You are on page 1of 16

Asian Journal on Quality

Emerald Article: An evaluation model of business value for research and development of technology to improve the competitiveness of companies Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan

Article information:
To cite this document: Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan, (2012),"An evaluation model of business value for research and development of technology to improve the competitiveness of companies", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 Iss: 1 pp. 22 - 36 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237806 Downloaded on: 28-01-2013 References: This document contains references to 23 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 66 times since 2012. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan, (2012),"An evaluation model of business value for research and development of technology to improve the competitiveness of companies", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 Iss: 1 pp. 22 - 36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237806 Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan, (2012),"An evaluation model of business value for research and development of technology to improve the competitiveness of companies", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 Iss: 1 pp. 22 - 36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237806 Sang-Chul Lee, Kwang-Hyuk Im, Sang-Chan Park, Liu Fan, (2012),"An evaluation model of business value for research and development of technology to improve the competitiveness of companies", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 Iss: 1 pp. 22 - 36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211237806

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA 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 With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 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.emeraldinsight. Daejoeon. and Liu Fan School of Management/Management Reserach Institute. Korea Christian University. Korea Sang-Chan Park School Of Management.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. For comparative analysis. Korea.1 22 An evaluation model of business value for research and development of technology to improve the competitiveness of companies Sang-Chul Lee Department of Business Administration. Seoul. Kyung Hee University. Second. Findings – This research proposes nine business model components to evaluate a patent from business perspectives. Innovation can relate to business models. 2012 pp. Asian Journal on Quality Vol. Khyhee University. Clustering. Patents. technology. Korea Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this research is to establish an evaluation model for business value of a company’s existing patents portfolio to improve the performance of the technology development and the company’s competitiveness through identifying the right direction for technology development. Introduction Today innovation can be seen from the perspectives of economics. Korea). sociology. Korea Kwang-Hyuk Im Department of Electronic Commerce. this research proposes the importance of business model components and developed six core business models. Through these role models. and engineering. Business model. Keywords Research and development. Seoul. this research takes account of the business value of technologies by developing tools in view of business model components. Originality/value – This research develops a methodology to provide the direction for technology development of a company by evaluating technologies through the patents portfolio of a company rather than evaluating the value of a single patent. Seoul. by evaluating a company’s existing patents portfolio in view of business model components. It is different from previous research that evaluates R&D from technology perspectives. R&D Integrated Modeling and Simulation Supporting Service) funded by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE. companies can analyze the directions for development in the future and find companies with similar characteristics.1108/15982681211237806 This work was supported by the Industrial Strategic Technology Development Program (10035481-2011-02. 1. 13 No. 22-36 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1598-2688 DOI 10. this research sets NAVER as a leading company and DAUM as a following company in e-business industry. This research developed a core business model set by using clustering and classification. . Benchmarking Paper type Research paper 1. Design/methodology/approach – This research targets 11 leading companies in ten manufacturing industries and one e-business industry and evaluates their existing patents portfolios.htm AJQ 13.com/1598-2688. Pai Chai University.

entices customers to pay for value. we need to identify whether a company’s existing patents portfolio fits well to the right direction in technology development. For example. Patents play a pivotal role in the development of technology transactions. We can carefully select role model companies from each and all industries and describe their patents portfolio in terms of business model components. In a first step to establish the guidance. processes. and captures mechanisms employed by the business enterprise. the type of business models might depend on how technology is used. representing patents in view of business model components should be the natural thing to do. The derived knowledge is fed into the resource side for further enrichment. even a single role model company may have more than one subset of most influential business model components. products. According to the APO Innovation Strategy and Framework (APO. Services are a new subject matter for patents. 2005. 2009). and converts those payments to profit (Hedman and Kalling. and such evaluation is sorely needed. Some role model companies from different industries may share the same subset of most influential business model components. and supply chains. Changes in patent policy in OECD countries over the past two decades have fostered the use and enforcement of patents with the aim of encouraging investments in innovation and enhancing the dissemination of knowledge. Governments need to improve their knowledge of the functioning of markets for technology and the effect of such markets on economic performance in order to support their development in the most socially beneficial directions. and competition in the market and diffusion of technology on the other.markets. The impact of patents on innovation and diffusion in this area has not yet to be systematically evaluated. organizations. human. because a business model describes the design or architecture of the value creation. The essence of a business model defines the manner by which the business enterprise delivers value to customers. entrepreneurs on the internet have also created entirely new models that depend solely on existing or emergent technology. By identifying the role model company’s patents portfolio described in terms of business model components. Patents have long been considered to represent a trade-off between incentives to innovate on the one hand. special guidance to foster the company in private sector for research and development (R&D) of technology transaction becomes an utmost necessity. leads to economic performance in the market. patents aim to foster innovation in the private sector by allowing inventors to profit from their inventions (OECD. Using technology. 2003.. Ostenwalder et al. Identifying which role model companies should benchmark is another critical step in comparing a company’s patents portfolio. Business focus will differ among different industries and companies. If we can obtain a sufficient number of most influential business Model of business value for R&D 23 . businesses can reach a large number of customers with minimal costs. which in turn. thus we can identify a set of most influential business components for each company. In this regard. Markets for technology are increasingly important for the circulation of knowledge. 2005). and knowledge form a cycle of knowledge creation by utilizing both material and human resources. Shafer et al. As to the APO Innovation Framework. three major triangles of material. services. With respect to both APO and OECD concepts. we can disclose necessary conditions of technology development guiding principles as to whether a company has developed technologies in economically successful direction or not.. delivery. Today. the relative importance of business model components will vary from company to company. In other words. 2002). not merely as technological improvement. In contrast. Viewed from the angle of innovation policy. innovation shall be viewed from a broad perspective.

the offering. (2005) define a business model as a conceptual tool that contains a set of elements and their relationships and allows the expressing of the business logic of a specific firm. With this binary knowledge tree. After a general review of literature.e. Morris et al. and statement. resources and factor market interactions. design. The purpose of this research is to establish an evaluation model for business value of a company’s existing patents portfolio to improve the performance of the technology development and the competitiveness through identifying the right direction of technology development. they propose an integrative definition as: “A business model is a concise representation of how an interrelated set of decision . this objective of the research is divided into three parts: (1) (2) to propose business model components to evaluate a patent from business perspectives. (3) To establish an evaluation model. this research sets NAVER as a leading company and DAUM as a following company in the e-business industry. we could summarize those subsets into a binary knowledge tree. method. It is a description of the value a company offers to one or several segments of customers. to generate profitable and sustainable revenue streams. revenue model. Moreover. and propose that it should include customers and competitors. and of the architecture of the firm and its network of partners for creating. and to compare the leading and following company’s patents and provide a direction to the followers. For this purpose. By pointing out that the concept of business model is often used independently from theory. and each leaf of a branch on the knowledge tree is a role model for the company’s patents portfolio. marketing. and economic model are often used interchangeably. and delivering this value and relationship capital. this research targets 11 leading companies – ten manufacturing industries and one e-business industry – and evaluates their existing patents portfolios. The node threshold value is induced from the relative importance of each business component between role model companies’ patents portfolios.AJQ 13. as business model. (2005) suggest that diversity in the available definitions of a business model poses substantive challenges for delimiting the nature and components of a model and determining what constitutes a good model. business concept. assumption. pattern. plan.1 24 component subsets reflecting companies’ patents portfolios. 2. The nodes of this knowledge tree are most influential business components and their threshold values. the business model has been referred to as architecture. i. activities and organization. the meaning of model components and their interrelations are relatively obscure. Development of business model components 2. strategy. By reviewing the above literature. to evaluate a company’s existing patents portfolio in view of business model components and to propose a benchmarking role model by developing a knowledge tree. It also leads to confusion in terminology.1 Business model Although various studies have been conducted on business models to date. no general agreement on a standard definition of business model exists. Hedman and Kalling (2003) offer an outline for a conceptual business model. any company having its own patents portfolio can find the role model company whose patents portfolio matches the most with it. Ostenwalder et al. For comparative analysis.

Following a general concept of a business model. Although there are diverse terms defining business model components. Similarly. how it delivers value to stakeholders (e. They define a business model by using price model. architecture.variables in the areas of venture strategy. To them a business model is “a representation of the underlining core logic and strategic choices for creating and capturing value within a value network. profit model. Hamel (2000) suggests four components such as the scope of core strategy. Based on a review of previous literature. Through the literature reviewed above. the nine components of a business model developed by Osterwalder (2010) are adopted because it is a general model that can best define the components of a business model. Linder and Cantrell (2000) take a comprehensive approach to a business model. product and service. rather than conducting research on the definition of business models. Ostenwalder et al. etc. ¨ Stahler (2002) suggests four components such as value proposition. 2000. and value proposition. partners. To address the absence of a generally accepted definition of a business model. or in the model itself. recent research takes more efforts to study the components of business models ¨ (Stahler. 2000. a business model can be viewed as a template of how a firm conducts business. structure.” In 2010.2 Business model components As discussed previously. this research finds a similar result to the nine components of a business model suggested by Ostenwalder et al. customers. the focal firms.” In their work in 2001.. 2002. commercial relations using the internet. Thus. Thus. and gives managers and academics a language and a conceptual toolbox to address 246 them and engage in insightful dialogue and creative design. using the concept as a tool to address change and innovation in the organization.g. we come to a consensus that a business model can be comprehended as demonstrating how an organization purchases and sells goods and services as well as obtains profits. The first is the static approach – as a blueprint for the coherence between core business model components. most of them share certain similarities in meaning. and profit model. there is no general agreement on a standard definition of business model. Based on the Balanced Scorecard approach.).” To help managers better understand business models. In this study. strategic resources. Model of business value for R&D 25 . (2005) review the extant literature. distribution model. 2. value network.” Demil and Lecocq (2010) note two different uses of the term. and classify the components of business models cited therein. Amit and Zott (2001) have defined the business model as depicting “the content. architecture. Hamel. Osterwalder et al. 2005). a new definition that integrates and synthesizes the earlier work is offered. and customer interface. and economics are addressed to create sustainable competitive advantage in defined markets. identify. Linder and Cantrell. and how it links factor and product markets. The activity systems perspective addresses all these vital issues. (2005) propose the nine components of a business model and suggest that components of business models in literature can be matched to the suggested nine components. they argue that the activity system perspective on business models is consistent with the various approaches that have been advanced in the literature. Shafer et al. The second refers to a more transformational approach. commercial process model. and governance of transactions designed so as to create value through the exploitation of business opportunities. which refers to “the articulation between different areas of a firm’s activity designed to produce a proposition of value to customers.

Second. 2010). this research selects 11 major leading companies: ten in manufacturing industry and one e-business company. “infrastructure management” concerns how a business entity deals with infrastructure or logistics issues with efficiency and the participating network partners in the process.1 Data In order to compare a company’s patents portfolio and identify a benchmarking role model.AJQ 13. “customer interface” defines the target customers of an organization. The list of industries and major leading companies is shown in Table II. 3. “financial aspect” defines the profit model.kipris. However. and concerns sustainability of the cost structure and business model (Ostenwalder et al. Ostenwalder.2 Analysis of a company’s patents portfolio First.. 3. Data are collected from Korea Intellectual Property Rights Information Services (www. we finally get 100 sample patents from each company for analysis. and how the organization is going to deliver the goods and services to these customers as well as establish strong relations with them.1 26 (2005) (as shown in Appendix 1). Evaluation of a company’s patents portfolio 3. Third. The patents with significant relevance to the respective business Four pillar Product Customer interface BM components Value propositions Customer segments Channels Customer relationships Key activities Key resources Key partnerships Definition A value proposition is an overall view of a company’s bundle of products and services that are of value to the customer The target customer is a segment of customers a company wants to offer value to A distribution channel is a means of getting in touch with the customer The relationship describes the kind of link a company establishes between itself and the customer The value configuration describes the arrangement of activities and resources that are necessary to create value for the customer A capability is the ability to execute a repeatable pattern of actions that is necessary in order to create value for the customer A partnership is a voluntarily initiated cooperative agreement between two or more companies in order to create value for the customer The cost structure is the representation in money of all the means employed in the business model The revenue model describes the way a company makes money through a variety of revenue flows Infrastructure management Financial aspects Table I. The nine components of business model Cost structure Revenue stream . First. the business value of each patent is evaluated based on nine components of business model. The framework of the nine components is shown in Table I.kr).or. product. since we are limited to analyzing all patents from each company. 2005. with information of patents over a period of ten years from 2000 to 2009. Stratified sampling method is used to select samples. “product” implies the types of project. Finally. and the ratio of the year when the patent was published is also taken into consideration (as shown in Appendix 2). or value proposition offered to the market.

List of target industries model components are inputted 1.40 Cost structure 0.40 0.60 0. while those with low relevance are inputted 0.80 0.00 Revenue stream 0.00 Channels Cost structure Customer segments Revenue stream Value proposition 1.80 0.00 0. the result reveals that there are differences for the importance of nine components among different companies (as shown in Figure 1).60 0.40 Value proposition 1.60 0.00 Customer segments 0.00 Channels Customer segments Key partnerships Customer relationships Key activities Cheil industries POSCO Key partnerships Customer relationships Key activities NAVER Key resources Kumho petrochemical Key resources Figure 1. which means that companies develop different business models for creating value.20 0. Business value of companies patents portfolios Hanmi pharmaceutical .20 0.00 Channels Key partnerships Customer relationships Key activities Hyundai motors Key partnerships Customer relationships Key activities LG display LG telecom Key resources STX Key resources Hynix semiconductor Samsung electronics Value proposition 1.20 0.00 Channels Cost structure 0.20 0.80 0.00 Revenue stream 0.40 Customer segments Cost structure 0.80 0. Based on an analysis on companies’ patents portfolio.Industries Manufacturing Machine industries IT industries Company Materials industries High-tech industries Service e-Business industries Shipping Auto Semiconductor Display Electronics Telecommunications Petrochemistry Textile Steel Bio e-Business STX Hyundai Motors Hynix Semiconductor LG Display Samsung Electronics LG Telecom Kumho Petrochemical Cheil Industries POSCO Hanmi Pharmaceutical NAVER Model of business value for R&D 27 Table II. Revenue stream Value proposition 1.60 0.

76 0.65 0.90 0. Clementine is used for classification analysis. cluster 0. Samsung Electronics.56 0. The order of components indicates their importance.39 0. and NAVER.90 0. Most of the manufacturing companies.10 0. and C5 algorism is adopted. The results indicate that six role models are developed. At the same time.59 0. LG Telecom. In order to develop a benchmarking role model.10 C5 0. where key activities are revealed to be the most important component in finding a role model.51 0.51 0. such as STX.3 Clustering analysis Innovation is viewed across all industries.62 0. Hyundai Motors need to pay attention to the channel that connects itself to its customers.67 0. POSCO.45 0. Clementine is used for clustering analysis. In doing so. The results indicate that a company has more than one subset of role models.45 0.90 0. Hynix Semiconductor. such as STX. and Hanmi Pharmaceutical. clustering is a useful means to form groups with common interests and goals.45 0. key activities. and the use of role models is a good approach to level up on innovation.54 0.90 0. Cheil Industries. as a company in e-business industry.90 Table III. such as Hyundai Motors.67 0. Cheil Industries.33 0.53 C2 0.25 0.90 0.16 0.66 0. as shown in Table IV. Hynix Semiconductor.87 0. and key resources.48 0. which means that their business C1 Channels Customer relationships Cost structure Customer segment Key activities Key partnerships Key resources Revenue stream Value propositions Note: C. This research obtains a sufficient number of most influential business component subsets reflecting companies’ patents portfolios.45 0.82 C6 0. LG Display.51 0. This may be explained as that.87 0.100 patents are divided into six groups (Table III).59 0.10 0.10 0. While POSCO emphasize only these three components. The patents portfolios of these three companies indicate a high emphasis on three components of value propositions. Samsung Electronics.56 0. and Hanmi Pharmaceutical. all patents of companies are clustered using two-step clustering method and are divided into groups.79 0.84 0. The result of clustering analysis shows that 1. LG Display. as an automobile company.90 C4 0.41 0. While some of the other companies emphasize specific components of a business model.4 Development of role models for benchmarking Third.10 0.49 0.AJQ 13.62 0. 3. 3. Kumho Petrochemical.52 0.10 0.27 0.49 C3 0.47 0.1 28 The results show that most of the manufacturing companies.14 0. do not have a special preference in certain components of a business model.47 0.52 0. Results of clustering .52 0. Table V shows the benchmarking role models that are owned by the role model companies. role models for benchmarking are developed using classification. Kumho Petrochemical. while a two-step clustering method adopting Schwarz criterion and Akaike information criterion are used for capturing the optimized number of clustering group. have role model 2 (RM2). Hyundai Motors also have a preference for channels. LG Telecom.27 0. NAVER also needs to pay efforts to channels and key partnerships.

they can find the core business role model and a benchmarking role model company. in e-business industry for a comparative analysis. With this role model set. That is to say. This research selects NAVER and DAUM as leading and following companies. The node of benchmarking role models Notes: RM. With this role model set. role model. respectively. with many patents developed in its core business model in . Besides. RM1 and RM3 are also showing a relevant importance. 0 or 1: threshold value of a binary knowledge tree Role model STX Hyundai Motors Hynix Semiconductor LG Display Samsung Electronics LG Telecom Kumho Petrochemical Cheil Industries POSCO Hanmi Pharmaceutical NAVER Total RM1 12 1 13 13 7 17 9 17 0 12 1 102 RM2 30 1 12 30 31 21 30 18 3 25 0 201 RM3 17 4 7 10 10 19 7 18 0 14 9 115 RM4 2 24 12 2 2 2 2 1 48 4 13 112 RM5 0 3 14 7 2 1 3 0 22 0 0 52 RM6 1 34 9 2 4 4 0 2 6 Table V. while POSCO regards RM4 more significant. It is shown that DAUM owns similar business models to NAVER. Hyundai Motors. DAUM follows the business model of its leading company in its industry.Components Key activities Key resources Key partnerships Customer segments Value proposition Channels Customer relationships Cost structure Revenue stream RM1 0 0 1 RM2 0 1 RM3 1 0 1 RM4 1 1 0 1 0 0 RM5 1 1 0 1 0 1 RM6 1 1 1 1 1 Model of business value for R&D 29 Table IV. Comparative analysis on patents between the leading company and following company Following companies are in need of the direction of technology development from leading companies in their industry. 4. Annual patents of NAVER and DAUM are shown in Table VI. It also provides implications when comparing the changes of patents and its market share. DAUM developed a large quantity of patents in 2007. In contrast. any company having its own patents portfolio can find the role model company whose patents portfolio matches with it most. and NAVER have different role models. NAVER sets RM6 as the most important role model. 2 60 The number of companies’ portfolios in role models 124 models are oriented at key resources. Hyundai Motors set RM4 and RM6 as its most important role models. POSCO.

0 0.0 2006 10. One of the reasons can be explained that NAVER may develop technologies even without notifying the direction for technology development.0 0.0 0. as is suggested in the purpose of this research.0 1.3 0.4 21.0 0. In contrast.7 21. This results in an influence on the market share in 2009 (shown in Table VII).3 3.7 12.0 8. Conclusion and limitations R&D of technology is important for improving a company’s competitiveness.0 9.0 3.AJQ 13.0 1.0 0.7 21.3 3. Although this research has the above implications.1 30 particular.3 11.0 2.0 0. Therefore.7 2006 48.0 2005 10.3 0.0 8.3 1.3 10. NAVER developed most patents in other fields rather than in its core business model in 2008 and it developed very few patents in 2009.3 22.7 1.3 6. Therefore.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 .0 1.7 23. companies are able to analyze the direction for technology development and find out the companies share similar characteristics for analysis. Market share of NAVER and DAUM (%) NAVER DAUM 2002 2003 2004 30.0 8. it still has limitations. by evaluating a company’s existing patents portfolio in view of business model components. This research develops a methodology to provide the direction for technology development of a company by evaluating technologies through the patents portfolio of a company rather than evaluating the value of a single patent.7 1.0 21.0 2007 11.3 9.0 5.7 2005 38.0 2003 5.0 1.5 14.0 6. companies should develop technologies after analyzing the patents portfolio.0 9.0 2008 10. Annual patents of NAVER Total and DAUM (%) Company NAVER DAUM NAVER DAUM NAVER DAUM NAVER DAUM 2002 0.0 9.3 2.2 24.0 Total 60 64 20 20 20 16 100 100 2001 Table VII. Thus.7 34. this research takes account of the business value of technologies by developing tools in view of business model components. this research selected core leading companies in 11 industries and their patents.0 1.3 2008 72. there are BM BM6 BM4 Others Table VI. 5.0 1. which can provide a guide on the direction of technology development.7 12.6 23.0 1.0 13. this research suggests the company’s development direction and deduces six core business models.5 16.0 2009 2.0 2.0 0.0 0. this research aims to establish an evaluation model for a business value of a company’s existing patents portfolio to identify the right direction for technology development and to identify which role model companies should be benchmarked.3 6.9 24. By contrast with previous research which evaluates R&D from technology perspectives.7 2007 61.0 6.0 1.3 11. Due to the stratified sampling method. this research proposes the nine business model components to evaluate a patent from business perspectives. First. To test the evaluation model.0 0.1 2009 68. Second. Through these role models.0 2004 12.7 1. it is necessary to analyze the patents portfolio in view of business value and notify the direction for technology development exactly. which selects 100 samples from each company.0 2.

IL. Delft. Journal of Business Research. Tokyo. Second. 22 Nos 6-7. (2001). Paris. Information Technology and the Future Enterprise: New Models for Managers. (2000). G. W. the companies selected in this research are only domestic companies in Korea. 58 No. Linder. (2003). pp. R. pp. and Zott.W. this research only takes ten typical industries for analysis. pp. NY. 6. A. “Business models for internet-based e-commerce: an anatomy”. Vol. J.S. C. References APO (2009). Measuring the Information Economy. “E-business models: making sense of the Internet business landscape”. 86 No. (2002). R. Vrije Universiteit. and Kalling. S. Boston.M. and Van de Kar. M. M. 55-69. (2008). Vol. B. and Lecocq. European Journal of Information Systems. Harvard Business School. C. The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from XEROX Corporation’s Technology Spinoff Companies. “Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency”. X. Demil. “The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective”. Schindehutte. 12 No. Strategic Management Journal. and DeSanctis. Furthermore. (Eds). pp. and Allen. Hamel. Wiley. 50-9. E. it would be better if foreign companies are taken into consideration. 227-46. or even for comparative analysis. “Value creation in e-business”. Innovation Framework and Strategies: An APO Perspective. “The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations”. (2010). and Tucci. 49-169. Model of business value for R&D 31 . It is better to collect all data of an industry for analysis in the future for further study.certain errors in sampling. “Reinventing your business model”. Chicago. (2010). Asian Productivity Organization. pp. (2003). Leading the Revolution. California Management Review.. C. Boston. Changing Business Models: Surveying the Landscape. MA. (2000). Vol. 1. pp. J. pp. Gary. 4. and Rosenbloom. J. Amsterdam. J. and Challengers. 49-59. Christensen. OECD (2002). 42 No. Morris. H. 726-35. C.. Maitland. Game Changers. (2000). because this research does not include all patents of each company for analysis. (2001). Vol. Johnson. A. Upper Saddle River. Long Range Planning. 12. It is necessary to consider more companies from diverse industries for future study. (2000).. MA. Boston. Amit. H. and Cantrell. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). M. Harvard Business School Press. 43 Nos 2-3. B. McGraw-Hill. L. NJ. T. “First BITA case study experiences with regard to complex value systems”. New York. It is necessary to take careful consideration when adapting the result of this research to other companies. 493-520. Institute for Strategic Change. (2005). MA. and Kagermann. Mahadevan. Gordijn. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries. Value-Based Requirements Engineering – Exploring Innovative e-Commerce Ideas. Vol. Applegate. Vol. Harvard Business Review.M. Osterwalder. Prentice Hall. Hedman. BITA-B4U Symposium Business Models for Innovative Mobile Services. G. Accenture. Chesbrough. (2002). in Dickson. Afuah. Internet Business Models and Strategies. G.

