International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 231-242 (2011)
231
A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY ON THE BUSINESS MODEL
STRUCTURE OF GOOGLE
Ming-Hone Tsai1, Yu-De Lin2 and Yea-Huey Su2*
1
Department of Business Administration
2
Department of Information Management
National Central University
Jhongli (32001), Taiwan
ABSTRACT
Business is a system. When business is perceived as a system, business model could became a
system configuration issue and designable. Business models are the creations of entrepreneurs
or scholars of business schools. How to quickly design of new business model has become an
important issue. If the academia can propose methodology about business model design
principle, then practitioners or entrepreneurs are able to create their new business without
burning huge money to try-and-error. One of the important issues for business model design is
to understand the business model structure of a firm. The purpose of this research is to propose
a new systematical method for identifying a specific company’s business model structure. We
chose Google as our case to demonstrate our new systematical method. Google has run an
innovative business model that is very different to traditional business model and thus Google
is a case worth to investigate. Grounded theory qualitative research method with causal map,
cognitive mapping, core element analysis, and social network analysis were imported to
analyze various data of Google from 1996 to 2008 when businesses migrated from telephone
age to network age but not yet to fully mobile age. By deeply exploring Google’s business
model structure, we understood how Google do business from the perspectives of business
system. This comprehensive would give researchers the industrial insights and contribute the
practitioners with the way of understanding the business model structure of a company along
with the business model design principle in a dynamic context. Once a company understands
its business model structure, the company could design its business model to face the future
challenges.
Keywords: Business Model, Business Model Structure, Grounded Theory, Social Network
Analysis, Google
1. INTRODUCTION
*
Business is a system [1]. When business is
perceived as a system, business model could became a
system configuration issue and designable. In recent
years, the business model has been the focus of
substantial attention from both academics and
practitioners [45]. Zott et al. [45] mentioned that the
business model is emerging as a new unit of analysis
and that business models emphasize a system-level,
holistic approach to explaining how firms “do
business”.
Conventionally, some researches focused on
firms’ competition issues in a competitive context.
This scenario supposed that the industry already exists
and the business models of companies have
established. The major issue to be dealt with is the
competition among a few competitors under existed
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
game rules. However, the world has changed
dramatically since the Internet era. Most companies
have been facing an unknown situation. Some new
industries or emerging markets have not yet been
clearly defined and the value delivery is still fuzzy. It
has shown us that business model matter, and matter
greatly in this dynamic environment [27,44]. It is a
new opportunity for both academics and practitioners
to propose the business model design principles for
their business system to face the dynamic
environment.
Business models are the creations of
entrepreneurs or scholars of business schools [40].
Some scholars were aware of the problems and
limitations for developed themes in the domain of
management. They have regarded business model as
architecture, design, and craft [39,44]. How to quickly
design of new business model has become an
important issue. If the academia can propose
methodology about business model design principle,
then practitioners or entrepreneurs are able to create
232
International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)
their new business without burning huge money to
try-and-error. The lessons from venture tide around
the emergence of the Internet age tell us the matter of
business model design. Consequently, it is interesting
and valuable for scholars in business school to
collaborate for solving the puzzles of new issues of
management and proposing useful methodology for
entrepreneurs.
One of the important issues for business model
design is to develop a method for identifying a
specific company’s business model structure. The
purpose of this research is thus to propose a new
systematical method for understanding and
identifying business model structure.
2. RESEARCH METHOD
Based on our preliminary study about business
model components [40], this study attempted to
propose a new systematic method to analyze an
enterprise’s business model structure. This new
research method consists of grounded theory
qualitative research method [35], causal mapping [10],
social network analysis (SNA) [31], and the way
applying SNA to find core elements [34]. The
relationship among business model components is the
foundation to explore an enterprise’s business model
structure. We selected Google as the case to
demonstrate this new systematic method. Google has
run an innovative business model that is very different
to traditional business model and thus Google is a
case worth to investigate. Grounded theory qualitative
research method [35,36] was imported to collect and
analyze various data of Google from year 1996 to
2008 when businesses migrated from telephone age to
network age but not yet to fully mobile age.
2.1 Qualitative Research Method: Case Method
and Grounded Theory
Case and grounded theory [35,36] are two
methods of qualitative research. Both methods have
their roots in sociology and are focused on
understanding, explaining, or predicting human/
business behavior. We chose Google as our case to
demonstrate our new systematical method. It is very
interesting that Google is quite different from
different points of views. From the viewpoint of
vision and mission, Google is a searching company.
From the viewpoint of profiting model, Google is an
advertising company. From the viewpoint of essence,
Google is a technology-oriented company. What is the
real Google? How Google “designed” its business
model? How did Google do within ten years to earn
around $4 billion from the very beginning $1 million
capital? How did Google develop? Understanding
Google’s business model structure may help us to
solve the puzzles.
Grounded theory was proposed by Glaser and
Strauss [18]. It includes systematic and rigorous
procedures/techniques for qualitative data collection
and analysis. Grounded theory inductively derived
from the study of the phenomenon it presents, which
would help researcher to build theory from real world.
In this approach, data collection, analysis, and theory
stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. Data
analysis steps include open coding, axial coding, and
selective coding. Those three coding types are not
step-by-step but iteratively revised among steps by
inputting data and theories.
2.2 Data Analysis Architecture: Coding Procedures,
Theoretical Sensitivity, and Tool
Figure 1 illustrates the data analysis architecture
including coding procedures, theoretical sensitivity
(literature review), and tool for this study. We utilized
this architecture as our foundation of data collection
and analysis. Three coding types mentioned below are
the basic procedures to analyze data. For each coding
step, various theories are imported to give data
meaning which is known as theoretical sensitivity.
Briefly, theoretical sensitivity is a researcher’s ability
to recognize what is important in data and to give it
meaning. Theoretical sensitivity comes from a number
of sources such as literatures, professional experience,
or personal experiences. This study describes the
coding procedures and theoretical sensitivity in
Section 2 and Section 3, respectively. As shown in the
right side of Figure 1, homemade integrated data
analysis tool was developed. To overcome the
disadvantages of commercial software, we developed
an integrated web-based research tool which includes
the function of Nvivo, Ucinet, and Pajek to complete
those coding procedures.
Coding Procedures of
Grounded Theory
Theoretical Sensitivity
(1) 10 Components of business
Model [40]
(2) Causal map [10]
Fracturing
Data
Open coding
Iteratively revised
Abstraction
(1) Seven Related Literatures
Homemade-Tool vs.
Commercial Software
Homemade
Integrated
Data
Analysis
Tool
Axial coding
Nvivo
Ucinet
Iteratively revised
(1) Causal map [10]
(2) Core elements [34]
(3) Social Network Analysis
Integration
Selective coding
Pajek
Figure 1: Data analysis architecture
As shown in Figure 1, data analysis steps
include open coding, axial coding, and selective
coding. Strauss and Corbin [35] indicated the three
coding steps as followings:
1. Open coding: Open coding is the process of
breaking
down,
examining,
comparing,
conceptualizing, and categorizing data. In other
words, open coding fractures the data and allows
one to identify some categories, their properties,
and dimensional location.
M. H. Tsai et al.: A Grounded Theory Study on the Business Model Structure of Google
2. Axial coding: A set of procedures whereby data
are put back together in a new ways after open
coding by making connections between categories.
This is done by utilizing a coding paradigm
involving conditions, context, action/interactional
strategies and consequences.
3. Selective coding: The process of selecting the core
category, systematically relating it to other
categories, validating those relationships, and
filling in categories that need further refinement
and development.
2.3 Data Sources and Triangulation
Data were collected from various sources
include:
1. Published data from Google: Website, press
release, and annual report.
2. Databases of industrial analysis or of news:
Thousands of news were collected and read from
ZDNet which translate articles from CNET News.
3. Books, papers, reports, and professional magazine
articles related to Google and the Internet industry.
It is noted that we studied many data and
articles related Google from various resources, such
as Vise and Malseed [41]. However, we only can
select relative few of them to be coded because we
have to find the articles with causal directives
mentioned above.
Concerning the authenticity, plausibility, and
criticality for this qualitative research, we utilize the
principles triangulation [26] for quality and robust of
data. That is, we are carefully to collect and process
our data by multiple data sources, perspectives,
researchers, and methods. Moreover, after completing
this research, we also arranged an interview with one
top manager of local Google to confirm the validity of
this study. The manager was impressive by our study
and made confirmation of our data validity.
2.4 Illustrations of Data Analysis Steps
We conducted this research according to the
data analysis architecture mentioned above. It is not
easy to understand if people never conducted
researches by the qualitative grounded theory
approach. We thus describe our systematical method
in details and illustrated some examples for our data
analysis.
2.4.1 An Example of Open Coding
Open coding is the thinking process for
fracturing data and identifying some categories. In
this study, we found causal directives in each article
and then broke the sentence with causal directives into
two (or more) sub-sentences: The cause sentence(s)
and the consequence sentence(s). Suppose that we
divide a sentence with causal directives into two
causal sentences, cause sentence A and consequence
sentence B. The two sub-sentences were assigned to
233
one/two of 10 business model components (Table 1,
see Section 3) and formed as “From sentence A to
sentence B.” Accordingly, we made the open coding
as two codes: “F_Year_One business model
component_Sentence A and T_Year_One business
model component_Sentence B. Figure 2 shown one
example of our open coding. The causal directive here
is “make” and it described an event/announcement
happened in 2006. The cause sentence and
consequence
sentence
were
assigned
into
“Product/Service Design” and “Value Proposition”
business model components, respectively.
"The user experience is top notch...We will see when the software development kit is available
in a week," Rubin said. "Google will be providing some hosted services that make it very easy
for third-party developers to distribute their services and content" via a USB or memory card or
"over the air." He added that more information about system requirements will be available
when the software development kit is released.
F_2006_Product/Service Design_Google will be providing some hosted services
T_2006_Value Proposition_it very easy for third-party developers to distribute their services
and content
Figure 2: An example of open coding
2.4.2 An Example of Axial Coding
In this study, axial coding put the data fractured
in the open coding back together in new way by
assigning the sentence to a sub-category that is one of
the detailed concepts of the business model
component assigned in the open coding step. For
example, as shown in Figure 3, “File hosting services”
is one of the sub-categories of component
“Product/Service Design” while “Help developers
reduce costs” is one of the sub-category of component
“Value Proposition.” Accordingly, every sub-category
in the axial coding may be a composition of several
codes in the open coding. For instance, the
sub-category “Entrepreneurial insights” expresses that
one of Google’s founders applied academic citation to
develop PageRank in 1996 and users’ actions of
evaluate advertisement to rank advertisements in
2000.
"The user experience is top notch...We will see when the software development kit is available
in a week," Rubin said. "Google will be providing some hosted services that make it very easy
for third-party developers to distribute their services and content" via a USB or memory card or
"over the air." He added that more information about system requirements will be available
when the software development kit is released.
F_2006_Product/Service Design_File hosting services_Google will be providing some hosted
services
T_2006_Value Proposition_Help developers reduce costs_it very easy for third-party
developers to distribute their services and content
Figure 3: An example of axial coding
2.4.3 Two Steps of Data Analysis for Selective
Coding
Two steps are conducted in our selective coding
procedure. First, according to the concept of life cycle
of business model by Morris et al. [28], we selected
the earliest causality coding. Second, by referring to
social network analysis method [29,31] and
Siggelkow’s way [34], the core elements were found.
Accordingly, the structural properties of causal map of
Google were completed and we could conceptualize
234
International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)
or interpret the results for understanding Google’s
business model structure. The results will be
described in section 4.
3. LITERATURES REVIEW:
THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY
FOR EACH CODING TYPE
As shown in the left side of Figure 1, some
theories, techniques, or concepts are imported for
each coding type for data analysis to ground a
preliminary theory.
3.1 Theoretical Sensitivity in Open Coding:
Business Model Literature
Because we want to analyze the business model
structure of a specific company, we have to find the
components of business model and the way to link
those components. As the probe of theories, ten
components of business model (Table 1) [40] were
Component
imported to the open coding step as the original
categories and theoretical probes. Tsai and Su [40]
concerned about the issues of business intelligence
and business model design. Their article, which was
based on researches conducted in two years, was a
rigorous exploratory study grounded on more than
300 literatures and 5 cases. Therefore, the research
achievement, 10 components of business model, is
solid to be the probes of theory for this research.
Moreover, the technique of causal map [10,32]
was utilized to link the business model components.
Cossette [10] used some causal directives to find
Tayler’s influential links in Tayler’s two articles. In
our research, we thus imported those causal directives
to try to find the business model structure by linking
business model components. The causal directives
include: because, in order to, with a view to, leads to,
influences, causes, explains, results, has the
consequence of, makes possible, makes, increases,
and reduces.
Table 1: Ten components of business model [40]
Definition
Description
Value Proposition
[1]
Proposition answered to customer's value
which fulfilled its need and demands
Wealth Potential
[2]
A company's wealth potential is income
subtract cost
Revenue
Mechanism [3]
Income: revenue model
Cost (expenditure while company creating
value for customers)
Profit
Product/Service
Design [4]
Intangible services or tangible products
provide by company
Organization
Design [5]
Resource
Deployment [6]
Technology [7]
Core Strategy [8]
Value Network [9]
Externality [10]
A configuration that a company adjusts its
organization to fit its resource deployment
and core strategy
The necessary resource bases and processes
for a company to deliver value to customers
Resource bases include intangible assets
and core competences
The technology is know-how, know-what,
and know-why knowledge in an industry of
a company
Core
strategies
include
market
segmentation strategies, differentiation
strategies, and positioning in the industry
Valued partnership created by outsourcing
business activities
The external partners include suppliers,
partners, alliance partners, customers and
stake holders
Any external factor which affects business
model
Benefits from intermediate or final product toward
customers
The concept of total income which involves a growing
market domination, high percentage of market share,
and earning per share
Include product pricing, revenue model, pricing
mechanism, cost structure
Annual financial report
Real interaction with customers
Interactive interface which explains interaction with
users
Organization culture, resource allocation (capital,
time, and staff…etc.), company image, and divisions
resizing
A collection of capabilities according to resource-base
view, which are hard to imitate among companies
Those unique resources are core advantages of a firm.
Technologies and standards in the industries.
Internal technologies of a company
Competitive circumstance, positioning (market
segmentation or branding) and entry timing…etc.
The value added external partners
The interaction architecture with external partners
Factors which don't arise from within business model
including industry environment, entrepreneur's
character and insight… etc.
M. H. Tsai et al.: A Grounded Theory Study on the Business Model Structure of Google
3.2 Theoretical Sensitivity in Axial Coding
Axial coding is set of procedures whereby data
are put back together in a new ways after open coding
by making connections between categories. This is
done by utilizing a coding paradigm involving
conditions, context, action/interactional strategies, and
consequences.
Open coding fractures the data while axial
coding puts those data back together in new ways. To
achieve good axial coding, we imported various
related literatures and our professional experiences to
conceptualize data. Those related literatures include:
Catalyst Code [15], Competition Demystified [18],
Innovation and entrepreneurship [12], Digital Capital
[38], Re-Creating the Corporation [1], Information
Rules [33], Execution [6], the Elements of Platform
Leadership [11], the Social Psychology of Organizing
[42], and literatures related business model or strategy
management [2,3,13,20,21,25,27,30,37,43]
3.3 Theoretical Sensitivity in Selective Coding
Selective coding is the process of selecting the
core category, systematically relating it to other
categories, validating those relationships, and filling
in categories that need further refinement and
development. Selective coding is the important
procedure to build theory. Researchers can innovate a
new method in this procedure. We introduced the
following concepts, methods, and techniques to help
us to build the preliminary theory from data: lifecycle
of business model [28], causal map [10,16,22,23],
cognitive mapping [4,7,9,14,24], social network
analysis [29,31], the way to find core elements [34],
power and centrality [5,17], and Co-opetition [8].
4. BUSINESS MODEL
STRUCTURE OF GOOGLE
According to the method mentioned above, we
analyzed Google’s business model structure. Figure 4
illustrates the original causal map of Google’s
business model. There are 49 nodes and 86 lines on
this causal map which is too complex to analyze
Google’s business model structure. Therefore, six
core elements were identified by using social network
analysis (Table 2). The six core elements of Google’s
business model are searching service, advertising
service, network-platform strategy, complementary
value network, co-opetition value network, and core
technology. We then draw the causal map for those
core elements (Figure 5), which we called as the
business model structure of Google. This causal map
for six core elements is easier for researchers and
practitioners to understand the important causal
relationships of business model structure.
235
As shown in Figure 6, we further try to propose
a three-layered conceptual business model structure
for Google.
1. Infrastructure layer: The core element of this layer
is core technology whose major modules include
“powerful computing technology” and “the
analysis technology for relevance of content.” The
function of this layer is to trigger the above two
layers.
2. Value-network platform layer: The core elements
of this layer include complementary value network,
network-platform strategy, and co-opetition value
network. The function of this layer is to implement
the core strategy, to coordinate the external
network, and to improve the value of the service
layer.
3. Service layer: The core elements of this layer
include searching service and advertising service.
The function of this layer is to provide the
interface to users.
By re-checking results of axial coding with its
original texts, we further find the brief evolution of
Google’s business model during 1996~2008. That is,
Google only developed its core technology to provide
free searching service in the very beginning of
start-up. Google then provided advertising service to
make profit. Based on the core capability with profit,
Google further built partnership by complementary
value network and co-opetition value network.
Google finally improved its platform competition
capability by network-platform strategy. Those
preliminary findings could be the groundworks for
our next study.
5. CONCLUSION
This study proposes a new systematic method
to explore business model structure. We demonstrate
this method by exploring Google’s business model
structure. By deeply exploring Google’s business
model structure, we understood how Google do
business from the perspectives of business system.
This comprehensive would give researchers the
industrial insights and contribute the practitioners
with the way of understanding the business model
structure of a company along with the business model
design principle in a dynamic context. Once a
company understands its business model structure, the
company could design it business model to face the
future challenges.
236
Index
27.156
22.000
21.094
20.250
17.031
14.656
12.906
11.688
11.688
Axial coding
The inspiring
concept [10]
Easy to use for
customers [4]
User feedback [10]
Accurate
specifications and
layouts of
advertising [4]
Open platform
interfaces and
information [8]
Powerful
computing
technology [7]
Adopt XML-based
standards [7]
Enhance the user’s
ability to
manipulate
information [1]
Provide a financial
guarantee [8]
0.827
0.827
1.002
1.253
1.594
2.056
2.177
2.307
3.047
Z value
Bonacich's Power (beta+)
4.531
4.000
Self-service
advertising
program [4]
4.938
The analysis
technology for the
relevance of
content [7]
The inspiring
concept [10]
4.938
Develop good
network trust
relationships [9]
5.938
5.938
Build co-opetition
relationship [9]
The function could
be integrated with
external systems
[4]
5.938
Product mix and
sales [8]
5.938
6.938
Homemade
complementary
products [4]
Build alliances
based on
complementary
capacities [9]
Index
Axial coding
1.035
1.235
1.389
1.389
1.766
1.766
1.766
1.766
2.144
Z value
Bonacich's Power (beta-)
35.000
33.200
Build co-opetition
relationship [9]
Build alliances
based on
complementary
capacities [9]
Open platform
interfaces and
information [8]
Product mix and
sales [8]
4.600
7.000
7.533
8.367
The analysis
technology for the
relevance of
content [7]
Accurate
specifications and
layouts of
advertising [4]
11.067
Develop good
network trust
relationships [9]
25.000
62.000
Enhance the user’s
ability to
manipulate
information [1]
Easy to use for
customers [4]
Index
Axial coding
Betweenness
0.036
0.246
0.293
0.365
0.601
1.819
2.535
2.692
5.051
Z value
Reliable [1]
Better experiences
and lessons [1]
Build co-opetition
relationship [9]
2.320 /
2.083
2.495 /
2.041
3.639 /
2.322
3.645 /
2.322
3.673 /
2.321
Enhance the user’s
ability to
manipulate
information [1]
Build alliances
based on
complementary
capacities [9]
3.712 /
2.041
Ensure the
neutrality of the
standard [8]
3.724 /
2.041
3.938 /
2.041
Help companies
effectively reach
potential customers
[1]
Promote the
commercialization
of complementary
products [8]
4.252 /
2.041
Index
Enhance profit
potential [2]
Axial coding
inCloseness
Table 2: Analysis of Google’s business model structure: Core elements analysis by using Social Network Analysis (SNA)
International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)
-0.049
0.238
2.118
2.127
2.173
2.239
2.258
2.609
3.125
Z value
1.485
1.475
2.689 /
2.083
2.686 /
2.041
2.616 /
2.083
2.614 /
2.041
2.546 /
2.041
2.496 /
2.221
2.492 /
2.041
2.492 /
2.041
Accurate
specifications and
layouts of
advertising [4]
User feedback [10]
Open platform
interfaces and
information [8]
Adopt XML-based
standards [7]
Horizontal
integration [8]
Easy to use for
customers [4]
Powerful
computing
technology [7]
Homemade
complementary
products [4]
0.778
0.778
0.792
0.973
1.217
1.222
4.431
3.509 /
2.041
The inspiring
concept [10]
Z value
Index
Axial coding
outCloseness
5/4
5/0
4/4
[9]Build alliances
based on
complementary
capacities
[1]Better
experiences and
lessons
Build co-opetition
relationship [9]
[1]Help developers
reduce costs
Develop good
network trust
relationships [9]
3/0
3/3
3/6
9/0
[1]Help companies
effectively reach
potential customers
Easy to use for
customers [4]
9/0
12 / 2
Enhance the user’s
ability to
manipulate
information [1]
[2]Enhance profit
potential
Index
Axial coding
Indegree
0.495
0.495
0.495
0.893
1.291
1.291
2.883
2.883
4.077
Z value
M. H. Tsai et al.: A Grounded Theory Study on the Business Model Structure of Google
Product mix and
sales [8]
4/1
4/0
4/1
Self-service
advertising
program [4]
The inspiring
concept [10]
4/4
4/5
Build alliances
based on
complementary
capacities [9]
Build co-opetition
relationship [9]
4/1
5/1
Accurate
specifications and
layouts of
advertising [4]
The function could
be integrated with
external systems
[4]
5/0
6/3
Index
Homemade
complementary
products [4]
Easy to use for
customers [4]
Axial coding
Outdegree
1.310
1.310
1.310
1.310
1.310
1.310
1.893
1.893
2.476
Z value
8
6
6
5
Develop good
network trust
relationships [9]
Accurate
specifications and
layouts of
advertising [4]
The function could
be integrated with
external systems
[4]
9
9
9
Build co-opetition
relationship [9]
Build alliances
based on
complementary
capacities [9]
Enhance profit
potential [2]
Easy to use for
customers [4]
9
14
Enhance the user’s
ability to
manipulate
information [1]
Help companies
effectively reach
potential customers
[1]
Index
Axial coding
Alldegree
0.534
0.892
0.892
1.608
1.966
1.966
1.966
1.966
3.757
Z value
237
238
International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)
Figure 4: Analysis of Google’s business model structure: Causal map
Searching
Searching
Service
Service
Advertising
Advertising
Service
Service
NetworkNetworkPlatform
Platform Strategy
Strategy
Complementary
Complementary
Value
Value Network
Network
Co-opetition
Co-opetition
Value
Value Network
Network
Core
Core
Technology
Technology
Figure 5: Analysis of Google’s business model structure: Causal map for core elements
M. H. Tsai et al.: A Grounded Theory Study on the Business Model Structure of Google
239
Figure 6: Three layered conceptual business model structure for Google
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Ackoff, R. L., 1999, Re-creating the
Corporation: A design of Organizations for the
21st Century, Oxford University Press, London,
UK.
Afuah, A., 2004, Business Models: A Strategic
Management
Approach,
Boston,
MA:
McGraw-Hill College.
Barr, P. S. and Huff, A. S., 1997, “Seeing isn’t
believing: Understanding diversity in the
timing of strategic response,” Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.
337-370.
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L. and Huff, A. S.,
1992, “Cognitive change, strategic action, and
organizational renewal,” Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 15-36.
Bonacich, P., 1987, “Power and centrality: A
family of measures,” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp. 1170-1182.
Bossidy, L., Charan, R. and Burck, C., 2002,
Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things
Done, London, UK: Random House.
Bougon, M., Weick, K. and Binkhorst, D.,
1977, “Cognition in organizations: An analysis
of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 606-639.
Brandenburger, A. M. and Nalebuff, B. J.,
1997, Co-opetition, New York: Currency
Doubleday.
Brown, S. M., 1992, “Cognitive mapping and
repertory grids for qualitative survey research:
Some comparative observations,” Journal of
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Management Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.
287-307.
Cossette, P., 2002, “Analyzing the thinking of
F. W. Taylor using cognitive mapping,”
Management Decision, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.
168-182.
Cusumano, M. A. and Gawer, A., 2002, “The
elements of platform leadership,” MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 51-58.
Druker, P. F., 1985, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, HarperBusiness, New York,
NY.
Dubosson-Torbay, M., Osterwalder, A. and
Pigneur, Y., 2001, “eBusiness model design,
classification and measurements,” Thunderbird
International Business Review, Vol. 44, No. 1,
pp. 5-23.
Eden, C., 1992, “On the nature of cognitive
maps,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29,
No. 3, pp. 261-265.
Evans, D. S. and Schmalensee, R., 2007,
Catalyst Code: The Strategies Behind the
World’s Most Dynamic Companies, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Fiol, C. M. and Huff, A. S., 1992, “Maps for
managers: Where are we? Where do we go
from here?” Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 267-285.
Freeman, L. C., 1979, “Centrality in social
networks: Conceptual clarification,” Social
Networks, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 215-239.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A., 1967, The Discovery
of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Greenwald, B. and Kahn, J., 2005, Competition
Demystified: A Radically Simplified Approach
240
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)
to Business Strategy, Penguin Group, New
York, NY.
Hamel, G., 2000, Leading the Rrevolution,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hill, C. W. L. and Jones, G. R., 2006, Strategic
Management Theory: An Integrated Approach,
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Maule, A. J. and Bown, N.
J., 2004, “Causal cognitive mapping in the
organizational strategy field: A comparison of
alternative
elicitation
procedures,”
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 7, No.
1, pp. 3-26.
Kwahk, K. Y. and Kim, Y. G., 1999,
“Supporting business process redesign using
cognitive maps,” Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 155-178.
Langfield-Smith, K., 1992, “Exploring the need
for a shared cognitive map,” Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.
349-368.
Magretta, J., 2002, “Why business models
matter,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, No.
5, pp. 86-92.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A., 1994,
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook, Sage, London, UK:.
Mitchell, D. and Coles, C., 2003, The Ultimate
Competitive Advantage: Secrets of Continually
Developing a More Profitable Business Model,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA:.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M. and Allen, J.,
2005, “The entrepreneur's business model:
Toward a unified perspective,” Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp.
726-735.
Nooy, W., Mrvar, A. and Batagelj, V., 2005,
Exploratory Social Network Analysis with
Pajek,
Cambridge
University
Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C. and Arroniz, I.,
2006, “The 12 different ways for companies to
innovate,” MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 75-81.
Scott, J., 2000, Social Network Analysis: A
Handbook, Sage London, UK.
Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J. and Linder, J. C.,
2005, “The power of business models,”
Business Horizons, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 199-207.
Shapiro, C. and Varian, H. R., 1999,
Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the
Network Economy, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Siggelkow, N., 2002, “Evolution toward fit,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, No.
1, pp. 125-159.
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M., 1990, Basics
of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Procedures and Techniques, Sage, London,
UK.
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M., 1998, Basics
of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
(2nd ed.), Sage, London, UK.
Tapscott, D., 2001, “Rethinking strategy in a
networked world (or Why Michael Porter is
wrong about the Internet),” Strategy +
Business, Vol. 24, pp. 1-8.
Tapscott, D., Ticoll, D. and Lowy, A., 2000,
Digital Capital: Harnessing the Power of
Business Webs, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J., Parvinen, P. and
Kallunki, J., 2005, “Managerial cognition,
action and the business model of the firm,”
Management Decision, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp.
789-809.
Tsai, M. H. and Su, Y. H., 2011, “Business
intelligence and business model design: An
exploratory study grounded on literatures and
cases,” Paper will be presented at INFORMS
2011 Annual Meeting, Charlotte, North
Carolina, USA, November 13-16.
Vise, D. A. and Malseed, M., 2006, The Google
Story, New York: Bantam Dell Pub Group.
Weick, K. E., 1979, The social psychology of
organizing, Random House USA Inc.
Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G., 2001,
“Replication as strategy,” Organization
Science, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp.730-743.
Zott, C. and Amit, R., 2007, “Business model
design and the performance of entrepreneurial
firms,” Organization Science, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp. 181-199.
Zott, C., Amit, R. and Massa, L., 2011, “The
business model: Recent developments and
future research.” Journal of Management, Vol.
37, No. 4, pp. 1019-1042.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ming-Hone Tsai is an associate professor of business
administration at the School of Management,
National Central University. He received his Ph. D. in
strategic management from National Cheng-Chi
University. He has done entrepreneurial researches for
many years that specially focused on entrepreneurial
creativity, business model design, and strategic
innovations. He also highly interested in applying
computational network theory and agent-based
methodology to work on those issues. Dr. Tsai also
served as a research fellow at the Center of Creativity
and Innovation Studies (CCIS) at National Cheng-Chi
University. Through CCIS, he collaborated in certain
government projects on developing industrial
innovation platforms.
M. H. Tsai et al.: A Grounded Theory Study on the Business Model Structure of Google
Yu-De Lin is an individual worker who builds
e-commerce websites for small and medium-sized
enterprise. He received his MBA from Department of
Information Management at National Central
University. He had a BBA in management science
from National Chiao Tung University. He also
interests in doing researches in software engineering,
management information system, and business model.
241
Yea-Huey Su is an assistant professor of information
management at the School of Management, National
Central University. She received her Ph. D. in
management of technology from National Taiwan
University. Dr. Su has been a visiting scholar at the
University of California, Berkeley. Her research
focuses on business model analysis and design,
business model innovation, and technology
innovation.
(Received May 2011, revised August 2011, accepted
September2011)
242
International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)
經營模式結構之扎根理論研究：以 GOOGLE 為例
蔡明宏 1、林裕得 2、蘇雅惠 2*
1
國立中央大學企業管理學系
2
國立中央大學資訊管理學系
桃園縣中壢市中大路 300 號
摘要
企業是一個系統，當企業被視為一個系統，經營模式可以成為一個系統配置結構的問題，
是可以設計的。經營模式是創業家、管理學學者、或商學學者的作品，如何快速設計新
的經營模式已經成為一個重要的研究議題。如果學術界能夠提出經營模式的設計方法或
原則，則企業界就能夠據此更有效地創造出新的經營模式，將不再重蹈覆轍如 1995~2001
年網際網路公司泡沫化過程中，以試誤的方式來尋找最佳經營模式，因而損失許多社會
寶貴資源。經營模式設計其中一個重要的議題是對於個別公司經營模式結構的瞭解，因
此，本研究的主要目的是提出一個新的系統化方法來分析一家公司的經營模式結構。由
於 Google 的經營模式是自創業開始就有別於傳統經營模式，且不斷創新的經營模式，所
以本研究選擇 Google 作為個案來說明此系統化方法。此系統化方法結合定性研究方法扎
根理論、因果脈絡圖、認知圖、核心元素分析、以及社會網絡分析方法來分析 Google 自
1996 年創立以來至 2008 年的資料。1996~2008 年正好是企業做生意的主要媒介從電話/
傳真時代遷移至網絡時代，但還不是完全行動通訊的時代，也是 Google 奠立未來競爭基
礎的重要十年。透過深入探討 Google 的經營模式結構，我們從企業系統的角度更深入瞭
解 Google 的經營模式。此研究讓學術界與業界透過對經營模式結構來初步理解在變動環
境中的經營模式設計原則，一旦公司了解其業務模型結構，公司可以設計自己的經營模
式，以面對未來的挑戰。
關鍵詞：經營模式，經營模式結構，扎根理論，社會網絡分析，Google
（*聯絡人：[email protected]）