Review of Managerial Science (2021) 15:1–14

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00366-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Knowledge‑ and innovation‑based business models

for future growth: digitalized business models
and portfolio considerations

Ricarda B. Bouncken1 · Sascha Kraus2 · Norat Roig‑Tierno3

Received: 23 October 2019 / Accepted: 28 October 2019 / Published online: 20 November 2019
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Today’s key challenge for firm growth relies in the integration of digital technol‑
ogies and their use in new business models. Thus, firms increasingly engage in a
digital transformation and in digitalizing their business model. Firms can apply digi‑
tal technologies for improved or novel internal and external processes and integrate
them in new business models. The digital transformation itself demands diverse
knowledge from diverse origins in the firm. We examine the key concepts related
to business model digitalization. We develop a conceptual matrix for portfolio con‑
siderations of firm business model digitalization. We introduce the seven contribu‑
tions in this special issue on knowledge and innovation related to business and offer
some recommendations for future research on the new working conditions and digi‑
tal identities of firms.

Keywords Digitalization · Digital transformation · Digital business models · Digital

innovation · Digital platform · Digital orientation · Digital work

Mathematics Subject Classification 91C99

1 Introduction

Current products, services, procedures, operations, and technology rely increasingly

on digital technologies and their configuration (Yoo et al. 2012; Richter et al. 2015a;
Zammuto et al. 2007). Recent digital technology advancements are requiring firms
to develop, and implement a wide range of digital activities in both their national

* Ricarda B. Bouncken
bouncken@uni‑bayreuth.de
1
University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
2
Durham University, Durham, UK
3
ESIC Business & Marketing School, Barcelona, Spain

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2 R. B. Bouncken et al.

and global business models (Kraus et al. 2019b; Tallman et al. 2018). Digital trans‑
formation, or short digitalization, describes the increasing implementation of digital
technologies and the transformation of conventional processes into digital ones in
organizations (Kohli and Melville 2019; Lanzolla et al. 2018).
Digital technologies can take various forms including platforms (Clauss et al.
2018a), big data and artificial intelligence (O’Leary 2013), 3D printing (Bouncken
et al. 2019b), block-chain (Morkunas et al. 2019), and practices tightly related to
technology use, for example crowdfunding (Bouncken et al. 2014; Medina-Molina
et al. 2019). The digitalization and its business models strongly build firm’s growth
(Laamanen et al. 2018; Teece and Linden 2017). Today, especially the highly grow‑
ing firms show a high attention to digitalization, taking opportunities in technology,
processes, and markets (Probst et al. 2018). On the opposite, firms which are slow
and diffident in digitalization will endanger in their growth, even their existence in
the long term (Kraus et al. 2019a).
Digital technologies form the basis for digitalization, but firm performance and
growth stems from their configuration of activities for value creation, value proposi‑
tion, and value capture—thus from the firm’s business model(s) (v. Alberti-Alhtay‑
bat et al. 2019; Sohl et al. 2018). The business model explains the “…logic of the
firm, the way it operates…” (Demil et al. 2015, p. 3), and “… the design or architec‑
ture of the value creation, delivery, and capture mechanisms” (Teece 2010, p. 172)
of the firm. Business models encompass both internal and external relationships
such as alliances (Bouncken and Fredrich 2016).
Firms need to consider appropriate and possibly new business models in the digi‑
talization, but research is just starting to acknowledge business models related to
digitalization (Tallman et al. 2018; Massa et al. 2017) although the original business
model was inspired by e-business (Amit and Zott 2001). For example, firms in the
sharing economy rely on digital technologies and digital business models to provide
new material-based solutions via digital platforms (Cennamo 2019; Hamari et al.
2016; Richter et al. 2015b). In addition, information technologies affect the adoption
of environmental practices (see Muñoz-Pascual et al. (2019) in this issue).
Firms can apply digital technologies for improved or new processes internally
and with their supply chains and their environment and use them for developing
their business models. In this special issue, Devece et al. (2019) examine crowd‑
funding, Muhic and Bengtsson (2019) discuss cloud computing, and Miranda et al.
(2019) investigate consumers’ perceptions regarding the credibility of YouTuber-
generated product content (YGPC). With respect to digital technologies, the internal
and external sources might build the basis for value creation and value propositions,
but the value capture among sources is often endangered by serious tensions among
partners (Fredrich et al. 2019).
Digital technologies and especially their advancements facilitate complex tasks
which demand high levels of knowledge that can be dispersed in different functional
units or in external firms (Nambisan et al. 2017). Value creation, value proposition,
and value capture to enable growth and digital transformation requires the firm to
create knowledge and to exchange knowledge with other firms. Digital transforma‑
tion and firm growth depends on knowledge work and collaboration. Digital trans‑
formation is requiring a move away from traditional working forms especially silo

13
Knowledge- and innovation-based business models for future… 3

working. It is requiring new organizational forms (e.g. agile teams—see Brand

et al. (2019) on agile front end of innovation—AFEI), and open workspaces to
allow novel ways of working together. Exchange and collaboration are crucial for
firm performance and firm digitalization. However these conditions might differ
between large firms and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) (see the paper
by Muñoz-Pascual et al. 2019 in this special issue. Innovation is at the heart of digi‑
talization and business model. Digitalized business models concerning digitalization
and innovation are in a duality relationship. The digital business models demand
technological and organizational innovations and at the same time breeds technol‑
ogy and organizational innovations.
Since 2010, research on innovation and knowledge in diverse fields has bur‑
geoned (Bouncken and Aslam 2019; Grewal et al. 2018; Grigoriou and Rothaermel
2017; Roy and Sarkar 2016) and includes work focused on business models (Clauss
et al. 2018b; Foss and Saebi 2017; Laamanen et al. 2018). Yet, only scant research
is located at the interface of digitalization, business models, and their relationship
to innovation and knowledge. To make changes to the business model (Sosna et al.
2010) requires both knowledge and a change to managers’ thinking. There is a gap
in our knowledge about innovation related to business model digitalization.
This is the focus of this special issue. Our aim is to provide a better understand‑
ing of the knowledge-based and innovation-based business models underlying firm
growth based on theoretical and empirical research. The papers included in this spe‑
cial issue explore the linkage between knowledge generation and business model
innovation and/or examine the effects on firm performance of an innovative busi‑
ness model. All of the included papers have either a digital technology or an organi‑
zational focus. Following a conceptual overview and a summary of the theory on
digital business portfolios, we contextualize those papers and develop some further
ideas on claims for theory development finally.

2 Background

The business model concept was inspired by managerial practice (Demil et al. 2015;
Amit and Zott 2015) related to e-business (Amit and Zott 2001). The notion of busi‑
ness model became the basis for analyses of firm activities and business model con‑
figuration (Morris et al. 2005; Pinazo-Dallenbach et al. 2016; Zott and Amit 2010).
Business models refer to a structural template of how firms run and develop their
business on holistic and system-level (Amit and Zott 2001; Clauss et al. 2019b).
Three main domains explain a firm’s business model (Baden-Fuller and Mangema‑
tin 2013) value proposition, value creation, and value capture (Clauss et al. 2019a;
Massa et al. 2017; Zott and Amit 2010). Value proposition explains which solutions
firms offer to whom and how (Morris et al. 2005). Value creation refers to how the
firm creates value along the value chain based on available resources and organi‑
zational processes (Achtenhagen et al. 2013). Value capture refers to how the firm
captures value in the form of revenue to cover costs, allow sustainable performance,
and provide profit.

13
4 R. B. Bouncken et al.

Changing ecosystem conditions such as a focus on sustainable use of resources

can induce the firm to adjust its business model (McGrath 2010). Thus, the business
model provides a linkage between the strategy and the operational level as the “…
reflection of a firm’s realized strategy” (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2010: 195).
Business models are not static; they are dynamic (Demil et al. 2015; Morris et al.
2005) and demand a level of entrepreneurship from the firm and its external counter‑
parts (Kraus et al. 2016; Richter et al. 2017). Innovations in technologies, processes,
and organizational patterns might inspire or underlie new and developed business
models. Very influential or holistic changes refer to business model innovation.
Business model innovation puts the business model as the subject of the innovation
(Clauss et al. 2019b). Business model research (Baden-Fuller and Haefliger 2013;
Baden-Fuller and Mangematin 2013; Kraus et al. 2019b) suggests that business
models can include innovative components, but business models innovation consid‑
ers a change of all domains. The change of only one component or a single domain
e.g. value capture does not permit to apply the concept of business model innovation
(Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2010). Business model innovation covers the inno‑
vation of a system of products, services, technology, and/or innovation flows. Often
these innovations move beyond the focal firm boundaries to the proposal, creation,
and capture of value, forming collaborative structures of revenues (Bouncken et al.
2019a, Hora et al. 2018). Instead, business model reconfiguration explains partial,
incremental or radical changes in the business model (Clauss et al. 2019b).
Typically, incumbent firms have greater problems with innovating the business
model because the actual business model and the value chain elements exist in par‑
allel to the novel model (Markides 2013). Similarly, older and big incumbent firms
have problems in the digital transformation. Firms need an entrepreneurial behav‑
ior of their managers on different levels and units of the firm (Hughes et al. 2018).
An incumbent’s old model might lack components necessary for innovative business
models. Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu (2013) model that adopting components or
models of young firms might help incumbents in their business model innovation.
Digitalization and innovative business models face problems related to cognitive
inertia which makes identification and implementation of novel solutions more dif‑
ficult (Berends et al. 2016). Changes to the business model are triggered by knowl‑
edge exchanges and identification of differences among knowledge stocks (Martins
et al. 2015). The creation of knowledge especially joint creation associated to sense-
making (Ribeiro-Soriano and Kraus 2018) potentially can trigger changes to firms’
business model configurations (Pesch and Bouncken 2018). Knowledge transfer can
help to break trajectories that limit the identification and implementation of digital
technologies and business model innovation (Berends et al. 2016).
Business model innovation, particularly of incumbent firms might build upon
new or newly configured components only inside the firm but also using components
from the outside, of alliance partners besides their risks (Bouncken et al. 2018a).
Even though business models are often understood as crossing firms’ boundaries,
there are only a few empirical studies as case studies (Ritala et al. 2014; Franken‑
berger et al. 2013). Studies stress that innovation and knowledge shape the basis of
business model development (Osiyevskyy and Dewald 2015; Andries et al. 2013),
yet results how this applies to firm growth and to digitalization are largely missing.

