Purpose: To facilitate the design of viable business models by proposing a novel business model design framework for viability. Design: A design science research method is adopted to develop a business model design framework for viability. The business model design framework for viability is demonstrated by using it to design a business model for an energy enterprise. The aforementioned framework is validated in theory by using expert opinion. Findings: It is difficult to design viable business models because of the changing market conditions, and competing interests of stakeholders in a business ecosystem setting. Although the literature on business models provides guidance on designing viable business models, the languages (business model ontologies) used to design business models largely ignore such guidelines. Therefore, we propose a business model design framework for viability to overcome the identified shortcomings. The theoretical validation of the business model design framework for viability indicates that it is able to successfully bridge the identified shortcomings, and it is able to facilitate the design of viable business models. Moreover, the validation of the framework in practice is currently underway. Originality / value: Several business model ontologies are used to conceptualise and evaluate business models. However, their rote application will not lead to viable business models, because they largely ignore vital design elements, such as design principles, configuration techniques, business rules, design choices, and assumptions. Therefore, we propose and validate a novel business model design framework for viability that overcomes the aforementioned shortcomings.
DOCUMENT
Paper presented at the International Sustainability Transitions conference 2018 (12-14 june) Manchester, UK. The Dutch agrifood regime is grinding to a halt. International economic pressures force Dutch farmers to further scale up and intensify their businesses, while food scandals and calamities as well as many and varied negative environmental impacts have led to an all-time low societal acceptance of the agrifood regime as well as a host of legislative measures to stifle further growth. Such a situation, in which regime pressures increasingly undermine the regime, represents a strong call for transition of the Dutch agrifood system.At the same time, new business models emerge: new players arrive, new logistical pathways come to the fore and innovative consumer and farmer relationships – food co-operatives – are forged. In a sense, the transition is already under way (cf. Hermans et al., 2010), with new business models forming an important backbone. However, the way forward is still a matter of great uncertainty and controversy: How do new business models relate to reconfiguring the Dutch agrifood system? We explore the hypothesis that different transition pathways put specific demands on the role of new business models. We studied various new business models in the Dutch agrifood system and their relations to three different transition pathways. Our research combines future exploration (backcasting) and analysis of new business models. In this research, we approach this question from two angles. First, we introduce a transition-oriented business model concept, in order to effectively link new business models to transition. Then we shortly touch upon the transition pathway typology introduced by Geels et al. (2016) and describe three different transition pathways for the Dutch agrifood system. We report on XX business models in each of these transition pathways. The paper ends with a discussion of the role of business models for different types of transition pathways.
DOCUMENT
Organisations operate in an increasingly dynamic environment. Consequently, the business models span several organisations, dealing with multiple stakeholders and their competing interests. As a result, the enterprise information systems supporting this new market setting are highly distributed, and their components are owned and managed by different stakeholders. For successful businesses to exist it is crucial that their enterprise architectures are derived from and aligned with viable business models. Business model ontologies (BMOs) are effective tools for designing and evaluating business models. However, the viability perspective has been largely neglected. In this paper, current BMOs have been assessed on their capabilities to support the design and evaluation of viable business models. As such, a list of criteria is derived from literature to evaluate BMOs from a viability perspective. These criteria are subsequently applied to six well-established BMOs, to identify a BMO best suited for design and evaluation of viable business models. The analysis reveals that, although none of the BMOs satisfy all the criteria, e3-value is the most appropriate BMO for designing and evaluating business models from a viability perspective. Furthermore, the identified deficits provide clear areas for enhancing the assessed BMOs from a viability perspective.
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
New Dutch agrifood business models are emerging in response to economic, social and ecological pressures: new players arrive, new logistical pathways come to the fore and innovative consumer and farmer relationships – food coöperatives – are forged. How do new business models relate to reconfiguring the Dutch agrifood system? Our research combines future exploration (backcasting) and analysis of new business models. We developed three agrifood transition scenarios with various groups of stakeholders. For each scenario, we then analysed a specific, representative business model to explore the different roles of business models in agrifood transition. Business models in the “Added value in and with the countryside” already exist and occupy a niche in the market. However, a breakthrough of these business models require large-scale institutional and behavioural change. Business models in the “New products, specific markets” exist but are rare. They usually concern high-value specialist products that could result in widespread market change, but might require little institutional change. The “Sustainable production methods” most resembles the current system. Some associated business models become successful, but they have difficulty distinguishing themselves from conventional produce, which raises questions about whether business models are able to drive a transition in this direction. Thus, our results lend credence to the hypothesis that different transition pathways offer specific potential for and requirements of new business models.
DOCUMENT
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
A transition from a linear economy to a more sustainable and circular economy requires different business models. In this chapter, we provide you with an introduction to the nature and logic of business models. In essence, a business model is a description of how value creation between parties or partners is organized, at a particular moment, in a specific context, and given available resources. Conventional business modelling approaches have several weaknesses---the main point of criticism being their focus on creating financial value. With the Business Model Template (BMT), we try to resolve most of these criticisms. To do so we introduce three archetypal business models: the platform, community, and circular economy business models. This chapter provides an overview on how, over three stages and ten building blocks that together make up the Business Model Template, these archetypal business models will be used.
LINK
This report describes the Utrecht regio with regard to sustainability and circular business models.
DOCUMENT
For future generations to meet their needs, and to close the global inequality gap, we need to degrow. That is we need to reduce resource and energy consumption to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality and improves human well-being (Hickel, 2020a,b). This transition has consequences for business, because instead of boosting sales companies need to encourage consumers to make do with less, avoiding build in obsolescence, extending product lives to slow disposal and replacement, focusing on satisfying ‘needs’ rather than ‘wants’ and reducing overall resource consumption through conscious changes in sales and marketing techniques, new revenue models and innovative technology solutions (Bocken & Short, 2016). Overall, we can say that companies have to rethink their business models, therefore I specifically aim to answer the following research question: what could a degrowth business model framework look like? Degrowth business models (DGMs) are supposed to serve the dual aim of (1) obeying planetary boundaries whilst simultaneously (2) contributing to reducing inequality and increasing well-being. That is companies need to develop value propositions that, on the one hand contribute to absolutely reducing resource and energy consumption, and on the other are aimed at production of protected needs (Di Giulio & Defila, 2021). Since degrowth is considered an authentic and legitimate interpretation of sustainable development, SDGs 12-16 can serve as proxies for obeying planetary boundaries, whilst the remaining SDGs (minus SDG8.1 -economic growth) can be regarded as proxies for well-being and reducing inequality.
LINK
