Management DecisionEmerald Article: From design driven innovation to meaning strategyCinzia Battistella, Gianluca Biotto, Alberto F. De Toni

Article information:

To cite this document: Cinzia Battistella, Gianluca Biotto, Alberto F. De Toni, (2012),"From design driven innovation to meaning strategy", Management Decision, Vol. 50 Iss: 4 pp. 718 - 743

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211220390

Downloaded on: 04-07-2012

References: This document contains references to 66 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

This document has been downloaded 139 times since 2012. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Charbel Farhat, (1993),"Which parallel finite element algorithm for which architecture and which problem?", Engineering Computations, Vol. 7 Iss: 3 pp. 186 - 195http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb023805

Christine Urquhart, (1998),"Personal knowledge: a clinical perspective from the value and evince projects in health library and information services", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 54 Iss: 4 pp. 420 - 442http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007176

Sang M. Lee, Taewon Hwang, Donghyun Choi, (2012),"Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries", Management Decision, Vol. 50 Iss: 1 pp. 147 - 162http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211194921

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI PADOVA For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

From design driven innovation tomeaning strategy

Cinzia Battistella, Gianluca Biotto and Alberto F. De ToniDepartment of Electric, Managerial and Mechanical Engineering,

University of Udine, Udine, Italy

Abstract

Purpose – In the stream of works showing the semantic dimension as a core concept of the productinnovation (e.g. design driven innovation), the paper aims to present a new business modelingapproach driven by design and meanings. Similarly to the concept that the product is not representedonly by form and function but also by meaning, the entire business model of a company does nottransmit economic and technological value only, but tells a lot of the company from a semantic point ofview. The work seeks to point out that companies can focus on the management of meanings to “makesense” of their entire business model moulded in building blocks, and realize what the authors calledmeaning strategy.

Design/methodology/approach – After a detailed overview of the theoretical backgroundgrounded in the strategy literature and design one, to support the authors’ perspective, an in-depthstudy of meaning strategy performed by illycaffe is presented.

Findings – The value of the work lies in underlining that the design driven (product) innovation’sapplication can be extended further than only describing successful (product) strategies ofdesign-intensive manufactures and in the suggestions on how to implement a meaning strategy,creating new meanings not only in the products, but also in the building blocks of a company’sbusiness model.

Originality/value – The meaning strategy content and action-oriented framework proposed and thematrix business model meanings versus building blocks can become tools to communicate thecompany strategy’s pivotal elements and its evolution and they can drive strategists in developing andmanaging new/existing meanings and building blocks.

Keywords Strategy, Meaning, Business model, Building blocks, Design driven innovation, Case study,Innovation, Design

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe recent theories of the knowledge economy and the experience economy teach usthat the value is increasingly conveyed by the sense and the meaning of things(Drucker, 2002; Pine and Gilmore, 1999). As successful organizations are those that areable to co-evolve with their environments at the edge of chaos (Pina and Vieira da

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

The authors gratefully acknowledge the suggestions and comments of reviewers and ofProfessors Armand Hatchuel and Guido Nassimbeni. The authors would also like to thank,among all the interviewees, Dr Furio Suggi Liverani, R&D manager at illycaffe. Preliminaryideas and findings of this work were successfully presented, receiving an honourable mention, atthe European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM) International ProductDevelopment Management (IPDM) Conference in 2009.

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr Ernesto Illy, who once enchanted the audience inhis lectio magistralis at the University of Udine ranging from complexity theory andmanagement to the concept of love as attractor and people and companies as receptors.

MD50,4

718

Management DecisionVol. 50 No. 4, 2012pp. 718-743q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0025-1747DOI 10.1108/00251741211220390

Cunha, 2006), these new dynamics of strategy ask for new and different approaches. Inorder to innovate, strategists need consistent and flexible tools to capture weak signalsand manage complex information and stimuli. In this line, a rich stream of innovationmanagement scholars (Golsby-Smith, 2007; Fraser, 2007; Holloway, 2009; Borja deMozota, 2003) claim that the semantic dimension carried out by products and bycompanies – in other words their aesthetic, symbolic and emotional messages – is apowerful and critical source of competitive advantage. The literature has surpassed thecommon interpretation of design as style: design is not only style, but is “making sense(of things)” (Krippendorff, 1989). On these concepts, rejecting the traditionalmarket-pull and technology-push dichotomy, Verganti (2003) proposed a third modelcalled “design driven innovation”. It is “a strategy that aims at radically changing theemotional and symbolic content of products, i.e. their meanings and languages,through a profound understanding of broader changes in society, culture andtechnology” (Verganti, 2008). This model successfully describes the innovativecharacter of many companies in Italy (e.g. Kartell, Alessi, Artemide) and worldwide(e.g. Bang and Olufsen, Apple) in terms of product semantic strategies.

Crossing the design management and thinking principles into the strategy domainhas a remarkable potential (Golsby-Smith, 2007; Fraser, 2007; Holloway, 2009). In thisline, the present paper aims to contribute in enriching the research field on DesignDriven Innovation by interpreting and extending the Verganti model through thelenses of the building blocks approach to describe and manage a business model (seeFigure 1). Therefore the present work aims to:

. Explain why it is important to link design driven (product) innovation andbusiness model innovation, pinpointing that a company can implement a designdriven innovation strategy not only to create new meanings in the products (theproduct is only one of the building blocks of the business model), but also newmeanings in the other building blocks of their business model.

. Suggest that business models could be shaped through a strategy that conveys adeliberate meaning. We called this strategy “meaning strategy”.

. Propose the meaning strategy framework to study and implement the meaningstrategy, and exemplify and refine it with the illycaffe case study.

Figure 1.Extending the meaningconveying strategy notonly to the product but

also to the business model

Meaningstrategy

719

Consequently, the paper begins with an analysis of the existing literature contributionsabout innovation, design, strategy and business models, explaining the multiple linksamong them. This lead to identify the theoretical foundations that allow theunderstanding of why it is important to link design driven innovation to businessmodels. We highlight the research design in terms of research questions, researchmethodology and empirical analysis. Then we develop a new approach proposing themeaning strategy and presenting a framework of analysis built to investigate theapplication of the meaning strategy in the business model. The framework is been shownand refined in a case study (illycaffe). Finally, the paper draws conclusions and highlightsthe lessons learned and the recommendations for scholars and for practitioners.

2. Theoretical backgroundTo address the main issues of the present work, different and various literaturestreams (studies on innovation, on design, on strategy and on business models) havebeen leveraged. What is interesting are the links between these different approaches.Two main “approaches” can be recognized:

(1) The design approach that embraces design, innovation and strategy.

(2) The business modeling approach that embraces strategy, business model andinnovation.

2.1 The design approachInnovation management literature is no longer only focused on the analysis of therelationship between innovation and technology change (Chandy and Tellis, 2000), sincemany scholars have underlined the importance of meanings driven by products, servicesand experiences (Verganti, 2008; Geels, 2004; McCracken, 1986). The concept of design isdeeply concerned with the subjective meanings that people give to products. The designetymology itself led Krippendorff (1989) to affirm that “design is making sense (ofthings)”. Design can be a lever for innovation (Walsh, 1996) but is always a process at theedge of chaos. In fact, “making” is related to innovation, something that has to be newand different, and on the other side “sense” to historical continuities, something that hasto be recognizable and understandable (Krippendorff, 1989).

Design from “a powerful but neglected strategic tool” (Kotler and Rath, 1984) isincreasingly being used by firms as a core capability to enhance performance and tounlock product and business innovation (Bertola and Teixeira, 2003; Design Council,2008). Scholars highlight that an open innovation and network context is fundamentalfor innovation driven by design: the connection of the firm with other actors(e.g. designers, users, suppliers) and other external situations (e.g. events, showrooms,design services, firms in other industries) is important to understand the actual andfuture socio-cultural models, to unify similar and different competences in order toimagine new meanings and innovate the old ones and to find the weak signals comingfrom the periphery of the social system.

In this scenario, firms and consumers interact to co-create needs and co-proposebreakthrough meanings and product languages. A pivotal role in this process ofsensing and foresight is lead by the designer, who is for the company a builder ofknowledge (Borja de Mozota, 2003). He has to act as “brokers of knowledge onlanguages and not only on technology” (Verganti, 2008), leveraging on both symbolicand physical properties of consumer goods (McCracken, 1986).

MD50,4

720

Thus far, the discussion has drawn a first look inside the concept of innovation,design and strategy. This design approach can therefore be summarized andrepresented by the design driven innovation model. Anyhow, the design driveninnovation approach explains innovation on the products and links it with thesurrounding organizational system through the “design discourse”, but it does notconsider the innovation on the entire business model driven by design.

2.2 The business modeling approachDespite “every company has a business model, whether they articulate it or not”(Chesbrough, 2007), the business model construct has not been fully clarified in literatureyet. For many authors (Magretta, 2002; Shafer et al., 2005; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom,2002), it is not a strategy. The two concepts are but clearly complementary (Davenportet al., 2006), in fact the function of the strategy is “to give meaning and direction to thedevelopment of the company’s business model” (Tikkanen et al., 2005).

Davenport et al. (2006) define business model as “a way of doing business asreflected by the enterprise’s core value propositions for customers”. Tikkanen et al.(2005) propose a cognitive perspective of the business model: they highlight that the“business model can be conceptualized as the sum of material, objectively existingstructures and processes as well as intangible, cognitive meaning structures at thelevel of a business organization”.

An organization’s business model is the result of a never-ending iterative andongoing process (Shafer et al., 2005) that, as environmental conditions change, requiresadaptation or wholesale change, where “the essential question is to understand whyand how new business models emerge and mutate from the existing stock of businessmodel components” (Tikkanen et al., 2005). The business model describes the rationaleof how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value – economic, social, orother forms of value. Many scholars highlight the powerful role of business models ingetting “everyone in the organization aligned around the kind of value the companywants to create” (Fraser, 2007; Magretta, 2002). But it has to be a dynamic condition,since “the system must be shocked out of its inertia” (Giesen et al., 2007) in order to gaina business model innovation. This will inevitably impact organizational performance(Markides, 2008). While literature investigates how value and meaning can becommunicated to the internal of the organization, and some works (Chesbrough, 2007)identify how the innovation of the business model can generate new value in a sector(in terms of value proposition, target market, value chain, revenue mechanisms, valuenetwork or ecosystem, competitive strategy), there is few research yet on how newmeanings can mould a new business model and therefore be conveyed to the externalof the company. Value lies also in discovering new or applying different businessmodels (Giesen et al., 2007; Markides, 2008), in other words in doing a business modelinnovation. Business model innovation converts to economic value for the business,creating a sustainable competitive advantage in defined markets (Pohle and Chapman,2006; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002; Markides, 1999). Giesen et al. (2007)identified three main types of business model innovation: innovation in industrymodels, in revenue models and in enterprise models. Scholars have not yet focused onhow meaning can be a driver of a business model innovation.

For many scholars the business model is composed by different parts together(Morris et al., 2005; Magretta, 2002). Many scholars claim that a convincing approach is

Meaningstrategy

721

to define a business model by its building blocks (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002;Osterwalder, 2004), others by strategy maps (Kaplan and Norton, 2006) or byknowledge management representation of business models (Malhotra, 2000). Porter(1996) himself underlines the importance of the business model concept and at the endproposes a similar approach, the activity system map. The aim of this stream ofresearch, as highlighted by Voelpel et al. (2005), is on building and developing astandard framework for characterizing a business model. In this line Osterwalder et al.(2005) defined and built a “business model ontology” that describes, in a structuredway, elements and sub-elements of the business model.

2.3 A way to merge the two approaches: “sensemaking” and “making sense” processesThe different processes of perception and creation of meanings called sensemaking andmaking sense can be recognized as similar and converging approaches that belongboth to the design approach and the business model approach, and permit theirconnection and a reasoning on a parallelism between meaning of products andmeaning of business models.

From the design point of view, Krippendorff (1989) claims that “form followsmeanings”, since “people do not perceive pure forms, unrelated objects, or thing assuch but as meanings”. Borja de Mozota (2003) highlights that “design has a newvision of knowledge as a building process of collaborative sensemaking”. The essenceof an object is influenced and shaped by the stratification of what it means as the resultof the sensemaking activity. Sensemaking is a process filtered by a system of actionsand beliefs (Weick, 1995; Choo, 1996). Sensemaking is therefore the activity ofperceiving the environment and assigning a personal meaning to an object. Thedistinctive characteristic of the designer is instead the ability of giving a new meaningand new symbolic qualities to objects, and in this light design “is making sense (ofthings)”. Therefore the designer follows a circular process of which sub-processes are“sense”, “meaning” and “action” (Krippendorff, 1989).

Similarly as regards the business model approach: the concept of assigningmeaning to events and actions of the organization that create discontinuity in the flowof experience has been brought in management studies by the Weick’s (1995) notion ofsensemaking. Sensemaking is “conceptual or constructed ‘mental frames’ that are usedas filters and references to interpret cues picked up from events and objects” (Voelpelet al., 2005). Also in the organization and strategy, the sensemaking activity is followedby the act of giving sense or making sense, by which a manager seeks to shape and toload his/her construct of reality (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991) translating into ameaning new business dynamics or discontinuity events. Many scholars addressedthese sensemaking and making sense processes in strategic (Smirchich and Stubbart,1985; Chaffee, 1985; Kurtz and Snowden, 2003; Wright, 2005; Tikkanen et al., 2005) andorganizational (Daft and Weick, 1984; Thomas et al., 1993; Davenport et al., 2006)management studies. These notions could be useful in explaining the process ofbusiness models construction in highly complex environments (Chesbrough andRosenbloom, 2002). In fact, a new appropriate business model could be discoveredwhen someone intercepts weak signals (Ansoff, 1976) and latent, uncaught, businessvalue potential, “making sense of socio-cultural dynamics and opportunity gaps,reinventing of customer value proposition(s), and reconfiguring the business networkand its value chains” (Davenport et al., 2006). Moreover, scholars (Davenport et al.,

MD50,4

722

2006; Chesbrough, 2007; Fraser, 2007) suggest that a new business model needs to“work and think differently” in order to overcome the constrains of the corporation’sdominant logic, expressed by its extant business model.

All these contributions can be interpreted as nuances of the interpretative model ofstrategy that defines them as “orienting metaphors or frame of reference” (Chaffee,1985; Smirchich and Stubbart, 1985) by which strategists and managers convey,manage and share meaning in the organization to motivate stakeholders. Accordingly,Gray et al. (1985) describe organizations as dynamic processes of meaning constructionand destruction. This model of strategy sees organizations and their own enactedenvironment as open socially constructed systems of shared meanings by managers,strategists and key organizational participants (Markides, 2008; Daft and Weick, 1984).In this sense this approach sees “strategist’s task as an imaginative one, a creative one,an art” (Smirchich and Stubbart, 1985) and strategist as an “interpretative bricoleur”.

Like artifacts, organizations and their business models are always in transition,carrying meanings interacting and in flux, shaped by their own history andsemantically conveyed. The scheme in Figure 2 has been inspired from the productsemantic framework of Krippendorff (1989). It shows a circular process of meaningfulrelations between strategists (entrepreneur and managers), business model andcustomers-stakeholders. Since “people understand the world through bracketing andchunking experience into meaningful units” (Schutz, 1967; Daft and Weick, 1984;Smirchich and Stubbart, 1985; Weick, 1995), the company’s business model is seen asthe experience of customers and stakeholders and meaning always refers to thebusiness model perceived in its enacted context. In this sense, paraphrasing theKrippendorff “form follows meaning”, we may affirm that experience follows meaning.Business models constitute, in such a perspective, frames that managers and firmsdevelop to organize not only “the way they make money” but also the way they conveymeanings, beliefs, values and organizational culture.

Thus, we have shown the sensemaking and making sense processes for meaningscreation as traits of union concepts between the design approach and the business

Figure 2.In a meaning strategy,

experience followsmeaning

Meaningstrategy

723

modeling approach. It is therefore possible to extend the design-driven innovationapproach (Krippendorff, 1989; Verganti, 2008) to strategic business modeling andpropose the concept of Meaning Strategy as a strategy aiming to make sense of anenterprise business model. The meaning strategy is a strategy that shapes the businessmodel with the aim to convey a precise meaning. It is possible to act conveying newmeanings in old building blocks or building new building blocks in order to convey anold or a new meaning.

Confirming this idea, different companies are pursuing this new approach to“design” their own business model. An example of a successful business model, builtaround an original and powerful meaning, is Starbucks’ one. Howard Schultz,president of Starbucks, pursued the meaning of third place, replacing and enriching thestagnant and constraining commodity-oriented perception in the coffee business. Hesensed to be “in the business of creating a consumption experience – of which coffee isa part” (Giesen et al., 2007). With no doubt, he was one of the first in intercepting theexperience economy trend described by Pine and Gilmore (1999). Moreover, he explainsthat what Starbucks does and its business model could not be copied by anyone elsesince “you can’t copy the heart and soul of a business”.

Another example is the successful Apple case, deeply studied in the literature.Markides (2008) argues that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak started the company with anew business redefinition perceiving it not just in terms of the “computer business” butalso in “the toy or hobby business”. They proposed a new meaning, “computers weresupposed to be fun” and this new “mind-set let to the user friendliness of the Macintoshand to the first machine that allowed physical interaction with the computer by meansof a mouse” (Giesen et al., 2007). Moreover, Verganti (2008) recognizes the Apple iPodas a design driven innovation, because iPod has proposed “a radical new language andalso, and above all, a radical new meaning, implying a new experience limited notsimply to listening music, but also to accessing music on the web through the I-tunewebsite, financially supporting the music industry, organizing and accessing songsthrough novel interfaces” (Verganti, 2008). These considerations are in line with theanalysis provided by Hargadon (2005), Fraser (2007), Kahney (2008), Afuah and Tucci(2003), and Osterwalder et al. (2005) about Apple’s business model. All of themhighlight the Apple’s ability in building a complex network of interrelated activities orbuilding blocks, functional in supporting and developing capabilities and competitiveadvantages not only product-design related. Thus what we suggest is to consider alsothat the Apple’s business model evolution has been led and shaped by the definitionand sensing of a stream of meanings (computers or technological devices has to be fun,user-friendly, stylish, easy-of-use).

3. Research designStarting from the literature review, the understanding of the importance of linking thedesign driven and business modeling approaches, the present work aims to understandhow a content and action-analytic framework can be depicted so that a meaningfulbusiness model can be conveyed.

As there has been limited previous research and in order to consider the complexsystem of variables that characterize the observed phenomenon, we selected anin-depth case study to better explain the proposed approach (McCutcheon andMeredith, 1993; Handfield and Melnyk, 1998; Yin, 2003). It matches the goal of the

MD50,4

724

study by focusing on a phenomenon with a dynamic and process nature and in whichunfolding events play an important role in building explanations (Pettigrew, 1997; Yin,2003). Our study is retrospective, so it allowed also a collection of data on historicalevents and from a dynamic point of view (Voss et al., 2002).

We selected among enterprises that use a meaning strategy a case of success inchanging the meaning of the context and of the business model. The case refers toillycaffe, which is the Italian leading company in the coffee business, selling a standardproduct, but continuously innovating through knowledge and culture diffusion. Themotivations for the choice of this case study are many and different. Its approach to themarket is peculiar in terms of product range. While the cases of design driven innovationrefer mostly to companies that sell products that can be considered a product of designand style, illycaffe sells a commodity. Moreover, it is peculiar in terms of different focus ofapplication. While the cases of design driven innovation refer mostly to companies muchmore “marketing oriented”, that means the focus of their application of meaning strategyis on the downstream network, illycaffe applies the meaning strategy along the entirevalue chain. Details on data sources and data analysis can be found in the Appendix.

The process of building of setting-up the framework has been abductive: adeductive approach with the development of the meaning strategy framework basedon literature review and the exemplification and validation of the framework and aninductive approach where we compared our secondary data and interviews from ourcase study with the literature and present a more elaborated framework that has itsfoundations on reality.

4. The framework of meaning strategyTo help in capturing relevant information and in analyzing the cases of MeaningStrategy, we developed a content-analytic and action-oriented grid, that we called theframework of Meaning Strategy. We were inspired by Boulding’s (1956) remark[1] onthe semantic growth of knowledge to notice that organizational knowing, in generalacceptation, is making sense of information on business dynamics and humanrelations. In this line, we found an interesting symmetry in the structure of Choo’sorganizational knowing model (Choo, 1996, 2002) (sensemaking, knowledge creationand decision making) with the Krippendorff’s (2006) designer’s mental model (sense,meaning, action). These considerations and the primary role of “sensemaking” and“making sense” processes for meaning creation on the meaning strategy approach wehave described so far, led us to the identification of three main activities that have to bebalanced by the strategist-designer, who has a constructive role:

(1) Activity of sensemaking: the company senses its environment and collectsinformation on changes in it.

(2) Activity of knowledge creation about business model meanings: the companycreates new knowledge about which meanings to convey through its businessmodel.

(3) Activity of business model reconfiguration: the company makes decisions andtakes actions about which old building block to enrich by giving meanings ornew building block to implement in order to convey new meanings.

These activities form a fluid, dynamic, open-ended circular process as represented inFigure 3.

Meaningstrategy

725

5. Case study5.1 IllycaffeIllycaffe (one of the six international business companies controlled by the illy Group)is an Italian worldwide innovative company based in Trieste producing and selling aunique single blend of 100 percent Arabica premium quality espresso coffee since 1933.The history of illycaffe can testify its world class expertise and leadership in espressocoffee and its passion for science and technology that it promotes as the “art andscience of the espresso coffee”. For example, in the last 100 years, three of the eightradical innovations in the way coffee is made, thought and drunk, have been proposedby illy: 1935 pressurization system for the conservation; 1937 Illetta (the forefather ofthe professional coffee machines); 1970s coffee in portions. See also the recentIperespresso method for the preservation of the aroma. Not by chance, recently,illycaffe signed a joint-venture agreement with The Coca-Cola Company focused on thepremium ready-to-drink espresso coffee segment.

The illycaffe case has already been investigated from different perspectives. For ourpurposes, the main examples are: the business model perspective (Giesen et al., 2007),the supply chain management perspective (Kaplinsky and Fitter, 2004), thedesign-driven innovation and laboratories perspective (Dell’Era and Verganti, 2009)and the knowledge management and business strategy perspective. Nevertheless,these perspectives are not enough to give a comprehensive view and explain all theillycaffe strategy. In the following discussion, we will therefore explore it through theMeaning Strategy perspective, applying the three level framework proposed in the lastsection, covering the illycaffe business model evolution since early 1990 (after thedisclosure of Istituto Brasileiro do Cafe) to 2009.

Figure 3.Framework for analysis ofthe meaning strategy

MD50,4

726

5.1.1 Sensemaking phase. Investigating the system of beliefs (McCracken, 1986),it emerges that illycaffe has been able to build a new product ontology of espressocoffee, rejecting most of the industry recipes and reputational rankings thatcharacterized the traditional coffee business. Illycaffe has always prompted, in theextreme, research on product quality and on its aesthetic sensorial characterization,where the majority of the market was selling only a commodity product. It based itsstrategy on the concept of “one blend one brand”, avoiding competition withmultinationals and their strategies of multi-product and multi-brand. It headed, ashighlighted by its president Andrea Illy, on quality and business ethics intended asthe construction of value over time, and it recognized the importance and thepotentialities of the knowledge-sharing and the trust-based relationships not ruledby formal contracts with the suppliers, not adopting the limiting and close role ofchannel master typical of the agrifood sector. Moreover, also Ernesto Illyhighlighted how, while the other competitors have a “Gaussian strategy” towardcoffee consumers, illycaffe has “a realistic attitude toward consumers: we try toattract that 1 percent of them who are sensitive to our top-quality message.” Thisstrategic idea generated positive feedback between the brand and the consumersand led to a lock-in phenomenon.

In particular, through interviews, we reconstructed the elements that allowed thestratification of different meanings and their conveyance through its current businessmodel. These, in our opinion, can be framed into the approaches of Tikkanen et al.(2005)[2], Voelpel et al. (2005), and Davenport et al. (2006)[3]:

(1) Sensing new customers benefits:. Customers are increasing seeking sensorial and emotional pleasure and

focusing on consumption experience and better quality of life. Thisenrichment of the involvement of consumers is driven not only bydeveloping the most desirable products but also places of consumption.

. The importance of building a strong emotional and trustworthy brand tojoin and nurture growing premium-quality niches market.

(2) Sensing new value propositions:. The rejection of coffee as a commodity product. The reject of Brazil as

producer of a medium-low quality coffee.. A perfect sensory experience and the Espresso quality could be founded only

on researching on the complex chemical substances and chemical-physicalvariables affecting its preparation.

. The potential for solving technical problems and for proposing innovationseven in a commodity market.

(3) Sensing new business system configurations:. The emergence in the early 1990s of new conditions and opportunities in the

Brazilian market due to the disclosure in 1991 of Istituto Brasilero do Cafe.This event shocked the entire coffee system out of its inertia forcing illycaffeto redesign part of its procurement strategy.

. The importance of reputation, trust and knowledge sharing in developingstrong relationship with farmers and suppliers.

Meaningstrategy

727

(4) Sensing economics/profitability:. The need to have a different and richer reward strategy with suppliers.

Contractual form or relationship and procurement strategy not fair may leadto reach unsatisfactory quality standard and weaken the entire supply chain.

5.1.2 Business model meaning creation phase. From the investigation of the meaningcreation phase, we found that meaning is located in three places: the culturallyconstituted world, the company business model and the individualcustomer/stakeholder. This extends the concept of cultural meaning (McCracken,1986) and the theory of consumer experience (Brakus, 2008) to the business modelingapproach.

Therefore, there are three levels: cultural level, company’s business model level andcustomers and stakeholders level, and the meaning can be transferred among them.McCracken (1986) highlights as instrument of meaning transfer, advertising andproduct design as practiced in the fashion system from the cultural world to goods, andmany kinds of rituals from goods to consumer. This is in line with the concept of“design discourse” proposed by Verganti (2008). Similarly, these meaning movementdynamics can be enriched for example by the entrepreneur’s leadership and vision as away to transfer meaning from cultural world to the company business model, and bythe experience providers (Brakus, 2008) from company business model tocustomer/stakeholders.

(1) Cultural meanings. From a socio-cultural perspective, the cultural meaningsthat emerged from interviews and analysis are mostly related to two mainstreams. On the one hand, in the cultural constituted world, for example, wemay include the theme of the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1999) andthe meanings related to the “dream society” ( Jensen, 2001). The society isincreasingly sensitive to ways of improving quality of life. The productbecomes secondary. The inner love for beauty and artisanship is increasinglyprofound. The premium market segment strongly seeks the most advancedtechnologies and the emotional and intellectual involvement. Moreover, somecompanies are now seen as tribes, attractors and catalysts ofsocial-relationships. On the other hand, there is the theme of corporate socialresponsibility, business ethics and collective value that lies in establishing andnurturing a business ecosystem (Iansiti and Levien, 2004). Ethics and thecommitment to construction of value over time through sustainability is one ofthe main drivers inspiring and leading an increasing number of companies.

(2) Company business model meanings. In relation to the above-mentioned culturalmeanings, the illycaffe Meaning Strategy conveyed through its business modelis based on four main meanings:. M1 – High quality coffee. Choosing the illycaffe’s coffee should mean to taste

and experience one of the best premium quality finest coffee. Actually,illycaffe is recognized as a world-leading brand for quality coffee.

. M2 – Trustworthy partner. illycaffe establishes long term trust-basedrelationships (based on reputation and knowledge sharing), on which itbases its business ethics and sustainability.

MD50,4

728

. M3 – Eudemonia and kalokagathia. The term of eudemonia[4] synthesizesthe concept of “well being of the soul” while the term kalokagathia[5] conveysthe meaning that “taste and beauty are inseparable”. For illycaffe, the coffeeshould provide the aesthetic taste of an artistic work. The illycaffe mission isin fact “seeking beauty in everything we do”.

. M4 – Coffee culture leading expert. illycaffe wants to be and represent thespecialist and the repository of the culture of the coffee. Illycaffe in factdefines itself as “the home of coffee culture”.

(3) Individual customers and stakeholders’ meanings. This step in the meaningcreation phase has not been fully addressed in our present work. It emerged as avery important theme from interviews but it should require an involvement inour investigation of illycaffe customers and stakeholders through interviews orquestionnaires that is outside our primary objectives. Nevertheless, it would bevery interesting for future works to enrich the analysis by researching themeanings held by illycaffe customers and stakeholders.

5.1.3 Business model reconfiguration phase. In order to describe and visualize acompany’s business model, the interviews highlight the concept of building block asfundamental for the connection with meaning. Therefore we mainly referred to theOsterwalder et al.’s (2005) model of nine areas grouping the related building blocks, notexcluding the possibility to add other areas coming from other scholars. The nine basicareas are value proposition, distribution channels, customer relationships, revenuestreams, key resources, key activities, partner network and cost structure. As alreadyremarked, the Osterwalder et al. (2005) model is only one possible representation of thebusiness model, but the same reasoning and mental construction are still valid if weconsider other representations, as for example the activity maps of Porter (1996) or thestrategic maps of Kaplan and Norton (2006).

Moreover, our approach is not to identify a priori the most important buildingblocks, but to try to map the most completely the company business model from data.Then, the most relevant building blocks in the Meaning Strategy perspective will beidentified successively, by a matrix meanings/building blocks. In fact, the analysis willfinish by creating this matrix (formed by building blocks in the columns and meaningsin the rows), where for each building block it is mapped which meaning is conveyed(or: for each meaning, which building block impact on it). Illycaffe business modelcomplexity is here schematically described, highlighting the building blocks areas andthe illycaffe decision making on building blocks (Table I).

Moreover, it is possible to carry on this analysis from a dynamic point of view, thismeans that the matrix can also map which building block was built in which historicalperiod of the company. The interesting aspect is to show how the four company’sbusiness model meanings previously explained impact on which one of the buildingblocks, and how the illycaffe Meaning Strategy evolved from 1990 to 2009 (see Figure 4).

5.2 Case study discussionIllycaffe is not a design firm or a design-intensive manufacturer, such as the wellknown cases of the design driven innovation (Alessi, Kartell, etc.). Nevertheless, itcertainly participates in changing the emotional and symbolic content of coffee. Itdeveloped over time a specific language and set some design-driven laboratories in

Meaningstrategy

729

Building blocks areas illycaffe decision making on building blocks

1. Offer 1.1 illycaffe main product is still a high quality coffee (one blend) offered indifferent formats (fine and medium grind – whole bean – Moka – ESE “easyserving espresso” – hyper espresso capsules).

1.2 Cups and mugs of the illy art collection illy expresses its values throughchosen art, literature and creativity. It all began in 1992, with the firstcollection of designer cups entitled “Arts and Crafts”. Since then, illy hasestablished a strong bond with the art world, constantly adding newencounters between the good and the beautiful

1.3 Coffee machines (with the Francis Francis brand)1.4 “Education on coffee” (e.g. courses at the university of coffee. “Universita del

caffe” is a training institute established by illycaffe to further and spread thecoffee culture, by offering a theoretical and practical preparation on allthemes relating to the cafe (consumption place), to coffee and to all thepreparation techniques. Illycaffe has established 11 international Universitadel Caffe sites, the first in Trieste in 1999. Moreover, illycaffe offers forexample books on coffee, or the “Trivial Pursuit illy coffee culture edition” toplay and to develop a passion for the coffee world)

2. Key resources 2.1 Knowledge of chemistry and sensorial aspects of coffee2.2 Quality management2.3 Leading technological innovations on coffee (illycaffe holds more than 100

patents)

3. Key activities 3.1 Activities of R&D and design-driven laboratories. Illycaffe recognized theimportance and benefits of a set of networked knowledge managementpractices and laboratories to acquire new insights in developing a coffeescience-based culture

3.2 Activities of brand management. See how the branding strategy promotedby illy is connected to the motto “one-blend-one-brand”. Moreover ErnestoIlly explained that “The illy brand which you can find here, in Tokyo or inBuenos Aires has the same meaning because there is an underlyingrelationship of trust and confidence based on reputation. And reputationmeans more than image – because an image can be sold – while reputationis built step by step by always keeping faith to promises”

3.3 Illycaffe acts as a knowledge sharing ecosystem coordinator. Morespecifically, illycaffe promotes and motivates the knowledge sharing in itsbusiness ecosystem in order to enhance the coffee quality from bean to cupand to spread broadly innovations (e.g. on cultivation techniques)

3.4 Main operation-activity: roasting and blending of coffee. Illycaffe does notshare any knowledge on these two main coffee activities with anybody

4. Revenue flows 4.1 Revenues from products and services

5. Cost structure 5.1 Buying green coffee of the highest quality Arabica directly from the growers,bypassing traditional actors of the coffee supply chain as traders

5.2 According to the growers a premium price above-market prices. illycafferewards quality with prices that are approximately 30 percent higher than themarket average because according to Ernesto Illy “the right strategy to winover competition cannot [. . .] be a low price policy but high quality products!”

6. Partner network 6.1 Partners connected to the operational level (e.g. warehousing and logisticspartner)

6.2 illycaffe developed along time an emergent-powerful and trust-basedknowledge-sharing ecosystem, linking growers, technicians and coffeeexperts, universities, laboratories. More specifically, through reputation andknowledge sharing fluxes, illycaffe shaped new business systemconfiguration, in which trust replaced contractual form of relations

(continued )

Table I.illycaffe’s decisionmaking on buildingblocks of the businessmodel

MD50,4

730

order to push in the market its vision, as described in Dell’Era and Verganti (2009).However, the analysis we drew shows that a company like illycaffe is offering a singlecommodity product with a Meaning Strategy not only addressing the product but also

Building blocks areas illycaffe decision making on building blocks

7. Supplier relationshipa It is based on some events and activities with suppliers, in order to augment thequality and to enrich the knowledge and trusted relationship:7.1 Unilly: illycaffe founded in Brasil in 2000 the Universita del Caffe in

partnership with the University of Sao Paul, for the education of the growersand suppliers

7.2 Clubilly: Club illy was established in 2000, making it the meeting andexchange site for all illycaffe suppliers in Brazil

7.3 illy Award for quality coffee: illycaffe launched its first quality program, theBrazil Award, in 1991 in order to react to the closure of Instituto Brasileiro doCafe, awarding $30,000 to the producer of the best Arabica coffee. By meansof the “Brazilian Award for Quality Coffee”, illycaffe implemented aninnovative procurement strategy to attract and let emerge high-qualityBrazilian coffee growers and unexpectedly changed the mentality of theBrazilian market. This initiative was followed by the India Award, theColombia Award and the Guatemala Award

8. Distribution channel 8.1 ho.re.ca. (hotel, restaurants and cafes)8.2 illycaffe recognizes the elite cafes achieving high standard in coffee making

and preparation with the designation Artisti del Gusto (Artists of Taste).Moreover it offers exclusive design solutions and advanced training coursesand sessions to baristas

8.3 In 2003, the company created “espressamente illy” cafes, claimed as “acomplete coffee immersion”. They are a chain of franchising of Italian-stylecoffee houses proposed to its customers worldwide (over 200 locations in 32countries on five continents). The philosophy behind the project lies in illy’spursuit of quality and the cafes are marked by innovative design promotingItalian foods and taste

8.4 Retail8.5 Vending and serving8.6 E-commerce

9. Client segments Premium market segment of:9.1 Home high-end consumers9.2 Consumers in the offices9.3 People in the distribution channel for education and training

10. Client relationship 10.1 Concepts of art, culture and coffee lovers brand. “When we drink coffee, ourtongue gets painted. As long as it stays painted, it remains tasty!” saidErnesto Illy, son of the illycaffe founder Francesco Illy. Coffee enrich thedaily life of many millions of people, pleasuring the senses, sparkling themind, enhancing creativity and catalyzing friendships

10.2 Illystories: a series of small books distributed free of charge in Italian coffeebars serving illy written by young students and writers to enhance theespresso occasion

10.3 Illyworlds: the illycaffe’s magazine of Inno.cent Lab in which are publisheddialogues, opinions and points of view on themes such as dreams,multiculturalism, awareness, chaos and the non-linear path of knowledge

10.4 Based on cultural-artistic events and initiatives. For example, in 1997, 2003,2005 and 2007, the company was the main partner of the Venice ArtBiennale

Note: a Building block that we added to the Osterwalder et al.’s (2005) scheme Table I.

Meaningstrategy

731

other building blocks of its business model. In this case another importantcharacteristic is that the meanings are conveyed both in the downstream both in theupstream network. Our approach widens and clarifies the perspectives ofinterpretation of the illycaffe strategy and therefore overcomes other studies of thissuccessful company (Kaplinsky and Fitter, 2004; Dell’Era and Verganti, 2009). It allowsrecognition of and highlights the main building blocks strategically developed byillycaffe over the years.

Figure 4.Impact of meanings (M) onthe building blocks (BB) ofillycaffe’s business model(historic approach)

MD50,4

732

More specifically, illycaffe launched a high quality strategy since 1980 summarizedby the slogan “one blend, one brand”. After the disclosure of the Istituto Brasileiro doCafe in 1991, it recognized, over the years, the benefits and importance to act as thecoordinator of the trust-based knowledge ecosystem that contributed to develop inBrazil and Trieste. Fundamental to this was the idea of promoting the Brazilian Awardfor Quality Coffee since 1991. Nearly at the same time, illycaffe started to address thecreation of a strong link between its brand with art and design. Finally, its MeaningStrategy in the last years has been focused on being a recognized repository of coffeeculture, and most of its last building blocks have been thought and built to convey thismeaning.

6. DiscussionThe main lesson of this paper lies in suggesting that a company can implement ameaning strategy, creating new meanings not only in the products, but also in thebuilding blocks of its business model.

After the case analysis, the framework has been compared with interviews andsecondary data, with an abductive approach. This identified a more complexframework, grounded in reality, as discussed in section 5. Figure 5 shows the finalcontent and action-oriented framework of the meaning strategy.

Through the sensemaking of business and socio-cultural dynamics and through theidentification and creation of the business model meanings, entrepreneurs and

Figure 5.Framework of themeaning strategy

Meaningstrategy

733

managers can reconfigure and shape new valuable business models for theircompanies. This is what is happening in successful companies like illycaffe. Thus,innovation could be driven by the company sensing of the possible breakthroughmeanings and languages that could emerge from the product offer, from the partnernetwork, the distribution channel, both from the downstream and upstream network.

Results provide interesting guidelines for managers that operate in design-intensiveindustries, but show that also companies in other industries can implement asuccessful Meaning Strategy. This is a first advancement for the practice: a strategymanager can sense the environment, understand the signs and the future scenarios andtranslate the sensing in strategic choices toward all the company, i.e. not only to theproduct design innovation but also to the business model design innovation. Themanager can think to his/her strategy like a matrix of meanings and building blocksand understand his/her possible choices in relation to the meanings.

From a literature point of view, the interest lies in expanding and connecting theliterature on sensemaking and design driven innovation with the literature on strategyand business modeling and, therefore, in proposing the concept of “meaning strategy”.

From a practitioners” point of view, the present work suggests a content-analyticand action-oriented framework to enrich the meaning conveyed through one or severalbuilding blocks of the existing business model. The content-analytic andaction-oriented framework proposed (Figure 3) and the matrix business modelmeanings versus building blocks (Figure 4) can become tools to communicate in asimple and intuitive way the company strategy, its pivotal elements and its evolutionover time. They could give actionability, inspiring and guiding strategist in developingand managing new/existing meanings and building blocks. In fact, from a managerialpoint of view, this study suggests that firms can develop successful strategies:

(1) Focusing not only on the “product” building block but extending theirstrategies for conveying their meanings also through other building blocks,e.g. by partner network, distribution channels, suppliers and customersrelationships etc. This can reinforce the meaning itself by conveying it throughdifferent means.

(2) Conveying the meaning addressing the language not only to customers, but alsoto other and different stakeholder (suppliers, politicians, other companies of thesame ecosystem, citizens, etc.). This calls for a differentiation of strategies andlanguages, customized for different users.

(3) Sensing the environment and understanding the signs, weak signals to imaginescenarios. The managers need to imagine the future meanings and to study astrategy to conveying them through building blocks.

(4) Drawing the current meaning/building block matrix. This helps the manager tounderstand the structure of its company in terms of design and languagesshown to the stakeholders.

(5) Deciding the action to be taken as regards these relationships. This conductsthe strategy manager to focus on the uncovered building blocks and/or on theless-represented meanings.

Moreover, another advancement of this paper is the historical perspective, i.e. thedynamic evolution of meanings. In fact, organizations are dynamic processes through

MD50,4

734

which new meanings are constructed or conveyed by different means. Therefore, amanager could also consider a dynamic point of view in implementing the meaningstrategy.

In the definition of their innovation strategy of business model languagescompanies have to face three main decisions:

(1) They have to choose between a proactive approach based on the proposal ofnew meanings and on the actions on new building blocks with old or newmeanings and a reactive approach based on following the languages alreadysensed and adopted in the market.

(2) They have to determine the variety and heterogeneity of languages in theirstrategic portfolio (and the addressee of the languages – , e.g. the customers, thesuppliers, etc.).

(3) They have to determine the range of building blocks where to act with themeaning strategy, also from a dynamic point of view.

7. ConclusionsThe present work rediscovers and enriches the interpretative model of strategy(Chaffee, 1985) for which organizations are seen as meanings systems (Daft and Weick,1984) and strategic managers as managers who have to convey their business model’smeaning (Smirchich and Stubbart, 1985). But what is suggested here is that thismanagement of meanings should interest also the “make sense” of companies’ businessmodels. Considering that stakeholders are increasingly paying attention to thesemantic value of the companies, the present article focuses on innovations of signsand languages. Starting with the definition of design as “making sense of things”, thispaper has focused on meaning strategy, that is, the innovation of business modelmeanings. The development of semantic innovations is strictly influenced by theability to access and interpret knowledge on meanings and languages. They need thento be transferred in products, but also in other building blocks of the business model. Itis important for a manager to note that the meaning of a company is not only conveyedby the technology and the design of its products, but also from the design of the entirecompany, i.e. the relationships with suppliers, the marketing with customers, thefinancial dimension, etc.

The findings of this paper contribute to a topic which is still under-researched. Theliterature mainly adopts a perspective focused on business modeling as anagglomeration of “technical components” and/or on products as the major (or only)means to convey meanings. Indeed, this study focuses on the role of design on theentire business model of a company, proposing the approach of the meaning strategy.It represents a possible lever for success because:

. it allows to intercept emerging issues and understand signs and weak signalsand consequently permits to the manager to shape strategies;

. it allows to communicate with stakeholders sharing values and meanings,reinforcing relationships with suppliers and customers and stakeholders’communities; and

. it allows to convey the meanings into different building blocks of the businessmodel.

Meaningstrategy

735

Focusing on an Italian company (illycaffe) that does not operate in the design industryand that can be considered a successful case of meaning strategy, we analyzed itsbusiness model meaning innovation, explaining its potential contribution to thecompetitive advantage. Pursuing this strategy, illycaffe has developed an identity thatis particularly strong and distinctive, positively perceived by the market andappreciated by all the stakeholders. The meaning strategy represents an effectiveapproach for communicating the company identity through its building blocks andinnovating on them.

Suggesting that a company should be able to build and manage a semantic of itsbusiness activities is fascinating but has to be further explored in future studies. Forexample, the identification of other companies that develop meaning strategy andoperate in different industries can provide additional information and make researchon this subject more robust.

The business model’s meaning strategy becomes a mediating construct betweentechnology and economic value (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002) through itssemantic value. To accomplish this task, a creative process is required based onexperiences and the creation of meanings, due to a fluid intelligence able in imaginingnew languages possibilities (Rullani, 2004). The present work suggests that thecreative companies can use this fluid intelligence to “design” their own business model.

Notes

1. i.e. “knowledge grows by the receipt of meaningful information”.

2. They are: the industry beliefs (economic and competitive constructions related to theinstitutional context of the firm), the boundary ones (social constructions of a firm within aninter-organizational community), the product ontologies (cognitive constructions related tothe offering) and the reputational rankings (how organizations socially evaluate competitionand their competitors).

3. They describe four key dimensions (sensing): sensing new customer benefits: “sensingpotential for change in customer behaviour and new customer benefits”; sensing new valuepropositions: “sensing the strength, direction, and impact of technology for new customervalue propositions”; sensing new business system configurations: “sensing the potential forvalue system (re)configuration, including supply chains, demand chains, and internal valuechains”; and sensing economics/profitability: “sensing the economic feasibility, profitabilityand wider benefits of the reinvented business models”.

4. From the greek eudaimon (lucky), composed by eu (good) and daimon (genius).

5. Derived noun of Kalos kagathos, an idiomatic phrase used in ancient Greek literature,synthesized in the expression “what is good cannot but be beautiful”.

References

Afuah, A. and Tucci, C. (2003), Internet Business Models and Strategies, McGraw-Hill, Boston,MA.

Ansoff, I. (1976), “Managing strategic surprise by response to weak signals”, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 18, pp. 21-33.

Bertola, P. and Teixeira, J.C. (2003), “Design as a knowledge agent: how design as a knowledgeprocess is embedded into organizations to foster innovation”, Design Studies, Vol. 24,pp. 181-94.

MD50,4

736

Borja de Mozota, B. (2003), Design Management – Using Design to Build Brand Value andCorporate Innovation, Allworth Press, New York, NY.

Boulding, K.E. (1956), “General system theory – the skeleton of science”, Management Science,Vol. 2, pp. 197-208.

Brakus, J.J. (2008), “Embodied cognition, affordances and mind modularity: using cognitivescience to present a theory of consumer experience”, in Schmitt, B. and Rogers, D. (Eds),Handbook on Brand and Experience Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Chaffee, E.E. (1985), “Three models of strategy”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10,pp. 89-98.

Chandy, R.K. and Tellis, G.J. (2000), “The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radicalproduct innovation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 1-17.

Chesbrough, H. (2007), “Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore”,Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 35, pp. 12-17.

Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002), “The role of the business model in capturing valuefrom innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spinoff companies”,Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, pp. 529-55.

Choo, C.W. (1996), “The knowing organization: how organizations use information to constructmeaning, create knowledge and make decisions”, International Journal of InformationManagement, Vol. 16, pp. 329-40.

Choo, C.W. (2002), Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge,Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), “Toward a model of organizations as interpretative systems”,The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 284-95.

Davenport, T.H., Leibold, M. and Voelpel, S. (2006), Strategic Management in the InnovationEconomy, Publicis Corporate Publishing and Wiley, Erlangen.

Dell’Era, C. and Verganti, R. (2009), “Design-driven laboratories: organization and strategy oflaboratories specialized in the development of radical design-driven innovations”,R&D Management, Vol. 39, pp. 1-20.

Design Council (2008), The Impact of Design on Business, Design Council, London, DesignCouncil Briefing October 2008, available at: www.designcouncil.org.uk

Drucker, P. (2002), “They’re not employees, they’re people”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80,pp. 70-7.

Fraser, H.M.A. (2007), “The practice of breakthrough strategies by design”, Journal of BusinessStrategy, Vol. 28, pp. 66-74.

Geels, F.W. (2004), “From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems – insightsabout dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory”, Research Policy,Vol. 33, pp. 897-920.

Giesen, E., Berman, S.J., Bell, R. and Blitz, A. (2007), “Three ways to successfully innovate yourbusiness model”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 35, pp. 27-33.

Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991), “Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic changeinitiation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 433-48.

Golsby-Smith, T. (2007), “The second road of thought: how design offers strategy a new toolkit”,Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 28, pp. 22-9.

Gray, B., Bougon, M.G. and Donnellon, A. (1985), “Organizations as constructions anddestructions of meaning”, Journal of Management, Vol. 11, pp. 83-98.

Meaningstrategy

737

Handfield, R.S. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998), “The scientific theory-building process: a primer usingthe case of TQM”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 321-39.

Hargadon, A. (2005), “Leading with vision: the design of new ventures”, Design ManagementReview, pp. 33-9.

Holloway, M. (2009), “How tangible is your strategy? How design thinking can turn yourstrategy into reality”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30, pp. 50-6.

Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004), The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of BusinessEcosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability, Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, MA.

Jensen, R. (2001), The Dream Society: How the Coming Shift from Information to ImaginationWill Transform Your Business, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Kahney, L. (2008), Inside Steve’s Brain, Atlantic Books, London.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2006), “How to implement a new strategy without disrupting yourorganization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 100-9.

Kaplinsky, R. and Fitter, R. (2004), “Technology and globalisation: who gains when commoditiesare decommodified?”, International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, Vol. 1,pp. 1-28.

Kotler, P.G. and Rath, A. (1984), “Design: a powerful but neglected strategic tool”, Journal ofBusiness Strategy, Vol. 5, pp. 16-21.

Krippendorff, K. (1989), “On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that ‘designis making sense (of things)’”, Design Issues, Vol. 5, pp. 9-39.

Krippendorff, K. (2006), The Semantic Turn, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Kurtz, C.F. and Snowden, D.J. (2003), “The new dynamics of strategy: sensemaking in a complexand complicated world”, IBM System Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 462-82.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic Enquiry, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure andmovement of a cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 13, pp. 71-84.

McCutcheon, D.M. and Meredith, J.R. (1993), “Conducting case study research in operationsmanagement”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 239-56.

Magretta, J. (2002), “Why business models matter”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, pp. 86-92.

Malhotra, Y. (2000), Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations, Idea Group, Hershey,PA.

Markides, C.C. (1999), “A dynamic view of strategy”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40,pp. 55-63.

Markides, C.C. (2008), Game Changing Strategies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book,2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.

Morris, M., Schindehutte, M. and Allen, J. (2005), “The entrepreneur’s business model: toward aunified perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 726-35.

Osterwalder, A. (2004), “The business model ontology – a proposition in a design scienceapproach”, PhD thesis, Universite de Lausanne – Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales,Lausanne.

MD50,4

738

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. and Tucci, C.L. (2005), “Clarifying business models: origins, present,and future of the concept”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems,Vol. 16, pp. 1-25.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1997), “Strategy formulation as a political process”, International Studies ofManagement and Organization, Vol. 7, pp. 78-87.

Pina, M.C. and Vieira da Cunha, J. (2006), “Towards a complexity theory of strategy”,Management Decision, Vol. 44, pp. 839-50.

Pine, J.B. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999), The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

Pohle, G. and Chapman, M. (2006), “IBM’s global CEO report 2006: business model innovationmatters”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 34, pp. 34-40.

Porter, M.E. (1996), “What is a strategy?”, Harvard Business Review, November-December,pp. 61-78.

Rullani, E. (2004), Economia della conoscenza. Creativita e valore nel capitalismo delle reti(“Knowledge Economy. Creativity and Value in the Network’s Capitalism”), Carocci.

Schutz, A. (1967), The Phenomenology of the Social World, Northwestern University Press,Evanston, IL.

Shafer, S.M., Smith, H.J. and Linder, J.C. (2005), “The power of business models”, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 48, pp. 199-207.

Smirchich, L. and Stubbart, C. (1985), “Strategic management in an enacted world”, The Academyof Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 724-36.

Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M. and Gioia, D.A. (1993), “Strategic sensemaking and organizationalperformance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 239-70.

Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J.A., Parvinen, P. and Kallunki, J.P. (2005), “Managerial cognition, actionand the business model of the firm”, Management Decision, Vol. 43, pp. 789-809.

Verganti, R. (2003), “Design as brokering of languages: the role of designers in the innovationstrategy of Italian firms”, Design Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 34-42.

Verganti, R. (2008), “Design, meanings and radical innovation: a meta-model and a researchagenda”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25, pp. 436-56.

Voelpel, S., Leibold, M., Tekie, E. and Von Krogh, G. (2005), “Escaping the red queen effect incompetitive strategy: sense-testing business models”, European Management Journal,Vol. 23, pp. 37-49.

Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”,International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22, pp. 195-219.

Wallendorf, M. and Belk, R.W. (1989), “Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumerresearch”, in Hirschman, E.C. (Ed.), Interpretative Consumer Research, New JerseyAssociation for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 69-83.

Walsh, V. (1996), “Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm”, Research Policy, Vol. 25,pp. 509-29.

Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Wright, A. (2005), “The role of scenarios as prospective sensemaking devices”, ManagementDecision, Vol. 43, pp. 86-101.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, AppliedSocial Research Methods Series.

Meaningstrategy

739

Appendix. Data sources and data analysisData sourcesThis study has been carefully designed to ensure high quality and sufficient rigor. To maximizethe validity and reliability of the case study (Yin, 2003), multiple sources of data were used andtriangulated. In particular, the channels for data were documents and interviews. The collectionof data required circa fifteen non-consecutive days of on-site visits and the time-frame of theanalysis was from 2006 to 2009.

Company documents. Copies of company documents on business model strategy,website and other official documents were investigated. They were coded according tothe categories of the framework proposed.

Interviews. The case study was conducted in ten face-to-face interviews with keyinformants: typically the manager and their collaborator from different functions(strategy, research and development, marketing, logistics, purchasing) in order to gainmultiple perspectives, but also other actors of the business ecosystem (for example thesuppliers), in order to investigate the whole network and system. As convergence ofopinions from multiple researchers enhances precision in findings and differentinsights add wealth to data, at least two of the investigators were present in everyinterview. Table AI summarizes all the information about interviews.

The units of analysis were the projects of design driven innovation, the entire business modeldeployed in building blocks and the meanings conveyed by the company. The steps of analysisfollowed the conceptual framework proposed in the section 4. To assure the coherence and theconsistency among interviews, a standard protocol was developed to be checked and to guide theinterviews, it consisted of four main sections:

(1) Description of the business model (i.e. the building blocks that constitute it and theirrelationships).

(2) Sensemaking (i.e. sensing and foresight activities).

(3) Knowledge creation about meanings (i.e. identification of meanings conveyed –deliberate and emergent).

(4) Decision making (i.e. historical implementation of building block and building blocklever effect on meanings).

Data analysisCase analysis was conducted following the recommendations of McCutcheon and Meredith(1993), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Yin (2003). Given the qualitative nature of the study, theidentification of the impact of the meanings on building blocks was a critical activity. To performit in a rigorous way, variables were evaluated autonomously by three researchers (based ondocuments, interviews and observation), and subsequently they shared their opinions to obtainan agreed assessment. Gaps and conflicts were resolved by further reviewing the transcripts andby consultation with the interviewees. Finally, informants reviewed and confirmed the caseresults to ensure the investigators’ comprehension is correct. Such feedback from informants isessential to prevent observer bias (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) and in establishing the credibility ofan interpretation (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989).

MD50,4

740

No. Position N D Interview topics

1 Strategy manager 2 70m Overview on strategy and business modelDescription of building blocksKnowledge flows and relationships amongbuilding blocksSensing activityMeanings conveyed by the companyReasons for peculiar choices oforganizational, logistic and marketingrelationships structureOrganizational structure and managementpracticesFunctioning of university of the coffee,relationships with suppliers, etc.Results: how meanings are translated instrategic and innovation choices, also froma historic point of view

2 Strategy manager collaborator 1 60m Overview on strategy and business modelDescription of building blocksKnowledge flows and relationships amongbuilding blocksSensing activityMeanings conveyed by the companyResults: how meanings are translated instrategic and innovation choices, also froma historic point of view

3 Innovation and development manager 1 80m Overview on strategy and business modelDescription of building blocks related toproducts and innovationSensing activityMeanings conveyed by the companyReasons for peculiar choices of innovationand related structureFunctioning of university of the coffee,relationships with suppliers, etc.Results: how meanings are translated instrategic and innovation choices, also froma historic point of view

4 Marketing manager 1 85m Functioning of marketing functionDescription of building blocks related tomarketingSensing activityMeanings conveyed by the companyManagerial practices for meaning strategyReasons for peculiar choices of marketingand related structureResults: how meanings are translated instrategic, innovation and marketingchoices, also from a historic point of view

(continued )

Table AI.List of interviews,

including position of theinterviewee, number and

average duration ofinterviews and focus (the

person’s contribution inthe context of the case

study)

Meaningstrategy

741

About the authors

Cinzia Battistella is a post-doc researcher in Engineering Management at the University of Padua

and a Lecturer in Innovation Management at the University of Udine. Her scientific interests are

in the fields of innovation and strategic management, with primary focuses on the themes of

foresight and open and collective innovation. Her main publications are in Technological

No. Position N D Interview topics

5 Marketing manager collaborator 1 55m Functioning of marketing functionDescription of building blocks related tomarketingMeanings conveyed by the companyManagerial practices for meaning strategyReasons for peculiar choices of marketingand related structureResults: how meanings are translated instrategic, innovation and marketingchoices, also from a historic point of view

6 Production and logistics manager 1 60m Description of building blocks related toproduction and logisticsManagerial practices for meaning strategyReasons for peculiar choices of productionand logistics and related structureResults: how meanings are translated instrategic, innovation and logistics choices,also from a historic point of view

7 Purchasing manager 1 40m Description of building blocks related topurchasingManagerial practices for meaning strategyReasons for peculiar choices of purchasingand related structureResults: how meanings are translated instrategic, innovation, purchasing andlogistics choices, also from a historic pointof view

8 University of the Coffee 1 30m Functioning of university of the Coffee andits links with strategy, business model andMeaning StrategyReasons for peculiar choices

9 External relationships manager,Espressamente illy, . . .

2 40m Meanings conveyed by the company

Functioning of approaches for externalrelationships and its links with strategy,business model and Meaning StrategyReasons for peculiar choices

10 Actors of the business ecosystem:Brazilian supplier, other suppliers,customers

6 40m Building blocksMeanings conveyed by the company

Table AI.

MD50,4

742

Forecasting and Social Change. Cinzia Battistella is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: cinzia.battistella@uniud.it

Gianluca Biotto is a post doc researcher and Lecturer in Innovation and StrategicManagement at the University of Udine. His research interests concern strategic and designmanagement, open and collaborative innovation. His PhD thesis focused on delving anddeveloping the meaning strategy perspective. He studied the Trieste coffee cluster and theillycaffe business ecosystem under the International Fellowships Programme “Talents FriuliVenezia Giulia” – Area Science Park – Padriciano (Trieste).

Alberto F. De Toni is Professor of Operations Management and Strategy at the University ofUdine, where he is Dean of the Engineering Faculty. The main scientific interests are: operations,strategic and innovation management, and management of complex systems. His publicationshave appeared in various international journals, such as International Journal of Operations andProduction Management, International Journal of Production Research, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Omega and Technovation.

Meaningstrategy

743

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints