Service Business Model Innovation: A Conceptual ...

Service Business Model Innovation: A Conceptual Model and A Framework for Management Consulting

Jonathan C. Ho

Fang-Mei Tseng

College of Management Yuan Ze University Taiwan [email protected]

College of Management Yuan Ze University Taiwan [email protected]

Chung-Shing Lee School of Business Pacific Lutheran University U.S.A. [email protected]

Abstract—This paper develops a conceptual model and a diagnostic framework to assist service innovation managers and policy makers in managing and promoting service business model innovation. We distinguish the concepts of “service innovation,” which views service as a perspective on value creation, from “innovative services,” which consider services as merely a category of marketing offerings supplement to the existing product lines. We also define service business model innovation as the use of new knowledge (both technological and market knowledge) that capitalizes on the disruptive attributes of specific (emerging) technologies and service characteristics from the perspective of value creation to design and implement an innovative way of offering solutions that satisfy customer’s (both explicit and latent) demands. CEO must establish a core vision on service innovation and take the leadership in transforming the entire organizational culture and processes into a service-oriented solution provider in order to create and sustain competitive advantage. Keywords-component; business model; service; innovation; consulting

I.

INTRODUCTION

Services are the dominant economic activities in almost every industrialized nation in the world and innovation is the driving force for economic growth. To realize the economic benefit of service innovation, a viable business model must be developed and implemented to capture the value. The research questions of this paper are: what are the differences between service innovation and the traditional approach of offering innovative services by an organization? What is service business model innovation and how to manage it effectively? We first discuss the general service characteristics and the arguments against the traditional definition of service based on manufacturer’s perspective. Next, we make a distinction between the concepts and practices of “service innovation” and “innovative services” or “service offerings” by applying an analytical model and

providing several examples of how companies transform from traditional product-oriented organizations into service solution providers. Third, we identify and discuss the structure and components of a viable business model. The concept of disruptive innovation and its relationship with business model are also discussed. Fourth, we discuss the fundamental criteria of designing and implement a viable business model for service innovation. Finally, a diagnostic framework for managing and promoting service innovation is presented. A conclusion and several managerial implications are provided at the end of the paper. II.

SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS AND CUSTOMER VALUE

The growth of service sectors has been increasingly tied with the innovation and development of new services [1]. On the one hand, there is a tendency of creating service offerings by the manufacturing companies in order to add additional value by offering customized products and services [2] or extending the value chain to provide comprehensive services and/or integrated solutions [3]. On the other hand, we have seen many services move toward standardization to exploit scale and scope economies [4]. Traditionally, services are differentiated from nonservice activities by the “CHIPS” characteristics, i.e., Coproduction, Heterogeneity, Intangibility, Perishability, and Simultaneity [5], or the “IHIP” characteristics (i.e., Intangibility, Heterogeneity, Inseparability, and Perishability). However, Edvardsson et al. [6] state that these service characteristics are neither based on empirical research in an inductive way, nor developed from previous research and theories in a deductive way. They argue that the traditional definition of service is too narrow, and the IHIP characteristics are outdated. In addition, Vargo and Lusch [7] also claim that these service characteristics are inaccurate and reflect a view of market exchange which is driven by the manufacturer’s perspective (i.e., value-in-exchange). In fact, Edvardsson et al. [6] contend that the focus of service should

be on value through the lens of the customer (i.e., value-inuse). Service should be portrayed as a perspective on value creation, rather than a category of market offerings by a firm. III.

SERVICE INNOVATION VS. INNOVATIVE SERVICES

Berry, et al. [8] argue that many companies make incremental improvements to their service offerings, but few succeed in creating service innovations that generate new markets or reshape existing ones. According to the above discussion on service characteristics and value creation, we argue that there is a significant need to differentiate the concept and practices of “service innovation” from “innovative services” or “service offerings”. An analytical model developed by Lee, et al. [9] is applied here to distinguish the two approaches. Services, which are produced as parts of a firm’s market offerings, can be described as the following production transformation process: Xi (input) Æ [Production Transformation Process (PTP)]i Æ Yi (output) Yi: A firm’s individual market offerings, i = 1, …, n The traditional production transformation processes (PTP) and the input factors (i.e., Xi) can be standardized (to exploit economies of scale and scope) to offer a service product (i.e., Yi) that is individualized or customized. In addition, standard service products (Yi) can also be “produced” through individualized processes and input elements [2]. Whatever the cases, each and every individual output (Yi) belongs to a category of market offerings by the firm. That is, services are something that can be offered to the customer, sometimes in addition to the existing product offerings (e.g., maintenance and repair services). Edvardsson et al. [6] argue that there is a fundamental difference between offering “service” compared to “services” because service involves the whole organization’s performance in providing the customer with a good experience. Therefore rather than dividing market offerings into individual products and services (i.e., multiple Yi), a vector or package of products and services (i.e., [Yi]) is provided as a solution to which customers’ specific needs or problems are addressed. Service thus becomes a perspective on value creation and the focus in on value through the lens of the customer. A firm’s strategic emphasis is on value creation through (value-in-use) service (i.e., a service-driven and customer-oriented firm), rather than offering services as parts of a firm’s market offerings. The new organizational transformation process becomes: [X] jÆ [ Organizational Transformation Process (OTP) ] j Æ [Y1, Y2, Y3, …, YN]j [Yi]j: A firm’s perspective on service, j = 1, …, m The input factors (i.e., [X]) is data or information regarding customers’ profiles, preferences, purchasing

patterns, and (tacit) demands for service or solution. In the digital economy and e-business, such data are stored, manipulated, and expanded in electronic database. They are a firm’s “digital assets” [10] and can be utilized to create and deliver value across many different and disparate markets. It is also a base for viewing the service concept as a perspective on building and maintaining long-term relationships with potential and current customers. In addition, organizational knowledge and competences are required or must be built in order to identify customers’ (tacit) demands and be able to transform customers’ needs into a total solution package. Dominant e-business firms such as Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon.com, and Google, have successfully implemented the service perspective approach for value creation. They do not consider service as activities which are the object of exchange. Traditional product (or manufacturing) companies such as IBM, GE, Ford Motor Company, and many others have transformed their business models from a product and service offerings oriented model (i.e., a goods-based “unit of output” model) to a service perspective process approach that is consistent with the consumer orientation [7]. Therefore, CEO must establish a core vision of service innovation and transform the organization into a service or solution provider to serve customers and stakeholders. The new perspective emphasizes on defining value creation through service rather than services as market offerings. In addition, value-in-use as defined and experienced by customers should be emphasized. For example, IBM has transformed its traditional business into a new service business model for many years [11, 12]. After buying PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting in 2002, IBM began developing service science and creating expertise and technology aimed at improving the performance of industries from health care to telecommunications [13]. IBM’s rival Hewlett-Packard (HP) is also catching up. Having taken over EDS Consulting in August 2008, HP has also transformed its business model into a collective services business. In addition, both IBM and HP have teamed up with other firms and universities to design new service architectures in the information technology industry 1 . Instead of regarding services as parts of their overall marketing offerings (i.e., innovative services), both IBM and HP cases exemplify the “service innovation” approach of transforming their entire organizations into a service solution providers to create and deliver value to their customers. Dell and Xerox also take big gamble on service firms by purchasing Perot Systems Corporation and Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. separately [14, 15]. Combining Perot Systems with Dell’s existing services would bring Dell an $8 billion a year techservices business and a short at competing better with IBM, HP, and others in selling services. Even Cisco Systems, Inc., a supplier of networking equipment and network management for the Internet, is competing with IBM by working with their clients to explore new business models for providing services through the Internet. Cisco’s plan is to create, process, and transmit digital content and integrate the 1

A Special Report on Corporate IT, The Economist, October 25, 2008.

content, the carrier, and the consumer to make everything work together in new ways [16]. Like IBM and HP, Cisco is also developing its own consulting capabilities to become a service innovation company. IV.

STRUCTURE AND COMPONENTS OF A BUSINESS MODEL

A business model describes the basic framework of a business. It is a term often used to describe the key components of a given business [17]. It is the combination of “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “why,” “how,” and “how much” an organization uses to provide its goods and services and develop resources to continue its efforts [18, 19]. The concept has been developed and applied in business strategy [20, 21, 22, 23, 24], technology and innovation management [25, 26, 27, 28], information systems and e-business research [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34], and mobile services and applications [35, 36]. Osterwalder, et al. [37] and Zott, et al. [38] both provide a comprehensive review of the theoretical roots and recent development of the concept of business model. Timmers [39] defines business model as an architecture for the product, service and information flows, including a description of the various business actors and their roles; and a description of the potential benefits for the various business actors; and a description of the roles and relationships among a firm’s consumers, customers, allies, and suppliers that identifies the major flows of product, information, and money, and the major benefits to participants. Rayport and Jaworski [40] argue that a “new economy” business model requires senior management to choose a specification of a value proposition, a scope of offering, a unique and defendable resource system, and a financial model. In addition to Rayport and Jaworski’s [40] list of business model components, Chesbrough and Rosenbloom [25] and Chesbrough [26] identify six major functions of a business model, which added the market position of the firm within the value network and firm’s competitive strategy to gain advantage over rivals, for technology mangers to capture the value from innovation. Hedman and Kalling [17] propose a generic business model that includes seven causally related components: customers, competitors, offering, activities and organization, resources, supply of factor and production inputs, and the scope of management to cover the dynamics of the business model over time and the cognitive and cultural constraints that managers have to cope with. Finally, Johnson, et al.’s [24] definition of business model consists of four elements that create and deliver value, i.e., value proposition, profit formula, key resources, and key processes. In order to sustain a successful business venture, we follow Lee, et al.’s [33] detailed analysis of the structure and components of a business model, and argue that a viable business model must address a number of issues and the dynamics of the respective elements which include: What value to offer customers (i.e., strategic goals and value proposition), which customers to provide the value to (i.e., a scope of offerings), what capabilities are needed to build a successful and unique resource system (i.e., unique resource systems), how to price the products or services and generate

streams of revenues, and how to increase the scale and the scope of the venture (i.e., revenue and growth models), and what strategies and processes are needed to build and sustain a successful business model (i.e., competitive strategy and process). V.

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION AND BUSINESS MODEL

The concept of disruptive technology or innovation was popularized by Christensen [41, 42, 43, 44, 45]. A disruptive innovation typically presents a different package of performance attributes [41]. It is associated with several key disruptive or discriminating attributes that have potential to either disrupt the current market dominant business (i.e., low-end disruption; e.g., discount department stores, open sources software, and online travel agencies and stockbrokers) or create an entirely new market (i.e., new market disruption; e.g., wireless telephony and online auction). In addition, there are common or shared attributes associated with both the sustaining and disruptive innovations. The shared attributes that customers value improve at a faster rate in the case of disruptive innovation. However, it is the trajectory of the disruptive innovation compared with that of the mainstream market demand that is significant [41]. For example, the business of mobile application services is an innovation in the digital economy in that it is concerned with the use of new knowledge to offer services that customers want. It is disruptive in that the traditional organizations lack the necessary models of competitive architecture and organizational capabilities, and are therefore unable in critical ways to do what must be done [46]. Digital animation disrupted Disney and conquered Hollywood [47]. Another example of disruptive service innovation is the point-to-point airline services pioneered by the Southwest Airlines. In general, disruptive innovations create an entirely new market through the introduction of a new kind of product or service [43]. Instead of devoting efforts to improving the performance attributes uniquely associated with the sustaining innovation, firms should focus on likely adopters and growth segments to promote disruptive innovations. Companies need to identify disruptive attributes associated with emerging technologies and new innovations and to acquire and exploit new knowledge and build capabilities in order to design and implement a viable business model for growth and profit. New business models that capitalize on the disruptive performance attributes and incorporate them into customer value propositions are essential for success VI.

SERVICE BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION

To realize the economic benefits of service innovation, a viable business model must be designed and implemented throughout the entire organization. A scalable business model is also considered as one of the drivers of successful service innovations [8]. Business model serves as a cognitive map that transforms technical inputs to economic value [26]. Continuing business model innovation provides a parallel way to outperform the competition [18]. In this research, we argue that service innovation requires the transformation of

the entire organization into a service or solution provider, rather than merely offering additional innovative service items in addition to the existing product lines. It is a change of corporate vision and the dominant managerial logic within the organization. It also requires an organizational culture that supports human performance and innovation [8]. Therefore, continuing business model innovation breakthroughs have to be established by a CEO’s leadership [19]. Lee and Vonortas [27] argue that business model innovation in the digital economy must meet the two criteria associated with the characteristics of the digital economy: first, the fundamental economic principles of the digital economy (e.g., both demand- and supply-side of the economies of scale and scope, switching costs, and transaction costs); and second, the ability to identify and capitalize on the disruptive attributes of specific technologies and/or service characteristics. Following the same line of reasoning, we extend the above argument to propose three essential criteria for designing and implement a viable service business model innovation. They are: • Are business executives able to differentiate “service innovation” from “innovative services” and transform the organization into a new service business model? i.e., service as a perspective on value creation, rather than a merely category of market offerings in addition or supplement to the existing product lines. • Does a firm’s business model follow the fundamental economic principles and service characteristics? i.e., what is the underlying economic logic that explains how organizations can create and deliver value to customers in the service economy at an appropriate cost? • Is a firm’s business model able to identify and capitalize on the “disruptive” attributes of specific innovations or services? i.e., how can a firm capture the full benefits of the service innovation? In sum, we define service business model innovation as the use of new knowledge (both technological and market knowledge) that capitalizes on the disruptive attributes of specific (emerging) technologies and service characteristics from the perspective of value creation to design and implement an innovative way of offering solutions that satisfy customer’s (both explicit and latent) demands. VII. A MANAGEMENT CONSULTING FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING SERVICE BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION We develop a process approach of service business model innovation to assist service business executives and policy makers in managing and promoting service innovations for sustained competitive advantage. The key stages of service business model innovation are service paradigm, concept development, prototyping, implementation, and evaluation.

A. Stage one: Service paradigm, i.e. changing the traditional mindset from offering innovative service to focus on service innovation and value creation The starting point for organizations engage in business model innovation in service is to transform their traditional thinking of creating value through service. Two specific steps are: • Differentiates the concept of “service innovation” from “innovative services,” i.e., service as a perspective on value creation, rather than a category of market offerings. The focus should be on value through the lens of the customer; and • Transforms traditional thinking of services into a new service business model concept for value creation (e.g., the transformation of IBM, HewlettPackard, Dell, and Xerox’s approaches of value creation and service innovation). CEO must establish a core vision of service innovation for serving customers and other stakeholders. B. Stage two: Concept development, i.e., applying the new service mindset and building a framework for diagnosing service business model A hypothetical new service business model is constructed by: • Identifying and developing specific structure and components of a service business model (i.e., value proposition, scope of offerings, resources and capabilities, revenue and growth models, and competitive strategies); and • Incorporating service attributes into the concept and practice of business model. C. Stage three: Prototyping, i.e., developing criteria for generating service business model innovation The specific steps for this stage involve the following activities: • Evaluates the fundamental economic principles (i.e., cost structure – scale, scope, switching and transaction costs; revenue sources; and growth models) of a new business model. • Integrates unique service attributes (e.g., IHIP or CHIPS characteristics, dynamic service exchange relationships, co-creation of service experience, and relatively low sunk costs of service implementation) and relevant technologies into the design of a service business model. • Identifies and capitalizes on the disruptive attributes of emerging technologies to enable new service design for value creation. For example, mobile application services or m-commerce’ disruptive attributes include mobility, reachability, ubiquity, localization, and time-sensitivity [36]. A new service business model in e-philanthropy ought to be able to capitalize on the disruptive attributes such as personalization of independently managed accounts and options, customization of campaigns and events,

electronic databases of donors and recipients, and social media and virtual community [48]. • Applies an integrated framework to manage the process of service business model innovation [9]. The 3V model of innovation, which are: value proposition (i.e., identifying potential industry demand and earnings), value deployment (i.e., positioning the firms in the value networks to expand value), and value appropriation (i.e., exploiting resources and capturing the benefits of service innovation) can be applied to explore and exploit the potential value through the implementation of a new business model. The 3V model involves innovating the “industry value chain” as described by Giesen, et al. [12]. Networking and external collaboration play a key role in appropriating the value. In addition, the 3D model of innovation, i.e., service design, development, and delivery, presents firms with specific processes for conducting service business model innovation. • Closes the “business model innovation leadership gap” [11] by involving all members of the organization. • Conducts experiments for new business models on a regular basis to identify more promising direction and results. The main output of this stage will be a ready-toimplement business model that is able to capitalize the disruptive attributes and ready to explore the potentials of new technologies or innovations. D. Stage four: Execution, i.e. identifying opportunities and utilizing resources for implementing service business model innovation Implementing a new service business model requires top management’s leadership and commitment as well as their ability to execute the strategy effectively. Service managers need to: • Identify opportunities, resources, and key stakeholders to implement the new service business model. • Build and leverage competences and capabilities to manage service business model innovation. • Implement the processes and strategies suggested by Lee et al.’s [9] integrated framework of managing knowledge-intensive service innovation to: 1) explore value creation opportunities, develop partnerships to expand the value network, and capture the value of business model innovation; 2) assess the performance of the new service business model according to the three essential criteria of a successful business model innovation discussed above; 3) analyze and evaluate the case companies’ specific processes for new service design, development, and delivery. • Innovate new methods for generating revenues (e.g., new pricing models) and implement new structure

and redefine the boundary of the enterprise to capture the value of business model innovation [12]. E. Stage five: Assessment and evaluation, i.e., assessing the milestones and benefits gained from implementing service business model innovations, as wells as generating managerial (and policy) implications This stage is to assess and evaluate the process and performance of designing and implementing service business model innovation. The lessons learned from the process can be applied to the future development of new business models. Service innovation managers should be able to: • Identify the strengths, shortcomings, resources, capabilities, and options for future business model innovation. • Assess and evaluate the major milestones and overall performance of the new business model. • Develop corrective actions for control and performance. Finally, policy makers at the regional or national level are able to evaluate the effectiveness of innovation policies which are intended for promote service innovations and global competitiveness. VIII. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION In this research we discuss the business model and service innovation concepts and propose a management consulting framework to assist managers and policy makers in managing and promoting service business model innovation. We first apply an analytical model to differentiate the concepts and practices of service innovation from innovative service offerings of a firm. Business executives need to apply an integrated framework for managing the process of service business model innovation to create value for customers and to appropriate value for the firm. The major difference is “service as a perspective on customer value creation” rather than the traditional manufacturer’s view of service as a category of market offerings (supplement to the existing product lines). We then discuss the disruptive innovation and define service business model innovation. One lesson learned from this is the importance of identifying and capitalizing the disruptive attributes of emerging technologies or innovation when designing a new service business model. Another lesson learned from this research is CEO must establish a core vision on service innovation and take the leadership in transforming the entire organizational culture and processes into a service-oriented solution provider in order to create and sustain competitive advantage. REFERENCES Agrawal, G.K. and Berg, D. 2007. Technology in the service development process: A missing dimension. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 8(2/3): 107-122. [2] Sundbo, J. 2002. The service economy: Standardization or customization? The Service Industries Journal, 22(4): 93-116. [1]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] [11]

[12]

[13] [14]

[15] [16] [17]

[18]

[19]

[20] [21] [22] [23]

[24]

[25]

Wise, R. and Baumgartner, P. 1999. Go downstream: The new profit imperative in manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 77(5): 133-141. Bowen, D.E. and Youngdahl, W.E. 1998. “Lean” service: In defense of a product-line approach. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(3): 207-225. Fitzsimmons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. 2005. Service Management: Operations, Strategy, Information Technology, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY. Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A. and Roos, I. 2005. Service portraits in service research: A critical review. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(1): 107-121. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. 2004. The four service marketing myths: Remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 6(4): 324-335. Berry, L.B., Shankar, V., Parish, J.T., Cadwallader, S., and Dotzel, T. 2006. Creating new markets through service innovation. Sloan Management Review, 47(2): 56-63. Lee, C.-S., Chen, G. Y., Ho, J.C., and Hsieh, P. 2010. An integrated framework for managing knowledge-intensive service innovation. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 13(1/2): 20-39. Rayport, J.F. and Sviokla, J.J. 1995. Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review, 73(6): 75-85. Chesbrough, H. 2007. Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6): 1217. Giesen, E., Berman, S.J., Bell, R. and Blitz, A. 2007. Three ways to successfully innovate your business model. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6): 27-33. Hamm, S. 2009. The globe is IBM’s classroom. BusinessWeek, March 23 & 30: 86. Scheck, J., Worthen, B., and DiColo, J.A. 2009. Dell to buy Perot in catch-up deal. The Wall Street Journal, September 22, A1. Bulkeley, W. and Pereira, J. 2009. Xerox takes big gamble on services firm. The Wall Street Journal, September 29, 1. Burrows, P. and Ricadela, A. 2009. Cisco seizes the moment. BusinessWeek, May 25, 46-48. Hedman, J. and Kalling, T. 2003. The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations. European Journal of Information Systems, 12: 49-59. Mitchell, D.W. and Coles, C.B. 2003. The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing business model innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5): 15-21. Mitchell, D.W. and Coles, C.B. 2004. Business model innovation breakthrough moves. Journal of Business Strategy, 25(1): 16-26. Amit, R. and Zott, C. 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7): 493-520. Betz, F. 2002. “Strategic business models,” Engineering Management Journal, 14(1): 21-27. Magretta, J. 2002. Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5): 86-92. Mansfield, G.M. and Fourie, L.C.H. 2004. Strategy and business models – strange bedfellows? A case for convergence and its evolution into strategic architecture. South Africa Journal of Business Management, 35(1): 35-44. Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M., and Kagermann, H. 2008. Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(2): 51-59. Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. 2002. The role of the business models in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3): 529-555.

[26] Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39] [40] [41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lee, C.-S. and Vonortas, N. 2004. Business model innovation in the digital economy. in Doukidis, G., Mylonopoulos, N. and Pouloudi, N. (Eds.) Social and Economic Transformation in the Digital Era, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing: 164181. Chesbrough, H. and Schwartz, K. 2007. Innovating business models with co-development partnerships. Research Technology Management, January-February: 55-59. Lee, C.-S. 2001. An analytical framework for evaluating ecommerce business models and strategies. Internet Research, 11(4): 349-359. Weill, P. and Vitale, M.R. 2001. Place to Space: Migrating to E-Business Models. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dubosson-Torbay, M., Osterwalder, A., and Pigneur, Y. 2002. E-business design, classification, and measurements. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(1): 5-23. Afuah, A. and Tucci, C.L. 2003. Internet Business Models and Strategies, 2nd edition, New York, NY: McGrawHill/Irwin. Lee, C.-S., Chen, G. Y., and Fan, Y. 2006. Structure and components of e-commerce business model. In Mehdi Khosrow-Pour (ed.) Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, EGovernment, and Mobile Commerce, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Rappa, M. 2009. Business models on the Web. Managing the Digital Enterprise. Retrieved from http://digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html Methlie, L.B. and Pedersen, P.E. 2007. Business model choices for value creation of mobile services. info, 9(5): 7085. Lee, C.-S. And Ho, J.C. 2011. A framework for analyzing business model innovation in mobile commerce. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, Forthcomings. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., and Tucci, C.L. 2005. Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15: 1-25. Zott, C., Amit, R., and Massa, L. 2010. The business model: Theoretical roots, recent developments, and future research. Working Paper WP-862, IESE Business School, University of Navarra. Timmers, P. 1998. Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets, 8(2): 3-7. Rayport, J.F. and Jaworski, B.J. 2001. E-commerce. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. 1995. Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1): pp. 43-53. Christensen, C.M. and Bower, J.L. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 197-218. Christensen, C.M. and Overdorf, M. 2000. Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2): 66-76. Christensen, C.M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, C.M. and Raynor, M.E. 2003. The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

[46] Miller, W.L. & Morris, L. 1999. Fourth Generation R&D:

[48] Lee, C.-S. and Hsieh, P. 2010. Disruptive business model

Managing Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [47] Brady, M. 2006. How Digital Animation Conquered Hollywood. Wired, 14(3). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/animation.html

innovations in e-philanthropy. International Journal of Intercultural Information Management, 2(1): 79-95.