Development of an Ecosystem Model for the Realization of Internet of Things (IoT) Services in Supply Chain Management
- 2.1k Downloads
Information services based on the Internet of Things (IoT) help to integrate information and material flows and to optimize supply chain management (SCM). However, the design, implementation and operation of such services require strong cooperations between different types of company. Firms that are actively involved in SCM, such as logistics service providers, have to set up their own ecosystem in order to realize and run such services. Following this line of thinking, the aim of this paper is to support logistics companies with recommendations for the design of their own IoT ecosystem and the realization of IoT services. The grounded theory methodology is used to develop a theoretical IoT ecosystem model. A model with 19 different roles, their relationships and value contributions emerged during the research process. Our findings help companies to understand the implementation of IoT services, to find the right partners with which to cooperate, and to establish their own ecosystem.
KeywordsInternet of things Business ecosystem Grounded theory Supply chain management Value creation
JEL ClassificationL14 L22 L86
- Adner, R. (2006) ‘Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem’, Harvard Business Review, April, 98–107.Google Scholar
- Ashton, K. (1999) [online] That `Internet of Things` Thing www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/4986 (Acessed 04 September 2015).
- Fleisch, E. (2010). What is The internet of things? AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE’, Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 5(2), 125–157.Google Scholar
- Friess, P. (2013). Driving European internet of things research. In O. Vermesan & P. Friess (Eds.), Internet of things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems (pp. 1–6). Aalborg: River Publishers.Google Scholar
- Gartner (2014) [online] Gartner says the Internet of Things will transform the data center. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2684616 (Acessed 04 September 2015).
- Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2014). The business model navigator. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership – How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity – Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
- Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory - a practical guide for management, business and market researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital ubiquity - how connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business (pp. 90–99). November: Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
- Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage – What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Keohane, R. O. (1984). Cooperation and international regimes. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy (pp. 491–517). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kille, C., & Schwemmer, M. (2013). TOP 100 in European transport and logistics services - market sizes, market segments and market leaders in the European logistics industry. Hamburg: DVV Media Group.Google Scholar
- Kreutzer, R. T., & Land, K.-H. (2015). Digital Darwinism - branding and business models in jeopardy. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Mayordomo, I., Spies, P., Meier, F., Otto, S., Lempert, S., Bernhard, J., and Pflaum, A. (2011), ‘emerging technologies and challenges for the internet of things’ in Proceedings of 54th IEEE International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems MWSCAS, Seoul, South Korea, 1-4.Google Scholar
- METRO AG (2015) [online] METRO GROUP Future Store Initiative http://www.future-store.org/internet/site/ts_fsi/alias/mgroup_fsi/Len/index.html (Acessed 06 September 2015).
- Miller, D. L. (2013). Introduction to collective behavior and collective action (Third ed.). Long Grove: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
- Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 75–86.Google Scholar
- Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition – Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. New York: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
- Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Porter, M. E., and Heppelmann, J. E. (2014) ‘How smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition’, Harvard Business Review, November, 64–88.Google Scholar
- Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Reyes, R. M. (2011). RFID in the supply chain. New York: Mc Graw Hill.Google Scholar
- Rong, K., Hou, J., Shi, Y. and Lu, Q. (2010), ‘From value chain, supply network, towards business ecosystem (BE): Evaluating the BE concept's implications to emerging industrial demand’, in IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Macao, China, 2173–2177.Google Scholar
- Solaimani, S., Bouwman, H., and De Reuver, M. (2010) ‘Smart home: aligning business models and providers processes: a case survey’, Proceedings of 21st ACIS, 55–81.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research – Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar