British Food Journal
Business model configuration and dynamics for technology commercialization in mature markets
Serena Flammini, Gabriella Arcese, Maria Claudia Lucchetti, Letizia Mortara,

Article information:
To cite this document:
Serena Flammini, Gabriella Arcese, Maria Claudia Lucchetti, Letizia Mortara, "Business model configuration and dynamics
for technology commercialization in mature markets", British Food Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2017-0125
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2017-0125

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 09 October 2017, At: 12:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11 times since 2017*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:233725 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Business model configuration and
dynamics for technology
commercialization in mature markets
Introduction

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Well established industries represent core sectors of the international economy (Caiazza, 2015). The
configuration of these industries presents challenges for new entrants. The food and drink industry for
instance is known to be historically characterized by well-established dominant designs, great fragmentation
and low-tech innovation rates (Manzini, et al., 2016). It comprises few very powerful multinational
incumbents, but most companies in the sector are small and medium enterprises (about 99% of the market
according to Food Drink Europe, 2015). Hence, the food industry is regarded as a complex industry where
potential new entrants have to face high entry barriers and need to cope with the constant changing demands
of the customers (Bigliardi & Galati, 2013; Caiazza, 2015; Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006; Fortuin & Omta,
2009; Manzini, et al., 2016; Swaminthan, 1998). To face these challenges, new entrants need to innovate.
Technological innovations that can bring great changes into the industry and that would help firms meet and
exceed the customers’ expectations could provide a great opportunity for new entrants to access the sector.
3D printing technologies could indeed provide such advantages and support an increased rate of product
customization (Jia, et al., 2016). However, introducing these technologies and innovations into a mature and
potentially conservative market brings high uncertainty for new entrants. Scholars have highlighted that the
capability to innovate the commercialisation processes, through collaboration with others and through the
identification of the most suitable approaches (i.e. strategy and business models) to commercialise the new
products, might increase the chances to penetrate a sector. For new entrants, technology development and
commercialisation are often impossible to achieve in isolation (Maine & Garnsey, 2006). Collaborations
with partners are not just needed for developing an innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), but also to assemble the
complementary elements (e.g. other products, technologies or services) necessary for delivering value from
the technology to customers (Vanhaverbeke & Chesbrough, 2014). Hence, the capability to innovate the
business model (BM) is a key skill to enable new entrants to commercialise their technologies (Massa &

Tucci, 2013) through which a firm can maintain viability and ensure to have a unique competitive advantage
for a mature industry (Cortimiglia, et al., 2016). Therefore, both the firm’s approach to openness and to the
innovativeness of the BM can provide great contribution in the firm’s ability to actualize its strategy and,
therefore, commercialise its innovation.
However, despite the importance of these innovation processes in enabling the commercialisation of an
emerging technology in an established market, we still lack a complete understanding of the business model

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

dynamics which support this commercialisaiton process. So, following Caiazza (2015) and Probert et al.
(2013), this paper asks "how do companies change the business model when they attempt to exploit an
emerging technology in an established industry?".
In response to this question, we started assembling a framework that describes what we know about the BM
development in the commercialization process of emerging technologies, linking theoretical concepts from
the technology commercialization literature with studies on strategy, (collaborative) business models and
BM innovation. Then we observed an empirical case study, based on the experience of ITIS3D (a company
that has started to exploit 3D printing in the education and moved towards the food preparation industry),
which was used to improve the framework. From this case study we observed that: 1) companies could use
more than one BM at a time; hence, the business model innovation processes (design and reconfiguration)
could coexist and be run in parallel; 2) the facing of high uncertainty might lead firms to choose a closed
and/or a familiar business model, while explorative strategies could be pursued with open business models;
3) significant changes in strategies during the technology commercialisation process (e.g. opening new
markets) are not necessarily reflected in a radical change in the business model and 4) firms could
deliberately adopt interim strategies and BMs as means to identify the more suitable ones to reach the
market.
By highlighting how new entrants innovate their BMI process to enter into an established environment, this
work helps both practitioners and academics to understand how new ventures cope with the uncertainty
linked to the penetration of an established industry.

Background

Innovation for technology commercialisation in established industries: evidences from the food industry

The food industry is a mature industry of key importance for the global economy. It generates more than
four trillion US dollars in annual retail sales (Global Food Industry, 2016) and in Europe it is the largest
manufacturing sector, not only in terms of turnover (i.e. €1,244 billion), but also in terms of employment (i.e.
4.2 million people) and value added (i.e. 1.8% of the European value added) (Food Drink Europe, 2015). At

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

the same time, the food industry is also characterised by high level of heterogeneity in the types of
enterprises, in the types of production, and in their retail and distribution organisations (Pellegrini, et al.,
2014). The composition of this industry is characterised by the presence of just few large incumbents while
the majority of the firms in the sector are small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which in Europe represent
99.1% of the sector .
Given its complexity, new entrants have to face high barriers to entry and hence need to acquire the
capability to promptly respond to the constant changing customers’ needs (Bigliardi & Galati, 2013;
Manzini, et al., 2016) by becoming more innovative.
Typically, new entrants in the food industry have been mostly focusing on product innovations, trying to
meet and exceed the customers’ expectations (Bigliardi & Galati, 2013; Manzini, et al., 2016). 3D printing
technologies, are emerging digital technologies that can provide an answer to this need. As personalisation
and customisation of products is a main trend in customers’ demand across consumers goods, 3D printing
technologies have the potential to allow the mass-personalization of food and packaging (Jia et al., 2016;
Sun, et al., 2015). Hence, they have the potential to disrupt the existing food value chain, potentially
representing business opportunities potential but also great uncertainty for new entrants (Porter, 1980). The
technology commercialization literature suggests that ventures willing to commercialise new process
technologies need to be able to innovate and adapt also the technology commercialisation processes to
respond to the obstacles and uncertainties on the way (Maine, et al., 2012). Collaboration with other actors
and the identification of the most suitable strategies and business models to commercialise their innovations
can be of strategic importance (Vanhaverbeke & Chesbrough, 2014);Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010).
However, despite the identification of the importance of these process innovation, there is still the need to

clarify the dynamics that lead companies to access a mature industry based on the commercialization of an
emerging technological innovation (Probert et al., 2013; Caiazza, 2015).

