Dynamic Capabilities enable Business
Model Innovation.
Case Study of Internal Corporate Ventures.
WILBERT BEKENDAM Student number: 11252197
University of Amsterdam Faculty of Science
Thesis Master Information Studies: Business Information Systems Final version: 08/21/2017
Supervisor: Dr. Erik de Vries Examiner: Dr. Dick Heinhuis
Abstract. This paper addresses firms’ need to search for new ways to create and capture value for its stakeholders. In the pursuit of business model innovation, dynamic capabilities enable the creation and deployment of business models new to the firm. This issue is addressed through a case study, in the setting of internal corporate ventures within Philips Research. Semi-structured interviews were held with 14 venture leads, innovation officers, and senior management. The interviews demonstrated the potential business model innovations, with its multiple maturity levels. Triggered by a problem-based value proposition, business models thrive best with the right form of autonomy, by being provided the right resources, following a business model roadmap. Teams co-create and co-validate all key assumptions with important stakeholders, to build a minimum viable business model. Notably, the findings all stimulate de-risking the business model, to grow customer base, and scale from a business towards a profitable business, when having reached service – customer fit. This paper uncovered the multiple dynamic capabilities that enable the creation and deployment of new business models.
Keywords. Business Model Innovation, Business Models, Dynamic Capabilities, Minimum Viable Business Model, Business Model Fit, Internal Corporate Ventures.
Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed to this thesis, which I would like to thank. First of all, my supervisor of the University of Amsterdam, Erik de Vries. He has provided me with guidance, constructive feedback, and motivational spirit. Secondly, a special thank you to my second reader, Dick Heinhuis. Then, I would like to recognize Philips Research. This thesis would not have been possible without the help of Kerfegar Shroff and Frank Wartena of Philips Research, who have especially supported me with the data collection. Since this research conducted a case study, I would like to thank all interviewees who participated in this study for their time and effort. Lastly, I would like to thank my other colleagues and fellow interns of Philips Research, who have provided me with their support during my graduation internship. Enjoy reading the master thesis.
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. The author is responsible for the content.
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ... 1 2. Literature Review ... 2 2.1. Innovation ... 3 2.2. Corporate Venturing ... 3 2.3. Business Models ... 4
2.4. Business Model Innovation ... 5
2.5. Dynamic Capability of Business Model Innovation ... 6
2.6. Summary ... 7 3. Research Method ... 8 3.1. Case Selection ... 8 3.2. Sample Selection ... 9 3.3. Data Collection... 10 3.4. Data Analysis ... 10 4. Research Findings ... 12 4.1. Creation Phase ... 12
4.1.1. Foundational Aspects for Dynamic Capabilities to enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models ... 12
4.1.2. Dynamic Capabilities that enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models ... 13
4.1.3. Summary of the Findings of the Creation Phase of Business Model Innovation ... 16
4.2. Deployment Phase ... 16
4.2.1. Foundational Aspects for Dynamic Capabilities to enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models ... 16
4.2.2. Dynamic Capabilities that enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models ... 17
4.2.3. Summary of the Findings of the Deployment Phase of Business Model Innovation ... 19
5. Conclusion ... 19
5.1. The Creation of New-to-the-Firm Business Models ... 20
5.2. The Deployment of New-to-the-Firm Business Models ... 21
6. Discussion ... 23
6.1. Practical Implications ... 23
6.2. Limitations and suggestions for Future Research ... 23
References ... 25
Appendix ... 28
Appendix A, Overview of Business Model Innovation Literature Review ... 28
Appendix B, Interview Guide... 29
Appendix C, Interviewee Labels ... 34
Appendix D, Summary of the Findings of Creation Phase ... 35
Appendix E, Summary of the Findings of Deployment Phase ... 35
Appendix F, Conclusion of the Findings ... 36
List of Tables
# Name Page
Table 1. Overview of the Conceptual Model constructed based on the Literature Review
7 Table 2. Quantitative details of Interview data 9 Table 3. Data Display of Rescue for Firm’s Survival 12 Table 4. Data Display of Psychological Barrier to Start 13 Table 5. Data Display of Business Model Trigger from Problem-based Value
Proposition
13 Table 6. Data Display of BMI is not a Process, but has Maturity Levels 14 Table 7. Data Display of Clear Milestones for Autonomous Development 15 Table 8. Data Display of Business Model Roadmap 15 Table 9. Data Display of Implementation of Business Models 17 Table 10. Data Display of Dynamic Team Competencies 17 Table 11. Data Display of De-Risking Business Models 18 Table 12. Data Display of Specific Resources for Business Model Innovations 18 Table 13. Overview of the Business Model Innovation Literature Review 28
Table 14. Interviewee Labels 34
Table 15. Summary of the Findings of the Creation Phase of Business Model Innovation
35 Table 16. Summary of the Findings of the Deployment Phase of Business Model
Innovation
35 Table 17. Summary of the Findings Contrasted with Conceptual Model based on
Literature Review
36
Table 18. Coding Scheme 38
List of Figures
# Name Page
Figure 1. Business Model Canvas 4
Figure 2. Conceptual Model 7
Figure 3. Cases of Internal Corporate Ventures 10 Figure 4. Overview of Data Coding Structure for the Creation Phase of
New-to-the-Firm Business Models
11 Figure 5. Overview of Data Coding Structure for the Deployment Phase of
New-to-the-Firm Business Models
11 Figure 6. Conceptual Model based on the Findings 22
1. Introduction
Over the last years, the pressure to innovate is constantly rising, due to shortening product life cycles that limit revenues (Stampfl, 2016). Nowadays, many firms try to master the innovation challenge by aiming at the development of breakthrough services that promise higher returns on investment (Hippel, 2005). Recently, an alternative strategy to generate revenue has come up (Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011). Business model innovation is an innovative approach towards the business logic of a specific firm (Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Tucci, 2005). This shift towards innovations in the business model is increasingly getting attention from academia as well as practice. However, empirical studies and a basic understanding of the phenomenon are still lacking, as well as helpful capabilities to support a business model innovation. These circumstances drive this empirical investigation of business model innovation.
In the field of innovation research, leading scholars outline that in the coming years business model innovation will become as important as traditional technological innovation. And, although, firms have extensive structures for the exploration of technologies, the commercialization of these technologies is done through their business models (Chesbrough, 2010). For firms to develop the capability to innovate their business models makes good business sense. Lawson and Samson (2001) mentioned that the dynamic capabilities view is well suited for studying innovation. Chesbrough (2010) sees business model innovation as vitally important, yet very difficult to achieve. The barriers to change a business model are substantial, and tools will definitively not close the gap. So, dynamic capabilities are required for firms as enablers to create, adapt and change viable business models. However, business model innovation research has increased tremendously in recent years, so far, there is limited research explicitly focusing on business model innovation in the context of corporate venturing. Even though the importance of gaining insights on business model innovation has been recognized in scholarly debate, an understanding of the firm’s dynamic capabilities to create and deploy new business models is still scarce. The major part of business model innovation research focuses on new-to-the-industry business model innovations (Stampfl, 2016), but the exploration and exploitation of new-to-the-firm business models are not yet clear outlined. In addition, in practice, firms are heavily struggling with the innovation of business models. As Philips is transforming their organization from product-oriented to service-oriented, an important aspect that will thrive this transformation are new business models. This study is supposed to fill the gap in literature about the firm’s dynamic capabilities which enable the creation and deployment of new-to-the-firm business models.
The research goal of this study is to get a deep understanding about the creation and deployment of new-to-the-firm business models, and about which dynamic capabilities enable these business models. Therefore, the following main question shall be addressed:
This main research question should lead to dynamic capabilities for firms to enable, and support, the creation and deployment of new business models. In order to answer the main question, three sub-questions that will help are:
1. Why, and when, does business model innovation start? 2. What are the stages of business model innovations?
3. Which dynamic capabilities enable business model innovation?
By finding answers to these questions, this research aims at contributing to academic literature as well as to managerial practice regarding the management of business models.
2. Literature Review
Shorter product life cycles, inter-industry competition, and converging industries are key factors requiring firms to reconfigure their business models (McGrath 2012). Business models are becoming increasingly instable (Kaplan 2012) and competitive advantage increasingly transient (McGrath 2013). Several studies outline the importance of innovating a firm’s business model to overcome disruptions and secure future growth (Zott & Amit, 2010; McGrath 2013).
For firms, the core element of every business model is the value proposition, and the creation of value is the core purpose of economic exchange. Within a firm’s network, actors are constantly forming new connections. So, contexts are always in flux and value experiencing is very dynamic (Vargo, Maglio & Akaka, 2008). Accordingly, firms can only offer a value proposition as an invitation to engage with the firm for the co-creation of value. Therefore, the offering of a firm is not embedded with value (value-in-exchange), but rather value occurs when the offering is useful and usable for the beneficiary (value-in-use), and this is always in a particular context (value-in-context).
The Service-Dominant Logic focuses on doing something beneficial, instead of units of output (Nambisan & Lusch, 2015). Service represents the general and universal case. Goods, then, could be seen as appliances that serve as alternative to direct service provision. In this actor-to-actor network, service ecosystems become essential in the search for common organizational structures to facilitate resource integration and service exchange among those actors. The distinction between ‘service innovation’ and ‘product innovation’ is perhaps no longer relevant, since from the S-D logic perspective all product innovations are service innovations. Products are only mechanisms, mediums, or vehicles for delivering service.
Skålén et al. (2014) encourages managers to collaborate with their customers, and possible other stakeholders, during the innovation process. Firms should organize their business models towards the value proposition. In their opinion, firms can serve its customers better by articulating what can be done for them, what practices can be offered to them, and how this can benefit them. This study defines a value proposition as “value creation promises created either by the firm independently or together with customers and other actors through resource integration based on knowledge and competencies” (Skålén et al., 2014, p. 8). However, firms often lack an understanding of how to best coordinate their resources and harness their capabilities to co-create innovations.
2.1. Innovation
The Austrian economist Joseph A. Schumpeter defined innovation as “the doing of new things or the doing of things that are already done, in a new way” (Schumpeter, 1912). Over more than 100 years later, firms are still struggling with the execution of innovation. In recent years, firms have not always been able to innovate their portfolio to lower costs and higher quality, and Christensen (2008) believes that the primary reason is a lack of business model innovation. Although business model innovations have reshaped entire industries and redistributed billions of dollars of value, a recent American Management Association study determined that “no more than 10% of innovation investment in global companies is focused on developing new business models” (Johnson et al., 2008, p.16). A short while ago, the business model has been formed as a new unit of analysis (Zott et al., 2011), where the business model itself can be a subject of innovation (Mitchell & Coles, 2004). The ongoing focus on innovation and the introduction of new types of innovation as well in theory as in practice has led to confusion and partly overlapping terms. This study will focus on, and tries to clarity, this new type of innovation: Business Model Innovation.
2.2. Corporate Venturing
Organizational design fuels innovation and entrepreneurship (Foss, 2003), and, nowadays, firms are pursuing corporate venturing as a solution to innovation. For as well exploration as exploitation, businesses are always engaging in learning and knowledge search. The way firms search for knowledge to renew their strategies and adapt to their environments are a central component of the corporate entrepreneurship literature (Juha Uotila, Markku Maula, Thomas Keil, 2009). These components very well align with the main points of innovation, that are imply change and renewal for a better situation (Gundogdu, 2012). Firms use corporate venturing to strive for breakthrough innovations. These innovations were only intended for firms, due to the very costly and resource-consuming process. Still, the exploitation of business opportunities needs to be motivated by expected gains, but the exploration of business opportunities has also become feasible for start-ups. Either it is within a firm or a start-up, entrepreneurship includes the evaluation of opportunities, focuses on investments, and execution power (Klein & Foss, 2008). For the author, the essence of entrepreneurship is to match new offerings with opportunities in the marketplace.
Being intrapreneurial relates to individuals within organizations who pursue new opportunities, in the spirit of entrepreneurship (Antoncic, Hisrich, Antoncic, & Hisrich, 2003). Intrapreneurs go beyond multiple conventional limitations and boundaries, and take on additional risks that other peers would not be prepared to consider (Carrier, 1994). Despite their efforts, the development of an idea into a successful innovation requires more than only individual effort. The interplay between ecosystem, organization, venture unit, venture, and intrapreneur is central to innovation, yet it might involve conflicting situations if the intrapreneurs’ activities clash with the organization’s rational models (Russell, 1999). Russell (1999) also argues that it is necessary to have organizational support systems that provide resources, autonomy, and emotional support for intrapreneurs. Halme et al. (2012) suggest that intrapreneurs, from bottom-up, first and foremost need to convince their manager and colleagues, aimed at
external start-up is that internal ventures, next to reaching a product-market fit, also need to have a venture – organization fit, which is strong, sustained internal support for successful internal venturing.
Internal corporate venturing means the internal creation of a new business that resides within the firm’s structure and adds to the existing businesses (Santos & Spector, 2009). Such a view refers to the entrepreneurial act to create a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization. The goal of internal corporate venturing is to implement a profitable new business into a firm. This goal involves not only the creation of a new-to-the-firm value proposition, but also a new-to-the-firm value constellation. The research context of this study are internal corporate ventures.
2.3. Business Models
Zott & Amit (2008) link business opportunity, value creation, and business models, as they see business models design the transaction content, structure, and governance to create value through the exploitation of business opportunities. Business models attracted substantial attention in practice, and the attention in academic research is growing rapidly. This study focuses on business models, and make use of the definition of Teece (2010): “A business model is the articulation of the logic by which a business creates and delivers value to customers. Equally important, it also outlines the architecture of revenues and costs that will, when all goes well, allow the business to earn a profit”.
Business models can succeed, and fail. Business models on paper could be very sound, but the extraction of value for the stakeholders starts when being implemented. Validated business models can be managed badly and fail, just as weak business models may succeed through strong management and implementation skills (Osterwalder et al., 2005). The organizational requirements for the implementation of a new business model must be enacted in order to deliver value to the beneficial. Unfortunately, there is not a recipe for change for new business models. Really understanding the need for the change of a business model and then accomplishing is hardly a straightforward process, rather, it is one that requires strong dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007).
It is unlikely that exactly the same business models are out there. Although organisations could have the same customer, the way of creating and delivering value could differ, as well as the relationship between the actors. Each business model has its own characteristics, but there are some general aspects, which should be present in every business model. This study makes use of the business model canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) as a framework, due to a well-balanced compromise between detail and abstraction, and it covers the main elements. This framework has gained significant recognition and is widely used among well-known scholars (Chesbrough, 2010). Such a framework is essential; otherwise, it remains impossible to
share business models throughout an organization. Accordingly, the nine components of the business model canvas used for describing business models in this study are
value proposition, customer segments, customer relationships, channels, key activities, key resources, key partners, cost structure, and revenue streams. Proactively or
unsolicited, businesses are constantly transforming, and the search for new business models is a logic consequence of
2.4. Business Model Innovation
New business models, in general, are created through business model innovation. Business model innovation involves changes around the architecture, including the elements – Content (“what”), Structure (“how”), and Governance (“who”) – of a business activity (Zott & Amit, 2010). Quite recently, “business model research shifted from a rather static perspective of describing business models to a more dynamic perspective of the design and implementation of business models” (Stampfl, 2016, p.37). Now, business model innovation is seen as a cross-sectional matter, interconnected with concepts such as strategy, competitive advantage, dynamic capabilities, resources, and business models (Beattie & Smith, 2013). Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu (2013, p.464) describe the essence of business model innovation as; “At root, business model innovation refers to the search for new logics of the firm and new ways to create and capture value for its stakeholders; it focuses primarily on finding new ways to generate revenues and define value propositions for customers, suppliers, and partners”.
As business model innovation refers to the search for new logics of the firm, often the degree of novelty of business models is quite high. Literature distinguish three different degrees of novelty for business models, namely; (1) Business model is new-to-the-world, (2) Business model is new-to-the-industry/market, and (3) Business model is new-to-the-firm (Stampfl, 2016). Research shows that new-to-the-world business models have become a comparatively rare species (Stampfl, 2016). According to Gassmann, Csik, et al. (2012) around 90% of new business models are rooted in either a relocation of successful patterns, an adoption of an existing business model, or a combination of at least two existing business models. The least attention of business model innovation research has put into new-to-the-firm business models, as on an abstract level expected is that in probably most cases this type is not sufficient enough in creating sustainable competitive advantage. Moreover, there is not yet evidence to support this claim, and none of those studies were conducted in an empirical setting. As this research will be conducted in the context of a firm, in an empirical setting on a venture level, the focus will be on new-to-the-firm business models.
Although business model innovation receives sufficient attention in academia, the triggers to start with a business model innovation are still underexplored. Business model innovations could come from different sources, and can be triggered in various ways. Comes & Berniker (2008) only discriminates internal and external factors, where Bucherer, Eisert, & Gassmann (2012) suggest a distinction between ‘threats’ and ‘opportunities’. Where a threat describes “a situation in which a company is forced to innovate its business model” and an opportunity describes “a situation where a company innovates to capture an opportunity” (Bucherer et al., 2012, p. 189). Next to these abstract differentiations, business model innovations could also be triggered by concrete elements, such as another distribution method, slightly changing value proposition, or an internal culture program that require a process change. These reasons to start could act separately, or could come simultaneously, and often relate to one of the business model components. Additionally, that one side only triggers innovations is debatable. Regardless of the trigger, new technologies must be linked to market needs, which is crucial for innovation (O’Connor & Rice, 2001). This study will research the triggers for business model innovation, to help enrich this topic in literature.
is the iterative character of business model innovation. As Sosna, Trevinyo-Rodriguez, & Velamuri (2010) describe that the design of business models and the implementation of business models are more parallel than chronological processes. In their recent study, Stampfl, Prügl, & Osterloh (2013) found that entrepreneurs differentiate between business model conceptualization and business model realization. Whereas conceptualization relates to creating a business model, realization describes the deployment of a business model. This distinction reflects the prominent notion in innovation management research regarding firms engaging in opportunity “exploration” and “exploitation” (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Consequently, a separation between the creation of business models and the deployment of business models is used to structure this study.
In the past years, researchers tried to define the process of business model innovation. Also described above, the most important consensus is that the progression of teams was highly complex and non-sequential. Teams iterate back and forth. Stampfl (2016) proposed three stages in the process of business model innovation; sensebreaking, sensegiving and freezing, which are somehow related to a starting point, conceptualization, and realization. Stampfl (2016) efforts combine the strategic aspects of business model creation, as well as the operational aspects of business model deployment. These abstract distinctions are difficult to translate into practice. Therefore, this study aims to explore multiple stages in an empirical setting to give guidance to teams working on a business model innovation.
The organizational dimension of business models, which is an increasing area of interest (Leih, Linden, & Teece, 2014), is that business models are the architecture that links value creation and value capture mechanisms in a business. Generally, a business model imply various aspects of an organizational structure that results in value being created, captured, delivered, and monitored (Leih et al., 2014). Next to the organizational level of business model innovation, Stampfl (2016) studied the individual level of business model innovation, which focuses on individual tasks to create a new business model. The organization itself, its strategy, and its environment primarily influence the organizational level of business model innovation. This study focuses on the latter.
2.5. Dynamic Capability of Business Model Innovation
Dynamic capabilities of a firm facilitate in the pursuit of evolutionary fitness (Helfat et al. 2007:7). Strong dynamic capabilities depend not only on the capacities of entrepreneurial managers, but it also help to organize supporting routines and enable firms to coordinate their resources effectively (Klein & Foss, 2008). Leih et al. (2014) explain that dynamic capabilities encompass entrepreneurial activities within firms. First, by recognizing the need to change the existing business model, and in the second place, by accessing and orchestrating the necessary assets in the pursuit of new value creation. To do so, dynamic capabilities also determine the firm’s agility in implementing the new organizational processes, including the alignment of new and existing activities. In addition, they are able to respond to the unexpected internal and external contingencies that unavoidably accompany the creation and deployment of a new business model. Summarily, dynamic capabilities enable firms to identify and orchestrate the essential resources for designing and implementing a business model (Teece, 2007).
The dynamic capabilities view has been widely used in product and technology-related contexts, but less in the context of business model innovation, even though it also
seems particularly useful for this type of innovation (Kindström, Kowalkowski, & Sandberg, 2013). However, the development of dynamic capabilities relies on organizational structure, culture, people and processes, which is a challenging task to execute (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). So, firms need support in operationalizing dynamic capabilities, to fully reap the benefits of future business model innovation (Fischer, Gebauer, Gregory, Ren, & Fleisch, 2010). In a way, dynamic capabilities are foundational to business model innovation, as they may enable a firm to sense and seize necessary changes in a business model. So, fundamentally, “dynamic capabilities are high-order capabilities that an organization uses to shape and orchestrate its resource base to meet the current and anticipated needs of the market” (Leih et al., 2014, p.3). Such capabilities involve the whole organization, but they also reside at the level of senior management. Dynamic capabilities are enabling firms to create and deploy business models, and re-structuring the firm facilitates strengthening these dynamic capabilities. Ultimately, it is by exercising the dynamic capabilities that a firm could organize itself to deliver value to the customer while capturing sufficient value for itself to be viable. This study focuses on uncovering the dynamic capabilities, which enable business model innovation.
2.6. Summary
To sum things up, the pressure to innovate is constantly rising, and firms start exploring an alternative strategy to generate revenue: business model innovation. Besides practice, academia is increasingly paying attention to this phenomenon. There must be a need for a new business model, which act as a trigger to start with business model innovation. In literature, business model innovation is roughly divided into a creation phase and a deployment phase of a new business model. Dynamic capabilities enable firms to create and deploy new-to-the-firm business
models. See Appendix A for an overview of the literature review of business model innovation. See Figure 2 for the conceptual model and Table 1 for an overview of the conceptual model constructed based on the literature review.
Figure 2. Conceptual Model
Table 1. Overview of the Conceptual Model constructed based on the Literature Review
Business Model Innovation Phases Important Aspects in each Phase
Trigger Internally and Externally (Comes & Berniker, 2008). As Threat or Opportunity (Bucherer, Eisert, & Gassmann, 2012). Business Model Creation Strong Management Capability (Osterwalder et al., 2005).
Iterative Development (Sosna, Trevinyo-Rodriguez, & Velamuri, 2010). Autonomous Development (Russell, 1999). Business Model Deployment Emotional Support (Russell, 1999).
Implementation Skills (Osterwalder et al., 2005). Organizational support system provide resources (Russell, 1999).
3. Research Method
When evaluating what would be the most appropriate methodology to use in this study, the author considered the applicability of a case study. According to the author, a case study is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between object of study and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2003:13-14). Hence, considering the typology of this study and yet the unclear relation between dynamic capabilities and business model innovation, a case study has been evaluated as the most appropriate. In addition, Yin (2003) mentions to use a case study when the researcher has little to control the events within the real-life context, where the real-life context of this study is an operating firm. Moreover, as there is limited research on the relation between dynamic capabilities and business model innovation, case studies are necessary to study this complex social phenomenon. The study’s theoretical proposition is to uncover the dynamic capabilities that enable the creation and deployment of new business models within internal corporate ventures, which makes business model innovation within internal corporate ventures the study’s unit of analysis. This study can be considered exploratory, because the focus is on gaining insights to recognize patterns that can be derived from the theoretical proposition, aimed at revealing the impact of business model innovation that has not yet clear evaluated outcomes and effects (Yin, 2003).
Further, to enrich academia on the topic of business model innovation, theory will be developed by relying on both deductive and inductive approaches. The author relied on previous literature resulting in a conceptual model highlighting the potential of dynamic capabilities for business model innovation, using the deductive approach. On the other hand, the inductive approach was used to amplify the literature-based conceptual model by depending on insights from the gathered data, allowing a revision of the initial conceptual model.
3.1. Case Selection
The empirical setting of this study, the Philips Research organization, allowed analyzing multiple cases to generate insights about the concept of business model innovation in practice. Philips Research has been evaluated to be suitable for this study considering its continuous innovation efforts, for which the Eindhoven Lab, the core lab of Philips Research, is awarded the Open Innovation 2.0 Award from the European Union in 2016 in recognition of its role in creating the High Tech Campus as a vibrant innovation ecosystem (Philips, 2016). At Philips, innovation efforts are aligned with the business strategy, where Philips Research investigates trends and creates concepts for solutions within strategic Philips domains linked to societal challenges. Aiming to improve people’s lives through technology-enabled meaningful innovations, Philips Research focuses on the exploration of new technologies and business ideas, delivering proofs-of-concept, particularly for first-of-a-kind products and services (Philips, 2016). Philips Research is well acknowledged for its high innovation performance, visible in the many commercially successful innovations, such as radios, televisions, and medical equipment (Philips, 2016). These technology-enabled meaningful innovations show the development of new technologies that are fundamental for the long-term, as well as the exploratory activities to supply the Philips’ business units with the newest technology generation. These technologies are increasingly being developed within internal corporate ventures. When mature enough, these technologies are transferred to the
business units. Very focused on technology innovation, management of Philips Research started to recognize business model innovation as another way to develop technology-enabled meaningful innovations. While, the key performance indicators of Philips Research are still based on the technology transfer to Philips’ business units.
