IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sjobre/v67y2015i4d10.1007_bf03373027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geschäftsmodelle im Internet der Dinge

Author

Listed:
  • Elgar Fleisch

    (ETH Zürich
    Universität St. Gallen)

  • Markus Weinberger

    (Bosch Software Innovations, c/o Universität St. Gallen)

  • Felix Wortmann

    (Universität St. Gallen)

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Das Internet der Dinge (Internet of Things, IoT), das physische Produkte und digitale Services zu hybriden Lösungen verschmelzen lässt, verspricht völlig neue Möglichkeiten. Die Erfahrung, dass eine neue Technologie nicht zwingend wirtschaftlichen Erfolg nach sich zieht, hemmt jedoch viele Unternehmen. Sie sind unsicher, wie sie IoT-Technologie wirtschaftlich nutzenbringend einsetzen könnten. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es das Ziel des vorliegenden Beitrags, die Entwicklung von Geschäftsmodellen im IoT zu reflektieren und fundierte Hilfestellung für deren Gestaltung zu bieten. Auf Basis einer Untersuchung der Rolle von IT in Geschäftsmodellen werden dazu konkrete Bausteine und Muster von Geschäftsmodellen für das IoT entwickelt. Für die zentralen Herausforderungen bei der Umsetzung solcher Geschäftsmodelle werden ausserdem erste Lösungsansätze aufgezeigt.

Suggested Citation

  • Elgar Fleisch & Markus Weinberger & Felix Wortmann, 2015. "Geschäftsmodelle im Internet der Dinge," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 444-465, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sjobre:v:67:y:2015:i:4:d:10.1007_bf03373027
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03373027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03373027
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03373027?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. "Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    2. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    3. Morris, Michael & Schindehutte, Minet & Allen, Jeffrey, 2005. "The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(6), pages 726-735, June.
    4. B. Demil & X. Lecocq, 2010. "Business model evolution : in search of dynamic consistency," Post-Print hal-00572915, HAL.
    5. L. J. Bourgeois, III & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 1988. "Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(7), pages 816-835, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cinzia Battistella & Gianluca Murgia & Fabio Nonino, 2021. "Free-driven web-based business models," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 445-486, June.
    2. Rong, Ke & Patton, Dean & Chen, Weiwei, 2018. "Business models dynamics and business ecosystems in the emerging 3D printing industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 234-245.
    3. Junic Kim & Jaewook Yoo, 2019. "Platform Growth Model: The Four Stages of Growth Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Bohnsack, René & Pinkse, Jonatan & Kolk, Ans, 2014. "Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 284-300.
    5. Huotari, Pontus & Ritala, Paavo, 2021. "When to switch between subscription-based and ad-sponsored business models: Strategic implications of decreasing content novelty," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 14-28.
    6. Bohnsack, René & Kurtz, Hannes & Hanelt, André, 2021. "Re-examining path dependence in the digital age: The evolution of connected car business models," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    7. Oke Chr. Beckmann & Susanne Royer, 2016. "Business Models and the Impact of Different Market Contexts: Towards an analytical framework for researchers and practitioners," Danish-German Working Papers 005, Europa-Universität Flensburg, International Institute of Management (IIM);University of Southern Denmark, Department of Border Region Studies (IFG).
    8. Estelle Malavolti, 2016. "Single Till or Dual Till at airports: a Two-Sided Market Analysis," Post-Print hal-01406372, HAL.
    9. Lam, W., 2015. "Switching Costs in Two-sided Markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2015024, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. Amelio, Andrea & Giardino-Karlinger, Liliane & Valletti, Tommaso, 2020. "Exclusionary pricing in two-sided markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    11. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Cross-Subsidization and Matching Design," Discussion Papers 1559, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    12. Bolt, Wilko & Tieman, Alexander F., 2008. "Heavily skewed pricing in two-sided markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1250-1255, September.
    13. Moraga-Gonzalez, Jose L. & Wildenbeest, Matthijs R., 2011. "Comparison sites," IESE Research Papers D/933, IESE Business School.
      • Jose Luis Moraga-Gonzalez & Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2011. "Comparison Sites," Working Papers 2011-04, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    14. Christopher Müller & Enrico Böhme, 2014. "The Monopoly Benchmark on Two-Sided Markets," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 56-69, Autumn.
    15. Esther Gal-Or & Ronen Gal-Or & Nabita Penmetsa, 2018. "The Role of User Privacy Concerns in Shaping Competition Among Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 698-722, September.
    16. Lijun PAN, 2017. "Pricing of Media Platforms with Vertical Differentiation," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 51(1), pages 249-262.
    17. Bruno Jullien, 2005. "Two-sided Markets and Electronic Intermediaries," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 51(2-3), pages 233-260.
    18. Marc Ivaldi & Catherine Muller-Vibes, 2018. "The differentiated effect of advertising on readership: evidence from a two-sided market approach," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 363-376, September.
    19. David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2005. "The economics of interchange fees and their regulation : an overview," Proceedings – Payments System Research Conferences, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue May, pages 73-120.
    20. James E. Prieger & Wei‐Min Hu, 2012. "Applications Barrier To Entry And Exclusive Vertical Contracts In Platform Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 435-452, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    L80; O00; O14; O32;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L80 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - General
    • O00 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - General - - - General
    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sjobre:v:67:y:2015:i:4:d:10.1007_bf03373027. 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.