nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

1. Systematic Literature Review

verfasst von : Daniela Andreini, Cristina Bettinelli

Erschienen in: Business Model Innovation

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The first chapter of this book introduces the importance of studying business model innovation (BMI), the methodology we applied to study the subject, and specific statistics about the literature published in academic and practice-oriented journals in the last 15 years. Specifically, this chapter offers an overview of the processes followed for our systematic literature review (SLR) and the rigorous protocol that includes the three-stage procedure (i.e., planning, execution, and reporting) suggested by Tranfield et al. (Br J Manag 14:207–222, 2003). Gathering the most influential pieces on SLRs, this chapter also offers some hints for conducting a successful SLR and illustrates the benefits associated with doing so. In addition, this chapter describes the thematic and the informal ontological classification we adopted to analyze the 156 papers included in our systematic literature review. Thus, the first section of this chapter defines what is meant by an SLR. The second section offers an overview of the tasks of an SLR. The other sections present the process followed for the thematic and ontological analyses that are central to this work. The final section provides some statistics on the 156 papers included in our SLR, underlining specific information about the journals that published the articles, the methodological approaches applied in the papers, the industries included in the studies, the geographical contexts, and the disciplines that contributed to the understanding of BMI.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nächstes Kapitel Business Model Definition and Boundaries

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

According to the Oxford Dictionary, ontology is “a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them”. Thus, the ontological analysis consists in the study of “the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area or domain” (Oxford Dictionary 2016).

The period of interest was 2001–2015. Then, we manually added a relevant paper that has been published in 2017 by Foss and Saebi as their paper includes an important contribution to the topic.

The constructionist paradigm is drawn from the constructionist epistemology, according to which the interpretation of phenomena is a process that includes observers’ personal knowledge and experience.

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

Arend, R. J. (2013). The business model: Present and future—beyond a skeumorph. Strategic Organization, 11(4), 390–402.

Baumeister, C., Scherer, A., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2015). Branding access offers: The importance of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, in press, 1–15.

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

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.CrossRef

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

Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. R., & Benjamins, V. R. (1999). What are ontologies, and why do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14, 20–26.CrossRef

Comes, S., & Berniker, L. (2008). Business model innovation. In D. Pantaleo & N. Pal (Eds.), From strategy to execution: Turning accelerated global change into opportunity. Berlin: Springer.

Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126, 376–380.CrossRef

Davies, H. T., & Crombie, I. K. (1998). Getting to grips with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Hospital medicine (London, England: 1998), 59(12), 955–958.

Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ special issue on business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 1–11.

Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 131–135.CrossRef

Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. London: Sage.

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

Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews: From Internet to paper (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

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

Frank, H., & Hatak, I. (2014). Doing a research literature review. In A. Fayolle & M. Wright (Eds.), How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals: A guide to steer your academic career. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations. California Management Review, 50, 94–+.

George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 35, 83–111.CrossRef

Gerasymenko, V., de Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Changing the business model: Effects of venture capital firms and outside CEOs on portfolio company performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 79–98.CrossRef

Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 672–675.

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

Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9, 323–335.CrossRef

LePine, J., & King, W. A. (2010). Editors’ comments: Developing novel theoretical insight from reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35, 506–509.CrossRef

Leseure, M. J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A., & Denyer, D. (2004). Adoption of promising practices: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 169–190.CrossRef

Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 313–323.CrossRef

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

McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43, 247–261.CrossRef

Morris, M., Kuratko, D., & Covin, J. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation. OH South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason.

Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 309, 597.CrossRef

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

Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (2000). Strategic experimentation: Understanding change and performance in new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 493–521.CrossRef

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

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(28), 185–206.CrossRef

Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78.CrossRef

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRef

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 137–168.CrossRef

Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1263–1280.CrossRef

Ritala, P., & Sainio, L.-M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 155–169.CrossRef

Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 475–515.CrossRef

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saab, D. J., & Fonseca, F. (2008). Ontological complexity and human culture. Philosophy’s Relevance in Information Science. Paderborn, Germany.

Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–34.CrossRef

Storbacka, K., Frow, P., Nenonen, S., & Payne, P. (2012). Designing business models for co-creation. In S. L. Vargo & R. F. Lusch (Eds.), Towards a better understanding of the role of value in markets and marketing, review of marketing research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

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

Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2014). The business model dilemma of technology shifts. Technovation, 34, 525–535.CrossRef

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

Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2015). Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, in press.

Wu, J., Guo, B., & Shi, Y. (2013). Customer knowledge management and IT-enabled business model innovation: A conceptual framework and a case study from China. European Management Journal, 31, 359–372.CrossRef

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Chicago: Wiley Periodicals Inc.

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

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11, 403–411.CrossRef

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1019–1042.CrossRef

Titel: Systematic Literature Review
verfasst von: Daniela Andreini
Cristina Bettinelli
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Business Model Innovation
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53350-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-53351-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53351-3_1