Business Model Risk Analysis: Predicting the Probability of Business Network Profitability

  • Pontus Johnson
  • Maria Eugenia Iacob
  • Margus Välja
  • Marten van Sinderen
  • Christer Magnusson
  • Tobias Ladhe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 144)


In the design phase of business collaboration, it is desirable to be able to predict the profitability of the business-to-be. Therefore, techniques to assess qualities such as costs, revenues, risks, and profitability have been previously proposed. However, they do not allow the modeler to properly manage uncertainty with respect to the design of the considered business collaboration. In many real collaboration projects today, uncertainty regarding the business’ present or future characteristics is so significant that ignoring it becomes problematic. In this paper, we propose an approach based on the Predictive, Probabilistic Architecture Modeling Framework (P2AMF), capable of advanced and probabilistically sound reasoning about profitability risks. The P2AMF-based approach for profitability risk prediction is also based on the e3-value modeling language and on the Object Constraint Language (OCL). The paper introduces the prediction and modeling approach, and a supporting software tool. The use of the approach is illustrated by means of a case.


value networks profitability risk analysis probabilistic inference goal interoperability 


  1. 1.
    Koller, D., Friedman, N.: Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walsh, B.: Markov chain monte carlo and gibbs sampling (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson, P., Johansson, E., Sommestad, T., Ullberg, J.: A Tool for Enterprise Architecture Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Enterprise Computing Conference, EDOC 2007, Annapolis, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson, P., Ullberg, J., Buschle, M., Franke, U., Shahzad, K.: P2 AMF: Predictive, Probabilistic Architecture Modeling Framework. In: van Sinderen, M., Luttighuis, P.O., Folmer, E., Bosems, S. (eds.) IWEI 2013. LNBIP, vol. 144, pp. 104–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordijn, J., Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Comparing two Business Model Ontologies for Designing e-Business Models and Value Constellations. In: Proceedings of the 18th Bled eConference: eIntegration in Action, Slovenia (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Debei, M.M., Avison, A.: Developing a unified framework of the business model concept. European Journal of Information Systems 19, 359–376 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambert, S.: A Conceptual Framework for Business Model Research. In: Proceedings of the 21st Bled eConference: eIntegration in Action. 21st Bled eConference eCollaboration: Overcoming Boundaries through Multi-Channel Interaction, Slovenia, pp. 227–289 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L.: The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management 37(4), 1019–1042 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R.: Knowing a winning business idea when you see one. Harvard Business Review 78(5), 129–138 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hedman, J., Kalling, T.: The business model concept: Theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations. European Journal of Information Systems 12(1), 49–59 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wirtz, B.W., Schilke, O., Ullrich, S.: Strategic Development of Business Models. Implications of the Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet. Long Range Planning 43, 272–290 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G.: E-Business Strategies and Internet Business Models: How the Internet Adds Value. Organizational Dynamics 33(2), 161–173 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Allen, J.: The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research 58(6), 726–735 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Demil, B., Lecocq, X.: Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency. Long Range Planning 43, 227–246 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L.: Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience. Long Range Planning 43, 308–325 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zott, C., Amit, R.: Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning 43, 216–226 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG, Object Constraint Language, version 2.3 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alberts, B.T., Meertens, L.O., Iacob, M.E., Nieuwenhuis, L.J.M.: The MOF Perspective on Business Modelling. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design 2012 (BMSD 2012), pp. 43–52 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pateli, A.G., Giaglis, G.M.: A research framework for analysing eBusiness models. European Journal of Information Systems 13(4), 302–314 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osterwalder, A.: The Business Model Ontology - a proposition in a design science approach, PhD Thesis, Université de Lausanne (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gordijn, J.: Value-based Requirements Engineering: Exploring Innovative e-Commerce Ideas. PhD Thesis. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: Value based requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-commerce idea. Requirements Engineering Journal 8(2), 114–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iacob, M.E., Meertens, L.O., Jonkers, H., Quartel, D.A.C., Nieuwenhuis, L.J.M., van Sinderen, M.J.: From enterprise architecture to business models and back. Software & Systems Modeling (December 2012), doi:201210.1007/s10270-012-0304-6, Print ISSN1619-1366, Online ISSN1619-1374Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fatemi, H., Van Sinderen, M.J., Wieringa, R.J.: Trust and business webs. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2011, Helsinki, Finland, August 29–September 02, pp. 119–128. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Open Group: Technical Standard Risk Taxonomy, January, Doc. No.: C08 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    OMG, Value Delivery Modeling Language (VDML), Doc. No. bmi/2011-05-11 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Geerts, L.G., McCarthy, E.W.: An Ontological Analysis of the Primitives of the Extended-REA Enterprise Information Architecture. The International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 3, 1–16 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andersson, S.-L., Elofsson, A.: Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles as Control Power: Case studies of Sweden and Germany, Master Thesis, Report no: T-2008-317, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Exploateringskontoret Stockholms Stad, Övergripande program för miljö och hållbar stadsutveckling i Norra Djurgårdsstaden, Stockholms Stad, Stockholm, Sweden (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Asuncion, C.H., van Sinderen, M.J.: Pragmatic Interoperability: A Systematic Review of Published Definitions. In: Bernus, P., Doumeingts, G., Fox, M. (eds.) EAI2N 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 326, pp. 164–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Iacob, M.-E., Jonkers, H.: Quantitative analysis of service-oriented architectures. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems 3(1), 42–60 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pontus Johnson
    • 1
  • Maria Eugenia Iacob
    • 2
  • Margus Välja
    • 1
  • Marten van Sinderen
    • 2
  • Christer Magnusson
    • 3
  • Tobias Ladhe
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Information and Control SystemsRoyal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Telematics and Information TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations