M.Morris et al./lournal of Business Research 58 (2005)726-735 5.Conclusions The business model can be a central construct in entre- are issues model implementation.one chal preneurship research.This article has sought to provide direction in addre ssing some of the more vexing questions a value-hased venture The ays that do posed framework allows the user to design,describe compromise the model.Finally,further insights are needed categorize,critique,and analyze a business model for any into the dynamics of model emergence and evolution. specifying the elements that constitute a model,the frame work enhances the ability to assess model attributes.A References mponents HD.Int decision areas within a given component as well as the fit between components. ) merging -buiness models.Harvard Bus Rev001 is defined in terms of a standardized set of decisions that can be quantified.A benefit of this standardization is the ability make comparisons across model m a broad ce-based view of the firm:ten gJ2002:141)21-7 dation level variables to modeling relationships between the Donath R.Tami smodels.ISBM busin s vanable By applying codes to the various decision choices across the amot the p Dyer Singh H.The evel considerable scope for in becomes a form of intellectual property,with some 791107-16 act ng pate for their ness model innovation.A beginning point is to develop measures of model innovativeness.A further step involves determining how the varies Han coiegeeotiaBaomMyHhnaBuhsshdl The business model can serve as a focusing device for entrepreneurs and employees,especially when supported by Horwit AS. movement to a new es or gu Hunt firm's value proposition and are a source of guidance ge.Accen els for Interet-based and sC.A dymamic view of strategy.Sloan Manage Rev:0(3 Other areas requiring further investigation include the Mayo MC.Br GS.Building a competitive business model.Ivey Bus J appro assessing 5. Conclusions The business model can be a central construct in entre￾preneurship research. This article has sought to provide direction in addressing some of the more vexing questions surrounding models. The model represents a strategic frame￾work for conceptualizing a value-based venture. The pro￾posed framework allows the user to design, describe, categorize, critique, and analyze a business model for any type of company. It provides a useful backdrop for strate￾gically adapting fundamental elements of a business. By specifying the elements that constitute a model, the frame￾work enhances the ability to assess model attributes. A model that ignores one or more of the specified components will suffer in terms of its comprehensiveness, while incon￾sistency can manifest itself both in terms of the fit among decision areas within a given component as well as the fit between components. With the proposed framework, each of six components is evaluated at three levels. At the foundation level, the model is defined in terms of a standardized set of decisions that can be quantified. A benefit of this standardization is the ability to make comparisons across models from a broad universe of ventures. New avenues for empirical research become possible, ranging from the creation of general model taxon￾omies and investigations of relationships among the foun￾dation level variables to modeling relationships between the model and a host of endogenous and exogenous variables. Also promising is the ability to identify model archetypes. By applying codes to the various decision choices across the six components of the framework at the foundation level, statistical tools can be used to identify dominant patterns among decision choices. At the proprietary level, considerable scope for inno￾vation exists within each model component. The model becomes a form of intellectual property, with some entrepreneurs actually obtaining patents for their models. Considerable work remains to properly understand busi￾ness model innovation. A beginning point is to develop measures of model innovativeness. A further step involves determining how the relative importance of component innovation varies depending on industry or market characteristics. The business model can serve as a focusing device for entrepreneurs and employees, especially when supported by a set or rules or guidelines that derive from decisions made at the proprietary level. Rules provide a clearer sense of the firm’s value proposition and are a source of guidance regarding actions that might compromise the value equation. Additional research is needed regarding what constitutes a rule, types of rules, differences between rules and objec￾tives, qualities of good rules, and ways in which rules become dysfunctional. Other areas requiring further investigation include the ability of entrepreneurs and others to assess model quality. Systematic approaches for assessing model viability are needed. Methods are also needed for appraising the model’s fit with changing environmental conditions; just as critical are issues surrounding model implementation. One chal￾lenge concerns the translation of model components into operational decisions, where the importance of fit will likely differ by activity area. Another challenge involves exper￾imenting with new strategic moves in ways that do not compromise the model. Finally, further insights are needed into the dynamics of model emergence and evolution. References Afuah A, Tucci CL. Internet business models. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin, 2001. Alt R, Zimmerman HD. Introduction to special section on business models. Electron Mark 2001;11(1):3 – 9. Amit R, Zott C. Value creation in e-business. Strateg Manage J 2001; 22(2):493 – 520. Applegate LM. Emerging e-business models. Harvard Bus Rev 2001; 79(1):79 – 87. Barney JB. How firm capabilities affect boundary decisions. Sloan Manage Rev 1999;40(1):19 – 32. Barney J, Wright M, Ketchen D. The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after. J Manage 2001;27(6):625 – 41. Betz F. Strategic business models. Eng Manag J 2002;14(1):21 – 7. Chesbrough H, Rosenbaum RS. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation (working paper). Boston: Harvard Business School, 2000. Donath R. Taming e-business models. ISBM business marketing web con￾sortium 3 (1). State College (PA): Institute for the Study of Business Markets, 1999; 1 – 24. Dubosson-Torbay M, Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y. E-business model design, classification and measurements. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 2001;44(1): 5 – 23. Dyer J, Singh H. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 1998; 23(4):660 – 79. Eisenhardt KM, Sull D. Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Bus Rev 2001; 79(1):107 – 16. Gartner. Available at: http://www3.gartner.com, 2003. Girotto J, Rivkin J. Yahoo! Case 9-700-013. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000. Gordijn J, Akkermans J, Van Vliet J. Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intell Syst 2001;16(4):11 – 7. Grove A. Only the paranoid survive. New York: HarperCollins Business, 1997. Hamel G. Leading the revolution. Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press, 2001. Horowitz AS. The real value of VARS: resellers lead a movement to a new service and support. Mark Comput 1996;16(4):31 – 6. Hunt SD. A general theory of competition. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 2000. Jarillo JC. Strategic networks. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1995. Linder JC, Cantrell S. Changing business models. Chicago: Institute for Strategic Change, Accenture, 2000. Mahadevan B. Business models for Internet-based e-commerce. Calif Man￾age Rev 2000;42(4):55 – 69. Markides C. A dynamic view of strategy. Sloan Manage Rev 1999;40(3): 55 – 63. Mayo MC, Brown GS. Building a competitive business model. Ivey Bus J 1999;63(3):18 – 23. Nelson R, Winter SG. The Schumpeterian tradeoff. Am Econ Rev 1982; 72(1):114 – 33. 734 M. Morris et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 726–735