Are the so-called “new” business models focused on “sharing” actually promoting new behaviour or are they simply using old behaviour of the provider/consumer in a new technological environment? Are the new tech companies in the sharing economy with their “new” business models grabbing too much power, unnoticeably?
DOCUMENT
The BMT provides the building blocks to develop a logic for a business model. In such a model the nature of value creation, how value creation is organized, and how transactions are taking shape are operationalized so that they meet the proposition. Practice shows that at present business models aimed at capturing multiple value creation can be divided into three major categories: (1) platform business models, (2) community-based (or collective) business models, and (3) circular business models. The three archetypes differ mainly in the way in which they create value, as well as the objective, the mechanism through which value creation takes place, and the infrastructural and technological requirements. When using the BMT, it is useful to consider at an early stage which business model archetype is dominant in the realization of the intended value proposition. Choosing a business model archetype might look straightforward, but it can be quite a tricky task.
LINK
An overview of innovations in a particular area, for example retail developments in the fashion sector (Van Vliet, 2014), and a subsequent discussion about the probability as to whether these innovations will realise a ‘breakthrough’, has to be supplemented with the question of what the added value is for the customer of such a new service or product. The added value for the customer must not only be clear as to its direct (instrumental or hedonic) incentives but it must also be tested on its merits from a business point of view. This requires a methodology. Working with business models is a method for describing the added value of products/services for customers in a systematic and structured manner. The fact that this is not always simple is evident from the discussions about retail developments, which do not excel in well-grounded business models. If there is talk about business models at all, it is more likely to concern strategic positioning in the market or value chain, or the discussion is about specifics like earning- and distribution-models (see Molenaar, 2011; Shopping 2020, 2014). Here we shall deal with two aspects of business models. First of all we shall look at the different perspectives in the use of business models, ultimately arriving at four distinctive perspectives or methods of use. Secondly, we shall outline the context within which business models operate. As a conclusion we shall distil a research framework from these discussions by presenting an integrated model as the basis for further research into new services and product.
DOCUMENT
Collaborative networks for sustainability are emerging rapidly to address urgent societal challenges. By bringing together organizations with different knowledge bases, resources and capabilities, collaborative networks enhance information exchange, knowledge sharing and learning opportunities to address these complex problems that cannot be solved by organizations individually. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the apparel sector, where examples of collaborative networks for sustainability are plenty, for example Sustainable Apparel Coalition, Zero Discharge Hazardous Chemicals, and the Fair Wear Foundation. Companies like C&A and H&M but also smaller players join these networks to take their social responsibility. Collaborative networks are unlike traditional forms of organizations; they are loosely structured collectives of different, often competing organizations, with dynamic membership and usually lack legal status. However, they do not emerge or organize on their own; they need network orchestrators who manage the network in terms of activities and participants. But network orchestrators face many challenges. They have to balance the interests of diverse companies and deal with tensions that often arise between them, like sharing their innovative knowledge. Orchestrators also have to “sell” the value of the network to potential new participants, who make decisions about which networks to join based on the benefits they expect to get from participating. Network orchestrators often do not know the best way to maintain engagement, commitment and enthusiasm or how to ensure knowledge and resource sharing, especially when competitors are involved. Furthermore, collaborative networks receive funding from grants or subsidies, creating financial uncertainty about its continuity. Raising financing from the private sector is difficult and network orchestrators compete more and more for resources. When networks dissolve or dysfunction (due to a lack of value creation and capture for participants, a lack of financing or a non-functioning business model), the collective value that has been created and accrued over time may be lost. This is problematic given that industrial transformations towards sustainability take many years and durable organizational forms are required to ensure ongoing support for this change. Network orchestration is a new profession. There are no guidelines, handbooks or good practices for how to perform this role, nor is there professional education or a professional association that represents network orchestrators. This is urgently needed as network orchestrators struggle with their role in governing networks so that they create and capture value for participants and ultimately ensure better network performance and survival. This project aims to foster the professionalization of the network orchestrator role by: (a) generating knowledge, developing and testing collaborative network governance models, facilitation tools and collaborative business modeling tools to enable network orchestrators to improve the performance of collaborative networks in terms of collective value creation (network level) and private value capture (network participant level) (b) organizing platform activities for network orchestrators to exchange ideas, best practices and learn from each other, thereby facilitating the formation of a professional identity, standards and community of network orchestrators.
The Academy for Leisure & Events has always been one of the frontrunners when it comes to the development, design and implementation of cultural tourism and creative industry business models as well as lifelong learning programmes.These programmes are attended by a variety of leisure and tourism professionals, including public authorities in leisure, culture and nature fields.The CULTURWB project addresses the need for strengthening the development of the cultural tourism industry.The experts from BUas together with the other project partners have utilised diverse research methodologies (marketing and branding, strategy business planning, digital tourism, sustainable development, strategy and action plan implementation, etc.) to develop and pilot a toolkit for Lifelong Learning courses in the field of cultural tourism and heritage. They have also designed and implemented a master’s programme in the WB countries and created an online platform for communication between stakeholders, industry leaders, managers, workforce, and academia.PartnersHochschule Heibronn, FH Joanneum Gesellschaft, World University Service - Österreichisches Komitee (WUS Austria), Dzemal Bijedic University of Mostar (UNMO), University of East Sarajevo (UES), The University of Banja Luka (UBL), University of NIS (UNI), University of Montenegro (UoM), Sarajevo Meeting of Cultures (SMOC), rovincial Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments (PZZZSK), Tourism Organisation of Kotor Municipality (TO Kotor)
In the Netherlands the business community is pretty active in the biobased economy because it offers plenty of economic opportunities. Innovation and chain development are stimulated towards the development of the bi-obased economy, bioenergy and to biobased materials. The Netherlands is strongly investing on improving inno-vative business and development, developing business cases and removing obstacles of non-technical origin. Importantly, the Dutch business community have recognised that many activities will depend on biomass imports as domestic production is mostly limited. In the Netherlands there is a large demand for biobased biomass, and it is estimated that in the year 2030 about 60-70% of the required biomass will have to be imported. The Dutch Platform Biobased Raw Materials has emphasised the importance of the imports of biomass, and has focused on developing guidelines for transition paths, where international cooperation with biomass-producing countries is essential. The Netherlands has identified Spain as an important provider of biomass resources (19 million ktoe), Spain holds the third position in European ranking of biomass potential. The autonomous community Galicia is the most important forest region in Spain, where the agroforestry sector has been considered as an alternative to yield economic benefits as well as to bring ecological advantages. However, the potential of Galicia as a pro-ducer and supplier of (waste flow) biomass is underdeveloped and underutilised. There is a need for a better un-derstanding of the potential business models that Dutch companies and Spanish stakeholders can apply to devel-op a biobased value chains that lead to the triple bottom line of People, Planet and Profit. To realise this goal, our project focuses on identifying the linkages between the Galicia agroforestry sector and the Dutch biobased industries, and explore the potential business opportunities towards the strengthening of both the local and the Dutch biobased markets. To achieve the latter we centred on the following questions: I. What are the potential new business models that can be applied for a profitable and sustainable biobased chain from the waste flows of the agroforestry sector of Galicia for a steady production and supply to the local and the Dutch markets, leading to a sustainable transition path? II. What are the institutional frameworks required to develop new and profitable biobased value chains within the agroforestry sector in Galicia?
