Value Drivers in e-Business 2.0: How Web 2.0 is changing the Landscape of e-Business

Nine e-Business 2.0 examples

noreply@blogger.com (Vincent de la Mar) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:00:00 +0000

I researched nine Dutch (e-Business 2.0) cases, that were selected from companies listed in the Dutch Web 2.0 Awards that was held in January 2006; over 50.000 people could nominate and select Web 2.0 initiatives. Very interesting companies to have a look at:

1. Wakoopa

Wakoopa is a social network site for software. People can track what kind of software they use and share it with others and find (better) applications. With Wakoopa users acquire information on what software they use and can share software and opinions. The real value that is created using this site is the sharing experience users get when they share software and (new) applications. Wakoopa has made a platform and tracker to use for this site . The technique is only one part of Wakoopa’s function. The other part is the community platform and the incentives to people to contribute on the platform. Wakoopa is not only a creator of the technology and facilitator of the platform, but also a motivator and stimulator in a way it wants people to help collaborate by sharing experiences and knowledge.

2. Swoot

Swoot is an innovative leader in skinning and transforming web enabled applications for the desktop. Users can build their own browser and can participate in building a new website. There is a Swoot portal where all the developed browsers on many topics can be found, which can be accessed when people install a one time plug-in. Swoot offers a technology platform for, what they call, ‘ultimate freedom in design and marketing in a fun online experience.’ The idea is that everybody can create and control their own Internet browser, instead of using standard ones, like Firefox and Explorer .

3. Boomr

Boomr is ‘a platform where artists from all genres can share their music with everyone who has access to the internet.’ Boomr is also a place where people can get to know their favourite artists music and personal matters.

Value is created for the artists on Boomr by enabling a connection to exist with potential supporters and vice versa, value is created for the listener who is able to find music they like. Boomr is free to use and focuses on the non-familiar artists, as well. The value is created by users and artists who contribute and participate on the platform. There is an artist community and a user community. The user community is based on voluntary contributions, like reporters (enthusiastic fans of an artist) that write about concerts. Boomr’s artist and user communities are growing and are of significant value to this initiative and helps create a lock-in.

4. Buurtlink.nl

Buurtlink.nl is part of the Buurtlink foundation and its goal is to increase social cohesion within the Netherlands and to become the largest district website based on zip codes. Buurtlink.nl creates its own value by having a large base of active users. Neighbours can communicate on Buurtlink.nl and can keep their own district website active and relevant. Since facilitating the platform alone is not enough, Buurtlink.nl makes a distinction between ‘Buurtlinkers’ and users. A ‘Buurtlinker’ is an active user, like an ambassador or correspondent, and delivers content and promotes the website in the neighbourhood. This motivates neighbours to participate and in creating a stronger collaboration, Buurtlink.nl gives incentives to ‘Buurtlinkers’ by yearly activities and free gadgets. Besides ‘Buurtlinkers’, there are users that live in the neighbourhood who can also participate and generate content on the platform. Everyone can give their opinion on the website or can talk/work together with their neighbours. The founders of Buurtlink.nl try to deliver less content as possible on the platform; they have a facilitating and motivating task. Besides collaboration with the users of the website, Buurtlink.nl works together with several partners. These partnerships can have local goals, but also national goals, like regional news stations, digital marketplaces, and local weather forecast agencies.

5. Watvindenwijover.nl

Watvindenwijover.nl is a free service platform to easily save interesting web pages on the Internet. There are several features of the site that are new and related to Web 2.0 technologies. For example, users can make their own notes on the site while easily organizing results by tagging and can share favourite sites and topics with other users. The activities on the platform are also recognized as ‘social browsing’, which means social searching and sharing. There are several clusters of communities based on interest and Watvindenwijover.nl tries to link people actively by giving recommendations. In this manner, people can collaborate to find more or better information on certain topics. Watvindenwijover.nl is a subset of Winkwaves and is used as a marketing tool and as a playground to experiment. The actual value appropriation with these platforms is done by Winkwaves in a Business-to-Business context and relates more to Enterprise 2.0.

6. YelloYello

‘Traditional guides (in this research referred to as e-Business e.g. Goudengids.nl and iLocal.nl) do not answer questions like; where can I find a good plumber? What is the best lawyer in the district? As a user of this website, you often ask recommendations from friends and family.’ YelloYello is a company that fills this gap with help of Web 2.0 by ‘social local search’: YelloYello has local communities and is a social network and guide in one. Everyone can contribute easily by giving reviews, tagging, and upload locations. The company stimulates people to share experiences so the company can create a recommendation list of companies. The community and cluster aspect can be found in the case of YelloYello. The company focus is on places and people. Based on places and interest there are clusters of communities that contribute and add value for other users. The value is created by the users and is a combination of content and the social aspect of the website. Since the business information is already familiar, the new data contributed by the community adds new value.

7. Fleck

‘Fleck.com wants to add a new layer of interactivity to the web by adding new tools that allows its users to add information rather than just consuming it. Fleck allows users to interact with pages on the web just as if it were pages in a magazine; People can save annotated page for own purposes, send it to friends or colleagues or use it in their blog.’

The value, appropriated on the platform by its users, is created by the users because data on top of the existing webpage is collected by a collaboration of internet users. When this data is aggregated correctly, new opportunities for value creation arise, but also appropriation may appear, for instance, more efficient search methods, recommendations, and suggestions on websites. Efficiency and complementarities are the most important drivers for Fleck. People use the platform and technology for several purposes, like bookmarking, communication, and page sharing. In the second half of 2007, Fleck will focus more on collaboration and the Long Tail by increasing the ‘discovery factor’. According to the founders of Fleck, there is a huge potential for collaboration with Fleck and it will become the most important driver. Fleck tries to enable knowledge sharing within the community. In this way people can efficiently use the information and knowledge other users contributed on websites. All these contributions on websites are collected in a database. Not only will the popular website be collected in this database, but also smaller and unfamiliar WebPages, referred to as the Long Tail, are collected. Fleck uses the collective intelligence to create value that is contributed by its users.

8. Hyves

Hyves is one of the most used e-Business 2.0 pure players in the Netherlands and is the most popular social network (Ruigrok|NetPanel 2007). The focus for Hyves is on establishing an online platform, in which people can (re)connect with each other, as they say: ‘Always in touch with your friends’. Users can share photos, videos, blogs, and recommendations, but the most added value for users of Hyves is to get reconnected with old friends (Ruigrok|NetPanel 2007). Hyves tries to be the place on the Internet where users share his or her information. Not only can you connect with people, but you can also collaborate and share by using a weblog or gadgets. Integration is also very important to Hyves, like importing an existing weblog on your Hyves page by Web 2.0 technology (RSS), which makes it easy and efficient for users to share. In the near future, Hyves is going to increase their use of AJAX-tools to integrate more easy-to-use applications to create increased value for it’s users.

9. Favr

Favr is ‘a website platform on which you can save and share your favourites, like websites and articles’. Users can review and recommend favourites in order to establish a top ranking of favourites.

The company wants to create a unique social bookmarking platform, that looks like Delicious, since interest is focused on website level. The community creates value and Favr’s role is an intermediary one by which it gives incentives and tools for users to contribute. The community decides what ranking certain websites and articles get and is not influenced by the company. The founder of Favr is also the founder of web-log.nl, that was sold successfully to Ilse Media in 2004 (Wiersma 2004), who started both companies as an experiment.

What do I mean with an e-Business 2.0?

noreply@blogger.com (Vincent de la Mar) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:09:00 +0000

This research adopts Forrester’s perspective on Web 2.0 (Koplowitz and Young 2007). It allows this research to clearly define the enabler aspect of Web 2.0 technologies that influence companies in e-Business, and allows a development of the concept ‘e-Business 2.0’. According to Forrester Research Inc., a renowned technology and market research company,

‘…Web 2.0 is a set of technologies and applications that enable efficient interaction among people, content, and data in support of collectively fostering new businesses, technology offerings, and social structures (Koplowitz and Young 2007).’

Koplowitz and Young (2007) point out that there are three lenses through which to view Web 2.0:

(i) Enabling technologies - provide the infrastructure and building blocks for Web 2.0 applications. These supporting technologies are often not as important for marketers, by a lack of knowledge of techniques like AJAX and XML (Derksen 2007a);

(ii) Core applications and features - enable people to efficiently interact with other people, as well as, content and data. Forrester Research Inc. calls this ‘social computing.’ Social computing refers to ‘easy connections brought about by cheap devices, modular content, and shared computing resources, that are having a profound impact on our global economy and social structure (Koplowitz and Young 2007)’;

(iii) Behavioural shifts - Core applications and features are fostering new social behaviour, business models, and cultures.

Many writers and researchers use the term Web 2.0 as the next stage of the Internet and of e-Business. These researchers do not make a clear distinction between the technological enabler aspect and the social aspect. Introducing and developing a concept of e-Business 2.0 and having it implemented in the outmost circle of the figure helps provide a better overview and framework for this research.

e-Business 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0
Since the Internet bubble, Web 2.0 with its core applications and enabling technologies has become popular and successful influencing e-Business. Successful start-ups created a new area in e-Business where Web 2.0 was a key factor in creating value. The focus in this research is on these companies that embrace Web 2.0 enabling technologies and core applications that cause a behavioural shift (see the Figure). This research, therefore, develops in scientific literature, the concept of e-Business 2.0 where e-Business companies are actively using Web 2.0 to create and appropriate value from, for, and with stakeholders. Although ‘e-Business 2.0’ is used in a book from Robinson et al. (1999), the meaning is different. A perspective of van der Sleen (2007) who refers to contact with customers and suppliers, is more related. However, scientific theory on Web 2.0, let alone e-Business 2.0, is scarce.

As can be seen in the figure, this research also makes a distinction between an internal and external focus. This research looks at e-Business 2.0 and has an external focus. e-Business 2.0 pure players depend on Web 2.0 to create and appropriate value with a focus to external customers, instead of internal organisations. The latter focus is called ‘Enterprise 2.0’ and is introduced by McAfee (2006a). McAfee (2006a: 23) argues that ‘there is a new wave of business communication tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging. There are new digital platforms for generating, sharing and refining information that are already popular on the Internet. These platforms are collectively labelled Web 2.0 technologies. The term ‘Enterprise 2.0’ focuses only on those platforms in which companies can buy or build in order to make the practices and outputs of their knowledgeable workers visible.’ Enterprise 2.0 looks at Web 2.0 technologies and practices within organisations and businesses and is therefore, referred to as internal focus. McAfee (2007: 52) simply and concisely defines Enterprise 2.0 as ‘the emerging use of Web 2.0 technologies like blogs and wikis within the Intranet’.

Next to e-Business 2.0 pure players, companies that acquire parts of e-Business 2.0 characteristics and regular e-Business (e.g. e-Commerce) companies are also active on the Internet. Larger companies can learn from these, often smaller, e-Business 2.0 companies who display themselves as early adopters (Rogers 1995) and use it to adopt to market changes and/or to Enterprise 2.0.

The concept of e-Business 2.0 highlights that e-Business is evolving. I argue that e-Business 2.0 is a part of e-Business and can also be referred to as a new stage in e-Business, that will become more prominent in the next few years. E-Business will adopt more e-Business 2.0 aspects and this is in correspondence with Van der Vlist et al. (2007), who argue that the e-Business and the Internet have reached a stage where its growth would slowly start to decline. Traditional media producers controlled the Internet and mergers and acquisitions signified that the Internet industry had started its consolidation phase. From a social perspective, the Internet was mostly used to read. This was however, not the meaning of the World Wide Web (www) and was not the case at the beginning of the Internet. The Web was originally designed as a medium where scientists could easily share their documents (Leiner, Cerf et al. 2003). According to van der Vlist et al. (2007) this was still the case when publishing home pages and editing was still easy because of simple technology and a smaller group of participants. In the last decade, the Internet has had more difficult tools and technologies added and more people were interested in using the Internet, which resulted in a passive Internet usage. With simple Web 2.0 technologies the Internet is becoming a read/write web again. Web 2.0 enables Internet users to participate and share contributions again in a simple manner.

Recent research shows that this changed the way we use the Internet completely; ‘nearly half of online consumers participate in at least one Web 2.0 activity with 13% coming from creators (e.g. publish WebPages or blogs, upload photos), 19% from critics (e.g. comment rate or review), 15% collectors (e.g. use RSS or tag WebPages), 19% from joiners (e.g. use social networking sites), and 33% from spectators (e.g. read blogs, watch peer-generated videos and listen to podcasts)’ (Forrester Research 2006a). Although research reveals that a low number of internet users are familiar with the definition of Web 2.0, many people do use it (Ruigrok|NetPanel 2007). By several experienced people, it is already pointed out that Web 2.0 changes our economy and business perspective. For instance, Charron, Favier et al. (2006a) argues that top down-management must be abandoned; Hinchcliffe (2007) points out to focus on communication in the form of conversation, instead of a monologue; and Sturgeon (2006) writes about new levels of interactivity. This research tries to extend this by providing first insight in companies that already take advantage of Web 2.0.

Update: Problem definition and research objectives

noreply@blogger.com (Vincent de la Mar) — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:11:00 +0000

This research tries to give first answers to problems that are argued: Our first problem from a theoretical approach is that theory on value creation in e-Business is relatively scarce. This is related to a more practical problem that companies could make incorrect decisions, because of scarce theory. With the upcoming of new developments of Web 2.0 a second problem arises and results in the fact that extending theory on value drivers in e-Business becomes even more relevant: Previous theory on value creation in e-Business might not be applicable anymore. Amit and Zott (Amit and Zott 2001) research value drivers in e-Business companies before 2001. With new aspects of Web 2.0 these results might not be up to date anymore. Therefore the objective of this research is to further develop Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory on value creation in e-Business, by providing first insights in value drivers in e-business companies that use Web 2.0. To reach this goal this research tries to give first answers to the central research question, if value drivers associated with Web 2.0 are different from known value drivers in e-business?

The objective of this research is to further develop Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory on Value Creation in e-Business, by providing first insights in Value Drivers in e-Business 2.0

General Research Question

Are the value drivers associated with e-Business 2.0 different from the known value drivers in e-Business?

Research sub-questions

How is value created and how is value captured as a competitive advantage?
What are the value drivers in e-Business?
What are differences between e-Business and e-Business 2.0?

Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 and E-Business 2.0 Definitions

noreply@blogger.com (Vincent de la Mar) — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:47:00 +0000

The definitions of relatively new concepts of Web 2.0, E-Business 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 will be given in this Research:

Web 2.0

In the simplest terms Web 2.0 is the phrase being applied to 'the second coming' of the internet. The 2.0 name is a clear allusion to the naming convention of software updates; this is the internet version 2.0 (Sturgeon 2006). Two or three years ago there was a feeling that innovation online had failed to emerge from the doldrums of the dot-com boom and bust cycle and had hit something of a dead end, but now innovation is arguably at its most frenetic level ever (Sturgeon 2006). The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the Fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was over hyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions (Perez 2002). Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at Center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other (O'Reilly 2005).

Looking back at the beginning of Web 2.0, a core of theories and aspects, are mentioned by O’Reilly, which he calls the seven principles of Web 2.0 (O'Reilly 2005):

1. The Web as a Platform

Software as a Service (SaaS)

Web 2.0 service is a combination of software and data. Individual, the software and the databases are of limited value, but together they create a new type of service. In this context, the value of software lies in being able to manage the (vast amounts of) data. The better it can do, the more valuable the software becomes.

Harnessing the Long Tail

The Long Tail refers to the vast number of small sites that make up the Web as apposed to the few ‘important’ sites (Jaokar 2006).

2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence

This principle deals with the metadata/content created by users that collectively adds value to the. To understand Collective Intelligence one should understand three aspects:

Peer Production

Is defined as a new model of economic production, different from both markets and firms, in which the creative energy of large numbers of people is coordinated (usually with the aid of the Internet) into large, meaningful projects, largely without traditional hierarchical organizational or financial compensation (Benkler 2002). An Example are reviews on Amazon: Collectively, these small contributions lay the foundation for the ‘Intelligence’ of Web 2.0 also called the ‘wisdom of crowds’

The Wisdom of crowds

Large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, now matter how brilliant the elite few may be. The wisdom of crowds is better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, and even predicting the future (Surowiecki 2005).

Network effects from user contributions

The ability for users to add value (knowledge) easily and then the ability for their contributions to flow seamlessly across the whole community, thereby enriching the whole body of knowledge

Data is the Next Intel Inside

Data is the key differentiator between a Web 2.0 service and a non-Web 2.0 service. A Web 2.0 service always combines function (software) and data (which is managed by the software). Database management is a core competency of Web 2.0 companies. While data is valuable, the company needs not necessarily own the data. Although in most cases, the company serving the data also ‘owns’ the data (e.g.Google Maps, Google does not own the data, which are maps and information. Web 2.0 website are often a combination of data from two or more sources into one experience, this is called a mashup. According to O’Reilly (2005) the race is on to own certain classes of core data.

4. End of Software Release Cycle

Operations must become a core competency

The shift from software as artefact to software as service causes that the software will cease to perform unless it is maintained on a daily basis.

Users must be treated as co-developers

The open source dictum, "release early and release often" has morphed into an even more radical position, "the perpetual beta," in which the product is developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a regular basis.

5. Lightweight programming models

Simpler technologies like RSS and Ajax are the driving force behind Web 2.0 services. Because lightweight programming models are oriented towards syndicating data, they are contrary to the traditional mindset of controlling access data. They are also designed for reuse. As a result of this architecture, innovation is given a boost because a new service can be created using existing services through mashups. This is one other important aspect of Web 2.0, called Innovation in assembly: When commodity components are abundant, you can create value simply by assembling them in novel or effective ways. Web 2.0 will provide opportunities for companies to beat the competition by getting better at harnessing and integrating services provided by others.

6. Software above the Level of a Single Device

One other feature of Web 2.0 is the fact that it is no longer limited to the PC platform. This principle is not new but rather a fuller realization of the true potential of the web platform, this phrase gives key insight into how to design applications and services for the new platform. iTunes is the best exemplar of this principle. This application seamlessly reaches from the handheld device to a massive web back-end (platform), with the PC acting as a control station. There have been many previous attempts to bring web content to portable devices, but the iPod/iTunes combination is one of the first such applications designed from the ground up to span multiple devices. O’Reillly (2005) expects to see some of the greatest change in this area of Web 2.0, as more and more devices are connected to the new platform. Real time traffic monitoring, flash mobs, and citizen journalism are only a few of the early warning signs of the capabilities of the new platform.

7. Rich User Experience

The competitive opportunity for new entrants is to fully embrace the potential of Web 2.0. Companies that succeed will create applications that learn from their users, using an architecture of participation to build a commanding advantage not just in the software interface, but in the richness of the shared data.

In exploring the seven principles, O’Reily (2005) highlighted some of the principal features of Web 2.0: Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability; Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them; Trusting users as co-developers; Harnessing collective intelligence; Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service; Software above the level of a single device; Lightweight user interfaces, development models, and business models.

In October 2005 one definition of Web 2.0 is given (O'Reilly 2005): It is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.

According to Hinchcliffe (Hinchcliffe 2006a) the Web itself has become a vast landscape of information services that can be wired together to reuse and take advantage of aggregated data and functionality. The hallmarks of these online applications are their pervasive availability, interactivity, social immersion, user-driven organization, community contribution, and particularly their reusable, remixable services. Web 2.0 also refers to the creation of far greater levels of interactivity, not just between users, or between users and the internet but between complementary online services through mash-ups and web services (Sturgeon 2006).

Web 2.0 is either a collaborative web where the content is created by the users ( this aspect is often called the social layer of Web 2.0), or a web where the network is the platform or web that uses funky technologies such as Ajax or ruby on Rails (this one is called the technical layer of Web 2.0) (van der Vlist, Vernet et al. 2007). The focus in this thesis is on the social layer of Web 2.0 and the technical layer can be seen as an enabler for the social side of Web 2.0.

Before the burst of new ideas that we call Web 2.0, the web seemed to have reached a stage where its growth would slowly start declining. The production of web content seemed deemed to be increasingly controlled by traditional media producers, and the alliance between AOL and Time Warner was showing that the web industry had started its consolidation phase.

Socially, the Web had become a read-only medium where most of the content was published and broadcast pretty much like in conventional media. This hadn’t always been the case: the Web was originally designed as a medium where scientist could easily share their documents.

This was still the case in the early 1990’s, when the Web was largely composed of home pages and link pages edited and published by web users from the benefit of other web users. This was possible because the technology was simple, and because the target audience was able and willing to edit web pages without much tool support. During the next iterations of web technologies more difficult tools where used and the audience expanded beyond the small circle of people willing to learn these technologies to publish their own content. As a result, the web became for most of its users a read only web, rather than the cooperative venture it had been originally.

The social layer of Web 2.0 is about making the Web a read/write web again. For some, this goal is motivated by philanthropic or political reasons: everyone should be able to express his or her ideas. For others, the motivation is financial: if the growth of the number of web readers is deemed to slow down, the growth of the web can only be fuelled by the growth of the number of people that create content on the web.

The technical layer is a consequence of the social layer: the ability to write on the web that has been limited by the growing complexity of the web technology can only be given back to web users by using more technology. In other words, the flurry of Ajax, JavaScript, and XML technologies that characterize most of Web 2.0 applications are needed to lower the barrier to entry in the circle of web publisher that web 2.0 applications try to enlarge.

It is important to note that content here is meant to be content at large. Many web 2.0 sites do not rely on their users for creating all their content but only to enrich their content. A significant example is amazon.com. Of course, the main content on the amazon.com web sites comes from the company’s own database, however, what makes the difference between the amazon.com site and other similar sites is how it integrates content from amazon.com partners and users. Users are not only welcome to publish reviews, they contribute to the site each time they buy a new item and even by browsing the site: the simple actions are analyzed and they are used to publish tips such as the ‘What do customers ultimately buy after viewing items like this?’ that is currently displayed if you browse the description of this book on amazon.com. This is perhaps the most convincing example if a low entry barriers to

contributing to a site’s content! (van der Vlist, Vernet et al. 2007)

This research adopts Forrester’s definition of Web 2.0 (Koplowitz and Oliver Young 2007), since it clearly defines the enabler aspect of Web 2.0 and the social shift:

A set of technologies and applications that enable efficient interaction among people, content, and data in support of collectively fostering new businesses, technology offerings, and social structures.

There are three lenses through which to look at Web 2.0:

Enabling technologies

Enabling technologies provide the infrastructure and building blocks for Web 2.0 applications. These supporting technologies are often taken for granted by marketers, by a lack of knowledge of techniques like AJAX and XML (Derksen 2007).

Core applications and features

Core applications and features enable people to efficiently interact with other people, as well

as content and data. Forrester (Koplowitz and Oliver Young 2007) calls this social computing:

Easy connections brought about by cheap devices, modular content, and shared computing resources are having a profound impact on our global economy and social structure. Individuals increasingly take cues from one another rather than from institutional sources like corporations, media outlets, religions, and political bodies. To thrive in an era of Social Computing, companies must abandon top-down management and communication tactics, weave communities into their products and services, use employees and partners as marketers, and become part of a living fabric of brand loyalists (Charron, Favier et al. 2006).

Dion Hinchcliffe rather talks about social media: Social media describes the online tools and platforms that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives with each other. Social media can take many different forms, including text, images, audio, and video. Popular social mediums include blogs, message boards, podcasts, wikis, and vlogs (Hinchcliffe 2007). Some ground rules of social media are (Hinchcliffe 2007):

Communication in the form of conversation, not monologue. This implies that social media must facilitate two-way discussion, discourse, and debate with little or no moderation or censorship. In other words, the increasingly ubiquitious comments section of your local blog or media sharing site is NOT optional and must be open to everyone.
Participants in social media are people, not organizations. Third-person voice is discouraged and the source of ideas and participation is clearly identified and associated with the individuals that contributed them. Anonymity is also discouraged but permissible in some very limited situations.
Honesty and transparency are core values. Spin and attempting to control, manipulate, or even spam the conversation are thoroughly discouraged. Social media is an often painfully candid forum and traditional organizations -- which aren't part of the conversation other than through their people -- will often have a hard time adjusting to this.
It's all about pull, not push. Like McKinsey & Company noted a year ago or so , push-based systems, of which one-way marketing and advertising and command-and-control management are typical examples are no where near as efficient as pull systems where people bring to them the content and relationships that they want, instead of having them forced on themselves. Far from being a management theory, much of what we see in Web 2.0 shows the power of pull-based systems with extremely large audiences. As you shape a social media community, understanding how to make embrace pull instead of push is one of the core techniques. In social media, people are in control of their conversations, not the pushers.
Distribution instead of centralization. One often overlooked aspect of social media is the fact that the interlocutors are so many and varied. Gone are the biases that inevitably creep into information when only a few organizations control the creation and distribution of information. Social media is highly distributed and made up of tens of millions of voices making it far more textured, rich, and heterogeneous than old media could ever be (or want to be). Encouraging conversations on the vast edges of our networks, rather than in the middle, is what this point is all about.

Behavioral shifts

Core applications and features are fostering new social behaviour, business models, and cultures.

Enterprise 2.0

Professor McAfee at Harvard (2006) argues there is a new wave of business communication tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging. There are new digital platforms for generating, sharing and refining information that are already popular on the Internet, where they are collectively labelled Web 2.0 technologies. The term “Enterprise 2.0” focus only on those platforms that companies can buy or build in order to make visible the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers. Enterprise 2.0 is all about Web 2.0 technologies and practices within organisations and businesses. Andrew McAfee provides a clear, clean explanation of Enterprise 2.0; the emerging use of Web 2.0 technologies like blogs and wikis within the Intranet (McAfee 2007). He has introduced his "SLATES" mnemonic to help guide those creating or acquiring Enterprise 2.0 software. SLATES describes the combined use of effective enterprise search and discovery, using links to connect information together into a meaningful information ecosystem using the model of the Web, providing low-barrier social tools for public authorship of enterprise content, tags to let users create emergent organizational structure, extensions to spontaneously provide intelligent content suggestions similar to Amazon's recommendation system, and signals to let users know when enterprise information they care about has been published or updated, such as when a corporate RSS feed of interest changes (McAfee 2006). As in previous innovation cycles, whenever multiple point capabilities converge – such as wireless, pervasive broadband, and online collaboration – many new applications become possible. In these cases, consumers tend to adopt the new services and products before the enterprise, but in the end the enterprise market is usually far larger and more profitable. In McKinsey’s and Sand Hill Group’s Software Industry Report 2006 state that the hype around “Web 2.0” for consumers – with its rapid innovation in content tools (e.g., blogs, wikis, user editing and tagging) heralds a much larger opportunity to put these innovations to work in the enterprise. Many innovations, collectively termed Web 2.0, will fully reach the enterprise – as in previous cycles, innovation developed for individual users will translate into substantial enterprise opportunities (Berryman, Jones et al. 2006).

e-Business 2.0

The focus in this research is on the companies that embrace the web 2.0 enabling technologies and core applications that cause a behaviour shift (the outmost circle of Forrester's figure). This research therefore introduces the concept e-Business 2.0, by which I mean: e-Business companies that use Web 2.0 to create and appropriate value from, for and with stakeholders.

This research will look at pure e-Business 2.0 companies with an external approach. The focus is on the customer, instead of an internal organisation (Enterprise 2.0) and the company is fully dependent on the web 2.0 technologies. Reason for this is that business-to-consumer developments occur often earlier than business-to-business developments. What is important to notice is that besides e-Business 2.0 pure players, also companies that acquire parts of e-Business 2.0 and regular e-Business (e.g. e-Commerce) companies are active. Companies can learn from these often smaller e-Business 2.0 companies (start-ups) and use it to adopt to market changes and/or to enterprise 2.0.

Nederlandse Thesis Proposal Samenvatting van Waarde Creatie in Web 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Vincent de la Mar) — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:13:00 +0000

Op Marketingfacts.nl is afgelopen week een Nederlands artikel geplaatst over mijn Master Thesis over Waarde drijvers en creatie in Web 2.0. Het artikel is hier te vinden.

Afgelopen weken heb ik vele reacties van buitenlandse en Nederlandse bedrijven ontvangen en zo wordt maar weer eens bewezen hoe interessant en belangrijk onderzoek naar Web 2.0 is.

Mijn onderzoek stelt Web 2.0 centraal, als een ontwikkeling binnen e-business die de waarde creatie en toe-eigening van en voor participanten doet veranderen. Het onderzoek gaat met name over de waarde creatie en waarde drijvers in Web 2.0. Het onderzoeksdoel is om de Entrepreneurship en Strategic Management Theorie aan te vullen door eerste inzichten te geven in de waarde drijvers en waarde creatie in Web 2.0.

De centrale onderzoeksvraag hierbij is of de waarde drijvers die we associëren met Web 2.0 verschillen van de reeds bekende waarde drivers in e-business. Deelvragen van dit onderzoek zijn: hoe wordt waarde gecreëerd en toegeëigend als competitief voordeel? Wat zijn de waarde drijvers in e-business? Wat is het verschilt tussen e-business en Web 2.0?

Final MScBA Research Proposal!

noreply@blogger.com (Vincent de la Mar) — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:35:00 +0000

Introduction

E-Business (Electronic-Business) can be described as the new business logic that operates in a world without boundaries. The definition of e-Business as the range of online business activities for products and services, both business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C), through the Internet, is used in this research. This is the definition used by Hoque (Hoque 2000) and OECD (OECD 1998). Accordingly, e-Business refers to the use of Internet technologies for internal business processes (intranet); for relationships (extranet); and for the transactions of goods, services and information (Internet). E-Business is seen in a social context by which interaction aspects also count as a significant part of the use of Internet. E-Business refers to a broader definition of Electronic Commerce, not just buying and selling but also servicing customers, providing an integrated business environment and offering added value services (Turban, Lee et al. 1999).

It is now widely acknowledged that the Internet is fundamental to the digitalisation and that it has the potential to transform the competitive landscape at both Micro- and Marco-economic levels. The Internet impacts upon established practices as well as on new ways of conducing business. It has effected the competitive environment at regional, national and international levels (Norton 2001). e-Business has the potential of generating tremendous new wealth, mostly through entrepreneurial start-ups and corporate ventures. It is also transforming the rules of competition for established businesses in unprecedented ways. One would thus expect e-business to have attracted the attention of scholars in the fields of entrepreneurship and strategic management (Amit 2001). The advent of e-Business presents a strong case for the confluence of the Entrepreneurship and Strategy Research streams as argued by Hitt and Ireland (Hitt 2000) and McGrath and MacMillan (McGrath 2000). Yet, research on value drivers e-Business is sparse. The Literature has neither articulated the central issues related to this new phenomenon, nor has it developed theory that captures the unique features of virtual markets (Amit 2001).

Figure 1: Meme Map Web 2.0 (O'Reilly 2005)

Joakar and Fish (2006) state a ‘unified view’ of Web 2.0 based on the seven principles of Web 2.0 by O’Reilly (2005), Figure 1, by which the second principle (harnessing collective intelligence) encompasses the other six. This will be the foundation of our used definition of Web 2.0 in this research. Web 1.0 was hijacked by the marketers, advertisers and the people who wanted to push content into the market. The dot com bubble was the end of many who took this approach of the broadcast content. What is left is the Web as it was originally meant to be a global means of communication. The intelligence attributed to the Web (Web 2.0) arises from us (i.e. the collective/people) as we begin to communicate. This approach focuses on the ‘Intelligent Web’ or ‘Harnessing Collective Intelligence’ and deals with the principle of ‘wisdom of crowds’ (Surowiecki 2005) .

Web 2.0 is a buzz word, but the concepts underlying it should be taken seriously: The essence of Web 2.0 is not in the (technology) implementations, but it is in the concepts (Bakker 2005). As far as Baker (2005) is concerned the attention for Web 2.0 demarks the coming of a second Internet revolution. From a technological, organizational and a social perspective, all signs are there that the Internet will become increasingly popular the next couple of years for applications, and in the end the Internet will be the platform of choice for practically all new applications. From a technological perspective, practically all innovation is somewhat related to web based projects or technologies targeted at the Internet. Nobody is developing new products or technologies anymore that are not web enabled. Also, other trends like ubiquitous Internet access and an increasing number of people having broadband wireless, through any device, make that the Internet is at the Center of technological evolution. From an organizational perspective, it is interesting to see that many enterprises have adopted Internet technologies. For instance, Corporate blogging is, from a marketing point-of-view, an opportunity to reach the market in a different, very scalable way. From a social perspective, tomorrow's customers, end users and decision makers are of the generation that grew up with the Internet, and who are used to communicating and doing business through Internet technologies. Bakker (2005) argues the simple observation that an increasing number of people are not only using the Internet, but who are relying on the Internet for social contacts, purchasing goods and being informed on what is happening in the world. The Internet is becoming a significant factor in today's society (Bakker 2005).

Professor McAfee at Harvard (2006) argues that there is a new wave of business communication tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging. There are new digital platforms for generating, sharing and refining information that are already popular on the Internet, where they are collectively labelled Web 2.0 technologies. In McKinsey’s and Sand Hill Group’s Software Industry Report 2006 it is stated, that the hype around “Web 2.0” for consumers – with its rapid innovation in content tools (e.g., blogs, wikis, user editing and tagging) - heralds a much larger opportunity to put these innovations to work in the enterprise. Many innovations, collectively termed Web 2.0, will fully reach the enterprise – as in previous cycles, innovation developed for individual users will translate into substantial enterprise opportunities (Berryman, Jones et al. 2006).

According to Hinchcliffe (Hinchcliffe 2006a) there is no doubt that the Web has changed recently in important ways. New techniques and technologies are reshaping the way we think about and use the online world to meet our needs. Not only is the software experience more online, but it is an increasingly two-way, social, even communal, experience. Online publishing is being replaced with blogs, content management systems with wikis, static web pages with rich Internet applications (RIAs). Two or three years ago there was a feeling that innovation online had failed to emerge from the doldrums of the dot com boom and bust cycle and had hit something of a dead end, but now innovation is arguably at its most frenetic level ever (Sturgeon 2006).

In Gartner’s 2006 Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle (Figure 2), three major themes that are experiencing significant activity and which include new or heavily hyped technologies, where organisations may be uncertain as to which will have most impact on their business, are argued. One of the three key technology themes identified by Gartner, and the corresponding technologies for enterprises to examine closely within them, is Web 2.0 and represents a broad collection of recent trends in Internet technologies and business models. Particular focus has been given to user-created content, lightweight technology, service-based access and shared revenue models. Technologies rated by Gartner as having transformational, high or moderate impact include: Social Network Analysis, Marsh-ups, AJAX and Collective Intelligence. Web 2.0 refers to the creation of far greater levels of interactivity, not just between users, or between users and the internet but between complementary online services through mash-ups and web services (Sturgeon 2006). Web 2.0 and it’s concepts and technologies are now at it’s peak of the Hype and will be adopted within 2 years (Gartner 2006).

Figure 2. The Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies 2006

(Gartner 2006)*

Today we can see new start-ups like YouTube, Hyves and Facebook, that are worth Millions and in some cases Billions of Dollars. These companies highlight the importance and maturity of the Internet, called Web 2.0. With Web 2.0 however we see that it are not only entrepreneurial start-ups and corporate ventures that are frontrunners and content participants, but the whole crowd that uses the Internet for private manners are becoming more relevant. Because the internet has become mature and

[1] The “Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2006” report is one of 78 hype cycles released by Gartner in 2006. More than 1,900 information technologies and trends across more than 75 industries, technology markets, and topics are evaluated by more than 300 Gartner analysts in the most comprehensive assessment of technology maturity in the IT industry. Gartner's hype cycles assess the maturity, impact and adoption speed of hundreds of technologies across a broad range of technology, application and industry areas. It highlights the progression of an emerging technology from market over enthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology's relevance and role in a market or domain (Gartner 2006)

new simple techniques make it possible for everyone to use the internet new aspects of e-Business and e-Entrepreneurship become more important. With Web 2.0 new features of the Internet transactions and participations are taking place. More and different stakeholders might add value in e-business. This raises questions which value drivers we can find in Web 2.0 and which ones are more important. Are value drivers and value creation theories from Entrepreneurship Research and Strategic Management Research, e.g. by Amit and Zott (2001), still applicable and relevant? Are there new value drivers and which value drivers are more important in Web 2.0?

This research tries to give first answers to problems that are argued: Our first problem from a theoretical approach is that theory on value creation in e-Business is relatively scarce. This is related to a more practical problem that companies could make incorrect decisions, because of scarce theory. With the upcoming of new developments of Web 2.0 a second problem arises and results in the fact that extending theory on value drivers in e-Business becomes even more relevant: Previous theory on value creation in e-Business might not be applicable anymore. Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) research value drivers in e-Business companies before 2001. With new aspects of Web 2.0 these results might not be up to date anymore. Therefore the objective of this research is to further develop Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory on value creation in e-Business, by providing first insights in value drivers in Web 2.0. To reach this goal this research tries to give first answers to the central research question, if value drivers associated with Web 2.0 are different from known value drivers in e-business? Figure 3 shows an overview of this Research Design.

Figure 3. Overview Research Design

Schumpeter (Schumpeter 1934) pioneered the theory of economic development and new value creation through the process of technological change and innovation. He viewed technological development as discontinuous change and disequilibrium resulting from innovation.

The third basic theory is the Resource Based View of the firm and builds on Schumpeter’s perspective on value creation and views the firm as a bundle of resources and capabilities: Even in equilibrium, firms may differ in terms of the resources and capabilities they control, and that such asymmetric firms may coexist until some exogenous change or Schumpeterian shock occurs. Hence, RBV theory postulates that the services rendered by the firm’s unique bundle of resources and capabilities may lead to value creation (Penrose 1959).

From Strategic Management Literature it is argued that Strategic Networks, the fourth theory, are ‘stable inter-organizational ties which are strategically important to participating firms. They make the form of strategic alliances, joint ventures, long-term buyer-supplier partnerships, and other ties’ (Gulati 2000). The size of the network and the heterogeneity of its ties have been conjectured to have a positive effect on the availability of valuable information of the participants within that network (Granovetter 1973).

The last basic theory discussed, is transaction cost economics. The central question addressed by transaction cost economics is why firms internalize transactions that might otherwise be conducted in markets (Coase,1937). Williamson (Williamson 1983) suggests that ‘a transaction occurs when a good or service is transferred across a technologically separable interface. One stage of processing or assembly activity terminates, and another begins.’ At its core, transaction cost theory is concerned with explaining the choice of the most efficient governance form given a transaction that is embedded in a specific economic context (Amit 2001). Transaction cost economics identifies transaction efficiency as a major source of value, as enhanced efficiency reduces costs.

Two views on value creation that combine Entrepreneurial research and Strategic Management Resource are the business model construct of Amit and Zott (2001) and the Increasing Return Perspective of Brian Arthur (Brian Arthur 1994).

The Second sub-question of this research introduces e-Business features and applies findings of value drivers in e-Business. Virtual markets refer to e-business and are markets in which business transactions are conducted via open networks based on the fixed and wireless Internet infrastructure (Amit 2001). These markets are characterized by high connectivity (Dutta 1999), a focus on transactions (Balakrishnan 1999), the importance of information goods and networks (Shapiro 1999), and high reach and richness of information (Evans 1999). Virtual markets have unprecedented reach because they are characterized by a near lack of geographical boundaries. There are several other characteristics of virtual markets that, when considered together, have a profound effect on how value creating economic transactions are structured and conducted. These include the ease of extending one’s product range to include complementary products, improved access to complementary assets, new forms of collaboration among firms, the potential reduction of asymmetric information among economic agents through the Internet, and real-time customizability of products and services (Amit 2001).

Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) argue that each mentioned theoretical framework of value creation, makes valuable suggestions about possible sources of value creation. Many of the insights gained from cumulative research in entrepreneurship and strategic management are applicable to e-business. However, the multitude of value drivers suggested in the literature raises the question of precisely which sources of value are particular importance in e-business, and whether unique value drivers can be identified in context of e-business. Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) introduce a model that suggests that the value creation potential of e-businesses hinges on four interdependent dimensions, namely: efficiency, complementarities, lock-in, and novelty, Figure 4.

Figure 4. Sources of Value Creation in e-Business (Amit 2001)

The final sub-question of this research, looks at the differences between e-Business and Web 2.0 with a focus on value creation. By researching specific features of Web 2.0 and comparing those with e-Business, a better understanding of (new) potential value drivers is given. The relationship between e-Business and Web 2.0 will become more clear. Hinchcliffe (Hinchcliffe 2006a) provides many theories on Web 2.0 and argues that the Web itself has become a vast landscape of information services that can be wired together to reuse and take advantage of aggregated data and functionality. The hallmarks of these online applications are their pervasive availability, interactivity, social immersion, user-driven organization, community contribution, and particularly their reusable, remixable services (Hinchcliffe 2006a). Looking back at the beginning of Web 2.0, a core of theories and aspects, are mentioned by O’Reilly, which he calls the seven principles of Web 2.0 (O'Reilly 2005). Some relevant aspects discussed are harnessing the Long Tail (Anderson 2006) and Collective Intelligence, the Wisdom of Crowds (Surowiecki 2005), rich user experience and network effects.

The scarce e-business theory on value creation, the increasing use and importance of the Internet, and the emergence of Web 2.0 ask for a close look at value creation in the New Internet and it’s underlying value drivers. With this research a first attempt is made to fill this theoretical gap by seeking to identify the (most important) value drivers in Web 2.0. This research does not only contain value drivers derived from Strategy theories, e.g. Strategic Network Theory (Dyer 1998), but also focuses on Innovation and Entrepreneurship theories, e.g. Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction (Schumpeter 1942). This research also contributes to the scarce theories of e-Businesses by looking at new developments within the Internet, particularly Web 2.0. Previous research on e-Business Value drivers is useful but probably not up-to-date anymore with the emergence of Web 2.0. The research of Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) for instance deals with companies before the Internet bubble of 2001. With Web 2.0, new features of the Internet transactions and participations are taking place. This raises questions which (new) value drivers we can find in Web 2.0 and which ones are more important. Providing more insight in value drivers in Web 2.0 enables companies and entrepreneurs to adopt and prepare to take advantage of opportunities in this next stage of the Internet.

Objective and Research Questions

The objective of this research is to further develop Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory on Value Creation in e-Business, by providing first insights in Value Drivers in Web 2.0.

General research question

Are the value drivers associated with Web 2.0 different from the known value drivers in e-Business?

Research sub-questions

How is value created and how is value captured as a competitive advantage?
What are the value drivers in e-Business?
What are differences between e-Business and Web 2.0?

Research Design and Methodology

By looking at Entrepreneurship Research and Strategic Management Research on value creation I can make a framework that is useful for this research. Value creation specifically in e-Business is a topic that has not been addressed often. Especially an article of Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) is relevant and it’s findings show four value drivers in e-Business. My research will extent this research by looking at the value drivers in Web 2.0, based on qualitative data and research methods, like qualitative interviewing and collection and qualitative analysis of texts and documents. Some features of qualitative research are: process, unstructured, and contextual understanding (Bryman 2003). The reason for this approach is that it is an in-depth insight approach by which backgrounds and processes, in a relatively unknown and unexplored topic of value creation in e-Business, can be described. Working with qualitative data is flexible and leaves room for subtle interpretations. The essence of this type of research is a continuous interaction between observation, analysis, and reflection on the findings (Vermeulen 2004). Significant difference with quantitative research is working with text instead of working with numbers. In-depth research gives the opportunity for detail and findings that are less to generalize. Reason for this approach is that the topic is unclear, complex, and less information is available.

The research strategy of this research is Well-founded Theory Approach, that focuses on framing (development) of a theory. It makes it able to contribute to Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory development on value drivers in e-Business (Verschuren and Doorewaard 2003). With this approach a continuous comparison with theories (e.g. Amit and Zott 2001) and findings is possible, to explore new developments and extent literature. This pure qualitative approach has similarities with case studies (Verschuren and Doorewaard 2003).

Figure 3 and 5 visualize the position of this research. This research can be described as explorative theory development research. Reason for this approach is the emergence of a relatively unknown research topic, Web 2.0. Although there is research on value creation in e-Business (Amit 2001), I can expect differences with findings because of developments in e-Business. According to Ultee (Ultee 1991) theory development research can be used when some theoretical research is already done, but new developments on the topic brings up new questions, e.g. to what extent is the theory still applicable?

To answer the main question, are value drivers associated with Web 2.0 different from the known value drivers in e-business, I divided the objective in research sub-questions and core definitions according to Verschuren and Doorewaard (Verschuren and Doorewaard 2003). Three sub-questions are relevant to answer.

The first sub-question, on how value is created and captured, can be answered by researching Entrepreneurship Theory and Strategic Management Theory on value creation and sustainable competitive advantages. This literature study provides an overview of value creation theories from different scientifically approaches and gives a better understanding of potential value drivers in Web 2.0.

Literature Research of e.g. Amit and Zott (2001) give answers to the second question of this research, what are value drivers in e-Business. After providing clear answers to the first two sub-questions, the third sub-questions introduces Web 2.0. Potential value divers in e-Business will be researched in relation with specific aspects of Web 2.0.

Figure 5. Overview Methodology

The third sub-question looks at the specific features of the next stage of Internet and will give an overview and understanding which potential value drivers can be found in Web 2.0 and which value drivers in e-Business are more important. This question will give more insight in the relationships between e-Business and Web 2.0. I will look at relevant aspects, such as value drivers and creation, of Web 2.0 in relation to e-Business. The advantage of carrying out a comparison is that we understand the phenomenon that we are interested in better, when we compare it with something else that is similar to it (Bryman 2003). This final sub-question will be answered by four different methods.

First method is by reviewing recent research, articles, magazines, books, and blogs. The sources of information are Literature and Media; the information source for a broader audience. Many articles are written about Web 2.0, and although most of them are written because of a buzz, they can provide new insights. Especially New Media (e.g. weblogs, web journals) provide information of experts in the field of e-Business. Bryman and Bell (2003) argue that Mass Media outputs are potential sources for business and management study, since the evidence is usually clear and comprehensible, but may require considerable awareness of contextual factors. An advantage of Literature of an information source, is that this information source can provide in-depth specific knowledge.

Instead of looking to ‘static’ business models we follow the business model concept of Amit and Zott (2001), which enables us to address a unique set of questions pertaining to value creation that cannot be sufficiently addressed by prior frameworks. Through the advent of virtual markets, a firm’s scope and its boundaries become less clear, and through the impact of sophisticated information technology, strategic analysis of e-business ventures will have to move beyond the traditional conception of the ‘firm’ as the unit of analysis.

A second method used to answer the third sub-question, are in-depth qualitative interviews of experts, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, professors, and researchers in the field of Web 2.0 and e-Business. A depth interview can be described as an unstructured, direct, and personal interview, by which the respondent is being asked for underlying motivations, convictions, attitudes and opinions (Naresh et al., 2003). Interviews with web 2.0 experts provide up to date information that cannot be found in secondary data. This strategy can extent our theory development and findings of Well-founded Theory Approach and serve as validation and improvement tool. The interviews will tell me if my Literature and Media research makes sense and if my concepts and findings are logical.

Another reason for choosing this method is that there is much greater interest in the interviewee’s point of view. In this qualitative research there is an emphasis on gathering first insights in value drivers in Web 2.0, and it is therefore encouraged to be flexible and see what the interviewee sees as relevant. I want rich, detailed answers instead of answers that can be coded and processed quickly, as can be found in quantitative interviews (Bryman 2003).

Final reason to use qualitative interviews is that it leaves the opportunity to interview an interviewee several occasions. Since this research is an iterative process and concepts are developed and improved during interviews, I planned interviews with interviewees over several occasions (e.g. several interviews with Web 2.0 expert, Hinchcliffe). This gives the opportunity to use two qualitative interviewing approaches: the unstructured interview, by which the researcher might have one question and the interviewee is allowed to respond freely, and the semi-structured interview, by which the researcher has a list of questions on fairly specific topics to be covered, often referred as to as an interview guide (Bryman 2003). First couple of interviews will have an unstructured view, so I can improve ideas on concepts, and the last round of interviews will have a semi-structured approach, where I give my findings so far, and ask specifically for opinions and arguments of value drivers and concepts. In this stage of research the interview guide will contain subjects as four value drivers of Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) and value drivers I found during Literature research.

The third research sub-question will be main topic of the interviews, with the first two sub-question as foundation. With Kvale’s list of nine types of questions (Kvale 1996) I will vary the questioning during the interview, to gain as much information as needed.

One of the sources of information to answer this sub-question, are persons. With persons I refer to people who provide us knowledge about Web 2.0, e-Business and Value creation e.g. expert as e-Business professors and Web 2.0 researchers. Walker (Walker 1988) tried to seek an operational definition for the concept of 'expert', and suggests the defining attributes of: possession of a specialized body of knowledge and skill; extensive experience in a field of practice; highly developed levels of pattern recognition, and acknowledgement by others. These attributes are used in this research as criteria, whether to call someone an expert or not. By using experts in this research, we can give valid first answers to the research questions. The main advantages of this source is diversity of information and the speed of acquiring information (Verschuren and Doorewaard 2003). Under persons can also be understand the people within a Web 2.0 company who provide information about the company and it’s underlying business models and value drivers. By talking with experts, internal validity of this research is increased: because experts often participate in the research field over a long period of time, it allows the researcher to ensure a high level of congruence between concepts and observations (Bryman 2003). The validity is also increased by the fact that I will interview people from different countries, resulting in findings in an international context.

A third research method used to answer the third research sub-question, is to research Web 2.0 companies to illustrate findings and relevant aspects.

A fourth method used, is creating a weblog for this master thesis, valueweb2.blogspot.com, to enable a dialogue with experts (e.g. professors and internet entrepreneurs) on the internet and partner up with other writers. Besides the fact that this initiative is pure Web 2.0, by sharing my findings online, this initiative, combined with literature and media research, web 2.0 company illustrations, and interviews, should provide enough information to give first answers to my research question.

The establishment of the credibility of findings entails to the canons of good practice and to submitting research findings to the members of the social world who were studied for confirmation that the investigator has correctly understood (Bryman 2003). This latter technique is often referred to as respondent validation or member validation. In this research I will first begin with Literature research to have a better understanding of value creation and value drivers in Web 2.0. Thereupon I will use Literature research and Media Research to make first concepts of value drivers in Web 2.0 and to what extent they might differ with value drivers in e-Business. As final step I will use mentioned validation technique by interviewing experts, professors and entrepreneurs in Web 2.0, to ensure that the chosen concepts provide proper insights and make sense. The interviews should give first answers to the question, if the field agrees with my findings and concepts? This triangulation, defined as using more than one method or source of data, helps develop and improve concepts, and decreases the chance of misinterpretations. Kanter (Kanter 1977) suggests that a combination of methods…emerges as the most valid and reliable way to develop understanding of complex developments.

Expected Results

This research provides more insight in the next stage of the Internet. It will show that Web 2.0 is not only a buzz word, but that there are underlying values that are changing the landscape of our business (models). One of the expectations is that I can improve and/or update the value drivers emergence model of Amit and Zott (Amit 2001). I expect new value drivers, or a few value drivers that will be more important in this stage of the Internet. A small contribution to value creation theories and business model theories in the field of a combination of Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management is then delivered. An expectation is that I can provide more insight in the question if there are internal or external changes in the model, that Amit and Zott propose in 2001. By this I mean that e.g. a mentioned value driver as ‘novelty’, could change internally in context of Web 2.0; A ‘portal website’ was, as a business model, new in their research, but nowadays a portal has to add something more to be new and to add value. What is that underlying value driver that adds value?

Another expectation is that this research provides an improved overview of what Web 2.0 is and what, not only entrepreneurs and companies, but also the internet users, can do with it. The relationship between e-Business and Web 2.0 will be more clear. Providing more insight in value drivers and business models in Web 2.0 enables internet users, companies and entrepreneurs to adopt and prepare to take advantage of opportunities in this next stage of the Internet.

The aim of this research is to give first answers to a relatively unknown and new development, and understands the shortcomings of qualitative research, such as difficulty of replication, generalizations, and transparency (Bryman 2003). After my findings, quantitative research or case studies could help overcome the mentioned problems, and could extent the founded concepts.

References

Amit, R. a. Z., C. (2001). "Value Creation in E-Business." Strategic Management Journal 22: 493-520.

Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York, Hyperion.

Bakker, L. (2005). Why the Web 2.0 concept will survive A Matter of Perspective: Loek Bakker's weblog

Balakrishnan, A., Kumara, SRT., Sundaresan, S. (1999). "Manufacturing in the digital age: exploiting information technologies for product realization." Information Systems Frontier 1: 25-50.

Berryman, K., J. Jones, et al. (2006). Software 2006 Industry Report, McKinsey&Company Inc.

San Hill Group.

Brian Arthur, B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Michigan, University of Michigan Press.

Bryman, A., Bell, E. (2003). Business Research Methods. New York, Oxford University Press Inc.

Brynjolfsson, E. and B. Kahin (2002). Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools and Research. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.

Dutta, S., Segev, A. (1999). "Business transformation on the Internet." European Management Journal 17: 466-476.

Dyer, J., Singh, H. (1998). "The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage." Academy of Management Review 23: 660-679.

Evans, P., Wurster, TS. (1999). Blown to Bits: How the New Economics of Information Transforms Strategy. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Gartner (2006). Hype Cycle for Emerging Technology 2006.

Granovetter, M. (1973). "The strength aof weak ties." American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360-1380.

Gulati, R., Nohria, N., Zaheer, A. (2000). "Strategic networks." Strategic Management Journal 21(3): 203-215.

Hinchcliffe, D. (2006a). Welcome to the Web 2.0 World of Flickr, del.icio.us, Writely, Basecamp, Digg, and Many Others. Web 2.0 Journal S.-C. Media.

Hitt, M., Ireland, RD. (2000). The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research. The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship. L. Sexton, Landstrom, H. Oxford, Blackwell: 45-63.

Hoque, F. (2000). e-Enterprise: Business Models, Architecture, and Components. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, Basic Books.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage.

Martin, L. and H. Matlay (2003). "Innovative use of the Internet in established small firms: The impact of Knowledge Management and Organisational learning in accessing new opportunities." Qualitative Market Research 6(1): 18-26.

Matlay, H. (2003a). Small Tourism Firms in e-Europe: Definitional, Conceptual and Contextual Considerations. in R. Thomas Small firms in Tourism: International perspectives. Oxford, Pegamon: 297-312.

Matlay, H. (2003b). "e-Babel: in Search of a Theory of e-Everything."

Matlay, H. and M. Addis (2003). "The value of E-Commerce for high growth SME's."

McGrath, R., MacMillan, IC. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Norton, R. (2001). Creating the New Economy: The Entrepreneurs and the US Resurgence. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishin Ltd.

O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O'Reilly.

OECD (1998). SMEs and Electronic Commerce, Working Party on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Paris, DSTI/IND/PME(98)18/REV1.

Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of Growth of the Firm. London, Basil Blackwell.

Perez, C. (2002). Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York, Free Press.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York, Harper.

Shapiro, C., Varian, HR. (1999). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Sturgeon, W. (2006). Cheat Sheet: Web 2.0. Silicon.com.

What on earth is it and should you care?

Surowiecki (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York, Anchor Books.

Turban, E., J. Lee, et al. (1999). Electronic Commerce A Managerial Perspective. New Jersey, Prentice.

Ultee, W. (1991). How classical questions were enriched. In persuit of progress. An assessment of achievements in Dutch sociology. A. Becker. Amsterdam, Siswo publication 355.

Vermeulen, P. (2004). Conducting qualitative Research. Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit.

Verschuren, P. and H. Doorewaard (2003). Het ontwerpen van een onderzoek. Utrecht, Lemma BV.

Walker, A. (1988). "Expert: a discussion of the implications of the concept as used in nursing." Journal of Advanced nursing 20(4): 769-76.

Williamson, O. (1983). Organizational innovation: the transaction cost approach. Entrepreneurship. J. Ronen. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books: 101-133.

Research Developments - Proposal Version 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Vincent de la Mar) — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:37:00 +0000

After feedback sessions with my professor at RSM Erasmus University I changed my Master Thesis Proposal. For a quick overview, look at the figures at proposal version 2.0

Introduction

The term ‘e-entrepreneurship’ describes the act of establishing new companies specifically in the Net Economy (Matlay 2004). E-business (Electronic-Business) is part of the New Economy and can be described as the new business logic that operates in a world without boundaries. E-Business refers to a broader definition of Electronic Commerce, not just buying and selling but also servicing customers, providing an integrated business environment and offering added value services (Turban, Lee et al. 1999). It is now widely acknowledged that the Internet is fundamental to the New Economy and that it has the potential to transform the competitive landscape at both Micro- and Marco-economic levels. The Internet impacts upon established practices as well as on new ways of conducing business. It has effected the competitive environment at regional, national and international levels (Norton 2001). e-Business has the potential of generating tremendous new wealth, mostly through entrepreneurial start-ups and corporate ventures. It is also transforming the rules of competition for established businesses in unprecedented ways. One would thus expect e-business to have attracted the attention of scholars in the fields of entrepreneurship and strategic management (Amit 2001). The advent of e-Business presents a strong case for the confluence of the Entrepreneurship and Strategy Research streams as argued by Hitt and Ireland (Hitt 2000) and McGrath and MacMillan (McGrath 2000). Yet, research on e-Business is sparse. The Literature has neither articulated the central issues related to this new phenomenon, nor has it developed theory that captures the unique features of virtual markets (Amit 2001).

The bursting of the dot com bubble in the Fall of 2001 market a turning point for the web and the companies that created value. Many people concluded that the web was over hyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions (Perez 2002). Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at a Center stage. The pretenders are given the bum’s rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other. The concept of “Web 2.0” began with a conference brainstorming session between O’Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Doughtery, web pioneer and O’Reilly, noted that far from having “crashed”, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What is more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. One agreed that the dot-com collapse marked some turning point for the web, and introduced the second stage of the Internet: Web 2.0 (O'Reilly 2005). Joakar and Fish (2006) state a ‘unified view’ of Web 2.0 based on the seven principles of Web 2.0 by O’Reilly (2005), Appendix 1, by which the second principle (harnessing collective intelligence) encompasses the other six. Web 1.0 was hijacked by the marketers, advertisers and the people who wanted to push content into the market. The dot com bubble was the end of many who took this approach of the broadcast content. What is left is the Web as it was originally meant to be a global means of communication. The intelligence attributed to the Web (Web 2.0) arises from us (i.e. the collective/people) as we begin to communicate. This approach focuses on the ‘Intelligent Web’ or ‘Harnessing Collective Intelligence’ and deals with the principle of ‘wisdom of crowds’ (Surowiecki 2005) .

Web 2.0 is a buzz word, but the concepts underlying it should be taken seriously: The essence of Web 2.0 is not in the (technology) implementations, but it is in the concepts. As far as Baker (2005) is concerned the attention for Web 2.0 demarks the coming of a second Internet revolution. From a technological, organizational and a social perspective, all signs are there that the Internet will become increasingly popular the next couple of years for applications, and in the end the Internet will be the platform of choice for practically all new applications. From a technological perspective, practically all innovation is somewhat related to web based projects or technologies targeted at the Internet. Nobody is developing new products or technologies anymore that are not web enabled. Also, other trends like ubiquitous Internet access and an increasing number of people having broadband wireless, through any device, make that the Internet is at the Center of technological evolution. From an organizational perspective, it is interesting to see that many enterprises have adopted Internet technologies. For instance, Corporate blogging is, from a marketing point-of-view, an opportunity to reach the market in a different, very scalable way. From a social perspective, tomorrow's customers, end users and decision makers are of the generation that grew up with the Internet, and who are used to communicating and doing business through Internet technologies. Bakker (2005) argues the simple observation that an increasing number of people are not only using the Internet, but who are relying on the Internet for social contacts, purchasing goods and being informed on what is happening in the world. The Internet is becoming a significant factor in today's society (Bakker 2005). Web 2.0 also refers to the creation of far greater levels of interactivity, not just between users, or between users and the internet but between complementary online services through mash-ups and web services (Sturgeon 2006). Professor McAfee at MIT (2006) argues that there is a new wave of business communication tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging. There are new digital platforms for generating, sharing and refining information that are already popular on the Internet, where they are collectively labelled Web 2.0 technologies. In McKinsey’s and Sand Hill Group’s Software Industry Report 2006 it is stated, that the hype around “Web 2.0” for consumers – with its rapid innovation in content tools (e.g., blogs, wikis, user editing and tagging) - heralds a much larger opportunity to put these innovations to work in the enterprise. Many innovations, collectively termed Web 2.0, will fully reach the enterprise – as in previous cycles, innovation developed for individual users will translate into substantial enterprise opportunities (Berryman, Jones et al. 2006). According to Hinchcliffe (Hinchcliffe 2006a) there is no doubt that the Web has changed recently in important ways. New techniques and technologies are reshaping the way we think about and use the online world to meet our needs. Not only is the software experience more online, but it is an increasingly two-way, social, even communal, experience. Online publishing is being replaced with blogs, content management systems with wikis, static web pages with rich Internet applications (RIAs). Two or three years ago there was a feeling that innovation online had failed to emerge from the doldrums of the dot com boom and bust cycle and had hit something of a dead end, but now innovation is arguably at its most frenetic level ever (Sturgeon 2006). Today we can see new start-ups like YouTube, Hyves and Facebook, that are worth Millions and in some cases Billions of Dollars. These companies highlight the importance and maturity of the Internet, called Web 2.0. With Web 2.0 however we see that it are not only entrepreneurial start-ups and corporate ventures that are frontrunners and content participants, but the whole crowd that uses the Internet for private manners are becoming more relevant. With Web 2.0 new features of the Internet transactions and participations are taking place. More and different stakeholders add value in e-business. This raises questions which value drivers we can find in Web 2.0 and which one are more important. Are value drivers and value creation theories from Entrepreneurship Research and Strategic Management Research, e.g. by Amit and Zott (2001), still applicable and relevant? Are there new value drivers and which value drivers are more important in Web 2.0?

This research tries to give first answers to two problems that are argued: First from a theoretical approach, as mentioned before, theory on e-Business, especially focussed on value creation is scarce. This is related to our second problem, that companies are unable to make decisions or make incorrect decision, because of scarce theory. With the upcoming of new developments of Web 2.0, extending theory on value drivers in e-Business becomes even more relevant, because previous theory on value creation in e-Business might not be applicable anymore. Therefore the objective of this research is to further develop Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory on value creation in e-Business, by providing first insights in value drivers in Web 2.0. To reach this goal this research tries to give first answers to the central research question, if value drivers associated with Web 2.0 are different from known value drivers in e-business? An overview of this Research Design can be find in Appendix 2.

To gain more knowledge on value drivers in Web 2.0, a better understanding of the basic concepts of value creation and value appropriation as a competitive advantage is necessary. The first subject is well described in Entrepreneurship literature and the second in Strategic Management Literature. This research will try to answer it’s first sub-question, how value is created and captured, by describing five basic theories on value drivers and two combined views of Entrepreneurial literature and Strategic Management Literature: The first basic theory discussed, is Porter’s value chain framework (Porter 1985) and analyzes value creation at the firm level. Value chain analysis identifies the activities of the firm and then studies the economic implications of those activities. Value can be created by differentiation along every step of the value chain, through activities resulting in products and services that lower buyers’ costs or raise buyers’ performance. Schumpeter (Schumpeter 1934) pioneered the theory of economic development and new value creation through the process of technological change and innovation. He viewed technological development as discontinuous change and disequilibrium resulting from innovation. The third basic theory is the Resource Based View of the firm and builds on Schumpeter’s perspective on value creation and views the firm as a bundle of resources and capabilities: Even in equilibrium, firms may differ in terms of the resources and capabilities they control, and that such asymmetric firms may coexist until some exogenous change or Schumpeterian shock occurs. Hence, RBV theory postulates that the services rendered by the firm’s unique bundle of resources and capabilities may lead to value creation (Penrose 1959). From Strategic Management Literature it is argued that Strategic Networks, the fourth theory, are ‘stable inter-organizational ties which are strategically important to participating firms. They make the form of strategic alliances, joint ventures, long-term buyer-supplier partnerships, and other ties’ (Gulati 2000). The size of the network and the heterogeneity of its ties have been conjectured to have a positive effect on the availability of valuable information of the participants within that network (Granovetter 1973). The last basic theory discussed, is transaction cost economics. The central question addressed by transaction cost economics is why firms internalize transactions that might otherwise be conducted in markets (Coase,1937). Williamson (Williamson 1983) suggests that ‘a transaction occurs when a good or service is transferred across a technologically separable interface. One stage of processing or assembly activity terminates, and another begins.’ At its core, transaction cost theory is concerned with explaining the choice of the most efficient governance form given a transaction that is embedded in a specific economic context (Amit 2001). Transaction cost economics identifies transaction efficiency as a major source of value, as enhanced efficiency reduces costs. Two views on value creation that combine Entrepreneurial research and Strategic Management Resource are the business model construct of Amit and Zott (2001) and the Increasing Return Perspective of Brian Arthur (Brian Arthur 1994).

The Second sub-question introduces e-Business features and applies findings of value drivers in e-Business. Virtual markets refer to e-business and are markets in which business transactions are conducted via open networks based on the fixed and wireless Internet infrastructure (Amit 2001). These markets are characterized by high connectivity (Dutta 1999), a focus on transactions (Balakrishnan 1999), the importance of information goods and networks (Shapiro 1999), and high reach and richness of information (Evans 1999). Virtual markets have unprecedented reach because they are characterized by a near lack of geographical boundaries. There are several other characteristics of virtual markets that, when considered together, have a profound effect on how value creating economic transactions are structured and conducted. These include the ease of extending one’s product range to include complementary products, improved access to complementary assets, new forms of collaboration among firms, the potential reduction of asymmetric information among economic agents through the Internet, and real-time customizability of products and services (Amit 2001). Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) argue that each mentioned theoretical framework of value creation, makes valuable suggestions about possible sources of value creation. Many of the insights gained from cumulative research in entrepreneurship and strategic management are applicable to e-business. However, the multitude of value drivers suggested in the literature raises the question of precisely which sources of value are particular importance in e-business, and whether unique value drivers can be identified in context of e-business. Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) introduce a model that suggests that the value creation potential of e-businesses hinges on four interdependent dimensions, namely: efficiency, complementarities, lock-in, and novelty, Appendix 4.

The final sub-question looks at the differences between e-Business and Web 2.0 with a focus on value creation. By researching specific features of Web 2.0 and comparing those with e-Business, a better understanding of (new) potential value drivers is given. Hinchcliffe provides many theories on Web 2.0 and argues that the Web itself has become a vast landscape of information services that can be wired together to reuse and take advantage of aggregated data and functionality. The hallmarks of these online applications are their pervasive availability, interactivity, social immersion, user-driven organization, community contribution, and particularly their reusable, remixable services (Hinchcliffe 2006a). Looking back at the beginning of Web 2.0, a core of theories and aspects, are mentioned by O’Reilly, which he calls the seven principles of Web 2.0 (O'Reilly 2005). Some relevant aspects discussed are harnessing the Long Tail (Anderson 2006) and Collective Intelligence, the Wisdom of Crowds (Surowiecki 2005), Rich user experience and network effects.

Objective and Research Questions

The objective of this research is to further develop Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory on Value Creation in e-Business, by providing first insights in Value Drivers in Web 2.0. (Appendix 2)

General research question

Are the value drivers associated with Web 2.0 different from the known value drivers in e-Business?

Research sub-questions

How is value created and how is value captured as a competitive advantage?
What are the value drivers in e-Business?
What are differences between e-Business and Web 2.0?

Research Design and Methodology

The objective of this research is to further develop Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory on value creation in e-Business, by providing first insights in value drivers in Web 2.0. By looking at Entrepreneurship Research and Strategic Management Research on value creation we can make a framework that is useful for this research. Value creation specifically in e-Business is a topic that has not been addressed often. Especially an article of Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) is relevant and it’s findings show four value drivers in e-Business. My research will extent this research by looking at the value drivers in Web 2.0, based on qualitative data and research methods, like qualitative interviewing and collection and qualitative analysis of texts and documents. Some features of qualitative research are: process, unstructured, and contextual understanding (Bryman 2003).The reason for this approach is that it is an in-depth insight approach by which backgrounds and processes, in a relatively unknown and unexplored topic of value creation in e-Business, can be described. Working with qualitative data is flexible and leaves room for subtle interpretations. The essence of this type of research is a continuous interaction between observation, analysis, and reflection on the findings (Vermeulen 2004). Significant difference with quantitative research is working with text instead of working with numbers. In-depth research gives the opportunity for detail and findings that are less to generalize. Reason for this approach is that the topic is unclear, complex, and less information is available.

The research strategy is Well-founded Theory Approach focus is on framing (development) of a theory. It makes it able to contribute to Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Theory development on value drivers in e-Business (Verschuren 2003). With this approach a continuous comparison with theories (e.g. Amit and Zott 2001) and findings is possible, to explore new developments and extent literature. This pure qualitative approach has similarities with case studies (Verschuren 2003). Figure 2 and 3, Appendix 2 and 3, visualizes the position of this research. This research can be described as explorative theory development research. Reason for this approach is the emergence of a relatively unknown research topic, Web 2.0. Although there is research on value creation in e-Business (Amit 2001), I can expect differences with findings because of developments in e-Business. According to Ultee (Ultee 1991) theory development research can be used when some theoretical research is already done, but new developments on the topic brings up new questions, e.g. to what extent is the theory still applicable?

This research will go back to the basic theories on value creation from a Strategic Management view and Entrepreneurship view, to provide first insights in this development. To answer the main question, are value drivers associated with Web 2.0 different from the known value drivers in e-business, I divided the objective in research sub-questions and core definitions according to Verschuren and Doorewaard (Verschuren 2003). Three sub-questions are relevant to answer: The first sub-question, on how value is created and captured, can be answered by researching Entrepreneurship Theory and Strategic Management Theory on value creation and sustainable competitive advantages. This literature study provides an overview of value creation theories from different scientifically approaches and gives a better understanding of potential value drivers in Web 2.0. Literature Research of e.g. Amit and Zott (2001) give answers to the second question of this research, what are value drivers in e-Business. After providing clear answers to the first two sub-questions, the third sub-questions introduces Web 2.0. Potential value divers in e-Business will be researched in relation with specific aspects of Web 2.0. The third question looks at the specific features of the next stage of Internet and will give an overview and understanding which potential value drivers can be found in Web 2.0 and which value drivers in e-Business are more important. I will look at relevant aspects, such as value drivers and creation, of Web 2.0 in relation to e-Business. The advantage of carrying out a comparison is that we understand the phenomenon that we are interested in better, when we compare it with something else that is similar to it (Bryman 2003). This final sub-question will be answered by four different methods. First of all by reviewing recent research, articles, magazines, books, and blogs. The sources of information are Literature and Media; the information source for a broader audience. Many articles are written about Web 2.0, and although most of them are written because of a buzz, they can provide new insights. Especially New Media (e.g. weblogs, web journals) provide information of experts in the field of e-Business. Bryman and Bell (2003) argue that Mass Media outputs are potential sources for business and management study, since the evidence is usually clear and comprehensible, but may require considerable awareness of contextual factors. An advantage of Literature of an information source, is that this information source can provide in-depth specific knowledge. For instance for this research Amit and Zott’s paper on value drivers (Amit 2001) gives information on value drivers in e-Business before 2000. Instead of looking to ‘static’ business models we follow the business model concept of Amit and Zott (2001), which enables us to address a unique set of questions pertaining to value creation that cannot be sufficiently addressed by prior frameworks. Through the advent of virtual markets, a firm’s scope and its boundaries become less clear, and through the impact of sophisticated information technology, strategic analysis of e-business ventures will have to move beyond the traditional conception of the ‘firm’ as the unit of analysis. A second methods used to answer the third sub-question, are in-depth qualitative interviews of experts, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, professors, and researchers in the field of Web 2.0 and e-Business. A depth interview can be described as an unstructured, direct, and personal interview, by which the respondent is being asked for underlying motivations, convictions, attitudes and opinions (Naresh et al., 2003). Interviews with web 2.0 experts provide up to date information that cannot be found in secondary data. This strategy can extent our theory development and findings of Well-founded Theory Approach and serve as validation and improvement tool. Another reason for choosing this method is that there is much greater interest in the interviewee’s point of view. In this qualitative research there is an emphasis on gathering first insights in value drivers in Web 2.0, and it is therefore encouraged to be flexible and see what the interviewee sees as relevant. I want rich, detailed answers instead of answers that can be coded and processed quickly, as can be found in quantitative interviews (Bryman 2003). Final reason to use qualitative interviews is that it leaves the opportunity to interview an interviewee several occasions. Since this research is an iterative process and concepts are developed and improved during interviews, I planned interviews with interviewees over several occasions (e.g. several interviews with Web 2.0 expert, Hinchcliffe). This gives the opportunity to use two qualitative interviewing approaches: the unstructured interview, by which the researcher might have one question and the interviewee is allowed to respond freely, and the semi-structured interview, by which the researcher has a list of questions on fairly specific topics to be covered, often referred as to as an interview guide (Bryman 2003). First couple of interviews will have an unstructured view, so I can improve ideas on concepts, and the last round of interviews will have a semi-structured approach, where I give my findings so far, and ask specifically for opinions and arguments of value drivers and concepts. In this stage of research the interview guide will contain subjects as four value drivers of Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) and value drivers I found during Literature research. The third research sub-question will be main topic of the interviews, with the first two sub-question as foundation. With Kvale’s list of nine types of questions (Kvale 1996) I will vary the questioning during the interview, to gain as much information as needed. One of the sources of information to answer this sub-question, are persons. With persons I refer to people who provide us knowledge about Web 2.0, e-Business and Value creation e.g. expert as e-Business professors and Web 2.0 researchers. Walker (Walker 1988) tried to seek an operational definition for the concept of 'expert', and suggests the defining attributes of: possession of a specialized body of knowledge and skill; extensive experience in a field of practice; highly developed levels of pattern recognition, and acknowledgement by others. These attributes are used in this research as criteria, whether to call someone an expert or not. By using experts in this research, we can give valid first answers to the research questions. The main advantages of this source is diversity of information and the speed of acquiring information (Verschuren 2003). Under persons can also be understand the people within a Web 2.0 company who provide information about the company and it’s underlying business models and value drivers. By talking with experts, internal validity of this research is increased: because experts often participate in the research field over a long period of time, it allows the researcher to ensure a high level of congruence between concepts and observations (Bryman 2003). The validity is also increased by the fact that I will interview people from different countries, resulting in findings in an international context. A third research method used to answer the third research sub-question, is to research Web 2.0 companies to illustrate findings and relevant aspects. A fourth method used, is creating a weblog for this master thesis, valueweb2.blogspot.com, to enable a dialogue with experts (e.g. professors and internet entrepreneurs) on the internet and partner up with other writers. Besides the fact that this initiative is pure Web 2.0, by sharing my findings online, this initiative, combined with literature and media research, web 2.0 company illustrations, and interviews, should provide enough information to give first answers to my research question.

The establishment of the credibility of findings entails to the canons of good practice and to submitting research findings to the members of the social world who were studied for confirmation that the investigator has correctly understood (Bryman 2003). This latter technique is often referred to as respondent validation or member validation. In this research I will first begin with Literature research to have a better understanding of value creation and value drivers in Web 2.0. Thereupon I will use Literature research and Media Research to make first concepts of value drivers in Web 2.0 and to what extent they might differ with value drivers in e-Business. As final step I will use mentioned validation technique by interviewing experts, professors and entrepreneurs in Web 2.0, to ensure that the chosen concepts provide proper insights. This triangulation, defined as using more than one method or source of data, helps develop and improve concepts, and decreases the chance of misinterpretations. Kanter (Kanter 1977) suggests that a combination of methods…emerges as the most valid and reliable way to develop understanding of complex developments. I am looking at areas of convergence to give first answers to the research topic. By interviewing experts related in different manners to Web 2.0, after researching first value creation concepts in Web 2.0, should decrease subjective interpretations.

Because qualitative data deriving from interviews typically take the form of a large corpus of unstructured textual material, they are not straightforward to analyse. Moreover, unlike quantitative data analysis, clear-cut rules about how quality data analysis should be carried out have not been developed. One of the main difficulties this research has is that it rapidly generates a large, cumbersome database because of its reliance on prose in the form of such media as field notes, interview transcripts, or documents. The general strategy of qualitative data analysis of this research will be Grounded Theory (Glaser 1967) and should help to overcome these challenges. A general strategy of qualitative data analysis is a framework that is meant to guide the analysis of data (Bryman 2003). Grounded Theory is defined as theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analyzed through the research process. In this method, data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to on another (Strauss 1998). Two central features are that the analyst has grounded his or her theory in data and that the approach is iterative, and recursive, meaning that data collection and analysis proceed in tandem, repeatedly referring back to each other (Bryman 2003). Reason for this approach is that constant comparison, a process of maintaining a close connection between data and conceptualization, is possible. This is necessary because of the explorative approach this research takes in a relatively new topic. Another reason to apply this strategy is that data can be organized by coding and is treated as potential indicator of concepts. It helps to overcome the problems with analyzing large amounts of various data and helps to conceptualize findings. Such a grounding of the emerging theory in the data can provide a new perspective on an already researched topic (Hitt 1998), in this case e.g. research by Amit and Zott (2001). This strategy is however especially useful in the early stages of research on a topic, when it is not clear yet to what extent the research question is informed by existing theories. Both motivations hold in the context of Web 2.0.

Significance of Research and Expected Results

Bakker (2005) does the simple observation that an increasing number of people are not only using the Internet, but who are relying on the Internet for social contacts, purchasing goods and being informed on what is happening in the world. The Internet is becoming a significant factor in today's society. In Gartner’s 2006 Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle (Appendix 6, figure 6), three major themes that are experiencing significant activity and which include new or heavily hyped technologies, where organisations may be uncertain as to which will have most impact on their business, are argued. One of the three key technology themes identified by Gartner, and the corresponding technologies for enterprises to examine closely within them, is Web 2.0 and represents a broad collection of recent trends in Internet technologies and business models. Particular focus has been given to user-created content, lightweight technology, service-based access and shared revenue models. Technologies rated by Gartner as having transformational, high or moderate impact include: Social Network Analysis, Marsh-ups, AJAX and Collective Intelligence. Web 2.0 and it’s concepts and technologies are now at it’s peak of the Hype and will be adopted within 2 years (Gartner 2006). Because the internet has become mature and new simple techniques make it possible for everyone to use the internet new aspects of e-Business and e-Entrepreneurship become more important. Although much has been written about these developments, scientific research on the underlying value drivers of this next stage is missing. This research attempts to fill this theoretical gap by seeking to identify the (most important) value drivers in Web 2.0. The scarce e-business theory on value creation, the increasing use and importance of the Internet, and the emergence of Web 2.0 ask for a close look at value creation in the New Internet and it’s underlying value drivers. With this research a contribution to value creation theories and business model theories in the field of a combination of entrepreneurship and strategic management is delivered. This research does not only contain value drivers derived from Strategy theories, e.g. Strategic Network Theory (Dyer 1998), but also focuses on Innovation and Entrepreneurship theories, e.g. Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction (Schumpeter 1942). This research also contributes to the scarce theories of e-Businesses by looking at new developments within the Internet, particularly Web 2.0. Previous research on e-Business Value drivers is useful but probably not up-to-date anymore with the emergence of Web 2.0. The research of Amit and Zott (Amit 2001) for instance deals with companies before the Internet bubble of 2001. With Web 2.0 new features of the Internet transactions and participations are taking place. This raises questions which (new) value drivers we can find in Web 2.0 and which ones are more important. Providing more insight in value drivers in Web 2.0 enables companies and entrepreneurs to adopt and prepare to take advantage of opportunities in this next stage of the Internet.

This research provides more insight in the next stage of the Internet. It will show that Web 2.0 is not only a buzz word, but that there are underlying values that are changing the landscape of our business (models). One of the expectations is that I can improve and/or update the value drivers emergence model of Amit and Zott (Amit 2001). I expect new value drivers, or a few value drivers that will be more important in this stage of the Internet. A small contribution to value creation theories and business model theories in the field of a combination of Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management is then delivered (see Appendix 3). Another expectation is that this research provides a clear overview of what Web 2.0 is and what, not only entrepreneurs and companies, but also the internet users, can do with it. Providing more insight in value drivers and business models in Web 2.0 enables internet users, companies and entrepreneurs to adopt and prepare to take advantage of opportunities in this next stage of the Internet.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Web 2.0 Meme Map

Figure 1: Meme Map Web 2.0 (O'Reilly 2005)

Appendix 2. Overview Research Design

Figure 2. Overview Research Design

Appendix 3. Overview Methodology

Figure 3. Overview Methodology

Appendix 4. Sources of Value Creation in e-Business

Figure 4. Sources of Value Creation in e-Business (Amit 2001)

Appendix 5. Sources of Value Creation in Web 2.0?

Figure 5. Sources of Value Creation in Web 2.0?

Appendix 6. The Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies 2006

Figure 6. The Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies 2006* (Gartner 2006)

*The “Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2006” report is one of 78 hype cycles released by Gartner in 2006. More than 1,900 information technologies and trends across more than 75 industries, technology markets, and topics are evaluated by more than 300 Gartner analysts in the most comprehensive assessment of technology maturity in the IT industry. Gartner's hype cycles assess the maturity, impact and adoption speed of hundreds of technologies across a broad range of technology, application and industry areas. It highlights the progression of an emerging technology from market over enthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology's relevance and role in a market or domain (Gartner 2006).

References

Amit, R. a. Z., C. (2001). "Value Creation in E-Business." Strategic Management Journal 22: 493-520.

Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York, Hyperion.

Bakker, L. (2005). Why the Web 2.0 concept will survive A Matter of Perspective: Loek Bakker's weblog

Balakrishnan, A., Kumara, SRT., Sundaresan, S. (1999). "Manufacturing in the digital age: exploiting information technologies for product realization." Information Systems Frontier 1: 25-50.

Berryman, K., J. Jones, et al. (2006). Software 2006 Industry Report, McKinsey&Company Inc.

San Hill Group.

Brian Arthur, B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Michigan, University of Michigan Press.

Bryman, A., Bell, E. (2003). Business Research Methods. New York, Oxford University Press Inc.

Brynjolfsson, E. and B. Kahin (2002). Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools and Research. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.

Dutta, S., Segev, A. (1999). "Business transformation on the Internet." European Management Journal 17: 466-476.

Dyer, J., Singh, H. (1998). "The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage." Academy of Management Review 23: 660-679.

Evans, P., Wurster, TS. (1999). Blown to Bits: How the New Economics of Information Transforms Strategy. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Gartner (2006). Hype Cycle for Emerging Technology 2006.

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, Aldine.

Granovetter, M. (1973). "The strength aof weak ties." American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360-1380.

Gulati, R., Nohria, N., Zaheer, A. (2000). "Strategic networks." Strategic Management Journal 21(3): 203-215.

Hinchcliffe, D. (2006a). Welcome to the Web 2.0 World of Flickr, del.icio.us, Writely, Basecamp, Digg, and Many Others. Web 2.0 Journal S.-C. Media.

Hitt, M., Harisson, J., Ireland, R.D., Best, A. (1998). "Attributes of successful and unsuccessful acquisitions of U.S. firms." British Journal of Management 9: 91-114.

Hitt, M., Ireland, RD. (2000). The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research. The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship. L. Sexton, Landstrom, H. Oxford, Blackwell: 45-63.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, Basic Books.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage.

Matlay, H. (2003b). "e-Babel: in Search of a Theory of e-Everything."

Matlay, H. (2004). "e-Entrepreneurship and small e-business development: towards a comparative research agenda." Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 11(3): 408-414.