![](bg4.png)
Table 3: Summary of classification results.
Final set of
(unique) articles
Representation used?
Yes Ad-hoc No
57 3 9 45
4 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
It is an open research issue how business model
knowledge is best represented (Al-Debei and
Avison, 2010). There are numerous proponents of
graphical representations. However, reviewing
scientific practice reveals that only a minor share of
authors graphically represents the business models
they analyze – and only a negligible fraction
employs a dedicated approach for this graphical
representation.
Given the arguments provided in favor of using a
BMR, this seems surprising. However, the
arguments such as facilitated innovation or
deduction of requirements, in our view, mainly
apply to practitioners. Researchers rarely experiment
with a business model or develop supporting
information systems. Rather, they analyze real-world
cases to derive universal, transferable knowledge on
how to design a business model. For this purpose,
the given arguments mostly do not seem to apply.
Still, there is another set of arguments which
better addresses researchers’ needs. These
arguments concern the mentioned shortcoming of
business model research with regards to the
application of idiosyncratic, difficult to reconcile
definitions (Zott et al., 2011). BMRs could play a
vital role in mitigating this shortcoming. Through
their predefined sets of notation elements they force
a researcher into a predefined frame of reference.
The potential advantages include a better
comparability of findings, an easier reception of
findings by the research community, and a more
comprehensive analysis of business models. A
prerequisite is, however, that adequate BMRs are
available. Therefore, research effort should be
devoted to analyzing the hurdles that prevent
researchers from using the existing BMRs and, if
necessary, refining representational approaches so
that they find their way into research practice.
The results of the literature review reinforce our
confidence in the chosen methodological approach
of performing searches across multiple databases. It
turned out that the number of unique articles is
highly dependent on the chosen database, varying
between 31 (Scopus) and 55 (Google Scholar). The
large overlap among the databases (24 out of 57
articles are contained in all three databases)
increases the confidence concerning the relevance
and comprehensiveness of the considered articles.
Future research could broaden the literature base
to receive a more complete picture of BMR use in
research practice. The articles that present dedicated
approaches such as the Business Model Canvas
(Osterwalder et al., 2010) or e3-value (Gordijn and
Akkermans, 2003) have several hundreds of
citations, and it would be valuable to find out how
the citing authors use these works. Following this
approach, however, a bias in favor of using a BMR
should be acknowledged: the fraction of articles
employing a BMR is likely to be higher than in our
findings (this had initially been the reason for us for
not using a search strategy based on citations – to
provide an unbiased view on BMR usage). In
addition, complementing our review of scientific
practice, a worthwhile endeavor would be to survey
practitioners about the awareness and usage of
approaches for representing business models.
REFERENCES
Aguillo, I. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for
bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics,
in press.
Al-Debei, M., Avison, D. (2010). Developing a unified
framework of the business model concept. European
Journal of Information Systems, 19, 359-376.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., Ricart, J. (2010): From strategy
to business models and onto tactics. Long Range
Planning, 43, 195-215.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation:
Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43,
354-363.
Eriksson, H. and Penker, M. (2000). Business modeling
with UML. New York: Wiley.
Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H. (2003). Value-based
requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-
commerce ideas. Requirements Engineering, 8, 114-
134.
Kundisch, D, John, T., Honnacker, J., Meier, C. (2012).
Approaches for business model representation: An
overview. Proceedings of the Multikonferenz
Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C. (2005). Clarifying
business models: Origins, present, and future of the
concept. Communications of the AIS, 15, 2-40.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model
generation: A handbook for visionaries, game
changers, and challengers. New Jersey: Wiley.
Samavi, R., Yu, E., Topaloglou, T. (2009). Strategic
reasoning about business models: A conceptual
modeling approach. Information Systems and E-
Business Management, 7, 171-198.
Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L. (2011) The business model:
Recent developments and future research. Journal of
Management, 37, 1019-1042.
ICEIS2012-14thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
290