the business model: a means to understand the business context of information and communication...

7/31/2019 The Business Model: A Means to Understand the Business Context of Information and Communication Technology

1/22

Institute of Economic Research

Working Paper Series

The Business Model: A Means toUnderstand the Business Context

of Information andCommunication Technology

2001/9

Jonas Hedman*

Thomas Kalling**

*)Department of InformaticsSchool of Economics and Management, Lund University

Ole Rmers vg 6, SE-223 63 LUND

Phone: +46 46 222 46 03Email:[email protected]

**)Institute of Economic ResearchSchool of Economics and Management, Lund University

P.O. Box 7080, SE-220 07 LUNDPhone: +46 46 222 46 38

Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The business model concept is becoming increasingly popular, within traditional strategy theory,

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) research, and in the emergent body of literature on

e-business. However, the concept is often used relatively independently from theory, meaning model

components and interrelations are relatively obscure. This paper proposes an outline for a theoretical

business model, as well as the theoretical underpinnings, claiming that a business model should include

customers and competitors, the offering, activities and organisation, resources and factor market

interactions, as well as the causal relations between these factors.

KEYWORDS: Business model, E-business research, Information and Communication Technology,

Strategy Theory

ISSN 1103-3010

ISRN LUSADG/IFEF/WPS-001/9-SE


2/22

2

INTRODUCTION

Business model is a term that is often used to describe the key components of a given business (a firm,

normally) or to describe a particular business. It is particularly popular among e-businesses and within

research on e-businesses (e.g. Timmers, 1998; Rappa, 2002; Allen & Fjermestad, 2001; Afuah & Tucci,

2001; Applegate, 2001; Cheng et al. 2001; Rayport & Jaworski, 2001; Weill & Vitale, 2001). Business

models are even subject to patent law, e.g. Amazon.com has a patent for one-click purchase(Rappa, 2002).

Within business research, particularly strategy research, the concept is used more sparsely (Amit & Zott,

2001, being a recent exception), even if strategy research covers many if not all of the theoretical

components that are included in the business model concept. We believe, however, that the concept has

bearing not just within e-business, but also in general business settings. True strategy change requires

profound changes of many factors, not just new market entries or product range extensions. Furthermore,

radical strategy changes means changing the entire business model anyway (Upton & McAffe, 2000).

The empirical use of the concept has been criticised for being unclear, superficial and nottheoretically grounded (Porter, 2001). But we believe that it has promise, one reason being that it could

integrate disparate strategic perspectives such as e.g. the resource-based view (RBV) and industrial

organisation (I/O), and therefore improve strategy theory. There are few integrative strategy models that

unite finer aspects of strategy, e.g. resource-bases, activities, organisational structure, products,

environmental factors etc. In fact, strategists still tend to argue about what it is that makes companies

successful, e.g. whether it is firm-internal resources (Barney, 1991), whether it is successful reconfiguration

of the value chain (Porter, 1985) or generic strategy (Porter, 1980).

A more theoretically sound definition of the business model would help the field of strategy-related

ICT research as well. Research into how ICT improves strategies and provides competitive advantage has

not recognised for instance RBV and the importance of sustainability of advantage (Ciborra, 1994; Powell

& Dent-Micallef; 1997, Sambamurthy, 2000). On a general level, it has been indicated that ICT research

tends not to be able to measure the bottom-line contribution of ICT investments the so-called IT

Productivity Paradox (e.g. Strassman, 1985; Brynjolfsson, 1993). This, we believe, is partly related to the

issues just mentioned, partly to the fact that ICT does not always contribute to business performance. In

order to contribute to performance, ICT must be acquired cleverly, it must be fit with other resources, it

must be understood and used by people, it must be aligned and embedded with organisation in a unique

way. Any improvements in activities must be materialised by an offering that increases customer-perceived

quality and/or reduces cost per unit. All these factors and their causal interrelations need to be understood

for any specific, empirically defined business model.

The aim of the paper is to provide an input as to which components should be included in a

theoretical business model, by which managers and researchers can understand the causal relationship

between ICT and business improvement. We use concepts from strategy theory, extend them with models

and concepts from strategy-related ICT research, present a theoretically generic business model, and

illustrate it conceptually. We also position the developed business model concept in relation to existing

strategy and ICT research.


3/22

3

STRATEGY THEORY

Strategy theoryconcerns the explanations of firm performance in a competitive environment (Porter,

1991). Rumelt et al. (1994) state that strategy is about the direction of organisations, and that it

includes those subjects of primary concern to senior management, or to anyone seeking reasons for

success or failure among organisations (p. 9). There are many strategy perspectives, but we shall focus

here on three paradigmatic perspectives: I/O, RBV and the Strategy Process Perspective. I/O and RBV

are both interested in competitive advantage. But their views on what competitive advantage is and on

what it is based differ. While both RBV and I/O may be seen as content-based approaches (cf. variance

theories in Markus & Robey, 1988) to strategic management, the process-based view on strategy focuses

on the processes through which strategy contents are created and managed over time.

Porter (1980) brought in the I/O perspective (cf. Bain, 1968), by claiming that external industrial

forcesaffect the work of managers. Substitute products, customers and suppliers as well as potential and

present competitors affect the possible choices of actions. The two generic strategies are 1) to differentiatethe product so as to enable a premium price, or 2) to produce with low-cost and compete with a low price

rather than quality. Porters work was further developed in 1985, with the value-chain model, in which

focus is on the activities and functions of the firm, i.e. the underlying factors that drive cost and

differentiation advantages. Thorough control over activities, and internal/external grouping of activities,

would enable firms to utilise cost and differentiation potentials through the reaping of scale advantages or

the creation of innovative forums. As will be discussed, the I/O framework has some serious shortcomings

in its neglecting of firm-internal factors.

The Porterian framework has been used extensively within ICT research. McFarlan (1984) suggests

that ICT can be used to manipulate switching costs, and erect barriers to entry. Porter and Millar

(1985) argue that information pervades every element of the value chain activities in organisations.

Therefore, ICT can be used to enhance the value chain activities to gain competitive advantage through

low cost or differentiation. Further, ICT can be used for cost rationalization (e.g. automation) and for

niche positioning (Rackoff et al., 1985). The models have been used in research into the role of ICT in

competitive pricing (Wiseman, 1985), customer and partner relationship management (Johnston &

Vitale, 1988; Ives & Mason, 1990), and ERP systems and organisational effectiveness (Hedman & Borell,

2002).

If strategy and various fields within were concerned with what firms did, a redirection took place

during the mid-1970's, towards how firms did whatever they did. With the problems firms and their

decision-makers encountered following e.g. the oil embargo, the deregulation of industries,

internationalisation, and so forth, long range planning lost much of its practical significance. A focus on

the strategy process(rather than the content) initiated criticism of the ex ante and normative approach of

the strategy field (Mintzberg, 1978; 1994; Quinn, 1978). Uncertainty about the future leads to

incrementalism, shorter planning horizons, less revolutionary strategic actions, tentative and searching

moves. The pattern of action visible ex post makes up the emergent strategy (Mintzberg, 1978). The

focus on strategy contents such as competitive position and the relation between competitive position (orany other independent content concept, e.g. structure, size, degree of diversification etc) and performance,

became less interesting compared to research on how firms actually created the favourable positions. The


4/22

4

independent variables of content research become the dependent variables in process research. The

independent variables in process research are found in management- and organisation-related fields,

including the acceptance of bounded rationality and the attention to the role of norms and values in

formulation and implementation (Chakravarthy & Doz, 1992). The core of the process perspective is the

cognitive and cultural constraints on strategic development, i.e. the obstacles or resources that influencefirm evolution (Whittington, 2000). The process perspective has progressed e.g. by focusing the

managerial function (Weick, 1979; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986; Ginsberg, 1994), and also been used in RBV

research (e.g. Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Oliver, 1997; and Sanchez & Heene, 1997).

Process approaches are also used in ICT research (Robey & Boudreau, 1999) and viewed as

valuable aids in understanding issues pertaining to designing and implementing information systems,

assessing their impact, and anticipating and managing the process of change associated with them Kaplan

(1991, p. 593). One of the first ICT process models was the Nolan stage model (Gibson & Nolan, 1974;

Nolan, 1979). The model has been criticised and developed by several researchers, e.g. Mohr (1982) andWiseman (1985). More recent developments are the MIT90s framework (Scott-Morton, 1990) and the

subsequent strategic alignment movement (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1992). Recently, approaches

including process, RBV and organisational learning have been applied to explain the cognitive, cultural

and political processes by which complex organisations develop and utilise ICT (Ciborra, 1994; Andreu &

Ciborra, 1996; Kalling, 1999).

Whereas I/O states that environmental pressure and the ability to respond to the threats and

opportunities are the prime determinants of firm success, RBV states that idiosyncratic and firm-specific

sets of imperfectly mobile resources determine which firm will reach above-normal performance

(Wernerfelt, 1984; Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993). RBV emphasises the

characteristics of the underlying factors behind low-cost and differentiation and the value chain; i.e. the

resourcesof the company. The RBV literature holds numerous descriptions of resource attributes that

render competitive advantage. Barneys typology (1991) summarises the main ones: value, rareness, and

imperfect imitability and substitutability. A firms resources are valuable if they lower costs or raise the

price of a product. Certain resources have a better fit with certain organisations, and hence expectations

and value are different depending on who is considering resource investment (Barney, 1986; Dierickx &

Cool, 1989). A key RBV attribute is rareness. Peteraf (1993) claims that superior productive resources

often are quasi-fixed because their supply cannot be expanded rapidly. Since they are scarce, inferior

resources are brought to the market. A valuable, rare resource also needs to be costly to imitate or to

substituteto sustain the advantage of the resource. A resource that could be acquired at an imperfect market

price will only remain a source of advantage as long as competitors fail to realise and materialise the

potential. A resource and its outcome can be imitated either by building/acquiring the same resource or by

creating the same intermediate or final outcome with a different resource. The costs associated with

imitation are based on unique historical conditions, causal ambiguityand the social complexity of resources

(Barney, 1991).

Clemons and Row (1988; 1991), Mata et al. (1995), Powell and Dent-Micallef (1997), Andreu andCiborra (1996), Duhan et al. (2001); Wade (2001) have illustrated the power of applying RBV on ICT.

Clemons and Row (1988) studied the sustained competitive advantage of McKesson through ICT use. In


5/22

5

an empirical analysis of ICT-enabled competitive advantage at firms acclaimed for their pioneering role in

ICT usage, Kettinger et al. (1994) found that the pre-existence of unique structural characteristics is an

important determinant of strategic ICT outcomes (p 46). Frustrated over the inability of I/O to explain

sustained advantages, researchers emphasised the difference between strategic advantageand necessity, and

claimed that in order for ICT to generate sustained competitive advantages, they need to be embeddedwith other unique resources. Interestingly, these RBV researchers never saw ICT as being able to generate

advantage on its own, but only by facilitating other resources (cf. Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

The strategy field is fragmented. The three dominant perspectives as well as different sub-fields are

developing in different directions, meaning there is perhaps no such thing as one theory of strategy.

Proponents of the three fields juxtapose with each other, which is possible since they focus on different

aspects of strategy. RBV occupies a more prominent role in strategy today than does I/O, but RBV too has

limitations. Critics put focus on the potential tautology, the lack of empirical studies, the neglecting of the

demand-side of resources, the relative lack of process-orientation, and the shortcomings in explaininghyper-competitive industries (DAveni, 1994; Foss, 1997; Williamson, 1999; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;

Priem & Butler, 2001). Important criticism concerns the object of analysis: what, exactly, is it that should

be unique; the resource, its impact on activities or the profit? Mosakowski and McKelvey (1997) and

Chatterjee (1998) suggest that the relevant unit of measurement is the so-called intermediate outcome, e.g.

a product feature that increases quality or a swifter handling process, i.e. something between the resource

and the product offering and profitability. For instance, Chatterjee (1998) claims that a unique resource

does not create competitive advantage, but a unique and valuable outcome does (p 80). In addition,

strategy process researchers criticise both RBV and I/O for neglecting the obstacles to strategic dynamics

and management (Sanchez & Heene, 1997).

In theory, the strategy concept means whatever phenomenon we subjectively attach to it, such as

choice of industry, industry position, customers, geographical markets, product range, structure, culture,

value chain, resource-bases, technologies and so forth. We believe, however, that it is possible to integrate

the relevant components into one model, and below we shall review some of the research that does this. As

a starting point, however, the three perspectives do offer a set of valuable concepts: customers and

competitors (i.e. industry), the offering (generic strategy), activities and organisation (i.e. the value chain),

the resource-base (resources) and the source of resources and production inputs (factor markets and

sourcing), as well as the process by which a business model evolves (in longitudinal processes affected by

cognitive limitations and norms and values).

BUSINESS MODEL LITERATURE

Business Research

One comprehensive, yet neglected, text on business strategy is by Porter, 1991. Porter claims that the low-

cost and differentiation advantages that firms enjoy on the product market (i.e. in relation to customers

and competitors) ultimately stem from initial conditions and managerial choices. Decisions taken affect

so-called drivers(resources or properties such as scale and scope), which are acted upon in activities, which

in turn enable low cost and/or differentiation. These enable specific strategic positions in


6/22

6

markets/industries, allowing, potentially, for firm success. It is not referred to as a business model, but it

incorporates many features that could be included in such a model. Porter is not very specific about the

contents of the different components, but the model summarises the ideas presented in his 1980 and 1985

books, yet it adds the causal relations between initial conditions and managerial choices and firm success.

Inherent in this model is also the strategy process, as the managerial choices are seen as taking place in alongitudinal dimension and is thus a response to criticism from the process perspective field (e.g.

Mintzberg, 1978). The inter-relation between factor markets, the firm and the product market

encompasses both RBV and I/O, and highlights the complementary nature of the two viewpoints a

complementarity based on causality. So Porters integrative causality model is also a response to the

criticism from RBV. The model this includes both RBV and the I/O determinants. Ironically, Porters

criticism of the business model concept (2001), claiming that the definition of business models is murky

and that the concept excludes important variables such as the industrial forces, could well be resolved by

using his causality chain model (1991).Others have described conceptually similar models, including Normanns work on the business idea

(1977; 2001). Normann used the business idea concept to describe businesses, and excluded neither

resource bases nor environmental factors. Normann (2001) distinguishes between three different

components: 1) the external environment, its needs and what it is valuing. 2) the offering of the company,

3) internal factors such as organisation structure, resources, knowledge and capabilities, equipment,

systems, leadership, values. The concept is systemic in nature and the relation to the external environment

depends on the offering, which in turn is dependent upon firm-internal factors. The logical resemblance

between the business idea (Normann, 1977) and Porters causality chain model (Porter, 1991) is obvious.

Sanchez and Heene (1997) proposed a similar model.

Much of the research within entrepreneurship is free from the RBV I/O dichotomy and

inherently longitudinal and process-orientated in nature. These approaches normally focus on the

evolution and life-cycle of entire business operations in broader terms and are therefore often use

concepts such as business models and for instance, McGrath and MacMillan (2000, p. x) include the

way an organisation organises its inputs, converts these into valuable outputs, and gets customers to pay

for them in the business model concept. Schumpeter (1934; 1950) stated that entrepreneurial innovation

included the combining of previously disconnected production factors, and could result in new markets

and industries, products, production processes, and source of supply, all being potential business model

components. In a recent approach to entrepreneurship, Eisenhardt and Sull (2001) suggest that the source

of advantage to a business is found in the position a company takes on the product market, in its resource

baseor in the key processes all of which could be referred to as components of a business. They claim that

in rapidly changing, ambiguous markets, the focus is more towards processes and, most importantly, the

simple rules that guide the key processes. The robustness that comes with a strategy based on resources and

positions makes it difficult to act rapidly, the authors claim. Growth, rather than profit, is the ultimate

objective of these fast-moving firms.


7/22

7

E-Business Research

As stated earlier, the business model concept is often used in e-business research. Cherian (2001) identified

at least 33 business models, Applegate (2001) classified 22 e-business models, and Timmers (1998)

presented 11 specific business models. Afuah and Tucci (2001, p. 45) even claim that a well-formulated

business model will render a firm greater profit than its competitors. The growing body of e-business

model research, empirical or conceptual, can be organised around two complimentary streams. The first

stream aims to describe and define the components of a business model (Afuah & Tucci, 2001; Amit &

Zott, 2001; Weill & Vitale, 2001). The other stream aims to develop descriptions of specific business

models (Timmers, 1998; Rappa, 2002; Applegate, 2001).

Timmers (1998, p 4) defines a business model as: An Architecture for the products, service and

information flows, including a description of the various business activities and their roles; A description

of the potential benefits for the various business actors; and A description of the sources of revenues.

Furthermore, a business model has to include marketing strategy, marketing mix, and product-marketstrategy. Weill and Vitale (2001) present a similar definition: A description of the roles and relationships

among a firms consumers, customers, allies, and suppliers that identifies the major flows of product,

information, and money, and the major benefits to participants. Amit and Zott (2001) presented three

components of e-business models, including content(exchanged goods and information and the resources

required to facilitate the exchange), structure(the transaction stakeholders and how they are linked), and

governance of transactions (the control of the flows of goods, information and resources and the legal

association form). In order to understand the drivers behind value-creation in e-business, a range of

different theories had to be used and integrated into a business modelincluding value chain analysis (Porter,

1985), Schumpeterian innovation (Schumpeter, 1934), RBV (Barney, 1991), strategic networks theory

(Burt, 1992) and transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1975). Afuah and Tucci (2001) presented a list

of components including customer value(distinctive offering or low cost), scope(which customer and what

products/services), price (price the value), revenue sources, connected activities(interdependency between

different activities within the business model), implementation (what resources are needed, e.g. structure,

people, and the fit between them), capabilities(what skills are needed), and sustainability(what is difficult

to imitate of the business model). Their list is applicable to both e-business models and traditional

business models, but does not address causality between components or processes and change. Applegates

(2001) business model framework, based on I/O logic and empirical work, consists of three components:

concept, capabilities, and value. The business conceptdefines a business market opportunity, product and

services offered, competitive dynamics, strategy to obtain a dominant position, and strategic option for

evolving the business. The second component is the capabilitiesof an organisation, which are built and

delivered through its people and partners, organisational structure, culture, operating model, marketing

and sales model, management model, development model, and infrastructure model. Value is the

measurement of a business model and should be measured by return to all stakeholders, return to the

organisation, market share, brand and reputation, and financial performance. The components are

interdependent and traditional strategic frameworks, e.g. value chain analysis, can be used to analyse abusiness model. The difference between previous industrial age (the old economy) business models and e-


8/22

8

business models is the different business rules and assumptions of how business is done (Applegate, 2001).

A summary of components is depicted in Appendix 1.

The other stream of research on business models aims to define and describe specific business

models that explain how businesses use the Internet to interact with each other and how value is created

for customers, suppliers, partners, employees, and other stakeholders (Applegate, 2001, p 2). Afuah andTucci (2001), Timmers (1998), and Weill and Vitale (2001) present a similar view on the role of business

models. Weill and Vitale (2001) define eight finite e-business models (direct customer, full-service

provider, intermediary, whole of enterprise, shared infrastructure, virtual community, value net integrator,

and content provider) based on a systematic and practical analysis of several case studies. They show how

each model works in practice from how it makes money to the core competencies and critical factors

required to implement it. Timmers (1998) and Rappa (2002) state there is no single comprehensive

taxonomy for classifying e-business models. They present a classification of e-business models, which is

listed in appendix 2. Applegate (2001) presents five general categories of business models and 22 specificinstances of e-business models (for a complete list see Appendix 2). Her classification is based on generic

market role(suppliers, producers, distributors, and customers), digital business(if the business is dependent

on the Internet), and platform (if the business is a provider of the infrastructure upon which digital

business is built and operated on).

Even if concepts differ in e-business research, the ideas are similar and could be referred to strategy

theory. The e-business research provides useful descriptions of business models, but they could benefit

from a broader use of strategy theory, which would provide more content as well as a clearer coherence in

terms of causality. Furthermore, they are based on e-business, not business.


9/22

9

A BUSINESS MODEL PROPOSAL

Based on the above review of the widely ramified literature, we would propose a generic business model

that includes the following causally related components, starting at the product market level: 1)

Customers, 2) Competitors 3) Offering, 4) Activities and Organisation, 5) Resources and 6) Factor and

Production Inputs. These components are all cross-sectional and can be studied at a given point in time.

To make this model complete, we also include a longitudinal process component, to cover the dynamics

of the business model over time and the cognitive and cultural constraints on change that managers have

to cope with. In figure 1, we refer to it as the Scope of management.

Figure 1. The Components of a Business Model

Human Physical Organisational

ACTIVITIES AND ORGANISATION

Offering

Physical component Price/Cost Service component

THE FIRM

Scope of management.

RESOURCES

MARKET / INDUSTRY

Customers Competition

SUPPLIERSFactor Markets Production Inputs

Market level, e.g. five forces

Offering level, e.g.generic strategies

Actv ity and organisationallevel, e.g. value chain

Resource level, e.g. RBV

Market level, e.g. five forcesand capital and labour

Longitudinal dimension,e.g. constraints onactors, cognitive andsocial limitations

The model integrates firm-internal aspects that transform factors to resources, through activities, in a

structure, to products and offerings, to market. The logic is that in order to be able to serve the product

market, businesses need activities, input from the factor market (capital and labour) and the supply of rawmaterial. The same resource-base and activities and organisation can produce different products and hence

have a scope of different offerings (e.g. cars in two or more colours), but at some point during

diversification, new activities are needed (e.g. cars in two or more versions) and potentially also new

resources (e.g. diversification to include lorries), thus forcing the development of business models. With

this view, (even a non-diversified) firm can have many different business models. However, the more

profound the differences between products, the higher the probability that the businesses are organised

independently from each other (cars and lorries make out distinct business units in most vehicle-based

corporations).

There are causal relations between the different components. In order to serve a particular customer

segment and compete with the products within that segment, the offering must have a favourable


10/22

10

quality/price position. In order to achieve this, firms need to offer customer-perceived quality of physical

product features and service, which in turn requires effective activities (e.g. large scale, competence) and

organisational structure (efficient communication and division of labour and authority). This requires

human, organisational and physical resources that have to be acquired on factor markets and from

suppliers of production inputs. Although not depicted graphically, external actors are potential partners orcompetitors in all aspects of the business: in the bundling of products (e.g. computers and software), in

activities (e.g. outsourcing ICT, buying services from advertising agencies) and in the configuration of

resources (e.g. banks and insurance companies share customer data bases). Change can appear both in

exogenous or endogenous processes. A poor offering (e.g. too high price/quality) may initiate change

programmes that result in reformed activities and reconfigured resource base, but it can also work the

other way. Firms take stock of their resource base and may find new ways to combine resources, and new

ways to dispose of activities as a result of resource modifications. This can result in new products and

improved product market positions. So change can take either direction, and the depth of change willvary. Logically it seems that resource bases are more difficult to change than products and activities. What

is important though is the realisation that whatever the modification, it will affect other components of

the model.

One important aspect is that the business model has to be managed and developed. This is how the

process perspective is included. The model can be studied in a cross-sectional dimension (the causal

dimension, vertical in the outline of the model) but it also evolves over time (the longitudinal dimension,

horizontal in the outline of the model) as managers and people from the inside, and as customers and

competitors on the outside, continues to evolve. These processes include the bridging of cognitive,

cultural, political obstacles, and are issues that managers deal with on a regular basis, for all components of

the model. This model incorporates RBV and I/O and Process perspectives and solves potentially many

RBV questions about what is the unit of analysis in terms of value and uniqueness. Is it the resource, the

intermediate activities or the product that should be analysed? One way to approach this issue if one is

interested at all is to use the business model. Certain parts of it may be more valuable and unique than

others, be it a product feature or a particular type of knowledge, and that is what matters.

CONCEPTUAL EXAMPLES

Below we shall illustrate the model and its components by showing how three contemporary systems

resources, i.e. CRM, ERP and E-business, can affect business models.

Resource level: Like all ICT, CRM, ERP and e-business systems are themselves resources. They

are related to and draw on other resources, such as financial resources (e.g. costs for investment and

maintenance), physical resources (e.g. hardware and network), human cognition (e.g. knowledge to

manage the system and to interpret data), and organisational resources (cooperation between individuals

and between organisational units). Any system will also integrate with other ICT resources, e.g. ERP is

often a recipient and transmitter of data for e-business and CRM. They might have different effects

though: An ERP, due to its comprehension and relative complexity, could affect profoundly the existing

knowledge bases of how to conduct certain work tasks, whereas a CRM might have less overall impact. E-

business systems might affect heavily the existing knowledge on how to market and distribute services and


11/22

11

products. E-business systems could also force firms to rethink their management of brands and their

electronic display as well as whom to team up with in terms of web contents. In pure e-business models,

the resource base is primarily dependent on the web interface, technology, data base resources, sourcing

networks (both inbound and outbound) plus of course the marketing skills required to sell electronically.

ICT resources need to be acquired, internalised and embedded, which means they have to be fit withother resources, particularly so strategic ones.

Activities and organisation level: Resources, including ICT, do not realise much economic potential

if they are not used. When they are, the CRM affects sales and customer service activities, such as

customer analysis, bargaining and customer communications. The system will provide information

processing capabilities, and the quality of the information provided could improve decisions on customer

strategies. It also saves time in work processes. The organisation might have to be restructured, for instance

by creating call centres for customer communications. The ERP can be used to reengineer and potentially

improve the flow and organisation of activities in the value chain, e.g. the quotation process, the order-entry process, production planning, despatch management etc, which can be conducted swifter and with

less effort. ERP also assists in improving stocks of goods. In addition, ERP can help improve e.g.

production lead times, delivery accuracy, just-in-time performance, all of which improve, potentially, the

service and the customer-perceived quality of the offering. E-business systems affect directly sales and

marketing, but also require the orchestration of a network of suppliers and distributors of physical

products as well as informative content. Managing the activities of the business model is absolutely central,

especially since ICT imposes its own logic on businesses.

Offering level: The improved knowledge about customers provided by the CRM could affect the

product offering as well, if the firm decides to materialise on improvements made in activities. Costs can

be reduced through less time consumption. The customer-perceived quality of the offering might be

improved as well, due to better communications and more accurate and timed offerings. E.g. being able to

estimate the price sensitivity of a customer will be an important tool in designing the offering. This in turn

improves price and/or sales volume, which increases profitability. ERP based improvements should affect

the cost and price of the offering if changes across the chain of activities are materialised upon through

headcount reductions, stock improvements, if new supply chain capabilities are communicated to

customers through word of mouth or through continuously improved performance. The e-business

solution can enable reach of new customers, it can create complementary services to existing

products/services, it can automate parts of the selling process, and, if the scale of trading is sufficient, data

on customer behaviour might be analysed and materialised in new strategic and operative decisions, all of

which improve the cost and price/quality of the offering. A unique offering (price/quality in relation to

competing offerings) is the ultimate effect of good resource utilisation, but it does not always materialise in

this way, though, since organisations may refrain e.g. from making staff redundant (hoping, possibly, that

the overall volume shall grow) or they might be afraid of actually reduce buffers of goods and stock, and

since there might be difficulties in communicating to customers that the business has improved, the actual

improvements may not affect the offering.The management process: The potential improvements discussed above are contingent on

managerial and organisational change processes. Investing in new ICT is not simply a matter of acquiring


12/22

12

it and then gaining advantages. It has to be embedded with other resources, and it has to enable improved

activities and organisation, which in turn needs to be managed in order to realise the improvements

through the offering. This overall process is likely to consume attention from top management, from

users, from those whose work tasks are directly affected by the new ICT, and those who communicate and

position offerings in relation to customers and competition. The process is characterised mainly by themanagement of cognitive and cultural constraints. Knowledge about strategy, operations and technology,

as well as their interrelation, is key all through the process. Users and management trying to adjust to a

new way of computing might find it confusing and illogical initially. A major rethink of activities and

workflows might create new jobs and terminate others, meaning positions and relations as well as job

contents are altered. Taking the risk of making people redundant is a key issue for managers. There is a

range of cognitive and cultural constraints that fence round the entire process from a vision about how to

use ICT through to a fully-fledged ICT-enabled strategic advantage.

In a case study of a company-wide implementation of an ERP (Kalling, 1999), the actualimplementation went fine (quickly) in some plants and worse in others. Some plants were able not just to

install the system, but also to gain advantages through it, on their local markets. They did so by using the

ICT to improve activities such as customer service, production planning, logistics and product design.

Activities were sped up and the output was valued by customers meaning costs per unit went down and

volume went up as did profit. The discriminating factors were e.g. management involvement,

organisational preparation, training, ICT literacy, commitment to change, analytical skills, attitude to the

system and ICT in general, degree of involvement during earlier stages of the project, and perhaps most

importantly, the ability to integrate and develop knowledge about strategic direction, operative matters

and technology. The plants that failed did so because they either could not fit the system with other

resources, or because they failed to enhance activities, or because they failed to materialise on activity

improvements (e.g. they did not actually improve costs, just productivity). The reason they failed was due

to managerial and organisational factors and the inability to see and manage the causality between

resources, activities and organisation, and the offering in relation to competition and customers.

DISCUSSION

The validity of the business model can be assessed by three particular criteria: the integration of the model

(logical coherence), its practical and theoretical relevance, and relative explanatory power (Glaser, 1978).

The Business Model Integration

The business model components are casually inter-related, including not just the firm-internal aspects, but

also the external ones, e.g. vendors on the input market and competitors and customers on the product

market. Resources affect activities, and that activities affect the offering, and that the three are dependent

upon each other and the continuous as well as ad hoc management of them. At any given moment, the

offering is the result of resources and activities, regardless of whether it is a service or a product.

An important aspect of the model is the intermediary level, activity and organisation, i.e. what thefirm actuallydoeswith its newly acquired resources. Failure to use the ICT resource to improve activities,

failure to organise in a suitable way, and/or failure to materialise on improvements made in activities, will


13/22

13

render an intact or possibly worse offering than before the ICT investment was made. Potentially, this also

clarifies some of the practical problems with RBV and what it is that should be unique in relation to

resources. A common system (off the shelf) can be uniquely well applied and thus create uniquely low

costs or unique customer-perceived quality and hence generate a competitive advantage. A unique

system (possibly developed in-house) can be applied in an ineffective way and thus not enable improvedofferings, even if it improves activities. Apart from the cross-sectional causalities between resource,

activities and offerings, the model we suggest also takes into consideration the fact that the inclusion of

new ICT could change the entire business model if implemented and employed effectively. If not, the only

change brought about the actual implementation of an idle, costly resource. The process of identifying and

investing, as well as implementing and employing an ICT is longitudinal and intended to transmigrate the

existing business model (at t0) into a better one (at t1), hence the longitudinal management dimension of

the model. If firms are unsuccessful in identifying, developing and using ICT to improve activities in a

way that is visible in the profit statement and the individual offering, nothing significant will happen withthe business model.

It is important that even if the model cannot always be used to calculate exactly the net present

monetary value of an ICT, the model provides the conceptual parameters to consider for anyone interested

in understanding the factors that lie between ICT and strategy improvements. We can identify the drivers

of value and how they are related causally more clearly in a given business model. Because it separates

resources and the offering and inserts an intermediary level, i.e. activity, and addresses the management

and change of the three levels, it becomes clearer why a particular ICT does or does not give competitive

advantage.

The Business Model in Comparison

The business model is characterised by an integration of various theoretical perspectives, and addresses the

interdependency between the components of the business context of ICT. There are other studies

addressing the same issue both within ICT and strategy research. ICT research, e.g. Scott-Morton (1991),

Brynjolfsson (1993) and Mata et al. (1995), has been based on a deterministic view of ICT, meaning ICT

is studied with a content approach, yet still fails to present causalities between ICT and performance.

Furthermore, changes over time of the business model components are neglected (Markus & Robey,

1988; Robey & Boudreau, 1999). Within strategy research, Porters causality chain model (1991) offers asimilar approach, but the model described here is clearer on resources and organisational. Normanns

models (1977; 2001) are not detailed enough about causalities and the finer aspects of the business model.

Entrepreneurship research is not clear about business model components and their causalities. Eisenhardt

and Sulls (2001) strategy approaches are if integrated similar to the business model concept presented

here. However, their proposal that certain components of the business model are more important during

certain life-cycle phases or within certain environments seems a little hard to digest. The debacle of Enron,

one of the success cases reported by Eisenhardt and Sull, proved that strategic management is much more

than simple rules for key processes. The e-business research provides formal descriptions of how to

conduct business and make revenues over the Internet (Rappa, 2002), but it has several shortcomings, e.g.

does not address competition, causality between the components, and longitudinal management processes.


14/22

14

Weill and Vitale (2001) are the only one to mention suppliers as an essential part of a business model.

Amit and Zott (2001), Timmers (1998), and Rappa (2002) are biased towards e-business. But, most of all

they lack a theoretical ground, a notable exception being Amit and Zott (2001).

The specific e-business models can be viewed as empirical examples of business models based on

Internet. Each of the specific e-business models is applicable to either the whole model or to parts of themodel, e.g. the focused distributor or producers (Applegate, 2001) can apply to the whole business model

and also be explained by it. Timmers (1998) e-shop and e-auction apply to the offering of the business

model and e-procurement applies to the resource procurement of production inputs. But, of course, none

of these address how ICT in generalrelates to their models.

CONCLUSION

The business model concept is becoming increasingly popular, both within e-business and general

business. However, the construct is not well defined, nor is there theory to support it (Porter 2001). Webelieve these questions can be partly resolved by an integration of existing business strategy theory and

emergent strategy-related research into ICT and e-business.

With this paper, we propose a business model that gives structure to the broader business context of

ICT. ICT is at best a potential resource, i.e. something with a potential value, acquired on a market or

developed internally. Theoretically, the bottom line is that the economic value is determined by a firms

ability to trade and absorb ICT resources, to align (and embed) them with other resources, to diffuse them

in activities and manage the activities in a way that creates an offering at uniquely low cost or which has

unique qualities in relation to the industry they compete in. Any empirically defined business using ICT

can be viewed through the business model, but a contingency view must be applied: the value and the

relations within the business model vary between different ICT applications and between different

businesses. As a generic model, we believe it captures relevant aspects to consider for any ICT decision-

maker or student of ICT and business.

We believe the business model is more comprehensive and complete than other models within both

e-business and strategy, since it includes more components, causalities and the management process.


15/22

15

REFERENCES

Afuah, A and Tucci, CL (2001) Internet Business Models and Strategies: Text and Cases. McGraw-Hill,Boston.

Allen, E and Fjermestad, J (2001) E-commerce marketing strategies: integrated framework and caseanalysis. Logistics Information Management14(1/2), 14-23.

Amit, R and Schoemaker, PjH (1993) Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic ManagementJournal, 14 (1), 33-46.

Amit, R and Zott, C (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal22, 493-520.

Andreu, R and Ciborra, C (1996) Core capabilities and information technology: an organizationallearning approach. In Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage(MOINGEON B andEDMONDSON A, Eds) pp 139-163. Sage, London.

Applegate, LM (2001) Emerging e-business models: lessons from the field. HBS No. 9-801-172. HarvardBusiness School, Boston.

Bain, JS (1968) Industrial Organization, 2nd Ed., New York, Wiley.Barney, J (1986) Strategic factor markets, expectations, luck and business strategy.Management Science42,

1231-1241.

Barney, J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management17, 99-120.

Brynjolfsson, E (1993) The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM36(12), 66-77.

Burt, RS (1992) Structural Holes: the Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press,Cambridge.

Chakravarthy, BS and Doz, Y (1992) Strategy process research: focusing on corporate self-renewal.Strategic Management Journal13, 5-14.

Chatterjee, S (1998) Delivering desired outcomes efficiently: the creative key to competitive strategy.California Management Review40, 78-95.

Cheng, EWL, Heng L, Love, P (2001). An e-business model to support supply chain activities inconstruction. Logistics Information Managementl 14(1/2), 68-77.

Cherian, E (2001) Electronic business: the business model makes the difference. In Proceeding of the EightEuropean Conference on Information Technology Evaluation (Remenyi D and Brown A, Eds), pp171-174, Oriel College Oxford.

Ciborra, C (1994) The grassroots of IT and strategy. In Strategic Information Systems: A EuropeanPerspective(CIBORRA C and JELASSI T, Eds), pp 3-24, John Wiley, Chichester.

Clemons, E and Row M (1988) McKesson drug company-a case study of economost: a strategicinformation system, In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Hawaii International Conferenceon Information Systems, (Hoevel LW, Ed), pp 141-149, Vol. III, IEEE Computer Society Press,

Washington, D.C.

Clemons, E and Row M (1991) Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural differences. MIS Quarterly15(3), 275-293.

DAveni, R (1994) Hypercompetition: The Dynamics Of Strategic Maneuvering. New York: Free Press.

Dierickx, I and Cool, K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage.Management Science35(12), 1504-1511.

Duhan, S, Levy, M and Powell, P (2001) Information systems strategies in knowledge-based SMEs: therole of core competencies. European Journal of Information systems10, 25-40.

Eisenhardt, KM and Martin, JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal21(S), 1105-1121.

Eisenhardt, KM and Sull, DN (2001) Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, January.


16/22

16

Foss, NJ (1997). Resources and Strategy: Problems, open issues and ways ahead. In Resources, firms andstrategies. A reader in the resource-based perspective (FOSS NJ, Ed.). Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress.

Gibson, CF and Nolan, RL (1974) Managing The Four Stages Of EDP Growth. Harvard BusinessReview, January/ February.

Ginsberg A (1994) Minding The Competition: From Mapping To Mastery. Strategic Management Journal15, 153-174.

Glaser, BG (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press,California.

Hedman, J and Borell, A (2001) The impact of enterprise resource planning systems on organizationaleffectiveness: an artefact evaluation. In Enterprise Resource Planning: Global Opportunities andChallenges(Liaquat H Patrick JD and Rashid MA, Eds.), Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, Pa.

Henderson, J and Venkatraman, N (1992) Strategic alignment: a framework for strategic informationtechnology management. In Transforming Organizations (KOCHAN T and USEEM M, Eds),pp 97-117, Oxford Press, New York.

Ives, B and Mason, RO (1990) Can information technology revitalize your customer service? The Academyof Management Executive4(4), 52-69.

Johnston, RH and Vitale, MR (1988) Creating competitive advantage with interorganizationalinformation systems.MIS Quarterly12(2), 153-165.

Kalling, T (1999) Gaining competitive advantage through information technology. A resource basedapproach to the creation and employment of strategic IT resources. Doctoral dissertation, LundUniversity. Lund: Lund Business Press.

Kaplan, B (1991) Models of change and information systems research. In Information Systems Research:Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (NISSEN H-E, KLEIN HK andHIRSCHEIM R, Eds), pp 593-611, North Holland, Ellsvier.

Kettinger, WJ, Grover, V, Guha, S and Segars, AH (1994) Strategic information systems revisited: a

study in sustainability and performance.MIS Quarterly18(1), 31-58.

Markus, ML and Robey (1988) Information technology and organizational change: causal structure intheory and research.Management Science34(5), 583- 598.

Mata, FJ, Fuerst, WL and Barney, JB (1995) Information technology and sustained competitiveadvantage: A resource-based analysis.MIS Quarterly19(4), 487-505.

McFarlan, FW (1984) Information technology changes the way you compete, Harvard Business Review62(3), 98-103.

McGrath, RG and MacMillan IC (2000) The entrepreneurial mindset. Strategies for continuously creatingopportunity in an age of uncertainty. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge.

Mintzberg, H (1978) Patterns in strategy formation.Management Science24, 934-948.

Mintzberg, H (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Prentice Hall International.

Mohr, LB (1982) Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Mosakowski, E and McKelvey, B (1997) Predicting rent generation in competence-basedcompetition. In Competence-based Strategic Management(HEENE A and SANCHEZ R,Eds), John Wiley, Chichester.

Nolan, RL (1979) Managing the crises in data processing. Harvard Business Review57(2), 115-126.

Normann, R (1977)Management for Growth. Chichester: Wiley.

Normann; R (2001) Reframing Business. When the Map Changes the Landscape. Wiley, Chichester.

Oliver, C (1997) Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource based views.Strategic Management Journal18, 697-713


17/22

17

Peteraf, MA (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. StrategicManagement Journal14(3), 179-191.

Porter, ME (1980) Competitive Strategy. New York, Free Press.

Porter, ME (1985) Competitive Advantage. New York, Free Press.

Porter, ME (1991) Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal12(S), 95-119.Porter, ME (2001) Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review, March.

Porter, ME and Millar, V (1985) How information technology gives you competitive advantage. HarvardBusiness Review63(4), 149-160.

Powell, TC and Dent-Micallef, A (1997) Information technology as competitive advantage: the role ofhuman, business and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal18(5), 375-405.

Prahalad, CK and Bettis, RA (1986) The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity andperformance. Strategic Management Journal7(6), 485-501.

Priem, RL and Butler, JE (2001) Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic managementresearch?Academy of Management Review26, 22-40.

Quinn, JB (1978) Strategic change: logical incrementalism. Sloan Management ReviewFall, 7-21.

Rackoff, N, Wiseman, C and Ullrich, WA (1985) Information systems for competitive advantage:implementation of a planning process.MIS Quarterly9(4), 112-124.

Rappa, M (19/03/2002) Business models on the web. http://digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html

Rayport, J and Jaworski, B (2001) Introduction to E-Commerce, Int. Ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston.

Robey, D and Boudreau, M-L (1999) Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences ofinformation technology: theoretical directions and methodological implications. InformationSystems Research 10(2), 167-185.

Rumelt, RP, Schendel, DE and Teece, DJ (1994) Fundamental Issues in Strategy. A Research Agenda.Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge.

Sanchez, R and Heene, A (1997) Competence-based strategic management: concepts and issues fortheory, research, and practice. In Competence-Based Strategic Management (HEENE A andSANCHEZ R, Eds.), Chichester: John Wiley.

Sambamurthy, V (2000) Business Strategy in hypercompetitive environment: rethinking the logic of ITdifferentiation. In Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future Through thePast(Zmud RW, Ed), pp 245-261, Pinnaflex, Cincinnati.

Schumpeter, JA (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Schumpeter, JA (1950) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 3rd Ed.. Harper & Row, New York.

Scott-Morton, MS (1990) The Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and OrganizationalTransformation. Oxford University Press, New York.

Strassman, P (1985) Information Payoff: the Transformation of Work in the Electronic Age. Free Press, NewYork.

Timmers, P (1998) Business models for electronic markets. Elecronic Market8(2), pp 2-8.

Upton, DM and Mcaffe, AP (2000) A path-based approach to information technology in manufacturing.International Journal of Technology Management20(3/4), 354-372.

Wade, M (2001) Exploring the role of information systems resources in dynamic environments. InProceedings of 22nd International Conference on Information Systems(GEORGE J AND IVES B,EDS.), pp 491-496.

Weick, KE (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd Ed. Addison-Wesley.

Weill, P and Vitale, MR (2001) Place to Space. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Wernerfelt, B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal5(2), 171-180.

Whittington, R (2000) What is Strategy and does it matter?International Thomson.


18/22

18

Williamson, OE (1975)Markets and Hierarchies. New York, Free Press.

Williamson, OE (1999) Strategy Research: Governance and Competence Perspectives. StrategicManagement Journal20(12), 1087-1108.

Wiseman, C (1985) Strategy and Computers. Dow Jones- Irwin, Homewood.


19/22

19

APPENDIX 1: Business model components

Authors Afuah & Tucci(2001)

Amit &Zott

(2001)

Applegates(2001)

Timmers(1998)

Weill &Vitale

(2001)Components Customer valueScopePriceRevenue sourcesConnectedactivitiesImplementationCapabilitiesSustainability

ContentStructureGovernance

ConceptCapabilitiesValue

BusinessactivitiesPotentialbenefitsSources ofrevenuesMarketingstrategyMarketing mixProduct-marketstrategy

ConsumersCustomers

AlliesSuppliersFlows ofproduct,informationand money

Comments A comprehensivedescription of eachcomponent.Interdependencybetween thecomponents is notdescribed.

Boththeoreticallyandempiricallyrigid.

Limited toe-businessvaluecreation

Limitedtheoreticalframework.Empiricalmethod notdescribed.

A method foranalysing theimpact of ICTin e-businesscontext.

Generalapplicability.

Limitedtheoreticalframework

Based on asurvey ofEuropeanelectroniccommerceprojects.

Provide a

framework forclassifying e-commercebusiness models.

Based on asystematicand practicalanalysis ofseveral casestudies.


20/22

20

APPENDIX 2: E-Business models

Author Applegate (2001) Rappa (2002) Timmers (1998)

Dimensions Generic market role DigitalbusinessPlatform

Unknown Value chain de-constructionInteraction patternsValue chain re-construction

Businessmodels

Focused distributor*

RetailerMarketplace

AggregatorInfomediaryExchange

Portals*

Horizontal PortalsVertical Portals

Affinity Portals

Producers*

ManufacturesService ProviderEducators

AdvisorsInformation & newsInfrastructure DistributorsInfrastructure Retailers

Infrastructure marketplacesInfrastructure Exchanges

Infrastructure Portals*

Horizontal infrastructureportalsVertical Infrastructureportals

Infrastructure producers*

Equipment/componentmanufacturing

Software firmsCustom Software andintegrationInfrastructure provider.

BrokerageAdvertisingInfomediaryMerchantManufacturing

AffiliateCommunitySubscriptionUtility

e-shope-procuremente-auctione-mallThird party marketplaceVirtual communitiesValue chain service providerValue chain integratorsCollaboration platformsInformation brokerage

Comments Applicable to all business No scientificapproach.

Limited to e-business modelsBased on a systematic approach toidentify architectures for businessmodels

Refers to Applegates (2001) general categories.


21/22

21

School of Economics and ManagementLund University

Working Paper Series

Editors: Mats Alvesson & Lars Bengtsson

1998/1 Braunerhjelm, Pontus & Oxelheim, Lars: Does Foreign Direct Investment Replace HomeCountry Investment? The Effect of European Integration on the Location of SwedishInvestment. (Published inJournal of Common Market Studies, Vol 38, No 2, 2000)

1998/2 Oxelheim, Lars: Business Intelligence for increased competitiveness the economic side.(Published in Competitive Intelligence Review, Vol 10, No 4, 1999

1998/3 Oxelheim, Lars: Ekonomiska omvrldsfaktorer i fretagets externredovisning. (Published inBalans No 11, 1998 och TilintarkastusNo 2, 1999

1998/4 Alvesson, Mats: The Local and the Grandiose: Method, Micro and Macro in Comparative

Studies of Culture and Organizations. (Published in Tzeng, R and Uzzi, B (eds),Embeddedness and Corporate Change in a Global Economy, New York: Peter Lang, 2000)1998/5 Alvesson, Mats & Krreman, Dan: Taking the Linguistic Turn in Organizational Research:

Challenges, Responses, Consequences. (Published in theJournal of Applied Behavioral Science,Vol. 36, No 2, pp 136-158, 2000)

1998/6 Oxelheim, Lars: Routes to Equity Market Integration The Interplay among Politicians,Investors and Managers. (Published in Journal of Multinational Financial Management Vol11, 183-211, 2001

1999/1 Oxelheim, Lars, Stonehill, Arthur, & Randy, Trond: Finance-Specific Factors and Theories ofForeign Direct Investment (Published in International Business Review, Vol. 10, No 4, 2001)

1999/2 Pushkala, Prasad, Birdsell, Judith M & Zerbe, Wilfred: Translated Myths: The Mirroring ofInstitutional Expectations in the Formal Structure of the Canadian Breast Cancer ResearchInitiative (CBCRI)

1999/3 Alvesson, Mats: Beyond Neo-Positivists, Romantics and Localists A Reflexive Approach toInterviews in Organization Research

1999/4 Alvesson, Mats: Methodology for Close up Studies Struggling with Closeness and Closure1999/5 Elg, Ulf & Johansson, Ulf: The Contributions of International Alliances when Managing the

Firms Set of Interorganizational Dependencies. (Published in the Journal of StrategicMarketing, 9 93-110 2001)

2000/1 Alvesson, Mats & Johansson, Anders W: Professionalism and Politics in ManagementConsultancy Work (forthcoming in T Clark & R Fincham (eds): Critical Consulting:Perspectives on the Management Advice Industry. Oxford: Blackwell)

2000/2 Eneroth, K & Malm, Allan, T.:Strategic Identity - Visions as Catalysts for CompetenceDynamics (published inAdvances in Applied Business Strategy, vol 6A (2000) pp: 121-146.

2000/3 Henriksson, K: When Communities of Practice Came to Town - On Culture and

Contradiction in Emerging Theories of Organizational Learning.2000/4 Larsson, R & Lubatkin, M: Achieving Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions: A CaseSurvey Study

2000/5 Sveningsson, Stefan: Strategy as a Disciplinary Technology Discursive Engineering in theNewspaper World

2000/6 Alvesson, Mats: Knowledge Work: Ambiguity, Image and Identity (Published in HumanRelations, vol 54 (7): 863-886, 2001

2000/7 Alvesson, Mats & Due Billing, Yvonne: Beyond Body-counting a Discussion of the SocialConstruction of Gender at Work, with the Scandinavian Public Sector as an Example.

2000/8 Elg, Ulf: The Meaning and Antecedents of Market Orientation in a Distribution Network2000/9 Oxelheim, Lars & Wihlborg, Claes: Recognizing Macroeconomic Fluctuations in Value Based

Management. (Forthcoming in Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.)2001/1 Oxelheim, Lars & Randy, Trond: The Impact of Foreign Board Membership on Firm Value:

A Study of Corporate Governance in Scandinavia.2001/2 Alvesson, Mats & Willmott, Hugh: Identity Regulation as Organizational Control: Producing

the Appropriate Individual.


22/22

2001/3 Johansson, Ulf: Retail Buying; Process, Information and IT use. A Conceptual Framework2001/4 Johansson, Ulf: Food Retail Buying Processes A Study of UK, Italy and Sweden2001/5 Stavsudd, Anna: Managers in the Context of Strategic Content Industrial Organization

Theory and Resource-Based view Predictions for the Selection of Managers2001/6 Elg, Ulf : Market Orientation in Retailing: An Approach Based on Inter- and Intra-Firm

Activities

2001/7 Oxelheim Lars & Rafferty, Michael: On the Static Efficiency of Secondary Bond Markets.2001/8 Andrn, Niclas & Oxelheim, Lars: Exchange-Rate and Interest-Rate Driven Competitive

Advantages in the EMU.2001/9 Hedman, Jonas & Kalling, Thomas: The Business Model: A Means to Understand the

Business Context of Information and Communication Technology

Working papers are published and distributed as a professional service of the Institute of Economic Research.Direct inquiries to

Iris AnderbergInstitute of Economic ResearchP.O. Box 7080

SE-220 07 Lund, SwedenTel: +46 46-222 7824,Fax +46 46-222 44 37E-mail: [email protected]

You can also find the working paper series on our home page (pdf-format): http://www.lri.lu.se

the business model: a means to understand the business context of information and communication...

Documents