TUGraz OPEN Library

Vorbach, Stefan

Wipfler, Harald

Schimpf, Sven

Originalarbeit
BHM (2017) Vol. 162 (9): 382–385
DOI 10.1007/s00501-017-0671-y
© The Author(s) 2017.
This article is an open access publication.
Business Model Innovation vs. Business Model Inertia: the
Role of Disruptive Technologies
Stefan Vorbach1, Harald Wipfler1, and Sven Schimpf2
1Institute of General Management and Organization, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
2Competence Centre R&D Management, Fraunhofer IAO/IAT University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Received June 30, 2017; accepted July 13, 2017; published online August 17, 2017
Abstract: This contribution addresses the impact of dis-
ruptive technologies on business model innovation. While
such technologies have the potential to significantly alter
the way in which businesses operate, business model iner-
tia hinders companies fromadopting thenew technological
possibilities. Little research has focused on the difficulties
incumbents face when innovating their business models.
By reviewing current literature on business model inno-
vation, this paper summarizes challenges companies face
when dealing with potential disruptive technologies and
creating viable business models.
Keywords: Business Model, Business Model Innovation,
Potential Disruptive Technology, Business Model Inertia
Innovation vs. Beharrungsvermögen von Geschäftsmo-
dellen: Die Rolle disruptiver Technologien
Zusammenfassung: Dieser Beitrag diskutiert den Einfluss
disruptiver Technologien auf die Innovation von Geschäfts-
modellen. Während diese Technologien das Potential für
substantielle Veränderungen von bestehenden Geschäfts-
modellen haben, können Unternehmen durch das Behar-
rungsvermögen ihrer Geschäftsmodelle auch darin behin-
dert werden, die neuen technologischen Entwicklungen
aufzugreifen. Bislang befassen sich noch wenige Arbeiten
mit der Frage, wodurch etablierte Unternehmen bei der
Innovation ihrer Geschäftsmodelle behindert werden. Ba-
sierend auf aktueller Literatur zu Geschäftsmodellinnova-
tion beschreibt dieser Beitrag, in welchem Spannungsfeld
aus potentiell disruptiven Technologien und der möglichen
Entwicklung rentabler Geschäftsmodelle Unternehmen
stehen.
S. Vorbach ()
Institute of General Management and Organization,
Graz University of Technology,
Kopernikusgasse 24,
8010 Graz, Austria
stefan.vorbach@tugraz.at
Schlüsselwörter: Geschäftsmodell,
Geschäftsmodellinnovation, Potenziell disruptive
Technologie, Beharrungsvermögen von
Geschäftsmodellen
1. Introduction
Technological innovations increasingly impact the transfor-
mation of business models (BM) [1]. Disruptive technologi-
cal developments significantly influence business environ-
ments and alter the way in which businesses are operated.
These technologies replace existing technologies of incum-
bents by sacrificing features that are important to current
customers and offering different attributes [2] and change
the performance metrics along which firms compete [3]. It
is therefore important to understand how disruptive tech-
nologies drive business model innovation (BMI) and which
difficulties incumbents facewhen adopting new technolog-
ical options. This paper discusses the impact of disruptive
technologies on BMI and the factors that hinder the adop-
tion of new technological developments.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows:
Sect. 2 describes the conception of potential disruptive
technologies. Sect. 3 explains the innovation of BMs with
respect to new technologies, and Sect. 4 discusses dif-
ferent causes of business model inertia, followed by the
conclusion of the paper.
2. Potentially Disruptive Technologies
Christensen [4] first introduced the term “disruptive tech-
nology” to refer to a new technology having lower cost and
performance measured by traditional criteria, but having
higher ancillary performance. Christensen [4] suggested
that disruptive technologies may enter and expand emerg-
ingmarket niches, improve over time, and ultimately attack
established products in their traditional markets. Poten-
382 Vorbach et al. © The Author(s) BHM (2017), 162. Jg., Heft 9
Originalarbeit
TABLE 1
Characteristics of potentially disruptive technologies
Fulfilment of a basic set
of user requirements
The starting point of potentially disruptive technological innovations is located most often at the
low end of the market by means of functionalities provided. These are different from incumbents’
solutions through the provision of only a basic set of functionalities matching most important
user requirements
Overall potential for
further development
In technology life-cycle models, potentially disruptive technologies are often immature or under-
performing but able to substitute solutions currently applied when further developed
Low cost compared to
incumbents’ solutions
Potentially disruptive solutions most often compete through lower cost in incumbents’ markets,
combined with a reduced and more focused fulfilment of a basic set of requirements
Overcompliance of user
requirements by incum-
bents’ solutions
In contrast to the indicator of fulfilling a basic set of functionalities, overcompliance of customer
requirements is related to performance features that are addressing the high-end of the market.
These performance features are often linked to high margins and are therefore of great interest
for incumbents
tially disruptive technologies are characterized as shown in
Table 1 [5]:
SomecriticismonChristensen’s concept hasbeen raised
recently: First, not all the disruptive technologies follow the
path of “attack from below” [6] and enter the market from
the low-end. Second, not all the incumbents experience
failure in launching a disruptive technology. While incum-
bents may be better positioned to take advantage of new
technologies (superior resources, R&D capability and com-
plementary assets), Sood and Tellis [7] argued that poten-
tially disruptive technologies are introduced as frequently
by incumbents as by new entrants. Third, one of the main
claims of Christensen is that disruptive technology is of-
ten associated with replacing the incumbent firm’s market
leadership. However, an entrant strategy of initially com-
peting followed by later cooperating would suggest that,
in some cases of disruptive technology, old technology will
be totally replaced, while incumbents’ market leadership
might still be preserved. Nonetheless, established invest-
ments of the incumbents generally are rendered obsolete
[3].
We propose an extended concept of disruptive technol-
ogy adapted from Christensen’s theory. Thus, a disruptive
technology is an emerging technology following a different
technological trajectory from existing technology. It has
higher ancillary performance, which can create niche/fringe
markets initially and finally be dominant in unexpected ap-
plication areas. Disruptive technology, therefore, will often
bring great challenges to incumbents because it changes
the profit models and existing value networks of firms.
3. Business Model Innovation
In order to gain a differentiated competitive advantage,
technological innovation often goes along with BMI, which
may also lead to the creation of a new industry [8]. In this
way, the BM itself starts to become an object for innova-
tion. BMI can be defined as changes in business logic that
are new to the focal firm, yet not necessarily new to the
world, and that result in observable changes in the prac-
tice of the firm. BMI typically involves changes in multiple
BM components as it alters the business logic as a whole
[9]. Examples include sharing economy based on platform
models or service bundling.
Increasingly, the literature has been moving from con-
ceptualizing, characterizing, and explaining a BM at a given
point in time towards a more dynamic view that exam-
ines phenomena like BMI and adaptation [10]. Adaptation
may imply changes of the firm’s value proposition, market
segment, value chain and value-capture, or how these are
linked in an architecture.
The difference between a pre-existingBMand anewone
has also been highlighted by Velu [11]: themore radical the
change in the BM component is, the more radical is the re-
sulting BM. Cavalcante et al. [12] adopted a process-based
conceptualization of BM and have identified four main ty-
pologies of business model change (i. e. BM creation, BM
extension, BM revision, and BM termination), which they
then linked to the degree of BMI.
The process of BMI is often a learning process in which
discovery through experimentation is more appropriate
than conventional analytical approaches [13]. Chesbrough
[14] argues BMI experimentation can help overcome barri-
ers to BM change. Due to the complexity of the commer-
cialization of emerging technology based ventures, it is
conceivable that the firms will go through many cycles of
design of their business model within the entire innovation
process. As recently suggested by Lubik and Garnsey [15],
and before by Sosna et al. [16], emerging-technology-
based ventures will most likely go through a ‘trial-and-
error’ process of learning to build their BM. Therefore,
these companies will encounter many trigger points that
will start constant cycles of adjustments.
4. Business Model Inertia
The reconfiguration of BMs is associated with many diffi-
culties which need to be overcome, such as (1) identifying
change needs, (2) overcoming inertia, (3) accepting new
structures and choosing adequate approaches to renova-
tion [17]. Given organizational inertia and outcome uncer-
tainty, firms are unlikely to change their BM unless they
have relatively strong incentives to do so. Even in cases
where the need for adaptation seems evident, the firm’s
strategic orientation and the associated path dependencies
are likely to impede the process of adapting an existing BM
to new market demands or competitive threats [10].
BHM (2017), 162. Jg., Heft 9 © The Author(s) Vorbach et al. 383
Originalarbeit
Fig. 1: Causes for business model inertia
New technological developments are drivers for BM
change. Novel technologies, which may also come from
other sectors such as IT and digitalization [1], offer new
possibilities to organize the different elements of a BM,
thus allowing for BMI. On the other hand, modifications
of existing BMs may be required in order to be able to
successfully apply and exploit the new technologies. Main
challenges in developing new BMs are thereforemanaging
the complexity of the upcoming disruptive technologies
and anticipating the business logics in nascent markets
[18].
In literature [19–22], different causes for BM inertia are
discussed (see Fig. 1):
1. Business models as cognitive patterns
2. Unclear business models for first-movers
3. Path-dependent evolvement of business models
4. Resource-based restrictions
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Throughout history, successful firms have often experi-
mented with new technologies to forestall their replace-
ment by new firms. When technological discontinuities
are introduced into an existing industry, they confront an
existing industrial organization, established market rela-
tionships, specifically developed assets, and stable and
predictable collaboration patterns. Scholars have argued
that technological discontinuities lead to industry shake-
outs that can nullify the competitive advantage of an in-
cumbent [23]. However, technological discontinuities do
not change dominant industry logics until they begin to
usher in different BM that modify asset specificities, create
new dependency ties, and reshape collaboration patterns.
Even if a potentially disruptive technology is involved, as
long as it can be integrated within the existing industry
value chain, it will not alter the balance of power between
its actors or its established appropriationmodes. But when
one of these components is affected, dominant industry
logics may be challenged.
Sabatier et al. [23] found concrete examples of disrup-
tive BMs in the biotech sector that build on technological
discontinuities and “change the ‘old’ ways in which value
has been created and captured” along the value chain in
the drug industry. Yet, such BMI may take time as a num-
ber of interacting factors come into play: The disruptive
nature of new technologies does not automatically change
an industry’s dominant logic – the challenge comes later
when BMs evolve and when small firms can ally with other
actors, either new or already existing, that promote a dif-
ferent set of complementary assets [23]. In other words,
while entrepreneurs must flesh out a business model in or-
der to develop and bring a new technology to the market,
the novelty of the technology itself may not automatically
call for the development of an innovative BM, e. g. act as
an enabler. Other actors and industry-level processes are
likely to be involved in BMI. Further, entrepreneurial firms
have the advantage to be less hindered by path dependen-
cies and cognitive constraints to fit new technologies into
existing BMs [21].
Several scholarshaveemphasized that problemsof tech-
nology shifts and radical technological change are often
related to BM inertia. As concluded by Christensen [24],
the fundamental challenge of disruptive technologies is “a
384 Vorbach et al. © The Author(s) BHM (2017), 162. Jg., Heft 9
Originalarbeit
businessmodel problem, not a technologyproblem”, mean-
ing that the key challenge of technology shifts lies in the in-
teraction between technological development and BMI [25,
26]. However, whileanewBMcanbecrucial to commercial-
izing and capturing the value of a technological innovation
[8, 14, 19], an existing BM can also constitute a lock-in that
hinders technology shifts [20].
In such situations, the technology shift becomes a BM
problem. Technologies are not disruptive per se, but com-
panies may fail to create viable BMs to incorporate the
new technologies [27]. A lock-in to an existing BM hinders
companies from picking up new technological opportuni-
ties and adapting to technological change [28].
Acknowledgements. Open access funding provided by Graz University of
Technology.
Open AccessThisarticle isdistributedunder the termsof theCreative
CommonsAttribution4.0InternationalLicense(http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/),whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution, and
reproduction inanymedium,providedyougiveappropriatecredit to the
originalauthor(s)and thesource,providea link to theCreativeCommons
license, and indicate if changesweremade.
References
1. Baden-Fuller, C.; Haefliger, S.: Business Models and Technological
Innovation, Long Range Planning, 46 (2013), no 6, pp 419–426
2. Bower, J. L.; Christensen, C. M.: Disruptive Technologies: Catching
the Wave. Harvard Business Review, 73 (1995), no 1, pp 43–53
3. Danneels, E.: Disruptive Technology Reconsidered: A Critique and
Research Agenda, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21
(2004), no 4, pp 246–258
4. Christensen, C. M.: The Innovator’s Dilemma. When New Tech-
nologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press, 1997
5. Schimpf, S.: Crowdsourcing, Digitisation and Acceleration: Is Cor-
porate R&D Disrupting Itself?, R&D Management Conference 2016,
Cambridge, 3–6 July 2016, 2016
6. Utterback, J.M.; Acee, H.J.: Disruptive technologies: an expanded
view, International Journal of Innovation Management, 9 (2005), no
1, pp 1–17
7. Sood, A.; Tellis, G.J.: Demystifying disruption: a new model for
understanding and predicting disruptive technologies. Marketing
Science 30 (2011), no 2, pp 339–354
8. Teece, D. J.: Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation,
Long Range Planning, 43 (2010), no 2–3, pp 172–194
9. Haaker, T.; Bouwman, H.; Janssen, W.; de Reuver, M.: Business
model stress testing: A practical approach to test the robustness of
a business model, Futures, 89 (2017), pp 14–25
10. Saebi, T.; Lien, L.; Foss, N.J.: What Drives Business Model Adap-
tion? The Impact of Opportunities, Threats and Strategic Orienta-
tion, Long Range Planning (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.006
11. Velu, C.: Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the
survival of new firms, Technovation, 35 (2015), pp 1–11
12. Cavalcante, S.; Kesting, P.; Ulhøi, J.: Business model dynamics and
innovation: (re)establishing the missing linkages, Management De-
cision, 49 (2011), no 8, pp 1327–1342
13. McGrath, R.: Business models: A discovery driven approach, Long
Range Planning, 43 (2010), pp 247–261
14. Chesbrough, H.: Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and
Barriers. Long Range Planning, 43 (2010), pp 354–363
15. Lubik, S.; Garnsey, E.: Early Business Model Evolution in Science-
based Ventures: The Case of Advanced Materials, Long Range Plan-
ning, 49 (2016), pp 393–408
16. Sosna, M.; Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R. N.; Velamuri, S. R.: Business
model innovation through trial-and-error learning: The Naturhouse
case, Long Range Planning, 43 (2010), no 2, pp 383–407
17. Wirtz, B. W.; Schilke, O.; 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
18. Amshoff, B.; Dülme, C.; Echterfeld, J.; Gausmeier, J.: Business
model patterns for disruptive technologies, International Journal of
Innovation Management, 19 (2015), no 3, pp 1540002-1-1540002-22
19. Chesbrough, H.; Rosenbloom, R. S.: The role of the business model
in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corpo-
ration’s technology spin-off companies, Industrial and Corporate
Change, 11 (2002), no 3, pp 529–555
20. Tripsas, M.; Gavetti, G.: Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Ev-
idence from digital imaging, Strategic Management Journal, 21
(2000), no 10–11, pp 1147–1161
21. Bohnsack, R.; Pinkse, J.; Kolk, A.: Business models for sustainable
technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of
electric vehicles, Research Policy, 43 (2014), no 2, pp 284–300
22. Rothmann, W.: Wahrnehmung des strategischen Handlungsspiel-
raumes, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 2013
23. Sabatier, V.; Craig-Kennard, A.; Mangematin, V.: When technologi-
cal discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dom-
inant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry, Technologi-
cal Forecasting and Social Change, 79 (2012), no 5, pp 949–962
24. Christensen, C. M.: The Ongoing Process of Building a Theory of
Disruption, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23 (2006),
pp 39–55
25. Markides, C.: Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory, Jour-
nal of Product Innovation Management, 23 (2006), no 1, pp 19–25
26. Sandström, C.: A Revised Perspective on Disruptive Innovation: Ex-
ploring Value Networks and Business Models, Chalmers, Gothen-
burg, Sweden, 2010
27. DaSilva, C. M.; Trkman, P.: Business Model: What It Is and What It
Is Not, Long Range Planning, 47 (2014), no 6, pp 379–389
28. Tongur, S.; Engwall, M.: The business model dilemma of technol-
ogy shifts, Technovation, 34 (2014), no 9, pp 525–535
BHM (2017), 162. Jg., Heft 9 © The Author(s) Vorbach et al. 385


Business Model Innovation vs. Business Model Inertia: the Role of Disruptive Technologies

Schuppler, Barbara

Rethinking classification results based on read speech, or: why improvements do not always transfer to other speaking styles

Zyoud, SH. H.

Fuchs-Hanusch, D.

Zyoud, S. H.

Al-Rawajfeh, A. E.

Shaheen, H. Q.

A bibliometric-based evaluation on environmental research in the Arab world

Stek, Klaas

Naam: Klaas Stek
Functie: promovendus
Organisatie: Universiteit Twente 
Ook: als visiting researcher 
verbonden aan de Technische 
Universität Graz in Oostenrijk 
HOOGLERAAR SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT KIJKT NAAR DE TOEKOMST
4 SCENARIO’S 
VOOR INKOOP 
IN 2035
Waar gaat het heen met inkoop?  
Hoogleraar Supply Chain Management 
aan Florida State University Larry  
Giunipero ontwikkelde vier toekomst- 
scenario’s voor de inkoopfunctie.  
Onderzoeker Klaas Stek laat ze hier  
de revue passeren.
W
e bevinden ons in een zeer 
instabiele tijd, meent Larry 
Giunipero, een Amerikaan-
se hoogleraar Supply Chain 
Management aan Florida 
State University. Hij was 
zelf inkoper, is sinds de  
jaren 70 actief als weten-
schapper en is medeauteur 
van vier inkoophandboeken 
en veel wetenschappelijke artikelen op het gebied van strategi-
sche inkoop en supply chain management. “De bedreigingen en de 
opgaven zijn groter dan ooit”, meent Giunipero. “In de afgelopen 
tien jaar zijn viermaal meer natuurrampen voorge-
komen dan in de periode 1970 – 1980. Het aantal 
conflicten neemt toe. De kloof tussen arm en rijk 
wordt groter: ongeveer 99 procent van de rijkdom 
is in handen van nog geen 2 procent van de wereld-
bevolking. Er is een toenemend tekort aan grond-
stoffen en water. Het aantal online aankopen groeit 
sterk. Kleine bedrijven halen met behulp van crowd-
funding geld op voor hun zakelijke ideeën. 3D-prin-
ting zal bedrijfsstrategieën drastisch veranderen. 
Al deze ontwikkelingen zullen grote effecten heb-
ben op de inkoopfunctie.” 
Veranderende toekomst
Guinipero voegt eraan toe dat de lonen in China elk 
jaar oplopen. Wat zullen de gevolgen daarvan zijn 
voor inkoop? Daarnaast staat de inkoopfunctie voor 
de uitdaging om grip te krijgen op de snelle techno-
logische ontwikkelingen, die de aard van de werk-
zaamheden zullen veranderen. Daarbij zullen andere 
individuele vaardigheden nodig zijn om stand te 
houden in de inkoopfunctie. 
Tijdens zijn recente bezoek aan Europa zegt Giuni-
pero desgevraagd dat hij de Europese inkooppro-
fessionals adviseert om alert te zijn en zich goed 
voor te bereiden op de veranderende toekomst. Hij 
daagt bedrijven uit om verder vooruit te kijken en 
een stip op de horizon te zetten. Het maakt daarbij 
niet uit of het nu gaat om een klein bedrijf of een 
   |  Deal!  |  DECEMBER 2017  |  45
46  |  Deal!  |  DECEMBER 2017  |  From Experts  |  
grote multinational, want in alle gevallen doen zich 
veel kansen voor en zijn er veel valkuilen. 
Eeuwigheid
Beursgenoteerde bedrijven moeten aandeelhouders 
tevreden houden. Als gevolg daarvan wordt slechts 
een kwartaal vooruitgekeken. Een periode van vijf 
jaar is een eeuwigheid voor dit soort ondernemin-
gen. Guinipero is dan ook van mening dat er veel 
kansen zijn voor middelgrote tot grote Europese  
familiebedrijven. Deze bedrijven denken namelijk in 
decennia in plaats van in kwartalen. Hij roept  
bedrijven op om voldoende capaciteit vrij te maken 
om een toekomstscenario te vormen. Samen met 
futuroloog Heiko von der Gracht en KPMG-consul-
tant Marcus Schueller heeft Giunipero een onder-
zoeksrapport opgesteld waarin mogelijke toekomstscenario’s 
worden geschetst voor de inkoopfunctie in 2035. In het rapport 
wordt een matrix gepresenteerd met vier toekomstscenario's 
voor de inkoopfunctie (zie de figuur hierboven). Op de ene as van 
R.I.P. INKOOP INKOOP EERST
WERELDWIJDE PROJECTECONOMIE CREATIE EN INNOVATIE
AUTOMATISERING EN DIGITALISERING
MENSELIJKE CREATIVITEIT
CENTRALISATIE INKOOPDECENTRALISATIE INKOOP
Zal de inkoopfunctie opgaan in 
een volledig geautomatiseerd 
systeem van slimme algoritmes 
of zal het menselijke kapitaal 
centraal staan?
FIGUUR
4 TOEKOMSTSCENARIO’S VOOR INKOOP
Bron: KPMG, 2016. 
de matrix staat een decentrale versus centrale in-
kooporganisatiestructuur. Op de andere as staat 
een omgeving die wordt gekenmerkt door kunstma-
tige versus menselijke intelligentie: zal de inkoop-
functie opgaan in een volledig geautomatiseerd 
systeem van slimme algoritmes of zal juist het  
menselijke kapitaal centraal staan? Dit levert vier 
scenario’s op met zeer grote verschillen. Hieronder 
worden ze toegelicht.
SCENARIO 1 
Inkoop bestaat niet langer als een onafhankelijke 
functie
In een gedecentraliseerde en geautomatiseerde in-
koopfunctie zijn er meer robots dan mensen en de 
interne en externe processen zijn gedigitaliseerd en 
ingebed in een omvattend industrieel netwerk. In 
dit scenario zijn de operationele en tactische taken 
overgenomen door systemen en machines. De stra-
tegische beslissingen ten aanzien van bijvoorbeeld 
partnerships met leveranciers worden genomen 
door professionals in productmanagement en -ont-
wikkeling of door de directie of raad van bestuur. 
SCENARIO 2
Inkoop is de sleutelfunctie in de organisatie 
In een gecentraliseerde en geautomatiseerde in-
koopfunctie werken mens en machine samen. De 
technologie vervangt de mens niet, maar vult deze 
aan. In dit scenario draait het om data-analyse, 
IT-competenties, risicomanagement en budgetma-
nagement. De supply chain is volledig geïntegreerd 
en worden gemanaged met geautomatiseerde  
systemen van het begin tot het einde van de  
waardeketen.
SCENARIO 3
Inkoop in een projectgedreven omgeving
Een decentrale inkoopfunctie waar de menselijke 
invloed duidelijk voelbaar is, zal gedomineerd wor-
den door projecten. Alleen de projectmanagers zijn 
in vaste dienst en de andere professionals in het 
team werken op tijdelijke basis. De technologie is 
ondersteunend daar waar het gaat om het facilite-
ren van professionals. In dit scenario is plaats voor 
fluïde organisaties, die bepaald en gekenmerkt  
worden door dynamische werkgroepen.
SCENARIO 4. 
Inkoop als creatieve ondersteuner van innovatieve 
processen   
In een gecentraliseerde inkoopfunctie, waar de na-
druk niet ligt op technologie en automatisering van 
processen, maar op de inventiviteit van de mede-
werkers, zal de technologie de mens in 
staat stellen goed te functione-
ren. De bedrijfsvoering zal in 
het teken staan van de pro-
fessional, die de hoogste 
prioriteit heeft en hoog ge-
waardeerd wordt. Taken 
van de inkoopfunctie liggen voornamelijk op het gebied van het 
managen van het wetenschappelijk netwerk en de talloze crea-
tieve geesten en innovatieteams. 
Giunipero raadt Europese inkoopprofessionals aan zich te blijven 
focussen op de vraag welk scenario van toepassing zal zijn voor 
hun specifieke bedrijfsomgeving. Ook is het volgens hem belang-
rijk om proactief belangrijke veranderingsprocessen te initiëren.  
“Blijf voortdurend op de hoogte van de manier waarop de inkoop-
functie zich in de bedrijfstak verder ontwikkelt”, aldus de hoogle-
raar. De volgende stap is dan om het scenario voor de betreffen-
de inkoopfunctie te ontwikkelen en om hiervoor goedkeuring en 
ondersteuning bij de directie te verkrijgen. Een concreet uitvoer-
baar plan kan niet zonder de benodigde middelen tot stand ko-
men, benadrukt Giunipero. •
Meer lezen: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/
pdf/2016/04/kpmg-studie-future-proof-procurement-sec.pdf
   |  Deal!  |  DECEMBER 2017  |  47
“Zorg ervoor dat je voortdurend 
op de hoogte blijft van de  
manier waarop de inkoopfunctie 
zich in de bedrijfstak verder  
ontwikkelt” 


4 Scenario's Voor Inkoop In 2035

Malle, Bernd

Kieseberg, Peter

Holzinger, Andreas

Interactive Anonymization for Privacy aware Machine Learning

Seeber, Richard

Dourdoumas, Nicolaos

Horn, Martin

Ein Modalmaß für Beobachtbarkeit und perspektivische Beobachtbarkeit linearer zeitinvarianter Systeme

Municchi, Federico

Radl, Stefan

Consistent closures for Euler-Lagrange models of bi-disperse gas-particle suspensions derived from particle-resolved direct numerical simulations

Petrovici, Mihai A.

Schmitt, Sebastian

Klähn, Johann

Stöckel, David

Schroeder, Anna

Bellec, Guillaume

Bill, Johannes

Breitwieser, Oliver

Bytschok, Ilja

Grübl, Andreas

Güttler, Maurice

Hartel, Andreas

Hartmann, Stephan

Husmann, Dan

Husmann, Kai

Jeltsch, Sebastian

Karasenko, Vitali

Kleider, Mitja

Koke, Christoph

Kononov, Alexander

Mauch, Christian

Pattern representation and recognition with accelerated analog neuromorphic systems

Fischer, J. Wolfgang

Mayr, Melanie

Spirk, Stefan

Reishofer, David

Jagiello, A. Lukas

Schmiedt, Romana

Colson, Jerome

Zankel, Armin

Bauer, Wolfgang

Pulp Fines—Characterization, Sheet Formation, and Comparison to Microfibrillated Cellulose

Pieber, Thomas Wolfgang

Ulz, Thomas

Steger, Christian

Matischek, Rainer

Hardware Secured, Password-based Authentication for Smart Sensors for the Industrial Internet of Things

Graz University of Technology

Not a member yet