Value Network Analysis for the identification of
Business Model Opportunities
Master Thesis
Student
Lucas Vinicius Hergl Magalhaes (11086084)
MSc Business Administration – Entrepreneurship & Innovation University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam Business School Date of submission: 24/06/2016 - Final
Supervisors
First supervisor: dhr. Dr. W. van der Aa Co-reader: Ms. Ieva Rozenthale
Statement of originality
This document is written by student Lucas Vinicius Hergl Magalhaes who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document writes this document.
I declare that the text presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
In response to the grown interest in the field of network analysis and business model innovation, this research aims to study the effectiveness of applying network analysis as a tool to support business model innovation, along with studying the usefulness for a focal firm of applying network analysis. This study distinguishes itself from the prevailing literature in the field, as it proposes a prescriptive process for network analysis, along with introducing the relatively underexplored role of value network analysis in relation to business model innovation. Based on literary evidence it is anticipated that applying a process for value network analysis allows firms to better understand their network of stakeholders, the key stakeholders in their network and the value they offer not only to the focal firm, but also to the value-creating system itself. Furthermore, it is expected that this information will prove useful for firms striving to identify business model innovation opportunities. Through an investigation of the outcomes of applying the value network analysis process here proposed at multiple case studies, a qualitative and quantitative study is undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of the process proposed and its usefulness for business model innovation
opportunity identification. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the case study companies to apply the value network analysis process, followed by a survey to measure its effectiveness and its usefulness for business model innovation opportunity identification. The results of this analysis suggest that although being an effective tool for network analysis and value opportunity
identification, the value network analysis process is insufficient on its own to allow firms to identify business model innovation opportunities. This research offers a novel approach by applying a prescriptive process for network analysis and describing its connection and application for business model innovation, understanding the context so it can be explored in future research.
________________________________________________________________________________ Key words: Network analysis, value network analysis, business model innovation, value
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 5
1.1 Motivation and Problem definition ... 5
1.2 Research question ... 6
2. Conceptual Framework ... 6
2.1. Business Model Innovation ... 6
2.2 From Value Chain to Value Network ... 9
2.3 Network Organization ... 13
2.4 The Business Model Canvas as a metric ... 15
3. Linking Value Networks and Business Models ... 17
4. Methodology ... 25
4.1 Multiple case study ... 25
4.2 Data Collection ... 26 4.3 Analysis Strategy ... 28 5. Results ... 30 5.1 Company A ... 30 5.2 Company B ... 34 6. Discussion ... 38
6.1 Summary and Findings ... 38
6.2 Academic contribution ... 41
6.3 Managerial contribution ... 42
6.4 Limitations and future research ... 43
7. Conclusion ... 44
References ... 46
1. Introduction
1.1 Motivation and Problem definition
The fundamental logic of value creation has shifted over the past decades due to the fast changing competitive environment and global competitor exposition. This has altered the way successful companies think about value, shifting their strategy thinking from the analysis of which position a company occupies in the value chain, to the assessment of new ways of creating value (Normann and Ramiréz, 1993). The focus then changed from a focal firm’s operations to the value-creating system itself, where different stakeholders work together to co-create value.
IKEA presents a very good example of how a firm can re-design its value-creating system in order to successfully capture value in the network while also creating positive value for other stakeholders. From a small mail-order furniture operation, IKEA has successfully managed to transform itself into the world’s largest retailer of home furnishings. This transformation can be related to the company’s capability to transfer several key activities that were previously executed by the furniture firm or its retailers and distributors to the end consumer, while empowering them by providing design solutions that were previously not affordable. Along with working together with suppliers to guarantee low price quality products, providing them with support and guidance to reach the global market. Moreover, simultaneously connecting their retail stores and using them as hubs, to not only control distribution, but also better predict demand to assist different markets (Normann and Ramirez, 1993). A successful example of network redesign combined with positive value for the different stakeholders involved.
According to Normann and Ramiréz, IKEA exemplifies the new definition of successful strategic thinking as the continuous design and redesign of complex business systems. However, in order to successfully redesign complex business systems, a firm needs to understand its stakeholders, be capable of assessing value opportunities in its network,
and communicate these insights to different stakeholder groups in order to redesign its network.
In order for all these steps to be made, a firm needs to have a clear understanding of who the different stakeholders in its network are, how salient each one of them is, along with the capacity to identify different value opportunities in the network, and convert these opportunities into new business models to capture the value identified. Although abundant literature exists on the identification of stakeholders (Freeman, 1984; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Mitchell et al., 1997; Freeman, 1991), network organization (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Lorenzoni & Baden-Fuller, 1995), and the design of new business models (McGrath, 2010; Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), there is little evidence on the combination of previous work to provide organizations with a clear process for network analysis. Further, there is little evidence on the moderating effect of value network analysis on a firm’s
capacity to identify new business model opportunities. Initial attempts can be found (den Ouden, 2012; Bocken et al. 2013; Bocken et al. 2015), but there is little empirical evidence on the validity of their models. This research attempts to contribute to the study of the application of a prescriptive process for value network analysis to support businesses in identifying new business model innovation opportunities (Schneider & Spieth, 2013).
1.2 Research question
How can value network analysis allow a firm to identify business model innovation
opportunities? A study on the moderating effect of a network analysis of value on business model innovation.
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. Business Model Innovation
Business model and business model innovation are concepts that have received growing interest from both the academic and corporate world. Despite increasing interest, no
commonly accepted definition of what business models are has been established (Schneider and Spieth, 2013; Zott et al., 2011). Researchers have proposed that this lack of accepted definition is due to the concept’s academic development in ‘isolated silos’, its overlap with strategy and the “simultaneous consideration of process and content” (Schneider and Spieth, 2013; Zott et al., 2011; Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002). Recent attempts to define the term business model focus on the “design or
architecture of the value creation, delivery and capture mechanisms” (Teece, 2010) a company makes use of. According to this definition, business models allow firms to create value through the commercialization of innovation while capturing related revenues thereof (Chesbrough, 2010; Teece, 2010).
Following the definition of business model as an enabler of innovation, business models themselves have emerged as a “unit of analysis and starting point for innovation strategies” (Schneider and Spieth, 2013). The business model as a unit of analysis has
allowed firms to find new ways of attaining competitive advantage. Now, firms’ challenge is no longer limited to the development of new value opportunities, but also to creating new ways to commercialize and capture value from existing offerings. Business model
innovation then emerges as a unit of analysis that allows for the consideration of internal factors as well as external market factors. Nonetheless, no clear definition of business model innovation exists yet. It is currently defined as “the discovery of a fundamentally different business model in an existing business” (Markides, 2006), the process of “designing a new, or modifying the firm’s extant activity system” (Amit and Zott, 2010), and as a conscious attempt of “renewing a firm’s core business logic rather than limiting its scope of innovation on single products or services” (Schneider and Spieth, 2013).
Chesbrough emphasizes the importance of business model innovation by stating that a firm that develops and commercializes a new technology may not be the one that manages to capture value from its innovation unless it has the proper business model for that
technology. He states that without the proper business model, that technology will yield less value to the innovative firm than it otherwise might and, if a competitor comes up with a more suitable business model for that given technology, “they may realize far more value from it than the firm that originally discovered the technology” (Chesbough, 2010). Chesbrough also posits that business model innovation happens in an environment of inherent uncertainty about the future, where only experimentation can help identify the best ‘new’ business model and generate the data needed to justify it.
Supporting Chesbrough’s value opportunity of experimentation, Gavetti and Levinthal (2000) state that the uncertainty regarding the viability in constantly changing market conditions indicate the appropriateness of an experimental ‘trial-and-error’ approach to the conceptualization and implementation of a ‘new’ business model (Gavetti and
Levinthal, 2000). Sosna et al further state that “recent studies have acknowledged that initial business models are frequently revised and adapted”, finding that “progress along a
successful business rejuvenation path requires managers to experiment to discover what can work and what fails” (Sosna et al, 2010).
It is important to note that current research streams have focused on qualitative approaches to studying barriers to business model innovation (Amit and Zott, 2001; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002). Further, as Schneider and Spieth (2013) note, the research of the process and elements of a business model innovation is a field that requires more studies. He identifies three areas of research that could enrich this field, namely the determinants of the process and elements of business model innovation in specific contexts, the general types of business model innovation that can be identified, and what tools can support firms undergoing the process of business model innovation. This research offers insight into the analysis of a tool that can support organizations undergoing the process of business model innovation.
2.2 From Value Chain to Value Network
The analysis of a firm’s stakeholders, the relationship between them and the firm’s managers, and value-creating possibilities with different stakeholders has been vastly studied. Normann and Ramírez (1993) have already claimed that successful companies do not just add value to their value chain, but rather reinvent the chain, focusing their strategic analysis on the “value-creating system itself”, where different stakeholders (the firm, its suppliers, customers, allies, business partners, etc) co-create value. They state that the key strategic task of the firm is the reconfiguration of roles and relationships among what they call a constellation of actors, in order for value to be created in new forms and by new players. For them, strategy is defined as systematic social innovation, meaning the continuous design and redesign of complex business systems.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) further relate a firm’s network to strategy theory by stating that “networks of relationships constitute a valuable resource for the conduct of social affairs”, this resource is related to the unique constellation of resources - physical, human, and organizational - of a firm which, according to resource-based theory (Barney, 1991), is the basis of the competitive advantage of a firm. Organizational networks lead to the creation of resources within the network, especially the interrelated development of social and intellectual capital as key resources. These resources are part of the unique constellation of resources of a firm, providing it with a competitive advantage (Nahapiet & Ghosshal, 1998).
Freeman (1984), considered the founder of stakeholder theory, quotes the Stanford Research Institute’s definition of stakeholder as “those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist” (SRI, 1963; quoted in Freeman, 1984), clearly indicating the importance of corporate management inducing constructive contributions with their stakeholders in order for the firm to attain its desired results (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Donaldson and Preston (1995) then conclude that stakeholder theory is fundamentally
normative, implying that, according to stakeholder theory, managers, as firm
representatives, should acknowledge the validity of various stakeholder interests and should respond to them with a mutually supportive framework, this being a moral requirement for their legitimacy as managers. This implies that value should be sought in the entire network of stakeholders due to the ethics expected from managers and the firms they represent. Further developments in stakeholder theory can be linked to either the identification of different stakeholders in a firm’s value network and the validity and salience of these stakeholders (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997), and to the study of the dynamic
relationships and expected behaviors of different stakeholders in the value network (Rowley, 1997).
The relevance of value creation for different stakeholders becomes evident, but the notion of stakeholder remains uncertain. To this, Freeman et al. (2004) define that business is about creating opportunities so that suppliers, customers, employees, communities, managers and stakeholders all win continuously. They therefore define stakeholders both in the external and internal network of the focal firm. For them, focusing on only one
stakeholder group whose “prima facie rights must always win” is an intellectual move that serves “neither truth nor freedom” (Freeman et al., 2004). Other authors have focused however on either the internal network or the external network of the firm (Christenssen & Rosenblom, 1995; Freeman, 1991; Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The importance of the internal network of the firm is a made clear by Freeman et al. (2004) and can be clearly connected to innovation through the early R&D developments of the 20th century (Freeman, 1991). Moreover, the external network is the result of a combination of previous work on stakeholder theory (Freeman et al., 2004; Peppard & Rylander, 2006; den Ouden, 2012) and is represented by customers, suppliers, competitors, allies, regulators, complementors, distributors, retailers, and the local community.
The central importance of external networks of collaboration proposed by Normann and Ramírez is confirmed by Freeman (1991). He collects evidence from empirical studies (Rothwell et al., 1974; Lundvall, 1985; Maidique & Zirger, 1985; Mueser, 1985),
demonstrating the importance of both formal and informal external networks. For him, a key problem of innovation is to process and convert information from several sources into useful knowledge that could lead to new products and processes. External networks would be essential for both the acquisition and processing of information inputs, being just as important for firms as their own R&D. He proceeds to give examples of several formal network agreements between firms, such as the ‘joint R&D effort by five large oil
companies and two plant contractors to develop a fluid bed catalytic cracking process for the oil industry in the 1930s’, the American synthetic rubber research programme (1942-1956), and the British war-time radar programme. Freeman combines empirical and theoretical research to support the importance of both external and internal networks of information and collaboration for successful innovation. He concluded that external networks ‘were just as important for firms who had their own R&D as for those who had none’. For him,
networking between autonomous firms would grow in importance and become the normal way of conducting product and process innovation (Freeman, 1991). Considering the importance of internal and external networks, this study has decided to follow the stream from Freeman et al (2004) and conduct the analysis of both the internal and external networks of an organization.
Further, in order to fully understand the importance of innovation networks, we must first have a clear definition of what constitutes an innovation network and to distinguish between various types of network. Freeman proposes a novel definition of innovation networks as follows:
Network organization is a basic institutional arrangement to cope with systemic innovation. Networks can be viewed as an inter-penetrated form of market and
organization. Empirically they are loosely coupled organization having a core with both weak and strong ties among constituent members. The importance of
cooperative relationships among firms is emphasized as a key linkage mechanism of network configurations. They include joint ventures, licensing arrangements, management contracts, sub-contracting, production sharing and R&D collaboration. Following Freeman’s definition of an innovation network, understanding why such networks are formed is important. According to him, the motives for firms to enter into cooperative agreements with each other are predominantly due to strategies relating to technological competence and market positioning. Examples include agreements seeking technological complementarity, reduction of lead times, market expansion, and strategic positioning in new markets. Furthermore, especially in environments of fast technological change, innovation networks can provide ‘more rapid access to technological capabilities that are not well developed within a firm and whose development may require a large investment and considerable time’ (Freeman, 1991).
To this, Christensen and Rosenbloom (1995) add that a key determinant of the likelihood of commercial success of an innovation is the “degree to which it addresses the well-understood needs of known actors within the value network in which an organization is positioned” (Christensen & Rosenbloom, 1995). Further, Normann and Ramirez provide the transition from value chain to value network. By stating that innovation, within the current context of market changes, customer demand, and global competition, is less likely to occur linearly through a value chain but rather emerge dynamically from innovation networks or, as they name it, value constellations (Michel et al., 2008). Value is then co-created by economic actors who ‘exchange a variety of resources that go beyond goods and money’. They further define that the role of the innovation network is to ‘identify economic actors and link them together in new patterns which allow the creation of new business that did not exist previously, or … change the way certain types of value are created’. Their work
complements that of Freeman by stating that innovation networks generate value not only through the exchange of information and collaboration between its actors, but especially through the organization of the network itself. According to them, firms that take advantage of and create new opportunities by reconfiguring their networks ‘obey the call of business today: reconfigure or be reconfigured’ (Michel et al., 2008).
Stakeholder theory states the importance for a firm to consider value created with its stakeholders in a network and not just its chain. Therefore, analyzing value in the network rather than the chain poses a potential advantage for the identification of value. Further, since the organization of the network is also responsible for the creation of value (Norman and Ramirez, 1993; Michel et al., 2008), the analysis of the network itself also constitutes an analysis of value. Therefore, any network analysis should be seen as a value network
analysis. Initial attempts have been made to create a framework for value network analysis (Allee, 2008; Bocken et al., 2013; Clarysse et al., 2014; Peppard & Rylander, 2006).
Nonetheless, their models are non-prescriptive, leaving the firm to determine the best way to conduct several steps of the analysis. Further, no studies to date have attempted to apply value network analysis for business model innovation. In order to create a prescriptive framework for value network analysis and link it to business model innovation, it is necessary to first look at how firms organize networks that foster innovation.
2.3 Network Organization
The definition of network organization followed in this paper is that of the set of deliberate, purposeful actions undertaken by the central firm as it seeks to create value and extract value from the network (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). Networks centrality is seen as essential for a focal firm to be able to organize its network. This centrality in the network structure is obtained through the individual attributes of the focal firm, providing it with prominence and power to ‘perform a leadership role in pulling together the dispersed resources and capabilities of network members’ (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006).
According to Dhanaraj and Parkhe, for an innovation network to allow a firm to create and extract value, the central firm must allow for knowledge mobility, innovation appropriability and network stability. Ensuring knowledge mobility refers to allowing for knowledge to be shared, acquired and deployed within the network with ease. In order for this to happen, the central firm needs to assess the value of knowledge residing at different points in the network and arrange its transfer to other points in the network where it is needed, along with learning from the partners and exploiting resources that are made available through the network relationship. Innovation appropriability refers to the
appropriability regime created by the central firm. A central firm must ensure that the value of innovations is distributed equitably through the network, that there are no attempts to “cheat” by the members of the network and that innovations are not leaked to actors who are connected to competing networks. Further, network stability refers to dynamic stability, where the central firm strives for nonnegative growth rate while allowing for entry and exit of network members (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006).
Further, the central firm can change the size and diversity of the network (network membership) along with its density and autonomy (network structure) due to its strategic choice of partners. Through the selection of network members, the central firm can control its network position, ‘maintaining its centrality and status’ (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). Despite stating that the organization of innovation networks is a phenomenon controlled by the central firm, the researchers provide little evidence as to how a firm obtains its centrality in a network in the first place. Their argument is that centrality is obtained through the individual characteristics of the firm that provide it with prominence and power. This argument, however, is vague and could be related to any form of competitive advantage. Their study thus proposes the guidelines for how firms can organize their innovation networks once they have already obtained a central position, and not how this central position can be obtained in the first place.
Lorenzoni and Baden-Fuller (1995) also propose the notion of the central firm. For them, networks that are not guided strategically by a central firm are ‘unable to meet the demanding challenges of today’s markets’. They also state that in strategic networks, it is the norm for partners to be innovators, providing a linkage between their definition of strategic networks and what this research calls innovation networks. Differently from Dhanaraj and Parkhe, Lorenzoni and Baden-Fuller provide a set of activities done by the central firm to obtain and sustain its centrality. For them, successful central firms scan their horizons for all sorts of opportunities, deliberately buying or licensing some existing technological value opportunities from third parties. They then take these outside value opportunities and add value by developing them further in their own organizations. Further, these developed value opportunities can be commercialized with great rapidity through the firm’s stellar system, ‘creating new adjuncts to leverage the greatest advantage’. This process allows the focal firm to reduce the cost of development, make quicker progress, and undertake projects that would normally lie outside its scope (Lorenzoni & Bade-Fuller, 1995).
Once the central position is obtained, it is the role of the central firm to create a vision in which partners in the network play a central role, invest in a strong brand image and effective systems and support, create an atmosphere of trust and reciprocity in the network, and develop mechanisms for attracting and selecting partners (Lorenzoni & Baden-Fuller, 1995). All these activities can be linked to those proposed by Dhanaraj and Parkhe as necessary for the central firm to create and extract value from its network, along with
sustaining its central position in it.
2.4 The Business Model Canvas as a metric
In order to identify and compare business model opportunities, it is necessary to first make use of a tool that allows for the drawing and comparison of such business models. One business model tool that has substantially grown in popularity, especially among
practitioners over the last years, is the Business Model Canvas. This tool can be traced back to the work of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2002) where an attempt was made to come up with a business model ontology for e-businesses. Their study was motivated by the lack of a commonly accepted definition of business model and intended to define the concept and also show the significance of business models as a means for improving doing business under uncertainty. Osterwalder and Pigneur define a business model as the description of the value a company offers to its customers, together with the architecture of the firm and network of partners necessary for creating, marketing and delivering the value it creates, in order to provide profitable and sustainable revenue streams. This definition of business model leads the authors to focus on four issues:
• Product innovation: the product and services a firm offers along with their value proposition.
• Customer relationship: who the customers of a firm are and the relationship it maintains with its customers.
• Infrastructure management: the infrastructure necessary in order to offer value to its customers.
• Financials: what are the revenue and cost models, which represent an expression of business success or failure.
These four main issues are the main pillars of a business model for Osterwalder and Pigneur (2002), each of them being decomposed into three elements. Product innovation is composed of the value propositions the firm offers to a specific target customer segment, and the capabilities it needs in order to deliver this value. Customer relationship is composed of the feel & serve element, which defines the customer touch points, the
information strategy for the collection and application of customer information, and the trust & loyalty element, which defines and outlines the firm’s plan to gain the customers trust and loyalty. The Infrastructure management is composed of the activity configuration and the
in-house resources and assets and partner networks to realize these activities. Lastly, the financials element is the culmination of the business model. The financials element is composed of the firm’s revenue model and cost structure, which combined define the profit/loss of the firm.
Later, Osterwalder et al. (2005) simplify the twelve elements from a business model to nine building blocks that are necessary to create a common language about business models among academics and practitioners. Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) further develop the nine building blocks and create a business model development tool, named the Business Model Canvas, which focuses on how business model design and decision-making process can be supported.
As Osterwalder and Pigneur (2003) summarize, the benefits of a formal approach to modeling value propositions is that it allows managers to seize mental models, making it easier to understand and communicate value propositions, improving their implementation, while also allowing for the comparison of a firm’s value propositions to that of its
competition. By allowing the comparison of different business models and its popularity among academics and practitioners, the business model canvas was selected in this study as the instrument to measure the relevance of value network analysis for the identification of new business model opportunities.
3. Linking Value Networks and Business Models
Innovative value constellations “identify economic actors and link them together in new patterns which allow the creation of new business that did not exist previously, or … change the way certain types of value are created. This is not about a simple reallocation of existing activities between a set of actors, but of constructing a new, coordinated set of activities resulting in a new kind of output” (Normann, 2001). Value network analysis should then come in to help identify economic actors in a value constellation, along with the existing relationships between them. Furthermore, firms need not only create value but also extract it
from their network (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006), organizing their networks in a way that allows the creation and capture of value. To be able to extract and capture value from their network, Chesbrough (2010) states the importance of developing the appropriate business model for the innovation, or reconfiguration of value creation.
In order to allow for the identification of the economic actors in a value
constellation, or network, and the creation of appropriate business models,I have developed a 6 step process, based on the research here presented, for the analysis of the value of a firm’s network for business model innovation that this research calls Value Network Analysis (VNA). Figure 1 below illustrates the steps to undertake this analysis. This research will focus on the implementation of all steps here indicated, along with analyzing the effectiveness of this process in supporting business model innovation.
Figure 1. An illustration of the steps in the Value Network Analysis (VNA) Process
Step 1: Define Network Boundaries
Value constellations as defined by Normann (2001) span over all the activities done by the focal firm while trying to create value. This broad nature of constellations imposes great complexity to their analysis. It is important to first determine boundaries for the analysis in order to reduce its complexity, while allowing for information to be obtained from multiple sources as proposed by Freeman (1991).
Therefore, as a first step, the focal firm defines key activities that should be contemplated in the network. These represent activities and not actors involved in the network (Peppard & Rylander, 2006). For IKEA, such activities could be design,
manufacturing, procurement, retail and marketing. It is important to note that key activities
Define Network Boundaries Identify and define network participants Identify value
dimensions Define value linkages Analyze
Business Model Opportunity
are here defined by the organization, which has the freedom to select any activity it deems key to its operation and future survival (Peppard & Rylander, 2006). The value network analysis is, therefore, an analysis of a selected part of the firm’s network, and not of its entire constellation.
Step2: Identify and define network stakeholders
Peppard and Rylander’s model proposes that the focal firm should identify stakeholders that are related to it and involved in the key activities defined in the previous step. Nonetheless, their model does not propose a definition of stakeholder. To overcome this limitation, this study proposes that stakeholders include members of both external and internal networks. External network members include customers, suppliers, competitors, allies, regulators, complementors, distributors, retailers, and the local community (Freeman, 1991). Internal network members are defined as any members of the organization that connect the
development, production, marketing and retail activities (Freeman, 1991).
Peppard and Rylander’s model also stops short by solely recommending the identification of stakeholders, and not looking at the relationships between them. It is
important to also define the relationship with each stakeholder given their relevance in order to understand the importance that a particular stakeholder has for the focal firm (Rowley, 1997). The relationships are here defined according to the three levels of salience proposed by Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997). The three levels are power, legitimacy, and urgency. These three levels are explained in Table 1.
Power A relationship among social actors in which one social actor, A, can get another social actor, B, to do something that B would not have otherwise done.
Bases: Coercive - force/threat
Utilitarian - material/incentives Normative - symbolic influences
Legitimacy A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, definitions
Bases: Individual Organizational Societal
Urgency The degree to which a stakeholder’s claims call for immediate attention
Bases: Time sensitivity - degree to which delay in attending to the claim or relationship is unacceptable to the stakeholder
Criticality - the importance of the claim or the relationship to the stakeholder
Table 1: The three levels of salience. Source: adapted from Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997).
The strength of each stakeholder is determined by the number of salience levels they possess. The more levels of salience, the more important the stakeholder for the focal firm. Mitchell, Agle and Wood propose a distinction between the types of importance of the stakeholders according to the salience levels they possessed. For example, stakeholders with power, legitimacy and urgency would be called definitive stakeholders, while stakeholders with power and urgency would be dangerous stakeholders, the ones with power and
legitimacy would be dominant stakeholders, etc. Due to the complexity of these definitions, this study selected a simplified version of Mitchell, Agle and Wood’s work, defining that stakeholders that possess all three levels of salience should be defined Definitive
stakeholders, the ones with two levels dominant stakeholders and the ones with only one level should be named powerful, urgent or legitimate, according to the level they possess.
When creating the network map, the salience of each relationship should be
translated into the distance between the focal firm and the other stakeholders in the network. The more salient the relationship, the smaller the distance, and vice-versa. These levels of
salience are expected to help the focal firm identify who the key stakeholders in its network are, helping the firm narrow down the number of stakeholders that need to be analyzed at any given period.
Further, this step needs to follow Freeman’s (1991) stream of research on the importance of multiple sources of information on a organization’s networks. It is therefore essential that this step be conducted with several different members of the focal firm, including as many different sources of information as possible, such as interviews, questionnaires, archival research, while also contemplating the opportunity of obtaining information from members of the external network of the firm.
Step 3: Identifying value dimensions of the network stakeholders
Once the stakeholders are identified and their relationships understood, it is important to understand what role they play in the network. This step involves identifying what value members of the network expect in each relationship and what value they actually obtain. This involves asking “What are they getting out of the network?” (Peppard & Rylander, 2006). Differences pointed out by participants of the focal firm between the value
stakeholders expect to get from the network and value actually obtained were recorded as value opportunities for business model innovation opportunity. All value opportunities became codes to be used in qualitative analysis to identify all stakeholders involved in each value opportunity.
Further, the identification and analysis of value required a clear definition of what kind of value is desired by network members. For an accurate and relevant analysis of the contributions of the network for business model innovation, value is defined as the members of the network perceive it. (Woodruff, 1997). It is the role of each organization to identify the perceived value of the different stakeholders in being part of their network. This involves asking “What is their role in the network? Why are they there?” In order for this
information to be accurately obtained, it is important to conduct this step with different sources with considerable knowledge of the different stakeholders (Freeman, 1991).
Step 4: Define value linkages
As described by the value opportunities in the previous step, the value dimension of a stakeholder as identified by the focal firm is not always the same as the value it creates through the network (Peppard & Rylander, 2006). Due to this discrepancy, it is relevant to look at the value linkages between the different stakeholders in a network (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) work proposes a guidance to help the organization identify its value linkages. For them, networks are capable of creating value through the development of social capital and intellectual capital. Social capital is defined as the “sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network.” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Therefore, social capital is here understood as the flow of products and services in the network. Intellectual capital refers to the knowledge an organization creates and is capable of transferring to other stakeholders in the network. (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Peppard and Rylander’s work provides a continuation to Nahapiet and Ghoshal by expanding the value linkages definitions, including the work of Tichy and Fombrun (1979) and creating a clear set of categories for the value created in a network. They propose the categorization of the different relationships in the network according to the types of
influence they represent. The different types of influences are categorized as follows (Tichy & Fombrun, 1979):
• Exchange of goods and services; for example, the design requirements for a new line of furniture.
• Information and ideas (cognitive); for example, value opportunities for new lines of furniture coming from customers, partner design firms or market research companies. • Influence and power (prescriptive); for example, regulators.
These influences can then be categorized as critical or not. An influence can be categorized as network critical if (Peppard & Rylander, 2006);
• the provider network currently depends on this linkage to create value for the users; • the influence can alter the current network significantly if no action is undertaken in
respect of this influence. Special attention should be given to critical relationships when considering possible reconfigurations of the network.
The connection between a value linkage and its criticality should allow the focal firm to identify which value linkages to focus on, narrowing down the number of linkages that need to be analyzed at any given period.
Step 5: Analysis
Peppard and Rylander’s work also proposes the analysis of the stakeholder information, but does not prescribe the type of analysis that should be done, providing no support as to the tools that should be used for the analysis. This study believes that it is important to provide the focal firm with a prescriptive process for value network analysis.
Once the stakeholders have been identified and their level of salience (as mentioned in step two of the VNA process) and value linkages (as mentioned in step four of the VNA process) outlined, the process proceeds to filter stakeholders identified as definitive by their salience level analysis and critical by their value linkage analysis. Given the dynamic nature of any network, stakeholders need to be analyzed together, with their relationships taken into account. This however imposes tremendous challenge to the focal firm given the complexity of their networks (Rowley, 1997; Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997). This step narrows down the number of stakeholders that a firm needs to analyze at any period by selecting the ones that are salient based on step two and have critical value linkages based
on step four. Therefore, only stakeholders that possess at least one level of salience and were identified as a critical value linkage are included in the network map.
The filtering of stakeholders is the first level of analysis and reduces the complexity of a focal firm’s network, facilitating the analysis of the network map. The main outcome of this step is then the network map. Here, only stakeholders possessing at least one level of salience and a critical value linkage are shown. The second level of analysis involves the inclusion of the value opportunities related to the stakeholders shown in the network map. The map then consists of stakeholders positioned on a map according to the strength of the relationships (i.e. the stronger the relationship, the closer the stakeholders are in the map), determined by the number of salience levels a stakeholder has (the more salience levels, the stronger the relationship), and if the value linkage is critical or not (criticality was identified as requiring a stronger relationship), along with the value opportunities surrounding the stakeholders depicted on the map.
The value map resulting from this step is provided to the focal firm. A survey was then used to assess their perception of usefulness and new insights provided by the analysis.
Step 6: Business model innovation
One important and novel contribution of this study is the connection between the value network analysis and business model innovation. In order to do so, the information obtained in the previous steps needs to be combined with the business model canvas proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur to allow the firm to not only benefit from a formal approach to modeling value propositions in a business model, but also creating a formal approach that spans from the value network analysis to the representation of a value proposition in a business model.
Participants are provided with the network map created in step five of the VNA process. Based on this information, participants in the focal firm fill in a business model
canvas. The aim of this step is to assess whether the information provided in the network map allows participants to complete the different building blocks of the canvas.
Through a survey, participants in the focal firm are asked whether they can use the information obtained in the analysis to fill in different parts of the business model canvas. The identification of opportunities was measured by the participants’ capacity to complete an entire business model canvas.
4. Methodology
4.1 Multiple case study
This research did not begin as a study about the value of firm’s network for business model innovation. Rather, it grew out of an inquiry into the possibilities of creating a structure that would benefit all stakeholders involved in the new business project going on at one of the companies used as a case study. This project represented an innovation not only in terms of a physical product, but also the business model around the product to make its
commercialization viable. Thus, this provided an excellent organizational setting to understand the potential of re-orchestrating value in a firm’s network for business model innovation. Further, another company joined the study in an attempt to better understand the implications of network analysis for business model innovation and, specifically, the
possible connection between value network analysis and the business model canvas. This research consists of a deductive study on the assumption that network-centric analysis of value leads to an improved identification of value generating opportunities for all stakeholders involved, leading not only to the creation of a business model that benefits the focal firm, but also the creation of value across the network in which it is inserted. This idea will be tested in a multiple case study. The process was applied at two Dutch companies. Company A offers mobility solutions, and company B develops enterprise software to help firms innovate.
Company A was founded in the 1990s with the purpose of designing mobility solutions. They currently design products that are sold in over 50 countries around the world. The company has over 1200 employees. They are currently working on developing other products, continuing with their focus on mobility solutions, with design as a core part of their DNA.
Company B was founded in the 2010s with the purpose of facilitating innovation for organizations. They develop enterprise software rooted in Design Thinking that allows firms to engage, empower, and cross-functionally align their workforce in business innovation and transformation. Their goal is to drive organizations to become more innovative, agile and customer-centric, providing a product that allows for the scalability of innovation inside organizations. The company currently has 30 employees and has large sized European corporations as their main customers.
4.2 Data Collection
Data was collected in three stages in each firm. The first stage consisted of a semi-structured interview with a person inside the firm in a senior position and with considerable knowledge about the organization. During this interview, the key activities to be mapped in this process (Step 1) were defined and used as the boundaries for the research. These key activities were dependent on the company’s focus at the time of the study. Company A wished to focus the analysis on its innovation and retailing activities while company B wished to focus on the development of its product and customer relationship. Still during the first round of data collection, the firms were asked to provide information on its
stakeholders around the key activities selected and the relationships with them (Step 2). During the second stage, semi structured interviews were conducted with different members of the firm to continue the stakeholder identification (Step 2), to identify value dimensions in the network and value opportunities (Step 3) and define value linkages (Step 4).
The network was then mapped as proposed in Step 5 of the VNA process. The network map along with the value opportunities obtained during the interviews were combined, creating the network value map, and provided to each firm along with a survey. The survey was used as the third stage of data collection to identify whether participants in the firm were capable of using the results of the analysis to identify a business model opportunity. Business model opportunity identification was defined as the capacity to fill in all building blocks of the Business Model Canvas. The survey was used to provide
quantitative data to assess the effectiveness of the application of value network analysis for the identification of new business model opportunities. The survey considered four
variables, the number of individual parts of the business model canvas that each participant was capable to complete with the information from the value network map, the participant’s perception of relevance of the network map provided, their perception of relevance of the value opportunities identified, and their familiarity with the value opportunities identified. Unfortunately, company A decided to stop its participation in the study before completing the third stage of data collection, which left company B as the sole case study to provide empirical evidence on the effectiveness of the value network analysis process here proposed.
Data was therefore collected through multiple methods, such as semi-structured interviews with multiple members of the organizations, archival of drawings of networks made during the interviews, field notes, and a survey. The multiple methods strengthen the grounding of theory by triangulation of evidence. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data provides a synergistic view of evidence, increasing the validity of the research (Eisenhardt, 1989). Further, data was collected through a flexible and opportunistic method, along with the analysis being made within-case and with cross-case pattern search. All these methods increase the reliability of the results obtained in this research (Eisenhardt, 1989).
4.3 Analysis Strategy
A combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis has been used to enrich the study and increase its validity (Eisenhardt, 1989). Qualitative data was gathered by conducting four semi-structured interviews with five senior members of company A and six semi-structured interviews with six members of company B. The roles of the interviewees in company A were director of innovation, product manager, project manager, supply chain development manager and sales representative, and the roles of the interviewees in company B were chief executive officer, chief technology officer, software engineer, chief architect, user
experience (UX) developer and marketing manager. The qualitative analysis was used to identify the key stakeholders, their salience represented by the three levels proposed by Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) as power (P), legitimacy (L) and urgency (U), and the identification of the criticality of value linkages as critical or non-critical (Peppard & Rylander, 2006). Quantitative data was gathered to assess the effectiveness and novelty of the analysis made, along with its usefulness for business model innovation. The results were based on the analysis of themes (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991) and steps described by Miles and Huberman (1994).
Step 1: Using a contact summary sheet. A contact summary sheet was used to
record the main theme of each interview. The contact summary sheet was later crosschecked with the transcript of the interview to confirm the identification of all major themes. A theme was identified as a recurrent topic of discussion that characterized an interview’s ideas.
Step 2: Creating a complete theme list. The process used to complete the contact
summary sheet resulted in a list of unique themes for each of the interviews. A theme was identified as a recurrent topic of discussion that characterized an interview’s ideas. Each interview resulted in at least one unique theme. Each identified theme was coded for
Step 3: Stakeholder identification. Each interview transcript was reviewed and all
stakeholders were identified. The stakeholders identified in each interview were crosschecked with the other interviews in order to compile a list of quotations for each stakeholder. Each quotation was coded (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) into the categories of salience and value, using category definitions derived from previous research (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997; Peppard & Rylander, 2006).
Step 4: Visual mapping. A graphic approach was used to represent the stakeholders
identified. A visual map was used to display the network of connections between the stakeholders, along with their salience and value dimensions being used to determine the distance between stakeholders. The more salience levels along with the presence of value criticality for a stakeholder, the closer it is positioned to the focal firm in the network map. Drawings made by the interviewees were also used as a reference for where to position the stakeholders. Whenever a drawing would indicate stakeholder connections, this study kept the link and used the analysis to determine the distance between stakeholders. When a drawing was not made available, stakeholder position was determined based on coding of the interviews. This method helped with the organization of the data and the analysis of the themes previously identified.
Step 5: Validity check. Data was triangulated using multiple sources such as
interview analysis and visual mapping. The findings of each interview were presented to the interviewees and people inside the organizations with knowledge of the businesses. These presentations led to revisions of the network map and the introduction of new value opportunities and modification of stakeholders.
Step 6: Survey. The results of the analysis and validity check were used to compile
a survey. This survey was distributed inside each organization. The survey looked at four variables, the number of building blocks in the business model canvas that the participant could complete given the value network map provided, the participant’s perception of
relevance of the value network map provided, their perception of relevance of the value opportunities identified, and the familiarity with the value opportunities.
The number of building blocks filled in were counted per participant, with each building block having a different code, which allowed for the identification of trends and differences among the answers. A Likert-type seven-point scale was used to measure the relevance of the network map provided, the relevance of the value opportunities identified and the familiarity with the value opportunities (Allen & Seaman, 2007).
5. Results
5.1 Company A
An extensive list of all stakeholders identified for company A was made, and the
commonality among stakeholders considered. Only 2 stakeholders were mentioned by all interviewees, while 9 stakeholders were identified by at least 4 interviewees, 8 stakeholders were identified by at least 3 interviewees, 14 stakeholders were identified by at least 2 interviewees, and there were a total of 14 stakeholders for which there was no agreement among the interviewees. Table 2 in the appendix summarizes the stakeholders mentioned by each interviewee from company A and gives and overview of the level of agreement among interviewees.
This list was subsequently collapsed into a list of 47 unique stakeholders, together with the quotes for each stakeholder, their coding into the categories of salience (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997) and value (Peppard & Rylander, 2007) mentioned before. The result of this is depicted in Table 3 in the appendix. The collapsed list shows that the stakeholder with most quotations was the retailer, while the average amount of quotations per stakeholder was 14,89 and the third quartile was composed by stakeholders quoted at least 23,5 times. A total of 12 stakeholders were in the third quartile, while 12 fulfilled at least one of the salience categories and 12 were identified as a critical value linkage. The combination of
salience categories as shown in Figure 2 was used as a first level to identify how important each stakeholder was to the focal firm.
Figure 2. Stakeholder salience levels for company A.
The different stakeholders identified in each interview were also plotted into
stakeholder maps as shown in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 in the appendix.The difference between the maps allowed for them to be categorized in two groups. The ones created from interviews with participants related to product development (product
development maps), and the one created from the interview with the participant responsible for supply management (supply map). Therefore, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 in the appendix should be seen as pertaining to a different category than Figure 6. This shows the different perception of stakeholders within different internal units of the focal firm.
Nonetheless, when looking at the product development maps, it is evident that there are differences among them. Different people inside the company with different roles would then have different stakeholders in mind, with these differences decreasing as they belong to the same unit, but not reaching complete agreement. In fact, the low number of stakeholders agreed on by all product development members supports the notion that interviews
conducted with different people within the same unit in a focal firm would lead to similar stakeholder maps, but not equal maps. This reveals the importance of multiple sources of information in order to identify all key stakeholders to the focal firm (Freeman, 1991).
The differences go beyond stakeholders, also including the organization and the focus on different stakeholders within the network itself. Figure 3, for examples, presents a stakeholder map with a clear division of focus within innovation between performance and style. Figure 4 and Figure 5, on the other hand do not present this separation of focus, but rather indicate that both performance and style are present within the different teams responsible for conducting new projects. Further, the product development maps also presented a clear difference to the supply map due to their focus on internal stakeholders. While the supply map seen in Figure 6 in the appendix presented 8 external stakeholders and 9 internal ones, the product development maps presented as little as three external
stakeholders, while only the retailer was identified as powerful in their networks. Therefore, there is not only a clear difference in the type of stakeholder (internal or external) but also in the salience of these stakeholders involved in the innovation and supply management
activities.
During the interviews, nine value opportunities were collected that represented value discrepancies and therefore business model innovation opportunities.Table 4 in the
appendixdepicts the value opportunities identified along with the stakeholders related to them. During the step five of the VNA process, the stakeholders mentioned in Table 3 were filtered based on having at least one level of salience in Step 2 of the VNA process, and having a critical value linkage in Step 4 of the VNA process. This filtering led to 10 remaining stakeholders.
During the validation period, this stakeholder list proved to be incomplete. Another analysis was then made considering stakeholders that had at least one level of salience in Step 2 or a critical value linkage in Step 4. This new filtering led to 15 stakeholders being identified for the final network map. This new list was then submitted for validation and identified as adequate considering the initial boundaries set during Step 1 of the process.
Table 5 in the appendix indicates the remaining stakeholders, along with their salience levels and value linkages.
This stakeholder list was used in combination with the levels of salience and value linkages to create the network map for company A’s network, as seen in Figure 7. The network map shown in Figure 7 was combined with the value opportunities previously mentioned to provide a visual representation of the stakeholders involved in the value opportunities identified. The result of this combination can be seen in Figure 8.
Figure 7: Network Map for company A
Figure 8. Network Map with Value opportunities for company A
The participants from company A agreed with the stakeholders presented in Figure 8, but there was no unanimous agreement for the value opportunities presented. Members of different divisions in the company would recognize value opportunities related to their
division, but not other ones. One example was the initial surprise of the innovation team when seeing supplier backup and factory repositioning as potentials for business model innovation. Given the fact that company A did not participate in the survey, this research was limited in determining the level of relevance that participants would attribute to the network map, the level of relevance and novelty they would attribute to the value opportunities identified, and the relevance of the VNA process for business model innovation.
5.2 Company B
An extensive list of all stakeholders identified for company B was made, and the
commonality among stakeholders accounted for. No single stakeholder was mentioned by all interviewees, while 4 stakeholders were identified by at least 5 interviewees, one
stakeholder was identified by at least four interviewees, 2 stakeholders were identified by at least 3 interviewees, 4 stakeholders were identified by at least 2 interviewees, and there were a total of 13 stakeholders for which there was no agreement among the interviewees. Table 6 in the appendix summarizes the stakeholders mentioned by each interviewee in company B and gives and overview of the level of agreement among interviewees.
This list was subsequently collapsed into a list of 24 unique stakeholders, together with the quotes for each stakeholder, their coding into the categories of salience (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997) and value (Peppard & Rylander, 2006) mentioned in the VNA process. The result of this is depicted in Table 7 in the appendix. The collapsed list shows that the stakeholder with most quotations was development, while the average amount of quotations per stakeholder was 12, and the third quartile was composed by stakeholders quoted at least 13 times. A total of 7 stakeholders were in the third quartile, while 13 fulfilled at least one of the salience categories and 6 were identified as a critical value linkage. The combination of salience categories as shown in Figure 9 was used as a first level to identify how
Figure 9. Stakeholder salience levels for company B.
The different stakeholders identified in each interview were also plotted into network maps as shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15 in the appendix. Differently from what was observed in company A, no clear clusters of network maps could be identified when comparing the stakeholders mentioned by participants from different roles. Despite the differences between stakeholders mentioned by different interviewees, there was a clear focus on development, sales and the customer, with all interviewees mentioning between 2 and 5 internal stakeholders around the key activities development and sales, and between 3 and 9 external
stakeholders, focusing on the customer, which ultimately led to similar network maps. Nonetheless, the difference between stakeholders identified in different interviews reinforces the importance of conducting multiple interviews with people from different departments within a company in order to identify all key stakeholders to the focal firm (Freeman, 1991).
During the interviews, three value opportunities were collected that represented value discrepancies and therefore business model innovation opportunities.Table 8 in the appendix
depicts the value opportunities identified along with the stakeholders related to them. During Step 5 of the VNA process, the stakeholders mentioned in Table 7 were filtered based on having at least one level of salience in Step 2 of the VNA process and having a critical value linkage in Step 4 of the VNA process. This filtering led to 6 remaining stakeholders.
During the validation period, similarly to what was observed for company A, the stakeholder list proved to be incomplete. Another analysis was then made considering
stakeholders that had at least one level of salience in step two or a critical value linkage in step four. This new filtering led to 13 stakeholders being identified for the final network map. This new list was then submitted for validation and, after the change of one
stakeholder, identified as adequate considering the initial boundaries set during Step 1 of the process. Table 9 in the appendix indicates the remaining stakeholders, along with their salience levels and value linkages.
This stakeholder list was used in combination with the levels of salience and value linkages to create the network map for company B’s network, as can be seen in Figure 16. The stakeholder map shown in Figure 16 was combined with the value opportunities from Table 8 mentioned previously to provide a visual representation of the stakeholders involved in the value opportunities identified. The result of this combination can be seen in Figure 17.
Company B participated in the survey, allowing for the third step of data collection and the analysis of the linkage between the VNA process and business model innovation. In total, 10 responses for the survey were registered, representing a response rate of 33% of all members from company B. Table 10 in the appendix depicts the respondents perception of relevance of the different stakeholders shown in the network map. The table shows that from the 13 stakeholders presented in the network map, 10 of them were rated from somewhat relevant to very relevant by at least 80% of the respondents. The remaining 3 stakeholders had different levels of salience and different levels of value linkage and criticality, as can be seen in Figure 9 and Table 9. Therefore, no clear reason for their lack of relevance could be identified. Nonetheless, 77% of the stakeholders depicted in the network map were
considered relevant, indicating that the network map presented to company B was deemed relevant by the survey respondents.
Figure 16: Network Map for company B
Figure 17. Network Map with value opportunities for company B
Table 11 in the appendix shows that all 3 value opportunities depicted in the network map, as can be seen in Figure 17, were rated from somewhat relevant to very relevant by at least 80% of the respondents. This indicates that the value opportunities depicted in the network map were identified as relevant by the survey respondents. Out of the 3 value opportunities, co-creation and professionalization were rated as very relevant by at least 60% of the respondents, being the most relevant value opportunities identified. Further, Table 12 in the appendix shows that co-creation and professionalization were also rated from familiar to very familiar by at least 80% of the respondents while repositioning was rated from familiar to very familiar by at least 60% of the respondents. This indicates that most of the participants were familiar with all of the value opportunities identified. Therefore, the VNA process was not able to identify value opportunities that were new to the participants of company B.
Table 13 in the appendix and Figure 18 show the results of the different building blocks of the Business Model canvas filled in by the participants after obtaining the network value map generated by the VNA process. As can be seen, 90% of the respondents were capable of filling in the key partners section of the canvas, while 60% filled in the channels section. All of the other building blocks of the canvas were filled in by less than 50% of the participants. Figure 18 also shows that none of the respondents was capable of filling in the vale proposition section of the canvas. Therefore, it is evident that none of the respondents was capable of successfully filling in the business model canvas. This indicates that the VNA process provided participants with insights about key partnerships, but not enough information to complete the entire business model canvas. This result could indicate that the VNA process is not sufficient for business model opportunity identification, despite being a good tool for analyzing key partnerships.
Figure 18. Frequency of responses to the different building blocks of the Business Model Canvas
6. Discussion
6.1 Summary and Findings
One objective of this research was to apply a new and prescriptive process for value network analysis, derived from different literature (Freeman, 1991; Rowley, 1997; Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997; Woodruff, 1997; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Norman, 2001; Peppard & Rylander, 2006; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), that could lead to a comprehensive map of the key stakeholders related to the focal firm. The other objective of this research was to
0 2 4 6 8 10 Complete Incomplete
