This document discusses designing circular business model experimentation through case studies. It aims to increase understanding of how to design circular business model experimentation while considering both company and research organization needs. Elements involved in designing circular business model experimentation are explored. Differences between company and research organization data collection objectives are examined. Rapid business model experimentation is proposed using rapid experimentation cards covering working hypotheses, data collection/analysis, and criteria for validation/rejection. The document concludes that rapid experimentation, partnerships, practical implementation, iteration, mindset change, and learning from multiple data sources can aid the design of circular business model experimentation.

1. 129.5.2017
Maria Antikainen
Designing circular business model
experimentation - Case study
Maria Antikainen*, Anna Aminoff
Harri Paloheimo
Outi Kettunen
@AarreResearch

2. 229.5.2017
Maria Antikainen
Circular economy transforms business
Design
Productio
n
&Reman
u-
facturing
Distributi
on
Use,
reuse,
repair
Collectio
n
(logistics)
and
recycling
Materials
(primary
+
secondar
y)
In the circular
economy, value is
created and
distributed within
ecosystems

3. 329.5.2017
Maria Antikainen
Our aim
To increase and conceptualise our
understanding of how to design circular
business model experimentation,
considering both the companies’ and
research organizations’ needs.
1. What elements are included in
designing circular business model
experimentation?
2. How do company and research
organization data collection objectives
differ?

4. 429.5.2017
Maria Antikainen
Renting or owning?
Renting good option when there is not much use
Products with close relationships-> owning
Some factors more temporary some more permanent
Renting more expensive products
Service portfolio (product, user- and result-oriented)

5. 529.5.2017
Maria Antikainen
Conclusions: Rapid business model experimentation
• Rapid
Experimentation
Cards
• Partnerships,
resources
• Practical
implementation and
research
• Iteration, agility
• Change of mind-set
• Data from multiple
sources
• Learnings
• Guidelines for next
steps /
experimentations
Rapid
Experiment
ation Card
1. Ex: Renting vs
owning
2. Ex: Value
creation
3. Ex: Easiness
Working
hypotheses
We believe that
renting tools is an
attractive service for
consumers, compared to
buying.
Criticality (1-3, 1= least):
3
We believe that the
service model creates
value, in multiple ways,
for consumers (benefits
greater than sacrifices).
Criticality (1-3, 1=
least): 3
We believe that Liiteri
is easier to use
(accessibility/convenien
ce) for consumers than
buying or using existing
services.
Criticality (1-3, 1=
least): 3
Data
collection
and analysis
User and non-user
interviews
The amount of traffic at
Liiteri.net, container
visitors , customers,
media visibility
Diary
Cost (1-3, 1= least): 2
Reliability (1-3, 1 least):3
User and non-user
interviews
Diary
Cost (1-3, 1= least): 2
Reliability (1-3, 1
least):3
User and non-user
interviews
Diary
Cost: 1-3 (1 least): 2
Cost (1-3, 1= least): 2
Reliability (1-3, 1
least):3
Criteria for
validation/re
jection
(qualitative
&
quantitative)
There is a certain number
of customers and
interested consumers,
(Social) media is
interested in the pilot,
results of the interviews
indicate the attractiveness.
There is a certain
number of customers
and interested
consumers, results of
the interviews and diary
indicate the value.
There is a certain
number of customers
and interested
consumers, results of
the interviews and diary
indicate the easiness.

6. 629.5.2017
Maria Antikainen
Rapid
Experimenta
tion Card
1. Ex: Renting vs
owning
2. Ex: Value
creation
3. Ex: Easiness
Working
hypotheses
We believe that renting tools
is an attractive service for
consumers, compared to
buying.
Criticality (1-3, 1= least): 3
We believe that the service
model creates value, in
multiple ways, for
consumers (benefits
greater than sacrifices).
Criticality (1-3, 1= least): 3
We believe that Liiteri is
easier to use
(accessibility/convenience)
for consumers than buying
or using existing services.
Criticality (1-3, 1= least): 3
Data
collection and
analysis
User and non-user interviews
The amount of traffic at
Liiteri.net, container visitors ,
customers, media visibility
Diary
Cost (1-3, 1= least): 2
Reliability (1-3, 1 least):3
User and non-user
interviews
Diary
Cost (1-3, 1= least): 2
Reliability (1-3, 1 least):3
User and non-user
interviews
Diary
Cost: 1-3 (1 least): 2
Reliability (1-3, 1 least):3
Criteria for
validation/reje
ction
(qualitative &
quantitative)
There is a certain
number of customers and
interested consumers,
(Social) media is interested
in the pilot, results of the
interviews indicate the
attractiveness.
There is a certain
number of customers and
interested consumers,
results of the interviews
and diary indicate the
value.
There is a certain number
of customers and
interested consumers,
results of the interviews
and diary indicate the
easiness.

7. 729.5.2017
Maria Antikainen
Thank you!
maria.antikainen@vtt.fi
@AarreResearch