IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v30y2020i3d10.1007_s12525-019-00379-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business model tools at the boundary: exploring communities of practice and knowledge boundaries in business model innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes S. Schwarz

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Christine Legner

    (University of Lausanne)

Abstract

As companies engage in business model (BM) innovation, they increasingly turn to BM tools, such as the Business Model Canvas, the STOF framework, or e3-value ontology. The main advantages associated with these tools are that they establish a standard lexicon, or common language, within an organization. Despite the increasing scholarly interest in BM tools, we still lack theoretical foundations and empirical evidence for understanding their roles and uses in BM innovation. In this article, we argue for conceptualizing BM tools (i.e. models, methods, and IT support), as boundary objects that must have the capacities to overcome the knowledge boundaries between different communities of practice. Based on empirical insights from six case studies and an in-depth field study, we make three contributions: First, we identify five typical communities of practice involved in BM innovation in large organizations. Second, we analyze the knowledge boundaries between them. Third, we discuss implications for BM tool design as boundary objects with syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic capacities.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes S. Schwarz & Christine Legner, 2020. "Business model tools at the boundary: exploring communities of practice and knowledge boundaries in business model innovation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(3), pages 421-445, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:30:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s12525-019-00379-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-019-00379-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-019-00379-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12525-019-00379-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dorothy Leonard-Barton, 1990. "A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 248-266, August.
    2. Paul R. Carlile & Eric S. Rebentisch, 2003. "Into the Black Box: The Knowledge Transformation Cycle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1180-1195, September.
    3. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    4. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 2001. "Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 198-213, April.
    5. Mark De Reuver & Harry Bouwman & Timber Haaker, 2013. "Business Model Roadmapping: A Practical Approach To Come From An Existing To A Desired Business Model," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-18.
    6. Richard J. Boland & Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi, 1995. "Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 350-372, August.
    7. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    8. Michael Gibbert & Winfried Ruigrok & Barbara Wicki, 2008. "What passes as a rigorous case study?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1465-1474, December.
    9. repec:dar:wpaper:64420 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. H. Bouwman & E. Faber & T. Haaker & B. Kijl & M. Reuver, 2008. "Conceptualizing the STOF Model," Springer Books, in: Harry Bouwman & Henny Vos & Timber Haaker (ed.), Mobile Service Innovation and Business Models, chapter 2, pages 31-70, Springer.
    11. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    12. Marcus Linder & Mats Williander, 2017. "Circular Business Model Innovation: Inherent Uncertainties," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 182-196, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elina Mikelsone & Inga Uvarova & Jean-Pierre Segers, 2022. "Four-step approach to idea management sequencing: redefining or reinventing values in a business model," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Vinicius Minatogawa & Matheus Franco & Izabela Simon Rampasso & Maria Holgado & Diego Garrido & Hernan Pinto & Ruy Quadros, 2022. "Towards Systematic Sustainable Business Model Innovation: What Can We Learn from Business Model Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-35, March.
    3. Harry Bouwman & Mark Reuver & Marikka Heikkilä & Erwin Fielt, 2020. "Business model tooling: where research and practice meet," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(3), pages 413-419, September.
    4. Rainer Alt, 2022. "Electronic Markets on AI and standardization," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1795-1805, December.
    5. Tobias Wulfert, 2023. "Boundary resource management in innovation ecosystems: The case of e-commerce," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Paola Lara Machado & Montijn Ven & Banu Aysolmaz & Oktay Turetken & Jan Brocke, 2024. "Navigating Business Model Redesign: The Compass Method for Identifying Changes to the Operating Model," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 66(5), pages 607-638, October.
    7. Vincenzo Riso & Mouhcine Tallaki & Enrico Bracci & Silvia Cantele, 2024. "The transition towards benefit corporations: What are the roles for stakeholders?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 904-916, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claudio Biscaro & Anna Comacchio, 2018. "Knowledge Creation Across Worldviews: How Metaphors Impact and Orient Group Creativity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 289(1), pages 58-79, February.
    2. Hilda Bø Lyng & Eric Christian Brun, 2018. "Knowledge Transition: A Conceptual Model of Knowledge Transfer for Cross-Industry Innovation," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 1-23, October.
    3. Johann Piet Hausberg & Peter S. H. Leeflang, 2019. "Absorbing Integration: Empirical Evidence On The Mediating Role Of Absorptive Capacity Between Functional-/Cross-Functional Integration And Innovation Performance," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(06), pages 1-37, August.
    4. Hilda Bø Lyng & Eric Christian Brun, 2020. "Innovating with Strangers; Managing Knowledge Barriers Across Distances in Cross-Industry Innovation," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-33, February.
    5. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    6. Karimikia, Hadi & Bradshaw, Robert & Singh, Harminder & Ojo, Adegboyega & Donnellan, Brian & Guerin, Michael, 2022. "An emergent taxonomy of boundary spanning in the smart city context – The case of smart Dublin," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. Ann Majchrzak & Philip H. B. More & Samer Faraj, 2012. "Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 951-970, August.
    8. Paul M. Leonardi & Diane E. Bailey & Casey S. Pierce, 2019. "The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 665-686, June.
    9. Davide Nicolini & Jeanne Mengis & Jacky Swan, 2012. "Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 612-629, June.
    10. Haselsteiner, Julia, 2022. "Unraveling the Process of Knowledge Integration in Agile Product Development Teams," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 7(2), pages 354-389.
    11. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    12. Paola Perez-Aleman, 2011. "Collective Learning in Global Diffusion: Spreading Quality Standards in a Developing Country Cluster," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 173-189, February.
    13. Caroline A. Bartel & Raghu Garud, 2009. "The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 107-117, February.
    14. Cacciatori, Eugenia, 2008. "Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1591-1601, October.
    15. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    16. Esther Tippmann & Pamela Sharkey Scott & Andrew Parker, 2017. "Boundary Capabilities in MNCs: Knowledge Transformation for Creative Solution Development," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 455-482, June.
    17. Caccamo, Marta & Pittino, Daniel & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Wen Pan Fagerlin & Minoru Shimamoto & Ran Li, 2019. "Boundary Objects as a Learning Mechanism for Sustainable Development Goals—A Case Study of a Japanese Company in the Chemical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-26, November.
    19. Gantman, Sonia & Fedorowicz, Jane, 2016. "Communication and control in outsourced IS development projects: Mapping to COBIT domains," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 63-83.
    20. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:30:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s12525-019-00379-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.