, das Herz) vollkommen fehlt?) 50:55
Ja.
(I: Es ist nur technisch gesehen, und das andere ist wie nicht vorhanden?) 51:05
Das ist das Interessante, dass man im Grunde genommen wie einen grossen Bogen
um diese Frage macht, förmlich einen grossen Bogen, und nicht sieht dass diese
Frage……, es ist wie bei der Analyse vom menschlichen Organismus einen Bogen
um das Herz macht und nicht sieht, das Herz ist quasi der Nährboden von dieser
Verbindung. Kurzfristig kann ich, dass muss man auch sagen, kurzfristig kann man
durch einen massiven Aussendruck, kann ich das und das wie not-verbinden. Ohne,
dass es das Herz braucht, wie einen Kurzschluss. Ich weiss nicht, wie das technisch
gesehen….. ohne Herz, peng. Menschen kann man in einem gewissen Handeln, in
einem gewissen Energie-Level, auch veranlassen, wenn man Druck macht.
Lebensbedrohlich. Stelle verlieren. Zack. Plötzlich ist die Angst der Motivator. Die
man als letzte Ressource noch anzapft, um die Leute zum Laufen zu bringen. Aber
das ist pervers, wenn man sie nur noch so energetisieren kann. Man rechnet gar
nicht mehr mit dieser inneren Wärme, etwas zu machen. Oder mit dieser
Begeisterung. Das ist ja die Quelle der Freude. Und Freude ist ja auch nicht
408 / 549
Spasskultur. Muss ich auch sagen. Freude heisst auch Leidensfähigkeit. Jemand,
der etwas mit Freude macht, ist auch in der Lage, etwas in Kauf zu nehmen, was ein
anderer schon lange aufgegeben hätte. Jemand, der Freude am Wandern hat,
schreit nicht nach jedem Stein im Fuss und sagt, ich breche das jetzt ab. Der sagt,
komm, ich habe mehr Freude jetzt hier weiterzugehen, als an diesem Schmerz, der
kann mich jetzt hier nicht irritieren. Es ist eben auch keine Spasskultur.
(I: Mir kommt jetzt gerade etwas in den Sinn. Es könnte auch eine mögliche
Erklärung sein, okay, ist jetzt vielleicht etwas weit hergeholt, aber es könnte eine
Erklärung sein, weshalb viele, die ein Unternehmen starten, aus dem Druck, aus
dem, was sie können, etwas machen müssen. Sich aber später in etwas hinein
entwickeln, das ihnen Spass macht, also genau das zu Vorschein kommt…..dass
dies also eine Art Treiber ist, dass das Unternehmen plötzlich etwas ganz anderes
macht, als das, womit es gestartet hat.) 53:05
Ja, sehr spannend.
(I: Könnte eine mögliche Erklärung sein…..könnte auch zu weit hergeholt sein…..)
53:35
…. nein, man kennt sich ja selber. Man muss sich selber ja auch kennen lernen.
Nicht nur andere kennen lernen, sondern sich selber auch. Aber man kennt sich
selber auch noch nicht, man kennt sich nie ganz. Man wird auch immer wieder von
sich selber überrascht. So kann es sein, das sagt, ich will das, dann aber merkt, die
Durststrecke, das dann wie aufgibt, aber wo anders dran bleibt.
(I: Also eine Art Passion entwickelt? Sobald das Unternehmen sich finanziell gesetzt
hat, man wieder in die Richtung der Passion geht, was anders sein kann, also wo
man startete, da man halt aus finanziellen Gründen dort starten musste und nicht
unbedingt wollte……) 54:05
409 / 549
Genau. Ja, genau.
(I: Könnte auch noch ein Erklärungsmodell sein für so etwas.) 54:20
Und vor allem eine berechtigte Perspektive, die man ins Spiel bringen kann, auch
von einer ethischen Perspektive, indem man sagt, Menschen haben ein Recht, oder
den Menschen nicht verunmöglichen, Herzblut vergiessen zu dürfen. Also quasi, jetzt
sehr vorsichtig formuliert, ich kann nicht, dass es keine Missverständnisse gibt, ich
kann nicht Menschen motivieren, nur sie können sich motivieren. Ich kann aber sehr
wohl etwas dazu tun, dass ich sie nicht demotiviere. Ich glaube, ich muss mich gar
nicht motivieren, ich muss einfach meine Demotivatoren durchschauen. Ich muss das
Herz nicht motivieren, das schlägt genug. Ich muss schauen, es nicht zu
klerotisieren. Ich muss nicht mit Stromstössen, das ist dann schon eine Notfall-
Intervention.
(I: Und häufig reicht schon sehr wenig von dem, damit man zufrieden ist. Wenn man
sich bspw. ein Tag pro Woche an etwas widmen kann, in dem Herzblut steckt, ist
man häufig schon glücklich.) 55:40
Ja, genau.
(I: Es müssen nicht einmal 5 Tage sein.) 55:50
Ja, genau. Aber es ist ein Nahrungsmittel, auch von der Zufriedenheit. Nicht im Sinne
einer Zufriedenheit einer Selbst-Zufriedenheit im Sinne einer Saturiertheit, einer
Spiesser-Zufriedenheit, sondern von einem wertschöpferischen Zufriedensein.
410 / 549
(I: Und vielleicht muss es ja sogar knapp sein, damit es überhaupt noch interessant
bleibt. Andernfalls kommt es, wie Sie gesagt haben, in die Sättigung.) 56:15
Nicht dass man plötzlich etwas macht, und das ist auch eine Gefahr, dass man etwas
macht, weil man Freude haben will. Das geht auch nicht. Ich habe Freude, wenn ich
etwas mache, das sinnvoll ist. Aber wenn ich etwas mache, nur um Freude zu haben,
das langt auch nicht. Ich muss eine Aufgabe haben. Wenn jemand sagt, mache zu
Deiner Freude jetzt etwas, das ist eigentlich schon ein Ablöscher. Mach etwas, das
dir wichtig ist, und dann entsteht Freude. Mache etwas Sinnvolles, dann entsteht
Freude. Aber ich kann nicht sagen, jetzt muss ich etwas machen, damit ich Freude
habe. Ein Herz, das nur für sich selber schlägt, ist kein Herz mehr. Im Bild
gesprochen. Es schlägt für etwas, es braucht eine Aufgabe. Darum ist es schon
wichtig, diese beiden Elemente. Deshalb ist es auch falsch die Utopien der
Glückseligkeit, alle nur noch in Herzlichkeit, glücklich sein, funktioniert nicht. Ist eine
Behauptung, die nicht funktioniert. Man darf das auch nicht zum Selbstzweck haben.
Man muss vielleicht auch in einem gewissen Anspruchsdruck stehen.
(I: Sehr interessant, wir haben jetzt gerade ein Element in diesem Modell identifiziert,
das sozusagen nicht existent ist.) 57:55
Ja.
(I: Aber es ist auch erklärbar warum. Nämlich weil es eine technische Reduktion auf
das Quantifizierbare ist, und das dann halt dazwischen hinausfällt…..) 58:05
Es ist interessant. Wenn man es jetzt volkswirtschaftlich anschaut, ich meine, die
Gesundheitskosten von Leuten, das ganze Burnout-Thema, von Depressionen bis
hin zu Suizid, bei Bildungsvorgängen, wo nur noch Input und Output, Prüfungs-
Syndrom, hinein bekommen, da hinaus. Im Schulalltag, ohne ein Herz, das macht die
Menschen kaputt. Das ist eine Entmenschlichung des Menschen. Eine Ökonomie,
411 / 549
die den Menschen entmenschlicht, ist auch für die Ökonomie langfristig nicht sehr
sinnvoll. Auch wenn man jetzt rein von den Zahlen her kommt. Können sie sich das
leisten, das nicht zu berücksichtigen, nur weil es nicht ökonomisch ist? Paradox
formuliert, kann eine Ökonomie sich leisten, diese Frage zu ignorieren, mit der
Begründung, es ist ja keine ökonomische Frage. Ohne, dass sie die Wirtschaftlichkeit
vom eigenen Unternehmen bedroht? Es ist zwar nicht unmittelbar ökonomisch
relevant, aber auf den zweiten Blick gesehen, auch ein wirtschaftlich relevanter
Faktor.
(I: Das Problem ist einfach, man kann es nicht messen, man kann es nicht
quantifizieren. In unserer Welt har halt alles, das nicht mess- und quantifizierbar ist,
einen schweren Stand.) 59:45
Das ist natürlich ein völliger Trugschluss. Quantifizierbarkeit ist ein Diener zum
falschen Herr. Aus einer genialen Erfindung der menschlichen Intelligenz, indem ich
gewisse Dinge beherrschen kann, indem ich genau quantifiziere, spielt sich zu einem
Halbgott auf, der uns völlig mit Blindheit führt.
(I: Und dann auch blinde Flecken entstehen daraus. Finde ich sehr spannend.
Häufig, um es dann damit abzustimmen, geht man dann über die Iterationsstufen.
Man schaut was funktioniert, was nicht. Das ist aber nicht unbedingt eine
Iterationsstufe. Das Gegenteil eigentlich…..) 1:00:20
Genau. Wie würden Sie das, wie könnte man dem sagen?
(I: Iteration ist ja möglichst hoch getaktet, möglichst schnell, möglichst viel zu lernen.
Und das hier ist ja eher das Gegenteil, nämlich dass man sich die Zeit nimmt, für
etwas eine Leidenschaft zu entwickeln.) 1:00:45
412 / 549
Genau. Also es ist an und für sich Wachstumsermöglichung. Oder,
Entwicklungsermöglichung, oder Wurzelbildungsermöglichung, so etwas, Wurzel-
oder Verankerungsermöglichung. Es tönt vielleicht kitschig, aber wie man sich
verankert. Begeisterung ist es auch. Das finde ich so etwas von schön. Es ist die
Verbindung vom Kopf durchs Herz.
(I: Stimmt. Ich denke auch, wenn man iteriert, was macht man? Man wechselt oft
sehr schnell, ohne etwas überhaupt eine Chance zu geben. Weil die Komplexität von
jedem einzelnen ist derart gross, dass man gar nicht weiss, woran es jetzt
gescheitert ist. Man sieht einfach, dass es nicht geht und geht zum nächsten. Ohne
sich zu überlegen, warum ist es jetzt nicht gegangen. Damit kann einem eine Chance
nach der anderen entgehen, indem man einfach diese Iterations-Zyklen fährt. Anstatt
dass man mal länger bei etwas bleiben würde, weil manchmal ist es nur ein
Minidetail, dass es nicht geht.) 1:01:35
Darum müsste man auch lernen, in verschiedenen Geschwindigkeiten unterwegs zu

sein. Dass man also sagen würde, man schickt jetzt das Baby auf einen
Entwicklungsweg und verlangt nicht stündlich einen Rechenschaftsbericht. Ist er ein
Langstreckenläufer und sagt, wir sehen uns dann wieder in einem Jahr. Dass man
auch lernt, dass es gewisse Dinge gibt, die ihre Zeit brauchen. Einen
Reifungsprozess, auch. Da sind wir auch wieder beim Innovations- oder beim
Kreativität-Zyklus. Dort unterscheidet man Inkubation, die Zeit also, auf die man
keinen Zugriff haben kann um zu wissen, wie sich etwas entwickelt. Das ist so, als
wenn man die Wurzeln ausreisst und sagt, hmm, heute etwas wenig gewachsen.
Damit hat man es zerstört, indem man es bilanziert. Das hat ja den schöpferischen
Zyklus. Von der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Problem, man muss die Frage haben.
Das Problem definieren, was ist es eigentlich? Dann von der Inkubation. Das so
aneignen, dass ich es nicht vergessen kann. Aus dem gibt es dann eine Inspiration,
eine Antwort, die man dann in der kritischen Würdigung schaut, ob es eine Ich-Frage
an die Welt sein kann, oder eine Schnapsidee ist. Das ist dann die Verifikation, um
sie dann in die Realisation zu bringen. Das ist auch da drin. Es ist auch in diesem
Sinne, was im Modell drin ist. Das wäre vielleicht ein Begriff des Modells, mit dem ich
413 / 549
mich anfreunden könnte. Eine Verdichtung, eine Verwesentlichung, reduce to the
max, doch, eine Verdichtung, Komprimierung, von der Komplexität, die nicht eine
Banalisierung ist.
(I: Mir hat kürzlich auch ein Innovationsberater gesagt, der ein wenig unkonventionell
unterwegs ist, er sage seinen Kunden immer, man müsse auch mal etwas liegen
lassen können. Dass man mal etwas 3-4 Wochen beiseite legen muss, gar nichts
daran machen, und dass dann plötzlich von selbst Dinge entstehen. Die Leute
verstehen das dann nicht. Aber gewisse Dinge brauchen einfach einen unbewussten
Reifeprozess.) 1:04:35
Das ist einer der grössten Demotivatoren oder Vergäller zu Weltfragen, zu Ich-
Antworten zu wandeln, dass man unterschätzt, wie subtil so ein Wandlungsvorgang
ist. Aber gerade der Blick in die Wissenschaftsgeschichte zeigt es ja. Es zeigt
mehreres. Es zeigt, dass jemand sich lange beschäftigt. Es geht nicht, funktioniert
nicht, es gibt keine Lösung. Er resigniert fast innerlich, aber resigniert eben nicht. Er
schickt sich ins Unbewusste, in den Ruhezustand des Liegen lassen, an und für sich
wie eine Zwangs-Anästhesie, liegen lassen, man stört es nicht immer, nicht immer
aus dem Schlafzustand heraus wecken. Aus dem heraus kann plötzlich etwas
entstehen.
(I: Das ist dann plötzlich der Kuss der Muse, der Eureka-Moment.) 1:06:00
Ja, genau. Eureka ist genau das. Aber Kuss der Muse kann einem nur erreichen,
wenn man innerlich nicht schon etwas abgeschrieben hat, im Sinne von: ich habe
heute keine Lösung erhalten, es interessiert mich nicht. Dass man quasi wie diese
Fragen in den Schlaf schicken kann, man schickt die Fragen, die man hat, in den
Schlaf, und wacht dann vielleicht mit einer Antwort auf.
(I: Die Frage ist nur, ob man das kann, denn der Arbeitgeber will es ja nicht morgen,
414 / 549
sondern heute.) 1:06:35
Genau. Deshalb müsste man bei gewissen Prozessen weniger schauen, ob jemand
schon heute eine Antwort hat, sondern ob er in der Lage ist, die Anstrengung
aufzubringen, die Frage innerlich weiter zu verfolgen, obwohl er innerlich keine
Antwort hat. Ah ja, das ist ja, habe ich die Frage auch morgen noch, obwohl ich jetzt
gerne eine Antwort hätte. Weiss nicht, wie man die Fähigkeit gerade nennt, vielleicht
Treue zu einer Frage, zu haben, die man hat. Darauf eine Antwort zu bilden.
(I: So eine Art Motivation dran zu bleiben, nicht aufzugeben.) 1:07:35
Aber das fände ich auch spannend beim Geschäftsmodell, zu schauen, welches sind
die inneren und äusseren Zermürbungskräfte. Die auch ganz stark mit diesem
mittleren Faktor zu tun haben (Herz). Wird es von inneren oder äusseren
Demotivatoren bedroht? Das ist eine riesige Frage. Man könnte hier überall
ansetzen. Haben sie Unterlagen zu diesem Geschäftsmodell? Können sie mir diese
schicken?
(I: Ja, mache ich sehr gerne.) 1:08:25
Auch im Hinblick auf die Verbindung. Wenn Sie da etwas machen, wäre ich auch
sehr interessiert. Es ist lustig, ich mache ja die Sache, ich komme ja nicht von der
Wirtschaft her und das finde ich das Faszinierende. Bei den Unternehmenseminaren,
bei denen ich bin, sage ich immer, nicht ein überreicher Unternehmensberater zu
sein. Ich bin ein philosophischer Impulsator, und ich merke, dass ich gerade dann,
wenn ich nicht will in der Wirtschaftssprache zu reden, für die Leute interessanter bin,
als wenn ich versuchen würde, ihre Sprache zu sprechen.
(I: Richtig. Ich finde, so könnten wir stundenlang sprechen. Es geht auch darum,
415 / 549
weiter zu kommen und mehr zu sehen. Ich denke, das ist auch das Spannende bei
meiner Arbeit. Ich habe ja keine statistische Umfrage, sondern spreche eher mit
Wenigen, dafür bringe ich unterschiedliche Meinungen und Perspektiven in
Erfahrung. Das finde ich für mich sehr spannend.) 1:09:10
Wann haben Sie die Dissertation fertig?
(I: Ich hoffe, bis in einem Jahr, aber mal schauen, wenn man dann 30 Interviews hat
und die alle auswerten muss, das braucht dann schon Zeit…..wenn man es dann
berufsbegleitend noch macht.) 1:09:45
Ja, das ist sportlich.
(I: Auch hier wieder, es braucht seine Zeit, es ist nichts, das man in ein paar Wochen
machen kann. Man muss es setzen lassen.) 1:10:30
Genau. Ja. Erwarten Sie von Ihrer Dissertation auch neue Impulse für Ihre Zukunft?
Ihr weiteres Wirken?
(I: Ich denke schon. Ich möchte das Thema Geschäftsmodell auch besser verstehen
und darauf weitere Kompetenzen aufbauen. Auch für unsere Branche möchte ich ein
adaptiertes Modell entwickeln, also schauen, wie kann man das Konzept für unsere
Branche besser nutzbar machen, als das generische Modell. Mit den Spezifitäten der
Branche.) 1:10:50
Dort könnten Sie aber auch, ich weiss nicht, ist da auch Bedarf in Ihrer Branche,
Unternehmens-Beratungs-Tätigkeit aufzubauen? Sie könnten dann quasi
Unternehmens-Berater werden.
416 / 549
(I: Das könnte auch eine Richtung sein, in die es sich entwickelt. Mein Bruder und ich
haben zusammen die Firma und sind auch an ähnlichen Themen interessiert, und
man kann nie wissen, wohin es uns noch verschlägt. Wir sind auch schon zu
befreundeten Firmen gegangen und haben geholfen über ihr Geschäftsmodell
nachzudenken. Aber wir sind immer zu einem Punkt gekommen, wo wir merkten,
irgend etwas genügt nicht, wir kommen nicht weiter. Es sind zwar immer lustige
Nachmittage, aber es reicht nicht, ein Canvas mit Post-It zu bekleben, es ist mehr
vorhanden….. es sind eben die Dinge, wie wir sie heute besprochen haben, die noch
irgendwie fehlen.) 1:11:30
Eben, genau, man wird noch nicht warm damit. Es ist zwar ein gutes Grundrezept,
aber es sind die Grundkomponenten, aber damit hat man noch nicht gekocht. Und
auch nicht gegessen.
(I: Und das besser zu verstehen, ist für mich ein Antreiber für meine Arbeit. Ein
Erkenntnisgewinn, aber auch für unser eigenes Wirken.) 1:12:25
Eben auch die Frage berücksichtigen, oder ansprechen, was ist überhaupt der Sinn
von unternehmerischem Handeln? Es ist eine grenzenlos philosophische Frage. Man
sagt, es ist doch gar keine Frage, es ist eine Kinderfrage. Was ist der Sinn vom
Leben? Was ist der Sinn der Wirtschaft? Man könnte sich ja auch den Zustand von
Regenwürmern wieder wünschen, die keine Sorgen haben. Was ist es eigentlich?
Auch hier kommt man wieder zum Schluss, dass der Mensch nicht nur von der Welt
lernen will, sondern auch etwas geben will. Es ist der Grund-Rhythmus, fast ein
wenig wie die Weltformel, wie das Intervall zwischen Aneignung und Mitteilung. So
wie Partizipation und Manifestation. Es ist wie ein Ur-Rhythmus. Wie eine Ur-
Bewegung, vielleicht ist das in der ganzen Evolution wie vorgedeutet, vielleicht ist
überhaupt die Entwicklung so. Vielleicht gibt es etwas, das lernt, von dem, was schon
da ist. Was aufnimmt, was da ist. Verwandelt in etwas, das man als neuen Impuls
zurück geben kann. Das finde ich etwas Dialogisches. Es ist für mich ein Austausch.
417 / 549
(I: Die ganze Natur funktioniert doch eigentlich so, oder?) 1:14:10
Könnte mir gut vorstellen, dass das wie eine Ur-Gewalt ist der Evolution, also wie ein
Ur-Prinzip.
(I: Pflanzen sind ja z.B. auch so, sie nehmen etwas auf, wandeln etwas um, und
geben wieder etwas ab, oder?) 1:14:20
Ja. Und wenn das Menschen machen, was über Pflanzen und Tiere hinausgeht,
nennen wir das Kultur. Deshalb ist für mich Wirtschaft etwas spezifisch
Menschliches, Kulturelles. Man kann nicht sagen, wir sind wie Pflanzen. Viel so wie
normale Tiere, nur haben wir hier etwas Kultur und Konzerte und so, nein, auch die
Wirtschaft als Unternehmung ist eine kulturelle Initiative. Gehört zu etwas
Menschlichem. Jetzt können Sie noch die letzen Fragen stellen…..habe sie noch
welche?
(I: Nein, was ich fragen wollte konnte ich alles fragen. Herzlichen Dank für das
Interview!) 1:15:15
Und wenn Sie noch weitere Fragen haben, melden Sie sich einfach wieder.
418 / 549
3. Condensed interview summaries
3.1 A1 - Professor for Strategic Foresight, Innovation and Entrepreneurship
He has a focus on strategic foresight at the interface of innovation, business model

innovation and entrepreneurship. In short: entrepreneurial innovation combined with
business model innovation. He works in the three main areas energy, mobility and
media (digital and classic). His background is in the domain of strategic foresight
using scenario techniques and embedding business models in ecosystems.
His first contact with the BM concept was in the scenario context and also in the
emerging Internet environment. He has two main understandings of the business
model concept:
(1) A narrow definition using a colloquial approach focusing on the question “how
to make money”.
(2) In a broader sense: a business model is considered a system, an ecosystem.
There is a limited number of frameworks he applies: The Canvas, the Navigator and
the Business Value Framework (an adapted framework). Additionally, there are also
basic models such the one from Christensen (HBR article), which are considered
useful thinking models. The Canvas is used but due to its limitations an adapted
framework has been developed. This framework is primarily used in the Start-up
context, consisting of a 3 x 3 matrix containing resources, values, the potential of
value, and the realization of value. Compared to the Canvas the framework is much
more focusing on the value architecture and the planning and realization of a new
businesses. The Canvas is considered descriptive but ignores the implementation of
such a ‘mechanism’ (company/star-up). The problem with the Canvas is the illusion
that people think they understand what is going on – relatively quickly. However, this
is considered a big problem. They do not understand it. This is the essence of
working with 40-50 start-ups a year. Furthermore, people do not manage to deal with
the complexity inherent in a business model. People do not know how the 9 building
blocks act together. The second most important flaw is that people do not manage to
focus.
419 / 549
Developing a new business is a development process, is a trial and error process,
which needs time and money. It is a maturation process. The business plan contains
a business model but is a much more comprehensive document also including the
whole realization part.
Three basic types of business models (clustering strategies) are distinguished in his
institution: product based strategies, finance based and market based. It can be
observed that there is an increasing interest of established firms in the specific start-
up knowledge (business model thinking).
The Canvas should not be presented to a potential investor (9 building blocks → too
complex). By contrast, investors are more interested in team constellations, an
aspect ignored by the Canvas.
In the scenario technique exogenous and endogenous systems are distinguished.

The idea of incorporating the whole system is an important aspect in this context.
There are some basic research projects running at his university focusing on the
scalability of business models and on readiness of business models (in the energy
context).
The ecosystem idea becomes more and more important. In the Canvas you have
building blocks such as partners and customers. This idea is by far outdated. Today
the various players are considered to sit “somewhere in a cloud” without clear
borders making them indistinguishable according to a traditional view. Everything is
very fluid today. Hence, the question not only is whether someone is a partner or a
customer (or both) but whether he is also a key resource simultaneously. In this
context we have to clearly differentiate between cooperation and co-creation. With
co-creation we do not have to share values but to collectively create something new.
420 / 549
3.2 A2 – Professor for Global Marketing and Strategy
The business model concept first appeared in first Internet bubble in the US. It was
used to answer the question „how do you make money?“
Although the book from Osterwalder is considered brilliant it does not help answering
the question what a business model really is. The term business model was originally
attached to how do you track your money. The first article the interviewee remembers
is from Jane Linder in 2001. It is a conceptual article putting things together.
As a professor of strategy he was often confronted with the question whether

business models are different from strategy. By consequence, the faces of strategy
were put together as follows:
1. Directive strategy
2. Allocational strategy
3. Integrative strategy
4. Configurational strategy → How do I configure the business model (the

configurational strategy is the business model, or the revenue streams)
Companies such as Uber or Google have different configurational strategies, so „I

think, the real creativity is to think very hard about the revenue streams”. Think very
hard about the different types of strategy but then think hard about configurational
strategy, which is your revenue flow.
The Manchester football club is used to demonstrate the diversification oft he

revenue streams. By contrast to Osterwalder, the business model is closely related to
the choice of revenue streams. The Canvas etc. is great, everybody wants it. But it is
not the real stuff. It is about having a nice day with sticky notes but by the end of the
day you still have no strategy. Based on the work of Osterwalder, there are many
people who know the term business model today. However, there are still just very
few who really manage to take advantage of the essential things of the concept. The
Canvas can be compared to the Swiss Army: I have a big „Auslegeordnung“
421 / 549
(overview of the recruit’s personal equipment as part of an inspection). However, we
should always start thinking with the revenue flow at the beginning and then go out.
The St. Gallen framework is very theoretical and not very useful. It is a framework for
the sake of a framework.
Many people replaced strategy with business model: „Because we collapse the two
terms unfortunately we do not spend enough time on the revenue model”.
Furthermore, “The unfortunate thing is that we do not think hard enough today about
the revenue compositions, that this is a choice and not inherited from our
grandparents”.
He has never worked with a business model framework as he stated “I have never
used the business model concept in practice. Instead, at the beginning the business
system is analysed. This is more flexible and confronts with the realities of each
sector”.
You can often observe that new business models make things more transparent.
Today we just use the term business model instead of strategy. Often, when a
segment has changed, we talk about a new business model but this is strategy. This
is not new. But unbundling the revenue streams and making new compositions, this
is new! So the term business model is used “loosely” these days.
Most companies have their dominant business model which they feel comfortable
with. But adding a new, forget it.
With the question “how can I change my value proposition” you will not be able to find
the solution. The solution originates somewhere else. The value proposition is an
excellent means to communicate with your customers, but this is not new, we already
had this in marketing 20 years ago.
422 / 549
3.3 A3 – Professor for Empirical and Social research
His main research direction is in innovation focusing on the aspects of regional

influences on innovation. Furthermore, his research is about ‘scientific productivity’,
hence about the productivity of researchers but also on business models as a special
form of innovation. Currently, his main area of interest is about business models in
the Swiss energy sector. He graduated in economic geography. After a place in a
German research institute he changed his position and became professor at
university.
He first learned about the business model concept in the context of a European
research project in 2013.
He had almost no contacts with SMEs so far (neither in general, nor technical
orientated SMEs). Most corporations in the university context are with big companies,
not SMEs.
The business model is considered an abstract representation of an organization (not

only of companies but also of non-profit organisations). It represents the structures of
these organizations and their key activities. It is about generating value for its
customers. On the one hand, business models are about creating value. On the other
hand, this value must not exclusively be monetary in nature since an organisation’s
reputation can also be some kind of value.
The Canvas, the Navigator but also the Lean Canvas are considered popular and
well-known concepts. However, he has not yet worked with any of these framework
in practice thus far so he has no concrete ideas about the concepts’ strengths and
weaknesses. However, what can be learned (above all from literature) is that the
business model concept was originally influenced, conceptualised and defined by
business consultants.
The business model concept is an excellent means to analysing a business. But it

can also be useful to help generating new ideas. By contrast, the business model
concept is considered absolutely inadequate for transforming an existing business
from model A to model B! Instead, transforming an existing business model must be
423 / 549
seen as an individual and unique endeavour, where such a framework may not be
useful at all since most entrepreneurs deal with their business model intuitively
correct, without the need of a formalised concept. As an analogy, you can also be a
good technician or engineer without knowing each and every (natural) scientific detail
behind. Nevertheless, it can be helpful because it is a good means to structure the
analysis.
Start-ups have many advantages: they can look for an adequate business model
right from the beginning while established firms must get rid of their existing model
first, something which is much more demanding. Hence, for a start-up the
development of a new business model is considered part of the journey. For
established companies it is risky and can rarely be seen because most initiatives fail.
But business models are also needed in the non-profit sector since they also require
a right to exist (“raison d’être”).
424 / 549
3.4 A4 – Professor of Finance
He first learned about the business model concept with a diagram published in an
HBR article (in 1999) showing the implications of the information age on business
models, which was his initial and main source of inspiration. He started his career in
the banking business and learned that the business model concept quickly comes to
its limits so he changed his approach towards systemic thinking. His research is
primarily focusing on the banking sector but he also acts as transformation consultant
in sectors different from banking (such as the automotive sector). Business models
must change from inside, which, however, is only possible with inputs from the
outside.
Banks usually innovate ‘reactively’. They already have tried out many things, also
including the ideas from Christensen (disruptive innovations), but nothing has worked
thus far. However, they actively cooperate with Fintech companies. But what does
‘disruptive’ really mean in the finance industry? Generally spoken, what we can see
these days is that the banking sector is facing an industrialisation process with
shrinking margins rather than innovation. The banking industry has a lot of customer
data but does not use these data adequately, compared to other industries such as
the automotive industry. They invest a lot of money in Fintechs but the time has not
yet come for them. Transforming such an institution inside-out takes a lot of time.
He first worked with the business model concept in the context of comparing internal
and external strategies combined with SWOT analyses, based on which the business
model can be developed. The business model is about analysing the core value
chain. Just saying “let’s put the customer at the centre” is not enough. Instead,
steering the whole process including financial and process-based considerations
would be necessary. Furthermore, agile forms of collaboration are needed in order to
establish entrepreneurial ‘cells’ within an organisation, as basis for an inside-out
process.
Start-ups in the banking sector are confronted with legal and regulation barriers.
Successful business models hit the nerve of their customers. Simple plug and play
solutions such as Zalando do not yet exist in the finance sector.
425 / 549
The most important element is considered a culture of self-responsibility within a
company. The three dimensions strategy, structure and culture are to be put
together. We always see the three dimensions strategy, structure and culture. You
cannot change one of them without influencing the others too. Most managers in their
40-ties and 50-ties in the finance sector learned completely different things 30 years
ago. The requirements on strategic thinking change steadily. The paradigm of making
decisions at the top only is about changing fundamentally; however, the
consequences of this new paradigm do still not hurt enough these days. We need
dialogues in our networks that allow the integration of all stakeholders, this is
important. Establishing trust in the process is important. Just giving orders from the
top does not work anymore. The people involved in a change or transformation
process should be allowed to make a choice which model they want to work with.
They must feel comfortable with it.
The main weakness of the Canvas may be the fact that ‘traditional managers’ are not
able to cope with it. It is too radical. They feel more comfortable with the more
traditional St. Gallen model. If managers can choose they almost always decide for
alternatives allowing them to expand their hierarchy. But new business models are to
be found in processes. This causes disorientation.
Today strategy must be seen as something that emerges from inside out. Hence,
agile models are needed such as those implemented by Japanese firms producing
industry robots. Companies there have realized that they must be agile these days.
However, this cannot be achieved through executives sitting in their offices on the 5th
floor. Thinking from the customers, from the base, is required. The interviewee once
joined a course teaching the participants in collaborating in groups with no hierarchy.
This is how future business models will emerge. On the one hand, he once visited a
course at IDEO showing principles how new ideas can be developed. On the other
hand, too many of these people within an organisation may demoralise those working
in the daily business.
IBM has motivated his researchers to write papers that are understandable for the
sales people allowing them to talk about trends. However, to be successful we need
people with different skills to be brought together. Today it is important to recognise
426 / 549
the network character of our world. Therefore it is important to work on a shared
culture. Team cultures are still highly underestimated. Being dialogue-oriented and
giving feedbacks will be a key element in the future.
427 / 549
3.5 A5 – Professor for Sustainability
The main focus of his work is on leadership development and learning design in fluid
organizations. Innovation and business models are a driver in this area. In fluid
organizations there are no traditional hierarchies. A model describing this way of
thinking is called Holocracy. Holocracy is considered an organizational model for
service-oriented organizations. After his studies in economy he launched his own
business for more than 12 years (e-learning sector) than returned at university. He is
mostly interested in learning design.
Reflection is fundamentally important in order to activate an organization’s

transformative capacity. Complexity can only be managed by complexity. In
innovative contexts you must learn to accept complexity and uncertainty. You have to
accept several dimensions, which can be equally correct, there is no right or wrong
anymore (as often assumed earlier). And reflection is therefore a means to deal with
complexity. An excellent means to deal with complexity is a group reflection
methodology derived from systems thinking. This prevents you from simplifying at an
early stage showing you alternative perspective. This increases the needed
complexity in the problem finding process.
He first learned about the business model concept when he wrote the business plan
for his start-up about 15 years ago. But he thinks that he has been dealing with the
concept for about 25 years. The business model concept is understood as a set of
hypotheses to be verified. His understanding of the business model concepts is
based on a resource-based view, the answer of the right-to-exist-question (raison
d’être), and effect models, theory of impact. The impact represents our contribution to
the purpose, and the resources we need to make it viable.
The Canvas from Osterwalder has changed the way the business model concept is
seen; from a purely revenue stream based perspective to a holistic picture. In total,
there are 3 or 4 very similar models (including the Canvas and the Navigator). The
Canvas is considered the most appropriate since many people know it. However,
projecting reality into a terminology is only possible with compromises, no matter
428 / 549
which model we use therefore. He has mapped the theory of impact into the Canvas,
hence created an “impact business model”.
In his context sustainability means viability of a business, in particular ensuring that it

always has the resources it needs. Theory of impact is about thinking through the
whole value chain, about causes and effects within this chain.
The Canvas is considered a perfect means to deal with complexity because you
always have to deal with the model as a whole not just with elements of it (as often
seen with business plans). The Canvas has become part of the basic repertoire in the
Start-up community: „The business model is some kind of check list that allows to
compensate for missing experience.“ In huge companies, on executive levels, the
term may still be seen as the revenue mechanics.
By the way, “This last question is my favourite one!” (Is there something else you
may think of in the context of business models?)
Business model can be compared with strategy. It is an emergent phenomenon. A

good strategy can only be constructed in retrospective. You cannot plan this. It is the
same with the business model. It is more an “error” and a „trial and error“ process
because you will learn things which you did not have any hypotheses for.
429 / 549
3.6 A6 – Professor for Business Development and Project Management
Based on an innovation context where he conducted research in he started with

design thinking in 2001 and transferred the concept from the Silicon Valley to
Switzerland. Starting from the value proposition he designed a 4-quadrant learning
cycle/model (Q1: empathy, Q2: creativity, Q3: realisation, Q4: check). Within a typical
session a cycle of the model can be worked through – this is considered important.
His career started with systems thinking. Compared to systems thinking, design
thinking is about penetrating the system from a stakeholder perspective.
The 9 fields of the Canvas are always difficult to be understood by the students so he
has developed a simplified 4-quadrant model, at the centre of which stands always
the question who can we create value for?
Even through the work of Osterwalder the business model concept has become
something tangible and communicable; before it was rather abstract a concept. The
business model is about how an organisation creates value for its stakeholders. This
value does not necessarily be monetary in nature. Combining systems thinking and
business modelling may be an interesting idea for further research. The models he
has worked with are the Canvas from Osterwalder and the Lean Canvas from
Maurya. However, through the symmetry of value and value architecture the Canvas
is finally more convincing.
At an early stage we normally know little about our customers so we need quick
learning cycles and MVPs (minimal viable products). Usually there are various
stakeholders with different perspectives. It is not always easy to position them in the
Canvas. Is a stakeholder really a customer or maybe a partner? Or both? There is an
interesting video on YouTube, from David Kelley, founding member of IDEO, where a
trolley was re-invented numerous times using different perspectives.
A strength of the Canvas is that you always have a holistic or systemic picture
serving as a brilliant starting point for interesting discussions.
In his projects he tries to focus on the problem right at the beginning. What exactly is
the problem? Very often the problem must be (re-) framed. Therefore he often uses
430 / 549
the “Double Diamond Model”. Although his clients expect him (and his team) to
develop new innovative solutions (in the student projects) they often end up with
“just” better understanding the problem, which most customers finally find more
interesting than the solution. Therefore they build on diverse backgrounds of the
students (master).
Recently they had a marketing project: a bank engaged them to find a solution
aiming at making seniors fitter for e-banking. The solution finally was much simpler
because the problem could be solved just changing the numeric code on the pay-in
slip. Accordingly, the seniors didn’t have to learn digital media and the bank could
process the data electronically.
We should not try to find solutions too quickly; instead we must try to better
understand the problem. Afterwards, it is a ping pong between problem and solution.
The business model can be seen as a tool for re-framing a problem. Since the
interviewee sees himself a constructivist we have to ‘construct’ other peoples
perceptions in a way that they end up saying ‘this is good solution’.
The challenge generally (when developing a tool) is to create an instrument that

allows to quickly asking the ‘right’ questions in practice. Therefore he has developed
his reduced 4-quadrant model based on the Canvas (but even simpler than the
Canvas). We need instruments, which are simple enough so that we can easily use
them but they mustn’t be too simple so they still hold enough complexity. This is the
great challenge. Or as Einstein once said: “Make it as simple as possible, but not
simpler.”
431 / 549
3.7 A7 – Professor for Capital Goods Marketing / Think Tank Member
His research field is capital goods marketing and industrial goods marketing and also
sustainable business models in this context. Sustainability is a concept that has
gained importance in the past few years and the scientific community should care
about themes that emerge in practice.
Business model thinking may be particularly interesting in highly dynamic sectors

where you have to reinvent your company and your services at a high pace.
Business model discussions are a hot topic in industries with high innovation rates.
The business model concept in deeply anchored in business theory. To stay
successful, a company must make money above the average of the sector, hence
must follow a “rent seeking strategy”. In average, after 8 years, you have to re-invent
your business model since the rent seeking is not optimal anymore after this period.
A business model of a company is considered that particular model, which stands for
the highest possible rent. Rent is not just the profit but also an additional “rent”, for
instance in form of extra loyal customers (who potentially also could move away).
Hence, the rent is this extra “thing” what a company can exploit, what its competitors
cannot. The main aspect of a business model should be how to generate revenues in
the market. Other alternative (but less relevant) perspectives focus on processes or
customer value. At the very beginning a company should focus where are the
potential revenues and then should start thinking about their exploitation. Books such
as Osterwalder or St. Gallen deal with the tactical aspects of business modelling but
before that, companies should focus on the strategic aspects. The „resource based
advantage theory“ is a good starting point for a company by reflecting which
resources do we have and what can we do with it. There are two perspectives:
outside-in and inside-out. However, the high art of business modelling is to generate
advanced value chains using a resource based approach. Companies such as
General Electric or IBM strictly follow this rent seeking strategy making them highly
successful over decades, although people do not always understand their strategies.
However, for a company it is sometimes also important to ignore what the market is
currently “saying” in order to develop more visionary products (not always be market
432 / 549
driven). As an example automotive firms have very narrowly applied the resourced
based approach by using their engineering capacities to develop completely new car
types, such as the Van (Chrysler), which were not demanded by the market at the
time. The most interesting business models try to adapt the market to a company and
not vice versa.
There is an increasing number of private equity firms investing money in lifestyle

companies (start-up) delivering products such as pre-equipped menus for stressed
but wealthy urban people – with the idea that these people still have the cooking
experience.
The interviewee is also member of a think tank where he is often confronted with a
phenomenon called the “status quo bias”. Managers tend to see what they could lose
instead of what they could win by changing their existing business model.
He knows models different to the Canvas but the Canvas is considered useful
because it helps doing the first step in a complex process. The most fundamental
weakness of the Canvas is: it is always “scheme F”. The Blue Ocean Framework
starts thinking where the Canvas ends. One has always to look for the impossible
and then counting back. An excellent tool therefore is Triz Ariz from Altshuller.
Creatively solving problems. It is the exact opposite of the Canvas by creating
phantasy worlds and then counting back until it becomes doable. Altshuller
investigated thousands of patents and identified 35 basic engineering principles. This
is an approach, which could also be translated into the business world.
Another issue is that decisions are always made on an incomplete information basis.
Business models need correct information to be evaluated but managers are
incapable of getting this information. Even worse, we have big data these days,
which is considered the solution for this problem – a complete misconception! Let us
take the Canvas. Based on what do you put information in the 9 building blocks? This
is the birth of the resource-based view. This prevents you from being paralysed
through analysis. Instead, you try to make the maximum of what you really know.
433 / 549
3.8 A8 – Lecturer in Online Marketing / Open Innovation Researcher
Her main interest is in innovation, from a product management perspective with

business models as an important driver. Her research is about inputs from outside
enabling companies to produce innovations. She is a trained economist.
Digitalisation is considered a means to add value to products, not just an additional

channel. A product is not just understood as the “physical” product but incorporates
adjacent areas such as services. She has an extended understanding of the term
‘product’. Through the variation of certain aspects of a product you can create a new
product. This is the only way to create the so-called “long tail”. Accordingly, you can
create different business models for different varieties of the same product. I.e. you
can sell it via pay per use, freemium etc.
She first learned about the business model concept through the work of her husband,
who deals with investments in bio pharmacy ventures. This was around the year
2000/2002. The business model concept is considered the link between the product
and the value the product creates for a company. These days the traditional concept
of the company ‘that creates value’ must be questioned because it is hard to
distinguish between what comes really from inside and what from outside. Through
blurring borders business models tend to change towards ecosystems. In
ecosystems you have overlapping ‘clouds’ of business models. You may have 5 or 6
business models running simultaneously, which is in contrast to the traditional
business model literature stating that a company can run only one dominant business
model. However, the different business models are close to each other, but they are
different.
Digitalisation is a driver for business models. Most companies do not yet take
advantage of the full spectrum of possibilities it offers. Online marketplaces are a
good example for illustration. Through new online platforms/ecosystems even small
companies will have the chance to participate, to take advantage of various
channels. Today, only big companies have the resources to do that.
Various business models concepts are known, including the Canvas, the Navigator
from St. Gallen but also the model from Patrick Stähler. The Canvas is considered
434 / 549
“the thing” today. It is a perfect communication tool. However, the Navigator has a set
of advantages regarding analysis, implementation and testing of business models, it
also supports the work with scenarios. Hence, the Navigator is much more a process
than the Canvas. Furthermore, the Navigator is much better suited when we start
with existing models. It allows for developing alternatives and variants. With the
Canvas you start from scratch.
The team and its validation are still missing in the Canvas. She practically applied the
Canvas in a research project. What could be learned is that reality is much more
complicated/complex that expected at first glance. Scenarios are a good means to
validate and check early stage ideas developed using the Canvas. People applying
the Canvas often have problems with the concepts ‘Pain, Gain, Job to be done’.
She has learned that the Canvas has become a standard tool in the new venture /
start-up scene.
Above all, the business model concept is considered an excellent communication

tool.
Existing tools have not yet managed to integrate the ecosystem. In ecosystems
customers can be partners and vice versa. We have various sectors consisting of
strong ecosystems such as the healthcare system. Most existing business model
concepts use an ‘old language’ that is not adequate anymore for dealing with the
emergent ecosystem perspective.
435 / 549
3.9 A9 – Professor for Entrepreneurship
His main field of interest is entrepreneurship, developing new business models but
also evaluating existing business models. He has recently published research on
success factors. He does not conduct research on the business model as a model.
His research is about entrepreneurship where the business model is part of.
However, he has founded 6 firms on 4 continents so he has a lot of practical
experience on how to deal with business models. He does not consider himself an
entrepreneur because, as a professor, he has not founded these companies for a
living.
The business model is considered the smallest unit to be defined so that a business
works. There are many models, the most popular is from Osterwalder (Canvas), but
he has developed his own too. His model consists of 7 “keys” to be defined, namely
customers, product, market development, money, competition, resources, and the
team. However, the various models are similar. Nevertheless, the competition is
missing in the model from Osterwalder, for instance.
They have implemented an online platform automatically generating a business plan

out of the business model. The business model is more important than the business
plan because it is conceptual. It defines the business. The business plan is more
formal containing some additional aspects. The business model concept is important
because it allows you to really consider everything that is important. The business
plan, on the other hand, forces you to rigorously think through your idea. The
business plan is a document to be communicated to the outside. By contrast, the
business model is an internal document serving as basis for a pitch. Strategy is also
tightly linked to business modelling. However, strategy must show the way how to get
there.
Their online tool allows for defining all the parameters finally determining the revenue
stream, including cash flow, liquidity plans and the balanced sheet. Before dealing
with the revenue streams there are many important decisions to be made
beforehand. In this online tool there are 40 tools included ranging from a SWOT up to
a value chain analysis. It finally generates the business plan, also using artificial
436 / 549
intelligence algorithms searching the Web for relevant information of the respective
sector. It is considered a unique tool thus far. It is much more advanced than the
Strategizer from Osterwalder. It also incorporates all of the 140 Swiss business plan
contests and you are going to be registered automatically there (if desired). The 7
key model represents the basis, the core of the tool. It has been implemented by a
student and a business book was published around its core ideas. Today he thinks
that we have a technological gap. Many models are designed using sticky notes.
Once having a model with sticky notes, what comes next? We need this in digital.
This is the gap. There are many so-called business model ‘Navigators’, all of which
not cutting edge, from a technological perspective. All this has also become part of
the studies they offer, ranging from certificate courses up to MBA programs.
He has already worked on the business model concept before Osterwalder became
famous. By contrast to Osterwalder he has never intended to make a business out of
it but used the ideas as teaching instrument. However, the current platform is
considered a promising project.
The business model concept is considered the nucleus. It is the product of many
iteration cycles. It has been learned that the person, the team, is an important aspect
of a business model. In his model the value proposition is not an element of its own
(such as in the Canvas), is integrated in three other building blocks (see model).
In a project with design and arts students it has been learned that people’s individual
motivation is a central element. The model they created is also a by-product of
research conducted with very small businesses so they learned that the 7 key model
works well in practice.
An additional element of a business model should be ‘chance’. However, he has not

added this element because we cannot do anything with it. Furthermore you always
need a bit of luck. It could well be that you do something a giant such as Google is
interested in. In the very best case they just buy your company then.
A further important question is: how innovative must business models be? We have
always high-tech, highly scalable business models in mind. But reality is different.
Most companies are not of that kind. Most innovations are rather small. However,
437 / 549
high tech start-ups are important for our economy, no doubt. But we need ‘steerable’
business models for the rest as well. Many governmental support institutions tend to
ignore this. In Switzerland we have deficiencies in this area. What is more, we are not
able to push promising business models with a lot of money such as the Americans
do (example: Aribnb. This idea was originally developed and implemented in
Lausanne, Switzerland). We spend a lot of money in research and development but
do not push the market. It is not a business model problem we have but an execution
problem, hence pushing and scaling the model, investing money. This is where we
still have to learn.
438 / 549
3.10 A10 – Design Researcher (Design and Entrepreneurship)
He is the director of studies in a degree programme design and entrepreneurship

(master). He is a trained historian focusing on graphics design. Part of his research
focus is on aspects of entrepreneurship in the history of design. Entrepreneurship is
considered a discipline historically ignored at the school of arts and design. What we
see now is a change of paradigm. However, they try to develop their own definition of
what entrepreneurship is. Consequently, the lecturers are no economists but
designers who started their own business, now sharing their experiences with the
next generation. Most of the design students interested in entrepreneurship start a
very traditional business in the area of graphics design. However, in the master’s
programme ‘graphics design’ the university tries to make the next step focusing on
more start-up oriented businesses. It has been learned that there is an increasing
discrepancy between good ideas and what is finally realised.
Models in general always have the implication that there are several of them, so that
we have model-like structures in order to develop a business. Models imply structure
of orientation. In the design institute these ‘structures’ are influenced by arts, they are
used less strictly. At the art academy things are always questioned. Accordingly,
models are of only limited relevance. Models are developed individually. Models, but
also hierarchies and project plans are questioned. Agility and participative structures
are hot topics instead. At the art academy there are often model phobias. People do
not start thinking with the model but with an idea. Design Thinking is a concept in the
domain. Starting from the nucleus of an idea. However, there are also students
starting with the Canvas (particularly in the entrepreneurship domain), then develop
their own model out of it. It depends a bit. But there are also students who ignore
models consequently. What can be seen is that there is a rejection against all kind of
generalisation (not just models). Even the processes established at IDEO (which was
visited last year) are considered too much standardised by some students.
Nevertheless, those moving towards start-up use the Canvas from Osterwalder even
more frequently. However, on the other side of the spectrum, those focusing on
social projects refuse it categorically.
439 / 549
Since there is no entrepreneurial tradition in design it is always interesting to see how
the students react on new tools. What can be said is that design students are not
motivated by revenues at all. Accordingly, concepts such as exit strategies are not
part of their vocabulary. Instead, these students want to do something for
themselves, self-realisation.
The students mostly use visualisation techniques in order to visualize complicated

problems, but they do it individually, each time from scratch. This is influenced by an
artists’ tradition, in which an artist distinguishes himself through his work.
This new study concept will be investigated scientifically, but at the moment there are
no results available. Currently there is no model available, it is a trial and error
process.
Individuality is considered the basis for innovation. There was a speech from Freitag
(two highly successful entrepreneurs / producers of recycling bags, a design driven
company) stating that they developed their first business plan 10 years after the
company was founded.
In design there is a category of problems, which have to be solved each time from
scratch, so-called “wicked problems”. This is what designers are interested in.
Wicked problems cannot be solved using algorithms. There are no models to solve
these problems. They have to be solved from inside out. Most complex problems we
have these days are considered wicked problems. Let’s assume that we want to
change the discourse of our culture of death (a running student project). You have to
establish a completely new way of communication. It is like in science, we first have
to formulate the ‘right’ (research) questions.
Different models are offered to the students but they are free to decide whether to
use them or not. For example the Double Diamond model is currently a hot topic.
Finding an adequate model (if any) is part of the whole learning process; in strong
contrast to more traditional business programs/schools. Design science also has its
own methodologies and methods such as cultural probes, a technique where people
document their lives using cameras.
440 / 549
Most of the master students in the design programme essentially need to whole
training time to ‘just’ frame the problem to be solved. Then, changing their attention to
the business world is something different. In the world of design driven innovations,
the paradigm is that business plans destroy each kind of creativity and innovation.
However, it may be a problem in the design context that students treat each problem
as it was a wicked problem. It obviously is not. It is important to distinguish between
problems that can be solved generically, using models, and real wicked problems.
Treating everything as a wicked problem prevents resources from creating real
innovations. A high level of agility and the ability to react on failures are core
competencies. Strictly following models is considered the opposite. A trial and error
culture and working with drafts is part of the programme right at the beginning. This is
considered a basic skill.
441 / 549
3.11 S1 – Early Evangelist (Consultant, Lecturer, Start-up Founder)
He is specialised in the conception of new companies (at the forefront of new ideas in
the business creation context). Beside many years of consulting experience, he also
teaches the newest thinking models and principles to university students in an MBA
program and has more than 10 years teaching experience in this context. As a
trained engineer he first got in contact with innovation-related topics in the product
development process and was mainly engaged in technical-oriented projects – just a
small number of 2 or 3 projects out of 100 were non-technical oriented. A few years
ago, he co-founded his own start-up in the knowledge-management domain.
He started dealing with the business model concept as a co-author of the famous
Osterwalder book (Business Model Generation in which the Canvas was first
presented). Accordingly, he automatically associates the business model concept
with the Canvas. Based on this, the business model is understood as a complex logic
visualising a company schematically.
However, reality is always considered more complex than the business model.
Nevertheless, it is legitimate to deal with reality on a higher level of abstraction (flight
altitude) since even this abstraction allows for coping with such highly complex
systems because you always have the ‘whole’ in mind.
The aim of a company is to create value and to monetize this value (in most cases).
Hence, it is about creating value within a business ecosystem. Within an ecosystem,
it is very useful and sensible to visualize the flow of resources. Therefore, he uses
transaction models.
He knows plenty of models such as the Canvas from Osterwalder, the Navigator from
Gassmann, the model from Christensen and Johnson. Then, he also knows Stähler
who included the team and the values of a team in his model. Then the model from
Wirz is also listed, which is considered ideally suited for analysing an existing
company (this model is very complex). Finally, the transaction model from Board of
Innovation is part of his repertoire. He showed a graph visualizing the evolution of all
the various business models / business model frameworks – there are many of them.
442 / 549
The business plan contains the business logic; the model is an abstracted
visualisation.
Combining the Canvas and the transaction model has proved to be highly effective.
He currently works on ideas that allow for validating business models. Therefore, the
Lean Start-up methodology is applied. In this ‘methodology’ the Business Model
Canvas represents the starting point and is used to formulate the most critical
business hypotheses. It is a scientific approach aiming at minimizing risks and
seeking the highest possible rents by doing many (cheap) learning cycles. It is about
testing and validating new business models in the market. It is always about
minimizing risks, a hot topic in the innovation context. By consequence, the business
model concept can also be seen as a means to minimizing risks.
Each start-up aims at establishing a new unique business model.
Scenarios are often used to map different alternative contexts. Therefore, scenarios
are used to discuss different possible futures in order to develop models of
ecosystems based on which the most important hypotheses can be validated.
Companies have started thinking in the business model dimension through the
Osterwalder book. They use it as a strategy tool. However, in most established
companies there are still no established standard business modelling processes.
Not each and every company has a strategy, hence a plan of its future. But each
company has a business model (sometimes unconscious). Accordingly, the business
model is a more fundamental unit than strategy. By contrast, in certain situations it
can even be wise for a company not to have a strategy (in the start-up context).
Above all, the business model (Canvas) is a collaboration and communication tool.
By contrast, the transaction model is a tool for analysing systems. The Canvas
cannot be used to map out the ecosystem, a strong weakness of the tool.
Furthermore, different levels of complexity cannot be ‘zoomed in and out’, an
additional weakness. On the other hand, there is no model that allows for combining
different business models, dealing with the interaction in ecosystems. The transaction
model is often used to compensate this weakness, hence for visualising interfaces
443 / 549
and the flow of resources, like a roadmap. We need a new type of model that allows
for zooming in and out between different levels, such as in technical 3D-plans.
The ‘model concept’ is an idea people with a technical or natural scientific

background feel comfortable with. However, there are also people from other
disciplines such as arts who never use models. They deal differently with these
ideas.
444 / 549
3.12 S2 – Strategy and Innovation Consultant (High Military Officer)
There are two sectors in which he provides consulting services: energy and IT. His
clients are mostly interested in external perspectives. He is specialised in and also
mostly engaged for conceptual studies in technical-oriented domains, including
analysing problems and synthesizing solutions. The offered services incorporate
areas in which he has extended business experience for at least 20 years. This
ranges from project management up to executive positions in the above-mentioned
sectors. He passed engineering and several MBA trainings, incorporating electronics,
general management, innovation management, and corporate finance.
The first time he has learned about the business model concept was in the year 2000
in a strategy context. Then, the term was considered less structured than it is today;
hence people had their own interpretations of what a business model is. At he time,
the business model concept could be compared to an electrical four-pole. You have 2
inputs, 2 outputs and a black box in between. People were not interested in what
happened in this black box. In the period between 2000 and 2008 everybody was
interested in strategy. Then, from 2008, the consultant sector realised they needed
something new so they started focusing on business models. At the same time,
academics realised that they must expand their understanding of innovation from
strictly thinking in the product domain up to integrating services as well. The biggest
and most influencing consulting firms have always tightly collaborated with
universities transferring the latest knowledge in practice. The business model
concept has its ‘place’ in the market today so consultants expect that companies are
familiar with it. Accordingly, they have started focusing on the digital transformation
as a new topic for selling consulting services.
A company essentially consists of processes on various levels of abstraction.

Therefore, you can adopt a top-town and a bottom-up perspective. Customers can
also be scaled and segmented; an idea that has emerged in the marketing domain.
However, a problem in practice is that we normally do not have enough information
about the segments we develop. Basically, new business ideas can be created from
two different places. On the one hand, you may have a problem to be solved, a
445 / 549
‘disturbing factor’. On the other hand, you may have resources (capital, production)
you want to use for generating profit or rents.
Business models frameworks have existed ever since. Even Henry Ford deployed an
assembly line framework for his automotive production; adapted from the Chicago
meat production. The currently most popular framework is from Osterwalder. He
substantially has not invented something new but combined existing concepts to a
new big picture and developed it further focusing on customers and the value
proposition. There are also other frameworks such as the Navigator from Gassmann,
but most of them are adaptations of Osterwalder. The strength of the Canvas is that it
can easily be used as a means to generate new ideas, as some sort of guideline.
However, this is also its main weakness. It does not cover ‘everything’ and each
company must be considered different. Nevertheless, someone with management
experience is better off using the Canvas than the Navigator because it provides
more details.
The business model concept has been developed by academics mainly interested in
showing ways to quickly make a lot of money; most of them have no or only limited
practical experiences and also no financial background so many financial concepts
are mixed up. By the way, it is like strategy, you only see whether it works after many
years in business; so viable strategies are often ‘constructed’ post-event.
Accordingly, most running strategies are just ‚rubbish’. What we need is the ability to
learn and adapt quickly. Although the best strategies and business models ‘emerge
between the ears’, the business model concept allows for writing ideas down and
making them tangible. Really experienced managers and entrepreneurs have a well-
developed gut feeling based on which they take viable and working business
decisions.
Each and every company has a business model. The question whether it is
necessary to actively deal with the concept depends on many variables. Companies
should think about their business model readiness in terms of the digital
transformation since IT will not stop changing existing well-established models.
However, most companies have not yet realised that they should bring their business
model on paper. They may have a business plan they revise regularly by (just)
446 / 549
changing the numbers in it. Many CEOs use ‘established’ structures and tools so
they just care about new concepts when their organisation is in crisis; then they
delegate the new concepts to their subordinates who have to find quickly solutions
ignoring the time this process normally requires. This is why so many sectors are
really in crisis!
The interviewee has successfully used the Canvas in practice. However, it was
complemented with additional concepts such as empathy maps, PEST analysis, as
well as micro- and macro-economic tools. In all, the business model concept is
considered useful when applied thoughtfully.
What is ignored these days: we should think more rigorously for which problem we
really need the business model concept. In the army you learn: What is the problem?
Why should we use this concept? What do we want to achieve and what are possible
impacts? Is there a disturbing factor? It is exactly the same with innovation today. We
do not always need an innovative solution for each and every problem to be solved.
447 / 549
3.13 S3 – Coach and Sparring Partner (for SMEs)
He is a ‘generalist’ specialised in marketing (the 7 Ps). Since he was interested in

something more creative than what he learned in his formal training (graduated in
mechanical engineering), he has always been interested in a wide range of topics
and has always stayed curious. After 20 years in business and more than 300
subordinates in an internationally acting Swiss company (he was part of the
executive member board) he decided to take the next step with a formal marketing
training (this was in the 1990-ies). Today, the sector does not matter; he provides
advising services in almost every sector – he acts as coach and sparring partner for
about 6 years now, after a career in a big corporation. It is more important that he
feels comfortable with the team and passionate with what the company does.
He first learned about the business model concept in 1970-ies. The concept was
used to describe different units within a company. The business model concept is
tightly associated with marketing. The concept’s most basic component is the product
that must fit to a customer need. Then, we need to do some maths so that money
can be earned. That is all. However, the very same customer may have different
needs; on weekdays he eats sausage, on Sunday filet - the same customer! Those
various needs may be directly the opposite of each other. It is always important to
treat customers as ‘humans’ to be understood. We often have to cluster different
products for the same customer. The argument is that customers do not want filet on
weekdays (since it wouldn’t be something special on Sundays) so we have to serve
alternating needs too.
The associated concept is the 7 P marketing model. It is all about creating

enthusiastic recurring customers. However, some aspects such as finance,
processes and logistics are missing in these considerations. The model from
Osterwalder is considered a good model too since it represents a balance between
costs and value to be offered. However, it is a thinking model that helps structuring
thoughts. The Canvas can be compared with a kaleidoscope; each time it is slightly
moved/turned you can see a new different picture. With the Canvas you get the
whole picture quickly. However, depending on whom you work with, the market
structure model may be better suited since it allows for more complex considerations.
448 / 549
It always depends. The market structure model offers additional perspectives
incorporating competitors, regulations, etc. It shows how a system is actually
structured.
The Canvas is ideally suited in education contexts where you want to quickly have
complete ‘solutions’ (in an exercise). But reality is more complex and market
structures may change daily because there are never companies doing business with
each other. There are always people doing business with each other; something
often ignored.
Each company should question its business model from time to time. The core of a
business idea must be periodically questioned.
Engineering offices have been in a difficult situation ever since, because they just
offer a small part of the ’whole’. This is becoming even harder today since general
contractors offer whole packages to customers. Engineering offices must avoid
standing still. They must be flexible and integrate new disciplines in order to expand
or diversify their offerings. Hence, it is important to be agile, to recognize new market
trends on time. Often, you can hear that the price was the problem but they just have
ignored trends and did not react on them adequately. Managers of engineering
offices must stay curious. They must be sensitive to megatrends in order to position
the company in a changing world.
We have to (re-) learn that business models must base on customer needs. In recent
years our system was dominated by models banks imposed on companies;
backwards oriented models!
A business model may be the implementation of a company’s future strategy.

However, the business model is the concrete implementation of what the company
currently does. When it comes to business model considerations most managers (not
entrepreneurs!) heavily rely on consultants because such discussions are often
uncomfortable – and consultants can easily be dismissed if necessary. SMEs do not
often work with the business model concept because they do not have the required
resources to do so. The longer you are in business the more details you understand
and the better your business model becomes.
449 / 549
Business models that allow for earning quickly a lot of money are popular and also
hyped today; however, it is still comparable to a lottery win. Having your business
model in mind means continuously leaving your comfort zone (especially as a start-
up). It is part of the game to continuously have a look at the unpleasant side of what
you do; having the will for this is essential. Thinking in long term, not just in near-term
is required. Loosing the feeling for the market means loosing the market’s spirit.
Based on many years of experience each CEO/company has a lack in at least one of
the 7 Ps. Discovering and complementing this weakness is what consultants (should)
do. However, CEOs are often misled; for instance, they may outsource their
production to China but do not realise that they lose their long-term competitiveness
by doing so.
450 / 549
3.14 S4 – Governmental Innovation Promoting Agent
His institution offers support in the whole innovation process, particularly in the early
stages of idea generation. Open innovation is considered a hot topic in this context.
His institution also acts as a brokerage platform (providing a network). A considerable
part of the service he provides is subsidised by the government. As a governmental
organisation they are considered to be more trustworthy than commercial
consultants. They offer support to all kind and size of companies. However, most
companies that make use of his services are rather small since this category does
not have the resources to deal with innovation topics. He graduated in economics
and has specialised in marketing. He worked for international companies, also
abroad, before acting as innovation coach in Switzerland.
For him, the business model concept is associated with the Canvas from
Osterwalder. Beside the Canvas he also knows the Navigator from Gassmann but
has never worked with it. For him, it is important to identify a model he feels
comfortable with, and this is the Canvas. The Canvas is considered highly market
and customer oriented, the strength of the model. However, the 9 building blocks are
often just ‘too much’ and too complex to be easily understood.
For most companies the daily business has priority so they do not deal with concepts
such as the business model. Accordingly, he has never got feedback from companies
regarding their application of the business model concept thus far. He doubts that
companies really go in the details. He has never seen a company actively working
with the business model concept. The problem is that you have to work with these 9
building blocks. You have to understand them; this takes time and energy. It is not
that easy and companies do normally not invest time for this. However, sensitization
is considered important. It is not about working with the concept all the time but the
companies must understand something is going on in this area. By contrast,
companies work on their business model intuitively. They may ignore one or the other
building block; this is why sensitization is important.
He has worked with several hundred companies in the past 10 years and has learned
that most of them do not have the resources to deal with such concepts, particularly
451 / 549
companies in the range of 1 to 30 people. Not a single one he knows has ever
actively worked with the business model concept! On the other hand, approximately
one third of the companies he has worked with in the past few years may know the
concept (or the term business model). This is because the business model concept
could take advantage from media presence coupled with current issues (banking
business model crisis, silicon valley start-ups, etc.). It is hyped. Hence, companies
know the concept, but working with it – this is a different thing.
By the way, it is nearly the same with innovation, a new word for something that has
always existed. A lot of innovation related ideas have always existed in the marketing
domain. Creating a real ‘disruptive’ innovation is an illusion. How many companies
who managed to launch a disruptive innovation do exist, worldwide, described in
literature? Not many. It is exactly the same with business models. We first have to
think hard when, for what purpose, and in particular for what type of company does it
make sense to innovate the business model. The business model concept is not
suitable for each and every company. This simply does not work. A small company
with production facilities can normally not just get rid of its infrastructure following a
new business model. An Internet business is different, of course, also in terms of the
scalability. Not every company is scalable.
In early stage start-ups the Canvas has replaced the business plan. At the very
beginning companies sketch their ideas using the Canvas. The traditional business
plan follows later, a year or so, when you need money. Those spending money want
still to see more than just a Canvas. However, only 10 % of a business plan will
finally be realised, this is reality.
The consulting sector is structured pyramid-like. At the top there are companies such
as McKinsey working with the big players. But there are also many small consulting
offices working with SMEs.
The business model concept is considered useful as a means for sensitization, but
not more. Instead, the interviewee works with tools such as traditional workshops,
lead user approaches and open innovation approaches. These tools are considered
better suited in the innovation context.
452 / 549
Such as business models, digitalisation is hyped these days too. Again, it is important
to provide companies with impulses; showing them there is something new, maybe
containing an interesting aspect for them. This is innovation! Getting impulses from
outside. Therefore, you do not have to work each new model through rigorously.
453 / 549
3.15 S5 – Innovation Consultant
He is specialised in providing companies with ideas from outside. He ‘jumps’ between

contexts linking ideas from different sectors. He has realised relatively quickly to be a
person always having new (and often challenging) ideas so he decided to start his
own consulting business assisting companies with creating ideas (most companies
have problems with this). Although he has a background as a trained economist he
has always been interested in technical topics so he learned a lot about IT etc. on the
job since there are no ‘Tech-BAs’ available, as an equivalent to an MBA but designed
for economists, providing them with additional technical knowledge.
He first learned about business models in his formal training. Then, the concept was
used to make market hypotheses ‘tangible’. Essentially, a business model describes
the organisation of a business. However, most models are too complex rather than
being transparent, hence revealing contradictions. On the one hand, they describe
how to act in the market but, on the other hand, must also be considered a process,
ranging from the simple idea up to its complex implementation in the market. This is a
highly dynamic process. Quite often, his customers expect him to calm a messy
situation, but in fact he usually causes much more trouble! Not every client can cope
with that. Accordingly, a business model is also considered a means to question
existing assumptions!
Often there is no direct path to a business model vision. By contrast, you sometimes
have to go ways that seems to be contradicting, at first glance. Companies often
want to participate from hypes, just with exorbitant profits in mind. However, they may
be better off preparing something ignored by the others calmly. Such considerations
are also business model thinking.
He knows several frameworks, some of which from the marketing domain. However,
he works with the Canvas from Osterwalder. The strength of the Canvas is that you
always have a holistic view of the whole. This includes a lot of complexity. Complexity
means that we must learn to deal with contradictions. Not having a solution right at
the beginning. This is in contrast to a traditional economic view aiming at reducing
everything to simple cause and effect relations. This is not adequate anymore in our
454 / 549
complex world today. The younger generation is much better able to cope with such
ambiguity. At the same time, most people think that loops are a waste of time. But in
fact, they are not! Today there are ‘things’ we cannot understand intellectually. We
must delegate them to our subconscious so we have to put things aside. Solutions
often emerge when not actively worked on the problem! This is something we first
have to learn and accept. People focused on security have problems with that. They
cannot accept that we have to act without knowing what finally comes out; hence a
journey into the unknown.
A business model is like a sculpture. For the visitors contemplating it the sculpture is
complete, is perfect, but not so for the artist. For him, it is never perfect.
The strength of the Canvas is also considered its weakness: It is enormously flexible.
The quality of its application depends on the people using it. The more relevant
background they have, the more they know about the complexities in the market, and
the more they can take advantage of it. Generic tools such as the Canvas are like a
screwdriver. You can do anything with it not just driving screws but also hammering
dawn nails or using it as a fixation for grilling sausages. This is in contrast to highly
sophisticated tools such as CNC milling machines. It depends on those using it.
There are no special sectors particularly well suited for using the business model
concept. It may depend on the fragmentation of the value chain in the individual
sector, of course. But it is more important to realise that we cannot solve each
problem using the business model concept.
Story telling is another interesting instrument in order to think about new customers.
Although often misused and misunderstood these days it helps or forces you to think
your concept through rigorously.
The business model concept is also a hot topic at business schools. A little bit of
theory is always useful but it is much more important that students work it through in
real cases in order to understand the inherent complexities.
The problem is that the concept is still associated with the world of economics where
everything is reduced to cause and effects. It would be an interesting experiment to
455 / 549
discuss the idea with artists and philosophers; hence with people who are more
flexible in their thinking than economists are.
456 / 549
3.16 S6 – Innovation Consultant and Private Investment Fund President
He is a consultant in the innovation domain (mostly in the med tech environment) and
acts as the president of a private investment fund. He is also a retired university
director. He is (co-) author of business books such as in the systemic thinking
domain. As a university director he was responsible for the technology transfer where
he dealt with innovative projects, this is where he first had touch points with
innovations. He started his career as lecturer in management at a school of
engineering. Then he was responsible for MBA programs. He first was director of the
school of engineering then he was responsible for research and development
programs for the whole university (including the schools of economics and arts).
He first learned about the business model concept about 20 years ago in the context
of business plans. He has always been looking for THE definition of a business
model but could not find it. Probably we still have no general accepted definition.
These days, the Canvas from Osterwalder may have become the standard. At least,
the students actively use this concept.
The business model can be seen through two different perspectives: new and
existing businesses. His view reflects new businesses. Accordingly, the business
model incorporates the product (including services), the customer benefit, and the
market (including market potential and competitors). The team (management), the
costs and revenues, and finally the risks are part of it. The business model concept
has traditionally been tightly linked to the business plan, although the latter is more
comprehensive a document.
Having a good management team is the absolute prerequisite before money is spent.
Accordingly, a good product to be sold in a ‘good’ market is by far not enough. Before
talking about the Canvas (the product, or the services), the customer benefit must be
in line with the customer need. This is the most important thing. On the time axis
business models follow with second priority. However, according to an absolute
perspective it is important too since you have to show how you make money; this
also depends on the sector and the market you are in. Hence, the market is
important, an aspect ignored by the Canvas. In terms of the margins you have
457 / 549
tremendous differences between the med tech and the catering industry, for instance.
But also possible regulations are different.
He also knows the Navigator from Gassmann. From a systemic perspective models
with arrows show the flow of resources and are more dynamic, hence the Canvas is
considered a rather static model. Probably, a single model cannot afford to be used
for everything so combining different models may be more adequate (unifying static
and dynamic views).
We always have to remember that economy is not an exact science so models must
be seen as thinking models; if they were exact everyone would be a millionaire.
According to his experience the business model concept has never used as a means
to sell an idea to an investor. In this context people still use business plans.
It is always important to critically reflect whether a tool is adequate for a problem at

hand. In St. Gallen not only they have a business model but also an all-
encompassing company model, which is not just complicated but complex, nearly
impossible to be applied in practice.
However, the possibly most basic question is: What is a ‘Geschäft’ (a business)? [in
German the word ‘Geschäft’ is used for a business but also for a single deal. It is not
that clear what ‘Geschäft’ means; and business model is translated as ‘Geschäfts-
Modell’]. Is it the model of a whole company, a project, an endeavour, an innovation,
or even something completely new? In a new venture, the project and the company
may be identical – what is the business model here? Accordingly, he never uses the
term business model. He uses business plan for a project. If the ‘Geschäft’ is a
company, then he uses company model. When he talks about earning mechanisms
then he uses the term revenue model. And when he talks about strategy than he
uses the term strategy. By the way, another issue is the relationship between
strategy and business models.
Another dimension is time. How (if at all) is the time dimension included in business
models? The relationship between elements in a model change over time, hence the
model is changing. This is a systemic perspective. Time is very important. Brilliant
458 / 549
people have predicted the digital revolution 20 years ago but only 5 % of their
predictions have proved to be correct. On the other hand, we have developments
and devices today that no one would ever have been able to predict.
We also have to remember that there are highly successful entrepreneurs who have
never heard something about business models but have founded ‘empires’; they
have brilliant visions and strategies; they have a gut feeling for the market.
459 / 549
3.17 S7 – Coach and Start-up Consultant (Business Angel Member)
He offers coaching for start-ups, mostly on the basis of a participation (if long-term
coaching). He also acts as management consultant and as lecturer at several
universities. He does not advise start-ups in the money acquisition process, this is
another business he is not active in. Although he graduated in economics his first
company failed so he was frustrated and decided to learn more about the process of
successfully founding new companies, this is also how he got in contact with the
business angels – those people he expected to know how the process works. Ever
since, he has been fascinated about founding new firms and, obviously, there is still
much to learn in the domain.
He first got in contact with the business model concept when he founded his first
company in 1999. Since then, he has started dealing with the concept. The
publications from Osterwalder provided him with exactly the thinking models he was
looking for. He works with the Canvas from Osterwalder and also with the Lean
Canvas from Maurya.
He understands the business model concept as some kind of ‘operating system’ of a

company; it describes the value chain of a company. But it is also about a company’s
right to exist (“raison d’être”). Additionally, the concept describes the processes a
service is provided to the end customers. The work of Osterwalder is based on the
work of Patrick Stähler. By contrast, the lean start-up approach has its roots in
information technologies. We currently can see a trend that each university
(interested in the domain) develops its own Canvas. Essentially, the Canvas from
Osterwalder and the Lean Canvas from Ash Maurya are brilliant tools, also as a
means for communication. He takes notice of other (adapted) models but does not
integrate them in his work. Most probably, the Canvas is more than just a
communication tool. This definition would fall short. It is a means to structuring
thoughts. Particularly in the new business context the two elements customer
segment and value proposition are really, really important. People attest him (the
interviewee) to be able to quickly analyse a business. This is because he mentally
‘places a Canvas over the business’ to be analysed, which allows him to quickly ask
the right questions, to see what works and what does not.
460 / 549
He is an early adopter of the concept and uses it ever since. It is considered an
excellent tool to deal with complexity through reduction. The weaknesses of the
Canvas are a missing market perspective and no competitors taken into account. It is
strongly anchored in a resource-based view from the 1980-ies and 90-ies. However,
today’s markets have become very dynamic, an important additional perspective.
Based on its shortcomings, many people try to map all the missing elements in the
Canvas. This does not work at all.
The success of a business has finally nothing to do with the Canvas. It is all about
execution. It is about the value you offer to your customers and about focus; leaving
out irrelevant things is important. Furthermore, we cannot plan everything. There is a
factor called ‘luck’. You can influence your luck through an excellent execution. You
must be active so you will automatically meet people who can help you.
He assumes that about 20 % of all investors are familiar with the business model
concept. However, the concept, particularly the Lean Concept, has massively
influenced the way money is spent. Investors avoid spending all the money at once,
but in small tranches, to finance iteration cycles only.
A considerable part of the (traditional) academic community has not fully accepted
these new tools and concepts because they do not easily fit into existing academic
frameworks, so they tend to be ignored at some universities. Academics see these
tools as practitioner tools, not on the level of ‘real’ science.
He works with companies from all sectors. He is interested in collaborating with

companies who want to change things, things that do not yet work. High-tech
companies are not the primary focus since entering a high-tech market usually
means that you first have to open this market; this is not easy at all – he has invested
in a high-tech company where this opening issue is a real problem.
He never uses any of these tools in his work with customers. He just uses the models
as mental models, as thinking models. When you have customers with a working
company you must be careful not to say them, hey, your business model is rubbish.
You can neither use theoretical models they do not understand. They need revenues,
instantly. Inexperienced consultants using such tools often are disillusioned when
461 / 549
their work will be ignored. There is a saying: “A fool with a tool is still a fool”. The
customers do not want you to be a fool. Humans should not be reduced to tools; a
human vs. tool situation must be avoided.
An important issue for start-ups is ‘focus’. The business model is less important. It is
all about focus and a good execution. You can even be highly successful with an
unattractive business model when the execution is brilliant (i.e. selling used cars).
Nevertheless, a good execution combined with a good business model is the key for
a sustainable successful business. Both are important. If you want to really earn a lot
of money, then the business model is important as well. Another two important inputs
(based on practical experiences):
• First, as a start-up, you should always start with high prices (as high as
possible).
• Secondly, what you plan has nothing to do with what you finally end up doing.
462 / 549
3.18 S8 – Consultant, Inventor of the First Business Model Framework
He has no special focus but offers methodological competences regarding the

understanding of existing and the development of new business models. He was the
first who has ever built a business model framework worldwide! He realised that
traditional units of analysis fell short explaining what happened in the digitalisation
process. So he has started thinking in business models. The convergence to a new
TIME industry (telecommunication, information science, media entertainment)
required new skills and new business models. New players were about to emerge.
Business models were a hot topic in the period around 1997 in practice and he, as an
academic (then), tried to define this new concept (academics always lag behind). A
business model is nothing else than an abstraction of a business reduced to its basic
strategic decisions.
In this discussion we must start thinking with the most basic question “what is the
purpose of a business?” There is only one definition from Peter Drucker: “Create
paying customers”. For What the customer is paying money for, this is what matters.
Four points are always most crucial: the value proposition, hence the right to exist.
The customer benefit, how can I achieve this, the revenues mechanisms as well as
the cost structure. In one point Osterwalder is totally wrong: the value proposition has
nothing to do with the product! Proposing something to a customer is like a marriage
proposal. The value architecture is about fulfilling this proposal. Therefore all the
ideas about pains and gains are wrong. It is not about the product, it is about fulfilling
the proposition and therefore the whole model is required. The value proposition is
an abstract promise and the business model stands for its fulfilling. The VP
represents more fundamental values than just the product; the latter may change
over time but the fundamental values are constant. Or as Steve Jobs once said:
„Everything is changing. Everything. The product. Everything. But what we stand for,
what our values are, has not changed for the last 20 years. We inspire people for
great work“. Only few people understand this difference. The value proposition is
what you stand for in your life. This is a philosophical question and has nothing to do
with pains and gains.
463 / 549
Business model thinking is about creating something new and therefore we need soft
skills, philosophical approaches. This is what most scientist do not understand since
everything must be quantifiable and measureable. But business modelling is about
gaining a deep customer understanding and about values within a company. It is
rather strange that we separate the value proposition and the customers segments
(as in the Osterwalder model). I cannot make a marriage proposal to a woman I do
not know! This is really important. “The value proposition is all about giving meaning”.
The people are ignored in traditional models using building blocks. An aspect
Osterwalder has also realised in the meantime. It is about establishing a culture of
criticism. However, 20 years ago, the human factor was also ignored in his thinking
as a trained computer scientist in business economics. But the team and
entrepreneurial spirit are ‘new’ elements he has added in the past 8 years, his
perspective has changed. The team and entrepreneurial spirit are ‘new’ elements he
has added.
Something is really strange. He invented the concept at the HSG in St. Gallen. But
today, everyone just talks about Gassmann who entered the university many years
later. The thing is that the business model concept will never be commercially
interesting. This was misunderstood at the HSG. The rationale is simple: We scare
people with business model thinking. Many people would get in some sort of
cognitive dissonance by reflecting their job asking the question ‘does it make sense
what I do?’
The business model is a conscious reduction to one specific question: what job do I
solve. Everything else such as the market is left out consciously.
In some businesses there is no learning curve, the same mistakes are made again
and again. However, people do ignore such findings categorically.
Creating another adapted model framework is considered ‘academic masturbation’.

Instead, it would be much more sensible to think from the customer. Hence, all
existing business models are optimised for the supplier next to you in the value chain,
not for the end customer. This is the same in many sectors such as the health care
464 / 549
system where everyone focuses on his part only. Developing a passion for heating
systems (in your case) would be key!
Such as business models there are two additional buzzwords, namely innovation and
sustainability, both are used “wishy-washy” loosing their strength. It is the same with
the business model. It is applied rather mechanically following the building blocks
from Osterwalder without thinking about the philosophical fundamentals behind.
Years ago we had advanced systems thinking at the HSG. This has been lost since
science is becoming more and more focused loosing a holistic view of the whole.
People in general do not like to question themselves! But they love having 55
business model archetypes; however, in fact there is an endless number of different
business models since each company is different, there are not just 55. Dealing with
this high level of complexity can also be labelled entrepreneurship! You have to find
your place in the world. It is not about values to be written down on a piece of paper,
these are the values to be lived within a company. Business modelling is often just a
question of values.
In the construction sector there are new emerging ideas such as BIM (building
information modelling). Building houses based on industrial principles, something
architects do not like at all. He has already proposed to establish a chair for ‘empirical
architecture’ at the ETH Zürich, dealing with the question what can be learned for the
next building generation based on what already has built. Again, better
understanding the customers and their behaviour.
Entrepreneurs have to question the state of the art. A good entrepreneur loves the
problems of his customers. It is about taking responsibility for whole systems, not just
for parts in it. This is what customers finally value. In many sectors, everyone acts
rationally. But no one is motivated to say, hmm, can we do it differently? This way of
thinking is required. We finally need a passion for what we do. This is business model
thinking.
465 / 549
3.19 S9 – Entrepreneur, Coach, Speaker and Business Book Author
He is a software entrepreneur, coach and speaker. He thinks that the understanding

of the business model has changed in the past years. In big companies the concept
is used systematically these days, in small companies its application is still unclear.
Hence, the business model concept is well known today, particularly in big and
middle-sized companies. The diffusion of the concept also depends on the sector;
there are differences between different sectors. The concept is relevant because
companies have to re-invent themselves. They have to generate growth.
Everything about business models has started in the Internet bubble era in 1999 and
2000, where the term business model was a buzzword. Since then, it has massively
developed. The idea originally emerged in a business process context, such as used
in IT communities. He first dealt with the business model concept in his dissertation.
He was interested in understanding companies through a holistic lens. The
development of his framework was restricted to the context of start-ups and big
companies. SMEs were ignored. Essentially, even today he has only few contacts
with SMEs.
The Canvas has become a standard tool in the start-up community, not only in
Switzerland, but worldwide. The Lean Canvas from Ash Maurya is considered a
catastrophe since it lacks of conceptual rigour. People use it because they tend to
think in product categories rather than in the business model dimension. The Canvas
does not focus on products only; it is about the big picture. Therefore, he has
invented the Value Proposition Canvas, which can be seen as an answer to the Lean
Canvas. Ash Maurya cooperates with Eric Ries (Lean Start-up idea). However, Steve
Blank prefers the Canvas because he considers the Lean Canvas mishmash,
conceptually not thought through. Many new tools are not well thought through; this
is a problem. This is why he exclusively creates visual tools. He builds tools that are
easily understandable. These are tools that you can use from day 1 on. There is
nothing you must to learn first. He is currently working on a team alignment map, as
an additional plug-in for the Canvas. Developing plug-ins for existing tools is
considered superior to developing adapted models since each tool has its purpose.
Rather than creating new adapted models investigating industry specific patterns
466 / 549
(using existing tools) is considered far more valuable an approach for academics in
the domain. Generally, there are many people copying and adapting existing well-
established tools these days.
His definition of a business model is “The story of how you create, deliver, and
capture value“. He tries to make things as easy as possible. An analogy of the
business model is the front-stage (value side) and back-stage (cost side) of a theatre.
Accordingly, the Canvas is really well thought through. The Canvas respects some
sort of a balance. It originally was derived from the balanced score card idea but
ended up to be much more intuitive. Concepts such as the Lean Canvas violate this
balance. This also why they do not really work in practice. Most companies he
knows, who once started using the Lean Canvas, have finally returned to the
Canvas. Conceptually, the Canvas is just more coherent.
Entrepreneurship means that we must always have all elements in mind, all the time.
People tend to focus on products only. This is still a problem. However, it does not
matter where to start as long as you end up dealing with all of the 9 building blocks.
What he has learned from engineers is that they always want to start building
something. They take the lean start-up mantra “build – measure – learn” literally.
However, we should reflect between “Can I do it” and “Should I do it”.
He is not active in basic research anymore but develops tools assisting practitioners.
This can be seen as some sort of extremely applied research. In natural sciences we
still have the link between basic research and its application in practice. In business
and management, there is an increasing gap between the academic and the practical
world. He and his team try to reply by creating tools that are really useful for
practitioners.
The Canvas is either used to establish a common language or to re-invent the

company. This is what he has learned in big companies. In both cases the concept is
used differently. There are so many ways to use the concept; it is impossible to make
general statements. However, the concept is particularly useful in sectors with fast
modifications such as the telecom industry. Note: it is not necessarily a tool for re-
inventing a business but also serves as a means to establish a shared language. In
467 / 549
their workshops they have learned that even people using the concept for years still
learn new aspects. It has become good practice to show companies what good
business models are and how to think in alternatives. It is always about the ‘histories’
told by people rather than filling out the individual building blocks.
Case studies (from SMEs, for instance) may help making the concept more tangible.
If I have companies (big SMEs) actively and successfully using the business model
concept he would be interested in these companies. We still face a gap regarding
business models and ecosystems, showing how to create value as a network rather
than individually. Furthermore, he sees still potential in finding out what people really
understand by the term business models and which tools they use in practice when
working on their business models. But also, why do they use it, what are the triggers?
Many big companies state that their environment has changed. They have to react. It
is considered interesting to learn more about why people start thinking in such
dimensions. Very often people who were given the concept by their bosses get in
contact with him since they have to find out how they could take advantage out of it.
468 / 549
3.20 S10 – Innovation Consultant, Lecturer, Innovation Book Author
He offers consulting services in innovation. His specialization is driven by market

needs. A few years ago they offered methodological support. Today it is more
content-related. In particular they work at the interface between corporate strategy
and innovation, hence working out strategic search fields, focus and growth
strategies. Innovation has become much more concrete in the past years. Just
establishing an innovation management structure is not enough anymore. Since
innovation is always something new companies need methodological security. This is
why they need an external consultant. He mostly works with technical oriented
companies. In most cases no SMEs (bigger). Normally, bigger companies have a
higher affinity to external consulting services. He has learned that technical oriented
companies are ahead in terms of innovation, compared to other sectors, such as
banks.
He first learned about business models as a research fellow at ETH in Zürich, when
he worked on this dissertation in technology management 20 years ago. They then
realized that new aspects came across in the context of low cost airlines, which could
not be explained using traditional product oriented thinking. Then, it was a gradual
process from offering even more additional services up to products only serving as a
means to an end, as we can see today (as a trigger). Since most products have
become commodities we have to think about alternatives making the price war
irrelevant, blurring the product prices.
Originally the business model was defined as the revenue streams, how to make
money. Today, it incorporates much more, thanks to the work of Osterwalder. His
visualizations are really helpful. However, the business model has been part of the
business plan ever since. Although many people think about value propositions, for
him, the core still is the revenue mechanism. The business model is derived from the
value proposition. Osterwalder has put value proposition thinking at the centre in
order to make the concept more attractive. Osterwalder uses existing concepts
without naming them such as the Kano model dealing with unarticulated needs.
However, the business model finally answers the question how do you make money.
This also influences the value proposition, how do you charge something etc. The
469 / 549
revenue model has also been part of a business plan ever since, which you can see
in standard indexes in business plans. A business plan is just more comprehensive.
However, 99 out of 100 business plans do not work. Nevertheless, it is important to
think things through rigorously, particularly regarding your financial situation.
It is not clear whether the model from Gassmann is really a model. It could even be
just an index. Furthermore, the Canvas is an inadequate tool to develop new
business models. It can be used for visualization purposes once the model has been
created or for existing models. Most examples provided by Osterwalder are
constructed ex-post. They cannot be derived directly from the Canvas.
Is there a link between innovation and business models? Yes, it is. Everything you do
must automatically be seen as a business today. This is where the business model
concept comes into play. You have to test quickly an idea; this is the only way that
allows you to find out whether something works or not. At the same time, we have to
think in alternatives. Additionally, the concept assists you in breaking up existing
structures.
The work from Gassmann, including the business model road map and the
archetypes are interesting, very interesting, for historians. The interviewee had
customers who had to work with these tools – they were considered worthless in
practice. He uses a technique called ‘structured creativity’, hence combining creativity
with analytical sessions. They look for the nucleus of a possible innovation, in most
cases building on something existing. Starting something from scratch is extremely
difficult. The business model concept is also a tool to react on market changes.
Companies just calculate the costs of running projects rather than the costs of
projects that have never been realized (long term costs for the company).
Many companies are aware of current topics such as the business model concept but
they have problems with its implementation. The problems are internal structures
preventing firms from doing something new. At this stage external consultants can
act as some kind of catalyst. Start-ups have more flexible structures; this is why they
are more innovative. He doubts whether innovativeness is a question of culture. It is
470 / 549
more about incentives; hence about particular interests of individuals in
organizations.
There is an increasing gap between the academic and the practical world. The
rationale is that many scholars have never worked a single day in practice but have
become professors based on many of publications. Admittedly, they produce really
good journal articles, no doubt, but it has often nothing to do with practice.
It does not matter which concept you finally work with; it is important that you use a
framework you feel comfortable with as thinking model. Culture is a difficult thing.
What is culture? As it was said by an American: “How we do it here”. Hence even the
Canvas implies a certain culture. Finally, it is important that we recognize the
strengths and weaknesses of each tool and reflect which tool is suitable for what we
want to achieve. In the innovation domain, we have plenty of tools…. Osterwalder
has managed to consolidate many of them (Kano model, job to be done model, just
to name a few) – well done! In SME contexts people look for tools they can use in
order to produce completed cycles quickly. Again: methodological security is valued
today.
471 / 549
3.21 S11 – Philosophical ‘Impulsator’
He has two main fields of specialization: professional philosophy and management

philosophy. Philosophers must also think entrepreneurial these days in order to stay
‘competitive’. However, it is about giving impulses in the life of other people. He sees
himself not as a management consultant; instead he is a philosophical ‘Impulsator’.
We can compare this with a doctor who never has contact with his patients.
Philosophers must be tightly linked to the real life in order to be credible. Today,
professional philosophy does not have a right to exist outside the university, hence
philosophers must bring their thinking to the people outside the university. In his
courses at university (design and business school) he tries to develop situational
intelligence, something for entrepreneurs. It is about “smelling” questions, something
gaseous standing in the room, which has not yet condensed into something tangible.
For him, the term business model is something incidental. At first glance, it could be
understood as a visualized strategy plan. He normally does not use the term.
However, when reflecting its meaning it may contain ‘basic structures’ of a company.
Ownership structures. Processes. He understands a company to be embedded in a
context since the basic question is: Why do we make business? It is a declaration of
love to the world and to the people living in it. In contrast, ‘doing business’ is
occupied with bad emotions these days, egoism etc. He thinks that money should
never be the motivation for entrepreneurship. On the contrary, we need money to
launch a business. It is a ‘means to an end’ perversion. Those just focusing on
money in essence have a problem, not an economic, but a philosophical problem.
Hence, it is important to give new philosophical impulses rather than surrounding to
the egoists. We have to motivate young people to start their own business rather than
just showing them the safe side. Young people think about their pension in their early
twenties; a worrying fact preventing them from founding their own venture.
The term business model implies the dominance of the business part, making the
term unilateral. Furthermore, it has the character of something big reduced to
something small. By consequence, having it in small, we can just scale it. This may
be a brilliant approach in the technical domain but its application in social systems
must be questioned. With a small model of reality there is a danger of missing ‘real
472 / 549
reality’. We also have life models, ideas how a life should be, but life is different. We
have models for everything but the real world does not care about them. A model is
considered ‘a good servant but a bad master’. Models imply the danger of the ‘Titanic
Syndrome’ since “He did everything correct, he followed the model”. It is exactly the
same with political models. In this context we have to distinguish between idealists
and the model-fanatics. Idealists consider what life tells them, are able to react on
something emerging. Controversially, models paralyze since we have the ‘model-
security’. Hence, we are not able to get involved in something that emerges. In
contexts with no human-centred interactions the ‘model-like’ may be much more
useful. We can also think about models explaining the world. We have models about
the meaning of life. We have religious models. What are the basic models of the
religions? What are basic models of a company? Hence, models that possibly allow
for revealing recurrent basic structures and problems? Very often we are confronted
with the ‘good servant but bad master’ principle, but also vice versa, as the servant
becomes the master, which can often be seen with money. Are there some basic
models of a business? Models, for instance, which are obsolete or inadequate? A
model can be understood like a compass, but none goes hiking for the sake of the
compass.
Essentially, everything starts with a question, an innovation, for instance. Let’s say,
we have a so-called ‘Welt-Frage’ (a question to the world) for which I may have an
answer, my personal answer, the ‘Ich-Antwort’. This ‘Ich-Antwort’ can be understood
as an invention (not innovation!), based on which I pose a ‘Ich-Frage’ (my question to
the world). To answer the ‘Ich-Frage’ I look for a ‘Welt-Antwort’ (a response from the
world to my question). Depending on the reaction of the world the result could be an
innovation. Furthermore, the ‘question-system’ is divided in three parts: head, heart,
hand and foot, by reference to the freedom of thought, freedom of will, and freedom
of action. In economy, the heart, the area at the centre, is often ignored. People
mostly do not take time to get involved with the world to explore and discover an
answer. Real entrepreneurs do exactly this. They have answers, but they formulate a
question to the world (based on their answers) and see what happens. No doubt, the
step from the ‘Ich-Antwort’ to the ‘Welt-Frage’ is risky. By contrast, just having an
473 / 549
answer for something is quite easy. However, entrepreneurs are interested in
humans and in observing them, ‘smelling’ and discovering what is in the ‘air’.
Many important questions have already been answered. However, individuals often
do not turn their individual answers into a ‘Welt-Frage’. Entrepreneurs do exactly this.
They are interested in the world. By contrast, those having answers for everything
(know-it-all) are considered cowards when they do not formulate questions out of it;
hence, it is all about giving something back to the world! This way of thinking is some
sort of business model thinking too; he just has not named it like that. In summary,
there are two distinctions to be made: 1. Having an answer to an existing idea. 2. The
idea itself does not even exist yet. On the other hand, an excited customer can also
provide us with some kind of world-answers (according to his reactions to a
presentation held, for instance). Accordingly, this can also be potential for
innovations.
Often, people lose their interest for the world since they failed once. The highest level
of excellency, however, is when you fail and then continue! In all, there are plenty of
human factors to be considered. The ‘heart’ (as central unit) is considered the
greatest barrier because it has a broker function. However, when this broker function
is distorted it almost always has negative influences on the system. The blood
circulation is interrupted in such situations and people degenerate to ‘Kopf-Füsslern’
(someone/something just having a head and the feet). Lifeblood is important
although it may sound strange in an economic context. But without lifeblood you are
just a ‘Kopf-Füssler’. Without passion for something, you get demotivated. There are
factors from inside (called ‘vergällen’ (denature?)) and from outside, which may
paralyze you. Often, people bypass the heart question. Under massive external
pressure you can act without having the heart question answered but for a limited
time only. But in long-term, you need the heard, the passion for something. Having
passion for something also includes suffering, it is not about just having fun. It is
different. Passion includes suffering.
It is important to realize that we cannot motivate people. But we can do something

not to demotivate them. It is important to note that having fun for the sake of having
fun does not work. A heart not just beats for itself, it needs a task, something sensible
474 / 549
to do. It mustn’t end in itself. Our economy, can it really afford to ignore the ‘heart
question’? However, it is not an economic question at first glance. Can it afford to
‘dehumanize humans’? Based on medical statistics the argument is that it cannot, but
it still does. The quantification, a brilliant invention of the human mind, is considered a
servant for the wrong master. In contrast to the paradigm of learning as much as
possible in a short period, we may be better off taking time for something. Root
development. Enabling anchorage. We have to learn driving with different velocities.
In innovation we talk about incubation. If you check the roots of a young plant too
soon, you destroy it – it will never have the chance to thrive. We must first allow the
problem to develop. Describing such a cycle could be a model he may become
familiar with, a model, which ‘reduces to the max’, a compression of complexity but
not a trivialization. We have to send ideas to the subconscious, a forced anaesthesia,
not waking it up all the time. Suddenly, something new is about to emerge, as we can
see in the history of science. You send your questions to sleep and wake up with an
answer in mind! People must develop loyalty to their questions, not giving up too
quickly. By the way, it may also be interesting to investigate which internal and
external demotivating factors influence business models.
Humans do not just want to learn from the world but they also want to give something
back to the world. This is considered some kind of basic rhythm, maybe a world
formula. It is an interval between appropriation and communication. Maybe even
what drives evolution, possibly an old principle?
475 / 549
3.22 S12 – Swiss Pension Fund Investor
He works as a manager for a governmental organisation investing public pension

fund money in Swiss SMEs. Not only his organisation invests money but also
develops the selected companies (cooperation for a period of up to 9 years). He is
responsible for investments in industrial and IT sectors. He works with companies
between 20 and 80 million turn over, most of which technical oriented. These
companies are located in all parts of Switzerland (in all language regions). He is a
trained engineer and holds an MBA degree.
For him a business model is about the way a company makes and spends money,
about the revenue model and about the costs. He is very simplistic with this term and
only interested where the revenues come from and whether they are bigger than the
costs. Most likely the business model can be considered some kind of mental model
assisting in the evaluation process. However, he has never seen a business model
framework such as the Canvas from Osterwalder (he may have heard about it in an
academic context) nor has he ever used the concept – or seen somebody else using
it. Accordingly, the concept is not important to him.
Their main criterion for assessing companies is whether the companies have ever
made profit in the past. If not, they go not even further. Then, they consider the
market, the products and the team. Is the team committed and do they tell a credible
story? Their story must demonstrate a strategic intense and they must be able to see
the future in a creditable way. Above all, these points must be convincing and
coherent.
476 / 549
3.23 S13 – Consultant for Future Orientation
He is specialised in future management, hence professionally dealing with the future

leaders have in mind. He entered this area through the concept of early warning
systems.
He thinks that the business model concept is interpreted differently, often according
to Osterwalder (Canvas). However, it is considered a modern word for value chain
including the revenue streams. The revenue streams including the cost structures,
both are important. The concept was popularized by Osterwalder but has existed
much longer before.
He has developed his own framework in order to deal with the future, a model
consisting of 5 ‘future glasses’ as a means to deal with diverse perspectives. The
business model concept is included in this future management framework. Their
model is individually adapted from case to case. Basically, the model is always the
same but the underlying structures and methods are to be modified company-
specifically.
The business model concept is considered important in order define the logic of
revenue generation. However, before the business model comes into play it is
important to define a mission, a crystal clear positioning and a vision. Accordingly,
the business model concept is subsumed under value chain and revenue model.
However, all this is embedded in the question what a company’s mission is.
The Canvas from Osterwalder is considered too simplistic. It is popular, easy

understandable for everyone, but maybe too simple. He also knows the model from
Gassmann in which basic business models have been described (55 archetypes).
These archetypes are also often called ‘meta chances’, hence chances already
thought ahead.
The strength of the model from Osterwalder is that everyone is able to understand it
easily, such as a SWOT analysis. However, based on his experiences how people
apply the SWOT framework in practice the application of the Canvas must be
questioned. The strength of Gassmann is a set of models to be though through
477 / 549
upfront. There are no sector-specific limitations regarding the basic idea the business
model concept offers. However, those applying the model finally determine its
success in practice.
He thinks that the business model concept is hyped these days and that we use it
very universally. We should use these terms in a ‘cleaner’ way for not confusing
them; i.e. how do differentiate between a business model and a business area?
478 / 549
3.24 M1 – IT Infrastructure Engineering Office
4 people, 20 years in business
He is the owner and CEO of an engineering company specialised in IT

communication infrastructures (cabling) offering services mainly to big companies but
also increasingly to SMEs. As a trained electrical engineer he has started his career
in the media, then decided to launch his own business, at the very beginning as a
branch office of a German company.
He has first worked with (and first learned about) the business model concept as a
former employee introduced it as a means to develop a concept for gaining new
customers (this was last year). The business model concept is considered an
instrument that allows for communicating to the customers, communicating the
available resources and evaluating customer potentials.
Since he had a good order situation most of the time in the past 20 years he never
really cared about such concepts. Only recently, in crisis time, he has started dealing
with such ideas. Essentially, his business in structured in two phases: Sensitisation of
the customers (including providing consulting services) at an early stage and
delivering concrete planning services in a second step (execution planning). As a
prerequisite for new orders it is fundamentally important to have information about
potential construction projects in an early phase. This has become much more
difficult since there are generation changes in the companies of his traditional clients.
These new people tend to work with framework agreements. The whole environment
has become better tailored for big engineering offices rather than small. Accordingly,
his business model is about to change radically. Information gathering activities for
learning about new potential projects have become much more important, more
demanding and time intensive. However, once having an order the planning process
is still the same. Traditionally, he automatically had information about potential
projects since he stayed close to his customers. Today, he is facing a paradigm
change, he has to find this information on the web; this is an additional step in
between, generating a lot more acquisition work to do.
479 / 549
He normally sells hours but in more than 50 % he also sells flat rates containing all
services. Often, this type of agreement is preferred (cost security).
Partnerships have always been important. However, it has become different a

process to establish them. In the past he ‘of course’ got following orders from
different divisions within the same client company (big companies). In SMEs you do
not have internal divisions, which would allow for continuing this same acquisition
strategy.
His former employee introduced him to the Canvas and the Exploration Arena. He
has developed new ideas using these tools. Two of them have finally been
implemented in practice, one or which rather successful. The tools were used to
develop different ideas. Those that do not work could rapidly be sorted out. The main
strength is clearly their inherent falsification principle, hence sorting out ideas that
obviously do not work at an early stage; what finally remains then is worth further
pursuing.
Most competitors may have a bigger network since they are just bigger offering the
whole range of services required in the domain rather than just serving a niche. This
is considered an advantage these days (more and more). He learned that working
with partners is not a viable approach to deal with this new situation because you
cannot establish the needed pricing homogeneity (as the competitors internally
have). However, the main challenge will be to work out better strategies that allow for
getting the required project information.
Digitalisation and industry 4.0 are important and hot topics in his portfolio. He is about
developing and refining services in this area. However, digitalisation has not changed
his internal processes thus far (planning services); the latter have not changed in the
past 20 years.
Thinking in the business model dimension is considered very useful. After each
session he had at least one ‘aha-experience’. It has enhanced and expanded his
thinking by showing new relationships between various elements (which were maybe
hidden before). However, any financial success has not been visible so far.
480 / 549
3.25 M2 – Regional Milk Processing Company
Freshness is the mantra of his business. They process regional milk into regional
products, which is getting more and more difficult because the customer base is
continuously shrinking. Furthermore, it has become harder to protect and hold the
own brand since customers (particularly wholesaler) want their own brands so they
have to deliver no-name products to be labelled by their customers.
The company was founded 75 years ago. 10 years ago they reorganised their
ownership structure since family members dropped out and a new generation came
in. Furthermore, the production focus has changed from milk towards yoghurt, so
they had to (and still have to) invest in new production facilities. He is a trained dairy
producer working for his family company since the age of 20.
By the term business model, he understands the way the company has been
reorganised from a stock company into a holding, including tax optimisation aspects
so that his brothers and sisters could sell their shares avoiding high tax rates.
Furthermore, the business model is also tightly linked to the mission statement, how
the company is positioned. They want to be fair partners not just optimising profit, but
also ensuring the company’s long-term existence.
There is a tendency of even fresher products produced in even smaller charges.

Therefore, they must be able to react fast and flexible with minimal production waste.
Small batches often are door openers; however, they also have to be able to produce
large batches if demanded. This is a challenge.
These days, it is important to focus on ‘prescriptions’ (‘Rezeptleistung’) to stay

competitive, hence strictly focusing on know-how intensive products for which
customers are willing to pay adequate prices. It is always a balancing act between
‘exclusive’ products to be manufactured in reasonable lucrative quantities. However,
they do not make luxury products. Instead, good products for fair prices. Quite often,
they are asked to develop specific products for a special community (i.e. a turkey
speciality), which can then be sold to other channels too. This is how development
481 / 549
works. They get the receipts from these people (from the outside) and then develop
and produce a small quantity. New products have to be accepted by customers right
at the beginning, this is a real problem. Accordingly, staying close to the customers is
inevitable. They also have an outlet generating about 4 % of the total turnover. It is a
‘business card’. It is not about selling off their products. The outlet is a showcase for
the products, which could not be presented to the customers in some other way.
They have not yet used a business model or any other management framework or
concept. They do not manage to fully exploit their production capabilities. Engaging a
salesman is a controversially discussed topic these days concluding that the owner
(the boss) must serve the most important customers (‘A-customers’) and investing a
lot of effort for the ‘rest’, the small customers, is considered a waste of time and
money. Instead, they should be much more concentrating on the so-called ‘A-
customers’.
New products (innovations) are considered important to demonstrate originality.

Often, you do not sell a lot of them but new products may serve as door openers for
existing products. New things normally are tightly linked to high risk. So they always
experiment with new ideas on a small scale. Finally, more new ideas should be
successful than vice versa.
Digitalisation can be understood as a means to make internal processes more

efficient. This is daily business. However, they also experiment with new offerings
promoted on the website. However, it is just about customer pre-orientation. The
customers will have to visit the outlet anyway. This cannot be replaced using digital
channels.
One of the big challenges ahead is the trend of chain formation. Customers
cooperate by concentrating their purchase. So you can participate in a competition
process rather than acting as total supplier. This implies a downward pressure on the
prices.
Further challenges are also regulations, from Switzerland but also from the European
Union. Additionally, ideas such as the revision of the ‘Swissness’ label are
considered a catastrophe. For instance, based on the new restrictions big companies
482 / 549
do it without the label since they can sell their products anyway. By consequence,
they no longer consider other Swiss companies and products, i.e. why should they
consider sugar from Switzerland any longer? This has not been thought through
carefully.
483 / 549
3.26 M3 – Renewable Energy Start-up
They develop products for the renewable energy sector, ranging from power
production plants up to power stores. The company was founded in 2012. They first
focused on installation services, and then re-focused to developing their own
technology products. They consider themselves a real start-up. They first started with
installation projects then moved towards a technology-based firm developing their
own systems. Initially their were financed by their projects and their families; today,
they even managed to get money from technology funds as well. They started with a
rather broad range of products and services, and then have gradually started
focusing. The founders’ vision has always been to be ahead of the market with
intelligent products. He has a background in the software industry and has the vision
that the energy revolution will be digitally, consisting of intelligent power storage and
distribution products and services. Therefore, his offerings are modular. Customers
can buy power production plants and upgrade later with intelligent controlling units, if
necessary.
He was first confronted with the business model concept many years ago but did not
have a clear idea what it really was at the time so he decided for an MBA training in
innovation; the business model concept (fascinating him somehow) was the main
driver for this. Basically, in the start-up context the business model concept has been
popular for many years. But even Osterwalder was able to standardise the idea. He
considers the concept to be very useful for his business.
Accordingly, he understands the concept following the Canvas from Osterwalder

consisting of the 9 building blocks. It is a perfect means for establishing a common
language within a company and with investors. In the current process of increasing
share capital, the Canvas has been a substantial part of. Furthermore, the business
model concept is considered the basis for each business plan. However, the
business model concept is very static a tool. Quiet often, we need tools that allow for
showing the flow of resources and money. Therefore, he also works with the
transaction model. Potential investors are interested in dynamic perspectives as well.
484 / 549
They want to see the flow of money and resources. You also have to visualise
partner networks and the flow between the different actors.
In summary, the Canvas has been perfectly conceptualised. You have two halves as
thinking models, depending what you are interested in: the value side (right) and the
internal perspective (left). The only ‘negative’ thing is that he needs a
complementation for the dynamic perspective. He has never worked with other
concepts (and does not know any of them). The Canvas incorporates design-thinking
ideas consisting of iteration cycles, a principle which is also part of his daily business.
He also learned that people who do not know the concept might have problems
understanding it.
Currently his company still runs a typical sector model. But he works on
differentiations, which is considered not all too easy a task. For making something
different you need a lot of money so you have to go step by step. The main challenge
is that we are in an energy revolution. The prices for energy are nearly zero. The
Canvas does not deal with this context. Therefore, you need Porter in order to deal
with contextual challenges or you describe them in a traditional business plan. By
contrast to business modelling, strategy is more about ‘where to play’ and ‘how to
win’.
The digitalisation in the power sector is considered a business model task since you
have to think hard about various selling strategies such as generating recurring
revenues, i.e. realised with subscription models. Although things tend to cost
‘nothing’ at first glance, there are always people working for it, maybe programmers
in the background so they do not cost ‘nothing’. Industry 4.0 is just shifting the
required qualifications.
Another important aspect is business model innovation. He tries to find combinations

that allow for new products combined with new business models. This is what he is
really fascinated about and what he motivates him working on. An example for
inspiration is Google. They successfully implemented this kind of business model.
Customers must be fascinated about your offerings. However, it could well be that
you are already 3 steps ahead of the market. However, the implementation, the
485 / 549
execution, is still a challenge. We can often see that successful innovations come
from companies outside the sector. This is Christensen pure (The Innovators
Dilemma). However, those opening a new market are not necessarily those
dominating it later and making the highest profits in it. This can be seen with Tesla
these days; traditional automotive firms are ready to enter this market too, once it is
opened.
Finally, he has learned that you should no strain your customers with all too many
new products, services and ideas. People normally are resistant to new ideas. They
just accept small portions, if at all.
486 / 549
3.27 M4 – Sales Company of Energy Products
1 person, 5 years in business
He is the owner of a sales company, which initially started with selling and promoting
thermal solar products. Due to a steadily shrinking thermal solar market he has
expanded his range, today also selling photovoltaic, cogeneration units or storage
systems such as TESLA batteries (to name a few). He is a trained graphic artist. 5
years ago he decided to change something in his life so his father-in-law inspired him
to enter the solar market. In retrospective he first had to understand this ‘new’
market, which finally took him at least 2 years.
Installation firms, his initial customer segment, are considered hard to crack. They
are just motivated by earning money. Furthermore, they do not understand the solar
business so they are cautious entering this market. Strange enough, he had to learn
that the installation companies are totally incapable of transferring their installation
knowledge from inside the building to outside, to the solar components.
The products he sells were used in a project that recently won a solar price for being
particularly innovative in terms of its autarkic energy concept.
He first learned about the business model concept at Technology College. He

understands the business model as a business idea to be brought to paper. It is a
marketing related concept incorporating sales strategies and how to address
customers. It is about the question how to implement a business idea. Accordingly, it
is about how to enter the market, with the partners to be chosen, with a company’s’
main activities to be defined. All this is part of a business plan too. Hence, the
business plan is an instrument that allows for mapping the business model. He used
to work with a framework called the Marketing-Core-Model (‘Marketing-Kernmodell’).
It shows the elements you may be able to influence, then elements you cannot
influence, then the environment, the economic situation etc. Basically, it is how you
are embedded in an ecosystem. He used this model as a means to working out his
positioning, relative to his competitors. However, he used it at an early stage. Today,
he has all these things in mind and knows exactly how the market functions and his
competitors act so the model is not necessary and useful for him anymore.
487 / 549
He is still in the search mode. He has not yet discovered what to do in order to
establish a sustainable business. The main challenge still consists of how to get
attention from potential customers. Therefore, he has included heat pumps in his
product range since people often surf the web looking for heat pumps. As a bait
product, if you will.
Business model thinking is strongly focused on channels and how to retain

customers once having contact with them. Normally, customers contact many firms
for quotations. They finally decide for the company, which is able to deliver the ‘whole
product’ not just parts of it. This is why he has expanded his product line.
Furthermore, he tries to diversify his revenues by offering services. Since the name
of his company includes the term ‘solar’ it has become difficult that people
understand he also deals with heat pumps, for instance. Another challenge ahead.
He initially thought to be different through his background as graphic artist (as a

sufficient differentiation factor). However, in the meantime there is not much
differentiation between him and his main competitors. By consequence, he has
started focusing on niches often neglected by the big players in the sector. The
problem is that the market is still shrinking tremendously but he is still convinced of
his initial idea/strategy, at the core of which stands the idea of serving people in a
competent way, what he thinks most of the big players cannot afford. His vision has
always been that we have to break down complex technologies to a level
homeowners can understand it. This is considered a real value and also the basis for
word-of-mouth recommendation. He initially tried to submit this knowledge to the end
customer via installation companies. In the meantime, he has realised that
homeowners may represent a much better suited segment. He uses print media and
the web for communicating how the technology works, to make it understandable.
He has never worked with external consultants. Since he has college degree he is
too ‘proud’ to work with someone from outside, who anyway would not understand
the market logic. In the print media sector where he comes from people still have
some kind of professional pride making the best with the resources at hand. This is
different to his current sector, where all is about money. He also acts as lecturer in
488 / 549
specific courses aiming at achieving popularity in the segment of the next generation
of solar professionals, as some sort of ‘Trojan-Strategy’.
3.28 M5 – Floor Heating Start-up
He is a co-founder and co-owner of a company that plans floor-heating systems. He

is responsible for the ‘daily business’. The company is almost 3 years in business
and has been founded after a lunch with his brother where they realised that there is
a lack of such services in the market. He is a trained heating installer; furthermore, he
holds a degree from a Technology College. Before launching a business, he worked
as an installer and then also as an engineer in an engineering office.
He already was co-founder of another company (in the solar domain). This is where
he first got in contact with the business model concept, which was popular at
university where his brother was doing an MBA in innovation management at the
time. The logic of his business is rather simple: he gets paid per square meter
planned rather than per hours; the latter is considered the standard in the sector.
Accordingly, the company has been built very process-oriented. He is able to
outsource up to 90 % of the drawing services to sub-contractors. Hence, the core
activity of the company is managing external people planning and drawing the
systems. His main activities consist of interface management, customer care and
acquisition. His company is different since he defines the market where he wants to
‘play’ rather than working as a traditional engineering office offering the whole range
of services as ‘normal’ offices in the sector do; he has focused on a highly
specialized task. In contrast, most engineering offices try to differentiate themselves
by offering additional new services instead of specializing on a particular task.
However, there was a lot of luck at the very beginning since he had a paying
customer from day 1 on.
Although he has already worked with the business model concept he could not define
it easily. The concept can be compared to the gear wheels of a watch, hence a
mechanism making the whole working. However, it is not considered a mechanistic
489 / 549
concept since it adapts dynamically all the time. It is fluid. It is some sort of energy
flow. Once the energy flows, what can we do to maintain this flow? This is the main
question when talking about business models. The epicentre is the moment where
you have an offer, which fits to a customer need. This is where it usually starts.
Above all, he knows the Canvas from Osterwalder, with which he has already worked
extensively. Furthermore, he also knows the idea of sketching out the whole market
ecosystem, which proved to be particularly useful. He does not know any other
business model concepts. The Canvas may be applied in two ways: we can use it as
a means to developing ‘wild’ ideas from scratch (the way it is mostly used) or we can
use it for reflecting an idea very much in detail by focusing on selected elements such
as the value proposition and the customer. However, the Canvas is often used as a
means to developing new ideas out of nothing, from scratch. This application is
considered rather useless. Instead, viable business ideas have their origin in the
mind of people. What really counts is the resonance of an offer with a customer need,
even in the founding process. The rest does not matter at that time. Therefore, the
Canvas may become arbitrary because we often think that all fields must be filled in
even when there is nothing to be filled in at the time. Accordingly, at the very
beginning we do not need information about all of the 9 building blocks, there are
elements that follow later.
From design thinking we know that models may limit creativity. When we are forced
to reflect 9 building blocks this may limit our creativity. However, since the concept is
so widely spread it ‘must be’ a good framework. It can be observed that people such
as academics tend to adapt the Canvas in order to bring in ‘missing’ perspectives.
The core of a business is considered the job to be done. This is the highest level of
abstraction for an offering. This job can then be fulfilled in many ways; this allows for
diversity. Formulating such a job is considered really difficult a task. Therefore, he
distinguishes 3 levels/questions to be answered: The How, the Why and the What.
He has not yet managed to formulate ‘the job’ of his customers properly. This is
considered an on-going learning process. It is about better understanding disturbing
factors in the daily life of customers. It is about making their life a bit better, day by
day, or as Richard Branson once said: “Make a difference in their life”. The disturbing
490 / 549
factor is a good metaphor, which originally comes from the innovation company
‘Creaholic’, located in Biel.
Academics dealing with such concepts may understand the idea behind, the logic
embedded in it. But they have not experienced it. This is a main difference. They tend
to be concerned about theoretical aspects only. The Canvas is a good example that
useful tools are co-created with practitioners. It is also a result of collaboration with
consultants. We have to consider that one of the greatest management thinker ever,
Peter Drucker, has always stayed in contact with companies, such as with GM. His
ideas originated from practice.
There is an important dimension missing in the Canvas: people. It is always about

people. It is about observing people and learning from them, something we can learn
from the design discipline. The value proposition concept may contain ‘human
factors’. However, everything is all too early about business. We should try to better
understand the unaddressed problems behind. A problem is something ‘unsolved’,
not something obvious.
491 / 549
3.29 M6 – Architectural Office
The interviewee owns a traditional architectural office providing services for the whole
construction process. He employs architects, structural draughtsman and foremen.
He plans single-family houses but also industrial constructions. The company of his
father, a former construction company, is now operating as architectural firm (his
office). He is a trained architect and worked for several architectural offices before
launching his own business.
He has colleagues dealing with business models in a start-up context so he has a

rough idea of what a business model is. However, before he learned about the
concept from his colleagues the term business model was nothing else than an
empty phrase for him. He has an architectural office; he offers planning services. This
is his business model. Since he was co-founder of a start-up (in another context than
architecture), he learned about the Canvas from Osterwalder. However, the essence
of the Canvas could also be mapped using a business plan. As a trained architect, he
is not familiar with such concepts at all.
In his own business he has never applied the business model concept thus far. He
simply has never had time for this and there are no obvious added values for him to
do so. He runs a business as an architect. This essentially is his business model.
However, the concept is tightly linked to the business plan, a document describing
the way of how to make money, and also showing where you want to be in 10 years.
He has been in the situation in his life where he had to answer business model
questions. Even not in the founding process of his office since at the beginning there
was no plan, there was plenty of work to do. He has been working hard all the time,
day and night, but for the ‘real work’ rather than the organization of his office.
The logic of his business is considered rather simple. He has a client who wants to
build something. His revenues are determined using a ‘table’ form the Swiss
Architectural Association (SIA). Hence his revenues are calculated on the basis of
the total construction costs. Another model is getting paid per hour. However, clients
often want security so they define a limit of expenses, a flat rate if you will. This is
492 / 549
how it works. The best model is getting paid per hour. Fees based on the total
construction costs are more common but also more difficult because he has to adapt
and control his expenses more carefully. Typically, the model based on the total
construction costs is preferred. There are formulas that allow for calculating the fees,
based on the complexity of the project/object. The easiest projects are single-family
houses, the most complex hospitals incorporating complicated technologies; this is
where you get the highest fees. Based on the model he has to work with his internal
costs have to be calculated differently.
Quite often, in early project phases (pre-project) clients are not willing to pay per
hour. This would be too expensive so you have to offer them a flat rate. Some of your
work must then be registered as acquisition. Nevertheless, in each model you have
to control your internal costs.
There are alternative models to the SIA norm (defining very much in detail what you
can calculate). Other models are those of general or total contractors selling the
whole object at a fixed price. Then, the general or total contractors are free to decide
how much money they invest in the planning process. Models with total contractors
are much more opaque; this is accepted when clients are mainly interested in costs,
hence having a fixed price. However, the internal costs of a general or total
contractor are still the same. He just has options how to spend the money.
The whole sector runs more or less the same model. However, you will also find
offices working differently such as those following a model of repetition, hence
building the same object again and again, only slightly adapted. Due to a lack of
individuality such objects are sold cheaper so you have to do the math anyway.
Referring back to the Canvas, it could be interesting for him to map his company in
the Canvas in order to identify still unanswered questions. Above all, the tool could
be useful to learn more about his costs and revenues since the value proposition is
considered to be clear for an architectural office. It could be an interesting task to find
‘blind spots’, hence areas overlooked thus far because many questions one could
ask using the business model concept are simply ignored since he has only few
economic expertise. This could also explain the fact that he does not really care
493 / 549
about such concepts. If he had to go deeper in this area he would prefer writing a
business plan comparing costs and revenues, based on which he could see how
profitable his business really is.
494 / 549
3.30 M7 – Cutting Tool Manufacturer
He is co-owner of the holding and is responsible for marketing and sales.

Furthermore, he is CEO of a subsidiary company (with 100 employees) in another
country. He is also board member in other companies and acts as president in expert
groups worldwide. He has been working for the company/holding for more than 35
years and had the opportunity to acquire shares in a management buyout. The
company is exclusively owner managed, which is in line with the long-term strategy of
the holding. There are several people holding shares. The core products are cutting
tools, produced for more than 70 years now. However, in the meantime additional
products complementing the range have been developed as well. Of very high
importance are services such as tool management systems; they recently managed
to change their business model from a free to a paid model (for the tool management
system, the tools are still sold traditionally).
The tools have to be revised from time to time (re-sharpening and re-coating). This is
economically interesting since reworked tools are cheaper. In this process (up to the
recycling of the tools) there is a high economic potential, which they want to further
exploit. The management tool software is a perfect starting point for this. The
characteristic of a good business model is that it cannot be copied easily so they
continuously develop added values for their customers. Copying products is simpler
than copying whole sophisticated service models with a lot of know-how in it. They
are more and more focusing on models using data from anywhere in the process
(data mining) that allow for better controlling the tool management process, i.e.
automatically determining when customers need to revise their tools. There is still a
lot of potential for optimisation allowing customers to save money.
A business model is not something static, rather it is always changing; this is what
finally determines a successful company. It is about how to move in the market,
fulfilling customer needs, and how to implement and optimize the internal processes
in order to be efficient. Finally, the question is what strategy a company follows. The
business model is directly derived from this. They rework their strategy on a yearly
495 / 549
basis including strength-weakness and environment analyses. In short, business
modelling is about understanding the point of sales, which is considered a company’s
most worthwhile element. This is also where competitive advantages originate.
Mostly they develop their business model based on existing capabilities. However,
they also deal with new technologies that may become a threat for the existing model
in the future. They experiment with new technologies such as laser systems, it is all
about learning, so new possibilities and opportunities emerge from inside out.
Experimenting with new technologies, with no clear idea where it leads to, also
means taking chances. They employ 9 engineers in their development department.
He first learned about business models with the rise of the Internet. Before, the term
was not actively used. These days they are faced with similar challenges in the big
data domain. Data have to be analysed and understood so that may serve as a basis
for new business opportunities. Models such as the Canvas are just thinking models.
They have structured their company using a system directly derived from the
Balanced Score Card; hence a system that allows for monitoring the core processes.
These data form the basis for the strategy meetings and serve as a basis for new
ideas. Nevertheless, it is considered important to work in associations and to
collaborate with universities as source of inspirations and new ideas.
Once having identified a new business model, a real challenge is then the
implementation of it. Selling physical products is different to selling services where
customers do not own the tool anymore but pay for using it. You need a completely
different selling crew, new values and up-front investments. Even the contact persons
within the customer company may change from the mechanics using it (today) to
managing people (strategic purchasing). Furthermore, there will be alternatives of
how to use a tool. You will have alternatives between new, used, reworked and
reworked used tools. Managing this diversity in order to produce maximum value for
the customer is getting complex. Establishing such a system means getting closer to
the customer so you are not easily comparable anymore with your competitors. On
the other hand, you will even more become co-responsible for the customer’s
success.
496 / 549
When talking about business models we should also consider the way a company is
structured in terms of its ownership structure and also regarding long-term strategies;
is it about quickly making profit and selling the company or about long-term
strategies. All this essentially influences the business model. Also questions whether
the company shall be managed by the next generation influences the way the
business is structured. By contrast, American business model strategies are all about
realizing growth quickly then going public since they need money in order to stem this
growth. In Switzerland we do it differently, step by step and independently. In this
context it is also important to consider the fact that ‘cash is king’. Beside good ideas
you need an excellent controlling preventing you from losing financial control.
497 / 549
3.31 M8 – Furniture Manufacturer
He owns a company that produces ergonomic workspaces for the education and the
industry sector. Their offering stretches from first on-site analyses up to the
production and installation of individually designed furniture. For the education sector
they produce standard furniture. However, each module has initially been developed
in a customer project but is then used in a modular way for other customers too. They
also have customized products for ‘disabled’ people allowing them to return into the
working process but also many projects in the watch industry with special armrests
etc. He bought the company in 2009. Initially, he is a trained truck mechanic and
decided to start with something new, with his own business. Accordingly, before the
year 2009, he had no idea about furniture at all.
The business model is considered part of the corporate strategy. Based on SWOT
analyses they work out USPs, based on which they define strategic success factors.
Their strategy is a working paper usually revised on a yearly basis. When confronted
with particular problems, they also involve external experts for a very specific topic.
They have implemented a system directly derived from the Balanced Score Card
concept, also called ‚Cockpit’. He in fact does not know any (business model)
frameworks such as the Canvas. He assumes that SMEs are confronted with
different issues than start-ups. He has put all eggs into one basket when he bought
this company so he has not time to think about theoretical concepts, he must be
concerned about liquidity and profitability. There are 30 people and a payroll of
150’000 Swiss francs a month.
He is located in a high-price segment and can maintain success only due to flexibility,
reactivity and quality. They have to convince their customers that their furniture pays
off quickly (fewer absences). However, they make no ‘political’ deals. They are also
no ‘hard core sellers’ but their mantra is that their customers recommend them to
their friends. They try to convince through reliability. Simplicity is one of their main
USPs. For instance, they have one single phone number for their customers, no
matter for what reason they are calling.
498 / 549
In their business architects are difficult to handle because they tend to have specific
requirements making their furniture impracticable, something often hard to be unified
with their brand philosophy.
For him the Euro lower limit has become a serious problem. When the national bank
annulated the lower limit there was an overreaction of the market in the sector so that
the prices dropped down up to minus 30 per cent. The consequence is that they must
go into niche markets and to invest in new technologies, also by participating in
governmental support programs. Industry 4.0, however, is hotly debated these days
but in fact is nothing new. In his business this concept is only of limited significance
since you will never build SIM card-like chips in furniture. Nevertheless, digitalization
is a hot topic regarding the fabrication; hence developments that allow for
automatically producing batch size 1. Innovations are normally managed internally.
However, they consult external designers, engineers or universities if needed – when
highly specialized know-how is required. But also plenty of inputs from their
customers serve as basis for innovations. They often develop new products jointly
with their customers so they can get worthwhile external knowledge.
499 / 549
3.32 M9 – High Voltage Installation and Supply Company
1’000 people, about 120 years in business
His company is divided in 3 main divisions: energy production, energy trade, and
energy services. He is responsible for the sub division electrical installation outside
the building consisting of 1’000 people and a turnover of 150 Mio Swiss Francs. Their
main field of activity consists of installing energy supply systems for trams and trains.
He is a trained electrical engineer and has also graduated in economics (doctoral

degree) so he first learned about the business model concept at university; this was
around the year 1996, at the time of the first Internet boom. He defines the business
model concept as the logic of a business on the one hand. On the other hand, it is
about breaking down the proportions of the various partners within a value chain.
How can I create added value, which customer is willing to pay money for it? A
business model can be understood as some kind of machine. As long as it works in a
balanced way the company makes money. An unbalanced mechanic would prevent
the company from selling the product for a good price or the offer cannot even be
fulfilled. The business model is the main logic of how to make money. As long as I
sell something with added value I get extra paid for it. A good business model allows
for creating additional value with limited effort (and limited internal costs). This could
be seen in the software industry where suppliers used to sell the same software
many times to different customers each time claiming it would have been developed
individually. They made a lot of money. The customers were willing to pay because
they had an added value. However, such business models usually do not last forever.
In summary, the less I have to invest for this added value, the better the business
model is. He does not know any business model framework (neither the Canvas from
Osterwalder nor the Navigator from Gassmann).
In his business new channels such as the Internet are of limited significance only.
The business is still the same as it was 100 years ago. For him, business modelling
is about changing the business fundamentally. An example is that a few years ago
their customers wanted them to install railway segments (to be reworked) step by
step in night shifts; by day they wanted the section running without interruption.
500 / 549
Today this paradigm has shifted fundamentally. They stop the respective segment for
2 or 3 weeks offering busses for replacement to their customers. This has
fundamentally changed the logistics of his business. His customers continuously look
for opportunities to save money. The longer you work on a site the more expensive it
is. Once established, he also tries to apply the same (new) logic with other customers
too. However, such initiatives usually originate from the customers.
Years ago it was much more important to have a good understanding with the
customers. Reliability was important. There was enough money so their priority was
quality. This has changed fundamentally. Today it is much more about costs. Of
course they try to make things opaque but not as an institutionalized business
modelling process. This depends on the experience of the collaborators who know
how to play the game, how to deal with engineering offices (surveying the tendering
process). However, the tendering is becoming more and more sophisticated so
claiming strategies have become much harder – most engineering offices see
through the most common ‘tricks’. By consequence, they try to offer new services in
order to generate additional revenues. Once having an order, the customer cannot
easily change anymore since combining different technologies from different
suppliers would be too complex for the clients.
Most new ideas (as basis for potential innovations) are discussed in management
board meetings. He has learned that people full-time working on innovations most
probably tend to produce academic ideas difficult to be implemented in practice. They
normally do not work with external consultants since these people usually do not
have the required sector-specific knowledge. It may also be that they buy a start-up.
However, this strategy has not proved to be very successful, although the acquired
start-ups are run independently.
Digitalization is of limited significance these days. However, they have a running

project aiming at improving the field reporting system using tablets and smartphones
in order to make internal processes more effective. Digitalisation is a hot topic for the
future since they will be facing increasing cost pressures induced by foreign
competitors. Further potential for digitalization can be seen in business processes.
501 / 549
However, there are also more traditional areas for improvement different from
digitalization on which to work with high priority.
A major challenge is to stay attentive – not to ignore something new suddenly

outdating them. Therefore, they try to establish additional norms serving as entry
barriers difficult to overcome for new competitors interested in entering the market.
However, fundamental changes in the existing business model are not expected
within the next years in his rather conservative sector. Hence, what they try to do is
keeping away disruptive challengers through these measures. Broken down,
business model considerations have never been the main focus of any discussions.
They may be a result at best.
502 / 549
3.33 M10 – Serial Founder and Professional High Tech Investor
He works as business angel, investor and president of several start-up promoting

agencies. He has shares in 10 companies, in some of which he acts as chair. He
founded an IT start-up 30 years ago, which he then sold in the Internet boom era. He
is a trained electrical engineer who started his own business in the 1980-ies, at the
time just with the vision of working independently. He has always been interested in
working with people, in strategy and in organizational theory. He is also a good
communicator. He holds shares in IT high-tech start-ups, all of which located in
Switzerland. In most of ‘his’ companies he is responsible for the strategy process.
He first learned about the business model concept when he launched his own
business and started thinking about the position of his firm in the value chain and
how to expand within it. The business model in fact is how to bring the products and
services to the customers. Broken down, it may be a process model containing core
and support processes. However, the concept contains many more facets, such as
the question how to create a business, and how to reach the customers. It is
considered a comprehensive idea, mainly focusing on how a company actually works
and about creating revenues. He knows the Canvas from Osterwalder, a currently
well-established framework often used in the start-up scene. However, the
application of the Canvas depends on the task at hand. When developing a new
business, the Canvas may be useful. It is important that you post and remove sticky
notes, walking around the Canvas. Using a virtual model on a PC is useless. It is all
about human interactions in the process of filling it in.
However, he prefers working with an A4-sheet containing 3 main themes: A strategic

impact direction with the 3 most important aims; a SWOT analysis; a Balanced Score
Card. This is simple but has proved to be highly effective. The Canvas, on the other
hand, can be useful for developing something new, new ideas from scratch. Once
having a running business, the Balanced Score Card is considered more viable a
concept. In a Balanced Score Card, you have properly defined dimensions. For each
dimension you then define a target value to be periodically reviewed; you have to
work very disciplined! Accordingly, the Balanced Score Card is really useful when
applied consequently. It is useful since it forces you to think through all relevant
503 / 549
dimensions. It is not a detailed planning tool but it provides you with a holistic view of
your company.
The business model concept, on the other hand, is applied when facing changes
ahead. It is about thinking of new recurring revenues and about creating additional
values for customers, for which they are also willing to pay. Most importantly, the
customer must feel comfortable with you; he has to be “addicted” to you, in a positive
sense. Therefore, he follows the so-called 4a-formula: ‘anders als alle anderen’
(different to all the others). He is aware of other business model concepts than the
Canvas but he cannot name them. If at all, he just works with the Canvas. The main
weakness of the Canvas is an underdeveloped finance part. You have no indications
for cost drivers and for revenue drivers. For the rest it is well designed (when properly
applied). There are also models from Porter or process models. However, the people
he teaches in start-up courses are not interested in theoretical stuff; they want to talk
about practice. In his domain, the high-tech IT sector, the Canvas is widely used. In a
start-up, the business model is simply the ‘thing’. It is all about business modelling.
Hence, the business model concept is considered a useful tool, as long as properly
and carefully applied (using sticky notes!).
The main concern with business modelling is scaling up the business. You do not
want to sale ‘hours’. You want something making the price opaque. As soon as you
know your business you start offering flat rates so you can earn much more money
and the customer is even more satisfied since he has cost security with fixed prices.
Accordingly, it is very important that you know your business inside out, how much
time you need for each activity. This is the basis for creating flat rates. In such
situations you can even give 20 % discount (if needed) by still having a good profit.
His main credo is “making things as simple as possible, but not simpler” as Einstein
once said. However, this is considered difficult. A crystal clear focus and the luck of
finding a niche somewhere is what you need. You have to avoid dissipation and you
must be courageous enough to say ‘no’. However, in his company, 30 years ago, he
did not was he is preaching now. It was a learning process. He and his companion
started focusing on what was profitable and on what was fun. So they began to
understand the value of staying focused although most colleagues advised them to
504 / 549
accept any possible order as long as money was to be earned. Only with a clear
focus you can gradually develop an identity so that people understand what you do.
For this you must be courageous. Saying ‘no’ is always harder than saying ‘yes’. And
finally, you need a lot of luck. In his company they concentrated on the ‘right’
products (as it turned out later). They were among the first who had a web shop in
the early 1990-ies in their domain so he has witnessed the rise of the business model
idea very closely. However, our time now is also considered very interesting!
505 / 549
3.34 M11 – Traditional Electrical Engineering Office
His company offers planning services in the electrical engineering domain, mostly in
building construction. His planning services encompass all kind of electrical
installations ranging from cables, data up to building automation systems, mostly for
buildings and infrastructure projects (roads, tunnels). 30 years ago he started in this
company as a project engineer. A few years later he founded a new sector (in a new
canton), and in the year 2009 he acquired the majority of shares of the holding
(management buyout). Since then, he acts as the group CEO. Accordingly, he
started as project leader, from purely technical tasks, up to leadership responsibility,
finally ending up with management and strategic tasks.
He associates the term business model with strategy. The term is used when they
say “…. this is not our business model”. For instance, when his collaborators suggest
importing his staff from Kiev into Switzerland, then he says: “No, this is not our
business model”. The model is that they work in Kiev because his model is not
personnel placement. He could associates many of possible concepts with business
models, such as processes, management by objectives, organizational structures,
Holocracy, finance, BSC, SWOT, and business plans. They use business plans, but
only when launching a new business or a new field of competence. A business plan
is considered much more comprehensive than a business model. Later, the business
plan will be transferred into the standard processes of the company. Essentially, the
term ‘business model’ or the business model as a concept does simply not exist in
his vocabulary; the only exception is as already mentioned. Rather than the term
business model they use the value chain as thinking model.
The logic of his business is that they articulate the needs of their clients regarding
electrical installations. His company can be understood as some kind of ‘translator’,
identifying customer needs and, based on this, building what they want, in
collaboration with other disciplines. Therefore, each and every planning service starts
with questions, with a questionnaire if you like. However, there are also things you
just have to know. As an engineer, not only you ask questions but you also make
506 / 549
suggestions. There are always hundreds of alternatives to be considered so the
engineers have to find out what their clients really want. Metaphorically, they have a
whole range of possibilities, like a bouquet, and they help their clients picking out
what they want.
They have various revenue models. Getting paid per hour, according to the total
construction costs, or using a flat rate model.
He sees the company facing several future challenges such as the end of a
continuous economic boom in the construction sector lasting for more than 10 years
now, then political and demographic problems steadily emerging. Then new concepts
how to construct buildings (construction 4.0) are considered a challenge, as a
consequence of the digitalization in the sector. New players will come into play as the
existing markets shift. The interfaces between the disciplines start blurring and will
have to be managed differently compared to what we know today so established
engineering offices may only be able to fulfil a small part of the whole – not the full
range anymore. In this new way of constructing buildings, we will build in highly
modular ways, comparable to the automotive industry (more on this later). New
players will most probably dominate the market. For some people this is still a dream
of the future but these new ideas about building in modular ways do already exist,
‘lighthouse projects’ have already been realized. The mantra will be “from the ego to
the Lego-principle”. Not only the modularity will change but also the logistic, another
hot topic in the construction industry – as a consequence of even higher residential
densities.
He wonders (and is annoyed) why the interviewer is harping on about that business
model concept; he has never earned money with it! However, he assumes that his
company runs the same business model for 65 years. Assumedly, he may work on
his business model too when thinking about new ways of constructing buildings using
modular approaches. Today, his collaborators need competences in all fields ranging
from strategy, to leading people on the site up to financial and controlling skills. This
may change in the future so that you will have people managing the concepts, and
people only responsible for the details, hence a new level of specialisation. The
construction sector will be similar to software development with clearly defined
507 / 549
interfaces rather than the automotive industry, as often referred to. Of course, all this
will have implications on the business model of his company. There are architects
who already have implemented these ideas and a new dimension of logistics that is
tightly linked with it. There are many activities in this area and this will become even
more relevant in the future, no doubt. An organisation must be prepared to deal with
innovation and change management. These will be important skills in order to
transform an organisation.
508 / 549
3.35 M12 – Vegetable Farmer (Greenhouse Plantation)
80-160 people (varying), 30 years in business
His company deals with the production and the processing vegetables selling the
products to wholesalers. His parents had a farm in the village he grew up and he is a
trained farmer as well. When he returned on the farm of his parents (after a few years
abroad) he has started expanding the existing business. He has to compete with free
market prices – the vegetables he produces are not subsidised. Accordingly, he has
to be concerned about costs; his main cost factors are the employees and energy.
Furthermore, he has to focus on well-selected products which are requested by
customers and for which he has the respective resources at hand (i.e. ground).
Furthermore, he has to vary the products according to the season and the weather;
some of the products can be produced inside, others outside the greenhouse.
Building up such a company is also a question of luck and chance. However, they
have always developed it step by step. Occasionally, huge investments were
required that always incorporated risks and uncertainty. Compared to other sectors in
the agriculture domain such as the traditional milk production sector his business has
been a success thus far. He has between 80 and 160 employees, depending on the
season.
They also operate a farm shop, which is considered important for the image of the
company and for customer interactions – in terms of the total turnover it is negligible.
At the beginning they just had a single ‘main customer’ so they realised that
establishing additional channels is important. On the other hand, it would not be easy
for their main customer to look for alternatives since regional fresh vegetables (in
high quantities) cannot be transported over long distances from anywhere. On the
other hand, most farmers he knows have optimised their organisation of getting as
much governmental subsidies as possible; a business he is not in.
The term business model is used to explain how the business is organised. The core
consists of serving customer needs, 7 days a week, for a good price and with
excellent quality. The main producing factors are ground, capital and people. Since
they work in greenhouses and with plants they still need a lot of harvesters
509 / 549
(manpower); however, there is also a high degree of mechanisation – as far as
possible. Technology has become an integral part of the business.
We can observe a clear structural change. The very same farmland is cultivated by
less and less farmers. Although we (in Switzerland) would have excellent ground for
cultivating all sort of corn, the agricultural politic of the government prevents viable
business models in this area so everything must be imported from outside today. The
on-going rationalisation in agriculture will lead to a famine sooner or later. Urban
farming, another advertised trend, is considered a niche phenomenon never
considerably contributing to our basic food supply.
Another idea associated with the business model concept deals with succession
plans. There are currently 3 generations working in the same company (his father
and his son included). Do you change your strategy without a successor? In such a
situation following a growth strategy may be the wrong thing, you should be
concerned how to sell the company and realizing money out of it. However, selling
such a company is not that easy, particularly not in the agricultural sector since you
would have to pay your taxes twice. This is considered business model thinking too.
They face challenges, which he considers unique because they have to handle
unpredictable weather phenomena making any planning process impossible. Hence,
flexibility is required. Last year was the hottest ever, this year, by contrast, most
probably the wettest ever. Furthermore, they have to pre-finance 50 % up to 70 % of
their production costs so they need reserves. Although he does not know how the
year will be the machinery must be up to date and he has to do investments. He has
to plan his staff resources on a daily basis depending on the current weather. In the
greenhouse this planning process is a bit easier.
The customer behaviour has changed in the past few years too. People go shopping
on the weekends so Mondays and Tuesdays are usually weak. Additionally, their
customers (wholesalers) need fresh products on Monday morning as well so his
company has to prepare the respective products on Saturday evening. Then, most
customers (wholesalers) have tight time slots when he can deliver. All this must be
synchronized.
510 / 549
When he has delays in the production due to a bad weather period it may well be that
two crops overlap; one of them must be destroyed since he cannot sell both. Usually
between 25 % and 40 % of his products cannot be sold. This has to be considered
when calculating the margins.
The challenges ahead are the Swiss agricultural politic including importation and
custom taxes but also the costs of the harvesters, which are much higher than in the
rest of Europe. The salaries in Switzerland are about 80 % higher than those in
Spain. But also recruiting qualified staff has become more difficult (Swiss mass
immigration initiative).
His company follows the strategy of having different product lines. Consequently, he
will never have a total failure. On the other hand, his degree of specialization is
limited. Another challenge are public initiatives such as a current one aiming at
protecting the ground water so agriculture should be prohibited in some areas. Such
initiatives may threaten the business.
511 / 549
4. Example Nvivo export (linking data to main themes)
<Internals\\Support Professionals\\S10_Beat Birkenmeier> - § 1 reference coded

[4.08% Coverage]
Reference 1 - 4.08% Coverage
Das hängt jetzt weniger mit den Akademikern als solche zusammen, als vielmehr mit der
Tendenz, wie sich Hochschulen, die sich ja um das Thema kümmern, incentiviert bzw. ge-
rated werden. Also, was man ganz klar feststellen kann ist, dass sich die akademische Welt
von den Bedürfnissen der Praxis entfernt. Es forschen Leute auf dem Gebiet, die nicht einen
Tag in der Praxis verbracht haben, die in ihre Position durch eine akademische Laufbahn und
durch Publikationen gekommen sind, die zitiert wurden, Referee-Journals und so fort. Und
das ist heute, was zählt, wenn Professuren besetzt werden. Das sehe ich ziemlich direkt bei
der ETH, wo ich jetzt den nächsten Bezug habe. Die Professoren, die auf diesem Gebiet
forschen machen gute Forschung, die man in einschlägigen wissenschaftlichen Publikationen
veröffentlichen kann, aber es ist völlig irrelevant für die Praxis. Da sehe ich eine gefährlich
Schere auseinander driften. Wenn es wirklich um die akademische Forschung auf
universitärem Niveau geht, das öffnet natürlich wieder Chancen für solche, die das wieder auf
praktikablerem Niveau tun. Ich sehe das bei uns: wir entwickeln auch neue Ansätze, man
sieht es ja auch bei Osterwalder, okay, er hat es auch im Rahmen einer Dissertation gemacht,
aber ein ‚richtiger Akademiker‘, der schlägt die Hände über dem Kopf zusammen und sagt,
das ist ja keine Forschung was du da machst. Aber, das ist es, was in der Praxis ankommt.
Und Forschung über irgendwelche Hirnströme und was irgend jemand auch noch denkt, wenn
er am Arbeiten ist, das ist nicht brauchbar. Schön zum Publizieren, aber nicht brauchbar im
Sinne von nicht relevant für die Praxis. Also das ist jetzt etwas überspitzt formuliert, mein
Eindruck dazu.
<Internals\\Support Professionals\\S2_Christoph Dummermuth> - § 1 reference

coded [1.94% Coverage]
Ich weiss einfach, dass die Hochschulen wie ETH, EPFL und HSG, die sind am Puls, weil die
arbeiten mit international grossen Beratungshäusern zusammen, aus den verschiedensten
Branchen. Dann kommt immer auch der Input von Studenten für Arbeiten. Professoren auch,
die dort gefunden werden. Es ist natürlich auch beflissen von diesen Beratungshäusern, dass
sie wieder sehr schnell etwas haben um eine Hype zu entwickeln, dass sie damit
Beratungskapazitäten entwickeln können. Man stellt fest, dass grosse Beratungshäuser wie
PWC, BCG, KPMG usw. - da gibt es noch viele andere mehr wie JP Morgen im
Finanzbereich - die springen jetzt auf das ganze digitale Thema auf. Gleichzeitig wird an den
Universitäten als Forschungsthema aufgenommen. Ich glaube, das ganze Geschäftsmodell-
Thema ist jetzt schon, ich will nicht sagen durch, es ist jetzt am Markt positioniert, der Fokus
ist aber gar nicht mehr so gross darauf. Man geht jetzt aus von den Beratern her davon aus,
dass die Leute das können und tun, aber in den Firmen ist es noch nicht angekommen.
<Internals\\Support Professionals\\S7_Jan Fülscher> - § 5 references coded [7.33%

Coverage]
512 / 549
Ja, es gibt weitere. Im Moment ist so ein Trend, dass jede Hochschule versucht, ihr eigenes
Canvas zu entwickeln. Im Kulturbereich gibt es welche, die dann noch versuchen,
irgendwelche Kontextinformation aufzunehmen, dann solche, die viel Gewicht auf Personal
haben, usw. Es gibt derzeit eine Schwemme. Finde ich aber weitestgehend irrelevant, weil,
meiner Meinung nach, jedes hat seine Stärken und Schwächen. Ich finde, der Canvas ist ein
Kommunikationswerkzeug. Er dient dazu, Komplexität zu reduzieren mit einer Anzahl
überschaubarer Faktoren. Damit man überhaupt über die Komplexität, oder das Unternehmen
diskutieren kann. Und darum finde ich, sollte man versuchen sind auf ein oder zwei solcher
Modelle zu einigen und nicht noch versuchen, möglichst viele weitere zu erfinden und sich zu
verewigen.
Also, weil meine Schlussfolgerung ist, ich versuche mich in der Entrepreneurship-Forschung
immer auf dem Laufenden zu halten und zu verstehen, was den Erfolgsfaktoren von
Unternehmen sind, und mein Wissensstand ist, dass wir es nicht wirklich wissen. Es gibt
gewisse Einzelfaktoren, aber wir wissen nicht, warum Unternehmen erfolgreich sind. Ein
anderer Begriff dafür: es hat mit Glück zu tun. Was ich nun tun kann als Unternehmer, ist
dem Glück etwas auf die Sprünge zu helfen. Und auf die Sprünge helfen heisst nach draussen
zu gehen, mit allen möglichen Leuten zu sprechen, und eben auch ein originelles Logo zu
designen, um dann mit jemandem ins Gespräch zu kommen. In der Execution gibt es diese
Effekte sehr wohl, dem Glück auf die Sprünge helfen. Aber ich denke nicht, dass man das
planen kann.
Das sehe ich so. Ja. Nicht nur die akademische, sondern Ebene Universitäten und Ebene
Fachhochschulen. Und das hängt auch damit zusammen, dass es halt nicht einen sehr
fundierten akademischen Hintergrund hat diese Tools. Es sind praktische Tools. Und sie sind
schwierig in einen theoretischen Rahmen zu „biegen“. Und durch das werden Sie in der
Theorie gerne etwas vernachlässigt. Aber das wissen Sie besser als ich….
Es ist ein Praktiker Tool. Was soll er damit?
an der Uni Bern habe ich so ein wenig den Eindruck, dass „Ja ja, ist cool, ist lässig, macht ihr
mal“. Es hilft natürlich nicht.
<Internals\\Support Professionals\\S8_Patrick Stähler> - § 2 references coded

[4.30% Coverage]
513 / 549
Wo ich Sinn sehe, ist zum Beispiel aus Kundensicht zu beschreiben, wie kommt der jetzt zur
perfekten Heizung die dann auch der perfekte Ergebnis liefert. Eigentlich die
Wertschöpfungskette nicht aus Sicht des Unternehmens sich anschaut, sondern die
Kundenkette. Wie entscheidet er, welchen Heizungstyp er hat. Wie entsteht die Planung bis
zu optimal genutzte Energieoptimierung usw. Und dann sich überlegen, wie könnten
bestehende Geschäftsmodelle, die heute existieren, da drauf gelegt werden und welches wären
Optimierungsmassnahmen. Also vom Kunden her schaue, wie etwas sein könnte. Also der
Kunde möchte zum Beispiel nicht, Lieferung haben, sondern er möchte ein Produkt in der
Hand halten und das nennt dann eine Firma Lieferung. Er möchte es in der Hand halten. Jetzt
könnte man schauen, schafft es der heutige Lieferprozess, dass der Kunde es zum richtigen
Zeipunkt und am richtigen Ort in der Hand hält.
Es liegt einfach daran, dass heute niemand mehr systemisch denkt. Wir haben heute nun mal
Professoren, die dafür bezahlt werden, die optimale Forschung zu machen. Das geht nur noch,
indem man in ein Teilsegment extrem tief hineingeht. Für übergreifende Forschung wird man
ja nicht bezahlt. Dann ist man ja Laie in jedem Bereich. Eigentlich ist ja ein Geschäftsmodell
überhaupt nichts neues. Die Value Proposition müsste stark aus dem Marketing
herauskommen. Das ist was Steve Jobs als Marketing definiert. Als wertgetriebene,
kundenzentrierte Unternehmensführung. Die ganze Operations ist der blaue Teil der
Wertschöpfung. Die Ökonomie, Finanzen sollten eigentlich das Etragsmodell schon
abdecken. Und das ganze Führungsthema, Humanressourcen sollte der Unternehmensgeist
sein. Es gibt ja Millionnen Leute, die mehr wissen über die Einzelteile, was uns fehlt, ist der
gesamtheitliche Überblick. Und leider wird es in den Unternehmen sehr mechanisch
angewendet.
<Internals\\Support Professionals\\S9_Alex Osterwalder> - § 10 references coded

[19.32% Coverage]
…..ich kann dir nachher etwas schicken, wir haben ja etwas Forschung gemacht, weshalb der
Business Model Canvas erfolgreich wurde. Es kam auch für uns überraschend, dass dies
Millionen von Leuten brauchen. Der Grund ist, oder einer der Hauptgründe ist, dass es ein
visuelles Tool ist. Es ist ein praktisches Tool und es ist intuitiv. Es ist nichts, das du lernen
musst, du kannst es von Day 1 an brauchen. Du kannst es sehr schnell brauchen. Diese
Prinzipien wenden wir überall an.
(I: Was ja ein wenig auffällt, beim Generieren der Ideen hat man eure visuellen Tools wie der
Canvas oder der VP-Designer. Aber beim Umsetzen, scheint es dann kaum noch ähnliche
visuelle Tools zu geben. Da ist man sehr schnell wieder bei traditionellen Management-
Tools.) 15:00
Ja, aber da arbeiten wir schon auch dran. Mit einem Freund von mir, Stefano Mastrogiacomo
(http://www.stefanomastrogiacomo.info), haben wir jetzt ein Tool entwickelt, also er hat es
514 / 549
hauptsächlich entwickelt, die Team Alignment Map, um Teams besser auszurichten. Das ist
auch wieder das visuelle, das extrem stark im Vordergrund steht.
(I: Das ist ein guter Input. Ich würde mich wohl besser auf ein Plugin konzentrieren, für den
Canvas, und für diese eine spezifische Gruppe.) 16:45
Genau. Oder, was natürlich auch immer geht, branchenspezifisch, wie nennen das Patterns
oder Business Model Mechanics. Du kannst im Business Model Canvas Sachen aufzeigen, die
in gewissen Industrien immer wieder auftauchen. Da gibt es Industrien, die ressourcenlastig
sind, dann kannst du Beispiele aufzeigen mit dem Canvas. Das ist dann auch hilfreich.
Manchmal braucht man kein zusätzliches Tool, sondern du kannst ein vorhandenes Tool
gebrauchen, um gewisse Patterns aufzuzeigen.
In der Forschung, d.h. in der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, z.B. der Nationalfonds in den
USA, der NSF, die machen ein Programm, das heisst Lean Launch Pad. Das hat Steve Blank
initiiert. Wissenschaftler, die ihre Wissenschaft kommerzialisieren wollen, gehen durch ein 8-
wöchiges Programm, wo das Business Model Canvas gebraucht wird, genauso wie Lean
Startup, um die Ideen zu testen. Aber ich selber betriebe keine akademische Business Model
Forschung mehr. Zusammen mit Yves Pigneur fragen wir uns aber immer wieder, welches
sind die Tools, die noch fehlen, was sehen wir in der Praxis, was noch nicht funktioniert? Das
heisst, es ist im Prinzip gleichwohl Forschung, aber extrem angewandt. Der Value Proposition
Canvas basiert ja nicht auf akademischer Forschung, sondern das haben wir entwickelt, weil
wir gesehen haben, dass es da etwas Produkt-bezogenes braucht. Eigentlich ähnlich wie ich
das beim PhD gemacht habe, haben wir verschiedene Konzepte angeschaut, was schon
existiert. Es war die gleiche Vorgehensweise, einfach schneller als im PhD. Das machen wir
heute noch, die genau gleiche Vorgehensweise wie bei meiner Doktorarbeit. Einfach, dass wir
etwas weniger Wert legen auf die akademische Rigorosität, sondern vielmehr schauen, welche
Konzepte es braucht und dann auch schauen, dass diese in und für die der Praxis schlüssig
sind. Viel mehr praxisorientiert.
Da muss man sich fragen. Was ist Forschung und wozu dient Forschung. Das ist dann ein
philosophisches Problem von der Forschung generell. Dann ist es akademisch schlüssig, dann
lesen es andere Akademiker, aber es hat keinen Impact. In den Naturwissenschaften hat man
das immer noch, dass Forschung nicht nur zum Wissensdurchbruch führt, sondern auch zur
Anwendung, irgendwo, irgendwie. Das sollte bei der Wirtschaft auch so sein, ist es aber nicht.
Die wissenschaftliche Forschung in der Betriebswirtschaft und im Management hat sich
mittlerweile extrem von der Praxis entfernt. Das ist eigentlich eine Geldverschwendung. Es
sind ja dann unsere Steuergelder, die für anderes aufgewendet werden. Das kann ich sagen als
Doktorand. Ich habe andere gesehen, die haben an Dingen gearbeitet, die eigentlich Null Wert
generiert haben. Nur dass sie dann Doktor werden.
515 / 549
Da versuchen Yves und ich entgegen zu halten. Er jetzt dann halt bald pensioniert, aber ich
habe die Forschungswelt verlassen, mache aber zum Teil das Gleiche wie dazumal, einfach
weil ich sehe, dass es diese Tools braucht.
Genau. Ich denke auch, was fehlt, und das ist schwierig zu vermitteln, es gibt bessere und
schlechtere Geschäftsmodelle. Das heisst, und da sehe ich am meisten Nachholbedarf, es geht
nicht darum die einzelnen Blöcke auszufüllen, es geht darum, das Ganze ganzheitlich
anzusehen.
(I: Und Stichwort Ökosystem bzw. Ganzheitlichkeit: häufig ist es ja auch so, dass es in ein
Ökosystem hineinpassen muss.) 36:30
Ja, also das ist natürlich so, vernetzte Geschäftsmodelle gibt es sehr viele und das ist ein
riesiges Thema vor allem im Bereich Telekom und so. Dort würde ich sagen, gibt es
Nachholbedarf. Dass man aufzeigt, wie Geschäftsmodell zusammen Wert kreieren und nicht
als Einzelkonstrukt.
Wir haben es schon angesprochen. Einfach herauszufinden, was verstehen die Leute unter
dem Begriff Geschäftsmodell und dann zu sehen, welche Methoden sie anwenden. Ich habe
dir den Research Report soeben noch geschickt. Darin siehst du, welche Fragen wir so stellen.
Wir haben angeschaut, spezifisch für den Business Model Canvas, für welche Themen
brauchen sie das. Z.B. brauchen sie es mehr, um sich neu zu erfinden? Brauchen sie es mehr,
sich neu zu erfinden? Dies und das. Um herauszufinden, weshalb haben sie angefangen, sich
für das Geschäftsmodell bzw. den Canvas zu interessieren. Um herauszufinden, es ist ja nicht
von nirgends gekommen, warum und wie haben sie angefangen, über Geschäftsmodell
nachzudenken? Wie ist das passiert? Es gibt sehr viele Unternehmen, die auf uns zukommen,
die tausende von Leuten mit ihren Online-Kursen ausbilden wollen. Dann fragen wir natürlich
warum, warum jetzt, heute?
Die meisten sagen dann, das sind jetzt Grossunternehmen, das Umfeld hat sich verändert im
Sinne davon, dass sie dem Kunden früher nie erklären mussten, wie man Wert kreiert. Man
hat es einfach zusammen geschafft. Es ist noch erstaunlich, wenn man sieht, weshalb die
Leute angefangen haben, über solche Konzepte nachzudenken. Der Ursprung wäre schon
noch spannend zu sehen, dies zeigt dann auch, wie sie Wert kreieren.
516 / 549
5. Mind map examples
5.1 Support Professionals (S): Application (How)
517 / 549
5.2 Support Professionals (S): Application (Purpose)
518 / 549
5.3 Support Professionals (S): Understanding
519 / 549
6. Data consolidation
6.1 Group: A (academics)
Main theme: according to the interview guide (→ literature)
Sub theme: themes emerging in the data
Details: statements (from the interviewees) supporting the sub themes
Group Main theme Sub theme Details
A Application Dealing with Reflection practice (A5), zoom in and out (A5),
complexity information processing capacities (A7), ability
to deal with complexity (A5)
A communication A means to communicate (A5), a

instrument communication instrument (A9)
Design thinking and Design thinking (A10), business design (A6),

ideation solving stakeholder problems (A6), creativity
processes (A10), diversifying products (A8),
generating ideas (A3), ideation phase of a
business/idea (A8)
A tool for educational Education for start-up founders (A1),

purposes sensitisation for trial and error processes (A1),
a basis for creating a business plan (A9),
training for students (A10)
Structuring a Structures of entrepreneurial practice (A10),

business structured analyses (A3)
Dealing with Business models are embedded in ecosystems

ecosystems (A1), the role of co-creation (A1), scenarios and
foresight (A8)
Thinking about the Revenue stream diversification (A2),

mechanics of diversification of products → freemium or as a
revenues service (A8), big companies tend to focus on
revenues thinking (A5), rent seeking strategy
(A7)
As a means to deal Process definitions within a business model

with processes (A4), digitalisation of processes (A8)
Ideation and problem Idea generation (A3), problem reframing (A6),

solving developing new needs (A7), analysis vs.
ideation phase → different mind-sets (A8),
520 / 549
analysing private equity firms (A8)
Dealing with changes React on changes (A3), dealing with the status-
in the environment quo-bias (A7), high branch dynamics (A7),
adaptation of the market and not vice versa
(A7)
Thinking in eco Ecosystems, open innovation, platforms, health

systems system as a huge ecosystem
Distinguishing start- Start-ups are different to established firms (A3),

ups and established business model thinking is used differently in
firms big companies (A5)
BM thinking is Start-up teams (A9), start-ups (A1), scalability

particularly useful for (A9), thinking about BM is easier for start-ups
start-ups (A3), it is part of the founding process (A3), BM
thinking has become standard in innovation
driven contexts (A5), BM as a checklist
compensating experience (A5), a lack of online
tools→ applied too traditionally (A9)
A Understanding Based on revenue In a narrower sense (revenues) (A1), how do

mechanisms you make money (A2), earning mechanisms
(narrower sense) (A1), economic theory of a company (A7), rent
seeking strategy (A7), model providing maximal
rents (A7)
Based on value Wider sense (more than revenues) (A1),

creation (wider sense) creating value through products (A8), daily
putting customers at the centre (A4), deep
understanding of needs (A1), value generating
components in an interwoven world (A4),
positioning the value proposition in a network
(A4), mechanism for generating value (A6),
creating new combinations generating value
(A4)
Structuring a Structure describing entrepreneurial activities

company (A10), structure of a business (A3), theory of a
company (A7), the smallest unit of a business
to be defined (so that a business works) (A9)
Leaned on strategy Differentiation between business models and

strategy (A2), the term is used loosely (A2),
strategy combined with structure and culture
(A4)
Creating value Not just focusing on money as the result of

beyond money business model thinking (A3), creating value in
the federal administration, institutions in the
public sector (A6)
521 / 549
A Human factor Culture and Culture (A4), leadership (A4), Holocracy (A4,
leadership A5), emergent phenomena (A4), meaning (A4),
reflection and reflective teams (A5), diversity of
interpretations (A5)
Individuality Individuality (A10), as basis for innovation

(A10), motivation of individuals (A9)
People in complex Perceiving complexity (A5), people’s capacity

environments of information processing (A7), systemic
thinking (A6), generating values in complex
networks (A6)
Stakeholder Customer at the centre (A4), various

perspective stakeholders (A6)
A Model character Diversity of variables Always several models possible (A10),

collection of hypotheses (A5)
A Professional Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship (A1), business models in new

background ventures (A9)
Innovation Innovation (A1), learning design (A5),

technology transfer (A3), innovation promotion
(A3), regional factors for innovation (A3)
Sustainability Sustainability (A5, A7)
Business model Business model innovations (A1), start-ups

innovation (A1), product management (A8), digitalisation
(A8)
Design Thinking Design (traditional) (A10), design thinking (A6)
A Elements Revenues Revenue streams (A2), understanding incomes

and costs (A9), pricing strategies (A9),
generation revenues above the average in the
market (A7), monetary but also revenues as
reputation (A3), revenue mechanisms (A5)
Value proposition Value proposition (A1), solving and

understanding problems (A6), creating value
(A3, A6), value proposition designer (A8),
positioning relative to the competition (A9),
unique selling proposition (A9)
Resources and value Value chain (A1), core value chain (A4),
chain resources (A5), resources as basis for the
value chain (A5), resource based advantage
theory (A7)
522 / 549
Partnerships Partners (A1), co-creation (with partners) (A1),
establishing partnerships (A6)
A First contact In a new venture Business plan contest (A5), founding its own
context company (A5), new venture context (A8)
I a research project Research project (A3), dissertation (A9),

publications from Osterwalder (A6), strategic
foresight project (A1)
In the first Internet HBR-articles (A4), first internet bubble era in

bubble era the late 1990-ies (A2)
A Related concepts Culture and Culture (A4), learning capabilities (A5),

leadership leadership (A5), Hermann brain dominance
model (A6)
Scenario techniques Scenario techniques (A1), thinking in different

scenarios (A5), considering alternatives (A8)
Complexity theory Dealing with complexity (A1, A5), chance (A9),

theory of impact (A5), systemic coaching (A4)
Innovation Innovation (A10), Triz and Ariz (A7), innovation

management management (A7)
Design thinking Design thinking (A10), identification of

customer problems (A6), creativity (A5, A10),
Double Diamonds method (A10), wicked
problems (A10), story telling (A4), business
narratives (A5), business thinking (A6)
Business plans Business plans (A1, A9), action plans (A9), risk
analysis (A9)
Ecosystems Ecosystems (A1, A8), co-creation (A1)
Strategy Strategy (A4), business models considered as

derived from strategy (A9), leaned on strategy
(A2)
A Research Innovation and Sustainable business models (A7), energy

current topics topics (A1), strategic foresight (A1), mobility
(A1), innovation (A3), open innovation (A8),
performance of scientific teams (A3),
application of Triz and Ariz in economics (A7)
“Readiness” of Scalability of business models (A1), readiness

business models of business models (A1), revealing new
business models (exploration) (A1), developing
523 / 549
and evaluating alternatives (A8)
“Young” topic Popular scientific publications (A3), consulting

controversially driven approach (A3), young disciplines in the
discussed in area of economics (A5), distinguishing
academia academic and practice (A2)
Regional factors Regional factors (A3), implication for a region

or a country (A9)
A Strengths Analysing businesses Business analysis (A3), thinking businesses

through in a structured way (A3), checklist (A5),
sketching up “old school” business models
(A1), thinking about alternatives (A8)
Easily understandable Easy and quickly to be understood (A1), a

means for communication (A8), simplicity (A6),
simplicity takes away fear for something new
(A7)
Providing an overview Limiting a mechanism to a few building blocks

(A1), quickly understanding problems and
solutions (A6), huge “Auslegeordnung” (A2)
Creatively generating Generating new ideas (A3), thinking form the

ideas from the past future (A4), comparing ideas with solutions
and future from the past (A10)
A Weaknesses Inability for dealing Managing complexity considered an illusion

with complexity (A1), people are overstrained with the 9
components (Canvas) (A6), on which
information basis people develop models? (A7)
Easily understandable Too easily understandable (A1), no real

as an illusion understanding of the coherence between the
building blocks (A1), people do not understand
the difference of concepts such as pains and
gains (A8)
Reality cannot be Reality cannot be mapped in an abstract model

mapped in a model (A10), always according to the book (“nach
Schema F”) (A7), reality “pushed” in
terminologies (A5), changes (new components)
ignored (A5)
A lack of ecosystem Ignoring the emergence of ecosystems (A1),

thinking business models in a cloud rather than
standing alone (A8)
Ignoring aspect of The ‘how’ is ignored (A1), a rather descriptive

realisation approach (A1), a lack of scenarios assisting in
524 / 549
the realisation process (A8)
A Conceptualisation Value Proposition A8

Designer
Canvas from A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10
Osterwalder
55 Archetypes from A7, A8

Gassmann
Navigator from A1, A2, A7, A8

Gassmann
Christensen 4-field- A1
framework
Lean Canvas Maurya A6
525 / 549
6.2 Group: S (support professionals)
S Application A means to structure A flexible market structure model (S3),

markets observing trends (S3, S10), closeness to the
market (S3, S8)
Serves as a mental Having everything in mind (S9), getting quickly

model for having the an overview (S3), understanding quickly what
big picture happens (S7), getting quickly the whole picture
of a business (S1, S7, S9)
Thinking about Dealing with price wars (S10), achieving

revenues highest possible rents (S13), financial concepts
(S2, S7)
A means to manage Dealing with different flight altitudes (S1), the

complexity reduction of complexity (S1, S7), systemic
thinking and accepting contradictions (S1, S5,
S7, S8)
A means to support Accepting ripening processes (S5, S11),

incubation dealing with different velocities (S11),
accepting ‘fermentation processes (S5, S11),
unrest as starting point for new initiatives (S5,
S11), delegate ideas to the subconscious (S5,
S11), having lifeblood for something (S11)
Reflecting firm culture Culture (S8), culture of criticism (S8), getting an

and philosophy answer from ‘the world’ (S11), philosophical
questions (S11)
Dealing with external Starting points for new business models (S2),
impulses sensitisation of companies (S4), external
impulses as innovation sources (S4), crisis as
external impulse (S2)
A means to Dialogical communication (S11), dialogical

communicate and process (S11), mission and positioning (S13),
collaborate storytelling (S12)
Application limits Too complicated (S4), missing time and

resources (S4), not understandable/unclear
term → what does business model really
526 / 549
mean? (S6),
[not applicable in consulting practice (S7), not

sophisticated enough (S5)]
Working with Canvas used to sketch out something quickly

frameworks and as a thinking model (S2, S7), Lean Canvas
(S7, S9), a process of analysis (S7, S10), using
the frameworks as communication instruments
(S1, S7)
Start-up context Out of a vision (S13), low and high tech start-
ups (opening a new market) (S7), leaving
comfort zones (S3), market experiments and
validation (S1, S7), execution matters (S7),
getting venture capital (S4, S6, S7)
Values and customer Out of a need (S1), thinking from customer

needs perspectives (S1), out of existing resources
(S2), identifying needs (S3), customer loyalty
(S3), creating and exploiting values (S2)
[Consultant driven] Creating new hypes (S4), driver and source of

new ideas (S4), hyped in media and Silicon
Valley (S4), idea emerged from the consulting
industry in academia and practice (S2)
Market entry point entry points may be (i) existing resources, (ii)
products, (iii) market needs (S2), digital
transformation (S2), understanding what
happens (S5, S3)
Types of companies In start-ups → weekend courses (S9),
in big companies → to reinvent themselves

(S9), to establish a common language (S9), to
deal with new technologies
in SMEs ??? (S4, S9)
Not applied or applied People get scared about business models

with limits since they question their values (S8), no
resources (S4), priority of daily business (S4),
more familiar with business plans (S6, S12),
disruptive models are hardly possible (S4),
companies never use business model thinking
in practice (S4), the term ‘business model’ is
used loosely possibly meaning everything (S6)
S Understanding Typically Understood following the ideas of Osterwalder

“Osterwalder” (S4), frontstage-backstage analogy (revenues-
(Canvas) costs) (S9), derived from balanced score card
(S9)
527 / 549
Strategy and strategy Strategy maps, part of a strategy (S6),
plan visualisation of a strategy plan for the value
chain (S11)
Model character What is a business? (S6), basic structures of

companies (S11), complex building → making
the logic ‘tangible’ (S1), from big to small logic
(S11)
The value proposition Creating values (S1, S13), at the centre of the
at the centre value chain, value proposition has nothing to
do with the product! (S8, S9), To propose: it is
what you are standing for (S8), meeting the
promise = value architecture (S8), “the story of
how you create, deliver and capture value”
(Osterwalder) (S9)
Earning / revenue Earning money (S10), revenues higher than the

model costs (S9), spending money, revenue model
(S10), cost structure (S2), make or buy
decisions (S13)
Basic philosophical A question of values (S8), the products are not

considerations the motivations why people do work for a
company (S8), philosophical questions broken
down to the customer level (S8), basic
dialogue: what is in the air (S11)
A process based Company divisions (S9), ‘operating system’ of

perspective a company (S7), set of rules defining how to
behave in the market (S3), derived from IT-
processes (S2, S9), in and outputs such as a
transmitter/receiver (S2)
S Human factor A need to understand Having everything in mind (S9), like works of
everything art that are never finished (S5), not possible to
resolve everything intellectually (S5), feedback
mechanisms in a complex world (S5), looking
for success factors for companies (S7), a need
for security (S1)
“Philosophical Value proposition = question of values (S8),

deconstruction” having a vision (S8), no products but values
(S8), giving meaning (S8), having passion for
something (S8, S11), avoiding ‘tools vs. people’
(S7), people fear business models since they
question values (S8), changing values =
changing culture (S8), looking at the
unpleasant side of a business (S3)
Passion and lifeblood The heart stands at the centre of everything

(S11), having joy (S11), passion (S8, S11),
motivation (S11), but also patience and
528 / 549
suffering for something (S11)
Team alignment Team spirit (S6, S12), team alignment (S9),

management team important with start-ups
(S6, S12)
Entrepreneurial spirit / A feeling for the market (S3), understanding

gut feeling customers and their needs (S3), customer
motivations (S3), a feeling for ‘what is in the air’
(S11), failing equals excellency (S11),
interested in people (S3, S11), anticipation
(S11), having the gut feeling for something (S6,
S12)
S Model character It is not reality Security of a model → paralysis (S11), missing

reality (S11), a means to an end (S11), Titanic
syndrome (he did nothing wrong since he
followed the model) (S11), the real world does
not care about it (S11), idealist vs. model
fanatics (S11), basic dialogue (S11)
Simplification From big to small → does it work in social

systems? (S11), simulation of practice: like a
compass (it just helps) (S11), people need
sensible tasks (S8), one-sided perspectives
(S11)
Tries to reduce Different flight altitudes (S1), complexity=not

complexity predictable (S5), reducing complexity (S7),
professors often add extra complexity (S8)
A means to structure Basic structure of a company (S11), model of a

a business business but not of the market (S8), inside view
(conscious ignoring competitors) (S8), allows
for recognising basic structures (S11), business
logic, equation (S9)
S Professional ICT Domain Business informatics (S7, S8, S9), Internet

backgrounds bubble era (S8, S9), web era (S8, S9)
Venture investments Financial intermediation (S6, S12), business

angels (S6, S7), investment fund (S6)
New ventures / start- Founding new companies (S1, S7, S9), start-up
ups context (S1, S7, S9)
Innovation Investment fund (S6), methodological

management competencies (S8), innovation check-up (S4),
search field definition (S10), interested in
understanding how it works in detail (S10),
early warning systems (S10, S13), future
management (S13), market needs (S3)
529 / 549
University University (S8, S10, S11, S13), University of
Applied Sciences (S6, S10), technology
transfer projects (S6)
Marketing Marketing (S3), sales (S3), holistic perspective

on the market (S5, S8)
S Elements Aspects of the market Environmental influences (S6), influence of the

branch (S6), micro-economy (S6), market
potential (S6), macro-economy (S6),
regulations (S6), Porter’s 5 forces (S2, S13)
Value Proposition Customers and needs (S1), customer problems

(S1), to propose (S8), Kano model of
unarticulated needs (S10), staying focused
(S7), Pains/Gains/Jobs to be done (S1)
Earning model Revenue streams (S1), profit maximisation

(S1), cost structure (S2), liquidity (S2), money
as a means to an end (S11), finance plan (S2),
net present value (S2), earning and spending
money (S13), pricing models (S3), dynamic
pricing (S8)
Resources Financial resources (S2), activities, partners

(S2), time (as a resource!)
Team and Luck (S7), firm/team culture (S8), team

management alignment (S9), risk (S1)
“A question to the Lifeblood (S11), raison d’être (S8), spirit of

world” enterprise (S11), basic values defining the
value proposition (S8)
S First contact
S Related concepts Business plan Realising almost 10 % (S4), earning model

(pricing, liquidity plans) (S2, S4), raising money
→ not possible with the Canvas alone (S4),
inhibits creativity (S4), relationship between
business plan and business model (S10)
Canvas Using ‘meta opportunities’ (S13), balances

score card (S9), includes concepts such as the
Kano model of unarticulated needs (S10),
execution is key (S7), communication tool (S1,
S7), balance: can I do it and should I do it?
530 / 549
(S9)
Ecosystems Value chain (S1, S3), Porter’s 5 forces S2),

ecosystem thinking (S1, S3)
Risk management Alternatives (S1, S4), value in use analysis,

scenarios (S1), design thinking (S1)
Innovation Buzzwords: business models and innovation

(S4, S8), lead user approaches (S4), design
thinking (S1), disruptive innovations (S4),
scrum (IT) (S7), open innovation (S4)
Strategy Future (S13), visions (S6), seeing models of

tomorrow (S6), scalability (S4)
People Values and philosophy (S8), culture (S8),

mindset (S8), having passion and commitment
for something (S8, S11), storytelling (S5, S12),
culture of tolerance (S8), empathy (S3), feeling
comfortable with something (S3), creativity
cycles, inspirations (S4), impulses (S4), driving
at different velocities (S11), sensitisation (S11),
basic dialogue with the world (S11)
Complexity Basic rhythm of nature (S11), reduction (S1,

S7), systemic thinking (S6, S8), whole systems
(S6, S8), bearing contradictions (S5), time
factor (S6)
Market Marketing (S3), customer segments (S3), 7P

(S3), competition (S1), PEST analysis (S2),
market segments (S6), micro- und macro-
economy (S6), market structure model (S3),
branch aspects (S6)
S Research Application of the Big companies and start-ups (S9), why

concept companies are interested in business models?
(S9), why do they think about business
models? (S9)
Gap between Tax money is spent for questionable research

research and practice such as success factor research (S9),
academics just care about getting deeper and
none cares about systemic thinking (S8),
research is getting increasingly detached from
practice (S9)
Tools for practitioners Business models are not considered ‘real’

science (S7), only few background in academia
(S7), neglected in theory (S7), applied
research: tools that are needed in practice (S9)
531 / 549
Business model Developing plugins for existing frameworks
frameworks (S9), it does not make sense to develop
another framework (S8, S9), each university
has its own framework (S7), identifying
patterns: linked business models and good/bad
business models (S8, S9)
S Strengths Dealing with Canvas is well suited for reducing complexity

complexity (S1, S7), it serves as some kind of check list,
getting an overview quickly (S2, S7), it helps
dealing with complexity and it hold complexity
(S7)
A communication and Easy to understand (S9), having the big picture

collaboration in mind (S2, S9), serves as collaboration tool
instrument (S1), communication within a group (S1, S7),
telling a story (S5), “the story of how you
create, deliver and capture value” (S9)
[Models different to Johnson: team and values with start-ups

the Canvas]
Gassmann: pre-thought solutions
VP-Designer: shows a process
Structuring a Thinking in alternatives (S1), structuring

business companies (S9, S10), understanding a
business quickly (S2, S7), thinking everything
as a business (S10), making implicit things
explicit (S10), breaking up existing structures
(S10)
“Philosophical Missing market: okay since it is no market

deconstruction” of a model (S8), philosophical deconstruction of a
business business (its values) (S8), a means to think
faster and more effectively (S7, S8), inside
view (S8)
S Weaknesses Canvas No model can be used for ‘everything’ (S7,

S10), just reverse engineering → not suitable
for developing new businesses (S10), ex post
explanation (S2, S10), difficult to understand
(S4), what is really the problem to be solved?
→ not an adequate tool for everything (S2)
Ecosystem and Missing market perspective (S1, S3, S7), no

market structure interaction with environment (S6), no networks
of values (S6), missing transaction perspective
(S1), no feeling for the market and customer
needs (S3), values need to be understood (S8),
the way markets work is not included (S3),
missing market dynamics (S8), no positioning
against competition, each company is different
532 / 549
(S2, S6, S8)
Too complicated a Buzzword (S4), useful just for sensitisation

concept purposes (S4), not easily understandable (S4),
9 individual stories (S8), no resources available
to get familiar with the concept (S4), having
everything in mind=inhibiting creativity (S4), not
just thinking about products (S9)
Too complex a An infinite number of concepts (not just 55!)

concept (S8), against the trend that everything must be
quantifiable (S8), no systemic thinking anymore
these days (S6, S8), no impact analysis (S6),
inadmissible reduction of reality (S11)
S Conceptualisation Canvas (Osterwalder) Value Proposition Designer (S9), big picture

(S2, S7, S9), typical “Osterwalder” (S4), not
just thinking in the product dimension (S9),
balancing offering and costs (S9), based on the
ideas of Patrick Stähler (S7)
Navigator Complexity (S6), St. Gall company model (S6),

(Gassmann) 3 ‘bubbles’ (S10), a copy of Osterwalder (S2),
55 archetypes (S1, S13)
“Patrick Stähler” The purpose of a business (S8), model from

Timoth (values, how, revenues) (S8), firm
culture (S8)
Revenue model Revenues for services (S12), earning money

(S13), cost structures (S2)
Lean Start-up Ash Maurya (S7, S9), Lean Canvas, “mish

mash” (S9), IT methodologies (S7)
533 / 549
6.3 Group: M (owner managers)
M Application Idea generation Ideas for new business models are developed
in the management board (M9), a deep
understanding of the business is needed (M9),
new connections are important to be made
(M3), connections to the outside of the
company are important (M7), the value of ideas
‘in isolation’ are questioned (M5), to reflect
existing business ideas (M5)
The concept is not Almost no application in practice (A1), the

applied model of the branch has not changed for many
decades (M11), having no time to think about
business models (M6)
Market validation Validating business models in the market

(M10), observing the market (M3), performing
little iteration steps (M3), start-ups (to be
bought and integrated in big companies) (M9)
Used as a thinking The business model concept as thinking model

model (M7), structuring companies (M7), discussed in
board meetings (M3), business model
considerations as a by product (M9)
Clarifying ownership Showing ownership structures (M2, M7),

structures and long distinguishing between profit maximisation and
term strategy long term stability (particularly in family
businesses) (M7), medium- and long-term
objectives (M7)
Better understanding To be aware of the specifics of one’s own

one’s own business business (M10), to say “No, this is not our
business model!” (M11), using transaction
models in order to visualize the flow of
resources (M3)
Thinking about Diversification → exploiting new revenues

revenues sources (M10), generating new revenues from
scratch (M10), enhancing the transparency of
the money flow (M6), thinking about margins
534 / 549
(M3), ensuring liquidity (M7, M8)
As a standard tool in Applied in start-up weekends (M10), the

the start-up context Canvas from Osterwalder has become the
standard tool (M10), developing something new
(M10), SME is not comparable to a start-up →
people have no time for theoretical concepts
(M8)
Better understanding Visualising ecosystems (M5), uncover blind

the ecosystem and spots (M6), dealing with upcoming changes
changes in it (M10), visualising competition and
differentiation (M4)
M Understanding Explaining the way a How does a company work (M12), defining a
business works company’s success (M7), mechanisms
explaining the functioning of a business (M5),
“running an architectural office” (M6), to say
“this is not our business model!” (M11), like the
mechanics within a watch (M9)
How to stay close to Bringing the offering to the customers (M10),

your customers creating added value (M9), a dynamic
perspective – not static, understanding the
point of sales (M7), satisfying your customers
day by day (M12)
The way a company Ownership structures of a company (M2),

is organised/ internal structures of a firm, process model –
structured how to deal with core processes (M7)
Based on strategic This is a question of strategy (M7), questioning

considerations a company’s strategy (M8), the strategy how to
bring the services to the market (M11)
A means to Communication to the outside (M1), realisation

communicate with the to the outside (M7), perception of a company in
outside the market (M8)
What spends a How does a customer buy and what service

customer money for does he pay money for (M10), what is a
customer willing to pay money for? (M9)
M Human factor People standing at Offering and customers represent the epicentre
the centre of a (M5), simplicity (M8), managing the point of
business sales (M7), addressing real problems people
actually have (M5)
Relying on one’s own To be too proud to make use of external

competences support (M4), professional pride (M4), having a
deep understanding of the business (M9),
understanding the market (M4)
535 / 549
Using external Internalising external competences (M8),
sources outside information as innovation driver (M8),
setting up partnerships (M12)
Succession plan Planning for the next generation (M12),

(family business) discrepancy between earning money quickly
and long-term existence (M7)
M Professional Traditional start-up Start-up founder (M3), has started from scratch
background founder (M3), supported by technology funds (M3),
supported by family members (M3), idea
emerged in lunch time (M5), ITC-firms (M10),
high-tech companies (M10)
Family business Company founded by ancestors, company in

founded by the construction sector (M6), agriculture
parents/ancestors company (M12), dairy processing company
(M2), payments to the brothers and sisters
(M2)
Management buy out Management buy out (M7), acquiring shares of

(in former family the company (M8), acquiring shares (M7), in
business) established markets (M11), first traditional
career then acquiring shares (M11)
New venture but no A new venture founded by an individual or a

start-up group of individuals (M1, M4, M6), to be on fire
for something new (M4), trading firm for solar
products (M3)
Listed company Company dealing with currency installations in

the public sector (M9)
M Elements Customer value / Value/value proposition (M10), creating added

added value value (M9)
Resources Resources (M12), production factors/resources

(M12), financial reserves as resources (M12)
Costs and revenues Revenues (M10), incomes and costs (M3),

drivers for costs and incomes (M10), effects of
scale (M10)
Processes Processes (M10, M12)
Customers Customers (M3), lead users (M5), business to

business (M4), business to customers (M4)
Environment Environment (M4), sustainability (M4),

requirements (M4), economy (M4)
536 / 549
M First contact Education Studies (M3), school of engineering (M4), MBA
training (M7), study of economics (M7, M9)
Internet boom Internet technologies, Internet boom (M7, M9)
Company foundation In the context of founding one’s own company

(M5, M10)
Discussions Discussions with friends (M1, M6)
M Related concepts Risk management Risk management (M12), Dealing with

complexity (M7), taking risks consciously (M7),
traditional sectors are less risky (M9)
Design thinking Design thinking process (M3), dealing with ‘the

new’ (M3), solving problems for customers
(M5), golden circle (M5)
Marketing Marketing (M4), managing the point of sales

(M7), market/context analyses (M7), segment
analyses (M4)
Strategy Focusing on how to make business (M8),

concentrating on finance management (M12),
staying focused (M10), SWOT analyses (M11)
Finance and Balanced score card (M10, M11), managing

controlling key figures (M10), FIS (firm information
system) (M7), cockpits, controlling (M8)
Innovation Innovation (M2), disturbing factors as basis for

a business (M5), Job to be done (M5), the
‘new’ (M3), disruption theory (Christensen)
(M3)
M Conceptualisation Canvas from M3, M4, M5, M6, M10

Osterwalder
Management model M10

from HSG
Marketing model M4
M Understanding Stay close to your Managing the point of sales (M7), customers
business logic customers problems as starting point (M5), availability
(M8), simplicity (M8), running a shop (M2,
M12), closeness to the customers (M10), sales
activities (M12), translating customer needs
537 / 549
(M1, M11)
Managing costs and Total price war (M4), costs and fees (M6),
revenues charging hours or flat rates or linear to the
construction costs (M11), costs of production
means (M12), personnel costs (M12), high cost
segment (M8), charging square meters rather
than hours (M5)
Optimizing processes Tool management system (M7), recycling

production means (M7), sharing economy (M7),
business processes (M5), producing small
exclusive charges (M2), modularity (M8), high
level of flexibility (M8), process oriented (M9)
M Understanding Ability to launch Ability to launch ‘innovations’ (M3), establishing

challenges ahead ‘innovations’ partnerships (M8), creating new niches (M8),
danger of oversleeping disruptive
innovations/new trends (M9), clever
combinations of products and business models
(M3), being concerned about close
customer/market contact (M2)
Dealing with Digitalisation (M11), new advanced skills for

digitalisation sales people (M7), scalable models (M3),
energy revolution will be digital in nature (M3),
rationalisation (M2), digital construction (M11),
digital work reports (M9), acceptable margins in
spite of mass production (M2), information
gathering (M1), internet of things (M7)
Economic pressure Economic environment (M11), shirking markets

(M4), chain formation (purchase) (M2),
economic pressure (M12), high cost structures
in Switzerland (M12), cost pressure (M2), tight
budgets (M9)
Political contexts are Euro crisis (M8), governmental regulations

getting worse (M2), Swiss labels (M2), structural change in
agriculture (M12), setting up entry barriers (M9)
538 / 549
6.4 Comparison oft the themes (using MS Excel)
539 / 549
6.5 Subgroups and themes within the subgroups (example academics)
540 / 549
6.6 Meta analysis
541 / 549
7. Example for linking text passages
542 / 549
A1S1 The problem with the Canvas is the illusion that people think they understand
what is going on – relatively quickly. However, this is considered a big problem. They
do not understand it. This is the essence of working with 40-50 start-ups a year.
A1S2 It can be observed that there is an increasing interest of established firms in

the specific start-up knowledge (business model thinking).
A2S1 Based on the work of Osterwalder, there are many people who know the term
business model today. However, there are still just very few who really manage to
take advantage of the essential things of the concept.
A2S2 He has never worked with a business model framework as he stated “I have
never used the business model concept in practice. Instead, at the beginning the
business system is analysed. This is more flexible and confronts with the realities of
each sector”.
A2S3 Most companies have their dominant business model which they feel
comfortable with. But adding a new, forget it.
A3S1 He had almost no contacts with SMEs so far (neither in general, nor technical
orientated SMEs). Most corporations in the university context are with big companies,
not SMEs.
A3S2 the business model concept is considered absolutely inadequate for

transforming an existing business from model A to model B! Instead, transforming an
existing business model must be seen as an individual and unique endeavour, where
such a framework may not be useful at all since most entrepreneurs deal with their
business model intuitively correct, without the need of a formalised concept.
A3S3 Start-ups have many advantages: they can look for an adequate business
model right from the beginning while established firms must get rid of their existing
model first, something which is much more demanding. Hence, for a start-up the
development of a new business model is considered part of the journey. For
established companies it is risky and can rarely be seen because most initiatives fail.
A4S1 Most managers in their 40-ties and 50-ties in the finance sector learned
completely different things 30 years ago. The requirements on strategic thinking
change steadily.
A4S2 The main weakness of the Canvas may be the fact that ‘traditional managers’
are not able to cope with it. It is too radical. They feel more comfortable with the more
traditional St. Gallen model. If managers can choose they almost always decide for
alternatives allowing them to expand their hierarchy. But new business models are to
be found in processes. This causes disorientation.
A5S1 The Canvas has become part of the basic repertoire in the Start-up
community: „The business model is some kind of check list that allows to
compensate for missing experience.“ In huge companies, on executive levels, the
term may still be seen as the revenue mechanics.
543 / 549
A6S1 The 9 fields of the Canvas are always difficult to be understood by the
students so he has developed a simplified 4-quadrant model
A7S1 Business model thinking may be particularly interesting in highly dynamic

sectors where you have to reinvent your company and your services at a high pace.
A7S2 the “status quo bias”. Managers tend to see what they could lose instead of
what they could win by changing their existing business model.
A8S1 She has learned that the Canvas has become a standard tool in the new
venture / start-up scene.
S1S1 Each start-up aims at establishing a new unique business model.
S1S2 in most established companies there are still no established standard business
modelling processes.
S1S3 The ‘model concept’ is an idea people with a technical or natural scientific
background feel comfortable with.
S2S1 Really experienced managers and entrepreneurs have a well-developed gut

feeling based on which they take viable and working business decisions.
S2S2 most companies have not yet realised that they should bring their business
model on paper. They may have a business plan they revise regularly by (just)
changing the numbers in it. Many CEOs use ‘established’ structures and tools so
they just care about new concepts when their organisation is in crisis;
S3S1 The Canvas is ideally suited in education contexts where you want to quickly
have complete ‘solutions’ (in an exercise). But reality is more complex and market
structures may change daily because there are never companies doing business with
each other. There are always people doing business with each other; something
often ignored.
S3S2 When it comes to business model considerations most managers (not

entrepreneurs!) heavily rely on consultants because such discussions are often
uncomfortable – and consultants can easily be dismissed if necessary. SMEs do not
often work with the business model concept because they do not have the required
resources to do so.
S4S1 the 9 building blocks are often just ‘too much’ and too complex to be easily
understood.
S4S2 For most companies the daily business has priority so they do not deal with
concepts such as the business model. Accordingly, he has never got feedback from
companies regarding their application of the business model concept thus far. He
doubts that companies really go in the details. He has never seen a company actively
working with the business model concept. The problem is that you have to work with
544 / 549
these 9 building blocks. You have to understand them; this takes time and energy. It
is not that easy and companies do normally not invest time for this.
S4S3 By contrast, companies work on their business model intuitively. They may
ignore one or the other building block; this is why sensitization is important.
S4S4 He has worked with several hundred companies in the past 10 years and has
learned that most of them do not have the resources to deal with such concepts,
particularly companies in the range of 1 to 30 people. Not a single one he knows has
ever actively worked with the business model concept!
S4S5 companies know the concept, but working with it – this is a different thing.
S4S6 The business model concept is not suitable for each and every company. This
simply does not work. A small company with production facilities can normally not just
get rid of its infrastructure following a new business model. An Internet business is
different, of course, also in terms of the scalability. Not every company is scalable.
S4S7 In early stage start-ups the Canvas has replaced the business plan. At the
very beginning companies sketch their ideas using the Canvas.
S6S1 We also have to remember that there are highly successful entrepreneurs who
have never heard something about business models but have founded ‘empires’;
they have brilliant visions and strategies; they have a gut feeling for the market.
S7S1 The success of a business has finally nothing to do with the Canvas. It is all
about execution. It is about the value you offer to your customers and about focus;
S7S2 He never uses any of these tools in his work with customers. He just uses the
models as mental models, as thinking models. When you have customers with a
working company you must be careful not to say them, hey, your business model is
rubbish. You can neither use theoretical models they do not understand. They need
revenues, instantly.
S8S1 The thing is that the business model concept will never be commercially
interesting. This was misunderstood at the HSG. The rationale is simple: We scare
people with business model thinking. Many people would get in some sort of
cognitive dissonance by reflecting their job asking the question ‘does it make sense
what I do?’
S9S1 The development of his framework was restricted to the context of start-ups
and big companies. SMEs were ignored. Essentially, even today he has only few
contacts with SMEs.
S9S2 The Canvas has become a standard tool in the start-up community, not only in
Switzerland, but worldwide.
S9S3 However, the concept is particularly useful in sectors with fast modifications
such as the telecom industry
545 / 549
S10S1 He mostly works with technical oriented companies. In most cases no
SMEs (bigger). Normally, bigger companies have a higher affinity to external
consulting services. He has learned that technical oriented companies are ahead in
terms of innovation, compared to other sectors, such as banks.
S10S2 Many companies are aware of current topics such as the business
model concept but they have problems with its implementation. The problems are
internal structures preventing firms from doing something new. At this stage external
consultants can act as some kind of catalyst. Start-ups have more flexible structures;
this is why they are more innovative.
S10S3 In SME contexts people look for tools they can use in order to produce
completed cycles quickly.
S11S1 He normally does not use the term.
S12S1 However, he has never seen a business model framework such as the
Canvas from Osterwalder (he may have heard about it in an academic context) nor
has he ever used the concept – or seen somebody else using it.
S13S1 However, based on his experiences how people apply the SWOT
framework in practice the application of the Canvas must be questioned.
M1S1 Since he had a good order situation most of the time in the past 20 years he
never really cared about such concepts. Only recently, in crisis time, he has started
dealing with such ideas.
M1S2 His former employee introduced him to the Canvas and the Exploration Arena.
He has developed new ideas using these tools.
M1S3 Thinking in the business model dimension is considered very useful. After
each session he had at least one ‘aha-experience’. It has enhanced and expanded
his thinking by showing new relationships between various elements (which were
maybe hidden before). However, any financial success has not been visible so far.
M2S1 By the term business model, he understands the way the company has been
reorganised from a stock company into a holding, including tax optimisation aspects
so that his brothers and sisters could sell their shares avoiding high tax rates.
Furthermore, the business model is also tightly linked to the mission statement, how
the company is positioned.
M2S2 They have not yet used a business model or any other management
framework or concept.
M3S1 Basically, in the start-up context the business model concept has been popular
for many years. But even Osterwalder was able to standardise the idea. He considers
the concept to be very useful for his business.
546 / 549
M3S2 The digitalisation in the power sector is considered a business model task
since you have to think hard about various selling strategies such as generating
recurring revenues, i.e. realised with subscription models.
M3S3 Another important aspect is business model innovation. He tries to find

combinations that allow for new products combined with new business models. This
is what he is really fascinated about and what he motivates him working on.
M4S1 He first learned about the business model concept at Technology College. He
understands the business model as a business idea to be brought to paper.
M4S2 Today, he has all these things in mind and knows exactly how the market
functions and his competitors act so the model is not necessary and useful for him
anymore.
M5S1 He already was co-founder of another company (in the solar domain). This is
where he first got in contact with the business model concept, which was popular at
university where his brother was doing an MBA in innovation management at the
time.
M5S2 Above all, he knows the Canvas from Osterwalder, with which he has already
worked extensively.
M5S3 The Canvas may be applied in two ways: we can use it as a means to
developing ‘wild’ ideas from scratch (the way it is mostly used) or we can use it for
reflecting an idea very much in detail by focusing on selected elements such as the
value proposition and the customer.
M6S1 He has colleagues dealing with business models in a start-up context so he

has a rough idea of what a business model is. However, before he learned about the
concept from his colleagues the term business model was nothing else than an
empty phrase for him.
M6S2 However, the essence of the Canvas could also be mapped using a business
plan. As a trained architect, he is not familiar with such concepts at all.
M6S3 In his own business he has never applied the business model concept thus
far. He simply has never had time for this and there are no obvious added values for
him to do so. He runs a business as an architect. This essentially is his business
model.
M6S4 Even not in the founding process of his office since at the beginning there was
no plan, there was plenty of work to do. He has been working hard all the time, day
and night, but for the ‘real work’ rather than the organization of his office.
M6S5 This could also explain the fact that he does not really care about such
concepts. If he had to go deeper in this area he would prefer writing a business plan
comparing costs and revenues, based on which he could see how profitable his
business really is.
547 / 549
M7S1 The characteristic of a good business model is that it cannot be copied easily
so they continuously develop added values for their customers. Copying products is
simpler than copying whole sophisticated service models with a lot of know-how in it.
M7S2 business modelling is about understanding the point of sales, which is

considered a company’s most worthwhile element. This is also where competitive
advantages originate. Mostly they develop their business model based on existing
capabilities. However, they also deal with new technologies that may become a
threat for the existing model in the future.
M7S3 He first learned about business models with the rise of the Internet. Before, the
term was not actively used. These days they are faced with similar challenges in the
big data domain.
M7S4 Models such as the Canvas are just thinking models. They have structured
their company using a system directly derived from the Balanced Score Card
M7S5 Establishing such a system means getting closer to the customer so you are
not easily comparable anymore with your competitors.
M7S6 When talking about business models we should also consider the way a
company is structured in terms of its ownership structure and also regarding long-
term strategies; is it about quickly making profit and selling the company or about
long-term strategies. All this essentially influences the business model.
M8S1 He in fact does not know any (business model) frameworks such as the
Canvas. He assumes that SMEs are confronted with different issues than start-ups.
M9S1 He defines the business model concept as the logic of a business on the one
hand. On the other hand, it is about breaking down the proportions of the various
partners within a value chain. How can I create added value, which customer is
willing to pay money for it?
M9S2 The customers were willing to pay because they had an added value.
However, such business models usually do not last forever. In summary, the less I
have to invest for this added value, the better the business model is. He does not
know any business model framework (neither the Canvas from Osterwalder nor the
Navigator from Gassmann).
M10S1 He knows the Canvas from Osterwalder, a currently well-established

framework often used in the start-up scene. However, the application of the Canvas
depends on the task at hand. When developing a new business, the Canvas may be
useful.
M10S2 However, he prefers working with an A4-sheet containing 3 main

themes: A strategic impact direction with the 3 most important aims; a SWOT
analysis; a Balanced Score Card.
548 / 549
M10S3 The Canvas, on the other hand, can be useful for developing something
new, new ideas from scratch. Once having a running business, the Balanced Score
Card is considered more viable a concept.
M10S4 The business model concept, on the other hand, is applied when facing
changes ahead. It is about thinking of new recurring revenues and about creating
additional values for customers, for which they are also willing to pay.
M10S5 he just works with the Canvas.
M10S6 However, the people he teaches in start-up courses are not interested
in theoretical stuff; they want to talk about practice. In his domain, the high-tech IT
sector, the Canvas is widely used. In a start-up, the business model is simply the
‘thing’. It is all about business modelling. Hence, the business model concept is
considered a useful tool, as long as properly and carefully applied (using sticky
notes!).
M11S1 He associates the term business model with strategy. The term is used
when they say “…. this is not our business model”.
M11S2 Essentially, the term ‘business model’ or the business model as a

concept does simply not exist in his vocabulary; the only exception is as already
mentioned (to say "....this is not our business model").
M11S3 He wonders (and is annoyed) why the interviewer is harping on about

that business model concept; he has never earned money with it! However, he
assumes that his company runs the same business model for 65 years. Assumedly,
he may work on his business model too when thinking about new ways of
constructing buildings using modular approaches.
M12S1 The term business model is used to explain how the business is
organised. The core consists of serving customer needs, 7 days a week, for a good
price and with excellent quality. The main producing factors are ground, capital and
people.
M12S2 Although we (in Switzerland) would have excellent ground for cultivating
all sort of corn, the agricultural politic of the government prevents viable business
models in this area so everything must be imported from outside today.
M12S3 Another idea associated with the business model concept deals with
succession plans. There are currently 3 generations working in the same company
(his father and his son included). Do you change your strategy without a successor?
549 / 549

3 An Exploration of The Business Model Concept's

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 An Exploration of The Business Model Concept's

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 An Exploration of The Business Model Concept's

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PhD-Thesis

AN EXPLORATION OF THE BUSINESS MODEL CONCEPT’S

First supervisor: Prof Gerald Watts

In addition, many thanks go also to my friends and colleagues, in particular to

Signed: Date: 1 December 2018

Figure 2: Number of published articles (Zott et al., 2010). ........................................ 22

Figure 3: Conceptual framework of models in business. Author (2018). .................. 34

Figure 4: St Gallen Management Model according to Rüegg-Stürm (2003). ............ 36

Figure 5: Business ecosystem model according to Moore (2006). ........................... 37

Figure 6: Porter's (1985) value chain model. ............................................................ 39

Figure 7: Osterwalder’s (2010) Business Model Canvas. ......................................... 58

Figure 8: Business Model Navigator according to Gassmann et al. (2013). ............. 60

Figure 9: Business Model Creation Questions. Source: Stähler (2013). ................... 61

Figure 11: The Lean Start-up Process (Blank, 2013). .............................................. 76

Figure 13: Lean Start-up Process (Blank, 2013). ...................................................... 99

Figure 18: Academics sample. Source: Author (2017). .......................................... 173

Figure 20: Owner-manager sample. Source: Author (2017). .................................. 174

Figure 21: Process of data analysis. Source: Author (2016)................................... 191

Figure 34: Conceptual literature review framework containing the contributions.

Table 2: Understanding-Application-Matrix. Source: Author (2017). ....................... 210

A Abbreviation of the academic sample (A)

BIM Building Information Modelling

Canvas Abbreviation for Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder, 2010)

CAS Complex adaptive systems

E-newspaper Electronic newspaper

ICT Information and Communication Technology

Intrapreneur An ‘entrepreneur’ within an established firm, having the same

M Abbreviation of the owner-manager sample (M)

m-servie Mobile service

PhD Philosophical Doctor

Planfabrik The author’s firm

R&D Research and Development

RPV-Theory Theory about resources, processes, and values in a business

S Abbreviation of the support professional sample (S)

Transaction model An alternative type of business model

In this chapter, the author’s professional background (as a technology-based SME

1.1 Background to the research

1.1.1 The author’s background relative to the research

1.1.2 The role of business models in non-R&D-intensive firms

1.1.3 The geographical context for the research

1.2 The business model concept in the literature

1.2.1 Origins and evolution of the concept

From a more practice-oriented perspective Gassmann, Frankenberger, and Csik

1.2.2 The ‘dotcom bubble’ and the proliferation of the concept

1.2.3 The diffusion of the concept to other sectors

Figure 2: Number of published articles (Zott et al., 2010).

1.2.4 The lack of empirical studies of application

The term ‘business model’ is often broadly defined or unspecific (Osterwalder,

1.3 Evolution of the research topic

1.3.1 The need for an exploratory study

Based on the author’s observations of interpretation and practical application of the

1.3.2 Clarification of the research focus

1.4 Research aims, objectives and research questions

1.4.1 Research aim

1.4.2 Research objectives

1.4.3 Research questions

• RQ1: How is the business model concept perceived, conceptualised and

1.5 Structure of the thesis

Chapter 1 – Introduction: The author’s personal and professional background is