Risks/rewards and an evolving business model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the need for an evolving business model that accounts for social, as well as business-related risks/rewards considerations, that is, for owner-managers with lifestyle as opposed to growth-oriented objectives. Design/methodology/approach The methodological approach undertaken involved in-depth interviews with the firm’s owner-managers, supplemental interviews with members of staff, observation, plus examining documents from secondary sources. Data gathering involved a period of three years to account for an evolving business model over time. Findings The findings from an instrumental case study demonstrate the need to adapt a firm’s business model in the light of changing circumstances. Additionally, in the context of owner-managers with lifestyle as opposed to growth-oriented objectives, to account for social in addition to business-related considerations in planning activities. Originality/value The originality of the study is to incorporate a longitudinal case study in to the entrepreneurial marketing literature. Specifically, this offers implications for business support organisations that advise prospective owner-managers; that is, in respect of the need for effective planning in formulating an evolving and enduring business model. Implications also highlight in a business sense, that turnaround of a poorly performing firm may be possible, for example, to overcome initial inadequate marketing planning. However, for owner-managers with lifestyle as opposed to growth-oriented objectives, a combination of both business and social factors need consideration to maintain a work/life balance. A venture that relies on personal and business relationships may not be viable if the partners cannot work together, no matter if the venture is performing well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".