Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Re-visiting BMI as an Enabler of Strategic Intent and Organizational Resilience, Robustness, and Remunerativeness

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 08 May 2017

Abstract

In this paper, the concept of business model innovation will be explored in depth. The main objective of this study is to analyze whether, how, and where the business model innovation (BMI) is linked with the organizational design (OD) and the enterprise excellence (EE). This is achieved through a quantitative survey that was conducted with a questionnaire on a sample of 62 small-medium enterprises (SMEs) as well as through the case studies that present the current trends and perspectives of the BMI and led to the creation of a multisectoral typology. Initially, the “Introduction” will provide the basic concepts; in the section “Literature Review,” the theoretical background will be given; the section “Business Model Innovation, Organizational Design, and Enterprise Excellence” aims to describe how these concepts are connected through the existing literature; in the section “DUCCK Model, SKARSE, Targeted Open Innovation, Quadruple Helix, and Examples of Business Models,” these terms will be discussed as well as examples of these will be given; in the section “Current Perspectives and Trends of the Business Model Innovation,” the case studies will be presented as well as the multisectoral typology; the section “Empirical Research Design” will provide information regarding the development of the questionnaire, the survey data and the sample profile, the methods, and the tool that was used; in the section “Results,” both the descriptive and the correlation analysis results will be presented whereas the section “Discussion and Conclusions” will present and discuss a summary of the main results as well as the future extensions. Through the research, the results showed that the BMI can be a driver for the sustainable development and the competitiveness of enterprises whereas, through the case studies and the multisectoral typology, it resulted that each company depending on the sector uses a different type of BMI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.

  • Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2009). Business model innovation vs replication. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18(1) 39–56.

  • Avlonas, N., & Swannick, J. (2009). Developing business excellence while delivering responsible competitiveness. In J. Eskildsen & J. Jonker (Eds.), Management models for the future (pp. 171–184). Berlin: Springer.

  • Applegate, L. M. (2000). E-business models: making sense of the internet business landscape. In L. M. Applegate, G. W. Dickson, & G. DeSanctis (Eds.), Information technology and the new enterprise: Future models for managers (pp. 49–101). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall

  • Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: the double-edged sword of co-opetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060–2070.

  • Buur, J., Ankenbrand, B., & Mitchell, R. (2013). Participatory business modelling. CoDesign, 9(1), 55–71.

  • Capati, M. K. (2016). 10 Indispensable open innovation platforms for global corporations. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from http://crowdsourcingweek.com/blog/10-indispensable-open-innovation-platforms-global-corporations/ (November 29).

  • Carayannis, E. G. (2012). Strategic Knowledge Arbitrage and Serendipity (SKARSE™) in action. J Knowl Econ, 5, 203. doi:10.1007/s13132-012-0142-3.

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a transdisciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Korres, G. M. (2013). The innovation union in Europe: A socio-economic perspective on EU integration (p. 208). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2008). Managing firm innovativeness: Towards a composite index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 90–107.

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Sipp, C. M. (2010). Why, When, and How are Real Options used in Strategic Technology Venturing? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(2), 70–85. article. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-010-0011-x.

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Wang, V. W. L. (2012). Competitiveness model—A double diamond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(3), 280–293.

  • Carayannis, E. G., Alexander, J., & Ioannidis, A. (2000). Leveraging knowledge, learning, and innovation in forming strategic government–university–industry (GUI) R&D partnerships in the US, Germany, and France. Technovation, 20(9), 477–488.

  • Carayannis, E. G., Edgeman, R. L., & Sindakis, S. (2013). Knowledge, information and data analytics for sustainable enterprise excellence (KID4SEE). In World summit on big data and organizational design. Paris.

  • Carayannis, E. G., Provance, M., & Givens, N. (2011). Knowledge arbitrage, serendipity, and acquisition formality: Their effects on sustainable entrepreneurial activity in regions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(3), 564–577.

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2014). Business model innovation as antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience. J Knowl Econ, 5(3), 440–463. doi:10.1007/s13132-014-0206-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Meissner, D., & Edelkina, A. (2015). Targeted innovation policy and practice intelligence (TIP2E): concepts and implications for theory, policy, practice. J Technol Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9433-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). Business model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability. J Technol Transf, 40(1), 85–104. doi:10.1007/s10961-013-9330-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2014). Business model innovation as antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience. J Knowl Econ, 5(3), 440–463. doi:10.1007/s13132-014-0206-7.

  • Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan, 43(2–3), 354–363. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010.

  • 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.

  • Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma, harvard business school press, Cambridge, MA.

  • Christensen, C., & Raynor, M. (2003). The innovator’s solution, harvard business school press, Cambridge, MA.

  • D’Antoni, S., Alhabshi, S., & Hakim, H. (2006). The virtual University models & lessons from messages case studies, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak (UNITAR), Malaysia (Rep.). Retrieved March 23, 2016, from Unesco website: http://www.unesco.org/iiep/virtualuniversity/media/document/Ch4_UNITAR_Alhabshi.pdf.

  • De Waal, A. A. (2007). The characteristics of high performance organization. Business Strategy Series, 8(3), 179–185.

  • Edgeman, R., & Eskildsen, J. (2014). Modeling and assessing sustainable enterprise excellence. Bus Strateg Environ, 23(3), 173–187. doi:10.1002/bse.1779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgeman R., Kristensen K., Eskildsen J., Obel B. (2013). Enterprise-wide process & performance excellence: architecting human capital for continuously relevant organizations. 39–48.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom-line of 21st century business (p. 407). Stony Creek: New Society Publishers.

  • Elmansy, R. (2016). 5 Successful open innovation examples. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from http://www.designorate.com/successful-open-innovation-examples/ (September 26).

  • Eppler, M. J., & Hoffmann, F. (2012). Does method matter? An experiment on collaborative business model idea generation in teams. Innovations, 14(3), 388–403.

  • Eppler, M. J., Hoffmann, F., & Bresciani, S. (2011). New business models through collaborative idea generation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(6), 1323–1341.

  • European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development, & European Network for Rural Development. (2011). Rural entrepreneurship. EU rural review the magazine from the european network for rural development. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/fms/pdf/ED5808AC-994A-47AD-928F-0D3088716910.pdf.

  • Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Formica, P. (2017). Why innovators should study the rise and fall of the venetian empire. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2017/01/why-innovators-should-study-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-venetian-empire (January 17).

  • Galbraith, J. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4, 28–36.

  • Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1988). Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of strategic change. Organ Stud, 9(3), 293–316. doi:10.1177/017084068800900301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O. (1995). Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1981). Feature article—Organizational design: a survey and an approach. Oper Res, 29(3), 417–447. doi:10.1287/opre.29.3.417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzlinger, R. E. (2006). Why innovation in health care is so hard. Harvard business review. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2006/05/why-innovation-in-health-care-is-so-hard.

  • Investopedia. (2015). How are eBay and Amazon different? | Investopedia. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/061215/how-are-ebay-and-amazon-different.asp (June 12).

  • Jackson, J. H., & Morgan, C. P. (1978). Organization Theory: A Macro Perspective for Management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

  • 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.

  • Leih, S., Linden, G., & Teece, D. (2015). Business model innovation and organizational design: a dynamic capabilities perspective. In N. Foss & T. Saebi (Eds.), Near-final version of a chapter in business model innovation: The organizational dimension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín-de Castro, G., López-Sáez, P., & Delgado-Verde, M. (2011). Towards a knowledge-based view of firm innovation. Theory and empirical research. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 871–874.

  • Noren, E. (2013). Digital business models: analysis of the amazon business model. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from http://www.digitalbusinessmodelguru.com/2013/07/analysis-of-amazon-business-model.html (July 08).

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–83.

  • Online courses and e-learning tools from Virtual College. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2016, from http://www.virtual-college.co.uk/.

  • Organization Design - BCG. (n.d.). Available at: http://www.bcg.com/expertise/capabilities/people-organization/organization-design.aspx

  • Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach. Lausanne, Switzerland: Institut d’Informatique et Organisation, University of Lausanne, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales HEC, 173.

  • Page, V. (2015). EBay Vs. Amazon Business Model | Investopedia. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/052615/ebay-vs-amazon-business-model.asp (May 26).

  • Petrovic, O., Kittl, C., & Teksten, R. D. (2001). Developing business models for e-business. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Commerce 2001. Vienna, Austria, October 31-November 4.

  • Prabhat, S. (2014). Why steven madden can get better in the long run -- the motley fool. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/09/why-steven-madden-can-get-better-in-the-long-run.aspx (May 09).

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

  • Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A Bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. J Prod Innov Manag. doi:10.1111/jpim.12312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). Business model innovation and sources of value creation in low-income markets. European Management Review, 7(3), 138–154.

  • Santos, J., Spector, B., & Van der Heyden, L. (2009). Toward a theory of business model innovation within incumbent firms. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD.

  • Savitz, A. W. (2006). The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success—and how you can too. San Francisco: Wiley.

  • Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1), 1340001.

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

  • Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on profiting from innovation. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131–1146.

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003.

  • The Future: Closed-Loop Business Model. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2016, http://www.nikebiz.com/crreport/content/strategy/2-1-3-the-future-closed-loop-business-model.php?cat=cr-strategy.

  • von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York: The Free Press.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press.

  • Wirtz, B. W., Göttel, V., & Daiser, P. (2016). Business model innovation: development, concept and future research directions. Journal of Business Models, 4(2), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (vol. 5). Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GWU School of Business, Washington, DC, USA

    Elias G. Carayannis

  2. Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece

    Evangelos Grigoroudis & Dimitra Stamati

Authors
  1. Elias G. Carayannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evangelos Grigoroudis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dimitra Stamati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elias G. Carayannis.

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised: The name of Vangelis Grigoroudis has been corrected to Evangelos Grigoroudis.

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-017-0488-7.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1. Research Questionnaire

The following questions are included in the general section:

Give the total number of employees at the Company.

What is the activity of your Company?

Give the number of years the Company is operating.

The following questions are included in the section A. Business model innovation:

  1. 1)

    What is Company’s current Value Proposition?

  2. 2)

    How does Company communicate its Value Proposition to potential and actual customers and clients?

  3. 3)

    How does Company explain its Value Proposition to potential and actual customers and clients?

  4. 4)

    Who are Company’s key partners?

  5. 5)

    What are Company’s key resources?

  6. 6)

    What are Company’s key processes?

  7. 7)

    How does the combination of resources, processes and partners create organizational value for Company?

  8. 8)

    Which is the Company’s main marketing strategy?

  9. 9)

    What does Company’s cost structure look like?

  10. 10)

    What are Company’s revenue streams?

The following questions are included in the section B. Organizational design:

  1. 11)

    How well do you understand where value is created in your organization?

  2. 12)

    How clearly articulated are your strategy and business model?

  3. 13)

    How much have past organizational change efforts improved your organization’s current ability to change?

  4. 14)

    How well prepared is your organization for potential shifts and disruptions?

  5. 15)

    How successful is your organization at optimally configuring organizational units to drive change and achieve goals?

  6. 16)

    How well aligned are organizational policies, procedures, and work approaches with best practices?

  7. 17)

    How complex are the mechanisms your organization uses to review and update policies, procedures, and work practices as you learn how to operate in this competitive environment?

  8. 18)

    Where (business unit or stage of value chain) the value created in your organization could be enhanced?

  9. 19)

    How the value created in your organization could be enhanced?

  10. 20)

    Why the value created in your organization could be enhanced?

  11. 21)

    Which part of the organization contributes most to the realization of its strategy?

  12. 22)

    Where do the organizational policies, procedures, and work practices comply with industry or governmental standards?

  13. 23)

    How do the organizational policies, procedures, and work practices comply with industry or governmental standards?

  14. 24)

    Why do organizational policies, procedures, and work practices comply with industry or governmental standards?

The following questions are included in the section C. Enterprise excellence:

  1. 25)

    How well does the structure enable the required combination of products, services, and customer relationships to be delivered?

  2. 26)

    How and to what extent does your organizational structure minimize costs? [Innovation]

  1. 26)

    How and to what extent does your organizational structure minimize costs? [Niche markets]

  2. 26)

    How and to what extent does your organizational structure minimize costs? [Strategic partnerships]

  3. 27)

    How and to what extent does the structure enable the organization to create added value? [Innovation]

  4. 27)

    How and to what extent does the structure enable the organization to create added value? [Niche markets]

  5. 27)

    How and to what extent does the structure enable the organization to create added value? [Strategic partnerships]

  6. 28)

    How and to what extent does your organizational structure support predicted future growth and innovation? [Innovation]

  7. 28)

    How and to what extent does your organizational structure support predicted future growth and innovation? [Niche markets]

  8. 28)

    How and to what extent does your organizational structure support predicted future growth and innovation? [Strategic partnerships]

  9. 29)

    How well do you understand the roles of and difference between technological learning and organizational learning?

  10. 30)

    How important is learning to the success of your organization?

  11. 31)

    How thoroughly do you apply enterprise excellence principles to obtain your organization’s objectives?

  12. 32)

    To what extent does non-or-lack-of-performance endanger the results, if not the survival, of the enterprise?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carayannis, E.G., Grigoroudis, E. & Stamati, D. Re-visiting BMI as an Enabler of Strategic Intent and Organizational Resilience, Robustness, and Remunerativeness. J Knowl Econ 8, 407–436 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-017-0471-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-017-0471-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation