圣加仑商业模式导航

OliverGassmann,KarolinFrankenberger,MichaelaCsik WorkingPaperUniversityofSt.Gallen The St. Gallen Business Model NavigatorTM 1.New Products are not enough an average of 6 % compared to pure product orprocess innovators (BCG 2008). As a consequence,managers consider business model innovation to bemoreimportant for achieving competitive ad-vantage than product or service innovation, andover 90 % of the CEOs surveyed in a study by IBM(2012) plan to innovate their company’s businessmodel over the next three years. But a plan is notenough.When it comes to making the phenomenon tan- There are many companies with excellent tech-nologicalproducts.Especially in Europe,manyfirms continuously introduce innovations to theirproducts and processes. Yet, many companies willnot survive in the long term despite their productinnovation capabilities. Why do prominent firms,which have been known for their innovative prod-ucts for years, suddenly lose their competitive ad-vantage? Strong players such asAEG,Grundig,NixdorfComputers,Triumph,Brockhaus,Agfa,Kodak, Quelle, Otto, andSchleckerare vanishingfrom the business landscape one after the other.They have lost their capabilities of marketing theirformer innovative strengths. The answer is simpleand painful: these companies have failed to adapttheir business models to the changing environment.In future, competition will take place between busi-ness models, and not just between products andtechnologies.New business models are often based on early gible, people struggle. Very few managers are ableto explain their company’s business model ad-hoc,and even fewer can define what a business modelactually is in general. The number of companies,which have established dedicated business modelinnovation units and processes is even lower. Giventhe importance of the topic, this lack of corporateinstitutionalization is surprising – however, consid-ering the complexity and fuzziness of the topic, it isto be expected.Before discussing how to innovate a business weaksignals:Trendsetters signal new customerrequirements;regulations are discussed broadlybefore they are eventually approved. New entrantsto the industry discuss new alliances at great length;disruptive technology developments are results ofmany years of research. The insolvency ofKodakin2012 has also a long history. The first patents fordigital cameras had already been published byTex-as Instrumentsin 1972.Kodakrealized the potentialof the new technology and in the 90s initiated analliance on digital imaging withMicrosoftin orderto conquer this new field. But–as can be observedfrequently – the disruptive move was faint-hearted.When the first digital cameras entered the market in1999,Kodakforecasted that ten years later digitalcameras would account for only 5 % of the market,with analog cameras remaining strong at 95 %. In2009, the reality was different: Only 5 % of themarket remained analog. This misjudgment was sograve and powerful that it was too late whenKodakphysically blew up its chemical R&D center inRochesterin order to change the corporate-dominant logic of analog imaging. Between 1988and 2008,Kodakreduced the number of its em-ployees by more than 80 %, in 2012Kodakfiled forbankruptcy protection.It is often said that existing business models model, it is important to understand what it is that isto be innovated. Historically, the business modelhas its roots in the late 1990s when it emerged as abuzzword in the popular press. Ever since, it hasraised significant attention from both practitionersand scholars and nowadays forms a distinct featurein multiple research streams. In general, the busi-ness model can be defined as a unit of analysis todescribe how the business of a firm works. Morespecifically, the business model is often depicted asan overarching concept that takes notice of thedifferent components a business is constituted ofand puts them together as a whole (Demil andLecocq 2010; Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Inotherwords, business models describe how themagic of a business works based on its individualbits and pieces.Business model literature has not yet reached a common opinion as to which components exactlymake up a business model. To describe the businessmodels throughout our study, we employ a concep-tualization that consists of four central dimensions:the Who, the What, the How, and the Value. Due tothe reduction to four dimensions the concept is easyto use, but, at the same time, exhaustive enough toprovide a clear picture of the business model archi-tecture. ‘don’t work anymore’. Still, the typical answersprovidedby R&D engineers are new productsbased on new technologies and more functionality.By contrast, the underlying business logic is rarelyaddressed despite the fact that business model in-novators have been found to be more profitable by a holistic picture of the business by combiningfactors located inside and outside the firm (Teece2010; Zott et al. 2011). For this reason, it is oftenreferre