Økonomisk vækst og forretningsmodeller

Økonomisk vækst og forretningsmodeller

Kasper Roldsgaard Forsker, Fakultet for Ledelse

UPV - Polyteknisk Universitet i Valencia [email protected] T: +34 960 710 848 M: +45 21 68 86 71

-‐ Bæredyg*g vækst gennem ledelse

Getting the terminology right: “In economics, sustainable growth refers to increases in profits, adjusted for changes in the relationship between revenues and costs, that can be sustained over long periods of time” (author’s definition, 19-04-2012).

In Danish: Projekt sporskifte 2010

1. Expected track (best case scenario)

2. Continuation track (second best case scenario)

3. Unexpected track (unprecedented scenario)

Year 2010

Year 2008

D e r a i l e d curve

Straight crossing Lead curve (Turnout curve)

Year 2012

Connected curve

Intro: “Ud at rejse med DSB”

Indica6ve trendline: -‐84.72x + 1023.2

R² = 0.3825

-‐1000 -‐800 -‐600 -‐400 -‐200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Amou

nts in DK

K million Financial result

Best case scenario a

b

d

e

c

Source: DSB Annual Reports

Financial highlights1999-2011

Spørgsmål: Hvordan kan denne kurve forklares?

-‐4000

-‐2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Amou

nts in DK

K million

Total revenues

Profit for the period (Or loss)

Forskellen mellem vækst på top-‐ og bundlinje

Fig. 8. The growing gap of costs. Source: DSB Annual Reports 1999-2011. To close the growing gap, DSB suspends two contracts: a) the Swedish coast line of the Oresund region in 2011 [contract period: 2009-2017] and b) the Väst region in 2012 [contract period: from 2010 to 2018].

DSB Financial highlights1999-2011

Omkostninger vokser ud af kontrol.

Dagens program

•  Ny teori om forretningsmodeller •  Uddrag af forskningsresultater •  Caseeksempler •  Osterwalders kanvas

Hvor naiv kan man være? Vi har at gøre med et kommercielt foretagende, som store amerikanske venturekapitalister, […] og en kinesisk rigmand har investeret millioner af dollar i. De vil se en forretningsmodel. De vil se et acast. […] Det er forretning med stort F.

Kilde: Føhns, H. ”Julegave ødelægger forretningsmodel, Facebook fandt en smart model, men en diamantring safe sig fast i forretningens tandhjul”. Informa6on, publiceret 11-‐12-‐2007

”den forretningsmodel for havmølleparker [...] er så smart, at DONG’s store tyske konkurrent på det europæiske marked [...] annoncerede, at man nu vil rejse kapital 6l sine vindmølleprojekter på lignende måde. [Ekspert udtaler:] Den største kompliment, du kan få, det er, når konkurrenterne kopierer dine koncepter.”

Kilde: Nielsen, J. S., "Schurs show mod Eldrup rammer DONG", 16-‐03-‐2012.

1

2

En model (for at tjene penge)

Et koncept (for at tjene penge)

Forretningsmodel krise (44) Forretningsmodel investering (43)

Forretningsmodel finansiering (13)

Forretningsmodel penge (127)

Forretningsmodel succes (48)

Kombineret søgning (april 2012)

Source: Informa6on.dk, 2000-‐2012. Translated from Danish into English.

Observa6ons

1.  56% of the ar6cles about ‘business model’ (n=259) also men6ons ‘money’ (n=145. The co-‐evolu6on pafern between ‘Business model’ AND ‘money’ is surprisingly clear.

2.  Increased afen6on to ‘product’ and ‘success’ in public discourses about business models.

Longitudinal analysis, 2000-‐2012

Financial crisis

Internet Bobble burst

Post crisis

Housing bobble burst

Con6nued crisis

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2012

Stock crisis

5

10

15

20

25

0

30

35

40

“Business model”

“Business model” AND “money”

”Business model” AND investment (n=50) Moderate increase

2000 2001 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2

4

6

8

10

0

12

Financial management ”Business model” AND crisis (n=51)

2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Moderate increase

2

4

6

8

10

0

12

Nega;ve consequence

[INPUT] [OUTPUT]

”Business model” AND success (n=53)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2012

Significant increase

2

4

6

8

10

0

12

”Business model” AND product (n=58) Significant increase Posi;ve

consequence Supply chain management

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2012

[OUTPUT] [INPUT] 2

4

6

8

10

0

12

Nye teorier om forretningsmodeller

0,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000 Teece, 2010

Doz & Kosonen, 2010

Baden-‐Fuller & Morgan, 2010

Wirtz et. al., 2010

Itami & Nishino, 2010

Casadesus-‐Masanell & Ricart, 2010

Saba6er et. al., 2010

Williamson, 2010

Dahan et. al., 2010

Smith et. al., 2010 Gambardella & McGahan, 2010 Sosna et. al., 2010

Thompson & MacMillan, 2010

McGrath, 2010

Chesbrough, 2010

Demil & Lecocq, 2010

Zof & Amit, 2010

Yunus el. al., 2010

Svejenova et. al., 2010

Dunford et. al., 2010

Hienerth et. al., 2011

Rou6ne Change Strategy Process

0,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000 Teece, 2010

Doz & Kosonen, 2010


Wirtz et. al., 2010




Williamson, 2010

Dahan et. al., 2010



McGrath, 2010

Chesbrough, 2010


Zof & Amit, 2010

Yunus el. al., 2010




Social Culture Resource

0,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000 Teece, 2010

Doz & Kosonen, 2010


Wirtz et. al., 2010




Williamson, 2010

Dahan et. al., 2010



McGrath, 2010

Chesbrough, 2010


Zof & Amit, 2010

Yunus el. al., 2010




Innova6on Experiment Evolu6on

0,000

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000 Teece, 2010

Doz & Kosonen, 2010


Wirtz et. al., 2010




Williamson, 2010

Dahan et. al., 2010



McGrath, 2010

Chesbrough, 2010


Zof & Amit, 2010

Yunus el. al., 2010




Business model Social

0,000

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000 Teece, 2010

Doz & Kosonen, 2010


Wirtz et. al., 2010




Williamson, 2010

Dahan et. al., 2010



McGrath, 2010

Chesbrough, 2010


Zof & Amit, 2010

Yunus el. al., 2010




Business model Failure

TeoreHsk gap i liIeraturen Fiasko: ”handling, projekt eller lignende, som fuldstændig mislykkes” – ordbogen.com

Fejlslagen: ”som ikke er gået ePer hensigten” – ordbogen.com forfejlet mislykket

Kilde: Roldsgaard (2013).

Randomized controlled trials

Trail 1

Clinical study 1 – Internal origin

Ope

ra;o

naliza;

on

Clinical study 2 – External origin Clinical study 3 – Underlying challenge

Trail 2 Trail 3

Producing knowledge about past prac6ce

Producing knowledge about best prac6ce

Rela6onship between the elements of the leadership agenda

Rela6onship between the barriers and opportuni6es

Rela6onship between the core product and commercial periphery

Strengths and weaknesses for developing the business model through a series of mul6variate

analyses of the leadership agenda

Opportuni6es and threats for developing the business model through analysis of a series of

single and mul6ple choice baferies

Founda6on for developing the business model through frequency analyses of

the basic forces in play

Declara6ve memory Procedural memory

Opera6onal planning Detailed execu6on plan Preparing emails to arose an interest Logis6cal distribu6on of the survey Follow-‐up to boost the response rate

Approval of the research inves6ga6on

Plan

ning

Trail 4 Trail 5 Trail 6

Producing knowledge about

barriers

Producing knowledge about opportuni6es


Trail 7 Trail 8 Trail 9

Producing knowledge about the forces in play

Producing knowledge about

the strategy


Measuremen

t

15 items 15 items 15 items 28 items 28 items 28 items 2 items 2 items 2 items a b c a b c

a=autobiographic memory, b=cogniHve memory, c=ability memory

Fig 1 Flow chart of randomized controlled trials

Fokus i dag.

Managers assessed for eligibility (n=476)

Excluded (n=108) Not mee6ng the inclusion criteria (n=5) Declined to par6cipate (n=75) Discon6nued/incomplete answers (n=24) Excluded from analysis (n=4)

Randomized valid ques6onnaires (n=368)

Representa6on: 77.8% M/F: 67/33% Age: 48 Seniority: 9 Employees: 15

Group 1 (n=27) Not eligible (n=0) Non response (n=4) Incomplete (n=2) Excluded (n=0)













Sample representaHon: 77.3%. Rounded average numbers for age, seniority and employees per manager.

Valid ques6onnaires Analyzed (n=21)







Fig 2 Parallel randomized study of seven groups

Summary

Selec;on

Sample

Characteris;cs

Kilde: Doz, Y. L. & Kosonen, M., Embedding Strategic Agility, A Leadership Agenda for Accelera6ng Business Model Renewal, Long Range Planning 43 (2010) 370 – 382.

TeoreHsk ramme som udgangspunkt

Ledelsesdagsorden for udvikling af forretningsmodeller

A.

B.

C.

13

VAR Beskrivelse Situa6on Std. Afv. Mål Std. Afv. Afstand Sig. Signifikant

1 Forudsige – Evne 6l at forudsige for at kunne forme markedet 4.56 .98601 6.02 1.005 1.462 0.000 Signifikant

2 Eksperimentere – Eksperimentere med teknologi samt probe for at få indsigt i hvad markedet e{erspørger

5.04 .95370 5.16 1.203 0.117 0.144 Ikke Signifikant

3 Distance – Distance gennem et udefra-‐ind perspek6v 4.35 .94461 5.99 .951 1.635 0.000 Signifikant

4 Abstrahere – Nytænke forretningsmodellen 4.99 1.04593 5.87 1.067 0.875 0.000 Signifikant

5 Redesigne – Se behovet for forandring i et posi6vt perspek6v 4.41 1.20891 5.88 1.087 1.470 0.000 Signifikant

6 Afstemme – Afdække stemning for at afstemme antagelser og forventninger 4.51 1.17671 5.92 1.072 1.404 0.000 Signifikant

7 Åbenbare – Klarlægge mål, synliggøre udfordringer for at indfri disse mål 4.22 1.52879 6.36 .826 2.132 0.000 Signifikant

8 Integrere – Skabe fælles engagement og commitment 3.99 1.39009 5.33 1.261 1.344 0.000 Signifikant

9 Forene – Skabe rammerne for en dagsorden der forener 3.96 1.19828 6.10 .916 2.133 0.000 Signifikant

10 Mo6vere – Tryghed, pleje og mo6vere 4.16 1.50932 4.88 1.487 0.717 0.000 Signifikant

11 Omorganisere – Omorganisere e{er kundesegmenter 4.96 .89563 5.60 1.078 0.636 0.000 Signifikant

12 Modularisere – Udvikle system hvor komponenterne kan udski{es, sammenkobles, genbruges

5.22 .96346 5.08 1.315 0.136 0.110 Ikke Signifikant

13 Dissociere – Adskille ressourceejerskab fra brug samt genforhandle adgang 6l og placering af ressourcer

3.90 1.08208 5.82 1.116 1.923 0.000 Signifikant

14 Switche – Lade kunden ski{e mellem grundprodukter 4.65 1.06296 4.66 1.610 0.003 0.978 Ikke Signifikant

15 Transformere – Bryde med status quo 4.74 1.13822 5.79 1.090 1.053 0.000 Signifikant

4.51 5.63 1.12

Vi skal stå her Vi står her Gap

14

1. Mul6variat gap analyse

Kilde: Roldsgaard (2012)

1. Forudsige – Evne til at forudsige for at kunne forme markedet

2. Eksperimentere – Eksperimentere med teknologi samt probe for at få indsigt i

hvad markedet efterspørger

3. Distance – Distance gennem et udefra-ind perspektiv

4. Abstrahere – Nytænke forretningsmodellen (fx gøre det bedre

med mindre, omorganisere, anvendelse af teknologi)

5. Redesigne – Se behovet for forandring i et positivt perspektiv

6. Afstemme – Afdække stemning for at afstemme antagelser og forventninger

(også med transportministeriet)

7. Åbenbare – Klarlægge mål, synliggøre udfordringer for at indfri disse mål (også

overfor transportministeriet) 8. Integrere – Skabe fælles engagement

og commitment (også med transportministeriet)

9. Forene – Skabe rammerne for en dagsorden der forener (også

transportministeriet)

10. Motivere – Tryghed, pleje og motivere

11. Omorganisere – Omorganisere efter kundesegmenter (hjælp kunden med at

blive succesfuld)

