Diary of Business Research

 Journal of Business Research Essay

Record of Business Research 54.99 (2005) 726 – 735

The entrepreneur's business model: toward a specific perspective Michael Morrisa, 5., Minet Schindehutteb, Jeffrey Allenc

a

Witting Chair in Entrepreneurship, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA b Miami School, Oxford, OH 45056, USA c College or university of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, UNITED STATES Received up to 29 September 2002; accepted six November the year 2003

Abstract Very emphasized in entrepreneurial practice, business versions have received limited attention via researchers. Simply no consensus is present regarding the definition, nature, composition, and progression of organization models. Still, the business version holds assurance as a unifying unit of research that can assist in theory creation in entrepreneurship. This article synthesizes the literature and takes in conclusions relating to a number of these primary issues. Assumptive underpinnings of a firm's business design are looked into. A six-component framework is proposed to get characterizing a company model, regardless of venture type. These parts are used at three different amounts. The framework is illustrated using a effective mainstream organization. Suggestions are produced regarding the way business models might be expected to emerge and evolve as time passes. D 2003 Elsevier Incorporation. All legal rights reserved. Keywords: Activity pieces; Architecture; Business model; Strategy; Style dynamics

1 ) Introduction Projects fail despite the presence of market chances, novel businesses, adequate resources, and gifted entrepreneurs. A possible cause is a underlying version driving the organization. Surprisingly, very little attention has been given to organization models by simply researchers, with much of the published work centering on Internet-based versions. The obtainable research is usually descriptive in nature, examining approaches to model construction, remembering standard unit types, citing examples of failed and good models, and discussing the need for new versions as circumstances change. Yet, no general opinion exists about the definition or nature of any model, and there has been no attempt to prioritize critical analysis questions or perhaps establish analysis streams relating to models. The purpose of this study is to assessment existing views and recommend an integrative framework intended for characterizing the entrepreneur's business model.

2 . Literature review 2 . 1 . Just what ‘business model'? No generally accepted definition of the term ‘‘business model'' offers emerged. Range in the offered definitions positions substantive difficulties for delimiting the nature and components of a model and deciding what creates a good model. It also causes confusion in terminology, while business model, strategy, business principle, revenue model, and monetary model tend to be used reciprocally. Moreover, the business enterprise model continues to be referred to as buildings, design, routine, plan, technique, assumption, and statement. It is possible to bring in an attempt to the various points of views. A articles analysis of key words in 30 meanings led the authors to identify three basic categories of explanations based on their very own principal emphasis. These groups can be branded economic, operational, and strategic, with each comprised of a distinctive set of decision variables. That they represent a hierarchy for the reason that the perspective becomes more extensive as one slowly moves in the economic towards the operational for the strategic levels. At the most basic level, the organization model is defined exclusively in terms of the firm's financial model. The

* Matching author. Tel.: +1-315-443-3164. E-mail address: [email protected] edu (M. Morris). 0148-2963/$ – discover front subject D 2003 Elsevier Incorporation. All privileges reserved. doi: 10. 1016/j. jbusres. 2003. 11. 001

M. Morris et al. / Diary of Business Research 54.99 (2005) 726–735

727

matter is with the logic of profit era. Relevant decision variables incorporate revenue resources, pricing strategies, cost constructions, margins, and expected...

References: Afuah A, Tucci CL. Internet business types. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin, 2001. Alt 3rd there�s r, Zimmerman HIGH-DEFINITION. Introduction to special section in business models. Electron Draw 2001; 11(1): 3 – 9. Amit R, Zott C. Benefit creation in e-business. Strateg Manage M 2001; 22(2): 493 – 520. Applegate LM. Emerging e-business types. Harvard Bus Rev 2001; 79(1): seventy nine – 87. Barney JB. How organization capabilities affect boundary decisions. Sloan Manage Rev 1999; 40(1): 19 – thirty-two. Barney M, Wright M, Ketchen M. The resource-based view in the firm: 10 years after. J Manage 2001; 27(6): 625 – forty one. Betz F. Strategic business models. Eng Manag T 2002; 14(1): 21 – 7. Chesbrough H, Rosenbaum RS. The role with the business model in capturing value from creativity (working paper). Boston: Harvard Business Institution, 2000. Donath R. Taming e-business types. ISBM business marketing world wide web consortium a few (1). Express College (PA): Institute intended for the Study of Business Markets, 99; 1 – 24. Dubosson-Torbay M, Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y. E-business model style, classification and measurements. Thunderbird Int Tour bus Rev 2001; 44(1): 5 – 3. Dyer L, Singh H. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Take care of Rev 98; 23(4): 660 – 79. Eisenhardt KILOMETERS, Sull D. Strategy as easy rules. Harvard Bus Revolution 2001; 79(1): 107 – 16. Gartner. Available at: http://www3.gartner.com, 2003. Girotto J, Rivkin J. Askjeeve! Case 9-700-013. Boston: Harvard Business University Press, 2000. Gordijn M, Akkermans M, Van Vliet J. Building and assessing e-business models. IEEE Intell Syst 2001; 16(4): 11 – 7. Grove A. Only the weird survive. Ny: HarperCollins Business, 1997. Hamel G. Leading the wave. Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press, 2001. Horowitz AS. The actual value of VARS: resellers lead a movement to a new assistance and support. Mark Comput 1996; 16(4): 31 – 6. Quest SD. A general theory of competition. 1, 000 Oaks (CA): Sage Magazines, 2000. Jarillo JC. Ideal networks. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1995. Linder JC, Cantrell H. Changing business models. Chicago: Institute for Strategic Modify, Accenture, 2000. Mahadevan M. Business versions for Web-based e-commerce. Calif Manage Add some opuch 2000; 42(4): 55 – 69. Markides C. A dynamic look at of technique. Sloan Manage Rev 1999; 40(3): 55 – 63. Mayo MC, Brown GS. Building a competitive business model. Ivey Bus L 1999; 63(3): 18 – 23. Nelson R, Winter months SG. The Schumpeterian tradeoff. Am Econ Rev 1982; 72(1): 114 – thirty-three.

M. Morris et ing. / Log of Organization Research 54.99 (2005) 726–735 Petrovic To, Kittl C, Teksten RD. Developing business models pertaining to e-business. Vienna: International Digital Commerce Meeting, 2001 [31. 12. 2001-4. 14. 2001]. Assurer ME. Competitive advantage. Ny: Free Press, 1985. Porter ME. What is strategy. Harvard Bus Add some opuch 1996; 74(6): 61 – 78. Tenir ME, Siggelkow N. Contextuality within activity systems. In: Nagao Deb, editor. Study in greatest paper proceedings. Washington (DC): Academy of Management, 2001. p. you – six. Rayport JF, Jaworski BJ. E-commerce. New york city: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2001. Rindova VP, Kotha S. Continuous distortion: competing through dynamic functions. Acad Manage J 2001; 44(6): 1280 – several. Schumpeter T. Theory of economic expansion. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University, 1936. Siggelkow N. Development towards fit. Adm Sci Q 2002; 47(1): 125 – fifty nine. Slywotzky AJ. Value migration. Boston (MA): Harvard Business Review Press, 1996.

735

Stewart DW, Zhao Q. Internet marketing, organization models, and public coverage. J Community Policy Draw 2000; 19(Fall): 287 – 96. Timmers P. Business models to get electronic market segments. Electron Commer Europe 1998; 8(April): 1 – 6th. Viscio AJ, Pasternack HANDBAG. Toward a fresh business model. Strateg Bus 1996; 2(1): a hundred and twenty-five – thirty four. Weill P, Vitale MR. Place to space. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001. Williamson FACTORY. The economics of firm: the deal cost strategy. Am L Sociol 1981; 87(4): 548 – seventy seven. Wiltbank R, Sarasvathy S. Patterns of business model alter as measures of causation and implementation. In: Reynolds P, editor. Research in frontiers of entrepreneurship analysis. Babson Park (MA): Babson College Press, 2002. l. 328.

Business and Managment Article

News