Business Model Mechanism

  • Chandra S. Mishra


The business model mechanism constitutes the value creation and appropriation drivers that underlie the firm’s competitive advantage. Entrepreneurial incentives enhance the firm’s value creation and appropriation drivers. The entrepreneurial incentives further enhance the management logics that enable the firm to sense, seize, and act on value opportunities that provide the firm’s value creation engine the fuel to sustain competitive advantage. The business model advantage construct constitutes scalability, adaptability, and sustainability. The business model complexity, tacitness, complementaries, customer and supplier lock-in, and business model novelty and specificity enhance the business model sustainability. The business model adaptability is enhanced with activity system multiplexity, redundancy, and loose–tight coupling. The business model construct can be alternatively viewed by the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard. The strategy map links the firm’s financial performance, buyer value drivers, value activities, and core resources. Robust business models enable firms to stay ahead of the Red Queen race. The entrepreneurial incentives sustain the value creation and appropriation that enhances the business model advantage and the firm’s competitive position. A business model that has optimal complexity such that it operates at the edge of chaos provides increasing returns to scale. The management logics are the “glue” that hold a firm’s loosely coupled value activities together.


Business Model Complex Adaptive System Activity Driver Buyer Cost Revenue Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Beinhocker, E.D. 1997. Strategy at the edge of chaos. McKinsey Quarterly, 24–39.Google Scholar
  2. Beinhocker, E.D. 1999. Robust adaptive strategies. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 95–106.Google Scholar
  3. Bradenburger, A. and Stuart, G. 1996. Value based business strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 5: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cyert, R.M., and March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Fine, C.H., Vardan, R., Pethick, R., and El-hout, J. 2002. Rapid-response capability in value-chain design. MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter, 69–75.Google Scholar
  6. Glassman, R. 1973. Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behavioral Science, 18: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M., and Kagermann, H. 2008. Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, December, Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D.P. 1992. The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business Review, January-February, Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Kauffman, S. 1993. The origins of order. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kauffman, S.A. 1991. The sciences of complexity and “origins of order.” Working Paper, Santa Fe Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Kauffman, S.A. 1995. Escaping the Red Queen effect. McKinsey Quarterly, 119–129.Google Scholar
  12. Mishra, C.S. 2015. Getting funded: Proof-of-concept, due diligence, risk and reward. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Orton, J.D., and Weick, K. 1990. Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15: 203–223.Google Scholar
  14. Penrose, E. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Porter, M. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, November-December, Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rindova, V.P., and Kotha, S. 2001. Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1263–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sanchez, R. 1995. Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spender, J.C., and Grinyer, P.H. 1995. Organizational renewal: Top management’s role in a loosely coupled system. Human Relations, 48: 909–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Staber, U., and Sydow, J. 2002. Organizational adaptive capacity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11:408–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Teece, D.J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weick, K. 1982. Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements. In Change in organizations, 375–408, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chandra S. Mishra
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA

Personalised recommendations