Conference PaperPDF Available

Towards a Generic Value Network for Cloud Computing

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

With the rise of a ubiquitous provision of computing resources over the past years, cloud computing has been established as a prominent research topic. In contrast to many other research works, this paper does not focus on technical aspects of cloud computing but rather takes a business perspective. By taking this perspective we examine the ecosystem that has developed around cloud computing. Here, new market players emerged, breaking up the traditional value chain of IT service provision. In this paper we describe the roles of different market actors and develop a generic value network of cloud computing, using the e3-value method. Based on interviews with domain experts we were able to draw first estimates regarding possible future value streams within the ecosystem. Extending the prevailing technical perspective of cloud computing, this paper shifts the focus to a broader understanding of business opportunities and business value. Researchers can apply the developed generic value network as an analytical framework to guide their research, while practitioners might apply it to position themselves in the cloud computing market and identify possible business opportunities.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Towards a Generic Value Network for Cloud Computing
Markus Böhm*, Galina Koleva*, Stefanie Leimeister+, Christoph Riedl*,
and Helmut Krcmar*
* Technische Universität München (TUM), Chair for Information Systems,
+ fortiss – Research Institute at Technischen Universität München (TUM)
Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching b. München, Germany
{markus.boehm, galina.koleva, stefanie.leimeister, riedlc, krcmar}@in.tum.de
http://www.winfobase.de
Abstract. With the rise of a ubiquitous provision of computing resources over
the past years, cloud computing has been established as a prominent research
topic. In contrast to many other research works, this paper does not focus on
technical aspects of cloud computing but rather takes a business perspective. By
taking this perspective we examine the ecosystem that has developed around
cloud computing. Here, new market players emerged, breaking up the
traditional value chain of IT service provision. In this paper we describe the
roles of different market actors and develop a generic value network of cloud
computing, using the e³-value method. Based on interviews with domain
experts we were able to draw first estimates regarding possible future value
streams within the ecosystem. Extending the prevailing technical perspective of
cloud computing, this paper shifts the focus to a broader understanding of
business opportunities and business value. Researchers can apply the developed
generic value network as an analytical framework to guide their research, while
practitioners might apply it to position themselves in the cloud computing
market and identify possible business opportunities.
Keywords. Cloud Computing, Market Actors, Value Network, Value Chain
1 Introduction
With the rise of a ubiquitous provision of computing resources over the past years,
cloud computing has been established as a prominent research topic. It can be seen as
an innovation in different ways. From a technological perspective it is an evolution of
computing that evolved from large tabulating machines and mainframe architectures,
centrally offering calculating resources to personal computers for decentralized
computation, and eventually to ubiquitous, small personal (handheld) devices [1].
While much research is dedicated to the technical aspects of cloud computing,
many authors neglect the business perspective of IT provisioning. From this
perspective cloud computing has the potential to revolutionize the mode of computing
resource and application deployment, breaking up traditional value chains and making
room for new business models. Many providers like Amazon, Google, IBM,
Microsoft, Salesforce.com, or Sun position themselves as platform and infrastructure
2 Böhm, Koleva, Leimeister, Riedl, Krcmar
providers in the cloud computing market. Alongside, there emerge other providers,
who build their own applications or consulting services upon the services offered by
the before mentioned. This eventually leads to a whole new ecosystem of service
providers in the cloud computing market.
So far, only little research has been conducted around value creation, value chains
and value networks in cloud computing. Some studies have been conducted in the
context of grid computing. Stanoevska-Slabeva et al. [2] describe different grid
stakeholders and have developed a generic value chain and a corresponding value
network for grid computing based on an analysis of industry case studies. Another
work by Altmann et al. [3] developed a taxonomy and description of stakeholders and
their roles in grid computing. Lee and Leem [4] have studied the value chain for a
ubiquitous computing environment. A value chain reference model explicitly
developed for cloud computing was presented by Mohammed et al. [5], based on
Porter’s value chain theory [6]. Their work, so far, appears to be the most
comprehensive value chain reference model for cloud computing. They distinguish
between primary (core) services, business oriented support services and cloud
oriented support services. Primary services include hardware, grid middleware,
software and data & content services. Business oriented support services include
resellers, composers, financial services and market places, while cloud oriented
support services are comprised of technology operators, grid financial management
services, solution and consultant services as well as customized services.
However, Mohammed et al.’s [5]work is settled on a comparatively micro-
economic level, describing service scenarios, including costs and profits as well as
serving as a check-list for building cloud services. We could not identify any detailed
work around the cloud computing ecosystem, which takes a comparatively macro-
economic perspective on cloud computing. Our objective is to describe this emerging
ecosystem with its market actors and their value exchange relationship. To achieve
this, our research was guided by the following two questions:
a) What generic market actors can be identified in the cloud computing market?
b) How does the ecosystem of market actors and value exchanges look like?
2 Cloud Computing Definition
Until today no common definition of cloud computing has emerged. Youseff et al.
were among the first who tried to provide a comprehensive understanding of cloud
computing and all its relevant components. According to them “cloud computing can
be considered a new computing paradigm that allows users to temporary utilize
computing infrastructure over the network, supplied as a service by the cloud-
provider at possibly one or more levels of abstraction” [7]. By levels of abstraction,
the authors distinguish between cloud applications (Software as a Service, SaaS),
cloud software environment (Platform as a Service, PaaS) and software infrastructure
(Infrastructure as a Service, IaaS) based on a software kernel and hardware. Despite
different definitions (an overview can be found in [8]), there is some consent, which
can be summarized as the dynamic, on demand provision of services via a network
Towards a Generic Value Network for Cloud Computing 3
which are priced according usage. In our understanding, “Cloud Computing is an IT
deployment model, based on virtualization, where resources, in terms of
infrastructure, applications and data are deployed via the internet as a distributed
service by one or several service providers. These services are scalable on demand
and can be priced on a pay-per-use basis”[8]. This definition was derived on the basis
of a review of scientific definitions, taking a holistic view of cloud computing from
applications to infrastructure, stressing the ability of service composition. Thus it
supports our business oriented perspective and our observation of a growing
ecosystem of different market actors around cloud computing.
3 Value Systems Concepts
3.1 Value Chain
The value chain is a model that describes a series of value-adding activities
connecting a company's supply side (raw materials, inbound logistics, and production
processes) with its demand side (outbound logistics, marketing, and sales). By
analyzing these activities, managers are able to redesign their internal and external
processes to improve efficiency and effectiveness and to identify their core
competencies [9]. As such it is often used to analyze a firm and its major competitors
by identifying differences in performance (benchmark) [10].
The most established value chain approach was presented by Porter, who
distinguishes between primary activities (inbound logistics, operations, outbound
logistics, marketing & sales, services) and support activities (firm infrastructure,
human resource management, technology development, procurement), also adding a
value margin [6]. To account for the collaboration between companies, Porter created
an extended value chain, termed value system. It represents an interconnected system
of value chains. A value system includes the value chains of a firm's supplier (and
their suppliers all the way back), the firm itself, the firms distribution channels, the
firms customers and so forth to the end customer (consumer). Linkages connect value
activities inside a company but also create interdependencies between the members of
the value system [6]. A company can create competitive advantage by optimizing or
coordinating these links to the outside [11].
3.2 Value Network
The value network focuses on value co-creation by a combination of actors within a
network. A value network is a “set of relatively autonomous units that can be
managed independently, but operate together in a framework of common principles
and service level agreements (SLAs)” [10]. Within such a network, value for the
consumer is created at the network level, where each actor contributes incremental
value to the overall offering [12]. Instead of providing the maximum value to the
customer, which is always at risk of being unprofitable, actors concentrate on their
core competencies and the competence complementarity of the network [13, 14].
4 Böhm, Koleva, Leimeister, Riedl, Krcmar
Biem and Caswell have examined and compared several definitions of the value
network. Their derived definition puts a special emphasis on the increase of inter-firm
relationships. A ”value network is a model of inter-organizational exchange as an
attempt to address the increasing intricateness of inter-firm relationships, pushed by a
more and more connected economy” [15].
3.3 Critical Comparison
Sturgeon [9] analyzed the key differences of value chains and value networks. Both
approaches have many things in common but a fundamental distinction can be made.
While the value chain “maps the vertical sequence of events leading to the delivery,
consumption, and maintenance of a particular good or service, the value network
maps both the vertical and horizontal linkages between economic actors, i.e.,
recognizing that various value chains often share common economic actors and are
dynamic in that they are reused and reconfigured on an ongoing basis” [9].
Another differentiation can be seen by the order activities are carried out. The
value chain is a linear approach, which perfectly represents a manufacturing process
in traditional industries, following a sequential logic. The value network on the other
hand is a model, where functions and activities are performed simultaneously rather
than sequentially [10, 17]. It can better display alliances and cooperation
relationships. Firm relationships have increased in complexity. Firms can no longer be
simply classified as customers, suppliers or competitors. Often they have two or more
of these dimensions simultaneously [15, 17].
Yet another aspect is the dematerialization and digitization of products and the
trend towards service delivery. According to Peppard and Rylander [10] every
business today competes in two worlds: a physical world of resources that can be seen
and touched and a virtual world made of information. The latter has given rise to the
world of electronic commerce, a new way of value creation. Processes in creating
value are not the same in both. The value chain treats information as a supporting
element in the value-adding process, but it can also be a source of value in itself.
Therefore, the value chain is better suited to present the physical value creation while
the value network is more suitable for the virtual world. The latter is particularly
evident in sectors such as banking, insurance, telecommunications, news,
entertainment, music, advertising, and of course cloud computing.
As this discussion highlights, value networks appear to suit better for modeling the
interdependencies between different actors observed in the cloud computing market.
4 Methodology
By analyzing literature on market actors in the areas of living systems theory [18],
network organizations [19, 20], (electronic) business webs [21-25], IT outsourcing
[26], grid computing [2, 3], and value networks in traditional industries [27, 28] we
could identify 105 generic roles. After clustering these roles based on their
descriptions provided by the authors we reflected them with the observed cloud
computing market. Therefore we have built a dataset of 2628 cloud computing
Towards a Generic Value Network for Cloud Computing 5
services based on convenient sampling. The services from the dataset were then
assigned to actor clusters and it has been checked, whether some services could not be
assigned to any service. At the end of this process we ended up with a set of 8 generic
roles described in section 5.1.
We developed our conceptual generic value network, based on the roles described
in section 5.1 and modeled it with the e³-value method by Gordijn and Akkermans
[29]. This value network, explained in section 5.2, was then evaluated through ten
interviews with domain experts. The interviews, lasting between 45 and 90 minutes,
were conducted between October and December 2009, following a semi-structured
interview guideline. The interviewees were selected based on their expertise in the
cloud computing area, demonstrated by their active participation in BITKOM’s1
cloud computing task force. To improve reliability, the interviews were tape-recorded
and transcribed. The semi-structured interviews covered the experience of the
interview partner with cloud computing, different roles and their relationship amongst
each other as observed by the interviewee, and the presentation and validation of our
proposed value network. The interviewees were also asked for their estimation of the
value creation and flow within the value network based on three distinct scenarios.
