Business Models
Charles Baden-Fuller & Team
Cass Business School, City U. London
& Wharton School, U. Penn
NEMIND Workshop, London, May 2014
© C.Baden-Fuller not for reproduction
CENTIVE @ www.cass.city.ac.uk
Presenters: Alessandro Giudici & Simone Santoni
1
Business Model is a sophisticated device
Fundamental premise is that a Business Model is a MODEL – and so we can borrow from
science and social science and philosophy to make progress on the agenda.
–
–
–
–
We cannot see a business model directly – firms are just too complex. But simplifying
the world using this lens helps us with understanding how firms make choices and the
consequences (e.g. Amit and Zott, 2008).
Cognitive device to help managers see the possibilities in their world “manipulable” –
like a configuration (Siggelkow, 2002) but connects outside to inside (Baden-Fuller and
Mangematin, 2013)
The underlying reason is that managers think in constructs. Business models are
potentially very powerful in providing a cognitive bridge between the past (what we
see has been done) and the future (performative).
The business model could also be useful as a mechanism to classify firms in an industry
that explains puzzles: e.g. “competition” (output: Baden-Fuller & Haefliger, 2013 LRP;
Baden-Fuller & Mangematin, 2013 SO; + Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010 LRP)
© C.Baden-Fuller not for reproduction
2
Our research progress
• We are developing a classification system built upon first principles related to
how value is created and for whom. We draw upon sociological (Granovetter,
1985; Simmel, 1950; Uzzi, 1996) and economic literature (Roche and Tirole,
2006) as a starting point.
• We derive mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive business model ideal
categories (types) (e.g. Weber, 1904; Greenwood & Lawrence, 2005) that might
be robust to changing context and time.
• We explain how these categories can be generative, and that they can be used
to shed insights into what is meant by business model innovation and the role
of changes in technology; and to improve theorizing, policy and empirical work.
• Preliminary output: Paper accepted for presentation at the AOM, EGOS, and
SMS conference in 2015; Website with evolving library of exemplar cases (next
slides).
© C.Baden-Fuller not for reproduction
3
The Business Model ZooTM
http://businessmodelzoo.com
© C.Baden-Fuller not for reproduction
4
Research Agenda
For entrepreneurs and managers, it could work as a reasoning tool:
● mapping viable business models in the industry;
● exploring the pay-off of alternative business models;
● uncovering business model innovation opportunities.
For stakeholders – e.g. policy makers & VCs – it could work as a
framing tool:
● appreciating how a (new) firm creates and captures values;
● assessing firms’ resource needs;
● Enhancing resource allocation processes.
© C.Baden-Fuller not for reproduction
5
External Engagement & Impact
• Besides collecting fine-grained research data using the website, we are working
towards developing it as an (auto and facilitated) diagnostic tool kit to
encourage awareness about business model design and innovation.
• We are currently planning a pivoting phase in collaboration with network
intermediaries – e.g. venture associations, business incubators/accelerators,
and government agencies - to develop robust metrics and strengthen the
library of exemplary cases.
• The aim is to engage with a community of lead users from the SME and startup world (but not only) leveraging the multiplying power of these
intermediaries and ensuring the potential for dissemination and the
sustainability of the concepts and tools developed.
© C.Baden-Fuller not for reproduction
6
References
Amit R. and C. Zott, 2001, Value Creation in E-Business, Strategic Management Journal, 22: 493-520
Baden-Fuller C. and M. Morgan, 2010, Business Models. Long Range Planning 43: ,156-171
Baden-Fuller C. and S. Haefliger, 2013, Business Models and Technological Innovation, Long Range
Planning, 46(6): 419-426.
Baden-Fuller C. and V. Mangematin, 2013, Business Models: A Challenging Agenda, Strategic
Organization, 11(4): 418-427.
Baden-Fuller C., A. Giudici, S. Haefliger, and M. Morgan, 2015, Business Models: Concepts, Categories
and Consequences. Working Paper.
Granovetter, M.S. 1983, The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360-80.
Greenwood, R. and T.B. Lawrence, 2005. The Iron Cage in the Information Age: The Legacy and
Relevance of Max Weber for Organization Studies. Editorial, Organization Studies, 26(4): 493–499.
N. Siggelkow, 2002, Evolution towards Fit, Administrative Science Quarterly
G. Simmel, 1950, The Sociology of George Simmel (Wolff KH. eds). Free Press: Glencoe, IL.
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of
Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35-67.
M. Weber, 1969 (1904), ‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy. In Shils, E.A. and Finch H.A
(eds). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: The Free Press: 50-112.
7
The Business Model ZooTM
http://businessmodelzoo.com
© C.Baden-Fuller not for reproduction
8