Skip to main content
Log in

Development of an Ecosystem Model for the Realization of Internet of Things (IoT) Services in Supply Chain Management

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Electronic Markets Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information services based on the Internet of Things (IoT) help to integrate information and material flows and to optimize supply chain management (SCM). However, the design, implementation and operation of such services require strong cooperations between different types of company. Firms that are actively involved in SCM, such as logistics service providers, have to set up their own ecosystem in order to realize and run such services. Following this line of thinking, the aim of this paper is to support logistics companies with recommendations for the design of their own IoT ecosystem and the realization of IoT services. The grounded theory methodology is used to develop a theoretical IoT ecosystem model. A model with 19 different roles, their relationships and value contributions emerged during the research process. Our findings help companies to understand the implementation of IoT services, to find the right partners with which to cooperate, and to establish their own ecosystem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adner, R. (2006) ‘Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem’, Harvard Business Review, April, 98–107.

  • Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, K. (1999) [online] That `Internet of Things` Thing www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/4986 (Acessed 04 September 2015).

  • Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787–2805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballon, P. (2007). Changing business models for Europe’s mobile telecommunications industry: The impact of alternative wireless technologies. Telematics and Informatics, 24(3), 192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basole, R. C. (2009). Visualization of interfirm relations in a converging mobile ecosystem. Journal of Information Technology, 24, 144–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Howcroft, D. (2013). The apple business model: Crowdsourcing mobile applications. Accounting Forum, 37(4), 280–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busse, C., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2011). Innovation management of logistics service providers - foundations, review, and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(2), 187–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M. A. (2010). Technology strategy and management platforms and services: Understanding the resurgence of apple. Communications of the ACM, 53(10), 22–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denk, N., Kaufmann, L., & Carter, C. R. (2012). Increasing the rigor of grounded theory research - a review of the SCM literature. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), 742–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleisch, E. (2010). What is The internet of things? AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE’, Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 5(2), 125–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint, D. J., Larsson, E., Gammelgaard, B. & Mentzer, J. T. (2005). Logistics innovation: a customer value‐oriented social process, Journal of Business Logistics, 26(1), 113–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankwick, G. L., Ward, J. C., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (1994). Evolving patterns of organizational beliefs in the formation of strategy. The Journal of Marketing, 58, 96–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friess, P. (2013). Driving European internet of things research. In O. Vermesan & P. Friess (Eds.), Internet of things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems (pp. 1–6). Aalborg: River Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner (2014) [online] Gartner says the Internet of Things will transform the data center. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2684616 (Acessed 04 September 2015).

  • Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2014). The business model navigator. Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership – How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity – Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory - a practical guide for management, business and market researchers. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haass, R., Dittmer, P., Veigt, M., & Lütjen, M. (2015). Reducing food losses and carbon emission by using autonomous control – A simulation study of the intelligent container. International Journal of Production Economics, 164(June), 400–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafliðason, T., Olafsdottir, G., Bogason, S., & Stefansson, G. (2012). Criteria for temperature alerts in cod supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(4), 355–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital ubiquity - how connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business (pp. 90–99). November: Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage – What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isckia, T. (2009). Amazon’s evolving ecosystem: A cyber-bookstore and application service provider. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(4), 332–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E., & Prakash, A. (2007). NGO research program: A collective action perspective. Policy Sciences, 40(3), 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 274–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1984). Cooperation and international regimes. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy (pp. 491–517). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kille, C., & Schwemmer, M. (2013). TOP 100 in European transport and logistics services - market sizes, market segments and market leaders in the European logistics industry. Hamburg: DVV Media Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzer, R. T., & Land, K.-H. (2015). Digital Darwinism - branding and business models in jeopardy. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, W., Jedermann, R., Mrugala, D., Jabbari, A., Krieg-Brückner, B., & Schill, K. (2011). The “intelligent container”—A cognitive sensor network for transport management. IEEE Sensors Journal, 11(3), 688–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lateifa, S. B. (2014). The uneasy transition from supply chains to ecosystems. Management Decision, 52(2), 278–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y.-R. (2009). The technological roadmap of Cisco's business ecosystem. Technovation, 29(5), 379–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, J. R., & Corsi, T. M. (2013). Supply chain disruption management: Severe events, recovery, and performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(4), 270–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manuj, I., & Sahin, F. (2011). A model of supply chain and supply chain decision-making complexity. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(5), 511–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayordomo, I., Spies, P., Meier, F., Otto, S., Lempert, S., Bernhard, J., and Pflaum, A. (2011), ‘emerging technologies and challenges for the internet of things’ in Proceedings of 54th IEEE International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems MWSCAS, Seoul, South Korea, 1-4.

  • McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mello, J., & Flint, D. J. (2009). A refined view of grounded theory and its application to logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 30(1), 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • METRO AG (2015) [online] METRO GROUP Future Store Initiative http://www.future-store.org/internet/site/ts_fsi/alias/mgroup_fsi/Len/index.html (Acessed 06 September 2015).

  • Miller, D. L. (2013). Introduction to collective behavior and collective action (Third ed.). Long Grove: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 75–86.

  • Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition – Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, F., & Gammelgaard, B. (2012). Moving beyond the systems approach in SCM and logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), 764–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Papert, M., Rimpler, P., & Pflaum, A. (2016). Enhancing supply chain visibility in a pharmaceutical supply chain: Solutions based on automatic identification technology. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(9), 859–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., and Heppelmann, J. E. (2014) ‘How smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition’, Harvard Business Review, November, 64–88.

  • Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, W. S., & Mello, J. E. (2012). Grounded theory: An inductive method for supply chain research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), 863–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Reuver, M., & Bouwman, H. (2012). Governance mechanisms for mobile service innovation in value networks. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Reuver, M., Verschuur, E., Nikayin, F., Cerpa, N., & Bouwman, H. (2015). Collective action for mobile payment platforms: A case study on collaboration issues between banks and telecom operators. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(5), 331–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes, R. M. (2011). RFID in the supply chain. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala, P., Agouridas, V., Assimakopoulos, D., & Gies, O. (2013). Value creation and capture mechanisms in innovation ecosystems: A comparative case study. International Journal of Technology Management, 63(3–4), 244–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rong, K., Hou, J., Shi, Y. and Lu, Q. (2010), ‘From value chain, supply network, towards business ecosystem (BE): Evaluating the BE concept's implications to emerging industrial demand’, in IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Macao, China, 2173–2177.

  • Rong, K., Hu, G., Hou, J., Ma, R., & Shi, Y. (2013a). Business ecosystem extension: Facilitating the technology substitution. International Journal of Technology Management, 63(3/4), 268–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rong, K., Shi, Y., & Yu, J. (2013b). Nurturing business ecosystems to deal with industry uncertainties. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(3), 385–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rong, K., Hu, G., Lin, Y., Shi, Y., & Guo, L. (2015). Understanding business ecosystem using a 6C framework in internet-of-things-based sectors. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez Lopez, T., Ranasinghe, D. C., Patkai, B., & McFarlane, D. (2011). Taxonomy, technology and applications of smart objects. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(2), 281–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarac, A., Absi, N., & Dauzère-Pérès, S. (2010). A literature review on the impact of RFID technologies on supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 77–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solaimani, S., & Bouwman, H. (2012). A framework for the alignment of business model and business processes: A generic model for trans-sector innovation. Business Process Management Journal, 18(4), 655–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solaimani, S., Bouwman, H., and De Reuver, M. (2010) ‘Smart home: aligning business models and providers processes: a case survey’, Proceedings of 21st ACIS, 55–81.

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research – Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, B., Pan, S. L., & Zuo, M. (2015). Harnessing collective IT resources for sustainability: Insights from the green leadership strategy of China mobile. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 818–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiesse, F., & Buckel, T. (2015). A comparison of RFID-based shelf replenishment policies in retail stores under suboptimal read rates. International Journal of Production Economics, 159(January), 126–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, S. (2008). Innovation management in the German transportation industry. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(2), 215–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Liang, X. J. (2011). Business ecosystem strategies of mobile network operators in the 3G era: The case of China mobile. Telecommunications Policy, 35(2), 156–171.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcel Papert.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Günter Prockl

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 1 Overview of study partners (preserving their anonymity)

Appendix 2: Initial interview guideline

Please think about your experiences in the IoT. Please describe your experiences concerning the implementation of an IoT solution.

What (company) roles do you see regarding the realization of IoT services?

Questions for each role:

How important is this role?

What are the detailed tasks of this role?

How would you characterize this role?

What business relationships does this role have with other players? What kind of business relationships?

What is the business strategy (business model) of this role?

Can you provide an example of this role?

Opportunity for comments and further information or questions.

Appendix 3

Table 2 Open coding example (focusing on the role of solution integrator)

Appendix 4: Axial coding example

Appendix 4 presents an axial coding example of the phenomenon solution integrator with implementation and financial responsibility. The second column shows categories from open coding related to the parts of the paradigmatic scheme. That means, starting from the causal condition of the implementation of an IoT service with a business model, a solution integrator bears implementation and financial responsibility (phenomenon). This responsibility, the context and the intervening conditions are leading to the strategy (acquisition of extensive financial support). This strategy, finally, leads to a cooperation with a financial intermediary (consequences). Additionally, the third column shows the respective opposite values of the categories from open coding.

Parts of the paradigmatic scheme

Open coding/categories

Opposite values of open coding/categories

Causal condition

IoT service with business model

Prototype of an IoT service

Phenomenon

Solution integrator with implementation and financial responsibility

Solution integrator with limited implementation and financial responsibility

Context

High integration expenditure

Low integration expenditure

Intervening conditions

Limited financial capabilities of logistics companies (LSP); definition of a promising business model

Limited financial capabilities of logistics companies (LSP); no business model for prototype

Strategies

Acquisition of extensive financial support

Acquisition of medium financial support

Consequences

Cooperation with a financial intermediary, especially banks or venture capitalists

Cooperation with a financial intermediary, especially public funding institutions

Appendix 5

Table 3 IoT ecosystem roles

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papert, M., Pflaum, A. Development of an Ecosystem Model for the Realization of Internet of Things (IoT) Services in Supply Chain Management. Electron Markets 27, 175–189 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0251-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0251-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation