Fit to Work in the Business Models of the Industry 4.0 Age
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Foundations of Industry 4.0
- Advanced computing and connectivity, cloud computing, big data, and increase in real-time data.
- Data analytics leading to increased business intelligence.
- The Internet of Things, the ubiquitous connection of people, things, and machines.
- Cyber-physical systems that integrate the dynamics of the physical processes with those of the software and networking, exchange data with one another, access web services, and interact with people. This technology builds on embedded systems, computers and software embedded in devices.
- New ways to implement human–digital interfaces, such as touch screens, virtual reality, and augmented reality.
- Low cost automation, robotics, and 3D printing.
- Smart factory.
- Block chain.
2.2. Business Models in the Face of Industry 4.0 Development
- Creating a value based on digital technologies;
- The option to create a unique combination of tangible and intangible resources as well as cyber–physical–human networks able to generate value;
- Treating the business model as a system of mutually dependent activities and processes strongly focused on creating value;
- Key competencies;
- Business activity architecture (technical, information, social) able to provide an organization with effectiveness through generating income.
- Internal and External Process Optimization: this transformation represents an incremental innovation that optimizes the actual business without involving big changes. New enabling technologies are introduced solely to optimize the value creation architecture (key resources and activities) due to increasing efficiency and improving performance (reducing costs, time and failures, employee training, etc.) without addressing high risks.
- Customer Interface Improvement: this other incremental innovation is focused on value delivery (value proposition through product and service offering, customer segment, channels and customer relationship) improvement.
- New Ecosystems and Value Networks: this model proposes a radical innovation of the actual business model which follows the purpose of focusing on the core business (key or distinctive activities of the firm), sharing the uncertainty with other agents or achieving new required skills and resources from associates, due to the introduction of technologies such as Big Data, Cloud Computing, Augmented Reality or Virtual Reality. In this way, the focal firm’s value creation process is linked with the stakeholders’ processes.
- New Business Models: Smart Products and Services: this type proposes a completely new business model based on new technologies focused on Big Data, Cloud Computing, Intelligent Sensorization and Embedded Systems, among others, that offer innovative and smart goods and services. Thus, a disruptive innovation that provides the change of almost all the elements of the business model is needed.
2.3. Competencies within Business Models Characteristic for the 4.0 Economy
- Digital and technical: these are so-called hard competencies. Digital competencies that are not limited only to programming or data analysis but cover a wide range of skills are especially important: from digital solutions of problems to knowledge from among the privacy and cybersecurity scope.
- Cognitive: also called thinking competencies. This is a very wide concept that covers both creativity and logic reasoning and solving complex problems. First and foremost, these skills are to assist in preparing for the changes brought by Industry 4.0 from the cognitive perspective.
- Social: assumes contact with another person, it is based on teamwork and considers people management. Artificial intelligence is not able to replace us in this sector. Competencies in this group include, among other things: effective cooperation within a group, leadership and entrepreneurship and emotional intelligence.
2.4. Fit to Work in the 4.0 Organizations
3. Methodology of the Study
3.1. Description of the Study Tools
3.2. Study Sample
4. Results of the Studies
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Question included in the questionnaire of the subjective feeling of human–organization fit | Factor Loading |
My competencies/skills are useful for the company | 0.876 |
I do not tell anyone that I am an employer of the company® | 0.854 |
I respect my coworkers | 0.827 |
My work contributes to the company’s success | 0.824 |
I am ashamed that I work for the company® | 0.824 |
I like the people I work with | 0.821 |
My work is important for the company | 0.811 |
I feel bad in the organization® | 0.754 |
I feel needed in the organizations | 0.668 |
I know what the company expects of me | 0.668 |
I think negative about my organization® | 0.635 |
I am not afraid to express my opinions in the organization | 0.612 |
I fit to my organization | 0.603 |
My character matches the organization expectations | 0.595 |
I do not feel discriminated against in the organization for any reason | 0.575 |
I do not have to hide any features of my character at work | 0.550 |
Work at the company is a challenge for me | 0.545 |
I can be myself at the company | 0.541 |
The company provides me proper working conditions | 0.629 |
I am at the place where I should be | 0.615 |
They expect of me as much as I can give | 0.487 |
I feel comfortable with the scope of my duties | 0.510 |
Work at the company matches my capabilities | 0.489 |
I feel that the company takes care of me | 0.670 |
The company values my work | 0.731 |
The company satisfies my expectations concerning conditions and place of work | 0.643 |
I feel appreciated at the company | 0.753 |
I feel that I develop at the company | 0.731 |
I feel good with the company’s operating principles | 0.706 |
Work time at the company does not affect my personal plans | 0.389 |
The organization satisfies my development needs | 0.795 |
I feel fairly rewarded | 0.702 |
I feel that I have sufficient impact on the company’s operations | 0.598 |
Work at the company does not have a bad influence | 0.496 |
I identify with the organization | 0.838 |
I am proud that I belong to the organization | 0.812 |
I feel strongly related with the company | 0.801 |
I perceive success of the company as my own | 0.780 |
I think of myself as of the organization member | 0.763 |
Things important for the company are important for me | 0.748 |
It gives me pleasure when someone praises the company | 0.738 |
I think that the organization is important to me | 0.723 |
When talking about the company I use “we” rather than them | 0.716 |
I relate my future with the company | 0.670 |
I feel offended when someone criticizes my company | 0.657 |
I feel company’s failures as my own | 0.606 |
Members of the company have greater influence on me than other people | 0.222 |
®—rotated scale of answers |
References
- Zott, C.; Amit, R. Business Model Innovation: How to Create Value in a Digital World, GfK Marketing Intelligence Review. Sciendo 2017, 9, 18–23. [Google Scholar]
- Lahti, T.; Wincent, J.; Parida, V. A Definition and Theoretical Review of the Circular Economy, Value Creation, and Sustainable Business Models: Where Are We Now and Where Should Research Move in the Future? Sustainability 2018, 10, 2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ogrean, C.; Herciu, M. Business Models Addressing Sustainability Challenges—Towards A New Research Agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Muiña, F.E.; Medina-Salgado, M.S.; Ferrari, A.M.; Cucchi, M. Sustainability Transition in Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing with the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2364. [Google Scholar]
- de Man, J.C.; Strandhagen, J.O. An Industry 4.0 research agenda for sustainable business models. Procedia CIRP 2017, 63, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janik, A.; Ryszko, A. Mapping the field of Industry 4.0 based on bibliometric analysis. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA)—Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic Development and Application of Innovation Management from Regional Expansion to Global Growth, Seville, Spain, 15–16 November 2018; pp. 6316–6330. [Google Scholar]
- Rojko, A. Industry 4.0 Concept: Background and Overview. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2017, 11, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roblek, V.; Meško, M.; Krapež, A. A Complex View of Industry 4.0. SAGE Open 2016, 6, 2158244016653987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bawany, S. The Future of Leadership in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Leadersh. Excell. Essent. 2017, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, A.; Van Der Merwe, A.F. Human Expertise in Additive Manufacturing Digitalization. In The future of manufacturing layer by layer, Establishing the 3D process chain, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International RAPSADA Conference, Emoya Estate, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 6–8 November 2019; RAPSADA: Bloemfontein, South Africa, 2019; pp. 163–170. [Google Scholar]
- Varela, L.; Araújo, A.; Ávila, P.; Castro, H.; Putnik, G. Evaluation of the Relation between Lean Manufacturing, Industry 4.0, and Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barata, J.; Da Cunha, P.R.; Stal, J. Mobile supply chain management in the Industry 4.0 era. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2018, 31, 173–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karabiegović, I. The role of industrial and service robots in the 4th industrial revolution—Industry 4.0. Acta Tech. Corviniensis-Bull. Eng. 2018, 11, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, J.M.; Däschle, S. Business Model Innovation of Industry 4.0 Solution. Providers towards Customer Process Innovation. Processes 2018, 6, 260. [Google Scholar]
- Weking, J.; Stocker, M.; Kowalkiewicz, M.; Bohm, M.; Krcmar, H. Archetypes for industry 4.0 business model innovations. In Proceedings of the 24th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), New Orleans, LA, USA, 16 August 2018; Bush, A., Grover, V., Schiller, S., Eds.; Association for Information Systems (AIS): Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, J.; Kiel, D.; Voigt, K. What Drives the Implementation of Industry 4.0? The Role of Opportunities and Challenges in the Context of Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 247. [Google Scholar]
- Śledziewska, K.; Włoch, R. Jakich kompetencji wymaga rewolucja przemysłowa 4.0? Pomor. Przegląd Gospod. 2020, 2, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Gracel, J.; Stoch, M.; Biegańska, A. Inżynierowie Przemysłu 4.0. (Nie)Gotowi do Zmian? Astor: Kraków, Poland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, B.; Zhang, T.; Yan, S. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Business Model Innovation: The Mediating Role of Organizational Legitimacy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Czarnota-Bojarska, J. Dopasowanie Człowiek-Organizacja i Tożsamość Organizacyjna; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar Sp. z o.o.: Warsaw, Poland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Dobrowolska, M.; Deja, A. The Education of Leaders in the Face of 4th Digital Revolution. In Proceedings of the 11th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics in Cybernetics, Orlando, FL, USA, 10–13 March 2020; Callaos., N., Hashimoto, S., Lace, N., Leybourne, B., Poszytek, P., Eds.; pp. 37–42. [Google Scholar]
- Karabiegović, I.; Husak, E. Industry 4.0 based on Industrial and Service Robots with Application in China. J. Mobil. Veh. 2018, 44, 59–71. [Google Scholar]
- Vasalya, A.; Ganesh, G.; Kheddar, A. More than just co-workers: Presence of humanoid robot co-worker influences human performance. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, K.J. The Spirituality of Awe: Challenges to the Robotic Revolution, revised ed.; University Professors Press: Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Kanda, T.; Ishiguro, H.; Freier, N.G.; Severson, R.L.; Gill, B.T.; Ruckert, J.H.; Shen, S. “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev. Psychol. 2012, 48, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vieira, A.A.C.; Dias, L.M.S.; Santos, M.Y.; Pereira, G.A.B.; Oliveira, J.A. Setting An Industry 4.0 Research And Development Agenda For Simulation-A Literature Review. Int. J. Simul. Model 2018, 17, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hecklau, F.; Galeitzke, M.; Flachs, S.; Kohl, H. Holistic Approach for Human Resource Management in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 2016, 54, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erol, S.; Jäger, A.; Hold, P.; Ott, K.; Sihn, W. Tangible Industry 4.0: A Scenario-Based Approach to Learning for the Future of Production. Procedia CIRP 2018, 54, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imran, F.; Kantola, J. Review of Industry 4.0 in The Light of Sociotechnical System Theory and Competence-Based View: A Future Research Agenda for the Evolute Approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, FL, USA, 21–25 July 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 118–128. [Google Scholar]
- Pinzone, M.; Fantini, P.; Perini, S.; Garavaglia, S.; Taisch, M.; Miragliotta, G. Jobs and Skills in Industry 4.0: An Exploratory Research. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 282–288. [Google Scholar]
- Hecklau, F.; Orth, R.; Kidschun, F.; Kohl, H. Human Resources Management: Meta-Study-Analysis of Future Competences in Industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, Hong Kong, China, 7–8 December 2017; pp. 163–174. [Google Scholar]
- Hermann, M.; Pentek, T.; Otto, B. Design Principles for Industrie 4.0 Scenarios: A Literature Review; Technische Universität Dortmund: Dortmund, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Saucedo-Martinez, J.A.; Perez-Lara, M.; Marmolejo-Saucedo, J.A.; Salais-Fierro, T.E.; Vasant, P. Industry 4.0 framework for management and operations: A review. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2018, 9, 789–801. [Google Scholar]
- Schlund, S.; Baaij, F. Describing the technological scope of Industry 4.0—A review of survey publications. LogForum 2018, 14, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Choi, S.; Kim, H.; Park, J.H.; Son, J.Y.; Kim, B.H.; Noh, S.D. Smart Manufacturing: Past Research, Present Findings and Future Directions. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 2016, 3, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y. Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2017, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kagermann, H.; Wahlster, W.; Helbig, J. Securing the Future of German Manufaturing Industry: Recommendations for implementing the strategic Initiative Industrie 4.0. In Acatech, Final Report of the Industrie 4.0, Working Group (April); Acatech–National Academy of Science and Engineering: Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 2013; pp. 4–7. [Google Scholar]
- Dohn, K. The nature of knowledge flows. Przeds. Zarz. 2017, 18, 33–49. [Google Scholar]
- Kramarz, M.; Przybylska, E. Identification of sources of knowledge about disruptions in intermodal transport. Organ. Manag. 2019, 4, 27–44. [Google Scholar]
- Kramarz, M.; Kramarz, W. Managing the flow components in supply chains. Metalurgija 2019, 58, 158–160. [Google Scholar]
- Goetz, M.; Gracel, J. Przemysł czwartej generacji (Industry 4.0)—Wyzwania dla badan w kontekście międzynarodowym. Kwar 2017, 1, 217–235. [Google Scholar]
- LaCasse, P.M.; Otieno, W.; Maturana, F.P. A hierarchical, fuzzy inference approach to data filtration and feature prioritization in the connected manufacturing enterprise. J. Big Data 2018, 5, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, İ.G.; Aygün, D.; Tanrikulu, Z. Social Media’s Perspective on Industry 4.0: A Twitter Analysis. Soc. Netw. 2017, 6, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jeschke, S.; Brecher, C.; Song, H.; Rawat, D.B. (Eds.) Industrial Internet of Things, Springer Series in Wireless Technology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sanders, A.; Elangeswaran, C.; Wulfsberg, J. Industry 4.0 Implies Lean Manufacturing: Research Activities in Industry 4.0 Function as Enablers for Lean Manufacturing. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2016, 9, 811–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhong, R.Y.; Xu, X.; Klotz, E.; Newman, S.T. Intelligent Manufacturing in the Context of Industry 4.0: A Review. Engineering 2017, 3, 616–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brzóska, J.; Knop, L. Business model changes in the presence of Industry 4.0 challenges. In The Future of Management: Industry 4.0 and Digitalization; Nogalski, B., Bula, P., Eds.; Jagiellonian University Press: Kraków, Poland, 2020; pp. 21–40. [Google Scholar]
- Rübel, S.; Emrich, A.; Klein, S.; Loos, P. A Maturity Model for Business Model Management in Industry 4.0. In MKWI 2018-Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik; Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik: Lüneburg, Germany, 2018; pp. 2031–2042. [Google Scholar]
- Kalinowski, M.; Vives, L. Multi-perspective View on Business Models: Review and Research Agenda. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2013, 2013, 17403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.W. Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amit, R.; Zott, C. Creating Value through Business Model Innovation. Sloan Manag. Rev. 2012, 53, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
- Dahan, N.M.; Doh, J.P.; Oetzel, J.; Yaziji, M. Corporate-NGO Collaboration: Co-creating New Business Models for Developing Markets. Long Range Plann. 2010, 43, 326–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Massa, L. The business model: Recent developments and future research. Manage 2010, 37, 1019–1042. [Google Scholar]
- Newth, F. Business Models and Strategic Management: A New Integration; Business Expert: New York, NY, USA, 2012; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Boulton, R.; Libert, B.; Samek, S. Cracking the Value Code, Arthur Andersen; Harper Collins: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 244–248. [Google Scholar]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook of Visionaries, Game Changers and Challengers; JohnWiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chesbrough, H.; Rosenbloom, R.S. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2002, 11, 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lepak, D.P.; Smith, K.G.; Taylor, M.S. Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 180–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dyduch, W.; Bratnicki, M. Strategizing Corporate Entrepreneurship for Value Creation and Value Capture. Int. J. Contemp. Manag. 2018, 17, 7–26. [Google Scholar]
- Kiel, D.; Müller, J.M.; Arnold, C.; Voigt, K. Sustainable Industrial Value Creation: Benefits and Challenges of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 21, 1740015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brzóska, J.; Szmal, A. Business model of transportation and spedition company. In Proceedings of the Carpathian Logistics Congress, CLC’2016, Conference Proceedings, Zakopane, Poland, 28–30 November 2016; TANGER Ltd., VSB—Technical University Ostrava: Ostrava, Czechia; Technical University in Kosice: Košice, Slovakia; AGH University of Science & Technology: Cracow, Poland; Tanger: Ostrava, Czechia, 2017; pp. 511–518. [Google Scholar]
- Joyce, A.; Paquin, R. The triple layered business model CANVAS: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1474–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibarra, D.; Ganzarain, J.; Igartua, J.J. Business model innovation through Industry 4.0: A review. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 22, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tauscher, K.; Laudien, S.M. Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grzybowska, K.; Łupicka, A. Key competencies for Industry 4.0. Econ. Manag. Innov. (ICEMI) 2017, 1, 250–253. [Google Scholar]
- Prifti, L.; Knigge, M.; Kienegger, H.; Krcmar, H. A Competency Model for “Industrie 4.0” Employees. In Proceedings of the der 13. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI), St. Gallen, Switzerland, 12–15 February 2017; pp. 46–60. [Google Scholar]
- Muchinsky, P.M.; Monahan, C.J. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. J. Vocat. Behav. 1987, 31, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonilla, S.H.; Silva, H.R.O.; da Silva, M.T.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Sacomano, J.B. Industry 4.0 and Sustainability Implications: A Scenario-Based Analysis of the Impacts and Challenges. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ali, M.; Lei, S.; Wei, X.-Y. The mediating role of the employee relations climate in the relationship between strategic HRM and organizational performance in Chinese banks. J. Innov. Knowl. 2018, 3, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monteiro, A.P.; Soares, A.M.; Rua, O.L. Linking intangible resources and entrepreneurial orientation to export performance: The mediating effect of dynamic capabilities. J. Innov. Knowl. 2019, 4, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponce, R.S.; Cancio, J.A.P.; Sánchez, J.E. The capabilities approach and values of sustainability: Towards an inclusive Pedagogy. J. Innov. Knowl. 2018, 3, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolovska, I.; Kešeljević, A. Does sustainability pay off? A multi-factor analysis on regional DJSI and renewable stock indices. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2019, 32, 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, S.W.; Yoon, C.H. On the impossibility of sustainable growth in a manufacturing based economy. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2018, 31, 1526–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Business Model Attributes | Specification | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value creation dimension | Platform type | Web-based platform | Mobile app | |||||||||||
Key activity | Data services | Community building | Content creation | |||||||||||
Value proposition | Working product at competitive price | Solution provider | Guaranteed availability | Full services, full operator | Do more to address the job | Long tail | ||||||||
Review system | User reviews | Review by marketplace | None | |||||||||||
Stages of the business model | Internal and External Process Optimization |
| ||||||||||||
Customer Interface Improvement |
| |||||||||||||
New Ecosystems and Value Networks |
| |||||||||||||
New Business Models: Smart Products and Services |
| |||||||||||||
Value delivery dimension | Key value proposition | Price/cost/efficiency | Emotional value | Social value | ||||||||||
Transaction content | Product | Service | ||||||||||||
Transaction type | Digital | Offline | ||||||||||||
Industry scope | Vertical | Horizontal | ||||||||||||
Marketplace participants | C2C | B2C | B2B | |||||||||||
Customer segment | Existing customer segment | New customer segment | Multi-sided market | |||||||||||
Geographic scope | Global | Regional | Local | |||||||||||
Stages of the business model | Internal and External Process Optimization |
| ||||||||||||
Customer Interface Improvement |
| |||||||||||||
New Ecosystems and Value Networks |
| |||||||||||||
New Business Models: Smart Products and Services |
| |||||||||||||
Value capture dimension | Key revenue stream | Commissions | Subscriptions | Advertising | Service sales | |||||||||
Pricing mechanism | Fixed pricing | Market pricing | Differentiated pricing | |||||||||||
Price discrimination | Feature based | Location based | Quantity based | None/other | ||||||||||
Revenue model | Seles | Licensing | Revenue sharing | Freemium | Physical Freemium | Rent/lease | Usage based | Subscription fee | ||||||
Stages of the business model | Internal and External Process Optimization |
| ||||||||||||
Customer Interface Improvement |
| |||||||||||||
New Ecosystems and Value Networks |
| |||||||||||||
New Business Models: Smart Products and Services |
|
Alpha | M | Me | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Age | - | 30.16 | 24.00 | 12.15 | - | |||||
2. General seniority | - | 18.75 | 19.00 | 12.08 | 0.84 *** | - | ||||
3. Seniority on a given function | - | 10.38 | 7.00 | 9.68 | 0.63 *** | 0.66 *** | - | |||
4. Complementary fit | 0.94 | 3.35 | 3.50 | 0.82 | 0.21 ** | 0.18 | 0.14 | - | ||
5. Supplementary fit | 0.80 | 3.11 | 3.17 | 0.56 | 0.14 * | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.87 *** | - | |
6. Organizational identification | 0.92 | 3.33 | 3.54 | 0.85 | 0.24 *** | 0.24 * | 0.23 | 0.91 *** | 0.83 *** | - |
7. Satisfaction | 0.69 | 3.33 | 3.67 | 0.89 | 0.21 ** | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.74 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.81 *** |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dobrowolska, M.; Knop, L. Fit to Work in the Business Models of the Industry 4.0 Age. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124854
Dobrowolska M, Knop L. Fit to Work in the Business Models of the Industry 4.0 Age. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12):4854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124854
Chicago/Turabian StyleDobrowolska, Małgorzata, and Lilla Knop. 2020. "Fit to Work in the Business Models of the Industry 4.0 Age" Sustainability 12, no. 12: 4854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124854