1. Scrutinizing Business Models using publicly
available information: The case of
communications enabled applications
Laleh Rezaie Adl
Thesis defense presentation
Technology Innovation Management
Sep 13, 2011

2. Objective (s)
Objectives:
(i) Examine Business Models (BMs) of large suppliers of
Communications Enabled Applications (CEAs)
(ii) Analyze how these companies refine and innovate their BMs
Deliverables:
(i) Propositions that highlight distinct aspects of business models used
by large companies that supply CEAs
(ii) A classification of communications enabled market offers
(iii) A model that explains how large suppliers of CEAs improve and
innovate their business models
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Sep 13, 2011 Slide 2

3. Relevance
Who cares Why Evidence that managers care
about the issues addressed
TMT and executive Provides: Major sources of growth and
directors • A language for business modelling renewal for a company lies in it’s
business model that the company
• A visual representation of BMs to
follows to make money
implement enterprise changes (Christensen & Reynor, 2003)
Academics • To use as a unit of analysis The use of business models as a
unit of analysis is an emerging trend
in management research (Zott, Amit
and Massa, 2011)
Entrepreneurs To understand how large companies The greatest opportunities for
configure or re-configure required resources growth don't really come from
to create new value propositions selling more of the same market
offers to more customers, but from
truly new ways to turn a profit
(Johnson, 2010)
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 3

4. Literature review
Stream Key highlights of the stream Key References
BM concept and notions  Taxonomy of BM Amit & Zott (2001), Rappa (2003)
 Definition of the components Tapscott, Lowi and Ticoll (2000)
Zott et al. (2011)
BM structure  CVP, Key resources & processes, profit formula, Afuah & Tucci (2001), Hamel (2000)
plus rules, norms and metrics Johnson et al. (2008)
 Four Box BM
 CVP, CVS, CH, CR, R$, KR, KA, KP, C$ Osterwalder & Pigneur (2009)
 BM Canvas
 Others: BM components (2), Seven Petrovic, Kittl and Teksten (2001),
sub-models BMs, eight atomic elements Weill and Vitale (2001)
BM innovation constructs  White space (within, beyond and between) Boundreau & Lakhani (2009)
 White Space  Open innovation leverages internal and external Chesbrough (2009)
innovation Chesbrough & Rosenbloom (2002)
 Open innovation BM
 Platform BMs operate based on “who sells to Christensen (2003)
 Platform BMs (Integrator, product & two
whom”
sided platforms) Johnson (2010)
 Four vector BM has two dimensions: Value
 Four vector business models Venkatraman & Henderson (2008)
creation and Scope of relationships
 Disruptive business models
 Disruptive BMs generate profits at the low end
Growth formulae  Incremental core, adjacencies, white space Evans & Schemalensee (2007)
 Johnson’s model for growth & renewal  Multi-sided growth strategies Hagiu (2005)
 Multi-sided growth Johnson (2010)
Rochet & Tirole (2003), (2004)
Communication Enabled  Eliminates human delay in business processes Becchina, Ciccarelli, Giotis & Kenny
(2007)
Applications (CEA)
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 4

5. Contribution
 Develops a model:
 Can be used to predict circumstances whereby a change in
BM is required
 Offers opportunities to lower costs and associated risks of
improving BMs or creating new ones
 Provides a process which reduces time and effort
required to describe, analyze and improve how a
company makes money
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 5

6. Lessons learned
 All key elements of a business model need to be internally consistent
 Opportunities for BM innovation arise whenever customers have jobs to be
done that are not satisfied by existing Customer Value Propositions
 Companies have a tough time changing their BMs for two main reasons: (i)
tendency to apply same logic of launching new products (ii) rules and
behavioral norms
 Designing CEAs requires an in depth understanding of business processes
and information flows as much as technology advancement
 Platforms need to make three key strategic decisions to achieve
sustainability: (i) scope definition (ii) make pricing decisions (iii) make
decisions that provide differentiation
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 6

7. Method
Step Describe the dominant activity undertaken to produce deliverables
1 Select structures to Review Literature
analysis BMs Identify approaches to organize elements of a BM
Select structures to examine BMs and BM innovation
2 Select sample Define sample criteria
Identify members of population that meet the criteria
3 Build data base Collect data required to populate selected structures in step 1
Enter data into a database
4 Develop propositions Organize data on elements of business models using BM Canvas
anchored around Four Box Identify unique attributes of sample canvases using Four Box BM
BM Develop four propositions that highlights unique attributes of sample BMs
5 Develop propositions Organize data using Value proposition frame (johnson, 2010)
anchored around Examine the inter-relationships between key elements of BMs across all market
interdependencies offers
Develop second set of propositions
6 Classify market offers Classify CEA market offers based on their delivered value (Bailetti, 2009)
7 Develop model for BM Develop a model using white space frame (Johnson, 2010) to explain how large
innovation suppliers of CEAs improve and innovate their business models
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 7

8. Data acquisition
 Data is collected from company’s secondary sources:
websites, annual reports, product/service literature, press
releases, analysts reports and media coverage
 Required data includes but not limited to:
 Communication enabled solutions: product features,
functions & added value
 Jobs need to be done/problem to be solved for customers,
revenue models, cost structures, customer relationships,
key partners & channels to market
 Key resources & key processes: physical, financial &
human related resources, technologies and intangible
assets
 Data related to basis of competition, different types of the
innovation and shifts in problem solving methods
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 8

9. Data analysis
 Research method
Holistic single case study with embedded units
 Units of analysis
A business model representation for large IT/telecom
companies: Nortel, Avaya, IBM, Microsoft and Cisco
 Study period
Jan 1, 2003 to Jan 1, 2010 gathered in
Oct-Nov 2010 time period
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 9

10. Research roadmap
Section 2
Section 1
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 10

11. Results-section 1:
Business Model analysis
A Four Box Model displaying results of business model analysis
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 11

12. Results-section 2:
Analysis of interdependencies: sample
CVP: Optimizing Communications
Job to be done
Users need consistent &
optimized communication
independent of location Customer Value
Segment 1
Finance companies to
have:
Market Offers  Higher ROI from multi-
vendor communication
Multi vendor voice from infrastructure
Avaya (CS 1000), Cisco  1 hour/week improved
(CM) & IBM (Sametime) user productivity due to
application integration
Click to call from Corporate independent of location
Portal (Packaged &  Cost saving (travel &
Custom Applications) real state) for mobile
employees
Hot Desking to manage
voice & video at any
location
Value proposition frame for Avaya
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 12

13. Results-section 2:
Second set of propositions
Analysis of 43 customer cases produces 4 propositions:
1. Customer value proposition is more a function of the job-to-be-
done than specific type of market offer
2. Clearly defined jobs-to-be-done and better match between
jobs-to-be-done and market offers results in stronger, more
sustainable value propositions
3. Cheapest market offers are not always the best solutions to
provide a compelling value proposition
4. CEA market should be segmented based on the value that
communications enabled solutions provides for customers
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 13

14. Results-section 3:
Classification of CEA market offers
CEA market offers were organized into three types:
1. Unified Telephony and Unified Messaging
2. Unified Communications and Communications enabled
Business Processes
3. Communications and Collaboration Platform or Communications
enabled platform
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 14

15. Results-section 4:
Results of analysis of shifts in competition basis
Anticipated growth curve in communications enablement
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 15

16. Results-section 5:
Analysis of shifts in problem solving
 Use 13 BM Canvases as a sample of analysis
 Analysis is based on White Space beyond frame
(Johnson, 2010)
 Three types of business models are identified as
results:
 Solution based business models
 Value adding process business models
 Multi-sided platform business models
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 16

17. Key finding
A model for BM innovation
Problem solving method
Communications
enabled solutions
Business
Model
innovation
Process
Unified
innovation
Communications:
Convergence with
applications
Product
innovation
Unified
Telephony
OR
Unified
Messaging
Basis of the competition
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 17

18. Discussion of results
 Business model canvas
 Needs to be extended in four areas before application
 Developed model for business model innovation
 Application to different domains
 Innovation as the third key driver
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 18

19. Conclusion
 First study on how to do business by analyzing BMs
 Analysis of BMs requires an understanding of two aspects: key
elements of BMs and how these elements work together
 A vocabulary for business models accelerate decisions about
how to do business in CEA domain
 Two features make business models of large suppliers of CEAs
distinctive: (i) structure of their BMs (ii) pattern in improving and
innovating their BMs
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 19

20. Limitations & future research
Limitations
 Use of secondary sources of data
 Lack of knowledge in CEA domain
Future research
 Examine business models in start-ups
 Explore how multi sided approach changes the way CEA
companies do business
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 20

21. References
Afuah, A. & Tucci, C. 2001. Internet business models and strategies. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Amit, R., Zott, C. (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal. Vol 22, No 6/7,
p493-520.
Anthony, S.D., Erying, M., Gibson, L. (2006) Mapping your innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review
Bailetti, A.J., 2010. Blueprint and approach to grow revenue in small technology companies. Open Source
Business Review. June 2010:Growing Business.
Boudreau, K. J., Lakhani, K. R. (2009) How to manage outside innovation. MIT Sloan Management
Review
Evans, D.S., Schmalensee, R. (2007) Catalyst code: The strategies behind the world’s most dynamic
companies. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Chesbrough, H. W., & German, A. R. (2009) How Open Innovation Can Help You Cope in Lean Times.
Harvard Business Review
Christensen, C.M. & Raynor, M. E.(2003) The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful
Growth. Boston, MA: HBS Press
Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002) The role of business model in capturing value from innovation:
evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change,
11/3:529-555
Hedman, J., Kalling, T. (2001) The business model: A mean to understand the business context of
information and communication technology. Institute of Economic Research. School of Economics
and Management, Lund Universitet.
Johnson, Mark W.; Christensen, Clayton M.; Kagermann, Henning. Re-inventing your business model.
Harvard Business Review, Dec2008, Vol. 86 Issue 12, p50-59
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 21

22. References
Johnson, M. W. (2010) Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal.
Boston, MA: HBS Press
Kanaparti, S. (2008) A distributer SOA model for unified communication services. IEEE International
Conference on Web Services.
Linder, J., Cantrell, S. (2000) Changing business models: Surveying the Landscape, Accenture Institute
for Strategic Change.
Magretta, J. (2002) Why business models matter? Harvard Business Review. Vol 80, No. 5, p.86-92.
Mantena, R., Sankaranarayanan, R, Viswanathan, R. (2007) Exclusive licensing in complementary
network industries. SSRN 979330.
Mahadevan, B. (2000) Business models for Internet-based e-commerce: An anatomy California
Management Review 42 (4), 55-61.
Nortel Technical journal, Issue 5, Next-Generation Applications and Services articles, March 2007
Osterwalder, Lagha & Pigneur (2002). An Ontology for e-business models. European Journal of
Operational Research. Proc. of the 15th e-commerce conference. Bled, Slovenia.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2009) Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers and Challengers
Petrovic, O., Kittle,C., Teksten R.D. (2001) Developing business models for e-Business. SSRN
1658505.
Porter, M. (2001) Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79, No. 3, p62-78.
Rake, J., Holschke, O., Offermann, P., & Bub, U. (2009) Communication-enabled business processes
as a service. 13th International conference on intelligence in next generation networks. ICIN 2009.
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 22

23. References
Rappa, M. (2003) Managing the digital enterprise: Business models on the web. North Caroline State
University.
Rochet, J.C. and Tirole, J. (2001) Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets." Mimeo, IDEI.
Rochet, J.C., Tirole, J. (2003) Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets. Journal of the European
Economic Association. Vol.1, p990 1029.
Rochet, J.C., Tirole, J. (2004) Two-sided markets: An overview. Mimeo, IDEI University of Toulouse.
Rybczynski, T., & Shetty, M. (2005) Unified communications: where the world is heading. Financial
Executive. Vol 21, p31-33.
Tapscott, D., Lowi, A., Ticoll, D. (2000) Digital capital: Harnessing the power of business webs. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Timmers, P. (1998) Business Models for Electronic Markets. Journal of Electronic Markets, 8 (2): p3-8.
Treacy, M. and Sims, J. (2004) Take command of your growth. Harvard Business Review
Venkatachalam, L., Dhara, K.K., Krishnaswamy, V., & Vernick, M. (2008) Communication enabled web
applications: the evolution of computer telephony integration. IEEE. June. p275-278.
Venkatraman, N., Henderson, J. C. (2008) Four vectors of business model innovation: Value capture in
network era. Book chapter from Strategy to Execution, book, Springer.
Weill, P., Vitale, M.R. (2001) Place to space: Migrating to e-business models. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
West, J. (2003) How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies.
Research Policy. 32(7), p1259-1285.
Zook, C. (2007) Finding your next core business. Harvard Business Review
Zott, C., R. Amit & L. Massa. 2011. The business model: Recent development and future research.
Journal of Management. 37(4): 1019-1042.
lalehadl@sce.carleton.ca Slide 23