Business Model Innovation and Strategic Innovation: A Literature Review

Abstract

Since the 90s, the topics of Business Model Innovation (BMI) and Strategic Innovation (SI) have
had growing interest in research and practice, and have been covered from different aspects and
in different literature streams ranging from Strategic Management, Innovation Management,
Strategic Innovation, to Technology Management, Organizational Theory and others. However,
even though a great number of academic works have been published on the topics at stake, and
the vast majority of authors consider both BMI and SI great sources of competitive advantage,
the convolution in the research field and an ambiguity of the definition of the terms creates
difficulties for further research. That is why this systematic literature review of the existing body
of knowledge was created, in an attempt to objectively reveal the advantages and disadvantages
of existing literature, with the goal of consolidating and improving future research. The study is
based on the review of 258 articles which should provide an impartial view on the most relevant
articles on BMI and SI and give insights on the different approaches used, the definitions and
findings they yielded, their limitations, and opportunities for improving future scholarly efforts.

1
 1. Introduction

Both strategic innovation and business model innovation have been attracting significant amount
of attention of many researchers and practitioners during the past decades; however, not a single
definition has been accepted universally, leading to a blurred understanding of the concepts
themselves. The generated theoretical streams suggest different ways of applying these concepts
to improve business performance, prevent imitation of the created unique differentiation aspects,
and provide most sustainable market presence. Hence, the importance of the adequate innovation
management is easily noticeable.

Unavoidably, both strategic innovation and business model innovations have been related to
technology development, and hence their interrelations have been investigated. In particular,
innovation in contemporary turbulent business environment must include business models rather
than just technology and R&D (Chesbrough 2007). Nonetheless, technology development can
facilitate new business models. Yet, business model innovation can also occur without
technological development (Baden-Fuller, C. et al., 2013). Furthermore, the distinction between
the discussed phenomena and product innovation has been analyzed; generally, “product
innovations no longer provide sufficient opportunities for differentiation. Ever shorter life cycles,
shorter periods of imitation and increasing competition from low wage countries require new and
sustained competitive advantages.” (Matzler et al., 2013).

The phenomena of interest for this paper have been investigated within strategic management,
innovation management, entrepreneurship, technology management, strategic renewal,
organizational theory, and other related fields of study. Some of the analyzed papers have been
investigating only one of the aforementioned phenomena, while a noticeable bunch has been
focused on both of them and/or their relationship.

This paper is organized as follows: after explaining methodology used for collecting and
analyzing papers, some basic statistics about the created database are presented. Furthermore, the
terms of interest for this paper, i.e. strategic innovation, business model innovation, as well as
their relationship, are discussed. After presenting the classified study aims and main findings, an
overview of the current research limitations and the opportunities for future research are
presented. Finally, main conclusions and final remarks are outlined. 

2
 2. Methodology

The methodology used for the collection of the relevant papers initiated with the search for
articles and conference proceedings that contained “business model innovation” and/or strategic
innovation in their titles. Consequently, the range was expanded by the quest for the
aforementioned terms in the keywords set, as well as by the addition of “strategic renewal” to the
phrases of interest. All papers that satisfied the described criteria were added to the database,
being followed by a deep analysis. More precisely, the extraction of the key information was
performed on spot, outlining the following data: name of the author(s), title of the article,
publication year, name of the journal/conference, number of citations listed in Scopus and Web
of Science databases, research type (i.e. empirical, conceptual, or both), theoretical stream,
research methodology, study aim, study findings, study limitations and opportunities for future
research. Eventually, both qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed on the created
dataset, aimed at providing valuable insights for this literature review.

The following tables 1 and 2 present the leading analyzed papers regarding the citation (as
decided, the ones that are cited more than 50 times), in Elsevier Science Scopus and Thomson
Reuters Web of Science databases, respectively. The two databases are considered to be widely
used for different scientific research, since they specify the active journals in covering current
and relevant research as well as prominent in shaping potential research fields; as such represent
a reliable research foundation (Chadegani et al., 2013). As it can be seen, the lists are similar in
terms of the papers themselves, but with different citation times; Scopus citations are on average
higher than the ones on Web of Science. In addition, the leading papers are listed in both
databases, which support the fact that the intellectual core of BMI and SI has been published in
the leading journals.

Table 1 – The intellectual core of BMI and SI (Scopus)

No Authors Year Journal Time

. s
Cited
1. Teece D.J., Pisano G., Shuen A. 1997 Strategic Management 6099
Journal
2. Porter, M.E. 2001 Harvard Business Review 1257
3. Amit, R., Zott, C. 2001 Strategic Management 960
Journal

3
4. Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S. 2002 Industrial and Corporate 528
Change
5. Teece, D.J. 2010 Long Range Planning 251
6. Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Allen, J. 2005 Journal of Business Research 237
7. Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M., 2008 Harvard Business Review 178
Kagermann, H.
8. Courtney H. G., Kirkland J., Viguerie S. P. 1997 Harvard Business Review 175
9. Shafer, S., Smith, J., Linder, J. 2005 Business Horizons 167
10. Johnson, M., Christensen, C., Kagermann, H. 2008 Harvard Business Review 158
11. Chesbrough, H. 2010 Long Range Planning 143
12. Chesbrough, H. 2007 MIT Sloan Management 142
Review
13. Jacobides, M., Knudsen, T., Augier, M. 2006 Research Policy 132
14. Verona, G., Ravasi, D. 2003 Industrial and Corporate 125
Change
15. Casadesus-Masanell, R., Ricart, J. 2010 Long Range Planning 117
16. Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L. 2011 Journal of Management 110
17. Markides, C. 2006 Journal of Product Innovation 100
Management
18. Casadeus-Masenell, R., Ricart, J.E. 2010 Long Range Planning 98
19. Alegre J., Chiva R. 2008 Technovation 95
20. Demil, B., Lecocq, X. 2010 Long Range Planning 91
21. Chesbrough, H. 2007 Strategy & Leadership 86
22. Baden-Fuller, C.B., Morgan, M.S. 2010 Long Range Planning 74
23. Volberda, H.W., Baden-Fuller, C., Van den 2001 Long Range Planning 72
Bosch, F.A.J.
24. Bercovitz, J.E.L., Feldman, M.P. 2007 Research Policy 69
25. McGrath, R.G. 2010 Long Range Planning 68
26. Zhou, K.Z., Gao, G.Y., Yang, Z., Zhou, N. 2005 Journal of Business Research 68
27. Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., Van Kranenburg, 2006 Research Policy 68
H.
28. Hoecht, A., Trott, P. 2006 Technovation 66
29. Ballon, P. 2007 Info 64
30. Laforet, S. 2008 Journal of Business Research 57
31. Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., Ulhøi, J. 2011 Management Decision 55
32. Ehrnberg, E. 1995 Technovation 55
33. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, 2010 Long Range Planning 54
L.
34. Doganova, L., Eyquem-Renault, M. 2009 Research Policy 54
35. Pitt, M., Clarke, K. 1999 Technology Analysis & 54
Strategic Management
36. Anderson, J., Markides, C. 2007 MIT Sloan Management 53
Review
37. Wirtz, B.W., Schilke, O., Ullrich, S. 2010 Long Range Planning 53

Table 2 - The intellectual core of BMI and SI (Thomson-Reuter’s Web of Science)

4
No. Authors Year Journal Times
Cited
1. Teece D.J., Pisano G., Shuen A. 1997 Strategic Management 4727
Journal
2. Anderson, P., Tushman, M. 1990 Administrative Science 740
Quarterly
3. Wiersema, M.F., Bantel, K.A. 1992 The Academy of Management 604
Journal
4. Amit, R., Zott, C. 2001 Strategic Management 594
Journal
5. Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S. 2002 Industrial and Corporate 356
Change
6. Porter, M.E. 2001 Harvard Business Review 253
7. Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Allen, J. 2005 Journal of Business Research 151
8. Teece, D.J. 2010 Long Range Planning 148
9. Verona, G., Ravasi, D. 2003 Industrial and Corporate 104
Change
10. Jacobides, M., Knudsen, T., Augier, M. 2006 Research Policy 101
11. Chesbrough, H. 2010 Long Range Planning 94
12. Chesbrough, H. 2007 MIT Sloan Management 78
Review
13. Alegre J., Chiva R. 2008 Technovation 67
14. Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L. 2011 Journal of Management 64
15. Volberda, H.W., Baden-Fuller, C., Van den 2001 Long Range Planning 64
Bosch, F.A.J.
16. Casadesus-Masanell, R., Ricart, J. 2010 Long Range Planning 64
17. Markides, C. 2006 Journal of Product Innovation 64
Management
18. Markides, C. 1997 MIT Sloan Management 62
Review
19. Bercovitz, J.E.L., Feldman, M.P. 2007 Research Policy 62
20. Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M., 2008 Harvard Business Review 61
Kagermann, H.
21. Johnson, M., Christensen, C., Kagermann, H. 2008 Harvard Business Review 58
22. Casadeus-Masenell, R., Ricart, J.E. 2010 Long Range Planning 57
22. Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., Van Kranenburg, 2006 Research Policy 56
H.
24. Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., Ulhøi, J. 2011 Management Decision 53
25. Baden-Fuller, C.B., Morgan, M.S. 2010 Long Range Planning 51

3. General literature overview

5
This section should provide an overview of the examined literature in terms of the type of the
research type, theoretical stream and methodologies used, in order to have a general ‘snapshot’
of the current state of the art and possibly derive some conclusions on some dominant and/or
neglected approaches.

11% Strategic
3% Management
7% Innovation
7% Management
Conceptual
Strategic
48%
45% Innovation
14%
Empirical Organizational
48%
Theory
Other Technology
18% Management
Other

Figure 1 – Research Type Figure 2 – Theoretical Stream

As can be seen in Figure 1, the literature is almost equally focused on conceptual development as
it is on empirical research; the ‘Other’ being comprised of qualitative interviews, books and
scientific journal overviews. And while the research type employed in BMI/SI literature is quite
balanced, the theoretical streams (presented in Figure 2) to which almost half of the research
belongs to is Strategic Management, while the rest (52%) is divided among Innovation
Management, Strategic Innovation, Organizational Theory, Technological Management and
other theoretical stream. Given the diversity of different theoretical streams researching the
topics at hand, clashing theory and divergent schools of thought are eminent.

6
 3%
12%

Qualitative

Quantitative
19%
Literature Review

66%
Qualitative + Quantitative

Figure 2 – Research Methodology

Figure 3 gives us an overview on the research methodology employed by the papers examined:
the vast majority of the work is qualitative, with only 23% being quantitative or partly
quantitative. Furthermore, the qualitative research is mostly done in a narrative manner
(unspecified) with 41% of the total papers examined, and 49% employing a single or multiple
case study methodology. Whether this is due to the complex ties within different factors and
phenomena, or an already convoluted theoretical background, it is yet to be examined. Finally,
the quantitative research is mostly performed by statistical analysis of the factors/dimensions
under questions, as well as a variety of different approaches (modeling, bibliometric analyses
etc).

3% 8% Qualitative 26% 24%

(unspecified)
Case Study Survey
22% 41% Statistical
Multiple Case Analysis
Studies
Action Research Quantitative
(unspecified)
27% Qualitative
Interview
50%

Figure 3 – Qualitative Research Methodology Figure 4 – Quantitative Research Methodology

7
 4. Defining the key terms

As already mentioned, the terms of interest for this paper are both “strategic innovation” and
“business model innovation”. Numerous researchers, consultants, and practitioners have been
interpreting the significance, and defining the meaning of the two terms; however, not a single
definition has been universally adopted. Therefore, the following sections will provide the
overview of the interpretations and achievements of the leading authors in the respected fields.

4.1. Strategic innovation (SI)

As far as strategic innovation is concerned, a common point is that the activities related to
strategic innovation aim at delivering improved or superior customer value (Govindarajan and
Trimble, 2005; Gassmann et al., 2012; Berghman et al., 2013). This intentional, systematic and
challenging process that creates a difference in value (Palmer and Kaplan, 2012) requires
involvement of the whole organization, while steering and monitoring need to come from the top
management (Leskovar-Spacapan and Bastic, 2007).

Knowing that organizations have limited resources and specific differentiation points (Styles and
Goddard, 2004), strategic innovations aim at reshaping the set of value-creating activities
(Sabatier et al., 2012) either by adding new activities, diversifying or even dropping or divesting
existing activities (Wiersema and Bantel, 1992). Strategic innovation often refers to a
development of new products and new services in existing markets (Markides, 1997; Jones,
2002; Gebauer et al., 2012; Palmer and Kaplan, 2012; Kim and Penning, 2009),
reconceptualization of a business model with regard to technologies (Markides, 1997; Kodama
and Shibata, 2013; Tse, 2013), while tackling technical, market, organizational, and resource
uncertainties (Gassmann et al., 2012). Researchers (Kodama and Shibata, 2013; Styles and
Goddard, 2004; Gassmann et al., 2012, Braganza and Ward, 2001) commonly emphasize the
importance of radical and breakthrough innovations over incremental ones in the field of
strategic innovation. Essentially, through a process of strategic innovation, organizations explore
fundamental questions of business definition, through the identification of potential customers,
the conceptualization of delivered customer value, and/or the design of the end-to-end value-
chain architecture (Govindarajan and Trimble, 2005).

The perspective of the authors referring to external influences discuss the identification of gaps
in the industry positioning map being followed by the company offer that fulfills the identified

8
gaps (Markides, 1997), the change in industry rules (Berghman et al., 2013), or even the
reconceptualization of the existing industry model that while creating new value for customers
and other stakeholders (Hamel, 1998). A synonymous term, strategic renewal, is considered to
combine available technologies, while creating and exploiting product and market knowledge
(Ravasi and Lojacono, 2005), regardless of its form, i.e. emergent, directed, facilitated, or
transformational (Stienstra et al., 2004); similarly, (Kim and Pennings, 2009) define strategic
renewal as a company’s new stage in established market through both new product development
and attentive commitment to customers.

Speaking of technological discontinuities, the process related to the substitution of obsolete

technologies, resulting in strategic innovation, advanced industry prices or performance frontier
(Anderson and Tushman, 1990; Tongur and Engwall, 2014). In case of poor strategic innovation,
(Quinn, 2000) argues that the innovation as a whole should be outsourced. An alternative is an
establishment of strategic community, in which a group of organizations are capable of realizing
completely new innovations through new products, new services and new business structures
(Kodama, 2004).

4.2. Business model innovation (BMI)

As summarized by Guo and Zhao, 2013, the concept of “business model” has recently emerged
and quickly attracted a substantial amount of attention from a variety of research fields,
including strategy (Teece, 2010), entrepreneurship (George and Bock, 2011), organizational
design (Zott and Amit, 2007), and technology and innovation management (Chesbrough, 2010).
Representing a new subject of innovation, business model innovation (BMI) expedites
organizational renewal (Demil and Lecocq, 2010), facilitates technology commercialization
(Chesbrough, 2010), and improves overall firm performance (Zott and Amit, 2008).
Consequently, scholars argue that as a source of wealth creation and firm competitive advantage
(Zott and Amit, 2007), BMI can extract as much value as technological innovation can
(Chesbrough, 2010). BMI refers to the creation or reinvention of existing business models by
proposing new value propositions, designing novel value-creation systems, and building original
value-capturing mechanisms. Scholars have defined business model as a boundary-spanning
organizational arrangement for opportunity exploitation (Amit and Zott, 2001; Zott and Amit,
2007); a reflection of a firm’s realized strategy (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010); or a
useful approach to commercialize technologies (Chesbrough, 2010).

9
 The terms “business model” and “business model innovation” have since the late 1990s
had a great increase in academic research and business management attention, and a huge
volume of theory has been generated that suggests different ways of applying these concepts to
improve business performance. This plethora of literature on business models and BMI creates
problems in terms of fragmentation within the field. In existing literature, there are almost as
many different views on BMI as there are authors researching it, thus complicating synthesizing
and consolidating efforts. The challenge is defining what business model innovation actually
entails. Without a framework for identifying opportunities, it is hard to be systematic about the
process, which explains why it is generally done on an ad hoc basis (Girotra and Seguei, 2014).
In general, business model innovation counts as umbrella term which refers to various levels of
the underlying phenomenon questioning how firms do business on the individual, organizational,
and system level (Schneider and Spieth, 2013; Teece, 2010).
Table 2 summarizes the current literature views on the definition of Business Model
Innovation categorizing the findings according to three main categories and eight subcategories
of differentiation. The main differences in definitions most often revolve around the view of
whether BMI is a process or a recipe/result thereof (dynamic vs. static views); the unit which
changes when BMI happens (activities/resources vs. blocks/elements vs. logic/entire business
model); and the degree of change needed in order the change to be considered as a BMI (any
change which is new to the firm vs. the degree of change implies different types of BMI vs.
completely novel concepts previously unseen in the world). This table should assist all further
efforts in summarizing the literature on BMI, as well as providing a systematic view on the
different views in the field and provide a solid basis for consolidating the literature and thus
simplifying all further theoretical efforts.

Table 3 - Overview of definitions of ‘Business Model Innovation’

Degree/type
Unit of
View of
change
innovation
Author/s Year Static View Dynamic Activities/Re Blocks/ele Logic/Ent Any Degree of Unsee
of [blueprint, View [tool, sources ments ire BM change change n
Publi result] process] (new to affects
cation the firm) type of
innovatio

10
 n
Huang, H.C.,
Lai, M.C., Lin, 2013 x x x x
L.H., Chen, C.T.
Casadesus-
Masanell, R., 2013 x x x x x
Zhu, F.
Björkdahl, J.,
2013 x x x x x
Holmén, M.
Cavalcante, S.A. 2013 x x x x
Trimi, S.,
Berbegal- 2012 x x x
Mirabent, J.
Amit, R., Zott,
2012 x x x x
C.
Massa, L., Tucci,
2014 x x
C.
Hartmann, M.,
Oriani, R., 2013 x x
Bateman, H.
Snihur, Y., Zott,
2013 x x x
C.
Mitchell, D.,
2003 x x x
Coles, C.
Bucherer, E.,
Eisert, U., 2012 x x
Gassmann, O.
Zott, C., Amit,
2011 x x
R., Massa, L.
Habtay, S. 2012 x x
Matzler, K.,
Bailom, F., von
2013 x x
den Eichen, S.F.,
Kohler, T.
Lindgardt, Z.,
Reeves, M.,
2009 x x x
Stalk, G.,
Deimler, M.S.
Lindgren, P. 2012 x x x x x
Yunus, M.,
Moingeon, B.,
2010 x x
Lehmann-
Ortega, L.

11
 Sorescu, A.,
Frambach, R.,
Singh, J., 2011 x x x x
Rangaswamy,
A., Bridges, C.
Ucaktürk, A.,
Bekmezci, M., 2011 x x x
Ucaktürk, T.
Gambardella, A.,
2010 x x
McGahan, A.
Florin, J.,
2011 x x x x
Schmidt, E.
Mitchell, D.W.,
2004 x x x x
Coles, C.B.
Iyer, G.R.,
LaPlaca, P.J., 2006 x x x
Sharma, A.
Casadeus-
Masenell, R., 2010 x x x
Ricart, J.E.
Osterwalder, A.,
Pigneur, Y., 2005 x x
Tucci, C.L.
Santos, J.,
Spector, B., Van 2009 x x x
der Heyden, L.
McGrath, R.G. 2010 x x x x x
Giesen, E.,
Berman, S.J.,
2007 x x x
Bell, R., Blitz,
A.
Alt, R.,
Zimmerman, H.- 2001 x x x x
D.
Morris, L. 2009 x x
Witell, L.,
2013 x x x x x
Löfgren, M.
Pohle, G.,
2006 x x
Chapman, M.
Giesen, E., 2009 x x
Riddleberger, E.,
Christner, R.,

12
 Bell, R.
Wirtz, B.W.,
Schilke, O., 2010 x x x
Ullrich, S.
Aspara, J.,
Lamberg, J.-A.,
2011 x x
Laukija, A.,
Tikkanen, H.
Bohnsack, R.,
Pinske, J., Kolk, 2014 x x x
A.
Schneider, S.,
2013 x x x x x
Spieth, S.
Abdelkafi, N.,
Makhotin, S., 2013 x x x
Posselt, T.
Enkel, E.,
2013 x x x x x x
Mezger, F.
Velamuri, V.K.,
Bansemir, B.,
2013 x x x
Neyer, A.-K.,
Moslein, K.M.
Baden-Fuller,
C.B., Morgan, 2010 x x
M.S.
Velu, C., Stiles,
2013 x x x
P.
Battistella, C.,
Biotto, G., De 2012 x x x
Toni, A.F.
Bocken, N.,
Short, S., Rana, 2013
P., Evans, S.
Casadesus-
Masanell, R., 2010 x
Ricart, J.
Johnson, M.W.,
Christensen,
2008 x x
C.M.,
Kagermann, H.
Markides, C. 2006 x
Guo, H., Zhao, J. 2013 x x

13
 Huang, H.C.,
Lai, M.C., Lin, 2013 x x
L.H., Chen, C.T.
Eyring, M.J.,
Johnson, M.W., 2011 x x
Nair, H.
24% 66% 32% 64% 40% 16% 28% 24%

Out of the 258 works examined, 50 of them offer definitions on Business Model Definitions,
with different understandings upon the three categories and eight subcategories. In its simplest
form, BMI is a novel way in which a firm can create and/or capture value. However, since the
term ‘Business Model Innovation’ implies changes in the Business Model, it is clear that the
adopted definition of what a BM is, implies different views on whether it’s a recipe or blueprint,
a process, what is it comprised of, and does the degree of changes applied influence whether the
approach is considered as an innovation. All together, there are 27 unique definitions of what
constitutes a BMI of which the most popular one with eight occurrences is that a BMI is a
process which entails the change of the elements/building blocks of a business model.

A metaphorical “definition” is given by Baden-Fuller et al. (2010) which covers most of the
current definitions gives an interesting perspective on Business Model Innovation: “Each case
contains a new recipe that initiated a new direction in [business-cycle model] research, but in
each case the recipe was different. The integration of a new set of ingredients demands a new
recipe otherwise the result will fall apart. However, a recipe is not unique in the sense that it is
the one and only way to integrate a certain set of ingredients. Thus a new recipe is a manual for a
successful integration of a new set of ingredients. The idea of the recipe suggests how the chef,
within broad constraints of the principles of cooking and the kind of dish chosen, may create
variations and innovations. If business models play the same role, they too are not open ended
but constrained, and involve ingredients that must be arranged and combined according to the
recipe (i.e., to some generic business model), but yet have many possibilities for innovation”.
4.3. SI & BMI

Moving to the relationship between strategic innovation and business model innovation, Santos
et al. (2009) define a business strategy through the definition of the offer, the customers, and the
way the offer is produced and delivered to the customers; the latter aspect is the link to the
company’s choice of a business model. In other words, a business model refers to the logic of the

14
firm, the way it operates and how it creates value for its stakeholders, while a business strategy
refers to the choice of business model through which the firm will compete in the marketplace
(Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010). Since business model innovation can lead to the lack of
alignment between the existing strategy and the new business model, managers need to leverage
the synthesis of the two inseparable concepts (Velu and Stiles, 2013). Some authors argue that a
business model can facilitate analysis, testing, and validation of company’s strategic choices
(Shafer et al., 2005), hence in the changing environments companies need to be capable of
dynamically reinventing both business models and strategies and to do so proactively instead of
reactively (Hamel and Valikangas, 2004; Florin and Schmidt, 2011).

Some authors use the terms strategic innovation and business model innovation interchangeably
(Markides, 2006). Some authors suggest that business model innovation is facilitated by three
major strategic moves: challenging conventional wisdom, setting up appropriate partnerships,
and undertaking experimentation (Yunus et al., 2009).

On the contrary, Casadeus-Masenell and Ricart (2010) state that though related, the two concepts
are different: a business model is the direct result of strategy but is not, itself, strategy. Moreover,
Govindarajan and Trimble (2005) define strategic innovation as realizing strategically innovative
new business models, as well as new products and services. Furthermore, some authors consider
strategic innovations to be comprised of business model innovations (Kuhn and Marsick, 2005;
Chesbrough, 2007).  

5. Findings

After analyzing and comparing study aims and study findings of 229 papers, the following table
has been created. The major fields of research are innovation in organizations in general,
business model innovation, and strategic innovation. All aims and finding have been grouped
and classified in the following way, representing numbers of papers that particularly discuss
respective aspects of corporate innovation, BMI and SI.

Table 4 – Study Aims and Study Findings

No. of INNOVATION
Papers
19 Innovation and technology
12 Sources of innovation
7 Interdisciplinary connection to innovation
7 Knowledge creation and action-learning in organizations

15
 6 Service innovation
5 Disruptive innovations
5 Innovation in SMEs
4 Open innovation
4 Forms of innovation and country specific factors
3 First mover advantage
3 Strategic planning
3 Innovation categories
3 Absorptive capacity
2 Value from innovation
2 Design-driven renewal
2 Technological discontinuities
2 Strategic orientation and innovativeness
2 Exploring and exploiting
2 Strategic business communities
1 Innovation-related risks
1 Process innovation model
1 Lean start-up
No. of BMI
Papers
25 BMI components and BMI types
13 BM conceptualization and terminology definition
8 Networked BMI, hybrid BM, coopetition
8 Profitability and value creation potential of BMI
7 BMI in established organizations
7 BMI challenges and barriers
5 Entrepreneurship BMs
4 BMI and product innovation
4 Sustainable BMI
3 Competitive advantage in BMI
2 BMI imitation
2 Charitable aid model
1 Social BMs
1 Solution BMs
No. of SI
Papers
17 Managing SI in established companies
8 BMI and SI relationship
8 SI and volatile environments
6 Sustainable SI
3 SI and business decisions
1 Discovery-driven approach in SI

Moreover, the analyzed literature reviews have an aim to identify, organize, analyze and discuss
the existing research on business model innovation and strategic innovation, and to advance the
level of understanding of the concepts. The literature is developing largely, due to the increasing
interest of the respective researchers.

16
Onetti et al. (2012) identified a need for a clear separation between the concepts of business
model and strategy, while Zott and Amit (2011) reveal that scholars still do not have a clear
definition of a business model. On one side, a clearly defined business model of a company,
whole industry or business philosophy is seen as a mediator for sustainable innovations that not
only links production and consumption, but also embraces stakeholders and their expectations
(Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013); on the other side, a business model should never be complete
as it follows the ongoing process of making strategic choices (Shafer et al., 2005). Markides
(2012) aimed at exploring challenges of simultaneously managing two business models, and
consequently identified the existence of several possible strategies that a company should decide
upon with respect to its conditions, its balance between autonomy and control, as well as its level
of integration. Lambert and Davidson (2013) divided empirical research on applications of
business models in three areas: classification of business models, relationships between business
models and enterprise performance, and business model innovation. By obtaining innovations
from external sources (West and Bogers, 2013), companies are familiar with the phenomena of
open innovation and co-innovation that facilitate the creation of the innovation platforms,
particularly valuable for entrepreneurs (Trimi and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2012). Looking ahead,
some authors provide an overview and discuss the managerial challenges of business model
innovation (Björkdahl and Holmén, 2013; Massa and Tucci, 2014).

On a case of study of a company operating with three different business models, Casadesus-
Masanell and Tarziján (2012) demonstrated that the implementation of multiple business models
is not a risk but rather a new tool for strategists and when properly applied, it can help companies
gain durable advantage.

Moving further, many papers tackle the impact of technologies on innovation activities in an
organization. Cavalcante (2013) claims that companies can use new technologies to extend their
existing business models. Using online communities, for instance, companies can develop multi-
level incentive models; furthermore, currently trending crowdsourcing platforms act as
intermediaries in multi-sided markets; in such a complex setting, business model
design and development can be considered as an ongoing learning process (Chanal, 2006). In
addition, in the contemporary times of advancing social networks, companies need to pay
attention to specifying social profit objectives clearly, and delivering them to the complementary
shareholders. Overall, a must in nowadays dynamic business environment are leadership and

17
organizational alignment that enable organizational development, process reengineering and
exploitation of information technology (McKeown and Philip, 2003).

6. Limitations and future research opportunities

The analysis of the limitations of the current research and future research avenues as specified by the
authors of the papers included in the database, should provide key insights for improving the quality of all
future works. Due to the specific nature of each research paper, an incredible amount of diversity of
issues arises, which is why an effort has been made to group the most common issues in more general,
and understandable umbrella terms. The results are grouped according to the following structure
presented in figure 6:

18

Qualitative
Limitations Opportunities
Theoretical framework
only a simplification, not
necessary applicable in
practice
Single case study,
generalization issues
No empirical proof
Small data sample
Survivor bias
Challenges depend
on scope of theory
(definition of
innovation)
Variables
disregarded for
simplicity
Context specific
Premise based on
phychology analogy
Figure 6 - Limitations and future research opportunities overview
Overview
Conceptual Empirical
Literature Review Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative
Limitations Opportunities Limitations Opportunities Limitations Opportunities Limitations Opportunities
Better frameworks Increase
Scarcity of Better more uniform Explore Simplification, complexity/sophistication
for business model Generalizability interdependencies,
study/Incomplete understanding of Limited data Empirical testing qualitative (longitudinal) limited factors taken of model (more variables,
and elements issues varibles interplay, varibles
picture BMI/SI studies needed into account
interconnection causality)
Empirical testing Validation needed Deepening of
Model is a Specific context, Larger data sample
(interviews, simulation, (quantitative data, research (more (secondary data, across
Empirical proof Flawed assumptions case studies, situation CMV issues simplification with limited data,
modelling, cases, quantitative countries/industries)
analysis, etc) drawbacks perception bias
longitudinal study) analysis)
Validation needed Authors don't build up on What happens to Approach field
(quantitative data, each others' esearch and Financial & Single case study Common method
it's superficial as a innovations once Narrow approach through perspective Longitudinal studies
modelling, economic impacts limitations bias
concequence they enter a firm developed in paper
longitudinal study)
Strengthening &
Explore findings on Connections
Method to be used Understand BMI Generalizability/vali broadening of Limited sources of Hypothesis not Deepening of
different business between product
only as an example enablers dity issues theoretical data supported theoretical basis
logics innovation and BMI
background
Combine BM SI literature doesn't New SI & BMI
Concept of hybrid
roadmaps with have widely agreed methods and Generalizability Need of qualitative
service/material No empirical aspect Larger population
system dynamics, constructs fit for digitalization of BMI issues analysis
product
new metrics empirical research process
Enriching conceptual
Static two-tier BM frameworks with more
derivation into a parameters and Survey limitations Widening of context Definition of BMI
interrelations between
dynamic BM
them
Sources of
Applicability to Creating tools for
competitive Survivor bias Survivor bias
NGOs making CVP
advantage
Building better,
Differences in new
and established
categorized
databases of
Implementation
issues
19
Simultanity bias
firms
literature
SI interaction with
Spreadsheet for BM Causality impossible
knowledge
roadmap aiding to be proven
innovation
 Overview

Conceptual Empirical

Qualitative Literature Review Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative

Limitations Opportunities Limitations Opportunities Limitations Opportunities Limitations Opportunities Limitations Opportunities

Better frameworks Increase

Theoretical framework
only a simplification, not
necessary applicable in
practice
Scarcity of Better more uniform Explore Simplification, complexity/sophistication
for business model Generalizability interdependencies,
study/Incomplete understanding of Limited data Empirical testing qualitative (longitudinal) limited factors taken of model (more variables,
and elements issues varibles interplay, varibles
picture BMI/SI studies needed into account
interconnection causality)

Empirical testing Validation needed Deepening of

Model is a Specific context, Larger data sample
Single case study, (interviews, simulation, (quantitative data, research (more (secondary data, across
Empirical proof Flawed assumptions case studies, situation CMV issues simplification with limited data,
generalization issues modelling, cases, quantitative countries/industries)
analysis, etc) drawbacks perception bias
longitudinal study) analysis)

Validation needed Authors don't build up on What happens to Approach field

(quantitative data, each others' esearch and Financial & Single case study Common method
No empirical proof it's superficial as a innovations once Narrow approach through perspective Longitudinal studies
modelling, economic impacts limitations bias
concequence they enter a firm developed in paper
longitudinal study)

Strengthening &
Explore findings on Connections
Method to be used Understand BMI Generalizability/vali broadening of Limited sources of Hypothesis not Deepening of
Small data sample different business between product
only as an example enablers dity issues theoretical data supported theoretical basis
logics innovation and BMI
background

Combine BM SI literature doesn't New SI & BMI

Concept of hybrid
roadmaps with have widely agreed methods and Generalizability Need of qualitative
Survivor bias service/material No empirical aspect Larger population
system dynamics, constructs fit for digitalization of BMI issues analysis
product
new metrics empirical research process

Challenges depend Enriching conceptual

Static two-tier BM frameworks with more
on scope of theory
derivation into a parameters and Survey limitations Widening of context Definition of BMI
(definition of interrelations between
dynamic BM
innovation) them

Variables Sources of
Applicability to Creating tools for
disregarded for competitive Survivor bias Survivor bias
NGOs making CVP
simplicity advantage

Building better,
Differences in new
categorized Implementation
Context specific and established Simultanity bias
databases of issues
firms
literature

SI interaction with
Premise based on Spreadsheet for BM Causality impossible
knowledge
phychology analogy roadmap aiding to be proven
innovation

Effectiveness of
Develop more
bottom-up
persuasive theory
incubators

Definition,
categorisation &
usage of invisible
assets

Connection between
BM choice &
technology
development

Motivations behind
organization
learning, indicators

Economic, financial
and social
concequences of
BMI/SI

More robust researh

methods
encompassing full
processes

Sources of
competitive
advantage

Conditions in which
industry standards
(don't) emerge

20
Going a little bit deeper in each category, we can see the relative frequency of a certain problem,
as perceived by the researchers. In the qualitative conceptual research, the largest problems seem
to be coming from two main issues: The first is due to the shallowness and/or narrowness of the
scope of study implying an inability to generalize the findings; the second arises when
simplifications or contextual constrictions made in order to extract a framework further the
theory from the practical implementation.

3%
9% Theoretical framework only a simplification,
15%
not necessary applicable in practice
3%
Single case study, generalization issues
3%
No empirical proof
6%
Small data sample

Survivor bias

Challenges depend on scope of theory

(definition of innovation)
18% 36%
Variables disregarded for simplicity

Context specific

6% Premise based on phychology analogy

Figure 7 - Limitations of qualitative conceptual research

The opportunities for future research outlined in Figure 8 show us that the main issues that the
authors perceive (51% of the mentioned future opportunities) Is that their work and the literature
would benefit from validating their findings and empirically testing them, as well as 22% of
authors who believe that in the future, better frameworks are needed which will further explain
the BM elements and their interconnection. The other third of the future research opportunities
are quite diverse, and although provide interesting insights, very often are tightly connected to a
specific research paper and as such require some more background knowledge in order to be
fully understood.

With the literatures, due to the much smaller number of papers from this field present, it’s much
easier to see the main limitations which in 64% of the cases (7 out of 11) are due to the scarcity

21
or narrowness of scope of the study which gives an incomplete picture of the state of the art
(Figure 9). The rest of the reasons (mentioned once each) are flawed theoretical assumptions, the
fact that the authors execute the research independently from other findings, thus additionally
entangling the theory, a resulting method which is to be used only as an example and has little
practical value, or just the fact that the research has no empirical viewpoint whatsoever. Considering
the results of previous literature reviews on the topics of BMI and SI, a study such as this one is truly in

22
demand.

23
 Figure 8 - Opportunities in qualitative conceptual research

9% Scarcity of study/Incomplete
picture
9%
Flawed assumptions

9% Authors don't build up on

each others' research and it's
superficial as a concequence

9% 64% to be used only as an

Method
example

No empirical aspect

Figure 9 - Limitations of literature review research

The opportunities are more numerous than limitations, obviously because of the higher
insight gained by the authors by exploring the existing literature. Better and unified
theoretical understanding of the terms BMI and SI and empirical testing of the findings
are again emerging as important issues, along with a need to understand what happens to
innovations once they enter a firm (what implications ensue in practice), identification
and understanding of BMI enablers and sources of competitive advantage, as well as
better, more supported and more intricate frameworks. A more detailed view is displayed
in Figure 10.

24
 5% Better more uniform understanding
5% of BMI/SI
20% testing (interviews,
Empirical
simulation, case studies, situation
10% analysis, etc)

What happens to innovations once

they enter a firm
5%
Understand BMI enablers

Combine BM roadmaps with system

5% dynamics, new metrics

Enriching conceptual frameworks

25%
with more parameters and
interrelations between them

Sources of competitive advantage

25% Building better, categorized
databases of literature

Figure 10 - Opportunities in literature review research

Within the works of quantitative nature, the limitations include limited data, issues related to
common-method variance, the narrow approach taken and the common problem of questionable
generalizability of the findings. Opportunities for strengthening the quality of future research is
seen in further validating and empirically testing the findings, examining the financial and
economic impacts, strengthening the theoretical background and having a larger population to
examine.

20%

40% Limited data

CMV issues
Narrow approach
Generalizability/validity
20% issues

20%

25
 Figure 11 - Limitations of quantitative conceptual research

14% 14% Empirical testing

Validation needed (quantitative

data, modelling, longitudinal
study)
14%

Financial & economic impacts

Strengthening & broadening of

14% theoretical background
43%

Larger population

Figure 12 - Opportunities in quantitative conceptual research

Quite similarly to the conceptual qualitative research, the key issues involve the generalizability,
sources of data, and limitations of the scope of the study.

2% 2%
4% Generalizability issues

Model is a simplification with drawbacks

38%study limitations
Single case
28%
Limited sources of data

SI literature doesn't have widely agreed

constructs fit for empirical research

Survey limitations
17% 9%
Survivor bias

Figure 13 - Limitations of empirical qualitative research

26
The opportunities in the most cases revolve around deepening the understanding of the concepts
at stake, and exploring the interdependencies among the key factors, as well as widening the
context (mainly to increase the validity of the research).

Explore interdependencies, qualitative

9% (longitudinal) studies needed
2%
Deepening of research (more cases,
4% quantitative
25% analysis)
2%
Approach field through perspective
developed in paper

13% Connections between product

innovation and BMI
New SI & BMI methods and digitalization
of BMI process
2% Widening of context
4%
Creating tools for making CVP
9% Implementation issues
32%
SI interaction with knowledge innovation
Develop more persuasive theory

Figure 14 - Opportunities in empirical qualitative research

Finally, the analysis of limitations of the empirical quantitative research, which should in theory
give the most tangible and precise results, gives out that it still suffers from very similar
disadvantages as the other research approaches: the limited scope and factors considered,
possible biases implied by the methodology, and lacks of strong definitions, and of course, the
ever-recurring issue of the questionable generalizability of the findings (Figure 15). The
opportunities, seen on Figure 16 follow the pattern of the other research approaches almost
exactly, further strengthening the implication that regardless of the approach of study, the
literature on BMI and SI deal with very similar disadvantages and future possibilities for the
gaps to be filled.

27
 2%
2% 5%
15%Limitations

7% Simplification, limited factors taken into

account
Specific context, limited data, perception
bias
Common method bias
Hypothesis not supported
22% Generalizability issues
Definition
37%of BMI
Survivor bias
Simultanity bias

2% 7% Causality impossible to be proven

Figure 15 - Limitations of empirical quantitative research

4%
Increase complexity/sophistication of model
(more variables, varibles interplay, varibles
causality)
21%

Larger data 38%

sample (secondary data, across
countries/industries)

Longitudinal studies
7%

Deepening of theoretical basis

Need of qualitative analysis

30%

Figure 16 - Opportunities empirical quantitative research

7. Conclusion

28
References

Table 5 – List of sources of the reviewed papers

SOURCES REFERENCES
JOURNALS

Academy of Management Journal Miller, C.C., Cardinal, L.B. 1994

Academy of Management Perspectives Markides, C. 2012
Academy of Management Proceedings Hartmann, M., Oriani, R. 2013
Accenture Institute for Strategic Change Linderj, J., Cantrell, S. 2000
Action Learning: Research and Practice Kuhn, J.S., Marsick, V.J. 2005
Administrative Science Quarterly Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. 1990; Anderson, P.,
Tushman, M. 1990
British Journal of Management Ritala, P.2012
Business & Information Systems Engineering Jetter, M., Satzger, G., Neus, A. 2009
Business Horizons Govindarajan, V., Gupta, A.K. 2001; Shafer, S., Smith,
J., Linder, J. 2005; Varadarajan, R. 2009
Business Process Management Journal Solaimani, S., Bouwman, H. 2012
Business Strategy Review Styles, C., Goddard, J. 2004
California Management Review Govindarajan, V., Trimble, C. 2005
Chinese Management Studies Guo, H., Zhao, J. 2013
Communications of the Association for Information Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C.L. 2005
Systems
Corporate Governance Szekely, F., Strebel, H. 2013; Bocken, N., Short, S.,
Rana, P., Evans, S. 2013
Creativity and Innovation Management Andries, P., Debackere, K. 2013; Bucherer, E., Eisert,
U., Gassmann, O. 2012; Habtay, S. 2012
Design Management Journal Jones, P.H. 2002
Electronic Markets Alt, R., Zimmerman, H.D. 2001; Timmers, P. 1998
European Journal of Innovation Management Hoholm, T., Stronen, F.H. 2011; Cavalcante, S.A.
2013; Varis, M., Littunen, H. 2010; Anderson, J.,
Markides, C. 2006; Kodama, M. 1999
European Journal of Marketing Rajala, R., Westerlund, M., Möller, K. 2012
European Management Journal Lambert, S., Davidson, R. 2013; Jiebing, W., Bin, G.,
Yongjiang, S. 2013; Gebauer, H., Worch, H., Truffer,
B. 2012; Stienstra, M., Baaij, M., Van der Bosch, F.,
Volberda, H. 2004; Hu, B. 2013; Tse, T. 2013
European Management Review Sanchez, P., Ricart, J. 2010
Harvard Business Review Casadesus-Masanell, R., Tarziján, J. 2012; Johnson,
M., Christensen, C., Kagermann, H. 2008; Courtney H.
G., Kirkland J., Viguerie S. P. 1997; Hamel, G.,
Valikangas, L. 2004; Johnson, M.W., Christensen,
C.M., Kagermann, H. 2008; Porter, M.E. 2001;
Whitney, J.O. 1996; Govindarajan, V., Trimble, C.

29

Harvard Business School Press
Industrial and Corporate Change
Industrial Marketing Management
Info
Information Technology & People
International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal
International Journal of Business and Management
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research
International Journal of Hospitality Management
International Journal of Information Management
International Journal of Innovation Management
International Journal of Innovation Science
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management
International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management
International Journal of Product Development
International Journal of Production Economics
International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management
International Journal of Service Industry Management
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Journal of Business Research
Journal of Business Strategy
2011; Gunther McGrath, R., Cliffe, S. 2011; Eyring,
M.J., Johnson, M.W., Nair, H. 2011; Nunes, P.,
Breene, T. 2011; Downes, L., Nunes, P.F. 2013; Blank,
S. 2013; Girotra, K., Seguei, N. 2014
Govindarajan, V. 2005
Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S. 2002; Verona, G.,
Ravasi, D. 2003
Simmons, G., Palmer, M., Truong, Y. 2013; Maglio,
P., Spohrer, J. 2013; Storbacka, K. 2011; Palo, T.,
Tähtinen, J. 2013; Iyer, G.R., LaPlaca, P.J., Sharma, A.
2006; Coombes, P., Nicholson, J. 2013
Ballon, P. 2007
Watson-Manheim, M.B., Chudoba, K.M., Crowston,
K. 2002
Trimi, S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J. 2012
Lindgren, P. 2012
Huang, Y.F. 2009
Rodgers, S. 2007
McKeown, I., Philip, G. 2003
Henttonen, K., Ritala, P. 2013; Schneider, S., Spieth,
S. 2013; De Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., Haaker, T.
2013; Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., Posselt, T. 2013;
Gunzel, F., Holm, A.B. 2013; Enkel, E., Mezger, F.
2013; Velamuri, V.K., Bansemir, B., Neyer, A.K.,
Moslein, K.M. 2013
Morris, L. 2009
Nair, A., Boulton, W.R. 2006; Yalabik, B., Howard,
M., Roden, S. 2010
Grawe, S.J., Chen, H., Daugherty, P.J 2009
Björkdahl, J., Holmén, M. 2013
Martinez-Olvera, C. 2009; Papinniemi, J. 1999
O'Regan, N., Ghobadian, A. 2005
Witell, L., Löfgren, M. 2013
Kindstrom, D., Kowalkowski, C. 2014
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Allen, J. 2005; Kim, S.,
Huarng, K. 2011; Huarng, K. 2013; Laforet, S. 2008;
Zhou, K.Z., Gao, G.Y., Yang, Z., Zhou, N. 2005; Wu,
C.W. 2013; Andersen, P.H., Cook, N., Marceau, J.
2004; Wu, L. 2010
Mitchell, D., Coles, C. 2003; Matzler, K., Bailom, F.,
von den Eichen, S.F., Kohler, T. 2013; Mitchell, D.W.,
30

Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Journal of Management
Journal of Management & Governance
Journal of Monetary Economics
Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Organizational Change Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Retailing
Journal of Service Management
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
Long Range Planning
Coles, C.B. 2004; Mitchell, D.W., Bruckner Coles, C.
2004
Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F. 2013; Boons, F.,
Montalvo, C., Quist, J., Wagner, M. 2013
Bianchi, M. 1995
Kodama, M. 2004; Fallah, H., Lechler, T. 2008; Brook,
J., Pagnanelli, F. 2014; Kodama, M. 2004
Puller, S.L. 2006
Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L. 2011
Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M., McDougall-
Covin, P. 2012
Filson, D., Gretz, R. 2004
Visnjic Kastalli, I., Van Looy, B. 2013
Fuentes-Henríquez, F., Del Sol, P. 2012; Huang, H.C.,
Lai, M.C., Lin, L.H., Chen, C.T. 2013; Jacobs, C.,
Heracleous, L. 2005; Huang, H.C., Lai, M.C., Lin,
L.H., Chen, C.T. 2013
Cooper, R.G. 2011; West, J., Bogers, M. 2013;
Markides, C. 2006
Sorescu, A., Frambach, R., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A.,
Bridges, C. 2011
Gebauer, H. 2011
Boesso, G., Favotto, F., Menini, A. 2012
Florin, J., Schmidt, E. 2011
Hackney, R., Desouza, K., Chau, P. 2008
Baden-Fuller, C., Haefliger, S. 2013; Achtenhagen, L.,
Melin, L., Naldi, L. 2013; Teece, D.J. 2010; Pangarkar,
N. 2003; Ramírez, R., Roodhart, L., Manders, W.
2011; Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L.
2010; Chesbrough, H. 2010; Sosna, M., Trevinyo-
Rodríguez, R.N., Velamuri, S.R. 2010; Dahan, N.,
Doh, J., Oetzel, J., Yaziji, M. 2010; Williamson, P.
2010; Thompson, J., MacMillan, I. 2010; Gambardella,
A., McGahan, A. 2010; Smith, W., Binns, A.,
Tushman, M. 2010; Casadeus-Masenell, R., Ricart,
J.E. 2010; McGrath, R.G. 2010; Wirtz, B.W., Schilke,
O., Ullrich, S. 2010; Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.A.,
Laukija, A., Tikkanen, H. 2011; Roos, J., Victor, B.,
Statler, M. 2004; Ben-Menahem, S.M., Kwee, Z.,
Volberda, H.W., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J. 2013; Baden-
Fuller, C.B., Morgan, M.S. 2010; Vidal, E., Mitchell,
W. 2013; Johannessen, J.A., Olsen, B., Olaisen, J.
1997; Markides, C., Sosa, L. 2013; Berghman, L.,
31

Management
Management Decision
Management Research Review
MIT Sloan Management Review
Organization Science
Organizational Dynamics
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
R&D Management
Research - Technology Management
Research and Development Management
Research in International Business and Finance
Research Policy
Review of Managerial Science
Strategic Change
Strategic Management Journal
Matthyssens, P., Streukens, S., Vandenbempt, K. 2013;
Velu, C., Stiles, P. 2013; Doz, Y., Kosonen, M. 2010;
Itami, H., Nishino, K. 2010; Withane, S. 1997; Jones,
O., Macpherson, A. 2006; Ravasi, D., Lojacono, G.
2005; Volberda, H.W., Baden-Fuller, C., Van den
Bosch, F.A.J. 2001; Casadesus-Masanell, R., Ricart, J.
2010; Demil, B., Lecocq, X. 2010; Smits, H. N. J.,
Groeneveld J. M. 2001; Van der Zande, D. 2001
Chanal, V., Caron-Fasan, M.L. 2010
Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., Ulhøi, J. 2011; Battistella,
C., Biotto, G., De Toni, A.F. 2012; Zehir, C., Ozsahin,
M. 2008; Hacklin, F., Wallnöfer, M. 2012; Martinsons,
M. G. 1993
Sammut-Bonnici, T., Paroutis, S. 2013
Amit, R., Zott, C. 2012; Anderson, J., Markides, C.
2007; Markides, C. 1997; Chesbrough, H. 2007;
Hamel, G. 1998; Markides, C. 1998
Kim, H.E., Pennings, J.M. 2009
Miles, R., Miles, G., Snow, C. 2006
Ucaktürk, A., Bekmezci, M., Ucaktürk, T. 2011
Gassmann, O., Widenmayer, B., Zeschky, M. 2012;
Mu, J., Di Benedetto, C.A. 2011; Spieth, P., Ricart,
J.E., Schneckenberg, D. 2012
Koen, P., Bertels, H., Elsum, I. 2011
Kodama, M., Shibata, T. 2013
Keupp, M., Gassmann, O. 2009
Beneito, P. 2003; Alegre-Vidal, J., Lapiedra-Alcami,
R., Chiva-Gómez, R. 2004; Desyllas, P., Sako, M.
2012; Doganova, L., Eyquem-Renault, M. 2009;
Jacobides, M., Knudsen, T., Augier, M. 2006; Talke,
K., Salomo, S., Rost, K. 2010; Garnsey, E., Lorenzoni,
G., Ferriani, S. 2008; Bohnsack, R., Pinske, J., Kolk,
A. 2014; Bercovitz, J.E.L., Feldman, M.P. 2007;
Todtling, F., Trippl, M. 2005; Cefis, E., Orietta, M.
2012; Sharif, N., Huang, C. 2012; Ganter, A., Hecker,
A. 2013; Konig, A., Schulte, M., Enders, A. 2012;
Desyllas, P., Hughes, A. 2010; Fitjar, R., Rodríguez-
Pose, A. 2013; Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., Van
Kranenburg, H. 2006; Leiponen, A., Byma, J. 2009
Voigt, K. 2011
Bloodgood, J.M. 2007; Braganza, A., Ward, J. 2001;
Pickton, D.W., Wright S. 1998
Casadesus-Masanell, R., Zhu, F. 2013; Amit, R., Zott,
32

Strategy & Leadership
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics
Technological Forecasting & Social Change
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management
Technovation
The Academy of Management Journal
The Academy of Management Review
The Journal of High Technology Management
Research
PROCEEDINGS
19th Americas Conference on Information Systems
35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013
Boston Consulting Group
CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology
IBM Institute for Business Value
IESE Business School Working Paper
Innovation Point LCC White Paper
Innovations in Management and Production
Engineering (book)
INSEAD Working Paper
NY Free Press
Oxford University Press
PICMET Proceedings
C. 2001; Armstrong, J.S. 1982; Teece D.J., Pisano G.,
Shuen A. 1997
Abraham, S. 2013; Chesbrough, H. 2007; Giesen, E.,
Berman, S.J., Bell, R., Blitz, A. 2007; Wood, R.C.
2007; Pohle, G., Chapman, M. 2006; Berman, S.,
Kesterson-Townes, L., Marshall, A., Srivathsa, R.
2012
Evangelista, R., Lucchese, M., Meliciani, V. 2013
Sabatier, V., Craig-Kennard, A., Mangematin, V.
2012; Kodama, F. 2004; Gnatzy, T., Moser, R. 2012;
Dobusch, L., Schüßler, E. 2014
Pitt, M., Clarke, K. 1999
Li, Y., Su, Z., Liu, Y. 2010; Sainio L.-M., Ritala, P.,
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. 2012; Wonglimpiyarat, J.
2004; Choi, D., Perez, A. 2007; Hill, T., Westbrook, R.
1997; Hoecht, A., Trott, P. 2006; Calia, R.C., Guerrini,
F.M., Moura, G.L. 2007; Bøllingtoft, A. 2012;
Leskovar-Spacapan, G., Bastic, M. 2007; Kodama, M.
2007; Drejer, A. 2002; Martĺnez-Ros, E., Orfila-Sintes,
F. 2009; Hervas-Oliver, J., Albors Garrigos, J., Gil-
Pechuan, I. 2011; Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., Frattini, F.
2011; Alegre J., Chiva R. 2008; Ehrnberg, E. 1995;
Tongur, S., Engwall, M. 2014
Wiersema, M.F., Bantel, K.A. 1992
Schreyögg, G., Steinmann, H. 1987
Mcdermott, C., Handfield, R. 2000; Tabak, F., Barr, S.
1998
Krumeich, J., Werth, D., Loos, P. 2013
Hartmann, M., Oriani, R., Bateman, H. 2013; Snihur,
Y., Zott, C. 2013
Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G., Deimler, M.S.
2009
Meier, H., Massberg, W. 2004
Giesen, E., Riddleberger, E., Christner, R., Bell, R.
2009
Zott, C., Amit, R. 2009; Amit, R., Zott, C. 2010
Palmer, D., Kaplan, S. 2012
Jasienski, M., Rzeznik, M., Candi, M. 2013
Santos, J., Spector, B., Van der Heyden, L. 2009
D’Aveni, R.A., Gunther, R.E. 1994
Tushman, M., Anderson, P. 1997
Abe, H., Ashiki, T., Suzuki, A., Jinno, F., Sakuma, H.
33
 2007
Ross School of Business Working Paper Afuah, A. 2013
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management Massa, L., Tucci, C. 2014
(book)
The Proceedings of 9th International Strategic Gündüz, E. 2013
Management Conference
Working Paper DaSilva, C., Trkman, P. 2012

34