Examine and Critique a Scholarly Article Related to Mobile Computing Challenges
ZEKEB
Balancingstrategicinterestsandtechnologicalrequirementsformobileservices.pdf
Balancing strategic interests and technological requirements for mobile services
Timber Haaker Telematica Instituut,
P.O. Box 589, 7500 AN Enschede The Netherlands
Edward Faber Telematica Instituut,
P.O. Box 589, 7500 AN Enschede The Netherlands
Harry Bouwman Delft University of Technology,
P.O. Box 5, 2600 AA Delft The Netherlands
ABSTRACT Designing business models for mobile services is a complex undertaking because it requires multiple actors to balance different design requirements. A business model can be seen as a blueprint of four interrelated components or domains: service, technology, organization and finance domain. Little attention has been paid to how these different domains are related to one another. This knowledge is needed to enhance our understanding of what constitutes a viable business model. In this paper the interdependencies between two of these domains, namely organization and technology domain, are explored by analyzing critical design issues in business models for mobile services, i.e. partner selection, network openness, network governance, and network complexity in the organization domain, and security, quality of service, management of service profiles, system integration and accessibility in the technology domain. A causal framework is developed, which links these critical design issues to expected network value and business model viability.
Keywords Business Models, Mobile, Mobile technology, Organizational Networks.
1. INTRODUCTION The mobile telecom industry is currently facing several opportunities that may radically change the field of mobile telecommunication. The development of new networks like GPRS (2,5 G), UMTS (3G), WLAN (WiFi), Bluetooth, and Personal Area Networks (beyond 3G) will spark the development of mobile Internet services. With ‘mobile services’ we mean all kinds of innovative services that combine technologies and concepts from the domains of (mobile and wireless) telecommunication (e.g. mobile services), information technology (e.g. the Internet, WWW), and consumer electronics (e.g. pda's, cameras). These new technologies and concepts, and the ‘convergence’ of the domains offer opportunities for the mobile telecom industry. Most industry players currently lack the resources and capabilities to exploit these opportunities. Mobile services are increasingly
being developed and provided by networks of cooperating organizations. It is assumed that flexible ‘value webs’ or ‘value networks’ will arise and replace traditional, static and linear ‘value chains’ [23]. In such a ‘value network’ each player has different capabilities and resources. Innovation thrives on the combination of these capabilities and resources of different players. For instance Compaq HP, Microsoft and KPN Mobile recently started to jointly develop and market a mobile office application called Lucio. Cooperation in value networks is by no means a straightforward task. Various studies [2,13] indicate that companies encounter serious difficulties in achieving the anticipated benefits from co- operation. First, partner organizations may pursue different strategic goals with the cooperation, which may induce partners to act against what is agreed upon, hide the truth or try to extract confidential information from their partners. Second, partner organizations often originate from different industries (e.g. network operators, financial institutions, and retailers), each with their own peculiar business logic. Such diversity may be necessary for the development of new innovative services, yet at the same time this diversity may disrupt cooperation. Finally, cooperation gives rise to complex interdependencies between organizations because no single partner has formal authority over another partner. Hence, every adjustment has to be discussed and jointly agreed upon [19]. Given the disappointing success rates of inter-firm co-operations and the risks and costs involved in the introduction of new mobile services, it is not surprising that practitioners and academics pay a great deal of attention to the viability of mobile service business models, which require close collaboration of multiple actors. In our view a business model is a blueprint for how a network of organizations co-operates in creating and capturing value from new (mobile) services or products. Designing business models is a complex issue. Technical, financial, organizational, and professional user or consumer’s needs and requirements need to be balanced. For instance, what makes sense from a technical point of view (better specs of positioning technology) may not make sense from a financial (higher costs) and user perspective (privacy concerns). Moreover, organizations have to balance their different interests and business logics to create a ‘win-win’ situation, in which each player has incentives to co-operate, and in which the combined benefits are higher and the combined efforts are smaller compared to each player working separately. Although literature on strategic alliances in the telecommunication domain [6] and network formation [11, 20,21] is available it fails to provide insight into the subtleties involved
in the design of viable business models for the provisioning of mobile services by actors that collaborate in value networks. The predominant focus of the business school oriented literature on business models has thus far been on defining and classifying business models. Little attention has been paid to how the viability of business models are related to critical design issues. We define a critical design issue as a decision regarding the characteristics of a (mobile) service that has significant impact on the viability of the service. In this paper we will present research into the critical, organizational, and technical design issues that are related to business models of new mobile services that are delivered by complex value networks in order to understand what constitutes a viable business model. Before we present our research we will first discuss the theoretical framework of this research project.
