research paper of business model

• 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.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 01 May 2024

Research on time-value-oriented business model innovation path in life services enterprises and its impact on customer perceived value

• Xia Liu 1 ,
• Yanhan Sun 1 ,
• Shengshi Zhou 2 ,
• Yu Li 1 &
• Shan Zhuang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  548 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

22 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management

In the era of the digital economy, the acceleration of life pace has induced to a continuous increase in people’s sense of time scarcity. In order to satisfy consumers’ lifestyle changes and immediate needs, life service enterprises have carried out lots of business model innovation activities guided by value of time. However, it is still unclear what the time-value-oriented business model innovation path is and whether it can improve the perceived value of customers. Under such background, this paper aims to construct a time-value-oriented business model innovation path in life services enterprises and to discuss its relationship with customer perceived value. The study indicates that: Firstly, specific innovation paths of enterprises include putting forward the purpose of value of time proposition, designing standardized process based on time-oriented, constantly forming unique core resources such as big data, brand and supply chain, and updating the transaction method combining online and offline, and so on. Secondly, the questionnaire results indicate that time-value oriented business model innovation in four aspects – value proposition, key processes, core resources, and transaction methods – can effectively enhance customer perceived value. Thirdly, there are differences in the matching degree between time-value-oriented business model innovation and customer value perception among different types of enterprises in the life services industry. Among them, the express delivery industry has the highest enhancing degree and customer satisfaction. This is related to the heterogeneous characteristics of industries such as express delivery, transportation, catering, and retail. Overall, this study offers a comprehensive and practical perspective for enterprises to meet customer perceived value demands by presenting business model innovation paths and solutions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Critical factors influencing the adoption of digital marketing devices by service-oriented micro-businesses in Nigeria: A thematic analysis approach

From storefront to screen: an in-depth analysis of the dynamics of online for offline retailing

Enhancing customer value co-creation and stickiness in social commerce: integrating PLS-SEM and NCA for deeper insights into customer-to-customer dynamics

Introduction.

“Time is money (Feldman, 2010 ).” With the development of society, the sense of time scarcity among people is increasing year by year (Rudd, 2019 ; Chaumon et al. 2022 ). Especially in the context of the digital economy era, people’ lifestyles have changed significantly (Mpungose, 2020 ; Noehrer et al. 2021 ; Lo Piano, 2020 ; Indira, 2020 ), consumers have an increasingly high demand for instantaneity in life services enterprises, which brings big challenges for life service enterprises that have high touch characteristics (Li et al. 2022 ; Sardar et al. 2022 ). Time has gradually become one of the key factors determining consumer behavior (Bradford et al. 2017 ), customer time and attention have also become a focal point for businesses (Pine and Gilmore, 2019 ). Increasing number of life services enterprises have begun to consider consumers’ increasing time requirements into business model innovation to satisfy consumers’ needs regarding the value of time. For example, in China, Meituan has begun to provide instant delivery services, Didi has proposed the value proposition “saving time for life,” and HaiDiLao has developed an online reservation system to reduce in person waiting time. Although life service enterprises have made numerous attempts and practices in business model innovation to meet customers’ time value demands, no systematic innovation path has been theoretically developed and summarized. Hence, how should a time-value-oriented business model innovation path be designed? Is this path reasonable and able to increase customer perceived value? These issues have gained significance and have become major concerns for both academia and industry.

Business model innovation is the basic logic to change the value creation of enterprises (Vaska, et al. 2021 ; Andreassen et al. 2018 ; Tykkyläinen and Ritala, 2021 ), which is an activity to improve customer perceived value and corporate competitiveness (Sanaz et al. 2023 ). Scholars have conducted extensive research on the elements of business model innovation, including the three-element model (Amit and Zott, 2001 ), four-element model (Johnson et al. 2008 ), five-element model (Timmers, 1998 ), six-element model (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002 ), and nine-element model (Osterwalder et al. 2005 ). In previous studies, scholars have reached a consensus that business model innovation achieves corporate value creation by changing elements such as value proposition, key processes, core resources, and transaction methods (Sjödin et al. 2020 ), which gives our research a good theoretical basis. Our study will continue to explore the business model innovation path in depth by focusing on the four elements of value proposition, key processes, core resources, and transaction methods.

At the same time, business model innovation is a complex process driven by multiple factors, including external environment and internal factors of the enterprise. Existing research has explored business model innovation based on these two levels. On the external level, factors such as national strategic change (Klein et al. 2021 ), institutional transitions (Heider et al. 2021 ), industry competition (Velu, 2016 ), customer demands (Sun et al. 2021 ), market orientation (Randhawa et al. 2021 ; Ye et al. 2023 ), technological change (Essen et al. 2023 ; Trischler and Li-Ying, 2023 ; Chasin et al. 2020 ), and value networks (Best, et al. 2022 ) can stimulate dynamic adjustments of business models. On the organizational level, factors such as organizational decision making perspectives (Randhawa et al. 2021 ), internal resources and capabilities (Zhang et al. 2021 ), managerial cognition (Heubeck and Meckl, 2022 ), top management team characteristics (Snihur and Zott, 2020 ), corporate social responsibility (Halkos and Skouloudis, 2018 ), organizational characteristics (Foss and Saebi, 2018 ), and organizational learning (Yi et al. 2022 ; Li et al. 2022 ) also have a significant impact on business model innovation. However, there is limited research on how to explore the specific path of business model innovation from the perspective of the value of time while considering the increasing demand for time from customers.

Furthermore, can the business model innovation path achieve the expected results? Research on the organizational level suggests that business model innovation has a positive impact on enhancing organizational capabilities (Souto, 2015 ), reducing operational costs, strengthening competitive advantage (Foss and Saebi, 2018 ), and improving firm performance (Ferreras-Méndez et al. 2021 ). Further research has found that business models achieve their own target value by creating customer perceived value. Therefore, the value of business model innovation needs to match the customer perceived value and achieve value exchange in order to achieve the goal of increasing enterprise value (Clauss et al. 2019 ). In other words, customer perceived value directly determines the effectiveness of business model innovation and ultimately affects the acquisition of enterprise value (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990 ). Therefore, our research aims to analyze the rationality of the business model innovation path from the perspective of consumer perception.

This paper is based on the theories of time-value and business model innovation, focusing on the following research questions: “How do life service enterprises innovate their business models considering the value of time? What are the specific paths? And can these paths enhance customer perceived value?” The key contents include three aspects: (1) Exploring a time-value-oriented business model innovation path in life service enterprises through the practical innovation experience of six typical companies—Hema, JD.com, HaiDiLao, Meituan, SF Express and DiDi Global; (2) Proposing hypothetical relationships between the elements of business model innovation paths of life service enterprises and customer perceived value, based on a review of previous research on business model innovation; (3) Empirically testing the innovation paths by assessing customer perceived value across various dimensions of business model innovation in life services enterprises, further uncovering the differences in business model innovation performance among different types of life service enterprises. This study aims to enrich the related theories of business model innovation, explore a specific path for business model innovation from the perspective of the value of time, provide practical guidance for enterprises to enhance competitive advantage, achieve customer satisfaction, and ultimately maximize customer perceived value in today’s time-driven environment.

Practical background

The objective of this section is to conduct a preliminary exploration of a time-value-oriented pathway for business model innovation. This will be achieved by delving deeply into the business model transformation processes of representative life services enterprises. Their practical experiences in business model innovation from the perspective of the value of time will serve as valuable insights.

Practical experiences

In recent years, China’s life service industry has made significant progress and has become an important part of the national economy. Moreover, the life service industry is closely linked to people’s leisure time, directly offering consumers both material and spiritual consumption products and services. The quality of these services directly affects consumers’ feelings of achievement, happiness, and security (Zhong and Moon, 2020 ). As previously mentioned, time is becoming the scarcest resource for people. In this context, some leading life service enterprises have started to incorporate the element of time into their business model innovations, such as Hema, JD.com, HaiDiLao, Meituan, SF Express and Didi Global. The basic information of the enterprise is shown in Table 1 .

We chose these six companies for several reasons. Firstly, these enterprises all have distinct time-value characteristics. Although they belong to different industries such as catering, retail, transportation, and express delivery, and their business models show diversity, they all revolve tightly around the demand for customers’ value of time. For example, through the use of key technologies like big data and intelligent systems, these companies comprehensively manage various aspects like consumers, logistics, and delivery, achieving a combination of online and offline services. By catering to diverse time needs of consumers, these enterprises develop suitable reservation and delivery options, offer personalized services, and fulfill a wide array of customer demands. This approach significantly reduces consumers’ waiting time, ultimately enhancing the overall value of time for them. Secondly, these six enterprises are all grounded in local life services, have matured in their respective industries, and cover different regions of China. Thirdly, their service models are typical and distinctive, earning favor and widespread acclaim from consumers.

In order to better extract experiences from these six companies and explore the time-value-oriented path of business model innovation, we collected three types of materials about these companies to support the analysis content from multiple perspectives.

The first category comprised secondary data, including data retrieved from the Internet; data collected and compiled from existing documents, written materials, and media reports (e.g., newspapers and magazines, industry reports, industry databases, news reports, official Weibo, WeChat, and TikTok accounts); and data collected from past studies (available on platforms such as the China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI] and China Science and Technology Journal Database [CQVIP]). The second category comprised official information, including official corporate information (e.g., from official disclosures and annual reports) and materials disclosed through official channels (e.g., corporate annual reports, executive speeches, and interview records). The third category of data was collected and compiled based on user reviews of the selected firms’ online platforms.

Next, six independent researchers compared and summarized the practical experiences of six companies. They used NVIVO software for the statistical analysis of relevant textual data, extracting commonalities among the six companies in time-value-oriented business model innovation. These commonalities are gradually distilled into three levels (see Table 2 ) to assist in deriving a general innovation path.

Practical path

Further, how should the specific path of time-value-oriented business model innovation be designed? How should it be implemented? Next, through summarizing and organizing the cases of the six lifestyle service enterprises mentioned above, further analyzing specific practices for each element of business model innovation from the perspective of the value of time, and constructing an enterprise business model innovation path diagram, as shown in Fig. 1 .

Path of time-value-oriented business model innovation.

Generally, the time-value-oriented business model of enterprises is a value system that aims to improve the customer perceived value by improving existing operations, establishing cross-enterprise collaborations, and engaging stakeholders to create and distribute value. Such transformation is realized through innovation in value propositions, key processes, core resources, and transaction methods.

Value propositions refers to the combination of values that a company provides to its customers to customers, intended to satisfy their diverse needs (Rintamäki and Saarijärvi, 2021 ). Specifically, these three paths include Time-Value Proposition, Continuous Innovation of Time-Value Concept, and Time-Value Competitive Advantage. Correspondingly, based on customers’ pursuit of the value of time, life services firms have proposed corresponding value propositions, such as Didi’s “saving time for life” and SF Express’s “committed to fast, safe, and accurate delivery that lives up to customer trust.” Furthermore, various enterprises adhere to the concept of continuously innovating the value of time, and continue to innovate in areas such as “fast delivery, timely delivery, and efficient delivery”. As more competitors have begun to follow up, the leading firms have started to propose further improved and refined strategies to increase their competitive advantage.

Key processes, such as roles, operating links, time, rules, and standards, are the most important part of the processual system and play a decisive role (Sjödin et al. 2020 ). These processes typically entail three pathways: efficient operation of time-oriented standardized processes, greater convenience compared to competitors, and balancing the value of time and service quality. Firstly, regarding key processes, firms should establish time-oriented standards and continuously optimize processes accordingly. For instance, Didi Global has implemented the standardized procedure “passenger places an order – Didi platform inquiries about available vehicles within the area and sends a passenger request – a driver accepts the order and contacts the passenger by phone – the passenger arrives at the destination – Didi charges the passenger according to their usage – the passenger evaluation,” which has greatly improved operations efficiency. Secondly, firms should aim to be more convenient and efficient than their competitors. For example, JD.com has combined self-operated and outsourced logistics to provide diversified delivery options, such as selected time-range delivery, extreme express delivery, 11 a.m./p.m. cut-off delivery, and next-day delivery services; this has allowed them to provide faster shipment speeds than their competitors. Finally, firms also should take into account the improvement of service quality. For instance, in the State Post Bureau’s 2021 Express Service Satisfaction Survey, SF Express ranked first in the industry regarding satisfaction with end-to-end delivery time and a 72-h punctuality rate.

Core resources are the vital resources that enable organizations to create and deliver their value proposition, reach their markets, build relationships with customer segments, and generate revenue (Tallman et al. 2018 ; Annarelli et al. 2020 ). Specifically, there includes leveraging advantages in big data and brand, integrating resources with partners, and establishing a unique supply chain system. Firms should continuously enhance their advantages in big data technology, brand awareness, and brand reputation to improve value generation efficiency. For example, Didi Global has established a smart information control system that uses technologies such as big data to optimize routes, reduce the likelihood of encountering traffic congestion, and reduce customers’ waiting times. Additionally, firms should cooperate with upstream and downstream partners to build core resources and continuously improve efficiency. For instance, HaiDiLao Hotpot has partnered with Ele.me to launch a third-party food delivery service and a smart kitchen management system, saving customers on average 8 min of waiting time. Firms should also integrate and develop the entire value chain to form a unique supply chain management system that enables more scientific, rigorous, and efficient operations flows, providing a new path for the realization of the value of time.

The transaction method is the main embodiment of profit and is also the last link in value acquisition. Through interaction with customers during the transaction process, enterprises realize value transformation (Chesbrough et al. 2018 ). Specifically, there includes integrating online and offline transactions, continuously updating convenient payment methods, and offering flexible and comprehensive payment options (De Luna et al. 2019 ). The selected firms have adopted a combination of online and offline payment methods to expand transaction channels and increase the convenience of transaction methods, such as electronic payments, confidential payments, etc. Furthermore, through technological innovation, enterprises continue to upgrade their transaction methods to form omni channel including the cooperation with WeChat, Alipay, UnionPay system, Digital renminbi experiment, and the development of independent payment system, which can create a more convenient and swift value conversion at the final step so that consumers can obtain value.

We explored a time-value-oriented business model innovation path through enterprises practical experiences in the first part. This section attempts to further review the literature on the main factors in this path based on this foundation, and proposes hypothetical relationships between them and customer perceived value, thereby laying a solid foundation for the next part to continue exploring and verifying the impact of each element of the business model path on customer perceived value.

Value proposition innovation and customer perceived value

In the business model of life services enterprises, the value proposition refers to the combination of values offered to customers by the enterprise, which can solve customers’ diversified needs (Rintamäki and Saarijärvi, 2021 ; Osterwalder, 2013 ). It answers questions like “Who are the target customers of the enterprise? What kind of value is created for customers? What combination of products and services is provided?”. As the starting point of business model operation and a primary component of the business model, a clear value proposition enables an enterprise to deeply and clearly define its position (Helmold, 2020 ). Through market and product segmentation, the enterprise can identify its target market and target customers, thus effectively meeting customer needs (Dolnicar, 2022 ). Value proposition innovation involves designing genuine solutions based on customer needs, aligning products with the market (Abdel-Basst et al. 2020 , Osterwalder et al. 2015 ), to better meet market demands and provide added value to customers. This leads to customer satisfaction, making them more willing to pay a premium and consume the company’s products and services more continuously and frequently (Dash et al. 2021 ).

Firstly, enterprises can use modern information technology and big data to obtain early customer transaction data and feedback, accurately grasp the real needs of customers and their changing trends (Gallego and Font, 2021 ), and further clarify the target market of the enterprise (Liu, 2019 ; Suoniemi et al. 2020 ). Currently, the fast-paced lifestyle and work patterns have led to customers’ increasing demands for efficiency and experience. Businesses in the life service industry are closely related to the daily lives of customers. Facing the changing trends in customer needs, enterprises should make adaptive adjustments to their products and services to better meet current customer needs and possibly lead future demands (Liu et al. 2020 ).

Secondly, enterprises, through value proposition innovation, reposition the value supplied to target customers and strive for differentiation. With the development and widespread application of mobile internet, customers find it easier and cheaper to access information, leading to more personalized and diversified needs (Zhang et al. 2023 ). The desire for novelty and difference is particularly prevalent among young consumers. To better cater to customer needs and enhance customer perceived value, enterprises need to change their value propositions, truly solve customer problems, and create innovative or entirely new products or services, thus significantly enhancing customer perceived value.

Finally, enterprises should clearly define the goods that carry customer benefits. Modern customers, becoming increasingly discerning, demand diverse and personalized advanced needs to be met, driving enterprises to shift from basic single products or services to integrated solutions, thus bringing not just single product or service value to customers, but a combination of values to meet diversified needs.

In summary, the broader and faster-growing the market space of the target customers of the enterprise’s services, the more obvious the differentiation of the core benefits provided by the enterprise, and the more the enterprise can provide personalized solutions around unique customer needs, the greater the customer perceived value it can create, and thus achieve better performance.

Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:

H1: Time-value-based proposition innovation in the business model of life service enterprises can enhance customer perceived value.

Key processes innovation and customer perceived value

Innovation in a business model requires interaction and synergy among its various elements. Following the proposal of a new value proposition, it’s necessary to explore the path to its realization – the key processes. Key processes are the core operational and management activities designed and implemented by a business to realize and deliver its value proposition (Johnson et al. 2008 ). Typically encompassing aspects like production, sales, marketing, customer service, and supply chain management, key processes are an indispensable part of creating and delivering customer perceived value. Innovating in these key processes defines new ways of value delivery, directly affecting the delivery, quality, and efficiency of products or services, thereby enhancing customer perceived value.

Time-value-based innovation in key processes can improve production and delivery efficiency by quickly meeting customer needs. By using technology and methodologies, businesses can reduce the time for value-creating activities in production operations and eliminate non-value-adding activities, thereby speeding up the provision of products and services. For instance, introducing advanced production technologies, automated processes, or intelligent manufacturing systems can enhance production efficiency and shorten delivery cycles, enabling customers to receive their desired products or services faster. This capability of prompt delivery enhances customer satisfaction, creating more value of time for customers.

Innovations in sales, marketing, and customer service can enhance the value of time of consumption and improve customer experience (Zott and Amit, 2010 ). With the rapid development of digital technology, businesses can offer more convenient and personalized customer services (Coronado-Medina et al. 2020 ). Innovations like intelligent customer service systems, online shopping platforms, mobile applications, and virtual reality technologies break the synchronicity of time and space in consumption, providing more convenient and real-time consumption channels (Lee and Lee, 2020 ). Meanwhile, businesses can eliminate temporal and spatial distances with customers using emerging technologies, allowing real-time interaction and better understanding of customer needs. These innovations reduce the time customers spend searching, increase the efficiency of fragmented time utilization, and help businesses build closer customer relationships and increase loyalty (Yan et al. 2022 ).

Furthermore, key processes play a significant role in supply chain management, regulating the health of the entire supply network, enabling the business activity system to operate more efficiently and at lower costs, thereby enhancing customer perceived value (Ranta et al. 2019 ). By optimizing the supply chain, businesses can accelerate production and logistics processes, shortening product delivery times (Song et al. 2018 ). Using digital technologies like blockchain enhances the timeliness and transparency of information, reduces information asymmetry, and improves the efficiency of inter-enterprise collaboration (Barenji et al. 2019 ). This enables businesses to quickly adapt to changes in consumer demand, thus better meeting customers’ real-time needs. Additionally, innovative supply chain management processes strengthen product quality management, improve product traceability, and help increase customer confidence and satisfaction.

In summary, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:

H2: Time-value-based key process innovation in the business model of life service enterprises can enhance customer perceived value.

Core resources innovation and customer perceived value

Core resources are the key resources that a company must own or control to offer its value proposition and implement critical processes (Foss and Saebi, 2018 ). These resources form the foundation that supports the entire business model’s operation, playing a central role in fostering business model innovation and determining the level of value creation and delivery by the company (Zhang et al. 2021 ). Specifically, a company’s competitive advantage in core resources such as proprietary technology, brand recognition, and reputation acts as a “catalyst” in achieving efficient and effective flow of services, information, capital, and decision-making, and in enhancing the efficiency of value creation (Jajja et al. 2018 ). Therefore, companies should strive to reduce time costs through more efficient processes and operations, relying on the “value of time” to form a competitive advantage. This involves the optimal utilization of resources, including the effective organization and collaboration of technological, material, and human resources.

Companies introducing advanced technology as a core resource, oriented towards the value of time, can accelerate service processes and improve efficiency (Christensen et al. 2018 ). By utilizing digital technology, companies promote a shift in production towards personalization, intelligence, and networking, thereby transforming company boundaries into a penetrable structure linking “company-platform-customer”, enhancing service efficiency. These technologies also help companies reshape their interactions with customers, strengthening their understanding of customer needs. Companies provide solutions centered around the customer, getting closer to them and uncovering their needs, thus helping customers create more value (Gawer, 2021 ).

Companies innovating their logistics and supply chain systems oriented towards the value of time enhance the flexibility, speed, and collaborative efficiency of their logistics and supply chain systems, thereby optimizing production and logistics planning, and reducing production and delivery cycles. Companies integrate core resources with upstream and downstream partners, achieve network collaboration, and establish unique supply chain management systems, continuously improving the level of customer value on the basis of enhancing their own value creation efficiency. For example, DiDi Global has built an intelligent information control system that uses big data and other technologies to optimize travel routes, reduce the likelihood of encountering traffic congestion, and to some extent reduce customer waiting time.

In addition, innovation in core resources such as data also provides companies with more accurate forecasting and decision-making support, reducing decision cycles, and increasing responsiveness to market changes, thereby reducing ineffective time waste in management. At the same time, companies can more effectively train employee skills, thereby accelerating the completion of tasks.

Based on the above theoretical analysis, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:

H3: Time-value-based core resources innovation in the business model of life service enterprises can enhance customer perceived value.

Transaction methods innovation and customer perceived value

The transaction method is a primary embodiment of a company’s profit model and the final link in value acquisition. Businesses realize value conversion through transactions and interactions with customers (Chesbrough et al. 2018 ). It describes how a company obtains revenue, reduces costs, and improves asset utilization. While meeting customer value needs, it maximizes financial returns, answering the question of “How does the business effectively obtain economic returns?”. Its essence is to bring more value to customers, gain more customer recognition, make customers feel their purchasing behavior is worthwhile, thereby enhancing customer perceived value. In other words, customer perceived value is at the core of the entire profit model and is a fundamental and decisive factor in the entire structure (Woodruff, 1997 ).

The rapid development and widespread application of mobile internet have made customer needs more personalized and diversified (Wang, 2021 ). Business transaction modes that solely pursue high profits but neglect the quality of products and services not only fail to meet the new changes in customer needs but also lead to increased customer aversion (Zhang and Li, 2021 ), causing a continuous decline in customer perceived value. On the contrary, when businesses design transaction modes, they not only focus on the value of products and services but also pay attention to the consumption experience, bringing maximum satisfaction to customers, thereby improving customer loyalty and maximizing customer perceived value (Jiang et al. 2018 ). This will inevitably bring substantial returns to the enterprise, enabling it to have more financial resources.

The innovation of time-value-oriented transaction methods of enterprises mainly relies on modern information technology to innovate better, such as integrating online and offline, mobile payment, omnichannel payment, etc., realizing the diversity of transaction channels, the convenience of transaction modes, and breaking down the barriers of time and space in transactions (Liao and Yang, 2020 ). This maximizes convenience for customers and reduces costs for both parties, creating a sufficient sense of trust and identification in the minds of customers, thus enhancing customer perceived value (Kim et al. 2021 ).

The design of new transaction modes should be customer-centered, allowing customers to customize the products they need based on their value demands and even actively participate in the entire process of designing and producing the needed products. This fully meets their personalized and experiential service needs, better realizing customer perceived value (Flavián et al. 2019 ). In this process, the business will also obtain substantial profit returns.

H4: Time-value-based transaction methods innovation in the business model of life service enterprises can enhance customer perceived value.

Research methods and data collection

Questionnaire design.

Customer perceived value is the subjective evaluation that customers form after perceiving the utility of a product or service (Sheth et al. 1991 ). It can be considered as the emotional bond established between the customer and the producer when the customer finishes using a product or service, where this bond often stems more from the service level of the business and the satisfaction of the customer (Zeithaml, 1988 ). Through business model innovation, enterprises can not only provide differentiated products and services, but also improve customer satisfaction (Allee, 2000 ). This enables customers to form positive psychological perceptions and evaluations of the exchange relationship during the purchase decision-making process, thereby enhancing customer perceived value (Bettencourt et al. 2019 ). It is apparent that there is a strong correlation between customer satisfaction and perceived value. Because customers are the ultimate decision-makers in assessing these values (Slater and Narver, 1998 ), to a certain extent, customer satisfaction can assist in measuring customer perceived value (Ryu et al. 2012 ), and the hypothesis was further tested from the perspective of customer perceived value.

Time-value-oriented business model innovation focuses on advantages such as efficiency and convenience, which generating a customer perceived value different from traditional shopping experiences. Therefore, this article refers to the traditional customer perceived value (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001 ) and service satisfaction measurement scales, combined with the four dimensions of time-value-oriented business model innovation proposed above, to construct the following Questionnaire (see Appendix 1 ). Questions 1–3 measure whether value proposition innovation based on time-value orientation can enhance customer perceived value; questions 4–7 measure whether key processes innovation based on time-value orientation can enhance customer perceived value; questions 8–11 measure whether core resources innovation based on time-value orientation can enhance customer perceived value; and questions 12–14 measure whether transaction methods innovation based on time-value orientation can enhance customer perceived value. This questionnaire is designed as a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 to 7, which indicating strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Data collection

Firstly, design a measurement questionnaire for business model innovation based on time value. Next, conduct a small-scale pre-survey before formally distributing the questionnaire to test the reliability and validity of the scale. Inappropriate measurement items are removed to make the final questionnaire more concise and effective. Then, distribute the survey questionnaire to collect data from consumers and use SPSS software and Excel to empirically test the research propositions. The questionnaire is distributed randomly through field surveys, email, and online platforms such as Questionnaire Star.

A total of 1280 questionnaires were distributed. After excluding the invalid questionnaire with missing data, consistent scores on all items, and too short time to fill in (Zhou and Yu, 2021 ), yielding 1156 valid questionnaires were obtained, resulting in an effective response rate of 90.31%.

The respondents’ gender, age and educational backgrounds varied greatly (See Table 3 ), indicating that the sample effectively represented the whole consumer population and that the respondents’ viewpoints reflected the overall differences in the perceived value of time following the firms’ business model innovations.

The valid sample exhibits the following characteristics: a relatively balanced gender ratio, with the majority being middle-aged and young individuals, and the majority of the sample having received higher education.

Reliability and validity analysis

The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were analyzed. The Cronbach’s alpha values of the four dimensions of business model innovation were all greater than 0.8, indicating that the internal consistency of the scale was satisfactory.

Validity analysis indicated that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was 0.967 (above the 0.5 threshold), and the p value according to Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 0.000 ( < 0.05). These results indicated that the structural validity of the questionnaire was sufficient.

In summary, the developed questionnaire had satisfactory reliability and validity.

Hypothesis verification

Table 4 summarizes that customers’ recognition of the six firms’ business model innovation was high in all four dimensions, with the average rating equal to or greater than 5.7. Regarding the mean ratings, the respondents’ ranking was as follows: transaction methods (5.819) > key processes (5.753) > core resources (5.728) > value proposition (5.718). The standard deviations were between 1.011 and 1.169, suggesting that the data were generally centered around the mean. The consumers demonstrated high recognition of the firms’ innovation in the area of transaction methods regarding improving the value of time as the mean for transaction methods (5.819) was greater than that of the total scale as well as the means of the other three dimensions (i.e., key processes, core resources, and value proposition). Widespread application of diversified transaction methods such as mobile transaction in China is closely related to consumers’ work and life. They break the restrictions of time and space on consumer payment, bring great convenience to consumers, and reshape their shopping habits. At the same time, it has freed merchants from being restricted by terminal equipment, greatly improved transaction speed, and reduced transaction costs. The mean for key processes was 5.753. Fast shipment and a swift response to reviews and feedback satisfied consumers’ need for quick access to high-quality products or services. The mean for the core resource dimension was 5.728, indicating that enterprises and their partners integrated resources with a “value of time” orientation, compressed the service processes, and formed a resource layout that “saves time for consumers”, which was widely recognized by consumers. The mean for value proposition was 5.718, indicating that enterprises proposed the service tenet of “time saving” from the perspective of consumer “value of time”. But its score was lower than the average of the four dimensions, and the standard deviation was higher than other indicators, indicating that there is a certain degree of variability in consumer approval.

Figure 2 is a frequency distribution of customer perceived value scores, which includes the four dimensions of time-value-oriented business model innovation. The statistics show that in the value proposition dimension, 89.01% of customers scored above 4 points; in the key process dimension, 89.35% of customers scored above 4 points; in the core resource dimension, 90.39% of customers scored above 4 points; and in the transaction method dimension, 91.43% of customers scored above 4 points. It is evident that the vast majority of customers gave high ratings, perceiving high customer value from the time-value-oriented business model innovation.

The horizontal axis shows the scoring intervals and the vertical axis shows the number of people in each interval.

Combining the statistical analysis of Table 4 and Fig. 2 , the hypotheses 1–4 proposed in this paper are validated, namely: Innovations in value propositions, key processes, core resources, and transaction methods based on time value in the business model of life services enterprises contribute to enhancing customer perceived value.

Based on the comparative analysis of consumer evaluations of the six case companies (see Supplementary Table S1 and Fig. 3 ), it was found that consumers’ assessments of the value of time aspect differed among the six case companies. The majority of evaluations were for Meituan and JD.com, followed by Hema Fresh, Didi, and SF Express, with fewer evaluations for Hai Di Lao. Specifically, consumers generally gave high evaluations to the transaction methods of the six companies, with SF Express receiving the highest average score (6.104), followed closely by Hema Fresh, JD.com, and HaiDiLao. Meituan and Didi were ranked lowest. Due to the introduction of their own payment systems, Meituan and Didi recommend payment methods to consumers, which indirectly affects transaction speed. Furthermore, in terms of key processes and core resources, consumers generally gave high evaluations to JD.com and SF Express (MJD = 6.020&5.950; MSF = 6.210&6.095). Due to the deep cultivation of the next day delivery system by JD.com and SF Express, ensuring timely delivery. The guarantee of key processes by enterprises corresponds to the establishment and emphasis on core resources. These two dimensions complement each other in creating the value of time. In the value proposition, SF Express and JD.com still outperformed other companies (MJD = 5.974; MSF = 6.121). Leveraging their positioning and promotion, SF Express and JD.com deeply embedded the “time-saving” proposition in the minds of consumers. Overall, from various aspects, consumers’ evaluations of SF Express were higher than the other five companies (MSF = 6.133, MJD = 5.949, MHaiDiLao = 5.761, MHema Fresh = 5.759, MMeituan = 5.526, MDidi = 5.441). Didi received a lower score, which can be attributed to the nature of its service. Compared to industries such as express delivery and fresh food, Didi’s ride-hailing service has higher consumer involvement and a stronger perception of time. Without the value-added service in waiting time, the perceived waiting time in Didi’s service may lead to deteriorating consumer emotions.

The inner ring of this figure represents the standard deviation of the four dimensions, and the outer ring is their average. The rings represent the numbers 1–6 from the inside to the outside.

Comparative analysis

Based on the data obtained from the survey questionnaire, further analysis was conducted on the data differences between the six companies by conducting independent sample t-tests with the remaining five companies (see Supplementary Table S2 ).

Based on the results, the firms could be categorized into high-, medium-, and low-rated groups. Low-rated firms were Meituan and Didi Global. Meituan’s ratings were significantly lower than those of the other five firms in general, as well as in each dimension. Particularly, the ratings for value proposition and key processes were lower than the other firms’ by 0.342 and 0.358, respectively. Didi Global also had lower ratings when compared with the other firms; the differences between the ratings for value proposition and core resources were the greatest; that is, the means were lower by 0.467 and 0.409, respectively. This could be due to higher consumer expectations for Meituan and Didi Global in terms of immediacy, as well as the presence of more uncertainties in their operation. On the other hand, the ratings for JD.com and SF Express were the highest. JD.com received the highest ratings across all six companies. The ratings for the value proposition and key processes were 0.316 and 0.330 higher, respectively. SF Express’ overall and individual ratings were higher than the other firms’ means by at least 0.3, with key processes being the highest (0.542). These reflect the professionalism of the two companies and the recognition of consumers, and the key process of algorithm optimization based on digital technology can be used as the key point for enterprises to optimize business and save time. The ratings for HaiDiLao Hotpot and Hema Fresh showed no difference compared to the other firms’ means (sig > 0.05), at an equal level among six companies. In summary, the independent sample t -test results were consistent with the findings of the preliminary analysis. In the overall high score situation, consumers were more satisfied with JD and SF’s business model innovation based on time value. From the difference in four aspects rating, it was also seen that consumers tended to pay greater attention to the value proposition and key processes in time-value based business model innovation, which suggested that future enterprises should lay out segmented areas, clarify value propositions, and innovate key processes when innovating.

Conclusion and discussion

This study focuses on the core issue of “what is the time-value-oriented business model innovation path and its impact on customer perceived value”. Firstly, this paper carefully selects six life services enterprises and explores their experiences in business model innovation guided by the value of time, discovering a path for business model innovation oriented by the value of time. Secondly, through the previous literature review, this paper proposes a hypothetical relationship between the path of business model innovation under the time-value orientation in life services enterprises and customer perceived value. Finally, this paper verifies this hypothetical relationship through empirical testing and compares the differences in business model innovation among different types of lifestyle service enterprises. It is expected that the findings of this research will provide a comprehensive understanding of how companies can satisfy customers’ needs regarding the value of time and finally enhance customers’ perceived value.

The conclusions are as follows.

(1) From the perspective of the value of time, different elements exhibit diverse characteristics in specific business model innovation paths. These include proposing the value proposition of time, establishing time-oriented standardized processes, leveraging advantages such as big data and brand, and integrating online and offline transactions as innovative paths.

(2) In general, the business model innovation based on the value of time can effectively enhance customer perceived value. Customers show relatively high satisfaction. There is a high level of alignment between customer psychological perception and company innovation.

(3) The six representative life service companies generally perform well in various dimensions of business model innovation. However, there are still heterogeneities in specific sub-dimensions. This perceived heterogeneity can be attributed to differences in industry characteristics, and the perceived importance of the value of time varies across different elements depending on the industry. For example, consumers’ evaluations of SF Express are higher than the other five companies, reflecting their need for “fast and secure delivery” in the express delivery industry.

Therefore, in the future, companies should fully recognize the importance of the value of time and pay attention to business model innovation to improve customer satisfaction, enhance brand reputation, and increase customer loyalty.

This study provides valuable management insights for businesses, policymakers and managers in dealing with crises and enhancing organizational innovation capabilities. In the context of increasing customer demand for the value of time, managers need to transform their enterprise’s business models based on the value of time. The specific implications are as follows:

(1) Enterprises need to undergo diversified transformations to cater to the increasingly strong time demands of consumers.

In terms of value proposition, in the post-pandemic era, customers’ demand for the value of time becomes prominent. Companies should timely adjust their value propositions to focus on “value of time”. They should not only propose the value proposition but also continuously innovate this concept and possess greater competitive advantages compared to their competitors.

In key processes, companies should establish standardized processes guided by time orientation to achieve higher convenience advantages over their competitors, while also improving service quality. This can be done by optimizing the customer’s purchasing process or service flow to enhance service efficiency and cater to customers’ time-value demands.

Regarding core resources, brand building, big data mining and analysis are areas of focus for future enterprises. Collaboration with partners should be strengthened, core resources should be integrated continuously, and a comprehensive supply chain management system should be established.

In terms of transaction methods, the life service industry has already made effective transformations in integrating online and offline transactions. However, continuous optimization is still needed, focusing on diversification, convenience, flexibility, and comprehensiveness of transaction and payment methods to achieve the ultimate value realization.

(2) Enterprises need to dynamically track changes in consumer demand for the value of time and engage in value co-creation with consumers to achieve continuous innovation in their business models.

In the new era, the uncertainty of the external environment poses significant challenges for companies. Timely responding to customer demands is the foundation for survival and development. In the face of increasingly prominent customer demands for the value of time, companies must understand the sensitivity and connotation of customer demands for the value of time in a dynamic, timely, and accurate manner.

Establishing an information exchange platform for communication and feedback with customers, constructing diverse channels to obtain real-time customer needs, and continuously innovating business models based on these new demands are necessary to reduce operational risks, enhance risk resilience, and ultimately achieve continuous growth in customer satisfaction and company performance.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study has two limitations. First is the exploration of the approaches to business model innovation. This study selected six representative life services firms for analysis. The findings could be insufficient to yield statistically significant conclusions. Therefore, future research should include data from more firms to verify and supplement the theoretical framework and conclusions presented in this paper. The second is the business model evaluation. A sound business model improves performance, enhances competitive advantages, creates customer perceived value, and generates greater customer loyalty. Therefore, future studies should combine the evaluation of enterprises and customer expectations to identify the influence of each dimension of business model innovation on corporate performance and customer perceived value.

Furthermore, future research could involve verification through a broader range of consumers, allowing the research conclusions to be extended to more enterprises, thereby facilitating business model innovation under the guidance of the value of time. Thirdly, future studies could attempt to explore the uniqueness of the time-value-oriented business model innovation paths of different types of life service enterprises, based on their differentiated characteristics.

Data availability

The raw data from the questionnaires of this study have been enclosed. For inquiries about the interview data or further information, please contact the corresponding author Y.S.

Abdel-Basst M, Mohamed R, Elhoseny M (2020) A novel framework to evaluate innovation value proposition for smart product-service systems. Environ Technol Innov 20:101036

Article   Google Scholar  

Allee V (2000) Reconfiguring the value network. J Bus Strategy 21(4):36–39

Amit R, Zott C (2001) Value creation in e‐business. Strateg Manag J 22(6‐7):493–520

Andreassen TW et al. (2018) Business model innovation and value-creation: the triadic way. J Serv Manag 29(5):883–906

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Annarelli A, Battistella C, Nonino F (2020) Competitive advantage implication of different Product Service System business models: Consequences of ‘not-replicable’capabilities. J Clean Prod 247:119121

Barenji AV, Wang WM, Li Z et al. (2019) Intelligent e-commerce logistics platform using hybrid agent based approach. TRANSPORT RES E-LOG 126:15–31

Best B et al. (2022) Business model innovation within SPOs: Exploring the antecedents and mechanisms facilitating multi-level value co-creation within a value-network. J Bus Res 141:475–494

Bettencourt LA, Lusch RF, Vargo SL (2019) A service lesson value creation: Marketing’s role in achieving strategic advantage. Calif Manage Rev 57(1):44–66

Bradford D et al. (2017) Time preferences and consumer behavior. J Risk Uncertain 55:119–145

Chasin F et al. (2020) Smart energy driven business model innovation: An analysis of existing business models and implications for business model change in the energy sector. J Clean Prod 269:122083

Chaumon M et al. (2022) The Blursday database as a resource to study subjective temporalities during COVID-19. Nat Hum Behav 6(11):1587–1599

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chesbrough H, Rosenbloom RS (2002) The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin‐off companies. Ind Corp Chang 11(3):529–555

Chesbrough H, Lettl C, Ritter T (2018) Value creation and value capture in open innovation. J Prod Innov Manage 35(6):930–938

Christensen CM et al. (2018) Disruptive innovation: An intellectual history and directions for future research. J Manag Stud 55(7):1043–1078

Clauss T, Harengel P, Hock M (2019) The perception of value of platform-based business models in the sharing economy: determining the drivers of user loyalty. Rev. Manag 13:605–634

Google Scholar  

Coronado-Medina A, Arias-Pérez J, Perdomo-Charry G (2020) Fostering product innovation through digital transformation and absorptive capacity. Int J Technol Mange 17(6):2050040

Dash G, Kiefer K, Paul J (2021) Marketing-to-Millennials: Marketing 4.0, customer satisfaction and purchase intention. J Bus Res 122:608–620

De Luna IR et al. (2019) Mobile payment is not all the same: The adoption of mobile payment systems depending on the technology applied. Technol Forecast Soc 146:931–944

Dolnicar S (2022) Market segmentation for e-tourism[M]//Handbook of e-Tourism. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 849-863

Essen A, Frishammar J, Cenamor J (2023) Entering non-platformized sectors: The co-evolution of legitimacy debates and platform business models in digital health care. Technovation 121:102597

Feldman NE (2010) Time is money: Choosing between charitable activities. Am Econ J Econ Policy 2(1):103–130

Ferreras-Méndez JL et al. (2021) Entrepreneurial orientation and new product development performance in SMEs: The mediating role of business model innovation. Technovation 108:102325

Flavián C, Ibáñez-Sánchez S, Orús C (2019) The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer experience. J Bus Res 100:547–560

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

Gallego I, Font X (2021) Changes in air passenger demand as a result of the COVID-19 crisis: using Big Data to inform tourism policy. J Sustain Tour 29(9):1470–1489

Gawer A (2021) Digital platforms’ boundaries: The interplay of firm scope, platform sides, and digital interfaces. Long Range Plann 54(5):102045

Halkos G, Skouloudis A (2018) Corporate social responsibility and innovative capacity: Intersection in a macro-level perspective. J Clean Prod 182:291–300

Heider A et al. (2021) Business model innovation through dynamic capabilities in small and medium enterprises-Evidence from the German Mittelstand. J Bus Res 130:635–645

Helmold M (2020) Creating the Value Proposition. Total Revenue Management (TRM) Case Studies. Best Practices and Industry Insights. 89-94

Heubeck T, Meckl R (2022) Antecedents to cognitive business model evaluation: a dynamic managerial capabilities perspective. R Acad Mark Sci 16(8):2441–2466

Indira GM (2020) The ironies of autonomy. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun 7(157):157

Jajja MSS, Chatha KA, Farooq S (2018) Impact of supply chain risk on agility performance: mediating role of supply chain integration. Int J Prod Econ 205:118–138

Jiang K, Luk ST, Cardinali S (2018) The role of pre-consumption experience in perceived value of retailer brands: Consumers’ experience from emerging markets. J Bus Strategy 86:374–385

Johnson MW, Christensen CM, Kagermann H (2008) Reinventing your business model. Harv Bus Rev 86(12):50–59

Kim Y, Wang Q, Roh T (2021) Do information and service quality affect perceived privacy protection, satisfaction, and loyalty? Evidence from a Chinese O2O-based mobile shopping application. Telemat Inform 56:101483

Klein SP, Spieth P, Heidenreich S (2021) Facilitating business model innovation: The influence of sustainability and the mediating role of strategic orientations. J Prod Innovat Manag 38(2):271–288

Lee SM, Lee DH (2020) “Untact”: A new customer service strategy in the digital age. Serv Bus 14(1):1–22

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Li X et al. (2022) How knowledge sharing affects business model innovation: an empirical study from the perspective of ambidextrous organizational learning. Sustainability 14(10):6157

Li Z et al. (2022) Tourists’ health risk threats amid COVID-19 era: Role of technology innovation, transformation, and recovery implications for sustainable tourism. Front Psychol 12:769175

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Liao SH, Yang LL (2020) Mobile payment and online to offline retail business models. J Retail Consum Serv 57:102230

Liu JW (2019) Using big data database to construct new GFuzzy text mining and decision algorithm for targeting and classifying customers. CIE 128:1088–1095

Liu Y et al. (2020) Cloud-based big data analytics for customer insight-driven design innovation in SMEs. Int J Inf Manage 51:102034

Lo Piano S (2020) Ethical principles in machine learning and artificial intelligence: Cases from the field and possible ways forward. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun 7(9):1–7

Mpungose CB (2020) Emergent transition from face-to-face to online learning in a South African University in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun 7(113):1–9

Noehrer L et al. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on digital data practices in museums and art galleries in the UK and the US. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun 8(236):236

Osterwalder A (2013) A better way to think about your business model. Harv Bus Rev 6

Osterwalder A et al. (2015) Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want, vol 2. John Wiley & Sons

Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y, Tucci CL (2005) Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16(1)):1

Pine IIBJ, Gilmore JH (2019) The experience economy, with a new preface by the authors: Competing for customer time, attention, and money. Harvard Business Press

Randhawa K, Wilden R, Gudergan S (2021) How to innovate toward an ambidextrous business model? The role of dynamic capabilities and market orientation. J Bus Res 130:618–634

Ranta V, Kernen J, Aarikka-Stenroos L (2019) How B2B suppliers articulate customer value propositions in the circular economy: Four innovation-driven value creation logics. Ind Mark Manag 87:291–305

Reichheld FF, Sasser Jr WE (1990) Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harv Bus Rev 68(5):105–110

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rintamäki T, Saarijärvi H (2021) An integrative framework for managing customer value propositions. J Bus Res 134:754–764

Rudd M (2019) Feeling short on time: Trends, consequences, and possible remedies. Curr Opin Psychol 26:5–10

Ryu K, Lee HR, Gon Kim W (2012) The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 24(2):200–223

Sanaz V, Vahideh B, Levent A, Glauco DV (2023) Understanding business model development through the lens of complexity theory: Enablers and barriers. J Bus Res 155:113350

Sardar S et al. (2022) Assessing the effects of COVID-19 on restaurant business from restaurant owners’ perspective. Front Psychol 13:849249

Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL (1991) Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption value. J Bus Res 22(2):159–170

Sjödin D et al. (2020) Value creation and value capture alignment in business model innovation: A process view on outcome-based business models. J Prod Innovat Manag 37(2):158–183

Slater SF, Narver JC (1998) Customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse the two. SMJ 19(10):1001–1006

Snihur Y, Zott C (2020) The genesis and metamorphosis of novelty imprints: How business model innovation emerges in young ventures. Acad Manage J 63(2):554–583

Song JM, Chen W, Lei L (2018) Supply chain flexibility and operations optimisation under demand uncertainty: A case in disaster relief. Int J Prod. Res 56(10):3699–3713

Souto JE (2015) Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the context of incremental innovation and radical innovation. Tour Manag 51:142–155

Sun Y et al. (2021) User-driven supply chain business model innovation: The role of dynamic capabilities. Corp. Soc. Responsib 28(4):1157–1170

Suoniemi S et al. (2020) Big data and firm performance: The roles of market-directed capabilities and business strategy. Inf Manag 57(7):103365

Sweeney JC, Soutar GN (2001) Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J Retail 77(2):203–220

Tallman S, Luo Y, Buckley PJ (2018) Business models in global competition. Glob Strateg J 8(4):517–535

Timmers P (1998) Business models for electronic markets. Electron Mark 8(2):3–8

Trischler MFG, Li-Ying J (2023) Digital business model innovation: Toward construct clarity and future research directions. Rev Manag 17(1):3–32

Tykkyläinen S, Ritala P (2021) Business model innovation in social enterprises: An activity system perspective. J Bus Res 125:684–697

Vaska S et al. (2021) The digital transformation of business model innovation: A structured literature review. Front Psychol 11:539363

Velu C (2016) Evolutionary or revolutionary business model innovation through coopetition? The role of dominance in network markets. Ind Mark Manag 53:124–135

Wang CL (2021) New frontiers and future directions in interactive marketing: inaugural Editorial. J Res Interact Mark 15(1):1–9

Woodruff RB (1997) Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. J Acad Mark. Sci 25(2):139–153

Yan J et al. (2022) The power of affection: Exploring the key drivers of customer loyalty in virtual reality-enabled services. Front Psychol 13:850896

Ye J, Shi S, Feng Y (2023) The effects of market orientation and market knowledge search on business model innovation: Evidence for two distinct pathways. Eur J Innov

Yi Y, Chen Y, Li D (2022) Stakeholder ties, organizational learning, and business model innovation: A business ecosystem perspective. Technovation 114:102445

Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 52(3):2–22

Zhang HF et al. (2021) An integration of antecedents and outcomes of business model innovation: A meta-analytic review. J Bus Res 131:803–814

Zhang J, Li KJ (2021) Quality disclosure under consumer loss aversion. Manage Sci 67(8):5052–5069

Zhang X, Ming X, Bao Y (2023) Online merchant resource allocation and matching for open community collaborative manufacturing (OCCM) in mass personalization model. Adv Eng Inform 55:101872

Zhong Y, Moon HC (2020) What drives customer satisfaction, loyalty, and happiness in fast-food restaurants in China? Perceived price, service quality, food quality, physical environment quality, and the moderating role of gender. Foods 9(4):460

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhou LX, Yu SX (2021) Research on user perceived value practice of cultural and creative archival products based on SPSS. ASS 37(6):122–128

Zott C, Amit R (2010) Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Plann 43:216–226

Download references

This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 21BTJ019) and the Social Science Planning Foundation of Shandong Province (21CGLJ16).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business Administration, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan, China

Xia Liu, Yanhan Sun, Yu Li & Shan Zhuang

Research Center of Government Performance Evaluation, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan, China

Shengshi Zhou

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

XL designed the research and wrote the manuscript. SZ (Shengshi Zhou) collected literature. YS provided the data and cleared it. XL and YS performed the case and empirical analysis. YS, YL and SZ (Shan Zhuang) did the additional tests. All authors rewrote sections of the manuscript, contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanhan Sun .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This research does not involve any human subjects and animal testing performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information(appendices), 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

Cite this article.

Liu, X., Sun, Y., Zhou, S. et al. Research on time-value-oriented business model innovation path in life services enterprises and its impact on customer perceived value. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 548 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03071-9

Download citation

Received : 19 September 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 01 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03071-9

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

REVIEW article

The digital transformation of business model innovation: a structured literature review.

• 1 Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy
• 2 Department of Management, Lincoln International Business School, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom

This paper has a two-fold aim: to analyze the development of the digital transformation field, and to understand the impact of digital technologies on business model innovation (BMI) through a structured review of the literature. The results of this research reveal that the field of digital transformation is still developing, with growing interest from researchers since 2014. Results show a need for research in developing countries and for more collaboration between researchers and practitioners. The review highlights that the field is fragmented among disruptive technologies, shared platforms and ecosystems, and new enabling technologies. We conclude that digital transformation has impacted value creation, delivery, and capture in almost every industry. These impacts have led to the employment of a variety of new business models, such as those for frugal innovation and the circular economy.

Introduction

The phenomenon of digital transformation (DT) has become very popular in recent years ( Fitzgerald et al., 2013 ; Kane et al., 2015 ). Digital transformation or “digitalization” is “the integration of digital technologies into business processes” ( Liu et al., 2011 , p. 1728). The exploitation of digital technologies offers opportunities to integrate products and services across functional, organizational, and geographic boundaries ( Sebastian et al., 2017 ). As a consequence, these digital technologies increase the pace of change and lead to significant transformation in a number of industries ( Bharadwaj et al., 2013 ; Ghezzi et al., 2015 ), since they have the “power” to disrupt the status quo and can be used to drive technological change ( Bharadwaj et al., 2013 ). Digital technologies have revolutionized the way industries operate ( Dal Mas et al., 2020c ), introducing the concept of “Industry 4.0” or the “smart factory” ( Lasi et al., 2014 ). Digital platforms have created a new way of operating for companies and organizations in a “business ecosystem” ( Presch et al., 2020 ), which has led to changing dynamics in value networks ( Gray et al., 2013 ). Digital technologies have substantially transformed the business ( Ng and Wakenshaw, 2017 ) and society, bringing fundamental changes through the new emerging approaches of the circular and sharing economy.

For strategy researchers, the three characteristics of digital technologies, namely, digital artifacts, digital platforms, and digital infrastructures ( Nambisan, 2017 ) create opportunities for a layered modular architecture and present to firms the strategic choice of following a digital innovation strategy ( Yoo et al., 2010 ). This has drastically changed the nature of strategizing, since many digitized products offer new features and functions by integrating digital components into physical products (digital artifacts), and can simultaneously be a product and a platform (with related ecosystem). In this regard, the literature has coined the term “platfirms” to define those companies relying their business models (BMs) on a web platform ( Presch et al., 2020 ). Moreover, digital infrastructures like data analytics, cloud computing, and three-dimensional (3D) printing are providing new tools for rapid scaling ( Huang et al., 2017 ). Therefore, digitalization blurs the boundaries between technology and management, providing new tools and concepts of the digital environment that are changing dramatically the way firms face new managerial challenges, innovate, develop relationships, and conduct business ( Verma et al., 2012 ; Bresciani et al., 2018 ).

The new digital environment requires firms to use digital technologies and platforms for data collection, integration, and utilization, to adapt to platform economy ( Petrakaki et al., 2018 ) and to find growth opportunities to remain competitive ( Subramanian et al., 2011 ). Besides, recent research shows that firms utilize external venturing modes (e.g., startup programs and accelerators; Bagnoli et al., 2020 ) to develop dynamic capabilities ( Enkel and Sagmeister, 2020 ). Digitalization is therefore seen as an entrepreneurial process ( Henfridsson and Yoo, 2014 ; Autio et al., 2018 ) where firms in pursuit of digital transformation render formerly successful BMs obsolete ( Tongur and Engwall, 2014 ; Kiel et al., 2017 ) by implementing business model innovation (BMI), which is revolutionizing many industries. Indeed, the literature suggests that in designing an appropriate BM, it can be possible to benefit from the potential embedded value in innovation ( Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002 ; Björkdahl, 2009 ). For instance, firms adopting digital technologies consider data streams to be of paramount importance and assign to them a central role in supporting their digital transformation strategies ( Zott et al., 2011 ), in contrast to traditional BMs frameworks ( Pigni et al., 2016 ). For this reason, digital technologies inherently link to strategic changes in BMs ( Sebastian et al., 2017 ) and consequently, the development of new BMs ( Hess et al., 2016 ).

In the digital context, BMs have become a new unit of analysis ( Zott et al., 2011 ) to examine the changing effects of digital technologies on the way firms produce and deliver value through BMI. As the literature suggests, BMI provides opportunities in capturing profits in a system of networked activities ( Zott and Amit, 2010 ; Amit and Zott, 2012 ), and in enhancing firm performance ( Foss and Saebi, 2017 ). The role of the BM is essential in identifying the crucial aspects behind a digital strategy. Indeed, it helps firms in applying the digital lens to innovate their BM to create an appropriate new value ( Berman, 2012 ). However, this process is still evolving ( Ferreira et al., 2019 ) and many questions remain unanswered for entrepreneurs and managers, especially in relation to the integration of digital transformation strategies and business transformation strategies ( Matt et al., 2015 ), in order to realize the “digital business strategy” ( Bharadwaj et al., 2013 ). Indeed, a recent study ( Atluri et al., 2018 ) argues that digital transformation and the opportunities it creates for BMs in every sector are still in the beginning.

Given the increased interest in investigating the relationship between digital transformation and BMI in academia and its importance for practice as well, the purpose of this paper is to understand better what we currently know about the digital transformation of BMI. Specifically, our aim is to review and critique the state of research in the digital transformation of BMI literature, provide a comprehensive, holistic overview of the digital transformation of BMI covering many perspectives, and outline avenues for further research. We adopt Teece (2018) definition of BMs as “mechanisms for creating, delivering, and capturing value” to reflect the value proposition, target segments, value chain organizations, and revenue capture components ( Foss and Saebi, 2017 ). For BMI, we apply the definition by Foss and Saebi (2017) : “designed, novel, and non-trivial changes to the key elements of the business model innovation and/or the architecture linking these elements.” According to this definition, BMI involves changes in the individual components and in the overall architecture of the BM.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to these digitally-enabled types of BMIs, which make the emergence of BMs a promising unit of analysis for undertaking innovation strategies. It also responds to the knowledge gap in the literature and enriches our understanding in the digital transformation of BMs ( Visnjic et al., 2016 ). In addition, the results of this study may help practitioners from a variety of industries who seek guidance to understand how digital transformation of BMI can be achieved through value creation and capture ( Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010 ). This study may help especially practitioners in incumbent firms, since digital transformation of their BMI is a highly complex process requiring a sequence of interdependent strategic decisions ( Aspara et al., 2013 ; Velu and Stiles, 2013 ).

The paper is organized as follows: the next section explains the method of data collection and analysis used for the structured literature review. This is followed by the results of the study and answering the three research questions addressed in the methodology. The following section focuses on discussing the existing gaps in the literature and avenues for further research. The final section of the paper discusses the conclusions, contribution, and implications for theory and practice.

Methodology

This paper adopts a structured literature review. According to Massaro et al. (2016) , a structured literature review is “a method for studying a corpus of scholarly literature, to develop insights, critical reflections, future research paths, and research questions.” The structured literature review was adopted because “it is based on a positivist, quantitative, and form-oriented content analysis for reviewing literature” ( Massaro et al., 2016 ). This method follows a 10-step process that enables the researcher to “potentially develop more informed and relevant research paths and questions” ( Massaro et al., 2016 ), advancing theory, which is the objective of the literature review ( Webster and Watson, 2002 ).

We wrote a literature review protocol to guide us during the process of reviewing the literature. The protocol-driven approach offers researchers a framework to select, analyze, and assess papers with the aim of ensuring robust and defensible results through reliability and repeatability ( Massaro et al., 2016 ). In the further step, we defined the research questions that aim to bring new insights from the literature review. We identified the following research questions in the protocol document:

RQ1. How has the field of digital transformation developed over time?

RQ2. What is the focus of the literature on the digital transformation of BMI?

RQ3. How has digital transformation facilitated BMI in the literature?

The next step was to determine the type of studies to consider for the review. We decided on the keywords to use to search for articles and the criteria for article selection. Following the keywords used in previous studies in the digital transformation literature, we decided to search using “digital transformation,” “digital disruption,” “technolog* change,” “organis* change,” “disrupt*” and “business model.” As the specific aim of this study is to offer a holistic understanding of the digital transformation of BMI, we purposefully focused on scholarly empirical research that provides insights into how digital transformation is impacting the innovation of BMs. Nodes for coding were determined based on previous systematic literature review (SLR) studies ( Massaro et al., 2015 ; Dal Mas et al., 2019 , 2020a ). According to these studies, nodes examine information related to authors, the time distribution of publications, country of research, the focus of the paper and methodology. We added nodes about industry sectors, the disciplines of the studies, theories used, and potential impact on the value creation, delivery, and capturing process. These nodes were added to gain deeper insights into the development of the field and suggest implications for further advancement. These nodes were integrated into a framework that served for the coding of the papers and the analysis of the results. The framework, with a description of parameters, is provided in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Classifying framework for literature review.

After identifying the keywords and the framework for the study, we started the collection and selection of papers in a multi-staged process. Firstly, we searched in the Scopus database with the defined keywords in the protocol. This first search revealed 215 publications. In a second step, in order to control the quality of articles, we restricted the search to peer-reviewed journals in the Business and Management category that were ranked 3, 4, and 4* in ABS evaluation. With this additional restriction, we did not take into consideration book chapters, book reviews, and conference articles. In this second search, we, therefore, found articles published in peer-reviewed journals from 1996 to 2020, which reduced the number of publications to 126. After collecting all the articles, each paper was checked for the inclusion of keywords in the title, abstract, and keywords, in order to ensure that the articles fit the research objective of the study. The criteria for article inclusion required the existence of string words about both digital transformation and BMs, which were connected by the Boolean operator AND. When screening publications, we found only a few articles about digital transformation, which were published before 2014. Other articles talked about digital transformation or disruptive technologies, but not about the impact or the connection with BMI. The articles which were not focused on both disruptive technologies and BMI were excluded. At the end of the process, 54 articles were excluded, and the final sample of publications included 72 research articles.

We used the NVivo12 software package for the analysis of the final list of papers. The folder with the selected papers was imported into the software. Each article was coded based on the same nodes as specified in the framework in order to reach the aim of the SLR and avoid researcher bias. We created nodes that were related to the bibliographical information of articles, methodology, discipline, the focus of the paper, and theoretical perspectives. These nodes were used to answer the first two research questions of our study. We created another node for the third research question, to code all the impacts of new enabling technologies on BMI.

After having coded all the papers, following the steps of the protocol, the research group shared the coding project among the members in order to verify that the coding complied with the research questions and the framework of the study and to ensure inter-code reliability. Next, analysis of the dataset developed insights and critique in the field of the digital transformation of BMI. Part of the work in this study was intended to advance the knowledge in the field of digital transformation, by highlighting gaps, identifying new avenues for research, and raising new research questions.

RQ1: How Has the Field of Digital Transformation in BMI Developed Over Time?

This section provides an overview of the development in the field of the digital transformation of BMI. It reports the findings related to the descriptive features of this emerging field of research.

Author Demographics

The list of analyzed articles shows that there does not seem to be any author domination in the field in terms of the number of publications. Ghezzi and Li are the only authors who published three papers. Several scholars contributed to the research field with two articles each (Bogers, Bose, Frank, Frattini, Gupta, Mangematin, and Wang). All the other authors have published only once in the field of digital transformation of BMI. Most of the articles are co-authored. The analysis of the 198 authors of the 72 publications reveals that most of the articles were written by academic scholars. There are no articles written mainly by practitioners, and collaboration between practitioners and scholars comprised of just a few of the publications. More specifically, these collaborations were carried out in very new topics such as platform-based ecosystems and intelligent goods in closed-loop systems. This implies a close relationship between the research field and practitioners, despite the wide practitioner-academic divide. This divide can result from paywalls in publications, and would be helpful to hold common conferences, encourage more engagement with practitioners, and provide open-access journals to overcome it. Otherwise, the growing divide between academics and practitioners results in field fragmentation, as subgroups will form on both sides of the divide. Greater collaboration between practitioners and academics is thus needed in the future to shape this field of study ( Serenko et al., 2010 ). These demographics also suggest that four authors in this field of research have remained focused on exploring further aspects of BMI driven by digital transformation. For instance, Ghezzi published about strategy making and BM design in dynamic contexts in 2015 in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, and in 2017, he published in the Journal of Business Research. This trend of republishing after 2 years in a different journal from the first is also demonstrated in articles by Bogers (2016) . The lack of specialization by researchers might also fragment the field further. In the future, more scholars should remain focused on further exploring other aspects of digital transformation impacts on BMI.

Time Distribution of Published Articles

The analysis shows that the first article about the digital transformation of BMs was published in 2009. This article was part of a case study of Kodak ( Lucas and Goh, 2009 ), which missed the digital photography revolution when faced by disruptive technology. As can be seen from Figure 1 below, only five papers were published within the next 4 years (until 2013) after the first paper was published. These first papers dealt mostly with a general understanding of the opportunities and barriers created by disruptive technologies on BMI ( Chesbrough, 2010 ), such as, for example, in the case of latecomers that can capture value through a secondary BM ( Wu et al., 2010 ). Publication on the topic remains poor and scattered until 2013 and research continues to highlight the importance of technological discontinuities in the creation of disruptive BMs and the challenge of dominant industry logics ( Sabatier et al., 2012 ). Only Simmons et al. (2013) studied the role of marketing activities in inscribing value on BMI during the commercialization of disruptive digital innovations in industrial projects. Interesting enough, the production of knowledge is particularly active in 2020, which, at the time of the research, saw the articles published in Scopus as of mid-September. Twenty-one meaningful papers were listed in 2020, considering that the year was not finished yet and several more might be in press, forthcoming, or still to be indexed.

Figure 1 . Journals of the selected articles.

In the past 3 years, there has been a growing number of articles published in this field of enquiry, with 42 out of 72 articles published between 2018 and 2020. The greatest interest in publishing about the digital transformation of BMI was recent, where 53 articles (almost 74% of the total sample) were published since 2017. The gradual increase in publications reflects the need to carry out more research in this field, as the impacts and issues related to digital technologies become apparent in many industries. This is shown in articles published during 2014–2015, which try to explore the effects of digitization on incumbent BMs in more depth. Researchers investigated these effects in the publishing industry ( Øiestad and Bugge, 2014 ), and with a special interest in understanding organizational or sectoral lock-ins in creative industries ( Mangematin et al., 2014 ) and the newspaper industry ( Rothmann and Koch, 2014 ). To overcome the challenges of strategy formulation and implementation in dynamic industries, Ghezzi et al. (2015) suggest a framework for strategic making and BM design for disruptive change.

The analysis again reveals the practitioner-led nature of research in this field. As demonstrated above, the time distribution of the articles highlights the relevance of studies in the field. Over time there has been a continuous change in the researched topics, shifting from the impact of disruptive technology on incumbent BMs to the impact of digital technologies on the BMI of digital start-ups. This implies that the field shows characteristics of pragmatic science, where society benefits from the best combination between the relevance of the topic and the rigor of findings ( Anderson et al., 2001 ). The high concentration of the distribution of publications in recent years reveals both the importance of the topic and the increased interest of researchers in this novel field of enquiry. These insights from the analysis of the distribution of articles inform us about the nascent stage this field of enquiry, with rapid growth in 2014. Serenko et al. (2010) consider three indicators to define field maturity: co-authorship patterns, the role of practitioners, and enquiry methods. According to these indicators, we observe that the publication of multi-authored manuscripts increased after 2014, especially in 2016–2017. We further observe more collaboration with practitioners during the 2016–2018 period. In terms of enquiry methods, as a newly emerging scholarly domain, the articles mainly develop theoretical frameworks, revealing the early stage of the field.

Moreover, addressing the topic of the academic-practitioners divide ( Bartunek, 2007 ), the topic seems ideal as an opportunity to gather academics and professionals working together and create some exchange zones to foster a dialog ( Romme et al., 2015 ). While scholars struggle to find robust data to develop sound theories, managers are the ones who see the potential of disruptive digital technologies and their real-world applications, including new BMs.

Journal Title

We identified the journals in which these articles were published and their distribution in each journal ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 2 . Industry sectors analyzed in the selected articles.

Our analysis shows that a total of 22 journals were captured in this review of literature. The Technological Forecasting & Social Change journal takes the lead for the majority of articles published (23 articles, 32%). The three other journals with a higher number of publications than others are Journal of Business Research, California Management Review, and Technovation. These journals have published seven, six, and five articles, respectively, for a total of 18 articles (25%). The remaining articles were spread over the rest of the journals, and a diverse range of disciplines. This topic seems to be practitioner-led, and with greater relevance recently for businesses, policy makers, and society. This is demonstrated in the Technological Forecasting & Social Change journal, firstly by Sung (2018) , suggesting policy implications regarding Industry 4.0 in Korea. Jia et al. (2016) examine the commercialization efforts of a United Kingdom-based 3D printing technology provider to evaluate the financial viability of innovative BMs.

Country of Research

Part of our analysis was to identify and describe the geographical regions where studies have been conducted. Figure 3 gives a classification of the countries that have been studied in the field of digital transformation of BMI. The left side of the graph includes studies carried out in developed countries, and the right shows developing countries. The results show that most of the research in this field is conducted in developed countries, and within this, the digital transformation of BMI has been studied mostly in the United States and Germany. This concentration of research mainly in these two countries may be the result of governmental efforts, as in the case of German government support for Industry 4.0, or the European Union-funded DIGINOVA digital project for advancing innovation in digital making ( Potstada et al., 2016 ).

Figure 3 . Research methodology of the selected articles.

According to the analysis, other countries in Europe reflecting the same interest in researchers are the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom, with two publications in each country (except for the Netherlands, which accounts for three articles). In contrast, emerging and Far-East countries are very under-represented, with China publishing two papers, and India and United Arab Emirates with one article each. This implies that emerging and Far-East countries in general are either ignored or poorly analyzed, despite the presence of several digital firms (let us think about the giant multinational companies like Alibaba, Wechat, or Huawei in China). While there may be publications written in languages different than English or in books or journals not indexed on Scopus, more research is needed in these countries to define the boundaries of theorization in the digital transformation of BMI, which will lead to a better understanding of this phenomenon. As Ghezzi and Cavallo (2020) argue, generalization and the relevance of findings depend on the peculiarity of the context under examination. For this reason, a replication of research in other (mature) contexts should be carried out ( Ghezzi and Cavallo, 2020 ). This will overcome the problem of generalizability with a single geographic region ( Simmons et al., 2013 ).

Industry Sectors

In order to enhance our understanding of industry influences on the digital transformation of BMI, we classified the articles according to the industry sectors in which their empirical setting was based. As depicted in Figure 4 , the articles are based in 18 different specific industries, with several papers referring to multiple sectors together, or not identifying one defined field under investigation.

Figure 4 . Disciplines of the selected articles.

The results also indicate an almost equal spread of articles among industries, and that there is no concentration in only a handful of industry sectors. Nevertheless, we can identify two groups of industries that are represented by a higher number of articles: manufacturing (nine articles) and creative industries (six articles). A closer examination of these industries shows that the manufacturing industry mainly dealt with consumer goods manufacturing, while creative industry sectors were represented by the accommodation industry and digital game industry. Most remaining articles were spread across the broad range of industry sectors. The focus on only a few industries can be a limitation for the generalization of findings. There is a need to study other industries, such as design, architecture, advertizing, and the fashion industry ( Mangematin et al., 2014 ), which currently do not appear on our list.

Research Methods

Most studies conducted so far on the digital transformation of BMI have used an exploratory approach ( Figure 5 ).

Figure 5 . Main focus of the selected articles.

These studies aimed at achieving a first understanding of the phenomenon of digital transformation of BMI, which is indicated by the extensive use of qualitative research. This finding relates to the fact that digital transformation is a new phenomenon. Consistent with this, Li (2020) argues that we are facing a methodological challenge in the investigation of new emerging trends since these trends “are still at very early stages of development with limited empirical presence”. For this reason, the author suggests using new research methods such as research prototyping and fictional design.

Few longitudinal studies have been carried out. This creates a need for future longitudinal studies, which will help in better understanding the sharing economy and peer-to-peer platforms ( Akbar and Tracogna, 2018 ). The contributions of these studies mainly consist of offering frameworks and propositions derived from explorative research. There have been no further empirical studies to support or refute the suggested propositions. Few papers investigate the relationship between digital transformation and BMI following an explanatory methodology. A considerable number of papers (eight papers) are conceptual or theoretical viewpoints. These insights suggest that the field of research in the digital transformation of BMI has the potential to be restricted to a single paradigm. The absence of positivist research will prevent the wider acceptance and development of the field.

Disciplines

Most of the research is undertaken in the disciplines of technology and innovation management, general management and strategy, and entrepreneurship. Few studies are from the disciplines of economics, information systems, marketing, and operations ( Figure 6 ).

Figure 6 . Countries analyzed in the selected articles.

This might primarily be because the purpose of our study is too focused and bridges two different topics: digital transformation and MBI. The other reason might be these three disciplines are more concerned with the impact and implications of the phenomenon of DT. The dominance of only a few disciplines relates also to the journals that are interested in publishing on this topic. Since most of the articles have been published in Technological Forecasting & Social Change, California Management Review, the Journal of Business Research, and Technovation, this affects the disciplines that will be covered by research. The low presentation of articles focusing on operations and entrepreneurship is unexpected, however. This suggests that the field of digital transformation of BMI is fragmented between three major discipline areas, and the predominance of single-discipline research is noted. The fragmentation of the field has implications for the conceptualization and research methodology for the progression of the digital transformation of the BMI field.

RQ2: What Is the Focus of the Literature on the Digital Transformation of BMI?

The literature on digital transformation is dispersed between disruptive technologies, shared platforms and ecosystems, and new enabling technologies such as Big Data, the Internet of Things (IoT), Industry 4.0, Cloud computing, and digital fabrication (DF). Disruptive technologies in the literature refer to technologies that have the potential to introduce new product attributes, which could become a source of competitive advantage ( Christensen, 1997 ); while a platform is defined as “any combination of hardware and software that provides standards, interfaces, and rules that enable and allow providers of complements to add value and interact with each other and/or other users” ( Teece, 2018 ). Taken together, the platform innovator(s) and complementors constitute an ecosystem ( Teece, 2018 ).

The majority of research in this field (49 articles, 63%) has focused on understanding the impacts that new disruptive technologies have on industries, identifying the areas of transformation in activities, processes, and BMs. Only few articles focus on understanding how the process of transformation takes place by drawing on different disciplines and theories.

An analysis of articles about disruptive technologies reveals that in earlier years, the literature (2009–2010) was focused on the challenges and opportunities created for incumbent BMs by these technologies. Some of the articles focus on the challenges faced by incumbents when managing radical technological change. As Chesbrough (2010) notes, there are many “opportunities and barriers in business model innovations” from technological advances. For instance, the case study of Kodak identified organization structure and culture as playing a crucial role in overcoming core rigidities to create new value from disruptive technologies ( Lucas and Goh, 2009 ). Rothmann and Koch (2014) took a very divergent perspective, showing that the digital transformation of BMI fails when companies follow the same old strategic patterns and remain path-dependent. From 2013, focus shifted to ways to overcome these challenges. For example, Karimi and Walter (2016) argue that the adoption of a disruptive BM requires firms to give groups autonomy and allow risk-taking and proactiveness. Kapoor and Klueter (2013) suggested overcoming a firm’s inertia associated with prevailing incumbent BMs by investing in research and development through alliances and acquisitions.

Nevertheless, disruptive technologies bring opportunities to firms who understand how environmental changes necessitate BM modifications. Wirtz et al. (2010) argue that the Web 2.0 phenomenon, based on social networking, interaction orientation, user-added value, and customization/personalization serves as a value offering to traditional internet-based BMs (content, commerce, context, and connection). Another opportunity considered in the literature relates to the introduction of disruptive technologies from advanced economies into emerging economies through a second BMI by latecomer firms ( Wu et al., 2010 ). Firms can also use different tactics (compensating, enhancing, and coupling) to reconfigure their value propositions ( Bohnsack and Pinkse, 2017 ). Table 2 summarizes the challenges and opportunities of disruptive technologies, according to some of the contributions analyzed.

Table 2 . Challenges and opportunities of disruptive technologies.

The second most important topic analyzed, as shown in Figure 7 , focused on shared platforms or “platfirms” and ecosystems as new BMs for digital enterprises. Table 3 below summarizes the focus of some of these studies and their findings. We can see that shared platforms and ecosystems are a very recent focus, studied between 2017 and 2018, however, we note that the literature has addressed a number of broad issues which relate to an initial understanding of platforms, starting with their classification into five typologies ( Muñoz and Cohen, 2017 ), and the investigation of the role played by platforms in dealing with disruption ( Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019 ) and BMI ( Gupta and Bose, 2019a ). Our results show that there is an important focus on financial aspects of platforms and ecosystems. For instance, Teece (2018) and Helfat and Raubitschek (2018) focus on aspects of profiting from innovation, while Khuntia et al. (2017) consider the relationship between the evolution of service offerings and the financial viability of platforms. Analysis of the data also indicates a focus on the managerial issues and success factors of these digital platforms. Since digital enterprises operate in a highly dynamic environment, lean startup approaches (LSAs) have been studied within the strategic agility context. LSAs can be employed as agile methods to enable digital entrepreneurs to innovate BMs ( Ghezzi and Cavallo, 2020 ). Piscicelli et al. (2018) identified the success factors of sharing platforms: the identification of a significant market friction, building of a critical mass of users before implementing a correct pricing level and structure, addressing the hurdles of competition and regulation, and positive interaction fostered between users.

Figure 7 . Time distribution of the selected articles.

Table 3 . Focus of literature on shared platforms and ecosystems.

The results shown in Figure 7 indicate that research is also led by recent arising interest in big data ( Urbinati et al., 2018 ), cloud computing ( Nieuwenhuis et al., 2018 ), and closed-loop systems in the circular economy ( Rajala et al., 2018 ). These new enabling technologies allow firms to apply new BMs in support of sustainability issues. The growing intelligence of goods generates novel BMs, which rely on the intelligence of ecosystems within the activities for resources, by shaping closed-loop systems ( Rajala et al., 2018 ). Firms are also engaging more in frugal innovations, allowing them to carry out resource-constrained innovations for emerging markets ( Winterhalter et al., 2017 ).

To conclude, this section develops insights regarding the focus of the literature. The literature that is focused on disruptive technologies advances disruptive innovation theory by proposing culture, organizational structure, and cognitive leadership intentions as important factors affecting company responses to disruptive innovation. However, there is still a missing link in understanding the moderating role of disruptive technologies, based on their digital infrastructure and this requires more research into the conditions and the extent of BM transformations ( Gupta and Bose, 2019a ). The literature also shows that shared platforms and ecosystems, as well as new enabling technologies, are a very recent focus. In contrast to articles about disruptive technologies that focus on challenges and opportunities, articles about shared platforms consider a broad number of issues from typologies to managerial and financial aspects. Nevertheless, the results show that few articles focus on one topic and the focus shifts quickly, leaving topics under-investigated. This finding highlights the need for more research on topics that are under-investigated and represented by only a few studies. The scattered nature of the field might affect the accumulation of knowledge, as studies do not focus on previous findings.

Theoretical Perspectives

Theory development is essential for the proper advancement of knowledge in any field of research ( Kuhn, 1970 ). To develop a better understanding of theoretical perspectives in the field of digital transformation of BMI, we analyzed the articles and determined whether a theoretical perspective was apparent in each. We further analyzed articles that reflected theoretical perspectives and identified whether the theory was an existing one or a new theory. The results of this analysis revealed that the majority of articles (47 articles, 65%) was not based on any discernible theory.

Of the articles with an apparent theoretical perspective, we observed that the majority had adopted theoretical perspectives. Recent contributions (e.g., Vendrell-Herrero et al., 2017; Akbar and Tracogna, 2018 ; Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018 ; Teece, 2018 ) have started questioning and seeking more theoretical frameworks in order to explain and understand the digital transformation of BMI. Interestingly, disruptive innovation theory ( Christensen, 1997 ) was the most popular with five contributions, and other theories were adopted only by single studies. The theory of disruptive innovation was initiated by Christensen (1997) to explain the replacement process of a mainstream innovation by innovations that are cheaper than those on the market and of inferior performance. In this dominant view within the field, which originates from a technological and innovation management perspective, DT is studied at an organizational and individual level of analysis. These researchers incorporate disruptive innovation theory in their studies to show how value generated from technology can be accelerated. For instance, the case study of Kodak ( Lucas and Goh, 2009 ) recognizes culture and organizational structure as crucial elements in creating new value when disruptive technologies are introduced in an industry. Osiyevskyy and Dewald (2015) concentrate on the strategic decisions of managers and argue that responding to ongoing disruption with experimentation depends on a leader’s explorative intentions.

More recent articles that relate the digital transformation of BMI to disruption theory concern topics based on managerial practices of inspiring and managing disruptive innovations in digital entrepreneurships, such as collaborative open foresight ( Wiener et al., 2018 ) and knowledge management ( Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019 ). As Alberti-Alhtaybat et al. (2019) note about the logistic company Aramex that “current study seeks to illustrate their approach to logistics and their mindset regarding disruptive technologies, which is reflected in their particular business model.” Also, for instance, Wiener et al. (2018) argue for collaborative open foresight as a new managerial solution for inspiring disruptive innovations.

We highlight other theoretical perspectives that provide a variety of perspectives on the digital transformation of BMs. Simmons (2013) takes an actor-network perspective to demonstrate that the digital transformation of BMI is a social process facilitated by the negotiation between the network of partners involved. Other researchers use different theoretical perspectives to understand DT of BMI. Akbar and Tracogna (2018) develop their research on transaction cost economics theory to explain the impact of transaction features on the emergence of sharing platforms. Teece (2018) and Helfat and Raubitschek (2018) ground their profit from innovation framework on dynamic capabilities theory. Teece (2018) builds on the recent importance of digital platforms, standards, appropriate regimes, complementary assets, and technologies to show that the mobilization of relevant resources and platform capabilities is an important dynamic ability in managing complements in the ecosystem in order to capture value from it. Similarly, Helfat and Raubitschek (2018) suggest that integrative capabilities are important for designing and orchestrating the alignment of activities and their products with other partners in the ecosystem BMs. Finally, Gupta and Bose (2019a) identify the factors impacting digital transformation of BMs based on affordances theory and attempt to develop a theory of strategic learning for digital ventures, as digital technologies offer firms the potential to develop strategic learning while they adapt continuously to their operating environment. Interestingly, more recent papers ( Gupta and Bose, 2019b ; Trabucchi et al., 2019 ) rely on the business model canvas framework ( Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2012 ) to analyze in-depth the variables of innovation, which lead to competitive advantage and communication with the external stakeholders.

These findings suggest that the digital transformation of BMI was firstly related to disruptive innovation theory in the literature and that recently this trend is appearing again. The only difference is that while previous research addresses digital transformation as an extension of the disruptive theory that brings challenges and opportunities to the BM of incumbents, considering digital transformation a consequence of disruptive innovation, recent research relies on disruptive theory and is more focused on practices and methods to manage and inspire disruptive innovations.

To conclude, these theoretical insights suggest that digital transformation has brought a new conceptualization of BMs and new ways for value creation and capture. According to the transaction cost theory, sharing platforms are dominating as BMs, where the transactions between the parties have resulted in the creation of ecosystems. The creation of ecosystems and sharing platforms has pushed research into disruptive innovation theory to emphasize the commercializing value of disruptive technologies. Simons’ article brings a new perspective to our understanding of digital transformation in companies, taking into consideration the moderating role of social aspects in creating value from digital transformation at a firm level. Further research should investigate which social aspects in the network of actors make more contributions to value creation. We also lack an understanding of how the social relationships of the actors in a network contribute value delivery and capture. This perspective of actor-network theory can be very helpful in studying sharing platforms and ecosystems, outside the boundaries of the firm.

Researchers suggest numerous ways for managing disruptive innovation in ecosystems and among firms – through coordination building ( Teece, 2018 ), the implementation of strategic learning processes and structures ( Gupta and Bose, 2019a ), involvement in collaborative open foresight projects ( Wiener et al., 2018 ), leveraging strategic partnerships through knowledge management ( Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019 ) and using agile methods that enhance strategic agility ( Ghezzi and Cavallo, 2020 ). The digital transformation thus emphasizes not only competition but also collaboration, closing the gap between stakeholders. Referring also to what we discussed previously in the focus of the literature section, digital transformation is enabling companies to work toward issues of sustainability by engaging them in circular and sharing economy approaches. BMs have thus become an open tool for everyday changes related to technological improvements and knowledge management concerning stakeholders and sustainability issues. The digital transformation of BMI now includes technological developments, relationships with stakeholders and sustainability issues in its framework. Our analysis, therefore, suggests that the digital transformation of BMI is a bridge that links the value of strategic innovation management required to solve problems to stakeholders, technology development and sustainability issues, with their opportunities to create and capture value. Further analysis may include the psychological aspects of the various stakeholders, who represent primary actors in the ecosystem, and who may still feature competing interests in the use of digital transformation and its outputs.

This section combines the results of the literature review to understand better the impact of digital technologies on value creation, and the capture and delivery of BMs. In the literature, digital technologies “are regarded to play a critical role in facilitating business model innovations in different sectors” ( Li, 2020 ). New enabling technologies create new ways of doing business for companies and lead to the implementation of new ways of creating, delivering, and capturing value.

Digital Transformation and Value Creation

The value creation sub-component of the BM describes the products and services offered to the customer. The review of the literature shows that digital transformation is enabling companies to create new value in a diversity of ways. We identify below four means of value creation and explain each of them.

First, digital transformation allows firms to create new value through the revision and extension of their existing portfolio of products and services. For example, newspaper and book publishing industries adopted a servitization strategy to offer digital products to customers ( Øiestad and Bugge, 2014 ). This extension of products and services relates specifically to the dematerialization of physical products and the switch from product to service logic. In fact, dematerialization and service logic have impacted the pharmaceutical industry through new approaches such as personalized medicine, nanobiotechnology, and systems biology, providing new therapeutic principles in this industry ( Sabatier et al., 2012 ). Other cases in the literature include firms in the retail industry which have created new value by adding a new BMs through online retailing ( Kim and Min, 2015 ).

Secondly, digital transformation enables firms to understand customer needs better and offer new value propositions in accordance with what they want. One type of value proposition creates high personalization with customers. For instance, novel value propositions can provide a high level of involvement for the customers in value co-creation through additive manufacturing and 3D printing technologies, as in the manufacturing industry ( Bogers et al., 2016 ). High-value creations are also based on new BMs that rely fully on recent technological developments such as smart apps, drones, 3D printing, and crowdsourcing delivery to create new value for customers through new services. The adoption of these digital technologies has transformed companies in the logistics industry into technology enterprises, which sell “transportation and logistic solutions without being encumbered by heavy investments in assets” ( Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019 ). In contrast, other value propositions aim to satisfy only the necessary needs. In this case, firms offer new value propositions and even create new markets by addressing the needs of low-income customers in emerging economies (e.g., resource-constraints innovations in the healthcare industry; Winterhalter et al., 2017 ).

Third, we notice a tendency of some industries, such as financial services, hospitality and automotive services, and healthcare to employ disruptive technologies in their BMs, in order to find solutions for sustainability issues and a sharing economy approach. For instance, the automotive industry is adopting sustainable mobility ( Bohnsack and Pinkse, 2017 ), creating new sources of value by offering a superior product or service (e.g., car-sharing services and mobile applications), or by coupling their products with other services ( Bohnsack and Pinkse, 2017 ). Similarly, embedding the sharing economy approach in the financial services industry is bringing new innovations for processes and services ( Gomber et al., 2018 ), leading to digital banking services, products, and functionality which enhance customer experience ( Gomber et al., 2018 ).

Fourthly, we witness the creation of new value through digital platforms or “platfirms” ( Presch et al., 2020 ) and ecosystems. Digital transformation provides the necessary digital infrastructure for everyone to connect to different actors in networks. For example, in the United States, digital transformation has created new Health Information Exchanges (HIE) organizations, using multi-sided digital platforms to offer information exchange services between different actors in the industry ( Khuntia et al., 2017 ). In the telecommunication industry, the diffusion of data content through mobile devices and the innovation of network infrastructure technology has resulted in a mobile telecommunication ecosystem. In the hotel industry, the emergence of booking platforms ( booking.com ) and sharing platforms (Airbnb) have brought new value propositions to customers, which are cheaper and more authentic.

Digital Transformation and Value Delivery

Value delivery describes the way the activities and processes in a company are employed to deliver the promised value to the customer. The review of the literature reveals a significant change in the way value is delivered in digitally enabled BMs. Digital transformation has challenged core competencies, activities, capabilities, and the roles of firms ( Ghezzi et al., 2015 ; Nucciarelli et al., 2017; Teece, 2018 ).

Firms are first required to examine their core competences to align themselves with the shift to digital formats and servitization ( Øiestad and Bugge, 2014 ). Their new competencies should include knowledge of digital technologies in order to manage relations with customers efficiently and to use the interactivity of digital channels ( Li, 2020 ). Firms should be open to incorporating new disruptive technologies in order to continuously innovate their operations ( Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019 ).

Second, rapid changes in the new ecosystem business environment introduce the need for new capabilities and more emphasis on specific existing capabilities. New capabilities are necessary to deal with changes in the value chain and ecosystem business environment. For instance, in the pharmaceutical industry, firms need to deploy specific assets and capabilities that relate to the orchestration and management of information flows in the network. Previous literature has highlighted the presence of projects relying on new digital technologies (in that case, the blockchain) to distinguish authentic drugs from fake ones ( Dal Mas et al., 2020b ). Integrative capabilities help companies capture value in ecosystems and leverage their assets ( Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018 ). In other industries (e.g., telecommunication) marketing capabilities have to deal with decreased costs and technical abilities to deal with changes in the ecosystem. Firms need to be “agile” and leverage platforms and strategic partnerships.

Third, digital transformation implies a change in the activities and processes of the firm. When firms get involved in projects about sustainability, manufacturers in the automotive industry implement environmentally-friendly processes of manufacturing. This undertaking has led companies and suppliers to collaborate on open innovations projects, such as the “Mobility Scenarios for the Year 2030 – Materials and Joining Technologies in Automotive Engineering” ( Wiener et al., 2018 ). The other example involves processes of frugal innovations in the healthcare industry, which are designed to reduce cost in all value chain activities ( Winterhalter et al., 2017 ).

Fourthly, digital transformation has impacted the role of firms in the industry. The shift in the role of actors in the industry results from the entrance of new players. For example, the entrance of new players (web companies) in the telecommunication industry affects value delivery ( Ghezzi et al., 2015 ).

Digital Transformation and Value Capture

The value capture of the BM involves the revenue model and its financial viability by focusing on revenue streams and cost structures. The literature review suggests that digital transformation creates various new for firms to decrease costs and increase revenue.

Firms capture value by new enabling technologies. Big data provide companies with the means to reduce uncertainty in decision-making ( Urbinati et al., 2018 ) and to optimize processes and increase the efficiency and quality of products and services ( Loebbecke and Picot, 2015 ). These attributes help firms identify new sources of value in other markets and to reduce the costs of adopting BMs over time.

Firms can capture value from superior value propositions. This is demonstrated in industries such as logistics where customers pay for superior service and solutions, or resource-constraint innovations, for the superior quality of a service network. In the pharmaceutical sector, firms capture value through new value propositions for which companies deliver service to patients. In creative industries, premium prices are based on the exclusivity and personalization level of the service offered ( Li, 2020 ).

Digital transformation allows firms to capture value on platforms by leveraging new technologies and improved customer intimacy ( Gomber et al., 2018 ). Research shows that value capture is influenced by the advancement of services provided, however, and transaction-based revenue models are not appropriate revenue models for achieving viability over time.

Future Research Avenues

Based on the results of our literature review, in this section, we discuss the gaps identified in the literature and suggest future research avenues that are relevant for theorizing. We suggest future research avenues, following the previously identified impacts of digital transformation on the new ways of creating, delivering, and capturing value.

Future Research Into Value Creation

Research is needed into understanding how companies should manage the trade-off between the cannibalization of existing products and investing in new advanced services for their customers. It remains unclear how companies can develop numerous value propositions for customers that are personalized and always require the co-existence of existing products and product-centric services. The impacts that adding or extending of BMs have on existing BMs are unclear.

It is essential for the manufacturing industry to understand how manufacturers can manage the customization of products and control the value co-creation process with customers ( Bogers et al., 2016 ). In this avenue of research, it would be necessary to consider also the impact of future technological development on value co-creation; for example, how the combination of digital fabrication and Web 2.0 would create new means of value co-creation.

Further research is needed to identify how new BMs emerge, and how value creation is formed in the creative industries, by researching the different interactions among, for instance, crowdfunding platforms, entrepreneurs, and the crowd. There is a lack of knowledge about the effects that crowdfunding platforms have on value creation activities. It would be useful to understand how the collaborative and competitive dynamics of crowdfunding platforms create value for firms.

It remains unclear how agile practices can help firms to create value from digital technologies and customized services. Future research should also consider the application of agile practices in traditional industries. As firms in traditional industries in the context of ecosystems need to carry out more innovation with other firms, this opens an avenue for further research on how agile practices could become a source of value creation.

There is a need for much more research on understanding the role of single technologies such as the Internet of Things, Cloud computing, artificial intelligence, big data, and the blockchain. The application of these technologies in practice will bring direct knowledge for understanding the dynamics of value creation processes as a source of competitive advantage.

Value creation should also be studied regarding how to create value by generating content from customer data. There is still a call for further research into how firms should exploit all this information through analytics that will help them to design better value propositions for customers, according to their needs.

Value creation for customers should also be analyzed stressing the psychological impacts. New insights and inputs come, for instance, from the healthcare sector in dealing with the recent COVID-19 pandemic, with terminal patients relying only on telemedicine to get in touch with their dear ones ( Ritchey et al., 2020 ; Wakam et al., 2020 ), fostering new possible BMs for firms operating in that field.

Another avenue for further research is to define the boundary conditions under which BMs should be innovated, how often, and how this will impact value creation. Firms learn from the intense and continuous interaction with the high dynamism of the environment and need to undertake changes in the BMI. However, there is still a lack of research defining the boundary conditions driven from the technological advancements that impact value creation in the BMI.

Lastly, it is important to understand the role of new technologies in sustainable issues. It is still unclear how to create new value in the circular economy and from industries where sustainability plays a crucial role, for example, in the retail industry. The link between digital transformation and pro-environmental behaviors of customers, especially from a psychological perspective, appears as a pretty new and promising stream of research ( Yusliza et al., 2020 ).

Future Research Into Value Delivery

There is a need for more research on ecosystems. The recent review shows how roles and interdependencies in the ecosystem change remain unclear. New activities, roles, and capabilities should be identified to enhance our understanding of how firms should orchestrate the new relationships in the ecosystem. Knowing how to develop the abilities to manage the delivery network is essential for key players.

The culture shift to advanced servitization requires more research. This is especially necessary for manufacturing companies that now provide digitally advanced services instead of products. This kind of mental shift is difficult for employees and remains a challenge for companies regarding how its delivery network should be organized. The cultural shift is especially important for distribution channels that call for digital servitization.

More research is also needed on understanding the new capabilities required for manufacturing firms that are involved in digital fabrication. More simulation studies should be carried out to better understand how supply chains will be designed for 3D printing.

There should be more research into identifying the role each technology has in enabling firms with new capabilities and roles. These results will offer a clear idea of the technology they should invest and how it should then be related to new capabilities. The attitude toward the use of technologies has been considered by the literature as a soft skill, rather than a technical one ( Massaro et al., 2013 ; Dal Mas et al., 2021 ; Lepeley, 2021 ). The open debate concerns how much these skills can be learned, or at least fostered. Further investigation is needed to understand how such skills may be empowered through education in order to facilitate delivery and the translation of knowledge. In this regard, psychological aspects related to the attitude toward new technologies may be taken into consideration, following an interdisciplinary perspective.

Future Research on Value Capture

Our results show that investing in digital technologies is costly and undertaking the digital transformation of a firm requires a culture shift. Further studies should investigate how investments in technology relate to the feasibility of revenue models and value capture. Sometimes capturing value from investments in new technologies does not fully exploit the revenue.

Future research should increase our understanding of the value capture of ecosystems, where investments are high. Still, the profits captured by each collaborator actor in the ecosystem are only a fraction of their investment ( Teece, 2018 ).

In the manufacturing industry, the paradigm shift to digital fabrication requires more research into understanding whether value capture is higher for the manufacturer or for the retailer. This can be important in deciding who can invest more in additive manufacturing and 3D printing technologies.

The types of revenue models that should be applied during the evolution of the services are still unclear. There is a need to carry out longitudinal research to explore further the best fit of the revenue models along the lifecycle of the product-centric services ( Khuntia et al., 2017 ).

This paper uses a structured literature review to provide insights into the development of the field of digital transformation of BMI, to understand the impact of digital transformation on BMI and to provide avenues for further research. The review of the literature shows that the digital transformation of BMI is a new field of research with a growth in interest from researchers since 2014. As there is an increased interest from researchers, we expect a growing number of publications in the field. Our results show that this field of research has no dominating authors, implying that few authors remain focused on exploring further aspects of BMI driven by digital transformation. This hinders the knowledge-building process in the field, as only a few authors make use of prior findings to build cumulative knowledge. Indeed, we observe that topics have shifted over time from a focus on incumbents to digital start-ups and from disruptive technologies to new enabling technologies. This reveals the practitioner-led nature of research in this field, although there is a wide divide between academics and practitioners. For this reason, we suggest more collaboration between academics and practitioners, which will help the field to move from an early stage of maturity toward a mature stage. Collaborations may be facilitated by joint forums, think tanks, interventionist research by academics into firms, publications of the main research results in practitioners’ sources like magazines, financial journals, or internet blog posts.

Our results suggest a need for research in developing and emerging countries, especially those from Asia, as they are significantly under-represented, despite their massive contribution to technological solutions. The manufacturing and creative industries dominate research. This raises the need to study other industries such as design, architecture, advertizing, and the fashion industry ( Mangematin et al., 2014 ) and creating more contents in those sectors, like healthcare, which is relying on DT to cope with the several global challenges, including the recent COVID-19 pandemic ( Cobianchi et al., 2020 ; Dal Mas et al., 2020c ; Wang et al., 2020 ). The extensive use of qualitative methodology also suggests that the potential of the field be restricted to interpretive theory building. This calls for more deductive test theory, which might be found if the field involves more interdisciplinary research in the future.

Our review shows fragmentation of the field between disruptive technologies, shared platforms and ecosystems, and new enabling technologies. The focus of research has been mainly on the understanding of impacts that new disruptive technologies have on industries, identifying the areas of transformation in activities, processes, and BMs. Few studies focus on understanding how the process of transformation takes place by drawing on different disciplines and theories. These insights reveal the scattered nature of the field and a quick shift of topics, leaving them under-investigated. Future research should, therefore, be based more on previous findings, thus helping with the accumulation of knowledge and the identification not only of practical gaps but also theoretical gaps.

We suggest that digital transformation has brought a new conceptualization of BMs to the value creation and capture mechanisms. The review of articles provides a variety of theoretical perspectives on the digital transformation of BMs. Disruptive innovation theory is the dominant theoretical perspective, based on which we propose that the digital transformation of BMI is a bridge that links the strategic management of a company’s disruptive innovation required to solve problems with stakeholders, technology development, and sustainability issues to their opportunities to create and capture value. There is a need for further research grounded on theoretical perspectives of dynamic capabilities and actor-network theory.

The results of our study show that digital transformation has impacted value creation, delivery, and capture in almost every industry, although some fields are more investigated than others. Digital transformation enables firms to co-create value with customers through customized manufacturing; through the adoption of servitization strategies and extension of the existing portfolio of products and services; the creation of new value through digital platforms and ecosystems; and finally, allows firms to address solutions to sustainability issues and even address the very specific and particular needs of customers to enhance their experiences. These changes in value creation have required companies to examine their competences, roles, activities, and capabilities. Firstly, firms should possess first-hand knowledge of digital technologies to manage relations with customers efficiently. Secondly, firms should be prepared to shift their roles as new players enter the ecosystem. Thirdly, involvement in sustainability projects, frugal innovation, and circular economy requires a change in activities and processes. Fourthly, integrative capabilities have become necessary for firms to deal with changes in the value chain and ecosystem environment. The adoption of new enabling technologies allows firms to reduce uncertainty in decision-making and capture value from improved customer intimacy and superior service.

To advance research on digital transformation of BMI, we also suggest some future avenues with regard to impacts of digital transformation on value creation, delivery and capture. The identification of these theoretical gaps can be argued to help the advancement of literature on the digital transformation of BMI.

Our study has limitations. Firstly, this paper considers only research published in leading journals, listed in the ABS classification with 3, 4, and 4*. This can be a limitation due to missing results published in other journals that might be relevant for the aim of our study. Secondly, there are some implications from the conclusions of this study. The results are valid only for the specific time period we consider in this study, until September 2020. As we previously saw, since research in the field is experiencing high interest and an increasing number of contributions yearly, future research works could modify our findings. The conclusions derived in this research are based on exploratory research, where sometimes a single case study approach is followed ( Wiener et al., 2018 ), or sharing platforms are evolving over time ( Piscicelli et al., 2018 ) and where IT industry is characterized by short innovation cycles ( Nieuwenhuis et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, this research into the digital transformation of BMI can provide practitioners with new insights about the phenomenon, and will help them to continually innovate their BMs and remain competitive, as new technologies become more ubiquitous.

Author Contributions

SV and MM conceived the idea of the paper. SV wrote the first draft. EB and FM reviewed and fixed the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Research funds come from Ca’ Foscari Institution.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Akbar, Y. H., and Tracogna, A. (2018). The sharing economy and the future of the hotel industry: transaction cost theory and platform economics. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 71, 91–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.12.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alberti-Alhtaybat, L. V., Al-Htaybat, K., and Hutaibat, K. (2019). A knowledge management and sharing business model for dealing with disruption: the case of Aramex. J. Bus. Res. 94, 400–407. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.037

Amit, R., and Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 53, 41–49.

Google Scholar

Anderson, N., Herriot, P., and Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner-researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: where are we now, and where do we go from here? J. Ocupational Organ. Psychol. 74, 391–411. doi: 10.1348/096317901167451

Aspara, J., Lamberg, J. A., Laukia, A., and Tikkanen, H. (2013). Corporate business model transformation and inter-organizational cognition: the case of Nokia. Long Range Plan. 46, 459–474. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2011.06.001

Atluri, V., Rao, S., and Sahni, S. (2018). The trillion-dollar opportunity for the industrial sector: How to extract full value from technology. Digit. McKinsey New York, 1–10.

Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., and Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strateg. Entrep. J. 12, 72–95. doi: 10.1002/sej.1266

Bagnoli, C., Massaro, M., Ruzza, D., and Toniolo, K. (2020). Business models for accelerators: a structured literature review. J. Bus. Model. 8, 1–21. doi: 10.5278/ojs.jbm.v8i2.3032

Bartunek, J. M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: toward a relational scholarship of integration. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 1323–1333. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.28165912

Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business models. Strateg. Leadersh. 40, 16–24. doi: 10.1108/10878571211209314

Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., and Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q. 37, 471–482. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3

Björkdahl, J. (2009). Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: the case of integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Res. Policy 38, 1468–1477. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.07.006

Bogers, M., Hadar, R., and Bilberg, A. (2016). Additive manufacturing for consumer-centric business models: implications for supply chains in consumer goods manufacturing. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 102, 225–239. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.024

Bohnsack, R., and Pinkse, J. (2017). Value propositions for disruptive technologies: reconfiguration tactics in the case of electric vehicles. Calif. Manag. Rev. 59, 79–96. doi: 10.1177/0008125617717711

Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., and Del Giudice, M. (2018). The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 136, 331–338. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.002

Casadesus-Masanell, R., and Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Plan. 43, 195–215. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2010.01.004

Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan. 43, 354–363. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010

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. Ind. Corp. Chang. 11, 529–555. doi: 10.1093/icc/11.3.529

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cobianchi, L., Dal Mas, F., Peloso, A., Pugliese, L., Massaro, M., Bagnoli, C., et al. (2020). Planning the full recovery phase: an antifragile perspective on surgery after COVID-19. Ann. Surg. 272, e296–e299. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004489

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dal Mas, F., Bagarotto, E. M., and Cobianchi, L. (2021). “Soft skills effects on knowledge translation in healthcare. Evidence from the field” in Soft skills for human centered management and global sustainability . eds. M. T. Lepeley, N. Beutell, N. Abarca, and N. Majluf (London: Routledge).

Dal Mas, F., Garcia-Perez, A., Sousa, M. J., Lopes da Costa, R., and Cobianchi, L. (2020a). Knowledge translation in the healthcare sector. A structured literature review. Electron. J. Knowl. Manag. 18, 198–211. doi: 10.34190/EJKM.18.03.001

Dal Mas, F., Massaro, M., Lombardi, R., and Garlatti, A. (2019). From output to outcome measures in the public sector. A structured literature review. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 27, 1631–1656. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-09-2018-1523

Dal Mas, F., Massaro, M., Verde, J. M., and Cobianchi, L. (2020b). Can the blockchain lead to new sustainable business models? J. Bus. Model. 8, 31–38. doi: 10.5278/ojs.jbm.v8i2.3825

Dal Mas, F., Piccolo, D., Edvinsson, L., Skrap, M., and D’Auria, S. (2020c). “Strategy innovation, intellectual capital management and the future of healthcare. The case of Kiron by Nucleode” in Knowledge, people, and digital transformation: Approaches for a sustainable future . eds. F. Matos, V. Vairinhos, I. Salavisa, L. Edvinsson, and M. Massaro (Cham: Springer), 119–131.

Enkel, E., and Sagmeister, V. (2020). External corporate venturing modes as new way to develop dynamic capabilities. Technovation 96–97, 102128. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102128

Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., and Ferreira, F. A. F. (2019). To be or not to be digital, that is the question: firm innovation and performance. J. Bus. Res. 101, 583–590. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.013

Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., and Welch, M. (2013). Embracing digital technology: a new strategic imperative. MITSloan Manag. Rev. 55, 1–12. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000650

Foss, N. J., and Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have we come, and where should we go? J. Manag. 43, 200–227. doi: 10.1177/0149206316675927

Ghezzi, A., and Cavallo, A. (2020). Agile business model innovation in digital entrepreneurship: lean startup approaches. J. Bus. Res. 110, 519–537. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.013

Ghezzi, A., Cortimiglia, M. N., and Frank, A. G. (2015). Strategy and business model design in dynamic telecommunications industries: a study on Italian mobile network operators. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 346–354. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.09.006

Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., and Weber, B. W. (2018). On the Fintech revolution: interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 35, 220–265. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2018.1440766

Gray, P., El Sawy, O. A., Asper, G., and Thordarson, M. (2013). Realizing strategic value through center edge digital transformation in consumer centric industries. MIS Q. Exec. 12, 1–17.

Gupta, G., and Bose, I. (2019a). Strategic learning for digital market pioneering: examining the transformation of Wishberry’s crowdfunding model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 146, 865–876. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.020

Gupta, G., and Bose, I. (2019b). Digital transformation in entrepreneurial firms through information exchange with operating environment. Inf. Manag. 103243. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2019.103243 (in press).

Helfat, C. E., and Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Res. Policy 47, 1391–1399. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019

Henfridsson, O., and Yoo, Y. (2014). The liminality of trajectory shifts in institutional entrepreneurship. Organ. Sci. 25, 932–950. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2013.0883

Hess, T., Benlian, A., Matt, C., and Wiesböck, F. (2016). Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Q. Exec. 15, 17–33. doi: 10.7892/BORIS.105447

Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., and Newell, S. (2017). Growing on steroids: rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Q. 41, 301–314. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.16

Jia, F., Wang, X., Mustafee, N., and Hao, L. (2016). Investigating the feasibility of supply chain-centric business models in 3D chocolate printing: a simulation study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 102, 202–213. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.026

Kamalaldin, A., Linde, L., Sjödin, D., and Parida, V. (2020). Transforming provider-customer relationships in digital servitization: a relational view on digitalization. Ind. Mark. Manag. 89, 306–325. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.004

Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., and Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation: Becoming a digitally mature enterprise: Findings from the 2015 Digital Business Global Executive Study and Research Project. MIT Sloan Management Review.

Kapoor, R., and Klueter, T. (2013). Pharmaceutical Incumbents’ Pursuit of Gene Therapy and Decoding the Adaptability-Rigidity Puzzle: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Incumbents’ Pursuit of Gene Therapy and Monoclonal Antibodies Rahul Kapoor University of Pennsylvania.

Karimi, J., and Walter, Z. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: the case of the newspaper industry. Long Range Plan. 49, 342–360. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2015.09.004

Khanagha, S., Ansari, S., Paroutis, S., and Oviedo, L. (2020). Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: a study of Cisco and fog computing. Strat. Manag. J. 1–31. doi: 10.1002/smj.3147

Khuntia, J., Mithas, S., and Agarwal, R. (2017). How service offerings and operational maturity influence the viability of health information exchanges. Prod. Oper. Manag. 26, 1989–2005. doi: 10.1111/poms.12735

Kiel, D., Arnold, C., and 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. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.09.003

Kim, S. K., and Min, S. (2015). Business model innovation performance: when does adding a new business model benefit an incumbent? Strateg. Entrep. J. 9, 34–57. doi: 10.1002/sej.1193

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H. G., Feld, T., and Hoffmann, M. (2014). Industry 4.0. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6, 239–242. doi: 10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4

Lepeley, M. T. (2021). “Soft skills: the language of human centered management” in Soft skills for human centered management and global sustainability . eds. M. T. Lepeley, N. Beutell, N. Abarca, and N. Majluf (London: Routledge).

Li, F.(2020). The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries: a holistic framework and emerging trends. Technovation 92–93, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.004

Liu, D. -Y., Chen, S. -W., and Chou, T. -C. (2011). Resource fit in digital transformation lessons learned from the CBC Bank global e-banking ptoject. Manag. Decis. 49, 1728–1742. doi: 10.1108/00251741111183852

Loebbecke, C., and Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 24, 149–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.002

Lucas, H. C., and Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: how Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 18, 46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2009.01.002

Mangematin, V., Sapsed, J., and Schüßler, E. (2014). Disassembly and reassembly: an introduction to the special issue on digital technology and creative industries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 83, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.002

Massaro, M., Bardy, R., Lepeley, M. T., and Dal Mas, F. (2013). “Intellectual capital development in business schools. The role of “soft skills” in Italian business schools” in Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Intellectual Capital . eds. L. Garcia, A. Rodriguez-Castellanos, and J. Barrutia-Guenaga April 11–12, 2013 (Bilbao: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited), 259–265.

Massaro, M., Dumay, J., and Garlatti, A. (2015). Public sector knowledge management: a structured literature review. J. Knowl. Manag. 19, 530–558. doi: 10.1108/JKM-11-2014-0466

Massaro, M., Dumay, J. C., and Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Account. Audit. Account. J. 29, 767–901. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939

Matt, C., Hess, T., and Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 57, 339–343. doi: 10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5

Muñoz, P., and Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing economy: a configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 21–37. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.035

Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 41, 1029–1055. doi: 10.1111/etap.12254

Ng, I. C. L., and Wakenshaw, S. Y. L. (2017). The internet-of-things: review and research directions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 34, 3–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.003

Nieuwenhuis, L. J. M., Ehrenhard, M. L., and Prause, L. (2018). The shift to cloud computing: the impact of disruptive technology on the enterprise software business ecosystem. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 129, 308–313. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.037

Nucciarelli, A., Li, F., Fernandes, K. J., Goumagias, N., Cabras, I., Devlin, S., et al. (2017). From value chains to technological platforms: the effects of crowdfunding in the digital game industry. J. Bus. Res. 78, 341–352. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.030

Øiestad, S., and Bugge, M. M. (2014). Digitisation of publishing: exploration based on existing business models. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 83, 54–65. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.01.010

Osiyevskyy, O., and Dewald, J. (2015). Uncertainty rules the day. Strateg. Entrep. J. 9, 58–78. doi: 10.1002/sej.1192

Osterwalder, P., and Pigneur, Y. (2012). Business model generator: A handbook for visionaries, game changes, and challengers . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Petrakaki, D., Hilberg, E., and Waring, J. (2018). Between empowerment and self-discipline: governing patients’ conduct through technological self-care. Soc. Sci. Med. 213, 146–153. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.043

Pigni, F., Piccoli, G., and Watson, R. (2016). Digital data streams: creating value from the real-time flow of big data. Calif. Manag. Rev. 58, 5–25. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.5

Piscicelli, L., Ludden, G. D. S., and Cooper, T. (2018). What makes a sustainable business model successful? An empirical comparison of two peer-to-peer goods-sharing platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4580–4591. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.170

Potstada, M., Parandian, A., Robinson, D. K. R., and Zybura, J. (2016). An alignment approach for an industry in the making: DIGINOVA and the case of digital fabrication. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 102, 182–192. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.020

Presch, G., Dal Mas, F., Piccolo, D., Sinik, M., and Cobianchi, L. (2020). “The World Health Innovation Summit (WHIS) platform for sustainable development. From the digital economy to knowledge in the healthcare sector,” in Intellectual capital in the digital economy . eds. P. O. de Pablos and L. Edvinsson (London: Routledge), 19–28.

Rajala, R., Hakanen, E., Mattila, J., Seppälä, T., and Westerlund, M. (2018). How do intelligent goods shape closed-loop systems? Calif. Manag. Rev. 60, 20–44. doi: 10.1177/0008125618759685

Ritchey, K. C., Foy, A., McArdel, E., and Gruenewald, D. A. (2020). Reinventing palliative care delivery in the era of COVID-19: how telemedicine can support end of life care. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Med. 37, 992–997. doi: 10.1177/1049909120948235

Romme, A. G. L., Avenier, M. J., Denyer, D., Hodgkinson, G. P., Pandza, K., Starkey, K., et al. (2015). Towards common ground and trading zones in management research and practice. Br. J. Manag. 26, 544–559. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12110

Rothmann, W., and Koch, J. (2014). Creativity in strategic lock-ins: the newspaper industry and the digital revolution. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 83, 66–83. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.005

Sabatier, V., Craig-Kennard, A., and Mangematin, V. (2012). When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: insights from the drugs industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79, 949–962. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.12.007

Sebastian, I. M., Ross, J. W., Beath, C., Mocker, M., Moloney, K. G., and Fonstad, N. O. (2017). How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Q. Executive 16 , 197–213.

Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K., and Timothy, H. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008). J. Knowl. Manag. 14, 3–23. doi: 10.1108/13673271011015534

Simmons, G., Palmer, M., and Truong, Y. (2013). Inscribing value on business model innovations: insights from industrial projects commercializing disruptive digital innovations. Ind. Mark. Manag. 42, 744–754. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.010

Subramanian, A. M., Chai, K. H., and Mu, S. (2011). Capability reconfiguration of incumbent firms: Nintendo in the video game industry. Technovation 31, 228–239. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2011.01.003

Sung, T. K. (2018). Industry 4.0: a Korea perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 132, 40–45. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.005

Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Res. Policy 47, 1367–1387. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015

Tongur, S., and Engwall, M. (2014). The business model dilemma of technology shifts. Technovation 34, 525–535. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.02.006

Trabucchi, D., Talenti, L., and Buganza, T. (2019). How do big bang disruptors look like? A business model perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 141, 330–340. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.009

Urbinati, A., Bogers, M., Chiesa, V., and Frattini, F. (2018). Creating and capturing value from big data: a multiple-case study analysis of provider companies. Technovation 84–85, 21–36. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.07.004

Velu, C., and Stiles, P. (2013). Managing decision-making and cannibalization for parallel business models. Long Range Plan. 46, 443–458. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.003

Vendrell-Herrero, F., Bustinza, O. F., Parry, G., and Georgantzis, N. (2017). Servitization, digitization and supply chain interdependency. Indus. Mark. Manag . 60, 69–81. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.06.013

Verma, R., Gustafsson, A., Gustafsson, A., Kristensson, P., and Witell, L. (2012). Customer co-creation in service innovation: a matter of communication? J. Serv. Manag. 23, 311–327. doi: 10.1108/09564231211248426

Visnjic, I., Wiengarten, F., and Neely, A. (2016). Only the brave: product innovation, service business model innovation, and their impact on performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 33, 36–52. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12254

Wakam, G. K., Montgomery, J. R., Biesterveld, B. E., and Brown, C. S. (2020). Not dying alone — modern compassionate care in the Covid-19 pandemic. N. Engl. J. Med. 382:e88. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2007781

Wang, C. J., Ng, C. Y., and Brook, R. H. (2020). Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: big data analytics, new technology, and proactive testing. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 323, 1341–1342. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3151

Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. (2002). Analysing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26, xiii–xxiii.

Wiener, M., Gattringer, R., and Strehl, F. (2018). Collaborative open foresight ‐ a new approach for inspiring discontinuous and sustainability-oriented innovations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 155:119370. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.008

Winterhalter, S., Zeschky, M. B., Neumann, L., and Gassmann, O. (2017). Business models for frugal innovation in emerging markets: the case of the medical device and laboratory equipment industry. Technovation 66–67, 3–13. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.07.002

Wirtz, B. W., Schilke, O., and Ullrich, S. (2010). Strategic development of business models: implications of the web 2.0 for creating value on the internet. Long Range Plan. 43, 272–290. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2010.01.005

Wu, X., Ma, R., and Shi, Y. (2010). How do latecomer firms capture value from disruptive technologies a secondary business-model innovation perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 57, 51–62. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2009.2033045

Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., and Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Inf. Syst. Res. 21, 724–735. doi: 10.1287/isre.1100.0322

Yusliza, M. Y., Amirudin, A., Rahadi, R. A., Athirah, N. A. N. S., Ramayah, T., Muhammad, Z., et al. (2020). An investigation of pro-environmental behaviour and sustainable development in Malaysia. Sustain. For. 12:7083. doi: 10.3390/su12177083

Zott, C., and Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long Range Plan. 43, 216–226. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004

Zott, C., Amit, R., and Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. Aust. J. Manag. 37, 1019–1042. doi: 10.1177/0149206311406265

Keywords: digital transformation, business model innovation, structured literature review, value creation, value delivery

Citation: Vaska S, Massaro M, Bagarotto EM and Dal Mas F (2021) The Digital Transformation of Business Model Innovation: A Structured Literature Review. Front. Psychol . 11:539363. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.539363

Received: 29 February 2020; Accepted: 23 November 2020; Published: 07 January 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Vaska, Massaro, Bagarotto and Dal Mas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Maurizio Massaro, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Business Today
• India Today
• India Today Gaming
• Cosmopolitan
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Aajtak Campus

• Magazine Cover Story Editor's Note Deep Dive Interview The Buzz
• BT TV Market Today Easynomics Drive Today BT Explainer
• Market Today Trending Stocks Indices Stocks List Stocks News Share Market News IPO Corner
• Tech Today Unbox Today Authen Tech Tech Deck Tech Shorts
• Money Today Tax Investment Insurance Tools & Calculator
• Mutual Funds
• Industry Banking IT Auto Energy Commodities Pharma Real Estate Telecom
• Visual Stories

INDICES ANALYSIS

Mutual funds.

• Cover Story
• Editor's Note
• Market Today
• Drive Today
• BT Explainer
• Trending Stocks
• Stocks List
• Stocks News
• Share Market News
• Unbox Today
• Authen Tech
• Tech Shorts
• Tools & Calculator
• Commodities
• Real Estate
• Election with BT
• Economic Indicators
• BT-TR GCC Listing

Google RealFill: An AI-powered image completion model spotted in trademark listing

Recent discoveries have unveiled a research paper and accompanying website under the moniker realfill, showcasing its prowess in image completion and painting..

• Updated May 02, 2024, 8:06 AM IST

Google is poised to redefine the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven image generation with its latest innovation, RealFill. This technology promises to bring user-focused applications to the forefront of AI development.

Recent discoveries have unveiled a research paper and accompanying website under the moniker RealFill, showcasing its prowess in image completion and painting. Leveraging reference images, this revolutionary tool crafts target images with unparalleled precision. Google has further solidified its commitment to RealFill by filing trademarks for its distinct logo, signalling a firm dedication to this AI-driven product.

Harnessing the power of computer vision and pattern recognition algorithms, RealFill has undergone extensive training employing random masking techniques. Its capabilities were brought to light through a GitHub page and a pre-print paper, drawing attention from tech enthusiasts and experts alike. Notably, trademark applications filed by Google LLC with the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) underscore the tech giant's intent to commercialise this groundbreaking technology.

Described as a "novel generative approach for image completion," RealFill fills missing regions of images with unparalleled accuracy. By analysing multiple images of a subject within a shared environment, the AI model synthesises a pre-specified image, transcending the limitations of traditional photography. This transformative tool empowers users to capture the perfect shot, even when faced with challenges during the initial photography process.

RealFill's capabilities extend far beyond mere image completion. Leveraging computer vision, it comprehends the intricacies of subjects and environments depicted in reference photos. From technical specifications such as dimensions, colours, and shapes to a nuanced understanding of contextual elements, RealFill seamlessly integrates these facets to create a cohesive target image. This groundbreaking technology marks a significant leap forward in AI-driven image generation.

While Google's plans for RealFill remain shrouded in secrecy, recent developments suggest potential integration with its flagship Pixel series. Last year saw the introduction of the Best Take feature in the Google Pixel 8 series, allowing users to select the best expression from multiple shots to create the perfect photo. While this feature pales in comparison to RealFill's capabilities, it hints at Google's trajectory towards leveraging AI to enhance user experience on Pixel devices.

TOP STORIES

• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Press Releases

Copyright©2024 Living Media India Limited. For reprint rights: Syndications Today

Add Business Today to Home Screen