The future of the Internet of Things: toward heterarchical ecosystems and service business models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to understand their emergence and types of business models in the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach The paper builds upon a systematic literature review of IoT ecosystems and business models to construct a conceptual framework on IoT business models, and uses qualitative research methods to analyze seven industry cases. Findings The study identifies four types of IoT business models: value chain efficiency, industry collaboration, horizontal market and platform. Moreover, it discusses three evolutionary paths of new business model emergence: opening up the ecosystem for industry collaboration, replicating the solution in multiple services and return to closed ecosystem as technology matures. Research limitations/implications Identifying business models in rapidly evolving fields such as the IoT based on a small number of case studies may result in biased findings compared to large-scale surveys and globally distributed samples. However, it provides more thorough interpretations. Practical implications The study provides a framework for analyzing the types and emergence of IoT business models, and forwards the concept of “value design” as an ecosystem business model. Originality/value This paper identifies four archetypical IoT business models based on a novel framework that is independent of any specific industry, and argues that IoT business models follow an evolutionary path from closed to open, and reversely to closed ecosystems, and the value created in the networks of organizations and things will be shareable value rather than exchange value.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".