A Review and Evaluation of Business Model Ontologies: A Viability Perspective

D'Souza, Austin; Beest, Nick van; Huitema, George; Wortmann, J. C.; Velthuijsen, Hugo

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22348-3_25

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each of these BMOs helps to conceptualise BMs from a single perspective, and at different levels of granularity. For example, the business model canvas conceptualises the BM from the focal firm perspective, while the e3-value conceptualises the BM from a business ecosystem perspective (D'Souza et al, 2014). However, designing viable BMs e especially in complex situations requires the BM designer to adopt different perspectives to ensure the viability of the BM, such as service/product perspective, focal firm perspective, business ecosystem perspective, and technology perspective (D'Souza et al, 2015;Weiller and Neely, 2013).…”

Section: Overview Of Business Model Ontologies and Related Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Designing viable multi-commodity energy business ecosystems: Corroborating the business model design framework for viability

D'Souza

Bouw

Velthuijsen

et al. 2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Business Model Ontologies and Related Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This section provides a brief overview of the extended BMDFV that bridges the deficiencies mentioned above. For more details on the theoretical underpinnings of the framework see (D'Souza et al, 2014;D'Souza et al, 2015).…”

Section: The Extended Business Model Design Framework For Viability (Bmdfv)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing viable multi-commodity energy business ecosystems: Corroborating the business model design framework for viability

D'Souza

Bouw

Velthuijsen

et al. 2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are multiple studies on how to compare modeling methods on a larger scale. Here, we mention the studies of Andersson et al [46], Lambert [47], Pfeiffer and Gehlert [48], Jasper and Uschold [49], D'Souza et al [50], and Pateli [51] on how to analyze conceptual models and how to analyze business models. All of the above-mentioned works present, either as a by-product or as a main artefact, structured frameworks for analyzing the elements of a modeling method.…”

Section: Comparing On Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their framework lacks, most notably, the users and the purpose dimensions for comparing modeling methods. D'Souza et al present a thorough framework for analysis viability in business modeling methods [50]. However, their work is focused only viability and is unsuited for comparison of models for different purposes.…”

Section: Comparing On Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: e³ value and SEAM

Kostova

Gordijn

Regev

et al. 2019

2019 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last few decades, several value-modeling methods have emerged in requirements engineering for IS research. We compare two value-modeling methods, e 3 value and SEAM. We illustrate their use with an example of the exchange of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on music. In the process, we propose a comparison framework. The results of our study show that e 3 value and SEAM are similar valuemodeling techniques: both model services in networked systems and focus on value exchanges. They differ, however, in the way value is conceptualized: the market viability of the service system in e 3 value versus the subjective value and lack of market profitability analysis in SEAM. e 3 value shows how value flows from one actor to another, whereas SEAM shows the relative importance of different value propositions and how they are constructed by the service network. These results can be used by modelers to select a value-modeling method for their purposes by proposing explicit selection criteria. The comparison framework, which is in its early stages of development, can be used to compare other modeling methods.

show abstract

“…This poses difficulties in cumulative research and authors rarely build on each other. Six out of the previous thirteen approaches were recently selected as wellestablished and were evaluated as business model ontologies (BMO) for securing viability [43]. They were compared against 26 criteria but none of the BMOs satisfied all of them, while e3-value [32] supported most of them.…”

Section: Business Model Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Business Model Grounds and Links

Musulin

Strahonja

2018

JIOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The business model concept emerged in theory and practice without a consensus on the understanding of the concept, but it has become a well accepted and useful construct in fields such as strategy, organization, information systems and technology. This paper aims to provide an overview of the research on the use of business models focusing on outstanding works in this field, extracting main converging findings unburdened of extant lists of specific citations. Following the overview, a comparison of the seven respective conceptual frameworks of the business model research is presented. Finally, after determining grounds, the business model concept is linked to related complex concept – enterprise architecture.

show abstract

A Review and Evaluation of Business Model Ontologies: A Viability Perspective

Cited by 5 publications

References 21 publications

Designing viable multi-commodity energy business ecosystems: Corroborating the business model design framework for viability

Designing viable multi-commodity energy business ecosystems: Corroborating the business model design framework for viability

Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: e³ value and SEAM

Business Model Grounds and Links

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A Review and Evaluation of Business Model Ontologies: A Viability Perspective

Cited by 5 publications

References 21 publications

Designing viable multi-commodity energy business ecosystems: Corroborating the business model design framework for viability

Designing viable multi-commodity energy business ecosystems: Corroborating the business model design framework for viability

Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: e3 value and SEAM

Business Model Grounds and Links

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: e³ value and SEAM