Business Models in Tourism: A Review and Research Agenda et al... · 2017-12-06 · number of elements to group activities (Markides, 2015), they share the general understanding that

To cite this document:

Stephan Reinhold, Florian J. Zach, Dejan Krizaj, (2017) "Business models in tourism: a review and research

agenda", Tourism Review, 72(4), https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2017-0094

Business Models in Tourism: A Review and Research Agenda

Pre-Print Version accepted for publication in

Tourism Review

Stephan Reinhold

University of St. Gallen, Switzerland

[email protected]

Florian J. Zach*

Washington State University, USA

[email protected]

Dejan Krizaj

University of Primorska, Slovenia

[email protected]

* Corresponding author

mailto:[email protected]




ABSTRACT

Purpose – Business models and the business model concept have become a fixture of

scholarly and managerial attention. With a focus on how actors create, capture, and disseminate

value, business model research holds the promise to inform the tourism sector’s search for ways

to innovate and change outdated business practices. Yet, the concept has inspired little research

tackling the contingencies of the tourism context. We address this gap in this review and

research agenda on business models in tourism.

Design/methodology/approach – In this article, we review and synthesize contributions

from publications in EBSCO, Emerald Insight, ProQuest, and Science Direct databases, that

make explicit use of the business model concept in tourism (anytime up to September 2016).

We conceptualize the identified articles as a coherent body of knowledge on business models

in tourism with the objective of identifying common themes that characterize existing

contributions.

Findings – From the review of 28 qualified articles we identify four emergent themes: (1)

sector specific configurations, (2) the role of different value types, (3) design themes for

consistency, and (4) regulatory contingencies. These themes inform three domains in which we

present avenues for tourism-specific studies on business models as well as their management

and innovation that we position in relation to the general business model literature.

Originality/value – Our review details how researchers across disciplines conceptualize

the business model. Together with the identified directions for further research, this literature

review article thus establishes a common conceptual basis and stock of knowledge for the study

of business models in tourism research.

Keywords – business model, tourism, research agenda, value creation, value capture

Paper type – Literature review

1




Business Models in Tourism: A Review and Research Agenda

1 INTRODUCTION

In mature and developing tourism markets, businesses, institutional actors, and policy

makers are looking for ways to enable and establish a viable existence based on multifaceted

tourist behavior. However, in the past decade, many actors along the tourism service chain have

seen their traditional ways of doing business challenged by a combination of factors:

Unexpected competition across traditional industry boundaries; change in context initiated or

intensified by technological progress, change in tourist behavior, regulation, and economic

conditions; and market realities and dynamics outdating beliefs, practices, and structural

solutions on how to serve tourist needs in economically sustainable ways. Thus, the tourism

sector is looking to update and change how its actors create, capture, and disseminate value.

The business model is a central concept that helps practitioners and researchers to

understand existing ways of doing business and how to change these ways for the benefit of the

tourism sector. At its core, a business model provides a comprehensive description how a

network, community, organization, or actor creates and sustainably captures value from its

activities (Casadesus-Masanell & Heilbron, 2015; Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011). As such, it

refers to both cognitive representations detailing actors’ understandings of their business and

tangible, material aspects detailing actors’ configurations of their business models (Baden-

Fuller & Mangematin, 2013). From a practical perspective, the concept has intuitive appeal for

strategic and entrepreneurial reasoning as it comprehensively describes how value is being

created and captured following a procedural input-throughput-output logic.

Despite the concept’s potential to address the outlined challenges of the tourism sector,

the extant literature in the tourism domain appears to provide little insight on how to deal with

tourism-specific contingencies when developing new or managing existing business models.

2




The more than 90 journal articles published since 20021 that invoke the business model concept

and tourism seem scattered across tourism sectors, topical domains, and different scholarly

communities.

With this comprehensive review of the academic literature, we take stock of the literature

to date and aim to structure existing work that deals with business models in tourism in a

substantial way. We reflect its progress in light of the broader, multi-disciplinary body of work

on the business model concept to identify important trajectories for future research efforts that

aim to address the academic and practical challenges of business model management and

innovation in tourism.

The central contribution of this article is the identification of four business model specific

themes among the existing tourism research. The first theme is to compare and contrast different

business model configurations for tourism, hospitality, transportations, and e-Commerce firms.

Authors tend to organize their work in taxonomies. Second, authors that have written about

business models in tourism were generally interested in and emphasize the role of different

monetary and non-monetary value types and their benefactors. Third, existing work studies

sustainability and efficiency as design themes for tourism business models as well as the need

and benefits of collaborative initiatives. Finally, the fourth theme relates to the role of regulatory

contingencies to tourism business models in destinations. In addition, we address how to

conceptualize and operationalize the business model concept for future studies in tourism and

suggest avenues for future research in three domains that relate to configuration, management

and innovation of business models in tourism.

1 2002 is the publication year for the first journal articles that met the general search criteria specified in the methodology

section. That year, two articles featured the terms business model and tourism in either the title, author keywords, and/or

abstract. Two earlier journal articles, one published in 1999 in the International Journal of Hospitality Management and another

one in 1986 in Tourism Management, featured the term business model in the main body of their text. However, the authors of

those articles treated the business model concept in a marginal way.

3




In sum, our review reveals that the business model offers ample research opportunities for

tourism to address challenges outlined in the introduction. We hope they inspire and find

resonance within the academic community and beyond.

2 THE BUSINESS MODEL

The business model is a multifaceted concept that has experienced parallel development

in several research domains (Ghaziani & Ventresca, 2005) as witnessed by a vivid debate about

the concept’s definition and ontology (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Markides, 2015). Nonetheless,

business model researchers agree on a common core coined in the strategy and entrepreneurship

domain (Lecocq, Demil, & Ventura, 2010; Martins, Rindova, & Greenbaum, 2015): A business

model is an interdependent system of activities that explains how an individual or collective

actor creates and captures value (Zott & Amit, 2010; Zott et al., 2011).

Three key features characterize this definition: first, the focus on an interdependent system

of activities, second, the inclusion of individual and collective actors, and finally, the emphasis

on creating and capturing value. The following subsections discuss the three features to clarify

the conceptual understanding that informs the subsequent review of the extant literature on

business models in tourism. This section ends with a brief discussion of the concept’s value to

research and practice.

2.1 An interdependent system of activities

Research on business models focuses on activity systems. An activity system is a set of

interdependent activities, by which individual or collective actors engage the service of any

type of resource in pursuit of an overall objective (Zott & Amit, 2010). Business model

researchers tend to define this overall objective in terms of value created for different

stakeholders contributing to and benefiting from a specific business model. In contrast, strategy

research generally favors comparative competitive advantage (Lecocq et al., 2010; Porter,

1996).

4




Four parameters characterize an activity system (Zott & Amit, 2010): Content refers to

the specific activities included in the business model; structure identifies the characteristics of

the links between individual activities and among the overall system; governance specifies the

individual or collective actor who engage(s) the service of resources; and finally, design themes

detail what theme (e.g., novelty or lock-in) guides a consistent combination of content,

structure, and governance and thus drives value creation for a specific business model

configuration.

The extant literature knows two approaches to categorize and operationalize the content

of an activity system: An ex-ante and an ex-post approach (Demil & Lecocq, 2010). Literature

that follows the first approach defines an ex-ante set of business model elements. These

elements group activities in a number of categories and pre-specified activities with labels such

as ‘value proposition’, ‘revenue model’, or ‘key processes’ (e.g., Johnson, Christensen, &

Kagermann, 2008). While authors that subscribe to the first approach have not agreed on the

number of elements to group activities (Markides, 2015), they share the general understanding

that the collection of elements needs to explain how a business model both creates and captures

value. In contrast, ex-post contributions approach business model research without a

preconceived notion of elements. Instead, they derive the activity system content of a focal

entity inductively and model it as a set of choices and consequences (e.g., Casadesus-Masanell

& Ricart, 2010).

Independent of the approach, the existing literature highlights the role of interdependency

that matters to the structure of an activity system and its design theme. The business model

allows practitioners and researchers to build a coherent story of the complex, interdependent

network of choices and consequences that create and capture value (Arend, 2013; Markides,

2015). As such, the business model helps actors to deal with complexity and serves as both a

narrative and a calculatory device (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009; Magretta, 2002).

5




While the business model concept helps managing the complexity of value creation, the

concept also presents two arguably complex research challenges: First, as a business model, the

concept is used in different ways that complicate attempts to join the insights from research

efforts. Business models are used as scale and role models (e.g., descriptions of kinds in

taxonomies and typologies), as model organisms (e.g., iconic representative of a certain type of

activity system), or as recipes (e.g., detailing the ‘ingredients’ of and ideal type business model)

(Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010). The different use cases create complexity because the type of

model that a specific contribution reflects dictates assumptions about the ontological nature of

the business model concept. For example, comparative studies of scale models representing an

abstract synthesis of managerial design choices tend to be more simplistic than ethnographic

analyses of change in business models for iconic research sites that represent model organisms.

Second, the business model challenges researchers because it has a host of touchpoints

with concepts and theories across research domains (cf. Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017). Among

others, they include economics (e.g., transaction cost and game theory), organization behavior

(e.g., decision-making and cognition), strategy (e.g., stakeholders and strategic resources),

entrepreneurship (e.g., opportunity recognition), and marketing (e.g., customer value) (Coff,

Felin, Langley, & Rowley, 2013; Lecocq et al., 2010). They require business model researchers

to consider a broad set of existing work when crafting their theoretical arguments, to understand

the interaction of theories and concepts from different domains, and to be very specific about

the target literature to which their studies contribute (Arend, 2013).

Despite these two challenges, the relatively young research program has made significant

contributions (Markides, 2015). Researchers have been using the concept’s flexibility and touch

points with manifold research areas as an inspiration for theoretical development and insightful

empirical contributions (Robins, 2013).

6




2.2 Individual and collective actors

Business models can be specified at different levels of analysis for individual or collective

actors, although activity systems are frequently specified for a focal organization. For example,

the extant literature specifies business models for an individual person (e.g., Svejenova,

Planellas, & Vives, 2010), for groups of people (e.g., Sosna, Trevinyo-Rodriguez, & Velamuri,

2010), for business units (e.g., Aspara, Lamberg, Laukia, & Tikkanen, 2012), for non-profit and

for-profit organizations (e.g., Dahan, Doh, Oetzel, & Yaziji, 2010; Guo, Tang, Su, & Katz,

2016; Velamuri, Priya, & Vasantha, 2015), and at the level of industries and networks (e.g.,

Tretheway, 2004). The conceptualization of business models as systems of interdependent

activities allows researchers to model value creation across these different levels and include

diverse stakeholders that contribute in various ways. This is particularly important for service

industries and the tourism sector as they co-produce value with customers and whose actors

coordinate multiple virtual co-production networks (Beritelli, Bieger, & Laesser, 2014;

Beritelli, Reinhold, Laesser, & Bieger, 2015) in ways that other concepts struggle to capture,

for example traditional value chains.

The emphasis on individual and collective actors in the definition points to two important

issues for the study of business models: First, at any level of analysis, entities might pursue

more than one business model (Markides, 2013). Organizations frequently represent portfolios

of business models (Sabatier, Mangematin, & Rousselle, 2010) that can be characterized in

terms of the level of integration between and the conflict among business models (Markides &

Charitou, 2004). How to best handle the dynamics of a business model portfolio over time is

still a matter of critical debate (Kim & Min, 2015).

Second, alongside the physical representation of choices and activities (i.e., tangible

artifacts), actors maintain a cognitive representation of the business model that influences how

they manage and develop the activity system (Baden-Fuller & Mangematin, 2013). While early

7




contributions have mostly focused on the tangible aspects of the business model, research

increasingly focusses on the business model as a cognitive schema (Martins et al., 2015).

Research on the business model schema specifically focusses on how the business model can

be used as a manipulable cognitive device to understand and innovate value creation (Furnari,

2015). The existing work in this domain focusses on how actors can develop their business

model schemas by means of disciplined rational cognition such as conceptual transfer and

analogical reasoning (Martins et al., 2015). In contrast, nature and contingencies of the

emergence of a new business model schema in different settings are still poorly understood.

2.3 Creating and capturing value

An integrative consideration of activities to create and capture value is at the core of

business model research. This focus on how activity systems create value offers four distinct

advantages: First, the focus on value and activities enables researchers to model increasingly

complex interactions among producers and consumers that co-produce multifaceted units of

business in unprecedented ways (Arend, 2013; McGrath, 2010). Thus, the business model

accounts both for the increasingly diverse roles of stakeholders in value creation and the

increasingly heterogeneous ‘good’ consumed.

Second, business model research combines the inside-out and outside-in perspective

typically characterized by different schools of thought in strategy and marketing research

(Baden-Fuller & Mangematin, 2013; Lecocq et al., 2010). With a focus on activity systems,

researchers pay equal attention to the value a customer derives from an offering and the value

stakeholders on the supply side are able to capture by means of their capabilities and different

revenue streams (Johnson et al., 2008; Zott et al., 2011).

Third, because activity systems focus on value creation among diverse stakeholders,

business models are agnostic to the boundaries of traditional sectors, industries, or strategic

groups. This is relevant as it helps in understanding why and wherefrom established firms may

8




experience disruptions of the rules of their business across traditional boundaries (Burgelman

& Grove, 2007).

Finally, the focus on value affords business model researchers a broad stance on

performance. They conceptualize customer value of different types (e.g., Smith & Colgate,

2007) similar to marketing researchers. Moreover, they consider creating, capturing, and

disseminating monetary alongside non-monetary value like researchers specialized in social

enterprises (Bieger & Reinhold, 2011; Yunus, Moingeon, & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010). Thus,

customer value, customer equity, and shareholder value are considered alongside public value

intentionally shared or unintentionally slipped to a general public or special interest groups

(Demil, Lecocq, Ricart, & Zott, 2015; Meynhardt, 2009; Svejenova et al., 2010).

2.4 Value to research and practice

In sum, the business model is a vital concept that helps in understanding how and why a

broad set of individual or collective actors succeed in sustainably creating, capturing, and

disseminating value (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2011). It allows closing a gap between

strategy and tactics incompletely addressed by a host of disparate concepts from different

research domains (Lecocq et al., 2010). Moreover, the concept focusses managerial and

research attention on several essential interdependencies: Interactions among activities and

associated choices (Aversa, Haefliger, Rossi, & Baden-Fuller, 2015), links between material

and cognitive aspects of business models (Demil & Lecocq, 2015), and relationships among

diverse stakeholders invested in networked value co-production (Thompson & MacMillan,

2010). From a theorist’s perspective, the concept holds potential because it is grounded in more

realistic behavioral assumptions (imperfect information, finite cognitive abilities, importance

of externalities, and multiple sources of competitive advantage) and combines supply and

demand side consideration of co-creating and capturing value (Massa et al., 2017).

9




Research on business models in tourism can contribute to broader business model research

and addresses practical challenges in the tourism sector by (a) refining the conceptual

understanding with theory building and empirical research in ways that contribute to the

existing body of knowledge and (b) striving for explanations that can accommodate new

business practices as well as changing consumer behavior.

3 METHOD

We followed a three-step process to identify the existing body of knowledge that discusses

and applies the business model concept in tourism settings. We limited our search to those

articles that make explicit use of the concept for two main reasons: First, we wanted to value

the original authors’ purposeful choice of the business model concept to analyze and interpret

their data. Second, we sought to limit coder bias potentially generating false positive or

subjective and irreproducible results.

First, database and journal searches: For the first journal agnostic step, we conducted a

search consistent across four of the largest, structured literature databases for scholarly work

(EBSCO, Emerald Insight, ProQuest, and Science Direct) from any journal that met our search

criteria. These were: “peer reviewed” work, in “article” format, published in “English” and

“anytime until September 2016”, with “business model” as a (author) keyword, and “tourism”

as a keyword in any field. We identified a first set of 228 unique articles. To ensure that this

dataset captures reputable work in tourism we used the same search criteria on a top-10 list of

SSCI-ranked tourism and hospitality journals2. This resulted in a second set of 268 unique

articles. Both datasets were cleaned for false positives by filtering for reference type “journal

article”, author keyword “business model”, and “business model” as a term in the article

abstracts. This revealed, for instance, teaching cases misclassified as journal articles. It also

2 These are Annals of Tourism Research, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Cities, International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,

Journal of Service Management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of Travel Research, and Tourism Management.

10




surfaced articles that featured “business” and “model” as separate keywords without the content

relating to business models in tourism whatsoever. The cleaned datasets were combined and

duplicates were removed. These efforts resulted in a subset of 62 articles.

Second, two authors read and coded these 62 articles to make sure they “deal with the

business model concept [in a tourism setting] in a nontrivial and nonmarginal way” (Zott et al.,

2011, p. 1021). We eliminated 34 articles that either treated the concept as an afterthought or

did not specifically link to the tourism context (e.g., some were just mentioning tourism as a

side note). This resulted in our final sample of 28 articles. Among these articles, only three are

published in our top-10 tourism and hospitality journals list. Importantly, these three articles

were found in both the database and the top-10 journal list search, indicating that we captured

relevant tourism work. Another six articles are published in other tourism and hospitality

journals (International Journal of Tourism Research, Tourism & Hospitality Research and

Tourism Management Perspectives). In other words, 19 articles that meet our criteria stem from

journals outside the tourism and hospitality domain emphasizing the importance of the database

search.

Last, to identify common themes and avenues for further research, we analyzed our final

sample for what insights they provide linked to the focus of the Tourism Review special issue

on business models in tourism. These are: (1) insights to be learned from taxonomies and

typologies of tourism business models; (2) tourism specific contingencies influencing tourism

business models; (3) tourism business models’ support of value creation among actors of

diverse interests; and (4) tourism business models’ support for resilience. We structured our

analysis along the four topical domains outlined in the special issue’s call and the four roles

assigned to business models in publications. Table 1 summarizes these in the form of eight

questions. In result, we identified four prevalent themes in the existing literature and we suggest

three avenues to advance research on business models in tourism in the following sections.

11




---------------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here.

---------------------------------------

4 LITERATURE ON BUSINESS MODELS IN TOURISM

4.1 Overview of reviewed literature

The 28 articles included in our review sample are detailed in table 2. They stretch 12 years

of publication between 2005 and 2016. Nine articles were published in the first six years until

the end of 2010; 19 articles were published from 2011 to September 2016. Of the reviewed

articles, nine were featured in tourism journals, five in transportation journals, four in general

business journals, three in e-Commerce journals, three in a social science journal, and the

remaining four in other journals across different domains. Three out of nine articles in tourism

journals have been published between 2011 and 2016 in different top-10 tourism journals

(International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, and Tourism Management).

---------------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here.

---------------------------------------

4.2 Configurations in tourism sectors

A major theme in the literature on business models in tourism is to compare and contrast

different business model configurations and to organize them in taxonomies (i.e., sets of

mutually exclusive and exhaustive classes derived from empirical work (Baden-Fuller &

Morgan, 2010)). The reviewed articles make use of the business model concept to organize and

better understand different parts of tourism sectors and tourism business behavior. Even though

12




authors have used competing definitions, the majority of work in our sample analyzes or

compares business model configurations to evaluate value creating and capturing activities.

They do this along three major categories: tourism and hospitality management (14

publications), transportation (10 publications) and information technology (3 publications).

In the first category, tourism and hospitality scholars centered on sustainability and

innovation and their respective ties with business models. In particular, contributions address

the challenges of integrating sustainability in destination business model design (Mihalič,

Žabkar, & Cvelbar, 2012; Scheepens, Vogtländer, & Brezet, 2016) and hospitality management

practices (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2009; Høgevold, Svensson, & Padin, 2015; Sarkar &

Sinha, 2015). Contributions focusing on innovation investigated adoption and

commercialization of new products and services by means of improved and new business

models (Alegre & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016; Hojman & Hunter-Jones, 2012; Huang, Lee, &

Lee, 2009; Rusu, 2016; Souto, 2015). Side topics explored by few authors include the role of

ownership structures at festivals (Andersson & Getz, 2009), competing taxation systems

between destinations and online travel companies (Schiller, 2011), and changes in consumer

behavior stemming from collaborative consumption (Kathan, Matzler, & Veider, 2016).

In the second category, airline business models are among the most investigated topics.

Contributions with this focus span from comparative analyses with network/traditional/hub,

regional and charter airlines (Diaconu, 2012; Fageda & Flores-Fillol, 2012a, 2012b; Graf, 2005;

Heicks, 2010), to evaluations of the effect of philanthropy by low-cost airlines (Fenclova &

Coles, 2011), to understanding dependencies between airline business models and business

models at airports (Frank, 2011; Papatheodorou & Lei, 2006) and destinations (Bieger &

Wittmer, 2006), and to bundling of ferry services (Panou, Kapros, & Polydoropoulou, 2015).

Finally, the third category unites three tourism and hospitality articles with a specific focus

on information and communication technology (ICT) as a tool to enhance current operations

13




(Kshetri, 2007; Margherita & Petti, 2009) and to develop new applications for smartphones

(Koukopoulos & Styliaras, 2013).

4.3 Relevance and recipients of different value types

A second theme that arose from the literature was a general interest in and emphasis on

the different value types and benefactors of value that a business model can create. For a firm

or destination, value refers to monetary (revenues, profits, and efficient operations) and non-

monetary intangible outcomes (such as resident quality of life).

On average, publications in the transportation category were more concerned with

operational and financial performance as well as efficiency gains with regard to different

business models. They demonstrated a narrower aim compared to studies in the tourism and

hospitality category. Nonetheless, scholars across all three categories (transportation, tourism

and hospitality, and e-Commerce) have used the business model concept to discuss the

influence and importance of different value types beyond revenue streams and free cash flows.

This includes value dissemination to employees and residents at hotels (Bohdanowicz &

Zientara, 2009) and low-cost airlines (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2009; Fenclova & Coles,

2011).

Studies that centered on business models and sustainability frequently focused on resident

as benefactors. Related sustainability efforts and benefits mainly referred to maintaining or

improving the (ecological) environment for future generations (Mihalič et al., 2012) and

different aspects of economic growth. This growth benefits residents if it stems from

ecofriendly destination development (Sarkar & Sinha, 2015), inclusion of disadvantaged

residents (Alegre & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016), builds upon collaborative consumption (Kathan

et al., 2016) or contributes to multiple sustainability aspects at once (Mihalič et al., 2012;

Scheepens et al., 2016).

14




Finally, despite value (co-)creation for specific customers being a focus of business model

research, only two studies highlighted their role and benefits in tourism contexts: Koukopoulos

and Styliaras (2013) discuss new tourist experiences stemming from the use of smartphone apps

and Pine and Gilmore (2016) discuss how customer experience should be incorporated in

“modern” business offerings. To a lesser extent, we found studies of low-cost airlines and

ferries mentioning how cost savings are passed on to their customers (e.g. Panou et al., 2015).

4.4 Design themes for consistency

The use of the business model concept to understand interdependencies is a third dominant

theme. Existing work considers interdependencies in two contexts: as the study of design

themes (Zott & Amit, 2010) that determine the overarching logic across different design choices

in a specific business model and as inter-firm value co-creation along tourism service chains or

flows of visitors.

Sustainability and efficiency are the two major design themes that permeate reviewed

work on transportation, tourism and hospitality business models. For example, Høgevold,

Svensson and Padin (2015) discuss how sustainability as an overarching logic shapes the

choices in the configuration of the business model of a Scandinavian hotel chain. Mihalič,

Žabkar, and Cvelbar (2012) focused on environmental sustainability as well. However, they did

not use sustainability as a modifier concept (Martins et al., 2015) to understand what changes

in a traditional hospitality business model when optimized for sustainability. Instead, these

authors used a reverse approach by building value creation and capture around the notion of the

triple-bottom line (Mihalič et al., 2012). Overall, with their sustainability centered business

models, authors sought to provide consistent roadmaps for decision makers to develop

ecotourism (Sarkar & Sinha, 2015), wine tourism (Hojman & Hunter-Jones, 2012) as well as

the bundling and alignment of destination offerings to reduce cost (Scheepens et al., 2016).

Transportation studies, on the other hand, did not consider sustainability, but mostly efficiencies

15




of low-cost airlines (Diaconu, 2012; Fageda & Flores-Fillol, 2012a, 2012b; Graf, 2005),

revenue generation at airports (Frank, 2011; Papatheodorou & Lei, 2006) and – in only one

study – philanthropy and charitable initiatives by low-cost airlines (Fenclova & Coles, 2011).

Alongside these two dominant design themes, there is a limited number of publications that

present business models built around the notions of novelty (Rusu, 2016), and complementarity

(Bieger & Wittmer, 2006; Frank, 2011).

Consistency is not only a topic within business model configurations. Need and benefits

of collaborative initiatives between multiple stakeholders is an underlying theme across

tourism, hospitality and transportation studies. For example, four publications demonstrate that

transportation firms and their manifold stakeholders need a mutual understanding and

coordination to enable sustainable value creation, capture, and dissemination for all involved

parties. They demonstrate this for the case of alignment between airports and business models

of airlines they cater (Frank, 2011; Fageda & Flores-Fillol, 2012b), between airlines and

business models of destinations they fly to (and vice versa) (Bieger & Wittmer, 2006) and

bundling opportunities for ferries (Panou et al., 2015). Publications of the tourism and

hospitality category focus on the interplay of multiple actors at the destination level. For

example, Scheepens, Vogtländer, and Brezet’s (2016) circular transition framework showcases

that regulators and providers of tourism services need to interact in catering to tourists in such

a manner that the environment is protected for future use. In another example, Rusu (2016)

discusses how the travel agent in a redeveloped salt mine destination had to educate other

stakeholders to mutually design the local tourism experience. Finally, the smartphone app

proposed by Koukopoulos and Styliaras (2013) required collaboration with museums and

cultural heritage sites to create the content desired by app users.

16




4.5 Regulation as barrier or opportunity

The fourth and final theme that emerged is the discussion of regulatory contingencies and

what they imply for the development of new and the management of existing business models

across tourism sectors. Existing work addressed discussions of policies and regulatory issues at

a destination either directly or indirectly.

A first set of work includes publications that deal with initiatives directly led or controlled

by destination decision makers. They include the creation of benefits for local businesses and

residents as in the case of ecotourism in the Sikkim villages in India (Sarkar & Sinha, 2015),

ensuring maintenance of the destination environment (Scheepens et al., 2016), law suits to

enforce hotel tax regulation (Schiller, 2011), and efforts to attract a certain type of tourists

(Souto, 2015), and subsequently airlines that match characteristics of these tourists (Bieger &

Wittmer, 2006). With the exception of tax litigation, these authors present the discussed

regulations as innovation opportunities for future, often sustainable, development.

The second set of work are initiatives that are led by destination stakeholders and that

might force destination decision makers to respond by implementing policies or regulation to

ensure a fair accrual of benefits to involved parties: (1) initiatives by lodging firms to be more

sustainable (Hojman & Hunter-Jones, 2012; Mihalič et al., 2012), to take care of employee and

resident well-being (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2009), and to be equitable to produce a long-

term transformation in consumption behavior and benefits for local residents via collaborative

consumption (Kathan et al., 2016); (2) initiatives stemming from different types of festival

organizers (Andersson & Getz, 2009); (3) initiatives by airports to extract revenues from

passengers and airlines (Frank, 2011; Papatheodorou & Lei, 2006); (4) initiatives by software

producers to enhance visitor experiences (Koukopoulos & Styliaras, 2013); and (5) initiatives

by transportation companies to bundle experiences (Panou et al., 2015).

17




Finally, destination decision makers do not shape regulatory aspects surrounding air

transportation and e-Commerce directly. Airline offerings (destinations flown to, amenities and

fare types offered) and e-Commerce offerings (online sales channels, online marketing) are

based on changes in global consumer demand. Destination decision makers can, however, keep

stakeholders abreast of changes and possibly issue recommendations to allow them to respond

to changes in the most meaningful way for the destination (Bieger & Wittmer, 2006;

Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2009; Høgevold et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2009; Schiller, 2011).

5 DISCUSSION – MOVING FORWARD

The following subsections address conceptualization and operationalization of business

models in tourism (5.1) and provide several specific leads for tourism scholars (italicized key

terms).

5.1 Defining and conceptualizing business models for research purposes

Even though the business model concept is gaining popularity only in the recent past, as

evidenced by the first publication on business models in tourism in 2005, the concept is of

increased interest in tourism research. However, we found that most studies do not provide a

clear definition. They either provide no definition at all or present a definition of their own that

serves the specific purpose of their theoretical and empirical narrative – but bears little

resemblance to any other conceptualization. This would not present a problem, if it were merely

a side issue in these publications or if the business model were clearly defined in the academic

literature in general. However, this is a troubling finding. It presents a threat to the interpretation

of the findings these studies present and limits their value in terms of helping us understand

tourism business models.

Certainly, tourism scholars are not the only ones struggling with a plethora of definitions

or the use of the business model as a buzzword (Baden-Fuller, Demil, Lecoq, & MacMillan,

2010; Ghaziani & Ventresca, 2005). The business model can be and has been used in many

18




ways: As a recipe, a model organism, and a description of kind (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010)

to analyze, communicate, and plan (Bieger & Reinhold, 2011), and in its function as both a

narrative and a calculatory device (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009). This may have led to

the impression that “anything goes”, particularly until the mid-2000s (DaSilva & Trkman,

2014). However, there is now substantial work on the business model concept that has to be

considered.

To arrive at robust and relevant results that allow building a growing body of knowledge

on business models in tourism, we propose researchers ask themselves two key questions (cf.

figure 1):

---------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here.

---------------------------------------

How am I intending to use the business model concept? To answer this question, we

suggest distinguishing three functions of business models as discussed by Massa et al. (2017).

Each function, whatever stance a researcher takes, has implications with regard to the

theoretical literature relevant to a specific study: (1) for the description of relevant attributes of

a focal organization strategy and entrepreneurship literature offers empirical descriptions of

business model configurations in terms of activities to create and capture value and relates them

to output variables such as innovation and performance (e.g. Casadesus-Masanell & Zhu, 2013).

(2) for the cognitive representation in the mind of an actor work on strategic cognition is

concerned with key actors’ interpretation and the business model as a malleable cognitive

schema that guides or impedes action and decision-making (e.g. Martins et al., 2015). Finally,

(3) for the conceptual representation and tool for a specific purpose entrepreneurship and

practical managerial publications are interested in the use of business model representations as

19




performative representations, for example, enabling or restraining business model innovation

or pitching new business ideas (e.g. Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009).

How can I operationalize the business model concept in the context of the existing

theoretical work given how I intend to use the concept? Dependent on the answer to the previous

question, the answer to the second question may vary considerably. Researchers interested in

(1) investigating business models as attributes of firms are likely to subscribe to a definition

with a positivistic stance (Massa et al., 2017). That is, the business model is specified in terms

of conceptual elements that allow direct measurement or observation (e.g., activities, profit

formula) (e.g. Johnson et al., 2008; Zott & Amit, 2010) and actor’s statements are taken as

adequate representations of firm attributes. In contrast, scholars interested in (2) business

models as cognitive schemas take a more constructivist stance. They are interested in mapping

concepts and relationships as well as the language used by individual actors to describe value

creation and value capture (e.g. Furnari, 2015). Research with this focus is likely to move

between a prescriptive, normative understanding of what a business model is and the

instantiations of schemas in people’s minds. Finally, researchers focusing on (3) the business

model as a tool will operationalize the business model with specific frameworks and

representations such as the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009).

5.2 New and emerging configurations

Existing work on business model configurations in tourism is mostly taxonomical and

focuses on variants of existing configurations. As such, there is an opportunity for research to

look into the antecedents, configuration, and implications of new and emerging business model

configurations in tourism.

A first set of potential avenues for further research stems from new and ongoing

developments that exhibit, as antecedents, potentially far reaching consequences for existing

and new business models: Digitalization of information and autonomous technology. How do

20




they change the relationships of design choices in existing tourism business models by relieving

existing restraints and potentially changing tourist behavior? (e.g. Tussyadiah, 2015; Gretzel,

Sigala, Xiang & Koo, 2015). As a potential starting point, Amit and Zott (2015) discuss a range

of universal antecedents to business model design.

Second, we encourage more work on new and emerging configurations across tourism

sectors. Where it is in the form of typological ideal types or in-depth investigations of iconic

new empirical cases. Sharing economy businesses (e.g. Cheng, 2016; Kathan et al., 2016) have

already started attracting this kind of attention. Furthermore destination management and

marketing organizations that have started experimenting with their business models under

pressure to legitimize their use of public and private resources (Pike, 2016; Reinhold, Laesser,

& Beritelli, in press) present interesting research opportunities. Work reviewed mostly featured

sustainability and efficiency as integrative design themes; however, there might be alternative

configurations to existing business models based on creating lock-in, novelty, and

complementarity (cf. N-I-C-E themes in Amit & Zott, 2001; Amit & Zott, 2012). Moreover,

given the network and co-production nature of tourism, tourism literature would benefit from a

discussion of two- and multi-sided platform business models (cf. Mangematin & Baden-Fuller,

2015) creating value across organizational boundaries. Most work that we reviewed still seems

to be focused on classic linear models of one sided production of services or products.

Finally, a number of publications in our review have looked at the implications of specific

business model configurations. More work on the relationship of such configurations with the

creation, capture, and (in-/voluntary) dissemination of different value types is needed. This is

particularly important as the portrayal of a direct relationship between configuration and

performance is still an elusive challenge for business model research trying to capture the

intricate complexity of business model design on one hand and the available performance

information on the other.

21




5.3 Managing and innovating tourism business models

Hardly any publication reviewed investigated the procedural aspects of managing or

innovating a tourism business model. However, successfully operating and evolving a business

model presents considerable challenges (Spieth, Schneckenberg, & Matzler, 2016).

To encourage more research on business models’ procedural aspects, we suggest four

tourism-specific avenues of inquiry: First, creating manifold types of value sought by

destinations and destination leadership networks bears the question how specific actors can gain

legitimacy for certain business models (as narratives and calculations) and to what extent

business model representations may help their case. Second, the struggle of tourism businesses

and destinations in mature destinations to maintain or revive their appeal points to a potential

for research on how actors maintain and update their schema of the destination and their

business models in transformation and innovation efforts (Benur & Bramwell, 2015). The

ability to seize opportunities in the form of business models might be part of dynamic

capabilities that allow for resilience in tourist destinations and enterprises (Teece, 2007). The

third inspiration relates to collaborative innovation efforts across organizational boundaries:

What are the unique challenges of innovating business models given a diverse constellation of

actors and reliance on public resources? There might be changes to the dynamics of existing

innovation process models not yet anticipated in other literature. Finally, we consider it relevant

to study how actors balance the need to create multiple types of monetary and non-monetary

value within a single business model. The solutions might be akin to balancing the requirements

of ambidexterity (Markides, 2013) or lead us to new insights.

5.4 Tourism-specific contingencies

Finally, it is worthwhile investigating the tourism specific contingencies of business

model configurations, management, and innovation. Two contingencies are apparent from the

reviewed literature: The diverse set of actors involved and the hand of the government in

22




tourism value creation. The first one has already been addressed in the two previous sections

and while there are others, we will highlight the role of regulation.

Governmental involvement in tourism value creation is relevant with regard to how

regulatory and tax regimes impact tourism business models. Surprisingly, among literature

reviewed, with the exception of Schiller (2011), takes a very positive stance on the subject. This

might be due to the fact that these publications have considered government involvement

mainly in the context of positive, normative outcomes such as environmental sustainability. In

principle, regulatory and tax regimes might foster and hamper the development of new business

models (Reinhold et al., in press) and we encourage more work along these lines in light of the

challenges presented by the sharing economy challenging incumbent lodging and

transportation.

6 CONCLUSION

The literature on business models in tourism is still thin and spread across publication

outlets, journals, and infrequently connected academic groups. However, business model

publications are starting to make more frequent appearance at tourism conferences and the

business model features as topic for conference sessions and tracks. To move the study of

business models in tourism forward, researchers need to define and operationalize the concept

in ways that help connect research findings across studies. The four themes we identified for

the reviewed literature and the discussion of avenues for further research demonstrate ample

opportunities to make use of more universal insights from strategy and entrepreneurship

literature on business models. Tourism scholars can move forward by enriching and adapting

these insights with the theoretically interesting, complex peculiarities of tourism value creation.

Given the interest in business developments spanning from integrated experiential

consumption, to low cost air travel, and to collaborative consumption operators, some of the

findings reach beyond the community of tourism scholars.

23




24


Stephan Reinhold, Florian J. Zach, Dejan Krizaj, (2017) "Business models in tourism: a review and research agenda", Tourism Review, 72(4), https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-

2017-0094

TABLES

Table 1: Lead questions for literature analysis

Special issue domains Roles of business models (BM)

What does the article tell us about…

1. taxonomies and typologies of tourism BMs?

2. how tourism-specific contingencies influence BMs?

3. how tourism BMs support value creation among

actors of diverse interest?

4. how tourism BMs support innovation and resilience?

5. the BM as a phenomenon and theoretical concept?

6. specific BM configurations?

7. change in BMs and processual aspects?

8. the BM as a tool or formal conceptualization?

Table 2: Overview of selected literature

Domain / Study Aim of research BM definition Methodology Object of research Main findings, implications

I Tourism & Hospitality

Alegre & Berbegal-

Mirabent (2016)

Investigate success factors of

social enterprise business

models.

Multiple definitions around

“how a business operates”.

2 case studies Social enterprises training

disadvantaged individuals in

Barcelona, Spain. Both

companies are entering the

tourism and hospitality

sector.

Proving the effective

variables to be considered

when outlining and executing

a business model innovation,

which may help firms in

comparable situations.

Kathan, Matzler &

Veider (2016)

Evaluate effect of consumer

behavior altered by the

sharing economy on business

models.

Distinct interrelated elements

create value for a business.

Conceptual study; literature

review.

Various sharing businesses,

including lodging

The sharing economy

influence on business models

is evaluated through:

customer value proposition,

profit formula and/or key

resources and processes.

Pine & Gilmore (2016) None – discussion of the

impact experience thinking

had on business models.

No definition provided. Case studies Various companies that

incorporated experiences into

their business models.

Several reasons and

approaches for new business

model development are

discussed from the

experience thinking

perspective.

25



2017-0094


Rusu (2016) Evaluate effect of innovation

in a small business on

business model.

Zott, Amit, & Massa (2011,

p. 1019) “how firms do

business”

Single case study;

bibliographical data,

participant observation, semi-

structured interview

Salt mine destination in

Romania

Innovations were introduced

in packages, resulting in

drastic changes to the

business model that also

required educating customers

and stakeholders.

Scheepens, Vogtländer &

Brezet (2016)

Design sustainable business

models that incorporate cost,

economic cost and market

value.

No clear definition, but

discussion of circular

economic system. Buildings

upon (a) Product Service

Systems (creating value for

customers by adding services

to products) and (b) Eco-

cost/Value Ratio (to analyze

the sustainability of products,

services, and their business

models)

Single case study of

environmentally sustainable

water tourism

Friesland, The Netherlands The implementation of and

eco-efficient business model

is complex as it requires an

understanding of both

marketing assets and an in-

depth understanding of

sustainable design practice;

stakeholders need to commit

long-term.

Høgevold, Svensson &

Padin (2015)

Explore and describe a

sustainable BM in a service

industry.

Svensson and Wagner (2012)

as company's or an

organization's efforts

[practices] to manage its

impact on Earth's life and

eco-system and its whole

business network.

Single case study with

interviews and archival data

Scandinavian hotel chain The sustainability centered

business model derived from

traditional goods industry

seems universally applicable

across sources and

stakeholders in hospitality

sector and beyond.

Langvinienė &

Daunoravičiūtė (2015)

Identify success factors of

business models used in

hospitality.

Unclear; review of different

definition without taking a

stance.

Literature review, selection

of body of knowledge/

literature unclear.

None provided Business success in the

hospitality sector is suggested

to be based on customer

value creation, innovation

implemented in service

delivery processes as well as

partner and customer

relationships.

Sarkar Sinha (2015) Understand complexities of

ecotourism business model.

No definition provided. Single case study; participant

observation, interviews with

key stakeholders

Ecotourism initiative in

villages in Sikkim, India

Studied ecotourism case

business model is interpreted

and its further development is

advised through marketing,

organizational, demand,

26



2017-0094


pricing and revenue

management perspectives.

Souto (2015) Evaluate the effect of

relevant business model and

business concept innovation

on incremental and radical

innovation.

Builds upon Magretta (2002)

and Teece (2010);

configuration of processes to

generate value (propositions)

for customers.

Single case study; 115 valid

responses to online survey.

Hotel chains and groups at

least 5 years old with a

minimum of 30 employees in

Spain

Innovation in tourism is not

restricted to technology, but

is mainly the application of

knowledge to meet customer

needs. Critical how relevant

knowledge is applied..

Hojman & Hunter-Jones,

(2012)

Understand adaptations of

winery business models to

incorporate wine tourism.

No definition provided. Single case study; created

database of 98 wineries for

macro data and 6 interviews

with representatives and

stakeholders

Chilean wineries that met one

of five major criteria

Winery tourism business

models are classified in two

broad strategies (marketing

link, survival) and

implications of both are

considered for Chile and

countries alike.

Mihalič, Žabkar &

Cvelbar (2012)

Develop a hotel sustainability

business model based on

sustainability and triple

bottom line business models.

No business model definition,

but refers to triple bottom

line as a planning and

reporting system and

decision-making framework.

Single case study with 54

responses

Slovenian hotel industry The study was conducted

shortly after privatization of

the Slovenian hotel industry.

Respondents are aware of

environmental issues, but

focus their efforts on

economic performance.

Schiller (2011) Compare government tax

model (merchant model) with

agency tax model preferred

by online travel companies.

No definition beyond

reference to merchant and

agency models

Evaluation of court cases Various US municipalities

and online travel companies

The models are not

reconcilably; as such

government agencies and

online travel companies are

both lobbying and fighting

for their cases in court.

Andersson & Getz (2009) Understand effect of mixed

industry characteristics

(ownership structures) on

festival management and

business models.

Amit & Zott (2001) BM as

activity-system (content,

structure, governance).

14 case studies based on 5-

page questionnaire.

Swedish festivals and their

ownership structure (public,

non-profit, private)

Differences identified among

public, nonprofit, and private

festivals are similar to studies

of other mixed industries.

Bohdanowicz & Zientara

(2009)

Evaluate effect of hotel

companies on host

community’s quality of life

and employee well-being.

No definition provided Single case study Scandinavian hotel chain The studied company

successfully embedded

corporate social

responsibility in its business

model.

27



2017-0094


Huang, Lee & Lee, (2009) Develop a business model for

food souvenirs.

Value creation arises from

novelty, efficiency, lock-in

and complementarities (Amit

& Zott, 2001)

5 case studies; comparison of

websites

Food souvenir suppliers in

Hualien, Taiwan

E-Commerce business model

innovation is suggested based

on implementation stages of

food souvenir products

companies.

II Transportation

Panou, Kapros &

Polydoropoulou (2015)

Identify a business model of

bundled transportation

options

A “conceptual tool

containing a set of objects,

concepts and their

relationships with the

objective to express the

business logic of a specific

form” (Osterwalder, 2004)

Single case study; 623

experiment observations of

from 169 vacation travelers

Patras to Crete ferry

transportation options

Focusing on market share

enlargement and customer

value creation a mixed

service packaging approach

is suggested for a

transportation sector.

Diaconu (2012) Identify factors resulting in

low-cost business models and

critical success factors for

one carrier.

No definition provided. Since case study, secondary

data and interviews with firm

representatives

Low-cost airlines,

specifically Ryainair

Overview of Rynair's low

cost business model

strategies is followed by their

development

recommendations.

Fageda & Flores-Fillol

(2012b)

Analyze air transportation on

routes with low traffic

density following the

innovation of regional jet

technology and low-cost

business models.

No definition provided. 2 comparative case studies;

secondary data.

Low-cost carriers in the USA

and EU

Differences of air

transportation business

models used in US and EU

markets are analyzed with

implications for business and

leisure travelers.

Fageda & Flores-Fillol,

(2012a)

Examine effect of regional jet

technology and low-cost

business models on network

carriers.

No definition provided. 2 comparative case studies;

secondary data.

Low-cost carriers in the USA

and EU

Based on elaborated airlines'

business models appropriate

airports' business models and

policies development are

suggested.

Fenclova & Coles (2011) Evaluate effect of

philanthropy and corporate

social responsibility of low-

fare airlines on deserving

communities and employees.

Low-fare airlines distinctly

different from other airlines

business models in terms of

procurement, supply chain,

process management and

marketing (Dobruszkes,

2006; Franke, 2004)

13 cases of low-fare airlines Airlines permitted to fly in

the European Union

Despite most studies low-fare

airlines pursuing strategic

philanthropy (tied to

corporate social

responsiblity) they do not

systematically exploit

commercial gains.

28



2017-0094


Frank (2011) Evaluate airport business

models – standard business

model vs. co-existence of

multiple business models.

Own framework with 7

dimensions derived from

multiple sources: Customer

value proposition, key profit

formula, stakeholder rewards,

key resources, key processes,

network value,

innovation/breakthrough.

Multiple case studies,

sampled for diversity of

governance and location but

similar size, based on

interviews, questionnaires,

and archival data.

Airports in North America,

Middle East and Asia

There is no standard business

model for airports because

they specific configuration is

tailored to local contexts.

Heicks (2010) Evaluation of business model

options for Chinese aviation

market.

No definition provided. 6 expert interviews for four

different scenarios.

Chinese aviation market Scenario planning is a vital

exercise given inconsistent

and fickle government

policies at different levels.

Timing of effects and options

is most difficult for experts.

Bieger & Wittmer (2006) Analyze link between

destination and airline

business models.

A simplified plan (Bieger &

Rüegg-Stürm, 2002; Bieger,

Rüegg-Stürm, & Rohr, 2002)

how firms create value via

different structural

approaches (Amit & Zott,

2001).

Literature review Ski-resorts vs. traditional

destinations and network/hub

vs. regional vs. low-cost vs.

charter airlines

The strong interdependence

between airlines and

destinations is incorporated

into the respective business

models.

Papatheodorou & Lei

(2006)

Identify effect of airlines

business models on airport

revenue streams (aeronautical

and non-aeronautical).

No formal definition beyond

comparison of low-cost vs.

traditionally scheduled vs.

charter airlines)

21 case studies of small and

large (cutoff: 3 million

annual passengers)

British airports Across both airport sizes, the

largest impact on

aeronautical revenue stems

from charter, followed by

low-cost and traditional

airlines. Non-aeronautical

revenue at large airports is

only affected by low-cost

airlines. At large airports

charter has the highest effect

followed by traditional and

low-cost airlines.

Graf (2005) Evaluation of opportunities

and risks of low-cost airlines

being launched by network

airlines.

The way of how a company,

corporate system, or industry

creates value on a market

(Amit & Zott, 2001).

5 case studies European airlines Eight propositions to best

setup a low-cost subsidiary

and two propositions on ideal

market conditions are

identified.

29



2017-0094


III e-Commerce

Koukopoulos & Styliaras

(2013)

Develop business model to

monetize a smartphone app

for cultural/heritage tourism.

No definition provided. Single case study; the authors

are the inventors.

Smartphone app All suggested models (free,

pay once for limited access to

either low or high resolution,

pay once for full access) are

technically feasible. No

comment on financial

viability.

Margherita & Petti

(2009)

Evaluate current state of ICT

and e-Business adoption in

Italian tourism distribution

and identify necessary

changes to leverage full

potential of e-Business.

Unclear; reference to Amit &

Zott (2001) for potential

benefits of new technologies

in business practices.

Multiple case studies based

on secondary data and

interviews.

Italian tourism firms Five-step roadmap to analyze

readiness to adopt e-business

practices and identify

technology as well as

organizational enablers.

Kshetri (2007) Examine e-Business

characteristics for developing

countries.

A company’s intention to

create and capture value by

linking new technological

environments to business

strategies

Single case study, secondary

data and interviews with firm

executive staff.

Nepal-based e-Commerce

firm that also caters to

tourists.

Using economic,

sociopolitical and cognitive

categories of feedback

systems, authors provide

explanatory model of e-

Commerce barriers in the

developing world.

Note: BM = business model.

30




FIGURES

Figure 1: How to define and operationalize the business model for research

31




REFERENCES

Alegre, I., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016). Social innovation success factors: hospitality and

tourism social enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, 28(6), 1155-1176. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0231

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value Creation in E-Business. Strategic Management Journal,

22(6/7), 493-520.

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating Value Through Business Model Innovation. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 53(3), 41-49.

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting Business Architecture: the Antecedents of Business Model

Design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350. doi:10.1002/sej.1200

Andersson, T. D., & Getz, D. (2009). Festival Ownership. Differences between Public,

Nonprofit and Private Festivals in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism, 9(2/3), 249-265. doi:10.1080/15022250903217035

Arend, R. J. (2013). The business model: Present and future—beyond a skeumorph. Strategic

Organization, 11(4), 390-402.

Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2012). Corporate Business Model

Transformation and Inter-Organizational Cognition: The Case of Nokia. Long Range

Planning(forthcoming).

Aversa, P., Haefliger, S., Rossi, A., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2015). From Business Model to

Business Modelling: Modularity and Manipulation Business Models and Modelling (pp.

151-185).

Baden-Fuller, C., Demil, B., Lecoq, X., & MacMillan, I. (2010). Editorial. Long Range

Planning, 43(2/3), 143-145. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2010.03.002

Baden-Fuller, C., & Mangematin, V. (2013). Business models: A challenging agenda. Strategic

Organization, 11(4), 418-427.

Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business Models as Models. Long Range Planning,

43(2/3), 156-171.

Benur, A. M., & Bramwell, B. (2015). Tourism product development and product

diversification in destinations. Tourism Management, 50, 213–224. doi:

10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.005

Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2014). The New Frontiers of Destination Management

Applying Variable Geometry as a Function-Based Approach. Journal of Travel

Research, 53(4), 403-417.

Beritelli, P., Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Bieger, T. (2015). The St. Gallen Model for

Destination Management (1 ed.). St. Gallen: IMP-HSG.

Bieger, T., & Reinhold, S. (2011). Das werbasierte Geschäftsmodell - Ein aktualisierter

Strukturierungsansatz. In T. Bieger, D. z. Knyphausen-Aufsess, & C. Krys (Eds.),

Innovative Geschäftsmodelle. Berlin: Springer.

Bieger, T., & Rüegg-Stürm, J. (2002). Net Economy - Die Bedeutung der Gestaltung von

Beziehungskonfigurationen. In T. Bieger, N. Bickhoff, R. Caspers, D. z. Knyphausen-

Aufsess, & K. Reding (Eds.), Zukünftige Geschäftsmodelle - Konzept und Anwendung

in der Netzökonomie (pp. 15-33). Berlin: Springer.

Bieger, T., Rüegg-Stürm, J., & Rohr, T. v. (2002). Strukturen und Ansätze einer Gestaltung von

Beziehungskonfigurationen - Das Konzept Geschäftsmodell. In T. Bieger, N. Bickhoff,

R. Caspers, D. z. Knyphausen-Aufsess, & K. Reding (Eds.), Zukünftige

Geschäftsmodelle: Konzept und Anwendung in der Netzökonomie. Berlin: Springer-

Verlag.

32




Bieger, T., & Wittmer, A. (2006). Air transport and tourism—Perspectives and challenges for

destinations, airlines and governments. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(1),

40-46. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2005.09.007

Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2009). Hotel companies' contribution to improving the quality

of life of local communities and the well-being of their employees. Tourism &

Hospitality Research, 9(2), 147-158. doi:10.1057/thr.2008.46

Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. (2007). Cross-boundary disruptors: powerful interindustry

entrepreneurial change agents. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3/4), 315-327.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Heilbron, J. (2015). The Business Model: Nature and Benefits

Business Models and Modelling (pp. 3-30).

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From Strategy to Business Models and onto

Tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 195-215.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2011). How to Design A Winning Business Model.

Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 100-107.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business Model Innovation and Competitive

Imitation: the case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal,

34(4), 464-482.

Cheng, M. (2016). Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. International

Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 60-70. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003

Coff, R., Felin, T., Langley, A., & Rowley, T. (2013). So! apbox Forum: The business model:

A valuable concept for strategic organization? Strategic Organization, 11(4), 389-389.

Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO Collaboration: Co-

creating New Business Models for Developing Markets. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3),

326-342.

DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business Model: What It Is and What It Is Not. Long

Range Planning, 47(6), 379-389. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.004

Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency.

Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 227-246.

Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2015). Crafting an Innovative Business Model in an Established

Company: The Role of Artifacts Business Models and Modelling (pp. 31-58).

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), 1-11. doi:10.1002/sej.1194

Diaconu, L. (2012). The Evolution of the European Low-cost Airlines‘Business Models.

Ryanair Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 342-346.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.054

Dobruszkes, F. (2006). An analysis of European low-cost airlines and their networks. Journal

of Transport Geography, 14(4), 249-264. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2005.08.005

Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation devices

in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10), 1559-1570.

Fageda, X., & Flores-Fillol, R. (2012a). Air services on thin routes: Regional versus low-cost

airlines. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(4), 702-714.

doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.03.005

Fageda, X., & Flores-Fillol, R. (2012b). On the optimal distribution of traffic of network

airlines. European Economic Review, 56(6), 1164-1179.

doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.05.001

Fenclova, E., & Coles, T. (2011). Charitable Partnerships among Travel and Tourism

Businesses: Perspectives from Low-Fares Airlines. International Journal of Tourism

Research, 13(4), 337-354. doi:10.1002/jtr.854

33




Frank, L. (2011). Business models for airports in a competitive environment. One sky, different

stories. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 1(1), 25-35.

doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.06.007

Franke, M. (2004). Competition between network carriers and low-cost carriers: retreat battle

or breakthrough to a new level of efficiency? Journal of Air Transport Management,

10(1), 15-21. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2003.10.008

Furnari, S. (2015). A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Business Models: Representing Causal

Structures and Mechanisms Business Models and Modelling (Vol. 33, pp. 207-239):

Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ghaziani, A., & Ventresca, M. (2005). Keywords and cultural change: Frame analysis of

business model public talk, 1975 to 2000. Sociological Forum, 20(4), 523-559.

Graf, L. (2005). Incompatibilities of the low-cost and network carrier business models within

the same airline grouping. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(5), 313-327.

doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2005.07.003

Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: foundations and

developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179-188.

Guo, H., Tang, J., Su, Z., & Katz, J. A. (2016). Opportunity recognition and SME performance:

the mediating effect of business model innovation. R&D Management.

doi:10.1111/radm.12219

Heicks, H. (2010). Scenario planning: China's airline industry in 2019. Tourism & Hospitality

Research, 10(1), 71-77. doi:10.1057/thr.2009.32

Høgevold, N. M., Svensson, G., & Padin, C. (2015). A sustainable business model in services:

an assessment and validation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences,

7(1), 17-33. doi:doi:10.1108/IJQSS-09-2013-0037

Hojman, D. E., & Hunter-Jones, P. (2012). Wine tourism: Chilean wine regions and routes.

Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 13-21. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.009

Huang, T.-C., Lee, T. J., & Lee, K.-H. (2009). Innovative e-commerce model for food tourism

products. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(6), 595-600.

doi:10.1002/jtr.731

Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing Your Business

Model. Havard Business Review(December), 50-59.

Kathan, W., Matzler, K., & Veider, V. (2016). The sharing economy: Your business model's

friend or foe? Business Horizons. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.06.006

Kim, S. K., & Min, S. (2015). Business Model Innovation Performance: When does Adding a

New Business Model Benefit an Incumbent? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, n/a-

n/a. doi:10.1002/sej.1193

Koukopoulos, D., & Styliaras, G. (2013). Design of trustworthy smartphone-based multimedia

services in cultural environments. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 129-150.

doi:10.1007/s10660-013-9112-5

Kshetri, N. (2007). Barriers to e-commerce and competitive business models in developing

countries: A case study. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(4), 443-

452. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.02.004

Langvinienė, N., & Daunoravičiūtė, I. (2015). Factors Influencing the Success of Business

Model in the Hospitality Service Industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,

213, 902-910. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.503

Lecocq, X., Demil, B., & Ventura, J. (2010). Business models as a research program in strategic

management: An appraisal based on Lakatos. M@n@gement, 13(4), 214-225.

Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Models Matter. Havard Business Review(May 2002), 1-8.

34




Mangematin, V., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2015). Introduction: Business Models and Modelling

Business Models Business Models and Modelling (pp. xi-xxii).

Margherita, A., & Petti, C. (2009). E-Business Adoption. International Journal of e-Business

Management, 3(1), 3-19. doi:10.3316/IJEBM0301003

Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach

us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313-323.

Markides, C. C. (2015). Research on Business Models: Challenges and Opportunities Business

Models and Modelling (pp. 133-147).

Markides, C. C., & Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A

contingency approach. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 22-36.

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(1), 99-117. doi:10.1002/sej.1191

Massa, L., Tucci, C., & Afuah, A. (2017). A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF BUSINESS

MODEL RESEARCH. Academy of Management Annals.

doi:10.5465/annals.2014.0072

McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach. Long Range

Planning, 43(2/3), 247-261.

Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public value inside: What is public value creation? Intl Journal of Public

Administration, 32(3-4), 192-219.

Mihalič, T., Žabkar, V., & Cvelbar, L. K. (2012). A hotel sustainability business model:

evidence from Slovenia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5), 701-719.

doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.632092

Osterwalder, A. (2004). The Business Model Ontology - A Proposition in a Design Science

Approach. Lausanne: The University of Lausanne.

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2009). Business Model Generation - A Handbook for

Visionaires, Game Changers, and Challengers. Amsterdam: Osterwalder & Pigneur.

Panou, K., Kapros, S., & Polydoropoulou, A. (2015). How service bundling can increase the

competitiveness of low market share transportation services. Research in

Transportation Economics, 49, 22-35. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2015.04.003

Papatheodorou, A., & Lei, Z. (2006). Leisure travel in Europe and airline business models: A

study of regional airports in Great Britain. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(1),

47-52. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2005.09.005

Pike, S. D. (2016). Destination Marketing Organizations–Research opportunities in an era of

uncertainty. Paper presented at the Book of Abstracts-6th International Conference on

Tourism.

Pine, B. J. I., & Gilmore, J. (2016). Integrating experiences into your business model: five

approaches. Strategy & Leadership, 44(1), 3-10. doi:doi:10.1108/SL-11-2015-0080

Porter, M. E. (1996). What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.

Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Beritelli, P. (in press). The 2016 Consensus on Advances in

Destination Management. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management.

Robins, J. (2013). Editorial. Long Range Planning, 46(6), 417-418.

doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.09.001

Rusu, B. (2016). The Impact of Innovations on the Business Model: Exploratory Analysis of a

Small Travel Agency. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221, 166-175.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.103

Sabatier, V., Mangematin, V., & Rousselle, T. (2010). From Recipe to Dinner: Business Model

Portfolios in the European Biopharmaceutical Industry. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3),

431-447.

35




Sarkar, R., & Sinha, A. (2015). The village as a social entrepreneur: Balancing conservation

and livelihoods. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 100-106.

doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2015.07.006

Scheepens, A. E., Vogtländer, J. G., & Brezet, J. C. (2016). Two life cycle assessment (LCA)

based methods to analyse and design complex (regional) circular economy systems.

Case: making water tourism more sustainable. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 257-

268. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.075

Schiller, B. M. (2011). Mind the Gap: The Current Debate Between States & Municipalities

and Online Travel Companies over the Taxability of the Remittance Gap. Journal of

State Taxation, 29(2), 61-80.

Smith, J. B., & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer Value Creation: A practical framework. Journal

of Marketing Theory & Practice, 15(1), 7-23. doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679150101

Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business Model Innovation

through Trial-and-Error Learning: The Naturhouse Case. Long Range Planning,

43(2/3), 383-407.

Souto, J. E. (2015). Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the context

of incremental innovation and radical innovation. Tourism management, 51, 142-155.

doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.017

Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Matzler, K. (2016). Exploring the linkage between business

model (&) innovation and the strategy of the firm. R&D Management, 46(3), 403-413.

doi:10.1111/radm.12218

Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An Individual Business Model in the Making:

a Chef's Quest for Creative Freedom. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 408-430.

Svensson, G., & Wagner, B. (2012). Business sustainability and E‐footprints on Earth's life

and ecosystems: generic models. European Business Review, 24(6), 543-552.

doi:10.1108/09555341211270555

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of

(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-

1350.

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning,

43(2/3), 172-194.

Thompson, J. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Business Models: Creating New Markets and

Societal Wealth. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 291-307.

Tretheway, M. W. (2004). Distortions of airline revenues: why the network airline business

model is broken. Journal of Air Transport Management, 10(1), 3-14.

Tussyadiah, I. P. (2015). Toward a theoretical foundation for design in tourism. Journal of

Travel Research 53(4), 543-564. doi:10.1177/0047287513513172

Velamuri, S. R., Priya, A., & Vasantha, K. (2015). Doing Well to Do Good: Business Model

Innovation for Social Healthcare. Business Models and Modelling, 33, 279-308.

Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building Social Business Models:

Lessons from the Grameen Experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 308-325.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long

Range Planning, 43(2/3), 216-226.

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future

Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019.

Documents

Business Models in Tourism: A Review and Research Agenda et al... · 2017-12-06 · number of elements to group activities (Markides, 2015), they share the general understanding that