A Literature Review On The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Business Modeling

e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, Volume 12, Issue 1, 2018, pages: 265–302, DOI 10.
5277/e-Inf180111
A Literature Review on the Effectiveness

and Efficiency of Business Modeling
Magnus Wilson∗ , Krzysztof Wnuk∗ , Johan Silvander∗ , Tony Gorschek∗
∗
Faculty of Software Engineering, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Karlskrona, Sweden
magnus.wilson@bth.se, krw@bth.se, johan.silvander@bth.se, tgo@bth.se
Abstract
Background: Achieving and maintaining a strategic competitive advantage through business
and technology innovation via continually improving effectiveness and efficiency of the operations
are the critical survival factors for software-intensive product development companies. These
companies invest in business modeling and tool support for integrating business models into their
product development, but remain uncertain, if such investments generate desired results.
Aim: This study explores the effects of business modeling on effectiveness and efficiency for
companies developing software-intensive products.
Method: We conducted a systematic literature review using the snowballing methodology, fol-
lowed by thematic and narrative analysis. 57 papers were selected for analysis and synthesis, after
screening 16 320 papers from multiple research fields.
Results: We analyzed the literature based on purpose, benefit, challenge, effectiveness, and
efficiency with software and software-intensive products as the unit of analysis. The alignment
between strategy and execution is the primary challenge, and we found no evidence that business
modeling increases effectiveness and efficiency for a company. Any outcome variations may simply
be a result of fluctuating contextual or environmental factors rather than the application of
a specific business modeling method. Therefore, we argue that governance is the fundamental
challenge needed for business modeling, as it must efficiently support simultaneous experimentation
with products and business models while turning experiences into knowledge.
Conclusion: We propose a conceptual governance model for exploring the effectiveness and
efficiency of business modeling to occupy the missing link between business strategy, processes and
software tools. We also recommend managers to introduce a systematic approach for experimenta-
tion and organizational learning, collaboration, and value co-creation.
Keywords: business modeling, business model operationalization, effectiveness, efficiency,
context-dependent, governance, software-intensive product development, literature review
1. Introduction manage and innovate the business. Central to
a business model is how an organization cre-
Software-intensive product development (SIPD) ates, delivers, and captures value [3]. Business
companies experience digitalization of their busi- models can be seen as a set of choices and conse-
ness environments. The embedded flexibility that quences of these choices (strategies and tactics)
software offers merges with the high-pace tech- that impact the realizing organizations, business
nology innovation, resulting in new business op- processes, products, and systems [4]. Business
portunities for creating and capturing value in modeling in a business ecosystem is an activity
digital business ecosystems [1, 2]. This has impli- based on transactions of activities geared toward
cations for the business model. value creation for all stakeholders [5]. Business
A business model is a blueprint for a com- modeling (BM) is also a practice that aims to
pany’s business logic and a description how to analyze the business environment and acquire
266 Magnus Wilson et al.
insights to formulate and drive change, by adapt- by the on-going digital business transformation.
ing and aligning the business strategy with the Based on the literature review results, we present
execution to ensure value delivery for all stake- a summary of benefits and challenges associated
holders [6, 7]. with BM including reported impacts on the ef-
Optimizing value creation requires profound fectiveness and efficiency of the business. Next,
understanding how the implemented business we synthesize the implications for the research
model (organization, business processes, and sys- and practice of BM and propose a conceptual
tems) interacts with products and stakeholders governance model (CGM) for exploring the effec-
for value creation and value capture [8]. SIPD tiveness and efficiency of BM (addressing both
companies have a unique position for optimally the innovation of business models as well as the
(efficiently) creating the correct (effective) value outcome on company level for the implemented
for all stakeholders. Given that software is the business model).
main component in: 1) the tools for implementing The paper is structured as follows. In Sec-
and supporting core business processes; 2) de- tion 2, we introduce fundamental concepts re-
veloping the software product itself, and 3) inte- lated to BM and theories used to investigate the
grating the product into the business ecosystem, multifaceted, cross-disciplinary view of BM and
SIPD companies could seamlessly adapt and in- business models. Section 3 reports on related
tegrate their products to their business model work to BM and its usefulness while Section 4
using business modeling [9]. contains a detailed description of the study de-
The business model mediates the link be- sign and study execution including a validity dis-
tween technology and a company’s performance, cussion. Results are presented in Section 5, start-
but the literature is missing the studies which ing with general results around the study itself,
focus on the interdependencies between business followed by the detailed results regarding each
model choice, technology innovation, and success research question. In Section 6, our research syn-
[10], as well as differentiating the value creation thesis including trends and our proposed CGM
and value capture analysis over individual, or- for exploring BM are presented. Finally, in Sec-
ganization, and society level [8]. Several promi- tion 7, we list six implications for researchers
nent authors emphasized the lack of coherence and industry followed by our conclusions and
and clear focus in the business model literature key statements in Section 8.
[7, 11, 12]. In particular, there is a gap in under-
standing how BM interacts with software-inten-
sive products in the digitalization transformation, 2. Background
and what effects BM have on increasing the ef-
fectiveness and efficiency of the SIPD companies 2.1. Effectiveness, efficiency, and
and maximizing the technology innovation real- governance in BM context
ization effects.
This literature study aims to address this gap Business modeling shares several similarities with
by investigating what factors determine the effec- software engineering, requirement engineering [13–
tiveness of BM, and if BM can act as an enabler 15], and software product lines (SPL) [16]. Soft-
for improvements in effectiveness and efficiency ware engineering provides new possibilities to effi-
of SIPD companies. This study provides a soft- ciently and effectively implement strategies agreed
ware engineering perspective on how software upon during business modeling activities [2].
and software-products enable value creation as The business model literature describes sev-
the unit of analysis for BM. This perspective en- eral concepts associated with effectiveness and
ables us to narrow the scope of the vast business efficiency. They are often adapted to specific
model literature, as well as limiting the size of contexts, e.g., organizational efficiency, manufac-
the study by defining a more precise context for turing efficiency, operational efficiency, product
analyzing effectiveness and efficiency, as affected development efficiency, and expressed as a value,
A Literature Review on the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Business Modeling 267
time or in financial terms as for costs, revenues, Understanding, specifying, and sharing contex-
profits, and margins. By starting with an “um- tual factors (often as part of contractual agree-
brella definition” offered by Webster-Merriam ments) is a critical factor for systematically opti-
on-line, we will discuss definitions suitable for mizing the level of sub-optimization in a business
SIPD companies and our study. ecosystem.
Effectiveness is the power to produce the de- Effectiveness and efficiency are also closely
sired result. Efficiency is defined as the ability related to governance, and Webster-Merriam
to do something or produce something without on-line defines governance as the way that a city,
wasting materials, time, or energy: the quality or company, etc., is controlled by the people who run
degree of being efficient (technical), but also as the it. Understanding governance is also a crucial
power to produce the desired result causing some part of BM as indicated by for example [5,22,23].
ambiguity between the two terms. Buder et al. Jansen considers measurements and governance
differentiate between quality (effectiveness) and as the enablers of a successful software ecosys-
required effort (efficiency) [17]. Organizational tem [24]. Zott and Amit argue governance is
effectiveness is discussed by Zheng et al. in combi- a vital part of evaluating BM experimentation
nation with strategy and knowledge management, [5]. Page and Spira discuss corporate governance
where they use the definition the degree to which connected to the business model as a growing
an organization realizes its goals [18]. need to attain accountability by the board by
Effectiveness is often measured as the quality considering conformance, performance, and over-
of the desired result and Frökjeaer et al., in their seeing management control systems. They con-
attempt to correlate usability to efficiency and clude that corporate governance is essentially the
effectiveness, they define efficiency as [. . . ] is the same thing as sustaining and developing busi-
relation between (1) the accuracy and complete- ness models [25]. In this paper, we will use the
ness with which users achieve certain goals and Webster-Merriam definition of governance.
(2) the resources expended in achieving them [19].
Measurements of efficiency are often related (di- 2.2. Business modeling as an enabler
rect and indirect) to time and cost. In economics for a company’s efficiency and
the term efficiency focus on different aspects of effectiveness
the balance between supply and demand. It is
measured by the relationship between the value There are many diverse and even divergent
of ends and the value of means and examples of definitions of a business model and BM, as
terms are allocative efficiency (production repre- also highlighted in many literature reviews, e.g.,
sents customer preferences) and productive effi- [7, 11, 12, 26]. A business model “models the busi-
ciency (cannot produce more of one good without ness”, but as such it has a wide range of usage
sacrificing production of another). depending on who and why is using it. It can
Effectiveness and efficiency are subjective be used as a description of “kinds and types”
and depend on evaluations. Such evaluations in a taxonomy to compare businesses or like
are based on an individual’s understanding of a recipe for designing and innovating successful
knowledge and interpretation in a specific con- (new) business. Business models can also act as
text [20]. Therefore, having the same understand- a description of the “logic of the firm”, i.e., how
ing of a context (which the measurements are to create value and generate profit, or as a scale
relative to), is fundamental when defining ef- model to investigate, analyze, and evaluate dif-
fectiveness and efficiency measurements for BM ferent strategies and tactics, thereby supporting
(and the over-arching business context). Current both strategic and daily decision making [27].
research on context description in software en- There are two ways to interpret “efficient
gineering provides a useful checklist on context and effective.” One interpretation is that the BM
facets (product, processes, people, practices and process itself should be efficient and effective.
techniques, and organization and market) [21]. The other interpretation is that the business
model realization should increase a company’s For this paper, we combine our transaction-based
efficiency and effectiveness, i.e., BM should be (bottom-up) definition of BM with Höflinger’s
the practice that increases a company’s efficiency (top-down) framework for defining the business
and effectiveness. In this work, we follow the sec- model since:
ond interpretation of efficient and effective, as – He extensively integrates and builds on the
we are primarily interested in BM as a way to literature for business models.
enable improvements in a company’s efficiency – He addresses the issue of static versus dy-
and effectiveness. Therefore, we base our work namic business models (where he supports the
on the BM definition by Rohrbeck et al. as to static nature of the business model and argues
be a creative and inventive activity that involves business model innovation as the approach
experimenting with content, structure, and gover- to adapt to rapidly changing environments).
nance of transactions that are designed to create – He focuses on the consequences regarding
and capture value [28]. This definition supports multi-value, superior performance and organi-
our investigation of BM for SIPD companies in zational learning as a mechanism for feedback
two ways. Firstly, looking at value creation trans- and control.
actions allows for a value-driven business model – By taking an inside-out view of the research
analysis in a business ecosystem. Secondly, by gap addressed in this study, i.e., based on
introducing the word experimenting, it extends how software and software-products enable
BM to a process of “translating an idea into value creation as the unit of analysis for BM,
execution, testing and changing until satisfied,” it enables both a top-down and bottom-up
similar to the agile software development meth- analysis.
ods. We complement the BM definition with the Translating business strategy into execution
proposed capabilities needed for BM (understand is not an easy task and requires experimentation
and share, analyze, manage, and prospect) [9]. with content, structure, and governance of trans-
actions that are designed to create and capture
2.3. Translating business strategy into value [28]. Rohrbeck et al. advocate collabora-
execution using business models tive BM as a way to deal with the complexity
and uncertainty of systems and markets. They
Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart argue a clear dis- stress the need for planning, decision making, val-
tinction between strategy and the business model, idation, and experimentation in highly complex
where the business model is a reflection of the environments. Other scholars also acknowledged
firm’s realized strategy and that the strategy is the role of experimentation in BM [30–32]. Ex-
the plan and process to reach the desired goal, via perimentation can help to capture and manage
the business model and onto tactics [4]. Among the business environment dynamics, but it also
the authors that recognize the role of the busi- implies new challenges in addition to just cap-
ness model in translating business strategy into turing and designing a business model. Some of
execution, Doganova talks about the business these challenges are emphasized by Ballon when
model as a “calculative and narrative device” to he argues it is precisely the alignment of control
innovate and translate the business strategy into and value parameters that is of most relevance to
execution [29]. In the same vein, Osterwalder business modeling in his aim to describe a theoret-
defines the business model as a formal model to ical foundation for operationalization (preparing
capture and translate a value-based business idea for execution) of the business model [33]. Ballon
into requirements for the ICT systems and the or- proposes an analytical framework for making the
ganizations that execute that business model [9]. scope for choice explicit while connecting value
Höflinger defines A business model is the design to the configuration of a business model, while
of organizational structures for converting tech- others formulate the main challenge as organi-
nological potentials into economically valuable zations have to reach the alignment state and
outputs by exploiting business opportunities [7]. maintain it alongside its evolution [34].
2.4. Capturing the change dynamics with each other to produce and to consume goods
and value with software products and services, in a partially intentional, highly
self-organizing, and even somewhat accidental
Effectively dealing with change requires under- manner [38]. In such a volatile and increasingly
standing how the concept of strategy relates to complex environment, successful companies can-
the business model and tactics [4], what strate- not just add value, but instead need to address
gic agility [35] and strategic flexibility [36] the the value-creating system itself. They must rein-
organizations have, as well as how changeability vent value, and work together with all stake-
(adaptability, agility, robustness, and flexibility) holders in the business ecosystem to co-produce
can be operationalized using modularity in design value [39].
and software-based systems [37]. Flexibility and The flexible nature of software-intensive prod-
adaptability has since long been a top priority ucts opens up unique opportunities to quickly
for CEOs1 and business model innovation is be- reinvent and co-produce value, but also presents
coming a top priority amongst CEOs2 . Hence, an new challenges for SIPD companies in business
important part of analyzing efficient and effective ecosystems [37, 40]. Figure 1 illustrates an ex-
BM translates to capturing and managing the ample of software-based value creation in an
change dynamics of today’s business operations. ecosystem, highlighting three distinct, but over-
Value creation and value capture are the cen- lapping process areas: (1) core business processes,
tral concepts for BM. However, there is still (2) product development, and (3) product inte-
missing consensus on the boundaries of these gration.
concepts, based on: (1) plurality in source and SIPD companies possess unique opportuni-
target; (2) mix of content and the process; and ties to harvest the flexible nature of software
(3) the overlap between value creation and cap- and reinvent value by integrating and develop-
ture. Value creation is divided into use value (as ing native product support for each respective
perceived by an individual) and exchange value area and the business model(s). These areas are
(as the monetary compensation), and should be extensively discussed in the business model litera-
related to the source and the target (individ- ture, e.g., covering pure software business models
ual, organization, and society). Value creation is [41], open source/mixed source [42] and digital
highly subjective and context-specific but always options [43], transitions from product-based busi-
rooted in interactions. Value creation should be ness models to service-based models [44], or to
primarily analyzed on the individual level, while industrial product-service systems and use mod-
most business model literature discuss value cre- els [37, 45, 46]. Even mechanical products rapidly
ation on the organizational level. Value capture become software-intensive products [47].
overlaps value creation by discussing the sharing The software value map (SVM) [48] explores
of value (value slippage) to society, organizations, the different value perspectives and the chal-
and individuals [8]. lenges of balancing the relevant value aspects in
Moore discusses value creation in a busi- software development. The SVM is an extensive
ness ecosystem and the importance to have collection of software value aspects categorized
value-in-the-experience of customers, economics in four perspectives3 : customer value; the finan-
of scale, and continuing innovation, while invest- cial perspective; internal business perspective;
ing in expanding communities of allies. He defines and the Innovation, market and intellectual per-
a business ecosystem as a complex structure of spective on value. The SVM puts precise and
interested parties and communities interacting explicit terms on concepts discussed by Höflinger,
1
Based on CEO Challenge 2004: Perspectives and Analysis, https://www.conference-board.org/publications/publi
cationdetail.cfm?publicationid=893, and revisted by http://www.floordaily.net/flooring-news/survey--most-ceos-say-
flexibility-and-adapting-to.
2
IBM’s global CEO report 2006: Business model innovation matters, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10
.1108/10878570610701531.
3
See http://www.softwarevaluemap.org for the SVM Tool and latest details, as it is continuously updated by
input from more than 50 companies world-wide, October 2016.
Figure 1. Software-based value creation in a value delivery chain in a business ecosystem
e.g., know-how characteristics, value structure, hence an essential part of the operationalized
financial value, social value, and organizational business model, both by acting as an agent to
learning. The SVM provides a necessary but of- the business model (the content, structure, and
ten neglected bridge between product strategy, governance of transactions), as well as through
value, and operationalization of software systems optimizing a software product’s changeability
and products in requirements elicitation, and [37] to adjust for external influences.
decision making. Figure 1 also illustrates the recursiveness
In Figure 1, two companies, and a customer and complexity of business models and soft-
interact in a business ecosystem. The software ware-based value creation. Each company typi-
products are involved as agents via interfaces and cally run their business model while the “overar-
features along the value delivery chain. Value is ching” business model for the business ecosystem
created in the interaction between two stake- can be seen as an aggregation and collabora-
holders, indicated by the arrows between the tion of the “underlying” business models [28].
stick-men and their smiley faces. A company Software Product C (e.g., a browser) is using
needs to look beyond their borders to identify all Software Product B (e.g., a crowd-funding ap-
stakeholders and possible interactions for value plication delivered as a cloud service), which
creation (at society, organizational, and individ- in turn is relying on Software Product A (e.g.,
ual level). a database application delivered as a service).
Different aspects of value are created in these Each company develops their software product(s)
interactions, while external conditions and in- based on their (business model’s) vision and
fluences shape the perception of value (as tech- goals. They constantly need adjusting for exter-
nology and society advances), often resulting nal influences, using requirement engineering to
in a misalignment between expected and per- constrain the vision and goals into an “optimal”
ceived value. BM (in a SIPD context) aims to realization (time, opportunities, risks, features,
systematically capture, prioritize, and address and resources) of the software product. A soft-
how business logic, resources, and governance ware product should have features addressing
should be operationalized for optimal value cre- (all) the needs of (all) stakeholders (throughout
ation and value capture. A software product is the complete value delivery chain). It must also
support any stakeholders’ interaction with the Three of the reviews [7, 11, 12] highlight the
software product throughout the product’s en- two major challenges in current research on busi-
tire life-cycle (from the idea, design, production, ness models: 1) that business model research
commissioning, usage, to de-commissioning and is too dispersed and needs a consolidation of
obsolescence). Such role-based interaction is il- concepts; and 2) that it is difficult to connect
lustrated in the figure with features, interfaces, strategy (via business model) to execution, while
bi-directional arrows and the stick-men. An in- capturing and handling the needed dynamics of
teraction can also be a non-human interaction today’s global and multi-stakeholder business
between two software products, entirely inter- environments. Other prominent researchers also
nal to a company, or any combination thereof. highlight the lack of a consolidated body of knowl-
These interactions occur at all levels in activi- edge and concepts [9, 23, 50, 51], indicating a gap
ties between actors, within and across company in understanding BM’s real-world effects.
borders, as well as within different life-cycles Business models for explaining a company’s
of the value delivery chain. In a business model, performance are frequently discussed both con-
a transaction is an aggregation of such role-based ceptually [52, 53] as well as empirically [54–56].
interactions where the exchange of information, Hacklin and Wallnöfer conclude that the business
goods, payments, and feedback are not neces- model acts more as a symbolic artifact and not
sarily synchronized. Also, the different software as an analytic tool. Zott and Amit report em-
products’ life-cycles interact and overlap. This pirical evidence suggesting that business model
puts new requirements on the software product design can provide a competitive advantage, but
to more efficiently handle the introduction of new does not provide conclusions that employing
interactions and collaborations, e.g., customers BM to evolve the business model will improve
being part of the design or test of Company B’s a company’s effectiveness and efficiency. Lambert
software product while Company A and B enter and Davidson studied the relationship between
a partnership agreement to share costs and rev- company success, business models and business
enue [28]. For SIPD, this creates a tight, highly model innovation. These studies all measure and
recursive relationship between BM and the soft- report what is the current situation, but there
ware products. is no empirical research that aims to predict
company success or to conclude that business
modeling enables effectiveness and efficiency of
3. Related work a company [49].
Osterwalder et al. advocate formalization of
Several prominent literature reviews are pub- business models using IS/IT tools and an exper-
lished on the topics of business models. For imental approach “when-and-how-to-build” [57].
brevity, we focus on recent publications highlight- Their eight propositions to be observed and even-
ing aspects relevant for performance [7,11,12,49]. tually tested seems still be equally valid: 1) use
Common to all reviews is the lack of empirical rigorous meta-models; 2) increase understanding
evidence that using BM to evolve the business business and IS/IT; 3) improve integration busi-
model increases a company’s effectiveness and ness and IS/IT; 4) facilitate and improve IS/IT
efficiency. Lambert and Davidson summarize 40 choices infrastructure/applications; 5) facilitate
publications and report that choosing the right choices IS role and structure; 6) help defining
business model is one factor for a company’s suc- company’s goals; 7) facilitate identification of
cess based on evidence of a relationship between key indicators; 8) externalize, map and store
success, business models, and business model knowledge of value creation logic [9].
innovation. They conclude that the studies mea- Giessmann et al. extend Osterwalder et al.’s
sure and report what is the current situation, but propositions to build a model that can analyze
no empirical research aims to predict company and compare business models, but their work
success. does not address the issues of aligning and daily
execution of a business model [58]. Salgado et al. ization transformation. We focus on the following
also build on Osterwalder’s business model can- two research questions:
vas (BMC) and discuss how to generate a BMC RQ1: What benefits and challenges of business
from business goals, rules, and processes, but do modeling are reported in the literature?
not further connect the results to the IS/IT real- RQ2: What effects related to effectiveness and
ization and daily operations [59]. They also dis- efficiency of business modeling are reported in
cuss the alignment between business and IS/IT the literature?
(from the lens of business model artifacts, enter- We used RQ1 to investigate the contextual
prise modeling, and strategy and goal modeling) setting for business modeling and to compare
and formulate the main challenge as Achieving and analyze the reported effects on efficiency and
alignment per se is not enough, organizations effectiveness. The on-going business environment
have to reach the alignment state and maintain digitalization transformation heavily depends on
it alongside its evolution [34]. flexible and scalable software solutions. Therefore
The literature indicates a research gap be- we limit the scope to business modeling for SIPD
tween modeling the business and executing the companies developing software-intense products
business model and more specifically, do busi- and services. The research process executed in
ness modeling increase a company’s effectiveness this study is outlined in Figure 2.
and efficiency? Höflinger’s framework extensively
builds on the literature but does not empirically 4.2. The snowball methodology
define or explore his angle of superior perfor-
mance, nor the dynamics of a business model Our systematic literature review (SLR) method-
related to value. Further, he does not explore how ology is based on the guidelines for snowballing
the learning of an organization interacts with the literature search proposed by Wohlin [60]. The
design of, the representation of, and experimen- snowballing methodology is considered less noisy
tation with a business model [7]. Rohrbeck et al. compared to a similar database-search based
stop at the preparation for development and do methodology and the critical step for a successful
not provide further insights into the mechanics snowballing is to choose a good tentative start
needed for actual experimentation and validation set characterized by: 1) studies from different
of a business model [28]. Richter et al. discuss communities; 2) size appropriate for the studied
flexibility and value as a way to deal with change area; 3) diversity of publishers, years, and au-
and implementation of business models. They thors; and 4) is based on the research questions
conclude that further work is needed to better and keyword. The complete study was conducted
understand inter-firm governance structure [37]. in four steps, outlined in the subsections below
Ballon proposes an analytical framework for mak- and depicted in Figure 2. We screened 16 320
ing the scope for choice explicit and concludes papers resulting in 57 papers included in the
that further work is needed to make interde- study.
pendencies of parameters explicit and to extend
the model in a more prospective and predictive 4.2.1. Step 1: Design of the literature review
sense [33].
To minimize the author-bias and to prepare for
a cross-disciplinary study (business management
4. Methodology and software engineering), we performed two
open-ended interviews to identify further reading
4.1. Research questions to understand the terminology to formulate our
research questions. These interviews helped us
We used software and software-intensive products to decide upon the methodology, validity risks,
as the unit of analysis. The rationale comes from inclusion criteria (IC) and data extraction prop-
the central role that software-intensive product erties. We also created a study protocol and doc-
play in the on-going business environment digital- umented each step and decision. The same IC
Table 1. Search strings for start set
Id Terms
SS1 (“business model” OR “business ecosystem”) AND “value creation” AND “strategy”
SS2 (“business modelling” OR “business modeling” OR “business ecosystem”) AND “business strat-
egy” AND “value creation” AND (”effectiveness” OR “efficiency” OR “business flexibility” OR
“modularity” OR ”variability in realization” OR ”governance” OR “multi-business”)
were used defining both the start set and in the iterative clustering to reduce the number of hits
following snowball iterations, see Appendix B. while minimizing noise (initially in Scopus since
it contains all the subject areas). We ended up
4.2.2. Step 2: Defining the start set with two search strings4 , see Table 1, used to
query six databases, see Figure 2.
We used a database search in Google Scholar Executing SS1 and SS2 (limited to title-ab-
to find the start set and recommendations from stract-keywords) resulted in 2948 papers, see
the interviewed experts. The two initial inter- Figure 2. The first author applied the inclusion cri-
views (60-minutes, open-ended interview with teria on titles and abstracts, and 2378 papers were
the question Does business modeling enable im- removed. The remaining 570 papers were put in an
provements in effectiveness and efficiency for excel sheet so duplicates and not peer-reviewed pa-
a company?) with experts in software engineer- pers could be discarded. The final 477 papers were
ing (telecommunication industry with 25 years of screened more thoroughly (abstract, introduc-
experience) and business management (professor tion, conclusion) for IC and the result discussed
in production management) resulted in a starting and validated with the second author, leaving
point of: nine papers to be included in the start set. One
– four recommended studies, of which Höflinger paper recommended by the experts in business
also ended up in the start set [7]; management was also included in the start set.
– a wide multi-disciplinary map of subject ar-
eas: computer science; software engineering; 4.2.3. Step 3: Execute snowballing iterations
business management and accounting; eco-
nomics, econometrics and finance; organiza- The first author collected the references of ci-
tion management; and decision science; tations to the papers selected in each iteration.
– additional keywords – open innovation, strate- Next, we applied inclusion criteria and calcu-
gic management, value creation, value cap- lated the Cohen’s Kappa in all iterations, see
ture, flexibility, business model innovation, section 4.3.
business ecosystem, organizational theory, In total, we screened 10 414 citations and 2958
knowledge management, service science, en- references, see Figure 2. Iteration 1 covered the
terprise architecture, software product lines, start set and resulted in 35 selected studies (out
open source, and product service systems. of 612 references and 249 citations). Iteration 2
After further search in Google Scholar for resulted in 2011 references and 10 134 citations.
definitions on these keywords, we created a rec- The noise in citations is one of the downsides
ommended Golden Set (31 papers) from which reported for the snowballing methodology, and
we derived a collection of definitions to help we applied an initial pre-screening (language, ti-
us penetrate the terminology. The snowballing tle, abbreviated abstract) giving us a remaining
methodology recommends using Google Scholar 1335 citations to screen. By having the candidate
to avoid any bias on specific publishers [60]. The list in Excel, it was easy to detect all duplicates.
definitions helped us develop the search strings We selected 11 studies in iteration 2. Iteration 3
(SS). We used a traditional search schema with rendered 313 references and 30 citations resulting
4
SS1 uses stemming and SS2 doesn’t. Also, “multi-business” was added upon recommendation of industry expert,
since executing several business models in parallel is a significant challenge for large SIPD companies.
Figure 2. Research methodology overview
in one new paper selected. We got a natural stop of the results, see section 4.3. Open coding [61]
of the snowballing procedure by iteration 4 with was used for properties EP5–EP9 and the ex-
no more studies discovered resulting in a total of tracted data was thematically analyzed. Prop-
10+35+11+1 = 57 studies selected for analysis, erties EP5–EP9 helped us synthesize results re-
see Appendix A for a complete list. garding BM as phenomena as well as to identify
potential research gaps.
4.2.4. Step 4: Data extraction, analysis, The results were iterated in two phases (a)
and synthesis RQ1 and (b) RQ2. For each phase, the first au-
thor prepared a summary of listed quotations
Appendix C outlines the data extraction prop- from all studies. The list was then reviewed
erties (EP) used in this study. ATLAS Ti5 and against the extracted result, and the first au-
Excel were used to keep track of and analyze re- thor had to explain a summary of each paper’s
sults as well as synthesize extracted information. findings to the reviewer. Phase (a) were reviewed
The extraction was done by the first author and by the second and third author, while phase (b)
validated by the other authors, see section 4.3. were reviewed by the second author.
Properties EP1–EP4 were evaluated per pa-
per and used to analyze the relevance to industry 4.3. Validity threats
for each paper’s contribution. The property EP3
(Rigor & Relevance) was also used for quality We adopted the validity guidelines suggested by
assessment, see extracted raw data per paper Runeson et al. [62]. An extensive industrial ex-
in Appendix A and detailed calculations in Ap- perience of the authors may have influenced the
pendix C. It helped us to evaluate generalizablity aims of the study with a stronger bias towards
5
Software for Qualitative Data Analysis, http://atlasti.com/.
solutions. We mitigated that bias by two initial sharing the work associated with data extraction
interviews and an iterative refinement of the re- and analysis.
search questions and also by applying a grounded Since this study covers studies from a wide
theory approach [61], fostering a focus on the set of research fields, the semantics (and context)
merits of each paper before an end-to-end per- of words can often be misleading. We addressed
spective could be evaluated. this by our choice of a snowballing methodology
The selected ten papers in the start set are in combination with a rigor design to identify
highly heterogeneous and therefore minimize the the start set. Moreover, we used open coding
bias on specific author or terminology. Similarly, (inspired by grounded theory [61]) to synthesize
we mitigated the author’s bias by calculating and harmonize language between the different
the Kappa coefficient when selecting the start research fields.
set papers. The Kappa analysis was done by Because of the interdisciplinary nature of this
the first and second authors, and the value was study, the risk remains that some aspects are
κ = 0.566 and later increased to κ = 0.638. The underrepresented and other aspects are overrep-
Kappa analysis was also performed during the resented. In particular business model innovation
first snowballing iteration on 12% of the studies or business process modeling seems to be heavily
with a resulting value of κ = 0.763. These values researched in the business management and the
represent sufficient agreement and increase the computer science community. However, we de-
validity of the study. cided to limit the scope in these dimensions since
To mitigate author bias during extraction, six our primary interest is the interplay between
random studies were selected (of the 57 studies) the strategic intentions, the design of a business
and extracted by the first and second authors. model, the realization of it, and the resulting ef-
The validation showed a discrepancy of one paper fects on efficiency and effectiveness, rather than
for extraction properties EP1–EP4 and after fur- details on how individual steps are performed.
ther discussion full agreement was reached. Also, We selected our start set studies from dif-
the results to the RQs (EP5–EP9) was iterated ferent research disciplines and these studies are
in two phases, and each phase was presented by conducted using many different research meth-
first author before discussed and evaluated by at ods which improve the external validity of our
least one more researcher. literature review. Even though the start set is
Rigor and relevance analysis was applied to carefully chosen and includes publication years
mitigate potential threats to conclusion valid- (2004–2014) there are only 17 (out of 57) papers
ity. The rigor classification based on software published during 2013–2015.
engineering literature was also adapted for busi-
ness modeling literature. The relevance param-
eter was coded using binary weights (0, 1, 2, 5. Results and analysis
and 4 instead of the recommended 0 and 1).
We also decided to add property EP4 to specif- Table 2 shows results related to research ques-
ically address the relevance of a paper’s content tions mapped to each paper’s context (data ex-
concerning our RQs (since the property EP3 traction property EP4, see Appendix refapp:C),
and its’ relevance aspects only consider the re- including frequency and summarizing comments.
search method and context of a paper). This Using inclusion criteria IC2 and IC3 we inves-
provided higher resolution when discussing the tigated if the papers address flexibility without
relevance and when thematically comparing the further exploring the efficiency or effectiveness.
papers. The extraction of results was iteratively 74% of the identified studies (EP4, categories
reviewed and discussed with second and third 2 and 3) focus on the business model construct
authors. We minimized potential internal valid- rather than the BM as a practice. One reason for
ity threats by following the systematic mapping this could be that BM as a practice is a broad, di-
study guidelines, creating a review protocol and verse topic forcing researchers to limit the scope
Table 2. Results mapped to research questions and paper context
RQs Business Business Other (3) Sum Comment

/ICs modeling model (2) of pa-
(1) pers
RQ1 2, 6, 15, 17, 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 26, 50 Scattered in a multitude of practices and
18, 35, 36, 9, 13, 14, 16, 30, 31, 34, frameworks. Results suggest lack a system-
37, 41, 49, 19, 20, 21, 38, 42, 43, atic alignment of contextual information
51, 52, 53, 22, 24, 29, 46, 48, 55, hindering re-use and integration of prac-
54, 56 32, 33, 39, 57, 58, 59 tices
40, 45
RQ2 17, 35, 37, 1, 5, 24, 29, 8, 42 13 Quotes on effectiveness and efficiency are
54, 56 32, 45 not differentiated nor substantiated
IC2 2, 6, 17, 18, 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 26, 42 Many papers reflect over flexibility. Gover-
35, 36, 37, 9, 13, 14, 19, 30, 31, 34, nance is important for understanding the
41, 49, 52, 20, 22, 24, 38, 48, 55, value (and cost) of (the right) flexibility in
53, 54 27, 29, 33, 57, 58, 59 order to optimize the value creation and
39, 40, 45 value capture
IC3 2, 6, 15, 18, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 26, 35 Variability in the realization is an impor-
35, 37, 49, 9, 13, 16, 19, 31, 34, 43, tant aspect of flexibility and should be
51, 52, 54, 56 21, 22, 24, 46, 55 a part of the business modeling analysis
27, 29, 32,
33, 45
Sum 15 (29%) 20 (39%) 16 (31%) The % is calculated of the 51 papers adress-
of pa- ing RQs+ICs. 6 papers of the total 57 se-
pers lected papers did not specifically address
any of the RQs+ICs. They all belonged to
category 3: Other
Hit 33% (5) 30% (6) 9% (2) The ‘hit rate’ is the ratio of papers address-
rate ing both RQs. For category 3 the ratio in-
clude the 6 papers (not listed in the Table)
not addressing any RQs
by addressing some aspects of a business model model to the execution of the business model
construct rather than BM as an activity or pro- with traceability to daily operations and results.
cess. Still, only 33% of the paper address both We used Rigor and Relevance (EP3) to an-
RQ1 and RQ2. alyze the identified papers, see Figure 3 and
The number of papers addressing multiple Appendix A. 60% of the studies received in-
RQ+IC is growing since 2005. As the area be- dustry relevance scores greater than 7, repre-
comes more mature, it is also becoming more senting a good balance between state-of-art and
complex, multifaceted, and cross-disciplinary. state-of-practice. A majority of these studies (20)
This trend is also indicated by Kindström where score 15 (highest), and additional eight studies
he states that companies need to focus on all score > 9 (two or more conditions met). The
areas of their business models in a holistic fash- included literature reviews [P3, P9, P29, P40]
ion, and not just change isolated elements [P24]. have (as expected) a relevance score = 0 with
Similar, Reim et al. concludes that more research acceptable rigor scores (>= 1). The remaining 19
efforts are needed on the complicated relation- studies with a non-industry relevance score, dis-
ship between strategic and operational levels [P3]. cuss specific topics or more general frameworks
This could be one of the reasons why business and methods/aspects (related to BM) divided
model research is still scattered and disperse. To on: strategy [P15, P19]; life cycles [P25, P28]; ef-
evaluate BM efficiency, it is therefore essential fectiveness and efficiency [P35]; flexibility [P27];
to connect the business strategy via the business static/dynamic [P14, P34]; or frameworks, meth-
Figure 3. Papers plotted for frequency (size), rigor (X-axis) and relevance (Y-axis) scores,
and paper context (font)
ods and models [P8, P10, P16, P18, P22, P31, challenges refer to potential issues to obtain a sat-
P32, P41, P44, P57, P59]. isfactory result (judged by specific qualities and
45% of the studies are coded with a low rigor contextual factors). We identified the following
(score 0 and 0.5) where 11% only describe the common areas (rows in Appendix D): 1) value cre-
context, but not mentioning any design or validation/capture; 2) cost/revenue; 3) mind-set and
ity aspects. The validity aspect is the single most knowledge; 4) means6 (mission, strategy, tactics,
lacking aspect lowering the rigor in 54% of the directives, organization, and resources); 5) ends6
22 studies with medium rigor (score 1, 1.5 and 2). (vision, goals, and objectives); and 6) assessment6
Different research fields are different regarding (decision control, clarity, visualization, influencer,
maturity, methodology, and best practices on etc.).
how to report the research, which we believe are Our literature review results suggest that the
the main reasons affecting the rigor aspect. overarching purpose found for BM is for a com-
pany to stay competitive and improve its business
5.1. Benefits and challenges associated results. The quotes of purpose are often overlap-
with business modeling (RQ1) ping and cover a wide variety of more specific
topics, like managing individual business aspects
We extracted 263 quotes of purpose, benefits (e.g., offerings, market, cost and revenue), captur-
and challenges of business modeling (EP5), see ing the business logic and activity systems, over
Appendix D. Quotes of purpose (P) often sets the to a holistic nature like “operationalize strategy”,
general context, while quotes of challenges (C) appropriate value from technology, or managing
or benefits (B) often are reflections of how well value (co-creation, capture, creation) and part-
a solution to a specific problem works. Benefits ners. Investigating the quotes further, we identi-
refer to a solution with good enough result while fied three primary contexts for BM (columns in
6
We use the terms assessment, ends, and means as defined in 2015 by Business Motivation Model Specification
Version 1.3. http://www.omg.org/spec/BMM/. Accessed 2 Nov 2017.
Figure 4. Quotes binned on purpose, benefits+challenges, and distributed over the primary contexts
Appendix D): 1) Strategy and planning; 2) Daily promise) with the challenge of managing the
operations (executing strategies and plans); and experience-sharing network, and how that af-
3) Governance and communication. fects the business modeling [P8]. Chesbrough dis-
To analyze potential ambiguity (per paper) cusses business model innovation with purposes
between the primary context of purpose quotes related to formulating competitive advantage,
vs. the primary context of benefits/challenges value proposition and value chain definition while
quotes, each quote is tagged with Paper ID, Type concluding challenges as a lack of tool support
of quote (one of P, B, C), and primary context and continuous learning associated with BM ex-
(one of 1, 2, 3). Figure 4 illustrates the number of perimentation [P13]. Richardsson discusses the
papers adhering to different contextual coherence purpose of formulating and achieving goals and
bins distributed over the three primary contexts. objectives while concluding challenges as manag-
We define the five contextual coherence bins. Bin ing the different abstraction levels towards exe-
0 equals a paper having zero quotes in a primary cution and getting the details right [P19]. Eurich
context. Bin 1 equals a paper having quotes of P et al. discuss the purpose of transforming the
and B/C only in different primary context. Bin business opportunity into an organizational im-
2 equals a paper having only quotes (B/C) for plementation via experimentation and business
a primary context. Bin 3 equals a paper having model fit, while concluding challenges in practical
only quotes (P) for a primary context, and Bin aspects like lack of details, not aligned design pro-
4 equals a paper having quotes of both P and cesses, disregard of external influences, etc. [P49].
B/C in same primary context. Moreover, a significant portion of the papers
Strongest contextual coherence is found in bin lack statements on purpose, benefit, or challenge
4, with the highest ratio for the primary context making a discussion around effectiveness and effi-
“Governance & communication” at 16% (15 pa- ciency more challenging due to vague contextual
pers). The most significant contextual ambiguity information. Our results highlight a challenging
(bin 1) is found in 4 papers [P8, P13, P19, P49] issue how to effectively and efficiently defining
where a purpose is stated in one primary context contexts to improve understanding and commu-
while the benefit or challenge is claimed in an- nication in BM literature.
other primary context without specific detailing The importance of contextual information is
the relationship. Romero & Molina discuss the mentioned by seven studies [P8, P17, P18, P20,
purpose of value co-creation, as a complicated P25, P51, P59], but no author goes as far as to
cooperative process (speed, coordination, com- suggest how to describe or represent the contex-
tual information. At the same time, the current IS/IT domains” [P32] vs. (−) “hard to reach
research on context description in software en- and maintain alignment of business model and
gineering provides a useful checklist on context information system model” [P59]. This kind of
facets (product, processes, people, practices and ambiguity can be a result of the wide topical area
techniques, and organization and market) [21]. of BM in combination with a poorly specified
However, these context facets are ambiguous in contextual setting, opening up for a different
themselves, e.g., a market consist of products, interpretation of results.
customers, and organizations, a product could The majority of the quotes are found in the
be a service and therefore include a process, etc. union of (Governance) | (Mindset, Knowledge)
As a reflection of the identified challenges and | (Assessment) indicating that learning (knowl-
claimed benefits, related to the paper’s contribu- edge) and control (governance) is key to BM.
tion to practices and methods for BM (includ- This is also backed by [P5, P13, P32, P51] which
ing effects on effectiveness and efficiency), the discuss the importance of experimentation and
underlying purpose is contextually vague with learning to adapt to the changing environment.
statements like “operationalize strategy” [P36, The changing environment is also highlighted by
P37], or “deal with uncertainty” [P2, P52, P54]. [P2, P9, P49] as a challenging fact of business
The papers offer no empirical evidence to support models, and as McGrath concludes, everything
that the purpose can be realized with claimed cannot be planned, but rather adapted to a suit-
benefit nor do they quantify the extent of the able fit [P18]. In the same vein, we notice the
challenges. vast number of papers belonging to bin 0, 2, and
Similarities between the quotes on benefits 3, indicating that a majority of the papers foucs
and challenges are found, but only eight quotes on a single primary context of BM, rather than
are reported by multiple authors, for example: connecting the strategy to the execution and eval-
“(−) difficult managing dynamics (agility, adapt- uating the business outcome (as a consequence
ability, planning, decision) for alignment to envi- of the BM practice).
ronment and other organizations” [P2, P5, P7, Summarizing the results, the most common
P9, P36]; “(−) hard to visualize, document and challenge is how to deal with the dynamics of busi-
share” [P26, P32]; “(−) difficult to mobilize and ness models [P2, P5, P7, P9, P36] and most of the
align available resource in time” [P9, P15]; “(+) quotes on challenges relate to the non-existing so-
better understanding, better language and legit- lutions for governance (representation, simulation,
imacy” [P17, P32]. We speculate that this low decision-support, and feedback) of the proposed
level of coherence between the papers is a result frameworks and methods. Since governance is
of the wide topical area of BM. We also note that not addressed, each BM method or framework
seven of these eight quotes discuss common top- may work in its’ specific context, but taken out
ics of governance (“handle dynamics”, “align”) of context or combined with other methods may
and knowledge (“understanding”, “sharing”, “le- fail to deliver the claimed benefits. Also, the
gitimacy”, etc.), while the remaining statement quotes of benefits are unsubstantiated or claimed
covers value creation. with limited empirical evidence (except for an
There are also cases where the same type of empirical case which evaluates and compares
statement is argued both as benefit and chal- user’s understanding of two value models [P35]).
lenge (by different authors). For example, (+)
“building better strategies” [P32] vs. (−) “BM 5.2. What impact does BM have on
design requires better integration with strategy effectiveness and efficiency (RQ2)?
analysis” [P37] or (+) “improves dealing with
uncertainty” [P2] vs. (−) “difficult to deal with Only two studies make a clear distinction be-
uncertainty, complexity and dynamism” [P54] tween the terms effectiveness and efficiency [P5,
or (+) “improves alignment of strategy, organi- P35] where Chew and Buder & Felden both
zation and technology and integration business specifically link effectiveness to quality and ef-
ficiency to effort to perform a task. Zott et al. substantiate claims on effectiveness and efficiency.
recognize efficiency as an important value driver, We also note that all 13 papers addressing RQ2
and that any value driver can enhance the effec- also address aspects of flexibility and variability
tiveness of the other drivers [P29]. Osterwalder in the realization (IC2 and IC3, see Table 2).
et al. connect efficiency to infrastructure manage- Indirect effects on effectiveness (and efficiency
ment while effectiveness is indirectly connected via profitability) are reported by three papers
to value [P32]. Chew and Romero & Molina con- [P24, P29, P37]. Kindström discusses the tran-
nect effectiveness to customer experience [P5, P8]. sition to the service-based business model as
Mason & Mouzas argue efficiency is a product of a key to remaining competitive [P24]. He does not
careful management of resources and capabilities make any specific claims about effectiveness or
driven by a “network focused” approach while efficiency, but proposes focusing research efforts
effectiveness (via marketing) is a product of being on: 1) how to industrialize service offerings to
market-focused to keep in touch with changing a larger scale; and 2) understanding how a tran-
customer needs by flexible products and service sition to service-based business models affects
offerings [P58]. The terms are also used on differ- profitability and growth. Zott et al. in their litera-
ent abstraction levels hindering in-depth analysis. ture review acknowledge the possible contingent
We believe this is a likely result due to the combi- effect of BM linking product market strategy
nation of: 1) none of the 57 studies have research and company performance [P29]. They also refer
questions that directly address effectiveness and to a study by at IBM Global Business Services
efficiency; 2) that business model research is still in 2006 that says financial out-performers put
not coherent with a consolidated view of what twice the effort on business model innovation
a business model is used and useful for; and 3) compared to under-performers, but do not fur-
few scholars address both primary contexts of ther elaborate as on how. Ghezzi looks at the
strategy and the execution making an evaluation strategic planning process and BM under dis-
of effectiveness and efficiency difficult. continuity [P37]. He concludes that the ‘busi-
Measurements of effectiveness, efficiency, and ness model parameters mix’, as derived from
company’s performance (as an expected outcome the different business model blocks, directly af-
of efficiency and effectiveness improvements) are fects the company’s performance. He provides
neither sufficiently described nor substantiated. a strategy-analysis tool based on BM, VN, and
Measurements of effectiveness were only explic- RM constructs (business model, value network,
itly defined by Buder & Felden where they used resource management), to detect what is chang-
a ratio of correctly answered questions to evalu- ing in the company’s strategy when discontin-
ate the effectiveness of individual methods about uation occurs, but he does not discuss in any
understanding value [P35]. No explicit measure- detail how to derive any changes in effectiveness
ments on efficiency or company’s performance or efficiency.
were found amongst the papers, except for An- Summarizing the results, we found limited
dries & Debackere who suggested company’s sur- empirical results indicating that BM has an over-
vival rate to measure its performance for new all effect on a company’s results regarding ef-
technology-based business models [P42]. Ghezzi fectiveness and efficiency improvements. It is
discussed how discontinuity can be detected be- also not possible to judge whether a favorable
fore it affects a company’s performance but does outcome can be achieved in a scenario of contin-
not mention how to measure the performance uous (experimental) BM, or it is just a result of
[P37]. A company’s performance is also referred a one-time activity to modify the business model.
to by different terms but not further substanti- Also, we note that all 13 papers addressing RQ2
ated, for example by profitability [P29], value also address aspects of flexibility and variability
creation [P29], organizational performance [P29], in the realization. These limited results prompt
operating cost or gains in productivity [P54]. We us to do a contextual analysis of the effectiveness
found no empirical evidence (except [P42]) to and efficiency of BM.
5.3. Contextual analysis of effectiveness consequence of: 1) the wide contextual settings
and efficiency for business model research; and 2) the lack of
consolidated view on what a business model is
We base our analysis on the two main contextual used and useful for. Given our study’s primary
BM settings: 1) the business model realization focus (contextual setting 1), we also interpret the
should increase a company’s effectiveness and ratio of papers addressing our main contextual
efficiency; and 2) the effectiveness and efficiency setting (77%) as a quality measure of our study
of the BM process itself. design.
For increasing effectiveness and effi- Full pattern category papers [P1, P5, P8,
ciency (contextual BM setting 1), we found P24, P29, P54] advocate that to yield effective-
the same three primary contexts as reported ness and efficiency, the overall focus is how the
in Section 5.1: 1) strategy and planning; 2) daily plan/strategy/goal should be aligned with the
operations (executing strategies and plans); and execution of the strategy. Woodard et al. dis-
3) governance and communication, see Table 3. cuss how “design moves” enable rapid product
From these contexts, we identified three patterns development in a new domain with fierce compe-
(full, partial, and single) describing whether a pa- tition and how to formulate and execute digital
per covers all three contexts or parts of them. business strategies (align strategy to execution)
The patterns are derived from the first three based on option value and technical depth [P1].
columns (define, execute, and governance) in They propose decision-support via option value
Table 3. Full means that the paper does address and technical depth to integrate the perspec-
topics in planning and strategy, daily execution, tives of designers and corporate strategies. They
plus governance and communication contexts. empirically illustrate effectiveness and efficiency
Partial refers to any combination of two con- from a set of design moves but do not state on
texts, while single refers to only one context. what level anything became more efficient.
We also analyzed the papers according to the A transition into service-based business mod-
three key areas aggregated from the studies: value els to improve competitiveness and efficiency of
creation/capture; decision support; mindset and the business model is proposed by three papers
knowledge. [P5, P54, P24]. Chew argues that business model
The BM process’ effectiveness and effi- design impacts directly financial performance but
ciency (contextual BM setting 2) are discussed does not state how nor to what extent it affects
by 3 of the 13 studies [P35, P54, P56]. Buder & effectiveness [P5]. Effectiveness is a result of ser-
Felden recognize the hurdle of keeping models vice variability and aligning the three contiguous
consistent during transformations and suggest processes for optimal value co-creation (customer
a specific value representation model as a rem- value-creating, supplier value-creating, and the
edy [P35]. Salgado et al. propose a method for service encounter processes). He focuses on the
modeling and visualizing requirements on the de- define process with a service design concept to
fine and execute processes of the business model understand the customer needs and value ap-
[P56]. Both studies offer limited empirical evalua- propriation, and concludes that execution also
tions. Meier & Bosslau recognize the importance requires support by a corresponding modular orga-
of a continuous, integrated BM to capture the nizational architecture as well as IS architecture.
dynamics of the ecosystem [P54]. It is the only Meier & Bosslau discuss the difficulties when
paper clearly discussing the importance of not transitioning from a product-centric business
separating the process of BM from the actual de- model into a product-service centric model, with
fine and execute processes of the business model. empirical findings that only 21% of manufactur-
However, they do not quantify any effects on ef- ing companies succeed in this transition [P54].
fectiveness and efficiency, while concluding that The fundamental problems are: a drop in effi-
tools are a necessary focus for further research. ciency, diversified portfolio, and an increased
We believe the lack of empirical results is a direct cost due to an increased product-service port-
Table 3. Identified effects on effectiveness and efficiency
Pattern and Strategy & planning Daily operations Governance & Business modeling
key areas (Define) (Execute) communication
(contextual setting 1) (contextual setting 1) (contextual setting 1) (contextual setting 2)
Full pattern
P1, P5, P8, P24, x x x P54
P29, P54
Partial pattern
P32, P37, P56 x – x P56
P42 x x – –
Single pattern
P17, P35, P45 x – – P35
Value creation/ Concept of design Concept of design Transition to Modeling overhead in
Value capture moves [P1] capital [P1] service-based transformation and
Service concept Adaptations to initial business model reduction to maintain
design, service design, BM are crucial, over- improves profitability consistency [P35]
customer experience and [P24]
design, service under-adaptations Dynamic business
architecture design effect performance models (with
[P5] [P42] flexibility) are
Effective product The availability of important for
market strategy [P29] resources and a successful transition
Business process capabilities are more to service-based
modeling efficiency important to quality business models [P54]
[P35] of adaptation [P42]
Cumulative changes
have a positive effect
on success rate in
immature markets
[P42]
Decision Provide relevant Decision-support via Quantitative –
support information for next option value and modeling and
stage [P17] technical depth [P1] simulation is vital in
Strategic tools, Representation of continuous loops
business model, value information to [P54]
network, resource enhance pragmatic Process, goals, rules
management, signal validity [P17] improves traceability
radical change [P37] Foundation for [P56]
Empirical findings on improved speed to
instrumental react on external
efficiency for business event and business
modeling show no environment [P32]
convergent results
[P45]
Process, goals, rules
improves traceability
[P56]
Mindset and – Capitalize user’s Formalizing activities Generating and
knowledge knowledge for forces implicit transferring of
innovation (idea understandings insights is essential
generation, become explicit [P17] for reuse [P54]
prototyping) [P8] Generating and
Cumulative changes transferring of
have a positive effect insights is key for
on learning and reuse, e.g., business
success rate [P42] model cockpit [P54]
folio without a matching increase in revenue. from goals and rules to improve decision mak-
They propose an iterative learning process based ing and increase traceability. The method has
on an integrated business model design and en- only been tested on a small, manual scale with
gineering using System Dynamics (SD). SD is considerable limitations: 1) a high dependency
used to specify the business models run-time on individual analysts and their knowledge and
behavior over time, but they conclude that the business heuristics; and 2) limited scope due to
provision and further development of this ap- the amount of human resources needed. Conclu-
proach are crucial in further studies. Kindström sions on effectiveness and efficiency for their work
identifies vital aspects in define, execute and are too early to derive. Ghezzi discusses business
governance when changing into a service-based strategy under discontinuity and presents three
business model, and also recognizes the challenge tools to help managers identify a signaling “vec-
of staying profitable [P24]. However, he makes no tor of inputs” to trigger a strategic re-planning
specific contribution how to improve efficiency or process [P37]. He refers to the relation between
effectiveness and concludes that more research the business model performance and a company’s
is needed to link a transition to profitability and performance but makes no claims on effectiveness
growth. or efficiency with his contribution. Andries & De-
To enhance the effectiveness of collabo- backere instead look at the define and execute
rative networked organizations, Romero & processes in their discussion how adaptation and
Molina propose an experience-centric network performance are related to new technology-based
reference framework based on open-business businesses [P42]. They conclude that business
models (co-innovation/open innovation) [P8]. model adaptation is beneficial in less mature,
By integrating a multi-value perspective with capital-intensive and high-velocity businesses, as
a multi-stakeholder approach, one can capitalize it reduces failure rates in dependent business
on the networked organization’s knowledge to units. However, they do not detail how this can
achieve better business models (e.g., better risk be done using BM.
management and transparency through value The Single pattern category includes studies
co-creation). They present no evidence for im- [P17, P35, P45] focusing on the define process
proved effectiveness or efficiency. and advocates more research addressing effective-
Partial pattern category papers [P32, P37, ness and efficiency. Hacklin & Wallnöfer discuss
P42, P56] focus on the define process in combi- how the business model is applied for strategic
nation with governance to ensure the expected decision making [P17]. They explore implications
results. Osterwalder et al. discuss how a formal- and limitations of using a business model as
ized model can help to react to external events a “strategizing device” and how BM is forcing
with speed and effectiveness, but presents no to formalize current activities and make implicit
empirical evidence thereof [P32]. Salgado et al. understandings. They propose future research
argue that the gap in the business-IS/IT dialogue, on the effectiveness of business: 1) deal with
which in turn leads to inefficient and non-effective technical aspects how to systematically use BM
IS/IT solutions, partly comes from: 1) the lack to improve effectiveness; 2) to test the linguistic
of formality; and 2) high dependency on spe- legitimacy of various frameworks for BM; and
cific and skilled analysts, when deriving IS/IT 3) improve the effectiveness of different repre-
requirements from business goals [P56]. They sentational modes of the business model to gain
propose the use of PGR (process-level use cases, pragmatic validity. Buder & Felden evaluate the
goals, and rules) to improve traceability and the efficiency of representation and formalization
alignment of Business and IS/IT as a way to of value models (e3 value and REA) to under-
improve effectiveness (of both developing and stand business models [P35]. They discuss the
running the IS/IT solution). To close the gap in impact of business processes on value creation
the business-IS/IT dialog and increase efficiency, and stress the importance of consistency between
they propose a method how to generate a BMC business and process modeling. They find e3 value
to be more effective and efficient in improving 6. Research synthesis

the linkage between BM and business processes.
Doganova & Eyquem-Renault investigate the 6.1. An analysis of business modeling
commercialization of technology in the first years trends
of new ventures and the dual role the business
model play [P45]. They argue the “performative” We synthesized five main trends within our sur-
role as a demonstration and as a scale model that veyed literature on BM:
gradually bring the company’s business into exis- – Business models as the building blocks, and
tence. They also conclude that empirical findings the structure of a business model construct
still fail to provide convergent results regarding as a cornerstone for analyzing, planning and
the effectiveness of business models. managing competitive and strategic advan-
To summarize, the improvements associated tages [P1, P2, P3, P4, P9, P13, P16, P19, P29,
with efficiency and effectiveness are neither sub- P32, P40, P41, P51]. Much research is put
stantiated by empirical evidence nor grounded into frameworks, methods, and tools but the
in empirical data. Given the diverse contextual effectiveness and efficiency when integrating
settings in the studies and the dependence of this research into practical solutions still miss
the BM approach, it remains an open question empirical evidence.
whether the application of any of the identified – Locus of the company is shifting to the ecosys-
practices results in increased or decreased effi- tem resulting in an explosion of new roles and
ciency or effectiveness for a company’s business. values that need consideration, as they are
Any outcome variations may simply be a result of connected to the value creation/capture logic
fluctuating contextual or environmental factors [P2, P3, P4, P6, P21, P53, P57]. This trend
rather than the application of a BM method makes future research more complicated and
or technique. Reaching reasonable coverage of time consuming, given the lack of consoli-
efficiency and effectiveness as external factors dated body knowledge on what a business
require considering several measurable internal model is and how it can be represented to
factors. With a reasonable coverage of relevant in- support experimentation and efficient infor-
ternal factors and taking into account contextual mation management.
factors, we most likely operate on tens of indepen- – Experimentation and operationalization of
dent variables that need precise definition and flexible business models, to manage the speed
measurement instruments. Given this, we argue of change fueled by technology innovation and
that none of the identified studies come near to the digitalization of the value delivery [P1,
the required level of details to be able to consider P2, P9, P13, P15, P18, P49, P51]. We too,
their measurements trustful (except for Andries argue for a more cross-disciplinary agenda
& Debackere linking business model adaptation [57], as business modeling is facing the same
to a company’s performance via a survival rate challenges as agile requirement engineering
measurement and other variables collected from and software development has been looking
the annual CorpTech directory [P42]). at for the past 10 years trying to increase
We concur with Zott et al. that literature is speed and productivity [63].
developing largely in silos, according to the phe- – Changeability and modularity as ways to
nomena of interest to the respective researcher strategically address all new roles and val-
[12]. We conclude that business model research ues via choices to enable faster transitions
still lacks a consolidated view of what a business from strategy to execution (operationaliza-
model is, while at the same time being forced to tion) [P1, P3, P5, P6, P23, P25, P26, P27].
address more complexity (e.g., dynamic business By systematically approaching the informa-
models, co-creation, collaboration, and ecosys- tion management related to business models,
tems with a growing number of stakeholders). changeability, and modularity, parts of the
practices for business modeling may become knowledge creation by Pask and Nonaka [20,64].
automated as a solution to faster transitions. CGM links governance to BM via the antecedents
– A growing need for multifaceted optimiza- (H1, H2), the business model (H3), real-world
tion of business models, as fueled by new interactions (creating value and learning), and
roles and new values, as a contrast to the consequences (H4) as defined by Höflinger [7].
currently more dominant single dimension of It is a conceptualization of the diversity of the
cost and revenue [P2, P7, P8, P9, P26, P53], problem of BM concerning value, effectiveness,
often leading to sub-optimal solutions. Such and efficiency. We propose CGM be used for
optimization will drive a need for more so- exploring experimentation in business modeling
phisticated decision support and higher levels and designing a scalable IT solution. We believe
of automation in the governance of business the concept of “context frame” and intent-driven
models and business model execution. systems [65] offers an exciting path forward and
We found no solutions or evidence related will be elaborated as part of our future work.
to multifaceted optimization of business models, Figure 5 illustrates how the BM practice fa-
while at the same time multiple studies high- cilitates experimentation with a business model
lighted the need for alignment of strategy and ex- through a set of interactions between actors in-
ecution (daily operations). In combination with volved in the define (P0 ) and execute (P1 ) pro-
the two related trends of experimentation and cesses. P0 and P1 are abstracted from the un-
changeability, we identified a common denomina- derlying phases of interaction and learning, as
tor in governance, as a foundation for faster and mentioned both by Nonaka (dialogue vs. prac-
more transparent decision-support (for all roles tice) and Pask (explaining vs. demonstrated un-
in their interactions). Also, we found no system- derstanding). The processes exist in a context,
atic mechanism for organizational learning that influencing and influenced by the environment
potentially could minimize misunderstandings on different abstraction levels (and each process
and improve decisions, even though organiza- can also be seen as a representation of an activity
tional learning is important for successful BM system with its interdependent activities in line
[P9, P46]. with Zott and Amit’s work). Please note that
We believe an important step towards such both processes are highly context-specific, but al-
multifaceted optimization of business models lies ways executed in pairs (as interactions of activity
in understanding how the business modeling prac- systems), e.g., context A = producing a strategy,
tice connects to governance for evaluating effec- context B = translating the same strategy into
tiveness and efficiency of a company. We, there- an operationalized business model in products.
fore, propose CGM to facilitate the exploration Therefore, P0 and P1 interact in a highly recur-
of a governance framework for evaluating effec- sive, non-linear, interactive manner.
tiveness (creating the right values) and efficiency Depending on the context, different tasks and
(while using a minimum of resources). activities are executed (by sharing and modifying
information related to various parts of the com-
6.2. A conceptual governance model pany’s strategies, organizations, policies, rules,
(CGM) for exploring governance and products in close relation to the ecosystem).
and evaluating effectiveness and Such context dependency is a critical and chal-
efficiency of BM lenging factor for a process-centric implemen-
tation of activities since reuse easily becomes
We synthesized CGM for exploring governance complex, unpredictive, and slow [66].
and evaluating effectiveness and efficiency of BM. Governance is an abstraction of goals, mea-
CGM is presented in Figure 5 and is inspired surements, follow-up, rules, knowledge, and in-
by Zott and Amit’s work on business models as sights. Relationships r1 and r2 represent the
activity systems that create value in transactions relationship between governance of define and
[5], and influenced by the theories of learning and execute processes and how governance is used
Figure 5. CGM, a conceptual governance model for exploring effectiveness and efficiency
in relation to BM with key relationships rx
to form an agreement (alignment of strategy pers [P6, P32, P59] (without empirical results).
and execution via goals, objectives, rules, mea- Only Salgado et al. suggest solutions to how that
surements, and knowledge). r3 represents the could be done (methods and representation of
relationship between the define and execute pro- information) [P59]. Ballon proposes an analytical
cesses and how governance is involved in tracking framework and discuss how BM is interpreted as
daily progress and facilitating alignment includ- (re)configuration of control parameters (combina-
ing change management (by executing in relation tion of assets, vertical integration, customer own-
to the agreements established/updated via r1 and ership, modularity, distribution of intelligence,
r2 ). r0 is used to manage the effectiveness and interoperability) and value parameters (cost shar-
efficiency of the BM process, while r4 is used ing model, revenue model, revenue sharing model,
to control the outcome of the business (model positioning, customer involvement, intended
execution). Our future work aims to develop value) [P6]. Osterwalder et al. advocate formaliza-
these relationships into software interface in action of business models to create traceability be-
cordance with intent-driven systems [65]. tween business (the building plan) and execution
Sustaining competitive advantage requires (IS/IT systems) [P32]. Giessmann et al. extend
constant change [4]. Fundamental to this change Osterwalder et al.’s propositions to build a model
is to understand the difference (make an assess- that can analyze and compare business models,
ment) between the current position (means) and but their work does not address the issues of
the desired position (ends). Successful change aligning and daily execution of a business model
is thus a multifaceted function of alignment be- [P55]. Salgado et al. also build on Osterwalder’s
tween ends and means, maintained by timely ac- BMC and discuss how to generate a BMC from
tions to modify ends and the means in response to business goals, rules, and processes, but do not
the environmental influences and consequences. further connect the results to the IS/IT realiza-
The purpose of the relationships r0 –r4 in Figure 5 tion and daily operations [P56]. They also discuss
is to manage successful change systematically. the alignment between business and IS/IT from
However, common to all studies (with quotes of the lens of business model artifacts, strategy and
purpose, Appendix D) is a lack of details describ- goal modeling, as well as enterprise modeling
ing the r1 –r3 relationships and how the alignment [P59]. They formulate the primary challenge as
can be achieved and maintained. Achieving alignment per se is not enough, orga-
The importance of aligning the execution nizations have to reach the alignment state and
with the strategy is specifically addressed by pa- maintain it alongside its evolution.
The quotes for challenges and benefits (Ap- empirical-based investigation, the relationship be-
pendix D) also lack details describing the rela- tween the strategy making process and business
tionships r1 –r3 in Figure 5. Also, there are 62% model innovation (BMI) [P36]. They summarize
more quotes than for purposes, which could be ex- a large number of purposes found in literature,
plained by that benefits and challenges are often which also matches the improvement areas we
more specific by nature than the corresponding have identified, see section 5.1. Their findings
purposes. The identified quotes indicate a more validate the role of business model innovation as
inhomogeneous nature regarding contextual set- a valuable tool for, and link, between strategy ex-
tings, resulting in a scattered picture of benefits ecution and operationalization. Meier & Bosslau,
and challenges. We speculate this is a result of in their case study, propose an integrated design
each paper framing their conclusions with some and engineering approach as an iterative learning
form of benefits or challenges, rather than con- process based on system dynamics. They conclude
structing them from empirical findings. that further development of modeling and simu-
The papers within the governance column lation that depicts the dynamics and flexibility in
and assessment row (see Appendix D) present the whole life-cycle is one of the key challenges for
important aspects of goals, rules, measurements, business model research (in a context of industrial
options, flexibility, and knowledge. However, they product service systems) [P54].
do not propose solutions on how these concepts
(with artifacts) should be represented or managed
to create traceability to, and alignment with, the 7. Implications for research
define and execute processes (via r1 , r2 , r3 ) in and practitioners
Figure 5.
Six papers [P2, P22, P29, P32, P36, P54] The results suggest that business model (and
cover all three columns (define, execute, and BM) is a diverse research area which would ben-
governance), but no author elaborates on the efit from more aggregation efforts [P29, P40, P3,
relationships r1 –r3 (alignment of define and ex- P9] on how business models could address the
ecute processes using governance), see Table 3. vast set of purposes and practices for BM, and
Rohrbeck et al. study eight companies and discuss what effects BM have on effectiveness and effi-
how collaborative BM can improve both define ciency of a company. More work is needed to
and execute processes [P2]. They report improve- consolidate these different angles of the business
ments in four areas (dealing with uncertainty, model construct into a scalable, practically use-
finding creative solutions, facilitating a strategic ful representations that will facilitate innovation,
discussion, and allowed to start the innovation experimentation, and operationalization of the
planning), but provide little details or empirical business model. The lack of coherence is more
evidence as to how well it works. Baden-Fuller & recently investigated by Massa et al. [67], as they
Morgan scan the literature and discuss business identify possible reasons for the current lack of
models as models, describing their multivalent agreement in literature as terms and concepts
character and the wide range of usage [P22]. They slowly morph over time.
conclude Business models are not recipes or scien- In the same vein (seen from a practitioners’
tific models or scale and role models [. . . ] they play side), Gartner7 in 2014 points out that digital
any – or all – these roles, often at the same time. business should not be considered an IT program
Osterwalder et al. propose eight propositions for and should instead become an enterprise mindset
BM that need to be tested [P32]. Zott et al. in and lingua franca, with digital expertise spread
their review six years later reveal that scholars across the enterprise and value ecosystem.
still do not agree and that literature is developing Our results confirms the above and highlight
in silos [P29]. Cortimiglia et al. explore, in a large a challenging issue for effectively and efficiently
7
Gartner identifies six key steps to build a successful digital business, https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/27
45517
defining contexts to improve understanding and The implications for industry originate
communication in BM literature. We also note mainly from the lack of tangible results linking
a potentially strong correlation between flexibil- efficient BM to efficient and effective businesses.
ity, effectiveness, and efficiency (all 13 papers We recommend managers to investigate and build
addressing RQ2 also address aspects of flexibility awareness of the following aspects:
and variability in the realization, IC2 and IC3, – Systematically converting experience into
see Table 2). knowledge will help the organization iden-
We recommend the following topics to be tifying and verbalizing (new) values and
added to a cross-disciplinary agenda for BM: motivators relevant to the business. Inves-
– Further exploring how contextual informa- tigate how to incorporate organizational
tion in the business model construct could be learning (OL) [68] into everyday practices
systematically represented, structured, and and business processes to support experi-
stored. The improved representation of con- mentation with business models, e.g., what
textual information is going to increase effec- is the current level of OL? How is OL
tiveness and efficiency when creating, mod- incorporated into important business pro-
ifying, and deleting information needed to cesses? Which roles are currently not in-
transform strategies into tactics and daily volved in structured OL? How is OL re-
execution, e.g., facilitating business model lated to the fulfillment of goals, an organiza-
choices, including a residual set of choices tion’s creativity and motivation, and incen-
related to tactics, and deciding on choices tives?
controlling daily interactions between stake- – Critical components in any SIPD business
holders (as controlled by a set of configura- model are concepts such as value co-creation,
tion parameters and rules in software appli- collaborative value networks, and acquiring
cations). A business model construct must resources beyond the control of the com-
support collaborative and role-based interac- pany (i.e., creating an ecosystem of part-
tion, including exchange and interpretation of ners and customers). How to prepare a com-
contextual information, scalable to thousands pany’s staff and products to these concepts?
of actors, and across corporate borders. We How do you facilitate similar activities for
believe intent-driven systems [65] could be your partners? These ideas will affect the
a way forward for this purpose. products and offerings but also fundamen-
– Connecting the BM practice with Learning tally change most aspects of a company’s
Theory would help to create a model that policies and business processes including
can help explain: 1) how value creation and incentive structures and management sys-
stakeholder motivation is derived from, and tems (e.g., sharing of information internally/
connected to, daily interactions; 2) how daily externally and risk management). We be-
interactions, in combination with organiza- lieve the introduction of a value vocabu-
tional learning, shape the transformation of lary, to facilitate more precise understand-
strategy into execution; and 3) how organiza- ing and definitions of business-critical con-
tional learning influences the process of BM. cepts, is a concrete and valuable first step,
These aspects become increasingly important e.g., SVM [48].
since experimentation with value co-creation – What factors hinder business model experi-
and business models are gaining interests [P2, mentation? What level of business flexibility
P9, P13, P18]. This implies BM to be in- is required (and used)? How is that flexibility
volved, not only in strategy and planning but implemented in the products, organization,
also in the operationalization and follow-up of business processes, and management systems?
the business model, as the focus of a business The value creation process is highly inter-
model is shifting beyond the company borders dependent and not well suited for isolated
into the ecosystem. practices [P14, P15, P30]. Business modeling
could become a tool to bridge these practices it remains an open question whether the applica-
[P2] and SIPD companies should not see soft- tion of any of the identified practices results in
ware architectures and methods as costs. It’s increased or decreased efficiency or effectiveness
a significant investment that facilitates exper- for a company’s business. Any outcome variations
imentation while adding to the value creation. may simply be a result of fluctuating contextual
Such investments in business flexibility will or environmental factors rather than the appli-
become a crucial source of innovation and cation of a BM method or technique.
an enabler for automating business processes, We concur with Zott et al. that literature is
resulting in an increased efficiency and com- developing largely in silos, according to the phe-
petitive advantage. nomena of interest to the respective researcher
– A governance mechanism is a critical ele- [12]. Since the influential work by Osterwalder
ment to build a commitment to experimenta- et al. on business models [9], which later gained
tion and the development of the appropriate a lot of interest among practitioners8 , researchers
business flexibility. The mechanism should are still reporting that business models and BM
support multi-contextual governance views, is a diverse research area missing an agreed defi-
maintaining traceability between all choices nition of business model. It is an area that would
(strategical, tactical, and operational) and benefit from more aggregated cross-disciplinary
the views must be based on data from differ- research results [57, 67].
ent contextual situations (narrative, planning, Supported by our results, we argue that:
development, daily operational tasks, phase – Related to RQ1, what makes business model
out, etc.) [65]. research results challenging to analyze, com-
pare, and combine is the lack of a systematic
approach in describing the contextual infor-
8. Conclusions mation used to define the context for a spe-
cific business model construct and business
This systematic literature review explores the modeling practice. The lack of systematic con-
purpose of business modeling and its impact on textual information leads to inefficient com-
effectiveness and efficiency of a company’s busi- munication, knowledge creation, and organi-
ness. Most companies invest in business modeling, zational learning, which affects the quality of
but remain uncertain whether their investments decisions (on all levels). A consequence for
allow them to change and adapt their business business modeling is misalignment between
fast enough. the business model and its realization, which
Our results show that the reported benefits negatively affects the value creation (effec-
are unsubstantiated or claimed with limited em- tiveness) and the efficiency. By improving the
pirical evidence and the challenges are dispersed. information management parts of these pro-
The most common challenge is how to deal with cesses, tasks may become automated, open-
the dynamics of business models, and most of the ing up for new ways of specifying and vi-
quotes on challenges relate to the non-existing sualizing strategies, goals, and operational
solutions for governance (representation, simu- consequences, as related to effectiveness and
lation, decision-support, and feedback) of the efficiency.
proposed frameworks and methods. – Related to RQ2, we conclude that governance
The improvements associated with efficiency is going to gain importance, as it must effec-
and effectiveness of BM are neither substantiated tively support a chain of continuous adap-
by empirical evidence nor grounded in empirical tations and learning (experimenting). Such
data. Given the diverse contextual settings in the governance can enforce a continuous (business
studies and the dependence of the BM approach, model) design aligned with the continuous
8
Originally called the Business Model Generator in 2010, now changed into a commercial product https:
//strategyzer.com/canvas.
(business model) execution. We further ar- Acknowledgment

gue that governance is the primary challenge
for business modeling, and that (continuous) We are grateful for the constructive and helpful
business modeling can be used (via gover- comments on early drafts received from Prof.
nance) to effectively and efficiently cope with Lars Bengtsson, LTH, Sweden. This work has
change, by connecting the definition of strat- been supported by the Professional Licentiate
egy to the execution of operations in daily of Engineering (PLEng) Pilot Run 2014–2018 in
decisions and activities as depicted in Fig- cooperation with Ericsson AB. This work is also
ure 5. supported by the IKNOWDM project (20150033)
– By combining above conclusions, that the from the Knowledge Foundation in Sweden.
lack of a rigorous, scalable, context-dependent
(software and IT) representation of the busi-
ness model, in combination with efficient gov- References
ernance mechanisms (to manage needed flex-
ibility), are currently significant obstacles for [1] C. Matt, T. Hess, and A. Benlian, “Digital trans-
progressing the research area and support- formation strategies,” Business and Information
ing the industry in managing innovation in Systems Engineering, Vol. 57, No. 5, 2015, pp.
co-creation-driven (software-intensive) busi- 339–343.
ness ecosystems. [2] A. Bharadwaj, O. El Sawy, P. Pavlou, and
We, therefore, believe our conceptual gov- N. Venkatraman, “Digital business strategy: To-
ernance model is a significant step to explore ward a next generation of insights,” MIS Quar-
terly, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2013, pp. 471–482.
and identify how the business modeling practice
[3] A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur, Business model
could become an integrated cornerstone in a more generation: A handbook for visionaries, game
effective and efficient software-intensive product changers, and challengers, 2010.
development enterprise. Our conceptual gover- [4] R. Casadesus-Masanell and J.E. Ricart, “From
nance model can facilitate the creation a common strategy to business models and onto tactics,”
business model construct including mechanisms Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2–3, 2010, pp.
to support effective and efficient governance with 195–215.
[5] C. Zott and R. Amit, “Business Model Design:
value-based decision-support for all affected roles
An activity system perspective,” Long Range
and stakeholders. Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2–3, 2010, pp. 216–226.
Also, we believe our extensive, cross-disci- [6] M. Eurich, T. Weiblen, and P. Breitenmoser,
plinary review of the business model litera- “A six-step approach to business model inno-
ture, seen from the perspective of software and vation,” International Journal of Entrepreneur-
software-intensive products, is a valuable contri- ship and Innovation Management, Vol. 18, No. 4,
bution for the Software Engineering community 2014, pp. 330–348.
when trying to address the digitalization’s effects [7] N.F. Höflinger, “The business model concept
and its antecedents and consequences – Towards
on software engineering and software product
a common understanding,” Academy of Manage-
development. ment Proceedings: Organization Development &
Our next steps in our research towards ef- Change, Vol. 2014:1, 2014.
ficient and effective business modeling are to [8] D.P. Lepak, K.G. Smith, and M.S. Taylor, “In-
use our proposed conceptual model to identify troduction to special topic forum value creation
essential characteristics of a governance frame- and value capture: A multilevel perspective,”
work and a scalable business model construct, as Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 1,
2007, pp. 180–194.
required to facilitates effective and efficient oper-
[9] A. Osterwalder, Y. Pigneur, and C.L. Tucci,
ationalization of a business model. We will also “Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and
verify the conceptual model with practitioners future of the concept,” Communications of the
to ensure that our results can be disseminated Association for Information Systems, Vol. 15,
by industry. No. 1, 2005, pp. 1–25.
[10] C. Baden-Fuller and S. Haefliger, “Business Mod- veloping an ontology based on business model
els and Technological Innovation,” Long Range thinking,” in IFIP Advances in Information and
Planning, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2013, pp. 419–426. Communication Technology, Vol. 318, 2010, pp.
[11] J. Krumeich, D. Werth, T. Burkhart, and 28–51.
P. Loos, “Towards a component-based descrip- [24] S. Jansen, “Measuring the health of open source
tion of business models: A state-of-the-art anal- software ecosystems: Beyond the scope of project
ysis,” in 18th Americas Conference on Informa- health,” Information and Software Technology,
tion Systems 2012, AMCIS 2012, Vol. 1, 2012, Vol. 56, No. 11, 2014, pp. 1508–1519.
pp. 266–277. [25] M. Page and L.F. Spira, “Corporate governance
[12] C. Zott, R. Amit, and L. Massa, “The busi- as custodianship of the business model,” Journal
ness model: Recent developments and future re- of Management & Governance, Vol. 20, No. 2,
search,” Journal of Management, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2016, pp. 213–228.
2011, pp. 1019–1042. [26] W. Reim, V. Parida, and D. Örtqvist, “Strat-
[13] P. Zave, “Classification of research efforts in re- egy, business models or tactics – What is
quirements engineering,” ACM Computing Sur- product-service systems (PSS) literature talk-
veys (CSUR), Vol. 29, No. 4, 1997, pp. 315–321. ing about?” in Proceedings of the International
[14] E. Kavakli, “Goal-oriented requirements engi- Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vol. 4,
neering: A unifying framework,” Requirements 2013, pp. 309–318.
Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2002, pp. 237–251. [27] C. Baden-Fuller and M.S. Morgan, “Business
[15] B. Ramesh, L. Cao, and R. Baskerville, “Agile re- models as models,” Long Range Planning,
quirements engineering practices and challenges: Vol. 43, No. 2–3, 2010, pp. 156–171.
an empirical study,” Information Systems Jour- [28] R. Rohrbeck, L. Konnertz, and S. Knab, “Col-
nal, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2010, pp. 449–480. laborative business modelling for systemic and
[16] J. Bosch and P. Bosch-Sijtsema, “From integra- sustainability innovations,” International Jour-
tion to composition: On the impact of software nal of Technology Management, Vol. 63, No. 1/2,
product lines, global development and ecosys- 2013, p. 4.
tems,” Journal of Systems and Software, 2010. [29] L. Doganova and M. Eyquem-Renault, “What
[17] J. Buder and C. Felden, “Evaluating business do business models do? Innovation devices in
models: Evidence on user understanding and technology entrepreneurship,” Research Policy,
impact to BPM correspondence,” Proceedings of Vol. 38, No. 10, 2009, pp. 1559–1570.
the Annual Hawaii International Conference on [30] H. Chesbrough, “Business Model Innovation: Op-
System Sciences, 2012, pp. 4336–4345. portunities and Barriers,” Long Range Planning,
[18] W. Zheng, B. Yang, and G.N. McLean, “Linking Vol. 43, No. 2–3, 2010, pp. 354–363.
organizational culture, structure, strategy, and [31] R.G. McGrath, “Business Models: A Discov-
organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of ery Driven Approach,” Long Range Planning,
knowledge management,” Journal of Business Vol. 43, No. 2–3, 2010, pp. 247–261.
Research, Vol. 63, No. 7, 2010, pp. 763–771. [32] M. Sosna, R.N. Trevinyo-Rodríguez, and S.R.
[19] E. Frökjær, M. Hertzum, and K. Hornbæk, “Mea- Velamuri, “Business Model Innovation through
suring usability,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Trial-and-Error Learning,” Long Range Planning,
conference on Human factors in computing sys- Vol. 43, No. 2–3, 2010, pp. 383–407.
tems - CHI ’00. ACM Press, 2000, pp. 345–352. [33] P. Ballon, “Business modelling revisited: the con-
[20] G. Pask, Conversation Theory – Applications in figuration of control and value,” Info, Vol. 9,
Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam and No. 5, 2007, pp. 6–19.
New York: Elsevier Inc., 1976. [34] C.E. Salgado, R.J. Machado, and R.S. Maciel,
[21] K. Petersen and C. Wohlin, “Context in indus- “An OMG-based meta-framework for alignment
trial software engineering research,” in 3rd In- of IS/IT architecture with business models,” in
ternational Symposium on Empirical Software 9th International Conference on the Quality of
Engineering and Measurement, ESEM, 2009, pp. Information and Communications Technology,
401–404. 2014.
[22] T. Haaker, H. Bouwman, and E. Faber, “Cus- [35] Y.L. Doz and M. Kosonen, “Embedding strate-
tomer and network value of mobile services: Bal- gic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating
ancing requirements and strategic interests,” in business model renewal,” Long Range Planning,
ICIS 2004 Proceedings. Paper 1, 2004. Vol. 43, No. 2–3, 2010, pp. 370–382.
[23] M.M. Al-Debei and G. Fitzgerald, “The design [36] S. Schneider and P.A.T. Spieth, “Business model
and engineering of mobile data services: De- innovation and strategic flexibility: insights from
an experimental research design,” International [49] S.C. Lambert and R.A. Davidson, “Applications
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 18, of the business model in studies of enterprise
No. 6, 2014, pp. 1–22. success, innovation and classification: An anal-
[37] A. Richter, T. Sadek, and M. Steven, “Flexi- ysis of empirical research from 1996 to 2010,”
bility in industrial product-service systems and European Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 6,
use-oriented business models,” CIRP Journal of 2013, pp. 668–681.
Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 3, [50] D.J. Teece, “Business models, business strategy
No. 2, 2010, pp. 128–134. and innovation,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 43,
[38] J. Moore, “The rise of a new corporate form,” No. 2–3, 2010, pp. 172–194.
Washington Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1998, pp. [51] M. Morris, M. Schindehutte, and J. Allen, “The
167–181. entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a uni-
[39] R. Normann and R. Ramirez, “From value fied perspective,” Journal of Business Research,
chain to value constellation: Designing interac- Vol. 58, No. 6, 2005, pp. 726–735.
tive strategy,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, [52] A. Afuah, Business Models: A Strategic Manage-
No. 4, 1993, pp. 65–77. ment Approach, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
[40] T. Berger, R.H. Pfeiffer, R. Tartler, S. Dienst, 2004.
K. Czarnecki, A. Wasowski, and S. She, “Vari- [53] A. Afuah and C.L. Tucci, Internet Business Mod-
ability mechanisms in software ecosystems,” In- els and Strategies: Text and Cases. New York:
formation and Software Technology, Vol. 56, McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2002.
2014, pp. 1520–1535. [54] F. Hacklin and M. Wallnöfer, “The business
[41] M. Schief and P. Buxmann, “Business Models in model in the practice of strategic decision mak-
the Software Industry,” in 45th Hawaii Interna- ing: insights from a case study,” Management
tional Conference on System Sciences, 2012, pp. Decision, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2012, pp. 166–188.
3328–3337. [55] C. Zott and R. Amit, “Business model design
[42] R. Casadesus-Masanell and G. Llanes, “Mixed and the performance of entrepreneurial firms,”
source,” Management Science, Vol. 57, No. 7, Organization Science, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2007, pp.
2011, pp. 1212–1230. 181–199.
[43] V. Sambamurthy, A. Bharadwaj, and V. Grover, [56] C. Zott and R. Amit, “The fit between product
“Shaping agility through digital options: Recon- market strategy and business model: Implica-
ceptualizing the role of information technology tions for firm performance,” Strategic Manage-
in contemporary firms,” MIS Quarterly: Man- ment Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1–26.
agement Information Systems, Vol. 27, No. 2, [57] A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur, “Designing busi-
2003, pp. 237–264. ness models and similar strategic objects: The
[44] A. Zolnowski and T. Böhmann, “Business mod- contribution of IS,” Journal of the Association
eling for services: Current state and research of Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 5, 2013, pp.
perspectives,” in AMCIS 2011 Proceedings, 2011. 237–244.
[Online]. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2011_sub [58] A. Giessmann, A. Fritz, S. Caton, and C. Legner,
missions/394/ “A method for simulating cloud business models:
[45] H. Meier, R. Roy, and G. Seliger, “Industrial A case study on Platform as a Service,” in 21st
product-service systems – IPS2,” CIRP Annals, European Conference on Information Systems,
Vol. 59, No. 2, 2010, pp. 607–627. Completed Research 42, 2013, pp. 1–12.
[46] H. Meier and M. Boßlau, “Design and engi- [59] C.E. Salgado, J. Teixeira, R.J. Machado, and
neering of dynamic business models for indus- R.S.P. Maciel, “Generating a business model
trial product-service systems,” in The Philoso- canvas through elicitation of business goals and
pher’s Stone for Sustainability, Y. Shimomura rules from process-level use cases,” in Proceedings
and K. Kimita, Eds., 2012. of the 13th International Conference on Business
[47] J. Björkdahl, “Technology cross-fertilization and Informatics Research, 2014, pp. 1–15.
the business model: The case of integrating ICTs [60] C. Wohlin, “Guidelines for snowballing in sys-
in mechanical engineering products,” Research tematic literature studies and a replication in
Policy, Vol. 38, No. 9, 2009, pp. 1468–1477. software engineering,” in Proceedings of the 18th
[48] M. Khurum, T. Gorschek, and M. Wilson, “The International Conference on Evaluation and As-
software value map – An exhaustive collection of sessment in Software Engineering – EASE, 2014,
value aspects for the development of software in- pp. 1–10.
tensive products,” Journal of software: Evolution [61] J. Corbin and A. Strauss, Basics of Qualitative
and Process, Vol. 25, No. 7, 2013, pp. 711–741. Research: Techniques and Procedures for Devel-
oping Grounded Theory, 4th ed. SAGE Publica- [74] A. Goel, H. Schmidt, and D. Gilbert, “To-
tions, Inc., 2015. wards formalizing Virtual Enterprise Architec-
[62] P. Runeson and M. Höst, “Guidelines for con- ture,” 13th IEEE International Enterprise Dis-
ducting and reporting case study research in tributed Object Computing Conference Work-
software engineering,” Empirical Software Engi- shops (EDOCW), 2009, pp. 238–242.
neering, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2009, pp. 131–164. [75] B. Demil and X. Lecocq, “Business model evo-
[63] I. Inayat, S.S. Salim, S. Marczak, M. Daneva, and lution: In search of dynamic consistency,” Long
S. Shamshirband, “A systematic literature re- Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2–3, 2010, pp.
view on agile requirements engineering practices 227–246.
and challenges,” Computers in Human Behavior, [76] M. Dubosson-Torbay, A. Osterwalder, and
Vol. 51, 2014, pp. 915–929. Y. Pigneur, “E-business model design, classi-
[64] I. Nonaka, R. Toyama, and N. Konno, “SECI, fication, and measurements,” Thunderbird Inter-
ba and leadership: A unified model of dy- national Business Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2002,
namic knowledge creation,” Long Range Plan- pp. 5–23.
ning, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2000, pp. 5–34. [77] J. Richardson, “The business model: an integra-
[65] J. Silvander, M. Wilson, K. Wnuk, and M. Svahn- tive framework for strategy execution,” Strategic
berg, “Supporting continuous changes to busi- Change, Vol. 17, No. 5–6, 2008, pp. 133–144.
ness intents,” International Journal of Software [78] K. Storbacka and S. Nenonen, “Scripting
Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 27, markets: From value propositions to market
No. 8, 2017, pp. 1167–1198. propositions,” Industrial Marketing Manage-
[66] A. Koschmider, M. Fellman, A. Schoknecht, and ment, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2011, pp. 255–266.
A. Oberweis, “Analysis of process model reuse: [79] J. Gao, Y. Yao, V.C.Y. Zhu, L. Sun, and L. Lin,
Where are we now, where should we go from “Service-oriented manufacturing: A new product
here?” Decision Support Systems, Vol. 66, 2014, pattern and manufacturing paradigm,” Journal
pp. 9–19. of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2009,
[67] L. Massa, C.L. Tucci, and A. Afuah, “A critical pp. 435–446.
assessment of business model research,” Academy [80] D. Kindström, “Towards a service-based busi-
of Management Annals, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2016. ness model – Key aspects for future competi-
[68] L. Argote, “Organizational learning: From ex- tive advantage,” European Management Journal,
perience to knowledge,” Organization science, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2010, pp. 479–490.
Vol. 22, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1123–1137. [81] H. Meier and W. Massberg, “Life cycle-based
[69] C.J. Woodard, N. Ramasubbu, F.T. Tschang, service design for innovative business models,”
and V. Sambamurthy, “Design capital and de- CIRP Annals, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2004, pp. 393–396.
sign moves: The logic of digital business strat- [82] G. Schuh, W. Boos, and S. Kozielski, “Life cy-
egy,” MIS Quarterly: Management Information cle cost-orientated service models for tool and
Systems, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2013, pp. 537–564. die companies,” in Proceedings of the 1st CIRP
[70] R. Hackney, J. Burn, and A. Salazar, “Strategies Industrial Product-Service Systems (IPS2) Con-
for value creation in electronic markets: Towards ference, 2009, pp. 249–254.
a framework for managing evolutionary change,” [83] R. Amit and C. Zott, “Value creation in
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, e-business,” Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 13, No. 2, 2004, pp. 91–103. Vol. 22, No. 6–7, 2001, pp. 493–520.
[71] E.K. Chew, “Linking a service innovation-based [84] H. Bouwman and I. MacInnes, “Dynamic busi-
framework to business model design,” in 16th ness model framework for value webs,” in Pro-
Conference on Business Informatics, Vol. 1. ceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International
IEEE, 2014, pp. 191–198. Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’06),
[72] L. Loss and S. Crave, “Agile Business Models: 2006.
An approach to support collaborative networks,” [85] M.N. Cortimiglia, A. Ghezzi, and A.G. Frank,
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 22, No. 5–6, “Business model innovation and strategy mak-
2011, pp. 571–580. ing nexus: evidence from a cross-industry
[73] D. Romero and A. Molina, “Collaborative net- mixed-methods study,” R&D Management,
worked organisations and customer communities: Vol. 46, No. 3, 2016, pp. 414–432.
Value co-creation and co-innovation in the net- [86] A. Ghezzi, “Revisiting business strategy under
working era,” Production Planning & Control, discontinuity,” Management Decision, Vol. 51,
Vol. 22, No. 5–6, 2011, pp. 447–472. No. 7, 2013, pp. 1326–1358.
[87] A. Ghezzi, “Emerging business models and ness model development in the commercializa-
strategies for mobile platform providers: A refer- tion of technology innovations.” R&D Manage-
ence framework,” Info, Vol. 14, No. 5, 2012, pp. ment, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2014, pp. 306–321.
36–56. [93] S.W. Short, P. Rana, N.M.P. Bocken, and
[88] P. Andries and K. Debackere, “Adaptation and S. Evans, “Embedding sustainability in business
performance in new businesses: Understanding modelling through multi-stakeholder value inno-
the moderating effects of independence and in- vation,” in Advances in Production Management
dustry,” Small Business Economics, Vol. 29, No. Systems. Competitive Manufacturing for Inno-
1–2, 2007, pp. 81–99. vative Products and Services, Vol. 397, 2013, pp.
[89] K.J.K. Mason and S. Leek, “Learning to build 175–183.
a supply network: An exploration of dynamic [94] Y. Kim, Y. Lee, G. Kong, H. Yun, and S. Chang,
business models,” Journal of Management Stud- “A new framework for designing business models
ies, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2008, pp. 774–799. in digital ecosystem,” in 2nd International Con-
[90] J. Lindström, “A model for value-based selling: ference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies.
Enabling corporations to transition from prod- IEEE, 2008, pp. 281–287.
ucts and services towards further complex busi- [95] K. Mason and S. Mouzas, “Flexible business
ness models,” Journal of Multi Business Model models,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46,
Innovation and Technology, Vol. 1, 2014, pp. No. 10, 2012, pp. 1340–1367.
67–98. [96] M. Ivarsson and T. Gorschek, “A method for
[91] Y. Ning, H. Fu, and W. Zheng, “Business model evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of tech-
dynamics: A case study of Apple Inc.” in 18th In- nology evaluations,” Empirical Software Engi-
ternational Conference on Industrial Engineering neering, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2011, pp. 365–395.
and Engineering Management, 2011, pp. 77–80.
[92] V. Dmitriev, G. Simmons, Y. Truong, M. Palmer,
and D. Schneckenberg, “An exploration of busi-
Appendix A. Selected articles calculation of scores) and EP4 are found in the
Appendix C while details of IC1–IC3 are found
Table A lists all the articles selected through the in Appendix B.
snowballing methodology. It contains Paper ID, In the main article we use the notation [Paper
author/bibliographic reference, plus extracted ID,. . . ] to indicate a reference to one or more of
data for rigor and relevance factors (EP3), pa- the study’s selected papers when we specifically
per content (EP4), and the number of topics talk about a result or an synthesis thereof. Please
(RQ1+RQ2+IC2+IC3)9 addressed by the pa- note that the start set consists of P1–P10.
per. A detailed description of EP3 (including
Table A. Selected papers including extracted properties
Paper Rigor (EP3) Relevance (EP3) Content No. of

ID Authors/Ref Year C SD V C Sc Su RM EP4 RQ+IC
P1 Woodard et al. [69] 2013 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4
P2 Rohrbeck et al. [28] 2013 0.5 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 3
P3 Reim et al. [26] 2013 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
P4 Hackney et al. [70] 2004 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 2
P5 Chew [71] 2014 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4
P6 Ballon [33] 2007 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
P7 Loss & Crave [72] 2011 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3
P8 Romero & Molina [73] 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
P9 Höflinger [7] 2014 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
P10 Goel et al. [74] 2009 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 3 3
P12 Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart [4] 2010 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3
P13 Chesbrough [30] 2010 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3
P14 Demil & Lecocq [75] 2010 1 0 0.5 0 0 1 0 2 2
P15 Doz & Kosonen [35] 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
P16 Dubosson-Torbay et al. [76] 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
P17 Hacklin & Wallnöfer [54] 2012 1 0.5 0 1 1 1 1 1 3
P18 McGrath [31] 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
P19 Richardson [77] 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
P20 Storbacka & Nenonen [78] 2011 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
P21 Zott & Amit [5] 2010 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2
P22 Baden-Fuller & Morgan [27] 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
P23 Gao et al. [79] 2011 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 2
P24 Kindström [80] 2010 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 4
P25 Meier & Massberg [81] 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2
P26 Meier et al. [46] 2010 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3
P27 Richter et al. [37] 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
P28 Schuh et al. [82] 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
P29 Zott et al. [12] 2011 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4
P30 Amit & Zott [83] 2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2
P31 Baden-Fuller & Haefliger [10] 2013 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
P32 Osterwalder et al. [9] 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
P33 Al-Debei [23] 2010 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 3
P34 Bouwman [84] 2006 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3
P35 Buder &Felden [17] 2012 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 4
P36 Cortimiglia et al. [85] 2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
P37 Ghezzi [86] 2013 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 4
9
IC1–IC3 are topic-oriented while IC4 and IC5 are related to rigor and relevance.
Paper Rigor (EP3) Relevance (EP3) Content No. of

ID Authors/Ref Year C SD V C Sc Su RM EP4 RQ+IC
P38 Ghezzi [87] 2012 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 2
P39 Haaker et al. [22] 2004 0.5 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
P40 Krumeich et al. [11] 2012 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 2 2
P41 Zolnowski & Böhmann [44] 2011 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
P42 Andries & Debackere [88] 2007 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 3 2
P43 Björkdahl [47] 2009 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 3 2
P44 Casadesus-Masanell & Llanes [42] 2011 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2
P45 Doganova & Eyquem-Renault [29] 2009 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 1 1 2 4
P46 Mason & Leek [89] 2008 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 1 1 3 2
P48 Lindström [90] 2014 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 3 2
P49 Eurich et al. [6] 2014 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 1 1 1 3
P50 Ning et al. [91] 2011 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 0 3 0
P51 Dmitriev et al. [92] 2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
P52 Schneider & Spieth [36] 2014 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 3
P53 Short et al. [93] 2013 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2
P54 Meier & Boßlau [46] 2013 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 4
P55 Giessmann et al. [58] 2013 0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0 0 3 3
P56 Salgado et al. [59] 2014 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3
P57 Kim et al. [94] 2008 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2
P58 Mason & Mouzas [95] 2012 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2
P59 Salgado et al. [34] 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2
Appendix B. Inclusion and exclusion software-based systems to support content, activities

criteria (all stakeholders, e.g., internal organization, partners,
suppliers, and customers) and governance.
To identify literature related to our research ques- Effectiveness and efficiency should be evaluated
tions, we developed the Inclusion criteria (IC) and from the gap between all strategic and tactical choices,
Exclusion criteria (EC) listed in Table B. These cri- in combination with how the organization (and sup-
teria allow us to explore why BM is used, how it is porting software) utilize the remaining flexibility to
applied, and what solutions currently exist. Since our create satisfied customers in everyday transactions.
research topic covers multiple research disciplines, we The dilemma of not only implementing the right
decided to address the RQs by designing the IC as flexibility (supporting the needed business options)
wide as possible, to give us a large variety of articles but also implementing it efficiently, is key to success,
discussing BM (IC1) in any relationship to effective- i.e., the right level of variability in the realization
ness and efficiency. To evaluate BM efficiency, it is combined with the appropriate changeability in the
important to connect the business strategy via the realization to facilitate experimentation with the op-
business model to the execution of the business model erationalized business model.
with a traceability to daily operations and results. So The selection critera was based on IC1 AND (IC2
to understand if business modeling enables effective- OR IC3 OR IC4 OR IC5) to achieve a broad selection
ness and efficiency, we want to know how a business of papers as possible. If only the term Business model
model can be operationalized by developing the right were used (and not specifically Business modeling),
type of flexibility (variability in the realization, IC3) the paper could still be a candidate if it referred to ac-
matching all desired strategical and tactical choices tivities related to creating, maintaining, or otherwise
(business flexibility, IC2). using a business model.
Business modeling allows an organization to iden-
tify and prioritize changes to current business op-
erations (content, activities, and governance). This Appendix C. Data Extraction
change is continuously translated into a realization of properties
the business model, through experimentation or oth-
erwise, by understanding how the desired flexibility Table C lists the data extraction properties used
can be operationalized using modularity in design and for this study and maps their relevance to each RQ.
Properties EP1-EP4 are evaluated per paper and EP5 corresponds to our inclusion criteria (IC).
used to analyze the relevance to industry for each EP6 was used to look for patterns on the business
paper’s contribution. Properties EP5-EP9 use open model construct as to describe what it is, why it
coding and the extracted data was thematically and is important and how it is used. This is important
narratively analyzed. since the topic of BM is wide and lacks a clear defini-
Property EP1 and EP2 are subset of property tion. EP7-EP9 was used to understand the context
EP3 (Rigor & Relevance) where property EP2 cate- for effectiveness and efficiency as related to business
gories the paper’s context. We extend the definition of modeling.
Context (EP3 [96]), by adding (large-scale) Software
intensive industry. The relevance parameter (EP3),
we coded with binary weights (originally proposed as
Appendix D. Quotes of purpose,
plain sum of 0 or 1), allowing us to visualize the im-
pact of different relevance aspects. The weights were benefit and challenges
guided by RQ1, hence setting our priority: Industry
(8), Scale (4), Subjects (2) and Research method (1), Table D lists the quotes of purposes, benefits, and
e.g. a value of 9 or higher would represent anything challenges for business models and business modeling,
in “industry” with at least one additional relevance extracted from the selected studies (see Appendix A
aspect met. Originally the Relevance element of prop- for paper references). All quotes have been categorized
erty EP3 focus on the paper’s context in relation to into common areas (first column), and then listed un-
industry so we added property EP4 (Paper content) der respective primary context they are found in. We
to map the relevance of each paper’s content related use prefix notation (+) for benefit, (−) for challenge,
to answering the RQs. and [PID] for the paper reference.
Table B. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Criteria Evaluate (=Yes) Reasoning

EC1 Exclude if not written in English Must be able to read and understand to evaluate
EC2 Exclude if not peer-reviewed Basic quality assurance of paper
EC3 Exclude if duplicated Snowballing will give many duplicates
IC1 Does the abstract, introduction, Papers must identify real problems and issues related to
conclusions (or full text if needed) business model, business modeling or business model
mention purposes, benefits or innovation.
challenges (PBC) for business
modeling?
IC2 Does the text mention aspects of BM is becoming increasingly complex due to growing
business flexibility (BF)? business ecosystems and the digitalization of the value
delivery, which both introduce a need for variability in
the offering. Offering services on top of products are one
example to address BF.
IC3 Does the text mention aspects of Planning a business model is not enough. It needs to be
variability in the realization (VR)? efficiently realized as well, so the business flexibility
needs to be matched with a variability in the realization
of the business model. Offering Software Product lines
(SPL) or Product Service Systems (PSS) are examples
of addressing VR.
IC4 Is it an empirical study? We want to investigate how business models are used in
practice, and not only in theory. Empirical is done in an
industrial context, no student work, no proof of concept,
no examples even if they are “based on real data”
IC5 Is it referring to a SIPD context? The realization of business models is highly dependent
on software due to the digitalization of the value
delivery. This opens up new opportunities for value
capture (and value creation) in the business ecosystems.
Table C. Data extraction properties
Id Evaluate How RQ mapping

EP1 Research methods Action research, case study, conceptual analysis, design relevance of paper
science research, experiment, interview, literature review,
not stated, other
EP2 Paper context SW intensive, industry, general (e.g. literature review), RQ1 and relevance
non-industry (in priority order)
EP3 Rigor & relevance Detailed rubric definitions per aspect [96] Overview and rele-
of the paper Rigor: Context is described vance
Rigor: study design is described
Rigor: validity is discussed
Each rigor aspect measurement: strong description (1),
medium description (0.5), and weak description (0)
Relevance: context (weight=8), i.e. in industrial setting

Relevance: scale (weight=4), i.e. realistic size and indus-
trial scale
Relevance: subjects (weight=2), i.e. industry professionals
Relevance: research method (weight=1)
Each relevance aspect measurement: contribute to rele-
vance (1), do not contribute to relevance (0)
EP4 The relevance of Coded 1-3: (1) business modeling; the paper discuss specif- RQ1
the paper content ically the process of modeling your business
in respect to busi- (2) business model; the paper mainly focus on the business
ness modeling. model and discuss how different aspects of the Business
model constructs are developed
(3) Other; it only refers to a specific business model(s),
or discuss specific instances thereof, or a topic related
to business model (e.g. flexibility); therefore of minimal
significance to our study
EP5 IC1-IC3 Use ATLAS TI to extract related quotes for each RQ. RQ1, RQ2
EP6 Business element Use ATLAS TI to extract related quotes referring to a RQ1
context part of the business model construct, what it is, why it is
important and how it is used and relates to other parts.
EP7 Practice/technique Use ATLAS TI to extract quotes referring to a practice RQ1, RQ2
or technique presented, described or used.
EP8 Measurement per- Use ATLAS TI to extract quotes related to RQ2
spective – Product view (how well is the value created)
– Process view (how efficient have you organized the value
flow)
– Resource view (how well is the resource utilized and
adapted for the needed task)
– Project view (how efficient is the goal fulfilment)
– Relationship view (how effective is the communication)
EP9 Success indicator Use ATLAS TI to extract related quotes RQ2
and metric
Table D. Quotes on purpose, benefits and challenges for BM
Common Strategy & planning (define) Daily operations (execute) Governance & communication
areas
Value Conceptual discussion and Reconfiguration of roles and Describe and classify businesses [P32],
creation, visualization of value relationships [P8], [P20] [P22]
value creation/capture [P2] Determining the logic for Meeting customerś needs [P58]
capture Articulate Value proposition value [P30] Compare value creation approaches [P32]
[P7], [P13], [P35] (+) captures how resources (+) facilitates strategic discussion and
Identify a market segment transforms into finding creative solutions [P2]
and value chain [P7], [P13], customersẃillingness to pay (+) it is a structural template for
[P20] for value [P18] mapping existing value logic [P17]
Appropriate value from (−) service vs. product (+) reduces imitability, create sustainable
technology [P36] centric create conflicts, advantage [P24]
(+) depicts the logic for balancing is difficult [P1], (+) creates novel approach for using
value creation/capture [P17] [P24] services in value creation [P41]
(+) fosters innovation and (−) low effectiveness (+) it is explicative and predictive power
increases readiness for (customer experience) of to value creation [P45]
future [P32] value co-creation (+) helps calculate technology value to
(+) rigorously describes and (organization/customer) [P5] investors, customers, partners [P45]
analyses business with (−) it is difficult to (−) complex coordination for ecosystem
system dynamics [P36] incorporate closer customer collaboration [P2]
(−) hard managing tension interaction [P24] (−) negatively influences optimal value
between value creation and (−) how to acquire resources co-creation in aligned processes [P5]
value capture (trade-offs in value chain not previously (−) new value (co-)creation focus on
monetization) [P5] available in-house [P24] relationship-centric aspects [P7]
(−) hard managing service (−) difficulty in identifying market
flexibility (segmentation, opportunities due to changing customer
QoS) [P5], [P24] needs [P9]
(−) ensure consistent service (−) difficulty to effectively communicate
experience (multi-channels) (articulate, visualize) emerging value
[P5] proposition [P24]
(−) a total value need (−) hard to analyse business process vs.
consideration (not only value activities [P35]
financial) [P53] (−) many frameworks has many deficits
concerning consistency and value
activities [P35]
(−) lacks a quantitative way to convey
value and no sales model for perceived
value [P48]
(−) difficult to visualize value for
integrated offers [P48]
(−) BM has a dual nature conceptualizing
value and organizing for that value (in
different life cycles) [P51]
areas
Cost, Estimate cost/revenue (−) adaptation to Incentives to engage in and control

revenue, potential [P7] environment by operations [P20]
profit (+) depicts actual structures trial-and-error [P51] (−) maintain accurate definition of
for a company to profit from (−) amount of human ownership conditions in a collaborative
business [P9] resources needed for business model, and revenue model
(+) experiment with cost modeling [P56] considering risk distribution [P54]
before investing [P18] (−) new revenue streams (−) maintain a new value chain reward
(−) “black-hole” investment driven primarily by system [P24]
[P18] customer perceived value
(−) incorporate instead of internal cost [P24]
requirements for lean
consumption and achieve
the objectives of service
profit chain [P5]
(−) develop technology
innovations in an adaptive
process (trial-and-error)
with cost as main cause for
readjustments [P51]
Mind-set, Experimenting [P2], [P22], Enhance creativity, unlock Mediating, facilitating and sharing
Knowl- [P49] barriers of innovation [P2] strategic discourse [P17], [P36]
edge Shift companyś boundaries Build trust [P2] Address lack of knowledge [P45], [P22]
[29] Increase readiness via (+) unlocks barriers of innovation +
Exploit business portfolios and simulation building trust [P2]
opportunity [P22], [P29] [P9], [P32] (+) breaks cognitive structures and act as
Foster Innovation [P32] Build knowledge [P22] communicative, mediating device for
Increase knowledge [P29] (+) uses of mixed techniques shared meaning and commitments [P17],
(+) focus beyond between Business and IT [P32]
company-centric focus [P17] improved communication (+) improves understanding, language
(+) shifts focus from WHAT and IT development [P56] and legitimacy [P17], [P32]
resources to HOW to use (−) how to achieve (+) formalization forces implicit
them [P18] organizational and customer understanding becoming explicit (move
(+) BMI enables strategic learningś incorporated into strategy into execution) [P17]
renewal [P36] iterative design [P5] (−) lack of formality and analyst
(−) turns shared meaning dependency with high skills [P56]
into identity lock-ins [P17] (+) promotes outside in view on customer
(−) resistance to change value [P18]
[P17] (+) provides early warning for threatened
(−) plan for BM via analysing dynamism of
“experimentation and completive advantage [P18]
learning” in established (+) highlights consistency strategy and
companies [P18] BM building blocks [P24]
(−) systematic servitization (+) provides new insights (externalize,
(product to service shift) map and store knowledge) [P32]
[P24] (+) fosters systematic BMI [P32]
(−) hard to define business (+) unambiguously defines dimensions,
requirements (lack of properties and semantics [P33]
information and specific (+) visualization improves understanding
details) [P56] [P32], [P56]
(+) helps define goals [P32]
(+) educates decision-makers for informed
decisions, goals and requirement
engineering [P32]
areas
Means Innovation and technology Change and implement Alignment of strategy, business
management [P29] business logic (and business organization and technology [P32]
Plan and design business process execution) [P17], Manage flexibility and increase change
logic [P32] [P32] capability [P58]
Understand complex Realize strategic tasks [P9] (+) improves measuring, observing and
interplay [P31] Support resource fluidity comparing business logic [P32]
Adopt servitization to [P15] (+) improves design of sustainable
further enhance global Commercialize ideas & business models [P32]
competiveness [P54] technology [P29] (+) improves alignment of strategy,
(+) Prepares (+) better requirement organization and technology and
implementation (identifying engineering [P32] integration business IS/IT domains [P32]
joint activities with priority (+) facilitates and improves (+) BM may enable strategy execution
and validating the business choices in IS/IT [P32] and how operational choices affect
model) [P2] (−) difficult to mobilize and companyś performance [P37]
(+) Helps to build better align available resources (+) helps to react to environment change
strategies (e-business) [P32] (not only internal but also due to strategic flexibility and dynamic
(−) Business model design extending external base) in capabilities [P52]
requires better integration time [P9], [P15], [P24] (−) hard to reach and maintain alignment
with strategy analysis [P37] (−) integration, agility and of business model and information system
(−) Difficult to be change [P10] model [P59]
systematic (too slow, too (−) barriers to change (−) value co-creation is a hard
detailed, iterative) [P17] business model are real cooperative process (speed, coordination,
(−) limited empirical processes and tools are not compromise) [P8]
validation [P17] good enough [P13] (−) how to industrialize large-scale service
(−) provides good insights (−) a structured service offerings [P24]
but lacks support where to development process (−) how to avoid isolated change
start investing to reach connected to the business (relationships, value, dynamic portfolio)
future business [P18] model [P24] [P24]
(−) capture customerś (−) hard to visualize, document and share
reaction to new technology basic elements due to relationships and
[P5] speed of change [P26], [P32]
(−) hard to effectively (−) hard to achieve consistency between
balancing (conflicting) BM and BPM and achieve real
requirements (user and improvements with BPM [P35]
design) and strategic (−) lack of appropriate methods and
interests (of partners) [P39] tooling for BM integrated with BPM
(−) tools conceptual, [P35]
complicated and too time (−) BM design requires better integration
consuming (for network with strategy analysis models [P37]
centric BM) [P53] (−) discovery of goals and rules no
(−) paradigm shift business common process for elicitation [P56]
activities and consumption
patterns must be aligned
with environmental and
social objectives [P53]
Ends Describe position of Operationalize strategy Alignment of strategy, business
company in value network [P36], [P37] organization and technology [P32]
[P7], [P13], [P29] Act as a scale model and role model for
Formulate competitive characterization of similarities and
strategy with goals and definition of difference [P22]
objectives [P19], [P37] (+) facilitates and improves choices in IS
Act as receipt for the role and structure [P32]
business [P22]
areas
Assessment Deal with uncertainty [P2], Alignment of control and Force decisions [P2]
[P52], [P54] value parameters [P6] Analyse Business model fit [P49]
Holistic picture of future Mapping of business roles or Bridge static view for change and
state [P2], [P32] interactions onto technical performance over time [P14]
Explain strategic issues modules, interfaces, etc. [P6] Computerize DDS for better design,
(value creation, competitive Analyse functioning of an critique and simulation of new BMs [P32]
advantage, company organization [P32] Understand how technology is converted
performance etc.) [P36], Describe use of information into market outcome [P29], [P31]
[P29] technology [P32] Provide contextual information [P35]
Support Leadership unity Improve the Business-IS/IT Identification of critical success factors
[P15] dialogue [P32], [P56] and investigate performance [P41]
Explore and design (+) managing a business Proof, persuasion, comparison and
promising business model portfolio can lead to benchmarking [P45], [P55]
concepts/ideas [P32], [P36], flexibility in re-organizing (+) creates common language, shared
[P41] resources [P9] priority and forces decisions [P2]
Strategy and business model (+) low-risk experiments via (+) improves dealing with uncertainty
innovation [P17], [P36], simulation [P32] (reduction by sharing, turn into advantage,
[P52], [P53] (−) balancing act between enhance understanding of barriers) [P2]
(+) facilitates strategic customer, revenue, cost, (−) difficult to deal with uncertainty,
discussion with shared functionality (e.g. local complexity and dynamism [P54]
insights to barriers/drivers adaptation vs. sw platform) (+) facilitates brainstorming (today and
(visual + levels of details) [P1] future) and integrative (no theory bias)
[P2] (−) mutual alignment [P17]
(+) facilitates interaction to between (+) helps reducing complexity (visual)
create strategic options and steps/organizations/customers [P32]
share mediate strategic when performed iteratively (+) improves mutual understanding
discourse [P17] and holistically [P5] Business and IT domains [P32]
(+) help to better (−) how to match (+) facilities identification of key
understand the business and consequences of indicators to follow execution of plan
its important parts [P24] environmental changes onto [P32]
(+) helps to improve company with best fit [P9] (−) difficulty in reliable monitoring of key
planning, change and (−) a continuously learning indicators [P54]
implementation (with business model (+) BM as “scale model” demonstrates
knowledge and facilitate experimentation [P13] feasibility and worth to partners [P45]
choice of indicators) [P32] (−) business model change (−) achieve joint strategy when decisions
(−) difficult managing (hard decision, risky create cross-functional/divisional conflicts
dynamics (agility, organizational adjustments, [P5]
adaptability, planning, and collective commitment) (−) align social, organization, and
decision) for alignment to [P15] technology (due to richness and change of
environment and other (−) efficient management of knowledge economy) [P7]
organizations [P2], [P5], information (explore vs. (−) difficult to choose from massive
[P7], [P9], [P36] create collective results regarding BM design
(−) different methods or understanding) is difficult experimentation [P18]
patterns not aligned, no [P45] (−) hard to identify threats to BM in
guidance how to obtain final time [P18]
design [P49] (−) managed different abstraction levels
(−) neglects the relevance and get the details right in execution
for environment – focus on [P19], [P21]
model-internal consistency (−) requires decision-making on multiple
[P49] parameters of activity systems [P21]
(−) BM has a dual nature (instance vs.
classification) [P22]
(−) hard to overcome resistance to and
awareness of need to change [P52]
(−) over-estimate/false impression of your
ability to change [P52]

A Literature Review On The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Business Modeling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Literature Review On The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Business Modeling

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

A Literature Review On The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Business Modeling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, Volume 12, Issue 1, 2018, pages: 265–302, DOI 10.

A Literature Review on the Effectiveness

Figure 1. Software-based value creation in a value delivery chain in a business ecosystem

Table 1. Search strings for start set

Figure 2. Research methodology overview

Table 2. Results mapped to research questions and paper context

RQs Business Business Other (3) Sum Comment

Table 3. Identified effects on effectiveness and efficiency

to be more effective and efficient in improving 6. Research synthesis

(business model) execution. We further ar- Acknowledgment

Table A. Selected papers including extracted properties

Paper Rigor (EP3) Relevance (EP3) Content No. of

Paper Rigor (EP3) Relevance (EP3) Content No. of

Appendix B. Inclusion and exclusion software-based systems to support content, activities

Table B. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criteria Evaluate (=Yes) Reasoning

Table C. Data extraction properties

Id Evaluate How RQ mapping

Relevance: context (weight=8), i.e. in industrial setting

Table D. Quotes on purpose, benefits and challenges for BM

Cost, Estimate cost/revenue (−) adaptation to Incentives to engage in and control

You might also like