5 A Generic Value Network of Cloud Computing
5.1 Generic Roles and Market Actors
Due to an increasing trend towards service orientation, opportunities to offer services
on cloud computing platforms, and the possibilities to integrate individual component
services to create value-added, complex services gave rise to a set of new roles in
cloud computing and the resulting service ecosystems [30, 31].
Cloud computing services are typically classified by the type of service being
offered. With reference to Youseff et al.’s cloud computing ontology [7], cloud
services are often differentiated by application (SaaS), platform (PaaS) and
infrastructure (IaaS) level. In contrast to this layer model, which is quite common in
the IT domain, cloud services can also be classified in a more business-oriented
manner, by market actors that offer a certain class of services. Since market actors
represent companies that might offer different services on different levels, such as
Salesforce.com, we abstract from this construct and speak of roles. In our
understanding a role is a set of similar services offered by market players to similar
customers. This abstraction helps us to indicate that a certain company (market
player) can offer different services, acting in different roles. The generic roles
described below were derived by clustering roles identified in the literature discussed
above and a proceeding reflection in practice.
1 BITKOM is the federal association for Information Technology, Telecommunications and
New Media in Germany (www.bitkom.org)
6 Böhm, Koleva, Leimeister, Riedl, Krcmar
Application Provider
The application provider offers applications for its customers. In contrast to the
traditional software model the applications are hosted and operated by the application
provider in an own or outsourced datacenter and are accessible for customers via the
internet. The application provider has to ensure a smooth operation of the
applications. This includes monitoring, asset/resource management and
failure/problem management. Monitoring means that the service provider is aware of
the state of his system at any time. Asset/resource management aims to maximize
datacenter utilization by, for example, load balancing [32]. Failure/Problem
management refers to both, instant fixes of problems such as bugs as well as to long
term software maintenance to avoid problems in advance. Also new features and
further application improvements are provided and installed [33]. Yet another
important aspect is the security of the software. Unwanted attempts of accessing or
manipulating the software have to be detected and stopped (intrusion detection) [34].
(Technical) Platform Provider
We distinguish between two kinds of platform providers. One is the more technically
oriented platform provider described here; the other is a market platform, described
below. (Technical) platform providers offer an environment to develop, run and test
applications. From a technical perspective an operating environment, application
programming interfaces (APIs), programming languages etc. are provided.
Furthermore, team collaboration services may be offered [35]. Developers are
shielded from technical, infrastructure related details. Programs are executed over
datacenters, not concerning the developers with matters of resource allocation. This
however comes at the cost of some trade-offs and development constraints, possibly
leading to a different application design. For instance, depending on the platform,
key-value stores have to be used instead of relational databases [36].
Market Platform
The market platform represents a marketplace where various cloud computing
services of different roles are offered. The main objective of the market platform is to
bring customers and service providers together. The former can search for suitable
cloud computing services while the latter can advertise its services. In addition to
offering a platform for marketing and searching services, the market platform might
also offer additional services to both service providers and customers, such as SLA
contracting or billing.
Infrastructure Provider
The infrastructure provider offers virtual hardware, network connections including
firewalls and virtual storage to its customers. The customer has full responsibility for
the received machine instances and controls them. Once a machine reaches its
performance limits, another machine has to be instantiated manually to scale the
application [36]. As cloud computing matures, more and more infrastructure
providers offer potentially different SLAs to their customers, regarding for example
availability and performance [37]. Disaster recovery for both, infrastructure and data
is an important aspect of the infrastructure provider's work. [33].
Towards a Generic Value Network for Cloud Computing 7
Consultant
To introduce a cloud computing project in a company consultants are often asked for
their expertise. Consultants can provide fundamental knowledge about cloud
computing offerings as well as the customer company‘s business processes and
requirements to identify and introduce suitable cloud services. Additional services
might be a cost benefit evaluation to decide whether cloud computing is profitable or
not, security consulting or billing. Consulting services are not limited to users of
cloud services, but may also target service providers to solve technical problems,
evaluate the service offering or analyze customers.
Aggregator
With cloud computing a large number of small and modular services arose, creating
the opportunity to aggregate these services into value-added, complex solutions for
certain needs. This aggregation of services is accomplished by aggregators.
According to the market analyst Gartner three different types of aggregators may arise
within the cloud computing context: The first one combines existing services, created
by different providers into a new service. The aggregator has to ensure that the
different services work together neatly and that no losses occur via data movement
between the systems. The second type of aggregator is comparable to a value added
reseller. He adds value on top of a given service to ensure some specific capability.
These might be add-ons or new services. The last type may categorize and compare
cloud services from different providers, based on certain selection criteria. The end
user can specify its criteria and get the best fitting solution for its needs [38]. The
latter type might also fit into our generic role of the market platform.
Integrator
Once a company decides to integrate a cloud computing solution, the system
integrator faces two main tasks. The first is to convert preexisting on-premise data in
order to migrate it into the cloud or prepare it for certain applications. The second task
is to integrate a cloud computing solution into the existing IT landscape, developing
interfaces to other on-premise applications. This also includes system and integration
tests to ensure a seamless cooperation of different systems as well as the training of
users. Beyond the integration project, the integrator might also offer additional
training or customer support, by setting up a help desk for example [39]. There might
be some similarities between the aggregator and the integrator role in terms of
aggregating different modular services into a more complex solution. The main
difference between these two roles is that the integrator creates a customer individual
solution, whereas the aggregator develops a more standardized solution that is offered
to a larger group of users with similar needs.
Consumer
The consumer is the final customer who receives services for business or private use.
He does not create value within the cloud computing ecosystem, nor does he offer
cloud computing services to someone else. The consumer is the starting point of
service request and the ending point of service delivery. All value adding activities
are eventually paid by the consumer.
8 Böhm, Koleva, Leimeister, Riedl, Krcmar
5.2 A Generic Value Network
Based on our understanding of the different roles emergent in the cloud computing
ecosystem, we are able to develop a generic value network, using the e³-value method
to model it. Figure 1 depicts the different roles, their interrelationships and value
exchanges. Within this value network value is created by providing services that are
valuable for other participants of the network. Products or in our case services are
exchanged in return of either money, which is the typical case, or other benefits that
the service provider values. Value is created by producing elementary services
(infrastructure) and refining them throughout the value network. In this way value is
added with each step along a path in the value network until the Consumer receives
the service that fulfils his needs.
Fig. 1. A generic Value Network of Cloud Computing
The composite actor Cloud Computing Service represents the service as perceived by
the Consumer who does not necessarily care how it is implemented and what other
services are utilized in order to provide the requested service. Therefore the composite
actor is comprised of the roles Infrastructure Provider, Platform Provider,
Application Provider and Market Platform. Roles within this composite actor may
offer objects jointly with other roles, but they may also offer objects on their own.
Consumers, Aggregators and Integrators may request any kind of services (SaaS,
PaaS, IaaS) directly from one or more service providers or via a Market Platform. In
Figure 1 this is represented by the value ports at the edge of the composite actor. For
higher level services Application and Platform Providers can request services from
other service providers. This is represented by the links among the service providers.
Both Aggregators and Integrators receive any number and kind of services (SaaS,
PaaS, IaaS) from the composite actor to offer their value-added service to the
Consumer. The Consultant is the only role that does not offer cloud computing
services itself, but advises each of the other roles regarding cloud computing issues.
Towards a Generic Value Network for Cloud Computing 9
Empirical Findings on the Value Network
The interviews conducted throughout this research, all confirmed our identified roles
and their relationships within the value network. The interviews also indicated two
emerging roles, Data Providers and Monitors. A data provider would generate data
and information to provide it for other actors within this network. A similar role
called content provider is mentioned by Altmann et al. [3]. The monitoring role
provides permanent control of data privacy and security. Thereby, it controls the end-
to-end connection, beginning with the first provider reaching to the consumer.
Exemplary Illustration
As described above and observed in practice, one company can act in more than one
role. Salesforce.com is a typical example for a company that acts in different roles.
On the one hand, and that is how they started, they offer a customer relationship
management (CRM) solution2 as SaaS, making them an Application Provider. With
their Force.com3 platform on the other hand they also offer a development and
runtime environment to developers, taking on the role of a Platform Provider.
Developers can either be Application Providers if they sell their applications to
others, or Consumers, in case they just operate the application for own purposes.
These third party cloud computing services developed and deployed on the Force.com
platform can be offered on Salesforce.com’s AppExchange4 marketplace. Thus it also
acts as Market Platform. From an external point of view Salesforce.com is no
Infrastructure Provider, because it does not offer IaaS externally. To run its own and
third-party applications on their platform it can either operate its own hardware or use
the services of one or more Infrastructure Providers. To complete the example,
Aggregators might take two or more cloud computing services, not all necessarily
running on the Force.com platform, to build an aggregate solution that is useful for a
certain group of Consumers or other service providers. Integrators on the other hand
might introduce Salesforce.com’s CRM solution into a production company, develop
a customized solution on the Force.com platform on behalf of the Consumer and
integrate all together with the on-premise SAP software. The Consultant could have
prepared the way for the Integrator by, for example, advising the Consumer about the
benefits of a cloud solution at an earlier stage of the introduction project.
6 Value Creation and Value Flow
Besides the validation of the conceptual generic value network, our empirical research
also aimed at providing some first estimates on value creation and value flow within
the network. Many interviewees compared the cloud computing market with the cell
phone market. There are only a few big providers and many brokers, who buy
network capacity and resell it under their label. Transferred to cloud computing, this
2 http://www.salesforce.com/de/crm/
3 http://www.salesforce.com/de/platform/
4 http://sites.force.com/appexchange/
10 Böhm, Koleva, Leimeister, Riedl, Krcmar
could give a rise to the aggregator role, bundling existing solutions and reselling them
with added value.
Two rivaling opinions arose. One group thought that especially the application
provider and the integrator will generate most of the monetary value, since they need
a deep understanding of the consumers’ business model and their processes to offer
solutions. Furthermore, they would profit from direct contact to the consumer, which
can lead to follow-up projects. More than half of the interviewees argued that
infrastructure and platform services will become a commodity. Thus they will only be
profitable for high volume low margin businesses.
The second cluster of interviewees assigned the largest share of value creation to
the infrastructure and platform providers. They argue that in many sectors such as the
financial sector, applications are not very complex, but need large hardware
resources.
7 Conclusion
As our discussion has shown, we believe that the value chain concept is too restricted
to describe the cloud computing ecosystem with all its interrelationships between
different market actors. Thus we postulate the application of a value network instead.
We have described eight generic roles currently being observable in the cloud
computing market and developed a generic value network to further analyze the
emergent ecosystem.
Although, we could gain some first insights on value creation and value flow
within the cloud computing ecosystem from our exploratory interviews, no valid
estimations can be made yet. Therefore future research needs to investigate this in
more depth on a broader empirical basis. Our proposed generic cloud computing
value chain can serve as an empirically validated conceptual analytical framework to
guide this research. Future research could also investigate the emerging data provider
and monitor roles, reflecting them in practice to extend the generic value network.
From a practitioner’s point of view, our proposed value network can be applied to
strategically position a company or service offering in the cloud computing market
and to identify possible business opportunities. Therefore it is not necessarily
important to know, which generic role might take the largest share within the
ecosystem, but to develop a unique value proposition based on core competencies.
Acknowledgements. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for
this research from Siemens IT Solutions & Services in the context of the Center for
Knowledge Interchange at Technische Universität München. This research is part of
the SIS-TUM competence center “IT Value Innovations for Industry Challenges”.
Towards a Generic Value Network for Cloud Computing 11
References
1. Freiberger, P., Swaine, M.: Fire in the valley : the making of the personal
computer. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)
2. Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Talamanca, C., Thanos, G., Zsigri, C.: Development of
a generic value chain for the Grid industry. Grid Economics and Business
Models 44-57 (2007)
3. Altmann, J., Ion, M., Bany Mohammed, A.: Taxonomy of grid business models.
Grid Economics and Business Models 29-43 (2007)
4. Lee, H., Leem, C.: A study on value chain in a ubiquitous computing
environment. Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA), 113-121,
Singapore (2005)
5. Mohammed, A., Altmann, J., Hwang, J.: Cloud Computing Value Chains:
Understanding Businesses and Value Creation in the Cloud. In: Brazier, F.M.T.,
Rana, O.F., Strassner, J.C. (eds.) Economic Models and Algorithms for
Distributed Systems, 187-208. Birkhäuser, Basel (2010)
6. Porter, M.E.: Competitive advantage : creating and sustaining superior
performance. Free Press, New York (1985)
7. Youseff, L., Butrico, M., Da Silva, D.: Toward a Unified Ontology of Cloud
Computing. Grid Computing Environments Workshop, 1-10 (2008)
8. Leimeister, S., Riedl, C., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H.: The Business Perspective of
Cloud Computing: Actors, Roles, and Value Networks. 18th European
Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Pretoria, South Africa (2010)
9. Sturgeon, T.J.: How do we define value chains and production networks? MIT
IPC Globalization Working Paper 00-010, (2001)
10. Peppard, J., Rylander, A.: From Value Chain to Value Network: Insights for
Mobile Operators. European Management Journal 24, 128-141 (2006)
11. Conolly, S.D., Matarazzo, J.M.: Knowledge and Special Libraries. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Woburn, MA (1999)
12. Bovet, D., Martha, J.: Value Nets: Breaking the Supply Chain to Unlock Hidden
Profits. John Wiley and Sons, New York (2000)
13. Normann, R., Ramirez, R.: From Value Chain to Value Constellation: Designing
Interactive Strategy. Harvard Business Review 71, 65-77 (1993)
14. Stabell, C.B., Fjeldstad, O.D.: Configuring Value for Competitive Advantage:
On Chains, Shops, and Networks. Strategic Management Journal 19, 413-437
(1998)
15. Biem, A., Caswell, N.: A value network model for strategic analysis. 41st
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). (2008)
16. Gulati, R., Nohria, N., Zaheer, A.: Strategic Networks. Strategic Management
Journal 21, 203-215 (2000)
17. Pil, F.K., Holweg, M.: Evolving From Value Chain to Value Grid. MIT Sloan
management review 47, 71-80 (2006)
18. Miller, J.G.: Living systems. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)
19. Miles, R., Snow, C.: Organizations: New concepts for new forms. California
Management Review 28, 62-73 (1986)
20. Miles, R., Snow, C.: Causes of failures in network organizations. California
Management Review 34, 53-72 (1992)
12 Böhm, Koleva, Leimeister, Riedl, Krcmar
21. Tapscott, D., Lowy, A., Ticoll, D.: Digital capital: harnessing the power of
business webs. Harvard Business Press (2000)
22. Steiner, F.: Formation and early growth of business webs: modular product
systems in network markets. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (2005)
23. Nambisan, S., Sawhney, M.: The global brain: your roadmap for innovating
faster and smarter in a networked world. Wharton School Publishing (2007)
24. Barros, A., Dumas, M.: The rise of web service ecosystems. IT Professional 8,
31-37 (2006)
25. Muylle, S., Basu, A.: Online support for business processes by electronic
intermediaries. Decision Support Systems 45, 845-857 (2008)
26. Currie, W.: The supply-side of IT outsourcing: the trend towards mergers,
acquisitions and joint ventures. International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management 30, 238-254 (2000)
27. Haupt, S.: Digitale Wertschöpfungsnetzwerke und kooperative Strategien in der
deutschen Lackindustrie. Doctoral Thesis, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen
(2003)
28. Basole, R., Rouse, W.: Complexity of service value networks: Conceptualization
and empirical investigation. IBM systems journal 47, 53 (2008)
29. Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: E3-value: Design and Evaluation of e-Business
Models. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16, 11-17 (2001)
30. Riedl, C., Böhmann, T., Leimeister, J.M., Krcmar, H.: A Framework for
Analysing Service Ecosystem Capabilities to Innovate. Proceedings of 17th
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS'09), (2009)
31. Riedl, C., Böhmann, T., Rosemann, M., Krcmar, H.: Quality Aspects in Service
Ecosystems: Areas for Exploitation and Exploration. Proceedings of
International Conference on Electronic Commerce (ICEC'08), 1-7. ACM, New
York, NY (2008)
32. Leavitt, N.: Is cloud computing really ready for prime time? Computer 42, 15-20
(2009)
33. Reeves, D., Blum, D., Watson, R., Creese, G., Blakley, B., Haddad, C., Howard,
C., Manes, A.T., Passmore, D., Lewis, J.: Cloud Computing: Transforming IT
In-Depth Research Overview, Burton Group (2009)
34. Guan, Y., Bao, J.: A CP Intrusion Detection Strategy on Cloud Computing.
International Symposium on Web Information Systems and Applications
(WISA), pp. 84-87, Nanchang, P. R. China (2009)
35. Gentzsch, W.: Porting Applications to Grids and Clouds. International Journal of
Grid and High Performance Computing 1, 55-77 (2009)
36. Briscoe, G., Marinos, A.: Digital Ecosystems in the Clouds: Towards
Community Cloud Computing. Arxiv preprint arXiv:0903.0694 (2009)
37. Lin, G., Fu, D., Zhu, J., Dasmalchi, G.: Cloud computing: IT as a Service. IT
Professional 11, 10-13 (2009)
38. Plummer, D.C., F., K.L.: Three Types of Cloud Brokerage will enhance Cloud
Services. Gartner Research Report G00164265 (2009)
39. Böhm, M., Leimeister, S., Riedl, C., Krcmar, H.: Cloud Computing:
Outsourcing 2.0 oder ein neues Geschäftsmodell zur Bereitstellung von IT-
Ressourcen? Information Management & Consulting 24, 6-14 (2009)
... So, the second wave takes off by developing configurable modules based on cloud-native platforms and solutions, increasing data value by calculating insurance premiums accurately and substantially improving underwriting and pricing processes (Sosa & Montes Pineda, 2022). Furthermore, this environment allows the emergence of cloud-based services using modular cloud infrastructure that enables quick scalability and, therefore, eliminates the boundaries of the traditional insurance administration, products, or services bound to the insurance institution's capacities (Böhm et al., 2010). ...
Chapter
The insurance industry has been slow to adopt digital technologies due to high barriers to entry, product complexity, capital reserves, solvency requirements, and regulatory constraints. This chapter focuses on how insurtech is disrupting the insurance industry, resulting in a transformation from a traditional structure to a dynamic user-centric ecosystem. Next, it highlights the insurtech ecosystem by providing an in-depth analysis of the new paradigm on how insurtech is transitioning from the linear value chain to a more dynamic and interconnected value network. Finally, this chapter defines a perspective of insurtech's impact by identifying three waves of transformation within the insurance industry and understanding the evolution and chronology of insurtech's influence. Thus, this chapter provides insights into the opportunities and challenges of this technological breakthrough, offering a comprehensive view of insurtech's transformative journey within the insurance landscape.
... 3 Inflation and pricing of goods and services are influenced by reduced inflation through market competition, while market monopolization tends to drive prices up. 4 International trade development hinges on the reduction of transaction costs associated with cross-border purchases. 5 The labor market evolution allows for the emergence of freelance platforms, fostering greater labor supply-demand flexibility, breaking down geographical barriers in employment, and increasing workforce participation. ...
Article
The article targets to revision the practice of digital ecosystem use for the renovation and development of global tourism. The outcomes of the revision will support to adjust the policy of Kazakhstan while forming an innovative digitalization program for the republic and define significance spheres. Our findings underscore the increasingly significant role that intermediaries play within the tourism sector. Moreover, the appearance of fresh high-tech entities is paving the way for inventive services, injecting a vibrant energy into the market. Nevertheless, the involvement of local stakeholders, such as populations and civic groups, is important to the Kazakhstan tourism industry; their integration into the experiences offered to tourists is indispensable. These insights offer researchers and industry professionals a framework to explore innovative possibilities and the development of specialized niches. Furthermore, these insights serve as a foundation for additional studies on the shifts within the ecosystem, influenced by technological advancements or external factors. The paper delves into the digitalization trends globally and presents key indices from international rankings to evaluate Kazakhstan’s digital economy and its readiness for a digital makeover. Keywords: digital economy, digitalization, tourism, digital technologies, industry 4.0.
... The e3valuemethodology is particularly well suited due to its' conceptual modeling strength in capturing complex, multi-enterprise relationships and economic value exchanges among actors. [32][33][34] The main aspects of the e3-value methodology can be described as follows: ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Background: The global prevalence of diabetes is increasing and has stimulated new tech-nological advancements in disease management. Although there are many digital health companies with a focus on diabetes, building them up at scale is difficult due to a hetero-geneous, inefficient, and fragmented healthcare system. While ecosystems, or collaborative value creation, could help address system fragmentation; the current diabetes ecosystem remains not fully understood. Therefore, this paper analyzes the digital transformation of the diabetes ecosystem and deducts innovation patterns. We address the following research questions: (1) What are emerging organizations in the current diabetes ecosystem? (2) What are the value streams in the current diabetes ecosystem? (3) Which innovation patterns are present in the ecosystem? Methods: We conduct a literature review and a market analysis to describe the organiza-tions and value streams in the diabetes ecosystem, both before and after the digital trans-formation. We visualize the diabetes ecosystem using the e3-value methodology (RQ1 and RQ2). Next, expert interviews are conducted to validate the resulting diabetes ecosystem and deduce innovation patterns (RQ3). Results: First, we show that the digital transformation gives rise to emerging organizations across eight segments: real-world evidence analytics, healthcare management platforms, clinical decision support, diagnostic and monitoring, digital therapeutics, wellness, online community, online pharmacy (RQ1). Secondly, we visualize the value streams between emerging organizations in the current diabetes ecosystem, highlighting the key role of pa-tient data as currency (RQ2). Ultimately, we derive four innovation patterns in the current diabetes ecosystem (RQ3); namely open ecosystem strategy, outcome-based payments, plat-formization (connecting stakeholders), and user-centric software. Conclusions: We demonstrate how traditional value chains in the diabetes ecosystem tran-sition to platforms and outcome-based payment models, guiding strategic decisions for companies and healthcare providers. These innovation patterns may apply to similar eco-systems in other disease areas, aiding organizations in forecasting future dynamics.
... Established role models from the literature can be used as a starting point, see e.g. Böhm et al. 2010;Yoo et al. 2010;Baars et al. 2022. Depending on the value proposition and the partners, the level of detail of the specification can vary. ...
Conference Paper
Sharing and collaborating on data across organizational boundaries is increasingly important for building a comprehensive data foundation for a variety of relevant analytical models and reports. We argue that a formalized set of rules and responsibilities - data governance - is needed to guide such data sharing ac-tivities and thus provide the foundation for an institutionalized data ecosystem. To this end, we propose a set of design principles. Based on three case studies from different application domains, we derive the design principles using Ser-vice-Dominant Logic as our theoretical lens. We distinguish between dynamic and static design principles. Our approach supports the delineation and specifi-cation of data governance structures for data ecosystems.
... Develop an E3-value model of participants in cross-organizational PM initiatives: To unravel roles and value exchange mechanisms within cross-organizational PM projects, researchers can analyze existing publications and practical examples to build a generic E3-value model (Gordijn and Akkermans 2003)-such as the one developed by Böhm et al. (2010) for cloud computing or by Riasanow et al. (2021) for the industrial Internet of things. This will assist in further contextualizing and refining the presented morphological box. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Process mining (PM) can assist organizations in continuously analyzing business processes and gaining insights on how to improve them. However, the past focus of PM research and application has been on analyzing a single organization or system. Thus, there is tremendous value potential in adopting PM based on event log data from multiple systems and organizations, so-called "cross-organizational PM." We argue that reducing uncertainty by governing the distribution of created value to participating organizations is crucial for cross-organizational PM adoption. Hence, we conducted a systematic literature review to connect existing literature on value distribution mechanisms with cross-organizational PM. We provide a morphological box consisting of eight dimensions (e.g., type of value shared and determination base) for configuring value distribution mechanisms that assists organizations in the early stage of cross-organizational PM adoption by incentivizing collaboration. For IS researchers, we summarize current literature and develop avenues for future research.
... This approach helps to combine the roles involved in the value creation for the end customer, including the illustration of value linkages among the defined value modules (Gordijn and Akkermans, 2003). Since e3-value helps to model multi-actor networks, it was also used to conceptualize value creation in ecosystems in other domains (Böhm et al., 2010;Riasanow et al., 2017;Gleiss et al., 2021). In our study, e3-value enables us to identify value-adding activities that are critical for joint value creation to satisfy end customers' AM demand. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Despite the increasing managerial awareness for ecosystems to organize complex value propositions, little is known about how different roles can establish their business models (BM) in ecosystems. AM drives innovations in the product design and manufacturing fields predominantly across companies, indicating the eco-systemic organization of value creation without orchestrating and dominant keystone actors yet. This paper explores ecosystem determinants by analyzing the dynamic additive manufacturing (AM) paradigm. We conduct an empirical study with companies from the AM domain to visualize their value activities and define generic roles in the interdependent value creation process, adopting the e³-value methodology. By exploring these ecosystem determinants, our results aid practitioners in positioning their BMs in the AM domain and generate descriptive insights for the orchestrator BM design in a dynamic domain without orchestrating keystones.
Book
Die Gestaltung von Geschäftsmodellen in IoT Ökosystemen stellt eine große Herausforderung für Großhandelsunternehmen dar. Der Stand der Forschung verdeutlicht, dass existierende Ansätze die Veränderungen im Kontext von IoT Ökosystemen sowie die Besonderheiten des Großhandels nicht ausreichend berücksichtigen. Die vorliegende Arbeit liefert ein methodisches Vorgehen, welches Großhandelsunternehmen unterstützt, Geschäftsmodelle in IoT Ökosystemen zu gestalten. Um dieses Forschungsziel erreichen zu können, wurden fünf Case Studies in unterschiedlichen Bereichen durchgeführt. Auf der Grundlage dieser Case Studies konnten elf Schritte abgeleitet werden. Ergänzend wurden 13 Experten aus dem Großhandel befragt, im Rahmen dieser Befragung konnten 59 Business Capabilities identifiziert werden. Die wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse dieser Arbeit wurden in eine großhandelsspezifische Toolbox transferiert, um die Ergebnisse für Großhandelsunternehmen greifbar und nutzbar zu machen. Abschließend wurde das Artefakt dieser Arbeit mit sechs Großhändlern in Gruppendiskussionen evaluiert.
Chapter
Cloud Computing verändert die Erbringung IT-basierter Dienstleistungen. Vor allem fördert Cloud Computing dabei die Modularisierung IT-bezogener Leistungen und damit einhergehend auch die Spezialisierung von IT-Anbietern. Gleichzeitig steigt die Nachfrage nach zuverlässigen und qualitätsgesicherten IT-Leistungen und mit zunehmender Digitalisierung entstehen auch neue sowie erweiterte Einsatzbereiche für die IT. Immer mehr unterschiedliche IT-basierte Leistungen von immer mehr unterschiedlichen Anbietern für immer mehr Einsatzbereiche bedeuten zum einen den Anstieg der an der IT-bezogenen Leistungserbringung beteiligten Akteure. Die damit einhergehende Vielfalt führt zum anderen zu einem Anstieg der Heterogenität. In der Konsequenz nimmt die Komplexität der IT-bezogenen Leistungserbringung zu, was zu erhöhten Kosten und abnehmender Leistungsqualität führt. Da Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung bzw. Beherrschung der Komplexität der IT-bezogenen Leistungserbringung in Wertschöpfungsnetzwerken beim Aspekt der Heterogenität ansetzen müssen, wird in dieser Arbeit auf Basis der Analyse von Intermediärsrollen in der Finanz- und Immobilienbranche und aufbauend auf etablierten Cloud Computing Wertschöpfungsmodellen, ein generisches IT-Servicewertschöpfungsmodell entwickelt und beschrieben, welches neben den klassischen Akteuren auch verschiedene Intermediärsrollen vorsieht. Konsumenten von Cloud Services werden dadurch entlastet; gleichzeit wird die Transparenz im Cloud Computing Markt erhöht.
Article
Full-text available
Objetivo: El objetivo del trabajo es identificar las relaciones entre la transformación digital y los microfundamentos de las capacidades dinámicas dentro del sector de la automoción. Metodología: Para lograr el objetivo anterior, el análisis se basa en una revisión bibliográfica y en juicios de expertos a través de una encuesta. Posteriormente, desde una metodología cuantitativa de análisis exploratorio se ha utilizado la correcta asignación de los indicadores, así como un análisis SEM de ecuaciones estructurales con variables latentes como técnica estadística.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: The objective of the paper is to identify relations between digital transformation and the micro-foundations of the dynamic capabilities within the automotive sector.Methodology: To achieve the previous goal, the analysis is based on a literature review and expert judgments through a survey. Then, from a quantitative methodology of exploratory analysis the correct assignment of the indicators as well as a SEM analysis of structural equations with latent variables as a statistical technique has been used. Results: Therefore, using the indicators already presented, it has been possible to establish the relationship model. We have been able to present how all these indicators correspond to dynamic capabilities, and it is the digital transformations that generate them. Limitations: the research presents some limitations that should be considered when contextualizing the work done. The most representative one is the difficulty of obtaining a larger sample, because out of 142 surveys, only 42 responses were obtained, due to the limited time respondents had to attend to the researcher.Practical implications: the automotive industry is continuously impacted with the introduction of new technologies, which makes it necessary for organizations to adapt to the fast pace of growth. Furthermore, companies that understand the importance of digital transformation show more modern work styles, consider user preferences and the information they can obtain from the context.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This article is intended to contribute to the process of building a set of tools that will help advance the debate on the shape and trajectory of global economic integration. The article uses a 'value-chain' approach to construct a set of conceptual terms and concepts intended to better specify the concrete actors in the global economy as well as the linkages that bind them into a larger whole. I propose a set of terms and concepts that specify three critical value chain dimensions: organizational scale, geographic scale and types of value chain productive actors. The article also lays out a distinction between value chains and production networks.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
This article forecasts the problems that the emerging network form of organization faces as the result of managerial actions which inadvertently damage the operating capabilities of network organization. It examines the managerial mistakes that have plagued and continue to plague earlier functional, divisional, and matrix forms of organization, actions that are most likely to constrain the network structure. By analyzing predictable mistakes as they begin to occur, the authors hope to help managers prevent these problems rather than become victims of them.
Article
This paper introduces the important role of networks of interfirm ties in examining fundamental issues in strategy research. Prior research has primarily viewed firms as autonomous entities striving for competitive advantage from either external industry sources or from internal resources and capabilities. However, the networks of relationships in which firms are embedded profoundly influence their conduct and performance. We identify five key areas of strategy research in which there is potential for incorporating strategic networks: (1) industry structure, (2) positioning within an industry, (3) inimitable firm resources and capabilities, (4) contracting and coordination costs, and (5) dynamic network constraints and benefits. For each of these issues, the paper outlines some important insights that result from considering the role of strategic networks. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
Building on Thompson's (1967) typology of long-linked, intensive, and mediating technologies, this paper explores the idea that the value chain, the value shop, and the value network are three distinct generic value configuration models required to understand and analyze firm-level value creation logic across a broad range of industries and firms. While the long-linked technology delivers value by transforming inputs into products, the intensive technology delivers value by resolving unique customer problems, and the mediating technology delivers value by enabling direct and indirect exchanges between customers. With the identification of alternative value creation technologies, value chain analysis is both sharpened and generalized into what we propose as a value configuration analysis approach to the diagnosis of competitive advantage. With the long-linked technology and the corresponding value chain configuration model as benchmark, the paper reviews the distinctive logic and develops models of the value shop and the value network in terms of primary activity categories, drivers of cost and value, and strategic positioning options.
Article
Following a decade of declining productivity and failed organizations, many U.S. companies in the eighties have been forced to rethink their competitive approaches. This search is producing a new organizational form—a unique combination of strategy, structure, and management processes that the authors refer to as the "dynamic network." This new form is forcing the development of new concepts and language and provides new insights into the workings of existing strategies and structures. In the future, many organizations will be designed using concepts such as vertical disaggregation, internal and external brokering, full-disclosure information systems, and market substitutes for administrative mechanisms. This article describes where and how rapidly the dynamic network form will emerge and discusses its implications for strategists, organization designers, and policymakers.