FEATURE ARTICLE

B u s in e s s M o d e l I n n o v a t i o n in P r a c t ic e
A systematic

approach to business m odel innovation can help capture value and reduce risks.

Jim Euchner and Abhijit Ganguly

OVERVIEW: Business model innovation is often the key to capturing value from innovation within corporations. Develop

ing and implementing new business models in practice, however, is difficult and fraught with risk. This paper discusses a
systematic approach to developing new business models and identifies concrete steps to reduce the risks associated with
them. It draws on literature on elements of the process as well as experience developing and implementing new business
models at Goodyear.
KEYWORDS: Business model innovation, Adoption risks, Co-innovation risks, Business model canvas

Business model innovation has gained increased attention

over the last five years, driven in large part by the tremen
dous returns generated by companies that have developed
new business modelsNetflix, Dell, and the Apple iTunes
store are the most frequently noted examples. The term it
self, however, has been only vaguely defined. Keeley and
coauthors (2013), for example, characterize business model
innovation by the number of attributes of a business that are
changed, while Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) define a
business model in terms of a completed canvas. The vague
ness of these representations makes it hard to study (or even
to discuss) the process of developing a successful business
model to harvest value from innovation.
The concept of the business model is actually simple: the
business model is the means by which a firm creates and sus
tains margins or growth. The business model, defined in this
James Euchner is editor-in-chief o f Research-Technology Management and
vice president o f global innovation at Goodyear. He previously held senio'
management positions in the leadership of innovation at Pitney Bowes and
Bell Atlantic. He holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical and aerospace
engineering from Cornell and Princeton Universities, respectively, and an
MBA from Southern Methodist University. This paper is adapted from his
talk at the 2014 IRI Annual Meeting in Boston in May. euchner@iriweb.org
Abhijit Ganguly is manager, business model innovation at Goodyear.
Before joining Goodyear, he was responsible fo r leading growth initia
tives across m ultiple geographies fo r a manufacturing company. He
holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from Jadavpur Uni
versity (India) and an MBA from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.
agghana@yahoo.com
DOI: 10.5437/08956308X5706013

way, is inherently embedded in a firm's competitive environ

ment: the ability to create margins and growth is dependent
on what competitors are doing to create margins and growth
for themselves. The business model is not simply the means
by which a firm creates and captures customer value. Focus
ing on creating customer value without regard to competitive
advantage will leave a firm vulnerable to both margin ero
sion and anemic growth. Because the competitive environ
ment is forever changing, business models require constant
vigilance; they must be adapted and strengthened over time
as the competitive environment evolves.
Business model innovation, in this context, is any innova
tion that creates a new market or disrupts the competitive
advantage of key competitors. Business model innovation is
confused in many discussions with building new capabilities
(for instance, a new channel). This may or may not be busi
ness model innovation: while business model innovation
may require new capabilities, new capabilities will constitute
business model innovation only when they significantly dis
rupt the competitive dynamics of an industry. A few com
mon examples of business model innovation make this
distinction clear:

Dell disrupted the cost structure of the personal

computer industry with its build-to-order model by
eliminating the costs of retail outlets, which radically re
duced working capital, enabled customization of orders,
and (riding Moore's law) assured that its products had
newer and cheaper components than competitors'
offerings.

Dell:

Research-Technology Management November December 2014

33

 Netflix: Netflix's mail-order DVD rental model disrupted

the cost structure of Blockbuster Video (which had pre
viously disrupted the cost structure of its smaller rivals).
Netflix eliminated retail outlets and used some of the
savings to create a pricing structure that eliminated late
fees. It continued to build on its advantages by opti
mizing both its infrastructure and its recommendation
engine.
In this paper, we are particularly concerned with developing
business models to capture value from innovation inside a
corporation. Successful innovation inside corporations re
quires not only developing an appropriate business model,
but also sustaining that model in an environment that can be
resistant to change. In a study of the innovations developed
at Xerox PARC in the 1970s and 80s, for example, Chesbrough
(2006) showed how the benefits of breakthrough innovation
are often fumbled because the innovation does not match
the dom inant business model of the corporation that devel
oped it. He examined 32 significant innovations developed
by Xerox PARC and showed that substantially more value
was created w hen the new technologies were spun out than
by their use internally. This is a challenge common to many
corporations, and the one we have sought to address in our
work.
T h e P r o c e s s o f B u s in e s s M o d e l In n o v a t i o n

At Goodyear, we have created and tested a six-step process

for developing business models capable of capturing value
from innovation (Figure 1). The pyramid structure of our
process reflects the evolution of risk as the process develops:
at the bottom of the pyramid, the unknowns are many and
the risks high; at the top, m any of the inherent risks have
been defined and, to the extent possible, mitigated.

