کثرت مدل های کسب و کار شرکت های موجود : بررسی پیچیدگی محرک های ارزش

Business models are key tools to provide a means of operationalizing theories about firm and industry level strategies, and to understand the nature of value drivers and the role of marketing in these processes. In this paper we assess empirical evidence for a plurality of co-existing business models within firms by developing a typology of business models in a single industry, the New Zealand Wine industry. We examine the co-existence of the types of models using in-depth analysis of seven case firms that vary in size and ownership. Our findings show how value creation is done in the context of interactions and they provide support for multiple business models that co-exist alongside each other with varying degrees of separation. Plurality better explains the complexity of value drivers and strategies for firms in this rapidly changing industry environment, where businesses are under extreme financial pressure. Our findings challenge assumptions that firms have (or should have) a single business model thus allowing a plurality of approaches within a single firm or industry that shifts the focus from implementing strategy A or B or C, to implementing strategy A and B and/or C.

Business models provide a practical way of operationalizing theories about firm and industry level strategies, and of understanding the nature of value drivers and the role of marketing in these processes (Amit and Zott, 2001 and Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002). Rather than assuming that firms have a single business model, a pluralistic perspective of business models may offer further insight into the complexity of value creation (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2010). Value creation is done in the context of interactions, and there are multiple ways to configure and manage interactions (Beverland, 2012 and Lindgreen et al., 2012). A pluralistic approach allows for dual (Heracleous and Wirtz, 2010 and Markides and Charitou, 2004) or multiple business models (Casadesus-Masanell & Tarziján, 2012), and challenges orthodox strategic thinking that competitive advantage and value creation should build on only one generic strategy (Heracleous and Wirtz, 2010 and Porter, 1980). Porter (1980) describes approaches that fail to choose one single generic strategy (cost, differentiation or focus) as ‘stuck in the middle’ (Porter, 1980: 41). Attempts to mix approaches in a ‘composite strategy’ (Dess & Davis, 1984) are described as confused, ill-conceived, lacking internal consistency and doomed to poor profitability and failure (Dess and Davis, 1984 and Segev, 1989). However, new theorising and empirical evidence shows that ‘stuck-in-the–middle’ strategy designs, that involve two or more dimensions of competitive strategy, ‘may be superior to strategic specialization’ (Campbell-Hunt, 2000: 149), suggesting positive effects from the simultaneous application of multiple strategy designs. Our paper challenges the single model approach to strategy by providing empirical evidence for the co-existence of multiple business models that operationalize pluralistic strategies for firms. By pluralistic we mean the co-existence of multiple approaches to value creation and capture within one business or business unit, rather than complexity within singular business models designs. Thus, we extend Mason and Mouzas (2012) description and explanation of six alternative types of business model in relation to flexibility to respond to end-customers. Firms face structural and contextual value drivers that result in multiple business models, not just multiple strategies or parallel products, markets, technologies or resources (Smith, Binns, & Tushman, 2010). Our investigation uses a single industry context, the New Zealand Wine industry. This industry is striving to maintain market positions and survival, ‘tough times’ in which it faces high potential for closures, shutdowns, rationalizations, cost cutting, and consolidations, caused by financial pressures and consumers being less prepared to buy the premium high-quality wines it produces (Adams, 2012, June 14 and Deloitte, 2012). To allow for the co-existence of different business models we develop a typology (Doty & Glick, 1994) and explore the co-existence of the types (Casadesus-Masanell and Tarziján, 2012, January-February, Heracleous and Wirtz, 2010 and Nenonen and Storbacka, 2010). This shift to dual or multiple purpose approaches to strategy (Helfat & Winter, 2011) allows new business models to co-exist that better fit the complexity of value creation in a rapidly changing industry environment. Our objectives are to link the theory and practice of business models in three ways. First to investigate how business models enable firms in an industry handle plurality in strategy to create and capture value (Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011). We show how dynamic market change, rather than the traditional Porterian assumption of relatively simple oligopolistic conditions of competitive strategy (where the focus is on out-performing the competition in terms of absolute measures (Zott & Amit, 2008) such as growth in sales, market share, stock market price), drives responsive industry- and firm-level learning in the New Zealand Wine industry to adapt their business models to incorporate plurality. Second we show that business models have dual importance for marketing: as a new unit of analysis, between firm and industry level strategies (Zott et al., 2011), and as the practices of co-creation of value in marketing strategy. A third fundamental objective is to develop a middle-range theory of business models to connect marketing theory and practice, since they are a new distinct concept for academic study and relevance for practice (Zott et al., 2011). We do this by developing a typology that bridges theory and practice, demonstrating both the dynamics of business models and industry equifinality (Doty, Glick, & Huber, 1993) to provide a link between empirically-observed business models and theoretical explanations of those business models (Ehret, Wirtz, & Kashyap, 2010). The paper proceeds by first setting out our conceptualization of business models and the link to strategy selection by firms. We then explain the development of the typologies to position our case studies. The next sections outline the cases and findings. We use qualitative business-to-business data on how firms structure their value-creating activities within the context of interactions to verify that the typology captures evidence of parallel business models within the same organizations. The final section explores implications, including suggestions for further research.

6.1. Industry business models Our purpose was to examine evidence about the nature of business models that operationalize pluralistic strategies for firms within the New Zealand wine industry. To achieve this we developed a theoretical typology of business models and then examined their adoption by firms in the industry, in a process of middle-range theorizing to bridge the theory and practice of business models. This offers insight into the complexity of the value drivers and value creation of firms in a rapidly changing industry environment where businesses are under extreme financial pressure. Each of the seven case firms employs different business models, some co-existing, based on pluralistic strategies. The business model types represent the range of options based on the theoretical dimensions we identified. We find no company which occupies the purely internalized extreme,3 Type I, although two come close, with Case A focusing on internalization using a corporate business model and Case B aiming for self-sufficiency but differentiating in its business model (Chesbrough, 2007) by creating value through contract winemaking as well as controlling its own value chain. At the other extreme is the purely externalized business model, Type VIII. We find two firms which come close to this. Case F has a consortium type structure, with an associated externally-aware (Chesbrough, 2007) and leveraged approach to its business model. Case G deploys an entirely new business model for the industry as an aggregator but is now acquiring assets and resources of its own, thus using its business model as an adaptive platform (Chesbrough, 2007). Between the extremes of the two ideal types are three cases with a mix of approaches which demonstrate a synergistic approach to co-existing business models, especially Cases C and D. These firms vary in their emphasis on internal and external value systems and their other characteristics such as size, ownership age, target market, nature of the value chain, revenue generation mechanism, firm structure, position in the value chain or network and overall competitive strategy. A minority of the case firms aim for internalization of grape production and thus control of supply and quality, with the majority favouring more networked, relational approaches. Another distinguishing feature is ownership and control, ranging from independent family-owned and operated businesses, through those with some external shareholders, to wholly-owned subsidiaries of global conglomerates. Strategies of either internalization or relationship-based access to resources are apparent in all cases, regardless of ownership or size. An important set of relationships are those with other firms and within the industry in general. These range across many forms of informal co-operation, including friendly help and assistance, socially-based activities such as sharing technical and market information and R&D results. The value position strategies pursued by the case firms across both smaller, family-owned firms and larger public and private firms with corporate structures, strongly focus on differentiating products in international and domestic markets, based on either broad or focused ranges. They achieve this through quality, innovation and learning that have developed over the history of the industry, and the importance of value chain links for these is clear. Export and domestic marketing strategies alike involve product offerings in the premium and mid-range categories with price premiums based on New Zealand's reputation for quality, with a strong price/value offering. A number of case firms pursue focused differentiation through branding, producing super-premium and premium wines based on innovative location and channel placement. Some achieve this internally through cost-based approaches, economies of scale and scope enabling market (category) leadership positions, and tight cost control. Many use product-based approaches through R&D and the development of regional wines and styles. Some use their own market channels to control distribution, while others are involved in IPOs for resources such as vineyards, with others using investors' channel linkages. These findings indicate the importance to firms in the industry of achieving a balance in a number of areas (Lavie, Kang, & Rosenkopf, 2011) such as: between export and domestic sales; between grape supplies and prices; and direct relationships with retailers and indirect through distributors, often with too large a range of products. Many companies pursue both differentiation and focused differentiation, based on three elements—the uniqueness of New Zealand products, branding and competences (especially based on relationships) in channels, distribution and now offshore bottling. In managing co-existing business models there are two critical factors: the conflict or strategic similarity between them (and how much) and whether firms should integrate or keep them separate (Casadesus-Masanell & Tarziján, 2012). Our case firms have developed new business models which co-exist and operate separately, so meeting the criteria established by Casadesus-Masanell and Tarziján (2012): business models complement each other (and should be combined rather than operated separately) the more they share major physical assets and the more operating the two generates shared capabilities and resources (though it is much more rare for two business models to have critical assets, resources and capabilities in common than not). The wine business models we have identified rely on different quality inputs: wines for bulk/commodity will not be suitable for super-premium or icon labels. The NPD capabilities inherent in the business models are different as they address very different customer needs and create value very differently in each market segment. In their architecture, firms differentiate between their business models in terms of market channels, reserving their relationship capabilities for high value offshore channel strategy and using transactional bulk sales onshore, through specialist intermediaries. Our data thus confirm the complexity view (Smith et al., 2010) by identifying business models that ‘seek value by supporting paradoxical strategies’ (p. 457). 6.2. Industry value drivers The industry issues stimulating this plurality of co-existing business models in NZ wine firms relate to quality, revenue generation, cash flow, high costs, low prices, currency fluctuations, systemic supply chain innovations (Rabobank, 2012) and the emergence of new customers, segments and markets, which we now discuss. A certain amount of bulk, cask, bag-in-box and own label wine has been sold from NZ since the 1980s for regulatory requirements, as internal company transfers (proprietary bulk) or for retailer own labels (Brodie et al., 2008). The current global trend differs, however. Many new actors—aggregators, for the emerging China market, for example, who secure large contracts with international retailers, thus changing global scale, have joined the previous handful of large global players. 30% of NZ wine exports are now bulk (New Zealand Winegrowers, 2011) and bulk selling is enabling cash flow from markets with poor margins but with high potential volumes. Saving the high freight, marketing and promotion costs of selling bottled wine (a 20 ft shipping container holds 9000 liters of packaged (bottled) wine or 24,000 liters of bulk wine) can enable value-capture bringing the same return as a reserve wine with its associated costs. The value network for the industry and its competitive advantage has recently been challenged by an over-supply of Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc pushing some firms, previously competing only on branding, to “cut non-value adding supply chain costs—essential in the current low margin environment” (PwC, 2011: 10). Increased bulk wine sales are a symptom of supply-demand imbalance (not a cause of low prices) (PwC, 2011) and the industry has been forced to respond, preserving its value-creating premium position and reputation, alongside the growth of lower-priced products. This is not blocking growth of premium segments in the off-trade, suggesting that: “trading down…was offset by trading up (or trading across from the on-trade)” (PwC, 2011: 12). The industry is constrained geographically from developing a low-cost volume position, so to justify investment in scaling-up quality production, and to meet new market demand, it has moved towards economies of scope (Teece, 1980) in its approach, as reasoned by Campbell-Hunt (2000). The key managerial implications of the plurality of business models relate to the capacity and capabilities of managers to understand why and how to pursue particular business models. While ‘managerial attention’ (Bock, Opsahl, George, & Gann, 2012) is crucial, the capabilities of managers that would affect the firm's ability to change business models relate to resource and relationship flexibility, as well as responsiveness to market and industry dynamics. Tikkanen, Lamberg, Parvinen, and Kallunki (2005) highlight the interaction between managerial cognition, action and the components of the firm's business model, arguing that an intuitive response is: “to believe that a firm's business model is controllable through specific managerial interventions.” (p. 802). However, in this embedded industry context, managing ‘in’ networks is more relevant than seeking to ‘manage networks’ (Ritter, Wilkinson, & Johnston, 2004). Moreover, firm size may be an important contingent dimension in strategy (Campbell-Hunt, 2000) and the managerial capabilities (such as closeness to markets, locus of control) different for managers in large, corporate and small, entrepreneurial firms. A crucial capability regardless of firm size is the ability to manage in complex network contexts (Möller et al., 2002), since managerial cognitions constrain and reinforce the evolution of product/service offerings (Tikkanen et al., 2005: 803). Smith et al. (2010) observe that: “the contradictions and tensions inherent in complex business models exert significant pressures on senior leaders and their teams, and demand substantial managerial capabilities” (p. 451). They point to the importance of whether (and how) senior leaders learn and develop complexity of thought and action, or whether organizations can hire leaders who already possess these capabilities. Further implications include whether managers can translate and operationalize complexity in the organization to implement their strategies and business models (Smith et al., 2010: 458). 6.3. Contributions and future research Our theoretical contribution is enabled by the synergy between the levels of data we use (Leonard-Barton, 1990) to identify a plurality of business models as set out in Table 2 and Fig. 2.Our evidence for the co-existence of bulk and packaged product offerings among New Zealand wine firms demonstrates firm-level business model change within a global industry context. Using data from a national industry we include the industry context and the strategic and market practices that underpin different business models, as called for by Mason and Mouzas (2012). We extend understanding of the link between the theory and practice of business models by showing “the majority usage” of networks, transactional relationships or corporate ownership “within each [singular] business model” identified within a firm (Mason & Mouzas, 2012: 13). We also show the way these factors influence multiple co-existing business models within single firms, thus generating industry patterns to understand “overlapping business models in certain sectors” (Mason & Mouzas, 2012: 25). The case firms variously capture value through ownership, long-term supply contracts, and spot-market arm's length transactions. Systemic approaches to business model design vary from internalized resource control, primarily through ownership, through resource leverage in relational contracting to tight social ties. Boundary-spanning activities among the wine firms include access to critical resources - namely grapes and skilled labor; production—namely harvesting, wine-making, processing, storage and bottling; and access to channels. Our case industry is not representative, but neither is it randomly selected: it has particular characteristics that enable its use for theory-building in a potentially generalizable field that is not there yet. We draw our conclusions carefully, recognising the ‘specialness’ of this industry but it can allow inferences to theory, to other similar industries, to other industries in the same locale or to other industries facing similar problems. Surfacing deep endogenous factors is exactly why you need cases (Siggelkow, 2007). The paper has a number of implications for further research that investigates both empirical and theoretical issues. In empirical research, there is a need to understand institutional influences on systemic, boundary-spanning value networks, and how such structures could differ between contexts. Managers must understand both formal and informal aspects (North, 1990) of the institutional context for business models, especially the influence of collective mental models (Spender, 1989 and Tikkanen et al., 2005). In any industry, even those competing globally on knowledge-intensive innovation, the engrained ‘industry’ model is one from which it is difficult to break out (Spender, 1989). Offshore ownership of New Zealand wineries reduces the availability of social capital among industry players. The industry has grown into a set of players in sophisticated FMCG and B2B markets and the influence of the broader network of social and economic institutions (North, 1990) on industry strategies and approaches to value-creation, especially whether internal or external to the firm (Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009), are rich areas for further research. The potential benefits and performance measurement of the options between ownership and control, and the dangers of path dependencies (Hirschheim & Dibbern, 2009) support more longitudinal studies of evolving and changing business models. This is especially warranted if “partner reliance reduces strategic flexibility during business model innovation” as Bock et al. (2012: 279) suggest. Generic national brands emerge from networks of relationships and interactions within local interdependencies to compete globally and, while this goods-based industry has grown based on a generic premium national strategy (Brodie et al., 2008), the influence of broader global trends forces firms to evolve more complex business models. What are the interactions between changing competitive conditions and business models within other nationally-branded industries such as tourism and other services? In terms of theoretical issues, our study identifies a paradoxical view of value creation, the resolution of which requires further explanation. As Hampden-Turner (1990) states: Value creation lies in the capacity of acknowledging those dilemmas which arise from competing and contrasting claims and combining both…in a resolution which enhances all values in contention (p. 10). This perspective recognizes that we cannot view value creation in complex business settings as a series of simple binary choices which assumes one choice will dominate and exclude the other. Instead what is required is synthesis—a ‘both/and’ perspective. This leads to what Lewis (2000) refers to as transcendence and this reframing: “marks a dramatic change in the meaning attributed to a situation as paradoxical tensions become viewed as complementary and interwoven.” (p. 764). The paradoxes inherent in the ‘simultaneous existence of two inconsistent states’ (Eisenhardt, 2000: 703) require managers and organizations to rethink their approaches to value-creating business models (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010 and Tikkanen et al., 2005), to integrate their operational and dynamic capabilities to serve multiple purposes (Helfat & Winter, 2011) in new and existing parts of their business, and to adopt new processes and structures (Smith et al., 2010). Ambidexterity (Raisch et al., 2009) allows the concurrent achievement of differing aims (Filippini, Güttel, & Nosella, 2012) and managers and academic research alike must grapple with further understanding this tension: “that captures both extremes, thereby capitalizing on the inherent pluralism within the duality.” (Eisenhardt, 2000: 703). Extreme cases, of financial pressure, of survival, bring out valuable insights, and further research into other extreme cases can further clarify the complexity of value drivers. Another important consideration is to explore further the links between the underlying general theories concerning pluralism in strategy and the complexity of value drivers that underpin a pluralistic business model perspective. Following Doty and Glick (1994) we have developed a typology of business models based on broad theoretical assumptions, defining the set of ideal types and describing each one. We have stated the important constructs used in the typology and future research is recommended to test its wider applicability. 6.4. Conclusion By using the empirical context of a national industry we show how competitive conditions lead to multiple business models that co-exist alongside each other with varying degrees of separation, and link this to the value-drivers which underpin these strategies i.e. fierce competition in existing and new markets, competitive pricing and the need for economies of scope to justify growth. We show how these new business models characterize and express value-drivers by cash flow generation to enable the quality, innovation and market access to compete and protect brand positions. We demonstrate a plurality of business models within single firms (Cases C and D) and that the Porterian view, in which firms choose and pursue one generic strategy since: “the sharp distinction between cost- and differentiation-emphasis would be that there are elements in the design of each that naturally repel the other” (Campbell-Hunt, 2000: 129), no longer obtains in the industry we have researched. A single theme—quality—is the unifying element in orchestrating value creation (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2010) and we show how the pluralistic strategies pursued by some industry players operationalize this. There may be an evolutionary explanation for the multiple approach to business models (Tikkanen et al., 2005) we present, such that the firms are now able to achieve economies of scope because the industry's quality reputation now spans a wider product scope (Campbell-Hunt, 2000: 150). Our findings support the view that the conceptualization of business models is important theoretically as a middle-range explanation of the role of business models in strategic marketing. Researchers are only beginning to understand the practices of business models, and by extension, their role in strategic management and marketing theory (Mason & Spring, 2011). While business modelling may be in danger of becoming yet another contribution to theory in marketing without moving the discipline closer to a general theoretical perspective (Ehret et al., 2010 and Peters, 2010), we have shown their strong potential as a middle-range theory, between theory and practice.