13
Knowledge- and innovation-based business models for future… 5

Knowledge and growth particularly relate to business models that strongly use digi‑
tal technologies for value creation, value proposition, and value capture. A few case
studies have considered business models and their development by digital technol‑
ogy implementation, especially by focusing on sharing economy and platform busi‑
ness models (Hamari et al. 2016; Morkunas et al. 2019). Yet, concepts and more
strategic considerations of business models on digital technologies are missing or
fuzzy.

3 Digitalized business model and digital business model portfolio

Firms need to develop, change, and exchange technical knowledge related to digi‑
talization and adaptations to and generation of new business models. Digital tech‑
nologies are complex and require knowledge that often is dispersed within the
organization. To achieve improved performance and growth based on the digitali‑
zation, firms need to combine knowledge on digital technologies and digital trans‑
formation with knowledge about organizing new or additional business. Collabora‑
tion and exchanges among different experts and units are required for growth and
performance.

3.1 Understanding digitalized business models

Business models might be largely digital as for digital platform firms where most
value creation, proposition and capture operates via digital processes and tech‑
nologies. Other business models, e.g. of incumbent firms might be traditional but
increasingly become more digital. In digitalizing their business models firms’ busi‑
ness models become more digital but still will need manager’s processes. Today,
any firm will still demand human processes in their business models. The term digi‑
tal business overstates the digital technology. In marking the digitalization of the
business and its increasing importance, we use the term digitalized business model.
The term digitalized business model defines the business models in which digital
technologies have a significant impact on all dimensions, the value creation, value
capture, and value proposition. Digitalized business model might use very novel or
less novel digital technology, but the necessary condition is that all dimensions use
digital technologies, not only certain activities of the firm. We are well aware that
the term significant is fuzzy. Yet, the diverse digital technology and the magnitude
of diverse uses make considerations about certain degrees unrealistic.

3.2 Digitalizing business models

Firms might start with digitalizing their business model by certain technologies,
changing their activities, and using digitalizing for value creation, capture, or propo‑
sition. Over time, firms very likely will implement ongoing changes that will alter
the digitalization of the business model, possibly leading to digitalized for value
creation, capture, and value proposition, thus for a digitalized business model. Thus,

13
6 R. B. Bouncken et al.

digitalizing the business model describes organizations ongoing efforts in digital

transformation towards more digital technologies, digitalized activities, and value
creation, capture, and proposition. For digitalizing their business model, firms will
have some of the knowledge already in the firm but other knowledge needs to be
developed internally or in external collaborations. The creation of knowledge needs
resources, effort, and attention from diverse organizational members.

3.3 Attention and portfolio considerations for digitalized business models

Especially the development of a digitalized business model needs attention by

managers. Attention is a limited resource (Haas et al. 2015). Some issues, tasks,
or domains attract greater levels of attention or priority than others (Cho and Ham‑
brick 2006; Tuggle et al. 2010). Attention has a strong impact on resource allocation
related to problems, problem-solving, and the speed and effectiveness of managers
decisions (Sullivan 2010). Different problems compete for attention and so do digi‑
talized business modes.
Considering the demands of knowledge, resources, and attention, firms have to
decide the portfolio of their business models concerning the digitalization. Firms
might have one business model or several ones. When digitalizing, firms might
aim to change their existing business model(s) or to try out new digitalized busi‑
ness models. The change of a business model and the development of a new digital
business model takes effort and attention of managers. A change of existing busi‑
ness models might put the firm’s actual business model at risk and firms might be
hesitant in the change and thus leave too many activities unchanged. The change of
the value creation, proposition, and value capture might not be radical enough. The
future development and change might be too restricted. Hence, when changing their
established business model into a more digitalized form, firm encounter the strategic
tension about endangering the running business model and failing in meeting future
opportunities in digitalized business models. Alternatively, firms might pursue a
digitalized business model besides their traditional model. Changes and adaptations
towards digitalization might occur constantly in the new business model. Although
the new digitalized business model could be spatially and/or strategically (e.g. by
corporate venturing) separated from the traditional business model, it might influ‑
ence the traditional one. Resources, effort, and attention might shift towards the new
one and strip the old one of key resources and attention. At the same time, the new
digitalized business model might not get sufficient information, because managers
lack expertise in the new technology and market and pay more attention to the tradi‑
tional business. Rigidities of the traditional model might stretch to the digital mode.
As attention influences resource allocation to problems (Sullivan 2010) manager
might be too slow and less proficient in their decisions for the new, alternative busi‑
ness model. Thus, the new business might not receive sufficient support.
Figure 1 depicts the positioning of the business model based on level of digi‑
talization and firm focus on its business models. The first dimension of this matrix
considers the level of focus on one or several business models. The second dimen‑
sion of the matrix refers to the degree of digitalization. However, the degree of

13
Knowledge- and innovation-based business models for future… 7

Fig. 1  Approaches to firm business model digitalization

digitalization is not digital. Thus, the classification of low and high is rather rough
and requires the development of measures. The matrix shows that firms can choose
among different options. They need to choose which digital technologies to imple‑
ment and develop. The digital technologies chosen will affect the firm’s value crea‑
tion, value proposition, and value capture.

3.4 Implementation hints

When firms consider their digitalization of business models from a strategic port‑
folio approach the have to manage the strategy implementation. Business model
development demands ongoing changes, adaptations, experimentation and as such
continuous attention of managers (Ocasio et al. 2018). Firms might purposely man‑
age the attention for traditional and for digitalized business models by establishing
plans, meetings, and integration templates. Yu et al. (2005) has shown that the suc‑
cess of Mergers& Acquisitions can improve, when attention is strategically man‑
aged by plans, processes, and system integration templates. Following these presets
help to secure the attention on the post-merger integration process. Attention relates
to deliberate and emergent behaviors in the process (Yu et al. 2005), so attention
can shift and depart from prior plans. Thus, using plans, processes, and system inte‑
gration does not guarantee attention. Still, templates firms guide the attention on
changes towards digitalized business model in the course of their implementation.
The attention based view has shown that personal interactions support attention
of managers (Ocasio et al. 2018). We argue that decisions about technology invest‑
ments and the related practices (e.g. crowdsourcing) demand interactions and col‑
laboration among experts in different fields and firm units—and at different levels in
the organization. Top-down and bottom-up interaction and collaboration will facili‑
tate development of implementation of digital technology in the business model. We
argue that an agile structure (see Brand et al. 2019) in this special issue) and new
collaborative forms of working will increase exchanges of knowledge among indi‑
viduals at different levels and from different units in the firm. Coworking should

13
8 R. B. Bouncken et al.

involve new contemporary work- and social spaces to stimulate exchanges among
firm members (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018). The pure spatial and interior design
of coworking-spaces attracts attention of managers. Coworking-spaces stimulate
knowledge transfers among experts from different levels (Bouncken et al. 2018b).
Thus, new agile forms of work as in coworking-spaces will help to create and imple‑
ment digitalized business models and other options that facilitate growth of firms.

4 Overview of the research in this special issue

This special issue was triggered by the 2019 ACIEK (formerly GIKA) conference
on “Knowledge, business, and innovation—Economies and sustainability of future
growth”, held at the University of Verona (Italy) on June 11–13, 2019. The topic
of this special issue—Knowledge- and innovation-based business models for future
growth—had its own track at the conference, which served as a first-round review of
some of the submissions to the journal. The special issue was also open for external
submissions. As a result, this special issue includes seven contributions on the digi‑
talization of entrepreneurship, encompassing important topics like crowdsourcing,
cloud computing, and Youtube-generated content as well as on organizational solu‑
tions for the change that comes with digital business models and innovation on the
other side.
The conference accepted 27 papers for this track. It was possible to submit either
an extended abstract or a full paper. Submission was possible either via the confer‑
ence, or independently submitted directly to the journal. For those papers submit‑
ted via the conference, the two reviews for the conference track served as a first
round review. 27 full papers were then submitted in the next round via the Review of
Managerial Science online submission system. Regardless of how the papers were
submitted, all entries for this special issue had to go through an additional review
process following the conference. This process required approval from at least two
anonymous reviewers in order to be selected for publication in the journal. Twelve
articles made it into a second, and seven to a third (thereof again two to an addi‑
tional fourth) round of revisions, before being finally accepted for publication in this
special issue.
The first papers in this special issue focus on digital technologies and how they
are embedded in the organizational structure and the management of firms. The
other papers focus on organizational solutions for the change that comes with digital
business models and innovation. Firms are already paying high attention to digital
technologies related to crowdsourcing, cloud computing, and Youtube while consid‑
ering how to make best use of them.
Devece et al. (2019) consider crowdsourcing as an information technology (IT)-
based decision tool which supports firms pursuit of market information and mar‑
ket-oriented predictions. Their findings are based on a survey of 221 firms in the
Spanish telecommunications and biotechnology sectors. Their study uses the Smart-
PLS package PLS-SEM. It shows that crowdsourcing is dependent on transforma‑
tional management of the firm’s marketing strategy. The underlying logic is that

13
Knowledge- and innovation-based business models for future… 9

crowdsourcing is used to motivate consumers’ and experts’ participation on technol‑

ogy platforms.
Muhic and Bengtsson (2019) examine cloud computing business models from
a process perspective, in relation to adoption and use of the cloud. They ana‑
lyze the capabilities required to exploit cloud computing for business model inno‑
vation. Their case-based study finds that the underlying technology is complex
and can hinder business development in the initial stages. In the later business
development stages, shortage of dynamic capabilities combining knowledge
in IT and business is the main problem. Firms need competencies through re-
aligning structures and internal culture together with a strong sustained innova‑
tion dialogue with the cloud providing partners. Cloud computing is a matter of
the IT-function. This function lead and govern relationships with cloud provid‑
ers. Relationships demand routines for handling technical issues and in addition,
managing internal key elements in the business model; i.e., internal process and
organizational innovations. A competent top management of the IT-function will
be able to orchestrate cloud source providers towards a sustained business model
innovation.
Miranda et al. (2019) analyze consumers’ perceptions about the credibility and
utility of YGPC. YouTube provides a video web platform which allows huge num‑
bers of visits. The content creators, the YouTubers, can build forge bonds with their
audiences by sharing intimate experiences and conversations on personal and sensi‑
tive topics. The higher the number of views and likes the greater the perception of
the credibility of these videos. The authors examine the impact of these perceptions
on attitudes to YGPC related to purchase decisions. Their results are based on the
responses to an online survey of 315 YouTuber followers estimated by employing
a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The model shows a complex web
of antecedents and outcomes and the findings provide insights into the credibility of
YouTuber-generated content and information on product purchase decisions.
Muñoz-Pascual et al. (2019) examine whether and how IT affect adoption of
environmental practices by SMEs. They shed light on how SMEs can use IT to sup‑
port adoption of environmental practices. Their multi-method study uses qualitative
and survey data. The survey data are from an online survey of a sample of 349 Por‑
tuguese SMEs. The data were analyzed by fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis
(fsQCA) and the hypotheses were tested employing SEM. The Results show that
information technology is key to the adoption of new environmental practices and is
more important than human resources.
Pierscieniak and Krawczyk-Sokolowska (2019) provide a literature review and
case study of the drivers of innovation in Poland. They differentiate between micro
and macro criteria. They show that in a digitalizing world firm innovativeness
depends on open, multi-directional, fast, and efficient IT based communication sys‑
tems to exploit firms’ innovation potential.
Castellani et al. (2019) examine the accumulation of knowledge. Their findings
are based on a study of Italian engineering consultancy firms whose organizational
knowledge depends on their ability to exploit experience and expertise learned from
past projects. Their case study shows that the sharing of abstract knowledge occurs
on a practical level. Firms’ knowledge sharing and knowledge accumulation are

13
10 R. B. Bouncken et al.

facilitated by flexible teamwork structures and a culture that supports knowledge

exchange.
Brand et al. (2019) develop a new Agile Front End of Innovation (AFEI) frame‑
work, which can firms reaping advantages of innovation through agility on develop‑
ing the front end of innovation. Their overview of the literature identifies seven agility
enablers which influence the innovation front end: employees, leadership style, culture,
organizational system, corporate strategy, technologies, and customer integration. They
interviewed an R&D manager on the basis of which they propose an agility enabler
attributes matrix as the basis for an agile front-end innovation framework. They show
that employees, customers, and state-of-the-art digital technology are crucial for suc‑
cessful front end of innovation.

5 Directions for future research

Digitalization and digitalized business models call for new management approaches.
In the context of creating a new business model, Berends et al. (2016) employ ana‑
logic reasoning and conceptual combination. Analogic reasoning refers to the “appli‑
cation of structured knowledge from a familiar domain to a novel domain” (Berends
et al. 2016, p. 106). Both can explain the generative cognition mechanisms in business
model innovation. Analogies can be used to describe novel or complex experiences and
guide the transfer of or changes to design logics when redesigning or innovating the
business model. Firms might apply analogic reasoning and conceptual combination to
develop ideas and concepts for digital transformation and for digital business models in
particular. Additionally, new work forms might help to create ideas for digital transfor‑
mation and for digital business models. Agile work forms, inspired by IT-development,
might help to run cross-sectional projects quickly (Ghezzi and Cavallo 2018). Firms
could configure as a new organizational vehicle coworking spaces to allow individuals
to discuss digital solutions and digital business models in collaborative and stimulating
creative spaces (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018; Colbert et al. 2016). In addition, the con‑
figuration of the top management team could facilitate decision-making and collabora‑
tion (Garcia De Lomana et al. 2019). Digitalization refers also to consideration of what
is appropriate and legitimate for a particular industry, field, or category. Digitalization
might require changes to institutional logics and processes (Soublière and Joel 2019;
Suddaby et al. 2017). Future research could examine legitimization processes and why
and how firms change and their category homes. Digital technologies could trigger
strong attachments (see e.g. the digital natives concept, Wang et al. 2013) or antipathy
and anger. Future research could investigate organizational members’ socio-emotional
processes related to digitalization that lead to in-group and out-group categorization
processes and identification processes (Humberd and Rouse 2016) as suggested by the
concept of digital identity (Bouncken and Barwinski 2020).

13
Knowledge- and innovation-based business models for future… 11

References
Achtenhagen L, Melin L, Naldi L (2013) Dynamics of business models—strategizing, critical capabilities
and activities for sustained value creation. Long Range Plan 46:427–442. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lrp.2013.04.002
Amit R, Zott C (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strateg Manag J 22:493–520
Amit R, Zott C (2015) Crafting business architecture: the antecedents of business model design. Strateg
Entrep J 4:331–350
Andries P, Debackere K, van Looy B (2013) simultaneous experimentation as a learning strategy: busi‑
ness model development under uncertainty. Strateg Entrep J 7:288–310. https​://doi.org/10.1002/
sej.1170
Baden-Fuller C, Haefliger S (2013) Business models and technological innovation. Long Range Plan
46:419–426. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.023
Baden-Fuller C, Mangematin V (2013) Business models: a challenging agenda. Strateg Organ
11:418–427
Berends H, Smits A, Reymen I, Podoynitsyna K (2016) Learning while (re) configuring: business model
innovation processes in established firms. Strateg Organ. https​://doi.org/10.1177/14761​27016​63275​8
Bouncken RB, Aslam MM (2019) Understanding knowledge exchange processes among diverse users of
Coworking-spaces. J Knowl Manag. https​://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2018-0316
Bouncken R, Barwinski R (2020) Shared Digital Identity and Rich Knowledge Ties in Global 3D Print‑
ing – A Drizzle in the Clouds? Glob Strategy J (forthcoming)
Bouncken RB, Fredrich V (2016) Business model innovation in alliances: successful configurations. J
Bus Res 69:3584–3590. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2016.01.004
Bouncken RB, Reuschl AJ (2018) Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds
a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Rev Manag Sci 12:317–334. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1184​6-016-0215-y
Bouncken RB, Komorek M, Kraus S (2014) Crowdfunding: the current state of research. Int Bus Econ
Res J 14:407–414
Bouncken RB, Fredrich V, Ritala P, Kraus S (2018a) Coopetition in new product development alliances:
advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation. Br J Manag 29:391–410. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8551.12213​
Bouncken RB, Laudien SM, Fredrich V, Görmar L (2018b) Coopetition in coworking-spaces: value crea‑
tion and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space. Rev Manag Sci 12:385–410. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1184​6-017-0267-7
Bouncken RB, Fredrich V, Kraus S (2019a) Configurations of firm-level value capture in coopetition.
Long Range Plan. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.02.002
Bouncken RB, Klement S, Pesch R (2019b) Additive manufacturing alliances—Dienstleistungskoopera‑
tionen in der 3D-Druck Branche. Springer, Wiesbaden
Brand M, Tiberius V, Bican PM, Brem A (2019) Agility as an innovation driver: towards an agile front
end of innovation framework. Rev Manag Sci
Casadesus-Masanell R, Ricart JE (2010) From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range
Plan 43:195–215. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.01.004
Casadesus-Masanell R, Zhu F (2013) Business model innovation and competitive imitation: the case of
sponsor-based business models. Strateg Manag J 34:464–482. https​://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2022
Castellani P, Rossato C, Giaretta E, Davide R (2019) Tacit knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive
firms: the perception of team members and team leaders. Rev Manag Sci
Cennamo C (2019) Competing in digital markets: a platform-based perspective. Acad Manag Perspect.
https​://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0048
Cho TS, Hambrick DC (2006) Attention as the mediator between top management team character‑
istics and strategic change: the case of airline deregulation. Organ Sci 17:453–469. https​://doi.
org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0192
Clauss T, Harengel P, Hock M (2018a) The perception of value of platform-based business models in the
sharing economy: determining the drivers of user loyalty. Rev Manag Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1184​6-018-0313-0
Clauss T, Kesting T, Naskrent J (2018b) A rolling stone gathers no moss: the effect of customers’ per‑
ceived business model innovativeness on customer value co-creation behavior and customer satis‑
faction in the service sector. R&D Manag. https​://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12318​

13
12 R. B. Bouncken et al.

Clauss T, Abebe M, Tangpong C, Hock M (2019a) Strategic agility, business model innovation, and
firm performance: an empirical investigation. IEEE Trans Eng Manag. https​://doi.org/10.1109/
tem.2019.29103​81
Clauss T, Bouncken RB, Laudien S, Kraus S (2019b) Business model reconfiguration and innovation
in SMEs: a mixed-method analysis from the electronics industry. Int J Innov Manag. https​://doi.
org/10.1142/s1363​91962​05001​52
Colbert A, Yee N, George G (2016) The digital workforce and the workplace of the future. Acad
Manag J 59:731–739. https​://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4003
Demil B, Lecocq X, Ricart JE, Zott C (2015) Introduction to the SEJ special issue on business mod‑
els: business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrep J 9:1–11.
https​://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1194
Devece C, Palacios-Marqués D, Ribeiro-Soriano DE (2019) IT-based strategy, capabilities, and prac‑
tices: crowdsourcing implementation in market-oriented firms. Rev Manag Sci
Foss NJ, Saebi T (2017) Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have we
come, and where should we go? J Manag 43:200–227
Frankenberger K, Weiblen T, Csik M, Gassmann O (2013) The 4I-framework of business model inno‑
vation: a structured view on process phases and challenges. Int J Prod Dev 18:249–273
Fredrich V, Bouncken RB, Kraus S (2019) The race is on: configurations of absorptive capacity, inter‑
dependence and slack resources for interorganizational learning in coopetition alliances. J Bus
Res 101:862–868. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2018.11.038
Garcia De Lomana G, Strese S, Brinckmann J (2019) Adjusting to the digital age: the effects of TMT
characteristics on the digital orientation of firms. Acad Manag Proc 2019:13589. https​://doi.
org/10.5465/AMBPP​.2019.13589​abstr​act
Ghezzi A, Cavallo A (2018) Agile business model innovation in digital entrepreneurship: lean startup
approaches. J Bus Res. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2018.06.013
Grewal D, Puccinelli N, Monroe KB (2018) Meta-analysis: integrating accumulated knowledge. J
Acad Mark Sci 46:9–30. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1174​7-017-0570-5
Grigoriou K, Rothaermel FT (2017) Organizing for knowledge generation: internal knowledge net‑
works and the contingent effect of external knowledge sourcing. Strateg Manag J 38:395–414.
https​://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2489
Haas MR, Criscuolo P, George G (2015) Which problems to solve? Online knowledge sharing and
attention allocation in organizations. Acad Manag J 58:680–711. https​://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2013.0263
Hamari J, Sjöklint M, Ukkonen A (2016) The sharing economy: why people participate in collabora‑
tive consumption. JASIST 67:2047–2059. https​://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552​
Hora W, Gast J, Kailer N, Rey-Marti A, Mas-Tur A (2018) David and Goliath: causes and effects of
coopetition between start-ups and corporates. Rev Manag Sci 2:411–439
Hughes M, Rigtering JPC, Covin JG, Bouncken RB, Kraus S (2018) Innovative behav‑
iour, trust and perceived workplace performance. Br J Manag 29:750–768. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8551.12305​
Humberd BK, Rouse ED (2016) Seeing you in me and me in you: personal identification in the phases
of mentoring relationships. Acad Manag Rev 41:435–455. https​://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0203
Kohli R, Melville NP (2019) Digital innovation: a review and synthesis. Inf Syst J 29:200–223. https​://
doi.org/10.1111/isj.12193​
Kraus S, Bouncken RB, Eggers F, Schüßler F, Meier F (2016) Standardisation vs. adaption: a conjoint
experiment on the influence of psychic, cultural and geographical distance on international market‑
ing mix decisions. Eur J Int Manag 10:127–156
Kraus S, Palmer C, Kailer N, Kallinger FL, Spitzer J (2019a) Digital entrepreneurship: a research agenda
on new business models for the twenty-first century. Int J Entrep Behav Res 25:353–375. https​://doi.
org/10.1108/IJEBR​-06-2018-0425
Kraus S, RoigTierno N, Bouncken RB (2019b) Digital innovation and venturing: an introduction into the
digitalization of entrepreneurship. Rev Manag Sci 13:519–528. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1184​6-019-
00333​-8
Laamanen T, Pfeffer J, Rong K, Van de Ven A (2018) Editors’ Introduction: business models, ecosys‑
tems, and society in the sharing economy. Acad Manag Discov 4:213–219. https​://doi.org/10.5465/
amd.2018.0110
Lanzolla G, Lorenz A, Miron-Spektor E, Schilling M, Solinas G, Tucci C (2018) Digital transformation:
what is new if anything? Acad Manag Discov 4:378–387. https​://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0103

13
Knowledge- and innovation-based business models for future… 13

Markides CC (2013) Business model innovation: what can the ambidexterity literature teach us? Acad
Manag Perspect 27:313–323
Martins LL, Rindova VP, Greenbaum BE (2015) Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: a cognitive
approach to business model innovation. Strateg Entrep J 9:99–117. https​://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1191
Massa L, Tucci CL, Afuah A (2017) A critical assessment of business model research. Acad Manag Ann
11:73–104. https​://doi.org/10.5465/annal​s.2014.0072
McGrath RG (2010) Business models: a discovery driven approach. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):247–261
Medina-Molina C, Rey-Moreno M, Felício JA, Romano Paguillo I (2019) Participation in crowdfunding
among users of collaborative platforms: the role of innovativeness and social capital. Rev Manag
Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1184​6-019-00329​-4
Miranda S, Cunha P, Duarte M (2019) An integrated model of factors affecting consumer attitudes and
intentions towards youtuber-generated product content. Rev Manag Sci—Draft
Morkunas VJ, Paschen J, Boon E (2019) How blockchain technologies impact your business model. Bus
Horiz 62:295–306. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.busho​r.2019.01.009
Morris M, Schindehutte M, Allen J (2005) The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspec‑
tive. J Bus Res 58:726–735. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2003.11.001
Muhic M, Bengtsson L (2019) Dynamic capabilities triggered by cloud sourcing—a stage-based model
of business model innovation business model innovation. Rev Manag Sci
Muñoz-Pascual L, Curado C, Galende J (2019) How does the use of information technologies affect the
adoption of environmental practices in SMEs? A mixed-methods approach. Rev Manag Sci
Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M (2017) Digital innovation management: reinventing
innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Q 41:223–238
Ocasio W, Laamanen T, Vaara E (2018) Communication and attention dynamics: an attention-based view
of strategic change. Strateg Manag J 39:155–167
O’Leary DE (2013) Artificial intelligence and big data. IEEE Intell Syst 28:96–99
Osiyevskyy O, Dewald J (2015) Explorative versus exploitative business model change: the cognitive
antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strateg Entrep J 9:58–78. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/sej.1192
Pesch R, Bouncken RB (2018) How to achieve benefits from diversity in international alliances: mecha‑
nisms and cultural intelligence. Glob Strategy J 8:275–300
Pierscieniak A, Krawczyk-Sokolowska I (2019) The innovation potential of the enterprise in the context
of the economy and the business model. Rev Manag Sci
Pinazo-Dallenbach P, Mas-Tur A, Lloria B (2016) Using high-potential firms as the key to achieving ter‑
ritorial development. J Bus Res 4:1412–1417
Probst L, Röglinger M, Faisst U (2018) Structuring digital transformation: a framework of action fields
and its application at ZEISS. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 19:31–54
Ribeiro-Soriano D, Kraus S (2018) An overview of entrepreneurship, innovation and sensemaking for
improving decisions. Group Decis Negot 27:313–320. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1072​6-018-9569-7
Richter C, Kraus S, Bouncken RB (2015a) Virtual currencies like bitcoin as a paradigm shift in the field
of transactions. Int Bus Econ Res J 14:575
Richter C, Kraus S, Syrjä P (2015b) The shareconomy as a precursor for digital entrepreneurship busi‑
ness models. Int J Entrep Small Bus 25:18–35
Richter C, Kraus S, Brem A, Durst S, Giselbrecht C (2017) Digital entrepreneurship: innovative business
models for the sharing economy. Creat Innov Manag 26:300–310
Ritala P, Golnam A, Wegmann A (2014) Coopetition-based business models: the case of Amazon.com.
Ind Mark Manag 43:236–249. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.indma​rman.2013.11.005
Roy R, Sarkar MB (2016) Knowledge, firm boundaries, and innovation: mitigating the incumbent’s curse
during radical technological change. Strateg Manag J 37:835–854. https​://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2357
Sohl T, Govert Vroom, Fitza M (2018) How much does business model matter for firm performance? A
variance decomposition analysis. Acad Manag Discov. https​://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2017.0136
Sosna M, Trevinyo-Rodríguez RN, Velamuri SR (2010) Business model innovation through trial-and-
error learning: the Naturhouse case. Long Range Plan 43:383–407
Soublière J-F, Joel G (2019) The legitimacy threshold revisited: how prior successes and failures spill
over to other endeavors on kickstarter. Acad Manag J 1:1. https​://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1103
Suddaby R, Bitektine A, Haack P (2017) Legitimacy. Acad Manag Ann 11:451–478. https​://doi.
org/10.5465/annal​s.2015.0101
Sullivan BN (2010) Competition and beyond: problems and attention allocation in the organizational
rulemaking process. Organ Sci 21:432–450. https​://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0436

13
14 R. B. Bouncken et al.

Tallman S, Luo Y, Buckley PJ (2018) Business models in global competition. Glob Strategy J 8:517–535.
https​://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1165
Teece DJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):172–194
Teece DJ, Linden G (2017) Business models, value capture, and the digital enterprise. J Organ Des 6:8
Tuggle CS, Schnatterly K, Johnson RA (2010) Attention patterns in the boardroom: how board composi‑
tion and processes affect discussion of entrepreneurial issues. Acad Manag J 53:550–571
v. Alberti-Alhtaybat L, Al-Htaybat K, Hutaibat K (2019) A knowledge management and sharing busi‑
ness model for dealing with disruption: the case of Aramex. J Bus Res 94:400–407. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2017.11.037
Wang Q, Myers MD, Sundaram D (2013) Digital natives and digital immigrants, Business & Informa‑
tion. Syst Eng 5:409–419. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1259​9-013-0296-y
Yoo Y, Boland RJ Jr, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world.
Organ Sci 23:1398–1408
Yu J, Engleman RM, Van de Ven AH (2005) The integration journey: an attention-based view of the
merger and acquisition integration process. Organ Stud 26:1501–1528
Zammuto RR, Griffith T, Majchrzak A, Dougherty D, Faraj S (2007) Information technology and the
changing fabric of organization. Organ Sci 18:749–762. https​://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0307
Zott C, Amit R (2010) Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long Range Plan
43:216–226

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13