《创业学》课程教学资源（文献资料）The entrepreneur’s business model

The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective Michael Morrisa,*, Minet Schindehutteb , Jeffrey Allenc a Witting Chair in Entrepreneurship, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA b Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA c University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA Received 29 September 2002; accepted 6 November 2003 Abstract Highly emphasized in entrepreneurial practice, business models have received limited attention from researchers. No consensus exists regarding the definition, nature, structure, and evolution of business models. Still, the business model holds promise as a unifying unit of analysis that can facilitate theory development in entrepreneurship. This article synthesizes the literature and draws conclusions regarding a number of these core issues. Theoretical underpinnings of a firm’s business model are explored. A six-component framework is proposed for characterizing a business model, regardless of venture type. These components are applied at three different levels. The framework is illustrated using a successful mainstream company. Suggestions are made regarding the manner in which business models might be expected to emerge and evolve over time. D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Activity sets; Architecture; Business model; Strategy; Model dynamics 1. Introduction Ventures fail despite the presence of market opportunities, novel business ideas, adequate resources, and talented entrepreneurs. A possible cause is the underlying model driving the business. Surprisingly, little attention has been given to business models by researchers, with much of the published work focusing on Internet-based models. The available research tends to be descriptive in nature, examining approaches to model construction, noting standard model types, citing examples of failed and successful models, and discussing the need for new models as conditions change. Yet, no consensus exists regarding the definition or nature of a model, and there has been no attempt to prioritize critical research questions or establish research streams relating to models. The purpose of this study is to review existing perspectives and propose an integrative framework for characterizing the entrepreneur’s business model. 2. Literature review 2.1. What is a ‘business model’? No generally accepted definition of the term ‘‘business model’’ has emerged. Diversity in the available definitions poses substantive challenges for delimiting the nature and components of a model and determining what constitutes a good model. It also leads to confusion in terminology, as business model, strategy, business concept, revenue model, and economic model are often used interchangeably. Moreover, the business model has been referred to as architecture, design, pattern, plan, method, assumption, and statement. It is possible to bring order to the various perspectives. A content analysis of key words in 30 definitions led the authors to identify three general categories of definitions based on their principal emphasis. These categories can be labeled economic, operational, and strategic, with each comprised of a unique set of decision variables. They represent a hierarchy in that the perspective becomes more comprehensive as one progressively moves from the economic to the operational to the strategic levels. At the most rudimentary level, the business model is defined solely in terms of the firm’s economic model. The 0148-2963/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.001 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-315-443-3164. E-mail address: mhmorris@syr.edu (M. Morris). Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 726 – 735

M.Morris et al.Jounal of Business Research 58(205)726-735 concem is with the logic of profit generation.Relevant business plan,but the plan deals with a number of start-up decision varable s include reven method Hence.Stewart and Zhao (2000)approach the model as larly.it is not an activi statement of how a firm will make money and sustain its each element of a model profit st eam ov At the operation the mod The 2.2.What do we know about business models? the firm to create value.Decision variables include produc- Interest in business models is relatively recent,with tion or service delivery methods,administrative processes much of the research appearing in the past decade,a time esourc (and logistic with th The popularity key interdependent ystems that create and sustain a co Google search engine and the ABl-Inform database.Results itive business."Definitions at the strategic level emphasize from these two sources indicated 4.326,812 and 2387 overall dire respectively.fo mode S.an 20001. come fror Decision elements include stakeholder identification,valu capturing revenue streams for web-based firms.Subsequen creation,differentiation. vision,values and networks and efforts identified model types sbased on product offerings 96)reter pro a d firm archite http://digitalen /models.html.As it be capture tless,re ong the a this cs b n sptb lack on,prog in the field has b tra hitecture o the nm the model cantures the ess how the business 24 different items are mentioned as ble component system will be focused Accordingly,the following inte. with 15 receiving multiple mentions. The most frequentl propo cited are the firm value offering (11),economic mod in ho h set ecture and economics are addre sed to create sustainable target markets (5).Some items overlap.such as customer competitive advantage in defined markets relationships and the firm's partner network or the firm's the ev number of related issues.Few insights are available egarding the conditions that make a particular model workstations ways in which m dels t with organiz concep om of Attempts at model decomposition acknowledge the exis iderations,operationa proc s,and decisions rela ents but shec limination o on the the hod mite customer service.moderate margins. rapid invent tum ve and a distribu 2.3.Theoretical underpinnings of business models d the ssues of the sent another ceiving scan direction attention.A notable exception can be found in Amit and Zott(2001),who approach the business model construct as managerial concepts. a unifying unit of analysis that captures value creatior

concern is with the logic of profit generation. Relevant decision variables include revenue sources, pricing methodologies, cost structures, margins, and expected volumes. Hence, Stewart and Zhao (2000) approach the model as ‘‘a statement of how a firm will make money and sustain its profit stream over time.’’ At the operational level, the model represents an architectural configuration. The focus is on internal processes and design of infrastructure that enables the firm to create value. Decision variables include production or service delivery methods, administrative processes, resource flows, knowledge management, and logistical streams. Mayo and Brown (1999) refer to ‘‘the design of key interdependent systems that create and sustain a competitive business.’’ Definitions at the strategic level emphasize overall direction in the firm’s market positioning, interactions across organizational boundaries, and growth opportunities. Of concern is competitive advantage and sustainability. Decision elements include stakeholder identification, value creation, differentiation, vision, values, and networks and alliances. Slywotsky (1996) refers to ‘‘the totality of how a company selects its customers, defines and differentiates its offerings, defines the tasks it will perform itself and those it will outsource, configures its resources, goes to market, creates utility for customers and captures profits.’’ Among the available definitions, strategic elements are most prominent. Further, an analysis of models frequently cited as being well conceptualized (e.g., Dell, Nucor, WalMart, IKEA, Walgreen) suggests that the elements making these models unique transcend the architecture of the firm or how it makes money. More than the sum of its parts, the model captures the essence of how the business system will be focused. Accordingly, the following integrative definition is proposed: ‘‘A business model is a concise representation of how an interrelated set of decision variables in the areas of venture strategy, architecture, and economics are addressed to create sustainable competitive advantage in defined markets.’’ To illustrate the distinction between a business model and related concepts, consider Dell Computer, a firm that has grown to over US$32 billion in annual sales in just 20 years. The company’s products include a mix of PCs, notebooks, workstations, servers, and software products. Their business concept involves selling customized computer solutions directly to customers at competitive prices. However, the Dell business model integrates strategic considerations, operational processes, and decisions related to economics. It is designed around elimination of intermediaries, systems built to order, highly responsive customer service, moderate margins, rapid inventory turnover, speedy integration of new technologies, and a highly efficient procurement, manufacturing, and distribution process. Adherence to these elements guides operational decision making and the firm’s ongoing strategic direction. The business model is related to a number of other managerial concepts. It captures key components of a business plan, but the plan deals with a number of start-up and operational issues that transcend the model. It is not a strategy but includes a number of strategy elements. Similarly, it is not an activity set, although activity sets support each element of a model. 2.2. What do we know about business models? Interest in business models is relatively recent, with much of the research appearing in the past decade, a time period associated with the ‘‘new economy.’’ The popularity of the term is evidenced in a keyword search using the Google search engine and the ABI-Inform database. Results from these two sources indicated 4,326,812 and 2387 entries, respectively, for ‘‘business model.’’ The largest volume of research has come from electronic commerce (Mahadevan, 2000). Early work focused on capturing revenue streams for web-based firms. Subsequent efforts identified model types based on product offerings, value-creating processes, and firm architecture, among other variables. For a detailed inventory of these models, see http://digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html. As it became evident that the number of potential models was limitless, researchers began focusing on model taxonomies. In spite of this foundation, progress in the field has been hindered by lack of consensus over the key components of a model. Table 1 presents a synopsis of available perspectives regarding model components. The perspectives are notable both for their similarities and differences. The number of components mentioned varies from four to eight. A total of 24 different items are mentioned as possible components, with 15 receiving multiple mentions. The most frequently cited are the firm’s value offering (11), economic model (10), customer interface/relationship (8), partner network/ roles (7), internal infrastructure/connected activities (6), and target markets (5). Some items overlap, such as customer relationships and the firm’s partner network or the firm’s revenue sources, products, and value offering. This lack of consensus has hindered progress on a number of related issues. Few insights are available regarding the conditions that make a particular model appropriate, ways in which models interact with organizational variables, existence of generic model types, and dynamics of model evolution, among other questions. Attempts at model decomposition acknowledge the existence of interdependencies among components but shed little light on the nature of the relationships. Limited progress has also been made in establishing methodologies for evaluating model quality. 2.3. Theoretical underpinnings of business models Issues of theory represent another area receiving scant attention. A notable exception can be found in Amit and Zott (2001), who approach the business model construct as a unifying unit of analysis that captures value creation M. Morris et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 726–735 727

arising from multiple sources. They argue for a crosstheoretical perspective, concluding that no single theory can fully explain the value creation potential of a venture. The business model construct builds upon central ideas in business strategy and its associated theoretical traditions. Most directly, it builds upon the value chain concept (Porter, 1985) and the extended notions of value systems and strategic positioning (Porter, 1996). Because the business model encompasses competitive advantage, it also draws on resource-based theory (Barney et al., 2001). In terms of the firm’s fit within the larger value creation network, the model relates to strategic network theory (Jarillo, 1995) and cooperative strategies (Dyer and Singh, 1998). Further, the model involves choices (e.g., vertical integration, competitive strategy) about firm boundaries (Barney, 1999) and relates to transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1981). Most perspectives on models include the firm’s offerings and activities undertaken to produce them. Here, management must consider the firm’s value proposition, choose the activities it will undertake within the firm, and determine how the firm fits into the value creation network. Based on Schumpeter’s (1936) theory of economic development, value is created from unique combinations of resources that produce innovations, while transaction cost economics identifies transaction efficiency and boundary decisions as a value source. Positioning within the larger value network can be a critical factor in value creation. As part of its positioning, the firm must establish appropriate relationships with suppliers, partners, and customers. Table 1 Perspectives on business model components Source Specific components Number E-commerce/ general Empirical support (Y/N) Nature of data Horowitz (1996) Price, product, distribution, organizational characteristics, and technology 5G N Viscio and Pasternak (1996) Global core, governance, business units, services, and linkages 5G N Timmers (1998) Product/service/information flow architecture, business actors and roles, actor benefits, revenue sources, and marketing strategy 5 E Y Detailed case studies Markides (1999) Product innovation, customer relationship, infrastructure management, and financial aspects 4G N Donath (1999) Customer understanding, marketing tactics, corporate governance, and intranet/extranet capabilities 5E N Gordijn et al. (2001) Actors, market segments, value offering, value activity, stakeholder network, value interfaces, value ports, and value exchanges 8E N Linder and Cantrell (2001) Pricing model, revenue model, channel model, commerce process model, Internet-enabled commerce relationship, organizational form, and value proposition 8 G Y 70 interviews with CEOs Chesbrough and Rosenbaum (2000) Value proposition, target markets, internal value chain structure, cost structure and profit model, value network, and competitive strategy 6 G Y 35 case studies Gartner (2003) Market offering, competencies, core technology investments, and bottom line 4 E N Consulting clients Hamel (2001) Core strategy, strategic resources, value network, and customer interface 4 G N Consulting clients Petrovic et al. (2001) Value model, resource model, production model, customer relations model, revenue model, capital model, and market model 7E N Dubosson-Torbay et al. (2001) Products, customer relationship, infrastructure and network of partners, and financial aspects 4 E Y Detailed case studies Afuah and Tucci (2001) Customer value, scope, price, revenue, connected activities, implementation, capabilities, and sustainability 8E N Weill and Vitale (2001) Strategic objectives, value proposition, revenue sources, success factors, channels, core competencies, customer segments, and IT infrastructure 8 E Y Survey research Applegate (2001) Concept, capabilities, and value 3 G N Amit and Zott (2001) Transaction content, transaction structure, and transaction governance 4 E Y 59 case studies Alt and Zimmerman (2001) Mission, structure, processes, revenues,legalities, and technology 6 E N Literature synthesis Rayport and Jaworski (2001) Value cluster, market space offering, resource system, and financial model 4 E Y 100 cases Betz (2002) Resources, sales, profits, and capital 4 G N 728 M. Morris et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 726–735

M.Morris et al./Jounal of Business Research 58(2005)726-735 729 Models implicitly or explicitly address the intemal com dation level,a need to make generic decisions regarding petencies that underlie a fim's c what the bu siness is and is iewed as bundle of resourees and capabilities (Bamey et make, it permits general comparisons across ventures and the ificat of universal mode At the propr and others in the value network.Also.where the model has result marketplace advantage.At this level,the frame work becomes a customizable tool that encourages the srelevance( of 1000) us on how va Tue can in business model research.An effective model encom model is limited however unless it pr passes unique combinations that result in superior value retums to the n the model.The rules 93 At the h an firm's 3.I.Foundation level:defining basic components objective Bus At its e ulated model must address si ambitious aspirations.Various thepretical traditions have questions (see Table 2).These questions have been derived based among the various per nature and theory is tion summ Table a fo determining outcomes.Altematively,the theory of effec emphasized components concem the value prop ustomer,internal processes and competencies,and how the determine can be d goals emerge fim ma s money ido th hese our a An additional theoretical perspective app competencies and the value proposition into a sustainable business model as interrelated components ofa system that marketplace position.Finally,a useable framework should apply to all types of ventures,reflecting t he design consid aan0 pen syster Thus.the sixth decision area captures growth and time exchange (Petrovic et al.,2001). 3.Model development:an integrative framework 3.1.1.How will the firm create value? This first question concems the value offering of the Building on these conceptual and th oretical roots,it is .Decisions here addre the nature of the product odel Ta uch must ice mix.the firm's o pro reasonably simple.logical.measurable.comprehensive.and perspectives tend to oversimp cation for the and the reation of vaue provides a a firm's me ess er fims in general but which serves the needs of the individual Chesb and Rosenbaum (2002).and Rayport and entrepreneur. Jaworski (2001),among others. Accordingly,a frame propos ed that cons sts of will the of the Further,at each level,six basic decision areas are market in which the fimm competes.To whom will the firm considered.The need for three There is,at the foun

Models implicitly or explicitly address the internal competencies that underlie a firm’s competitive advantage. This is consistent with resource-based theory, where the firm is viewed as a bundle of resources and capabilities (Barney et al., 2001). Competitive advantage can emerge from superior execution of particular activities within the firm’s internal value chain, superior coordination among those activities, or superior management of the interface between the firm and others in the value network. Also, where the model has proprietary innovative elements, resource advantage theory holds relevance (Hunt, 2000). The economics of the venture is featured prominently in business model research. An effective model encompasses unique combinations that result in superior value creation, in turn producing superior returns to the firm, consistent with Schumpeterian theory (Schumpeter, 1936). At the same time, the growth and profit aspirations of entrepreneurs vary considerably. Aspirations reflect the firm’s relationship to the entrepreneur’s career and life and influence enterprise objectives. Business models will differ for ventures with more moderate versus more ambitious aspirations. Various theoretical traditions have implications for entrepreneurial intentions regarding the nature and scope of the venture. Self-efficacy theory is a case in point, with its emphasis on role of an entrepreneur’s cognitive capabilities and skills assessment in determining outcomes. Alternatively, the theory of effectuation suggests that entrepreneurs make conjectures about the future, determine what can be done, and goals emerge over time (Wiltbank and Sarasvathy, 2002). An additional theoretical perspective approaches the business model as interrelated components of a system that constitutes the firm’s architectural backbone. With systems theory, the business is viewed as an open system with varying levels of combinatorial complexity among subsystems and bounded by the environment and open information exchange (Petrovic et al., 2001). 3. Model development: an integrative framework Building on these conceptual and theoretical roots, it is possible to develop a standard framework for characterizing a business model. To be useful, such a framework must be reasonably simple, logical, measurable, comprehensive, and operationally meaningful. In seeking generalizability, the extant perspectives tend to oversimplify a firm’s model. The challenge is to produce a framework that is applicable to firms in general but which serves the needs of the individual entrepreneur. Accordingly, a framework is proposed that consists of three increasingly specific levels of decision making, termed the ‘foundation’, ‘proprietary,’ and ‘rules’ levels. Further, at each level, six basic decision areas are considered. The need for three levels reflects the different managerial purposes of a model. There is, at the foundation level, a need to make generic decisions regarding what the business is and is not and ensure such decisions are internally consistent. Because the foundation level addresses basic decisions that all entrepreneurs must make, it permits general comparisons across ventures and the identification of universal models. At the proprietary level, the model’s purpose is to enable development of unique combinations among decision variables that result in marketplace advantage. At this level, the framework becomes a customizable tool that encourages the entrepreneur to focus on how value can be created in each of the six decision areas. The usefulness of any model is limited, however, unless it provides specific guidance and discipline to business operations, necessitating a third level in the model. The rules level delineates guiding principles governing execution of decisions made at levels one and two. 3.1. Foundation level: defining basic components At its essence, a well-formulated model must address six key questions (see Table 2). These questions have been derived based on commonalities among the various perspectives found in the literature, including those summarized in Table 1. Moreover, each has a foundation in the theoretical work discussed earlier. The most consistently emphasized components concern the value proposition, the customer, internal processes and competencies, and how the firm makes money. To these four, a competitive strategy element has been added, reflecting the need to translate core competencies and the value proposition into a sustainable marketplace position. Finally, a useable framework should apply to all types of ventures, reflecting the design considerations necessary to accommodate differing levels of growth, time horizons, resource strategies, and exit vehicles. Thus, the sixth decision area captures growth and time objectives of the entrepreneur. Let us examine each in more detail. 3.1.1. How will the firm create value? This first question concerns the value offering of the firm. Decisions here address the nature of the product/ service mix, the firm’s role in production or service delivery, and how the offering is made available to customers. There is no business without a defined value proposition, and the creation of value provides a justification for the business entity. Its inclusion in the model is supported by the work of Afuah and Tucci (2001), Chesbrough and Rosenbaum (2002), and Rayport and Jaworski (2001), among others. 3.1.2. For whom will the firm create value? This question focuses on the nature and scope of the market in which the firm competes. To whom will the firm sell and where in the value chain will it operate? Customer types, their geographic dispersion, and their interaction M. Morris et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 726–735 729

requirements have significant impacts on how an organization is configured, its resource requirements, and what it sells. Failure to adequately define the market is a key factor associated with venture failure. Support for the role of customer considerations in delineating a firm’s model can be found in Gordijn et al., 2001, Markides, 1999, and Timmers, 1998. 3.1.3. What is the firm’s internal source of advantage? The term ‘core competency’ is used to capture an internal capability or skill set that the firm performs relatively better than others (Hamel, 2001). Hence, Federal Express delivers a benefit of on-time delivery based on its competency at logistics management, and the organization is configured around this competency. Development and enhancement of this competency solidify the firm’s role in the external value chain and become the focus for the internal value chain. These competencies lie at the heart of the business model (Applegate, 2001; Viscio and Pasternack, 1996). A firm can attempt to build advantage around one or more competencies, with general sources of advantage identified by various observers (e.g., Siggelkow, 2002). 3.1.4. How will the firm position itself in the marketplace? Core internal competencies provide the basis for external positioning. The model must delineate how the entrepreneur intends to achieve advantage over competitors (Amit and Zott, 2001). The challenge is to identify salient points of difference that can be maintained. The entrepreneur attempts to define a unique, defensible niche enabling the firm to mitigate ongoing developments in the environment. Given the ability of firms to quickly imitate one another, the entrepreneur seeks a positioning basis that is more than transitory. 3.1.5. How will the firm make money? A core element of the firm’s business model is its economic model (Linder and Cantrell, 2000). The economic model provides a consistent logic for earning profits. It can be approached in terms of four subcomponents: operating leverage or the extent to which the cost structure is dominated by fixed versus variable costs; the firm’s emphasis on higher or lower volumes in terms of both the market opportunity and internal capacity; the firm’s ability to achieve relatively higher or lower margins; and the firm’s revenue model, including the flexibility of revenue sources and prices. 3.1.6. What are the entrepreneur’s time, scope, and size ambitions? Entrepreneurs create different types of ventures, ranging from lifestyle firms to rapid growth companies. Differences among venture types have important implications for competitive strategy, firm architecture, resource management, creation of internal competencies, and economic performance. As such, an integrated business model must capture the entrepreneur’s time, scope, and size ambitions or what might be termed the firm’s ‘investment model.’ Examples of four such models are subsistence, income, growth, and speculation. With the subsistence model, the goal is to survive and meet basic financial obligations. When employing an income model, the entrepreneur invests to the point that the business is able to generate on ongoing and stable income stream for the principals. A growth model finds significant Table 2 Six questions that underlie a business model Component 1 (factors related to the offering): How do we create value? (select from each set) . offering: primarily products/primarily services/heavy mix . offering: standardized/some customization/high customization . offering: broad line/medium breadth/narrow line . offering: deep lines/medium depth/shallow lines . offering: access to product/ product itself/ product bundled with other firm’s product . offering: internal manufacturing or service delivery/ outsourcing/ licensing/ reselling/ value added reselling . offering: direct distribution/indirect distribution (if indirect: single or multichannel) Component 2 (market factors): Who do we create value for? (select from each set) . type of organization: b-to-b/b-to-c/ both . local/regional/national/international . where customer is in value chain: upstream supplier/ downstream supplier/ government/ institutional/ wholesaler/ retailer/ service provider/ final consumer . broad or general market/multiple segment/niche market . transactional/relational Component 3 (internal capability factors): What is our source of competence? (select one or more) . production/operating systems . selling/marketing . information management/mining/packaging . technology/R&D/creative or innovative capability/intellectual . financial transactions/arbitrage . supply chain management . networking/resource leveraging Component 4 (competitive strategy factors): How do we competitively position ourselves? (select one or more) . image of operational excellence/consistency/dependability/speed . product or service quality/selection/features/availability . innovation leadership . low cost/efficiency . intimate customer relationship/experience Component 5 (economic factors): How we make money? (select from each set) . pricing and revenue sources: fixed/mixed/flexible . operating leverage: high/medium/low . volumes: high/medium/low . margins: high/medium/low Component 6 (personal/investor factors): What are our time, scope, and size ambitions? (select one) . subsistence model . income model . growth model . speculative model 730 M. Morris et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 726–735

《创业学》课程教学资源（文献资料）The entrepreneur’s business model - toward a unified perspective