a multi-purpose hierarchical business model · pdf filea multi-purpose hierarchical business...
Post on 31-Jan-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Occasional Working Paper — No. 5, July 2012
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
Susan C. Lambert
University of South Australia
School of Commerce
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability
University of South Australia
City West Campus
GPO Box 2471
Adelaide, South Australia 5001
ISSN 1838-0409 (Print) 1838-0468 (online)
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers No. 5, July 2012
2
Aims and Scope
The Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability is pleased to present Occasional Working Papers
written by members prior to their publication in refereed journals. The papers represent the varied current
research interests of members. Feedback is welcomed through direct context with the author. Occasional
Working Papers assist individual scholars by allowing for publication, dissemination, and discussion of new
research in a fast-track mode, prior to later publication in journals or books. Dissemination of the Occasional
Working Papers is primarily through the Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability website,
downloadable free of charge (see http://www.unisa.edu.au/cags/publications.asp).
© 2012 Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, University of South Australia
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be
reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Director of the Centre for Accounting,
Governance and Sustainability. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be
addressed to Professor Roger L. Burritt, Director, Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability,
School of Commerce, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 or
emailed to roger.burritt@unisa.edu.au. The intellectual property of each paper remains vested in the authors as
listed on the paper.
Published by the Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, School of Commerce, University of
South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Director: Professor Roger Burritt
Designer: Amanda Carter
ISSN No: 1838-0409 (print) 1838-0468 (online)
Submissions to Research Administrator, Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, via email
cags@unisa.edu.au
Citation
The following Occasional Working Paper should be cited as:
Lambert, S.C. (2012), A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework, Centre for Accounting,
Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers, No. 5, July, University of South Australia,
Adelaide.
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
1
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
Susan C. Lambert
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explain the benefits of a hierarchically structured
business model framework and then to propose such a framework. Existing
literature is used to justify the need for a hierarchically structured business
model framework. The hierarchical business model framework developed has
been modelled using object-oriented modelling principles that have been used
for information systems modelling for several decades. A brief overview of the
object-oriented modelling principles is provided prior to it being used to build
the hierarchical business model framework. The resultant framework is able to
accommodate a variety of perspectives at a highly abstract level and then be
unpacked to provide the level of granularity or detail required by the user.
The robustness of the modelling paradigm that is chosen for this task provides a
structure by which business model data can be collected and organised in a way
that provides the model with integrity whilst allowing the business model to be
depicted in a variety of ways. Not only is the hierarchical business model
framework sufficiently versatile to meet the needs of multiple users but because
it incorporates the qualities of an inclusive hierarchy it is suitable as a basis for a
general classification of business models.
The hierarchical business model framework is described in a broad sense in this
paper leaving the detailed engineering of the model for future research.
Keywords: business model, hierarchical model, object-oriented modelling
.
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers No. 5, July 2012
2
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
1. The need for a multi-purpose, hierarchically-structured business
model framework
Business models have the potential to serve many purposes. Based on a review of the
literature, Al-Debei and Avison (2010) identify three over-riding functions of business
models being, a conceptual tool for aligning business processes to business strategy, a
device for recognising the economic and strategic benefits of technological innovations and
artefacts and, thirdly, a means by which the logic of the enterprise can be captured and
articulated to generate knowledge capital. In addition to these three practice oriented
functions of the business model Mäkinen and Seppänen (2007, p. 739) acknowledge that
‘models are fundamentally classification systems’ and that existing business model
frameworks do not serve this purpose well. It is further argued that hierarchical structuring
and a more detailed level of analysis of elements is required to enable business models to be
described and subsequently classified (Mäkinen and Seppänen 2007). Hierarchical
structuring will permit generalisations to be made at different levels of analysis (Mäkinen
and Seppänen 2007).
There exists a multitude of business model frameworks that provide abstract visual
representations of the business model and low level narrative descriptions of the business
model however these low level descriptions lack structure and therefore have limited
usefulness. In this paper a hierarchical business model framework (HBMF) is proposed as a
suitable structure upon which business model data can be collected and communicated for
multiple purposes including the creation of a general classification of business models that
will enable generalisations to be made, hypotheses to be constructed and theory developed
(Mäkinen and Seppänen 2007). In order to guide the development of the business model
framework that can serve the identified functions of the business model, the business model
reference model proposed by Lambert (2012) is used. This reference model prescribes the
basic business model elements and recognises that the unit of analysis, level of analysis and
conceptual focus of the business model dictate its form. The basic business model elements
proposed by Lambert (2012) comprise the top, most abstract level of analysis that
encapsulates classes and sub-classes of more specific and detailed business model elements.
This paper proceeds as follows, an overview of the object-oriented modelling paradigm is
provided along with reasons for its suitability in building the HBMF. The HBMF is then
constructed.
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
3
1.1 Selection of the modelling paradigm
Just as it is necessary to decide on the materials and method with which to construct a
physical model, before building a conceptual model, such as a business model framework, it
is necessary to determine the unit of modularity and the rules with which the model will be
built. This is known as a paradigm. A paradigm is a way of thinking about a problem that
determines how to organise, and approach learning about and understanding that problem
(Brown 2002).
The modelling paradigm used for the HBMF is the object-oriented paradigm. The
object-oriented paradigm mimics the way humans structure knowledge, conceptualise, and
communicate complex problems making it useful for model building (Jacobson, Ericsson
and Jacobson 1994, p. 72). Evidence of the suitability of objects for producing useful
models can be found throughout the psychology literature (Smith and Medin 1981;
Atkinson et al. 1987; Solso 1988). An object is equivalent to a proposition which is the
smallest unit of knowledge and forms the building blocks of cognitive models that assist in
understanding complex problems (Solso 1988). The Gestalt psychologists maintain that
humans perceive the whole form rather than its parts; that they perceive the whole object
rather than individual characteristics.
A good argument for using object-orientation to model businesses is that it models the
business in a way that is very close to the real thing. There is a minor semantic gap between
reality and the model. Object-oriented models are therefore natural and easy to understand
(Jacobson, Ericsson and Jacobson 1994, p. 47). In the section that follows the principles of
the object-oriented modelling are described.
2. Object-oriented modelling principles
The five fundamental concepts of object-oriented modelling are objects, encapsulation,
classes, inheritance and associations. Together these concepts permit problems to be
abstracted in ways that help in dealing with complexity. ‘Abstraction is essential to the
functioning of a normal human mind, and is an immensely powerful tool for dealing with
complexity’ (Wirfs-Brock, Wilkerson and Wiener 1990, p. 3). This ability to abstract from
the detail assists in understanding and communicating complexity.
2.1 Objects
The unit of modularity under the object-oriented modelling is the object. The starting point
for object-oriented modelling is to identify the real-world objects that make up the problem
domain (Brown 2002). Each element of the business model is an object. Business model
objects include entities like ‘customers’ and ‘suppliers’ (often referred to as actors); things,
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers No. 5, July 2012
4
such as ‘products’ and ‘resources’, events such as ‘place an order’ or ‘make a delivery’ and
abstractions such as ‘strategy’ and ‘organisation structure’.
2.2 Encapsulation
Objects encapsulate their own attributes, behaviours and relationships with other objects.
‘The object-oriented approach attempts to manage complexity inherent in real-world
problems by abstracting out knowledge, and encapsulating it within objects’ (Wirfs-Brock,
Wilkerson and Wiener 1990, p. 5). The object is like a sealed component. Unless the cover
of the component is removed, the details about how the component operates cannot be
known. If the cover is removed, other sub-components, each one encapsulating its own
complexity, are revealed. It might not be necessary to know any more about those
sub-components, but if required, the covers of those sub-components can be removed to
reveal their complexity. The user can view the complexity of the object or view the object
in an abstract sense, seeing that it exists and, in broad terms, knowing what it does. If
necessary, the user can peel away the ‘cover’ of the object and learn more about it.
Apportioning complexity to individual objects is an effective way of managing complexity.
Encapsulation is not only useful in understanding complex systems; it is useful in designing
and organising complex systems. Because each object encapsulates its own data, processes
and associations, the resulting model is robust; each object is protected from all that
happens to other objects in the system. Nothing outside the object can change its attributes,
behaviour or associations with other objects. Once the object is created it is protected from
the rest of the system. Changes to that object cannot take place from outside the object.
Using the component metaphor, the component cannot be changed by any other component
in the system.
Encapsulation and information hiding enable a multitude of views to be displayed while
maintaining consistency between views. Information reliability is achieved because the
abstraction layers draw information from the object itself. Information relevance is ensured
by displaying only the level of detail the user requires, leaving the model uncluttered and
understandable. Encapsulating data, behaviour and associations within objects deals with
one aspect of complexity. This ability to hide information within objects facilitates
abstraction and provides a logical means of organising information that promotes
information integrity (Wirfs-Brock, Wilkerson and Wiener 1990).
2.3 Classes and inheritance
Objects are organised in hierarchical classes and inherit characteristics of the classes of
objects above them, thus providing efficient and effective means of defining objects that
share characteristics but are not identical. Organising objects into classes of similar objects
and recognising their similarities is a commonly used proven technique for handling large
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
5
amounts of complex information. For example we do not refer to each plant in the garden as
a unique object; rather we refer to plants as trees or shrubs, both of which are classes of
plant. It is not necessary to describe every aspect of the plant because the class to which it
belongs provides that information and we are left to explain only the characteristics that
distinguish that particular tree or shrub from others in the class.
The common aspects of objects within a class are assumed rather than explicitly recognised
(Smith and Medin 1981). Objects within a class are said to inherit the properties of the class
above it. This technique is used extensively in day-to-day life, people mostly not even
realising that they do it.
Classes provide a structure of templates for defining other objects (Wirfs-Brock, Wilkerson
and Wiener 1990). There exists a level of core behaviour common to all objects within a
class which distinguishes one class from another and is the basis for grouping like objects
within a class. Lower level classes of objects inherit the properties of higher level classes of
objects and have additional properties that distinguish them from each other.
2.4 Associations
Associations refer to the ways in which objects relate to each other. Each object specifies
the other objects with which it has an association and the nature of that association, for
example, a customer object will have at least two associations with a product object,
‘purchase’ and ‘pay for’. The customer purchases a product and pays for the product. An
important feature that contributes to the robustness and integrity of the object-oriented
model is that associations between objects do not affect the attributes and behaviours
encapsulated within the objects. Changes can be made to the associations and the objects
themselves remain unchanged.
3. Object-oriented modelling principles applied to the business model
So far object-oriented modelling has been described in relation to the modelling of
information systems and computer programs however it is also used by business consultants
to gain an understanding of a business prior to reengineering business processes (Brown
2002) and it is ‘a powerful tool for communication among [system] developers,
management and users’ (Brown 2002, p. 87). The starting point for object-oriented
modelling is to identify the real-world objects that make up the problem domain. The
information about the object can be hidden (encapsulated) thus providing an abstract view.
Some, or all, of the information can be revealed to provide a detailed view of the object.
Encapsulation and information hiding enable a multitude of views to be displayed while
maintaining consistency between them. The basic business model objects are the real-world
objects of the business. The ability to hide information within objects facilitates abstraction
and provides a logical means of organising information that promotes information integrity
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers No. 5, July 2012
6
(Wirfs-Brock, Wilkerson and Wiener 1990). object-oriented modelling organises the
objects of the problem domain into hierarchical classes and encapsulates information within
the objects. Information relevance is ensured by displaying only the level of detail the user
requires, leaving the model uncluttered and understandable.
Although the business model may be viewed at different levels of abstraction or from
different conceptual foci, the same objects are being viewed and their relationships with
other objects in the business do not change. The HBMF developed in the next section is
based on object-oriented modelling principles allowing the business model to be observed at
any level of analysis and for any unit of analysis. The broadest unit of analysis is the whole
value domain in which the enterprise is an actor. The second level of analysis displays more
detail about the business model objects. A multitude of lower levels exist that consist of the
individual objects that make up the more complex objects1. Associations, combined with
encapsulation and class hierarchies permit the multi-level, multi-perspective views of the
business model to be achieved without compromising the integrity of the information
presented in each view.
4. The hierarchical business model framework
In constructing the HBMF the reference model proposed in Lambert (2012) is utilised.
According to the reference model six basic business model elements, referred to hereinafter
as the basic business model objects, exist. The six basic business model objects are derived
by firstly establishing the object that holds primacy and then establishing the remaining
objects that flow from that prime object. According to the reference model (Lambert 2012)
the business model object that holds primacy is the value proposition. All remaining objects
are derived from their relationship with the value proposition. Three additional dimensions
make up the reference model, the unit of analysis, the level of analysis and the conceptual
focus. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the four dimensions of the reference model.
The scope of the business model concept is defined by the unit of analysis. Depending on
the purpose of the model the unit of analysis might be restricted to the enterprise under
review or a part of the enterprise such as a business unit. Alternatively the unit of analysis
scope might be broad and include external entities such as suppliers, regulatory bodies and
outsourcing partners that make up the value network. The level of analysis determines how
abstract or granular the business model depiction is. A highly abstract depiction of the
business model concept is more versatile and generalisable than one which is detailed and
granular. A detailed depiction, on the other hand, provides more information that
1 In explaining the HBMF the term object and class of object will be used interchangeably. Strict
interpretations use the term object to refer to an instance and class to refer to a class of object (Brown, 2002).
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
7
distinguishes one business model concept from another. A hierarchically structured business
model framework such as the one proposed in this paper provides the means by which
detailed information can be displayed or hidden depending on the required level of analysis.
Figure 1: Reference Model Overview
The final dimension of a business model framework is the conceptual focus. The conceptual
focus describes the lens through which the researcher views the business and determines the
way the business model objects are modelled. The researcher might take a resource based
view, an activity based view or a combination of both. For example, the view might focus
on monetary characteristics of the business model objects, social or environmental factors.
Each of the reference model dimensions influences the type of information that is captured
and communicated by the business model.
5. The hierarchical business model framework
Providing a useful structure for viewing the business model and an effective and efficient
way of recording and organising business model data are the ultimate objectives of the
HBMF. The multi-level and multi-perspective qualities of the framework will now be
explained and then illustrated using a simple business example of an Australian medical
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers No. 5, July 2012
8
practice. It will become evident that the HBMF is useful for management to understand,
analyse and manage existing business models and to evaluate prospective business models.
It can also serve information systems developers to specify and design new information
systems and is suitable as a basis for classifying business models. The notation used to refer
to an object or class of objects is: Object Name. For example, the ‘Value Proposition’ class
of objects will be shown as Value Proposition.
An overview of the HBMF is achieved by presenting it at the most abstract level which is
referred to here as level 1. Figure 2 shows the level 1 set of basic business model objects
that make up a specific value domain rearranged to reflect the associations between all of
the objects. In this hypothetical example the Value Proposition is offered through a Channel
to the Customer. The Customer provides the Value In Return to the enterprise and the Other
Entity provides input to the Value Adding Process. These associations are not the same for
all businesses. For instance, the Other Entity might be an internet service provider that aids
in supplying the Channel to the enterprise.
Figure 2: Level One - Basic Business Model
The advantage of this high level of analysis lies in its breadth of coverage; its drawback lies
in its lack of detail (Singer 1961). How abstract or how detailed the depiction is depends on
the needs of the user. For some purposes it may be enough to name the other entities, to
provide a short description of the exchanges including the value that is exchanged and the
communication channels that permit the transactions to take place. At this abstract level all
that is communicated is the broad description of the classes of objects.
At level 1, in its most abstract form, the business model depicts only the classes of objects,
their descriptions and their associations. Figure 3 shows the content of the Value
Proposition class of objects. A short description of the object is provided along with the
attributes of the object and the objects with which it has associations.
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
9
Figure 3: The Value Proposition Object
The second level of analysis provides detail about the objects that make up the basic
objects. To illustrate this level, the unit of analysis is restricted to the internal aspects of the
business model. Figure 4 depicts level 2 of the business model displaying the Value
Proposition, the objects that make up the Value Proposition, i.e. Products, Services,
Information, the Value Adding Process and the Channel through which the Value
Proposition is offered to the Customer.
Figure 4: HBMF Level 2 – Internal Aspects of the Enterprise
The Value Proposition consists of (is a set of), a single Product, Service, unit of Information
or a combination of multiple Products, Services and Information. Figure 5 shows the
relationships between a Value Proposition and its elements.
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers No. 5, July 2012
10
Figure 5: HBMF – Value Proposition and its elements
To find out more about the creation of the Product, we need to identify the value adding
processes required to create the Product. Figure 6 shows the Value Adding Process,
Activities, Resources and Capabilities required to create the Product. At the most abstract
level the user does not need to know anything about the Activities, Resources and
Capabilities but because each object encapsulates its own detail, it can be accessed and
viewed when required. For example, to discover the instances of Resources required
creating a particular instance of Product, this aspect of the business model can be isolated
and displayed as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: HBMF Level 3 and Below- Value Adding Process, Decomposed into Activity,
Resources and Capabilities
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
11
Figure 6 shows the Resources and Capabilities required for the Activity, that contributes to
the Value Adding Process, used to create the Product object, that is part of the Value
Proposition. This hierarchical tree continues downwards until the individual, simple
Resource objects are identified. Resources and Capabilities are associated with one or more
Activities. The Activity can be further decomposed into the Tasks that make up the Activity
thereby providing more information (this is not shown in Figure 6). The level of
decomposition will depend on user requirements. Human Resources, Raw Materials, ICT
Resources and Equipment are kinds of Resources. Capabilities are associated with Human
Resources. The Value Adding Process creates a Product that, along with Service and
Information is part of a Value Proposition.
The ability to view the value domain as a whole or to look at any aspect of the business at
any level of abstraction, whilst maintaining the context, is a distinctive characteristic of the
HBMF. If the business model user is interested in the value exchanges rather than the
internal structure of the business (a different unit of analysis), the objects involved in the
value exchanges, including the Customer, Channel and the Value In Return can be
interrogated by displaying the complexity encapsulated within those objects.
6. An application of the HBMF: Australian primary health care medical
practices
This mini-case serves to illustrate the structure of the HBMF and the significance of
encapsulation and information hiding in managing the complexity of business models.
The majority of Australian medical practices are small businesses that operate within the
Primary Health Care Sector and consist of general practitioners (GPs) who are partners in
the medical practice (Carne, Howard et al. 2012). The value domain level business model
for a typical medical practice is shown in Figure 7. Each of the Other Entity objects in the
business model encapsulates its own attributes and associations. At the most abstract level
the business model can be described in the following way.
The Medical Practice provides primary health care consultations (Value Proposition) to
patients within a geographical proximity to the practice (Customer). The medical practice
receives a fee-for-service (Value In Return), determined and paid for by a federal
government body called the Department of Health (this is an ally to the enterprise), plus a
practitioner-determined fee (gap) from the patient (Customer).
The medical practice has four categories of Other Entity with which it interacts. The Other
Entities are:
The medical practitioners who are the Partners of the Medical Practice.
Suppliers of medical equipment and consumables to the Medical Practice.
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers No. 5, July 2012
12
Other Health Service Providers that provide services directly to patients of the
Medical Practice either with or without the knowledge of the Medical Practice.
The Department of Health that is the policy implementing body of the Federal
Government, that controls the revenue model of GPs and pays part of the fee charged
to the patient.
Figure 7 shows Partners and Suppliers providing inputs to the Value Adding Processes that
create the Value Proposition called Standard Medical Care. The Standard Medical Care is
offered to Patients via a Face-to-Face Channel. Patients also receive services from Other
Health Service Providers. The Department of Health provide a portion of the Value In Return
to the medical practice and the Patient provides the remainder. The Department of Health
regulates that the Value In Return for Standard Medical Services is a predetermined Fee For
Service.
Figure 7: Level 1 – Medical Practice Basic Business Model
Figure 7 illustrates the basic business model objects of the medical practice and its position
in the primary health care value domain. A brief narrative provides an overview of the
actors and their relationships with each other. This level 1 depiction of the medical practice
is sufficient to provide an overview of the business concept including the significant objects
and associations between objects. If more information is required, the model can be
expanded to focus on the aspects of the medical practice that are of interest.
In Figure 8 the Value Adding Process shows two activities, Take Appointment and Consult
Patient which are decomposed into their respective Resources and Capabilities.
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
13
Figure 8: Four Levels of the Value Adding Process Objects – Activities, Resources and
Capabilities
By arranging objects into class hierarchies and by following the principle of encapsulation,
the model can be scrutinised from any aspect and at any level of abstraction.
The Australian medical practice business model can be used to identify the resources
currently employed in the practice. It can be adjusted to reflect potential strategic changes in
the practice such as incorporating new value propositions such as chronic disease self
management programs. The implications of strategic changes in terms of activities, physical
resources, capabilities, other entities required to implement new programs and changes to
the customer base can all be mapped and analysed at varying levels of analysis. The
characteristics of each object that are captured and displayed will depend on the conceptual
focus of the user. The conceptual focus might be monetary implications, regulatory
compliance implications or equity factors to mention a few.
7. Significance of the HBMF for practice and future business model
research
The HBMF is founded on the basic business model objects specified in the business model
reference model proposed by Lambert (2012) that encompass all units of analysis and
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers No. 5, July 2012
14
therefore can accommodate a multitude of conceptualisations. The HBMF provides a visual
representation of the business that can be abstracted or detailed to suit individual user needs.
The conceptual focus applied to the business model determines what object characteristics
will be gathered and reported. The user might be interested in the traditional economic
characteristics of the business model objects, or the user might want to interrogate the
business model for environmentally or socially sustainable characteristics. The user might
wish to focus on particular objects such as activities or resources. All of these views of the
business can be incorporated into the proposed HBMF because it allows multiple levels of
analysis. Adherence to the principle of encapsulation and information hiding allows a range
of data to be contained within the objects but only relevant data revealed. The HBMF, based
on the object-oriented modelling principles can handle multiple units of analysis at multiple
levels of analysis and it can accommodate multiple conceptual foci. object-oriented
modelling principles that have been tried and tested extensively in the computer science
discipline and have long been recognised by psychologists as a mechanism that humans use
to handle complex reality, enables a versatile, yet robust, model to be built.
The hierarchical structure of object classes permits the business model to be depicted at the
most abstract and at the most granular level of analysis. The HBMF has the capacity to cater
for a multitude of conceptual foci by specifying the attributes of the business model objects
about which data can be collected.
Another significant feature of the HBMF is that it captures the nature of relationships
between business model objects, again, at multiple levels of detail and is therefore a causal
model rather than simply a descriptive model (Mäkinen and Seppänen 2007). Classifying
business models is crucial to future research (Mäkinen and Seppänen 2007). The business
model conceptualisations currently present in the academic literature are varied and no
single, dominant conceptualisation has emerged that has the potential to form the basis of a
general classification of business models (Mäkinen and Seppänen 2007). The
object-oriented HBMF is proffered to fill that void.
8. Conclusion and Limitations
The object-oriented modelling principles coupled with the business model reference model
have been used to create the HBMF that provides the structure for a multi-purpose business
modelling tool.
The HBMF is yet to be applied to diverse businesses in terms of the size of the business and
the complexity of the business concepts. The ability of the HBMF to deal with diverse
conceptual foci is another area that needs to be explored. Most business model applications
focus on value exchanges or activities with monetary profitability being the prime interest.
The potential for business models that have been constructed using the HBMF to also
A multi-purpose hierarchical business model framework
15
capture and communicate environmental and social sustainability factors is an area of
research that deserves some attention. Substantial benefits may be derived from using the
one model of the business for multiple reporting imperatives.
The HBMF requires refinement and detailed engineering. The application of a modelling
tool such as the Unified Modelling Language (UML) to construct templates for the
meta-business-model and to further validate the HBMF holds potential for future research.
References
Al-Debei, MM and Avison, D 2010, 'Developing a unified framework of the business model
concept', European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 359-376.
Atkinson, RL, Atkinson, RC, Smith, RC and Hilgard, ER 1987, Introduction to Psychology,
9th edn, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich International Editions, San Diego.
Brown, DW 2002, An introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis: Objects and UML in Plain
English, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, USA.
Carne, A., S. Howard, et al. (2012). Summary Data Report of the 2010-2011 Annual Survey
of Divisions of General Practice. Adelaide, Australia, Primary Health Care Research &
Information Service, Discipline of General Practice, Flinders University, and Australian
Government Department of Health and Ageing
Jacobson, I, Ericsson, M and Jacobson, A 1994, The Object Advantage: Business Process
Reengineering with Object Technology, ACM Press, USA.
Lambert, SC 2012, Deconstructing business model frameworks using a reference model,
University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Mäkinen, S and Seppänen, M 2007, 'Assessing business model concepts with taxonomical
research criteria', Management Research News, vol. 30, no. 10, p. 735.
Singer, JD 1961, 'The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations', World Politics,
vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 77-92.
Smith, EE and Medin, DL 1981, Categories and Concepts, Harvard University Press,
Massachusetts.
Solso, RL 1988, Cognitive Psychology, second edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Wirfs-Brock, R, Wilkerson, B and Wiener, L 1990, Designing Object-Oriented Software,
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
top related