Networked enterprise business model alignment: A case study on smart living | Information Systems Frontiers Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Networked enterprise business model alignment: A case study on smart living

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the first steps in innovation projects and entrepreneurial initiative involves formulating a Business Model (BM) that describes the value creation, delivery and capturing logic of a business idea. However, when formulating a BM for networked enterprises, the alignment of the collective BM, supporting the joint service or product on offer, and the underlying operational processes of the networked businesses, need to be taken into account. This paper analyses the concept of Business Model Alignment (BMA) based on qualitative case studies of two Smart Living projects in Finland and China. To begin with, a Business Model framework (STOF) is applied to describe the high-level BM. Next, the Value, Information and Process (VIP) framework is applied to analyse BMA. The case studies show that an analytical framework, such as the VIP model, helps reveal the hurdles that may undermine BMA and, as a result, obstruct BM implementation. This paper contributes to existing BM literature by identifying the steps that are necessary to move from an abstract, often strategy-driven BM, of collaborating enterprises towards an aligned BM that can be implemented. This paper also contributes to theory formation by identifying the issues that play a role in achieving BMA.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the sake of confidentiality, fictitious names are used.

References

  • Aarts, E. (2004). Ambient Intelligence: a multimedia perspective. IEEE Computer Society, 11(1), 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. (2003). Internet business models and strategies (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Debei, M. M., & Avison, D. (2010). Developing a unified framework of the BM concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AL-Debei, M. M., & Fitzgerald, G. (2010). The design and engineering of mobile data services: developing an ontology based on business model thinking. In J. Pries Heje et al. (Eds.), IS design science research, IFIP advances in information and communication technology (AICT). Boston: Springer, 318, 28–51.

  • Aldin, L., & Cesare, S. D. (2011). A literature review on business process modelling: new frontiers of reusability. Enterprise Information Systems, 5(3), 359–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allee, V. (2008). Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alt, R., & Zimmermann, H. D. (2001). Introduction to special section—business models. Electronic Markets, 11(1), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, B., Bergholtz, M., Edirisuriya, A., Ilayperuma, T., & Johannesson, P. (2005). a declarative foundation of process models. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE05). Springer-Verlag, LNCS, 3520, 233–247.

  • Andersson, B., Bergholtz, M., Grégoire, B., Johannesson, P., Schmitt, M., & Zdravkovic, J. (2006). From business to process model—a chaining methodology. In Proceedings of BUSITAL (a workshop on Business/IT Alignment and Interoperability), collocated with CAISE’06, Luxembourg (pp. 211–218).

  • Barjis, J., Gupta, A., & Sharda, R. (2011). Knowledge work and communication challenges in networked enterprises. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(5), 615–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., Goldenstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, S. A. (2012). An introduction to Enterprise Architecture, linking strategy, business and technology (3rd ed.). Bloomington: AuthorHouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwman, H., De Vos, H., & Haaker, T. (2008). Mobile service innovation and business models. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwman, H., De Reuver, M., Hampe, F., Walden, P., & Carlsson, C. (2012). Mobile R&D prototypes; what is hampering market implementation? International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (forthcoming).

  • Chan, M., Esteve, D., Escriba, C., & Campo, E. (2008). A review of smart homes-present states and future challenges. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 91(1), 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demiris, G., Rantz, M. J., Aud, M. A., Marek, K. D., Tyrer, H. W., Skubic, M., & Hussam, A. A. (2004). Older Adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘Smart Home’ technologies: a pilot study. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 29(2), 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edirisuriya, A., & Johannesson, P. (2008). On the alignment of business models and process models. In D. Ardagna, et al. (Eds.) Business Process Management Workshops, LNBIP, 17(1), 68–79.

  • Fritscher, B., & Y. Pigneur (2011). Business IT alignment from Business Model to Enterprise Architecture. Proceedings of the 6th International workshop on Business/IT alignment and Interoperability. An Ancillary workshop of CAISE. London June, 2011, pp. 4–15.

  • Gann, D., Barlow, J., & Venables, T. (1999). Digital future: Making homes smarter. Englewood Cliffs: Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordijn, J., & Akkermans, H. (2001). E3-value: design and evaluation of E-business models. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(4), 11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, T. (2011). Why business-model to enterprise-architecture? Tetradian, available at: http://weblog.tetradian.com/2011/07/27/why-bizmodel-to-ea/ (accessed 10 June 2013).

  • Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in management research. Sage Publications, 2nd ed.

  • Harper, R. (2003). Inside the Smart Home: Ideas, possibilities and methods. In: R. Harper (Ed.), I, Springer, 1–13.

  • Hedman, J., & Kalling, T. (2003). The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations. European Journal of Information Systems, 12, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, J., Tyrvainen, P., & Heikkila, M. (2010). Designing for performance—a technique for business model estimation. In M. Seppa, N. Helander, I. Ilvonen (eds.). Proceedings of EBRF. Research forum to understand business in knowledge society.

  • Henderson, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: leveraging IT from transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 472–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hruby, P. (2006). Model-driven design using business patterns. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • HSR—Health System Review: Finland (2008). European observatory on health systems and policies. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/80692/E91937.pdf.

  • Iacob, M. E., Meertens L. O., Jonkers, H., Quartel, D., Nieuwenhuis, L. J. M., & Van Sinderen, M. J. (2012). From enterprise architecture to business models and back. Software and System Modeling, (December 2012), 1619–1366.

  • Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankhorst, M. M., Proper, H. A., & Jonkers, H. (2009). The architecture of the Archimate language. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 29(2–12), 367–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitner, G., Ahlström, D., & Hitz, M. (2007). Usability—key factor of future Smart Home systems. International Federation for Information Processing, 241, 269–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder, J. C., & Cantrell, S. (2000). Changing business models: Surveying the landscape. Working paper, institute for strategic change, accenture (pp. 1–15).

  • Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, 2nd ed.

  • Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 726–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouttham, A., Kuziemsky, C., Langayan, D., Peyton, L., & Pereira, J. (2012). Interoperable support for collaborative, mobile, and accessible health care. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology: a proposition in a design science approach. PhD dissertation, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2002). An e-business model ontology for modeling e-business. In Proceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference; e-Reality: Constructing the e-Economy (BLED). Slovenia.

  • Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2004). A research framework for analyzing eBusiness models. European Journal of Information Systems, 13(4), 302–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peine, A. (2008). Technological paradigms and complex technical systems—the case of Smart Home. Research Policy, 37(3), 508–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remagnino, P., & Foresti, G. L. (2005). Ambient intelligence: a new multidisciplinary paradigm. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 35(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzer, S., Yoong, P., & Hooper, V. (2012). Inter-organisational knowledge transfer in social networks: a definition of intermediate ties. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(2), 343–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadbolt, N. (2003). Ambient intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18, 2–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models. Business Horizons, 48(3), 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian, C. H., Ray, B. K., Lee, J., Cao, R., & Ding, W. (2008). BEAM: a framework for business ecosystem analysis and modeling. IBM Systems Journal, 47(1), 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets. Journal on Electronic Markets, 8(2), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Aalst, W. M. P., Desel, J., & Oberweis, A. (2000). Business process management: Models, techniques, and empirical studies. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Versteeg, G., & Bouwman, H. (2006). Business architecture: a new paradigm to relate business strategy to ICT. Information Systems Frontier, 8(2), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber-Jahnke, J., Peyton, L., & Topaloglou, T. (2012). eHealth system interoperability. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weske, M. (2007). Business process management: Concepts, languages, architectures. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, L., & Zheng, L. (2012). Business process design: process comparison and integration. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(2), 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications, Inc. 4th ed.

  • Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. We are also grateful to many friends and colleagues who have commented on earlier versions of the paper, especially Mark de Reuver, Fatemeh Nikeyin and Wally Keijzer-Broers. Particular thanks are due to Matti Hämäläinen and Yan Ke, for their collaboration and generous support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Sam Solaimani & Harry Bouwman

  2. IAMSR, Åbo Akademi, Turku, Finland

    Harry Bouwman

  3. Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland

    Timo Itälä

Authors
  1. Sam Solaimani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harry Bouwman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timo Itälä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sam Solaimani.

Appendix A: Interview questions

Appendix A: Interview questions

  1. Q1

    Background

    What is the background of the interviewee, company (s)he is working for, and his/her role and responsibilities, within the case?

  2. Q2

    Business Model

    1. a.

      What the project mission and vision?

      In terms of (intended) value proposition, technologies (to be) used, services (to be) provided, relationships with partners and customers, needed/available key resources.

    2. b.

      Who are the stakeholders and what are their roles?

      In terms of contributions, responsibilities, contracts, etc.

    3. c.

      What is the structure of the case costs and benefits?

      In terms of payments, revenues, ROI, etc.

  3. Q3

    Operational arrangement

  4. 3.1

    Value creation & exchange:

  1. a.

    What values are (should be) created and exchanged between, and captured from stakeholders?

    Referring to the core value objects and value goals that are required to drive the project towards the high level missions and visions discussed in Q2.

  2. b.

    How are (will) the values (be) created, exchanged and captured?

    Referring to the core value activities required for creation and capturing of values, and value dependencies (between stakeholders) created through exchange (or need) of value objects.

  3. 3.2

    Information creation & exchange:

  1. a.

    What information (resources) is (should be) created and exchanged between stakeholders?

    Referring to the core data, information and knowledge objects required for the value activities discussed in Q3.2

  2. b.

    How are the information (including data and knowledge) objects created and exchanged between stakeholders?

    Referring to the crucial information flows, information access (points and permissions), and information dependencies between information objects in the previous question.

  3. 3.3

    Primary Business Processes:

    1. a.

      What are the primary business processes (will be) shared among stakeholders?

      Referring to business processes required to enable the value and information activities discussed in Q3.2 & Q3.2.

    2. b.

      How are these business processes flow between stakeholders? Referring to the flow, behaviour, and boundaries of, and dependencies between business processes discussed in the previous question.

  4. Q4

    Problematic interactions

    1. a.

      What values and values activities (creation, exchange, capturing) are the most critical, vulnerable, complex, or problematic? And how to deal with them?

    2. b.

      What information resources and information activities (creation, exchange) are the most critical, vulnerable, complex, or problematic? And how to deal with them?

    3. c.

      What primary business processes are the most critical, vulnerable, complex, or problematic? And how to deal with them?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Solaimani, S., Bouwman, H. & Itälä, T. Networked enterprise business model alignment: A case study on smart living. Inf Syst Front 17, 871–887 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9474-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9474-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation