Search results

Past research demonstrated that novel IT-based business models generate tremendous returns for innovators. However, the risks associated with these innovations remain under-explored. This paper aims to address this critical gap analyzing risks and offering important insights particularly for practitioners.

The authors adopted an exploratory multiple-case study research design. It draws on 22 semi-structured interviews with managers from leading energy utilities, as well as leading providers of virtual power plants technology within the German energy industry.

The research reveals that main risks in new digital business models in the energy sector are associated with three forms of interdependence between innovation actors: the regulatory, the technological and the collaborative. To deal with these interdependencies, the authors propose an original multi-step risk management framework. This framework considers the outreach as a critical dimension for risk assessment and offers a new risk response matrix to draw individual and collective mitigation activities for specific types of risks.

This paper offers a framework for the management of interdependence risks that are fundamental for business model innovations based on IT. Thus, it is applicable in companies both inside the energy sector and beyond.

This paper analyzes an important digital business model innovation that has not yet been explored in management literature – the virtual power plant (VPP). It is based on original and current empirical work and proposes a novel risk management framework for business organizations.

Business risk and inherent risk both bear on the audit; the audit risk model; and the nature, timing, and extent of work performed. Inherent risk and business risk bear an inverse relationship to detec‐tion risk and have a direct effect on the level of work performed. Neither risk can be eliminated totally and neither is controllable by the auditor. Business risk relates to the financial statements and affects overall audit risk; inherent risk applies to an individual audit area. Inherent risk is explicitly included in the professional standards and the audit‐risk model while business risk is not and has only an indirect bearing on the model. Management can take steps to affect the level of inherent risk, but the perceptions of users of the financial statements bear on business risk.

Business Model Analysis is acquiring increasing visibility in the European banking regulatory framework, following the European Banking Authority guidelines on common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP), developed to assess business and strategic risks (EBA, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). Starting from a selected literature review, in the paper, the authors analyse business models set up by financial intermediaries, bank and non-banks, for the distribution of investment services, first by comparing European niche players with European banking global players, and second, comparing European niche players among themselves to understand the evolution of business models for the distribution of investment services at European level. The research is supported by the Baffi–Carefin Research Centre at the Bocconi University (Italy), in collaboration with ANASF, the Italian Association of Financial Advisors (Italy).

The authors consider a sample of European financial players from 2009 to 2014. The authors’ focus is on France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the UK; overall the authors’ handmade data set is based on 162 annual reports. The authors follow two main questions: Do the niche players, as they are focused on the distribution of investment services, have an upper limit to profitability, compared to the global players, as risk-takers in many financial areas? How is the business model of niche players changing, facing increasing competition and regulatory pressures?

Answering the first research question, the highest net profitability is found in the niche players group; the global players, as risk-takers, achieve lower remuneration, in contrast with the risk premium theory. The results were assessed over a limited period, however, deemed in line with the company’s strategic planning horizon. Answering the second research question, the authors focus on the case of niche players, using a cluster analysis. The authors identify three different business models: most dynamic niche players, which combine investment services, insurance and welfare services, achieving the highest margins and stability; players mainly focused on asset management, whose key vulnerability is the degree of open architecture, especially in light of future MiFID 2 implementation; and players mainly focused on the creation of well-structured on-line platforms, which offer also brokerage services, thereby reducing their marginality and potentially increasing their business risk.

Despite the limited time series, the authors’ research gives some inputs for those interested in deepening the business model analysis focus on the distribution of investment services and the business and strategic risk assessment, both for the global banks and the niche players (banks and non-banks).

The authors’ results could be of some interest during the strategic assessment of global banks and niche players, both adopting an internal perspective or an external one, as regulator.

By giving some specific insights into the assessment and comparison of business and strategic risks among global and niche players, the authors’ research provides the basis for further research in the field of the distribution of investment services.

The originality mainly regards the business model risk perspective and the focus of the authors’ analysis: the distribution of investment services. This sector, unlike the asset management, does not have an easily recognisable group of comparables at European level, all the European countries analysed have very different business models. This research avails of an original database, that is unique to Europe.

Traditional methods of assurance outlined by current professional standards are risk-based models where the emphasis is on the veracity of published data rather than on the rigour of the interpretation or analysis of information provided to users. As such, they are not well suited for expressing an opinion on qualitative, subjective or forward-looking assessments typically included in integrated reports. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to describe an alternate approach to assurance and identifies the initial elements of an “interpretive assurance model”.

The research is exploratory/interpretive. It relies on detailed interviews with experienced auditors and preparers to develop an initial approach for providing some level of assurance over an integrated report.

The research identifies elements of an interpretive assurance model which focusses on providing assurance on the interpretation and analysis of information included in an integrated report rather than on underlying data. These include an examination of the completeness of the explanation of the value creation process provided in an integrated report; the methods used to support management discussion and analysis; and the reasonability of the review process used to ensure the reliability of qualitative, subjective and forward-looking representations contained in an integrated report.

The study is conducted in a South African setting. While limiting the study to a single jurisdiction may be seen as a limitation, local preparers and auditors have had at least five years of experience with the application of an integrated reporting framework and are in a strong position to provide detailed insights.

An interpretive assurance model shifts the focus from objective verification of data using defined test procedures to evaluation of the interpretation and analysis process used to prepare an integrated report. Application of the proposed model will require practitioners and auditing students to be trained extensively in qualitative analytical techniques. The inherent complexity of contemporary business models and the multi-dimensional focus of integrated reports will also result in changes in the composition of audit teams which are currently dominated by experts in financial reporting rather than integrated or strategic business management.

The paper is the first to offer a practical approach for providing assurance over an integrated report. It responds to calls form the International Integrated Reporting Council and International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board for more innovative assurance models for addressing the reporting needs of contemporary organisations.

Addresses concerns regarding perceptions and measurement of risk and the resultant confusion relating to understanding of the market for audit services. Examines the theoretical justification for a plural approach to dealing with “risk” in audit fee models. Reviews the relevant literature and undertakes a factor analysis of 229 Western Australian firms in search of evidence of plurality. Argues for recognition of the idea that risk in the audit context is composed of two separate but related concepts: audit risk and business risk.

The study examines the roles of capital rules, macro variables and bank business models in determining the safety of banks as measured by the “distance-to-default” (DTD) with the purpose of drawing implications for regulation of bank capital and business models.

A panel regression study using pre- and post-crisis data for 108 US and European banks is used to explore the issue empirically. A new technique is also used to back out the amount of capital banks would have needed during the crisis to keep the “DTD” in the very safe zone.

The simple leverage ratio has a strong relationship with “DTD”, while the Basel ratio does not. The most important business model features are derivatives and wholesale funding, which have a strong negative relationship with “DTD”. Trading and available-for-sale securities have a positive influence. Calculations show that it is not possible for any reasonable capital rule to compensate for the risks created by business model features encompassing large derivative-based activities. Bank separation policies are essential.

The micro evidence-based analysis as an approach to bank regulation and business model requirements stands in contrast to the ad hoc way policy has been constructed before and after the crisis. The empirical evidence supports separation based on the balance sheet size of derivatives and a leverage ratio instead of the complex Basel risk-weighted capital approach. The current approaches to structural separation are criticised constructively, and some evidence-based suggestions for improving bank business models to reduce systemic risk are made.

This paper aims to address risks inherent in business model innovation. The authors make the case that entrepreneurs and managers, in relying on sources of innovation when designing business models, need to pay heed to these hidden risks – or tripwires – that can prevent the venture from efficiently, effectively and profitably scaling. The authors provide a guiding framework to help entrepreneurs and managers identify four distinct tripwires in their business model underlying the sources of innovation.

The authors build a systematic framework of the four tripwires – structure, scaling, systems and strategy – underlying offer-driven, customer-driven, finance-driven and resource-driven business model innovations. By relying on academic research, the authors’ scholarly work on organizational decline, innovation and corporate turnaround and the authors combined experiences and observations in industry, this study makes explicit and highlights problem areas in the business model, providing examples of representative companies to illustrate the challenges and consequences of failing to identify and manage its tripwires.

The authors demonstrate that awareness and attention to the tripwires underlying sources of innovation can mitigate a business model’s future challenges. Business model innovations can and often do conceal hazards that become apparent only as a venture begins to grow. As such, it is essential that entrepreneurs and managers attend to these potential problem areas in the early stages of designing their business models. In bringing awareness to innovation-related tripwires, the authors offer a risk-management “patch” for managers and entrepreneurs when developing their business models.

Business model innovation is a powerful tool to help in identifying growth opportunities. Yet in launching, scaling or transforming their business models, entrepreneurs and managers can encounter unforeseen challenges. While sources of innovation in the business model prioritize the discovery of growth opportunities, this has often come at the expense of the potential risks underlying them. The authors provide a means to identify four distinct tripwires that may be triggered when implementing business model innovations.

Because of the competitive economy, organizations today seek to rationalize, innovate and adapt to changing environments and circumstances as part of business process reengineering (BPR) efforts. Irrespective of the process reengineering program selected and the technique used to model it, BPR brings with it the issues of organizational and process changes. Thus, BPR initiatives involve risk taking. Effective management of risks and their prediction and estimation should help in minimizing failures from BPR efforts. Risk management is non‐trivial due to the large uncertainty involved with business success with BPR efforts. Though some attempt has been made to model risk management in enterprise information systems using conventional conceptual modelling techniques, the previous works have analyzed and modeled the same just by addressing “what” a process is like, but do not address “why” the process is the way it is.

The approach presents a new technique for analyzing and modelling early‐phase requirements of organizational risk management that provides the motivations, intents, and rationales behind the entities and activities.

A case study has been considered to illustrate this approach.

The approach is novel in the sense that there is no similar intentional modeling approach for risk management to the best of one's knowledge. The approach is expected to be valuable because by using this approach one can reason about the risks associated with BPR and can incorporate prominently the issues related to risk in the process of systems analysis and design.

The objectives of this paper are to: define business risk; identify whether economic capital could be used to mitigate this risk; and investigate business‐risk measurement methodologies.

The paper analyzes definitions used in theory and practice and derived a definition. It analyzes three measurement methodologies: analogue companies/peer group analysis, statistical methods, and scenario analysis. These methodologies are tested against the criteria of effective management control, because economic capital is increasingly used as a management control instrument.

Economic capital can be used as business‐risk mitigant albeit not the only one. The measurement methodology of scenario analysis satisfies most of the criteria for effective control.

This paper opens a discussion to further develop the scenario approach in theory and practice.

Despite the amount of economic capital that financial institutions hold to cover business risk, it has received little attention in literature. This paper opens a discussion on a relatively new field of research.

The paper's aim is to share honest insights into how one management team used model‐based management to establish new businesses and products.

The paper shows the approach used for each business, why its area of operations may have changed the preceding processes but the functional form remained the same then eventually finding expression in the viable system model (VSM).

The paper finds that regardless of proper innovation and profitability, without a holistic approach to capital management the dominant logic of the market place will: subsume good start‐up businesses believing that established ones will go on forever; risk‐pricing in the capital markets will continue the boom/bust tradition; system boundaries must be carefully chosen thereby implementing appropriate controls at each recursive level; and avoid moral hazard emerging through ill‐considered rules that allow people to “game the system”.

This paper informs regulators and business managers of the advantages of a functional management model based upon the protection of core capital.

The paper validates the principles of systems management of the VSM and sensitivity model in a modern idiom and suggests methods for the better control of insurance and capital markets institutions.