17041687

7/29/2019 17041687

1/16

Asian Journal on QualityEmerald Article: An evaluation model of business value for research anddevelopment of technology to improve the competitiveness of companies

Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan

Article information:

To cite this document: Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan, (2012),"An evaluation model of business value for

esearch and development of technology to improve the competitiveness of companies", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 Iss: 1 pp.2 - 36

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237806

Downloaded on: 28-01-2013

References: This document contains references to 23 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 66 times since 2012. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan, (2012),"An evaluation model of business value for research and developme

f technology to improve the competitiveness of companies", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 Iss: 1 pp. 22 - 36

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237806

Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan, (2012),"An evaluation model of business value for research and developme


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237806

Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan, (2012),"An evaluation model of business value for research and developme


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237806

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

For Authors:

f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

nformation 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.com

With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

usiness society public policy and education In total Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series as

7/29/2019 17041687

2/16

An evaluation model of businessvalue for research and

development of technology toimprove the competitiveness

of companiesSang-Chul Lee

Department of Business Administration, Korea Christian University,Seoul, Korea

Kwang-Hyuk ImDepartment of Electronic Commerce, Pai Chai University, Daejoeon, Korea

Sang-Chan ParkSchool Of Management, Khyhee University, Seoul, Korea, and

Liu FanSchool of Management/Management Reserach Institute, Kyung Hee University,

Seoul, Korea

AbstractPurpose The purpose of this research is to establish an evaluation model for business value of acompanys existing patents portfolio to improve the performance of the technology development andthe companys competitiveness through identifying the right direction for technology development.Design/methodology/approach This research targets 11 leading companies in ten manufacturing

industries and one e-business industry and evaluates their existing patents portfolios. This researchdeveloped a core business model set by using clustering and classification. For comparative analysis, thisresearch sets NAVER as a leading company and DAUM as a following company in e-business industry.Findings This research proposes nine business model components to evaluate a patent frombusiness perspectives. Second, by evaluating a companys existing patents portfolio in view ofbusiness model components, this research proposes the importance of business model components anddeveloped six core business models. Through these role models, companies can analyze the directionsfor development in the future and find companies with similar characteristics.Originality/value This research develops a methodology to provide the direction for technologydevelopment of a company by evaluating technologies through the patents portfolio of a companyrather than evaluating the value of a single patent. It is different from previous research that evaluatesR&D from technology perspectives; this research takes account of the business value of technologiesby developing tools in view of business model components.

Keywords Research and development, Business model, Patents, Clustering, Benchmarking

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionToday innovation can be seen from the perspectives of economics, business,technology, sociology, and engineering. Innovation can relate to business models,

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1598-2688.htm

Asian Journal on Quality

Vol. 13 No. 1, 2012

pp. 22-36

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1598-2688

DOI 10.1108/15982681211237806

This work was supported by the Industrial Strategic Technology Development Program(10035481-2011-02, R&D Integrated Modeling and Simulation Supporting Service) funded by theMinistry of Knowledge Economy (MKE, Korea).

22

AJQ13,1

7/29/2019 17041687

3/16

markets, organizations, processes, products, services, and supply chains. According tothe APO Innovation Strategy and Framework (APO, 2009), innovation shall be viewedfrom a broad perspective, not merely as technological improvement. As to the APOInnovation Framework, three major triangles of material, human, and knowledge form

a cycle of knowledge creation by utilizing both material and human resources. Thederived knowledge is fed into the resource side for further enrichment. Viewed fromthe angle of innovation policy, patents aim to foster innovation in the private sector byallowing inventors to profit from their inventions (OECD, 2002).

Patents have long been considered to represent a trade-off between incentives toinnovate on the one hand, and competition in the market and diffusion of technology onthe other. Changes in patent policy in OECD countries over the past two decades havefostered the use and enforcement of patents with the aim of encouraging investmentsin innovation and enhancing the dissemination of knowledge. Markets for technologyare increasingly important for the circulation of knowledge. Patents play a pivotal rolein the development of technology transactions. Governments need to improve theirknowledge of the functioning of markets for technology and the effect of such markets

on economic performance in order to support their development in the most sociallybeneficial directions. Services are a new subject matter for patents. The impact ofpatents on innovation and diffusion in this area has not yet to be systematicallyevaluated, and such evaluation is sorely needed. With respect to both APO and OECDconcepts, special guidance to foster the company in private sector for research anddevelopment (R&D) of technology transaction becomes an utmost necessity.

