business model research meaning

• Company Profiles

How Companies Make Money

Learn to understand a company's profit-making plan

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is a Business Model?

Understanding business models, evaluating successful business models, how to create a business model.

• Business Model FAQs

The Bottom Line

Yarilet Perez is an experienced multimedia journalist and fact-checker with a Master of Science in Journalism. She has worked in multiple cities covering breaking news, politics, education, and more. Her expertise is in personal finance and investing, and real estate.

The term business model refers to a company's plan for making a profit . It identifies the products or services the business plans to sell, its identified target market , and any anticipated expenses . Business models are important for both new and established businesses. They help new, developing companies attract investment, recruit talent, and motivate management and staff.

Established businesses should regularly update their business model or they'll fail to anticipate trends and challenges ahead. Business models also help investors evaluate companies that interest them and employees understand the future of a company they may aspire to join.

Key Takeaways

• A business model is a company's core strategy for profitably doing business.
• Models generally include information like products or services the business plans to sell, target markets, and any anticipated expenses.
• There are dozens of types of business models including retailers, manufacturers, fee-for-service, or freemium providers.
• The two levers of a business model are pricing and costs.
• When evaluating a business model as an investor, consider whether the product being offered matches a true need in the market.

Investopedia / Laura Porter

A business model is a high-level plan for profitably operating a business in a specific marketplace. A primary component of the business model is the value proposition . This is a description of the goods or services that a company offers and why they are desirable to customers or clients, ideally stated in a way that differentiates the product or service from its competitors.

A new enterprise's business model should also cover projected startup costs and financing sources, the target customer base for the business, marketing strategy , a review of the competition, and projections of revenues and expenses. The plan may also define opportunities in which the business can partner with other established companies. For example, the business model for an advertising business may identify benefits from an arrangement for referrals to and from a printing company.

Successful businesses have business models that allow them to fulfill client needs at a competitive price and a sustainable cost. Over time, many businesses revise their business models from time to time to reflect changing business environments and market demands .

When evaluating a company as a possible investment, the investor should find out exactly how it makes its money. This means looking through the company's business model. Admittedly, the business model may not tell you everything about a company's prospects. But the investor who understands the business model can make better sense of the financial data.

A common mistake many companies make when they create their business models is to underestimate the costs of funding the business until it becomes profitable. Counting costs to the introduction of a product is not enough. A company has to keep the business running until its revenues exceed its expenses.

One way analysts and investors evaluate the success of a business model is by looking at the company's gross profit . Gross profit is a company's total revenue minus the cost of goods sold (COGS). Comparing a company's gross profit to that of its main competitor or its industry sheds light on the efficiency and effectiveness of its business model. Gross profit alone can be misleading, however. Analysts also want to see cash flow or net income . That is gross profit minus operating expenses and is an indication of just how much real profit the business is generating.

The two primary levers of a company's business model are pricing and costs. A company can raise prices, and it can find inventory at reduced costs. Both actions increase gross profit. Many analysts consider gross profit to be more important in evaluating a business plan. A good gross profit suggests a sound business plan. If expenses are out of control, the management team could be at fault, and the problems are correctable. As this suggests, many analysts believe that companies that run on the best business models can run themselves.

When evaluating a company as a possible investment, find out exactly how it makes its money (not just what it sells but how it sells it). That's the company's business model.

Types of Business Models

There are as many types of business models as there are types of business. For instance, direct sales, franchising , advertising-based, and brick-and-mortar stores are all examples of traditional business models. There are hybrid models as well, such as businesses that combine internet retail with brick-and-mortar stores or with sporting organizations like the NBA .

Below are some common types of business models; note that the examples given may fall into multiple categories.

One of the more common business models most people interact with regularly is the retailer model. A retailer is the last entity along a supply chain. They often buy finished goods from manufacturers or distributors and interface directly with customers.

Example: Costco Wholesale

Manufacturer

A manufacturer is responsible for sourcing raw materials and producing finished products by leveraging internal labor, machinery, and equipment. A manufacturer may make custom goods or highly replicated, mass produced products. A manufacturer can also sell goods to distributors, retailers, or directly to customers.

Example: Ford Motor Company

Fee-for-Service

Instead of selling products, fee-for-service business models are centered around labor and providing services. A fee-for-service business model may charge by an hourly rate or a fixed cost for a specific agreement. Fee-for-service companies are often specialized, offering insight that may not be common knowledge or may require specific training.

Example: DLA Piper LLP

Subscription

Subscription-based business models strive to attract clients in the hopes of luring them into long-time, loyal patrons. This is done by offering a product that requires ongoing payment, usually in return for a fixed duration of benefit. Though largely offered by digital companies for access to software, subscription business models are also popular for physical goods such as monthly reoccurring agriculture/produce subscription box deliveries.

Example: Spotify

Freemium business models attract customers by introducing them to basic, limited-scope products. Then, with the client using their service, the company attempts to convert them to a more premium, advance product that requires payment. Although a customer may theoretically stay on freemium forever, a company tries to show the benefit of what becoming an upgraded member can hold.

Example: LinkedIn/LinkedIn Premium

Some companies can reside within multiple business model types at the same time for the same product. For example, Spotify (a subscription-based model) also offers a free version and a premium version.

If a company is concerned about the cost of attracting a single customer, it may attempt to bundle products to sell multiple goods to a single client. Bundling capitalizes on existing customers by attempting to sell them different products. This can be incentivized by offering pricing discounts for buying multiple products.

Example: AT&T

Marketplace

Marketplaces are somewhat straight-forward: in exchange for hosting a platform for business to be conducted, the marketplace receives compensation. Although transactions could occur without a marketplace, this business model attempts to make transacting easier, safer, and faster.

Example: eBay

Affiliate business models are based on marketing and the broad reach of a specific entity or person's platform. Companies pay an entity to promote a good, and that entity often receives compensation in exchange for their promotion. That compensation may be a fixed payment, a percentage of sales derived from their promotion, or both.

Example: social media influencers such as Lele Pons, Zach King, or Chiara Ferragni.

Razor Blade

Aptly named after the product that invented the model, this business model aims to sell a durable product below cost to then generate high-margin sales of a disposable component of that product. Also referred to as the "razor and blade model", razor blade companies may give away expensive blade handles with the premise that consumers need to continually buy razor blades in the long run.

Example: HP (printers and ink)

"Tying" is an illegal razor blade model strategy that requires the purchase of an unrelated good prior to being able to buy a different (and often required) good. For example, imagine Gillette released a line of lotion and required all customers to buy three bottles before they were allowed to purchase disposable razor blades.

Reverse Razor Blade

Instead of relying on high-margin companion products, a reverse razor blade business model tries to sell a high-margin product upfront. Then, to use the product, low or free companion products are provided. This model aims to promote that upfront sale, as further use of the product is not highly profitable.

Example: Apple (iPhones + applications)

The franchise business model leverages existing business plans to expand and reproduce a company at a different location. Often food, hardware, or fitness companies, franchisers work with incoming franchisees to finance the business, promote the new location, and oversee operations. In return, the franchisor receives a percentage of earnings from the franchisee.

Example: Domino's Pizza

Pay-As-You-Go

Instead of charging a fixed fee, some companies may implement a pay-as-you-go business model where the amount charged depends on how much of the product or service was used. The company may charge a fixed fee for offering the service in addition to an amount that changes each month based on what was consumed.

Example: Utility companies

A brokerage business model connects buyers and sellers without directly selling a good themselves. Brokerage companies often receive a percentage of the amount paid when a deal is finalized. Most common in real estate, brokers are also prominent in construction/development or freight.

Example: ReMax

There is no "one size fits all" when making a business model. Different professionals may suggest taking different steps when creating a business and planning your business model. Here are some broad steps one can take to create their plan:

• Identify your audience. Most business model plans will start with either defining the problem or identifying your audience and target market . A strong business model will understand who you are trying to target so you can craft your product, messaging, and approach to connecting with that audience.
• Define the problem. In addition to understanding your audience, you must know what problem you are trying to solve. A hardware company sells products for home repairs. A restaurant feeds the community. Without a problem or a need, your business may struggle to find its footing if there isn't a demand for your services or products.
• Understand your offerings. With your audience and problem in mind, consider what you are able to offer. What products are you interested in selling, and how does your expertise match that product? In this stage of the business model, the product is tweaked to adapt to what the market needs and what you're able to provide.
• Document your needs. With your product selected, consider the hurdles your company will face. This includes product-specific challenges as well as operational difficulties. Make sure to document each of these needs to assess whether you are ready to launch in the future.
• Find key partners. Most businesses will leverage other partners in driving company success. For example, a wedding planner may forge relationships with venues, caterers, florists, and tailors to enhance their offering. For manufacturers, consider who will provide your materials and how critical your relationship with that provider will be.
• Set monetization solutions. Until now, we haven't talked about how your company will make money. A business model isn't complete until it identifies how it will make money. This includes selecting the strategy or strategies above in determining your business model type. This might have been a type you had in mind but after reviewing your clients needs, a different type might now make more sense.
• Test your model. When your full plan is in place, perform test surveys or soft launches. Ask how people would feel paying your prices for your services. Offer discounts to new customers in exchange for reviews and feedback. You can always adjust your business model, but you should always consider leveraging direct feedback from the market when doing so.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, consider what competing companies are doing and how you can position yourself in the market. You may be able to easily spot gaps in the business model of others.

Criticism of Business Models

Joan Magretta, the former editor of the Harvard Business Review, suggests there are two critical factors in sizing up business models. When business models don't work, she states, it's because the story doesn't make sense and/or the numbers just don't add up to profits. The airline industry is a good place to look to find a business model that stopped making sense. It includes companies that have suffered heavy losses and even bankruptcy .

For years, major carriers such as American Airlines, Delta, and Continental built their businesses around a hub-and-spoke structure , in which all flights were routed through a handful of major airports. By ensuring that most seats were filled most of the time, the business model produced big profits.

However, a competing business model arose that made the strength of the major carriers a burden. Carriers like Southwest and JetBlue shuttled planes between smaller airports at a lower cost. They avoided some of the operational inefficiencies of the hub-and-spoke model while forcing labor costs down. That allowed them to cut prices, increasing demand for short flights between cities.

As these newer competitors drew more customers away, the old carriers were left to support their large, extended networks with fewer passengers. The problem became even worse when traffic fell sharply following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 . To fill seats, these airlines had to offer more discounts at even deeper levels. The hub-and-spoke business model no longer made sense.

Example of Business Models

Consider the vast portfolio of Microsoft. Over the past several decades, the company has expanded its product line across digital services, software, gaming, and more. Various business models, all within Microsoft, include but are not limited to:

• Productivity and Business Processes: Microsoft offers subscriptions to Office products and LinkedIn. These subscriptions may be based off product usage (i.e. the amount of data being uploaded to SharePoint).
• Intelligent Cloud: Microsoft offers server products and cloud services for a subscription. This also provide services and consulting.
• More Personal Computing: Microsoft sells physically manufactured products such as Surface, PC components, and Xbox hardware. Residual Xbox sales include content, services, subscriptions, royalties, and advertising revenue.

A business model is a strategic plan of how a company will make money. The model describes the way a business will take its product, offer it to the market, and drive sales. A business model determines what products make sense for a company to sell, how it wants to promote its products, what type of people it should try to cater to, and what revenue streams it may expect.

What Is an Example of a Business Model?

Best Buy, Target, and Walmart are some of the largest examples of retail companies. These companies acquire goods from manufacturers or distributors to sell directly to the public. Retailers interface with their clients and sell goods, though retails may or may not make the actual goods they sell.

What Are the Main Types of Business Models?

Retailers and manufacturers are among the primary types of business models. Manufacturers product their own goods and may or may not sell them directly to the public. Meanwhile, retails buy goods to later resell to the public.

How Do I Build a Business Model?

There are many steps to building a business model, and there is no single consistent process among business experts. In general, a business model should identify your customers, understand the problem you are trying to solve, select a business model type to determine how your clients will buy your product, and determine the ways your company will make money. It is also important to periodically review your business model; once you've launched, feel free to evaluate your plan and adjust your target audience, product line, or pricing as needed.

A company isn't just an entity that sells goods. It's an ecosystem that must have a plan in plan on who to sell to, what to sell, what to charge, and what value it is creating. A business model describes what an organization does to systematically create long-term value for its customers. After building a business model, a company should have stronger direction on how it wants to operate and what its financial future appears to be.

Harvard Business Review. " Why Business Models Matter ."

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. " Airline Travel Since 9/11 ."

Microsoft. " Annual Report 2023 ."

• How Companies Make Money 1 of 23
• How IBM Makes Money 2 of 23
• How Micron Makes Money 3 of 23
• How Snapchat Makes Money 4 of 23
• How Spotify Makes Money 5 of 23
• How X (Formerly Twitter) Makes Money 6 of 23
• How Uber Makes Money 7 of 23
• How Alibaba Makes Money 8 of 23
• How Amazon Makes Money 9 of 23
• How Lockheed Martin Makes Money 10 of 23
• How Nike Makes Money 11 of 23
• How Starbucks Makes Money 12 of 23
• How Bank of America Makes Money 13 of 23
• How Berkshire Hathaway Makes Money 14 of 23
• How BlackRock Makes Money 15 of 23
• How JPMorgan Chase Makes Money 16 of 23
• How Square (Block) Makes Money 17 of 23
• How Visa Makes Money 18 of 23
• How Robinhood Makes Money 19 of 23
• How Acorns Makes Money 20 of 23
• How Chime Makes Money 21 of 23
• How Credit Karma Makes Money 22 of 23
• How Reddit Makes Money 23 of 23

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

BusinessModel →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Managing Technology
• Social Responsibility
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• AI & Machine Learning
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Big ideas Research Projects
• Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy
• Responsible AI
• Future of the Workforce
• Future of Leadership
• All Research Projects
• AI in Action
• Most Popular
• The Truth Behind the Nursing Crisis
• Work/23: The Big Shift
• Coaching for the Future-Forward Leader
• Measuring Culture

The spring 2024 issue’s special report looks at how to take advantage of market opportunities in the digital space, and provides advice on building culture and friendships at work; maximizing the benefits of LLMs, corporate venture capital initiatives, and innovation contests; and scaling automation and digital health platform.

• Past Issues
• Upcoming Events
• Video Archive
• Me, Myself, and AI
• Three Big Points

How to Identify New Business Models

Systematically exploring alternative approaches to value creation can allow companies to find new opportunities for growth.

• Innovation Strategy
• Business Models

Image courtesy of Kennametal.

Organizations traditionally pursue growth via one or more of three broad paths:

• They invest heavily in product development so they can produce new and better offerings.
• They develop deep consumer insights in order to offer new and better ways to satisfy customers’ needs.
• They concentrate on strategy formulation to grow by acquisition or by moving into new or adjacent markets.

Each of these paths usually involves devoting considerable time and resources to developing a corresponding organizational competency. For example, to build product capability, companies typically invest in in-house research and development departments and/or technology-sourcing expertise. Establishing customer insight capability often requires creating in-house market research units and implementing robust feedback links between the sales force and the developers of product or service lines. And creating a strategy capability generally involves setting up dedicated corporate strategy units and merger and acquisition groups or engaging consultants.

Recently, a fourth path has emerged, one that we might label “business model experimentation”: the pursuit of growth through the methodical examination of alternative business models. At its heart, business model experimentation is a means to explore alternative value creation approaches quickly, inexpensively and, to the extent possible, through “thought experiments.” The process sheds new light on potential competitors and lowers the risk of taking the wrong or a lesser-potential road — all for an initial investment that is typically quite small relative to what can be gained.

Research conducted in the last 10 years has established a link between business model innovation and value creation. 1 To our minds, this research points to the need for organizations to build a competency in business model innovation — that is, in the process of exploring possible business model alternatives that can be pursued to commercialize any given idea prior to going out into the market and expending resources. However, few organizations have successfully conceived and executed a business model different from their current one, fewer still have done it more than once and only a handful have put in place a methodical approach to business model innovation.

About the Authors

Joseph V. Sinfield is an associate professor of civil engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and a senior partner at the innovation and strategy consulting firm Innosight. Edward Calder, a principal at Innosight, is based in the firm’s Lexington, Massachusetts, headquarters. Bernard McCon-nell is vice president of WIDIA Products Group at Kennametal, based in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. Steve Colson is a company coach at Open Water Development Ltd. and a former general manager of growth initiatives at petroleum-additive maker Infineum in the United Kingdom.

1. See T.W. Malone, P. Weill, R.K. Lai, V.T. D’Ursio, G. Herman, T.G. Apel and S.L. Woerner, “Do Some Business Models Perform Better Than Others? “Working paper 4615-06, MIT Sloan School of Management, (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2006) May 16; S.M. Shafer, H.J. Smith and J.C. Linder, “The Power of Business Models,” Business Horizons 48, no. 3, (2005): 199-207; E. Giesen, S.J. Berman, R. Bell and A. Blitz, “Three Ways to Successfully Innovate Your Business Model,” Strategy & Leadership 35, no. 6 (2007): 27-33; and M.W. Johnson, C.M. Christensen and H. Kagermann, “Reinventing Your Business Model,” Harvard Business Review, 86, no. 12 December 2008: 51-59. In a study of 1,000 of the largest U.S. firms, for example, Malone et al. called attention to the link and mapped out a comprehensive classification system that can be employed both to categorize and to develop business models. Shafer et al. described the benefits General Motors gained by employing business model innovation in the development of OnStar, and contrasted this success story with the narrow and less innovative approach employed to define the business model for eToys in the late 1990s. Giesen et al. examined 35 financially successful enterprises and outlined three distinct paths to business model innovation — industry, revenue and enterprise model innovation — that were at the core of their success. Further, Johnson et al. explored the stories of P&G, Tata, Hilti and Dow Corning to emphasize the financial and long-term competitive differentiation benefits that companies can achieve through business model innovation.

2. Johnson et al., “Reinventing Your Business Model.”

3. Shafer et al., “The Power of Business Models”; and M. Morris, M. Schindehutte and J. Allen, “The Entrepreneur’s Business Model: Toward a Unified Perspective,” Journal of Business Research 58, no. 6 (June 2005): 726-735.

4. J.V. Sinfield and S.D. Anthony, “Constraining Innovation: How Developing and Continually Refining Your Organization’s Goals and Bounds Can Help Guide Growth,” Strategy & Innovation 4, no. 6 (November-December 2006): 1, 6-9.

5. For more on conducting research into discovering such needs see, for example, C.M. Christensen and M.E. Raynor, “The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press, 2003); and S.D. Anthony and J.V. Sinfield, “Product for Hire: Master the Innovation Life Cycle With a Jobs-to-be-done Perspective of Markets,” Marketing Management 16, no. 2 (March-April, 2007): 18-24.

More Like This

Add a comment cancel reply.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Sign up for a free account : Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

Comments (8)

Ghislain paradis, shengzhou wang, [email protected], patrick.staehler, jim.kalbach.

Business model innovation: a review and research agenda

New England Journal of Entrepreneurship

ISSN : 2574-8904

Article publication date: 16 October 2019

Issue publication date: 13 November 2019

The aim of this paper is to review and synthesise the recent advancements in the business model literature and explore how firms approach business model innovation.

Design/methodology/approach

A systematic review of business model innovation literature was carried out by analysing 219 papers published between 2010 and 2016.

Evidence reviewed suggests that rather than taking either an evolutionary process of continuous revision, adaptation and fine-tuning of the existing business model or a revolutionary process of replacing the existing business model, firms can explore alternative business models through experimentation, open and disruptive innovations. It was also found that changing business models encompasses modifying a single element, altering multiple elements simultaneously and/or changing the interactions between elements in four areas of innovation: value proposition, operational value, human capital and financial value.

Research limitations/implications

Although this review highlights the different avenues to business model innovation, the mechanisms by which firms can change their business models and the external factors associated with such change remain unexplored.

Practical implications

The business model innovation framework can be used by practitioners as a “navigation map” to determine where and how to change their existing business models.

Originality/value

Because conflicting approaches exist in the literature on how firms change their business models, the review synthesises these approaches and provides a clear guidance as to the ways through which business model innovation can be undertaken.

• Business model
• Value proposition
• Value creation
• Value capture

Ramdani, B. , Binsaif, A. and Boukrami, E. (2019), "Business model innovation: a review and research agenda", New England Journal of Entrepreneurship , Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-06-2019-0030

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Boumediene Ramdani, Ahmed Binsaif and Elias Boukrami

Published in New England Journal of Entrepreneurship . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Firms pursue business model innovation by exploring new ways to define value proposition, create and capture value for customers, suppliers and partners ( Gambardella and McGahan, 2010 ; Teece, 2010 ; Bock et al. , 2012 ; Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu, 2013 ). An extensive body of the literature asserts that innovation in business models is of vital importance to firm survival, business performance and as a source of competitive advantage ( Demil and Lecocq, 2010 ; Chesbrough, 2010 ; Amit and Zott, 2012 ; Baden-Fuller and Haefliger, 2013 ; Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu, 2013 ). It is starting to attract a growing attention, given the increasing opportunities for new business models enabled by changing customer expectations, technological advances and deregulation ( Casadesus-Masanell and Llanes, 2011 ; Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu, 2013 ). This is evident from the recent scholarly outputs ( Figure 1 ). Thus, it is essential to comprehend this literature and uncover where alternative business models can be explored.

Conflicting approaches exist in the literature on how firms change their business models. One approach suggests that alternative business models can be explored through an evolutionary process of incremental changes to business model elements (e.g. Demil and Lecocq, 2010 ; Dunford et al. , 2010 ; Amit and Zott, 2012 ; Landau et al. , 2016 ; Velu, 2016 ). The other approach, mainly practice-oriented, advocates that innovative business models can be developed through a revolutionary process by replacing existing business models (e.g. Bock et al. , 2012 ; Iansiti and Lakhani, 2014 ). The fragmentation of prior research is due to the variety of disciplinary and theoretical foundations through which business model innovation is examined. Scholars have drawn on perspectives from entrepreneurship (e.g. George and Bock, 2011 ), information systems (e.g. Al-debei and Avison, 2010 ), innovation management (e.g. Dmitriev et al. , 2014 ), marketing (e.g. Sorescu et al. , 2011 ) and strategy (e.g. Demil and Lecocq, 2010 ). Also, this fragmentation is deepened by focusing on different types of business models in different industries. Studies have explored different types of business models such as digital business models (e.g. Weill and Woerner, 2013 ), service business models (e.g. Kastalli et al. , 2013 ), social business models (e.g. Hlady-Rispal and Servantie, 2016 ) and sustainability-driven business models ( Esslinger, 2011 ). Besides, studies have examined different industries such as airline ( Lange et al. , 2015 ), manufacturing ( Landau et al. , 2016 ), newspaper ( Karimi and Walter, 2016 ), retail ( Brea-Solís et al. , 2015 ) and telemedicine ( Peters et al. , 2015 ).

Since the first comprehensive review of business model literature was carried out by Zott et al. (2011) , several reviews were published recently (as highlighted in Table I ). Our review builds on and extends the extant literature in at least three ways. First, unlike previous reviews that mainly focused on the general construct of “Business Model” ( George and Bock, 2011 ; Zott et al. , 2011 ; Wirtz et al. , 2016 ), our review focuses on uncovering how firms change their existing business model(s) by including terms that reflect business model innovation, namely, value proposition, value creation and value capture. Second, previous reviews do not provide a clear answer as to how firms change their business models. Our review aims to provide a clear guidance on how firms carry out business model innovation by synthesising the different perspectives existing in the literature. Third, compared to recent reviews on business model innovation ( Schneider and Spieth, 2013 ; Spieth et al. , 2014 ), which have touched lightly on some innovation aspects such as streams and motivations of business model innovation research, our review will uncover the innovation areas where alternative business models can be explored. Taking Teece’s (2010) suggestion, “A helpful analytic approach for management is likely to involve systematic deconstruction/unpacking of existing business models, and an evaluation of each element with an idea toward refinement or replacement” (p. 188), this paper aims to develop a theoretical framework of business model innovation.

Our review first explains the scope and the process of the literature review. This is followed by a synthesis of the findings of the review into a theoretical framework of business model innovation. Finally, avenues for future research will be discussed in relation to the approaches, degree and mechanisms of business model innovation.

2. Scope and method of the literature review

Given the diverse body of business models literature, a systematic literature review was carried out to minimise research bias ( Transfield et al. , 2003 ). Compared to the previous business model literature, our review criteria are summarised in Table I . The journal papers considered were published between January 2010 and December 2016. As highlighted in Figure 1 , most contributions in this field have been issued within this period since previous developments in the literature were comprehensively reviewed up to the end of 2009 ( Zott et al. , 2011 ). Using four databases (EBSCO Business Complete, ABI/INFORM, JSTOR and ScienceDirect), we searched peer-reviewed papers with terms such as business model(s), innovation value proposition, value creation and value capture appearing in the title, abstract or subject terms. As a result, 8,642 peer-reviewed papers were obtained.

Studies were included in our review if they specifically address business models and were top-rated according to The UK Association of Business Schools list ( ABS, 2010 ). This rating has been used not only because it takes into account the journal “Impact Factor” as a measure for journal quality, but also uses in conjunction other measures making it one of the most comprehensive journal ratings. By applying these criteria, 1,682 entries were retrieved from 122 journals. By excluding duplications, 831 papers were identified. As Harvard Business Review is not listed among the peer-reviewed journals in any of the chosen databases and was included in the ABS list, we used the earlier criteria and found 112 additional entries. The reviewed papers and their subject fields are highlighted in Table II . Since the focus of this paper is on business model innovation, we selected studies that discuss value proposition, value creation and value capture as sub-themes. This is not only because the definition of business model innovation mentioned earlier spans all three sub-themes, but also because all three sub-themes have been included in recent studies (e.g. Landau et al. , 2016 ; Velu and Jacob, 2014 ). To confirm whether the papers addressed business model innovation, we examined the main body of the papers to ensure they were properly coded and classified. At the end of the process, 219 papers were included in this review. Table III lists the source of our sample.

The authors reviewed the 219 papers using a protocol that included areas of innovation (i.e. components, elements, and activities), theoretical perspectives and key findings. In order to identify the main themes of business model innovation research, all papers were coded in relation to our research focus as to where alternative business models can be explored (i.e. value proposition, value creation and value capture). Coding was cross checked among the authors on a random sample suggesting high accuracy between them. Having compared and discussed the results, the authors were able to identify the main themes.

3. Prior conceptualisations of business model innovation

Some scholars have articulated the need to build the business model innovation on a more solid theoretical ground ( Sosna et al. , 2010 ; George and Bock, 2011 ). Although many studies are not explicitly theory-based, some studies partially used well-established theories such as the resource-based view (e.g. Al-Debei and Avison, 2010 ) and transaction cost economics (e.g. DaSilva and Trkman, 2014 ) to conceptualise business model innovation. Other theories such as activity systems perspective, dynamic capabilities and practice theory have been used to help answer the question of how firms change their existing business models.

Using the activity systems perspective, Zott and Amit (2010) demonstrated how innovative business models can be developed through the design themes that describe the source of value creation (novelty, lock-in, complementarities and efficiency) and design elements that describe the architecture (content, structure and governance). This work, however, overlooks value capture which limits the explanation of the advocated system’s view (holistic). Moreover, Chatterjee (2013) used this perspective to reveal that firms can design innovative business models that translate value capture logic to core objectives, which can be delivered through the activity system.

Dynamic capability perspective frames business model innovation as an initial experiment followed by continuous revision, adaptation and fine-tuning based on trial-and-error learning ( Sosna et al. , 2010 ). Using this perspective, Demil and Lecocq (2010) showed that “dynamic consistency” is a capability that allows firms to sustain their performance while innovating their business models through voluntary and emergent changes. Also, Mezger (2014) conceptualised business model innovation as a distinct dynamic capability. He argued that this capability is the firm’s capacity to sense opportunities, seize them through the development of valuable and unique business models, and accordingly reconfigure the firms’ competences and resources. Using aspects of practice theory, Mason and Spring (2011) looked at business model innovation in the recorded sound industry and found that it can be achieved through various combinations of managerial practices.

Static and transformational approaches have been used to depict business models ( Demil and Lecocq, 2010 ). The former refers to viewing business models as constituting core elements that influence business performance at a particular point in time. This approach offers a snapshot of the business model elements and how they are assembled, which can help in understanding and communicating a business model (e.g. Eyring et al. , 2011 ; Mason and Spring, 2011 ; Yunus et al. , 2010). The latter, however, focuses on innovation and how to address the changes in business models over time (e.g. Sinfield et al. , 2012 ; Girotra and Netessine, 2014 ; Landau et al. , 2016 ). Some researchers have identified the core elements of business models ex ante (e.g. Demil and Lecocq, 2010 ; Wu et al. , 2010 ; Huarng, 2013 ; Dmitriev et al. , 2014 ), while others argued that considering a priori elements can be restrictive (e.g. Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010 ). Unsurprisingly, some researchers found a middle ground where elements are loosely defined allowing flexibility in depicting business models (e.g. Zott and Amit, 2010 ; Sinfield et al. , 2012 ; Kiron et al. , 2013 ).

Prior to 2010, conceptual frameworks focused on the business model concept in general (e.g. Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002 ; Osterwalder et al. , 2005 ; Shafer et al. , 2005 ) apart from Johnson et al. ’s (2008 ), which is one of the early contributions to business model innovation. To determine whether a change in existing business model is necessary, Johnson et al. (2008) suggested three steps: “Identify an important unmet job a target customer needs done; blueprint a model that can accomplish that job profitably for a price the customer is willing to pay; and carefully implement and evolve the model by testing essential assumptions and adjusting as you learn” ( Eyring et al. , 2011 , p. 90). Although several frameworks have been developed since then, our understanding of business model innovation is still limited due to the static nature of the majority of these frameworks. Some representations ignore the elements and/or activities where alternative business models can be explored (e.g. Sinfield et al. , 2012 ; Chatterjee, 2013 ; Huarng, 2013 ; Morris et al. , 2013 ; Dmitriev et al. , 2014 ; Girotra and Netessine, 2014 ). Other frameworks ignore value proposition (e.g. Zott and Amit, 2010 ), ignore value creation (e.g. Dmitriev et al. , 2014 ; Michel, 2014 ) and/or ignore value capture (e.g. Mason and Spring, 2011 ; Sorescu et al. , 2011 ; Storbacka, 2011 ). Some conceptualisations do not identify who is responsible for the innovation (e.g. Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010 ; Sinfield et al. , 2012 ; Chatterjee, 2013 ; Kiron et al. , 2013 ). Synthesising the different contributions into a theoretical framework of business model innovation will enable a better understanding of how firms undertake business model innovation.

4. Business model innovation framework

Our framework ( Figure 2 ) integrates all the elements where alternative business models can be explored. This framework does not claim that the listed elements are definitive for high-performing business models, but is an attempt to outline the elements associated with business model innovation. This framework builds on the previous work of Johnson et al. (2008) and Zott and Amit (2010) by signifying the elements associated with business model innovation. Unlike previous frameworks that mainly consider the constituting elements of business models, this framework focuses on areas of innovation where alternative business models can be explored. Moreover, this is not a static view of the constituting elements of a business model, but rather a view enabling firms to explore alternative business models by continually refining these elements. Arrows in the framework indicate the continuous interaction of business model elements. This framework consists of 4 areas of innovation and 16 elements (more details are shown in Table IV ). Each will be discussed below.

4.1 Value proposition

The first area of innovation refers to elements associated with answering the “Why” questions. While most of the previously established models in the literature include at least one of the value proposition elements (e.g. Brea-Solís et al. , 2015 ; Christensen et al. , 2016 ), other frameworks included two elements (e.g. Dahan et al. , 2010 ; Cortimiglia et al. , 2016 ) and three elements (e.g. Eyring et al. , 2011 ; Sinfield et al. , 2012 ). These elements include rethinking what a company sells, exploring new customer needs, acquiring target customers and determining whether the benefits offered are perceived by customers. Modern organisations are highly concerned with innovation relating to value proposition in order to attract and retain a large portion of their customer base ( Al-Debei and Avison, 2010 ). Developing new business models usually starts with articulating a new customer value proposition ( Eyring et al. , 2011 ). According to Sinfield et al. (2012) , firms are encouraged to explore various alternatives of core offering in more depth by examining type of offering (product or service), its features (custom or off-the-shelf), offered benefits (tangible or intangible), brand (generic or branded) and lifetime of the offering (consumable or durable).

In order to exploit the “middle market” in emerging economies, Eyring et al. (2011) suggested that companies need to design new business models that aim to meet unsatisfied needs and evolve these models by continually testing assumptions and making adjustments. To uncover unmet needs, Eyring et al. (2011) suggested answering four questions: what are customers doing with the offering? What alternative offerings consumers buy? What jobs consumers are satisfying poorly? and what consumers are trying to accomplish with existing offerings? Furthermore, Baden-Fuller and Haefliger (2013) made a distinction between customers and users in two-sided platforms, where users search for products online, and customers (firms) place ads to attract users. They also made a distinction between “pre-designed (scale) based offerings” and “project based offerings”. While the former focuses on “one-size-fits-all”, the latter focuses on specific client solving specific problem.

Established firms entering emerging markets should identify unmet needs “the job to be done” rather than extending their geographical base for existing offerings ( Eyring et al. , 2011 ). Because customers in these markets cannot afford the cheapest of the high-end offerings, firms with innovative business models that meet these customers’ needs affordably will have opportunities for growth ( Eyring et al. , 2011 ). Moreover, secondary business model innovation has been advocated by Wu et al. (2010) as a way for latecomer firms to create and capture value from disruptive technologies in emerging markets. This can be achieved through tailoring the original business model to fit price-sensitive mass customers by articulating a value proposition that is attractive for local customers.

4.2 Operational value

The second area of innovation focuses on elements associated with answering the “What” questions. Many of the established frameworks included either one element (e.g. Sinfield et al. , 2012 ; Taran et al. , 2015 ), two elements (e.g. Mason and Spring, 2011 ; Dmitriev et al. , 2014 ). However, very few included three or more elements (e.g. Mehrizi and Lashkarbolouki, 2016 ; Cortimiglia et al. , 2016 ). These elements include configuring key assets and sequencing activities to deliver the value proposition, exposing the various means by which a company reaches out to customers, and establishing links with key partners and suppliers. Focusing on value creation, Zott and Amit (2010) argued that business model innovation can be achieved through reorganising activities to reduce transaction costs. However, Al-Debei and Avison (2010) argued that innovation relating to this dimension can be achieved through resource configuration, which demonstrates a firm’s ability to integrate various assets in a way that delivers its value proposition. Cavalcante et al. (2011) proposed four ways to change business models: business model creation, extension, revision and termination by creating or adding new processes, and changing or terminating existing processes.

Western firms have had difficulty competing in emerging markets due to importing their existing business models with unchanged operating model ( Eyring et al. , 2011 ). Alternative business models can be uncovered when firms explore the different roles they might play in the industry value chain ( Sinfield et al. , 2012 ). Al-Debei and Avison (2010) suggested achieving this through answering questions such as: what is the position of our firm in the value system? and what mode of collaboration (open or close) would we choose to reach out in a business network? Dahan et al. (2010) found cross-sector partnerships as a way to co-create new multi-organisational business models. They argued that multinational enterprises (MNEs) can collaborate with nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) to create products/or services that neither can create on their own. Collaboration allows access to resources that firms would otherwise need to solely develop or purchase ( Yunus et al. , 2010 ). According to Wu et al. (2010) , secondary business model innovation can be achieved when latecomer firms fully utilise strategic partners’ complementary assets to overcome their latecomer disadvantages and build a unique value network specific to emerging economies context.

4.3 Human capital

The third area of innovation refers to elements associated with answering the “Who” questions. Most of the established frameworks in this field tend to focus less on human capital and include one element at most (e.g. Wu et al. , 2010 ; Kohler, 2015 ). However, our framework highlights four elements, which include experimenting with new ways of doing business, tapping into the skills and competencies needed for the new business model through motivating and involving individuals in the innovation process. According to Belenzon and Schankerman (2015) , “the ability to tap into a pool of talent is strongly related to the specific business model chosen by managers” (p. 795). They claimed that managers can strategically influence individuals’ contributions and their impact on project performance.

Organisational learning can be maximised though continuous experimentation and making changes when actions result in failure ( Yunus et al. , 2010 ). Challenging and questioning the existing rules and assumptions and imagining new ways of doing business will help develop new business models. Another essential element of business model design is governance, which refers to who performs the activities ( Zott and Amit, 2010 ). According to Sorescu et al. (2011) , innovation in retail business models can occur as a result of changes in the level of participation by actors engaged in performing the activities. An essential element of retailing governance is the incentive structure or the mechanisms that motivate those involved in carrying out their roles to meet customer demands ( Sorescu et al. , 2011 ). For example, discount retailers tend to establish different compensation and incentive policies ( Brea-Solís et al. , 2015 ). Revising the incentive system can have a major impact on new ventures’ performance by aligning organisational goals at each stage of growth ( Roberge, 2015 ). Zott and Amit (2010) argued that alternative business models can be explored through adopting innovative governance or changing one or more parties that perform any activities. Sinfield et al. (2012) suggested that business model innovation only requires time from a small team over a short period of time to move a company beyond incremental improvements and generate new opportunities for growth. This is supported by Michel’s (2014) finding that cross-functional teams were able to quickly achieve business model innovation in workshops through deriving new ways to capture value.

4.4 Financial value

The final area of innovation focuses on elements associated with answering the “How” questions. Previously developed frameworks tend to prioritise this area of innovation by three elements (e.g. Eyring et al. , 2011 ; Huang et al. , 2013 ), and in one instance four elements (e.g. Yunus et al. , 2010 ). These elements include activities linked with how to capture value through revenue streams, changing the price-setting mechanisms, and assessing the financial viability and profitability of a business. According to Demil and Lecocq (2010) , changes in cost and/or revenue structures are the consequences of both continuous and radical changes. They also argued that costs relate to different activities run by organisations to acquire, integrate, combine or develop resources. Michel (2014) suggested that alternative business models can be explored through: changing the price-setting mechanism, changing the payer, and changing the price carrier. Different innovation forms are associated with each of these categories.

Business model innovation can be achieved through exploring new ways to generate cash flows ( Sorescu et al. , 2011 ), where the organisation has to consider (and potentially change) when the money is collected: prior to the sale, at the point of sale, or after the sale ( Baden-Fuller and Haefliger, 2013 ). Furthermore, Demil and Lecocq (2010) suggested that changes in business models affect margins. This is apparent in the retail business models, which generate more profit through business model innovation compared to other types of innovation ( Sorescu et al. , 2011 ).

5. Ways to change business models

From reviewing the recent developments in the business model literature, alternative business models can be explored through modifying a single business model element, altering multiple elements simultaneously and/or changing the interactions between elements of a business model.

Changing one of the business model elements (i.e. content, structure or governance) is enough to achieve business model innovation ( Amit and Zott, 2012 ). This means that firms can have a new activity system by performing only one new activity. However, Amit and Zott (2012) clearly outlined a systemic view of business models which entails a holistic change. This is evident from Demil and Lecocq’s (2010) work suggesting that the study of business model innovation should not focus on isolated activities since changing a core element will not only impact other elements but also the interactions between these elements.

Another way to change business models is through altering multiple business model elements simultaneously. Kiron et al. (2013) found that companies combining target customers with value chain innovations and changing one or two other elements of their business models tend to profit from their sustainability activities. They also found that firms changing three to four elements of their business models tend to profit more from their sustainability activities compared to those changing only one element. Moreover, Dahan et al. (2010) found that a new business model was developed as a result of MNEs and NGOs collaboration by redefining value proposition, target customers, governance of activities and distribution channels. Companies can explore multiple combinations by listing different business model options they could undertake (desirable, discussable and unthinkable) and evaluate new combinations that would not have been considered otherwise ( Sinfield et al. , 2012 ).

Changing business models is argued to be demanding as it requires a systemic and holistic view ( Amit and Zott, 2012 ) by considering the relationships between core business model elements ( Demil and Lecocq, 2010 ). As mentioned earlier, changing one element will not only impact other elements but also the interactions between these elements. A firm’s resources and competencies, value proposition and organisational system are continuously interacting and this will in turn impact business performance either positively or negatively ( Demil and Lecocq, 2010 ). According to Zott and Amit (2010) , innovative business models can be developed through linking activities in a novel way that generates more value. They argued that alternative business models can be explored by configuring business model design elements (e.g. governance) and connecting them to distinct themes (e.g. novelty). Supporting this, Eyring et al. (2011) suggested that core business model elements need to be integrated in order to create and capture value ( Eyring et al. , 2011 ).

6. Discussion and future research directions

From the above synthesis of the recent development in the literature, several gaps remain unfilled. To advance the literature, possible future research directions will be discussed in relation to approaches, degrees and mechanisms of business model innovation.

6.1 Approaches of business model innovation

Experimentation, open innovation and disruption have been advocated as approaches to business model innovation. Experimentation has been emphasised as a way to exploit opportunities and develop alternative business models before committing additional investments ( McGrath, 2010 ). Several approaches have been developed to assist in business model experimentation including mapping approach, discovery-driven planning and trail-and-error learning ( Chesbrough, 2010 ; McGrath, 2010 ; Sosna et al. , 2010 ; Andries and Debackere, 2013 ). Little is known about the effectiveness of these approaches. It will be worth investigating which elements of the business model innovation framework are more susceptible to experimentation and which elements should be held unchanged. Although business model innovation tends to be characterised with failure ( Christensen et al. , 2016 ), not much has been established on failing business models. It is interesting to explore how firms determine a failing business model and what organisational processes exist (if any) to evaluate and discard these failed business models. Empirical studies could examine which elements of business model innovation framework are associated with failing business models.

Another way to develop alternative business models is through open innovation. Although different categories of open business models have been identified by researchers (e.g. Frankenberger et al. , 2014 ; Taran et al. , 2015 ; Kortmann and Piller, 2016 ), their effectiveness is yet to be established. Further research is needed to examine when can a firm open and/or close element(s) of the business model innovation framework. Future studies could also examine the characteristics of open and/or close business models.

In responding to disruptive business models, how companies extend their existing business model, introduce additional business model(s) and/or replace their existing business model altogether remains underexplored. Future research is needed to unravel the strategies deployed by firms to extend their existing business models as a response to disruptive business models. In introducing additional business models, Markides (2013) suggested that a company will be presented with several options to manage the two businesses at the same time: create a completely separate business unit, integrate the two business models from the beginning or integrate the second business model after a certain period of time. Finding the balance between separation and integration is of vital importance. Further research could identify which of these choices are most common among successful firms introducing additional business models, how is the balance between integration and separation achieved, and which choice(s) prove more profitable. Moreover, very little is known on how firms replace their existing business model. Longitudinal studies could provide insights into how a firm adopts an alternative model and discard the old business model over time. It may also be worth examining the factors associated with the adoption of business model innovation as a response to disruptive business models. Moreover, new developments in digital technologies such as blockchain, Internet of Things and artificial intelligence are disrupting existing business models and providing firms with alternative avenues to create new business models. Thus far, very little is known on digital business models, the nature of their disruption, and how firms create digital business models and make them disruptive. Future research is needed to fill these important gaps in our knowledge.

6.2 Degrees of business model innovation

Business models can be developed through varying degrees of innovation from an evolutionary process of continuous fine-tuning to a revolutionary process of replacing existing business models. Recent research shows that survival of firms is dependent on the degree of their business model innovation ( Velu, 2015, 2016 ). This review classifies these degrees of innovation into modifying a single element, altering multiple elements simultaneously and/or changing the interactions between elements of the business model innovation framework.

In changing a single element, further research is needed to examine which business model element(s) is (are) associated with business model innovation. It is not clear whether firms intentionally make changes to a single element when carrying out business model innovation or stumble at it when experimenting with new ways of doing things. It may also be worth investigating the entry (or starting) points in the innovation process. There is no consensus in the literature on which element do companies start with when carrying out their business model innovation. While some studies suggest starting with the value proposition ( Eyring et al. , 2011 ; Landau et al. , 2016 ), others suggest starting the innovation process with identifying risks in the value chain ( Girotra and Netessine, 2011 ). Dmitriev et al. (2014) suggested two entry points, namely, value proposition and target customers. In commercialising innovations, the former refers to technology-push innovation while the latter refers to market-pull innovation. Also, it is not clear whether the entry point is the same as the single element associated with changing the business model. Further research can explore the different paths to business model innovation by identifying the entry point and subsequent changes needed to achieve business model innovation.

There is little guidance in the literature on how firms change multiple business model elements simultaneously. Landau et al. (2016) claimed that firms entering emerging markets tend to focus on adjusting specific business model components. It is unclear which elements need configuring, combining and/or integrating to achieve a company’s value proposition. Furthermore, the question of which elements can be “bought” on the market or internally “implemented” and their interplay remains unanswered ( DaSilva and Trkman, 2014 ). Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2010) argued that “[…] there is (as yet) no agreement as to the distinctive features of superior business models” (p. 196). Further research is needed to explore these distinctive elements of high-performing business models.

In changing the interactions between business model elements, further research is needed to explore how these elements are linked and what interactions’ changes are necessary to achieve business model innovation. Moreover, the question of how firms sequence these elements remains poorly understood. Future research can explore the synergies created over time between these elements. According to Dmitriev et al. (2014) , we need to improve our understanding of the connective mechanisms and dynamics involved in business model development. More work is needed to explore the different modalities of interdependencies among these elements and empirically testing such interdependencies and their effect on business performance ( Sorescu et al. , 2011 ).

It is surprising that the link between business model innovation and organisational performance has rarely been examined. Changing business models has been found to negatively influence business performance even if it is temporary ( McNamara et al. , 2013 ; Visnjic et al. , 2016 ). Contrary to this, evidence show that modifying business models is positively associated with organisational performance ( Cucculelli and Bettinelli, 2015 ). Empirical research is needed to operationalise the various degrees of innovation in business models and examine their link to organisational performance. Longitudinal studies can also be used to explore this association since it may be the case that business model innovation has a negative influence on performance in the short run and that may change subsequently. Moreover, it is not clear whether high-performing firms change their business models or innovation in business models is a result from superior performance ( Sorescu et al. , 2011 ). Further studies are needed to determine the direction of causality. Another link that is worth exploring is business model innovation and social value, which has only been explored in a few studies looking at social business models (e.g. Yunus et al. , 2010 ; Wilson and Post, 2013 ). Further research is needed to examine this link and possibly examine both financial and non-financial business performance.

6.3 Mechanisms of business model innovation

Although we know more about how firms define value proposition, create and capture value ( Landau et al. , 2016 ; Velu and Jacob, 2014 ), what remains as a blind spot is the mechanism of business model innovation. This is due to the fact that much of the literature seems to focus on value creation. To better understand the various mechanisms of business model innovation, future studies must integrate value proposition, value creation and value capture elements. Empirical studies could use the business model innovation framework to examine the various mechanisms of business model innovation. Also, the literature lacks the integration of internal and external perspectives of business model innovation. Very few studies look at the external drivers of business model innovation and the associated internal changes. The external drivers are referred to as “emerging changes”, which are usually beyond manager’s control ( Demil and Lecocq, 2010 ). Inconclusive findings exist as to how firms develop innovative business models in response to changes in the external environment. Future studies could examine the external factors associated with the changes in the business model innovation framework. Active and reactive responses need to be explored not only to understand the external influences, but also what business model changes are necessary for such responses. A better understanding of the mechanisms of business model innovation can be achieved by not only exploring the external drivers, but also linking them to specific internal changes. Although earlier contributions linking studies to established theories such as the resource-based view, transaction cost economics, activity systems perspective, dynamic capabilities and practice theory have proven to be vital in advancing the literature, developing a theory that elaborates on the antecedents, consequences and different facets of business model innovation is still needed ( Sorescu et al. , 2011 ). Theory can be advanced by depicting the mechanisms of business model innovation through the integration of both internal and external perspectives. Also, we call for more empirical work to uncover these mechanisms and provide managers with the necessary insights to carry out business model innovation.

7. Conclusions

The aim of this review was to explore how firms approach business model innovation. The current literature suggests that business model innovation approaches can either be evolutionary or revolutionary. However, the evidence reviewed points to a more complex picture beyond the simple binary approach, in that, firms can explore alternative business models through experimentation, open and disruptive innovations. Moreover, the evidence highlights further complexity to these approaches as we find that they are in fact a spectrum of various degrees of innovation ranging from modifying a single element, altering multiple elements simultaneously, to changing the interactions between elements of the business model innovation framework. This framework was developed as a navigation map for managers and researchers interested in how to change existing business models. It highlights the key areas of innovation, namely, value proposition, operational value, human capital and financial value. Researchers interested in this area can explore and examine the different paths firms can undertake to change their business models. Although this review pinpoints the different avenues for firm to undertake business model innovation, the mechanisms by which firms can change their business models and the external factors associated with such change remain underexplored.

The evolution of business model literature (pre-2000 to 2016)

Business model innovation framework

Previous reviews of business model literature

Reviewed papers and their subject fields

Source of our sample

Business model innovation areas and elements

ABS ( 2010 ), Academic Journal Quality Guide , Version 4 , The Association of Business Schools , London .

Al-Debei , M.M. and Avison , D. ( 2010 ), “ Developing a unified framework of the business model concept ”, European Journal of Information Systems , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 359 - 376 .

Amit , R. and Zott , C. ( 2012 ), “ Creating value through business model innovation ”, MIT Sloan Management Review , Vol. 53 No. 3 , pp. 41 - 49 .

Andries , P. and Debackere , K. ( 2013 ), “ Business model innovation: Propositions on the appropriateness of different learning approaches ”, Creativity and Innovation Management , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 337 - 358 .

Baden-Fuller , C. and Haefliger , S. ( 2013 ), “ Business models and technological innovation ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 46 No. 6 , pp. 419 - 426 .

Belenzon , S. and Schankerman , M. ( 2015 ), “ Motivation and sorting of human capital in open innovation ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 36 No. 6 , pp. 795 - 820 .

Bock , A.J. , Opsahl , T. , George , G. and Gann , D.M. ( 2012 ), “ The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 49 No. 2 , pp. 279 - 305 .

Brea-Solís , H. , Casadesus-Masanell , R. and Grifell-Tatjé , E. ( 2015 ), “ Business model evaluation: quantifying Walmart’s sources of advantage ”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 12 - 33 .

Casadesus-Masanell , R. and Llanes , G. ( 2011 ), “ Mixed source ”, Management Science , Vol. 57 No. 7 , pp. 1212 - 1230 .

Casadesus-Masanell , R. and Ricart , J.E. ( 2010 ), “ From strategy to business models and onto tactics ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos 2-3 , pp. 195 - 215 .

Casadesus-Masanell , R. and Zhu , F. ( 2013 ), “ Business model innovation and competitive imitation: the case of sponsor-based business models ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 34 No. 4 , pp. 464 - 482 .

Chatterjee , S. ( 2013 ), “ Simple rules for designing business models ”, California Management Review , Vol. 55 No. 2 , pp. 97 - 124 .

Cavalcante , S. , Kesting , P. and Ulhøi , J. ( 2011 ), “ Business model dynamics and innovation: (re)establishing the missing linkages ”, Management Decision , Vol. 49 No. 8 , pp. 1327 - 1342 .

Chesbrough , H. ( 2010 ), “ Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos. 2-3 , pp. 354 - 363 .

Chesbrough , H. and Rosenbloom , R.S. ( 2002 ), “ The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin off companies ”, Industrial & Corporate Change , Vol. 11 No. 3 , pp. 529 - 555 .

Christensen , C.M. , Bartman , T. and Van Bever , D. ( 2016 ), “ The hard truth about business model innovation ”, MIT Sloan Management Review , Vol. 58 No. 1 , pp. 31 - 40 .

Cortimiglia , M.N. , Ghezzi , A. and Frank , A.G. ( 2016 ), “ Business model innovation and strategy making nexus: evidence from a cross‐industry mixed‐methods study ”, R&D Management , Vol. 46 No. 3 , pp. 414 - 432 .

Cucculelli , M. and Bettinelli , C. ( 2015 ), “ Business models, intangibles and firm performance: evidence on corporate entrepreneurship from Italian manufacturing SMEs ”, Small Business Economics , Vol. 45 No. 2 , pp. 329 - 350 .

Dahan , N.M. , Doh , J.P. , Oetzel , J. and Yaziji , M. ( 2010 ), “ Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos 2-3 , pp. 326 - 342 .

DaSilva , C.M. and Trkman , P. ( 2014 ), “ Business model: what it is and what it is not ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 47 No. 6 , pp. 379 - 389 .

Demil , B. and Lecocq , X. ( 2010 ), “ Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos 2-3 , pp. 227 - 246 .

Dmitriev , V. , Simmons , G. , Truong , Y. , Palmer , M. and Schneckenberg , D. ( 2014 ), “ An exploration of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations ”, R&D Management , Vol. 44 No. 3 , pp. 306 - 321 .

Dunford , R. , Palmer , I. and Benveniste , J. ( 2010 ), “ Business model replication for early and rapid internationalisation: the ING direct experience ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos 5-6 , pp. 655 - 674 .

Esslinger , H. ( 2011 ), “ Sustainable design: beyond the innovation-driven business model ”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 401 - 404 .

Eyring , M.J. , Johnson , M.W. and Nair , H. ( 2011 ), “ New business models in emerging markets ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 89 No. 1 , pp. 89 - 95 .

Frankenberger , K. , Weiblen , T. and Gassmann , O. ( 2014 ), “ The antecedents of open business models: an exploratory study of incumbent firms ”, R&D Management , Vol. 44 No. 2 , pp. 173 - 188 .

Gambardella , A. and McGahan , A.M. ( 2010 ), “ Business-model innovation: general purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos 2-3 , pp. 262 - 271 .

George , G. and Bock , A.J. ( 2011 ), “ The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research ”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice , Vol. 35 No. 1 , pp. 83 - 111 .

Girotra , K. and Netessine , S. ( 2011 ), “ How to build risk into your business model ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 89 No. 5 , pp. 100 - 105 .

Girotra , K. and Netessine , S. ( 2014 ), “ Four paths to business model innovation ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 92 No. 7 , pp. 96 - 103 .

Hartmann , P.M. , Hartmann , P.M. , Zaki , M. , Zaki , M. , Feldmann , N. and Neely , A. ( 2016 ), “ Capturing value from Big Data – a taxonomy of data-driven business models used by start-up firms ”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 36 No. 10 , pp. 1382 - 1406 .

Hlady-Rispal , M. and Servantie , V. ( 2016 ), “ Business models impacting social change in violent and poverty-stricken neighbourhoods: a case study in Colombia ”, International Small Business Journal , Vol. 35 No. 4 , pp. 1 - 22 .

Huang , H.C. , Lai , M.C. , Lin , L.H. and Chen , C.T. ( 2013 ), “ Overcoming organizational inertia to strengthen business model innovation: an open innovation perspective ”, Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 26 No. 6 , pp. 977 - 1002 .

Huarng , K.-H. ( 2013 ), “ A two-tier business model and its realization for entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 66 No. 10 , pp. 2102 - 2105 .

Iansiti , M. and Lakhani , K.R. ( 2014 ), “ Digital ubiquity: how connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 92 No. 11 , pp. 91 - 99 .

Johnson , M.W. , Christensen , C.M. and Kagermann , H. ( 2008 ), “ Reinventing your business model ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 86 No. 12 , pp. 57 - 68 .

Karimi , J. and Walter , Z. ( 2016 ), “ Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: the case of the newspaper industry ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 49 No. 3 , pp. 342 - 360 .

Kastalli , I. , Van Looy , B. and Neely , A. ( 2013 ), “ Steering manufacturing firms towards service business model innovation ”, California Management Review , Vol. 56 No. 1 , pp. 100 - 123 .

Kohler , T. ( 2015 ), “ Crowdsourcing-based business models ”, California Management Review , Vol. 57 No. 4 , pp. 63 - 84 .

Kiron , D. , Kruschwitz , N. , Haanaes , K. , Reeves , M. and Goh , E. ( 2013 ), “ The innovation bottom line ”, MIT Sloan Management Review , Vol. 54 No. 2 , pp. 1 - 20 .

Klang , D. , Wallnöfer , M. and Hacklin , F. ( 2014 ), “ The business model paradox: a systematic review and exploration of antecedents ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 454 - 478 .

Kortmann , S. and Piller , F. ( 2016 ), “ Open business models and closed-loop value chains ”, California Management Review , Vol. 58 No. 3 , pp. 88 - 108 .

Landau , C. , Karna , A. and Sailer , M. ( 2016 ), “ Business model adaptation for emerging markets: a case study of a German automobile manufacturer in India ”, R&D Management , Vol. 46 No. 3 , pp. 480 - 503 .

Lange , K. , Geppert , M. , Saka-Helmhout , A. and Becker-Ritterspach , F. ( 2015 ), “ Changing business models and employee representation in the airline industry: a comparison of British Airways and Deutsche Lufthansa ”, British Journal of Management , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 388 - 407 .

McGrath , R.G. ( 2010 ), “ Business models: a discovery driven approach ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos. 2-3 , pp. 247 - 261 .

McNamara , P. , Peck , S.I. and Sasson , A. ( 2013 ), “ Competing business models, value creation and appropriation in English football ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 46 No. 6 , pp. 475 - 487 .

Markides , C.C. ( 2013 ), “ Business model innovation: what can the ambidexterity literature teach us? ”, Academy of Management Perspectives , Vol. 27 No. 3 , pp. 313 - 323 .

Mason , K. and Spring , M. ( 2011 ), “ The sites and practices of business models ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 40 No. 6 , pp. 1032 - 1041 .

Mehrizi , M.H.R. and Lashkarbolouki , M. ( 2016 ), “ Unlearning troubled business models: from realization to marginalization ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 49 No. 3 , pp. 298 - 323 .

Mezger , F. ( 2014 ), “ Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation: insights from an explorative study ”, R&D Management , Vol. 44 No. 5 , pp. 429 - 449 .

Michel , S. ( 2014 ), “ Capture more value ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 92 No. 4 , pp. 78 - 85 .

Morris , M.H. , Shirokova , G. and Shatalov , A. ( 2013 ), “ The business model and firm performance: the case of Russian food service ventures ”, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol. 51 No. 1 , pp. 46 - 65 .

Osterwalder , A. , Pigneur , Y. and Tucci , C.L. ( 2005 ), “ Clarifying business models: origins, present, and future of the concept ”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 25 .

Peters , C. , Blohm , I. and Leimeister , J.M. ( 2015 ), “ Anatomy of successful business models for complex services: insights from the telemedicine field ”, Journal of Management Information Systems , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 75 - 104 .

Rajala , R. , Westerlund , M. and Möller , K. ( 2012 ), “ Strategic flexibility in open innovation – designing business models for open source software ”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 46 No. 10 , pp. 1368 - 1388 .

Roberge , M. ( 2015 ), “ The right way to use compensation: to shift strategy, change how you pay your team ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 93 No. 4 , pp. 70 - 75 .

Schneider , S. and Spieth , P. ( 2013 ), “ Business model innovation: towards an integrated future research agenda ”, International Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 134 - 156 .

Shafer , S.M. , Smith , H.J. and Linder , J.C. ( 2005 ), “ The power of business models ”, Business Horizons , Vol. 48 No. 3 , pp. 199 - 207 .

Sinfield , J.V. , Calder , E. , McConnell , B. and Colson , S. ( 2012 ), “ How to identify new business models ”, MIT Sloan Management Review , Vol. 53 No. 2 , pp. 85 - 90 .

Sinkovics , N. , Sinkovics , R.R. and Yamin , M. ( 2014 ), “ The role of social value creation in business model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid – implications for MNEs? ”, International Business Review , Vol. 23 No. 4 , pp. 692 - 707 .

Spieth , P. , Schneckenberg , D. and Ricart , J.E. ( 2014 ), “ Business model innovation – state of the art and future challenges for the field ”, R&D Management , Vol. 44 No. 3 , pp. 237 - 247 .

Sorescu , A. , Frambach , R.T. , Singh , J. , Rangaswamy , A. and Bridges , C. ( 2011 ), “ Innovations in retail business models ”, Journal of Retailing , Vol. 87 No. 1 , pp. S3 - S16 .

Sosna , M. , Trevinyo-Rodríguez , R.N. and Velamuri , S.R. ( 2010 ), “ Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning: the naturhouse case ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos. 2-3 , pp. 383 - 407 .

Storbacka , K. ( 2011 ), “ A solution business model: capabilities and management practices for integrated solutions ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 40 No. 5 , pp. 699 - 711 .

Taran , Y. , Boer , H. and Lindgren , P. ( 2015 ), “ A business model innovation typology ”, Decision Sciences , Vol. 46 No. 2 , pp. 301 - 331 .

Transfield , D. , Denyer , D. and Smart , P. ( 2003 ), “ Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review ”, British Journal of Management , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 207 - 222 .

Teece , D.J. ( 2010 ), “ Business models, business strategy and innovation ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos 2-3 , pp. 172 - 194 .

Velu , C. ( 2015 ), “ Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms ”, Technovation , Vol. 35 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 11 .

Velu , C. ( 2016 ), “ Evolutionary or revolutionary business model innovation through coopetition? The role of dominance in network markets ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 53 No. 1 , pp. 124 - 135 .

Velu , C. and Jacob , A. ( 2014 ), “ Business model innovation and owner–managers: the moderating role of competition ”, R&D Management , Vol. 46 No. 3 , pp. 451 - 463 .

Visnjic , I. , Wiengarten , F. and Neely , A. ( 2016 ), “ Only the brave: product innovation, service business model innovation, and their impact on performance ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 33 No. 1 , pp. 36 - 52 .

Weill , P. and Woerner , S.L. ( 2013 ), “ Optimizing your digital business model ”, MIT Sloan Management Review , Vol. 54 No. 3 , pp. 71 - 78 .

Wilson , F. and Post , J.E. ( 2013 ), “ Business models for people, planet (& profits): exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation ”, Small Business Economics , Vol. 40 No. 3 , pp. 715 - 737 .

Wirtz , B.W. , Pistoia , A. , Ullrich , S. and Göttel , V. ( 2016 ), “ Business models: origin, development and future research perspectives ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 49 No. 1 , pp. 36 - 54 .

Wu , X. , Ma , R. and Shi , Y. ( 2010 ), “ How do latecomer firms capture value from disruptive technologies? A secondary business-model innovation perspective ”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , Vol. 57 No. 1 , pp. 51 - 62 .

Yunus , M. , Moingeon , B. and Lehmann-Ortega , L. ( 2010 ), “ Building social business models: lessons from the grameen experience ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos 2-3 , pp. 308 - 325 .

Zott , C. and Amit , R. ( 2010 ), “ Business model design: an activity system perspective ”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 43 Nos 2-3 , pp. 216 - 226 .

Zott , C. , Amit , R. and Massa , L. ( 2011 ), “ The business model: recent developments and future research ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 37 No. 4 , pp. 1019 - 1042 .

Further reading

Weill , P. , Malone , T.W. and Apel , T.G. ( 2011 ), “ The business models investors prefer ”, MIT Sloan Management Review , Vol. 52 No. 4 , pp. 17 - 19 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

• Free Account
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Employee Exit Interviews
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories

Market Research

• Artificial Intelligence
• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO
• Experience Management
• Business Research

Try Qualtrics for free

Business research: definition, types & methods.

10 min read What is business research and why does it matter? Here are some of the ways business research can be helpful to your company, whichever method you choose to carry it out.

What is business research?

Business research helps companies make better business decisions by gathering information. The scope of the term business research is quite broad – it acts as an umbrella that covers every aspect of business, from finances to advertising creative. It can include research methods which help a company better understand its target market. It could focus on customer experience and assess customer satisfaction levels. Or it could involve sizing up the competition through competitor research.

Often when carrying out business research, companies are looking at their own data, sourced from their employees, their customers and their business records. However, business researchers can go beyond their own company in order to collect relevant information and understand patterns that may help leaders make informed decisions. For example, a business may carry out ethnographic research where the participants are studied in the context of their everyday lives, rather than just in their role as consumer, or look at secondary data sources such as open access public records and empirical research carried out in academic studies.

There is also a body of knowledge about business in general that can be mined for business research purposes. For example organizational theory and general studies on consumer behavior.

Free eBook: 2024 global market research trends report

Why is business research important?

We live in a time of high speed technological progress and hyper-connectedness. Customers have an entire market at their fingertips and can easily switch brands if a competitor is offering something better than you are. At the same time, the world of business has evolved to the point of near-saturation. It’s hard to think of a need that hasn’t been addressed by someone’s innovative product or service.

The combination of ease of switching, high consumer awareness and a super-evolved marketplace crowded with companies and their offerings means that businesses must do whatever they can to find and maintain an edge. Business research is one of the most useful weapons in the fight against business obscurity, since it allows companies to gain a deep understanding of buyer behavior and stay up to date at all times with detailed information on their market.

Thanks to the standard of modern business research tools and methods, it’s now possible for business analysts to track the intricate relationships between competitors, financial markets, social trends, geopolitical changes, world events, and more.

Find out how to conduct your own market research and make use of existing market research data with our Ultimate guide to market research

Types of business research

Business research methods vary widely, but they can be grouped into two broad categories – qualitative research and quantitative research .

Qualitative research methods

Qualitative business research deals with non-numerical data such as people’s thoughts, feelings and opinions. It relies heavily on the observations of researchers, who collect data from a relatively small number of participants – often through direct interactions.

Qualitative research interviews take place one-on-one between a researcher and participant. In a business context, the participant might be a customer, a supplier, an employee or other stakeholder. Using open-ended questions , the researcher conducts the interview in either a structured or unstructured format. Structured interviews stick closely to a question list and scripted phrases, while unstructured interviews are more conversational and exploratory. As well as listening to the participant’s responses, the interviewer will observe non-verbal information such as posture, tone of voice and facial expression.

Focus groups

Like the qualitative interview, a focus group is a form of business research that uses direct interaction between the researcher and participants to collect data. In focus groups , a small number of participants (usually around 10) take part in a group discussion led by a researcher who acts as moderator. The researcher asks questions and takes note of the responses, as in a qualitative research interview. Sampling for focus groups is usually purposive rather than random, so that the group members represent varied points of view.

Observational studies

In an observational study, the researcher may not directly interact with participants at all, but will pay attention to practical situations, such as a busy sales floor full of potential customers, or a conference for some relevant business activity. They will hear people speak and watch their interactions , then record relevant data such as behavior patterns that relate to the subject they are interested in. Observational studies can be classified as a type of ethnographic research. They can be used to gain insight about a company’s target audience in their everyday lives, or study employee behaviors in actual business situations.

Ethnographic Research

Ethnographic research is an immersive design of research where one observes peoples’ behavior in their natural environment. Ethnography was most commonly found in the anthropology field and is now practices across a wide range of social sciences.

Ehnography is used to support a designer’s deeper understanding of the design problem – including the relevant domain, audience(s), processes, goals and context(s) of use.

The ethnographic research process is a popular methodology used in the software development lifecycle. It helps create better UI/UX flow based on the real needs of the end-users.

If you truly want to understand your customers’ needs, wants, desires, pain-points “walking a mile” in their shoes enables this. Ethnographic research is this deeply rooted part of research where you truly learn your targe audiences’ problem to craft the perfect solution.

Case study research

A case study is a detailed piece of research that provides in depth knowledge about a specific person, place or organization. In the context of business research, case study research might focus on organizational dynamics or company culture in an actual business setting, and case studies have been used to develop new theories about how businesses operate. Proponents of case study research feel that it adds significant value in making theoretical and empirical advances. However its detractors point out that it can be time consuming and expensive, requiring highly skilled researchers to carry it out.

Quantitative research methods

Quantitative research focuses on countable data that is objective in nature. It relies on finding the patterns and relationships that emerge from mass data – for example by analyzing the material posted on social media platforms, or via surveys of the target audience. Data collected through quantitative methods is empirical in nature and can be analyzed using statistical techniques. Unlike qualitative approaches, a quantitative research method is usually reliant on finding the right sample size, as this will determine whether the results are representative. These are just a few methods – there are many more.

Surveys are one of the most effective ways to conduct business research. They use a highly structured questionnaire which is distributed to participants, typically online (although in the past, face to face and telephone surveys were widely used). The questions are predominantly closed-ended, limiting the range of responses so that they can be grouped and analyzed at scale using statistical tools. However surveys can also be used to get a better understanding of the pain points customers face by providing open field responses where they can express themselves in their own words. Both types of data can be captured on the same questionnaire, which offers efficiency of time and cost to the researcher.

Correlational research

Correlational research looks at the relationship between two entities, neither of which are manipulated by the researcher. For example, this might be the in-store sales of a certain product line and the proportion of female customers subscribed to a mailing list. Using statistical analysis methods, researchers can determine the strength of the correlation and even discover intricate relationships between the two variables. Compared with simple observation and intuition, correlation may identify further information about business activity and its impact, pointing the way towards potential improvements and more revenue.

Experimental research

It may sound like something that is strictly for scientists, but experimental research is used by both businesses and scholars alike. When conducted as part of the business intelligence process, experimental research is used to test different tactics to see which ones are most successful – for example one marketing approach versus another. In the simplest form of experimental research, the researcher identifies a dependent variable and an independent variable. The hypothesis is that the independent variable has no effect on the dependent variable, and the researcher will change the independent one to test this assumption. In a business context, the hypothesis might be that price has no relationship to customer satisfaction. The researcher manipulates the price and observes the C-Sat scores to see if there’s an effect.

The best tools for business research

You can make the business research process much quicker and more efficient by selecting the right tools. Business research methods like surveys and interviews demand tools and technologies that can store vast quantities of data while making them easy to access and navigate. If your system can also carry out statistical analysis, and provide predictive recommendations to help you with your business decisions, so much the better.

Related resources

Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, qualitative vs quantitative research 13 min read, qualitative research questions 11 min read, qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Business Research: Methods, Types & Examples

Content Index

Business research: Definition

Quantitative research methods, qualitative research methods, advantages of business research, disadvantages of business research, importance of business research.

Business research is a process of acquiring detailed information on all the areas of business and using such information to maximize the sales and profit of the business. Such a study helps companies determine which product/service is most profitable or in demand. In simple words, it can be stated as the acquisition of information or knowledge for professional or commercial purposes to determine opportunities and goals for a business.

Business research can be done for anything and everything. In general, when people speak about business research design , it means asking research questions to know where the money can be spent to increase sales, profits, or market share. Such research is critical to make wise and informed decisions.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

For example: A mobile company wants to launch a new model in the market. But they are not aware of what are the dimensions of a mobile that are in most demand. Hence, the company conducts business research using various methods to gather information, and the same is then evaluated, and conclusions are drawn as to what dimensions are most in demand.

This will enable the researcher to make wise decisions to position his phone at the right price in the market and hence acquire a larger market share.

LEARN ABOUT:  Test Market Demand

Business research: Types and methodologies

Business research is a part of the business intelligence process. It is usually conducted to determine whether a company can succeed in a new region, to understand its competitors, or simply select a marketing approach for a product. This research can be carried out using steps in qualitative research methods or quantitative research methods.

Quantitative research methods are research methods that deal with numbers. It is a systematic empirical investigation using statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques . Such methods usually start with data collection and then proceed to statistical analysis using various methods. The following are some of the research methods used to carry out business research.

LEARN ABOUT: Data Management Framework

Survey research

Survey research is one of the most widely used methods to gather data, especially for conducting business research. Surveys involve asking various survey questions to a set of audiences through various types like online polls, online surveys, questionnaires, etc. Nowadays, most of the major corporations use this method to gather data and use it to understand the market and make appropriate business decisions.

Various types of surveys, like cross-sectional studies , which need to collect data from a set of audiences at a given point of time, or longitudinal surveys which are needed to collect data from a set of audiences across various time durations in order to understand changes in the respondents’ behavior are used to conduct survey research. With the advancement in technology, surveys can now be sent online through email or social media .

For example: A company wants to know the NPS score for their website i.e. how satisfied are people who are visiting their website. An increase in traffic to their website or the audience spending more time on a website can result in higher rankings on search engines which will enable the company to get more leads as well as increase its visibility.

Hence, the company can ask people who visit their website a few questions through an online survey to understand their opinions or gain feedback and hence make appropriate changes to the website to increase satisfaction.

Learn More:  Business Survey Template

Correlational research

Correlational research is conducted to understand the relationship between two entities and what impact each one of them has on the other. Using mathematical analysis methods, correlational research enables the researcher to correlate two or more variables .

Such research can help understand patterns, relationships, trends, etc. Manipulation of one variable is possible to get the desired results as well. Generally, a conclusion cannot be drawn only on the basis of correlational research.

For example: Research can be conducted to understand the relationship between colors and gender-based audiences. Using such research and identifying the target audience, a company can choose the production of particular color products to be released in the market. This can enable the company to understand the supply and demand requirements of its products.

Causal-Comparative research

Causal-comparative research is a method based on the comparison. It is used to deduce the cause-effect relationship between variables. Sometimes also known as quasi-experimental research, it involves establishing an independent variable and analyzing the effects on the dependent variable.

In such research, data manipulation is not done; however, changes are observed in the variables or groups under the influence of the same changes. Drawing conclusions through such research is a little tricky as independent and dependent variables will always exist in a group. Hence all other parameters have to be taken into consideration before drawing any inferences from the research.

LEARN ABOUT: Causal Research

For example: Research can be conducted to analyze the effect of good educational facilities in rural areas. Such a study can be done to analyze the changes in the group of people from rural areas when they are provided with good educational facilities and before that.

Another example can be to analyze the effect of having dams and how it will affect the farmers or the production of crops in that area.

LEARN ABOUT: Market research trends

Experimental research

Experimental research is based on trying to prove a theory. Such research may be useful in business research as it can let the product company know some behavioral traits of its consumers, which can lead to more revenue. In this method, an experiment is carried out on a set of audiences to observe and later analyze their behavior when impacted by certain parameters.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Targeting

For example: Experimental research was conducted recently to understand if particular colors have an effect on consumers’ hunger. A set of the audience was then exposed to those particular colors while they were eating, and the subjects were observed. It was seen that certain colors like red or yellow increase hunger.

Hence, such research was a boon to the hospitality industry. You can see many food chains like Mcdonalds, KFC, etc., using such colors in their interiors, brands, as well as packaging.

Another example of inferences drawn from experimental research, which is used widely by most bars/pubs across the world, is that loud music in the workplace or anywhere makes a person drink more in less time. This was proven through experimental research and was a key finding for many business owners across the globe.

Online research / Literature research

Literature research is one of the oldest methods available. It is very economical, and a lot of information can be gathered using such research. Online research or literature research involves gathering information from existing documents and studies, which can be available at Libraries, annual reports, etc.

Nowadays, with the advancement in technology, such research has become even more simple and accessible to everyone. An individual can directly research online for any information that is needed, which will give him in-depth information about the topic or the organization.

Such research is used mostly by marketing and salespeople in the business sector to understand the market or their customers. Such research is carried out using existing information that is available from various sources. However, care has to be taken to validate the sources from where the information is going to be collected.

For example , a salesperson has heard a particular firm is looking for some solution that their company provides. Hence, the salesperson will first search for a decision maker from the company, investigate what department he is from, and understand what the target company is looking for and what they are into.

Using this research, he can cater his solution to be spot on when he pitches it to this client. He can also reach out to the customer directly by finding a means to communicate with him by researching online.’

LEARN ABOUT: 12 Best Tools for Researchers

Qualitative research is a method that has a high importance in business research. Qualitative research involves obtaining data through open-ended conversational means of communication. Such research enables the researcher to not only understand what the audience thinks but also why he thinks it.

In such research, in-depth information can be gathered from the subjects depending on their responses. There are various types of qualitative research methods, such as interviews, focus groups, ethnographic research, content analysis, and case study research, that are widely used.

Such methods are of very high importance in business research as they enable the researcher to understand the consumer. What motivates the consumer to buy and what does not is what will lead to higher sales, and that is the prime objective for any business.

Following are a few methods that are widely used in today’s world by most businesses.

Interviews are somewhat similar to surveys, like sometimes they may have the same types of questions used. The difference is that the respondent can answer these open-ended questions at length, and the direction of the conversation or the questions being asked can be changed depending on the response of the subject.

Such a method usually gives the researcher detailed information about the perspective or opinions of its subject. Carrying out interviews with subject matter experts can also give important information critical to some businesses.

For example: An interview was conducted by a telecom manufacturer with a group of women to understand why they have less number of female customers. After interviewing them, the researcher understood that there were fewer feminine colors in some of the models, and females preferred not to purchase them.

Such information can be critical to a business such as a  telecom manufacturer and hence it can be used to increase its market share by targeting women customers by launching some feminine colors in the market.

Another example would be to interview a subject matter expert in social media marketing. Such an interview can enable a researcher to understand why certain types of social media advertising strategies work for a company and why some of them don’t.

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Interview

Focus groups

Focus groups are a set of individuals selected specifically to understand their opinions and behaviors. It is usually a small set of a group that is selected keeping in mind the parameters for their target market audience to discuss a particular product or service. Such a method enables a researcher with a larger sample than the interview or a case study while taking advantage of conversational communication.

Focus group is also one of the best examples of qualitative data in education . Nowadays, focus groups can be sent online surveys as well to collect data and answer why, what, and how questions. Such a method is very crucial to test new concepts or products before they are launched in the market.

For example: Research is conducted with a focus group to understand what dimension of screen size is preferred most by the current target market. Such a method can enable a researcher to dig deeper if the target market focuses more on the screen size, features, or colors of the phone. Using this data, a company can make wise decisions about its product line and secure a higher market share.

Ethnographic research

Ethnographic research is one of the most challenging research but can give extremely precise results. Such research is used quite rarely, as it is time-consuming and can be expensive as well. It involves the researcher adapting to the natural environment and observing its target audience to collect data. Such a method is generally used to understand cultures, challenges, or other things that can occur in that particular setting.

For example: The world-renowned show “Undercover Boss” would be an apt example of how ethnographic research can be used in businesses. In this show, the senior management of a large organization works in his own company as a regular employee to understand what improvements can be made, what is the culture in the organization, and to identify hard-working employees and reward them.

It can be seen that the researcher had to spend a good amount of time in the natural setting of the employees and adapt to their ways and processes. While observing in this setting, the researcher could find out the information he needed firsthand without losing any information or any bias and improve certain things that would impact his business.

LEARN ABOUT:   Workforce Planning Model

Case study research

Case study research is one of the most important in business research. It is also used as marketing collateral by most businesses to land up more clients. Case study research is conducted to assess customer satisfaction and document the challenges that were faced and the solutions that the firm gave them.

These inferences are made to point out the benefits that the customer enjoyed for choosing their specific firm. Such research is widely used in other fields like education, social sciences, and similar. Case studies are provided by businesses to new clients to showcase their capabilities, and hence such research plays a crucial role in the business sector.

For example: A services company has provided a testing solution to one of its clients. A case study research is conducted to find out what were the challenges faced during the project, what was the scope of their work, what objective was to be achieved, and what solutions were given to tackle the challenges.

The study can end with the benefits that the company provided through its solutions, like reduced time to test batches, easy implementation or integration of the system, or even cost reduction. Such a study showcases the capability of the company, and hence it can be stated as empirical evidence of the new prospect.

Website visitor profiling/research

Website intercept surveys or website visitor profiling/research is something new that has come up and is quite helpful in the business sector. It is an innovative approach to collect direct feedback from your website visitors using surveys. In recent times a lot of business generation happens online, and hence it is important to understand the visitors of your website as they are your potential customers.

Collecting feedback is critical to any business, as without understanding a customer, no business can be successful. A company has to keep its customers satisfied and try to make them loyal customers in order to stay on top.

A website intercept survey is an online survey that allows you to target visitors to understand their intent and collect feedback to evaluate the customers’ online experience. Information like visitor intention, behavior path, and satisfaction with the overall website can be collected using this.

Depending on what information a company is looking for, multiple forms of website intercept surveys can be used to gather responses. Some of the popular ones are Pop-ups, also called Modal boxes, and on-page surveys.

For example: A prospective customer is looking for a particular product that a company is selling. Once he is directed to the website, an intercept survey will start noting his intent and path. Once the transaction has been made, a pop-up or an on-page survey is provided to the customer to rate the website.

Such research enables the researcher to put this data to good use and hence understand the customers’ intent and path and improve any parts of the website depending on the responses, which in turn would lead to satisfied customers and hence, higher revenues and market share.

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Research Questions and Questionnaires

• Business research helps to identify opportunities and threats.
• It helps identify research problems , and using this information, wise decisions can be made to tackle the issue appropriately.
• It helps to understand customers better and hence can be useful to communicate better with the customers or stakeholders.
• Risks and uncertainties can be minimized by conducting business research in advance.
• Financial outcomes and investments that will be needed can be planned effectively using business research.
• Such research can help track competition in the business sector.
• Business research can enable a company to make wise decisions as to where to spend and how much.
• Business research can enable a company to stay up-to-date with the market and its trends, and appropriate innovations can be made to stay ahead in the game.
• Business research helps to measure reputation management
• Business research can be a high-cost affair
• Most of the time, business research is based on assumptions
• Business research can be time-consuming
• Business research can sometimes give you inaccurate information because of a biased population or a small focus group.
• Business research results can quickly become obsolete because of the fast-changing markets

Business research is one of the most effective ways to understand customers, the market, and competitors. Such research helps companies to understand the demand and supply of the market. Using such research will help businesses reduce costs and create solutions or products that are targeted to the demand in the market and the correct audience.

In-house business research can enable senior management to build an effective team or train or mentor when needed. Business research enables the company to track its competitors and hence can give you the upper hand to stay ahead of them.

Failures can be avoided by conducting such research as it can give the researcher an idea if the time is right to launch its product/solution and also if the audience is right. It will help understand the brand value and measure customer satisfaction which is essential to continuously innovate and meet customer demands.

This will help the company grow its revenue and market share. Business research also helps recruit ideal candidates for various roles in the company. By conducting such research, a company can carry out a SWOT analysis , i.e. understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. With the help of this information, wise decisions can be made to ensure business success.

LEARN ABOUT:  Market research industry

Business research is the first step that any business owner needs to set up his business to survive or to excel in the market. The main reason why such research is of utmost importance is that it helps businesses to grow in terms of revenue, market share, and brand value.

MORE LIKE THIS

NPS Survey Platform: Types, Tips, 11 Best Platforms & Tools

Apr 26, 2024

User Journey vs User Flow: Differences and Similarities

Best 7 Gap Analysis Tools to Empower Your Business

Apr 25, 2024

12 Best Employee Survey Tools for Organizational Excellence

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Business model innovation: a review of the process-based literature

• Open access
• Published: 14 August 2021
• Volume 26 , pages 1089–1121, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Daniela Andreini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2870-403X 1 ,
• Cristina Bettinelli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2410-2063 1 ,
• Nicolai J. Foss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0327-4624 2 &
• Marco Mismetti   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1006-9066 1  

20k Accesses

38 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Research on business model innovation (BMI) processes is blossoming and expanding in many directions. Hence, the time is ripe to summarize and systematize this body of knowledge for the benefit of current and future BMI scholars. In this article, we take stock of the current literature to clarify the concept of a BMI process, develop a categorization scheme (a “BMI process framework”), and discuss future research possibilities. Building on a systematic literature review of 114 papers, our categorization delineates different types of BMI processes and corresponding sub-processes. Moreover, we develop a framework that illustrates how BMI processes are interrelated and interconnected. Finally, we identify the main process-related research gaps in BMI research and provide directions for future research that emerge from our categorization and discussion.

Similar content being viewed by others

A Critique of Business Model Innovation

Business model innovativeness: designing a formative measure for business model innovation, business model innovation: an integrated approach based on elements and functions.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Scholars are increasingly making use of the notion of business model innovation (BMI) to frame and analyze complex firm-level issues that have a strategic and systemic dimension (Foss & Saebi, 2018 ). BMI is viewed as playing a pivotal role in firm success and performance (e.g., Cucculelli & Bettinelli, 2015 ). Most contributions have focused on what a BMI is in terms of its content, which is typically conceptualized as a new configuration of a company’s value proposition, value-capture activities, and/or value chain organization (Teece, 2010 ). More recently, however, the idea has developed that BMIs can also be understood in process terms (Wirtz et al., 2016 ). While there has been an increase in interest in BMI processes, the meaning of a BMI process varies across studies, and the nature of the construct is still fragmented and ambiguous. Some initial attempts have been made (Wirtz & Daiser, 2018 ), but a broader and more systematic review is still needed to integrate and synthesize the rather diverse literature on BMI processes.

To fill this gap, we selected 114 papers published between 2001 and 2020 and carried out a systematic literature review to shed light on the different categories of BMI processes and delineate the mechanisms underpinning them. We start from an understanding of process theory as the rigorous and systematic description of the “generative mechanisms or set of mechanisms at work … and their resulting outcomes” (Cornelissen, 2017 , p. 5). On that basis, we identify process theory in the management literature that sees BMI as, among other things, a multilevel phenomenon that is guided by an overarching logic (Amit & Zott, 2001 ; Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002 ; Teece, 2010 ) and can “coordinate and manage interrelated sets of activities performed by different actors” (Leischnig et al., 2017 , p. 2).

In so doing, we first develop a categorization of different types of BMI processes (i.e., generative cognition processes, knowledge-shaping processes, strategizing processes, value creation processes, and evolutionary learning processes) to define them and their related sub-processes. Second, we develop a framework showing how the various BMI processes are distinct from each other but also interrelated and interconnected via evolutionary learning processes. Third, we propose an agenda for future investigations within the main BMI processes we identified in our systematic literature review, along with methodological challenges that can represent interesting opportunities for future research endeavors.

In sum, our article identifies different streams in BMI process research and integrates the various conceptualizations of BMI processes to gain a better understanding of this multifaceted construct. Doing so not only helps future researchers position their work within the broader literature but also facilitates the identification of the major actors (e.g., top management team; external stakeholders) involved in the process being investigated, as well as the nature of this process. We elaborate on these ideas in a research agenda whose aim is to generate novel and interesting avenues that subsequent studies can use to further improve theory development on BMI processes.

2.1 Procedure

To ensure reliable, replicable, and synthetic results (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ), we undertook a systematic literature review that follows a more rigorous, clear, and transparent method for data collection and analysis than other review methods (e.g., narrative literature reviews). Appendices 1 and 2 provide a detailed description of the procedure (i.e., planning, execution, and reporting) we used, as suggested by Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ).

We looked for papers on Ebsco , which is among the most prominent bibliographical databases scholars use to conduct literature reviews (e.g., Abatecola et al., 2013 ; Franco‐Santos & Otley, 2018 ). The time frame was limited to articles published before December 2020, with no initial time boundaries. Following Skjølsvik et al. ( 2017 ) and Franco‐Santos and Otley ( 2018 ), we filtered the results for journals listed in the Academic Journal Guide (2018) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (i.e., the ABS Academic Journal Guide). The concept of BMI has been developed and applied in many different management research fields, including marketing, entrepreneurship, strategy, technology, operations management, and organizational studies (Foss & Saebi, 2017 ). Different fields are likely to conceptualize and theorize the BMI phenomenon in various ways and, therefore, use varying terminology. For this reason, we adopted search strings (research keywords) according to the objectives of the systematic review, as shown in Appendix 1, while the results of the procedure are reported in Appendix 1, Table A1 . Following Thorpe et al. ( 2005 ), we read the titles, abstracts, and introductions of the papers and classified them into three categories: “A” included studies that were definitely relevant, “B” included studies whose relevance was initially unclear, and “C” included studies that were not relevant. As shown in Appendix 1 (point D), we followed an interactive process for inclusion in and exclusion from categories A and B, which resulted in a final sample of 114 papers.

2.2 Analysis

Our analysis involved conducting both descriptive and interpretative investigations; see Appendix 2 (Thorpe et al., 2005 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ). In particular, we recorded the definitions and boundaries of the BMI process concept as expressed by the author(s) of each paper.

We performed an interpretive analysis of the selected papers by following the procedures that Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ) suggest for thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) derived from data (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). In a systematic literature review, the themes are the main concepts on which an article is built, and they are expressed in the research questions, definitions, measurements, and results (Jones et al., 2011 ; Thorpe et al., 2005 ). In contrast with content analysis, themes are not identified as “the most representative” or “the most frequently mentioned” concepts, but they do capture important concepts relating to the research objectives (Ryan & Bernard, 2000 ).

We conducted an inductive data-driven thematic analysis without any pre-existing theoretical or coding frame. This approach requires reading and re-reading data in iterative cycles to identify process-based themes. The themes identified from the first analysis were diverse; thus, following Jones et al. ( 2011 ), we applied an interactive process of theme accordance and categorization to ensure consistency within and across theme categories. In this way, we identified classifications containing process-based themes and checked for duplication and redundancy at each level (Jones et al., 2011 ; Noy & McGuinness, 2001 ). Appendix 2 shows the steps followed to validate the thematic and the ontological analysis.

3 Insights from the review

The early process-based definitions of BMI dealt with deliberate managerial processes aimed at innovating the core activities of companies (e.g., Demil & Lecocq, 2010 ; Morris et al., 2005 ; Nenonen & Storbacka, 2010 ; Zott & Amit 2007 ). More recently, Wirtz et al. ( 2016 , p. 4) defined BMI in explicit process terms as “the design process for giving birth to a fairly new business model on the market, which is accompanied by an adjustment of the value proposition and/or the value constellation and aims at generating or securing a sustainable competitive advantage.” Foss and Saebi ( 2017 , p. 216) define BMI as “designed, novel, and non-trivial changes to the key elements of a firm’s business model and/or the architecture linking these elements.” In particular, Foss and Saebi ( 2017 ) identify four different types of BMIs, which relate to modular , architectural, radical, and incremental BM changes. The first (modular BMI) is innovation that is related to specific BM sources and components of value. It emphasizes changes in the single components of a BM, such as entering new industries, changing the revenue model and/or redefining organizational boundaries, and innovating technologies, value networks, and financial hurdle rates. The second type of BMI (architectural BMI) examines new ways of linking activities or governing activities, as well as novel links between BM components. The third and the fourth types of BMI relate to their degree of novelty for the company and the industry (Foss & Saebi, 2017 ).

Building on these definitions, we suggest that BMI is a set of deliberate acts that managers and entrepreneurs perform over time to change the BM components and architecture in a consistent and innovative way (Foss & Saebi, 2017 ). The ultimate aim is to gain a strategic advantage (Amit & Zott, 2015 ).

In this stance, these definitions are in line with process theory; for instance, Van de Ven ( 1992 ; p.170) defines a process as a “sequence of events or activities that describes how things change over time, or that represents an underlying pattern of cognitive transitions by an entity in dealing with an issue,” where entities can be individuals, a workgroup, or the overall organization. Thus, the process theory developed by Van de Ven ( 1992 ) and Van de Ven & Poole ( 1995 ), inspired our categorization and the construction of our framework in two ways. First, the BMI processes are human-driven and implemented across different levels by people, which implies we have to consider processes not only at the corporate level but also from other entities’ perspectives. Second, process theory considers processes as dynamic activities that are interconnected and interrelated between entities, activities, and other processes (Nailer & Buttriss, 2020 ; Rescher, 1996 ). For these reasons, to understand processes, it is important to consider and identify patterns of interrelations and connections.

3.1 Main characteristics of the papers in the sample

The literature relating to BMI processes has developed rapidly in recent years. The first contributions emerged in the early 2000s (e.g., Chesbrough, 2010 ; Demil & Lecocq, 2010 ; Malhotra, 2002 ). As shown in Fig.  1 , 28% of the articles we identified were published between 2011 and 2015. Since 2016, there has been a significant increase in the number of papers (65% of the papers in our sample) focusing on BMI processes, but they have mostly been neglected by many recent literature reviews (e.g., Foss & Saebi, 2017 ), which cover a different period. Thus, the review of articles shows that BMI processes are not only a recent area of focus in the BMI literature but also rapidly expanding (e.g., Laïfi & Josserand, 2016 ).

Overview of articles over time

The six most prolific journals account for more than 45% of the 48 publications reviewed (Fig.  2 ). It is worth noting that the most prolific journals are not always the most established ones—that is, their impact factor is not necessarily the highest and they are relatively new. Thus, probably because it is an emerging theme, it seems that the BMI process, at least for now, has been better received in emerging publication outlets than in more established journals.

Most prolific journals

Our review highlights that 82 out of the 114 studies are based on qualitative methods, and eight are quantitative studies. Only two articles adopted both qualitative and quantitative methods: Cortimiglia et al. ( 2016 ) combined a quantitative survey with qualitative multiple case studies, while Eppler and Hoffmann ( 2012 ) mixed a survey with qualitative observations. The few remaining studies are conceptual articles (e.g., Andreassen et al., 2018 ; Remane et al., 2017 ) or offer a partial review of the literature where the focus is on the BM itself, and the processes of BMI are considered but treated as side aspects and not as the main focus of the review (e.g., Schneider & Spieth, 2013 ).

Moreover, 65% of the papers in our review consider two or more process types simultaneously (29% considered two processes, 29% three processes, and 7% four processes simultaneously); 35% focused only on one type of process. The type of approaches researchers can use to investigate BMI processes can be linear, recursive, parallel, or conjunctive (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 ). Linear approaches represent a process as a “sequence of prescribed stages” (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 , p. 514), where each step is presented in a linear, unidirectional progression. By contrast, recursive approaches represent processes as cycles that continuously adapt via feedback loops (Cloutier & Langley, 2020 ). Parallel approaches have at least two linear interconnected process paths (Cloutier & Langley, 2020 ), while conjunctive approaches seek “to make connections between diverse elements of human experience through making those distinctions that will enable the joining up of concepts normally used in a compartmentalized manner” (Tsoukas, 2017 , p. 148). In our review, we found that most of the papers did not have an explicit preference for one type of approach over another. However, 30 of the 107 studies present the BMI processes with a linear process style (e.g., Eurich et al., 2014 ), while 19 articles can be characterized as adopting a recursive style (e.g., Chatterjee, 2013 ), and only two articles adopt a parallel style (Cavalcante, 2014a ; Landau et al., 2016 ). Footnote 1 Finally, there seemed to be a reference to conjunctive approaches, but the form it took was relatively implicit (Baldassarre et al., 2017 ).

Concerning the theoretical approaches, most of the articles rely on the BM literature or BM theory, which links them to various and multiple perspectives, such as value-based perspectives (e.g., Landau et al., 2016 ), system perspectives (Inigo et al., 2017 ), or evolutionary perspectives (e.g., Amit & Zott, 2012 ), among others (e.g., Tesch et al., 2017 ). Some articles associate BMI with organizational resources and apply resource-based and dynamic capabilities views (e.g., Schindehutte et al., 2008 ). New BMs are coupled with changes and innovation, with some authors drawing on disruptive innovation theory (e.g., Snihur et al., 2018 ). Lastly, some recurrent theories are cognitive and psychological (e.g., Schneckenberg et al., 2019 ) or relate to literature on sustainability (e.g., Bocken et al., 2014 ).

The level of analysis varies between the micro-level, where the focus is on managers, CEOs, and entrepreneurs (e.g., Eppler et al., 2011 ), and the macro level, that is, the levels of the firm (e.g., Snihur & Wiklund, 2019 ) and the BM (e.g., Stubbs, 2019 ). A few studies examine BMI by also considering the impacts and the influence of the sector/population at a macro level (e.g., Kalkanci et al., 2019 ).

The articles included in our review considered several industries. However, these are mainly from the manufacturing and service sectors, and there is an emphasis on the more digitalized sectors such as information and communications technology (Khanagha et al., 2014 ) or banking (Dunford et al., 2010 ). Geographically, the sample is mainly distributed within Europe, excluding Eastern Europe but including Southern Europe (e.g., Ghezzi, 2012 ), Northern Europe (e.g., Aspara et al., 2013 ), and Western Europe (e.g., Winterhalter et al., 2017 ). Our review points to a lack of studies covering other geographic areas. Only two studies were recently conducted in Oceania—one each in Australia (Stubbs, 2019 ) and New Zealand (Islam, 2019 )—and one in Africa (Habtay, 2012 ). Other underrepresented areas are Asia (six studies) and North America (four studies). There were no studies in South and Central America.

The specificities highlighted above delineate important aspects of this body of knowledge on BMI processes that will constitute some of the key elements we use to build our future research agenda.

4 Identifying BMI processes

Although it is clear from the process-focused BMI literature that there are many ways to generate BMI, we argue this heterogeneity has not been sufficiently recognized. Indeed, research on BMI processes has expanded in multiple directions, leading to mixed and disparate conceptualizations of BMI processes and/or sub-processes that vary based on the various contexts considered. For instance, for platform business models, Andreassen et al. ( 2018 ) propose a T-model for BMI value creation processes; Cavalcante ( 2014a ) propose linear steps for BMI development; Kiura et al. ( 2014 ) illustrate a systems-based methodology based on learning processes; Amit and Zott ( 2012 ) propose BMI processes for incumbents; and Snihur ( 2016 ) does the same but for new ventures.

To organize this heterogeneous literature and acknowledge the ontological differences among themes in a parsimonious manner, we identified five different types of BMI processes: cognition processes for BMI, knowledge-shaping processes for BMI, strategizing processes for BMI, value creation processes in BMI, and evolutionary learning processes as the glue of BMI processes. We categorized each article in our sample as dealing predominantly with one of these salient processes. The analysis shows that the BMI strategizing processes form the most populated category (47 papers), followed by value creation processes (26), generative cognition processes (17), knowledge-shaping processes (16), and evolutionary learning processes (7). Footnote 2 We further analyze the articles and identified sub-processes of each BMI process .

By focusing on the nature of each of the BMI processes and how they are interrelated, our understanding of the literature leads us to locate each BMI process inside a framework (Table 1 ) that summarizes different sub-processes under each main process category. This framework shows that BMI processes can be represented as embedded in broader organizational contexts. More specifically, the framework includes: the context of individuals and the top management teams (where previous literature mainly studied the cognition processes) and the entire organization (or part of it) through structured patterns of action and interaction involving not only several actors and departments (at this level, previous studies focused on knowledge-shaping processes to explore and/or experiment with BMI) but also broader organizational levels (strategizing and value creation processes have been mainly studied at the level of organizations in relation with their markets and stakeholders). Moreover, the processes happen not only in the nexus of the same actors. In line with the latest studies about the concept of interplay in strategy studies (e.g., Weiser et al., 2020 ) and with the concept of interdependence in organization design studies (see, for instance, Raveendran et al., 2020 ), papers about BMI processes explore different types of processes enacted by different entities, emerging as boundary-spanning and interrelated with each other (e.g., Foss & Saebi, 2017 , 2018 ; Frankenberger & Sauer, 2019 ; Snihur & Tarjizan, 2018 ; Teece, 2018 ; Zott & Amit, 2007 , 2017 ). BMI results from a continuous process of refinement that connects individuals, teams, organization units, markets, and institutions (Andreassen et al., 2018 ; Forkmann et al., 2017 ; Inigo et al., 2017 ). We propose an integrative analysis of these interconnections and identify a unique general framework (Table 1 ) that connects all the BMI processes.

4.1 Cognition processes for BMI

Cognitive processes refer to the belief systems that are held by top managers (Aspara et al., 2011 ) and middle managers (Groskovs & Ulhøi, 2019 ) and drive and support their managerial decisions (Martins et al., 2015 ). Accordingly, the main focus of this cognitive perspective is the formation processes of decision makers’ mental representations, their mindsets related to the key business ideas, and their unique view of the business (e.g., Gavetti & Rivkin, 2007 ). The first sub-process we identified is the generative cognition process, which relates to all the papers investigating how decision makers’ belief systems, psychology, and mindsets form and are shared inside organizations to generate new ideas for BMI (Roessler et al., 2019 ). The BMI literature suggests that analogical reasoning and conceptual combination are considered the central generative cognition processes behind BMI development (Roessler et al., 2019 ). In particular, analogical reasoning represents the “correct identification of similarities between an existing business model and an analog concept and the appropriate transfer of attributes and relationships from the analog to inform the activity system of the target business model” (Martins et al., 2015 , p. 109), while conceptual combinations are the “creation of new concepts that are variants of existing ones” (Martins et al., 2015 , p. 111) in business model design.

The generative cognitive processes have to be applied in the contexts in which the managers and entrepreneurs work. Accordingly, Schneckenberg et al. ( 2019 ) identify context-based cognitive processes for business model innovation (i.e., problem sensing , considering adaptations , intuitional insights , and integrating customer perceptions ) that support an emerging logic in business model design. In particular, problem sensing relates to cognitions stemming from decision makers’ frustration and disappointment when customer needs are not met as the managers intended; considering adaptations involves the decision makers’ ability to match rational cognition processes with collaboration encouragement, open-mindedness, and risk-taking; intuitional insights are cognitive processes related to intuition and having a clear vision of BMI configuration for the company; and finally, integrating customer perceptions relates to a profound and genuine interest in and consideration of consumers’ needs and expectations (Schneckenberg et al., 2019 ). The cognitive approach is also applied in the entrepreneurship literature. For instance, Velu and Jacob ( 2016 ) focus on entrepreneurs’ leading role in designing BMI, while Roessler et al. ( 2019 ) focus on the constraints and limitations of entrepreneurs’ cognitive capabilities, which could be associated with previous successes. All these cognition sub-processes are particularly significant for the imprint that entrepreneurs leave on their ventures (Snihur & Zott, 2020 ). More specifically, imprinting processes are a set of cognitive practices that entrepreneurs enact to give novel structures to ventures and explain how BMI emerges and persists.

In sum, this first batch of papers addresses the generative cognitive processes developed by managers, entrepreneurs, and top management teams to generate BMI (Olofsson et al., 2018 ; To et al., 2018 ).

The second batch of papers adopts a cognitive approach to BMI and relates to the sense-making and sense-giving processes that managers, entrepreneurs, and top management teams have to tackle when developing or introducing new ideas for a business model in an organization. The sense-making and sense-giving processes follow the decision makers’ generative cognitive processes, which have to be shared, communicated, and translated into narratives and representations to enact any kind of BMI (Islam, 2019 ). The interpretive perspective helps to explain how BMs can be changed and innovated through representations that make sense of things and create a common and communicable understanding of how organizations create, change, innovate, and exchange value on the market. This can happen through artifacts, such as annual reports, BM representations, and other representations that managers use to translate, negotiate with, and reconcile multiple stakeholders (Laasch, 2019 ). Schemas or cognitive representations are extremely important for sense making and sense giving regarding BMI generation (Eppler & Hoffmann, 2012 ; Eppler et al., 2011 ; Täuscher & Abdelkafi, 2017 ). These cognitive representations are useful tools for managers to develop strategic sensitivity in a company, develop leadership unity, and provide resource fluidity (Deken et al., 2016 ; Forkmann et al., 2017 ).

In this regard, many authors have found tight interconnections between cognitive processes for BMI and strategizing processes (Aspara et al., 2011 ; Brink, 2017 ; Schindehutte et al., 2008 ); between cognitive processes for BMI and value creation (Laasch, 2019 ; Inigo et al., 2017 ; Maglio & Spohre, 2013 ); and knowledge-shaping processes (Berends et al., 2016 ; Cavalcante, 2014a , b ; Forkmann et al., 2017 ). These interconnections change according to the theoretical approaches adopted by the researchers and the particular objective of the paper. According to our systematic literature review, many authors emphasize the interrelations between cognitive processes and strategizing processes. Most of this research focuses on the translating mechanisms that companies and managers develop to transfer cognitive processes into strategic designs and processes, which is essential to better understanding the feasibility of the ideas and their ability to create value (de Oliveira & Cortimiglia, 2017 ; Storbacka et al., 2013 ; To et al., 2018 ).

4.2 Strategizing processes for BMI

Translating the managers’ cognitions into firm-level strategizing processes means transforming ideas to enact BMI in specific contexts (Roessler et al., 2019 ). Strategizing processes involve setting and maintaining companies’ competitive advantage on the market (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010 ; Demil & Lecocq, 2010 ; Magretta, 2002 ; Osterwalder et al., 2005 ; Porter, 1985 ; Teece, 2010 ). Through our ontological analysis, we identified three different strategizing processes that companies enact in relation to BMI, namely, defining alternative BMI strategies, selecting strategies for BMI, and nurturing organizational competence for BMI.

When designing BMI, the process of defining alternative BMI strategies determines organizations’ direction and presence on the market (Broekhuizen et al., 2018 ; Martin‐Rios & Parga‐Dans, 2016 ). There are many BMI alternatives that decision makers can choose from. According to our systematic literature review, the most investigated are: imitation and replication (Enkel & Mezger, 2013 ), a customer-centric business model (Pynnönen et al., 2012 ), and servitization (Wieland et al., 2017 ). Imitation relates to the strategy adopted by followers who imitate the entire or part of the business model innovation adopted by competitors and benefit from the errors and difficulties that first-movers have to overcome when introducing innovation into organizations and onto the market (Semadeni & Anderson, 2010 ). Customer-centric strategies emphasize market research, marketing, channels, and customer relationship processes as the main competitive advantage (Sheth et al., 2000 ). By contrast, servitization concerns the shift from a product-centric activity to a service-dominant logic, where institutional change processes are facilitated to identify and develop new forms of business models (Naor et al., 2018 ; Sjödin et al., 2020 ; Storbacka et al., 2013 ).

However, the BMI alternatives should reflect the organizational resources, the industry, the markets, and the firms’ competitive landscape. Accordingly, when the pathways to BMI are not clear, decision makers have to decide whether to undertake a BMI design process from scratch (i.e., create new business models) or embark on a BMI improvement process (i.e., develop existing business models), which usually happens at later points in the ideation and exploration processes (Cavalcante, 2014a ; Cortimiglia et al., 2016 ; Eurich et al., 2014 ; Kiel et al., 2017 ; Landau et al., 2016 ; Parmentier & Gandia, 2017 ; Remane et al., 2017 ; Winterhalter et al., 2017 ).

When decision makers opt for BMI design from scratch, they have to activate an iterative process that includes identifying the firm’s business category and a series of interrelated choices that convert the generic value-capture logic of a business model into firm-specific and measurable core tasks. This process concludes with a detailed map of the activity system needed to achieve the core firm’s objectives (Bucherer et al., 2012 ; Chatterjee, 2013 ; Euchner & Ganguly, 2014 ). The creation of new business models from scratch is mostly related to the introduction and exploitation of new technologies (Amshoff et al., 2015 ), such as Internet of Things technologies (García-Gutiérrez & Martínez-Borreguero, 2016 ; Tesch et al., 2017 ) and digitization (Jensen & Sund, 2017 ; Vasarhelyi & Alles, 2008 ). However, the decision to use a BMI design from scratch is often determined by market-driven disruptive approaches to the market (Habtay, 2012 ).

When companies opt to develop existing business models, whatever the type of BMI change (e.g., business model extension, revision, or termination), managers should abandon repetitive goal-oriented activities related to specific business models (Cavalcante et al., 2011 ) to introduce the “continuing business model innovation processes,” a never-ending process of creation, introduction, change, and development of different types of innovations that continue over time and do not stop once the business model has been implemented (Mitchell & Coles, 2003 , 2004 ). To execute this perpetual process, some authors identify a set of computer-based tools that can help the project team identify areas in BMs to improve or change (Ebel et al., 2016 ). Others suggest different processes according to the contexts in which the companies are embedded. In this vein, Ammar & Chereau ( 2018 ) suggests different paths to innovate the business model components in small and medium enterprises, while other authors develop models of BM adaptation and innovation to enter new markets (Cao et al., 2018 ; Dunford et al., 2010 ; Landau et al., 2016 ). Stubbs ( 2019 ) focuses on BMI strategies related to socially responsible companies, and Bogers et al. ( 2015 ) examine BMI strategies for family-owned companies.

From a strategic point of view, BMI requires firms to develop new resources and competences at the organizational level (Amit & Zott, 2001 ; Demil & Lecocq, 2010 ; Mezger, 2014 ). Using our ontological analysis, we identified the processes nurturing organizational competences for BMI. Nurturing organizational competence for BMI means supporting dynamic capabilities, absorptive capacity, ambidexterity, social and business networking, and partnerships. For BMI, dynamic capabilities (Demil & Lecocq, 2010 ), absorptive capacity, and ambidexterity (Kranz et al., 2016 ) are especially important. Dynamic capabilities are defined as the skills to (re)configure resources and routines to adapt to changing markets and the business environment (Teece, 2007 ). Building on Teece ( 2007 ), Mezger ( 2014 ) discusses how to develop dynamic capabilities through sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring processes. Absorptive capacity is defined as the skills of the organization that allow it to recognize and incorporate knowledge from external markets/environments and use this knowledge to reconfigure the organization. Organizational ambidexterity is the firm’s ability to both properly manage an existing business model and develop dynamicity when facing changes in the market (Kranz et al., 2016 ; Schindehutte et al., 2008 ). Strategically, other organizational competences that organizations have to enact to facilitate BMI are social networking and partnerships (Karlsson et al., 2018 ; Snihur et al., 2018 ) . They are based on an organization’s ability to enter and interact in dynamic business and social networks and ecosystems (Ghezzi et al., 2010 ; Snihur et al., 2018 ).

Therefore, we conclude that the two different strategizing processes (defining and selecting alternative BMI strategies and nurturing organizational competence for BMI) are interrelated and involve various actors across different levels of the organization.

Moreover, strategizing processes are interrelated with value creation processes (Bogers et al., 2015 ; Cao et al., 2018 ; Chatterjee, 2013 ; Ghezzi, 2012 ; Kiel et al., 2017 ; Landau et al., 2016 ; Storbacka et al., 2013 ; Wieland et al., 2017 ). As we explain in the following section, this relationship can be driven and/or mostly mediated by knowledge processes, such as experimentation and trial-and-error (e.g., Baldassarre et al., 2017 ; Forkmann et al., 2017 ; Laïfi & Josserand, 2016 ).

4.3 Knowledge-shaping processes for BMI

Only having cognition and strategizing processes is not enough to develop BMI. The literature highlights the importance of testing BMI and disseminating the underlying knowledge throughout the entire organization (Axelson & Bjurström, 2019 ; McGrath, 2001 ). Knowledge processes refer to the processes that the departments, divisions, and teams within an organization can use to generate innovative ideas and innovations (Nonaka, 1994 ). Accordingly, knowledge processes are social processes that mainly occur at the team level and are considered the main source of a firm’s competitive advantage (Fiol & Lyles, 1985 ; March, 1991 ). Moreover, unlike product innovations, BMI is not limited to production or R&D departments but involves interdepartmental and multifunctional teams (Malhotra, 2002 ; Sinfield et al., 2012 ). Thus, knowledge-shaping activities for BMI requires dedicated teams that aim to explore and experiment with ideas and innovative solutions to enhance BMI (Berends et al., 2016 ). According to our ontological analysis, there are two main knowledge processes: systematic experimentation and trial and error.

4.3.1 Systematic experimentation

Maintaining a portfolio of experimentations of new business models, even when BMI is settled (e.g., experimenting with alternative sales channels, testing servitization or the more recent platformification, Footnote 3 and even exploring alternative target customers/segments), has proved to be effective against a crisis like COVID-19 (Andries et al., 2013 ). In the same vein, experimentation is a vital activity when high-speed innovation is of great concern (Tuulenmäki & Välikangas, 2011 ; Wrigley & Straker, 2016 ; Wrigley et al., 2016 ). Experimentation means testing hypotheses and assumptions by using specific plans and procedures (Reymen et al., 2017 ). Unlike trial-and-error processes, experimentation is grounded in science, usually preceded by an analytical phase, and followed by specific plans and procedures. The business model experimentation process starts with an examination of alternative business models, the variables affecting the business models, and the possible outcomes (Sinfield et al., 2012 ). Then, different experimental analyses allow the firm to narrow its choices and pursue the business model that benefits the company the most. An activity that facilitates the experimentation processes is BMI prototyping, which starts by identifying the value proposition for a specific market segment, then evaluates the business model components, and finally constructs the BM alternatives. Through a cause-effect procedure, decision makers choose the alternative BM that can best reduce technological uncertainty and maximize profits (Reymen et al., 2017 ). Routine-based activities like opportunity recognition (i.e., actions in identifying opportunities) and entrepreneurial bricolages (i.e., applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities) can also facilitate experimentation (Guo et al., 2016 ).

Trial-and-error processes , by contrast, relate to a knowledge-shaping activity without a formal and explicit plan (Enkel & Mezger, 2013 ; Laudien & Daxböck, 2017 ; Sosna et al., 2010 ) and sometimes even through unintended activities. For instance, Sun et al. ( 2018 ) demonstrate that business model innovation develops in a way that reflects entrepreneurs’ early experiences (e.g., through feedbacks and reactions) and enables the emergence and identification of the so-called (often tacit) “simple rules” that gradually form the basis for tentative or temporal new business models development. Trial-and-error processes are the most common ones through which companies create the tacit knowledge necessary to develop BMI (Laudien & Daxböck, 2017 ; Nonaka, 1994 ).

In sum, knowledge shaping generated through processes that are unintentional and/or based on decision makers’ experience and those that are the result of planned, test-driven activities involving actors across the organization are two different but not mutually exclusive processes that can be used to explore the production of BMI.

Many authors have emphasized that knowledge shaping (i.e., experimentation and trial-and-error) is an essential part of BMI because it is recursively interconnected with strategizing and cognitive processes (e.g., Cavalcante et al., 2011 ; Chesbrough, 2010 ; Demil & Lecocq, 2010 ). A topical example is the circular economy, which has become a fertile research context for BMI experimentation, where the knowledge-shaping process is investigated along with strategizing and cognitive processes (Konietzko et al., 2020 ; Lopez-Nicolas et al., 2020 ; Baldassarre et al., 2020 ).

4.4 Value creation processes in BMI

The final goal of engaging in BMI is to create value for organizations and their stakeholders. The value creation processes are sets of activities that enable companies and stakeholders to realize their own value from BMI (Zott & Amit, 2007 ; Amit & Zott, 2012 ). However, the focus on the type of value and how companies create value has been subject to debate in the literature. We have divided the BMI process-based literature into two different streams. The first is defining value creation priorities , which is a stream about the different types (economic, social, and environmental) of values that are a priority when companies create and develop BMIs in actual markets. The second category of papers includes the processes of selecting ways to achieve value creation , that is, how companies produce value for their organizations when engaging in BMI.

Defining value creation priorities in BMI mostly refers to the literature on sustainable BMI. Sustainable BMI processes are defined as innovative ways that have a significant positive and/or significantly lower negative impact on the environment and/or society because of changes in the way the organization delivers and captures (economic) value (Baldassarre et al., 2017 ). Accordingly, these BMIs incorporate triple-bottom-line priorities and consider a wide range of stakeholder interests, including society and the environment. This means that companies should follow specific processes and a value proposition design aimed at understanding the stakeholders’ needs and interests, finding problem-fit solutions, and testing the product in cooperation with the stakeholders (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016 ; Kalkanci et al., 2019 ; Yang et al., 2017 ). In the same vein, Prendeville et al. ( 2017 ) introduce a conceptual framework that, through four key transitional phases (exploring, evolving, embedding, and unifying), can support companies creating new sustainable business value. For example, circular economy BMI has recently emerged and may have greater appeal to stakeholders and generate greater profit for companies than sustainable BMI (e.g., Pieroni et al., 2019 ; Frishmar & Parida, 2019 ; Horvath et al., 2019 ). Finally, sustainable BMI can change according to specific industries like manufacturing (Short et al., 2014 ), a manufacturer of original automotive equipment (Spieth et al., 2019 ), newspapers (Günzel & Holm, 2013 ), and tourism (Alegre & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016 ).

The BMI process entitled selecting ways to achieve value creation started with the advent of BMI literature (Euchner & Ganguly, 2014 ; Leavy, 2010 ; Simmons et al., 2013 ) and continues to be a hotly debated topic. BMI is a resource-demanding and expensive activity; for this reason, finding ways to make innovative BMs profitable, exploiting opportunities, and reducing costs are compelling issues for managers, as well as researchers (Loon & Chik, 2019 ; Diaz Lopez et al., 2019a , b ). One of the most-cited processes to enable BMI is the commercialization of innovative products and services (Loon & Chik, 2019 ); in the same vein, Dmitriev et al. ( 2014 ) focus on marketing processes (e.g., commercial licensing) that allow companies to capture value by commercializing technologies, thereby driving continuous business model innovation; while in service industries, the pay-per-use business model is becoming a popular way to capture value from the market (Naor et al., 2018 ). In their investigation of hybrid organizations whose business models blur the boundary between for-profit and nonprofit operations, Alberti and Garrido ( 2017 ) underline the importance of these organizations generating profits from their own resources instead of exploiting external resources that could generate the highest profits. Another aspect to consider is legitimization, which is especially important for disruptive and innovative BMs (Wu et al., 2019 ).

Finally, since value delivery for stakeholders is one of BMI’s most important goals, another way to achieve value creation in BMI is to co-create it with and for multiple stakeholders (Andreassen et al., 2018 ; Angeli & Jaiswal, 2016 ; Maglio & Spohrer, 2013 ; Oliveira & Cortimiglia, 2017 ; Tolkamp et al., 2018 ). Most of these studies propose triadic business models, where value is co-created by suppliers, buyers/users, and companies (Andreassen et al., 2018 ). For these business models, value co-creation processes should be supported by knowledge, skills, and collaboration, and it is also essential to understand how to allocate resources among the actors involved (de Oliveira & Cortimiglia, 2017 ).

In sum, value creation processes for BMI—more so than all the other BMI processes—involve actors across a wide variety of levels spanning boundaries and including not only organizational but also external actors (stakeholders, customers, etc.). This process is the end but also the starting point for the BMI processes. According to the value created, co-created, and captured, BMI can be fine-tuned, changed, and innovated to activate cognitive, strategizing, and/or knowledge-shaping processes (Frishammar & Parida, 2019 ; Snihur & Wiklund, 2019 ).

4.5 Evolutionary learning processes as the glue of BMI

Van de Ven and Poole ( 1995 ) define evolutionary processes as a sequence of variation, selection, and retention of events among entities in competitive contexts with scarce resources. Similarly, BMI processes, which are varied, selected, and then retained, aim to gain a competitive advantage over competitors to guarantee their own existence in the market and can be considered evolutionary as well. An unexpected result of our analysis is the role of learning activities within and between each BMI process. For instance, learning processes are related to updating beliefs; if this relationship does not occur, it can impede BMI (Nailer & Buttriss, 2020 ). In strategizing processes, even imitation needs learning processes to change and adapt existing BMs (Sinfield et al., 2012 ; Zhara et al., 2006 ). In the same vein, knowledge and learning processes are different processes but strictly correlated, since the former are made by functional and technical process aimed at testing and creating prototypes and experimentation for BMI, while the latter (learning processes) relate to the acquisition of new knowledge (Cavalcante, 2014b ; Kiura et al., 2014 ; Thurner et al., 2019 ). Finally, value creation processes make it possible to gain useful information from the market to fine-tune the value proposition of BMI (Spieth et al., 2019 ; Simmons et al., 2013 ). Moreover, learning processes appear to be an effective connector between two or more BMI processes (Balocco et al., 2019 ; Cavalcante, 2014a , b ; Enkel & Mezger, 2013 ; Nailer & Buttriss, 2020 ; Sinfield et al., 2012 ). For instance, learning processes can link cognition, knowledge-shaping processes, and strategizing processes for BMI (Cavalcante, 2014b ). Strategy formulation processes are tightly intertwined with learning processes, as the formulation and identification of different strategic alternatives can be used as a collective learning experience, especially when the innovation of existing business models is a priority (Khanagha et al., 2014 ). These findings are in line with the BMI process literature that is explicitly and/or implicitly interested in evolutionary learning and, based on feedback regarding actions and trials driven by decision makers’ beliefs and mindsets, considers BM innovations as the outcomes of continuous learning processes (Chesbrough, 2010 ; McGrath, 2001 ; Sosna et al., 2010 ; Martins et al., 2015 ).

As shown in Table 1 , we define evolutionary learning processes as the glue of BMI processes. Evolutionary learning processes are characterized by different learning episodes that occur when various BM components evolve (Berends et al., 2016 ) and engage “stakeholders continually in ‘learning’ how to better deal with the complex issues they are facing over time” (Kiura et al., 2014 , p. 698).

Thus, we envision evolutionary learning processes as successive, persistent, and circular processes that connect cognitive and shape knowledge, strategizing, and value creation processes.

5 Discussion and research agenda

In this section, we first discuss the findings related to the interconnections between different categories of BMI processes. In line with process theory, which considers phenomena as evolving and interrelated events enacted by entities (Nailer & Buttriss, 2020 ; Rescher, 1996 ), we identified patterns of processes to understand how BMIs emerge, develop, grow, or come to an end.

We argue that this view has great potential for advancing and enriching research on BMI processes because it resonates particularly well with the emerging work on such topics and with process research in general (Langley et al., 2013 ; Cloutier & Langley, 2020 ). We then consider how this literature has developed, along with various theoretical perspectives, and propose a research agenda that will advance BMI process theory by trying to address the research gaps we identify.

5.1 Discussion

Our review aimed to synthesize the research on BMI processes. At least two relevant contributions can be seen here. First, we clarify the BMI process construct by developing a BMI process framework with a categorization of different types of BMI processes (see Table 1 ) and explaining how they are different from the related sub-processes. Second, by developing a unifying framework, we identify five BMI processes and show that they are distinctive yet interconnected and interrelated. A key feature of BMI processes is that they are enacted both within and across different levels. Thus, BMI processes imply a multitude of interactions among actors on the same level (e.g., actors belonging to the TMT or a specific business unit, department, etc.) or across these levels (e.g., actors from a business unit with actors from the TMT, entrepreneurs with actors from the R&D function, etc.). Some authors prefer to focus on actors within the same level of analysis, such as teams of managers (e.g., Eppler & Hoffmann, 2012 ) or entrepreneurs (e.g., Reymen et al., 2017 ); this happened mainly when the main objective was to describe specific generative cognition processes or knowledge-shaping processes (Deken et al., 2016 ; Sinfield et al., 2012 ). By contrast, other scholars focus on actors across different levels. For example, Aspara et al. ( 2011 ) show the embeddedness of cognitive processes in strategic ones, which implies an interplay of actors across different levels and reveals that TMT and individual cognitions (personal values, beliefs, and backgrounds) shape the selection of appropriate strategies (TMT level) and, eventually, the BMI (firm level).

Thus, the five BMI processes that we have identified are interconnected and enacted by actors within and across different levels of the organization. This key feature probably explains why, in our analysis, we could not identify any specific theoretical framework guiding the bulk of the papers. While no theory showed significant prevalence, we could still identify some emerging patterns. Specifically, papers focused on cognition processes tended to be mostly grounded in cognitive-psychological perspectives (Roessler et al., 2019 ; Schneckenberg et al., 2019 ; Täuscher & Abdelkafi, 2017 ) and considered, for example, structure-mapping theories and theories of pattern recognition (Roessler et al., 2019 ). In such cases, they operated mainly within levels of analysis such as managers (e.g., Schneckenberg et al., 2019 ) or entrepreneurs (e.g., Roessler et al., 2019 ). Papers focused on value creation processes tended to put more emphasis on the sustainability literature (e.g., Bocken et al., 2014 ; Frishammar & Parida, 2019 ; Kalkanci et al., 2019 ; Pieroni et al., 2019 ; Yang et al., 2017 ) than the other papers.

It was interesting to note that some of the knowledge-shaping processes and strategizing process papers explicitly named the BMI literature (Broekhuizen et al., 2018 ; Chatterjee, 2013 ; Remane et al., 2017 ) or business model theory (Balocco et al., 2019 ; Broekhuizen et al., 2018 ; Laasch, 2019 ; Landau et al., 2016 ; Short et al., 2014 ; Viswanadham, 2018 ) rather than use more traditional and well-established theories. More specifically, knowledge-shaping processes papers tended to couple the BM literature with innovation issues, for example, by studying new technology-based ventures (e.g., Balocco et al., 2019 ; Reymen et al., 2017 ) or including aspects of open innovation (e.g., Huang et al., 2013 ) and knowledge management (Malhotra, 2002 ). Papers related to strategizing processes dealing with BM design from scratch tended to couple the BM literature with some other theories (e.g., disruptive innovation theory (Habtay, 2012 ; Snihur et al., 2018 ). Finally, papers related to strategizing processes dealing with BM improvement tended to connect the BM literature with dynamic capabilities theory (Mezger, 2014 ), RBV (Pynnönen et al., 2012 ), or a combination of the two (Schindehutte et al., 2008 ).

This approach of relying on the business model literature or BM theory rather than extant, more established theories was quite consistent in our sample of papers and a good signal that the time is probably ripe for the emergence of a process-based BMI theory that could leverage the richness of empirical research findings to explain how and why BMIs “emerge, develop, grow, or terminate over time” (Langley et al., 2013 , p. 1). To this end, the following section offers some insights for future research.

5.2 Insights for future research

Drawing on two key features of our BMI process framework (Table 1 ), namely the interconnectedness and the multifaceted nature of BMI processes, we focus on the emergence of two main research directions and point to related opportunities for future research.

5.2.1 Expanding research on the interconnection of BMI processes

The first research direction refers to the expansion of research on the interconnection of BMI processes. Our review shows that BMI processes are interrelated and involve different actors across different levels of the organization, and most of the papers in our review consider two or more process types simultaneously. BMI processes are attracting increasing research attention, and there has been extensive debate concerning what the term “process” should imply from a theoretical point of view (see Langley et al., 2016 ; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 ) and from a research design point of view (see Langley et al., 2013 ). A key point of this debate, which is critical to advancing BMI process studies, is the distinction between what has been called ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ process theory (Langley et al., 2016 ). Weak process theorizing typically incorporates the concept of change and evolution over time but regards processes as events ‘happening to things’ that maintain their unique identity over time. So, for example, with a few exceptions (Broekhuizen et al., 2018 ; Snihur, 2016 ) in BMI research, many studies have theorized about and analyzed the change in an organization’s business model over time while assuming that the organization preserves its essence throughout the process.

By contrast, applying a ‘strong’ process ontological perspective means viewing the BM as a dynamic bundle of qualities (Langley et al., 2013 ) and all the observed elements and actors of BM as “momentary instantiations of processes” (Cloutier & Langley, 2020 , p. 3). Of course, there is no single recipe for developing informative BMI process theories, conceptualizations, and/or analyses. Our BMI process framework (see Table 1 ) suggests the application of a “strong” process ontological perspective where BMI is understood as the way with which a complex reality, consisting of multiple actions and interactions, is continuously brought into being.

The problem is that when studying two or more processes simultaneously, scholars have often tended to assume that processes are linked in a merely consequential manner. For example, it was assumed that cognitive processes come before knowledge-shaping BMI processes (e.g., Forkmann et al., 2017 ) and not the other way around. Although this consequential approach has proved useful, considering more complex links—and, in particular, the fact that all the different types of processes we have identified are all virtually interconnected—may enrich our understanding of the phenomenon (Nailer & Buttriss, 2020 ; Rescher, 1996 ). Thus, we see a need for future research to sharpen its focus in this direction. Good practices have started to highlight interesting patterns, for example by showing how cognition processes lead to value creation through knowledge-shaping processes for BMI or through strategizing processes (Broekhuizen et al., 2018 ).

Starting from here, future empirical research may aim to fully validate our BMI process framework (Table 1 ). It would also be interesting to better understand what the most relevant relationships among the different process types are and how we could observe the interactions among different processes. Finally, our review points to learning processes as particularly important connectors/glue among the various processes. Future research should further test this finding and explore the presence of other connectors. In other words, other than learning, are there any connectors linking the different BMI processes? Which key relationships among different processes determine BMI success or failure? And how could we observe the interaction among different processes?

5.2.2 Embracing more complex process theorizing styles

The variegated nature of BMI processes that has clearly emerged in our review suggests a need to consider different process theorizing styles. Indeed, whether a study uses linear, recursive, parallel, or conjunctive styles can significantly change its ability to contribute to the understanding of BMI (Cloutier & Langley, 2020 ). Unfortunately, scholars have tended to overlook these considerations in their contributions regarding BMI processes, and when they did, BMI processes were often presented through linear models that overlooked the possible presence of recursive and conjunctive processes.

A problem with linear models is that they typically rely on stage-based patterns that oversimplify the multiplicity of interactions occurring within and across different actors and fail to reveal the explanatory mechanisms that produce such patterns (Van de Ven, 1992 ). In addition, scholars adopting linear approaches tend to focus more on describing the steps to follow to reach the desired outcome (i.e., innovating the business model) than on explaining what might happen after a BMI process has been carried out (see Cloutier & Langley, 2020 ). For this reason, we encourage scholars to accept the intrinsic complexity of BMI processes and draw more on recursive and conjunctive approaches.

Using recursive approaches to BMI processes would mean that they continuously adapt via feedback loops. This approach to theorizing and analyzing BMI processes has the advantage of applying to many BMI process phenomena and allowing for different contexts to be considered, including multiple levels of analysis. Recursive approaches, unlike their linear counterparts, embrace a more processual ontology where “phenomena are embedded in social interactions, continually changing and mutually constituting each other across levels and over time” (Clourtier & Langley, 2020 , p. 4). Building on this approach, future research may get a better understanding of the role of feedback loops in BMI processes. Some of the papers we have analyzed are moving in this direction: For instance, by adopting a user-centered approach, Tolkamp et al. ( 2018 ) show that the interaction between multiple levels (in this case, firm and market levels) generates an involvement loop between the user and the firm in the BM design process that facilitates BM adaptation and can lead to incremental and radical BMI thanks to user feedback. Another example is provided by Groskovs and Ulhøi ( 2019 ), who see BMI as an iterative, dynamic, and continuous process of search and change activities. They highlight the importance of cognition processes deriving from middle managers who sense the environmental dynamics and strategically help the CEO and senior management to allocate resources amid continuous change and to make corrections according to the iterative loop cycles.

Some of the interesting questions that we can ask in this regard include: When are feedback loops adjustive and when are they generative for BMI? What are the feedback loops that generate incremental BMI processes, and which loops contribute to disruptive ones? How can multiple actors’ interactions be depicted in BMI processes?

In the same vein, we encourage future studies of BMI processes to explore the application of conjunctive approaches to BMI processes. This would imply that scholars make connections between diverse elements of BMI and deliberately go beyond the distinctions inherent in the BMI process literature that have often led previous scholars to see different types of BMI processes in a rather compartmentalized manner. The numerous bidirectional and circular arrows in our categorization (Table  1 ) are meant to acknowledge the possibility of conjunctive approaches to BMI processes. Thus, we invite future studies to deepen these intuitions. For example, Baldassarre et al. ( 2017 ) have applied a conjunctive approach to develop a process for sustainable value proposition design combining sustainable BMI and user-driven innovation, revealing that multiple BMI processes interact with each other several times and in various ways in different stages of BMI. Following this direction may entail asking: How can the use of a conjunctive approach to BMI processes foster the emergence of a distinctive BMI theory? What are the most relevant actors and structures for an understanding of BMI processes via a conjunctive approach? How can a conjunctive approach facilitate the simultaneous consideration of multiple BMI processes?

In conclusion, our review has shown that BMI processes, like many others, are typically relational (e.g., Laasch, 2019 ), temporal (e.g., Schneckenberg et al., 2019 ), and situated (e.g., Snihur & Wiklund, 2019 ) and require interpretative open-endedness (e.g., Villani et al., 2017 ). We are confident that accounting for the interconnectedness and the multifaceted nature of BMI processes will make it possible to advance our knowledge while preserving these features of BMI processes as much as possible (Tsoukas, 2017 ).

5.3 Conclusion

In this article, we systematically reviewed the literature on BMI processes and built a BMI process framework that involves five different but interrelated types of BMI processes. Our categorization and its application to the existing body of BMI research help integrate the various views of BMI processes into a better understanding of a multifaceted construct.

Based on our categorization and framework derived from our literature review, we provide a focused set of suggestions for future research. Research on BMI processes has blossomed over the past few decades, but there are still many opportunities for researchers to engage more fully with BMI process–based research from a theoretical and a methodological standpoint. We hope our efforts will stimulate further investigation to reach a better understanding of this important phenomenon.

For the remaining articles, we were not able to code them in one of the aforementioned BMI process approaches.

One paper was not categorized because it is a literature review.

The term platformification was first introduced by Shevlin ( 2016 ), who defines it as “a plug-and-play business model that allows multiple participants (producers and consumers) to connect to it, interact with each other, and create and exchange value)”.

Articles with an * indicate the 114 articles identified in our final sample on BMI processes

Abatecola, G., Mandarelli, G., & Poggesi, S. (2013). The personality factor: How top management teams make decisions. A literature review. Journal of Management & Governance, 17 (4), 1073–1100

Article   Google Scholar  

* Alberti, F. G., & Varon Garrido, M. A. (2017). Can profit and sustainability goals co-exist? New business models for hybrid firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 38 (1), 3–13

* Alegre, I., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016). Social innovation success factors: Hospitality and tourism social enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28 (6), 1155–1176

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22 , 493–520

* Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation.

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9 , 331–350

* Ammar, O., & Chereau, P. (2018). Business model innovation from the strategic posture perspective: An exploration in manufacturing SMEs. European Business Review, 30 (1), 38–65

* Amshoff, B., Dülme, C., Echterfeld, J., & Gausemeier, J. (2015). Business model patterns for disruptive technologies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19 (03), 1540002

* Andreassen, T. W., Lervik-Olsen, L., Snyder, H., Van Riel, A. C., Sweeney, J. C., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2018). Business model innovation and value-creation: The triadic way. Journal of Service Management, 29 (5), 883–906

* Andries, P., Debackere, K., & Van Looy, B. (2013). Simultaneous experimentation as a learning strategy: Business model development under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7 (4), 288–310

* Angeli, F., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2016). Business model innovation for inclusive health care delivery at the bottom of the pyramid. Organization & Environment, 29 (4), 486–507

* Aspara, J., Lamberg, J. A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Strategic management of business model transformation: Lessons from Nokia. Management Decision, 49 (4), 622–647

* Aspara, J., Lamberg, J. A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2013). Corporate business model transformation and inter-organizational cognition: The case of Nokia. Long Range Planning, 46 (6), 459–474

* Axelson, M., & Bjurström, E. (2019). the role of timing in the business model evolution of spinoffs: The case of C3 technologies. Research-Technology Management, 62 (4), 19–26

* Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N. M. P., & Jaskiewicz, T. (2017). Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147 , 175–186

* Baldassarre, B., Konietzko, J., Brown, P., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N., Karpen, I. O., & Hultink, E. J. (2020). Addressing the design-implementation gap of sustainable business models by prototyping: A tool for planning and executing small-scale pilots. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255 , 120295

* Balocco, R., Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2019). Lean business models change process in digital entrepreneurship. Business Process Management Journal .

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall Inc.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . Freeman.

Barney, J. A. Y., & Felin, T. (2013). What are microfoundations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27 (2), 138–155

* Baumgartner, M. A., & Mangematin, V. (2019). Strategy renewal: Breaking the mould with new business models. Journal of Business Strategy., 40 , 22

* Berends, H., Smits, A., Reymen, I., & Podoynitsyna, K. (2016). Learning while (re) configuring: Business model innovation processes in established firms. Strategic Organization, 14 (3), 181–219

* Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65 , 42–56

* Bogers, M., Boyd, B., & Hollensen, S. (2015). Managing turbulence. California Management Review, 58 , 41–64

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 , 77–101

* Brink, T. (2017). B2B SME management of antecedents to the application of social media. Industrial Marketing Management, 64 , 57–65

* Broekhuizen, T. L., Bakker, T., & Postma, T. J. (2018). Implementing new business models: What challenges lie ahead? Business Horizons, 61 (4), 555–566

* Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards systematic business model innovation: Lessons from product innovation management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21 (2), 183–198

* Cao, L., Navare, J., & Jin, Z. (2018). Business model innovation: How the international retailers rebuild their core business logic in a new host country. International Business Review, 27 (3), 543–562

Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision . Cambridge University Press.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43 (2–3), 195–215

Cavalcante, S. A. (2013). Understanding the impact of technology on firms’ business models. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16 , 285–300

* Cavalcante, S. A. (2014a). Designing business model change. International Journal of Innovation Management, 18 (02), 1450018

* Cavalcante, S. A. (2014b). Preparing for business model change: The “pre-stage” finding. Journal of Management & Governance, 18 , 449–469

* Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. (2011). Business model dynamics and innovation: (Re) establishing the missing linkages. Management Decision, 49 (8), 1327–1342

* Chatterjee, S. (2013). Simple rules for designing business models. California Management Review, 55 (2), 97–124

* Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43 (2–3), 354–363

Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and corporate change , 11 (3), 529–555.

Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2020). What makes a process theoretical contribution? Organization Theory, 1 (1), 2631787720902473

Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42 , 1–9

* Cortimiglia, M. N., Ghezzi, A., & Frank, A. G. (2016). Business model innovation and strategy making nexus: Evidence from a cross-industry mixed-methods study. R&D Management, 46 , 414–432

Cucculelli, M., & Bettinelli, C. (2015). Business models, intangibles and firm performance: evidence on corporate entrepreneurship from Italian manufacturing SMEs. Small Business Economics , 45 (2), 329–350.

* de Oliveira, D. T., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2017). Value co-creation in web-based multisided platforms: A conceptual framework and implications for business model design. Business Horizons, 60 (6), 747–758

* Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H., & Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27 (3), 659–677

* Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution. In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Planning, 43 , 227–246

Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods (pp. pp. 671–689). Sage.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 , 147–161

* Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D Management, 44 (3), 306–321

Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38 (10), 1559–1570

* Dunford, R., Palmer, I., & Benveniste, J. (2010). Business model replication for early and rapid internationalisation: The ING direct experience. Long Range Planning, 43 (5–6), 655–674

* Ebel, P. A., Bretschneider, U., & Leimeister, J. M. (2016). Can the crowd do the job? Exploring the effects of integrating customers into a company’s business model innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20 .

* Enkel, E., & Mezger, F. (2013). Imitation processes and their application for business model innovation: An explorative study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17 (01), 1340005

* Eppler, M. J., & Hoffmann, F. (2012). Does method matter? An experiment on collaborative business model idea generation in teams. Innovation, 14 (3), 388–403

* Eppler, M. J., Hoffmann, F., & Bresciani, S. (2011). New business models through collaborative idea generation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15 (06), 1323–1341

* Euchner, J., & Ganguly, A. (2014). Business model innovation in practice. Research-Technology Management, 57 (6), 33–39

Google Scholar  

* Eurich, M., Weiblen, T., & Breitenmoser, P. (2014). A six-step approach to business model innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18 (4), 330–348

Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations.

Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 9 (1), 575–632

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10 (4), 803–813

* Forkmann, S., Ramos, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2017). Understanding the service infusion process as a business model reconfiguration. Industrial Marketing Management, 60 , 151–166

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation. Journal of Management, 43 , 200–227

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2018). Business models and business model innovation: Between wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long Range Planning, 51 (1), 9–21

Franco-Santos, M., & Otley, D. (2018). Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20 (3), 696–730

Frankenberger, K., & Sauer, R. (2019). Cognitive antecedents of business models: Exploring the link between attention and business model design over time. Long Range Planning, 52 (3), 283–304

* Frishammar, J., & Parida, V. (2019). Circular business model transformation: A roadmap for incumbent firms. California Management Review, 61 (2), 5–29

* García-Gutiérrez, I., & Martínez-Borreguero, F. J. (2016). The innovation pivot framework: Fostering business model innovation in startups: A new tool helps entrepreneurs design business models by identifying the sources of competitive advantage embedded in an innovation. Research-Technology Management, 59 (5), 48–56

Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’ development. Organization Science, 16 , 599–617

Gavetti, G., & Rivkin, J. W. (2007). On the origin of strategy: Action and cognition over time. Organization Science, 18 (3), 420–439

* Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2016). Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process: A workshop based on a value mapping process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135 , 1218–1232

* Ghezzi, A. (2012). Emerging business models and strategies for mobile platform providers: A reference framework. Info, 14 (5), 36–56

Ghezzi, A., Balocco, R., & Rangone, A. (2010). How to get strategic planning and business model design wrong: The case of a mobile technology provider. Strategic Change, 19 (5–6), 213–238

Gondal, S. (2004). Internet and technology new venture development using Soft OR. European Journal of Operational Research, 152 (3), 571–585

* Groskovs, S., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2019). The middle manager in search of business model innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 40 , 3

* Guo, H., Su, Z., & Ahlstrom, D. (2016). Business model innovation: The effects of exploratory orientation, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial bricolage in an emerging economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33 (2), 533–549

* Günzel, F., & Holm, A. B. (2013). One size does not fit all: Understanding the front-end and back-end of business model innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17 (01), 1340002

* Habtay, S. R. (2012). A firm-level analysis on the relative difference between technology-driven and market-driven disruptive business model innovations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21 (3), 290–303

Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction . University Press.

* Horvath, B., Khazami, N., Ymeri, P., & Fogarassy, C. (2019). Investigating the current business model innovation trends in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20 (1), 63–85

* Huang, H. C., Lai, M. C., Lin, L. H., & Chen, C. T. (2013). Overcoming organizational inertia to strengthen business model innovation: An open innovation perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26 (6), 977–1002

* Inigo, E. A., Albareda, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability: Exploring evolutionary and radical approaches through dynamic capabilities. Industry and Innovation, 24 (5), 515–542

* Islam, S. (2019). Business models and the managerial sensemaking process. Accounting & Finance, 59 (3), 1869–1890

Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25 , 529–560

* Jensen, H., & Sund, K. J. (2017). The journey of business model innovation in media agencies: Towards a three-stage process model. Journal of Media Business Studies, 14 (4), 282–298

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26 , 632–659

* Kalkanci, B., Rahmani, M., & Toktay, L. B. (2019). The role of inclusive innovation in promoting social sustainability. Production and Operations Management, 28 (12), 2960–2982

* Karlsson, N. P., Hoveskog, M., Halila, F., & Mattsson, M. (2018). Early phases of the business model innovation process for sustainability: Addressing the status quo of a Swedish biogas-producing farm cooperative. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172 , 2759–2772

* Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity: Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a C loud business model. R&D Management, 44 (3), 322–340

* Kiel, D., Arnold, C., & Voigt, K. I. (2017). The influence of the Industrial Internet of Things on business models of established manufacturing companies: A business level perspective. Technovation, 68 , 4–19

* Kiura, T., Bosch, O. J., Nguyen, N. C., Shirasaka, S., & Maeno, T. (2014). Creating a new business through applying the systems-based evolutionary learning laboratory approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31 (6), 696–707

* Konietzko, J., Baldassarre, B., Brown, P., Bocken, N., & Hultink, E. J. (2020). Circular business model experimentation: Demystifying assumptions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277 , 122596

* Kranz, J. J., Hanelt, A., & Kolbe, L. M. (2016). Understanding the influence of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity on the process of business model change: The case of on-premise and cloud-computing software. Information Systems Journal, 26 , 477–517

* Laasch, O. (2019). An actor-network perspective on business models: How ‘Being Responsible’ led to incremental but pervasive change. Long Range Planning, 52 (3), 406–426

* Laïfi, A., & Josserand, E. (2016). Legitimation in practice: A new digital publishing business model. Journal of Business Research, 69 (7), 2343–2352

* Landau, C., Karna, A., & Sailer, M. (2016). Business model adaptation for emerging markets: A case study of a German automobile manufacturer in India. R&D Management, 46 (3), 480–503

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. The Academy of Management Review, 24 (4), 691–710

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56 , 1–13

Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2016).  The SAGE handbook of process organization studies . Sage.

* Laudien, S. M., & Daxböck, B. (2017). Business model innovation processes of average market players: A qualitative-empirical analysis. R&D Management, 47 , 420–430

Leavy, B. (2010). Design thinking: A new mental model of value innovation. Strategy & Leadership., 38 , 5

Leischnig, A., Ivens, B. S., & Kammerlander, N. (2017). A new conceptual lens for marketing: a configurational perspective based on the business model concept. AMS Review, 7 (3–4), 138–153

* Loon, M., & Chik, R. (2019). Efficiency-centered, innovation-enabling business models of high tech SMEs: Evidence from Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36 (1), 87–111

* Lopez, F. J. D., Bastein, T., & Tukker, A. (2019). Business model innovation for resource-efficiency, circularity and cleaner production: What 143 cases tell us. Ecological Economics, 155 , 20–35

* Lopez-Nicolas, C., Nikou, S., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Bouwman, H. (2020). Gender differences and business model experimentation in European SMEs. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing., 35 , 1205

Lord, R. G., Dinh, J. E., & Hoffman, E. L. (2015). A quantum approach to time and organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 40 (2), 263–290

* Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2013). A service science perspective on business model innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 42 , 665

Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80 (86–92), 133

* Malhotra, Y. (2002). Knowledge management and new organization forms: A framework for business model innovation. In Intelligent Support Systems: Knowledge Management (pp. 177–199). IGI Global.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1), 71–87

* Martin-Rios, C., & Parga-Dans, E. (2016). The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese: Non-technological innovation in creative industries. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25 (1), 6–17

Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9 , 99–117

Mason, K., & Spring, M. (2011). The sites and practices of business models. Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (6), 1032–1041

Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2015). Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56 , 71–77

McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1), 118–131

* Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation: Insights from an explorative study. R & D Management, 44 , 429–449

* Mitchell, D., & Coles, C. (2003). The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing business model innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 24 (5), 15–21

* Mitchell, D. W., & Coles, C. B. (2004). Establishing a continuing business model innovation process. Journal of Business Strategy., 25 (3), 39–49

Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58 , 726–735

* Nailer, C., & Buttriss, G. (2020). Processes of business model evolution through the mechanism of anticipation and realisation of value. Industrial Marketing Management, 91 , 671–685

Najmaei, A. (2016). Revisiting the modularity-performance nexus: Business model innovation as a missing mechanism. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20 (07), 1650065

* Naor, M., Druehl, C., & Bernardes, E. S. (2018). Servitized business model innovation for sustainable transportation: Case study of failure to bridge the design-implementation gap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170 , 1219–1230

Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2010). Business model design: Conceptualizing networked value co-creation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2 , 43–59

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1), 14–37

Noy, N. & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology development 101. In Tech report KSL-01–05 Palo Alto CA: Knowledge Systems Laboratory Stanford University.

* Olofsson, S., Hoveskog, M., & Halila, F. (2018). Journey and impact of business model innovation: The case of a social enterprise in the Scandinavian electricity retail market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175 , 70–81

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13 , 249–273

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16 (1), 1

* Parmentier, G., & Gandia, R. (2017). Redesigning the business model: From one-sided to multi-sided. Journal of Business Strategy, 38 (2), 52–61

* Pieroni, M. P., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. (2019). Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215 , 198–216

Pohle, G., & Chapman, M. (2006). IBM’s global CEO report 2006: Business model innovation matters. Strategy & Leadership, 34 , 34–40

Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. The Journal of Business Strategy, 5 (3), 60

* Prendeville, S. M., O’Connor, F., Bocken, N. M., & Bakker, C. (2017). Uncovering ecodesign dilemmas: A path to business model innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143 , 1327–1339

* Pynnönen, M., Hallikas, J., & Ritala, P. (2012). Managing customer-driven business model innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16 (04), 1250022

Raveendran, M., Silvestri, L., & Gulati, R. (2020). The role of interdependence in the micro-foundations of organization design: Task, goal, and knowledge interdependence. Academy of Management Annals, 14 (2), 828–868

* Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Nickerson, R. C., & Kolbe, L. M. (2017). Discovering digital business models in traditional industries. Journal of Business Strategy, 38 (2), 41–51

Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics: An introduction to process philosophy. SUNY series in philosophy . State University of New York.

* Reymen, I., Berends, H., Oudehand, R., & Stultiëns, R. (2017). Decision making for business model development: A process study of effectuation and causation in new technology-based ventures. R&D Management, 47 (4), 595–606

* Roessler, M., Velamuri, V. K., & Schneckenberg, D. (2019). Corporate entrepreneurship initiatives: Antagonizing cognitive biases in business model design. R&D Management, 49 (4), 509–533

Ryan, G. W. & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods 2nd ed. In D. N. & L. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 769–802). Sage.

Schatzki, T. R. (2006). On organizations as they happen. Organization Studies, 27 , 1863–1873

* Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. H., & Kocak, A. (2008). Understanding market-driving behavior: The role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 46 (1), 4–26

* Schneckenberg, D., Velamuri, V., & Comberg, C. (2019). The design logic of new business models: Unveiling cognitive foundations of managerial reasoning. European Management Review, 16 (2), 427–447

* Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17 (01), 1340001–1340034

Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). Business model innovation and strategic flexibility: Insights from an experimental research design. International Journal of Innovation Management, 18 (6), 1440009

Semadeni, M., & Anderson, B. S. (2010). The follower’s dilemma: Innovation and imitation in the professional services industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (5), 1175–1193

Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sharma, A. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of customer-centric marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 55–66

Shevlin, R. (2016). The Platformification of Banking. Retrieved from: https://thefinancialbrand.com/60019/the-platformification-of-banking/

Shin, J. (2014). New business model creation through the triple helix of young entrepreneurs, SNSs, and smart devices. International Journal of Technology Management, 66 , 302–318

* Short, S. W., Bocken, N. M., Barlow, C. Y., & Chertow, M. R. (2014). From refining sugar to growing tomatoes: Industrial ecology and business model evolution. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18 (5), 603–618

Siggelkow, N. (2002). Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (1), 125–159

* Simmons, G., Palmer, M., & Truong, Y. (2013). Inscribing value on business model innovations: Insights from industrial projects commercializing disruptive digital innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 42 (5), 744–754

* Sinfield, J. V., Calder, E., McConnell, B., & Colson, S. (2012). How to identify new business models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53 , 85–90

* Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Jovanovic, M., & Visnjic, I. (2020). Value creation and value capture alignment in business model innovation: A process view on outcome-based business models. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37 (2), 158–183

Skjølsvik, T., Pemer, F., & Løwendahl, B. R. (2017). Strategic management of professional service firms: Reviewing ABS journals and identifying key research themes. Journal of Professions and Organization, 4 (2), 203–239

* Snihur, Y. (2016). Developing optimal distinctiveness: Organizational identity processes in new ventures engaged in business model innovation. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28 (3–4), 259–285

Snihur, Y., & Tarzijan, J. (2018). Managing complexity in a multi-business-model organization. Long Range Planning, 51 (1), 50–63

* Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D., & Burgelman, R. A. (2018). An ecosystem-level process model of business model disruption: The disruptor’s gambit. Journal of Management Studies, 55 (7), 1278–1316

* Snihur, Y., & Wiklund, J. (2019). Searching for innovation: Product, process, and business model innovations and search behavior in established firms. Long Range Planning, 52 (3), 305–325

* Snihur, Y., & Zott, C. (2020). The genesis and metamorphosis of novelty imprints: How business model innovation emerges in young ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 63 (2), 554–583

Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning: The Naturhouse case. Long Range Planning, 43 (2–3), 383–407

* Spieth, P., Roeth, T., & Meissner, S. (2019). Reinventing a business model in industrial networks: Implications for customers’ brand perceptions. Industrial Marketing Management, 83 , 275–287

* Storbacka, K., Windahl, C., Nenonen, S., & Salonen, A. (2013). Solution business models: Transformation along four continua. Industrial Marketing Management, 42 , 705–716

* Stubbs, W. (2019). Strategies, practices, and tensions in managing business model innovation for sustainability: The case of an Australian BCorp. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26 (5), 1063–1072

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20 , 571–610

* Sun, S. L., Xiao, J., Zhang, Y., & Zhao, X. (2018). Building business models through simple rules. Multinational Business Review, 26 (4), 361–378

* Täuscher, K., & Abdelkafi, N. (2017). Visual tools for business model innovation: Recommendations from a cognitive perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26 (2), 160–174

* Tavassoli, S., & Bengtsson, L. (2018). The role of business model innovation for product innovation performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22 (07), 1850061

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal , 28 (13), 1319–1350.

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43 (2–3), 172–194

Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51 (1), 40–49

* Tesch, J. F., Brillinger, A. S., & Bilgeri, D. (2017). Internet of things business model innovation and the stage-gate process: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21 (05), 1740002

* Tolkamp, J., Huijben, J. C. C. M., Mourik, R. M., Verbong, G. P. J., & Bouwknegt, R. (2018). User-centred sustainable business model design: The case of energy efficiency services in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182 , 755–764

Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7 , 257–281

* Thurner, T. W., Kroenert, M. K., & Goersch, A. (2019). Shifting business models in the electronic gaming industry-from publisher backing to co-creation and crowdfunding. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 23 (3), 246–260

* To, C. K. M., Yee, R. W., Mok, P. Y., Chau, K. P., Wong, M. C., & Cheung, N. M. (2018). Collaboration reasoning or social heuristics? Value proposition validity in omnium-gatherum business models. Journal of Business Research, 88 , 550–559

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 , 207–222

Tsoukas, H. (2017). Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (2), 132–153

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13 , 567–582

* Tuulenmäki, A., & Välikangas, L. (2011). The art of rapid, hands-on execution innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 39 (2), 28–35

Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (S1), 169–188

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 510–540

* Vasarhelyi, M. A., & Alles, M. G. (2008). The “now” economy and the traditional accounting reporting model: Opportunities and challenges for AIS research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 9 (4), 227–239

* Velu, C., & Jacob, A. (2016). Business model innovation and owner–managers: The moderating role of competition. R&D Management, 46 (3), 451–463

Villani, E., Greco, L., & Phillips, N. (2017). Understanding value creation in public-private partnerships: A comparative case study. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (6), 876–905

Viswanadham, N. (2018). Performance analysis and design of competitive business models. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (1–2), 983–999

* Wadin, J. L., Ahlgren, K., & Bengtsson, L. (2017). Joint business model innovation for sustainable transformation of industries: A large multinational utility in alliance with a small solar energy company. Journal of Cleaner Production, 160 , 139–150

Weiser, A. K., Jarzabkowski, P., & Laamanen, T. (2020). Completing the adaptive turn: An integrative view of strategy implementation. Academy of Management Annals, 14 (2), 969–1031

Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. (2009). The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35 (3), 537–563

Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29 , 731–735

* Wieland, H., Hartmann, N. N., & Vargo, S. L. (2017). Business models as service strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (6), 925–943

* Winterhalter, S., Weiblen, T., Wecht, C. H., & Gassmann, O. (2017). Business model innovation processes in large corporations: Insights from BASF. Journal of Business Strategy, 38 (2), 62–75

Wirtz, B., & Daiser, P. (2018). Business model innovation processes: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Models , 6 (1), 40–58.

Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49 , 36–54

* Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2016). Designing innovative business models with a framework that promotes experimentation. Strategy & Leadership, 44 (1), 11–19

* Wrigley, C., Bucolo, S., & Straker, K. (2016). Designing new business models: Blue sky thinking and testing. Journal of Business Strategy, 37 (5), 22–31

* Wu, X., Zhao, Z., & Zhou, B. (2019). Legitimacy in adaptive business model innovation: An investigation of academic ebook platforms in China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 55 (4), 719–742

* Yang, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2017). Creating and capturing value through sustainability: The sustainable value analysis tool a new tool helps companies discover opportunities to create and capture value through sustainability. Research-Technology Management, 60 (3), 30–39

Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (4), 917–955

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18 (2), 181–199

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2017). Business model innovation: How to create value in a digital world. Marketing Intelligence Review, 9 (1), 18–23

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli studi di Bergamo within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

Daniela Andreini, Cristina Bettinelli & Marco Mismetti

Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

Nicolai J. Foss

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Bettinelli .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Procedures for sourcing, searching, selecting, and excluding

Source of information

Peer-reviewed journal articles only

Empirical, conceptual, and review articles only

English only

Exclusion criteria

Studies focused on business model rather than business model innovation

Studies including business model innovation in the title and in the abstract but where BMI was not the primary focus

Research published in edited books and conference proceedings

Articles discussing business model education or research techniques

Case studies for teaching purposes

Articles not available from the databases

Search method – Keyword research

Articles across academic journals published until December 2020 (with no initial time boundaries) limited to scholarly peer-reviewed journals in English language

Database selection using Ebsco (incorporating Business Source Premiere)

Initial focus on: (a) abstract, and (b) title

Keywords for search

Deleting articles published on journals that were not in the ABS Journal Guide 2018 .

Search method – paper selection

The authors (in pairs) read the abstracts and the introductions of all the papers (n = 255), dividing them into A, B, or C categories (A papers were relevant to the objective of the research, B papers were studies whose relevance was not clear, and C papers were not relevant).

After reading the papers, the two authors compared and reconciled their categorizations.

The third author re-assessed any articles excluded by one author but included by the other.

All the A papers were re-checked to verify their exclusion from this category (21 papers were removed from the A category).

Final check by two authors to verify the match between papers’ content and the objectives of the systematic review (in A category).

Only A papers considered for the thematic analysis (n = 114).

Appendix 2. Procedures for thematic analysis and ontological organization

Theme identification

Two researchers individually analyzed each paper for objective, research questions, key arguments, research methods, business model process definition, business model innovation process definition, theoretical perspective, and outcomes.

Individually, the researchers wrote a statement describing the primary focus of each paper and paying attention to the conceptual terminology and vocabulary used by the authors.

After 30 papers, the researchers compared their statements and discussed how to resolve any misalignments.

The statements were used to enable the identification of five thematic categories of processes.

Preliminary names were given to the thematic categories.

Definitive category names resulted from discussions and interactions between authors, and these thematic categories were applied to the remaining papers in the Excel file.

Every 30 papers, the researchers aligned their results for consistency.

Ontological organization, interpretation, and validation

The authors discussed and agreed on the five thematic process categories (cognition processes, knowledge-shaping processes, strategizing processes, value creation processes, and evolutionary learning processes) for each paper.

The authors reviewed and checked for redundancy or duplication.

For each theme, the authors wrote an explanation to check the fit between the content of the paper and the themes, assuring ontological consistency.

Quality checking

Each paper was codified independently by two researchers who paid the same attention to each.

The process was thorough, inclusive, and comprehensive (three thematic descriptors).

The interaction process implied a comparison of the selected themes going back and forth to the original papers.

The authors checked for internal coherence, consistency, and distinction.

The authors interpreted the papers by using their own meanings and maintaining the vocabulary expressed in the papers as much as possible.

Data and themes were paired iteratively.

The authors used ontology tables for consistency.

The authors played an active role in each phase.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Andreini, D., Bettinelli, C., Foss, N.J. et al. Business model innovation: a review of the process-based literature. J Manag Gov 26 , 1089–1121 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09590-w

Download citation

Accepted : 26 April 2021

Published : 14 August 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09590-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Business model innovation process
• Systematic literature review
• Process-based business model innovation
• BMI process interconnection
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Business Research: Types, Methods, Examples

• Updated on  
• Jan 29, 2024

Ever wondered what it takes to build a flourishing business ? Aiming to provide maximum sales and profit, business research helps you to gather comprehensive information about your business and accordingly make relevant changes if required. So, in this process of being successful, we gather all types of data to better define our strategies and understand what products or services customers want. And in case, you’re planning to expand your business, research can help you determine your odds of positive results. In this blog, we’ll help you understand the basics of research and analysis .

“Whoever gets closer to the customer, wins.” – Bernadette Jiwa

This Blog Includes:

What is business research, business research example, importance of business research, types & methods, focus groups , case study research , ethnographic research, survey , correlation research , experimental research , advantages and disadvantages of business research, scope of business research, role of business research, business research books, business research report, top 10 tools for business research, business research partners, top 10 business research topics, career prospects , [bonus] best mba colleges in the world.

Business Research can be simply defined as a process of gathering comprehensive data and information on all the areas of business and incorporating this information for sales and profit maximization. If you are wondering what is Business Research, it is a systematic management activity helping companies to determine which product will be most profitable for companies to produce. Also, there are multiple steps in conducting research, with each thoroughly reviewed to ensure that the best decision is made for the company as a whole.

Also Read: Scope of MBA in International Business

Let’s say there’s an automobile company that is planning to launch a car that runs on CNG. To promote cleaner fuel, the company will be involved in developing different plans and strategies to identify the demand for the car they intend to launch. Other than this, the company will also look for competitors, and the target audience, keeping in mind the distribution of CNG in India. Hence the research is conducted on various ideas to formulate a sustainable and more efficient design. 

When it comes to the question of why Business Research is important, it has an essential role to play in varied areas of business. Here are some of the reasons describing the importance of Business Research:

• It helps businesses gain better insights into their target customer’s preferences, buying patterns, pain points, as well as demographics.
• Business Research also provides businesses with a detailed overview of their target markets, what’s in trend, as well as market demand.
• By studying consumers’ buying patterns and preferences as well as market trends and demands with the help of business research, businesses can effectively and efficiently curate the best possible plans and strategies accordingly.
• The importance of business research also lies in highlighting the areas where unnecessary costs can be minimized and those areas in a business which need more attention and can bring in more customers and hence boost profits.
• Businesses can constantly innovate as per their customers’ preferences and interests and keep their attention on the brand.
• Business Research also plays the role of a catalyst as it helps businesses thrive in their markets by capturing all the available opportunities and also meeting the needs and preferences of their customers.

Also Read: Business Analyst vs Data Analyst

Business research plays an important role in the business intelligence process. This is usually conducted to determine if a company can succeed in a new region through competitive analyses and a better marketing approach. Due to this, this broad field has been distinguished into two types namely, Qualitative Research and Quantitative Research Method.

Here are the most important types of Business Research :

Qualitative Research Methods 

It involves putting open-ended questions to the audience through different channels of communication to understand why researchers think in a particular manner. Stress is laid on understanding the intent, attitude, and beliefs to figure out the behaviour and response of the customers. Moreover, the goal of Qualitative Business Research is to get in-depth knowledge about the subjects of the research. Moreover, qualitative research enables us to put the perspective of the consumer in front of the researcher so that we can understand and see the alignment of the ideas between the market and the business. 

The data collected in this type of business research is by the following methods:  

• Interviews 
• Case Study 
• Ethnographic Research 
• Website Visitor Profiling 
• Content Analysis 

Also Read: Study MBA in Music Business at Berklee College of Music!

Let us take a detailed look at some of the ways-

Interviews and surveys are similar. The only difference lies in the fact that the responder can put a question in an interview whilst it is not possible during a survey. Through interviews, it is easier to understand the detailed perspective of the person concerning the subject of research. A mobile brand researched to understand why certain colours are preferred by male and female customers. The research revealed that since red is assumed to be a feminine colour, it is more preferred by females than males. 

Focus groups are a type of business research that involves only a set of individuals. Each selected individual represents a particular category of the target market. The major difference between interviews and focus groups is the number of people that it involves. To launch a new product for a particular group of society, focus groups prove to be the best way to understand the needs of the local audience. 

For example, Tesla decides to launch their latest car model in India. The company, therefore, will require feedback from the Indian audience only.

Did you know? Amazon, the internet giant changed its payment strategy to enter the Indian market. Since the Indian economy was not entirely ready for online modes of payment, amazon introduced a new payment method and came up with ‘ cash on delivery ’ to gain consumers’ trust.

One of the most effective ways for business research is conducting case studies. With the motive to understand customer satisfaction, challenges that usually the customers face while using the product and hence, providing them with the right solution can be achieved by analysing data secured through data secured by case studies. Case study researchers are conducted in many fields of business that ultimately aid organisations in improving their products or services. 

Ethnographic Research refers to understanding people as a whole. One must be able to grok their consumers or target audience which will help identify patterns, flaws, etc. Ethnography is a branch of anthropology that is the study of what elements or features make us humans. How did people live? What aspect made us so dependent on smartphones and technology? Why would people buy one product over the other? It refers to asking questions about lifestyle, communities, etc., and trying to gain insight into consumer behaviour and buying patterns.

For example, consider a random product. Are people looking for that product? Do they need it? Is it a necessity or a luxury? Which class of people are most likely to buy it? People often cannot comprehend what they are looking for. Gaining different perceptions can help us tailor our products accordingly to the consumers. Who would have thought that the majority of humans will need face masks for survival?

Also Read: How to Become a Research Analyst?

Quantitative Research Methods 

With the employment of mathematical, statistical and computational techniques, quantitative research is carried out to deal with numbers. This systematical empirical investigation starts with the acquisition of the data and then moves on to analyzing it with the help of different tools. The goal is to identify clientele and then meet the targets of the audience. As the method of business research employs a questionnaire to determine the audience’s response, the questions are built around the idea that the audience knows about the product or the services that the firm offers. Some of the key questions answered in quantitative research methods include, who is connected with your network, how they qualify for the ‘product’ or how regularly they visit your website.

The data is collected based on the following research:

• Correlational
• Online 
• Casual Comparative 
• Experimental 

It is the most common method under quantitative research via which a huge amount of data can be collected concerning a product or service. A common set of questions are asked to the people and they are asked to provide their inputs. To understand the nature of the market in-depth, this method is massively used by leading organisations all across the globe. Analysing data recorded through service helps organisations make suitable decisions.

Under this research, usually two entities are put together to examine the impact they create on each other. As suggested by the name it is the best process to understand patterns, relationships and trends. the data grasped through correlation research is generally combined with other tools as one cannot achieve a firm conclusion using this type of business research.  

Experimental research is purely based on proving a particular theory that is pre-assumed. True experimental research companies can understand varied behavioural traits of the customers that further assist them in generating more revenue. Exposing a set of audience to common parameters, their behaviour is recorded and hence analysed. This can be understood as the main basis of the experimental research. 

Also Read: Scope of Operation Research

There are certain pros and cons of business research that you must know about. Here are the advantages and disadvantages of Business Research.

Advantages of Business Research

• Business Research plays the role of a catalyst in identifying potential threats, issues as well as opportunities .
• It provides a detailed analysis of customers and the target audience , thus helping in building better relationships with one’s audience and capturing the areas which we might be missing out on.
• It also anticipates future problems thus the enterprise is able to tackle those uncertainties and prepare for them beforehand.
• It keeps a continuous track of competition in the market and gives businesses the scope to come up with better strategies to tackle their competitors.
• Business Research also conducts a thorough cost analysis thus helping the company efficiently manage resources and allocate them in an optimal manner.
• It keeps you updated with the latest trends and competitor analysis .

Disadvantages of Business Research

• Business Research can be expensive and time-consuming .
• It also has the danger of being assumptive and imprecise at times , because the focus groups might be small or can be highly based on assumptions.
• The market is ever-changing and ever-evolving and capturing the right trends or anticipating them can constitute a complicated process for business research.

Also Read: Types of Research Design

The process of business research can be as comprehensive and as detailed as a business wants it to be. Generally, a company takes up research with a certain aim or hypothesis in order to figure out the issues, opportunities and trends and how they can be leveraged in the best way.

Here is the step-by-step process of Business Research:

• Identifying the Opportunity or Problem – To begin with the research, we first need to know what is the problem or the opportunity we would be leveraging on. It can be a popular trend or a common problem that a business is facing and can potentially become the headstart for the research process. Once you know the problem or the opportunity, go ahead with giving an understandable statement of what it’s about, what the hypothesis of the research will be as well as its objectives.
• Decide and Plan the Research Design – The next step in the business research process to find the right research design which suits the objectives and overall plan of the research. The most popular research designs are Quantitative and Qualitative Research.
• Determining the Research Method – The research design is closely connected to the research method since both qualitative and quantitative research designs have different methods for data collection, analysis, amongst others. So, once you have put a finger on what the right research design will be, go ahead with finding the right research method as per the plan, types of data collection, objective, costs involved, and other determining factors.
• Collect Data – Utilizing the research method and design, the next step in the business research process is to collect data and assimilate it.
• Data Analysis and Evaluation – After assimilating the data required, the data analysis will take place to gather all the observations and findings.
• Communicate Results – The presentation of the business research report is the concluding step of this procedure after which the higher management works upon the best techniques and strategies to leverage the opportunity or tackle the issue.

Also Read: MBA in Business Analytics

The scope of Business Research is multifarious and reaches out to many specialisations and areas. Let’s take a look the scope of business research across various specialisations:

• Marketing Management When it comes to business research, becomes an important part of marketing management that analyses consumer behaviour, target audiences, competition, price policy, promotional plans and much more.
• Financial Management It also plays an essential role in budgeting, financial planning, cost allocation, capital raising, tackling fluctuations with international currency as well as taking finance-related decisions.
• Production Management Production Management also includes business research as it helps in product development, planning out for a newer one, finalizing the right technologies for production, and so on.
• Materials Management Business Research is an important aspect of checking the best materials and carrying out its production, supply chain management , logistics , as well as shortlisting negotiation strategies.

There is an incremental role of business research as its importance is across every aspect of the business. Let’s take a look at the role of business research in an enterprise:

• The most primary role of business research is that it helps across every decision in the business, from product innovation to marketing and promotional planning.
• Business Research also helps in forecasting a business, whether in terms of competition or any other types of problems it will be facing.
• Another key area where this plays a bigger role is ensuring consumer satisfaction as through research, we can carry out research and highlight areas where we can efficiently serve our target audience.
• Business research also helps in implementing cost-effectiveness in a business as it can assist in cutting costs wherever needed and investing more in those areas, where profit is coming from.

Want to understand and learn more about business research? Here are some of the books that will make you a pro in this field. Check out the list of business research books:

Also Read: Is It Possible to Study MBA in Europe Without GMAT?

The purpose of a report is to inform the other members, junior and subordinates of the team to provide information on the specific topic. There is a specific format of a business report which makes it look more professional and presentable. There should be a title with the date and nature. The second section includes the introduction, body, and then conclusion. Reports help to identify the issues and helps in resolving them at earlier stages. It can include graphs, surveys, interviews, flow, and piecharts also.

Are you wondering why is there a need to do business research? Business is not stable and it is vital to stay up to date with all the data and developments. It is also important to make business-related decisions, and keep track of competitors, customer feedback, and market changes. The basic objective of business research is to identify the issues and evaluate a plan to resolve them for better managerial functioning.

Now that you are familiar with the objective, importance, and advantages the next important step is to know how to conduct research. There are numerous tools available for free while for some advanced tools there is a membership. Check out the list of top 10 tools:

• Google Keyword Tools
• Google Analytics
• Google Trends

The one thing constant in a business is market changes. A new trend or change comes every time you blink an eye. To keep track of everything externally and internally a research partner comes helpful. There are a few things to keep in mind that will help you in choosing the right business partner. The first thing to keep in mind is that the person should have relevant work experience and expertise in that particular field. An experienced partner can help businesses reach new heights. Look for a partner that can provide well-curated solutions and not the generic ideas that every enterprise follows. Last but not least is that your business research partner should have knowledge of the latest tools and techniques.

Also Read: MBA in Sustainable Development: Courses & Universities

Is your big presentation coming up or your report is due on Monday but you still haven’t finalized your business research topic? Here are some of the trendiest research topics for you:

• How advertisements influence consumer behaviour?
• Does incentive motivation increase employee productivity?
• How to handle crises in the business?
• How to create a work-life balance in the organization?
• What are the things a small business owner has to face?
• How to expand the company globally?
• How is digital marketing helping every business type?
• How to maintain the quality and quantity of products?
• What are the struggles entrepreneurs of a start-up face?
• How to create a budget and maintain company finances?

In order to build a career in Research , you can simply grab a degree in the field of Management , Business or Administration. So, students with an understanding of the core concepts of business and an inclination for research can consider it as a go-to option. Other suitable programs can be Master in Management , MBA Business Analytics , and MBA Data Analytics , to name a few.

To know more, check out Qualitative Research Methods !

It can simply mean researching every area of a business and using the provided information and data to ensure profit maximization.

There are different types of business research such as interviews, surveys, focus groups, correlational research, ethnographic research, case study research, and quantitative research methods, amongst others.

It is essentially important for various aspects of a business such as profit maximization, cost-cutting, financial management , personnel management, consumer behaviour, etc.

The process of research depends upon the type of research design you are opting for. To start with, we first need to determine the aim or objective of the research, then plan out the whole process which includes the types of methods we will be using, then the actual research that takes place followed by the data found that helps in understanding the key observations and how they can be implemented to actualize research hypothesis.

If you’re thinking to start a product line in your existing business or planning a startup, business research is a fundamental process that helps you to navigate the opportunities and obstacles in the marketplace. Knowing your strengths and weaknesses can help you come up with advanced and powerful research techniques that will make it easier to manage. Are you planning to take your higher education abroad? Then, you can quickly book a counselling session with the experts at Leverage Edu and we can help you build the right platform for you to grow in the corporate world.

Team Leverage Edu

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Great article! Your content is beneficial. Thank you, and Keep Sharing.

Thank you, Sophia!

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Yearly paid plans are up to 65% off for the spring sale. Limited time only! 🌸

• Form Builder
• Survey Maker
• AI Form Generator
• AI Survey Tool
• AI Quiz Maker
• Store Builder
• WordPress Plugin

HubSpot CRM

Google Sheets

Google Analytics

Microsoft Excel

• Popular Forms
• Job Application Form Template
• Rental Application Form Template
• Hotel Accommodation Form Template
• Online Registration Form Template
• Employment Application Form Template
• Application Forms
• Booking Forms
• Consent Forms
• Contact Forms
• Donation Forms
• Customer Satisfaction Surveys
• Employee Satisfaction Surveys
• Evaluation Surveys
• Feedback Surveys
• Market Research Surveys
• Personality Quiz Template
• Geography Quiz Template
• Math Quiz Template
• Science Quiz Template
• Vocabulary Quiz Template

Try without registration Quick Start

Read engaging stories, how-to guides, learn about forms.app features.

Inspirational ready-to-use templates for getting started fast and powerful.

Spot-on guides on how to use forms.app and make the most out of it.

See the technical measures we take and learn how we keep your data safe and secure.

• Integrations
• Help Center
• Sign In Sign Up Free
• What is Business Research: Methods, Types & Examples

Defne Çobanoğlu

Every business owner wants their company always to be successful and profitable. And even if you have a successful business plan, that does not mean things will not need changing in the future. And trial and error may not be on the table when you can not afford to lose money and precious customers. Therefore, you need to be cautious before taking any steps and do your research . 

In this article, we explained business research, its methods, and types to help business owners and inform those interested to know more. We also added some examples of scenarios any company may face. Let us get started with the definition of business research!

• What is business research?

Business research is a type of research process where the main goal is to help a company thrive and collect data about the target audience, potential business plans, and marketing strategies . The data collection about possible risks and investment opportunities helps business owners make informed decisions about future plans. 

The fields that can use business research include marketing, business, education, and social science . But of course, they are not the only ones that can benefit from business research. It is a helpful research type for all business needs. Now, let us see how we can further categorize this into methods and types of business research.

• Methods and types of business research

Business research methods and types

In business research methodology, there are two main types. These are quantitative research and qualitative research. In the simplest terms, quantitative research is about collecting numerical and factual data, whereas qualitative research is about collecting data by using open-ended questions . These two methods can be divided into more specific parts. Let us get started with quantitative research methods.

• A. Quantitative Research Methods

Quantitative research methods give the researchers factual and numerical evidence that can be effectively used in decision-making processes. There are numerous ways to collect quantitative data, and it is also possible to use more than one method to prove the credibility of the information. Let us start with the first one:

• 1. Survey research

Surveys are a great way to collect information from a targeted group, no matter how big or small. They can be done in the format of an online survey, phone survey or questionnaire . Surveys are usually close-ended or multiple-choice questions that are easy to group and analyze. The business doing the research can collect valuable information directly from its customers.

• 2. Correlational research

Correlational research focuses on the discovery of whether two different entities influence each other in any way. The main focus of this research method is not to make decisions. But rather, they can use the findings to explore further using other research methods.

• 3. Causal-comparative research

Causal-comparative research is similar to correlational research in that both of them compare two different elements and how they affect each other. But the main difference is that fact the focus of this research method is to draw conclusions on the cause-and-effect relationship of said entities.

• 4. Experimental research

Experimental research has a broad spectrum when it comes to what is taken as ‘experimental’. Basically, it is when businesses want to test a specific theory about the quality of a product or service. There are many methods that can be used, and it is decided by the researcher according to the theory that will be tested.

• 5. Literature research

Literature research is a very effective and economical research method to use. It is about using offline and online existing literature and going through them to analyze the data. It is mostly used in sales about consumer behaviors.

• B. Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative research is not about numbers like quantitative research. Instead, it is about emotions, opinions, and approaches. The target audience can be presented with a topic through open-ended questions. There is more than one method to go with, and it is even possible to use multiple methods at once. Let us see qualitative research methods: 

• 1. Interviews

The interview method is mostly done on a smaller participant group about a specific subject. They consist of open-ended questions and can be in a structured or unstructured format. Interviews are one-on-one questions asked to the target audience to gain insight into the problem . 

• 2. Focus Groups

A focus group is a pre-determined group of individuals who are chosen to participate in a study to answer specific questions. The researchers present them with a topic and encourage discussions with open-ended questions . Then, the findings are generalized to make decisions.

• 3. Ethnographic Research

Ethnographic research is similar to conceptual research, and its main focus is to understand the culture and people of the target audience by using observation . This method is done by observing the people in their natural environment and seeing how they interact with one another and their surroundings.

• 4. Case Study

Businesses generally use a case study method to showcase to potential consumers how their product or service helped a certain individual or a group . It is a good way to attract new customers. This method helps highlight the company’s skill sets and assets.

• 5. Website visitor research

This research method is relatively newer than others. Its main focus is to collect feedback from individuals who use the company website and ask them about their opinions. A business can use this method by presenting a customer with a quick survey after their purchase on the website . Afterward, the company can improve user satisfaction by fixing existing problems.

• Importance of business research

The reasons for conducting business research

Businesses grow by knowing their target market, potential customers, and competitors. And this is only possible by conducting market research to help make informed business decisions. The main goal of business research is to help stakeholders of the company make planned and informed decisions using the facts in the business research report. However, there are other reasons why business research is important. These are:

• Gathering information on customers: A business research report provides data on consumers’ behavioral changes, their needs, preferences, and expectations. The managers and stakeholders can make informed decisions with this knowledge.
• Performance evaluation: Research allows businesses to evaluate their success against industry standards and other competitors. This helps keep track while deciding how to differentiate themselves from others.
• Market expansion: Business research topics include areas that were not explored before. Therefore, when the business wants to expand to new markets, the research provides information on the market’s dynamics and potential risks and profits .
• Efficiency and cost-reduction: The data collected by business research helps identify any obstacles to productivity and cost excessiveness. That way, a more cost-effective and efficient approach can be taken.
• Business research examples

Business research helps business managers make smart plans for the company and its future. They can make informed decisions about new marketing strategies, building new products or service branches, or improving customer satisfaction . 

Business research example #1

Imagine a company making energy drinks wants to know if they can expand their market to the older part of the population. They do not know if they will be interested in their product or what kind of marketing strategies they can use to attract older people’s attention. They can make up a focus group and ask them about their opinions. The company can also conduct literature research to find out information about the competitors .

Business research example #2

Imagine a company that has a clothing store website wants to know if there is anything that makes shopping on their website difficult for customers. They can show a pop-up customer satisfaction survey and ask them if they can find what they are looking for easily and how the website visiting experience was. Then, they can collect customer feedback and see how they can improve their website to enhance customer satisfaction levels.

• Frequently asked questions about business research

What are the 4 stages of business research?

Much like every other research, business research is also best done when it is preplanned and organized. And there is a 4 stage plan of business research. These are:

1 - Defining the problem

2 - Designing the research plan

3 - Collecting data and making an analysis

4 - Reporting on the findings

What is the purpose of business research?

The purpose of business research is to make sense of the existing elements of a business, such as consumers, product placement, marketing, innovation, etc . And using the data collected on these elements to make informed decisions and create smart business strategies to improve the success of the company.

When to use business research?

Business research is best used when a new approach is taken or a new product is launched, and the risks need to be assessed. It is essential to be mindful of all the negative and positive sides of a new strategy without risking the entirety of the company.

• Final words

When you own a business, no matter how big or small, change can be intimidating. You can not go to new territories blindly. But, you can not stay the same either. In order to keep your existing customers and find new potential ones, you should be mindful of their habits and opinions. The best way of doing this is either to ask them directly ( using a survey, interviewing them, etc .) or to do your own research to draw conclusions.

In this article, we explained business research, quantitative and qualitative research methods, and business research types. We also included some examples of business research and what methods can be used for those problems. If you want to do your own business research but do not know where to start, you can check out quantitative research questions to get you started. Also, do not forget to check out other articles on research and so much more!

Defne is a content writer at forms.app. She is also a translator specializing in literary translation. Defne loves reading, writing, and translating professionally and as a hobby. Her expertise lies in survey research, research methodologies, content writing, and translation.

• Market Research
• Form Features
• Data Collection

Table of Contents

Related posts.

75+ Eye-opening remote work statistics for 2024

Fatih Özkan

15 Likert scale question examples (+free templates)

Eren Eltemur

7 Best MightyForms alternatives to try in 2023

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Transformations That Work

• Michael Mankins
• Patrick Litre

More than a third of large organizations have some type of transformation program underway at any given time, and many launch one major change initiative after another. Though they kick off with a lot of fanfare, most of these efforts fail to deliver. Only 12% produce lasting results, and that figure hasn’t budged in the past two decades, despite everything we’ve learned over the years about how to lead change.

Clearly, businesses need a new model for transformation. In this article the authors present one based on research with dozens of leading companies that have defied the odds, such as Ford, Dell, Amgen, T-Mobile, Adobe, and Virgin Australia. The successful programs, the authors found, employed six critical practices: treating transformation as a continuous process; building it into the company’s operating rhythm; explicitly managing organizational energy; using aspirations, not benchmarks, to set goals; driving change from the middle of the organization out; and tapping significant external capital to fund the effort from the start.

Lessons from companies that are defying the odds

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Although companies frequently engage in transformation initiatives, few are actually transformative. Research indicates that only 12% of major change programs produce lasting results.

Why It Happens

Leaders are increasingly content with incremental improvements. As a result, they experience fewer outright failures but equally fewer real transformations.

The Solution

To deliver, change programs must treat transformation as a continuous process, build it into the company’s operating rhythm, explicitly manage organizational energy, state aspirations rather than set targets, drive change from the middle out, and be funded by serious capital investments.

Nearly every major corporation has embarked on some sort of transformation in recent years. By our estimates, at any given time more than a third of large organizations have a transformation program underway. When asked, roughly 50% of CEOs we’ve interviewed report that their company has undertaken two or more major change efforts within the past five years, with nearly 20% reporting three or more.

• Michael Mankins is a leader in Bain’s Organization and Strategy practices and is a partner based in Austin, Texas. He is a coauthor of Time, Talent, Energy: Overcome Organizational Drag and Unleash Your Team’s Productive Power (Harvard Business Review Press, 2017).
• PL Patrick Litre leads Bain’s Global Transformation and Change practice and is a partner based in Atlanta.

Partner Center

Chambers’ Revenue Model Tests Law Firms’ Appetite for Exposure

By Justin Wise

Once a modest directory in London, Chambers & Partners sits atop a vast, and increasingly lucrative, legal rankings industry.

Just how lucrative became clear in November, when Chambers sold for five times the price it fetched in 2018. Abry Partners, a mid-market private equity firm based in Boston, bought Chambers from London’s Inflexion Partners in a deal valuing the legal directory at £400 million ($492.4 million US).

A Chambers badge today is widely viewed in the industry as a legitimate proxy for a lawyer’s bona fides. Now, CEO Tim Noble’s challenge is to deliver revenue growth while maintaining the brand.

“You’ve got a business here that is entrenched effectively in the legal profession,” he said in an interview. “We have to make sure that we, you know, we maintain that and keep our leading position.”

Chambers’ strategy largely revolves around selling advertising and research products to the same lawyers it reviews. As it’s gotten larger, critics say the practice has increasingly toed the line between independent research and profit motive.

“In the early days of Chambers, the sales function was a small minor thing,” said Lloyd Pearson, a former Chambers global editor who advises firms on legal rankings submissions. “Clearly that’s not true anymore. Private equity investors don’t do this for fun.”

The rankings firm is known for a submissions process so rigorous that some law firms have dedicated staff to assemble information for it and other rankings. Firms must share lists of cases and clients across different jurisdictions and practices—up to 20 cases and 30 clients for a specific practice. Chambers each year rates firms in “bands” 1 through 6, in markets ranging from New York mergers and acquisitions—led by Wall Street heavyweights such as Sullivan & Cromwell and Cravath, Swaine & Moore—to the greater China and Africa regions.

“You can be ranked by Chambers whether or not you have a commercial relationship with us,” Noble said, calling that a distinction from some pay-to-play competitors.

Still, in a marketing proposal for 2024 sent to one international firm, Chambers called the purchase of a firm profile on its website a way to “secure the best possible ranking for the firm and for your individuals.” The profile—which is priced by region and serves as a firm homepage on the website—was £8,795 ($10,800) in the US, roughly double the price of that firm’s profile in 2018, according to the documents seen by Bloomberg Law.

Another Big Law firm was quoted a price of more than $30,000 for a 2024 US website profile, according to a source inside the firm.

Asked about the language on paying to “secure the best possible ranking,” and whether firms can expect better rankings if they pay for Chambers products, Noble said “the answer is a categorical no.”

A website profile, he said, allows firms to “basically enhance” and differentiate themselves from competitors to buyers of legal services.

If two law firms are ranked “band one” in a specific practice, they “would all be listed on chambers.com, right? But you may choose to differentiate effectively your profile by talking about the cases you’ve worked on, how long you’ve done this, why that can pay. You can effectively pay for that privilege.”

Chambers also markets client and market intelligence reports, which include tailored guides on how to improve a firm or practice’s rankings. Features that also come with buying a website profile include a “referee management tool,” which give firms an ability to see which clients have responded to Chambers researchers’ outreach, who use client calls as part of their assessments.

Silvia Van den Bruel, a marketing director at global plaintiffs firm Hausfeld, criticized Chambers’ business model in a January article under the title, “Private equity and directories—are lawyers paying the price?” She contended the line between independent research and payment had faded, with law firms losing visibility on the Chambers website if they elected not to pay for its products.

“Today, if you do not pay, you can’t play, underscored by the different layout and website page presentation,” she wrote. “How far will they be able to push law firms in their quest for self-validation?”

Abry Partners didn’t return requests for comment on its interest in Chambers. The PE firm in 2021 also bought Best Lawyers, a peer-review publication that ranks lawyers, suggesting it’s building a portfolio of companies in legal information services.

Cottage Industry

In the pre-internet days, legal directories such as Martindale Hubbell were key resources for businesses and law firms in need of counsel in unfamiliar locales. Today, there are nearly 1,000 rankings sites just in the US, according to the public relations firm Jaffe PR, demonstrating how vast of a cottage industry ranking lawyers has become.

Chambers says on its website that 85% of law firms say a Chambers ranking helps them win and retain business. Internal research shows 75% of the Fortune 500 used the Chambers website since August, Noble said.

“We have statistical proof that law firms find it helps them,” said Noble, who came to Chambers in 2019 with a background in financial data analytics. “I mean, this is what they tell us.”

Research from BTI Consulting published in 2022 found few corporate counsel use directories for law firm hiring, but do use them to “validate or help them understand attorney behavior.”

“The predominant way in-house counsel find law firms to work with is through word-of-mouth,” said Susanna McDonald, the vice president of the Association for Corporate Counsel, a trade group representing in-house counsel. It is “hard to gauge how many are using legal rankings.”

Noble agreed that corporate counsel lean on their own networks. “But they will also ensure” their law firm selection by using Chambers, he said.

Under new ownership, Noble said, Chambers plans to redouble its investments in the US, meaning more rankings across states such as Texas and Florida. He said its core business remains the same: large-scale research of law practices and sharing with the market who the top lawyers in a particular field are.

Chambers employs roughly 250 researchers in offices in London and New York. Those heavy investments in research and data have made Chambers “the ranking that people really care about,” he said.

There’s no sign of any brewing revolt. More firms participate in Chambers’ submissions process every year, Noble said.

The alternative to being in Chambers, or any other legal rankings platform, is not being in there. And for many firms, not devoting the time and resources to appear alongside their competitors isn’t a real alternative.

“There’s a degree of FOMO here,” said Jocelyn Brumbaugh, the head of Builden Partners, a law firm marketing consultancy. “FOMO wins the day a lot.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Justin Wise at [email protected]

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Bernard Kohn at [email protected] ; Chris Opfer at [email protected]

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Report Fraud
• Get Consumer Alerts
• Search the Legal Library
• Submit Public Comments

Take action

• Report an antitrust violation
• File adjudicative documents
• Find banned debt collectors
• View competition guidance
• Competition Matters Blog

New HSR thresholds and filing fees for 2024

View all Competition Matters Blog posts

We work to advance government policies that protect consumers and promote competition.

View Policy

Search or browse the Legal Library

Find legal resources and guidance to understand your business responsibilities and comply with the law.

Browse legal resources

• Find policy statements
• Submit a public comment

Vision and Priorities

Memo from Chair Lina M. Khan to commission staff and commissioners regarding the vision and priorities for the FTC.

Technology Blog

Consumer facing applications: a quote book from the tech summit on ai.

View all Technology Blog posts

Advice and Guidance

Learn more about your rights as a consumer and how to spot and avoid scams. Find the resources you need to understand how consumer protection law impacts your business.

• Report fraud
• Report identity theft
• Register for Do Not Call
• Sign up for consumer alerts
• Get Business Blog updates
• Get your free credit report
• Find refund cases
• Order bulk publications
• Consumer Advice
• Shopping and Donating
• Credit, Loans, and Debt
• Jobs and Making Money
• Unwanted Calls, Emails, and Texts
• Identity Theft and Online Security
• Business Guidance
• Advertising and Marketing
• Credit and Finance
• Privacy and Security
• By Industry
• For Small Businesses
• Browse Business Guidance Resources
• Business Blog

Servicemembers: Your tool for financial readiness

Visit militaryconsumer.gov

Get consumer protection basics, plain and simple

Visit consumer.gov

Learn how the FTC protects free enterprise and consumers

Visit Competition Counts

Looking for competition guidance?

• Competition Guidance

News and Events

Latest news, williams-sonoma will pay record $3.17 million civil penalty for violating ftc made in usa order.

View News and Events

Upcoming Event

Older adults and fraud: what you need to know.

View more Events

Sign up for the latest news

Follow us on social media

-->   -->   -->   -->   -->  

Playing it Safe: Explore the FTC's Top Video Game Cases

Learn about the FTC's notable video game cases and what our agency is doing to keep the public safe.

Latest Data Visualization

FTC Refunds to Consumers

Explore refund statistics including where refunds were sent and the dollar amounts refunded with this visualization.

About the FTC

Our mission is protecting the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.

Learn more about the FTC

Meet the Chair

Lina M. Khan was sworn in as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission on June 15, 2021.

Chair Lina M. Khan

Looking for legal documents or records? Search the Legal Library instead.

• Cases and Proceedings
• Premerger Notification Program
• Merger Review
• Anticompetitive Practices
• Competition and Consumer Protection Guidance Documents
• Warning Letters
• Consumer Sentinel Network
• Criminal Liaison Unit
• FTC Refund Programs
• Notices of Penalty Offenses
• Advocacy and Research
• Advisory Opinions
• Cooperation Agreements
• Federal Register Notices
• Public Comments
• Policy Statements
• International
• Office of Technology Blog
• Military Consumer
• Consumer.gov
• Bulk Publications
• Data and Visualizations
• Stay Connected
• Commissioners and Staff
• Bureaus and Offices
• Budget and Strategy
• Office of Inspector General
• Careers at the FTC

Fact Sheet on FTC’s Proposed Final Noncompete Rule

• Competition
• Office of Policy Planning
• Bureau of Competition

The following outline provides a high-level overview of the FTC’s proposed final rule :

• Specifically, the final rule provides that it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act—for employers to enter into noncompetes with workers after the effective date.
• Fewer than 1% of workers are estimated to be senior executives under the final rule.
• Specifically, the final rule defines the term “senior executive” to refer to workers earning more than $151,164 annually who are in a “policy-making position.”
• Reduced health care costs: $74-$194 billion in reduced spending on physician services over the next decade.
• New business formation: 2.7% increase in the rate of new firm formation, resulting in over 8,500 additional new businesses created each year.
• This reflects an estimated increase of about 3,000 to 5,000 new patents in the first year noncompetes are banned, rising to about 30,000-53,000 in the tenth year.
• This represents an estimated increase of 11-19% annually over a ten-year period.
• The average worker’s earnings will rise an estimated extra $524 per year. 

The Federal Trade Commission develops policy initiatives on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Follow the  FTC on social media , read  consumer alerts  and the  business blog , and  sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts .

Press Release Reference

Contact information, media contact.

Victoria Graham Office of Public Affairs 415-848-5121

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Discrimination Experiences Shape Most Asian Americans’ Lives

3. asian americans and the ‘model minority’ stereotype, table of contents.

• Key findings from the survey
• Most Asian Americans have been treated as foreigners in some way, no matter where they were born
• Most Asian Americans have been subjected to ‘model minority’ stereotypes, but many haven’t heard of the term
• Experiences with other daily and race-based discrimination incidents
• In their own words: Key findings from qualitative research on Asian Americans and discrimination experiences
• Discrimination in interpersonal encounters with strangers
• Racial discrimination at security checkpoints
• Encounters with police because of race or ethnicity
• Racial discrimination in the workplace
• Quality of service in restaurants and stores
• Discrimination in neighborhoods
• Experiences with name mispronunciation
• Discrimination experiences of being treated as foreigners
• In their own words: How Asian Americans would react if their friend was told to ‘go back to their home country’
• Awareness of the term ‘model minority’
• Views of the term ‘model minority’
• How knowledge of Asian American history impacts awareness and views of the ‘model minority’ label
• Most Asian Americans have experienced ‘model minority’ stereotypes
• In their own words: Asian Americans’ experiences with the ‘model minority’ stereotype
• Asian adults who personally know an Asian person who has been threatened or attacked since COVID-19
• In their own words: Asian Americans’ experiences with discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Experiences with talking about racial discrimination while growing up
• Is enough attention being paid to anti-Asian racism in the U.S.?
• Acknowledgments
• Sample design
• Data collection
• Weighting and variance estimation
• Methodology: 2021 focus groups of Asian Americans
• Appendix: Supplemental tables

In the survey, we asked Asian Americans about their views and experiences with another stereotype: Asians in the U.S. being a “model minority.” Asian adults were asked about their awareness of the label “model minority,” their views on whether the term is a good or bad thing, and their experiences with being treated in ways that reflect the stereotype.

What is the ‘model minority’ stereotype?

Amid the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, another narrative about Asian Americans became widespread: being characterized as a “model” minority. In 1966, two articles were published in The New York Times Magazine and U.S. News and World Report that portrayed Japanese and Chinese Americans as examples of successful minorities. Additionally, in 1987 Time magazine published a cover story on “those Asian American whiz kids.” The model minority stereotype has characterized the nation’s Asian population as high-achieving economically and educationally, which has been attributed to Asians being hardworking and deferential to parental and authority figures, among other factors. The stereotype generalizes Asians in the U.S. as intelligent, well-off, and able to excel in fields such as math and science. Additionally, the model minority myth positions Asian Americans in comparison with other non-White groups such as Black and Hispanic Americans.

For many Asians living in the United States, these characterizations do not align with their lived experiences  or reflect their diverse socioeconomic backgrounds . Among Asian origin groups in the U.S., there are wide differences in economic and social experiences. Additionally, academic research has investigated how the pressures of the model minority stereotype can impact Asian Americans’ mental health and academic performance . Critics of the myth have also pointed to its impact on other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black Americans. Some argue that the myth has been used to minimize racial discrimination and justify policies that overlook the historical circumstances and impacts of colonialism, slavery and segregation on other non-White racial and ethnic groups.

More than half of Asian adults (55%) say they have not heard of the term “model minority.” Just under half (44%) say they have heard of the term.

There are some differences in awareness of the term across demographic groups:

• Ethnic origin: About half of Korean and Chinese adults say they have heard of the term, while only about one-third of Indian adults say the same.
• Nativity: 57% of U.S.-born Asian adults have heard the term “model minority,” compared with 40% of immigrants.
• Immigrant generation: Among immigrants, 60% of those who came to the U.S. as children (“1.5 generation” in this report) say they have heard of the term “model minority,” compared with 32% of those who came to the U.S. as adults (first generation). And among U.S.-born Asian Americans, those who are second generation are more likely than those who are third or higher generation to say the same (62% vs. 40%).
• Age: 56% of Asian adults under 30 say they have heard of the term, compared with fewer than half among older Asian adults.
• Party: 51% of Asian adults who identify with or lean to the Democratic Party say they’ve heard the term, compared with 34% of those who identify with or lean to the Republican Party.

Awareness of the term ‘model minority’ varies across education and income

Asian adults with higher levels of formal education and higher family income are more likely to say they have heard of the term “model minority”:

• 53% of Asian adults with a postgraduate degree say they have heard the term, compared with smaller shares of those with a bachelor’s degree or less.
• 54% of Asian adults who make $150,000 or more say they have heard the term, higher than the shares among those with lower incomes. Among Asian Americans who make less than $30,000, only 29% say they have heard of the term “model minority.”

Notably, awareness of the term is higher among those born in the U.S. than immigrants across all levels of education and income.

Among Asian adults who have heard of the term “model minority,” about four-in-ten say using it to describe Asians in the U.S. is a bad thing. Another 28% say using it is neither good nor bad, 17% say using it is a good thing, and 12% say they are not sure.

These views vary by ethnic origin, nativity, age and party. Among those who have heard of the term:

• Ethnic origin: Among Indian adults, the gap between those who say the term “model minority” is a bad thing and those who say it is a good thing (36% vs. 27%) is smaller than among other ethnic origin groups.
• Nativity: 60% of U.S.-born Asian adults say describing Asians as a model minority is a bad thing, while 9% say it is a good thing. Meanwhile, immigrants’ views of the model minority stereotype are more split (33% vs. 21%, respectively).
• Immigrant generation: Among immigrants, 43% of 1.5-generation Asian adults say using the term “model minority” is a bad thing, compared with 26% of first-generation Asian adults.
• Age: Asian adults under 30 are far more likely to say the model minority label is a bad thing than a good thing (66% vs. 8%). Meanwhile, Asian adults 65 and older are more likely to say describing Asian Americans as a model minority is a good thing (36%) than a bad thing (17%).
• Party: 52% of Asian Democrats say describing Asians as a model minority is a bad thing, about three times the share of Asian Republicans who say the same (17%). 

Among those who know the term “model minority,” views of whether using it to describe Asians in the U.S. is a good or bad thing does not vary significantly across education levels. By income, Asian adults who make less than $30,000 are somewhat less likely to say it is a bad thing than those with higher incomes. 18

Views of the ‘model minority’ label are linked to perceptions of the American dream

In the survey, we asked Asian Americans if they believe they have achieved the American dream, are on their way to achieving it, or if they believe the American dream is out of their reach. Among those who have heard of the term “model minority”:

• 54% of Asian adults who believe the American dream is out of their reach say describing Asian Americans as a model minority is a bad thing. This is higher than the shares among those who believe they are on their way to achieving (44%) or believe they have already achieved the American dream (30%).
• Meanwhile, 26% of Asian adults who believe they have achieved the American dream say the model minority label is a good thing. In comparison, 14% of those who believe they are on their way to achieving the American dream and 11% of those who believe that the American dream is out of their reach say the same.

In this survey, we asked Asian Americans how informed they are about the history of Asians in the U.S.

Whether Asian adults have heard of the model minority label is linked to their knowledge of Asian American history:

• 62% of Asian adults who are extremely or very informed of U.S. Asian history have heard of the term “model minority.”
• Smaller shares of those who are somewhat informed (44%) or a little or not at all informed (29%) about U.S. Asian history say they are aware of the term.  

However, among those who have heard of the “model minority” label, views on whether using it to describe Asian Americans is good or bad are similar regardless of how informed they are on Asian American history. About four-in-ten across knowledge levels say describing Asian Americans as a model minority is a bad thing.

The model minority stereotype often paints Asian Americans as intellectually and financially successful, deferential to authority, and competent but robotic or unemotional , especially in comparison with other racial and ethnic groups. Additionally, some stereotypes associated with the model minority characterize Asian Americans as successful in fields such as math and science, as well as lacking in creativity.

Nearly two-thirds of Asian adults (63%) say that in their day-to-day encounters with strangers, they have at least one experience in which someone assumed they are good at math and science or not a creative thinker.

Broadly, Asian adults are far more likely to say someone has assumed they are good at math and science (58%) than not a creative thinker (22%).

Across these experiences, there are some differences by demographic groups:

• Ethnic origin: 68% of Indian adults say strangers have assumed they are good at math and science, a higher share than among most other origin groups. Meanwhile, about half or fewer of Japanese (47%) and Filipino (43%) adults say people have made this assumption about them.
• Immigrant generation: About seven-in-ten Asian adults who are 1.5 generation and second generation each say people have assumed they are good at math and science, compared with 50% among the first generation and 46% among third or higher generations.
• Education: About two-thirds of Asian adults with a postgraduate degree or a bachelor’s degree say strangers have assumed they are good at math and science, compared with roughly half of those with some college experience or less. Similar shares regardless of education say people have assumed they are not a creative thinker.
• Income: 69% of those who make $150,000 or more say strangers have assumed they are good at math and science, compared with 43% of those who make less than $30,000.  
• Race: 59% of single-race Asian adults (those who identify as Asian and no other race) say someone assumed they are good at math and science, compared with 45% of Asian adults who identify with two or more races (those who identify as Asian and at least one other race).

In our 2021 focus groups of Asian Americans, participants talked about their views of and experiences with the “model minority” stereotype.

Many U.S.-born Asian participants shared how it has been harmful , with some discussing the social pressures associated with it. Others spoke about how the stereotype portrays Asians as monolithic and compares them with other racial and ethnic groups.

“You have to be polished. There’s no room for failure. There’s no room for imperfections. You have to be well-spoken, well-educated, have the right opinions, be good-looking, be tall. [You] have to have a family structure. There’s no room for any sort of freedom in identity except for the mold that you’ve been painted as – as a model citizen.”

–U.S.-born man of Pakistani origin in early 30s

“As an Asian person, I feel like there’s a stereotype that Asian students are high achievers academically. They’re good at math and science. … I was a pretty mediocre student, and math and science were actually my weakest subjects, so I feel like it’s either way you lose. Teachers expect you to fit a certain stereotype and if you’re not, then you’re a disappointment, but at the same time, even if you are good at math and science, that just means that you’re fitting a stereotype. It’s [actually] your own achievement, but your teachers might think ‘Oh, it’s because they’re Asian,’ and that diminishes your achievement.”

–U.S.-born woman of Korean origin in late 20s

“The model minority myth … mak[es] us as Asians [and] South Asians monoliths. … I’ve had people go, ‘Oh, so your dad’s a doctor? Is he a lawyer? Do you have money? Do you have this? Do you have that? Are you [in] an arranged marriage?’ And just the kind of image that portrays and gives us. But the expectations put on us as being high performing and everyone assumes you’re going to be smart. … I am a black sheep in many ways, not only within my family, but within Asian [and] South Asian culture, being [in my profession], someone who’s not a doctor, who hasn’t gone the professional, traditional, educational route. So, it’s very harmful, that too, for those communities within the Asian diaspora who have come to the United States. … [M]any of them come from impoverished and underrepresented communities and the expectations put on them to produce or the types of jobs and menial labor they have to take on as a result is really a very poisonous mythos to have out there.”

–U.S.-born woman of Indian origin in early 40s

“One of the reasons the model minority fallacy works so well as an argument against affirmative action [for Indians is] they are a newer immigrant group that has come here and … [t]here’s a lot of education [in India]. People have opportunity there that then they can come [to America] and continue with those connections. Whereas Blacks and Hispanics have had generations of oppression, so they don’t have anything to build off of. So when you bucket everybody – Black, Hispanics and Asians – into one group, then you can make those arguments of, ‘Oh, [Asians] are the model minority, they can do it.’”

Some participants talked about having mixed feelings about being called the “model minority” and how they felt like it put them in a kind of “middle ground.” 

“I feel like Asians are kind of known as the model minority. That kind of puts us in an interesting position where I feel like we’re supposed to excel and succeed in the media, or we’re seen in the media as exceeding in all these things as smart. All of us are not by any means. Yeah, I feel like we’re in this weird middle ground.”

–U.S.-born man of Chinese origin in early 20s

“A lot of people believe that Japanese are the most humble and honest people, even among other Asians. I feel like I need to live up to that. I have to try hard when people say things like that. Of course, it is good, but it’s a lot of work sometimes. As Japanese, and for my family, I try hard.”

–Immigrant man of Japanese origin in mid-40s (translated from Japanese)

Others had more positive impressions of the model minority label, saying it made them proud to be Asian and have others see them that way:

“Whenever I apply for any job, in the drop-down there is an option to choose the ethnicity, and I write Asian American proudly because everyone knows us Asians as hardworking, they recognize us as loyal and hardworking.”

–Immigrant woman of Nepalese origin in mid-40s (translated from Nepali)

“I think any model is a good thing. I mean the cognitive, the word ‘model,’ when you model after somebody it’s a positive meaning to it. So personally for me I have no issues with being called the model minority because it only tells me that I’m doing something right.”

–U.S.-born man of Hmong origin in early 40s

• Some of these groups had relatively small sample sizes. For shares of Asian adults who have heard of the term “model minority” and say using the term to describe the U.S. Asian population is a good or bad thing, by education and income, refer to the Appendix . ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Asian Americans
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Immigration Issues
• Race Relations
• Racial Bias & Discrimination

Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty

Methodology: 2023 focus groups of asian americans, 1 in 10: redefining the asian american dream (short film), the hardships and dreams of asian americans living in poverty, key facts about asian american eligible voters in 2024, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy