Showing posts with label business model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business model. Show all posts

Sunday, December 12, 2010

List of Key Terms

The term ‘business model’ has historically been defined differently by different academics and consultants, with no common consensus being established. It is not until the last few years that a common definition of what a ‘business model’ is has started to emerge, with an increasing number of authors emphasizing the concepts of value creation and value capture as central to the definition.

One challenge is that frameworks developed from the perspective of enabling business model innovation, are often equated with a definition of the concept of the business model itself. This creates considerable confusion in terms of the differences between the business model of a company, the business model concept as such, and ways of describing business models by adopting different perspectives and frameworks.

In order to provide posts that are easy to follow and to reduce the risk of misunderstandings and confusion, I use the definitions below:
  • Business model – the way an organization creates and captures value
  • Business model concept – the general idea of illustrating how value is created and captured
  • Business model element – a component of how value is created and captured by an organization
  • Business model framework – an abstraction to describe and represent different business models
  • Business model framework element (or framework element) – a component of a business model framework
  • Business model innovation – an innovative business model or the process of innovating a business model
  • Business modeling – the process of testing and simulating different business models
Please consult the list above when confused about my use of any of the terms.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Evan Williams on the Business Model of Twitter

A very interesting conversation with Evan Williams, co-founder Twitter, on how they are trying different revenue models. “There’s a million ways to make money with Twitter... We’ll probably try a few more... We're surprised it's doing better than expected.”

Thoughts on New Business Models for News

Some interesting thoughts on the future of news at the ReThink News summit held in Newport, Rhode Island, a summit sponsored by The School of Journalism at Michigan State University.

TED founder Richard Saul Wurman


Jim Kennedy, director of strategic planning for the Associated Press


Visual communicator David Gray, founder of Xplane


New York Times Multimedia Editor Andrew Devigal


Chris Finlay of the Business Innovation Factory


Media entrepreneur Brooks Bell


Visual communicator and designer Nigel Holmes



Related videos:

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Tom Hulme on How to Visualize your Business Model

Tom is a Design Director at IDEO in London, where he uses the innovation and design process to develop new business opportunities. In these videos he presents a way, very similar to The Business Model Canvas, on how to visualize a business model including the elements of growth- and competitive strategy.





Related posts:
Alexander Osterwalders on the Business Model Canvas
The Evolution of the Business Model Concept

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Charles Baden-Fuller on why business models are so important for business success

Professor Charles Baden-Fuller talks about the difference between value creation and value capture, robustness, sustainable competitive advantage today and tomorrow, and scalability.

In his recent article in Long Range Planning, Business Models as Models, Charles explores the question "Are Business Models useful?" where he points out that they act as various forms of model: "to provide means to describe and classify businesses; to operate as sites for scientific investigation; and to act as recipes for creative managers".

Sunday, September 5, 2010

The Evolution of the Business Model Concept

Below is a second iteration representing the evolution of the business model concept, including graphical representations, significant publications and books on the subject. Thank you everyone for your input, comments and emails with additional models and publications.

Which business model concepts are you still missing? Which significant publications? Comment below or send feedback to anders@tbmdb.com

Thanks,
Anders

Version 2:

Monday, August 23, 2010

The Evolution of the Business Model Concept (version 1)

Thank you for the input to Version 1 of The Evolution of the Business Model Concept. An updated and extended version of can be found here.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Sunday, June 13, 2010

ngMoco, Guitar Hero and EA Sports in panel discussion on the monetization of games

A nice panel discussion at the Play Conference about the monetization of games moderated by Douglass Perry, covering topics such as Old versus new distribution models, Usage at the center of the business model, Monetizing usage vs downloads, User experience based on platform, Competing with other forms of entertainment, Selling where the customer is and Dynamically and remotely optimization of games and business models. Also interesting to hear how accessories and physical products are affecting business models of software companies that are used to not having any inventory.

Participants:
Neil Young, CEO ngMoco
Kai Huang, Founder Guitar Hero
Peter Moore, President EA Sports



Related videos:

Friday, April 23, 2010

Is Android Evil?

This is a guest post by Andreas Constantinou, an expert in the ecosystems of network operators, handset manufacturers and mobile service providers, research director at VisionMobile and a frequent speaker on the topic of mobile open source.


You thought Android was open? The Android governance model consists of an elaborate set of control points that allows Google to bundle its own services and control the exact software and hardware make-up on every handset. All this while touting the openness rhetoric that is founded on the Apache permissive license used in the Android SDK.

Whereas Android is completely open for the software developer ecosystem, it’s completely closed for the handset OEM (pre-load) ecosystem. There is no other platform which is so asymmetrical in terms of its governance structures.

Indeed, Google’s mobile platform is the smartest implementation of open source designed for driving commercial agendas. But before we dig into why, it’s worth discussing why Android’s success has very little to do with open source.

