The Business Models’ Value Dimensions: An Analytical Tool

Fabian Salum, K. G. Coleta, Dalila Pereira Rodrigues, H. Lopes
{"title":"The Business Models’ Value Dimensions: An Analytical Tool","authors":"Fabian Salum, K. G. Coleta, Dalila Pereira Rodrigues, H. Lopes","doi":"10.5585/IJSM.V18I3.2777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This paper provides a comparative analysis of the frameworks of business models in the light of  value dimensions that go beyond traditional approaches to value creation and capture. Method: This is a theoretical essay based on propositions of business model framework designs from an inside-out and outside-in perspectives of business strategy. The three business model frameworks chosen were the Choices/Consequences (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2007), the RCOV (Demil & Lecocq, 2010), and the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2011). Originality/Relevance: Different frameworks have been proposed to describe the components of business models. However, a critical review carried out by Massa, Afuah and Tucci (2017 p. 97) emphasised that the specialised literature lacks “information necessary to understand their relative merits”. To address this conceptual gap, we argue that both practical and academic debates will benefit from the comparative analysis of these tools herein conducted, as well as from a managerial proposition that relates components theoretically consistent and empirically aligned with value generation. Results: The three business model frameworks were analysed and blended into another proposition focused on value’s dimensions. Contribution: Besides the BM frameworks’ comparison, the essay additionally contributes by the proposition of a tool that constitutes an alternative to both practical and academic use. The new proposition is called ‘(the) value of choices’ (VoC) framework. It points out – but is not limited to – the value offering architecture and enables strategic analysts to keep focus on a broad range of value outcomes: created value, appropriated value, generative value, and distributed value.","PeriodicalId":353150,"journal":{"name":"Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5585/IJSM.V18I3.2777","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: This paper provides a comparative analysis of the frameworks of business models in the light of  value dimensions that go beyond traditional approaches to value creation and capture. Method: This is a theoretical essay based on propositions of business model framework designs from an inside-out and outside-in perspectives of business strategy. The three business model frameworks chosen were the Choices/Consequences (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2007), the RCOV (Demil & Lecocq, 2010), and the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2011). Originality/Relevance: Different frameworks have been proposed to describe the components of business models. However, a critical review carried out by Massa, Afuah and Tucci (2017 p. 97) emphasised that the specialised literature lacks “information necessary to understand their relative merits”. To address this conceptual gap, we argue that both practical and academic debates will benefit from the comparative analysis of these tools herein conducted, as well as from a managerial proposition that relates components theoretically consistent and empirically aligned with value generation. Results: The three business model frameworks were analysed and blended into another proposition focused on value’s dimensions. Contribution: Besides the BM frameworks’ comparison, the essay additionally contributes by the proposition of a tool that constitutes an alternative to both practical and academic use. The new proposition is called ‘(the) value of choices’ (VoC) framework. It points out – but is not limited to – the value offering architecture and enables strategic analysts to keep focus on a broad range of value outcomes: created value, appropriated value, generative value, and distributed value.
商业模式的价值维度:一种分析工具
目的:本文从超越传统价值创造和获取方法的价值维度出发,对商业模式框架进行了比较分析。方法:这是一篇基于商业模式框架设计命题的理论文章,从商业战略的由内而外和由外而内的角度出发。所选择的三种商业模式框架是选择/后果(Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2007)、RCOV (Demil & Lecocq, 2010)和商业模式画布(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2011)。原创性/相关性:已经提出了不同的框架来描述业务模型的组件。然而,Massa, Afuah和Tucci(2017年第97页)进行的一项批判性审查强调,专业文献缺乏“了解其相对优点所需的信息”。为了解决这一概念上的差距,我们认为,实践和学术辩论都将受益于本文所进行的这些工具的比较分析,以及与理论一致和经验上与价值产生一致的组成部分相关的管理命题。结果:分析了三个商业模式框架,并将其融合到另一个专注于价值维度的命题中。贡献:除了BM框架的比较之外,本文还通过提出一种工具来构成实际和学术使用的替代方案。这个新命题被称为“选择价值”(VoC)框架。它指出(但不限于)价值提供架构,并使战略分析师能够专注于广泛的价值结果:创造价值、占有价值、生成价值和分配价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信