An Assessment Framework for Business Model Ontologies to Ensure the
Viability of Business Models
A. D’Souza
1
, N. R. T. P. van Beest
2
, G. B. Huitema
2
, J. C. Wortmann
2
and H. Velthuijsen
1
1
School of Communication, Media & IT, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Zernikeplein 11, Groningen,
The Netherlands
2
Department of Operations, University of Groningen, Nettelbosje 2, Groningen, The Netherlands
Keywords:
Business Model Ontology, Business Model Assessment, IS Alignment, Viability.
Abstract:
Organisations operate in an increasingly dynamic environment. Consequently, the business models span sev-
eral organisations, dealing with multiple stakeholders and their competing interests. As a result, the enterprise
information systems supporting this new market setting are highly distributed, and their components are owned
and managed by different stakeholders. For successful businesses to exist it is crucial that their enterprise ar-
chitectures are derived from and aligned with viable business models. Business model ontologies (BMOs)
are effective tools for designing and evaluating business models. However, the viability perspective has been
largely neglected. In this paper, current BMOs have been assessed on their capabilities to support the design
and evaluation of viable business models. As such, a list of criteria is derived from literature to evaluate BMOs
from a viability perspective. These criteria are subsequently applied to six well-established BMOs, to identify
a BMO best suited for design and evaluation of viable business models. The analysis reveals that, although
none of the BMOs satisfy all the criteria, e3-value is the most appropriate BMO for designing and evaluat-
ing business models from a viability perspective. Furthermore, the identified deficits provide clear areas for
enhancing the assessed BMOs from a viability perspective.
1 INTRODUCTION
Organisations operate in an increasingly dynamic en-
vironment, that involve many stakeholders, and that
operate in a networked setting. The resulting busi-
ness complexity requires a change of their current en-
terprise information systems (EISs), in order to en-
sure the necessary support of the corresponding new
business models. As such, EISs are often featuring
service-oriented and distributed architectures, to sup-
port the new distributed nature of organisations, and
to provide them with the required flexibility.
As an important example of the increased
complexity, the energy industry has shifted to a
new market setting that involves many different
stakeholders and varying roles, in order to support
decentralised energy production technologies. The
business models span several organisations that deal
with multiple stakeholders and their competing inter-
ests (Adhikari et al., 2012). Consequently, the EIS
infrastructure that supports this new market setting is
highly distributed. Furthermore, its components are
owned and managed by different stakeholders.
It is essential that such complex enterprise ar-
chitectures (comprising the business processes and
EIS infrastructure) are derived from a viable busi-
ness model. That is, all the participating organisa-
tions and stakeholders are able to capture value, such
that they are committed to the business model (Ches-
brough et al., 2006). In addition, the envisioned busi-
ness model should be technologically viable (Kraussl-
Derzsi, 2011). However, this new way of doing busi-
ness in a networked setting dramatically increases
the complexity of designing viable business models,
due to the competing interests of stakeholders (Ches-
brough et al., 2006). Moreover, the EIS infrastructure
not only has to align with the overall business model
(Kraussl-Derzsi, 2011), in some cases it is an explicit
part of the business model.
The design and evaluation of business models
is supported by business model ontologies (BMOs).
BMOs can be used to conceptualise and communicate
business models (Gordijn et al., 2005). Although the
existing BMOs are conceived from different perspec-
tives and are used for different purposes, the viabil-
ity perspective has been largely neglected. As such,
226
D’Souza A., R. T. P. van Beest N., B. Huitema G., C. Wortmann J. and Velthuijsen H..
An Assessment Framework for Business Model Ontologies to Ensure the Viability of Business Models.
DOI: 10.5220/0004890402260235
In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2014), pages 226-235
ISBN: 978-989-758-029-1
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
the capabilities of BMOs to support the design and
evaluation of viable business models remains unclear,
particularly in complex business settings.
Therefore, this paper presents a list of fundamen-
tal criteria to which a BMO should comply in or-
der to facilitate the design of viable business models
and, therefore, enterprise architectures. These criteria
are subsequently used to assess six well-established
modelling ontologies. Out of the six ontologies,
four were specifically conceived to represent business
models (e3-value, VNA, BMC, and EBMS), while the
other two (VSM & REA) were conceived for differ-
ent purposes. However, they could possibly be used
as BMOs (for more details we refer to Section 4.2).
Therefore, we refer to these modelling ontologies as
BMOs.
This was done, in order to select the most appro-
priate BMO, and to identify the deficits and areas for
improvement from a viability perspective. This will
allow future research to enhance BMOs to fully sup-
port viability as an explicit design focus of business
models.
Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows.
Section 2 provides a discussion on related work. Sec-
tion 3 describes the criteria as provided in literature.
Subsequently, Section 4 applies the criteria to assess
current BMOs. Finally, the paper is concluded in Sec-
tion 5, along with some directions for future research.
2 RELATED WORK
The boundaries of traditional enterprises are shifting
from a single organisation to a network of organisa-
tions (Lankshorst, 2009). This has led to the enter-
prise architectures being developed, owned, and op-
erated in a highly distributed manner, which in turn
has lead to misaligned and inflexible enterprise ar-
chitectures (Kraussl-Derzsi, 2011; Ross et al., 2006).
Furthermore, for an enterprise architecture to be ef-
fective, it has to enable the business strategy. How-
ever, the distance between strategy and enterprise ar-
chitecture is very large, because it is hard to conceive
and design enterprise architectures based on general
strategy statements (Ross et al., 2006; Engelsman and
Wieringa, 2012). Therefore, scholars have argued that
the concept of business models helps to address the
above challenges by conceptualising and translating
the strategy into a blueprint that describes how busi-
ness is carried out (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2002;
Pateli and Giaglis, 2004; Ross et al., 2006; Al-Debei
and Avison, 2010). The business model, as shown in
Figure 1, is the linking pin between strategy and the
enterprise architecture (Al-Debei and Avison, 2010;
Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2002; Pateli and Giaglis,
2004). As such, it is critical that the enterprise ar-
chitectures are derived from a viable business model.
Strategy Business model
Guides
Enterprise
architecture
Enables
Guides
Enables
Figure 1: Business model in relation to strategy and enter-
prise architecture.
An important distinction between a business
model and strategy is that business models are con-
cerned with translating strategy into a business ar-
chitecture, while strategy also includes competition.
A business architecture describes how the different
components of a business model fit together (Oster-
walder and Pigneur, 2005; Pateli and Giaglis, 2004;
Al-Debei and Avison, 2010; Teece, 2010). Therefore,
we exclude the conceptualisation of strategy.
The business model concept is relatively young
and scholars are constantly debating the meaning and
scope of the concept (Pateli and Giaglis, 2004; Lam-
bert, 2003). Furthermore, scholars from different dis-
ciplines are studying the concept of business models,
which makes it difficult to agree on a common defi-
nition. There has been considerable interest in inte-
grating the multidisciplinary views and arriving at a
common definition (Pateli and Giaglis, 2004; Lam-
bert, 2003; Roelens and Poels, 2013).
Scholars are also interested in the design of vi-
able business models. They focus on identifying the
factors, characteristics, and conditions that lead to
viable business models. Furthermore, they provide
guidelines and evaluation criteria for business mod-
els (Sharma and Guti´errez, 2010; De Reuver and
Haaker, 2009; Keen and Qureshi, 2006). The vi-
ability of business models is mainly studied from
two perspectives. Some use a qualitative approach
to conceptualise and analyse viable business models
(Sharma and Guti´errez, 2010; De Reuver and Haaker,
2009), whereas others use BMOs to conceptualise,
design, analyse, and evaluate viable business mod-
els (Kraussl-Derzsi, 2011; Gordijn and Akkermans,
2003). BMOs are a reliable way of conceptualising,
designing and evaluating business models (Pateli and
Giaglis, 2004).
BMOs and business models are related, but not the
same. A BMO is a language, which can be used to
conceptualise and communicate any number of busi-
ness models. For example, e3-value can be used to
conceptualise and communicate business models of
companies (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2005). There
has been some interest in the past to compare BMOs
for different purposes. In (Gordijn et al., 2005), a
frameworkis proposed to compare BMOs to find sim-
AnAssessmentFrameworkforBusinessModelOntologiestoEnsuretheViabilityofBusinessModels
227
ilarities and differences with the goal of integrating
BMOs. In (M¨akinen and Sepp¨anen, 2007), a frame-
work is proposed to assess BMOs from a taxonomical
perspective. However, no attempts have been made to
assess existing BMOs from a viability perspective.
3 DERIVATION OF CRITERIA
This section describes the research design, and how it
is applied to distill a set of criteria, which are subse-
quently used to assess the BMOs.
3.1 Research Design
The Conceptual Model Analysis Framework (CMAF)
(Lambert, 2003) is proposed to help researchers to
compare and analyse the BMOs. The CMAF is a
generic and flexible framework, which we will use
to derive the criteria from literature in a systematic
manner. The literature review will yield a list of crite-
ria that we subsequently use to compare, assess, and
select the most appropriate BMO for designing, and
evaluating viable business models. Furthermore, the
revealed deficits can be used to enhance the BMOs
in context of design and evaluation of viable business
models.
However, the CMAF framework assumes that the
process of comparing and analysing BMOs will au-
tomatically lead to the selection of an appropriate
BMO. This implies that the user is required to come
up with a set of preferences (and hence a subset of
relevant criteria) based on which the user will select a
BMO. Consequently, there is a need for a set of crite-
ria specifically tailored to assess a BMO on its capa-
bilities regarding the design and evaluation of viable
business models. The CMAF framework consists of
three dimensions, namely conceptual focus, unit of
analysis, and level of analysis.
These dimensions will be used for distilling a set
of criteria to assess the BMOs. In addition, we have
also made use of the existing literature in the strategic
management domain, and the business model domain
(also includes BMO literature). Following (Belton
and Stewart, 2002), we analyse the literature from the
domains mentioned above, and distill a set of criteria
that are relevant, understandable, complete and con-
cise, and judgementally independent (i.e. the prefer-
ence for one criteria should not be dependent on other
criteria). Furthermore, the criteria are distilled in such
a way that they are operational, which means they are
readily applicable to BMOs. Additionally, attention
is paid to the simplicity versus complexity condition.
In order to ensure simplicity (without sacrificing the
complexity) of the criteria and to ensure the criteria
are operational, some of the criteria are further de-
composed in to a set of lower level criteria. Finally,
in Section 4.1 the criteria are checked to ensure that
they comply with the redundancy condition.
3.2 Conceptual Focus
This dimension helps to synthesize a perspective
through which we view business models. It defines
the functionality of the BMOs, which components
should be modelled and analysed, and the granular-
ity at which they are modelled. Hence, it strongly
influences the unit of analysis, and the level of analy-
sis dimensions. Therefore, the goal of this subsection
is to synthesize a perspective through which we view
business models. The perspective through which we
view business models is viability. Consequently, the
BMO should focus on design and evaluation of viable
business models. In the following, we define the con-
cepts of business model and viability.
Business Model: In the continuous debate on the
scope of business models, some common ground can
be identified on what is a business model (Pateli and
Giaglis, 2004). A business model describes how busi-
ness is carried out; it includes a description of the
stakeholders (e.g. customers, and partners), their
roles, value proposition for other stakeholders in-
volved, and the underlying logic of value creation,
value exchange, and value capture at organisational
level and at network level. Furthermore, it defines
the business architecture (organising logic of all the
key components, such as information, value creation
activities, stakeholders, and value exchange relation-
ships) that enables the value creation, value exchange,
and value capture logic (Al-Debei and Avison, 2010;
Pateli and Giaglis, 2004; Tapscott et al., 2000; Zott
et al., 2011).
Viability: According to (Kraussl-Derzsi, 2011), a
business model should be viable both in terms of tech-
nology and in terms of value. A business model is
viable in terms of technology when the underlying
information communication technology (ICT) infras-
tructure can support the envisioned business model.
This can be achieved by considering which type of
ICT infrastructure is needed to support the business
model, and how the capabilities of ICT infrastruc-
ture could lead to better and new ways of doing busi-
ness (Ross et al., 2006). A business model is viable
in terms of value when all the participating organi-
sations/stakeholders are able to capture value, such
that they are committed to the business model (Ches-
brough et al., 2006). Value is the core component of
a business model, and it plays an important role in
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
228
making business models viable (Al-Debei and Avi-
son, 2010). Value is composed of exchange value
(e.g. euros, dollars etc.), and use value (e.g. ben-
efits of a product or service enjoyed by a customer,
benefits derived by other stakeholders) (Lepak et al.,
2007; Bowman and Ambrosini, 2000). Use value is
the desired benefits end users and or other involved
stakeholders (e.g. governmental organisations, soci-
ety etc.) derive out of a product or a service, and or
by participating in the business model (Bowman and
Ambrosini, 2000; Lepak et al., 2007).
3.3 Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis describes the functionality of the
BMOs and the components to be modelled. BMOs
can model and analyse business models at organisa-
tional level, and business network level. The organi-
sational level analysis includes the components within
the organisation, such as value creation activities. The
business network analysis includes the components
within the business network, such as organisations,
and relationships among them. The functionality and
the components to be modelled are derived from lit-
erature, and are directly influenced by the conceptual
focus. In addition, the functionality and the compo-
nents that should be modelled are presented as a list
of criteria.
Based on the definition of the business model, we
posit that the BMOs should conceptualise, encom-
pass, and model the following concepts, functional-
ity, and components. BMOs should conceptualise and
model business models at two levels, namely at organ-
isational level, and at network level (Amit and Zott,
2001; Lambert, 2010). Further, they should concep-
tualise the stakeholders within the network, and how
they create, exchange, and capture value. Addition-
ally, they should be able to represent the business
model architecture of viable business models, and the
business rules that govern them.
Business models have been studied from differ-
ent perspectives (Pateli and Giaglis, 2004). Hence, to
gain a better understanding of the concepts it encom-
passes from the perspective of viability, and what it
means to BMOs, we further explore these concepts
below.
3.3.1 Value Creation
Value creation is a central concept in management lit-
erature, it is the increased value (exchange value and
use value) that two or more parties enjoy when they
engage in mutually beneficial transactions (Bowman
and Ambrosini, 2000). Furthermore, value could also
be created for other stakeholders participating in the
business model, even though they do not directly en-
gage in transactional relationships, for example, po-
litical stakeholders providing subsidies to green en-
ergy producers (Lepak et al., 2007). Business models
should be able to generate enough value to keep the
stakeholders committed to the business models. If the
stakeholders are unable to capture enough value, they
will not be committed to the business model, which
consequently renders it unviable (Chesbrough et al.,
2006). Therefore, value creation is crucial from a
viability perspective. In context of business models,
value creation cannot be explained by a single theory,
such as a resource based view (Amit and Zott, 2001).
Therefore, to truly understand value creation in con-
text of business models, a nexus of several theories is
necessary (Chesbrough et al., 2006). Hence, several
theories have been reviewed that utilise different units
of analysis to explain value creation (Amit and Zott,
2001). Further, they argue that the units these theories
analyse are the sources of value creation.
Table 1: Sources of value creation.
Theory Source of value creation
Value chain framework Value creation activities
Resource based view Resources
Business networks Business networks
Transaction cost Transactions
economics (value exchange relationships)
Following their lead, we posit that the BMO
should model and analyse the different sources of
value creation, because by definition of business mod-
els, it is crucial to understand how value is created.
Table 1 highlights the theories and the sources of
value creation they analyse.
We acknowledge Schumpeters theory of en-
trepreneurship, which posits that an entrepreneur is
the source of value creation (Amit and Zott, 2001).
However, we do not review this theory in context
of this research, because the conceptual focus used
to view viability of business models is at the organ-
isational and the network level, and not at the en-
trepreneur level.
Table 2: Assessment criteria concerning value creation.
No Criteria Sources
1. Value creation (Bowman and Ambrosini,
2000)
1.1. Model value creation by
each stakeholder
(Zott et al., 2011)
1.2. Model sources of value
creation
(Amit and Zott, 2001)
1.2.1. Value creation activities (Amit and Zott, 2001)
1.2.2. Resources (Amit and Zott, 2001)
1.2.3. Business network (Amit and Zott, 2001)
1.2.4. Transactions (Amit and Zott, 2001)
AnAssessmentFrameworkforBusinessModelOntologiestoEnsuretheViabilityofBusinessModels
229
3.3.2 Value Capture
Value capture is the amount of value retained by each
stakeholder within the business model (Lepak et al.,
2007). The amount of retained value is conceptu-
alised in terms of use value, and exchange value. The
value captured in terms of exchange value is the total
amount of revenue a stakeholder is able to retain (i.e.
profit) (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2000). The value
captured in terms of use value is the total benefits re-
alized by a stakeholder from a product and/or a ser-
vice, or by participating in a business model (Lepak
et al., 2007).
Table 3: Assessment criteria concerning value capture.
No Criteria Sources
2. Value capture (Bowman and Ambrosini,
2000)
2.1. Model value captured by
each stakeholder
(Chesbrough et al., 2006)
2.2. Model captured value in
terms of use value
(Bowman and Ambrosini,
2000)
2.3. Model captured value in
terms of exchange value
(Bowman and Ambrosini,
2000)
Successful business models ensure that the stake-
holders participating in the business models are able
to capture value, such that they are committed to the
business model. If not the business model will not
be able to attract and retain competitive stakeholders.
Hence, this could lead to the business model being
rendered unviable. Consequently, the BMO should
be able to model and analyse the amount of value cap-
tured by each stakeholder.
3.3.3 Value Exchange
Value exchanges are relationships formed among
stakeholders to exchange value. At the organisational
level, these relationships can be analysed within the
organisations, and at a dyadic level. Organisations
form dyadic relationships with partners, such as chan-
nel partners and customers (Chesbrough et al., 2006).
Adopting the business network approach implies that
the value exchange relationships are among the basic
building blocks of the business network (Gordijn and
Akkermans, 2003). Consequently, it calls for a sys-
temic approach, where the value exchanges are anal-
ysed not only from a focal organisations perspective,
but also from a business networks perspective. This
involves the analysis of the entire business network
formed to produce, govern, and deliver the products
and services to the end user (Chesbrough et al., 2006).
Hence, this implies that the BMO should be able to
conceptualise and model the value exchanges at or-
ganisational level and at network level.
Table 4: Assessment criteria concerning value exchange.
No Criteria Sources
3. Value exchange (Chesbrough et al., 2006)
3.1. Model value exchanged
at organisational level
(Chesbrough et al., 2006)
3.1.1. Use value at organisa-
tional level
(Bowman and Ambrosini,
2000)
3.1.2. Exchange value at organ-
isational level
(Bowman and Ambrosini,
2000)
3.2. Model value exchanged
at business network level
(Gordijn and Akkermans,
2003)
3.2.1. Use value at business net-
work level
(Bowman and Ambrosini,
2000)
3.2.2. Exchange value at busi-
ness network level
(Bowman and Ambrosini,
2000)
3.3.4 Business Model Architecture
Business model architecture is the organising logic
of how the key components that enable value cre-
ation, value capture, and value exchange relationships
are organised (Eriksson and Penker, 2000). Visualis-
ing the business model architecture helps in gaining a
deeper insight into the business model. Further, it is
a useful and effective technique used to brain storm
and identify alternative configurations of the business
model. Hence, in context of designing viable business
models, visualising the business model architecture of
the business models is an effective tool in organising
the components in such a way that it enables viabil-
ity (Gordijn and Akkermans, 2003). Therefore, the
BMOs should be able to visualise the business model
architecture.
Table 5: Assessment criteria concerning the business model
architecture.
No Criteria Sources
4. Represent the business
model architecture
(Eriksson and Penker, 2000)
3.3.5 Design of Viable Business Models
The design of viable business models is an itera-
tive process. Therefore, the ontology should also
allow for the manipulation of the business model
to achieve viability (Gordijn and Akkermans, 2003).
Furthermore, it is crucial to consider the capabili-
ties of the ICT infrastructure while designing business
models. Modelling the underlying ICT infrastructure
alongside business models is a good way of improv-
ing the business and ICT alignment (Kraussl-Derzsi,
2011). Modelling the underlying ICT infrastructure
in essence is a cross-domain exercise, which involves
professionals from the business domain and ICT do-
main. Therefore, they need a common language in
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
230
order to be effective. Talking about ICT in terms
of ICT services gives technologists and business pro-
fessionals a common language. It facilitates the dis-
cussion about business models and their underlying
need for ICT (Weill and Vitale, 2002). Hence, it is
important to conceptualise and model the underlying
ICT services needed to support the business model.
Further, conceptualising the underlying ICT services
helps technologists to draft requirements for the ICT
architecture. The ICT architecture in turn supports
the ICT services (Weill and Vitale, 2002). This also
helps improve the alignment between business mod-
els and ICT (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993).
Therefore, the BMOs should be able to model the un-
derlying ICT services of a business model. Further-
more, business models often embody multiple com-
modities and include multiple stakeholders (Adhikari
et al., 2012). Consequently, the BMOs should also
be able to model multiple commodities and multi-
ple stakeholders. Business models span multiple or-
ganisations; as a result, a systemic approach should
be adopted to design business models. The systemic
approach entails designing business models at an or-
ganisational level, which involves analysing and mod-
elling the value created and contributed by each indi-
vidual organisation. It also entails designing business
models at a network level, which entails configur-
ing the organisations and the value exchanges among
them in a way that enables viability. Therefore, the
BMOs should be able to design business models at an
organisational level as well as at the business network
level.
Table 6: Assessment criteria concerning business model de-
sign.
No Criteria Sources
5. Design business models (Gordijn and Akkermans,
2003)
5.1. Ability to manipulate
business models
(Gordijn and Akkermans,
2003)
5.2. Model underlying ICT
services
(Weill and Vitale, 2002)
5.3. Model multiple com-
modities
(Adhikari et al., 2012)
5.4. Model multiple stake-
holders/roles
(Adhikari et al., 2012)
5.5. Ability to design busi-
ness models at organisa-
tional level
(Zott et al., 2011)
5.6. Ability to design busi-
ness models at the net-
work level
(Zott et al., 2011)
3.3.6 Evaluation of Viable Business Models
The BMO should facilitate the evaluation of viability
in terms of exchange value and use value. One of the
ways it could help evaluate the viability in terms of
value is by generating reports on the value captured
by each stakeholder. Furthermore, technologists can
evaluate the modelled ICT services for technological
viability.
Table 7: Assessment criteria concerning viability.
No Criteria Sources
6. Evaluation of business
models for viability
(Pateli and Giaglis, 2004)
6.1. Evaluate use value cap-
tured by the stakeholders
(Gordijn and Akkermans,
2003)
6.2. Evaluate exchange value
captured by the stake-
holders
(Gordijn and Akkermans,
2003)
6.3. Visualise the ICT ser-
vices
(Kraussl-Derzsi, 2011)
3.3.7 Business Rules
Business rules define constraints, conditions, and
policies that govern a business model. A business
rule can be defined as a statement that affects the
value creation, value capture, value exchange, and the
underlying business model architecture of a business
model (Eriksson and Penker, 2000). Business rules
internalise the external requirements put on the busi-
ness models, such as, governmental regulations, tech-
nological limitations (Eriksson and Penker, 2000). In
addition, the business rules include the internal re-
quirements on the business model, such as require-
ments of the strategy on the business model (Eriksson
and Penker, 2000). In context of viability the business
rules, such as governmental regulation, can hamper or
facilitate the viability of a business model. Hence, it is
important that the BMO considers the business rules.
Table 8: Assessment criteria for BMOs.
No Criteria Sources
7. Embodies business
rules
(Eriksson and Penker, 2000)
3.4 Level of Analysis
Level of analysis corresponds to the level of abstrac-
tion or granularity at which the business models are
conceptualised. BMOs conceptualise business mod-
els on a continuum, which ranges from a high level of
granularity to a low level of granularity. The BMOs
that conceptualise and analyse business models at a
high level represent less information, and the business
AnAssessmentFrameworkforBusinessModelOntologiestoEnsuretheViabilityofBusinessModels
231
models are generalizable. On the contrary, BMOs
that conceptualise and analyse business models at a
low level represent more information, and the busi-
ness models are specific to an organisation or a busi-
ness network. Consequently, they are not generaliz-
able (Lambert, 2010). It is clear from the evaluation
criteria derived thus far, that the design and evalua-
tion of viable business models requires large amounts
of information. Therefore, the BMOs should model
the business models at a relatively low level (Lambert,
2010).
Table 9: Assessment criteria concerning level of analysis.
No Criteria Sources
7. Model BMOs at low
level of granularity
(Lambert, 2010)
4 BMO ASSESSMENT
The criteria presented in the previous section can be
used to assess how well BMOs support the design
and evaluation of viable business models. The criteria
can be applied qualitatively to assess the characteris-
tics of the BMOs. The challenge of assessing BMOs
based on a set of criteria can also be framed as a clas-
sic multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) problem
(Belton and Stewart, 2002)[p.1-2].
4.1 Restructuring the Criteria
As mentioned previously, for the criteria to be usable
they have to meet the following conditions (Belton
and Stewart, 2002)[p.55-58]: value relevance, under-
standable, measurability, non-redundancy, judgemen-
tal independence, balancing completeness and con-
ciseness, operational, and simplicity versus complex-
ity.
We reviewed the criteria in light of the above con-
ditions. To satisfy the condition of non-redundancy,
we have eliminated the criteria of business network
and transactions. The business network concept
emerges under the category of design of business
models, where we assess whether the business model
is conceptualised at organisational level and at busi-
ness network level. Similarly, the idea of transactions
(value exchange) appears under the concept of value
exchange.
4.2 Selected BMOs
Our search lead to six well established BMOs that fo-
cus on value. The following BMOs will be assessed
using the above criteria.
e3-Value: The e3-Value adopts a value constellation
(business network approach), where business mod-
els span multiple organisations. e3-Value aims at
conceptualising business models and evaluating them
for viability (Gordijn and Akkermans, 2003). Fur-
ther, it aims to create a common understanding of the
business models among collaborating firms (multi-
stakeholder environment) by explicitly visualising the
business models. It aims to improve the alignment
between business and ICT. e3-Value has its roots in
computer science and management science (Gordijn
et al., 2005).
Value Network Analysis (VNA): VNA is rooted in
the principles of living systems. It views business
models as a pattern of exchanges between stakehold-
ers. It focuses on both the tangible (e.g. money, and
products) and the intangible (e.g. knowledge) value
exchanges among stakeholders (Allee, 2002). VNA
aims to incorporate a systemic view (business net-
work) of business models, and the intangible values
into the mainstream business model analysis.
Business Modelling Canvas (BMC): The BMC
views business models in terms of 9 building blocks.
The BMC conceptualises business models on the level
of a single organisation and not on the level of a busi-
ness network. However, the BMC does identify key
partners (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). The BMC
is rooted in information systems and management sci-
ence. Their main goal is to help companies con-
ceptualise how they create, deliver and capture value
(Gordijn et al., 2005).
Value Stream Mapping (VSM): VSM is rooted in
the concept of lean manufacturing. It conceptualises
the flow of value in a value stream. VSM adopts a
supply chain approach to map the demand back from
customers to raw materials. Their main goal is to help
managers shift their attention from individual pro-
cesses to a larger perspective. It is an attempt to shift
the focus from individual process to the system of in-
terconnected processes required to deliver the product
to the customer (Rother and Shook, 2003).
Resource Event Agent (REA): REA is a do-
main specific (accounting domain) modelling ontol-
ogy, which focuses on conceptualising economic re-
sources, economic events, economic agents, and the
relationships among them. These are conceptualised
from the perspective of a single organisation (Mc-
Carthy, 1982). It is rooted in information science and
management science. It aims to design flexible ac-
counting systems that are better integrated with other
enterprise systems and decision support systems (Mc-
Carthy, 1982).
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
232
e-Business Modelling Schematics (EBMS): The
EBMS adopts a business network approach to busi-
ness models, aiming at e-business initiatives. It
adopts a focal organisation perspective to describe
business models that span multiple organisations. It
is rooted in management science and information sci-
ence. EBMS was conceived with the aim of helping
business executives to conceptualise and analyse new
e-business initiatives (Weill and Vitale, 2002).
4.3 Assessment
Each of the BMOs is assessed against the criteria. The
assessment is carried out such that if the BMOs fully
support the criteria a Xsign is assigned, and if it does
not or partially support the criteria the criteria a sign
is assigned. We adopt this method of evaluating the
BMOs, because even if the BMOs partially support
the criteria it will not lead to an accurate conceptual-
isation and analysis of viability. Table 10 shows how
the six BMOs perform on the viability criteria derived
from literature. It is clear that not all the BMOs con-
ceptualise business models in the same way. Further-
more, it is evident that certain important viability cri-
teria are ignored. None of the BMOs conceptualise
value capture and evaluation of business models in
terms of use value. Similarly, none of them concep-
tualise and evaluate the underlying ICT services. The
business model architectures are only represented to
a certain extent, but not satisfactorily. Therefore, we
have rated them as not supporting the criteria “repre-
sent the business architecture”.
Based on Table 10, we observe that none of the
BMOs perform satisfactorily on all criteria. However,
e3-value satisfies most of the criteria except for four
criteria, namely, model captured value in terms of use
value, model underlying ICT services, visualise ICT
services for the purpose of evaluation, and business
model architecture criteria. The reason why some of
the BMOs perform well against the criteria and some
do not could be attributed to the reason that not all
of them were exclusively conceived to represent busi-
Table 10: Assessment of BMOs.
No Criteria
e3-value
VNA
BMC
VSM
REA
EBMS
1. Value creation
1.1. Model value creation by each stakeholder X X
1.2. Model sources of value creation
1.2.1. Value creation activities X X X X
1.2.2. Resources X X X X X
2. Value capture
2.1. Model value captured by each stakeholder X
2.2. Model captured value in terms of use value X X X
2.3. Model captured value in terms of exchange value X X X
3. Value exchange
3.1. Model value exchanged at organisational level
3.1.1. Use value at organisational level X X X X
3.1.2. Exchange value at organisational level X X X X
3.2. Model value exchanged at business network level
3.2.1. Use value at business network level X X X
3.2.2. Exchange value at business network level X X X
4. Represent the business architecture
5. Design business models
5.1. Ability to manipulate business models X X X X X X
5.2. Model underlying ICT services
5.3. Model multiple commodities X X X X X X
5.4. Model multiple stakeholders/roles X X X X X
5.5. Ability to design business models at organisational level X X X X
5.6. Ability to design business models at business network level X X X X
6. Evaluation of business models for viability
6.1. Evaluate use value captured by the stakeholders
6.2. Evaluate exchange value captured by the stakeholders X
6.3. Visualise the ICT services
7. Embodies business rules X X X
8. Model BMOs at low level of granularity X X X
AnAssessmentFrameworkforBusinessModelOntologiestoEnsuretheViabilityofBusinessModels
233
ness models. Furthermore, even the ones that were
conceived to represent business models were not de-
signed from the perspective of designing and evaluat-
ing viable business models, except for e3-value. This
shows that the viability perspective has been largely
ignored in context of BMOs.
5 CONCLUSION
Due to the increased business complexity and the dis-
tributed nature of modern day EISs, the viability of
the business models becomes very hard to assess. A
business model is viable if all participating organisa-
tions and stakeholders are able to capture value and if
it is technologically viable.
In the past, different frameworks have been pro-
posed to compare BMOs. However, none of these
frameworks compare BMOs from the perspective of
design and evaluation of viable business models. We
have addressed this gap by assessing BMOs on their
capabilities to support the design and evaluation of vi-
able business models. First, a list of criteria is derived
from literature for evaluating BMOs from a viability
perspective. We have subsequently applied these cri-
teria to evaluate six well-established BMOs, and iden-
tified the best suiting BMO for evaluating the viability
business models.
Our analysis revealsthat none of the BMOs satisfy
all the criteria. Furthermore, each of the BMOs con-
ceptualises business models differently. Our findings
suggest that e3-value is the most appropriate BMO for
designing and evaluating business models from a vi-
ability perspective. However, it fails on four criteria:
model captured value in terms of use value, model un-
derlying ICT services, visualise ICT services for the
purpose of evaluation, and business model architec-
ture criteria.
Our analysis confirms that it is hard to assess vi-
ability of business models, as current BMOs have a
number of deficits that are particularly important for
complex, distributed business settings. Consequently,
these identified deficits provide clear areas for im-
provement of each assessed BMO. However, the de-
rived criteria are relying on our conceptualisation of
the term viability and influenced by the assumption
that business models rely on ICT for execution.
Our findings concur with (Roelens and Poels,
2013) analysis that the gap between BMOs and strate-
gic management and business model literature is
large. Accordingly, future research should work to-
wards enhancing BMOs to fully support viability as
an explicit design focus of business models for dy-
namic and complex settings. In addition, future re-
search can involve direct applications of enhanced
BMOs, in order to assess the highly complex busi-
ness models in distributed settings and their alignment
with supporting distributed EISs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been financed by a grant of the En-
ergy Delta Gas Research (EDGaR) program. EDGaR
is co-financed by the Northern Netherlands Provinces,
the European Fund for Regional Development, the
Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Province of
Groningen, the Netherlands.
REFERENCES
Adhikari, R. S., Aste, N., and Manfren, M. (2012). Multi-
commodity network flow models for dynamic energy
management–smart grid applications. Energy Proce-
dia, 14:1374–1379.
Al-Debei, M. M. and Avison, D. (2010). Developing a uni-
fied framework of the business model concept. Euro-
pean Journal of Information Systems, 19(3):359–376.
Allee, V. (2002). A value network approach for modeling
and measuring intangibles. Transparent Enterprise,
Madrid.
Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business.
Strategic management journal, 22(6-7):493–520.
Belton, V. and Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision
analysis: an integrated approach. Springer.
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation
versus value capture: towards a coherent definition
of value in strategy. British Journal of Management,
11(1):1–15.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (2006).
Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Ox-
ford university press.
De Reuver, M. and Haaker, T. (2009). Designing viable
business models for context-aware mobile services.
Telematics and Informatics, 26(3):240–248.
Engelsman, W. and Wieringa, R. (2012). Goal-oriented
requirements engineering and enterprise architecture:
Two case studies and some lessons learned. In Re-
quirements Engineering: Foundation for Software
Quality, pages 306–320. Springer.
Eriksson, H. E. and Penker, M. (2000). Business modeling
with UML. Wiley Chichester.
Gordijn, J. and Akkermans, J. M. (2003). Value-
based requirements engineering: exploring innova-
tive e-commerce ideas. Requirements engineering,
8(2):114–134.
Gordijn, J., Osterwalder, A., and Pigneur, Y. (2005). Com-
paring two business model ontologies for designing
e-business models and value constellations. Proceed-
ings of the 18th Bled eConference, Bled, Slovenia,
pages 6–8.
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
234
Henderson, J. C. and Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strate-
gic alignment: Leveraging information technology
for transforming organizations. IBM systems journal,
32(1):4–16.
Keen, P. and Qureshi, S. (2006). Organizational transfor-
mation through business models: a framework for
business model design. In System Sciences, 2006.
HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on, volume 8, pages 206b–
206b. IEEE.
Kraussl-Derzsi, Z. (2011). OPerationalized ALignment: As-
sessing feasibility of value constellations exploiting
innovative services. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Lambert, S. (2003). A Review of the Electronic Commerce
Literature to Determine the Meaning of the Term
’Business Model’. School of Commerce, Flinders
University of South Australia.
Lambert, S. (2010). A conceptual model analysis frame-
work: Analysing and comparing business model
frameworks and ontologies. PhD thesis, International
Business Management Association (IBMA).
Lankshorst, M. (2009). Enterprise architecture at work-
modelling, communication and analysis. Enterprise
Architecture at Work-Modelling, Communication and
Analysis, pages 92–93.
Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., and Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value
creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective.
Academy of management review, 32(1):180–194.
M¨akinen, S. and Sepp¨anen, M. (2007). Assessing busi-
ness model concepts with taxonomical research cri-
teria: A preliminary study. Management Research
News, 30(10):735–748.
McCarthy, W. E. (1982). The rea accounting model: A
generalized framework for accounting systems in a
shared data environment. The Accounting Review,
57(3):554–578.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2002). An e-business
model ontology for modeling e-business. In 15th Bled
electronic commerce conference, pages 17–19. Bled,
Slovenia.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2005). Clarifying busi-
ness models: Origins, present, and future of the con-
cept. Communications of the association for Informa-
tion Systems, 16.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model
generation: a handbook for visionaries, game chang-
ers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
Pateli, A. G. and Giaglis, G. M. (2004). A research frame-
work for analysing eBusiness models. European Jour-
nal of Information Systems, 13(4):302–314.
Roelens, B. and Poels, G. (2013). Towards an integrative
component framework for business models: identify-
ing the common elements between the current busi-
ness model views. In Forum at the 25th International
Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engi-
neering (CAiSE-2013), volume 998, pages 114–121.
Ross, J. W., Weill, P., and Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enter-
prise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation
for business execution. Harvard Business Press.
Rother, M. and Shook, J. (2003). Learning to See:
Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and Eliminate
Muda.-Version 1.3. Learning Enterprise Institute.
Sharma, S. and Guti´errez, J. A. (2010). An evalua-
tion framework for viable business models for m-
commerce in the information technology sector. Elec-
tronic Markets, 20(1):33–52.
Tapscott, D., Lowy, A., and Ticoll, D. (2000). Digital capi-
tal: Harnessing the power of business webs. Harvard
Business Press.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and
innovation. Long range planning, 43(2):172–194.
Weill, P. and Vitale, M. (2002). What it infrastructure ca-
pabilities are needed to implement e-business models.
MIS quarterly Executive, 1(1):17–34.
Zott, C., Amit, R., and Massa, L. (2011). The busi-
ness model: recent developments and future research.
Journal of management, 37(4):1019–1042.
AnAssessmentFrameworkforBusinessModelOntologiestoEnsuretheViabilityofBusinessModels
235