pp. Further reading Dubosson..R.. (2001). MA. present. D. 199-207. B. and Pigneur. Lowi. L. (2010)..L. 1. Vol. 1. and Ticoll. Vol. ¨ Stahler. Business Models as an Unit of Analysis for Strategizing. pp. Moingeon. “Clarifying business models: origins. (2005). 5-23. and Linder. Y. Place to Space: Migrating to eBusiness Models. Osterwalder. 44 No. 308-25. 15 No. Yunus. A. “eBusiness model design. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. M. Boston. (2002). C. (2005). Lausanne. 32 Shafer.. Y. M. S. (2002). P. A. Thunderbird International Business Review. Harvard Business School Press. MA. Weill. Harvard Business School Press. A. M. and Vitale. H. pp. D. and Ortega. “Building social business models: lessons from the Grameen experience”. Business Horizons. Tapscott. J.. Smith. (2000). Digital Capital – Harnessing the Power of Business Webs. Boston.J.1 Osterwalder. pp. and Tucci.AJQ 13. Long Range Planning. Vol. International Workshop on Business Models. Pigneur. Vol. . and future of the concept”. 48 No.L. 43 Nos 2-3.C.M. P. 48. “The power of business models”. 1-40. classification and measurements”.

partners.Appendix 1 Component Structure of the value chain Relationship Core dynamics processes Commerce relationship Logistical stream B-webs B-webs Transaction component Partners Commerce process model Core competencies. strategic assets Suppliers. coalitions Pricing structure Pricing model. strategic objective (continued) Model of business value for R&D 33 Table AI. management model Infrastructure and network of partners Architecture Core E-business competencies. revenue model Revenue stream Position in the value chain Cost structure Value proposition Key activity Key resource Customer segmentation Channel Customer interface Cost Revenue Key partnership Structure model Chesbrough Value Market and proposition segment Rosenbloom (2000) Hamel (2000) Product/ Market scope Fulfillment market scope and support. schematics competitive strategy factors Benefits to firm and stakeholders Financial aspects Revenue model Source of revenue Dubosson et al. information and insight Linder and Value Channel Cantrell. proposition model (2000) Mahadevan Value stream (2000) Tapscott et al. Ontologies of components of business model . (2002) Product ¨ Stahler (2001) Value proposition Weill and Value Vitale (2001) proposition. (2000) Amit and Transaction Zott (2001) component Applegate Product and Market (2001) services opportunity offered Marketing/ sales model Customer relationship Architecture Customer segments Channels Brand and reputation Architectural configuration Operating Organization model and culture.

Customer (2008) value proposition Demil and Value Lecocq (2010) proposition Yunus et al. Value (2010) proposition Table AI. structure revenue. value configuration Activities and Resources.34 AJQ 13. Factors Market factor (2005) related to the offering Key resources Johnson et al.1 Component E3-value configuration Companies involved in creating value Actors Gordijn (2002) Maitland and Vande Kar (2002) Value offering Market segment Value Market proposition. source Connected Capabilities activities. Competitors organization supply of factor and production inputs Competitive Internal strategy capability factors factors. Customer segmentation Channel Key activity Key resource Customer interface Cost Revenue Key partnership Structure model Value Value exchange exchange Revenue model Cost Pricing. personal/ investor factors Key processes Organization Resources and competences Value constellation Economic factors Profit formula Profit equation Value proposition . segment assumed value Afuah and Customer Scope Tucci (2003) value Customer Hedman and Offering Kalling (2003) Morris et al.

803) 12 (19) 0 (2) 0 (0) 13 (4.472) 57 (18.246) 100 (1.993) 4 (44) 16 (40) 9 (140) 19 (2.871) 15 (14.958) 100 (91.080) 8 (94) 11 (30) 8 (122) 6 (716) 14 (20) 21 (234) 29 (51) 8 (2.318) 6 (72) 11 (29) 8 (130) 25 (2.009) 14 (4.095) 7 (6.928) 6 (1.091) 19 (226) 19 (50) 22 (350) 9 (1.594) 100 (11.310) 12 (18) 6 (68) 4 (8) 11 (3.005) 10 (16) 23 (258) 16 (28) 1 (225) 3 (863) 1 (236) 3 (2.874) 8 (95) 12 (32) 9 (146) 14 (1.883) 9 (7.397) 16 (14.100 35 Table AII.646) 9 (2.017) 12 (3.027) 12 (3.716) 8 (2.750) 100 (31.554) 5 (61) 8 (20) 10 (154) 11 (1.418) 100 (154) 100 (1.161) 100 (262) 100 (1.637) 100 (29.483) 4 (1.117) 20 (227) 10 (26) 16 (252) 8 (883) 17 (26) 21 (234) 50 (89) 10 (3.878) 10 (2.321) 11 (10.017) 11 (3.848) 1 (11) 3 (8) 4 (69) 2 (226) 3 (5) 3 (46) 100 (178) 100 (31.222) 2 (695) 5 (4.615) 3 (1.637) 8 (2.478) 8 (2.Appendix 2 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total STX Hyundai Motors Hynix Semiconductor LG Display Samsung Electronics LG Telecom Kumho Petrochemical Cheil Industries POSCO Hanmi Pharmaceutical NAVER 0 (0) 12 (4.559) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 14 (4. Data sets of companies patents Model of business value for R&D .684) 5 (1.219) 12 (18) 1 (9) 1 (2) 12 (3.125) Total 0 (0) 9 (2.605) 13 (148) 4 (11) 7 (116) 3 (392) 10 (16) 13 (140) 0 (0) 10 (3.766) 16 (183) 6 (16) 7 (115) 3 (305) 10 (16) 12 (133) 1.746) 14 (12.171) 12 (3.310) 8 (7.404) 12 (10.368) 6 (1.931) 9 (2.

kr To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. and his PhD degree in MIS from the University of Illinois. University of Wisconsin in Madison. Sang-Chan Park is a Professor at Department of Healthcare Management. data mining. management information systems and quality management. His research interest includes the application of artificial intelligence. E-business. electronic commerce and customer relationship management (CRM). Liu Fan is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: fanliu@khu. Her research interest includes consumer behaviour in e-business. Journal of the Korea Society for Quality Management.ac. especially machine learning methodologies. and Social Networking.emeraldinsight. e-commerce. Korean Management Review. management of technology.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. etc. He has also expanded his research domain into internet on things. to the design of knowledge-based systems for various management principles. e-government. He received his Bachelor of Management degree from the Seoul National University. quality information systems. He received his MS and PhD degrees in Industrial Engineering from Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) in 2000 and 2006. Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management. Liu Fan is currently a PhD Candidate at Kyung Hee University. customer relationship management and multigroup structural equation modelling (MSEM). Korea. He holds BS from Asia United Theological University. He was formerly a Professor at the Department of Industrial Engineering of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Behavior. and Social Networking. total quality management. His research interests include e-business strategies. MBA degree from the University of Minneapolis. data mining and educational technology for the gifted.1 36 About the authors Sang-Chul Lee is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management Information Systems at Korea Christian University. Journal of MIS Research. and MBA and PhD in Management Information Systems from Kyung Hee University. International Journal of E-education. Kwang Hyuk Im is an Assistant Professor of Electronic Commerce at Pai Chai University. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. Urbana-Champaign.AJQ 13. and is working as a Researcher for E-business Center of School of Management. Behavior. respectively. Liu Fan has had many papers published in international journals and conferences. Korea. healthcare management. She received her MS degree from Kyung Hee University. e-learning. Information Systems Review.com/reprints . E-management and E-learning. He has published papers in Cyber Psychology. in 2009. Her previous work has been published in Cyber Psychology. Expert Systems with Applications. Kyung Hee University. His teaching and research specialties are in the fields of data mining. intelligent systems. KyungHee University. He was formerly an Assistant Professor at the Department of Information Systems of the School of Business. e-commerce. etc.