What makes Android tick
Despite early skepticism, Google’s Android operating system has been unequivocally supported by the mobile industry, including more network operators and handset manufacturers than one can count – with the stubborn exception of Nokia. Android managed to ramp from 1 handset model in 2008 to 50+ models announced for 2010 launch, leaving most industry observers in awe.

The Android success has nothing to do with open source; it’s owed to three key factors:

- Apple. As strange as it might seem, Android owes much of its success to one of its arch-rivals. Let me explain. With the unprecedented success of the iPhone and the take-it-or-leave-it terms dictated by Apple to network operators, the carriers have been eagerly looking for cheaper alternatives; as such the tier-1 operators have been embarking on Android projects to produce iPhones for people who can’t afford the iPhone and more importantly, without forking out the 300EUR+ subsidy needed to remain competitive in an iPhone market.

- Network operators/carriers around the world are eager to differentiate. Android provides the allure of a unified software platform supporting operator differentiation at a low cost (3 months instead of 12+ months offered by SavaJe, which was also aimed at the MNO customisation market). For larger operators with a software strategy, Android also presents a safe investment, as the mainstream option for bringing down the cost of smartphones. That’s why most Android handset projects are backed by a commercial bipoles of operator + OEM deals, with purchase commitments and NRE fees coming from the operator.

- Qualcomm. The $10B chipset vendor has been paramount to Android’s ramp up; manufacturers can take Qualcomm’s hardware reference design which is pre-integrated with Android and can go to market within an estimated 9-12 months (down from 16 months for the Motorola Cliq handset and 24+ months for the HTC G1). Besides Qualcomm we should also mention TI’s OMAP3 platform (on which Moto Droid is based) and ST Ericsson and Broadcom who are ramping up to offer chipsets with out-of-the-box support for Android.

In other words, in an Android handset, most of the OEM budget goes into differentiation; compare that to Symbian where most of the OEM budget goes into baseporting (radio and functional integration of hardware) due to historical choices made by Symbian in 2001. All-in-all, Android allows OEMs to reduce their R&D budgets and invest in differentiation, which is mana from heaven to manufacturers.

We should also not forget the ‘free factor’ (technically zero per-unit royalties for the public SDK) which stirred the emotional hype around Android handsets.

All in all, the ‘open source’ marketing moniker has been very successful at triggering major industry disruption – incl. Nokia ’s acquisition of Symbian and the derailment of Windows Mobile. Perhaps more importantly, the openness rhetoric and the Google aura has attracted thousands of developers on the platform, at a time when the money equation is sub-par; consider that – compared to the Apple devices – Android handsets are around 9x less in volume and paid-for apps are available in 6x fewer countries.

Behind the Open Source facade
What’s even more fascinating is how closed Android is, despite Google’s old don’t be evil mantra and the permissive Apache 2 license which Android source code is under. Paraphrasing a famous line from Henry Ford’s book on the Model-T, anyone can have Android in their own colour as long as it’s black. Android is the best example of how a company can use open source to build up interest and community participation, while running a very tight commercial model.

How does Google control what services, software and hardware ships in Android handsets? The search giant has built an elaborate system of control points around Android handsets.

To dig deeper we spent two months talking to industry sources close to Android commercials – and the reality has been startling. From a high level, Google uses 8 control points to manage the make-up of Android handsets:

1. Private branches. There are multiple, private codelines available to selected partners (typically the OEM working on an Android project) on a need-to-know basis only. The private codelines are an estimated 6+ months ahead of the public SDK and therefore essential for an OEM to stay competitive. The main motivation for the public SDK and source code is to introduce the latest features (those stemming from private branches) into third party apps.

2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community. There is also a rampant NIH (not invented here) culture inside Google that assumes code written by Googlers is second to none. Ask anyone who’s tried to contribute a patch to Android and you hear the same story: very few contributions get in and often no reason is offered on rejection.

3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that’s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released. The Nexus One, Motorola Droid, HTC G1 and other Experience handsets serve the purpose of innovation testbeds for Google.

4. Incomplete software. The public source code is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs – and of course Google’s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk. There are a few custom ROM builders with a full Android stack like the Cyanogen distribution, but these use binaries that are not licensed for distribution in commercial handsets.

5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement. This is one of the strongest control points as no OEM would dare produce a handset that doesn’t tap into the Android Market (perhaps with the exception of DECT phones, picture frames, in-car terminals or other exotic uses of Android). However, one should acknowledge that Android’s acceptance process for Market apps is liberal as it gets – and the complete antithesis of the Apple vetting process for apps.

6. Anti-fragmentation agreement. Little is known about the anti-fragmentation agreement signed by OHA members but we understand it’s a commitment to not release handsets which are not CTS compliant (more on CTS later).

7. Private roadmap. The visibility offered into Android’s roadmap is pathetic. At the time of writing, the roadmap published publicly is a year out of date (Q1 2009). To get a sneak peak into the private roadmap you need Google’s blessing.

8. Android trademark. Google holds the trademark to the Android name; as a manufacturer you can only leverage on the Android branding with approval from Google, much like how you need Sun’s approval to claim your handset is Java-powered.

In short, it’s either the Google way or the highway. If you want to branch off Android you ‘re completely on your own and you need resources of the size of China Mobile (see their OMS effort) to make it viable (hint: China Mobile is the biggest network operator bar none).

The Open Handset Alliance is another myth; since Google managed to attract sufficient industry interest in 2008, the OHA is simply a set of signatures with membership serving only as a VIP Club badge.

Another big chapter in the Android saga is the CTS (compatibility test suite) which is the formal testing process by which a handset passes Google requirements. According to our sources, CTS extends significantly beyond API compliance, and into performance testing, hardware features, device design, UI specs and bundled services. CTS is based on the principle of ensuring baseline compliance, so it’s ok to add features, but it’s not ok to detract; compare this with Apple’s no-Flash policy. Note that beyond CTS compliance, there are additional commercial licensing agreements that OEMs have to sign for Google services and private line access.

CTS hampers Android’s progress as well, as it precludes OEMs from creating stripped-down versions of Android that would fit on mass-market phones – those shipping in the 10s of millions. CTS – and forward compatibility to the pool of 40,000+ apps – is Google’s main challenge for hitting a 2-digit market share in the smartphone market. These restrictions – and frienemy relationship between Google and its OEM partners – have stirred up discussions of an ‘Android foundation‘ within OEM circles

The Google Endgame
With Android, Google aims to deliver a consistent platform to its own revenue-generating services. For now, this is the ad business. But in the future, Google is aiming at voice (reaching the billions who don’t have a data connection) and Checkout (i.e. becoming the Visa of mobile).

Yet whatever the endgame, it’s worth realising that [from the manufacturer perspective] Android is no more open – and no less closed – than [licensable operating systems like] Windows Mobile, Symbian and BREW; it’s the smartest implementation of open source aimed at driving commercial agendas. Android is much less about the do-no-evil rhetoric that the PR spinners in Mountain View would like us to think.

So, is Android evil? No, it isn’t. It has done no harm – quite the contrary, Android has boosted the level of innovation on mobile software. The point of the article is not to vilify Google or concoct visions of Darth Vader; but to balance the level of openness hysteria with a reality check on the commercial dynamics of mobile open source.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Albert S Humphrey's business model elements from 1968

Albert S Humphrey (1926-2005) who during his work at the Stanford Research Institute developed SOFT analysis that was later developed into SWOT analysis, also outlined an early version of the business model concept in 1968. For a business to be successful, Humphrey defined six inter-related areas which had to be developed simultaneously:
  1. Products & Services - What are they, how do they work, and when and how should they be improved
  2. Process - How the products and services are to be made and/or assembled, including subcontracting and purchasing labor and machinery
  3. Customer - Who will buy the products and services and how will customers be persuaded to buy them
  4. Distribution - How the product and services be warehoused, transported and delivered
  5. Finance - Where will the money come from and how will the cash flow be controlled
  6. Administration - How the organization will be managed, the management style, the organization structure and the people skill required
This was part of TAM (Team Action Management), a step by step method for improving company performance. The inter-related areas above are almost identical to modern definitions and elements of the business model concept. To read more about TAM see this article.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Mark Johnson on Business Model Innovation and his new book Seizing the White Space

Mark Johnson, chairman of Innosight and author of Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal (see review & summary here), explains his version of the business model concept "The Four-Box Business Model" comprising the Customer Value Proposition, the Profit Formula, and the Key Resources and Processes. This model was also the topic of yesterday's discussion at Innochat, see transcript here.

"Where are there opportunities to deliver new value propositions, where are there important unmet jobs that this company has the potential to make a successful product or service to address."

"Think about where these opportunities are and then allow the organization the flexibility to start devising ways at which it could deliver on that value proposition, that may not be the traditional way it does business"



Related videos:

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Net Working Capital - Inventory & business models

In the last post, introducing Net Working Capital (NWC), some of the conclusion were that money tied up in working capital is money not available to grow the company, that different business models need different amounts of working capital, that organizations that need lots of working capital will have to raise it from somewhere and that capital always comes at a price.

Also, we saw that NWC can be measured in days, in what is called the Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC) and that the noncash portion of NWC can be both positive and negative:

Positive NWC:
Negative NWC:
In this post I will focus on inventory and the role it has in different business models, and how different organizations have reduced their working capital by reducing DII, days in inventory.

Keeping an inventory
Businesses with value propositions that directly or indirectly involve physical products generally need to have some form of inventory. This can be divided into raw materials, work-in-process, finished goods, goods for resale and spare parts. Determining the optimal level of inventory requires that the benefits and costs are measured and compared.

DII - Days in inventory
Days in inventory measures the number of days inventory stays in the system. The lower the inventory days, as long as there is enough inventory on hand to meet customer demands, the better. In some businesses such as wholesaling and retailing inventory constitutes a very large percentage of total assets, and a difference in DII can spell the difference between success and failure.

Benefits of holding inventory
The reasons for keeping an inventory of raw materials and components are to meet uncertainties in demand, supply, production, and movements of goods, to get quantity discounts, to give the organization flexibility with the respect to timing the purchase of raw materials, scheduling production facilities and employees. If rising prices, shortages of specific items, or both are forecasted for the future, maintaining a large inventory ensures that the company will have adequate supplies at reasonable costs. Work-in-process inventory give each operation in the production cycle a certain degree of independence and minimize costly delays and idle time. The benefits of having finished goods inventory are to be able to fill orders promptly, minimize lost sales, and avoid shipment delays and damaged reputation due to stock-outs. Spare parts are kept to minimize costly delays and idle time.

Costs of holding inventory
There are a number of inventory-related costs, including ordering costs, carrying costs and stock-out costs.

Ordering costs are all the costs of placing and receiving an order from an external or internal source. When ordering from an external source there are costs such as preparing purchase requisitions, expediting the order, receiving and inspecting the shipment, and handling payment. Costs within a company can be production setup costs such as expenses incurred in getting the plant and equipment ready for a production run.

Carrying costs represent all the costs of holding items in inventory and include storage and handling costs, obsolescence and deterioration costs, insurance costs, taxes, and the cost of the funds invested in inventories. The later in the production process, the more funds have been invested in the inventory and the more working capital is tied up:

Stock-out costs are incurred whenever a business is unable to fill orders because the demand for an item is greater than the amount currently available in inventory. A stock-out in raw materials generates expenses in placing special orders and expediting incoming orders, in addition to the costs or any production delays. When a stock-out in work-in-process occurs, stock-out costs include the costs of rescheduling and speeding production, and may also result in lost production costs if work stoppages occur. A stock-out in finished goods inventory may result in customers deciding to purchase the product from a competitor and in potential long-term losses if customers decide to order from other companies in the future.

Business models using Just-in-Time inventory
With just-in-time inventory management, required inventories are supplied to the manufacturing process at precisely the right time. This reduces the need for inventory, making the production more agile and able to adapt to changing customer needs. The concept, also known as lean manufacturing, was developed Toyota Motor Corporation in the 1950's, and often requires that the supplies are standardized, that the suppliers are highly trustable and close to the manufacturing plant. As there is very little buffer inventory between work stations, the quality and timing must be precise to prevent stock-outs.

Business models reducing product uncertainty
In most business models future sales is uncertain resulting in high inventory of some items and stock-out in other items. To take the apparel industry as an example it is difficult to create hit products on a continuous basis, and predict the demand down to the style, color and size, resulting in inventory of unwanted clothes. Threadless' business model uses an online community to contribute and vote for t-shirt designs, and only produce the ones that becomes highly popular. Threadless t-shirts are run in limited batches with 9 new designs a week, and when sold out reprinting only occurs when there is enough demand for a new batch.

Zara, on the other hand, is a vertically integrated retailer with that can go from design to finished goods in stores in as short as two weeks. Shop managers report back every day to designers on what has and has not sold, information that is used to decide which product lines and colors to keep or alter, and whether new lines should be created. Reducing the time to get the clothes into the shelves and the batches of clothing in small quantities also keeps the costs down by keeping stocks low, and if a design doesn't sell well within a week, it is withdrawn from shops, and further orders are canceled.

Business models where customers pay in advance
Getting paid before producing anything is the main ingredient in the recipe for Negative Net Working Capital, but also for limiting the need for inventory. Dell revolutionized the computer industry when it in the 1980s pioneered the configure-to-order approach, delivering individual PCs configured to customer specifications. It could thus keep a minimal inventory in an industry where components depreciate very rapidly.

The subscription revenue model is another way of getting paid in advance and to get information about the quantity to produce. The subscription-based periodical publishing industry has for a long time been able to have Negative Net Working Capital, keeping inventory to a bare minimum and with large current liabilities for all issues due for the rest of the subscription period.

Business models reducing the need for spare parts
Some business models require an inventory of spare parts to assure customer satisfaction and minimize costs and delays if something needs replacement. Maintaining inventory of spare parts has associated costs. The decision what to keep "just in case" is thus a compromise between inventory cost and the probability and cost of failure. One way to reduce inventory of spare parts is to reduce the number of different types of equipment for which spare parts is needed. To keep its operating model lean Ryanair only fly one model of airplane, a stripped-down Boeing 737, reducing its inventory of spare parts and reducing the need to train its maintenance staff.

Analyzing the need for inventory
So what is it in your business model that requires inventory? What is the reason for having it? What would you need to do to lower or reduce it? What would happen if you reduced it too much and could there be other ways to compensate for stock-out that is more cost effective?

Analyzing the customer
Do some existing customers or market segments result in higher needs for expensive inventory? Do customers appreciate all versions of the products and services or can it be reduced? Do customers realize (and perhaps pay for) the service of getting extra orders or spare parts in short time? Would some customers even be willing to pay more if you held the right inventory? What creates value for them?

Analyzing the value proposition
Would it be possible to configure value propositions to reduce the need for inventory? Would it be possible to create value propositions due to the fact that you keep inventory? What are the level of service commitments you make to your partners and customers? Is it possible to modularize components and products and perform final assembly later in the process? Is it possible to deliver in any other way reducing the days in inventory? Can someone else, such as suppliers, partners or customers keep your inventory? Could you reduce someone else’s costs by holding their inventory and charge for it?

Analyzing resources and activities
What are the activities that need expensive inventory? Can the activities be made more lean without disrupting operations? Can better information on how much will be needed control production? Is there an inventory policy on what products or components to keep in inventory? Can it be bought instead of manufactured?

Analyzing suppliers and partners
Can suppliers and partners be the ones that keeps inventory? Would other suppliers or partners be willing to do it? What if we change specifications? What if we change batch sizes from supplier or internal processes? Do we keep inventory due to uncertain delivery from suppliers? Could this be changed? What if we configure the value network in a different way? Could we get quantity rebates? Are we being fooled by quantity rebates? Could we negotiate lower minimal order sizes?


Every dollar freed from inventories contributes to the cash flow of the company. But the reduction of Net Working Capital not only generates cash, it also forces companies to produce and deliver faster and run their businesses more efficiently.

Further reading:

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Net Working Capital - a reflection of the design and execution of a business model

An organization can improve its financial performance without increasing revenues or lowering costs. With two organizations generating the same revenues and costs, the one that needs the least financial investments will generate the highest return on investments, and have the highest freedom of action. Many interesting and innovative business models implemented by companies such as Dell, Southwest Airlines, Toyota and Zara, have at its core an effective Net Working Capital model. This post is an introductory to the concept and will be followed by a post exploring it further, with examples from different industries.

What is Net Working Capital?
Net Working Capital (NWC) is defined as current assets minus current liabilities and is a financial metric which represents operating liquidity available to a business. It indicates the firm's ability to convert its resources into cash and by quickly turning resources into cash, have the ability to put the cash to use again, ideally to reinvest and make more sales.

Current Assets comprises of cash and cash equivalents, inventory, and accounts receivable. To take a manufacturing company as an example: it needs cash to buy raw material or components (inventory), use the material in production (work-in-process inventory) to produce finished-goods (finished-goods inventory), to sell to customers who might get some days to pay (creating accounts receivables).

Current Liabilities includes accounts payable for goods, services or supplies that were purchased for use in the operation of the business. In the case with the manufacturing company above perhaps it didn't have to pay cash for the raw material or components, but had some creditor days (creating accounts payable).

Net Working Capital can thus be positive or negative depending on when raw material is paid to suppliers, how long the goods are in inventory and when goods are paid by customers.

Positive NWC:

Negative NWC:

Let's assume that the manufacturing company buys raw material and convert it to products which it sells on average after a total of 20 days in inventory, plus providing customers with 20 days to pay, creating total current assets (other than cash) of 40 days.

Scenario 1 - Positive NWC: The manufacturing company needs to pay its suppliers in an average of 30 days. The cash it takes to finance the business is 10 days multiplied by average sales per day.

Scenario 2: Negative NWC: The manufacturing company needs to pay its suppliers in an average of 60 days. The company has 20 days multiplied with the average sales per day in cash surplus, cash that can be used for other things.

Funding growth
If the company in Scenario 1 is growing rapidly, increasing amounts of cash will be needed to pay its suppliers and eventually to hire more people, and the cash from sales will never be able to catch up thus other sources of cash is needed. Failing to find additional sources of cash, profitable companies sometimes go bankrupt. If the company in Scenario 2 is growing rapidly, increasing amounts of cash will be available to fund the growth and other initiatives.

Capital always comes at a price
Different business models require different amounts of working capital depending on things such as the need for different inventory, when customers pay and when suppliers are being paid. Companies with business models that can use cash from customers require less investment and can thus generate higher return on those investments. Companies with business models that need lots of working capital will have to raise it from somewhere and capital always comes at a price.

How much NWC is needed?
All components of a business model have an effect on NWC and every organization needs enough cash and inventory to do its job. Reducing inventory too much and the production might be interrupted, push the suppliers too hard and they might run out of cash and perhaps go bankrupt, push the customers too much and they will go to someone else, too much leverage using other organization's assets and you might lose control. Finding the right balance is a challenge and using the business model concept to identify tied up cash can be a very useful exercise.

Using the business model concept
In the next post I will exemplify how the business model concept and business model innovation can have a huge direct effect on Net Working Capital but also have indirect effects such as improved efficiency, quality or customer satisfaction. It will be a "How to" post with questions to ask to find where money is tied up, and money tied up in working capital is money not available to grow the company.

Further reading:

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Using the crowd as a part of the business model

Crowdsourcing or mass collaboration has become popular words for using an external group of people as part of the value creation and value capturing process. Organizations have for a long time used groups of external participants for various contests and market research activities, what is new is the scale, speed and cost of conducting such and other activities.

Enabled by computers and the Internet a virtual crowd of people has the ability to access information and easily interact with organizations to help solving problems, contribute with information and ideas, suggest improved or new designs, comment or vote for new ideas, or test new products or services. Organizations at the same time have the ability to occasionally provide and seek for value in different crowds or integrate it as part of their business models.

Who are the people participating?
Using an external group of people as part of the value creation or value capturing process can take many different forms and the crowd may be big or small, and comprise of amateurs working in their spare time or professionals participating as part of their business model. It is often people that in one way or another are related to the organization or its value network such as customers or community stakeholders, but with the use of intermediary platforms, solutions to an organization's problem might come from people in completely different industries and technology areas.

Money is not important
People partake for different reasons in different activities but also for different reasons within the same activities. A common denominator for partakers is the pleasure and satisfaction to be involved and contribute, to solve challenges, especially when participators have a common vision with the organization. One example is when improving a product or service that the participator wants to use, not only providing value but also receiving value. In addition, recognition and status from the organization or other participants, when showing off creativity, problem solving skills or expertise is often argued highly important incentives for voluntary participation. Other non-financial incentives can be learning from doing, learning from others, and access to exclusive prototypes or versions.

Show me the money!
Organizations seeking help in the crowd often combine different non-financial and financial rewards. Getting an award for solving a problem, a cash bonus for generating a winning design, a price cut on the final product, invitation to exclusive events, gift cards or a royalty based on future product sales are common financial rewards for participation. InnoCentive, an intermediary platform connecting companies, academic institutions, public sector and non-profit organizations, rewards solution providers between $5000 and $1000000 for solving problems.

Some examples where organizations use the crowd to create and capture value:
  • Understand and stay relevant to customers; test new ideas, products and services, discover emerging market needs and trends in user behavior, test and assess brand perception and appeal of marketing material. Example: Nokia Concept Lounge
  • Funding of new ideas; use community to decide investment strategy for mutual funds, provide means for a crowd to make commitments for future products or services. Example: Sellaband
  • Find answers to complex problems not solvable internally; research and discovery and access expertise from other industries. Example: Goldcorp
  • Innovate faster and more profitable; using the crowd to rank and prioritize new ideas, detect challenges. Example: Spreadshirt
  • Improve current products and enhance customer experience; using power users with high demands, basic users with basic needs, non-users with no current needs, using the crowd to openly review products and services, allowing users to customize their products. Example: Lego Factory
  • Create the product or service itself; using user generated content as major part of a value proposition in the business model. Example: iStockPhoto
  • Market and distribute ideas and products; using social platforms and the fact that participation often creates a sense of ownership. Example: Business Model Generation Book
Questions before using the crowd
  • Will the expected output answer key business needs?
  • What will be the value proposition towards participants?
  • Will the organization be able to motivate and incentivize participation?
  • Are the tasks suitable for distributed activities?
  • Can the tasks be broken into small chunks?
  • Are there adequate resources and capabilities within the organization to manage the process?
  • Are there effective filters, such as the crowd itself that can effectively identify what is valuable and what is crap?
  • What will be the added costs and risks from the activity?
  • What would happen if other actors in the value network or competitors knew about or participated in the activity?
  • Will the organization be able to manage the costs and risks?
  • Will the business benefits exceed the added costs and risks?
  • Should the invitation be open or closed?
  • Can anyone participate or should there be criteria of approval?
  • What information should be provided and what should be kept secret?
  • Should the participants see each other’s ideas or contributions?
  • Should it be possible for participants to build on each other’s ideas?
  • How should own and participant's intellectual property rights be managed?

Monday, December 28, 2009

Value network analysis and positioning

There is an increasing need for companies to gain insights into what is actually happening around them and where value can be created and captured. Linear value chains have in many cases been replaced by complex, interdependent and dynamic relationships between multiple sets of actors in different industries, different parts of the world, using different business and revenue models.

The increased turbulence creates threats and opportunities for organizations to respond to and quickly reconfigure its business models and with that its different roles in relation to external actors. To capture opportunities more quickly than rivals do, organizations must have agile business models and constantly analyze where value can be created and captured.

An intricate network of roles and relationships
The value network surrounding an organization comprises of different stakeholders and organizations (nodes) that have an effect on the outcome of the organization's activities. Between the nodes are different forms of formal and in-formal relationships connecting the nodes, forming the network. In contrast to linear value chains and One-Sided Business Models, such as buying ingredients to sell lemonade on the driveway, the number of different actors having multiple roles creates an intricate network of roles and relationships.

Nodes with multiple roles
One actor in the value network can simultaneously be a value provider (e.g. out-licensing important technology, co-educating customers, partner in working towards establishing a standard, co-developing new technology, supplier of services, providing user data), a value recipient (e.g. in-licensing technology, buying products and services, having access to process knowledge and technical know-how, benefiting from complementary products and services), a value neutral (e.g. competing with similar products and services, providing substitute technology, products or services, non-connected experts, authorities and regulators, standardization bodies). Additional to the complexity of nodes having multiple roles is that roles, relationships and business models are constantly changing.

Different business and revenue models
Each of the actors in the value network has its own business and revenue models and actors outside the industry may at any time enter with business models disrupting the whole industry, such as Apple entering the music industry or Google entering the navigation technology industry. Organizations need to constantly monitor actors in the value network, at the edges of the industry and potential outside actors that could for example provide something at a much lower cost or even for free. A good question to ask is what an industry outsider would do to take advantage of the weaknesses in existing value network and business models? Some examples of potentially disruptive business models:
  • Give away or subsidize hardware to sell software or services
  • Give away or subsidize software to sell hardware or services
  • Give away or subsidize services to sell hardware or software
  • Give away one version of the hardware, software and/or service to sell another
  • Give away or subsidize hardware, software and/or services, supported by advertising
  • Give away or subsidize hardware, software and/or services, sell access to 3rd party

Mapping the value network
To understand the value network, an organization should for every value proposition map out each and every actor that could have an effect on the outcome. This should initially be done as broadly as possible generating a very long list of actors. Different approaches can be used to identify actors such as:
  • Roles in relation to one’s own organization "all suppliers, partners, competitors, customers, substitutes…"
  • Type of organizations "all incumbents, SMEs, start-ups, research institutes, university research groups, governmental organizations…"
  • Different forms of activities or expertise "content idea, content creation, publishing, distribution, content aggregation…"
The next step is to categorize each actor in the list to make it more manageable. This can be done in the style of a mind-map or in Excel lists that are perhaps more easy to sort and filter. The way to categorize and group actors is very situational specific and the approaches above can be used as a starting point.

Analyzing the value network
It is important to understand how value is converted from one form to another across the value network. Ideally each actor and relationship should be analyzed and a starting point is to analyze each group of actors and each identified key actor:
  • How do value move through the network?
  • Where are the bottlenecks?
  • Who are benefiting from whom?
  • What values are provided from each actor?
  • Who are the main value creators?
  • What are their objectives and strategies?
  • Where are the unique assets and capabilities?
  • How well are assets being used?
  • How well are the values being realized?
  • Who are the main value recipients?
  • What do the value recipients need to compromise?
  • What social value or cost is generated by each actor?
  • Where are the main costs and risks of each actor?
With an understanding of the value network the next step for an organization is to analyze its own position in the value network.

Analyzing one’s own position
Based on the value network analysis the organization can start evaluating its own situation and different alternatives for adjusting its position in the value network:
  • What roles and relationships is it dependent upon?
  • What are the value propositions (including benefits) it provides to other actors?
  • How are different external offerings affecting own value propositions?
  • What are the financial and non-financial transactions in these relationships?
  • How will success increase other actors' success and vice-versa?
  • How will the organization enable other actors to win versus their competition?
  • How can it change the game to its own and others advantage?
  • How will its position evolve over time?
Positioning through strategic moves
Based on the existing and sought for position, the organization can then use strategic moves to affect identified actors, formulate alliances and partnerships and change its business models, to manage the value network:
  • Who to collaborate with, for what purpose, in what form?
  • Who to form strategic alliances with?
  • What to bring to the table and what to expect from the collaboration?
  • What actions to take to affect other organizations or relationships?
  • How to adjust value propositions and business models?
Turning turbulence into an advantage
To understand the current and future capability for value creation, it is essential for every organization to understand the surrounding value network and how value is converted from one form to another across the network, and adjust its business models accordingly.

Opportunities arise from strategic moves and from pure luck. The challenge is for organizations to have agile business models to be able to act on these opportunities. I believe that organizations that really understand their different roles and surrounding value networks can turn the turbulence into an advantage.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Business Model Examples

There are many examples of inspiring business models and business model innovators described and referenced on this blog and elsewhere. To provide a quick read with popular examples, a list of business model innovators is presented below. Please feel free to comment or contact me on great business model examples that you find missing.

Amazon - Leveraging assets
Launched in 1994 as an online book seller, Amazon has constantly altered its business model leveraging its assets and capabilities to generate new business… Read more


Apple - Providing convenient solutions
Apple has revolutionized the computer industry, the music industry and now the mobile phone industry, and the classic example is iPod and iTunes… Read more


Better Place - Using per-distance fees
Better Place aims to use the margin between electricity and gas to subsidize the cost of new electric cars, even providing electric cars for free... Read more


Etsy - Mass customization of arts
Aggregating the long tail in an online marketplace for handmade goods with the goal to enable people around the world to make a living making things… Read more


Gillette - Razor and blades
Gillette's success with its razors and blades is a story about superior technology, design and the use of control mechanisms, foremost patents… Read more


Lego - Turning users into developers
Lego has turned its most loyal users into designers and co-creators of their own products. More than 30000 kits have been shared so far… Read more


Tata Motors - Modular distribution
Tata Nano is not only cheap to buy it is constructed of modules that can be built and shipped separately to be assembled in a variety of locations.… Read more


Threadless - Dressing the long tail
Threadless was one of the first firms to systematically mine a community for designs, a trend that today can be seen in various industries… Read more


Xerox - Business Innovation in 1959
The company decided to lease the equipment, instead of selling it, at a relatively low cost and then charge a per copy fee for copies in excess of 2000 copies per month… Read more


Zara - a devastating business model
Zara has managed to substantially shorten the time to develop a new product and get it to stores, and in doing so it can react quickly to changing market trends… Read more


More inspiring examples will come, send me your suggestions!


Further reading:

Business model example: Zara - A devastating business model

Zara, owned by Inditex, has been described by Daniel Piette, fashion director LVMH, as "possibly the most innovative and devastating retailer in the world" and is a vertically integrated retailer controlling the design, manufacturing and distribution of clothing itself. This is very different from most clothing retailers that outsource much of their manufacturing to developing countries. Zara has managed to substantially shorten the time to develop a new product and get it to stores, and in doing so it can react quickly to changing market trends. From design to finished goods can be made in four to five weeks, and modification of existing items can be made in as little as two weeks. It produces about 11,000 distinct items annually compared with 2,000 to 4,000 items for its key competitors, constantly updating its range of clothes. Zara shop managers report back every day to designers on what has and has not sold, information that is used to decide which product lines and colors to keep or alter, and whether new lines should be created. Reducing the time to get the clothes into the shelves and the batches of clothing in small quantities also keeps the costs down by keeping stocks low, and if a design doesn't sell well within a week, it is withdrawn from shops, and further orders are canceled. Where most retailers have different "seasons" Zara keeps no design on the shop floor for more than four weeks, encouraging customers to make repeat visits. Popular items appear and disappear within a week creating an image of scarcity. Some customers know exactly when new deliveries arrive at their local shop and turn up before opening time to pick up the latest fashion. Zara uses no advertising or promotion, and 50% of the products are manufactured in Spain, 26% in the rest of Europe, and 24% in Asian and African countries and the rest of the world.

Further reading:

Business model example: Xerox - Business Model Innovation in 1959

The business model around Xerox Model 914, introduced to the public in 1959, has become a classical example of how a new technology sometimes needs a new business model to become successful. The Xerography technology, to produce images using electricity that avoids the use of wet chemicals, was superior to other available methods, but also very expensive. When Haloid (later renamed Haloid Xerox and then Xerox Corporation) tried to find marketing partners for its Model 914 the company was constantly turned down by the likes of GE, IBM and Kodak. Haloid decided to lease the equipment, instead of selling it, at a relatively low cost and then charge a per copy fee for copies in excess of 2000 copies per day. The company provided all the required supplies, service and support and the customer could cancel the lease on only fifteen day's notice. This was a bold move given that the average business copier at that time produced an average of 15-20 copies per day. Haloid took a large risk as customers were only committed to the monthly lease payment and paid no more unless the performance of the Model 914 led them to make more than 2000 copies. The Model 914 became a huge success, with customers averaging two thousand copies per day (instead of month) and the company sustained a compound annual growth rate of 41% over a 12 year period. Also, the company became highly incentivized to develop faster machines that could handle high volumes with maximum machine uptime and availability.