The commercialisation of emerging technologies: the link between commercialization strategy and
business models

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Past literature has taken a dual view of technology commercialization. Some see this as part of the
innovation process (Burgelman, et al., 2004), others as part of the diffusion of innovations into the market
(e.g. Nambisan & Sawhney, 2007; Nerkar & Shane, 2003). Datta et al. (2015) identified six main steps that
lead the technological innovations into the market, based on three main phases of the innovation process:
ideation, development and deployment (Teece, 1986; Teece, et al., 1997). Whilst ‘Ideation’ concerns idea
generation, in the ‘Development’ phase the commercialisation strategies are defined. The ‘Deployment’
phase sees the firm’s strategy actualisation through the definition of a business model (i.e. a BM explains the
target market and the appropriate value proposition, the resources needed and the placement of a firm in a
value chain - Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010).
The strategy literature suggests contrasting commercialisation strategies for new technologies. As
highlighted by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010), there are several types of market choices from which an
entrepreneur can choose, such as: mass, niche, segmented, diversified and multi-sided. As initially
highlighted in the studies on disruptive innovation, new ventures, that aim to commercialise innovation
based on technologies with the potential to be exploited within the next 10 years (emerging technologies
(Keenan, 2003), can easily achieve their competitive advantage without the pressure of the incumbents firms
by taking up opportunities where the markets are not yet completely formed (Christensen, 1997; Davidow
(1986); Christensen & Rosenbloom (1995) ) – i.e. they should prefer niche strategies. Nerkar & Shane
(2003) take the opposite perspective, and recommend that new ventures develop intellectual properties in a
way that could suit a wide range markets. Later, Lubik & Garnsey (2015) suggest that radical, generic
technology-based ventures should select mainstream markets to get in, rather than niche markets, due to the
presence of incumbent firms that can provide the resources needed by the new venture. The choice of the
most suitable exploitation strategy according to Grant (2016) is instead linked to the resources and

capabilities of the innovator firm . Specifically referring to established industries, he suggests that firms
should exploit innovations through differentiation strategies (Grant, 2016).
For new ventures difficulties lie in being able to choose among the great number of market options
available (Maine et al., 2012), and in the considerable challenge that they face to gain access to the resources
that are useful for their creations. Whatever the strategic choice, among the possible uncertainties in the
commercialisation of a technology there is the commercialisation of other complementary technologies in

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

the present or in the future (Teece, 2010). Hence, technology-based new ventures, which are typically
characterised by scarce resources and capabilities, are keen to reduce the risks generated by uncertainties
through strategies that rely on the support of other players (e.g. outsourcing, alliances, and joint ventures i.e. collaborations) (Maine & Garnsey, 2006). Collaborations with other organisations can help new ventures
share risks and therefore reduce the complexity (Chesbrough, 2003). Hence, Marx et al. (2014) and Marx
and Hsu (2015) identified that new ventures who aim to commercialise their technologies, but lack resources
and capabilities, can pursue their ideal strategy by adopting interim co-operative strategies to access the
needed complementarities. This consists in developing a temporary, not ideal, sub-strategy, such as
launching the product briefly on the market to test the technology and get proof of it. Once the firm has
proved the technology, it can aim to build partnerships with incumbents in the market. By doing so, the firm
can achieve its ideal strategy. As such, the strategy can be exploited in the ‘Development’ phase (CasadesusMasanell & Ricart, 2010).
Independently from their experience, structural constraints, as well as cognitive biases also contribute to
the complexity in the technology commercialisation, which can lead to high level of uncertainty (Gavetti, et
al., 2012).
A business model that allows an organisation to exploit its technological innovation (Chesbrough &
Rosenbloom, 2002; Cortimiglia et al., 2016) represents its implemented strategy (Casadesus-Masanell &
Ricart, 2010). The BM is can be exploited in the ‘Deployment’ phase of technology commercialisation.

Despite the wide range of definitions (e.g. Baden-Fuller & Haefliger, 2013; Henry Chesbrough &
Rosenbloom, 2002; Magretta, 2002; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; David J. Teece, 2010; Zott, Amit, &
Massa, 2011), in general, BMs specify the key elements of the commercialisation strategy, as they represent

an organisation's essential activities in simplified form (Teece, 2010).
Overall, it is possible to distinguish two main approaches to the study of BMs: firm-centric (Magretta,
2002) and network-centric (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002). A firm-centric approach characterizes BMs
along three dimensions: value creation, value proposition and value capture. The network-centric view of
BMs includes the company network (see fig. 1).
This second perspective is consistent with an open firm’s strategy which has the advantage of increasing

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

firm's responsiveness to external influences (Vanhaverbeke & Roijakkers, 2013). It reflects how the firm
collaborates with its ecosystem to develop and capture value (Massa & Tucci, 2013). In line with this view,
Vanhaverbeke and Chesbrough, (2014) see open BMs as “the situations where the innovating company relies
on its partners’ competencies to jointly create value for customers and share that value according to
agreements they have negotiated prior to the collaboration”.

Figure 1. Network-centric business model
[figure 1 here]
Adapted from Massa and Tucci (2013)

The commercialisation of emerging technologies: the evolution of business models

To navigate the complexity of the environment and successfully commercialise innovation, ventures need
to be able to change and adapt their strategies and reflect these in their BMs.
Thus, innovations do not happen only at the technology/service level, but also often occur at the BM level
as starting point for innovating a firm’s strategy (Mitchell & Coles, 2003; Zott et al., 2011). Hence, the
business model innovation can be seen as a comprehensive unit of analysis that allows
managers/entrepreneurs to consider at the same time the most relevant endogenous and exogenous factors
that would enable their organisation to achieve competitive advantages and better performances (Datta, et al.,
2015; Velu, 2015). Several scholars understand BMI as an instrument to understand a firm’s evolution, change

and transformation (e.g. Chesbrough, 2010; Cortimiglia et al., 2016; Demil & Lecocq, 2010; Dmitriev, et al., 2014;
Hock, 2015; Johnson, et al., 2008). In fact, Schneider and Spieth (2013) argue that BMI has a positive influence

on the firm’s ability to react to the continuous changes in the customers’ demand.
In general it is agreed that the BMI process is cyclical (e.g. Achtenhagen, et al., 2013; Chesbrough, 2010;
Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Demil & Lecocq, 2010; Dmitriev et al., 2014; Lubik & Garnsey, 2015;
Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Simmons et al., 2013; David J. Teece, 2010) and involves two main phases,
BM design and BM reconfiguration (Massa and Tucci, 2013). With similar meanings, Cortimiglia et al.
(2015) refer to BM design, and BM development respectively. BM design (BMD) is usually associated with

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

the formation of new firms, and happens when an entrepreneur has to build, implement and validate a BM.
BM reconfiguration (BMR) is the activity of improving BMs that already exist. This latter is typical of
existing organisations.
Dmitriev et al. (2014) see BMI as a complex system of interactions that leads to a new BM, through a
series of virtuous cycles, and via “continuous process of conceptualizing value and organizing for value
creation”. Sosna, et al. (2010) showed that, in a firm operating in a well-established industry, such as the
food one, the achievement of new BMs occurs through a trial-and-error process. This was confirmed by
Lubik and Garnsey (2015), for science-based ventures. To date, it has been hypothesised that these BMI
processes (Design and Reconfiguration) are instigated by certain 'triggers' (discussed in the following
section). What is known about the result of the BMI process (the 'outcome') is also summarised below.
Whilst, according to Johnson et al. (2008), a BMI cycle happens after new knowledge is gained, Demil
and Lecocq (2010) and Dmitriev et al. (2014), showed that the BM cycles can be triggered by several factors
such as: the interaction between and within the BM components, the interactions across firm’s capabilities
(e.g. market and technology) or inputs that come from the external firm environment. Generally, BMI
triggers can be divided into three categories: external, internal and contextual (Demil and Lecocq, 2010).
Internal triggers can be related to the effects of decisions that can affect the organizational system (e.g.
decisions related to outsourcing a part of production). Changes in the BM can also be triggered by external
factors such as changes to demand, new technological advancements or country-dependent environmental
issues (Dmitriev et al. 2014). Ultimately, the dynamism of a BM can be launched by contextual factors, such
as the nature of an invention, the specific team of employees and the target market (Dmitriev et al. 2014).
As a result of a BMI process, new BMs emerge. The resulting shape of BMs can be classified to identify
archetypes (Massa and Tucci, 2013) – i.e. a general example of a BM. An example is "the Razor-and-blade

BM", which relies on ‘selling cheap razors to make customers buy its rather expensive blades’ (Zott & Amit,
2010, p. 218). Taking an internal view on the BMI process, the difference between a pre-existing BM and a
new one has also been highlighted by several authors (e.g. Brink & Holmén, 2009; Demil & Lecocq, 2010;
Velu, 2015): the more radical is the change in the BM component the more the resulting BM is radical.

A conceptual framework in the commercialisation of technological innovation

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

A conceptual framework that synthesises the technology commercialisation (strategy and (O)BM) and the
business model innovation (process, triggers and degree of innovativeness) of an innovation is derived from
the literature and reported in figure 2.
Fig. 2: Conceptual framework: business model innovation in the technology commercialization
process
[figure 2 here]

In the case of emerging technologies, the commercialisation process can be complex due to high
technology and market uncertainty (Maine & Garnsey, 2006). The process becomes even more complex if it
focuses on emerging technologies entering into established industries, due to the high barriers to entry and to
the market saturation (Manzini et al., 2016). Usually, emerging technologies are developed by new ventures
(Maine et al., 2012) that have to choose their commercialisation strategies. For instance, new ventures
developing the technology should choose their market. The most diffused options in the literature are niche
(Davidow, 1986) or diversification (Nerkar & Shane, 2003) market strategies. This phase belongs to the
‘Development’ stage of the technology commercialisation process.
The exploitation of the strategies is realised in the formation of a BM within the ‘Deployment’
commercialisation phase (Datta et al., 2015). To reduce the market and technology risks, and therefore the
overall uncertainty, firms usually rely on collaborations, either to innovate (OI) and/or to commercialise
(OBM). In this latter case, they assume a network-centric BM perspective with four BM dimensions (i.e.
VProp, VCr, VCa and VNet).
As several other scholars, we see the BMI as a cyclical process (see for instance (Chesbrough and
Rosenbloom, 2002; Teece, 2010; Demil and Lecocq, 2010; Osterwalder, and Pigneur 2010; Chesbrough,
2010; Simmons et al., 2013; Dmitriev et al., 2014; Lubik and Garnsey, 2015).

The BMI process belongs to the "Deployment" phase of the technology commercialization process (Datta et
al., 2015), where each cycle is triggered by exogenous or endogenous factors. While for exogenous triggers
we mean all the factors that lead, for instance, to a new market opportunity and to technological
advancements, for endogenous triggers we refer to all the factors related to a cognitive perspective (Hock,
2015).
Taking an internal BMI perspective (e.g. Brink & Holmén, 2009; Demil & Lecocq, 2010; Velu, 2015), in

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

the framework one or more triggers initiate a BM cycle, and will influence one or more of the BM
dimensions leading to a new BM (BMn), whose degree of innovation (∆BM) will vary from incremental to
radical (hence Incremental ≤ ∆BM ≤. Radical). The more dimensions (VCa, VCr, VNet, VProp) change in a
BM, the higher is the degree of novelty (radicalness) of the new BM (BMn+1). The process of BMI can be
interpreted as an iterative process either of BMD and sequentially of BMR or as a process of BMD and
separately of BMR (Massa and Tucci, 2013). This process is continuative through the life of the firm,
although there might be a time laps between cycles (Dmitriev et al., 2014). Once the BMI process ends, it
results in a new BM that can assume various typologies and shapes (e.g. Aversa et al., 2015; Casprini et al.,
2014; Cavalcante et al., 2011).
Due to the complexity of the commercialisation of emerging technologies-based venture, firms can go
through many cycles of development of their business model within the entire innovation process. As
recently suggested by Lubik & Garnsey, (2015), emerging-technologies-based ventures usually go through a
‘trial-and-error’ processes of learning to develop their business model. These companies can encounter many
triggers points that can start constant cycles of adjustments.

Research gap: Whilst much has been highlighted about the possible strategic choices and the importance of
BMI capabilities for ventures trying to enter an established market via the commercialization of a new
technology (See Fig.2), examples of how companies respond uncertainties and external triggers by adapting
their BM are still scarce. This work aims to add to this gap, by observing the evolution of BMs deployed by
a venture which tries to penetrate the food industry with the commercialization of an emergent process
technology (3D printing) and derive considerations which could deepen and add to the current theoretical
understanding.

Methodology
Research design
The gap identified is an example of complex, current phenomena of which not much is known. In these
cases, Yin (2009) suggests that a grounded approach with employs a case study methodology is the most
suitable to investigate such phenomena. More specifically, a single case study method can support

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

knowledge and theory building when it is used to extend the theory by determining if the theoretical set of
circumstances (i.e. propositions) under study are correct or if an alternative set of propositions could be more
suitable instead (Siggelkow, 2007; Yin, 2009).
Single case studies are very useful in a variety of circumstances (Sigglekow, 2007) and have been
particularly used in the BM literature as this is an emergent theoretical area. For instance, Demil and Lecocq
(2010) used a single case study to illustrate their RCOV framework used to link the static (i.e. BM) with the
dynamic (i.e. BMI) approaches to look at BM development. Sosna et al. (2010) used a single case study to
analyse the triggers and the antecedents that spur a new BMI cycle. Tongur and Engwall (2014) focused on
the analysis of the inter-links between technology and business model. Toward this end, they narrowed their
analysis on a single project. Velu and Stiles (2013) used an in-depth single case study to analyse how
companies manage the decision-making processes in the circumstances in which an emergent and an existing
BMs have to run in parallel. All the above highlighted studies have used a single case study as this approach
enabled the different authors to show a deeper level of details and understanding of a certain phenomenon.
This is an aim not pursuable with other methodological approaches.
We hence conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with one informant, asking him about past
events (retrospective perspective), to test the suitability of the developed framework, and to identify
advancement of this understanding. The interviews were supported by archival data analysis that included
company documents, web news about the firm and the firm’s website.

Sampling
We observed a UK-based new venture born in 2009, ITIS3D. ITIS3D is a two people technology-driven
company focused on the distribution of 3DP technologies in established industries. Its core business is in the

education industry and only recently has ITIS3D considered approaching the food industry. ITIS3D
represents a great example of a SME that has gone and is going through several business model cycles to
access the food industry.
The CEO of ITIS3D, was interviewed twice in 2016. He is a serial entrepreneur who has spent most of his
working life in engineering as managing director of a business-to-business (B2B) distribution company,
specialized in commercializing emerging technology-based industrial applications focusing lately on the

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

education market.
The interviews were conducted face-to-face. Data were collected concerning the period starting from the
firm’s birth to current times (2016). Aware of the possible cognitive biases that this kind of approach could
encounter, additional secondary data and notes were collected as indicated above. The interviews were taperecorded and later transcribed.
The first interview started with a brief account of the research project. Then open-ended questions were
used to gain more details, such as: “tell me the story of your company? How has your business model been
developing overtime?” (Minichiello, et al., 2008)
The second interview focused on clarifying the understanding gathered from the first interview and on
validation of the BM cycle analysis.

Data analysis
An inductive approach was adopted and a latent content analysis was performed (Mayan, 2009). This is
described below.
ITIS3D’s case has been analyzed through iterative phases. 1) We coded all the data, primary and
secondary. This process was iterated several times, until a clear account of the BMs cycles emerged. 2) The
data were categorized, according to BM building blocks and their constituent elements. Consistent with the
Open BM literature, the presence of a value network was held to indicate the openness of the model. As
such, we indicated as a “closed model” when the firm establishes a hierarchical relationship with suppliers
and or customers. A "partially open model" was the case when the firm establishes a networked relationship,
either on the supplier side or on the customer side. Otherwise an "open model" is the case when the
relationship with both the supplier as well as the customers are networked. 3) The data were tabulated in

chronological order, following the development of each business model cycle. 4) Broader themes such as the
BM cycles, the BM changes and the BM strategy changes were derived (Mayan, 2009; Miles & Huberman,
1994). 5) After the analysis of the history of ITIS3D, we looked for patterns and mechanisms in ITIS3D
business model dynamic processes. At the end of the analysis the observations derived from the case study
were compared with the literature (Fig. 2). The evidence from the observations of the case were used to
further develop insights captured in a new version of the theoretical framework (Fig. 4).

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Findings: ITIS3D history from a BM dynamics perspective
Currently ITIS3D is a 3D printing distributor focussing on commercializing emerging technologies in
niche segments of established industries. According to ITIS3D's CEO, this choice was determined by the
commercialisation potential of this kind of technologies “it is where the biggest opportunities lie. [..] I want
to do something that in 5 or 10 years will be very successful”.

Background
ITIS3D was born as a result of the failure of the firm where the founders were previously working. That
company counted about 30 employees, but it unfortunately had to close, due to a misadventure with a
fraudulent international partner. This firm operated according to a B2B distributor-based model for CNC and
rapid prototyping equipment, as shown in table 1.

Table 1. Previous firm business model archetype

[table 1 here]

ITIS3D Business Models Innovation process: archetypes and timeline

ITIS3D BM archetypes variation is shown in table 2.
BM 1: Distributor Model
BM 1a: ITIS3D was founded in 2009 (at that time differently named), following the offer received by the

founders to collaborate in the commercialization of a low cost 3D printer. The new firm was configured as
low cost 3D printer B2B distributor operating mainly in the education industry. The firm mainly replicated
the BM adopted in the previous (failed) company, but wanted to substitute its previous, transactional
(closed), relationship with the manufacturer with one where the new opportunities of business were explored
more collaboratively (sharing the risks).

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

BM 1b: About one year later (2010-2011), the 3D printer producer bypassed ITIS3D and decided to
commercialise directly its product. So, ITIS3D decided to internalise the production of 3D printers. They
hired a 3D printing designer to produce their own low-cost 3D printer for schools. This is a change in the
value creation building block, from external to internal. This change had a brief life, as, according to the
CEO: “Having spent a lot of our money on developing a product which failed, we then had no money and no
product. So, the only way to continue the business was to find another external supplier. And at that point we
didn’t rethink our business, we just were looking for a quick solution to get us back into business without
having to close the company”.

BM 0: Giving up the production of their own 3D printing machine as “It took 12 months longer, than he
(the 3D printer designer) and we have anticipated. And by the time it was lunched, Chinese firms started
coming into the market with machines that cost the same amount, but which are plug and play”, the firm
reverted to the transactional-distributor model in the education industry (BM 0) for 3D printing equipment.

BM1c: “We limped along” said the CEO. So, at the end of 2014, ITIS3D decided “trying to improve
[their] existing business model [3D Printing technologies-based distributor], [..]. Always, again, looking
forward to new products [..], thinking about new markets”. At this point they started proactively to consider
distributing 3D printers in other industries. In 2014, ITIS3D's CEO came across a company that was
producing a 3D printer that could be used to print food. This serendipitous finding spurred the following
thought: “maybe there is an opportunity in food, because it is still very early stage for 3D printing in food.
And there are a few competitors around the world”. Initially ITIS3D tried to replicate the same BM (BM1a)
with the low-cost 3D printer producer (e.g. close collaboration in commercialising the 3D food printer), but

so far, the 3D food printer producer prefers to maintain a more transactional relationship.

BM2: Consultancy (service) Model
BM2a: At the same time ITIS3D decided to revert to BM1a (2012-2013), they also decided to add a
service BM on top of a distribution model. This new line of business was focused on delivering training and
consulting in the education industry. The offering consisted in workshops to teach people how to use 3D

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

printers and related equipment. “So we have done lots of school projects, spent the whole day with the
school, and we would teach to the group of people how to use designing 3D, scanning 3D and seeing the
results of their designs appearing printed.” This change indicates an 'Outbound OI strategy' where the firm
started capturing value from the expertise that they were giving away for free in the distribution model.
“Instead of giving away a lot of intellectual property, which was knowledge about the market, knowledge
about where the technology was going, knowledge about opportunities in the future. We started selling that”.

BM2b: When in 2014 ITIS3D started considering new markets in which to sell 3D printers, the founders
decided to expand the target market for the training and consulting activities in these industries too. In
addition to the day workshop on how to use 3D printers, the firm started to offer lectures on the technology,
the markets and the related potential business opportunities.

BM2-1: The linked BM
BM2b to BM1c: In the second half of 2015, ITIS3D bought a prototype food printer with the intention to
investigate new business opportunities in the food industry for both their consultancy (BM 2b) and as a
means to demonstrate the technology to customers interested in buying the 3D food printer (BM 1c). Since,
at that time the printer was not yet ready for distribution, the firm decided to use their consultancy BM2b to
sell to potential customers, who were interested in using 3D printers in the food market, the chance to
collaborate in testing the market opportunity for such technology. The value capture element of this BM,
would then be chosen after studying the potential customer business idea, depending on the interest of
ITIS3D: “if we thought the applications, the opportunities, would be big enough, we would do the test
ourselves. If we didn’t, they would have to pay us to carry out the test and see whether it could be done”.

Despite the high interest that ITIS3D gained from the market, at the moment the work in this area is on hold,
until the 3D printer will be finalised for distribution.

Recently (2016), ITIS3D requested consultancy from MBA students in order to understand how they can
implement and expand their BM. ITIS3D is “still trying to make a success of the same thing, but looking at
different ways of making it happen”.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Fig.3 visualises ITIS3D BM evolutions and the related triggers of change . On the Y axis, it is possible to
observe the market shifts, while on the X axis there is the time line. Figure 3 shows also the twofold BMI
strategies adopted by ITIS3D: On one hand the BM evolution for the exploitation of 3DP within the
education industry on the other, the BM evolution following the exploration strategy to enter new markets.

Figure 3: Sequence of business model and change triggers

[figure 3 here]

Table 2: Business Model Innovation dynamics. Changed BM building blocks from previous version
are highlighted in bold

[table 2 here]

BMI process: influencing factors and logics

ITIS3D is a relatively new venture, where the CEO leads the BMI process when he sees potential in a new
technologies/markets. The identification of new business opportunities often happened by chance (e.g.
meeting people at workshops) rather than being deliberately sought in a structured way. “At the moment [the
business development] is opportunity-based, rather than thinking ‘OK what are our core skills?”.
Despite BM additions and changes, ITIS3D BM core structure has generally remained the same. For
instance, when ITIS3D was founded, it was born in response to the forced closure of the previous business.

The new venture started with the same BM archetype of the old company. The main differences where in the
desire to change the network relationship with the technology producer for its commercialisation.
According to the CEO, the main triggers that led to change are “usually exogenous. Other things are
happening over which we have no control”. For instance, a change happened when ITIS3D switched from
distributor to producer and vice versa. The first shift (BM1a - BM1b) was due to a decision by the printer
producer to directly distribute its products. This led to changes in two out of the four BM building blocks

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

(see table 2 (i.e. VCr – VN)). The second ∆BM (BM1b - BM0) was due to the lead-time to internally
develop a product, increased competition and lack in liquidity. Also here, the ∆BM involved the VCr, which
however remained closed (the relationship with the new equipment manufacturer was kept transactional,
following the desire of the equipment manufacturer).
Another ∆BM happened when ITIS3D looked to expand its market areas (BM0 - BM1c), looking for new
VPs, which could be supported through their products. This change originated from the lack of profits from
one single market. VP change was the main variation also in the design of the consultancy BM.
In the linked BM archetype, BM2b to scope new opportunities. ITIS3D would run the test for scoping a
new market opportunity, without asking for compensation, when the CEO expected potential future codevelopment of opportunities. So the firm was using an outbound OI strategy to explore new areas of
business (i.e. VCr and VCa are open).
After six years of trial-and-error experimentations, the 3D printing-based distribution and consulting
seems a formula for a stable source of income. “We would certainly continue with that core business”.
However, the founders “are constantly on the look out to ‘how do we change our business model, in order to
be successful?”.

Discussion
To date several studies have highlighted the importance of commercializing innovations through
collaborations (e.g. Vanhaverbeke & Chesbrough, 2014; Massa & Tucci, 2013), by developing strategies
(Grant, 2016; Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010) and business models (e.g. Dmitriev et al., 2014;
Cortimiglia et al., 2016) in enhancing the ability of a new venture to face the uncertainty related to the
commercialisation of a new radical technology in a mature environment. However, previous studies did not

show how these innovation processes take place (e.g. Probert et al., 2013; Caiazza, 2015). This work aimed
to contribute to this theoretical gap by providing empirical evidence on how business model change when
companies attempt to exploit an emerging technology in established industries.
To do so, we have looked at the history of a firm, ITIS3D (2009-2016), concentrating on the BM
development loops. Secondly, the analysis focused on the most relevant elements underlying the BMI
process, compared with those derived from literature (see theoretical framework in figure 2).

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

In the process of commercialising an emerging technology in an established industry, such as 3D printing
in food, ITIS3D decides the market strategies during the ‘Development’ stage. In this phase, the firm under
study tends to adopt differentiation strategies to explore new opportunities to get into the market, contrasting,
with what was stated by one stream of the innovation literature (Christensen, 1997; Christensen &
Rosenbloom, 1995; Davidow, 1986). However, this finding was concurring to the market entry strategies for
commercialisation in mature industries (i.e. differentiation strategies), suggested by Grant (2016).
To reduce the market uncertainty emerging when a new entrant attempt to enter an existing market with a
new radical technology it emerged that, between the ‘Development’ and the ‘Deployment’ stage of the
technology commercialisation process, ITIS3D develops interim strategies to identify the ideal one. Whilst
this is partly in agreement with what highlighted by Marx et al. (2014) and Marx and Hsu (2015), according
to which new ventures tend to develop interim strategies only to achieve the pre-defined final one, our
observations contrast with these previous works. The reverse strategy process adopted by ITIS3D has been
introduced with an opposed arrow to the one designed in the original framework.

Figure n. 4: Implemented conceptual framework: business model innovation in the technology
commercialization process

[figure 4 here]

ITIS3D's CEO claims he is “not wedded to any one of the businesses, methodologies, the monetisation
ideas that we have adopted in the past”. However, in line with what is argued by the cognitive school
studying BMs (Martins, et al., 2015), ITIS3D mostly developed its BMs based on their previous experience

as B2B equipment distributors. This observation shows that potentially the entrepreneur sees only some of
the afforded BMs – i.e. the tactical manifestation of the strategy (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010).
However, this is not immediately obvious to the entrepreneur. When the CEO of ITIS3D was asked why he
was more or less following the same business model building blocks shapes/structure over the time, he
answered that “I am trying not to. [..] (Before) it never occurred me." One explanation is the reduction of
uncertainties. Faced with the complexity of both the market and the technology side (Maine et al., 2012), it is

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

conceivable that the firm would reduce the uncertainties by going back to BM archetypes that are familiar
(e.g. this is what happened in the second BMI loop). Further changes were implemented to reduce
uncertainties: ITIS3D CEO highlighted several times that “In terms of being inside of the company, owning
the technology and having a stake in that company, those are two of the key things that I have learned in my
working life that I want to have”. This emphasises the natural inclination to revert to the closed business
models.
Furthermore, as only some elements of the BMs were changed at any one time (VCr and VN was
successively revised, whilst VCa model stayed mostly the same), it seems that not all the BM building
blocks have the same relevance in the mind of an entrepreneur. If a new BM replicates the structure of an old
BM, but for a new area of market, then a loop in the BMI process emerged (see the example in fig. 4 form
BM2a to BM2b). This finding has been introduced into the BM framework.
The case study also showed that BM reconfiguration (BMR), which typically is attributed to established
firms (Massa and Tucci, 2013), also can be found in start-ups. Furthermore, the case shows how the BMI
process, which typically describes the BMI phases (BMD and BMR) in sequential order (Zott and Amit,
2010; Dmitriev et al., 2014), is actually characterised by multiple repetitions and iterations of these two
stages, and a firm develops its overall BM strategy running both types of BMI at the same time. Hence, both
BMI processes (BMD and BMR) can co-exist for BM extension and revision (Cavalcante et al., 2011).
Another finding emerged on the entity of the changes in BM (∆BM). The literature-based framework
highlighted that the radicalness of a BMI would depend on how many building blocks change. According to
what has been observed in ITIS3D's case (see table 2 and figure 3), the radicalness regarded the whole
strategy (which moved from an exploitative to a broader explorative one (March, 1991), more than the BMs.
The BM change, which this strategic shift initiated, was not, overall, a radical change. In other words, even

important strategic changes (e.g. introducing a new line of business) do not reflect necessarily in a great
∆BM.
Although this is not the focus of this specific research, the proposed framework could also help in
explaining how companies learn and acquire dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) through repeated
cycles of trial and error experimentation (Aldrich & Yang, 2014).

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Conclusions
To understand how business models change when companies try to commercialise an emerging
technology in established industries, this research followed three main steps. First, we built a conceptual
framework from extant literature, which aimed to analyse the business model innovation cycles associated
with the exploitation of emerging technologies. Second, we observed the data from the exploratory case
study of ISIT3D (a firm, which has started to exploit 3D printing in the food industries) though the lens for
the initial conceptual framework. Finally, we integrated the findings that emerged from this case study with
the theoretical framework designed from the literature. Overall, this work contributes to advance the existing
theoretical knowledge by showing how new potential new entrant in an establish market innovate in the
process of developing their BM for the commercialisaiton of a new disruptive technology. The integrated
framework identified also that:
1) More than one BMs can exist and the same time. Hence, BMI processes (such as BM Design and BM
Reconfiguration) often coexist and are run in parallel. So far the literature on the BMI process separates the
BM design (BMD) from the BM reconfiguration (BMR). The first is typically associated with new ventures,
while the second with existing firms (Massa and Tucci, 2013). In contrast to the literature, this case shows
that BMR can happen also for new ventures and that BMD and BMR can sometimes co-exist and run in
parallel. These are important for firms to test the BMs whist entering an established and conservative market
such as the food industry.
2) To face the market uncertainty a small firm could tend to adopt interim strategies and therefore BMs to
identify the more suitable one to get into the market. The case of ITIS3D showed that to reduce internal
uncertainty a firm could tend to adopt a closed and/or a familiar BM (e.g. establishing external,
transactional-bases relationship with manufacturers) by closing the value creation (i.e. how the firm’s create

value) aspect of the BM. However, this case study showed also that explorative strategies could be pursued
by opening (e.g. establishing more collaborative relationship with potential partners) the value creation value proposition (i.e. the activity through which the firm aims to create and capture value) aspects of a BM,
this allow a firm to share risks. This combination of BM approaches could allow a firm to survive (if not
flourish) whilst searching a way to tackle a new market.
3) Even if significant changes in BM strategies are planned, these will not necessarily be reflected in the

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

radicalness of the new BM.

By highlighting the above observations, this work can help managers to rationalize and review their BM
development process for the commercialisation of their new technology, by showing how the BM could be
configured during the commercialisation of an emerging technology in a mature industry. Similarly, it helps
scholars appreciate that, although most literature often refers to a single business model and single strategies
for technology commercialization, more can be combined and used to move forward in an uncertain
transition. Specifically, from the case study of ISIT3D it emerges that the firm could adopt interim business
models (i.e. open BMs to explore new opportunities and closed BMs in condition of internal uncertainty) to
identify the more suitable one.
Further, our observations could explain the incongruence in the suggestions from the strategic literature
reported above and suggests that scholars might need to move from suggesting the "successful" strategies
and BM configuration, whilst taking instead into account a more dynamic and contingent view which
describes the process of sustainably determining the best BM configuration to reduce the uncertainties in the
penetration of established markets. Therefore, these observations can be extended to new ventures aiming to
enter in the food industry.
This work is exploratory and has several limitations. Firstly, this is a single case study which has explored
one instance of the phenomenon. Another limitation is consistent with the retrospective perspective adopted
in the study. Even if the authors have mitigated this bias by collecting and integrating the data from the
interviews with secondary data, it still poses a limitation, linked to the subjectivity of the informant in
recollecting ITIS3D BM innovation sequence. Furthermore, only the opinion of the firm’s CEO was
recorded. Hence, the results obtained here should provide the foundation for further studies testing of the

framework on a broader sample of cases.

References
Achtenhagen, L., Melin, L., & Naldi, L. (2013). "Dynamics of business models - strategizing, critical
capabilities and activities for sustained value creation". Long Range Planning, 46(6), 427–442.
Aldrich, H. E., & Yang, T. (2014). "How do entrepreneurs know what to do? learning and organizing in new

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

ventures". Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24, 59–82.
Baden-Fuller, C., & Haefliger, S. (2013). "Business Models and Technological Innovation". Long Range
Planning, 46(6), 419–426.
Bigliardi, B., & Galati, F. (2013a). "Innovation trends in the food industry: The case of functional foods".
Trends in Food Science and Technology, 31(2), 118–129.
Bigliardi, B., & Galati, F. (2013b). "Models of adoption of open innovation within the food industry".
Trends in Food Science and Technology, 30(1), 16–26.
Brink, J., & Holmén, M. (2009). "Capabilities and Radical Changes of the Business Models of New
Bioscience Firms". Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(2), 109–120.
Burgelman, R., Maidique, M. A., & Wheelwright, S. . (2004). Strategic Management Of Technology And
Innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill,.
Caiazza, R. (2015). "Explaining innovation in mature industries: evidences from Italian SMEs". Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(8), 975–985.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). "From strategy to business models and onto tactics". Long
Range Planning, 43(2–3), 195–215.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology.
Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). "Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers". Long Range Planning,
43(2–3), 354–363.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). "The role of the business model in capturing value from
innovation : evidence from Xerox Corporation ’ s technology spin-off companies". Industrial and
Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). "The era of Open Innovation". MIT Sloan Management Review, 35–42.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). "Beyond high-tech: early adopters of Open Innovation in
other industries". R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Business.
Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). "Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological
paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network". Research Policy, 24, 233–257.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Cortimiglia, M., Ghezzi, A., & Frank, A. (2016). "Business model innovation and strategy making nexus:
evidence from a cross-industry mixed-methods study". R&D Management, 46(3), 414–432.
Datta, A., Mukherjee, D., & Jessup, L. (2015). "Understanding commercialization of technological
innovation: Taking stock and moving forward". R and D Management, 45(3), 215–249.
Davidow, W. (1986). Marketing HIgh Technology: An Insider’s View. New York, USA: New York, Free
Press.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). "Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency". Long Range
Planning, 43(2–3), 227–246.
Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). "An exploration of
business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations". R and D
Management, 44(3), 306–321.
Food Drink Europe. (2015). "Data & Trends of the European Food and Drink Industry 2014-2015".
FoodDrinkEurope.
Fortuin, F. T. J. M., & Omta, S. W. F. (2009). "Innovation drivers and barriers in food processing". British
Food Journal, 111(8), 839–851.
Gavetti, G., Greve, H., Levinthal, D. A., & Ocaiso, W. (2012). "The Behavioral Theory of the Firm :
Assessment and Prospects". The Academy of Management, 6(1), 1–40.
Grant, R. (2016). Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases edition (Ninth). Hoboken, New Jersy:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Hock, M. (2015). "Business Model Innovation and Behavioural Management : New Ideas and Insights for
Future". In The XXVI ISPIM Conference – Shaping the Frontiers of Innovation Management, Budapest,
Hungary on 14-17 June 2015. The. Budapest, Hungary: ISPIM.

Jia, F., Wang, X., Mustafee, N., & Hao, L. (2016). "Investigating the feasibility of supply chain-centric
business models in 3D chocolate printing: A simulation study". Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 102, 202–213.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). "Reinventing Your Business Model
Reinventing Your Business Model". Harvard Business Review, 1–10.
Keenan, M. (2003). "Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience".

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Journal of Forecasting, 2(3), 129–149.
Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2015). "Early Business Model Evolution in Science-based Ventures: The Case of
Advanced Materials". Long Range Planning, 1–16.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Models Matter, 86–92.
Maine, E., & Garnsey, E. (2006). "Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials
ventures". Research Policy, 35(3), 375–393.
Maine, E., Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2012). "Process-based vs. product-based innovation: Value creation by
nanotech ventures". Technovation, 32(3–4), 179–192.
Manzini, R., Lazzarotti, V., & Pellegrini, L. (2016). "How to Remain as Closed as Possible in the Open
Innovation Era: The Case of Lindt & Sprüngli". Long Range Planning.
March, J. G. (1991). "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning". Organization Science, 2(1),
71–87.
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). "Unlocking The Hidden Value Of Concepts: A
Cognitive Approach To Business Model Innovation". Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 99–117.
Marx, M., Gans, J. S., & Hsu, D. H. (2014). "Dynamic Commercialization Strategies for Disruptive
Technologies"  Management Science, 60(12), 1–42.
Marx, M., & Hsu, D. H. (2015). "Strategic switchbacks: Dynamic commercialization strategies for
technology entrepreneurs". Research Policy, 44(10), 1815–1826.
Massa, L., & Tucci, C. L. (2013). "Business Model Innovation". In M. Dodgson, D. Gann, & N. Phillips
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management. (p. 420-). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Mayan, M. J. (2009). Essentials of Qualitative Inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Leaf Coast Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., & Hays, T. (2008). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis.
Pearson Education Australia.
Mitchell, D., & Coles, C. (2003). "The ultimate competitive advantage of business model innovation".
Journal of Business Strategy, 23(5), 15–21.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. (2007). "A Buyer’s Guide to the Innovation Bazaar". Harvard Business
Review, (June 2007), 109–118.
Nerkar, A., & Shane, S. (2003). "When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive?"
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1391–1410.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation. (T. Clark, Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(First). Hoboken, New Jersy: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Pellegrini, L., Lazzarotti, V., & Manzini, R. (2014). "Open innovation in the food and drink industry".
Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 12(1), 75–94.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Simon and
Schuster.
Probert, D., Dissel, M., Farrukh, C., Mortara, L., Thorn, V., & Phaal, R. (2013). "The process of making the
business case for technology: A sales and marketing perspective for technologists". Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 80(6), 1129–1139.
Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). "Business Model Innovation: Towards An Integrated Future Research
Agenda". International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1), 1340001.
Siggelkow, N. (2007). "Persuasion With Case Studies". Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.
Simmons, G., Palmer, M., & Truong, Y. (2013). "Inscribing value on business model innovations: Insights
from industrial projects commercializing disruptive digital innovations". Industrial Marketing
Management, 42(5), 744–754.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). "Business model innovation through trialand-error learning: The naturhouse case". Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 383–407.
Sun, J., Peng, Z., Yan, L., H Fuh, J. Y., & Soon Hong, G. (2015). "3D food printing—An innovative way of

mass customization in food fabrication. 3D food printing—An innovative way of mass customization
in food fabrication". International Journal of Bioprinting, 1(1), 27–38.
Swaminthan, A. (1998). "Entry into New Market Segments in Mature Industries: Endogenous and
Exogenous Segmentation in the U.S. Brewing Industry". Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 389–
404.
Teece, D. J. (1986). "Profiling from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration,

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

licencing and public policy". Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
Teece, D. J. (2010). "Business models, business strategy and innovation". Long Range Planning, 43(2–3),
172–194.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). "Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management". Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). "A Classification of Open Innovation and Open Business
Models". In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation
(pp. 50–68). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2013). "Enriching Open Innovation Theory and Practice by
Strengthening the Relationship with Strategic Thinking". In N. Pfeffermann, T. Minshall, & L. Mortara
(Eds.), Strategy and Communication for Innovation (pp. 1–465). Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Velu, C. (2015). "Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms".
Technovation, 35, 1–11.
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research - Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). "Business model design: An activity system perspective". Long Range
Planning, 43(2–3), 216–226.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). "The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research".
Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Figure 1: Network-centric business model

Value Proposition

(customers; product/service offer; market segm

Value Network

(linkages; partners; suppliers; distribution chann

Value Capture
(costs; revenue stream &
profit allocation)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Figure 2: Conceptual framework: business model innovation in the technology commer
t1

t0
Dev.

Ide.

Technology
commercialisation
(strategy & (O)BM)

VP

VN

(Datta et al., 2015; Cortimiglia
et al., 2016; Vanhaverbeke and
Chesbrough, 2014)

Strategy

VCr

VCa

BM
End.
trigger

En
trig

Design

Reconfiguration

Exo.
trigger

E
tri

Business model innovation
(process, triggers &
innovativeness)

VP1

(Massa and Tucci, 2013; Demil
and Lecocq, 2010; Velu, 2015;
Brink & Holmén, 2009)

VN1
VCa1

VC

BM1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Figure 3: Sequence of business model and change triggers
Business
opportunity

BM 0
Education
industry

Too long
manufacturing
time

Downturn
producer

BM 1a

BM 1b

B

Company
failure

B

Other
industries

Food
industry

t0

2009

2010/2011

2

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Figure 4: Implemented conceptual framework: business model innovation in the techn
t1

t0
Dev.

Ide.

VP

Technology
commercialisation
(strategy & (O)BM)

VN

VCa

(Datta et al., 2015; Cortimiglia
et al., 2016; Vanhaverbeke and
Chesbrough, 2014)

Strategy

BM

VCr

End.
trigger

Design
Exo.
trigger

VP1

Business model innovation
(process, triggers &
innovativeness)

BM1a

VN1
(Massa and Tucci, 2013; Demil
and Lecocq, 2010; Velu, 2015;
Brink & Holmén, 2009)

VCa1

VCr1

BM1

BM1b

V

BM1c

VCr
External
manufacturers +
internal
knowledge

VCa
Margin on sold pieces of
equipment.
(The equipment were
bought in advance and
then re-sold at a higher
price).

VN
Closed model - hierarchical
relationship both with
suppliers and customers

BM1b

Distributor of
3DP equipment
for educational
needs

Internal
production

Margin on sold
equipment
(Buyers pay in
advance)

BM1a

Distributor of
3DP
equipment for
educational
needs

External
partner (3DP
manufacturer)
+ internal
knowledge

Margin on
sold
equipment
(Buyers pay in
advance)

VP

VCr

VCa

BM 0

Margin on sold
equipment
(Buyers pay in
advance)

External
manufacturers
+ internal
knowledge

Distributor of
3DP equipment
for educational
needs

Distribution

Margin on sold
equipment (Buyers
pay in advance)

External
manufacturers +
internal
knowledge

Distributor of 3DP
equipment for
educational and
other markets
(e.g. food) needs

BM1c

Pay per time

Internal
knowledge

Knowledge of
3DP
technologies in
education

BM2a

Pay per time

Internal
knowledge

Technical/Market
knowledge of 3DP
in education industry

BM2b

Consultancy

Linked Consultancy to open new
markets
BM2b
BM1c
Distributor of
Technical/Market
3DP equipment
knowledge of 3DP for educational as
in education well as other
industry - food
markets (e.g.
food) needs
Internal
knowledge
External
– or –
manufacturer
Networked with
client
Pay per test and
advice
Margin on
- Otherwise –
equipment sold
Open
(Buyers pay in
(e.g. a percentage
advance)
on every sold
product/service

Table 2: Business Model Innovation dynamics. Changed BM building blocks from previous version are highlighted in bold

BM 0

VP
Distributor of CNC
machining and rapid
prototyping equipment for
industrial and educational
needs.

Table 1. Previous firm business model archetype

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

VN

Partially open
model - Open
only for VCr
(collaboration
with provider
of equipment
to identify
new
opportunities)

Closed model Hierarchical
relationship
with material
suppliers and
customers

Closed model Hierarchical
relationship
with equipment
manufacturer,
material
suppliers and
customers
Closed model Hierarchical
relationship with
equipment
manufacturer,
material suppliers
and customers

Closed model Hierarchical
relationship
both with
equipment
manufacturers,
material
suppliers and
customers
Closed model Hierarchical
relationship both
with equipment
manufacturers,
material suppliers
and customers

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA At 12:26 09 October 2017 (PT)

Closed model Hierarchical
relationship both
with equipment
manufacturer,
material
suppliers and
customers
– Otherwise –
Partially open
model
- Open only for
VCr (external
client in building
business
opportunities)

co-created)

Closed model Hierarchical
relationship with
equipment
manufacturer,
material
suppliers and
customers