This study was possible to be conducted due to following an internship, which has facilitated data collection and allowed the author to familiarize himself with business model innovation within the context of the firm.
3.2. Sample Selection
To get a broad understanding of the concept of business model innovation within internal corporate ventures, the author decided to interview people from three different roles within Philips Research. These roles are venture leads, innovation officers, and senior management. Senior management bears responsibility for internal corporate ventures, from incubation until the transfer to a business unit, or by stopping the provision of resources. Senior management is accountable for the allocation of the time, and thereby budget, of employees. Innovation officers support internal corporate ventures by deploying their expertise. Furthermore, venture leads are managing internal corporate ventures. Venture leads are mostly the idea creators of a research project turned into the general manager of an internal corporate venture. The identification of these three relevant roles became evident after the author familiarized himself with the way of new business creation within Philips Research. After multiple informal and non-recorded meetings with employees of Philips Research, the author had gathered relevant insights of the governance of the firm, permitting a better capture of the researched phenomena. For the recruitment of these three roles as interviewees, the author relied on purposive sampling rather than probability sampling, to choose interviewees on the relevance of the information they can provide. For the preparation of the interviews, the author conducted a content analysis, an approach to the analysis of documents and texts
that seeks to quantify content in terms of predetermined categories and in a systematic and replicable manner (Bryman, 2012:290). This analysis acquainted the author with the
research topic, and the similarities and differences between internal corporate ventures helped to sharpen the interview guide.
This study has a sample of six cases of internal corporate ventures, which are spread out well over the creation phase and the deployment phase, see Figure 3. Moreover, see Table 2, for the total amount of interviewees in this study. There is an exception, because one case, ICV 3, stopped just before this study. This case is part of this study, because there could still be learnings from their ending, as well as their progress in the creation and the deployment phase.
Table 2. Quantitative details of Interview data Role Total Senior Management 4 Innovation Officer 4 Venture Lead 6
Figure 3. Cases of Internal Corporate Ventures 3.3. Data Collection
Before actually starting with data collection the ICBE, an internal committee responsible for approving any type of data collection within Philips Research, had to approve this study. Therefore, according to Philips Research’s requirements, data collection of this study emphasized the protection of the identity of interviewees through confidentiality and anonymity procedures. To formalize such, each interviewee signed a letter of consent to approve the usage of a Philips recording device. Additionally, after transcribing the interviews the author immediately deleted the audio recordings.
As of the research data, recorded semi-structured interviews were conducted. The author had a series of prepared questions from the interview guide, but, at the same time, was also able to vary the sequence of the questions (Bryman, 2012). All interviews were conducted with only one interviewee, and took place in a face-to-face meeting at High Tech Campus in Eindhoven. The author allowed himself to learn from the circumstances of the interviews, and therefore made adjustments to the interview guides. See Appendix B for the specific interview guides for the three different roles, and Appendix C for the interviewee labels.
3.4. Data Analysis
The author transformed the recordings of the semi-structured interviews into literal interview transcriptions. The author removed names, roles, background, and other confidential information from the transcripts to guarantee anonymity of all interviewees. The interview transcriptions were input to conduct a systematic method of interpretation of the primary data (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016). The data analysis approach grounded theory methodology has been used to systematically analyze the gathered data. This prominent iteratively approach is concerned with the development of theory out of the gathered data (Bryman, 2012). The methodology consists of four phases: open coding, axial coding, theoretical saturation, and selected coding. Open coding, or initial coding, driven by reducing primary raw data, allowed the author to classify first-order codes out of raw data. Due to the astounding large amount of first order codes, categories were allocated considering a holistic analysis rather than relying on independent fragments of texts. As the research progressed, Grounded theory’ axial coding enabled identification of patterns, based on similarities and differences among categories. Moreover, axial coding allowed extracting the most relevant themes to answer the main
research question. These second-order themes were naturally created, and either linked to the creation or the deployment phase. From this point on, data is segmented per theme, as can be seen in Appendix G. Selected coding creates an abstraction of axial coding where ‘the result should be one central category and one central phenomenon’ (Flick, 2009:312). When iteratively reached theoretical saturation, selected coding allowed defining two abstract theoretical dimensions, namely ‘Foundational Aspects for Dynamic Capabilities to enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models’ and ‘Dynamic Capabilities that enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models’, both for the creation and the deployment phase. The conception of these aggregated theoretical dimensions is the assembling of themes from the second order analysis. These second-order themes derived from the raw primary first-order codes, which describe the observed phenomenon. See Figure 4 and Figure 5 for an overview of the data coding structure for both the creation and deployment phase.
Figure 4. Overview of Data Coding Structure for the Creation Phase of New-to-the-Firm Business Models
Figure 5. Overview of Data Coding Structure for the Deployment Phase of New-to-the-Firm Business Models
4. Research Findings
This chapter covers the relevant research findings of the conducted interviews. The chapter is branched into two sections, one relates to the creation phase, and the other one relates to the deployment phase. Both sections are separated due to the two aggregated theoretical dimensions, which are ‘Foundational aspects for dynamic capabilities to enable the-firm business models’ and ‘Dynamic capabilities that enable new-to-the-firm business models’. At last, both sections will end with a summary.
4.1. Creation Phase
In the data coding structure, the trigger to start business model innovation is integrated within the creation phase of new business models. From the interviews, it became clear that business model innovations do not have a clear starting point, nor clear factors affecting a trigger, nor a carved in stone procedure to follow. Due to this fluid character of the trigger of business model innovation, it could actually start anytime, so, it is described as part of the creation phase of a new business model.
4.1.1. Foundational Aspects for Dynamic Capabilities to enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models
Rescue for Firm’s Survival. The necessity of business model innovation is clear, as
senior management, innovation officers and venture leads are mentioning it as the way to survive as a firm. According to a venture lead the world is rapidly changing, which demands a new type of innovation of firms to transform its resource base to meet current and future expectations. The interviewees have thus confirmed that business model innovation is essential, and, thereby, is the survival method for firms. See Table 3 for the full data display of Rescue for Firm’s Survival.
Table 3. Data Display of Rescue for Firm’s Survival First-Order Codes
“We have to do it, otherwise you will not survive, and then we won’t be here anymore in five years from now”. (Senior Management)
“We would like to survive as a company. We still want to be there in another 120 years from now”. (Innovation Officer)
“I think it is very important. The changing world is demanding this change; we need to follow as Philips”. (Venture Lead)
Psychological Barrier to Start. Firms efficiently organize themselves towards their
dominant execution model. Therefore, the creation of a new business model is not even in the frame of reference of employees. Accordingly, an innovation officer experiences that the mindset to see, and execute, new business models is the biggest barrier to start with business model innovation. The thoughts of employees are fully anchored in the current business model, as it is the way they work. It is so deep in the minds of the firm, that experimenting with business model innovation should be in a small group relatively autonomous from the current business model. See Table 4 for the full data display of
Table 4. Data Display of Psychological Barrier to Start First-Order Codes
“Within our firm, we have a dominant execution model. This is fully efficient in line with our current business model, so a new business model is not even in your frame of reference. That is logical; the business model is the way of working for you. If you try to experiment with other business models, it must be in a small group, and organization wise relatively autonomous from the current business model. We are calling ourselves separated, but not isolated”. (Venture Lead)
“Philips recognized that it is very difficult if you have a dominant business model, to create another one next to it. It is so deep in the minds of the employees that it is hard to move your thoughts to another model, not even speaking about creating one. Fully anchored in our current model”. (Venture Lead)
“The mindset to see, and execute new business models is the biggest barrier”. (Innovation Officer)
4.1.2. Dynamic Capabilities that enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models
Business Model Trigger from Problem-based Value Proposition. A business model
innovation establishes a ‘new’ business model, where the new business model starts with a value proposition. According to senior management, these possible offerings all start with which problem they are solving, and for whom. When ventures mostly found a problem – solution fit of their ideas, they start to discover the customer need to build upon a value proposition. An innovation officer shared an experience of a value proposition that was completely new to the firm, resulting in a yet unclear understanding of the needs of potential customers. The crux is in exploring multiple value propositions with all kinds of stakeholders. Essentially the trigger, neither initiated internal or external, of a business model innovation is the need for a ‘new’ business model, because the (venture of the) firm sees opportunities where the firm has not been yet. Obviously, this is not the case when a traditional business model fits the value proposition. See Table 5 for the full data display of Business Model Trigger from Problem-based Value
Proposition.
Table 5. Data Display of Business Model Trigger from Problem-based Value Propositions First-Order Codes
“It all starts with which problem you are solving, and for whom”. (Senior Management)
“That is a beautiful value proposition, but how does this work as a business”? (Innovation Officer)
“You can start with BMI at any time. There only must be a need. Whether you are exploring a new idea, or jump upon a certain need in the market, you have to create a new business model, if that is not the traditional business model”. (Innovation Officer)
“If there is no need for a new business model, please do not work on it. Therefore, you need a value proposition that sees directions where the company has not been yet. And of course, a value proposition is based upon a customer need”. (Innovation Officer)
“To start with a business model innovation, you have to think of a problem you would like to solve, and the value for the different stakeholders. If you start early with this kind of thinking, you faster discover the real-world problem. For sure in the context of venturing, business models push to think in solutions. But, still the bases is a problem”. (Senior Management)
BMI is not a Process, but has Maturity Levels. As explained in ‘Business Model
Trigger from Problem-based Value Proposition’, a business model innovation starts with reaching problem – solution fit. According to a venture lead, after reaching problem – solution fit co-development of a value proposition with the eco-system starts. During this maturity level, multiple value propositions are being created and validated until a value proposition – ecosystem fit is reached. Then, extend a value proposition with a business model, preferably numerous business model options. In this fuzzy level, venture leads distil control points, which act as key performance indicators using a business model dashboard, and should help to decide which business model(s) is most appropriate to pilot. Once the team has confidence that potential customers intend to pilot the business model, the business model – potential customers fit is reached. Although the timeline really depends on the market, the proposition, and the business model there are roughly three key metrics. According to an innovation officer, a business model allows getting the first traction from customers, growth of the amount of customers, and, then, converting into a profitable business. The maturity levels should not be confused with the multiple (9) components of a business model, explained in the business model canvas of Osterwalder & Pigneur (2005). See Table 6 for the full data display of BMI is not a
Process, but has Maturity Levels.
Table 6. Data Display of BMI is not a Process, but has Maturity Levels First-Order Codes
“You always start with ideation, than making choices, creating stuff, and validate. This very iterative process ends with a fit for your proposition, then pilot, and scale. Therefore, you are always iteratively busy with refinements of your business model”. (Innovation Officer)
“From the different business models you are thinking about, and discussing with your ecosystem, you’re distilling control points to decide which business models are most appropriate to test”. (Venture Lead) “Our business model is alive, it is transforming when we are learning. To manage this, we have a dashboard per different stage. You need to know that you are fixing a problem, that your customers are willing to pay for your solution, and that is fits the firm’s strategy”. (Venture Lead)
“First traction from customers, growth of amount of customers, and then convert to a profitable business. The timeline really depends on the proposition, market, and business model”. (Innovation Officer) “You have to find ecosystem partners, which are enthusiastic about your technology, and together bring it to a new maturity level. We are talking about co-development with your eco-system”. (Venture Lead) Clear Milestones for Autonomous Development. Giving people relatively clear
deliverables about what to expect, is already a stimulating incentive. Venture leads appreciate setting clear milestones for their venture working on a business model innovation, according to innovation officers. When a team is not able to reach these milestones, they should be willing to shut down the project by themselves. Senior management emphasizes that business model innovations should be given autonomy, as well as having access to resources. Otherwise, teams are slowed down, which could mean slowly killing the business model innovation. Senior management should also get the right conditions in place, and identify the right people to execute this very tough assignment. Not only senior management, but also the team should expect results, but do not evaluate these results on the short term, because a new business model, within the context of an internal corporate venture, is generally not profitable yet. Ultimately, clear milestones should provide autonomy and focus. See Table 7 for the full data display of
Table 7. Data Display of Clear Milestones for Autonomous Development First-Order Codes
“Because you’re working within Philips, you need to take into account the brand awareness. On the other side, you need to have some flexibility to test your product”. (Innovation Officer)
“Focus helps to accelerate”. (Innovation Officer)
“A venture needs to have some space, to work towards their long-term goal. Venture does need to show results, but you cannot evaluate it on the short term, while a business, in first instance, is evaluated on the short term. (Innovation Officer)
“Giving people relatively clear deliverables about what do you have to present, and then we will decide whether you will continue or not. Is already of great help”. (Innovation Officer)
“Setting milestones for a venture is being appreciated, to work towards something”. (Innovation Officer) “As a team, we have set clear milestones, and when we do not reach these, we would like to shut down the project by ourselves”. (Venture Lead)
“Give it autonomy, give it access to resources. But, do not control it too much. You know, when you start controlling, and when you start demanding things which you not need to demand for, you start slowly killing it, and slowing it down. And, when you start to slow down a venture, and making the speed too depend on decisions made elsewhere in the business, then the whole purpose is lost. So, we need to set up the right conditions, and identify the right people to lead it. Make it something that is aspirational, and a new way for Philips to drive breakthrough innovation”. (Senior Management)
Business Model Roadmap. When entering the stage to create a business model for a
value proposition, teams have already thought of multiple ideas for their technology. If teams have a vision on their product roadmap, then they should as well have a business model roadmap, according to an innovation officer. A business model roadmap facilitates creativity to come up with multiple business model options, not only in the short-term, but also in the long-term. A product or service roadmap and a business model roadmap should enrich each other. Continuously track all assumptions of business models of the business model roadmap, via possibly a business model dashboard. An innovation officer mentioned when having a business model roadmap for a business model innovation; it automatically let teams think of scalability, and the necessary enablers. Then, the creation of a business model roadmap, with multiple business model options makes sense. The business model roadmap, plotted against the different fits and time, will further guide teams through the deployment phase. See Table 8 for the full data display of Business Model Roadmap.
Table 8. Data Display of Business Model Roadmap First-Order Codes
“If you have a vision of your product roadmap, then you should also have a business model roadmap”. (Innovation Officer)
“You need to have a business model roadmap. Have one vision, integrate customers in this journey, and test multiple business models. Not just in the short-term, but also long-term. You will develop a path, and probably hit some barriers. It is a search, but like the roadmap of your product or service, they need to enrich each other”. (Innovation Officer)
“Continuously looking to your dashboard, where are you at validating your business model? How can we be sure that we are on the right track? Actually, you need your dashboard always somewhere around you”. (Innovation Officer)
“Fully focus on making your biggest assumptions explicit, and then test them. Instead of making a plan, and evaluate after three years. More lean way of working; that is an important method change. Within Philips, it then becomes much more experimentation. Also, a mindset change; really think in another way about what you are doing, how you are working. Not starting with a big pilot, or a huge research. But, if this is going to sell, what are then the big problems”. (Venture Lead)
“If you’re thinking about a roadmap, then you automatically think of scale. What if we sell 100 or 10 million pieces, what is the difference? You need to think of scalability, and which enablers does support this”. (Innovation Officer)
“To summarize; make all assumptions explicit. Assumptions from the management, as from the team. Then prioritize, and then test. With your team then interpret whether you believe these assumptions are really validated”. (Venture Lead)
4.1.3. Summary of the Findings of the Creation Phase of Business Model Innovation
Although, the necessity of business model innovation is clear, thinking of and executing on new business models is the biggest psychological barrier. These foundational aspects could enable a problem-based value proposition to go through multiple maturity levels, with the right form of autonomy, provided the right resources, following a business model roadmap. For the full summary of the findings of the creation phase, see Appendix D.
4.2. Deployment Phase
The creation phase of a business model innovation must be fully run through, in order to reach the deployment phase, by having the business model – potential customers fit. Essentially, this means having a team and a validated new-to-the-firm business model, where senior management has the confidence it will transform into a profitable business. These new-to-the-firm business models will obviously run into organizational barriers, also called the anti-bodies of the firm. This section will explain how to best cope with these barriers, by providing findings of dynamic capabilities that enable new-to-the-firm business models in the deployment phase.
4.2.1. Foundational Aspects for Dynamic Capabilities to enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models
Implementation of Business Models. According to a venture lead: “The real problems do not show up in the value proposition”. Meaning that there are always innovators
willing to help, but really implementing a business model to provide the value to the customers is the toughest job. An observation of the interviewees is that actually implementing a new business model in an organization to enable the offering is a very hard task to do in a firm. These business models are new-to-the-firm, and, thereby, hard to get a full overview of the consequences. A venture lead elaborated that a team does not want to hit an anti-body of the firm when they are trying to implement a new business model, which implies a new operational way of working for the firm. To experience the least resistance, be transparent from the start, and thereby avoid an immune response of the firm. The big crux is managing the change within the firm, so the team should not only be busy with selling the proposition to the intended customer, but also to the firm. In addition, once the firm settle with a business model, the moment the implementation is fixed, again, it is difficult to change. See Table 9 for the full data display of
Table 9. Data Display of Implementation of Business Models First-Order Codes
“The key message; if you would like to implement new business model, you need to carefully think about the operations as well. The real problems do not show up in the value proposition. And if you face problems in the scaling part, the costs will be very high”. (Venture Lead)
“You could quite well figure out if customers are willing to pay for your proposition, but you need to enable this offer by implementing the business model in your organization. That is a very hard task to do in a firm”. (Venture Lead)
“Some ventures have propositions which are completely new to Philips. No experience at all. These ones get tough, hard to get an overview. Suddenly, you need to pick the right people with the right expertise, as well from the operations. They are not there yet. Then you end up with having a nice proposition, and then...” (Venture Lead)
“As a venture, you sometimes do things in another way instead of the standard procedures. You have to be transparent about this, but still, sometimes you get an immune response, the anti-bodies of the firm that start working. Which is ok, but then you have to manage this change project, that’s the big crux”. (Venture Lead) “The operational way of working will completely change, if you would like to implement this venture well”. (Venture Lead)
“If we are not able to send an invoice every month, due to our subscription model, our systems weren’t build for that, if you can not even organize that, then you will have a lot more barriers”. (Venture Lead) “So, I think we had more difficulty with selling it to Philips, instead of to our customers”. (Venture Lead)
4.2.2. Dynamic Capabilities that enable New-to-the-Firm Business Models
Dynamic Team Competencies. The innovation officers and venture leads unanimously
agree with the importance of a diverse set of team competencies. Even an innovation officer mentioned that the entrepreneur / venture lead is the most crucial factor for success. Having a strong dedicated core team is of vital importance for continuity. The experience is that changing roles for the different stages of a business model innovation works stimulating, but also keep in mind that changing roles too quickly decreases the knowledge of the past journey. An innovation officer state that for the different stages, the team need to have various team competencies. Exploring a business model, and implementing one are different assignments, so do not use the same people in every stage. See Table 10 for the full data display of Dynamic Team Competencies.
Table 10. Data Display of Dynamic Team Competencies First-Order Codes
“You need to change the team during the stages. Do not use the same people in every stage”. (Innovation Officer)
“Continuity in a venture is of vital importance. The danger of a big organization, that people are being exchanged too rapidly. You need to have the same people in the core, changing from roles is just stimulating”. (Innovation Officer)
“They will work for the vision, together in a team”. (Venture Lead)
“A new business model needs discipline, stamina, strong management skills, otherwise it is not going to work”. (Innovation Officer)
De-Risking Business Models. The interviewees observe that business model innovation
leads a firm into areas where it has not been before. An innovation officer calculates this as a lot of risk, which translates into losing money for the firm. Senior management only want the strongest ones to go to the next maturity level, which evidently requires more funding. That is why within business model innovation it makes sense to build in barriers. The interviewees determine such a barrier, by measuring the risk of a proposition, and associated business model. They mention that testing and validating with (potential) customers is the most reliable method to de-risk, which should be a basis for the barriers. See Table 11 for the full data display of De-Risking Business Models.
Table 11. Data Display of De-Risking Business Models First-Order Codes
“In business model innovation, very often you are going into an area where you have not been before. So, there is a lot of risk you are taking. Risk, which translates into losing money. That is why a heavier process makes sense”. (Innovation Officer)
“We have built in barriers, because every stage gate is a barrier. Because we only want the strongest one to come to the next stage”. (Innovation Officer)
“Well, it was basically largely working with customers, from very early on. Or potential customers I should say. So checking if your current business model is still correct and appropriate and the most efficient one”. (Innovation Officer)
“And those people already committed to buy the first product. They will be lead customers, which we will gradually expand with new customers. With those launching customers, we have reviewed multiple business models”. (Venture Lead)
“We are going to launch in October that is the utmost important moment, when we really start selling”. (Venture Lead)
Specific Resources for Business Model Innovations. Previously, it became clear that
a team needs other competencies in every maturity level. Every maturity level has other challenges, which also require different resources and capabilities. An innovation officer mentions that ventures should be very focused on bringing a new business model to market, and should not be loaded with people from supporting departments, such as IT, Legal, Finance or Quality & Regulations. Moreover, every business model is unlike any other, and all require different support. According to an innovation officer, this means organizing a non-standardized way of facilitating a business model innovation with their requested needs. Hereby, dynamic capabilities could help by providing resources specifically tailored to business model innovations, such as a rapid prototyping teams for business models. An innovation officer indicate that from the start the most important for a team is to talk to the outside world, which is not a process of approval, but is an issue of trust. See Table 12 for the full data display of Specific Resources for Business
Model Innovations.
Table 12. Data Display of Specific Resources for Business Model Innovations First-Order Codes
“Keep track of the vision, but attract different capabilities in every stage”. (Innovation Officer)
“A proposition that is new for Philips, is always hard push through. My recommendations are centered towards the capabilities we need for such propositions, which are new to Philips. A lot of supporting resources are not thinking in that way, so you need to start the discussion as early as possible, and visualize where the story could end. Create a framework, but do play within this framework”. (Venture Lead)
“Ventures should be very focused on bringing that innovation to market, and making money out of it. Should not be really loaded with foundational services. That is Q&R, Legal, IT, Finance. We created a venture capability platform which have all these elements, and we provide them to all different ventures”. (Innovation Officer)
“There are a lot of experts within Philips, content experts; which know a lot about a subject or they have done the job already. Or legal, privacy and security. Most of the times it is the job of these people, which you, as a venture, could perfectly use. That was of great help”! (Venture Lead)
“The validation phase of new business models is organized per venture. We could organize, or facilitate, this more centrally. For example, have a rapid prototyping team for business models. We could add extra capabilities to support ventures”. (Innovation Officer)
“Approval for your venture to talk with the outside world, to start interacting, is the most important. It is not a process; it is an issue of trust”. (Innovation Officer)
4.2.3. Summary of the Findings of the Deployment Phase of Business Model Innovation
After the creation of a new business model, it is time for the toughest task of business model innovation, the actual implementation of the new business model. This change must be managed transparently, both to the customers as for the mother firm. For the implementation of a new business model, an enabler is having a diverse set of team competencies per maturity level. Still, retain the dedicated core team, and strengthen them with the necessary expertise per maturity level. Keep the team focused on bringing the new business model to the market, and as a firm organize specific resources tailored for those business model innovations. In collaboration of team and senior management, measure the amount of risk of a proposition, and associated business model. Interviewees agreed that the most reliable method to reduce risk of a business model is to test and validate it with (potential) customers. For the full summary of the findings of the deployment phase, see Appendix E.
5. Conclusion
This section will present a conclusion of the findings, by contrasting the research findings with existing theory. Following the inductive approach, a new conceptual model will be presented, to clarify how the findings of this study relate to the relevant body of literature. This section is structured through a distinction, using the work of Stampfl et al. (2013), of the creation and the deployment of new-to-the-firm business models. For all conclusions of this study’s findings contrasted with the conceptual model based on the literature review, see Appendix F.
Before an extensively outline of both phases, an overall finding may be concluded, as it influences both phases. The empirical evidence for the theoretical assumption of the main research question, whether a business model is in the creation phase or in the deployment phase, is that generally dynamic capabilities enable new-to-the-firm business models within internal corporate ventures. Even some resources are supporting a business model innovation in both the creation and deployment phase, such as a business model roadmap. These resources are often related to a component of the business model canvas (Osterwalder et al., 2005). In most cases, resources specifically tailored for business model innovations could accelerate new business models in both phases, and should look like adaptive building blocks, such as finance support, design
