See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358302084
An integrative approach for business modelling: Application to the EV
charging market
Article in Journal of Business Research · February 2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.077
CITATIONS
READS
3
548
6 authors, including:
Andrei Goncearuc
Nikolaos Sapountzoglou
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
CERN
3 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
26 PUBLICATIONS 146 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Cedric De Cauwer
Maarten Messagie
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
24 PUBLICATIONS 509 CITATIONS
113 PUBLICATIONS 2,693 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Contribution of electric cars to the mitigation of CO2 emissions in the city of São Paulo View project
Renewable integration and sustainability in energy communities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Andrei Goncearuc on 24 May 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
An integrative approach for business modelling: Application to the EV
charging market
Andrei Goncearuc a,b ,∗, Nikolaos Sapountzoglou a , Cedric De Cauwer a , Thierry Coosemans a ,
Maarten Messagie a , Thomas Crispeels b
a
b
ETEC Department & MOBI Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium
BUTO Department & MOBI Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium
ARTICLE
INFO
Keywords:
Business ecosystem
Charging market
Electric vehicles
Innovative business models
Vehicle-to-grid
ABSTRACT
The current work fills in the existing research gap with regard to business modelling approaches applied
to the technologically-driven markets. Taking into consideration the highly innovative and evolving nature
of the latter ones, this paper combines the most relevant business modelling methods, creating a detailed,
dynamic and holistic integrative business modelling approach. The integrative approach is applied on the
electric vehicles charging market, where the defined business model archetypes of the core participants of the
business ecosystem are described and analysed.
1. Introduction
1.2. Contribution
1.1. Motivation
The contribution of this study is the development of a novel integrative business modelling approach, supported by a literature review
of the main business modelling approaches, and a validation of the
proposed method through its application to the electric vehicles (EV)
charging market.
More specifically, the present research scans the existing literature
on business modelling approaches and provides an assessment of their
applicability on markets that show a rapid evolution triggered by
the pressure of technological innovation. As every business modelling
approach has its advantages and disadvantages, the current research
offers a comparison matrix based on the evaluation criteria described
in Section 2.
The central scientific contribution of the current work is of a conceptual character and follows the logic of the typology of conceptual
contributions (MacInnis, 2011), pertaining to the ‘‘Relating’’ type with
the ‘‘Integrating’’ sub-type. It means that the search for an optimal
solution (including literature scan and comparison matrix) has eventually led to the development of a business modelling approach that
relates to the selected evaluation criteria and integrates various methods into a novel business modelling approach. The determination of
this integrative qualitative business modelling approach aims to help
the current and future players of various business sectors to adjust
themselves rapidly and efficiently to the technological changes relevant
for their business environment.
The modern world shows a very fast technological evolution in
different sectors. Therefore, numerous companies have to adjust their
business models to the constantly evolving environment and introduce
new opportunities created by the emergence of new technologies to the
existing structure of the business model.
According to numerous studies (Bankvall, Dubois, & Lind, 2017;
Broekhuizen, Broekhuis, Gijsenberg, & Wieringa, 2021; Doganova &
Eyquem-Renault, 2009; Langley et al., 2021; Oskam, Bossink, & de Man,
2018), the business modelling approach applied by the participants of
the market evolving under the pressure of new technological developments should comply with the following characteristics: (a) have a
decent overview of the surrounding business ecosystem of the company,
(b) give a detailed definition of the internal structure, and (c) be
lean and ready for the constant innovation. A business modelling
approach that complies to all these requirements simultaneously is not
yet reflected in the relevant published scientific literature. Its definition
has become the goal of this work.
The integrative business modelling framework described in the
current paper is a combination of different approaches which allows
to meet the business modelling requirements of technologically-driven
markets.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: goncearuc.andrei@vub.be (A. Goncearuc).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.077
Received 31 May 2021; Received in revised form 17 December 2021; Accepted 30 December 2021
Available online 1 February 2022
0148-2963/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
To validate the defined integrative business modelling approach, the
latter is applied on the core participants of the EV charging market.
The EV charging market is relatively young and is currently undergoing
a rapid growth and evolution. The latest years display an exponential
growth in the number of EVs on the roads (IEA, 2021). The reported
numbers indicate that the global EV stock has surpassed 10 million
units in 2020, while in 2010 this number had barely reached 17000.
The EV charging infrastructure follows the same trend, reaching a total
amount of 9.5 million installed charge points all over the world by
2020. Furthermore, this trend is expected to strengthen in the years
to come.
However, the evolution of the EV charging market cannot be characterized by the growth in sales only, since it constantly undergoes the
influence of technological innovations (e.g. smart charging, vehicle-togrid technology etc.), often updating or even changing the logic of the
business model. Thus, the EV charging market requires a certain level
of flexibility and adaptability from its participants, being a perfect usecase for the application of the integrated business modelling approach
described in this paper.
The implementation of this use-case, being the definition of the
archetypical business models by the means of the developed integrative
business modelling approach, is achieved through the use of publicly
available sources (articles, annual reports, press releases, etc.), validated and/or complemented by a set of semi-structured interviews with
representatives of every market player participating into the core of the
EV charging business ecosystem, active on a Belgian and/or European
level.
The structure of the paper is organized as follows: first, Section 2
introduces the various business models available in the literature,
evaluating their suitability for describing rapidly developing markets
driven by technological innovation. Then, Section 3 defines the integrative approach for business modelling. Next, Section 4 describes the
considered case study of the EV charging market used to showcase
and validate the proposed method. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the
conclusions of this paper.
(c) Transformation mechanism: description of the technologicallydriven evolutionary process of the business model.
According to the analyses of the business modelling literature,
provided by the works of Bankvall et al. (2017), Massa, Tucci, and
Afuah (2017), Zott, Amit, and Massa (2011), the existing literature did
not yet come to a single definition of the business model concept. Nevertheless, a wide range of business modelling approaches demonstrates
certain similarities. For instance, Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002),
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), Richardson (2008), Teece (2010), Zott
and Amit (2010), etc. agree with each other on numerous components,
such as the value creation and capturing (including revenues and
costs), the targeted set of customers, the value chain and other. At
the same time, various business modelling approaches manifest certain differences as well, accentuating one or another component (e.g.
customer/network/value etc.) and looking into the same business from
different points of view (e.g. holistic/detailed, static/dynamic etc.).
This section investigates the business modelling approaches as they
are analysed by Bankvall et al. (2017), Massa et al. (2017), Zott et al.
(2011), along with other recent developments in the field, and considers the most relevant ones in the context of the aforementioned three
pillars. The findings of the current section are summarized by the means
of a comparison matrix (Section 2.4), aiming to configure a suitable
business modelling approach applicable to businesses, participating in
markets developing fast under the impulse of technological change.
2.1. Business model canvas
The most cited approach for the definition of a business model is the
one developed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), namely the Business
Model Canvas (BMC). This framework defines a business model as a
combination of nine components, which describe different aspects of a
particular business (Fig. 1).
2. Literature review of business modelling approaches
The goal of this study is the determination of a business modelling
approach applicable to the markets evolving under the pressure of technological developments. The examples of such markets go far beyond
the ones described by the current paper and relate to almost all business
sectors. An explicit illustration of technological developments’ impact
is given by the research of Loebbecke and Picot (2015), linking the
disruptions of the business models in multiple sectors to the necessity
of digitization and big data analysis.
Numerous studies (Bankvall et al., 2017; Doganova & EyquemRenault, 2009; Oskam et al., 2018) affirm that some businesses are unable to adjust promptly to the technological changes due to the rigidity
of the business models and their transformation mechanisms. Another
challenge emerges from within the company’s network relationships, as
any company is sensitive to the influence of new technological developments on the stakeholders of its business ecosystem. In agreement with
the latter statement, Broekhuizen et al. (2021), Langley et al. (2021)
also underline that the business modelling approach should provide
sufficient level details to anticipate the consequences caused by the
technological changes.
Summarizing the aforementioned statements, it becomes crucial
that the business modelling approach to be defined in this research
should correspond with the following three pillars:
Fig. 1. Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).
Fig. 1 provides a general overview of BMC elements. By filling them
in, a business model of an organization can be formulated. According to
the authors, the nine elements could be divided into four groups which
help to analyse a business from different perspectives:
(a) customer perspective (Customer Segments, Channels, Customer Relationships)
(b) business perspective (Key Activities, Key Partners, Key Resources)
(c) financial perspective (Revenue Streams, Cost Structure) and
(d) Value Proposition, playing the central role in the model and
connecting all the others.
It is important to mention, that the elements of the BMC framework
must not be filled in a random order. The framework has a predefined
by the authors filling mechanism, further described in detail by the
work of Cowan (2012). The filling order, along with the description
of every BMC element follows:
(a) Holistic view: description of the company’s surrounding ecosystem, including the network of main stakeholders and influencers
ranked by their level of involvement.
(b) Detailed view: thorough description of the internal elements of
the business model.
185
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
The main asset of BMC in the context of the three pillars, described in the beginning of Section 2, is its detailed view on business
modelling. The elements of the BMC present multiple similarities with
numerous business modelling approaches (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom,
2002; Gassmann, Frankenberger, & Csik, 2013; Richardson, 2008; Zott
& Amit, 2010) but have more comprehensive structure and higher level
of detail. All this makes BMC the most popular and well-cited business
modelling approach in the existing literature.
Nevertheless, this approach has significant weaknesses as well, with
regard to the previously discussed pillars. The first limitation lies in the
BMC’s static character. The framework does not offer a defined transformation mechanism driven by the new technological developments,
hampering its ability to evolve (Rodrigues & Lopes, 2018). The second
weak point is related to the holistic view. The outlook of the external
network in the BMC is limited to the direct partners and customers,
while the other stakeholders of the company business ecosystem remain
out of scope (Joyce & Paquin, 2016).
1. Customer Segments: individuals or organizations, having specific
needs, that the company is able so satisfy. The definition of the
Customer Segments is the first step of the BMC filling process, as
every product or service offered by the company should be set
up in accordance with the needs of at least one targeted Customer
Segment. Obviously, this element of BMC plays a significant role
both into the customer perspective and in the business model of
a company as a whole.
2. Value Propositions: products or services the company offers to
satisfy the demands of the targeted Customer Segments. This element is very closely connected to the Customer Segments, as every
Value Proposition of the company has to have its target audience
to remain viable. However, the Value Propositions element is
not just connected to Customer Segments; it plays a crucial role
in the BMC and connects the elements of all the other three
perspectives (customer, business and financial).
3. Channels: the means that the company uses to reach its customers. The Channels element aggregates all the distribution,
communication, promotion and other ways that the company
uses to interact with its customers. Obviously, the Channels are
part of the customer perspective of the BMC and every Channel
has to be connected to at least one targeted customer segment
in order to remain useful.
4. Customer Relationships: the approach the company uses to deal
with its customers. Unlike the Channels, the Customer Relationships describe the strategy to interact with customers when they
are already reached. The Customer Relationships can vary from
fully impersonal and automated to tailor made solutions. Naturally, the company can simultaneously use different approaches,
depending on the situation and Customer Segment. Therefore,
every Customer Relationship type relates to at least one Customer
Segment (being also part of customer perspective of the BMC).
5. Revenue Streams: the sources of income of the company, gained
through trading its Value Propositions in exchange for a remuneration from the customer’s part. Thus, the Revenue Streams (representing the financial perspective of BMC) are directly connected
to its Value Propositions and Customer Segments.
6. Key Activities: set of internal processes happening inside the
company, eventually allowing to offer the Value Propositions. The
Key Activities element is in the core of the business perspective
of the BMC (linked to the further described Key Resources and
Key Partnerships). At the same time, every Key Activity has to
contribute to the offering of at least one of the Value Propositions.
7. Key Resources: various assets (e.g. factories, facilities, infrastructure, human resources(HR), technologies, features, brand name
etc.) owned by the company, allowing to carry out its Key Activities. Every Key Resource has to contribute to the performance
of at least one Key Activity to remain useful. Along with the
Key Activities, the Key Resources element represents the business
perspective of the BMC.
8. Key Partnerships: companies, organizations and other external
agents the company collaborates with, in order to be able to
perform its Key Activities. The logic of the BMC points out
that a partnership is meaningful only if it contributes to the
performance of at least one of the Key Activities. Obviously, the
Key Partnerships element is part of the business perspective of
BMC.
9. Cost Structure: the key costs of the company. The functioning of
every company requires some expenses and the most significant
types of costs are listed in the Cost Structure element of the BMC.
It is important to notice that every key cost of the company
should be related to at least one of the Key Activities, otherwise,
the company should eliminate this cost as soon as possible. The
Cost Structure element (along with the Revenue Streams) is part
of the financial perspective of the BMC.
2.2. Business modelling framework of Teece
Another very popular business modelling framework is the one
designed by Teece (2010), offering the following circular step plan
including the elements for the construction of the business model
(Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Elements of business model design (Teece, 2010).
The framework presented in Fig. 2 creates an outline of the business,
describes how the company creates value, determines the customer
segments and finds the way to reach them, identifies available sources
of revenue and the associated costs, and continuously revises these
steps. In contrast to the BMC filling mechanism, which starts with
the definition of Customer Segments, this modelling process begins with
the selection of new technological developments and/or features to
be considered in the business model. Even though the filling mechanism is different, it is quite noticeable that the elements described
in Teece (2010) business model are comparable with the ones from the
BMC (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).
According to the research of Johnson, Christensen, and Kagermann
(2008), the technologies and features make part of the key resources,
contributing to the processes which allow the company to offer its value
propositions. Thus, Step 1 from the Teece (2010) business modelling
framework clearly relates to the Key Resources component of BMC.
The determination of the benefit to the customer from the selected
technology and/or feature, being Step 2 of the Teece (2010) framework,
follows the definition of Value Propositions element from the BMC, while
Step 3 obviously relates to the definition of Customer Segments. Steps 4
and 5 deal with Revenue Streams and Cost Structure respectively.
Taking into consideration the similarities of these approaches, it can
be concluded that Teece’s framework shares the limitation of the BMC
with regard to the holistic view pillar. However, Teece’s framework
demonstrates a less explanatory ability compared to BMC due to the
186
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Table 1
Corresponding actor level constructs in Ecosystem Pie Model and BMC.
relatively generalized description of the modelling steps and the lack
of the important elements included in the BMC (i.e. Channels, Customer
Relationships, Key Activities, Key Partnerships). At the same time, it is to
the credit of Teece (2010) approach to mention that its dynamic nature
ensures the continuous evolution of the business model (Rodrigues &
Lopes, 2018), while the BMC framework portrays a business model as
a picture of a business in one particular moment. This asset of Teece
(2010) approach meets one of the requirements set by the key pillars
of this research (Section 2), namely the ability of the business model
to transform.
Ecosystem Pie Model
BMC
1. Resources
Key Resources
Key Partnerships
Key Activities
Value Proposition
Revenue Streams
Cost Structure
2. Activities
3. Value addition
4. Value Capture
The only sector not represented in the BMC business modelling approach is the ‘‘Risk", the probability that the actor will not contribute to
the ecosystem’s value proposition. The risk factor is strongly dependent
on the situation related to an actor at a specific moment. Thus, this
element is very case- and time-specific.
Considering the Ecosystem Pie Model in the context of the previously described three business modelling pillars, it is noticeable that the
main advantage of the Ecosystem Pie Model is its holistic view on the
business modelling process, as it considers an individual organization
as a part of a whole. In spite of the similarities with the BMC, the
Ecosystem Pie Model lacks the full set of elements and structure,
what hampers its level of detail. The transformation mechanism of the
Ecosystem Pie Model is not defined either.
2.3. Ecosystem Pie model
The last business modelling approach to be described in the current
section is Ecosystem Pie Model (Fig. 3), being a relatively recent development of Talmar, Walrave, Podoynitsyna, Holmström, and Romme
(2020).
2.4. Evaluation of business modelling approaches
The examination of the approaches for business modelling in the relevant literature shows significant similarities of different frameworks,
each containing a set of analogous elements. Nevertheless every analysed framework has its own peculiarities. Summarizing the description
of advantages and shortcomings of the business models from Section 2,
it should be noted that the undisputed asset of the BMC lies in the
high level of detail and convenient structure of the framework (Cowan,
2012). At the same time, numerous studies claim that the BMC scores
quite poorly with the holistic view due to the relatively limited list
of stakeholders included into the business model. Another point of
criticism is that the BMC tends to be a static framework, lacking a valid
transformation mechanism driven by the introduction of new technologies (Joyce & Paquin, 2016; Rodrigues & Lopes, 2018; Sparviero,
2019).
Concerning the last limitation, Rodrigues and Lopes (2018) describe the business modelling approach of Teece (2010), as a more
dynamic alternative to BMC. Teece’s approach has a well defined
technologically-driven transformation mechanism, while its elements
are similar to the ones provided by BMC, yet, with less details and
structure. Thus, Teece’s approach shares the BMC’s limitation related
to the holistic view.
Konietzko, Bocken, and Hultink (2020) claim the Ecosystem Pie
Model (Talmar et al., 2020) to be a good tool for business modelling
from the holistic perspective, while lacking Teece’s business model
transformation mechanism and the BMC’s level of detail. The compliance of the reviewed frameworks with the previously discussed three
pillars is presented by means of a comparison matrix in Table 2.
Fig. 3. Ecosystem Pie Model Talmar et al. (2020).
The main difference of this business modelling approach from the
previously described ones, is that instead of concentrating on the
individual peculiarities of an organization, the Ecosystem Pie Model
considers the business model as the part of the whole business ecosystem.
The core of the model is represented by the value proposition of the
whole business ecosystem, where every actor (an entity participating
into the ecosystem) adds its part of the value to the whole value
proposition and serves as a piece of the ecosystem’s pie. Every actor has
its own ‘‘Dependence" bar, determining the level of dependence (High
(H), Medium (M) or Low (L)) of the actor from the value proposition
of the ecosystem, and consequently its level of involvement into the
ecosystem’s core business.
Though designed in a different way, the Ecosystem Pie Model shows
certain similarities with numerous business modelling approaches
(Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Gassmann et al., 2013; Osterwalder
& Pigneur, 2010; Richardson, 2008; Teece, 2010; Zott & Amit, 2010).
These similarities are mainly visible in the description of the actor
level constructs — elements of the internal business model of an entity.
Every actor level construct of the Ecosystem Pie Model has one or more
corresponding BMC elements (Table 1).
Table 1 clearly displays that not all the elements of the BMC (see
Section 2.1) are reflected by the Ecosystem Pie Model, while some of
the actor level constructs of the latter are represented through multiple
elements of the BMC. This allows to conclude that the BMC provides a
more detailed view on the actor’s internal business model.
Table 2
Comparison matrix of qualitative business modelling approaches.
BMC (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
Teece (2010)
Ecosystem Pie (Talmar et al., 2020)
Holistic view
Detailed view Transformation
mechanism
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Table 2 displays clearly that there is at least one approach with a
high level of compliance to each pillar. However, it is also noticeable
that none of the aforementioned approaches replies altogether to the
business modelling requirements of all three pillars.
187
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
3. Definition of the integrative business modelling approach
The assessment of the business modelling approaches’ compliance
with the three pillars, demonstrates that each separate approach has its
own point of view on business modelling and disregards sometimes the
other perspectives. The integration of the approaches strongly matching
the requirements of the corresponding pillars can create a novel business modelling approach, able to satisfy the business modelling needs of
the markets evolving under the pressure of technological developments.
At the same time, the integration of the opposite perspectives is a
relatively difficult task within a single framework, as there is always
a certain trade-off for the modeller. For instance, zooming in order
to see more details closes the opportunity of the holistic view. The
same is valid for the dynamic and static perspectives. The dynamic
changes often hamper the viewer’s ability to notice all the details
which would otherwise be clearly visible from a static point view.
Thus, the most important point of the integration of the aforementioned
business modelling approaches is the elimination of these trade-offs,
while maintaining the virtues of every approach.
The integrative business modelling approach, designed in the current paper, comprises of three reiterative steps (related to the three
pillars), each of which is based on the respective business modelling
framework. The modelling mechanism of the integrative business modelling approach is described in detail in the sections to follow.
Fig. 4. Business Ecosystem (Moore, 1996).
Considering the fact that the original business ecosystem concept,
defined by Moore, has a purely holistic point of view on business modelling, regarding the ecosystem as a whole and not concentrating on
its actors, the Ecosystem Pie Model (Talmar et al., 2020) (Section 2.3),
has an intermediate position between the holistic and detailed views,
opening the opportunity to integrate this approach in both directions.
From the holistic business modelling perspective, the Ecosystem
Pie Model is clearly related to the initial Business Ecosystem concept,
giving, however, the framework for the description of ecosystem’s
actors and relations. Moreover, the Ecosystem Pie Model offers an
opportunity to assess the relevance of the actors by the means of the
‘‘Dependence’’ bar and include only relevant actors and relations into
the ‘‘Pie’’. The ‘‘Dependence’’ bar indicates the level of dependence of
the actor on the value proposition of the whole business ecosystem,
being, a noticeable similarity with the categories ranking from the
initial Business Ecosystem concept (e.g. ‘‘High’’ level of dependence on
the value proposition of the ecosystem indicates that the entity is in the
Core Business category).
On the other hand, the Ecosystem Pie Model shows significant
similarities with the BMC on actor level constructs, lacking, however,
the BMC’s structure and additional elements. Thus, the Ecosystem Pie
Model can serve as an integrative tool, linking the holistic view of the
Business Ecosystem concept with the detailed view of the BMC. The
integration of these three approaches is represented on Fig. 5.
3.1. Step 1 - holistic view: Business ecosystem Pie model
As it is shown on the comparison matrix of business modelling
approaches (Table 2), the approach corresponding with the holistic
view pillar is the Ecosystem Pie Model (Talmar et al., 2020), being,
at the same time, the first step of the integrative business modelling
approach.
The Ecosystem Pie Model (Talmar et al., 2020) arises from the
concept of business ecosystems, originally defined by Moore (1996).
His research, for the first time, compares the biological ecosystem with
the business environment. The business ecosystem is defined as the
community of interrelated organizations and individuals which interact
with each other in order to create value (i.e. social and/or financial
benefit). A number of later studies (Hartigh & Asseldonk, 2004; Iansiti
& Levien, 2004; Peltoniemi, Vuori, & Laihonen, 2005) came to agree
with Moore (1996), presenting only slight deviations from Moore’s
initial definition.
Moore (1996) has divided the participants of a business ecosystem
into three major categories (Fig. 4), where the broader category of
stakeholders is, basically, the extension of a smaller one.
The Core Business group includes the core contributors: the companies of the business ecosystem that create a core value offering i.e.
the direct suppliers of product or service and the distribution channels.
The Core Business group, basically attracts other stakeholders, which,
in their turn, are grouped in two other categories, creating a business
ecosystem as a whole.
The Extended Enterprise group includes the core business category,
along with the stakeholders which are not directly related to the creation and distribution of the core value offering of the ecosystem, while
still involved in its value chain. Thus, the Extended Enterprise group
adds to the total of the ecosystem: the direct customers of the Core
Business group, the customers of these direct customers, the suppliers
of direct suppliers, suppliers of complementary products and services,
and finally, the standards bodies (e.g. organizations developing and
communicating technical and other standards for actors involved).
Finally, the whole Business Ecosystem includes the Extended Enterprise along with a broad group of other stakeholders which are, to some
extent, indirectly related to the core offering such as: governmental
agencies and other regulatory organizations, investors, trade associations, labour unions and other indirect stakeholders (Moore, 1996;
Nuseibah & Wolff, 2015).
Fig. 5. Integrated Business Ecosystem Pie Model and BMC.
188
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Table 3
BMC evolution mechanism triggered by the introduction of new technology.
The integrated Business Ecosystem Pie Model presented in Fig. 5
is able to classify the identified participants of a business ecosystem,
based on their level of dependence on the ecosystem’s value proposition
(High (H) - Core Business; Medium (M) - Extended Enterprise; Low (L) remainder of business ecosystem participants). This allows the modeller
to define the right place for the modelled entity and identify the closely
related actors with strongest influence on its internal business model.
The actor level constructs, initially presented in the Ecosystem Pie
Model, are here replaced with the BMCs of the participating entities,
enhancing the business models’ level of detail.
Thus, the integration of Ecosystem Pie model and BMC presented on
Fig. 5 already corresponds with the two of the three pillars — creating
a link between the holistic and detailed views on business modelling.
The next section follows this link, defining the detailed perspective of
the Integrative Business Modelling approach.
Steps of Teece’s business model innovation plan
BMC elements to be updated
1. Select technologies and features to be
embedded in the product/service
Key Resources
2. Determine benefit to customer from
consuming/using the product/service
Value Propositions
3. Identify market segments to be targeted
Customer Segments
Channels
Customer Relationships
4. Confirm available revenue streams
Revenue Streams
5. Design mechanisms to capture value
Key Activities
Key Partnerships
Cost Structure
in the research of Teece (2010). However, as stated earlier, Teece’s
framework lacks the high level of detail provided by the BMC.
In order to achieve the necessary ability to transform without
decreasing the level of detail of the business model, the business modelling approach defined by the current work creates a BMC innovation
algorithm (Table 3) based on the step plan of Teece’s business model
innovation framework.
As it is shown on Table 3, the first step of the business model
innovation mechanism is the selection of technologies and features
to be embedded into the business model. According to Baden-Fuller
and Haefliger (2013), it is important to emphasize that the technology
should be ‘‘open" for the company. It means that the technology should
be either developed within the organization, or the company should
have direct access to it (not restricted by intellectual property rights,
patents etc.).
The first step of the business model innovation mechanism is related
to the update of the Key Resources element, while the initial BMC
filling mechanism begins with the definition of the targeted Customer
Segments. This can be explained by the difference in the preliminary
triggers of the business modelling process (Dosi, 1982). The main
trigger of the original BMC is the market-pull, while the BMC evolution mechanism provided in Table 3 is activated by the technologypush. The business modelling process triggered by the technology-push
begins with a new technology available on the market i.e. a new
available Key Resource (Johnson et al., 2008). A new Key Resource
can provide new opportunities, which could become the new Value
Propositions that the company could work with. Only at this point, the
technology–push triggered business modelling process begins to define
the relevant Customer Segments, that would be interested in these new
Value Propositions.
3.2. Step 2 - detailed view: Business model canvas
After the definition of the business ecosystem surrounding the organization and its desired position into this network of stakeholders, the
next modelling step would be zooming into the organization’s internal
detailed business model through the use of the BMCs, integrated into
the Business Ecosystem Pie Model. The BMC filling mechanism has a
clear and fixed order (as explained in Section 2.1), visualized in Fig. 6:
It is important to emphasize the fact that, the authors of the BMC
framework set the definition of the targeted Customer Segments as the
first step of the business modelling process, setting the market-pull as
the main trigger of this framework. The main objective, of the business
modelling process triggered by the market-pull, is to find the right
customers and satisfy their needs for a descent remuneration.
The use of the described BMC modelling mechanism allows for
the detailed description of the elements of the business models of the
players of every market, including the fast technologically developing
ones. The only issue lies in the static nature of BMC and absence of its
transformation mechanism triggered by the technology-push.
3.3. Step 3 - transformation mechanism: BMC evolution, triggered by the
introduction of new technology
Companies participating into the markets rapidly evolving due to
the technological developments, need to have an opportunity to continuously adjust their business models. Consequently, the static business
modelling approach, such as BMC, becomes less efficient in this case.
A more dynamic approach, focused on the innovation of the business model through the introduction of a new technology, is offered
Fig. 6. Interconnections between the elements of Business Model Canvas.
189
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Fig. 7. Visualization of the BMC evolution mechanism triggered by the technological innovation.
The innovation process of the BMC elements triggered by the introduction of new technology described in Table 3 is presented in
Fig. 7.
It is noticeable, that the main difference of Fig. 7 with the initial
BMC filling mechanism (presented in Fig. 6) is the new connection
between the Key Resources and the Value Propositions (marked with red
arrow), starting the modelling process. Another noticeable change is the
one-sided arrow from the Value Propositions to the Customer Segments,
meaning that the definition of the Customer Segments is based on the
already defined Value Propositions. Thus, the starting filling order of the
elements has changed while the majority of the other interconnections
between the elements remain unchanged.
Moreover, it is important to emphasize that the modelling process
presented in Fig. 8 has a reiterative nature. In other words, after completing the third step, the process restarts. The modeller proceeds again
to the first step and reassesses the consequences of the transformation
caused by the introduction of the new technology for the business
ecosystem (e.g. evolution of the ecosystem’s core value proposition, reorganization of the dependencies of the participating entities, revision
of the company’s position into the evolved ecosystem, etc.). Finally,
the modeller proceeds to the detailed view, making the business model
again ready for the introduction of a new technological development.
4. Application of the integrative business modelling approach on
the EV charging market
3.4. Summary: Integrative business modelling approach
To validate the business modelling approach defined in the previous
section, the current paper applies it on the core participants of the EV
charging market. As it was already mentioned in Section 1, the recent
evolution of EV charging market is quite remarkable, considering the
substantial growth in number of EVs, total number of charging points
and continuous emergence of new relevant technologies.
It is also important to mention that the defined business models
should be seen only as the use-cases of the integrative business modelling approach and the examples of the archetypical business models
of the entities existing on the EV charging market. More specifically, the
research does not include the business models of particular companies,
introducing the business model archetypes (collective and average
business models of the relevant types of players).
This section provides a short summary of the previously described
business modelling process, offering additional insights for its more
efficient use.
The modelling process of the integrative business modelling approach, defined in the current paper, comprises of three reiterative
steps, presented in Fig. 8.
4.1. Data collection
The core of the EV charging business ecosystem consists of three
entity types (Section 4.2): Equipment Manufacturer (EM), Charge Point
Operator (CPO) and Mobility Service Provider (MSP). The current
research formulates business model archetypes of these entity types,
based on seven business models of the current participants of the EV
charging market on Belgian and/or European level:
• EM: Powerdale, Alfen (Alfen, 2020; Powerdale, 2020)
• CPO: Fastned, Allego, Blue Corner (Allego, 2020; BlueCorner,
2021; Fastned, 2020)
• MSP: New Motion, Plugsurfing (NewMotion, 2020; Plugsurfing,
2020)
Fig. 8. Schematic overview of Integrative Business Modelling Approach.
The first step creates a holistic view on the company’s surroundings,
defines its business ecosystem and the company’s place in it. The second
step zooms in to the company’s internal business model and creates
a detailed view on the composition and contents of its elements. The
third step introduces a new technological development into the defined
internal business model and transforms it in accordance to this new
resource.
The information filled into the business models is firstly retrieved
from the existing open sources and then validated, complemented
and/or corrected by the means of a set of semi-structured interviews (Seidman, 2006) with the representatives of each entity type
190
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Table 4
Description of participants of EV charging infrastructure (Alfen, 2020; Brugel, 2020; Cauwer et al., 2018; Ferwerda, Bayings,
van der Kam, & Bekkers, 2018; Pandazis et al., 2017; Sibelga, 2020).
Participants
Description
EV
EV
EV
EV
Companies producing and selling EVs.
Organizations or individuals owning the EVs.
Persons, who directly use the EVs.
market:
manufacturers
owners
users
Energy market:
Transmission System Operators (TSO)
Distribution System Operators (DSO)
Energy Suppliers
Charging infrastructure:
Equipment Manufacturer (EM)
Charge Point Operator (CPO)
Mobility Service Provider (MSP)
Real estate:
Location Holder
Governmental agents:
Regulators
Policy makers
Companies transmitting high-voltage electricity over the long
distances.
Companies transforming high-voltage electricity to medium- and
low-voltage and distributing this electricity locally to their end
consumers.
Companies that buy energy on the wholesale markets and resell it
to the end consumers.
Companies producing the wide variety of equipment used for
charging of the EVs.
Companies installing, maintaining and managing the EV charging
points.
Companies that grant the access to the EV charging services to the
EV users.
Owner of the ground where the charging point is located.
Governmental organizations controlling the correct application of
laws and regulations in the involved market.
Group of people generating the aforementioned laws and
regulations.
Appendix. Afterwards, the defined business models of the companies
were merged per entity type, maintaining the similar and/or strongly
related to the core value proposition elements, and eliminating peculiarities of the company (related to location, special offers etc.). As an
outcome, the current paper offers several examples of the archetypical
business models of the core participants of the EV charging business
ecosystem, along with their transformation mechanism caused by the
introduction of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology.
As it is presented in Fig. 10, there are three types of companies into
the core of the EV charging business ecosystem: EM, CPO and MSP.
The core business of these companies is directly related to the charging
activities of the EVs, which makes them highly dependent on the EV
charging business ecosystem’s core value proposition. For the other
stakeholders described in Section 4.2, the EV charging activities have
rather indirect influence on the business, and thus, lower dependence
rates.
As the second pillar of the Integrative Business Modelling approach
is the detailed definition of the all the internal elements of the business
models, the following subsections define the archetypical BMCs of these
core participants of EV charging business ecosystem.
4.2. Definition of the EV charging business ecosystem
According to Cauwer et al. (2018), the value chain of the EV
charging infrastructure has numerous stakeholders, that are grouped
by the common markets or niches (EV market, Energy market, Core
of EV Charging Infrastructure, Location Holders, Regulators and Policy
makers) and are presented in Fig. 9.
The description of each of the participants of EV charging infrastructure follows in Table 4.
4.4. Step 2 - detailed view: BMCs of the core participants of the EV charging
business ecosystem
4.4.1. BMC: Equipment manufacturer
The EMs are the companies producing the equipment for charging of
the EVs. Even though EMs include a wide range of companies producing
different products, the current research concentrates mostly on the
producers of the electric vehicle charging points (EVCPs) - the core
product for this kind of activity. The business model archetype of the
EV charging EMs is presented in Fig. 11.
The traditional BMC filling mechanism begins from the customer
perspective on the right side of the framework, i.e. with the definition
of Customer Segments. The Customer Segments of EV charging EM can be
4.3. Step 1 - holistic view: Business ecosystem Pie model of EV charging
business ecosystem
According to Section 2, the first step of the Integrative Business
Modelling approach is the holistic view. Thus, it becomes relevant
to place the participants of the EV charging infrastructure into the
Integrated Business Ecosystem Pie framework (Fig. 10).
Fig. 9. EV charging infrastructure structure with the relevant actors and roles (Cauwer et al., 2018).
191
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
4.4.2. BMC: Charge point operator
The CPOs are the companies installing, maintaining and managing
the EVCPs, being highly dependent on the EV charging business ecosystem’s core value offering. The business model of an archetypical CPO
is presented in Fig. 12.
As it becomes clear from Fig. 12 the Customer Segments of a CPO can
be, analogically to EM, divided in B2B and B2C types. The B2B segment
includes: (a) MSPs interoperable with the CPO, that pay a fee for the
charging activities of their customer EV users on EVCPs managed by
the CPO and (b) location holders, that pay a fee to the CPOs for
maintenance and management of their privately owned EVCPs. The
B2C segment includes the EV users without MSP subscriptions, willing
to directly charge on EVCPs managed by the CPO. The EV users with
MSP subscription could be considered as the indirect customers, paying
a fee to the MSP, which shares it with the CPO (by paying the CPO fee).
The CPOs have a set of Value Propositions, targeting every Customer
Segment. For the MSPs, a CPO can offer the network of controlled
EVCPs where the MSPs’ customers would be able to charge their
EVs. The additional value propositions are the access to the charging
data, localization and status of EVCPs. For the EV users without MSP
subscription, a CPO can offer a direct access to charging. Finally, for the
location holders, willing to own EVCPs, a CPO can offer a set of technical services, including installation, management and maintenance of
chargers.
The Channels through which a CPO reaches its customers include
the network of EVCPs itself, IT platform for the management of this
network (also interacting with customers), and other ordinary communication means, e.g. personal presence of representatives of the
company, internet (website, social media, e-mail etc.), telephone etc.
The Customer Relationships, analogically to EMs, are generally automated, becoming more personal and individual only in case of direct
technical services.
The Revenue Streams of a CPO typically comprise of: (a) a CPO
fee, paid by MSPs for charging activities of their customers, (b) the
EVCPs installation, management and maintenance fees, paid by location holders and (c) direct charging fees, paid by EV users without MSP
subscription.
From the internal business perspective, a CPO performs the following Key Activities: installation of own and customers’ EVCPs network
(including reparation of the local energy system); connection of the
EVCPs to the electric and data cables; test of the charging process;
management of EVCPs (including opening connection, control of all the
network’s charging sessions, consumption following of each user, detection of consumption patterns etc.); R&D activities; technical support;
software development and other minor operational activities. The Key
Resources allowing the Key Activities to be performed include primarily
skilled HR, developed specialized software and, obviously, the owned
network of EVCPs.
Regarding Key Partnerships, a CPO requires assistance for the provision of interoperability services (through RSPs), the energy to CPO’s
network of EVCPs is distributed by DSOs and supplied by energy
suppliers. Moreover, CPOs participate into a regulated market, making
the governmental agencies also key partners. Finally, a CPO can engage
itself into a partnership with an EM, for common projects and/or R&D
activities.
The Cost Structure of a CPO comprises of several main costs: cost
of supplied energy, EVCPs purchase, depreciation, management and
maintenance costs, salary and other HR remuneration costs, and finally,
the costs related to hardware and software.
Fig. 10. Integrated EV charging Business Ecosystem Pie.
divided into two groups: residential (B2C) and business (B2B). The B2C
segment includes the EV users buying the EVCPs and other equipment
for private consumption. The B2B segment includes the location holders
(e.g. business centres, malls etc.) and other companies (e.g. CPOs)
buying the EVCPs for internal (for their own employees) and/or public
use.
The Value Propositions of an EM, linked to its targeted Customer
Segments, are the ranges of slow residential EVCPs for private use,
faster EVCPs for semi-public (business) locations and ultra-fast EVCPs
intended for on-the-road charging.
An EM has three different types of Channels, linking it with its
Customer Segments: sales, installation and communication. An EM can
sell its product either directly (personal/online shops) or through authorized retailers; the installation of EVCPs happens though authorized
installers and/or CPOs; and finally, the company uses ordinary communication channels to contact its Customer Segments: website, social
media, telephone, email etc.
An EMs’ Customer Relationships range from automated to personal,
depending on the situation. In a perfect scenario, the customer purchases an EVCP online or through retailers and the installer company
delivers and installs it. The personal contact of EM with the customer
is necessary only in the case of technical issues.
After the customer perspective and the Value Propositions, the BMC
filling mechanism proceeds with the financial perspective, i.e. the
Revenue Streams. The main source of revenue for the EV charging EMs
is the sales of the EVCPs and charging equipment.
The next step is the definition of Key Activities: the manufacturing
of EVCPs, research and development, sales and customer communications. The Key Resources allowing for the performance of the EM’s Key
Activities are the manufacturing sites and skilled human resources (HR).
The list of Key Partnerships of EM mainly includes the EV manufacturers, working together with EMs on R&D of innovative EV charging
solutions, CPOs (and/or EVCP installers), retailers and governmental
regulators. It is noticeable that all these entities participate into the EV
charging business ecosystem, being, however a non-complete list of its
participants. This is another demonstration of the lack of holistic view
in the BMC approach. Finally, the second part of financial perspective
is the Cost Structure. The key costs of an EV charging EM are mostly
related to the production process (cost of materials, depreciation of
equipment etc.), amortization of equipment and remuneration of HR.
4.4.3. BMC: Mobility service provider
Mobility Service Providers are the companies that grant access to
EV charging services to the EV users. Obviously, the functioning of this
company type is directly related to the core value proposition of the EV
charging business ecosystem. The business model archetype of an MSP
is presented in Fig. 13.
192
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
As it is defined in Fig. 13 the Customer segments of the MSPs,
analogically to the other participants of the core of EV charging business ecosystem, can be divided into B2B an B2C types. In this case,
both customer types are the direct users of charging services. The B2B
segment includes the companies owning the EVs for employee usage,
while the B2C segment, users of private EVs. For both Customer segments
the MSP offers the following set of Value Propositions: access to charging
services (through mobile app and/or RFID charge cards), mobile app
and website (granting access to charging data, payment services, billing
and customer support). For companies owning EV fleets, MSPs typically
offer access to the whole set of fleet charging data, allowing the
optimization of the charging sessions, manage tariffs and costs.
The main Channels linking MSPs and their customers are the interoperable partners’ EVCPs and own mobile app. The list of communication
channels, obviously, includes the usual means as well (e.g. telephone,
e-mail etc.). The Customer Relationships are almost fully automated,
seldom requiring personal presence of company’s representatives.
From the financial perspective, MSPs’ main Revenue Stream is the
EV charging fee. However, the additional income could be generated
through subscription fees and RFID card sales.
Fig. 11. Business Model Canvas: Equipment Manufacturer (Alfen, 2020; Powerdale, 2020).
Fig. 12. EV Business Model Canvas: Charge Point Operator (Allego, 2020; EVBox, 2020; Fastned, 2020).
193
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Fig. 13. Business Model Canvas: Mobile Service Provider (NewMotion, 2020; Plugsurfing, 2020).
The Key Activities of an MSP include mainly software-related tasks,
like management and maintenance of mobile app, IT platform and
system granting access to EV charging, processing of payment, analysis
of charging tariffs etc. Moreover, the set of Key Activities also includes
the customer support services.
By taking into consideration the Key Activities, it becomes obvious
that the list of MSP’s Key Resources mostly includes the software (mobile
app, IT platform, website etc.) and skilled HR. The Key Partnerships
of an MSP are also quite straightforward, being the CPOs, location
holders, EMs, RSPs, fleet managers and EV leasing/sharing companies.
Concerning the Cost structure, the main cost of MSPs is the CPO (or
other EVCP owner) fee, paid for charging of MSPs’ customers. Finally,
MSPs have relatively high hard- and software costs, along with HR
remuneration.
4.5.1. Equipment manufacturer
The introduction of the V2G technology would transform the business model archetype of an EV charging EM to the state that is presented in Fig. 14 (changes are marked in blue).
As it is mentioned in Section 3.3, the BMC transformation process
begins with the introduction of the new technology into its list of
Key Resources. The Key Resources of the updated EMs’ BMC would
include the V2G manufacturing sites and specialists, creating a new
Value Proposition: the V2G charging systems. This new Value Proposition
is expected to be offered to the existing Customer Segments. The Channels
and Customer Relationships are also expected to remain unchanged,
while the Revenue Streams would be supplemented by the sales of V2G
charging systems. From the internal business perspective, the list of
Key Activities would include the manufacturing of V2G chargers and
R&D in the V2G domain. The Key Partnerships are expected to remain
unchanged, and finally, the Cost Structure would incorporate the costs
related to the manufacturing of V2G chargers (materials, HR, R&D).
4.5. Step 3 - transformation mechanism: Evolution of the BMCs of the core
participants of EV charging business ecosystem, triggered by the introduction
of a new technology (vehicle-to-grid)
4.5.2. Charge point operator
The introduction of the V2G technology into the business model of
a CPO is expected to transform it to the state presented in Fig. 15.
After the transformation of CPOs’, the list of their Key Resources
would include the V2G charging systems, along with the traditional
one-way chargers. The introduction of V2G chargers would allow the
CPOs to offer new Value Propositions: discharging and grid balancing
services. These new services would expand the list of CPOs’ Customer
Segments by two types of entities: the DSOs, interested in grid balancing,
and the energy suppliers, that would buy the discharged energy from
the EV users. While the CPOs’ Customer Relationships and Channels are
not expected to show any substantial charges (except, obviously, of
the inclusion of V2G chargers into the Channels list), the new Value
Propositions and Customer Segments would allow CPOs to create two new
types of Revenue Streams. The energy suppliers would pay back-to-thegrid fee as a part of the purchase price of the energy bought from the
EV users, while the grid balancing services fee would be paid by the
DSOs for the smart use of V2G chargers and energy storage. The latter
is due to the opportunity for the EV users to discharge energy back
to the grid during peak hours and balance the grid. The list of Key
As the current business model archetypes of the core participants
of the EV charging business ecosystem are defined, the next step of
the application of the integrative business modelling approach is the
introduction of an innovative technology into the existing business
models.
One of the innovative technologies currently entering the EV charging market is the Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technology. The V2G allows
EVs to discharge electricity from the EV battery back to the grid
or energy storage. Obviously, the core participants of the EV charging business ecosystem have to take this innovation into account.
Therefore, it becomes relevant to introduce the V2G technology into
the business models of these companies (Sovacool, Kester, Noel, &
de Rubens, 2020).
The following sections delineate the updates of the defined business
models, triggered by the introduction of the V2G technology. These
evolutionary prospects are done by making use of the mechanism
defined in Section 3.3.
194
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Fig. 14. Evolved BMC: Equipment Manufacturer + V2G technology (changes are marked in blue) (Alfen, 2020; Powerdale, 2020). (For interpretation of the references to colour
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Activities would be expanded by the maintenance and management of
V2G chargers, discharging and grid balancing processes. An interesting
update is to be noticed into the list of Key Partnerships, where the EV
users become CPOs’ partners, providing the energy to be sold back to
the grid. Finally, the Cost structure would include the costs related to
V2G chargers ownership (depreciation, maintenance etc.) and the new
specialized HR and/or education of the existing HR.
4.5.3. Mobile service provider
The core business of an MSP is the provision of access to the
charging services, while the introduction of the V2G technology into its
business model would allow to add the access to discharging services as
well. Fig. 16 presents the schematic overview of the updated business
model of an MSP.
Fig. 15. Evolved BMC: Charge Point Operator + V2G technology (changes are marked in blue) (Allego, 2020; EVBox, 2020; Fastned, 2020; Noel, de Rubens, Kester, & Sovacool,
2018; Sovacool, Noel, Axsen, & Kempton, 2018). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
195
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Fig. 16. Evolved BMC: Mobile Service Provider + V2G technology (changes are marked in blue) (NewMotion, 2020; Noel et al., 2018; Plugsurfing, 2020; Sovacool et al., 2018).
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Considering the fact that the core business of a traditional MSP
is neither related to the production nor to the ownership of charging
systems, the main update of the MSPs’ Key Resources, in the light of
the introduction of V2G technology, would be related to the HR with
V2G specific knowledge and to the development (or update) of V2G
related software. The main new Value Proposition would be the granting
of access to EV discharging with all the derived minor Value Propositions
(e.g. access to discharging data, localization of V2G chargers, processing of payments and paybacks etc.). The list of Customer Segments, along
with the Channels and Customer Relationships is not expected to change
except of the introduction of energy suppliers as indirect customers.
The energy suppliers would buy the energy from the EV users and
pay the discharging fee. The latter is expected to become one of the
new Revenue Streams. Another potential Revenue Stream could be the
access fee paid by the EV users in order to get access to the discharging
services. The new Key Activities would be generally related to the
management of IT systems related to discharging (including energy
data, paybacks etc.). Considering the fact that the EV users would sell
the energy through discharging, the MSPs become intermediary agents
and EV users become one of their Key Partners. The Cost Structure would
expand with the costs related to V2G software development and HR
with field-specific skills.
As it becomes clear from the transformed business models of the
core participants of EV charging market (Fig. 14, 15, 16), the V2G
technology has a non-disruptive effect, maintaining and supplementing
the existing Value Propositions. The introduction of V2G technology
even reinforces the networking bounds between the entities within
the ecosystem. The DSOs, TSOs and energy suppliers, along with the
remaining on the partners’ side, become also customers interested in
grid balancing services. At the same time, the EV users, while remaining
customers, become also partners — prosumers, injecting the energy
back to the grid.
However, according to the interviewed companies Appendix and
available literature (Geske & Schumann, 2018; Hoj, Juhl, & Lindegaard,
2018; Sovacool, Axsen, & Kempton, 2017), the current influence of V2G
technology on EV charging business ecosystem is quite low. This is due
to the fact that the V2G technology is still in its infancy phase and the
number of EVs, despite their impressive growth in the last decade, has
not yet reached the critical mass in order to show significant influence
on the centralized energy grids.
Therefore, the introduction of V2G technology at this point in time
would not show a direct strong impact on the EV charging business
ecosystem and thus would not alter its current state, presented in
Fig. 10.
The future prospects concerning the long-term influence of the V2G
technology look much more promising (Richardson, 2013; Sovacool
et al., 2020; Steward, 2017). The increase of number of EVs, along with
the further technological developments (especially in the fields of EV
battery capacity, efficiency and/or power level of V2G chargers), would
definitely increase the influence of V2G technology on the centralized
grids managed by DSOs and TSOs (e.g. elimination of power losses, grid
balancing, reduction of grid maintenance and reinforcement costs). The
EV users, discharging energy back to the grid, would be able to count on
a considerable income. All this is expected to supplement the core value
proposition of EV charging business ecosystem with the discharging
services and enforce the dependencies of the previously mentioned
actors on this core value proposition (Fig. 17, changes marked in red).
4.6. Reiteration and discussion of results
As mentioned in the description of integrative business modelling
mechanism (Section 3.4), the current business modelling approach is
reiterative in its nature. The last step of the process initiates its restart
from the first step.
The first step of the integrative business modelling process is the
holistic view. Thus, the main point of the discussion of the results
retrieved from the previous sections is to assess the influence of the
introduction of V2G technology into the business models of the core
participants on the whole EV charging business ecosystem. This would
allow to stabilize the holistic and detailed perspectives of the defined
business models and make them ready for the next introduction of new
technological developments.
196
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Modelling approach, defined in the current paper, meets the stated
business modelling requirements.
5.1. Limitations and prospects for future research
First of all, as the defined business modelling approach is purely
qualitative, it does not consider any profitability or viability aspects of
the business models. Therefore, the practical utilization of the current
approach in the real use cases should be complemented by quantitative
methods. The business model quantification framework (based on ROI
(Return on Investment), EBIT (Earnings Before Interests and Taxes)
or other quantitative analyses) for the participants of fast technologically evolving markets would be a very valuable next research step,
complementing the qualitative Integrative Business Modelling framework defined in this paper. A first attempt in that direction has been
presented by Goncearuc et al. (2021).
Furthermore, as the main contribution of the current paper is of
a conceptual character, it is important to mention that its empirical
part (Section 4) serves only as a validation and expository use-case of
the defined business modelling approach. The defined business models
of the core participants of EV charging market can by no means be
considered as the only possible configurations of the business models
of these entity types. Finally, the present study could be enriched with
more empirical evidence and use-cases from different business sectors
to further validate the defined business modelling approach.
Fig. 17. Integrated EV charging/discharging Business Ecosystem Pie (changes are
marked in red). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Andrei Goncearuc: Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing
– review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology.
Nikolaos Sapountzoglou: Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Project administration. Cedric De Cauwer: Project administration,
Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Thierry Coosemans: Supervision, Funding acquisition. Maarten Messagie: Funding acquisition, Supervision. Thomas Crispeels: Writing – review & editing,
Supervision.
The further development and widespread use of V2G technology
can make the EV users the direct suppliers of the discharged energy,
while DSOs and TSOs would be the distribution channels. As it follows
from the initial business ecosystem concept (Moore, 1996), presented
in Fig. 4, the direct suppliers and distribution channels are part of the
Core Business group of stakeholders of a business ecosystem. Thus,
the EV users, DSOs and TSOs are expected to show High dependency
on the core value proposition of the EV charging/discharging business
ecosystem, as it is shown in Fig. 17.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
5. Conclusions
Data availability statement
In this paper, a business modelling approach was defined to serve
as a tool in helping companies: (a) to participate in a fast technologically evolving market, (b) to determine the desired positions into the
ecosystem, (c) to come up with detailed definitions of the (current
or desired) business models and (d) to construct the roadmaps for
their evolution. The resulting Integrative Business Modelling approach
is based on three pillars: (a) holistic view, (b) detailed view and (c)
transformation mechanism. It combines the integration of Moore’s Business Ecosystem (Moore, 1996) and Ecosystem Pie Model (Talmar et al.,
2020) frameworks (as a tool for external outlook), Business Model
Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) (as a framework for a detailed
definition of a business model) and Teece’s dynamic business model
innovation mechanism (Teece, 2010), covering the business modelling
needs of the participants of the markets, developing under the impulse
of technological change, from various perspectives.
As it follows from the practical application of the defined approach
on the EV charging market (Section 4), the Integrative Business Modelling approach is able to give a detailed qualitative overview of a
particular business, going from the general definition of the company’s
surroundings on different levels to the specific definition of company’s
internal structure, offering, eventually the mechanism for its update.
Thus, it becomes possible to conclude that the Integrative Business
The Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) partners’ business models data
and EV charging data used during the current study is not publicly
available due to privacy reasons.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Flanders Innovation &
Entrepreneurship as funder of the OPTIBIDS project. They also want
to thank Flanders Make and Flux50 for support to our team.
Funding
This research was funded by Vlaams Agentschap Innoveren & Ondernemen (VLAIO) in the framework of the OPTIBIDS project with
grant number HBC.2018.0519.
Appendix
See Table A.1.
197
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Table A.1
Interviews.
Company name
Powerdale
Fastned
New Motion
Company type
EM, CPO
CPO
MSP
1. Does your company manufacture
the EV charging equipment internally
or the manufacturing is (partially)
outsourced?
Powerdale manufactures EV
charging equipment fully
internally
Fastned buys hardware from different EMs
(e.g. ABB), being a CPO and NOT
equipment manufacturer
Outsourced, but production happens
fully under control of New Motion
1.1. Which types of activities does
your company generally outsource?
EVCP sales (to the resellers)
and installation (to installer
companies)
No outsource inside the limits of the CPO
function
EVCPs installation (to installer
companies)
1.2. Most significant types of costs
related to manufacturing?
Materials, HR
Full product price (EVCPs are fully bought
from the third party)
Materials, HR
2. How would you estimate the
division of your company’s activities?
Mainly EM, to a lesser extend
CPO
Fully CPO
Fully MSP
2.1. Vertical integration or horizontal
integration?
Horizontal integration
Mix of vertical and horizontal integration
(vertical, inside the CPO function;
horizontal outside the CPO core functions)
Vertical integration
3. Does your company install its
charge points by itself or by the
means of partner installer companies?
Partner installer companies
Fastned installs the charging stations by
itself
Not applicable
4. Is your company active in the
provision of public, semi-public
(business) and private EV charging
infrastructure?
Mainly semi-public and
private
Public only
Private, semi-public and public
4.1. Which of these markets shows
more potential for V2G?
Semi-public
Semi-public (e.g. at work)
Private and semi-public
5. Does your company own the
locations where the charging stations
are installed?
No (Powerdale manages and
maintains EVCPs of several
chosen customers on their
private locations)
Typically rent but depending on the
location could also own
No (New Motion does not own
neither the locations nor the EVCP
network, being both a MSP and
EVCP supplier
6. Main cost types of management
and maintenance EVCP network?
Not applicable
HR, materials
HR (mainly IT specialists,
maintaining the interconnection
between the EVCPs with the owners
of which New Motion has contacts)
7. What are your main cost types
related to the IT platforms’
maintenance?
HR
HR
HR
8. Which cost type is, in general, the
most significant for your company?
HR since the manufacturing in
Powerdale is of relatively
small scale and the process is
quite labour intensive
Fastned is making very massive initial
investments in infrastructure, which are
planned to give the company the first
mover advantage. Obviously, it is linked
with significant costs. However, on the long
term, one of the most significant costs
would be HR.
HR since New Motion is generally a
software company
9. Does your company issue any
connection fee, if the EV remains
plugged in after its battery is fully
charged?
Not applicable
No. The ultra-fast charging niche Fastned
occupies, does not experience the over
connection problems. Therefore, these fees
are useless.
No answer
10. Does your company operate on
the charging stations produced
and/or owned by third parties?
Yes. Powerdale has a limited
set of customers to whom the
company provides exclusive
CPO services (being in general
an EM)
Yes. Fastned purchases chargers produced
by different manufacturers and operates all
of them.
Not applicable. New Motion neither
produces nor operates EVCPs
11. Is your company the holder of
the contract with the energy
suppliers, for the owned EV charge
points?
Not applicable
Yes
No
12. Could you please elaborate on
your company’s pricing mechanism
concerning public EV charging?
Not applicable
The Fastned public charging pricing
mechanism is based on a kWh fee which is
designed taking in consideration the energy
costs and generating a descent ROI which
would cover the massive initial investments.
Payment is based on kWh fee
13. Does your company consider the
introduction of V2G charging stations
into its business model?
Yes, Powerdale is willing to
pioneer on the V2G field in
the near future
No. Fastned is planning to concentrate itself
only on ultra-fast EV charging.
Yes
13.1. Which opportunities, according
to you, could V2G technology bring
to your company?
Extension of the product range
According to Fastned, V2G does not make
any economic sense for a business model of
a CPO concentrated on fast public charging.
Additional revenue sources from
granting access to the discharging
services for EV users.
Questionnaire
198
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. Journal
Of Strategic Information Systems, 24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.002.
References
MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal
Of Marketing, 75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136.
Alfen (2020). Alfen enabling the energy transition. Retrieved from https://ir.alfen.com/
system/files/downloads/Alfen%20Annual%20Report%202020.pdf.
Allego (2020). Laadpaal voor onderweg? Bekijk onze laadoplossingen - Allego.
Retrieved from https://www.allego.eu/nl-be/zakelijk/onderweg.
Baden-Fuller, C., & Haefliger, S. (2013). Business models and technological innovation.
Long Range Planning, 46, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.023.
Bankvall, L., Dubois, A., & Lind, F. (2017). Conceptualizing business models in
industrial networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.indmarman.2016.04.006.
BlueCorner (2021). Elektrisch rijden was nog nooit zo makkelijk. Retrieved from
https://www.bluecorner.be/nl/over-blue-corner/.
Broekhuizen, T. L., Broekhuis, M., Gijsenberg, M. J., & Wieringa, J. E. (2021).
Introduction to the special issue – digital business models: A multi-disciplinary
and multi-stakeholder perspective. Journal Of Business Research, 122, 847–852.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.014.
Brugel (2020). Marktspelers op de energiemarkt. Retrieved from https://www.brugel.
brussels/nl_BE/themes/de-marktspelers-10/introductie-86.
Cauwer, C. D., Guillemot, A., Cragues, G., Mierlo, J. V., Coosemans, T., & Messagie, M.
(2018). Towards EU-wide interoperability of charging infrastructure for electric
vehicles - the belgian case. In 31st International electric vehicle symposium and
exhibition, EVS 2018 and international electric vehicle technology conference 2018.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in
capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology
spin-off companies. Industrial And Corporate Change, 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
icc/11.3.529.
Cowan, A. (2012). Starting a tech business: A practical guide for anyone creating or
designing applications or software (1st ed.). (pp. 58–60). John Wiley & Sons.
Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation
devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.respol.2009.08.002.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. a suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research
Policy, 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6.
EVBox (2020). Een alles-in-één-laadoplossing | EVBox. Retrieved from https://evbox.
com/be-nl/producten.
Fastned (2020). Prices | Fastned. Retrieved from https://fastnedcharging.com/en/evcharging-price.
Ferwerda, R., Bayings, M., van der Kam, M., & Bekkers, R. (2018). Advancing E-roaming
in europe: Towards a single ‘‘language’’ for the European charging infrastructure.
World Electric Vehicle Journal, 9, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/wevj9040050.
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2013). The St. Gallen business model
navigator. International Journal Of Product Development, 18.
Geske, J., & Schumann, D. (2018). Willing to participate in vehicle-to-grid (V2G)? Why
not!. Energy Policy, 120, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.004.
Goncearuc, A., Sapountzoglou, N., De Cauwer, C., Messagie, M., Coosemans, T.,
& Crispeels, T. (2021). Business model quantification framework for the core
participants of the EV charging market. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.3390/wevj12040229.
Hartigh, E. D., & Asseldonk, T. V. (2004). Business ecosystems : A research framework
for investigating the relation between network structure , firm strategy , and the
pattern of innovation diffusion. In In ECCON 2004 annual meeting: Co-jumping on a
Trampoline, The Netherlands.
Hoj, J. C. M. L., Juhl, L. T., & Lindegaard, S. B. (2018). V2G-an economic
gamechanger in E-mobility? World Electric Vehicle Journal, 9, http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/wevj9030035.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Keystones and dominators: framing operating and
technology strategy in a business ecosystem. Working paper, Harvard Business
School.
IEA (2021). Global EV outlook 2021 - accelerating ambitions despite the pandemic. In
Global EV outlook 2021.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business
model. Harvard Business Review, 86.
Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool
to design more sustainable business models. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 135,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067.
Konietzko, J., Bocken, N., & Hultink, E. J. (2020). Circular ecosystem innovation: An
initial set of principles. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 253, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2019.119942.
Langley, D. J., van Doorn, J., Ng, I. C., Stieglitz, S., Lazovik, A., & Boonstra, A. (2021).
The internet of everything: Smart things and their impact on business models.
Journal Of Business Research, 122, 853–863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2019.12.035.
Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model
research. Academy Of Management Annals, 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.
2014.0072.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business
ecosystems. Harper Business.
NewMotion (2020). EV laadoplossingen voor zakelijk en thuis gebruik | NewMotion
BE. Retrieved from https://newmotion.com/nl-be.
Noel, L., de Rubens, G. Z., Kester, J., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Beyond emissions and
economics: Rethinking the co-benefits of electric vehicles (EVs) and vehicle-to-grid
(V2G). Transport Policy, 71, 130–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.08.
004.
Nuseibah, A., & Wolff, C. (2015). Business ecosystem analysis framework. In Proceedings
of The 2015 IEEE 8th international conference on intelligent data acquisition and
advanced computing systems: Technology and applications, vol. 2 (pp. 501–505).
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
IDAACS.2015.7341356.
Oskam, I., Bossink, B., & de Man, A. P. (2018). The interaction between network ties
and business modeling: Case studies of sustainability-oriented innovations. Journal
Of Cleaner Production, 177, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.202.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for
visionaries, game changers, and challengers (p. 288). John Wiley & Sons.
Pandazis, J., Hann, C., Lebrun, B., Coppola, G., Dupuy, P., Hoe, M., et al.
(2017). Memorandum of understanding (MoU) foster-ing seamless and valuable
EV customer experi-ence in Europe. European Comission, Retrieved from www.
transportenvironment.org.
Peltoniemi, M., Vuori, E., & Laihonen, H. (2005). Business ecosystem as a tool for the
conceptualisation of the external diversity of an organisation. In Science and society
conference (pp. 11–14).
Plugsurfing (2020). E-mobility laadoplossingen voor bedrijven | plugsurfing. Retrieved
from https://www.plugsurfing.com/business/main.
Powerdale (2020). Electromobility | powerdale. Retrieved from https://www.
powerdale.com/en/electromobility.
Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: an integrative framework for strategy
execution. Strategic Change, 17, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsc.821.
Richardson, D. B. (2013). Encouraging vehicle-to-grid (V2G) participation through
premium tariff rates. Journal Of Power Sources, 243, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2013.06.024.
Rodrigues, V. C., & Lopes, H. E. G. (2018). The limits of the business model canvas as
a dynamic framework. In SMS Sao Paolo conference. Sao Paolo.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research : A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences, vol. 58. Teachers College Press.
Sibelga (2020). Who are we | Sibelga. Retrieved from https://www.sibelga.be/en/
sibelga-group.
Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J., & Kempton, W. (2017). The future promise of vehicle-to-grid
(V2G) integration: A sociotechnical review and research agenda. Annual Review
Of Environment And Resources, 42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ030117-020220.
Sovacool, B. K., Kester, J., Noel, L., & de Rubens, G. Z. (2020). Actors, business
models, and innovation activity systems for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology: A
comprehensive review. Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109963.
Sovacool, B. K., Noel, L., Axsen, J., & Kempton, W. (2018). The neglected social
dimensions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: A critical and systematic review.
Environmental Research Letters, 13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c6d.
Sparviero, S. (2019). The case for a socially oriented business model canvas: The social
enterprise model canvas. Journal Of Social Entrepreneurship, 10, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/19420676.2018.1541011.
Steward, D. (2017). Critical elements of vehicle-to- grid ( V2G ) economics. Nrel.
Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Holmström, J., & Romme, A. G. L. (2020).
Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The ecosystem pie model.
Long Range Planning, 53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.09.002.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range
Planning, 43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long
Range Planning, 43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal Of Management, 37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206311406265.
199
Journal of Business Research 143 (2022) 184–200
A. Goncearuc et al.
Andrei Goncearuc has obtained a Master of Science degree
in International Business and works as a Ph.D. Researcher
at MOBI (Mobility, Logistics & Automotive Technology)
Research Team of Vrije Universiteit Brussel. MOBI is one of
Belgium’s leading research centres for electromobility, socioeconomic evaluations for Andrei’s research area includes
business aspects of EV charging, along with innovative business modelling approaches for the emerging technologies in
the EV charging infrastructure (e.g. V2G).
Thierry Coosemans obtained his Ph.D. in Engineering Sciences from Ghent University in 2006. After several years in
the industry, he became a member of the MOBI research
team at the VUB, where he works now as the co-director
of the EVERGi team on sustainable energy communities.
He is currently involved in the scientific support for the
Green Energy Park Zellik, and had an active role in Flanders
Make and the Living Labs EV Flanders. On a European
level, Thierry was and is involved in the H2020 and FP7
projects SafeDrive, OPERA4FEV, SuperLIB, Smart EV-VC,
Batteries20202, GO4SEM (coord), FIVEVB, ELIPTIC, MOBILITY4EU, FUTURE-RADAR, OBELICS, INTERCONNECT,
ENSEMBLE, REDIFUEL, CEVOLVER, and RENAISSANCE,
which he coordinates. His main research interests are
the development of CO2-neutral Sustainable Local Energy
Systems, electric and hybrid propulsion systems, and the
performances of automated EV fleets, including in a V2G
perspective. Thierry Coosemans is an active member of
EARPA, EGVIA, the Bridge Initiative and Flux50.
Nikolaos Sapountzoglou received his Diploma in Electrical
and Computer Engineering from the Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki (AUTH) in 2015, specializing in Electrical
Energy. He obtained his Ph.D. in 2019 from the Grenoble
Electrical Engineering laboratory (G2Elab) of Université
Grenoble Alpes (UGA) as part of the Marie SklodowskaCurie ITN Incite. His Ph.D. research focused on fault
diagnosis in LV distribution grids with distributed generation. As of 2020, he is working on vehicle-to-grid projects
at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB).
Maarten Messagie manages R&D&I activities at the Vrije
Universiteit Brussel (VUB) in order to support the transition
towards a sustainable energy system. He works in the
research centre MOBI of the VUB in which he co-leads
the research unit EVERGi. The interdisciplinary research
unit EVERGi focuses with +25 dedicated researchers on
sustainable multi-energy systems including the integration
of electric (and automated) vehicles, with local energy
communities and thermal grids. EVERGi developed and
operates together with the ‘Green Energy Park’ a research
co-creation platform and living lab, demonstrating real-life
applications of crucial elements in the energy transition.
Cedric De Cauwer obtained his Master’s Degree in Engineering at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2011, with
a specialization in vehicle and transport technology. He
immediately joined the MOBI research group to work on
electric and hybrid vehicle technology. Since 2013, Cedric’s
Ph.D. research was funded by an IWT scholarship and focused on the prediction of energy consumption and driving
range of electric vehicles, and energy-efficient routing. He
obtained his Ph.D. in 2017, and has since continued to
apply his expertise in national and international projects.
He is currently focused on the integration of mobility
solutions (EVs, autonomous vehicles) into the electricity grid
(charging infrastructure, V2G).
Thomas Crispeels is Assistant Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel at the department of Business Technology
and Operations (BUTO). His research is situated in the
field of Technology & Innovation, with a special focus on
technology transfer and collaborative R&D in high technology industries such as the biotechnology and smart
logistics industries. Thomas teaches several courses on technology entrepreneurship and the business economics of
high-technology industries.
200
View publication stats