Selection of Choices and Consequences Framework

For the ease of comparison and because strategic perspective can be applied to any type of business I looked at all the models through the lens of the interest group that sees the business model as part of a strategy that leads to competitive advantage. Furthermore, because of my background in architecture where I used the concepts of graphic design daily, and the visual nature of this profession, I needed a framework that is highly visual. Another important point in selecting business model framework is its flexibility and adaptability to different types of models. Finally, the framework needed to be dynamic in terms of the interaction of key components, take competitors into consideration and have a time dimension to it that will forecast future effectiveness.

Taking factors listed above into consideration the best fit business model analysis is Casadesus’ and Ricart’s Choice and Consequence framework. It is visual, flexible, and dynamic. It accommodates different models and allows to compare them. The authors believe that their framework is valuable because it takes competition into consideration, while other frameworks do not, and new business models fail because of being designed in vacuums (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2011). 

Moreover, other frameworks are rigid and prescriptive in terms of the steps that one must follow to make a new business model or diagram the existing. Thompson and MacMillan (2010) propose a framework that includes multiple rigid steps. Afuah (2004) introduced a framework made of set of components. Finally, the widely-used Business Model Canvas of Osterwalder (2004) is also composed of a predetermined set of elements.

These elements include Key Partners, Key Activities, Key Resources, Value Proposition, Customer Relationships, Channels, Customer Segments, Cost Structure and Revenue Structure. Despite being widely used, it does not have the multiple dimensions that Choices and Consequences framework has and it rigidly concentrates on the set of elements. It appears static and does not show relationship between these elements. I can see that all of these elements will be used in the models, but not in every model. It is not necessary to include, for example, the column from the table above for Key Partners if a model excludes partners.

Another noticeable dissonance is that the wording of elements like Channels or Customer Relationships is not the best fit for architecture since the Channel is closest to office space for architect but it has a different meaning, and Customer is referred to as client in architecture and also has a different meaning. The terminology indicates that the framework is made for mass-produced ready-to-use goods or services that architecture fundamentally is not.

Considering all of these nuances I conclude that Osterwalder's widely used Business Model Canvas is not ideal for business model analysis in the architecture industry and the Choice and Consequence framework is a much better fit.

business models' analysis and optimization

home