In a first step to establish the guidance, we need to identify whether a companysexisting patents portfolio fits well to the right direction in technology development,which in turn, leads to economic performance in the market. In this regard,representing patents in view of business model components should be the naturalthing to do, because a business model describes the design or architecture of the valuecreation, delivery, and captures mechanisms employed by the business enterprise.

The essence of a business model defines the manner by which the businessenterprise delivers value to customers, entices customers to pay for value, and convertsthose payments to profit (Hedman and Kalling, 2003; Ostenwalder et al., 2005; Shaferet al., 2005). Today, the type of business models might depend on how technologyis used. For example, entrepreneurs on the internet have also created entirely newmodels that depend solely on existing or emergent technology. Using technology,businesses can reach a large number of customers with minimal costs.

Identifying which role model companies should benchmark is another critical stepin comparing a companys patents portfolio. By identifying the role model companyspatents portfolio described in terms of business model components, we can disclosenecessary conditions of technology development guiding principles as to whethera company has developed technologies in economically successful direction or not. We

can carefully select role model companies from each and all industries and describetheir patents portfolio in terms of business model components. Business focus willdiffer among different industries and companies. In other words, the relativeimportance of business model components will vary from company to company, thuswe can identify a set of most influential business components for each company.

Some role model companies from different industries may share the same subset ofmost influential business model components. In contrast, even a single rolemodel company may have more than one subset of most influential business modelcomponents. If we can obtain a sufficient number of most influential business

2

Model obusiness valu

for R&

7/29/2019 17041687

4/16

component subsets reflecting companies patents portfolios, we could summarize thosesubsets into a binary knowledge tree. The nodes of this knowledge tree are mostinfluential business components and their threshold values, and each leaf of a branchon the knowledge tree is a role model for the companys patents portfolio. The node

threshold value is induced from the relative importance of each business componentbetween role model companies patents portfolios. With this binary knowledge tree,any company having its own patents portfolio can find the role model company whosepatents portfolio matches the most with it.

The purpose of this research is to establish an evaluation model for business value of acompanys existing patents portfolio to improve the performance of the technologydevelopment and the competitiveness through identifying the right direction of technologydevelopment. For this purpose, this objective of the research is divided into three parts:

(1) to propose business model components to evaluate a patent from businessperspectives;

(2) to evaluate a companys existing patents portfolio in view of business

model components and to propose a benchmarking role model by developing aknowledge tree; and

(3) to compare the leading and following companys patents and provide adirection to the followers.

To establish an evaluation model, this research targets 11 leading companies tenmanufacturing industries and one e-business industry and evaluates their existingpatents portfolios. For comparative analysis, this research sets NAVER as a leadingcompany and DAUM as a following company in the e-business industry.

2. Development of business model components2.1 Business model

Although various studies have been conducted on business models to date, no generalagreement on a standard definition of business model exists. Ostenwalder et al. (2005)define a business model as a conceptual tool that contains a set of elements and theirrelationships and allows the expressing of the business logic of a specific firm. It is adescription of the value a company offers to one or several segments of customers, andof the architecture of the firm and its network of partners for creating, marketing, anddelivering this value and relationship capital, to generate profitable and sustainablerevenue streams.

By pointing out that the concept of business model is often used independently fromtheory, i.e. the meaning of model components and their interrelations are relativelyobscure, Hedman and Kalling (2003) offer an outline for a conceptual business model,and propose that it should include customers and competitors, the offering, activities

and organization, resources and factor market interactions.By reviewing the above literature, Morris et al. (2005) suggest that diversity in the

available definitions of a business model poses substantive challenges for delimiting thenature and components of a model and determining what constitutes a good model. It alsoleads to confusion in terminology, as business model, strategy, business concept, revenuemodel, and economic model are often used interchangeably. Moreover, the business modelhas been referred to as architecture, design, pattern, plan, method, assumption, andstatement. After a general review of literature, they propose an integrative definition as:A business model is a concise representation of how an interrelated set of decision

24

AJQ13,1

7/29/2019 17041687

5/16

variables in the areas of venture strategy, architecture, and economics are addressed tocreate sustainable competitive advantage in defined markets.

To help managers better understand business models, Shafer et al. (2005) review theextant literature, identify, and classify the components of business models cited

therein. To address the absence of a generally accepted definition of a business model,a new definition that integrates and synthesizes the earlier work is offered. To them abusiness model is a representation of the underlining core logic and strategic choicesfor creating and capturing value within a value network.

In their work in 2001, Amit and Zott (2001) have defined the business model asdepicting the content, structure, and governance of transactions designed so as tocreate value through the exploitation of business opportunities. In 2010, they arguethat the activity system perspective on business models is consistent with the variousapproaches that have been advanced in the literature. Thus, a business model can beviewed as a template of how a firm conducts business, how it delivers value tostakeholders (e.g. the focal firms, customers, partners, etc.), and how it links factorand product markets. The activity systems perspective addresses all these vital issues,

and gives managers and academics a language and a conceptual toolbox to address246 them and engage in insightful dialogue and creative design.

Following a general concept of a business model, which refers to the articulationbetween different areas of a firms activity designed to produce a proposition of valueto customers, Demil and Lecocq (2010) note two different uses of the term. The first isthe static approach as a blueprint for the coherence between core business modelcomponents. The second refers to a more transformational approach, using the conceptas a tool to address change and innovation in the organization, or in the model itself.

Through the literature reviewed above, we come to a consensus that a businessmodel can be comprehended as demonstrating how an organization purchases andsells goods and services as well as obtains profits.

2.2 Business model componentsAs discussed previously, there is no general agreement on a standard definition ofbusiness model. Thus, rather than conducting research on the definition of businessmodels, recent research takes more efforts to study the components of business models(Stahler, 2002; Hamel, 2000; Linder and Cantrell, 2000; Osterwalder et al., 2005).Although there are diverse terms defining business model components, most of themshare certain similarities in meaning.

Stahler (2002) suggests four components such as value proposition, product andservice, architecture, and profit model. Hamel (2000) suggests four components such asthe scope of core strategy, strategic resources, value network, and customer interface.Similarly, Linder and Cantrell (2000) take a comprehensive approachto a business model. They define a business model by using price model, profit

model, distribution model, commercial process model, commercial relations using theinternet, and value proposition. Based on the Balanced Scorecard approach,Ostenwalder et al. (2005) propose the nine components of a business model andsuggest that components of business models in literature can be matched to thesuggested nine components.

In this study, the nine components of a business model developed by Osterwalder(2010) are adopted because it is a general model that can best define the components ofa business model. Based on a review of previous literature, this research finds a similarresult to the nine components of a business model suggested by Ostenwalder et al.

2


for R&

7/29/2019 17041687

6/16

(2005) (as shown in Appendix 1). The framework of the nine components is shownin Table I. First, product implies the types of project, product, or value propositionoffered to the market. Second, customer interface defines the target customers ofan organization, and how the organization is going to deliver the goods and services to

these customers as well as establish strong relations with them. Third, infrastructuremanagement concerns how a business entity deals with infrastructure or logisticsissues with efficiency and the participating network partners in the process. Finally,financial aspect defines the profit model, and concerns sustainability of the coststructure and business model (Ostenwalder et al., 2005; Ostenwalder, 2010).

3. Evaluation of a companys patents portfolio3.1 DataIn order to compare a companys patents portfolio and identify a benchmarking rolemodel, this research selects 11 major leading companies: ten in manufacturing industryand one e-business company. The list of industries and major leading companiesis shown in Table II. Data are collected from Korea Intellectual Property Rights

Information Services (www.kipris.or.kr), with information of patents over a period often years from 2000 to 2009. However, since we are limited to analyzing all patentsfrom each company, we finally get 100 sample patents from each company for analysis.Stratified sampling method is used to select samples, and the ratio of the year when thepatent was published is also taken into consideration (as shown in Appendix 2).

3.2 Analysis of a companys patents portfolioFirst, the business value of each patent is evaluated based on nine components ofbusiness model. The patents with significant relevance to the respective business

Four pillar BM components Definition

Product Value propositions A value proposition is an overall view of a companysbundle of products and services that are of value to thecustomer

Customerinterface

Customer segments The target customer is a segment of customers acompany wants to offer value to

Channels A distribution channel is a means of getting in touchwith the customer

Customerrelationships

The relationship describes the kind of link a companyestablishes between itself and the customer

Infrastructuremanagement

Key activities The value configuration describes the arrangement ofactivities and resources that are necessary to createvalue for the customer

Key resources A capability is the ability to execute a repeatable patternof actions that is necessary in order to create value forthe customer

Key partnerships A partnership is a voluntarily initiated cooperativeagreement between two or more companies in order tocreate value for the customer

Financial aspects Cost structure The cost structure is the representation in money of allthe means employed in the business model

Revenue stream The revenue model describes the way a company makesmoney through a variety of revenue flows

Table I.The nine componentsof business model

26

AJQ13,1

7/29/2019 17041687

7/16

model components are inputted 1, while those with low relevance are inputted 0. Basedon an analysis on companies patents portfolio, the result reveals that there aredifferences for the importance of nine components among different companies (asshown in Figure 1), which means that companies develop different business models forcreating value.

Industries Company

ManufacturingMachine industries Shipping STX

Auto Hyundai MotorsIT industries Semiconductor Hynix Semiconductor

Display LG DisplayElectronics Samsung ElectronicsTelecommunications LG Telecom

Materials industries Petrochemistry Kumho PetrochemicalTextile Cheil IndustriesSteel POSCO

High-tech industries Bio Hanmi Pharmaceutical

Servicee-Business industries e-Business NAVER

Table List of target industr

Value proposition

Revenue stream

Cost structure

Key partnerships

Key resources Key activ it ies


Channels Cost structure

Key partnerships

Key resources Key activities


Channels

Customer segments

Value proposition

Revenue stream

1.001.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.200.00

STX

Revenue stream

Value proposition

Cost structure

Key partnerships

Key resources

Kumho petrochemical Chei l industries POSCO Hanmi pharmaceutical NAVER

Key activities

Customer

relationships

Customer segments

Channels

Revenue stream

Cost structure

Key partnerships

Key resources Key activ it ies

Customer

relationships

Channels

Customer segments

Value proposition

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

Hyundai motorsHynix semiconductor

Samsung electronics

LG display

LG telecom

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.200.00

Customer segments

Figure Business value

companies patenportfoli

2


for R&

7/29/2019 17041687

8/16

The results show that most of the manufacturing companies, such as STX, HynixSemiconductor, LG Display, Samsung Electronics, LG Telecom, Kumho Petrochemical,Cheil Industries, and Hanmi Pharmaceutical, do not have a special preference in certaincomponents of a business model. While some of the other companies emphasize

specific components of a business model, such as Hyundai Motors, POSCO, andNAVER. The patents portfolios of these three companies indicate a high emphasis onthree components of value propositions, key activities, and key resources. WhilePOSCO emphasize only these three components, Hyundai Motors also have apreference for channels. This may be explained as that, as an automobile company,Hyundai Motors need to pay attention to the channel that connects itself to itscustomers. At the same time, as a company in e-business industry, NAVER also needsto pay efforts to channels and key partnerships.

3.3 Clustering analysisInnovation is viewed across all industries. In doing so, clustering is a useful means toform groups with common interests and goals, and the use of role models is a good

approach to level up on innovation. In order to develop a benchmarking role model, allpatents of companies are clustered using two-step clustering method and are dividedinto groups. Clementine is used for clustering analysis, while a two-step clusteringmethod adopting Schwarz criterion and Akaike information criterion are used forcapturing the optimized number of clustering group. The result of clustering analysisshows that 1,100 patents are divided into six groups (Table III).

3.4 Development of role models for benchmarkingThird, role models for benchmarking are developed using classification. This researchobtains a sufficient number of most influential business component subsets reflectingcompanies patents portfolios. Clementine is used for classification analysis, and C5algorism is adopted. The results indicate that six role models are developed, as shown

in Table IV. The order of components indicates their importance, where key activitiesare revealed to be the most important component in finding a role model.

Table V shows the benchmarking role models that are owned by the role modelcompanies. The results indicate that a company has more than one subset of rolemodels. Most of the manufacturing companies, such as STX, Hynix Semiconductor, LGDisplay, Samsung Electronics, LG Telecom, Kumho Petrochemical, Cheil Industries,and Hanmi Pharmaceutical, have role model 2 (RM2), which means that their business

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Channels 0.48 0.54 0.79 0.65 0.14 0.39

Customer relationships 0.49 0.52 0.56 0.45 0.25 0.33Cost structure 0.52 0.52 0.45 0.45 0.67 0.10Customer segment 0.51 0.59 0.56 0.47 0.27 0.16Key activities 0.10 0.62 0.90 0.87 0.90 0.90Key partnerships 0.41 0.67 0.76 0.62 0.27 0.10Key resources 0.66 0.10 0.90 0.90 0.87 0.84Revenue stream 0.51 0.47 0.45 0.51 0.59 0.10Value propositions 0.53 0.49 0.90 0.10 0.82 0.90

Note: C, cluster

Table III.Results of clustering

28

AJQ13,1

7/29/2019 17041687

9/16

models are oriented at key resources. Besides, RM1 and RM3 are also showing arelevant importance. In contrast, Hyundai Motors, POSCO, and NAVER have differentrole models. Hyundai Motors set RM4 and RM6 as its most important role models,while POSCO regards RM4 more significant. NAVER sets RM6 as the most importantrole model. With this role model set, any company having its own patents portfolio canfind the role model company whose patents portfolio matches with it most.

4. Comparative analysis on patents between the leading company andfollowing companyFollowing companies are in need of the direction of technology development from

leading companies in their industry. With this role model set, they can find the corebusiness role model and a benchmarking role model company. This research selectsNAVER and DAUM as leading and following companies, respectively, in e-businessindustry for a comparative analysis.

Annual patents of NAVER and DAUM are shown in Table VI. It is shown thatDAUM owns similar business models to NAVER. That is to say, DAUM follows thebusiness model of its leading company in its industry. It also provides implicationswhen comparing the changes of patents and its market share. DAUM developed a largequantity of patents in 2007, with many patents developed in its core business model in

Components RM1 RM2 RM3 RM4 RM5 RM6

Key activities 0 0 1 1 1 1Key resources 0 1 0 1 1 1Key partnerships 1 0 0 1Customer segments 1Value proposition 1 1 1Channels 0 1Customer relationshipsCost structure 0Revenue stream 0 1

Notes: RM, role model; 0 or 1: threshold value of a binary knowledge tree

Table IThe node

benchmarking role mod

Role model RM1 RM2 RM3 RM4 RM5 RM6

STX 12 30 17 2 0 1Hyundai Motors 1 1 4 24 3 34Hynix Semiconductor 13 12 7 12 14 9LG Display 13 30 10 2 7 2Samsung Electronics 7 31 10 2 2 4LG Telecom 17 21 19 2 1 4Kumho Petrochemical 9 30 7 2 3 0Cheil Industries 17 18 18 1 0 2POSCO 0 3 0 48 22 6Hanmi Pharmaceutical 12 25 14 4 0 2NAVER 1 0 9 13 0 60Total 102 201 115 112 52 124

Table The number of compani

portfolios in role mode

2


for R&

7/29/2019 17041687

10/16

particular. In contrast, NAVER developed most patents in other fields rather than in itscore business model in 2008 and it developed very few patents in 2009. This results inan influence on the market share in 2009 (shown in Table VII). One of the reasons canbe explained that NAVER may develop technologies even without notifying the

direction for technology development. Therefore, as is suggested in the purpose of thisresearch, companies should develop technologies after analyzing the patents portfolio,which can provide a guide on the direction of technology development.

5. Conclusion and limitationsR&D of technology is important for improving a companys competitiveness. Thus, itis necessary to analyze the patents portfolio in view of business value and notify thedirection for technology development exactly. Therefore, this research aims toestablish an evaluation model for a business value of a companys existing patentsportfolio to identify the right direction for technology development and to identifywhich role model companies should be benchmarked. To test the evaluation model, thisresearch selected core leading companies in 11 industries and their patents.

First, this research proposes the nine business model components to evaluate apatent from business perspectives. Second, by evaluating a companys existing patentsportfolio in view of business model components, this research suggests the companysdevelopment direction and deduces six core business models. Through these rolemodels, companies are able to analyze the direction for technology development andfind out the companies share similar characteristics for analysis.

This research develops a methodology to provide the direction for technologydevelopment of a company by evaluating technologies through the patents portfolio ofa company rather than evaluating the value of a single patent. By contrast withprevious research which evaluates R&D from technology perspectives, this researchtakes account of the business value of technologies by developing tools in view ofbusiness model components.

Although this research has the above implications, it still has limitations. Due to thestratified sampling method, which selects 100 samples from each company, there are

BM Company 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

BM6 NAVER 0.0 5.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 2.0 60DAUM 6.7 1.3 1.3 9.3 8.0 21.3 8.0 8.0 64

BM4 NAVER 1.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 2.0 0.0 20DAUM 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 6.7 9.3 1.3 20

Others NAVER 0.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 11.0 1.0 20DAUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.7 6.7 5.3 0.0 16

Total NAVER 6.7 1.3 2.7 10.7 12.0 34.7 22.7 9.3 100DAUM 1.0 6.0 21.0 12.0 13.0 21.0 23.0 3.0 100

Table VI.Annual patents of NAVERand DAUM (%)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

NAVER 30.9 38.4 48.5 61.5 72.3 68.6DAUM 24.0 24.7 21.7 16.7 14.3 11.1 23.2

Table VII.Market share of NAVERand DAUM (%)

30

AJQ13,1

7/29/2019 17041687

11/16

certain errors in sampling. It is necessary to take careful consideration when adaptingthe result of this research to other companies, because this research does not include allpatents of each company for analysis. It is better to collect all data of an industry foranalysis in the future for further study.

Second, this research only takes ten typical industries for analysis. It is necessary toconsider more companies from diverse industries for future study. Furthermore, thecompanies selected in this research are only domestic companies in Korea, it would bebetter if foreign companies are taken into consideration, or even for comparativeanalysis.

References

APO (2009), Innovation Framework and Strategies: An APO Perspective, Asian ProductivityOrganization, Tokyo.

Applegate, L.M. (2001), E-business models: making sense of the Internet business landscape, inDickson, G., Gary, W. and DeSanctis, G. (Eds), Information Technology and the Future

Enterprise: New Models for Managers, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 49-169.Afuah, A. and Tucci, C. (2003), Internet Business Models and Strategies, McGraw-Hill,

Boston, MA.

Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001), Value creation in e-business, Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 22 Nos 6-7, pp. 493-520.

Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2000), The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Valuefrom Innovation: Evidence from XEROX Corporations Technology Spinoff Companies,Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

Demil, B. and Lecocq, X. (2010), Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency,Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2-3, pp. 227-46.

Gordijn, J. (2002), Value-Based Requirements Engineering Exploring Innovative e-Commerce

Ideas, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Hamel, G. (2000), Leading the Revolution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Hedman, J. and Kalling, T. (2003), The business model concept: theoretical underpinningsand empirical illustrations, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 49-59.

Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M. and Kagermann, H. (2008), Reinventing your business model,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 12, pp. 50-9.

Linder, J. and Cantrell, S. (2000), Changing Business Models: Surveying the Landscape , Institutefor Strategic Change, Accenture, Chicago, IL.

Mahadevan, B. (2000), Business models for internet-based e-commerce: an anatomy, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 55-69.

Maitland, C. and Van de Kar, E. (2002), First BITA case study experiences with regard tocomplex value systems, BITA-B4U Symposium Business Models for Innovative MobileServices, Delft.

Morris, M., Schindehutte, M. and Allen, J. (2005), The entrepreneurs business model: toward aunified perspective, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 726-35.

OECD (2002), Measuring the Information Economy, Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD), Paris.

Osterwalder, A. (2010),Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers,and Challengers, Wiley, New York, NY.

3


for R&

7/29/2019 17041687

12/16

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. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-40.

Stahler, P. (2002), Business Models as an Unit of Analysis for Strategizing, International

Workshop on Business Models, Lausanne.Shafer, S.M., Smith, H.J. and Linder, J.C. (2005), The power of business models, Business

Horizons, Vol. 48 No. 48, pp. 199-207.

Tapscott, D., Lowi, A. and Ticoll, D. (2000), Digital Capital Harnessing the Power of BusinessWebs, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Weill, P. and Vitale, M.R. (2001), Place to Space: Migrating to eBusiness Models, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA.

Yunus, M., Moingeon, B. and Ortega, L.L. (2010), Building social business models: lessons fromthe Grameen experience, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2-3, pp. 308-25.

Further reading

Dubosson, M., Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2002), eBusiness model design, classificationand measurements, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23.

32

AJQ13,1

7/29/2019 17041687

13/16

Appendix 1

Component

Value

proposition

Customer

segmentationChannel

Customer

interface

Keyactivity

Keyresource

Keypartnership

Cost

Structure

Revenue

model

Chesbrough

andRosenbloom

(2000)

Value

proposition

Market

segment

Structureof

thevalue

chain

Positioninthe

valuechain

Cost

structure

Hamel(2000)Product/

marketscope

MarketscopeFulfillment

andsupport,

information

andinsight

Relation

ship

dynamics

Core

processes

Core

competencies,

strategicassets

Suppliers,

partners,

coalitions

Pricing

structure

Linderand

Cantrell,

(2000)

Value

proposition

Channel

model

Commerce

relationship

Commerce

process

model

Pricing

model,

revenue

model

Mahadevan

(2000)

Valuestream

Logistical

stream

Revenue

stream

Tapscottetal.

(2000)

B-webs

B-webs

Amitand

Zott(2001)

Transaction

component

Architectural

configuration

Transaction

component

Applegate

(2001)

Productand

services

offered

Market

opportunity

Marketing/

salesmodel

Branda

nd

reputation

Operating

model

Organization

andculture,

management

model

Partners

Benefits

to

firmand

stakeholders

Dubosson

et

al.(2002)

Product

Customer

relationship

Infrastructure

andnetwork

ofpartners

Financial

aspects

Stahler(2001)Value

proposition

Architecture

Architecture

Revenue

model

Weilland

Vitale(2001)

Value

proposition,

strategic

objective

Customer

segments

Channels

Core

competencies,

competitive

strategyfactors

E-business

schematics

Sourceo

f

revenue

(continued)

Table AOntologies

componentsbusiness mod

3


for R&

7/29/2019 17041687

14/16

Component

Value

proposition

Customer

segmentationChannel

Customer

interface

Keyactivity

Keyresource

Keypartnership

Cost

Structure

Revenue

model

Gordijn

(2002)

Valueoffering

Market

segment

E3-value

configuration

Actors

Value

exchange

Value

exchang

e

Maitlandand

VandeKar

(2002)

Value

proposition,

assumed

value

Market

segment

Companies

involvedin

creatingvalue

Revenue

model

Afuahand

Tucci(2003)

Customer

value

Scope

Connected

activities,

value

configuration

Capabilities

Cost

structure

Pricing,

revenue,

source

Hedmanand

Kalling(2003)

Offering

Customer

Activitiesand

organization

Resources,

supplyoffactor

andproduction

inputs

Competitors

Morriset

al.

(2005)

Factors

relatedtothe

offering

Marketfactor

Competitive

strategy

factors

Internal

capability

factors,personal/

investorfactors

Economic

factors

Johnsonet

al.

(2008)

Customer

value

proposition

Keyresources

Keyprocesses

Profit

formula

Demiland

Lecocq(2010)

Value

proposition

OrganizationResourcesand

competences

Yunusetal.

(2010)

Value

proposition

Value

constellation

Profit

equation

Table AI.

34

AJQ13,1

7/29/2019 17041687

15/16

Appendix 2

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

To

tal

STX

0

0

0

1

4

0

29

0

50

16

100

(0)

(0)

(0)

(2)

(8)

(0)

(51)

(0)

(89)

(28)

(178)

HyundaiMotors

12

14

13

12

11

9

8

10

10

1

100

(4

,009)

(4,171)

(4,017)

(3,931)

(3,878)

(2,716)

(2,646)

(3,017)

(3,027)

(225)

(31,637)

HynixSemiconductor

14

12

11

9

10

8

9

12

12

3

100

(4

,222)

(3,615)

(3,368)

(2,637)

(2,928)

(2,478)

(2,684)

(3,472)

(3,483)

(863)

(29,750)

LGDisplay

2

3

6

8

6

8

5

57

4

1

100

(695)

(1,095)

(1,883)

(2,404)

(1,871)

(2,397)

(1,746)

(18,321)

(1,310)

(236)

(31,958)

SamsungElectronics

5

7

9

12

15

16

14

11

8

3

100

(4

,874)

(6,318)

(7,993)

(10,554)

(14,080)

(14,766)

(12,605)

(10,117)

(7,091)

(2,848)

(91,246)

LGTelecom

8

6

4

5

8

16

13

20

19

1

100

(95)

(72)

(44)

(61)

(94)

(183)

(148)

(227)

(226)

(11)

(1

,161)

KumhoPetrochemical

12

11

16

8

11

6

4

10

19

3

100

(32)

(29)

(40)

(20)

(30)

(16)

(11)

(26)

(50)

(8)

(262)

CheilIndustries

9

8

9

10

8

7

7

16

22

4

100

(146)

(130)

(140)

(154)

(122)

(115)

(116)

(252)

(350)

(69)

(1

,594)

POSCO

14

25

19

11

6

3

3

8

9

2

100

(1

,559)

(2,803)

(2,219)

(1,310)

(716)

(305)

(392)

(883)

(1,005)

(226)

(11,418)

HanmiPharmaceutical

0

12

12

12

14

10

10

17

10

3

100

(0)

(19)

(18)

(18)

(20)

(16)

(16)

(26)

(16)

(5)

(154)

NAVER

0

0

1

6

21

12

13

21

23

3

100

(1)

(2)

(9)

(68)

(234)

(133)

(140)

(234)

(258)

(46)

(1

,125)

Total

1,100

Table AData sets of compan

paten

3


for R&

7/29/2019 17041687

16/16

About the authors

Sang-Chul Lee is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management Information Systems

at Korea Christian University, Korea. He holds BS from Asia United Theological University, and

MBA and PhD in Management Information Systems from Kyung Hee University. His research

interests include e-business strategies, e-commerce, data mining, customer relationshipmanagement and multigroup structural equation modelling (MSEM). He has published papers

in Cyber Psychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence, Expert Systems with Applications, Journal of MIS Research, Korean Management

Review, Journal of the Korea Society for Quality Management, Information Systems Review, etc.

Kwang Hyuk Im is an Assistant Professor of Electronic Commerce at Pai Chai University.

He received his MS and PhD degrees in Industrial Engineering from Korea Advanced Institute of

Science and Technology (KAIST) in 2000 and 2006, respectively. His teaching and research

specialties are in the fields of data mining, intelligent systems, electronic commerce and customer

relationship management (CRM).

Sang-Chan Park is a Professor at Department of Healthcare Management, KyungHee

University. He was formerly a Professor at the Department of Industrial Engineering of the

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. He was formerly an Assistant Professor atthe Department of Information Systems of the School of Business, University of Wisconsin in

Madison. He received his Bachelor of Management degree from the Seoul National University,

MBA degree from the University of Minneapolis, and his PhD degree in MIS from the University

of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. His research interest includes the application of artificial

intelligence, especially machine learning methodologies, to the design of knowledge-based

systems for various management principles. He has also expanded his research domain into

internet on things, healthcare management, management of technology, total quality

management, quality information systems, e-commerce, e-learning, e-government, data mining

and educational technology for the gifted.

Liu Fan is currently a PhD Candidate at Kyung Hee University, and is working as a

Researcher for E-business Center of School of Management, Kyung Hee University. She received

her MS degree from Kyung Hee University, Korea, in 2009. Her research interest includesconsumer behaviour in e-business, management information systems and quality management.

Liu Fan has had many papers published in international journals and conferences. Her previous

work has been published in Cyber Psychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, International

Journal of E-education, E-business, E-management and E-learning, Journal of Korean Society for

Quality Management, etc. Liu Fan is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:

[email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

36

AJQ13,1

Documents

17041687