Capture value

Create value
FIGURE 1. G oodyear's business m odel innovation process

34

Research-Technology Management

The purpose of the business model work is to reduce the

risks through learning through targeted experiments with cus
tomers and partners before incubating the business in the mar
ket. The process, which begins by identifying the potential for
value creation and ends with the beginning of incubation, is
iterative: it continues until a compelling business model is de
fined, one we believe can deliver the value proposition to our
target market at an acceptable cost. A similar learning process
continues during incubation, where we are actually in busi
ness, selling to customers at a small scale. Two businesses have
entered incubation at Goodyear in the past two years and two
others are in earlier stages of development.
Although any innovation process is inherently iterative,
there is a sequence to the analyses and experiments that lead
to effective new business models. Each stage of the process
draws on work others have undertaken in defining and bench
marking particular aspects of innovation (see "Creating a Lan
guage of Innovation," p. 35). We have integrated that work
into a coherent process that has now been tested in practice.

1. Demonstrate value creation.

We start by ensuring that we have a clear understanding of
the new value the innovation will create for customers. We
explicitly separate the definition of the value proposition
from the business model development work in order to
maintain focus. We have found that if we try to develop the
business model at the same time we are creating new value
propositions, the focus shifts away from the customer and
toward our value capture. The result can be a great business
model that sells something customers don't want.
There are risks in making this separation: it sometimes
leads to value propositions that are economically unrealistic,
and teams may ignore the inherent potential of the company's
assets. However, we find
that making the distinction
is worth the trade-off. Any
successful business model
starts with the desire to fill a
compelling customer need,
and it is important to get this
first step right.
Thus, the first deliver
able of the business model
innovation process is clar
ity about value creation.
Reaching clarity begins
with uncovering customer
needs and developing con
cepts for new value propo
sitions; Goodyear uses a
range of w ell-established
design methods for this
step. Such methods have
been discussed extensively
in the literature (see, for
example, Kelley [2001],
Martin [2009], and RTM's
Business Model Innovation in Practice

C r e a t in g a L a n g u a g e o f In n o v a tio n
Developing a practice requires developing a common lan
guage. We have systematically sought to develop such a
language within Goodyear, by exploring as an organiza
tion the works that inspired our process. Our approach
has been to read the references as an organization and
to discuss their application to the work underway in new
business development.
Key references that have been helpful to our practice are:

The Art of Profitability by Adrian Slywotzky (New York:

Warner Books, 2002). Slywotzky introduces the concept
of profit models. He describes 23 archetypal business
models and their underlying dynamics in a way that il
lustrates the key characteristics of coherence, competi
tive advantage, and economic leverage. The archetypes
themselves are a good starting point for identifying po
tential business models.

The Wide Lens: What Successful Innovators See

That Others Miss by Ron Adner (New York: PortfolioPenguin, 2013). Adner discusses innovation ecosystems
and two primary types of ecosystem risks: co-innovation
risk and adoption-chain risk. Many business models
are critically dependent on identifying and managing
these risks.

The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use

Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful
Businesses by Eric Ries (New York: Crown Business,
2011). Ries has formalized the experiment-driven ap
proach to rapid, in-market learning that has propelled
the success of many startups. The process requires
discipline but creates a focus and pace that are very
productive.

The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution

Challenge by Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press,
2010). In their study of new ventures inside established
corporations, Govindarajan and Trimble identified the
dedicated innovation team, independent of the core
performance engine, as a critical success factor. The
book offers a language and an approach that makes
clear that many issues that appear to be political are
actually the natural consequence of breakthrough in
novation in large organizations.

M ay-June 2014 special issue, "The Art and Science of De

sign"). For an example of the application of such methods
inside a corporation, see Buchner and Henderson (2011).
Once we have identified a set of value propositions, we
attem pt to quantify their benefits from the point of view of
the prospective customer. This exercise defines the ways in
which the customer's world will be materially improved as a
result of adopting our innovation.
The key to success at this stage is to deal with realworld data: W hat are people actually doing? How m uch
improvement is possible in practice? For example, we have
quantified the benefit to truck fleet operators of maintaining
Business Model Innovation in Practice

optimal air pressure in their tires. To accomplish this, we

needed to understand current practice and quantify the ben
efits of an optimal tire management protocol in terms of tire
life, reduced roadside failures, reduced administrative costs,
and improved fuel economy.
2 . Generate business model options.
Business model innovation, at its heart, is about capturing a
share of the value created. A strong business model will capture
a significant portion of that value and do so in a way that is dif
ficult for others to replicate. It will also offer the potential to
build competitive advantage, often through leveraging assets
available within the corporation. Although there may be a best
business model, depending on the nature of the innovation and
the assets of the corporation, there is rarely a single good busi
ness model. At Goodyear, we explore a number of options.
Good business models have three characteristics: they
are coherent, they offer competitive advantage, and they
provide some form of economic leverage. Coherence refers to
the way the parts of the model work together to create ad
vantage; the customer set, the basis of competition, the
channel, and the assets that create advantage all m ust ar
ticulate. Competitive advantage is the differentiation that will
attract customers and perhaps allow flexibility in pricing.
Competitive advantage m ust be built on a strategic asseta
unique product, differential power in the channel, a speed
to market advantage, or some form of information advan
tage. In The Profit Zone (1997), Slywotzky, Morrison, and
Andelman list what they call strategic control points and
their relative strengths. Referring to these potential points
of advantage is a useful reality check.
Economic leverage ensures the business model can deliver
profit at scale. Every coherent business model has an eco
nomic story behind it, an intersection of economic forces that
enables value creation and value capture. In The Art of Profit
ability (2002), Adrian Slywotzky outlines 23 distinct business
models, including the experience curve, cost leadership, and
multicomponent profit, and the dynamics that make them
work. It is vital to understand these dynamics in order to
understand the key point of leveragewhat must be done in
order to be successful.
Strong business models cannot be generated by brain
storming the elements of a business model using a tool like the
Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010).
The canvas may be useful in representing a business model,
but it misses the key dynamic elements of working business
modelsit does not represent coherence (or the relationship
among elements); it does not represent the competitive posi
tion (which is off the canvas); and it does not quantify the
economic leverage points.
Instead, recognizing that there are a limited num ber of
coherent, effective models, we use Slywotzky's (2002) 23 ar
chetypes as a starting point. For a given value proposition,
we try to identify the archetypes that might be appropriate.
We ask, who is offering a similar value proposition in another
field? What business model are they using? Often, we will try
to visit a company that is using an analogous model.
November December 2014

35

T h e b u s in e s s m o d e l c a n v a s m isses
t h e k e y d y n a m ic e le m e n t s o f w o r k in g
b u s in e s s m o d e ls .

As we were thinking about business models for the value

proposition associated with reducing the total ownership
costs of tires, for example, we were inspired by an insurance
company, FM Global. FM Global sells insurance, but its poli
cies are bundled with a value proposition that significantly
reduces the probability of loss. Unlike other insurance com
panies, FM Global invests in R&D in technologies that reduce
the probability of loss and in experts who can advise on best
practices for risk management; it offers its customers a tiered
pricing model based on adherence to good risk-management
and loss-reduction practices. The costs are higher in this
model than in the one used by most other insurers, but the
casualty losses are much lower. The value to the customer is
not just insurance (and potentially reduced premiums for
compliance with FM Global-identified best practices) but
also uptime.
The FM Global model inspired Goodyear to develop an
analogous model for tire management. We invest in tech
nologies, management protocols, and product selection that
increases some costs but reduces the total cost of ownership
for fleets, and we are able to capture some of that value.
There are important elements that differ from the insurance
model, of course, but the essence is similar.
In the field of problem solving, selecting from a list of ar
chetypes and refining the result to fit the specific need is
known as structured selection. That is a good description of the
approach we use at Goodyear, with Slywotzky's archetypes
as the core options.
3 . Identify the risks for each option generated.
A business model concept is only a concept. It is fraught
with unknowns and risks. We attempt to clearly identify
these risks up front, focusing on the three types of risks
identified by Adner (2006): business execution (initiative)
risks, co-innovation (interdependence) risks, and adoption
(integration) risks.
To assess the business execution risks, we build a financial
model. Although most of the data in the model are estimates,
we can identify our best estimates of, for example, basic pric
ing, the costs of customer acquisition, the costs of goods, cus
tomer startup costs, and customer servicing costs. For each
element in the financial model, we estimate a range and in
corporate the connection of each element to other elements.
Everything about this model may be wrong, but it is still ex
tremely valuable. Trying to express the logic of the business
quantitatively requires that the elements be carefully thought
through. Estimating values both makes them explicit and
highlights their raw uncertainty. The discussions that are
36

R e se a rch -T e ch n o lo g y M a n a g e m e n t

engaged in the construction of the model, like how one

might account for unused tire inventory in a fleet, are pro
ductive in mapping all of the implications of the value propo
sition and business model.
There are risks that are beyond the direct control of the
innovator, which Adner refers to as ecosystem risks. The two
primary categories of ecosystem risks are co-innovation
risksuncertainties related to innovations others must cre
ate in order for your business model to be successful, such as
an enabling technology or a new processand risks associ
ated with the innovation adoption chain. Adoption-chain
risks relate to the process of building the alignment among all
of the stakeholders required to bring an innovation to mar
ket. Assuming customers want to buy the new offering, who
else might need to be on board for it to be successful? At
Goodyear, the alignment of the dealer network with a new
services offering is an essential element in the success of a
new business model; it therefore represents a significant
adoption chain risk.
To identify the risks for each option, we bring together
participants with a wide range of backgrounds and map out
what must be true for the business model to hold. We iden
tify each element associated with the value delivery system,
our level of knowledge for that element, the parties who
need to align with it, and our best estimate of the associated
costs.
We then use the financial model we have developed to
perform a stochastic analysis of the business model. With offthe-shelf tools, such analyses are relatively simple to per
form. In essence, the model is run thousands of times, with
different selections for the unknown variables, dependent on
their probability of occurrence. The result of the model is not
a single number for projected profit, but a distribution of
profit, which typically includes instances (combinations of
variables) that are possible but not profitable (Figure 2). The
stochastic model is a starting point for reducing risk. In the
example, there was a very slim chance that the business
could have ever been profitable (the dark zone). All our sub
sequent work focused on increasing the chances of profit
ability. It was not easy, but a disciplined focus on key drivers
of the model got us there.
4. Prioritize the risks.
Stochastic methods can be used to quantify the chances of
business success given your current state of knowledge and
to identify the variables that are likely to have the most effect
on the success (or failure) of the business model. We use a
tornado diagram, which is an artifact of the stochastic model,
to depict, in rank order, the variables that most affect the
profitability of the model (Figure 3). The variables at the top
of the list are the ones with the largest potential effect on the
modeland the ones it will be most beneficial to invest in
understanding and controlling. In the example of the busi
ness above (that originally had a slim chance of being profit
able), we identified that our commercial relationships with
our co-innovators were unsustainable from a profit perspec
tive. Often, the variables that drive profitability are not
B usiness M o d e l In n o v a tio n in P ractice

contracts, which made the

model unprofitable. In or
der to make the business
model profitable, we had to
go back to the drawing
board to develop lower-cost
solutions.
Reduce risk through
business experiments.
The heart of the business
model innovation process is
business experiments, con
ducted in the real world us
ing prototypes, simulated
user experiences, and short
trials. These experiments
are designed to provide
enough insight to allow us
to validate (or invalidate) a
FIGURE 2. Results o f stochastic m od eling o f a business m odel's p ro fita b ility
crucial assumption, and re
duce the risk associated
intuitively clear. The tornado diagram derived from the sto
with it. For instance, in developing its managed-services
chastic model makes them explicit. In some cases, assump
business model, Goodyear conducted trials of two new en
tions that have been in the background take center stage.
abling technologies to assess their efficacy, user acceptance,
Once the importance of such an assumption is identified,
and economic indicators. This involved collecting and ana
customer research and even modification of the value propo
lyzing operating data to quantify the benefits of the technol
sition can increase the potential for profitability.
ogy and assessing an operations protocol in the field. Results
As an example, in one initiative, we demonstrated value
from these experiments revealed that one of the technologies
creation by outfitting commercial trucks with tire monitoring
would not work in the real world, and the other required
technology (Step 1). Our business model option (Step 2) was
extensive user training at multiple points in the organization
an add-on service that augmented our product offering and
to realize its benefit, which created an unsustainable cost
leveraged our service provider network for competitive ad
structure. Based on this important insight, we adapted our
vantage. The model was enabled by a strong ecosystem of
business model and technology strategy to increase the likeli
technology partners (Step 3). Our financial model (Step 4)
hood of success.
assumed that customers would sign long-term contracts (al
We model our experimental efforts on the body of work
lowing us to amortize the technology costs). The stochastic
that has become known as the "lean startup" approach (Ries
modeling highlighted the importance of that assumption. A
2011; Blank and Dorf 2012). The premise of this work is two
significant customer set was unwilling to agree to long-term
fold: (1) crucial learning happens with real customers, and
5.

Sensitivity
-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

Most critical
factor

30%

Spend time, resources

minimizing risk for
these factors

Ignore these factors

Least critical
factor

FIGURE 3. Tornado diagram id en tifying key factors affecting a business m odel's p ro fita b ility

Business Model Innovation in Practice

November December 2014

37

(2) successful learning arises from something akin to the

scientific method, moving from hypothesis through testing
to proof. Much of the work around lean startups has been
in the digital realm; Goodyear is attempting to apply it in
manufacturing and service, which have their own sets of
challenges.
The experiments we perform shed light on the riskiest
variables identified by the modeling. A business experiment
is generally short term and limited in scale, but it answers a
question that is critical to the success of the business. As
with the scientific method, it is crucial to isolate the under
lying hypothesis that is being tested and to specify how the
assumptionthe hypothesiswill be tested, what will be
measured, and how the results will be interpreted. We attempt
to define experiments formally and rigorously; the rigor of
approach ensures that the experiments are measuring the
right thing, but it is also important for the legal reviews and
coordination required to conduct such experiments, especially
those that directly involve customers, within a large corpora
tion. We time-bound the experiments in order to maintain
the pace of learning.
The process of reducing the risk associated with a business
model is iterative, continuing until all of the important risks
have been defined and resolved as far as possible, and it can
be extensive. At some point, the likelihood of the business
model's success becomes more clear, leading to a decision
point: If there is very little downside risk associated with the
business, or if the downside risk can be managed effectively,
the initiative can move into incubation. If it emerges that
profitability is very unlikely, even under the best of circum
stances, the business model (and maybe even the initiative)
will have to be abandoned. The risk analysis process must
continue until the picture is clear enough to make one deci
sion or the other; that point of decision depends on the orga
nization and its tolerance for particular risk types and levels.
6. Organize for incubation.
The goal of business model innovation is to bring a new of
fering to market. But an entirely new venture typically can't
be introduced to the market as a full-blown offering at scale.
The first step in deploying the new model, then, is smallscale incubation. The primary goals of the incubation phase
are to demonstrate profitability and scalability in the market,
and to identify a business-building strategy.
Incubation at Goodyear follows the same lean startup ap
proach used in developing the business model, but the ven
tures are funded by a corporate incubation fund and overseen

A b u s in e s s e x p e r im e n t is g e n e r a lly s h o r t
t e r m a n d lim ite d in s c a le , b u t it a n s w e rs a
q u e s tio n t h a t is c ritic a l t o t h e su ccess o f
t h e b u s in e s s .

38

R e se a rch -T e ch n o lo g y M a n a g e m e n t

by a New Venture Board (NVB) composed of a few forwardlooking general managers within the company. The agenda
of an NVB meeting is organized around the top five key as
sumptions central to the success of the business. NVB reviews
involve identification of a hypothesis about a key assump
tion, assessment of actions taken to test the hypothesis, dis
cussion of the current state of knowledge about the new
venture, and decisions about what is to be done next to fur
ther that knowledge and by when.
A key decision in incubation is whether to organize the
new business within the relevant business unit (what Vijay
Govindarajan and Chris Trimble, in The Other Side of Innova
tion [2010], call the "performance engine") or as an indepen
dent entity. The work of Govindarajan and Trimble, as well as
Chesbrough's study, argues for an independent entity if the
new business challenges the business model of the core. They
believe that an independent entity has a greater ability to
escape the orthodoxies of the existing corporation and yet
borrow key assets of the corporation as necessary. Their work
shows that business models operating within established per
formance engines are frequently strangled by practices devel
oped to support the operational efficiency of the core, starved
of critical resources, or co-opted to support the core business.
A change in management in the core or a short-term crisis
can eviscerate the nascent enterprise altogether.
For these reasons, we have chosen to incubate new busi
nesses as separate divisions with their own staff and general
manager, although this may not apply as a general rule in all
situations. The businesses leverage the resources of the core
for support functions (such as legal and accounting), but
have their own sales, operations, IT, and technology staff.
They work closely with the core business to avoid unneces
sary channel conflict or customer confusion and buy re
sources (like tires and services) from the core. The businesses
report through the corporate innovation function and are
accountable to the NVB, which provides oversight and
guidance.
The ultimate decision about integration with the core, at
least for the businesses currently in incubation at Goodyear,
will be addressed when we make the decision to scale. The
options for scaling range from organic growth of the startup
to reorganization or transformation of a business unit around
the new business model.
C o n c lu s io n s

Most of us are faced with scarce resources and high opportu

nity costs inside corporations. A disciplined approach to busi
ness model innovation creates the quickest path to market
for ventures, in addition to increasing chances of success. The
approach we are evolving at Goodyear has had many chal
lenges. From a project standpoint, knowing when to kill a
venture remains a challenge. From a team standpoint, at
tracting and developing talent with the nontraditional skills
required has been difficult. Managing the relationship with
core businesses has also presented challenges, especially
where the new venture and the existing business compete
for resources or customers. Business oversight is essential for
B usiness M o d e l In n o v a tio n in P ractice

building credibility, but it requires a time commitment from

operating and a shift in orientation toward learning.
Business model innovation can be managed as a disci
plined process. Much has been written about different ele
ments of this process. The contribution of this paper is an
integrated view, which combines the elements in a way that
can be successfully applied inside corporations. The process
we propose has been applied w ith several value proposi
tions in a range of business contexts. It has resulted in two
businesses that are currently in incubation and two at late
stages of development. We will continue to refine these
methods and tools as we create new businesses.

References

Adner, R. 2006. Matching your innovation strategy to your in

novation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review 84(4): 98-107.
Blank, S., and Dorf, B. 2012. The Startup Owner's Manual: The
Step-by-Step Guide for Building a Great Company. Pescadero,
CA: K&S Ranch Publishers.
Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for
Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Publishing.

i l l

In d u s tr ia l'
R e s e a rc h
In s t it u t e

Creating Innovation
Leadership Solutions

Gold:

idbs

Silver:

GLG

Euchner, J., and Henderson, A. 2011. The practice of innova

tion: Innovation as the management of constraints. ResearchTechnology Management 54(2): 47-54.
Govindarajan, V., and Trimble, C. 2010. The Other Side of Innova
tion: Solving the Execution Challenge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Keeley, L., Pikkel, R., Quinn, B., and Walters, H. 2013. Ten Types of
Innovation: The Discipline ofBuilding Breakthroughs. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Kelley, T. 2001. The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from
IDEO. New York: Doubleday.
Martin, R. 2009. Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next
Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Re
view Press.
Osterwalder, A., and Pigneur, Y. 2010. Business Model Genera
tion: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challeng
ers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ries, E. 2011. The Lean Startup: How Todays Entrepreneurs Use
Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses.
New York: Crown Business.
Slywotzky, A. 2002. The Art ofProfitability. New York: Warner Books.
Slywotzky, A., Morrison, D. J and Andelman, B. 1997. The
Profit Zone: How Strategic Business Design Will Lead You to To
morrow's Profits. New York: Crown Business.

inn

h a r r is

h a r r is

GROUP

N INES IGM

m
V /5 C I T 6 C H
A decade o f actionable IP insights..

HERSHEY'

NBftRY
innocentive "

Q uestel

In-kind:

T -r x

Thank you 2014 IRI Industry Sponsors

Xzw

The Hershcv Company

B usiness M o d e l In n o v a tio n in P ra ctic e

N o v e m b e r D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 4

I 39

Copyright of Research Technology Management is the property of Industrial Research

Institute, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.