Systematic Literature Review

  • Daniela AndreiniEmail author
  • Cristina Bettinelli
Part of the International Series in Advanced Management Studies book series (ISAMS)


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.


Thematic Analysis Strategic Management Systematic Literature Review Enterprise Architecture International Entrepreneurship 
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. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 41–49.Google Scholar
  2. Arend, R. J. (2013). The business model: Present and future—beyond a skeumorph. Strategic Organization, 11(4), 390–402.  Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister, C., Scherer, A., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2015). Branding access offers: The importance of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, in press, 1–15.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 464–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavalcante, S. A. (2014). Preparing for business model change: The “pre-stage” finding. Journal of Management and Governance, 18, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. R., & Benjamins, V. R. (1999). What are ontologies, and why do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comes, S., & Berniker, L. (2008). Business model innovation. In D. Pantaleo & N. Pal (Eds.), From strategy to execution: Turning accelerated global change into opportunity. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126, 376–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies, H. T., & Crombie, I. K. (1998). Getting to grips with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Hospital medicine (London, England: 1998), 59(12), 955–958.Google Scholar
  11. Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ special issue on business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D Management, 44, 306–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews: From Internet to paper (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation. Journal of Management, 43, 200–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank, H., & Hatak, I. (2014). Doing a research literature review. In A. Fayolle & M. Wright (Eds.), How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals: A guide to steer your academic career. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations. California Management Review, 50, 94–+.Google Scholar
  19. George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 35, 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerasymenko, V., de Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Changing the business model: Effects of venture capital firms and outside CEOs on portfolio company performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 672–675.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 632–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9, 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. LePine, J., & King, W. A. (2010). Editors’ comments: Developing novel theoretical insight from reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35, 506–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leseure, M. J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A., & Denyer, D. (2004). Adoption of promising practices: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morris, M., Kuratko, D., & Covin, J. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation. OH South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason.Google Scholar
  30. Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 309, 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2010). Business model design: Conceptualizing networked value co-creation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (2000). Strategic experimentation: Understanding change and performance in new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 493–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Noy, N., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology development 101. Tech report KSL-01-05. Palo Alto, CA: Knowledge Systems Laboratory Stanford University.Google Scholar
  34. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(28), 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5, 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1263–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ritala, P., & Sainio, L.-M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 475–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Saab, D. J., & Fonseca, F. (2008). Ontological complexity and human culture. Philosophy’s Relevance in Information Science. Paderborn, Germany.Google Scholar
  43. Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Storbacka, K., Frow, P., Nenonen, S., & Payne, P. (2012). Designing business models for co-creation. In S. L. Vargo & R. F. Lusch (Eds.), Towards a better understanding of the role of value in markets and marketing, review of marketing research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2014). The business model dilemma of technology shifts. Technovation, 34, 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2015). Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, in press.Google Scholar
  49. Wu, J., Guo, B., & Shi, Y. (2013). Customer knowledge management and IT-enabled business model innovation: A conceptual framework and a case study from China. European Management Journal, 31, 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Chicago: Wiley Periodicals Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11, 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1019–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Economics and Quantitative MethodsUniversity of BergamoBergamoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Management, Economics and Quantitative MethodsUniversity of BergamoBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations