CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Business model innovation and value-creation: the triadic way

Andreassen, Tor Wallin, Lervik-Olsen, Line, Snyder, Hannah, Van Riel, Allard C.R., Sweeney, Jillian C., Van Vaerenbergh, Yves·2018·Journal of Service Management
DOI 10.1108/josm-05-2018-0125
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Building on the multi-divisional business model (M-model), the purpose of this paper is to develop a better understanding of triadic business models – T-models – and how they create value for their three categories of stakeholders, i.e., the suppliers, the platform firm and the buyers. The research question that guides the present study is twofold: How is value created individually and collectively in triadic business models and what might challenge their sustainability? Design/methodology/approach: Anchored in extant literature and a process of conceptual modeling with empirical examples from Uber, a new business model archetype was developed for two-sided markets mediated by a middleman. Findings: The paper provides a theoretically and conceptually derived roadmap for sustainable business in a triadic business model, i.e., for the buyers, sellers and the platform firm. This model is coined the T-model. A number of propositions are derived that argue the relationship between key constructs. Finally, the future beyond the T-model is explored. Research limitations/implications: The paper identifies, illustrates and discusses the ways in which value is created in sustainable T-models. First, value is created from a number of sources, not only from lower transaction costs. Second, it is proposed that it is not about a choice of either M-model or T-model but rather a continuum. Toward 2050, technology in general and Blockchain specifically may for some transactions or services, eliminate the need for middlemen. The main conclusion is that despite this development, there will, for most organizations, be elements of the M-model in all or most T-model businesses. In short: middlemen will have elements of the M-model embedded in the T-model when co creating value with buyers and sellers. Originality/value: While two-sided T-models are not new to the business area, surprisingly no papers have systematically investigated, illustrated, and discussed how value is created among and between the three stakeholder categories of the T-model. With this insight, more sustainable T-models can be created.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/josm-05-2018-0125

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. 2000, Information asymmetry, R&D, and insider gains, Journal of Finance, 55, 2747, 10.1111/0022-1082.00305 · DOI
  2. 2010, Customized executive learning: a business model for the twenty-first century, Journal of Management Development, 29, 545, 10.1108/02621711011046512 · DOI
  3. 1999, Perceived relative attractiveness today and tomorrow as predictors of future repurchase intention, Journal of Service Research, 2, 164, 10.1177/109467059922004 · DOI
  4. 1981, The evolution of cooperation, Science, 211, 1390, 10.1126/science.7466396 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 2015, Branding access offers: the importance of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 574, 10.1007/s11747-015-0440-y · DOI
  6. 2014, You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online, Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 2017, The car sharing economy: interaction of business model choice and product line design, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 19, 185, 10.1287/msom.2016.0605 · DOI
  8. 2017, A triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors, Journal of Business Research, 79, 219
  9. 1993, Collaborating to Compete
  10. 2013, Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: an overview, Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9
  11. 2014, A service climate synthesis and future research agenda, Journal of Service Research, 17, 5, 10.1177/1094670513491633 · DOI
  12. 2017, Engagement platforms in the sharing economy: conceptual foundations and research directions, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27, 761, 10.1108/JSTP-04-2016-0071 · DOI
  13. Brodie, R.J., Pels, J. and Saren, M. (2006), “From goods-towards service centered marketing: dangerous dichotomy or an emerging dominant logic?”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing, M.E. Sharpe Inc., New York, NY, pp. 307-319.
  14. 2015, Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: a qualitative and meta-analytic investigation, Journal of Operations Management, 33-34, 15, 10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.009 · DOI
  15. 1962, Strategy and Structure
  16. 2014, Using users: when does external knowledge enhance corporate product innovation?, Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1427, 10.1002/smj.2168 · DOI
  17. 2016, Every cloud has a silver lining – exploring the dark side of value co-creation in B2B service networks, Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 97, 10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.02.016 · DOI
  18. 2017, Competing Against Luck: The Story of Innovation and Customer Choice
  19. 1937, The nature of the firm, Economica, 29, 368
  20. 2011, Co-creation and co-destruction: a practice-theory based study of interactive value formation, Marketing Theory, 11, 351, 10.1177/1470593111408181 · DOI
  21. 2016, Exploring consumer attitudes to alternatives models of consumption: motivations and barriers, Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 5
  22. 2018, A systemic logic for platform business models, Journal of Service Management
  23. 2017, Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have we come, and where should we go?, Journal of Management, 43, 200, 10.1177/0149206316675927 · DOI
  24. 2018, Business models and business model innovation: between wicked and paradigmatic problems, Long Range Planning, 51, 9, 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.006 · DOI
  25. 2017, The rise of the platforms: business model innovation perspectives, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 28, 585
  26. 2017, What managers should know about the sharing economy, Business Horizons, 60, 113, 10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.007 · DOI
  27. 2015, Multi-sided platforms, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 43, 162, 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2015.03.003 · DOI
  28. Hall, J.V. and Krueger, A.B. (2015), “An analysis of the labor market for Uber’s driver-partners in the United States”, Working Paper No. 587, Princeton University Industrial Relations Section. · DOI
  29. 2016, The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2047, 10.1002/asi.23552 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 2016, Do we need rules for ‘what’s mine is yours’? Governance in collaborative consumption communities, Journal of Business Research, 69, 2756, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.011 · DOI
  31. 2017, Burdens of access: understanding customer barriers and barrier-attenuating practices in access-based services, Journal of Service Research, 20, 441, 10.1177/1094670517712877 · DOI
  32. 2016, Transaction costs and the sharing economy, INFO, 18, 1, 10.1108/info-09-2015-0044 · DOI
  33. 2015, What Great Service Leaders Know & Do: Creating Breakthroughs in Service Firms
  34. 1993, Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, 57, 1, 10.1177/002224299305700101 · DOI
  35. 2011, Strategic Brand Management: A European Edition 2
  36. 2016, Recommendation system for sharing economy based on multidimensional trust model, Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75, 15297, 10.1007/s11042-014-2384-5 · DOI
  37. 2015, Crowdsourcing-based business models: how to create and capture value, California Management Review, 57, 63, 10.1525/cmr.2015.57.4.63 · DOI
  38. 2018, A strategic framework for a profitable business model in the sharing economy, Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 147
  39. 2001, What drives customer equity, Marketing Managment, 10, 20
  40. 2013, Cultural drivers and trust outcomes of consumer perceptions of organizational unethical marketing behavior, European Journal of Marketing, 47, 525, 10.1108/03090561311297445 · DOI
  41. 2016, The Network Imperative: How to Survive and Grow in the Age of Digital Business Models
  42. 2009, Customer rage episodes: emotions, expressions and behaviors, Journal of Retailing, 85, 222, 10.1016/j.jretai.2009.04.002 · DOI
  43. 2014, The dark side of the sharing economy … and how to lighten it, Communications of the ACM, 57, 24, 10.1145/2668893 · DOI
  44. 2016, 6 reasons why platforms fail, Harvard Business Review, 94, 2
  45. 2016, Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy: Scale now trumps differentiation, Harvard Business Review, 94, 54
  46. 2016, The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?, Ecological Economics, 121, 149
  47. 2015, Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14, 193, 10.1002/cb.1512 · DOI
  48. 1994, The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58, 20, 10.1177/002224299405800302 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 2015, Two-sided internet platforms: a business model lifecycle perspective, Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 139, 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.012 · DOI
  50. 2017, From value chains to technological platforms: the effects of crowdfunding in the digital game industry, Journal of Business Research, 78, 341
  51. 2005, Intentions to use mobile services: antecedents and cross-service comparisons, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 330, 10.1177/0092070305276149 · DOI
  52. 1997, Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer
  53. 2010, Business Model Generation
  54. 2017, Empowering the new traveller: storytelling as a co-creative behavior in tourism, Current Issues in Tourism, 20, 331, 10.1080/13683500.2014.982520 · DOI
  55. 1978, The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective
  56. 2016, The sharing economy: business cases of social enterprises using collaborative networks, Procedia Computer Science, 91, 502, 10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.129 · DOI
  57. 2008, Predictors of formal control usage in IT outsourcing partnerships, Information System Research, 19, 126, 10.1287/isre.1080.0169 · DOI
  58. 2009, Value Above Cost: Driving Superior Financial Performance with CVA, The Most Important Metric You’ve Never Used
  59. 2016, The Fourth Industrial Revolution
  60. 1984, Designing services that deliver, Harvard Business Review, 62, 133
  61. 2015, Networked enterprise business model alignment: a case study on smart living, Information Systems Frontiers, 17, 871, 10.1007/s10796-013-9474-1 · DOI
  62. 2012, The long-term influence of service employee attrition on customer outcomes and profits, Journal of Service Research, 15, 460, 10.1177/1094670512452792 · DOI
  63. 2018, Leadership development practice bundles and organizational performance: the mediating role of human capital and social capita, Journal of Business Research, 83, 120, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.044 · DOI
  64. 2010, Business models, business strategy and innovation, Long Range Planning, 43, 172
  65. 1993, Customer intimacy and other value disciplines, Harvard Business Review, 71, 84
  66. 2017, Crowdsourcing social network service for social enterprise innovation, Information Systems Frontiers, 19, 1311, 10.1007/s10796-017-9770-2 · DOI
  67. 2016, Antecedents to value diminution: a dyadic perspective, Marketing Theory, 16, 469, 10.1177/1470593116652005 · DOI
  68. 2016, Service recovery: an integrative framework and research agenda, Academy of Management Perspectives, 30, 328, 10.5465/amp.2014.0143 · DOI
  69. 2014, Intermediation in a sharing economy: insurance, moral hazard, and rent extraction, Journal of Management Information Systems, 31, 35, 10.1080/07421222.2014.995520 · DOI · Paper page
  70. 1981, The economics of organizations: the transaction cost approach, The American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548, 10.1086/227496 · DOI
  71. 2008, Adverse selection
  72. 2017, Why are customers loyal in sharing-economy services? A relational benefits perspective, Journal of Services Marketing, 31, 48, 10.1108/JSM-01-2016-0042 · DOI · Paper page
  73. 2007, The purchase of criticism, Sociological Forum, 22, 612, 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2007.00042_5.x · DOI
  74. 2017, The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry, Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 687, 10.1509/jmr.15.0204 · DOI · Paper page
  75. 2018, Cyber trust, Journal of Business Ethics
  76. 2018, Why tourists choose Airbnb: a motivation-based segmentation study, Journal of Travel Research, 57, 342, 10.1177/0047287517696980 · DOI
  77. 1993, Market orientation: antecedents and consequences, Journal of Marketing, 57, 53, 10.1177/002224299305700304 · DOI · Paper page
  78. 2015, Service innovation: a service-dominant logic perspective, MIS Quarterly, 39, 155, 10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Andreassen, T. W., Lervik-Olsen, L., Snyder, H., Van Riel, A. C. R., Sweeney, J. C., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y.
Venue
Journal of Service Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2018-09-17
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
883-906
ISSN
1757-5818
DOI
10.1108/josm-05-2018-0125
Cited by
160
References
7
Language
en
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Business model innovation and value-creation: the triadic way. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/josm-05-2018-0125
The paper
Andreassen, T. W., Lervik-Olsen, L., Snyder, H., Van Riel, A. C. R., Sweeney, J. C., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2018). Business model innovation and value-creation: the triadic way. Journal of Service Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-05-2018-0125