The MOF Perspective on Business Modelling
Berend T. Alberts, Lucas O. Meertens, Maria-Eugenia Iacob and Lambert (Bart) J. M. Nieuwenhuis
University of Twente, PO Box 217, Enschede, The Netherlands
Keywords: Business Modelling, Business Models, Meta-business Models, Meta-object Facility.
Abstract: The business model field of research is a young and emerging discipline that finds itself confronted with the
need for a common language, lack of conceptual consolidation, and without adequate theoretical
development. This not only slows down research, but also undermines business model’s usefulness for
research and practice. We offer a new perspective on business modelling to address these issues. It looks at
business modelling from the perspective of the Meta-Object Facility, emphasising the role of models and
meta-models. From this new perspective, a commonality analysis can identify the important classes in
business modelling. This new perspective on business modelling helps to create a common language,
achieve conceptual consolidation and supports theory development; it addresses issues that hinder business
model research.
1 INTRODUCTION: A NEED FOR
BUSINESS MODEL THEORY
DEVELOPMENT
In general, a business model is a simple and, usually,
graphic depiction of a company, often using boxes
and arrows. It mostly describes a single company, a
group of companies, or part of a company. In the
broadest sense, a business model is an abstract
(which means simplified) representation of the
company, a “model of the business”. The business
model field of research is strongly growing and
maturing over the last decade, mostly since 2000
(Osterwalder, Pigneur & Tucci, 2005; Zott, Amit &
Massa, 2011). Since to this date no unified view
exists regarding its conceptual foundation, this
young and emerging discipline has been described
(Meertens, Iacob & Nieuwenhuis 2011) as “finding
itself in a state of prescientific chaos”, in the sense
of Kuhn (Kuhn 1970).
Practitioners using business models have a need
for a common language, especially since they come
from different disciplinary backgrounds: strategic
management, industrial organization, and
information systems (Pateli & Giaglis, 2004). In
addition, links to other research domains are
necessary to establish the business model field as a
distinct area of investigation (Pateli & Giaglis,
2004). However, researchers still have to build more
on each other’s work, and research generally
advances slowly and often remains superficial
(Osterwalder, Pigneur & Tucci, 2005).
Currently, researchers use different terms to
describe similar things, and the same term for
different things. Business model often means “a
model of a single company” and, specifically, of the
way a company does business, creates, and captures
value. However, other things are called business
model as well, for example when referring to a
pattern in the phrasing “...the freemium business
model...” In addition, ontologies or frameworks such
as the Business Model Ontology (BMO), e3-value,
RCOV or activity system are sometimes referred to
as a business model too (Osterwalder, 2004;
Gordijn, 2002; Demil & Lecoq, 2010; Zott & Amit,
2010). In our research, we refer to such frameworks
(BMO, e3-value, RCOV) as meta-business models.
We define these analogous to meta-models in
software or systems engineering (Van Halteren,
2003):
A meta-business model is the set of concepts that
is used to create business models. A business
model developed from this set of concepts is an
instance of the meta-business model.
For example, a meta-business model may define
that “a business model consists of a value
proposition, organization, and finances.” Thus, the
43
Alberts B., Meertens L., Iacob M. and Nieuwenhuis B.
The MOF Perspective on Business Modelling.
DOI: 10.5220/0004461000430052
In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design (BMSD 2012), pages 43-52
ISBN: 978-989-8565-26-6
Copyright
c
 2012 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

meta-business model lays out the rules for modelling
a business model. Consequently, a business model is
an instance of the meta-model, following those rules.
An example of a meta-business model is the BMO
(Osterwalder, 2004), which can serve to make a
business model of any company. This business
model would be an instance of the BMO. However,
the BMO is itself also a model. It is a model for
creating business models. As such, it is a “business
model”-model or, in modelling terms, a meta-
“business model”.
Stimulating researchers to build more on each
other’s work can be achieved by developing
instruments for comparing different meta-business
models. This can also help the integration with
horizontally related concepts such as strategy and
processes (Gordijn, Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2005).
“...A conceptual framework will provide a basis for
business model theory development by providing a
structure from which researchers can debate,
recognize points of agreement and disagreement,
identify potential points of integration or linkage
along with areas of future research” (Lambert,
2008). Such a conceptual framework can help to
analyse shared or distinctive features of different
meta-business models (Lambert, 2008).
Consensus on the theoretical underpinnings of
the business model concept has not yet been
achieved (Al-Debei and Avison, 2010), which
undermines its applicability in different contexts.
“...The business model remains a theoretically
underdeveloped (and sometimes overloaded)
concept, which may raise doubts concerning its
usefulness for empirical research and theory
building” (Zott, Amit & Massa, 2011). For future
research, more clarity on the theoretical foundation
and conceptual consolidation is necessary (Zott,
Amit & Massa, 2011).
The articles referenced above are all review
articles, specifically aimed at providing an overview
of the status and developments of business model
research and the emergence of the discipline. In
short, the most important issues are:
• the need for a common language,
• lack of conceptual consolidation, and
• theoretical development of the concept.
These issues relate strongly to the different meta-
business models existing separately. Consequently,
using different meta-models may result in different
business models of the very same organization. This
can have severe consequences. For example, if a
business model is used in a requirements
engineering process, the resulting requirements can
vary greatly depending on which meta-business
model is used. Unfortunately, because of the gaps in
business model research, such problems are hard to
address currently.
Another area of research, software and systems
engineering, has more experience dealing with a
great variety of meta-models, and already addressed
the need for a generic framework to manage,
manipulate, and exchange these models. This
generic framework is the Meta-Object Facility
(MOF), created by the Object Management Group
(OMG) (1999). The MOF represents a layering of
meta-models for describing and representing meta-
data: data about other data (Van Halteren, 2003).
Although it originates from an object-oriented
software design domain, the MOF allows the
definition of (meta-) models independent of the
application domain.
In this paper, we introduce the MOF perspective
on business modelling. Introducing a new
perspective on business modelling helps identify
differences and commonalities of business
modelling languages and concepts. We use the MOF
to create a meta-meta-business model that promotes
further theory development. In doing so, we
contribute to advancing the discipline of business
modelling.
The structure of the paper is as follows. After
having presented the background and motivation in
this section, section 2 further explains the MOF.
Section 3 provides our main contribution: it applies
MOF to business modelling. In addition, it provides
examples for each of the layers. This includes
suggesting a meta-meta-business model and a
graphical example of this new model’s use. Section
4 discusses further research possibilities with the
introduction of MOF in business modelling. Finally,
section 5 shows how this addresses the presented
issues of business model research.
2 THE META-OBJECT
FACILITY (MOF)
The MOF was introduced above as a generic
framework for working with a great variety of
models and meta-models. This section clarifies the
concept. The central idea of MOF is that every
model is an instance of some meta-model in an
abstract layer above it. Hence, a business model is
an instance of a meta-business model. The other way
round, every meta-model provides a vocabulary for
Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design
44

creating models; these models are instances in an
abstract layer below it. Thus, a meta-business model
provides a vocabulary for creating business models.
The account of the MOF given here strictly
follows Van Halteren (2003). Modelling data in
terms of meta-data can continue indefinitely, in
theory, with an infinite number of meta-layers. The
MOF is defined as four layers only, M0 to M3, as
shown in Figure 1:
• Layer M0 – instances: an instance is the flat
data, which can describe a running system’s state.
This data is an instance of elements in the M1 layer.
• Layer M1 – models: the model provides the
vocabulary for the instance. For example, if the
instance is a running system, the model is its source
code. The model is itself an instance of the M2
layer.
• Layer M2 – meta-model: the meta-model
consists of generic elements used for description of
the model at the M1 layer. For example, having a
system’s source code at the M1 layer, the M2 layer
is a programming or modelling language such as
java or UML. While the M1 layer is an instance of
the M2 layer, this layer is again an instance of the
even more generic elements of the M3 layer.
• Layer M3 – meta-meta-model: the meta-meta-
model consists of the elements providing the most
generic vocabulary for the M2 layer. For example,
the M3 MOF model, can be used to describe a
language such as java or UML. While in theory an
infinite number of meta-layers exists, for our
purpose, we follow the M3 layer as standardized in
the OMG MOF specification, also called the MOF
model.
Figure 1: The MOF layers.
The MOF vocabulary comes from the context of
object-oriented formalism in software engineering
The MOF model itself consists of the following four
concepts:
• Classes: classes are the primary modelling
constructs. These are the central objects that interact
with one another. Classes can be organized
hierarchically in specializations or generalizations.
• Associations: associations are the relations
between any two classes. Such a relationship may
have a name, cardinality, and type.
• Data types: data types are the types used for
non-class objects. For example, commonly used data
types in the world of programming are integer and
string.
• Packages: packages are groups of classes and
are used to organize models and meta-models.
Packages can introduce complex interactions
between classes, such as nesting, inheritance, and
importing.
The MOF model is a generic meta-meta-model
that allows working with a diversity of meta-
business models. In using the MOF, ultimately every
(meta-) model is defined in terms of classes,
associations, data types, and packages. In our
attempt to relate business modelling to the MOF, we
identify classes only.
3 THE MOF AND BUSINESS
MODELLING
This section provides our main contribution: it
applies the MOF to business modelling, to create a
generic framework for business modelling that
provides conceptual consolidation, and helps with a
common language and further theory development.
The most important reason for using the MOF is the
perspective it provides on the practice of modelling.
First, subsection 3.1 shows how the MOF layers
encompass the business modelling concepts. Second,
subsection 3.2 provides general examples for each of
these layers. Third, subsection 3.3 treats the M2
layer. It addresses the issue of which classes should
be on this layer. Finally, subsection 3.4 shows
several components at the M1 layer.
3.1 Viewing Business Modelling from
the MOF Perspective
Applying the MOF layers to business modelling
leads to Figure 2. It shows how the MOF layers
encompass the concepts of business modelling. It is
analogous to Figure 1. Every (business) model is an
instance of a meta-model from the above layer.
Applying this notion in terms of the MOF layers, as
shown in Figure 2, leads to the following layers for
business modelling:
• Layer M0 – business model instance: the
central construct of this research area is a business
The MOF Perspective on Business Modelling
45

Figure 2: The MOF layers applied to business modelling.
• model instance, which can describe an
organization, situation, or pattern. This business
model instance is an instance of elements in the M1
layer.
• Layer M1 – meta-business model: the meta-
business model provides the vocabulary for the
business model instance. The meta-business model
is itself an instance of the M2-layer. Since the
instance data is a model already, the terms change
compared to the MOF model. In this case, the model
from MOF is a meta-business model.
• Layer M2 – meta-meta-business model: the
meta-meta-business model consists of generic
elements used for description of the meta-business
model at the M1 layer. While the M1 layer is an
instance of the M2 layer, this layer is again an
instance of the even more generic elements of the
M3 layer.
• Layer M3 – MOF model: the MOF model
consists of the elements providing the most generic
vocabulary for the M2 layer. This is the same model
as the top layer of MOF (Figure 1). The MOF model
defines every instance in terms of classes,
associations, data types, and packages.
The above description shows that the concepts of
business modelling and meta-business models fit
effortlessly in the MOF layers. This indicates that
the MOF is indeed a generic framework, which
works for any form of models and meta-models.
3.2 Simple Examples for Each Layer
Starting from the bottom up, many possible
examples exist at the M0 layer for business
modelling. Business model instances belong in this
layer, therefore, any business model that describes
an organization, situation, or pattern would fit here.
An example of a real life case is U*Care, a service
platform for elderly care (Meertens, Iacob &
Nieuwenhuis, 2011). Other examples of a business
case as business model instances are two models of
the clearing of music rights for internet radio
stations (Gordijn, Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2005),
and modelling of the development of Arsenal FC
over a period of eleven years (Demil & Lecoq,
2010). A pattern, such as “freemium”, also belongs
on the M0 layer (Osterwalder, 2010).
At a higher level of abstraction, the M1 layer
contains the meta-business models. They provide the
vocabulary for the business model instances.
Previously often called frameworks or even
ontologies, examples of meta-business models are
plentiful. For example, the music rights case is
modelled in two different meta-business models, e3-
value and the BMO (Gordijn, Osterwalder &
Pigneur, 2005). The Arsenal FC case is modelled
using the meta-business model RCOV (Demil &
Lecoq, 2010).
Figure 3 in subsection 3.4 provides
more examples, while focussing on their
components.
Since this is the first time the M2 layer is
recognized in business modelling, nobody has
presented examples as such at this layer yet.
Following the MOF perspective, the M2 layer
contains a meta-meta-business model that provides a
vocabulary for meta-business models at the M1
layer. This means that such a meta-meta-business
model must consist of generic elements that capture
meta-business models, such as the BMO, e3-value,
and RCOV. Literature that presents a review of
business modelling research, such as Zott, Amit and
Massa (2011), suggest those generic elements. In
subsection 3.3, we propose classes for a
meta-meta-business model (M2BM) that belongs on
the M2 layer.
At the top of the pyramid, the M3 layer has only
one example in our case. It is the MOF model itself,
which we have explained in Section 2 already. It
Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design
46

includes classes, associations, data types, and
packages.
3.3 Specifying Classes at the M2 Layer
While an interpretation of business modelling in
MOF terminology provides conceptual
consolidation, a meta-meta-business model at the
M2 layer would provide a common language for
business modelling. The meta-meta-business model
would be overarching the meta-business models.
This subsection researches what is necessary to
create such an overarching meta-meta-business
model.
First, 3.3.1 presents what type of elements should
be in the meta-meta-business model. Second, 3.3.2
explains how to obtain these elements. Third and
final, 3.3.3 suggests several of these elements in the
form of classes.
3.3.1 What Should Be in the
Meta-Meta-Business Model?
Business modelling is the act of creating a business
model instance; this is an instance of a meta-
business model. The instance is a M0 layer model,
the meta-business model is a M1 layer concept.
Many of these meta-business models exist already,
some with a strong link to information systems,
others closely related to strategic management or
industrial organisation. For example, Vermolen
(2010) identified nine such meta-business models
published in the top 25 MIS journals. The Business
Model Ontology from Osterwalder (2004) was also
mentioned previously.
All meta-business models, as M1 models, must
follow some sort of guidelines defined at the M2
layer. The generic rules for meta-business model
should be defined at the M2 layer as a meta-meta-
business model: M2BM (M2 both for MOF M2
layer and for meta-meta-). Such a meta-meta-
business model does not exist yet; however, as the
introduction shows, creating it is exactly what
different researchers in the business model discipline
are asking for.
The different meta-business models at the M1
layer give the first hint of what this meta-meta-
business model looks like. Every model at the M1
layer must be an instance of more generic elements
at the M2 layer. The meta-meta-business model
must consist of such concepts that it allows the
creation of any model that can be regarded as an M1
meta-business model.
The required coverage of M2 classes can be
discovered with a commonality analysis amongst
different meta-business models. For example, all M1
meta-business models propose some set of
components, so one of the classes of the M2 meta-
meta-business model should be components.
Several researchers have in fact performed such
commonality analyses. We argue that the abstract
meta-meta-business model that belongs on this layer
should come from review literature on meta-
business models. As a review synthesizes the
concepts used in business modelling literature, the
resulting concepts can be considered instances of
classes from the M3 layer.
3.3.2 Review Literature on Business
Modelling
An extensive literature survey identified five articles
that can aid us in finding out what classes make up
the M2 meta-meta-business model. The method we
followed consisted of three steps. The first step was
a search on Scopus and Web of Science for relevant
articles published between 2000 and august 2011,
using two queries:
• in title: “business model*”
• in title-keywords-abstract: “business model*”
AND ontology OR ((framework OR e-commerce)
AND (design OR analysis))
All results were checked for relevance by
analysing the abstract. The second step was an
analysis of the articles’ content for relevance,
searching for presentation of meta-business models,
or review of business model research or literature.
The third step was selecting those articles usable for
creating the M2 meta-meta-business model. Table 1
presents the resulting five articles.
Table 1: Overview of business model review literature.
Authors Title Year
Pateli and
Giaglis
A research framework for
analysing eBusiness models
2004
Gordijn,
Osterwalde
r and
Pigneur
Comparing two Business Model
Ontologies for Designing e-
Business Models and Value
Constellations
2005
Lambert A Conceptual Framework for
Business Model Research
2008
Al-Debei
and Avison
Developing a unified framework
of the business model concept
2010
Zott, Amit
and Massa
The Business Model: Recent
Developments and Future
Research
2011
The MOF Perspective on Business Modelling
47

Table 2: Classes for the M2 layer meta-meta-business model.
Pateli and Giaglis,
2004
Gordijn, Osterwalder
and Pigneur, 2005
Lambert, 2008 Al-Debei and
Avison, 2010
Zott, Amit and
Massa, 2011
Definition Definition Definition Definition
Purpose of the
ontology
Focus of the ontology
Actors using the
ontology
Other applications
Objective BM reach
BM Functions
Strategic marketing
Value creation in
networked markets
Strategy
Innovation
Components Ontology content and
components
Fundamentals
(elements)
V4 BM dimensions Components
Conceptual models Representation
Visualization
Fundamentals
(characteristics of
representations)
Representations
(display)
Representations
Change methodology Change methodology
Evaluation models Evaluation methods
for business model
instances
Operational
(measurement)
Firm performance
Origins Emergence
Design methods and
tools
Adoption factors
Supporting
technologies
Tool support
Modelling principles
Taxonomies Classification Operational
(recognition)
Typologies
These five articles present a number of concepts
that the authors consider important in business
modelling. Pateli and Giaglis (2004) identify eight
streams of research in business modelling. Gordijn,
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2005) compare the
Business Model Ontology and e3-value on a number
of criteria. Lambert (2008) creates a business
modelling framework based on a conceptual
framework from the domain of accounting. Al-Debei
and Avison (2010) identify four facets of business
modelling. Zott, Amit and Massa (2011) provide the
most up to date overview of the state of art of
business modelling research.
3.3.3 Classes of the M2BM:
A Meta-Meta-Business Model
Table 2 identifies the important concepts in business
modelling according to the review literature. It is a
first indication of possible classes for the M2BM. A
comforting result is that there is quite some overlap
in the identified classes. For example, four of the
five articles name definition, and all have
components. This allows for mapping of the
concepts on to each other to get to a compact list of
classes. Already,
Table 2 provides an attempt at this.
While in some cases this mapping is obvious (as for
definition and components), it remains
interpretative. As section 4.2 discusses, two concepts
were left out of
Table 2 deliberately: ontological role
and ontology maturity & evaluation. Both from
Gordijn, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2005). The table
suggests which classes are important to business
modelling.
3.4 Example Use of M2BM:
Components of Meta-Business
Models
This section presents an example of the M2BM’s
use in business modelling. The core construct of
business modelling is probably the very visible
components of meta-business models. This example
provides a comparison of ten different meta-business
models based on their components. It shows how
several meta-business models all have their own
instantiation of the M2BM class components.
Figure
3 is the result of the comparison (Alberts, 2011).
The first nine meta-business models are those
identified by Vermolen (2010), published in the
top 25 MIS journals. The tenth has also been
Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design
48

Figure 3: Comparison of M1 layer meta-business model components (adapted from Alberts (2011)).
The MOF Perspective on Business Modelling
49

mentioned already, Osterwalder’s (2004) Business
Model Ontology.
1. Activity system by Zott and Amit (2010).
2. e3-value by Gordijn (2002).
3. RCOV by Demil and Lecocq (2010).
4. The BM concept by Hedman and Kalling
(2003).
5. Entrepreneur’s BM by Morris, Schindehutte and
Allen (2005).
6. The social BM by Yunus, Moingeon and
Lehmann-Ortega (2010).
7. The BM guide by Kim and Mauborgne (2000).
8. 4C Wirtz, Schilke and Ullrich (2010).
9. Internet BM by Lumpkin and Dess (2004).
10. BMO by Osterwalder (2004).
Figure 3 identifies the components used in the
above articles. It is an indication of possible
components for meta-business models. Quite some
overlap exists in the identified components, which
allows for mapping of the concepts on to each other.
Already,
Figure 3 provides an attempt at this. While
in some cases this mapping is obvious, it remains
interpretative. However, the figure still suggests
which components are important to business
modelling.
4 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to promote theory
development by viewing the concepts of business
modelling in light of the Meta-Object Facility.
Besides an open review of what the MOF allows,
this section also comments on the classes left out of
the B2BM.
4.1 Uses for the MOF Perspective on
Business Modelling
Our main reason for using the MOF is the
perspective it offers on the practice of modelling. As
such, we have only identified classes in the M2
Layer meta-meta-business model. Still, it has
become very clear that the discipline of business
modelling allows for use of the MOF, and that the
concept of meta-models can be of great assistance.
We believe this introduction of MOF in business
modelling has only scratched the surface of what is
possible. Take for example an association between
two classes: the scope of what is being modelled will
strongly influence which components are important.
Defining the M2BM in terms of the MOF model
concepts allows formalization of business modelling
that promotes its use in requirements engineering
and software development. In the same line of
reasoning, the MOF perspective may provide a new
chance to match business modelling and UML. So
far, literature that uses both the terms “UML” and
“business modelling” focuses on process modelling,
not on business modelling. Another application of
UML in this domain is creating a reference ontology
(Andersson et al., 2006). This reference ontology
allows model transformations between Resource-
Event-Agent (REA), e3-value, and BMO. Such
reference ontology may provide useful methods for
the M2BM.
The MOF opens a rich new view on business
modelling. So far, we have only looked at one
aspect: the possible classes of the M2BM. There are
still many more possibilities in using the MOF to
approach business modelling.
4.2 Classes Left out of the M2BM
Two potential classes were left out of Table 2. They
are ontological role, and ontology maturity &
evaluation. Both concepts come from Gordijn,
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2005). We argue that
these two concepts are not suitable as classes for a
meta-meta-business model.
The ontological role does not fit, as it is very
similar to the entire concept of the MOF. As such, it
has no place within one of the layers. For
ontological role, Gordijn, Osterwalder and
Pigneur (2005) define three levels: operational data
at Level L0, ontology at Level L1, and ontology
representation language at Level L2. Operational
data is similar to what we call a business model
instance at layer M0. Ontology is similar to what we
call a meta-business model at layer M1. Finally, an
ontology representation language is similar to the
M2BM at layer M2.
Ontology maturity & evaluation does not fit, as it
is itself not meta-data describing a meta-business
model. Rather, checking maturity could be a use of
the M2BM. For example, the maturity of a meta-
business model could be scored based on how many
of the M2BM classes it implements.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This article uses MOF to provide a new perspective
on business modelling. This contributes to business
modelling on three important issues:
Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design
50

• the need for a common language,
• lack of conceptual consolidation, and
• theoretical development of the concept.
Introducing the MOF perspective provides
conceptual consolidation in business modelling. The
MOF is used to take a different perspective on the
meta-business models, which makes it possible to
find commonalities. Identification of the M2BM
classes illustrates this. In addition, existing
definitions of “business model” can be positioned on
the layers. This provides better options to compare
definitions.
The M2BM on the M2 layer provides a common
language for business modelling. In business
modelling literature, many authors have their own
vocabulary. In creating the M2BM, we show that
different terms often refer to a single concept.
Approaching the different meta-business models
from a higher MOF layer addresses this issue. Doing
so allows building on the strengths of the meta-
business model original domains: strategic
management, industrial organization, and
information systems. Using the MOF, and especially
the M2BM as a common language, helps overcome
the differences of these domains and focus on
commonalities.
Finally, theoretical development of the business
model concept is promoted, as the MOF opens up a
wide range of research possibilities for business
modelling. Placing the concept of business model in
the frame of the MOF allows for further theory
development, both within the discipline and in
relation to other domains. It serves as a navigational
landmark for business model research when relating
it to existing material. Additionally, it helps to create
bridges to other research areas, especially when
relating to other modelling domains.
Future research must specify a M2BM with
classes, and possibly relations, data-types, and
packages. This common language will define
business modelling. The M2BM presented in this
article is a first draft; as such, it requires more work.
However, even in this rough form it shows that the
MOF is a rich addition to the business modelling
discipline.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is part of the IOP GenCom U-CARE
project, which the Dutch Ministry of Economic
Affairs sponsors under contract IGC0816.
REFERENCES
Al-Debei, M.M., Avison, A., 2010. Developing a unified
framework of the business model concept. European
Journal of Information Systems, 19(2010), pp.359–
376.
Alberts, B. T., 2011. Comparing business modeling
methods: creating and applying a comparison
framework for meta-business models. In Proceedings
of the 14
th
Twente Student Conference on IT. Twente
Student Conference on IT. Enschede, Netherlands:
University of Twente.
Andersson, B., Bergholtz, M., Edirisuriya, A., Ilayperuma,
T., Johannesson, P., Gordijn, J., Gregoire, B., Schmitt,
M., Dubois, E., Abels, S., Hahn, A., Wangler, B.,
Weigand, H., 2006. Towards a Reference Ontology for
Business Models. In Proceedings of the 25
th
International Conference on Conceptual Modeling.
International Conference on Conceptual Modeling.
Demil, B., Lecocq, X., 2010. Business Model Evolution:
In Search of Dynamic Consistency. Long Range
Planning, 43(2010) pp.227-246.
Gordijn, J., 2002. Value-based Requirements Engineering:
Exploring Innovative e-Commerce Ideas. PhD Thesis.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Gordijn, J., A. Osterwalder, Pigneur, Y., 2005. Comparing
two Business Model Ontologies for Designing e-
Business Models and Value Constellations. In
Proceedings of the 18
th
Bled eConference:
eIntegration in Action. 18th Bled eConference
eIntegration in Action. Bled, Slovenia.
Halteren, A. T. van, 2003. Towards an adaptable QoS
aware middleware for distributed objects. PhD Thesis.
University of Twente.
Hedman, J., Kalling, T., 2003. The business model
concept: Theoretical underpinnings and empirical
illustrations. European Journal of Information
Systems, 12(1) pp.49-59.
Jasper, R., Uschold, M., 1999. A Framework for
Understanding and Classifying Ontology Applications.
Proc.12th Int. Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition,
Modelling, and Management (KAW'99), University of
Calgary, Calgary, CA, SRDG Publications.
Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 2000. Knowing a winning
business idea when you see one. Harvard Business
Review, 78(5) pp.129-138, 200.
Kuhn, T., 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions (2
nd
ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lambert, S., 2008. A Conceptual Framework for Business
Model Research. In Proceedings of the 21
st
Bled
eConference: eIntegration in Action. 21
st
Bled
eConference eCollaboration: Overcoming Boundaries
through Multi-Channel Interaction. Bled, Slovenia.
pp.227-289.
Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G., 2004. E-Business Strategies
and Internet Business Models:: How the Internet Adds
Value. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2) pp.161-173.
Meertens, L. O., Iacob, M. E., Nieuwenhuis, L. J. M.,
2011. Developing the Business Modelling Method. In
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
The MOF Perspective on Business Modelling
51

Business Modeling and Software Design, BMSD
2011, Sofia, Bulgaria. pp.103-110.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Allen, J., 2005. The
entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified
perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6)
pp.726-735.
Object Management Group, 1999. Meta Object Facility,
Version 1.3, OMG document ad/99-07-03.
Osterwalder, A., 2004. The Business Model Ontology – a
proposition in a design science approach. PhD Thesis.
Universite de Lausanne.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model
Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challengers, John Wiley & Sons.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C. L., 2005.
Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and
Future of the Concept. Communications of AIS,
15(May), pp.2-40.
Pateli, A. G., Giaglis, G. M., 2004. A research framework
for analysing eBusiness models. European Journal of
Information Systems, 13(4), pp.302-314.
Vermolen, R., 2010. Reflecting on IS Business Model
Research: Current Gaps and Future Directions. In
Proceedings of the 13
th
Twente Student Conference on
IT. Twente Student Conference on IT. Enschede,
Netherlands: University of Twente.
Wirtz, B.W., Schilke, O. and Ullrich, S. 2010. Strategic
Development of Business Models. Implications of the
Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet. Long
Range Planning, 43(2010) pp.272-290.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L., 2010.
Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the
Grameen Experience. Long Range Planning 43(2010)
pp.308-325.
Zott, C., Amit, R. 2010. Business Model Design: An
Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning,
43(2010) pp.216-226
Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., 2011. The Business Model:
Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of
Management, 37(4), pp.1019-1042.
Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design
52