Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

The first chapter of this book introduces the importance of studying business model innovation (BMI), the methodology we applied to study the subject, and specific statistics about the literature published in academic and practice-oriented journals in the last 15 years. Specifically, this chapter offers an overview of the processes followed for our systematic literature review (SLR) and the rigorous protocol that includes the three-stage procedure (i.e., planning, execution, and reporting) suggested by Tranfield et al. (Br J Manag 14:207–222, 2003). Gathering the most influential pieces on SLRs, this chapter also offers some hints for conducting a successful SLR and illustrates the benefits associated with doing so. In addition, this chapter describes the thematic and the informal ontological classification we adopted to analyze the 156 papers included in our systematic literature review. Thus, the first section of this chapter defines what is meant by an SLR. The second section offers an overview of the tasks of an SLR. The other sections present the process followed for the thematic and ontological analyses that are central to this work. The final section provides some statistics on the 156 papers included in our SLR, underlining specific information about the journals that published the articles, the methodological approaches applied in the papers, the industries included in the studies, the geographical contexts, and the disciplines that contributed to the understanding of BMI.

Appendices

Appendix 1.1: Procedures for Sourcing, Search, Selection and Exclusion

• A. Source of information

  • 1. Peer-reviewed journal articles only

  • 2. Empirical and conceptual and review.

• B. Exclusion criteria

  • 1. Studies focused on business model rather than business model innovation

  • 2. Studies declaring business model innovation in the title and in the abstract without being its primarily focus

  • 3. Research published in edited books and conference proceedings

  • 4. Editorials

  • 5. Articles discussing business model education or research techniques

  • 6. Case studies for teaching purposes

  • 7. Articles unavailable in the databases.

• C. Search method—Keyword research

  • 1. Articles across academic journals with no temporal boundaries

  • 2. Database selection by the keyword search “Business Model Innovation” using Scopus, Ebsco, ABI Proquest complete and Web of Science

  • 3. ABI Proquest and EBSCO (incorporating Business Source Premiere and Econlit) resulted the most comprehensive

  • 4. Initial focus on: (a) citation and abstract, and (b) title

  • 5. Keywords initial search

    “business model” AND “innovat*”

    “business model” AND “chang*”

    “business model” AND “novel*”

    “business model” AND “advanc*”

    “business model” AND “enhanc*”

    “business model” AND “renew*”

    “business model” AND “transform*”

    “business model” AND “develop*”

    “business model” AND “experiment*”

    “business model” AND “evolution”

  • 6. Keyword realignment

    “business model innovat*” OR “innov* business model”

    “business model chang*” OR “chang* business model”

    “business model novel*” OR “novel* business model”

    “business model advanc*” OR “advance* business model”

    “business model enhanc*” OR “enhance* business model”

    “business model renew*” OR “renew* business model”

    “business model transform*” OR “transform* business model”

    “business model develop*” OR “develop* business model”

    “business model experiment*” OR “experiment* business model”

    “business model evolution” OR “evolution business model”

    “business model upgrad*” OR “upgrad* business model”

    “business model progres*” OR “progres* business model

    “business model new*” OR “new* business model”

    “business model design” OR “design business model”

    “business model revolut*” OR “revolut* business model”

    “business model creat*” OR “creat* business model”

  • 7. Deleting repetitions and other documents included in the exclusion list.

• D. Search method—Paper selection

  • 1. The authors as a pair read the abstracts and the introductions of all papers (n = 385) dividing them into A, B, and C categories (A papers are relevant for the objective of the research, B papers are studies whose relevance was not initially clear, and C papers are not relevant)

  • 2. After reading every 40 papers the two authors compare and reconcile their categorization

  • 3. The third author re-assesses the articles excluded by one of the authors but included by the other author (A papers = 150)

  • 4. Authors re-check all the B papers in order to verify the inclusion in this category (12 papers are subsequently assessed to belong in category A)

  • 5. Final check by two authors verifying the match between papers’ content and the objectives of the systematic review (7 papers excluded from A category)

  • 6. Only A papers are considered for the thematic analysis (n = 156).

Appendix 1.2: Procedures for Thematic Analysis and Ontological Organization

• A. Data organization

  • 1. Organize A papers in chronological order up until those published in September 2015.

  • 2. Prepare Excel file to record and compare coding by researchers.

  • 3. The Excel file has to contain the following information respecting the authors’ language: title, abstract, authors, publication date, publication title, indication if academic or practitioner publication (yes/no), keywords, research question, theoretical perspective, sample, research context (sector or industry), research method, main results, BM definition, BMI definition, and boundaries.

• B. Theme identification

  • 1. Two researchers individually scrutinize each paper to identify the objective of the paper, research questions, key arguments, research methods, the business model definition used in the paper, the business model innovation definition, its theoretical perspective and its presented outcomes.

  • 2. The researchers write a statement individually describing the primary focus of each paper, paying attention to the conceptual terminology and vocabulary employed by the authors.

  • 3. After reviewing 30 papers, the researchers compare their statements and discuss how to resolve misalignments (if any).

  • 4. From the statement at least three order thematic categories have to be identified (T1, T2, and T3).

  • 5. Preliminary names are given to the thematic categories.

  • 6. Definitive category names result from discussions and interactions between authors, and these thematic categories will be applied for the remaining papers in the Excel file.

  • 7. After every 30 papers, the researchers align their results for consistency.

• C. Ontological organization

  • 1. The authors discuss and agree on the three order thematic categories (T1, T2, and T3) for each paper.

  • 2. According to an ontological process, from the descriptive statements the authors gather the thematic categories according to similarities (T1), in the same vein they form the second-order (T2) and major thematic areas (T3) forming a taxonomic (subtheme—super-theme) hierarchy.

  • 3. Authors reviewed material for redundancy or duplication.

• D. Interpretation and validation

  • 1. The Excel file records all the descriptive statements, the thematic (super-theme) category, the second-order and first-order themes for each paper were ranked chronologically.

  • 2. The thematic and ontological structure was mapped using Mindomo software.

  • 3. For consistency, the maps were compared with the original Excel file and Appendix 3.1 inserted in the paper.

  • 4. For each theme, the authors wrote an explanation in order to check the fit between the content of the paper with the themes, ensuring ontological consistency.

• E. Quality checking

  • 1. Each paper is codified independently by two researchers who paid equal attention to both.

  • 2. The process was thorough, inclusive, and comprehensive (three thematic descriptors).

  • 3. The interaction process implied a comparison of the selected themes going back and forth from the original papers.

  • 4. Authors check for internal coherence, consistency, and distinctiveness.

  • 5. Authors interpret the papers according to their meanings, while maintaining the vocabulary expressed in the papers as much as possible.

  • 6. Data and themes are paired iteratively.

  • 7. Authors use ontology tables for consistency.

  • 8. The authors have an active role in each phase.