12. Modularisere – System hvor komponenterne kan udskiftes,

sammenkobles, genbruges

13. Dissociere – Adskille ressourceejerskab fra brug samt

genforhandle adgang til og placering af ressourcer

14. Switche – Lade kunden skifte mellem grundprodukter (fx F&R, s-tog, metro)

15. Transformere – Bryde med status quo (performanceudvikle, omorganisere,

anvende ny teknologi)

16. Samlet vurdering (gennemsnit)

Mål Ledernes vurdering af situationen i 2011

15

1. Mul6variat gap analyse

Kilde: Roldsgaard (2012)

Rotated Component Matrixa Fortolkning

Component

Korrek;on Korrek;on Uforandret Korrek;on

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1. Være på forkant med udviklingen af markedet ,234 ,627 ,125 ,207 1. Forudsige

2. Eksperimentere med nye kundeløsninger i markedet ,066 ,775 ,063 ,181 2. Eksperimentere

3. Lyfe 6l kunders kri6k og bearbejde forslag fra kunder ,500 ,362 ,128 ,178 3. Distance

4. Udtænke nye koncepter 6l at bane vejen frem 6l nye indtægtskilder og nytænke omkostningstunge processer

,260 ,639 ,228 -‐,099 4. Abstrahere

5. Nytænke rodfæstede processer og modeller for at drive forretning

,325 ,568 ,220 -‐,056 5. Redesigne

6. Føre en åben dialog for at skabe fælles fodslag ,572 ,230 ,139 ,512 6. Dialog

7. Fremlægge klare mål og synliggøre de udfordringer der skal 6l for at overleve på sigt

,754 ,211 ,126 ,070 7. Åbenbare

8. Inddrage fællesskabet i den strategiske udvikling ,418 ,137 ,053 ,714 8. Inddrage

9. Kommunikere klare mål der be6nger succes for den langsigtede strategi og kortsigtede opera6onelle tak6k

,734 ,135 ,122 ,157 9. Forene

10. Skabe personlig sikkerhed for den enkelte medarbejder ,077 ,040 ,255 ,814 10. Bekymre

11. Investere i processer og systemer for at frigøre ressourcer ,144 ,162 ,546 ,258 11. Omorganisere

12. Udvikle en modulær produk6onssstruktur med togopera6on, produkter og ydelser der kan af-‐ og 6lkobles

-‐,033 ,239 ,737 ,258 12. Modularisere

13. Forhandle vilkår med kunder, medarbejdere, fagforeninger, transportministeret og kommercielle forretningspartnere

,363 ,110 ,542 ,132 13. Dissociere

14. Operere med selvstændige virksomhedsstrukturer for at kunne introducere nye kommercielle 6ltag i forskellige tempi

-‐,154 ,417 ,480 ,297 14. Ski]e

15. Forny togdri{en gradvist for at lede udviklingen af markedet for at bryde med status quo

,345 ,051 ,697 -‐,267 15. Oms;lle

Extrac6on Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rota6on Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normaliza6on. a. Rota6on converged in 21 itera6ons.

A. Strategi

B. Led

else

C. Resou

rce

2. Principal komponent analyse

Source: Roldsgaard (2013)

Korrelationer mellem afhængig og uafhængige variabler

Spørgsmål: Hvor vigtig mener du grundproduktet er for at kunne udvikle DSBs forretningsmodel?

Grundproduktet er "Ikke vigtigt" [1,2,3,4] (n=8)

Grundproduktet er "Vigtigt" [5,6,7] (n=360) Total (n=368)

Andel af samlede betydning (sammenhæng) i procent

1. Forudsige - udvikling af markedet Pearson Correlation ,236 ,082Sig. (2-tailed) ,574 ,118N 8 360

2. Eksperimentere - opnå indsigt gennem probing og udforskning Pearson Correlation ,000 ,052Sig. (2-tailed) 1,000 ,328N 8 360

3. Distancere - få en distance gennem et udefra-ind perspektiv Pearson Correlation ,251 ,125*

Sig. (2-tailed) ,548 ,018N 8 360

4. Konceptualisere - udvikle en begrebsmæssig forståelsesramme for forretningen

Pearson Correlation -,289 ,033

Sig. (2-tailed) ,488 ,538N 8 360

5. Redesigne - se behovet for fornyelse Pearson Correlation ,000 ,105*

Sig. (2-tailed) 1,000 ,048N 8 360

6. Dialog - udforske antagelser udvikle et fælles grundlag Pearson Correlation ,838** ,125*

Sig. (2-tailed) ,009 ,018N 8 360

7. Åbenbare - afsløre personlige motiver for at opnå gensidig respekt, tillid og forståelse af bevæggrunde

Pearson Correlation ,000 ,149**

Sig. (2-tailed) 1,000 ,005N 8 360

8. Inddrage - lav en dagsorden der forener Pearson Correlation ,650 -,028Sig. (2-tailed) ,081 ,601N 8 360

9. Forene - skab en fælles interesse for forandring ved at give en dybere mening udover økonomiske incitamenter

Pearson Correlation ,316 ,134*

Sig. (2-tailed) ,445 ,011N 8 360

10. Bekymre - sætte enkeltes behov i fokus Pearson Correlation ,000 -,061Sig. (2-tailed) 1,000 ,252N 8 360

11. Omorganisere - opnå fleksibilitet ved at organiserer sig efter de mest indbringende kunder

Pearson Correlation ,000 ,087

Sig. (2-tailed) 1,000 ,100N 8 360

12. Modularisere - udvikle et system hvor komponenterne let kan adskilles og sammensættes

Pearson Correlation -,615 ,080

Sig. (2-tailed) ,105 ,128N 8 360

13. Dissociere - adskille ressourceejerskab fra ressourcebrug og forhandle adgangen til adgang og placering af ressourcerne

Pearson Correlation -,697 ,135*

Sig. (2-tailed) ,054 ,010N 8 360

14. Skifte - veksle mellem forskellige forretningsmodeller Pearson Correlation ,309 -,061Sig. (2-tailed) ,457 ,251N 8 360

15. Omstille - få folk at omstille sig til en ny praksis Pearson Correlation -,306 ,206**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,461 ,000N 8 360

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

0,693 0,843

,116*

,026368

-,002,964368

,161**

,002368

,004

,937368

,051,334368

,170**

,001368

,176**

,001368

,071,171368

,142**

,006368

-,017,745368

,127*

,015368

,086

,100368

,193**

,000368

,027,599368

,206**

,000368

1,511

34,04 9,78 7,68

- 6,14 (0,16)

36,29 14,83 10,66

(41,69) (34,25) 0,26

- 12,46 3,34

121,01 14,83 11,25

- 17,68 11,65

93,79 (3,28) 4,73

45,66 15,90 9,40

- (7,18) (1,13)

- 10,29 8,41

(88,74) 9,54 5,68

(100,72) 16,02 12,77

44,56 (7,19) 1,82

(44,21) 24,44 13,63

100,00 100,00 100,00

+ , +

-‐ , +

-‐ , +

+ , +


3. Ranking STAGE&1&(&RANKING&(Converged)Variable Marginal&mean Rankingc.&Modularising 5,22 1a.&Experimenting 5,05 2a.&Abstracting 5,00 3c.&Decoupling 4,96 4c.&Grafting 4,74 5c.&Switching 4,66 6a.&Anticipating 4,56 7 Most&important&element&from&a&strategic&perspectiveb.&Dialoguing 4,52 8a.&Reframing 4,41 9a.&Distancing 4,36 10b.&Revealing 4,23 11 Most&important&element&from&a&political&perspectiveb.&Caring 4,17 12b.&Integrating 3,99 13b.&Aligning 3,96 14c.&Dissociating 3,90 15 Most&important&element&from&a&resource&perspective

Marginal&mean 4,51

STAGE&2&(&RANKING&(Impact)Variable Mean Rankingb.&Revealing 6,36 1 Most&important&element&political&perspectiveb.&Aligning 6,10 2a.&Anticipation 6,02 3 Most&important&element&strategic&perspectivec.&Dissociating 5,82 4 Most&important&element&resource&perspectivec.&Grafting 5,79 5a.&Distancing 5,99 6b.&Dialoguing 5,92 7a.&Reframing 5,88 8a.&Abstracting 5,87 9c.&Decoupling 5,60 10b.&Integrating 5,33 11a.&Experimenting 5,16 12c.&Modularising 5,08 13b.&Caring 4,88 14c.&Switching 4,66 15

Marginal&mean 5,63

Op6mal focus for the development of current prac6ces in a chao6c situa6on. Source: Roldsgaard (2013).

Leadership/

Leadership/

What describes the observed situa6on? (“recipe of failure?”)

v.

What describes the op6mal situa6on? (“required for success”)

3. Ranking

Lead%unit%(mean;%rank)

Global%score(mean;%rank)

Entity(I,g.%distance)

Age(I.g.%distance)

Seniority%(I.g.%distance) Ranking Impact

Revealinga 6,59%(%1%) 6,36%(%1%) 0,1251873 0,1049742 0,1463422 1 ***************Dialoguingb 6,18%(%2%) 5,92%(%5%) 0,1610791 0,1275115 0,2484602 2 **************Aligninga 6,15%(%3%) 6,10%(%2%) 0,1038011 0,1193702 0,1074506 3 *************Graftingc 6,13%(%4%) 5,79%(%9%) 0,1498108 0,1694359 0,1503928 4 ************Anticipationb 6,10%(%5%) 6,02%(%3%) 0,2016147 0,1320735 0,1707475 5 ***********

Abstractinga 5,95%(%6%) 5,87%(%7%) 0,1631489 0,1539632 0,1556621 6 **********Decouplingb 5,92%(%7%) 5,60%(10) 0,2329061 0,1260596 0,1640803 7 *********Dissociatinga 5,91%(%8%) 5,82%(%8%) 0,3005730 0,1177621 0,0985004 8 ********Reframingb 5,90%(%9%) 5,88%(%6%) 0,1884228 0,2201384 0,1587829 9 *******Distancingc 5,77%(10) 5,99%(%4%) 0,1142899 0,1416585 0,1875705 10 ******

Integratinga 5,44%(11) 5,33%(11) 0,1965574 0,1390460 0,1794920 11 *****Switchingb 5,31%(12) 4,66%(15) 0,7393910 0,2771549 0,1586237 12 ****Experimentationa 5,28%(13) 5,16%(12) 0,2743308 0,1773721 0,0960609 13 ***Caringa 5,03%(14) 4,88%(14) 0,5327671 0,3095283 0,3297396 14 **Modularisingb 4,72%(15) 5,08%(13) 0,3194892 0,2619854 0,1707263 15 *

Dispute(

Dispute(

Correc-ve(view(

Agendaa=concensus:*difference;*0,1.b=corrective*view:*difference;*2,3,4.c=incommensurability:*difference;*5,6.

Subgruppeanalyse. Korrigeret op6mal ledelsesfokus. Kilde: Roldsgaard (2013)

Successful Unsuccessful

6,51

3,82 3,88

,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

Hvor vig6g er grundproduktet for at kunne udvikle DSB’s forretningsmodel?

Inddrage fællesskabet i den strategiske udvikling

Forhandle vilkår med kunder, medarbejdere, fagforeninger, transportministeret og forretningspartnere

Målepunkter=51 Respondenter=368

Overblik over målinger

Resume

20

Fluid model-‐ adapt to the situa;on

Expert domain Execu;ve

domain

Outside-‐in perspec;ve

Inside-‐out perspec;ve

Expert panel

Railway management

Railway regula6on

Agile tac;c: Act, then probe. Collect informa;on from the market.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Cynefin framework (Snowden, 2007) Correlated logic

If a chao;c situa;on emerges, then act.

Analyze. U;lize data and expert knowledge.

Dis;nc;ve logic Knowable

Probe. Adapt prior expecta;ons of how things work.

Radical logic Complex

Act. Then revise if required. Just don’t do nothing.

Disrup;ve logic

Chao;c Define laws. Categorize and codify standards.

Incremental logic

Known

Analysis: Star;ng point

If chao6c situa6on emerges, then act

Fig. 18. Fluid model - adapt to the situation. The Cynefin framework is to designed to evaluate complexity science from new and different viewpoints based on the assumption that design choices are influenced by multiple factors in our environment and our past experiences (Snowdon & Boone, 2007). The scheme provides an initial overview to protect the Spanish railway against some of the pitfalls observed in the Scandinavian railway market, while developing forward-looking disruptive ideas.

Proposal: Dri] with the environment (but if a crisis emerges then act)

21

Business model iner*a

“Many companies fail not because they do something wrong, but because they keep doing what used to be right thing for too long -‐ and thus suffer from the rigidity of their own business models.” (Doz and Kosonen, 2010)

DSB

S-train DSBFirst

Downward slope

Upward slope

Stability fallacy

Fig. 15. The stability fallacy. Published in Roldsgaard (2012). Source: Based on Reputation Institute 2011, pp. 33-34.

The stability fallacy

Business model innova*on

There are many reasons why the incremental innovaHon doesn’t just grow into the [disrupHve] world. The strategy is a hindrance to free thinking, at least for the grant porHon of the innovaHon, but perhaps also for the development of new business models for exisHng services. We can also see that the risk picture becomes much more diffused in the [disrupHve] innovaHon world because we have no experience in these new areas. (p. 616) (Elkjær, 2011)

Tabula rasa ra*onality “[Disrup;ve] innova;on requires a product or service in terms of tabula rasa, which mentally can be an almost insurmountable barrier in the innova;on process.” (p. 616) (Elkjær, 2011)

Mostly this design leads to loss of competitiveness over time

Examples: Spanair, DSBFirst, Nokia Nearly always problematic design option à

OUTPUT INPUT

Transforms industry structure and/or shifts behavioral trends

Examples: Ryanair, AVE, Apple. Often under-estimated or overlooked design option

à

Nearly alw

ays wins

design battle N

early always

loses design battle

Evolu*on of the dominant logic Possible

problem

Exis*ng focus?

à

Incremental fallacy

Fig. 13. The incrementality fallacy. Source: Based on Hobcraft (2012) “Your dominating innovation design is?”, The Agility Innovation Specialists, Online: http://paul4innovating.com/2012/02/01/your-dominating-innovation-design-is, Published 2012-02-01, Retrieved 2012-04-03.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Track 1 Track 2 Track 3

Fig. 14. Dominant design logic. Source: Based on Hobcraft (2012) “Your dominating innovation design is?”, The Agility Innovation Specialists, Online: http://paul4innovating.com/2012/02/01/your-dominating-innovation-design-is, Published 2012-02-01, Retrieved 2012-04-03.

Incremental fallacy

Fig. 16. Visualizing the disrup6ve curve. Source: Based on Hobcra{ P., 2012b, “The pathway curve methodology”, The Agility Innova6on Specialists, Online: hfp://innova6onfitnessdynamics.com/2012/02/14/the-‐pathway-‐curve-‐methodology, Published 2012-‐02-‐14, Retrieved 2012-‐04-‐03.

Visualizing the curve

Searching for an innova;on hotspot

“The business environment itself is a choice variable: firms can select a business environment or be selected by it: they can also shape it.”(Teece, 2010)

1.

2.

3. 4.

MP3-‐player/iPod?

“Game changing value rated by the market”

Disrup6ve/game-‐changing system

Challenging the normal way

Why do we exist?

Periferi ydelser

Kerne ydelse

Service6lbud

Basispakke

Tillæg (mere dynamisk for at Hlpasse sig omgivelserne)

Koncept (udvikling kræves for at skabe stabilitet)

Existence – example 1


Kommercielle ;ltag2

Grundprodukt1

1 Transport fra A 6l B

2 Værdiskabende ak6viteter rundt om grundproduktet

Grundlag for bæredyg6g vækst, dynamisk pla}orm for at drive forretning. Salgs-‐ og væks}remmende ini6a6ver, salg og service, påvirkning af interessenter.

Defini;on Ra;onale

Kerneservice, Kerneforretning

Periferiservice, Periferiforretning

Logik Teknologi

Rela6oner

Ledelse af

Existence – example 2


4,7$

6,5$

4,3$

5,6$

3$

4$

5$

6$

7$

Autobiographic$ Ability$

Record$of$accumulated$knowledge$

Inferior$

Superior$

Service$$Quality$

The$rail$service$from$a$to$b$is$absolutely$essenDal.$

The$related$commercial$acDviDes$are$important,$too.$

Corporate$failure$ Corporate$success$

The$rail$service$is$absolutely$essen2al$for$success.$

3,9$ Expected(curve((Hypothesis(rejected)(

Number$of$observaDons$=$1472.$

Note:$The$rail$service$was$defined$as$transport$from$a$to$b,$while$the$commercial$acDviDes$were$defined$as$value$creaDng$acDviDes$to$support$the$rail$service.$

Result: Confirmed.


MANAGEMENT EXERCISE

Handouts + posters 34

Business model canvas

35 35

36

One big idea, mul;ple perspec;ves

Økonomisk vækst og forretningsmodeller

Business

Transcript of Økonomisk vækst og forretningsmodeller