2. BUSINESS MODELS There is little consensus on how to define business models [1, 4, 15, 24, 30, 31]. Some researchers equal business models with revenue models. While others reserve the term to denote the value creation logic of new business initiatives. None of these approaches provides a perspective on cross-company collaboration in complex value networks because they focus on business models of a single company. We focus on service offerings that require cross-company collaboration, and on a business model as a blueprint for how a network of organizations co-operates in creating and capturing value from technological innovation [7]. We look beyond the individual firm and consider the business model for a networked enterprise: a collaborative effort of multiple companies to offer a joint proposition to their consumers. When comparing the different definitions of business models it is possible to distinguish some common components [8], see Figure 1:
Service domain: a description of the service offering, its added value, and the market segment at which the offering is targeted
Technology domain: a description of the technical functionality required to realize the service offering
Organization domain: a description of the structure of the multi-actor value network required to create and distribute the service offering (organizational arrangements)
Finance domain: a description of how risks, investments and revenues are divided over the different actors of a value network (financial arrangements).
In this paper we limit discussion of our results to the organization and technology domain (Figure 2). Both will be briefly elaborated below. In general, organizational arrangements revolve around the resources and capabilities that have to be made available. In their analysis of business models Hedman & Kalling [15] conclude that the bottom line is that economic value is determined by a firm’s ability to trade and absorb ICT-resources, to align (and embed) them with other resources, to diffuse them in activities and manage the activities in a way that creates a proposition at uniquely low costs or with unique qualities in relation to the industry in which the company is operating. Increasingly organizations work together to deliver customer value in so-called ‘value networks’ [20, 28, 29]. Depending upon which actor(s) contribute key assets in the creation of value and the operating risks involved different configurations of actors are likely to result, some actors taking structural, integrative roles and others taking supporting, facilitating roles [14]. Governance is an important aspect of organizational arrangements. It is possible to distinguish three forms of value network governance [16]. First the basic rules for participating in the value network have to be set. Secondly, it is necessary to audit performance and check compliance with the set rules. Thirdly, value network participants may be supported in meeting the rules. Finally, the question of who is the ‘governor’ or the ‘center of gravity’ in the network and the legitimacy of exerting governance has to be addressed.
SERVICE DOMAIN
Value proposition Market segment
TECHNOLOGY DOMAIN
Functionality required
FINANCE DOMAIN
Cost structure Profit potential
ORGANIZATION DOMAIN
Structure of value network
TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS
NETWORK VALUE
e.g. UMTS, Web services e.g. revenues
BUSINESS MODEL
CUSTOMER VALUE e.g. usefulness
MARKET OPPORTUNITIES e.g. Improvement of communication in the Healthcare
REGULATORY CHANGES
SERVICE DOMAIN
Value proposition Market segment
TECHNOLOGY DOMAIN
Functionality required
FINANCE DOMAIN
Cost structure Profit potential
ORGANIZATION DOMAIN
Structure of value network
TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS
NETWORK VALUE
e.g. UMTS, Web services e.g. revenues
BUSINESS MODEL
CUSTOMER VALUE e.g. usefulness
MARKET OPPORTUNITIES e.g. Improvement of communication in the Healthcare
REGULATORY CHANGES Figure 1: Descriptive business model framework
The central issue in the technology domain is ‘functionality’. Functionality can be defined as ‘the things a system or application can do’ for its end-users. Examples of functionality enabled by 2,5 and 3G mobile services are always on capabilities, and higher data rates, which are assumed to carry video and sound clips. Future outlooks are directed towards the personal area and wearable networks, with the so-called I-centric services, which automatically adapt to individual requirements [25]. Another core concept of the technology domain is ‘technical architecture’. A technical architecture describes the technical system, which is needed by the firms in the value network to deliver the service offering exhibited in the service domain. Important components of a technical architecture are: applications, devices, access networks, service platforms, and backbone infrastructure. Important characteristics of the technical architecture are:
centralized vs. distributed, open vs. closed, interoperable vs. non- interoperable.
3. DESIGNING BUSINESS MODELS As illustrated in Figure 1 when designing a business model one needs to take into account both customer value and network value. Creating customer value is not an easy task due to the difficulty of extracting user requirements and conflicting design requirements. Design choices in the service, organization, or financial domain may affect those of the technology domain and vice versa. For instance, what might make sense from the perspective of technology (e.g. deployment of high precision positioning technique) may make no sense at all from the perspective of users (e.g. privacy concerns). Hence, service providers need to balance technical and user requirements.
Value elements
Value proposition
(Intended value) Contains
Resources & capabilities
Organizational Arrangements
Technological functionalities
Technical Architecture
Delivers
RevenuesCosts
Strategic interest
Generates
Have
Negotiate
Defines the division of
Is a
Defines the division of
Defines the division of
Generates
Have (access) to
Produce
Support
Enable
Describes added value of
Produces Perceived value
Financial arrangements Negotiate
Fit?
Generates
Customers and end users
Service offering
(Delivered value)
Delivered to
Has
Have access to
Value activities
Customer value
Business actors
Network value (Focus of this paper)
Brands co-determine
Perform
Value elements
Value proposition
(Intended value) Contains
Resources & capabilities
Organizational Arrangements
Technological functionalities
Technical Architecture
Delivers
RevenuesCosts
Strategic interest
Generates
Have
Negotiate
Defines the division of
Is a
Defines the division of
Defines the division of
Generates
Have (access) to
Produce
Support
Enable
Describes added value of
Produces Perceived value
Financial arrangements Negotiate
Fit?
Generates
Customers and end users
Service offering
(Delivered value)
Delivered to
Has
Have access to
Value activities
Customer value
Business actors
Network value (Focus of this paper)
Brands co-determine
Perform
Figure 2: Elaborated descriptive business model framework
Creating value for business actors (network value) is a complex task due to the conflicting strategic interests of partner organizations. As mentioned before actors often originate from different industries, each with their own strategic interests (e.g. generate traffic, extend services to customers, generate transactions) and business logics. Design choices in the organization and finance domain may to a more or lesser extent serve the strategic interests of the involved actors. For instance,
operator and content providers may disagree how to brand an information service and who needs to pay whom. Knowledge on how to effectively balance requirements and strategic interests is largely missing in the business model literature [27, 15]. To develop insight into how organizations can design ‘balanced’ business models researchers need to go beyond identifying simple success prescriptions and try to understand the critical design
issues in business models and their interdependencies. In this paper our focus is primarily directed to critical design issues related to the organizational and technology domain in relation with network value.
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Our research approach contains three steps. First we have build a conceptual framework describing the most important design variables within the service, organization, finance and technology domain and the relationships between these variables (see [9]). We use the term “design variable” to denote that our framework focuses on variables that can be influenced by design teams,
business developers, and managers. Second, a considerable amount of cases (see table 1), i.e. business models of mobile services have been analyzed. Case selection criteria were innovativeness of mobile service, relevance of specific aspects for instance domain (health care) or context (community services). For the case study, case and interview protocols [3] were used. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data from interviews were supplemented with information from company websites, industry reports and academic literature. Data were systematically analyzed based on a common protocol and interviewees validated results.
Table 1: Overview of cases
Theme Cases Extended case analysis reports
Mobile entertainment services My Babes, Radio 538 ring tunes Maitland et al. [22]
Mobile tracking & tracing service TMC4U (Traffic Management Channel for You), Traphic SMS alerts (Vialis), Finder i- mode service (KPN mobile)
Faber et al. [10] Kar et al. [17]
(Mobile) Community services I-Karos, Vaccination Database, Botfighter Rietkerk & Timmerman [26]
(Mobile) Presence and Instant messaging services
ICQ for Imode (KPN mobile), Splendo MiMessenger & NewsMessenger, MSN messenger (Microsoft), Jaytown Post-@
Kijl & Timmerman [18]
Business to employee services P-info, Lucio, Zorgpas, and Caremore Bouwman & Van Ham [5]
Mobile payment services Moxmo, Mobile2Pay, and Mobipay Faber & Bouwman [8] The cases had as objective to detect critical design issues. A critical design issue is defined as a design variable that is perceived (by practitioner and/or researcher) to contribute to the feasibility and viability of the studied business model. Based on the case study descriptions (see table 1 last column for more extensive publications on the cases) for every domain - service, organizational, technical and financial, as described in the conceptual framework - specific critical design issues were extracted and systematically clustered. Based on the recurrence of issues and/or the relevance for the feasibility and viability of the business model, as indicated by the interviewees, these issues were qualified as critical. Third, this knowledge on critical design issues has subsequently been used to build causal frameworks describing the interrelatedness of design variables and their relationship with business model viability and feasibility.
5. CRITICAL DESIGN ISSUES IN THE ORGANIZATION DOMAIN Critical design issues that originate from the organization domain are partner selection, network openness, network governance, and network complexity (see Table 4 in the appendix for an overview of the extracted critical design issues).
Partner selection An important design issue in all cases is acquiring access to resources and capabilities needed to realize a service offering. A distinction can be made in business actors that provide indispensable and irreplaceable (critical) resources and capabilities, and those who provide supporting resources and capabilities. For instance, in the traffic information cases (Traphic SMS alerts and TMC4U) an important issue was whether or not to include the government in the value network. Given the cost of
acquiring and processing raw traffic data, government funding is seen as a critical resource for any ‘commercial’ traffic service. In the mobile payment cases (Moxmo, Mobipay and Mobile2pay) an important issue was whether or not to include a financial institution as transaction enabler and trusted third party, in the value network. Whereas Moxmo decided to operate independently from the financial institutions to reduce transaction costs, Mobipay and Mobile2pay decided to include one or more financial institutions in the value network to enhance trust. Access to critical resources and capabilities (e.g. customers, content, funds, trust etc.) was found to be an important strategic interest when selecting partners.
Network openness The extent of openness indicates the degree to which new business actors can join the value network and are allowed to provide services to customers. In the cases we have observed two different organizational arrangements: the closed model in which a relatively fixed consortium of partners collaborate, and the walled garden model in which new partners are able to join the value network if they comply to certain rules. For instance, in the entertainment cases (My Babes and Radio 538 ring tunes), the I-mode Finder case, and community cases (Ikaros, Vaccination database, and Botfighter) portal providers used a walled garden model to control the quality of the provided content. Whereas in the presence instant messaging cases we found instances of a closed model (Splendo News messenger and Jaytown Post-@). Surprisingly no instances were found of an open model in which partners are free to join the value network and offer services and content (e.g. KazaA). When choosing between various degrees of network openness the desired control, exclusiveness and customer reach of the service were found to be
of main strategic concern. The higher the desired control and exclusiveness the more likely partners are to adopt a closed model. Whereas high customer reach may be an argument to choose for an open model.
Network governance in all cases a dominant actor, often the ones with access to the customers and end-users or the ones that developed the service offering, were managing the value network. These business actors often approached and selected collaboration partners, set the rules for collaboration (organizational arrangements), and monitored the compliance with these rules. For instance, in the entertainment cases (My Babes and Radio 538 ring tunes), community cases (Ikaros, Vaccination database, and Botfighter), and the PIM cases that focused on B2C applications (ICQ for I-mode, Splendo MiMessenger) the portal provider is the dominant actor. Whereas in the business to employee cases (P- info, Lucio, Zorgpas, and Caremore) and some PIM cases (MSN messenger, Splendo News messenger & Jaytown Post-@) the application service provider is the dominant actor. Typically actors with access to customers shield these relations from other actors in the value network. Whereas actors lacking these contacts often strive to move up in the value network from for instance content provider to service provider. Customer ownership thus seems to be of key strategic concern to actors in the value network.
Network complexity The studied cases differ with respect to network complexity. Network complexity may arise from the number of relations a focal business actor needs to manage and from the effort needed to couple actors’ IT applications and systems (technical architecture). We found that business actors tend to reduce network complexity by using intermediaries, which act as single points of access. For instance, in the I-mode Finder case we found that the portal provider (network operator) chose to reduce network complexity by using an intermediary actor to manage the relations with the different content providers. In the Zorgpas case we found that the high number of organizations (20), which needed to collaborate, resulted in an enormous pressure on network governance and efficiency losses. Finally, Mobipay’s transaction platform for mobile payment requires the acceptance and collaboration of all major financial institutions in Spain. Hence, Mobipay needs to deal with a considerable degree of network complexity. Moxmo, on the other hand, chose to bypass the financial institutions for its service offering. Hence reduce network complexity. There seems to be a trade off between the need to reduce complexity and the need to have access to critical resources and capabilities. The extracted critical design issues and related strategic interests are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2: critical design issues and related strategic interests (organization domain)
Critical design issue Description Strategic interests
Partner selection How are partners selected? Access to critical resources and capabilities
Network openness Who is allowed to join the value network?
Desired exclusiveness, control, and customer reach of service
Network governance How is the value network orchestrated? Who is the dominant actor?
Customer ownership and control over capabilities and resources
Network complexity How to manage increasing number of relations with actors in a value network?
Controllability of value network and access to resources and capabilities
6. CRITICAL DESIGN ISSUES IN THE TECHNOLOGY DOMAIN Critical design issues that originate from the technology domain are security, Quality of Service, system integration, accessibility and management of user profiles (see Table 5 in the appendix for an overview of the extracted critical design issues).
Security Trust of end-users and customers in a service offering is partly determined by the way security is implemented in the technical architecture. That is, the way in which access to a service is granted and how security of communication and (stored) information is realized. Often security requires a trade off between ease of use or privacy considerations and preventing abuse. For example in community and instant messaging cases access ranges from anonymous access (SABN), use of a username (nickname) and password (MSN Messenger), to full user identification (enterprise PIM service). With anonymous access
privacy is guaranteed but a user cannot be traced in case of abuse of the service. In the case of mobile entertainment services, authentication of users is simply based on the SIM card in their mobile phone. Security may be realized more easily in a closed environment. For example for enterprise PIM services, the company may deploy its own IM server shielded from the outside world by a firewall. Obviously the service cannot include contacts from outside the company, thereby limiting its use and value.
Quality of service In all cases the performance of the technical architecture in delivering the technical functionalities has a profound impact on the service offering and perceived value. A balance between the quality of the service and the incurred costs has to be maintained. A typical performance measure influencing the quality of service is the accuracy of the deployed positioning technology in tracking and tracing services. The choice for a more accurate positioning technology may lead to unacceptable costs or even be an intrusion on one’s privacy. For mobile entertainment services the data transmission rate determines download times and
therefore also acceptable page sizes (3-5kb per page for I-mode services).
Management of user profiles For personalization of a service, a user profile that contains user interests, preferences and behavior must be created and maintained. The management of this profile, i.e. creation, use, maintenance and access to the profile, requires technical functionality that may be realized in different ways by the technical architecture. Balancing is needed between user involvement and automatic profile generation, and between privacy and access to the users profile. For MSN Messenger the IM server keeps a profile for each user. A privacy statement is issued to users about the protection of the provided data. In the case of the Traphic SMS-alert service, the user controls his profile, containing times and routes of travel, via Internet. In the I-mode finder case, the necessary location information is automatically determined by the operator and anonymously transferred to the location based service provider.
System integration To what extent the new service can be integrated with the existing technical infrastructure partly determines the adoption of the service. The trade off with system integration is between flexibility and costs. The costs for building on legacy systems may be lower but provides for less flexibility than an open system based on open standards and interfaces. For
instance for mobile payment services the degree of integration with existing payment solutions is an important barrier for merchant adoption. In the Botfighter case the Geographic Information System was not integrated in the general platform but included in the specific Botfighter application, as no generally accepted standard for the GIS was available at the time of introduction of the service.
Accessibility The accessibility of the service for the target group is influenced by the choice for an open or a closed architecture. A closed architecture restricts service usage to a restricted target group. This may be intentional, for instance in enterprise IM services, access-to-the-back-office services or mobile entertainment services offered to the operator’s customer base. But also unintentionally, when a service requires specific resources (handset) or capabilities (cumbersome user interface) from the end-user. For instance, adoption of the P-Info service (a service for police officers) was hindered, as users required mobile devices that both could be used on the street as in patrol cars, officers had a strong preference for voice interfaces and access to critical databases were not realized. The extracted critical design issues and related design requirements are summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3: critical design issues and balancing requirements (technology domain)
Critical design issue Description Balancing of requirements
Security How to arrange secure access and communication?
Ease of use vs. abuse and privacy.
Quality of Service How to provide for the desired level of quality?
Quality vs. costs
System Integration How to integrate new services with existing systems?
Flexibility vs. costs
Accessibility How to realize technical accessibility to the service for the target group?
Open vs. closed system
Management of user profiles
How to manage and maintain user profiles?
User involvement vs. automatic generation
7. EXPLAINING NETWORK VALUE Based on the descriptive framework and case findings we have built a tentative causal framework (see Figure 3) explaining the expected network value and business model viability. The causal framework is based on the extracted critical design issues and the structure of the causal framework, is as follows. The critical design issues in the technology domain enable an acceptable quality of service delivery, customer reach and customer retention. These are positively correlated to the financial profitability of the service, which contributes to network value. This is inline with the elaborated framework showing that technical functionality links directly to costs, risks and revenues (via the service domain) in the financial domain. Critical design
issues in the technology domain are related mostly to profitability, requiring a balance between customer value and generated revenues on one side, and costs on the other side. The critical design issues in the organization domain enable an acceptable division of roles and a sustainable network strategy. These contribute directly to network value, as actors feel comfortable with their position in the value network. This is inline with the elaborated framework showing that organizational arrangements links directly to the division of value activities. Critical design issues in the organizational domain are related mostly to strategic network value, requiring a balance between the strategic interests of the different actors.
Viability of business model
Expected Network value
Critical design issues
Acceptable division of rolesPartner selection
determines
Sustainable network strategy
Network Governance
Network Complexity
Network Openness
influences
Critical success factors
Acceptable Profitability
User profile management
Accessibility for customers
Non obtrusive Customer retention
Customer reach co-determines
co-determines
(+)
Security
System Integration
Quality of service Acceptable quality of service delivery
is a requirement for
co-determines
enables (+)
contributes to
enables (+)
(+)
(+) Viability of business model
Expected Network value
Critical design issues
Acceptable division of rolesPartner selection
determines
Sustainable network strategy
Network Governance
Network Complexity
Network Openness
influences
Critical success factors
Acceptable Profitability
User profile management
Accessibility for customers
Non obtrusive Customer retention
Customer reach co-determines
co-determines
(+)
Security
System Integration
Quality of service Acceptable quality of service delivery
is a requirement for
co-determines
enables (+)
contributes to
enables (+)
(+)
(+)
Figure 3: Causal framework
8. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION In contrast with existing business models research, our approach is directed towards the design of viable and feasible business models, more specifically business models for mobile services that are developed by organizations that collaborate in complex value networks. Our research shows that there are critical interdependencies between service definition, technical architectures, organizational, and financial arrangements in the development of mobile (wireless) services. In this paper we focused on the interrelatedness of critical design issues in and between the organizational and the financial domain. Based on extensive case-studies we found four critical design issues in the organizational domain, i.e. partner selection in order to acquire critical resources and capabilities, network openness and complexity and network governance and five critical design issues in the technical domain, i.e. security, Quality of Service, system integration, accessibility and management of user profiles. Critical design issues require balancing of requirements in multiple domains and of strategic interests. Based on extensive case studies, analyses of the data and focus on design issues we developed a causal model that might explain viability and feasibility of mobile services. This paper and the results however have some limitations. In the first place we have to make clear that the material presented in this paper can impossibly reflect all the data, analysis and steps in the analysis made. We only presented the main research steps, and the most general insights and result. Furthermore we had to
focus on one of the aspects of value creation, in this case value creation from the organizational network and technical point of view. Similar analyses have been done with the focus on the value creation for customers and end-users. Furthermore we did not analyze and discuss the business models and business cases of the individual organizations that participate in the complex value system developing a service offering. We only addressed critical design issues in the organizational and technical domain on the level of the over-all business model of the complex value network that delivers value to customers and the network itself. The validity of our results strongly depends on the sampling of our cases, which we used as a starting point. Seen the fact that selected cases are quite heterogeneous in nature, targeted customers, technology focus and innovativeness, we may expect that our results are not biased due to case selection. Although we focused our case studies on mobile services we observed that many of the extracted critical design issues seem to be more generic in nature. Future research has to prove to what extent this is the case. Validation of our design methodology is underway. The step from critical design issues to the causal framework is open for discussion. The causal framework as presented needs further cross-sectional testing to validate our results. This validation can be done by experts’ surveys and by analysis of a large number of cases. Both directions will be pursued. The value of our case studies and the causal framework for managers and business developers in the mobile domain lies in its practical nature. The model helps practitioners to select critical
design issues and to balance the design choices to be made. The trade offs between different choices can be identified and analyzed. Based on the critical design issues and the causal framework we have developed a design methodology (Freeband Business Blueprint Method) that supports managers and business developers in the mobile domain to develop viable and feasible business models [12].
9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research project here has been conducted within the government funded BITA and B4U projects (www.freeband.nl/projecten/B4U). We would like to thank all members of the BITA and B4U projects for their valuable contributions to the case study research.
10. REFERENCES [1] Afuah, A. & C. Tucci (2001). Internet Business Models and
Strategies. Boston: McGraw-Hill, Irwin. [2] Bleeke, J. and D. Ernst (Eds), 1993, Collaborating to
Compete: Using Strategic Alliances and Acquisitions in the Global Market Place, New York: John Wiley
[3] Bouwman, H. & E. Faber (2003). B4U Case Study Protocol. Enschede Telematica Instituut, https://doc.telin.nl/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File- 29482/D3.1_case_study_protocol_B4U.pdf
[4] Bouwman, H. & E. van den Ham (2003a). Business models and eMetrics, a state of the art. In: B. Preissl, H. Bouwman & C. Steinfield (eds). Elife after the Dot.com bust. Berlin; Springer Verlag.
[5] Bouwman, H. & E. van den Ham (2003b). Exploring value networks enabling the delivery of back office content to mobile workers. ITI'03 Europrix Conference. Tampere, November, 13-14, 2003 (www.mindtrek.fi).
[6] Carlson, R. (1996). The Information Super Highway. Strategic Alliances in Telecommunications and Multimedia. New York: St Martin Press.
[7] Chesbrough, H. & R.S. Rosenbloom, 2002, The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spinoff companies, derived from http://www.hbs.edu/research/facpubs/workingpapers/papers2 /0001/01-002.pdf
[8] Faber, E. & H. Bouwman (2003). Designing business models for mobile sevices. Exploring the connections between customer value and value networks. 3rd International Conference on Electronic Business, Business Paradigms: Strategic Transformation and Partnerships. ICEB 2003, Singapore December 10-12.
[9] Faber, E., P. Ballon, H. Bouwman, T. Haaker, O. Rietkerk & M. Steen (2003a) Designing business models for mobile ICT services. Paper presented to Workshop on concepts, metrics & visualization, at the 16th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference eTransformation, Bled, Slovenia, June 9 -11, 2003
[10] Faber, E., T. Haaker, H. Bouwman & O. Rietkerk (2003b) Business models fore personalised real-time traffic information in cars: which route to take. Paper presented to the First International E-services Workshop, ICEC 03,
Pittsburgh, USA, September 30, 2003. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~gordijn/final-proceedings.pdf
[11] Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 203-216.
[12] Haaker, T., K. Oerlemans, M.Steen & H. de Vos, 2004, Freeband Business Blauwdruk Methode, Handleiding voor succesvol samenwerken bij het ontwikkelen en exploiteren van innovatieve (mobiele) ICT diensten [in Dutch], Telematica Instituut: TI/RS/2003/105.
[13] Harrigan, K.R., (1988). Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries, in: F.J. Contractor and P. Lorange (editors), Cooperative strategies in international business, MA Lexington books, Lexington
[14] Hawkins, R. (2003). Looking beyond the .com bubble: exploring the form and function of business models in the electronic marketplace. In: B. Preissl, H. Bouwman & C. Steinfield (eds). Elife after the Dot.com bust. Berlin; Springer Verlag.
[15] Hedman, J. & T. Kalling (2003). The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illutsrations. European Journal of Information Systems 12, 49-59
[16] Kaplinksy, R., M. Morris, (2001). A handbook for value chain research. (http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/pdfs/VchNov01.pdf)
[17] Kar, E. van de, C. Maitland, U. Wehn de Montalvo, & H. Bouwman, 2003, Design guidelines for Mobile Information and Entertainment Services; Based on the Finder I-mode service, internal case study report.
[18] Kijl, B. & W. Timmerman, 2003, Presence and Instant messaging: cross case analysis, Internal deliverable B4U project, Telematica Instituut: TI/RS/2003/108
[19] Klein-Woolthuis, R., 1999, Sleeping with the enemy, Trust and Dependence in Inter Organisational relationships, doctoral thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
[20] Kothandaraman, P. & D. Wilson (2001). The Future of Competition. Value Creating Networks. Industrial Marketing Management. Vol 30, pp. 379-389.
[21] Li, F. & J. Whalley (2002). Deconstruction of the Telecommunication Industry: from Value Chains to Value Networks. Telecommunications Policy (26). 451-472.
[22] Maitland, C., E. van de Kar, U. De When Montalvo, H. Bouwman (2003). Mobile Information and Entertainment Services: Business Models and Service Networks (pp. 69- 86). In: G.M. Giaglis, H, Werthner, V. Tschammer & K.A. Froeschl (eds) 2nd International Conference on Mobile Business. June 23/24 Vienna: Osterreichische Computer Gesellschaft.
[23] Moschella, D. (2003). Customer Driven IT. How Users are Shaping Technology Industry Growth. Boston: HBS Press
[24] Osterwalder, A. & Y. Pigneur (2002). An e-business Model Ontology for Modelling e-business. In: Loebbecke, C., R. Wigand, J. Gricar, A. Puchicar & G. Lenart (Eds.). Ereality: constructing the eEconomy. Proceedings 15th Beld
Electronic Commerce Conference. Bled Slovenai June 17- 19, 2002.
[25] Popescu-Zeletin, R., S. Abranowski, I. Fikouras, G. Gasbaronne, M. Gebler, S. Henning, H. Van Kranenenburg, H. Postschy, E. Postmann & K. Raatikainen (2003). Service architecture for the Wireles World. Computer Communications. (26) 19-25.
[26] Rietkerk, O, & W. Timmerman (eds), 2003, Communities of interest: cross case analysis, Internal deliverable B4U project, Telematica Instituut: TI/RS/2003/110
[27] Seddon, P. & G. Lewis (2003). Strategy and Business Models: What's the difference. 7th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems Adelaide, 10-13 July 2003.
[28] Selz, D. (1999). Value Webs. Emerging forms of fluid and flexible organizations.
[29] Tapscott, D., Ticoll, D. & Lowy, A. (2000). Digital Capital: Harnessing the Power of Business Webs. Boston (Ma): Harvard Business School.
[30] Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for E-commerce. Electronic Markets, 8 (2) 3-7. (www.electronicmarkets.org)
[31] Weill, P. & M.R. Vitale (2001). Place to Space. Migrating to e-business Models. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
11. APPENDIX
Table 4: Extracted critical design issues organization domain
Case themes Partner selection Network Openness Network Governance Network Complexity Entertainment services
No exclusive relationships portal and content providers
Walled garden model
Dominant actor (portal provider)
Degree of content intermediation
Tracking & tracing services
Inclusion of government?
Closed vs. open model for content provisioning
Dominant actor Degree of content intermediation
Community services
Select on network vs. billing requirements
Walled garden: access of new service providers is regulated
Dominant actor (central point for information on disorders)
Coupling of administrative systems of health care institutes
Presence & Instant messaging services
Inclusion vs. bypassing dominant sector actor
Open vs. closed network
Dominant actor Not an issue
Access to the back office services
Inclusion vs. bypassing dominant sector actor
Not an issue Dominant actor Network development
Not an issue
Payment services
Access to payment and billing infrastructure
Open model: retailers as distributors of payment products
Dominant actor Not an issue
Table 5: Extracted critical design issues technology domain
Case themes Security Quality of service Management of user profiles
System Integration
Accessibility
Entertainment services
Authentication and authorization
Functionality of hand-set Network performance and download times
User control over user profile and how this is used or accessed
Open or closed environment with respect to content provisioning
Access limited to operators customer base
Tracking & tracing services
Privacy concerns for tracking/push services
Positioning accuracy Accuracy and speed of information delivery
User control over user profile and how this is used or accessed
Open or closed environment with respect to content provisioning Integration of positioning technology
Service requires specific hand-set or uses specific protocols
Community services
Authentication and authorization of users
Always on connection Synchronous communication
User profile allows for personalization of service
Build on legacy systems or new system
Availability of PC or mobile device for access
Presence & Instant messaging services
Open or closed technological environment?
Not an issue Not an issue Interoperable with other messaging services?
Closed environment with firewall or open environment (Internet)?
Access to the back office services
Security of connections, devices and applications
Available bandwidth Connection time
Not an issue Connecting with existing back-office systems
User interfaces that fit with users
Payment services
Authentication and authorization
Speed of transactions
Not an issue Integration with existing payment solutions
User interfaces that fit with users
- page608: 609
- c0: Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. ICEC'04, Sixth International Conference on Electronic Commerce Edited by: Marijn Janssen, Henk G. Sol, and René W. Wagenaar Copyright 2004 ACM 1-58113-930-6/04/10…$5.00
- page609: 610
- page610: 611
- page611: 612
- page612: 613
- page613: 614
- page614: 615
- page615: 616
- page616: 617
- page617: 618
