Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Architecture of Technology Ventures: A Business Model Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technology Entrepreneurship

Part of the book series: FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship ((FGFS))

  • 1630 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter develops a framework for analyzing the architecture of technology ventures. The framework is based on the concept of business model-how the venture creates and captures value. Application of the business model concept in the technology venturing literature results in four theoretical postulations which explain how and why technology ventures differ from other ventures. In summary, we propose that: (1) business model of technology ventures has a complex technological core and a flexible marketing periphery. (2) Because of this core-peripheral architecture, business model of technology ventures is technology-driven and market-driving (3) market driving-ness makes these business models disruptive and (4) versatile, able to tap into multiple emerging markets. Supportive empirical evidence from three technology ventures substantiates this framework and its implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting to use this reference.

  2. 2.

    I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting to use this reference.

References

  • Abell, D. (1980). Defining the business: The starting point of strategic planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Debei, M. M., & Avison, D. (2010). Developing a unified framework of the business model concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant design: A cyclical model of technology change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1999). Models of core periphery structures. Social Networks, 21, 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture: Towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgers, J. H., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Why new business development projects fail: Coping with the differences of technological versus market knowledge. Long Range Planning, 41(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, T. H., Dorf, R. C., & Nelson, A. J. (2011). Technology ventures: From idea to enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calia, R. C., Guerrini, F. M., & Moura, G. L. (2007). Innovation networks: From technological development to business model reconfiguration. Technovation, 27(8), 426–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caridi-Zahavi, O., Carmeli, A., & Arazy, O. (2016). The influence of CEOs’ visionary innovation leadership on the performance of high-technology ventures: The mediating roles of connectivity and knowledge integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(3), 356–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccagnoli, M., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2008). Appropriating the returns from innovation. In G. D. Libecap & M. Thursby (Eds.), Technological innovation: Generating economic results (Vol. 18, pp. 11–34). London: Emerald Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeds, D. L., DeCarolis, D., & Coombs, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities and new product development in high technology ventures: An empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do?: Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10), 1559–1570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11(2), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., & Marengo, L. (2007). Perspective-on the evolutionary and behavioral theories of organizations: A tentative roadmap. Organization Science, 18(3), 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2016). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316675927.

  • Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Michaela, C. (2014). The business model navigator: 55 models that will revolutionise your business. Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghauri, P., Wang, F., Elg, U., & Rosendo-Ríos, V. (2016). Market driving strategies: Beyond localization. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5682–5693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, M., Heinemann, F., Brettel, M., & Hungeling, S. (2010). Configurations of resources and capabilities and their performance implications: An exploratory study on technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12), 1337–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hak, T., & Dul, J. (2010). Theory-testing with cases. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 937–941). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological.Review, 49(2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., Burton, M. D., & Baron, J. N. (1996). Inertia and change in the early years: Employment relations in young, high technology firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(2), 503–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand, B., Kok, R. A., & Biemans, W. G. (2001). Theory-testing using case studies: A comment on Johnston, Leach, and Liu. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(8), 651–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B., Kohli, A. K., & Sahay, A. (2000). Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N. (1997). The revolution in retailing: From market driven to market driving. Long Range Planning, 30(6), 830–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Scheer, L., & Kotler, P. (2000). From market driven to market driving. European Management Journal, 18(2), 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1123–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmström, M., Johansson, J., & Wincent, J. (2015). Cognitive constructions of low-profit and high-profit business models: A repertory grid study of serial entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 39(5), 1083–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. C. (2008). Game-changing strategies how to create new market space in established industries by breaking the rules. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massa, L., Tucci, C., & Afuah, A. (2016). A critical assessment of business model research. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 73–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mele, C., Pels, J., & Storbacka, K. (2015). A holistic market conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 726–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najmaei, A. (2012). Business model: Strategic logic of disruptive innovation. In K. Rezaul (Ed.), Strategic and pragmatic e-business: Implications for future business practices (pp. 100–131). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Najmaei, A. (2013). How and why business model matters in acquisition of knowledge in small and entrepreneurial firms. In Enterprise development in smes and entrepreneurial firms: Dynamic processes (pp. 1–21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Najmaei, A. (2014). A behavioral view of business modeling. In T. K. Das (Ed.), Behavioral strategy: Emerging perspectives (pp. 177–203). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Najmaei, A. (2016a). How do entrepreneurs develop business models in small high-tech ventures? An exploratory model from Australian IT firms. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 6(3), 297–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najmaei, A. (2016b). Revisiting the modularity-performance nexus: Business model innovation as a missing mechanism. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20, 1650065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najmaei, A., Rhodes, J., & Lok, P. (2014). Exploring the dynamism of complementarities in executives’ business modelling knowledge structures. Journal of Strategy and Management, 7(4), 398–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najmaei, A., Rhodes, J., & Lok, P. (2015). Practice-based view of business modeling: Cognition and knowledge in action. In T. K. Das (Ed.), The practice of behavioral strategy (pp. 77–104). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. D., & Tzabbar, D. (2016). Venture capital, CEOs’ sources of power, and innovation novelty at different life stages of a new venture. Organization Science, 27(2), 336–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patzelt, H., Knyphausen-Aufse, D. z., & Nikolw, P. (2008). Top management teams, business models, and performance of biotechnology ventures: An upper echelon perspective. British Journal of Management, 19(2), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 856–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reymen, I., Berends, H., Oudehand, R., & Stultiëns, R. (2016). Decision making for business model development: A process study of effectuation and causation in new technology-based ventures. R&D Management, 47, 595–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roure, J. B., & Maidique, M. A. (1986). Linking prefunding factors and high-technology venture success: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(3), 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, R., Siegel, E., & Macmillan, I. C. (1993). Characteristics distinguishing high-growth ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Research Policy, 35, 1131–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Straw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 171–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzokas, N., Kim, Y. A., Akbar, H., & Al-Dajani, H. (2015). Absorptive capacity and performance: The role of customer relationship and technological capabilities in high-tech SMEs. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 134–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voudouris, I., Dimitratos, P., & Salavou, H. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning in the international new high-technology venture. International Small Business Journal, 29(3), 238–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1981). The modern corporation: Origins, evolution, attributes. Journal of Economic Literature, 19(4), 1537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2015). Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6), 730–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (1996). Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 289–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. J., Baden-Fuller, C., & Pool, J. K. (2011). Resolving the tensions between monitoring, resourcing and strategizing: Structures and processes in high technology venture boards. Long Range Planning, 44(2), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peter Faber Business School, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney Campus, Sydney, Australia

    Arash Najmaei

Authors
  1. Arash Najmaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arash Najmaei .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bolzano, Bozen, Italy

    André Presse

  2. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Orestis Terzidis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Najmaei, A. (2018). Architecture of Technology Ventures: A Business Model Perspective. In: Presse, A., Terzidis, O. (eds) Technology Entrepreneurship. FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73509-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation