The use of conceptual business model in managing information technology projects

Luciene Diana Siqueira^a, Sérgio Feliciano Crispim^a, Marcos Antonio Gaspa^b

The business model of an organization is an important strategic tool for its success, and should therefore be understood by business professionals and information technology professionals. By this context and considering the importance of information technology in contemporary business models, this article aims to verify the use of the business model components in the information technology (IT) projects management process in enterprises. To achieve this goal, this exploratory research has investigated the use of the Business Model concept in the information technology projects management, by a survey applied to 327 professionals from February to April 2012. It was observed that the business model concept, as well as its practices or its blocks, are not so well explored in its whole potential, possibly because it is relatively new. One of the benefits of this conceptual tool is to provide an understanding in terms of the core business for different areas, enabling a higher level of knowledge in terms of the essential activities of the enterprise IT professionals and the business area.

Descriptors:: Business Model, Projects, Project Management, Information Technology.

1. INTRODUCTION

The term 'business model' is relatively new but has proved relevant to organizations. Despite the consensus in terms of its importance to the success of an organization, the concept is still unclear and vague, and there is little agreement regarding its composition facets (Al-Debei et Avison, 2010). The literature shows a clear lack of conformity in relation to their bases, and some researchers argue that the concept is underdeveloped (Magretta, 2002; Chesbrough et Rosenbloom, 2002).

First mentioned in an academic article in 1950 (Bellman et al., 1957 cited in Osterwalder et al., 2005) and then used by Jones (1960 apud Osterwalder et al., 2005), the business model started to be used prominently only in the late 1990. This rise coincides with the advent of the internet in business and becomes stronger with the development of the Nasdaq stock market (Osterwalder et al., 2005).

Such term has sometimes been used synonymously with corporate strategy, business process model or even business case (Al-Debei et Avinson, 2010). Leem et al. (2004) and Kallio et al. (2006) describe the components of the business model as a set of strategies. Magretta (2002) argues that the business strategy explains how organizations hope to do better than their rivals, while the business model describes how the parts of a business fit together. Perhaps the main reason behind this question is the evolution of the traditional way of doing business for the new concepts of digital market, which exhibit a high level of complexity and requirement of rapid change, both characteristics of the new economy (Al-Debei et Avinson, 2010).

Understanding this evolution and its trends helps identify opportunities and challenges so that these companies may step into and sustain themselves in this digital age environment. For organizations that want to move successfully towards the new economy, it is not enough to use web-based systems. They should also take an appropriate action strategy in relation to e-business and the ability to plan virtual systems and new business models. In addition, they need to plan the transition process, which relies on information technology (IT) as discourses Turban et al. (2004).

Business professionals must be able to formulate the vision clearly and inform what is expected of IT professionals. On the other hand, the team of information systems (IS) should be able to point out how information and communication technology (ICT) can improve the business goals of a company. However, business and IT teams sometimes seem to be very far away. Each manager intuitively understands how his business works, but in many rare cases he is able to communicate in a clear and simple way (Linder et Cantrell, 2000).

In turn, the IT team knows what ICTs are capable of accomplishing in terms of SI for the business areas of the company, but has trouble getting a strategic adjustment with the business team. Thus, the model can be the conceptual tool to capture, share and create a common understanding between the parties involved (Osterwalder et al., 2005).

Since the areas of business and IT share a common understanding in terms of the organization's business model, both can reflect together on how the objectives of the business strategy guide the changes in the model and hence in the information systems; or rather, how the evolution of ICT directs changes in the business model and the strategy of organizations.

Given this context and the importance of IT in innovative business models in the new economy, this article proposes the following research problem: what is the use of conceptual business model in IT projects? To answer it, it is established as the objective to verify the use of the model components in the IT project management process.

2. THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE

2.1. Business model (BM)

The term business model (MN) has to be used prominently by the late 1990s (Demil et Lecocq, 2010). Although its use coincides with the advent of the internet in business and accentuated with the development of the Nasdaq stock market for technology companies, this expression is not strictly related to the Internet. However, curiously, the number of times it appears in the media follows a similar pattern to the high of the Nasdaq stock index (Osterwalder et al., 2005).

The BM concept remains diffuse and authors address various aspects, glancing through different lenses (Shafer et al., 2005). Figure 1 summarizes the settings and contexts of some authors cited in academic articles.

BM is not operated independently; however, it interacts with a strategy focused on creating value attributes for the company's evolution (Rodrigues et al., 2013), as well as business processes, including the areas of support, such as IT. These intersections represent two critical points of transition to be followed by organizations, as shown in Figure 2 (Al-Debei et Avison, 2010).

Figure 2. Business model vs. business processes vs. information systems

Source: Elaborated from Al-Debei et Avison (2010)

The first intersection point refers to the overlap of business strategy and business model. According to Porter (1980), business strategy is a way by which an organization is positioned in its industry, adopting one of the following generic strategies: cost leadership, differentiation or focus. However, at this stage, the organization translates its broader strategy into a more specific business architecture, involving, in addition to the value proposition, the operating system and the financial arrangements needed to achieve the goals and strategic objectives of the business. Thus, the BM, in the first point of intersection, is dependent on and derived from the business strategy (Al-Debei et Avison, 2010).

On the second point of Figure 1, the business model acts as a base system for business operational processes, including the IS. However, although business processes and IS are derived from BM, it does not define precisely how processes and IS are executed, thus allowing different design options of business processes and IS (Al-Debei et Avison, 2010). A BM does not express how value creation activities will take place, as this is an important goal for the modeling of business processes (Gordijn et al., 2000).

Business professionals must be able to formulate their vision and clearly communicate what is expected of IT professionals. On the other hand, the IS team needs to point out how ICT can improve the results of a company. However, business and IT teams sometimes seem very far away. Every manager understands intuitively how his business works, but he is rarely able to communicate clearly (Linder et Cantrell, 2000).

The IT staff understands what ICTs are able to accomplish in terms of Information Systems (IS), but there are difficulties to achieve a strategic fit with the business team. The BM may be the conceptual tool to capture, share and create a common understanding between the parties (Osterwalder et al., 2005).

Once the areas of business and IT share a common understanding in terms of the organization BM, they analyze together how the objectives of the strategy lead changes in the business model and hence the IS; or rather how the evolution of ICT directs changes in BM and in the strategy of the organizations. This statement is an extension of the Strategic Alignment Model of Venkatraman et Henderson (1993), which is defined in terms of four key areas of strategic choice: a) business strategy; b) information technology strategy; c) organizational infrastructure and processes and; d) information technology infrastructure and processes. The model addresses the strategic adequacy between the ‘IT/IS strategy’ and ‘business strategy’, and the functional integration between the 'organizational infrastructure and processes' and the ‘IT/IS infrastructure and processes' (Osterwalder et al., 2005).

Figure 3 illustrates how the BM serves as a tool to conceptualize and illustrate a business strategy and its objectives. It could be integrated into the organization model (which represents the organizational infrastructure and processes) and IS model (representing the informational infrastructure, applications and user interfaces).

Figure 3. Alignment between business and IT/IS

Source: Elaborated from Osterwalder et al. (2005) Henderson et Venkatraman (1993)

Osterwalder and Pigneur (2011) expose in Figure 4 the nine components, or blocks, of a conceptual business model, showing the logic on how an organization intends to generate value. The nine components cover four main areas of business: customers, offering (products/services), infrastructure and financial viability.

The nine blocks of BM form the basis for a useful tool called business model framework, as can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Framework business model

Source: elaborated from Osterwalder et Pigneur (2011, p. 44)

The table shown in Figure 5 aims to map the organization's value proposition(s). Such tool allows the drawing of new business models, future or intended, or even documenting existing models. Operationally, the picture works when printed on a large surface, so that various groups of people (stakeholders) can sketch together its entirety, thus promoting: discussion, understanding, creativity and analysis (Osterwalder et Pigneur, 2011).

2.2. Project management and IT

Project management should not be restricted to meeting timelines, budget targets and fulfilling requirements. It is necessary to go further, as it should be aligned to the organization's strategy on a tactical level (Shenhar, 2004). In addition, Shenhar et Dvir (2010) emphasize the strategic dimension of management, in which the effectiveness in generating competitive advantage is verified and in the innovation of the organizations through projects.

Muñoz et al. (2014) states that the correct project management can offer a real opportunity for the organization to be more efficient and effective. More convincingly, Mutka et Aaltonen (2013) proclaimed that the projects may even have a more significant effect on business directions, contributing to the remodeling of the company BM.

For the Project Management Institute (PMI), "A project is a temporary effort undertaken to create a product, service or unique result" (PMI, 2008, p.5). As for project management, "it is the application of knowledge, skills and techniques to project activities to meet their requirements" (PMI, 2008, p.8). In addition, Shenhar et Dvir (2010, p.16) claim that "projects are the engines that drive innovation of marketing ideas”. Swanson (2012) also emphasizes that "projects are also propellants that cause organizations to be better, stronger and more efficient."

The foundation of PMI in 1969 is symptomatic in terms of evolution and formalization of the project management discipline in that period. But only from the 1980 the projects started to appear and gained greater strength. In 1985, the Total Quality Management Program (TQM) becomes the first ally of the project management (Kerzner, 2006). Second frame (1999 apud Rabechini Junior, 2005), its adoption has intensified especially in the 1990s, and was mentioned by many scholars as a compulsory subject in companies seeking to develop and maintain competitive advantages.

The guide of best practices of PMI, called PMBOK® (Project Management Body of Knowledge), was initially developed in 1987 as a white paper and in 1996 its first edition was launched. With voluntary contributions from academics and professionals, later versions of PMBOK® were launched in 2000 and 2004 (PMI, 2008).

From the year 2000, the support from the executives was expanded and global standards of excellence were defined for project management (Kerzner, 2006). Mergers and acquisitions worldwide have emerged, thus creating more multinational companies, placing the management of global projects as the challenge of the decade. In addition, models and project management maturity measurements begin to emerge to help companies in the implementation of strategic planning for its management, as indicated Ibbs et Kwak (2000); Kerzner (1999); PMI (2003); Carvalho et al. (2003); and Rabechini Jr. (2005).

However, companies do not realize the strategic planning for the management of projects with the same care and precision as the planning for new products and services. Nevertheless, the planning aimed at project management differs from other forms often be accomplished by the intermediate administrative level rather than at the executive level (Kerzner, 2006). However, Duarte et al. (2012) suggest the existence of common ground between the project management and IT project management.

In 2008, PMI launches the fourth edition of the PMBOK®. The established and unique standard in relation to the project management field has relationships with other disciplines such as program management and portfolio management. This guide sets out five process groups (or phases) of project management (Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring and Controlling, and Closing) and nine knowledge areas (integration, Project Scope, Time, Cost, Quality, Human Resources, Communication, Risks, and Acquisitions), which refer to the integration of several key elements that are common to almost every project (PMI, 2008). In early 2013, a fifth edition is launched and a new area of knowledge arises - stakeholder management - which denotes the constant evolution of this area of knowledge.

The project manager is responsible for the success of the project (PMI, 2008; Kerzner, 2006, Duarte et al, 2013.) and is in charge of all aspects, including, but not limited to: a) development of the management plan of the project and all derivative plans; b) maintenance of the project on schedule and budget; c) identifying, monitoring and addressing risks, and d) providing reports of project metrics (PMI, 2008).

IT executives and project managers have considered the alignment between IT and business strategies as one of the main objectives of the area, by the new opportunity identification possibility and the competitive advantages based on IT solutions (Porter, 2001).

For organizations of the digital age using web-based systems it is not enough. There should also be an appropriate strategy and the ability to plan virtual systems as well as new business models that increasingly rely on IT (Turban et al., 2004). It is assumed that this is one of the reasons why the IT area is identified as number one within organizations in using project management methodologies, with 67.3%, followed by engineering with 41.4%, and production/operations with 33.7% (Pmsurvey, 2011).

In the view of Turban et al. (2004), the dependence on IT is a fact. In this sense, Smith et Crispin (2012) corroborate such thinking when exposing companies that do not have a flexible and balanced IT architecture, that is, an architecture adjusted to the double need for affordable costs to meet current business requirements and the ability to react to changes in the market in a quick way. Their survival may be threatened.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This is an exploratory research, which uses a quantitative approach and the survey method. According to Gil (2010), the exploratory research aims to provide greater familiarity with the issue, in order to make it more explicit or build hypotheses.

The study universe is made up of organizations from various sectors in Brazil. The subjects are professionals who work in IT projects, and representatives of technology and business. The sample consists of 327 valid questionnaires among CIOs, project managers, program managers, department managers, engineers, analysts, consultants, among other positions.

Convenience was the sampling procedure adopted and it was complemented by the snowball method, i.e., it was asked to each respondent to indicate other professionals with similar profile to participate in the research, thereby generating a non-probabilistic sample as a result. In such proceeding, "the researcher uses subjective methods such as personal experience, convenience, expertise etc., to select the elements of the sample" (Hair Jr. et al., 2005, p. 246).

The snowball method has found a niche in applications in which respondents are located by means of the reference network, and may or may not be selected using probabilistic methods (Cooper et Schindler, 2003). The questionnaire was submitted to a pretest with 12 professionals

A pre-test with a sample of 12 subjects was carried out. Participants were selected by professional profile and ease of researcher access. "The smaller number of respondents may be four to five individuals and the higher should not exceed thirty" (Hair et al., 2005, p.230). According to Babbie (1999, p. 303), "every research manual suggests some kind of test to the research design, before the larger study."

This study made use of LinkedIn® social network for dissemination and search for respondents, focusing on the required professional profile. Data collection took place between February-April 2012.

With the aid of SPSS software, it was decided to perform Categorical Principal Components Analysis (CATPCA) intrabloc using the eigenvalue rule above '1', along with the coefficient α (alpha) by Cronbach. Such parameters had the purpose to verify whether the constituents of practical factors are associated with each other and whether they represent a single concept, thus ensuring unidimensionality (Hair et al., 2006). For exploratory studies, the acceptance of the data sets with Cronbach α above 0.60 is suggested (Hair et al., 2006).

The survey instrument was composed of nine constituent components of the business model of Osterwalder et al. (2005), operated by means of variables termed herein 'MOD_n', as shown in Figure 6.

An ordinal scale was used in the research, namely, a non-metric scale of the Likert type scale (0 - I do not know/not applicable; 1 – never; 2 – rarely; 3 – sometimes; 4 – frequently; and 5 – always). The median is the most appropriate measure of central tendency for applications with ordinal scale (Hair et al., 2005; Malhotra, 2006).

4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

4.1. Main considerations in terms of the characterization of respondents

Of the 327 respondents, a higher incidence of male workers (73.7%) was observed. The age pattern, with high incidence of individuals aged between 31 and 50 years (74.3%), is consistent with the high level of education, as 69.1% of respondents reported having complete post-graduation. Most of them belong to the IT field (73.4%), a fact consistent with what is observed in organizations, which means finding in the IT project staff a greater number of members of this area and a smaller group representing the business/administration areas.

Most respondents have a managing function (64.5%), the highest incidence being as a project manager (26.3%), followed by program/portfolio manager (11.9%) and functional manager (11.3 %). However, the analyst position (19%) comes second in the overall functions ranking. It was also noted that almost half of the respondents (49.2%) is in the current company for over five years.

4.2. Main considerations in terms of the characterization of organizations

As for the business sector in the organizations, we may highlight the financial sector (36.4%), formed by banks, insurance, pension and other financial services; followed by the IT sector, with 22.9%. Most respondents (89.9%) state that the organization in which they operate have some process or formal systematics for project management, and 57.5% assert that such a system is in place for over five years. As for the best project management practices, 59.9% said they use the PMI.

As for the area responsible for the selection, prioritization and monitoring of IT projects, the Project Management Office (PMO) was the most cited area (52.6%). However, in the organizational structure aspect, the distribution is fairly homogenous. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that 27.8% of professionals say that the structure is functional or departmentalized, one of the most traditional forms, followed by the projectized (24.2%), a contemporary structure in which the projects are predominantly strategic to the organization.

4.3. Analysis of results

With the aid of the use of Categorical Principal Components Analysis (CATPCA), the intrabloc dimensionality of the construct was observed, i.e., we sought a single factor with eigenvalues higher than '1' in the set of practices (construct) of the business model (MN). "The unidimensionality test means that each scale should consist of multiple items, with high loads concentrated in a single factor" (Hair Jr. et al., 2006, p.111). A list of nine variables that make up the construct is given in the Table 3 of the Methodology section.

Ideally only one factor should present eigenvalue above 1 (Hair Jr. et al., 2006). However, it was noted that two factors had eigenvalues above '1', indicating that the practices suggested in research to construct the 'business model' do not present unidimensionality, according to the data of the sample.

Therefore, the observation of the degree of explained variance of each variable on the first factor was followed. After two executions of the CATPCA, a new analysis was performed, but this time without the MOD_5 and MOD_8 variables; the new configuration then presented seven variables.

Table 1 shows the final factor loadings of the variables that make up the construct in descending order.

The variables MOD 5 (question '5 - IT Projects enable the structure, processes and the required organizational resources') and MOD_8 (question '8 - IT projects seek organizational efficiency and process optimization in order to reduce costs') were dropped for not sharing the variance needed to create the unidimensionality of the construct under analysis.

Table 2 details the counting, and the median percentage of each practice (variable), which formed the unidimensionality of the construct business model.

It is observed that the issues 2 and 7 had higher median (equal to 4), that is, for most participants, these practices are 'often' and 'always' performed. However, in the other issues there is a frequency decline; most respondents stated that these practices are 'rarely', 'sometimes' or 'often' exercised.

5. CONCLUSION

The emergence of project management is a response to the requirements of the current business environment in which IT projects should be aligned to company goals in order to deliver significant business benefits. Thus, one of the biggest challenges in management is to develop and improve the ability to compose a portfolio of suitable IT projects in order to contribute to the achievement of the results and benefits of the company. To do so, establishing criteria, rules and procedures that align the project portfolio to the organization's business model is one of the factors of great influence for business success.

A business model describes the rationale of creating, delivering and capturing value by the organization. The challenge is that this concept should be relevant, simple and intuitively understandable, and at the same time it should not oversimplify the complexity of running a business, as proposed by Osterwalder et Pigneru (2011).

It is to be noted that, during the pre-trial phase of the field research conducted in this study, we observed that, according to the target audience, this concept and its practices or its building blocks are relatively new; hence the need for inclusion of the response option '0-do not know / not applicable' in the questionnaires.

The organizational structure is a factor of the organization environment, which can affect the availability of resources and influence how projects are conducted. Organizational structures range from the functional to the projectized ones, including several matrix or hybrid structures (Kerzner, 2006; PMI, 2008).

In the projectized organizational structure, projects are predominantly strategic to the organization. However, the sample data of this study showed very even distribution between organizational structures (projectized, strong matrix, balanced matrix, weak and functional matrix). At the top of the ranking, the functional or departmentalized structure appears with 27.8%, followed by projectized, with 24.2%. These two structures together, although distinct, totaled 52% of the respondents claim. According to the PMI data, most organizations focuses on the functional or departmentalized structure (39%) and on the balanced matrix structure (29%) (Pmsurvey, 2011).

In response to the organizational demands where the portfolio of IT projects is under the careful eyes of executives who make sure that all the investment made will certainly bring benefits to the business (Swanson, 2012), the implementation of project management offices (Project Management Office - PMO) creates mechanisms that will, for example, enable the tracking and monitoring to check whether the executed projects are aligned to the model and business strategies of organizations. In this study, the PMO was indicated by 52.6% of respondents as the area responsible for the selection, prioritization and monitoring of IT projects. PMI surveys (Pmsurvey, 2011) with 754 companies in Brazil showed that 46% of companies have a corporate PMO and that there is a growing demand for PMOs by areas. Of those who already have PMO by department, the IT area ranks first with 57.2% of the opinion of respondents, followed by engineering (28.3%).

The statement number 1, which notes the discussion of the organization's value proposition, received a relatively low score for its relevance (median = 3). The value proposition should be widely discussed in all projects involving the products and services offered to customers in all, or almost all, project development phases, in order not to 'lose' focus on what brings income to the organization.

Another question of similar importance is related to practice 6, which deals with the understanding of the essential activities of the organization, which also earned a median score equal to 3. The essential activities, or also called key activities are the most important actions a company can take to operate successfully.

According to the profile of the sample, more than half of respondents, whose education is high, has a managing function and 49% of them have been working in the company for over five years. It was expected that these assertions reached higher scores.

The low scores in the practices surveyed suggest that organizations still do not exploit the potential benefit of its BM. The BM is a conceptual tool and provides an understanding in terms of the mutual core business between the different areas of the organization and between different subjects and levels, culminating in a leveling of the knowledge at an acceptable level for the understanding of the core activities of the company. From this arises the possibility of adding innovative technology in the IS aimed to generate profitable and sustainable revenue streams.

Regarding the assertions that scored higher punctuation, the number 2 - 'IT applications have custom functionality in accordance with the profiles of their customers and the target customer needs are prioritized' - may eventually be explained by the widespread installation of CRM (Customer Relationship Management) applications in organizations, thus contributing to the effective communication between the organization and its customer segments. However, the assertion 7 – 'in the development of IT projects involving the value chain of the organization we seek to integrate the partners' information systems' – can be understood by expanding the applications type B2B (Business to Business), B2C (Business to Consumer), and SCM (Supply Chain Management).

Considering that the field survey came from a convenience sample, that is, not probabilistic, the results now achieved cannot be extended to all companies in Brazil. It also emphasizes a natural limitation of the descriptive cross-sectional studies. The data collected in a given period, if collected at another time, may show different results. However, it is suggested that organizations can take advantage of the earned results. Especially those who do not even draw the potential benefit of this conceptual tool that can provide a mutual understanding of the core business across different areas, culminating in a leveling of the knowledge of the essential activities of the company between IT professionals and the business district.

Given the nature of the research, there was great care in the selection of professionals for this research in terms of the qualification of the professional profile based on education, length of service and experience in project management; however, it was not possible to discern the line of the business of the attending organizations. Because of this, the sample was pulverized in various sectors of the economy.

Regarding the theoretical framework, academic studies and business surveys have become increasingly more relevant and consistent with the business speed. This research sought a theory evolution, without, however, claiming to exhaust the subject. Thus, as regards to theory, the search for other studies that are more extensive in relation to themes addressed or from adjacent areas is recommended for future research; regarding the empirical research, it is suggested that some characteristics of the companies are considered in addition to the profile of respondents selection: a) define an industry sector; and b) consider the geographic location of the business units or between headquarters and branches in order to investigate the influence of the organizational culture.

REFERENCES

Al-Debei, M. M. et Avison, D. (2010), “Developing a unified framework of the business model concept”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19, pp. 359-376.

Amit, R. et Zott, C. (2001), “Value creation in e-business”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 493-520.

Babbie, E. (1999), Métodos de pesquisas de survey, 1 ed., UFMG, Belo Horizonte, MG.

Carvalho, M. M., Laurindo, F. J. B. e Pessôa, M. S. P. (2003), “Information technology project management to achieve efficiency in Brazilian companies”, em Kamel, S. (Org.). Managing globally with information technology, Idea Group, Hershey, pp. 260-271.

Chesbrough, H. W. et Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002), “The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 529–555.

Cooper, D. R. et Schindler, P. S. (2003), Métodos de pesquisa em administração. 7 ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS.

Demil, B. et Lecocq, X. (2010), “Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, pp. 2-3.

Duarte, C. C. M., Biancolino, C. A., Storopoli, J. E., Riccio, E. L. (2012), “Análise do conceito de sucesso aplicado ao gerenciamento de projetos de tecnologia da informação”, Revista de Administração da UFSM, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 459-478.

Duarte, C. C. M., Biancolino, C. A., Kniess, C. T. (2013), “Análise da gestão de stakeholders aplicada ao gerenciamento de projetos de tecnologia da informação”, RECADM, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 264-272.

Gil, A. C. (2010), Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. 5 ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP.

Gordijn, J., Akkermans, J. M. e Van Vliet, H. (2000), “Business modeling is not process modeling”, em Liddle, S. et al. (Orgs.). Conceptual modeling for e-business and the web, Springer Berlin, Berlin, pp. 40–51.

Hair Jr., J. F., Babin, B., Money, A. H., Samouel, P. (2005), Métodos de pesquisa em administração, 1 ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS.

Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. (2006), Análise multivariada de dados. 5 ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS.

Hedman, J. et Kalling, T. (2003), “The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 49-59.

Henderson, J. C. et Venkatraman, N. (1993), “Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32, No 1, pp. 472-484.

Ibbs, C. W. et Kwak, Y. H. (2000), “Assessing project management maturity”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 32-43.

Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M. e Kargermann, H. (2008), “Reinventing your business model”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86, No. 12, pp. 57-68, December.

Kallio, J., Tinnila, M. e Tseng, A. (2006), “An international comparison of operator-driven business models”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 281–298.

Kerzner, H. (1999), Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model. 1 ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Kerzner, H. (2006), Gestão de projetos: as melhores práticas. 2 ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS.

Leem, C. S., Suh H. S. e Kim, D. S. (2004), “A classification of mobile business models and its applications”, Industrial Management and Data systems, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 78–87.

Linder, J. et Cantrell, S. (2000), “Changing business models: surveying the landscape”. Working paper, Accenture Institute for Strategic Change, pp. 1-15.

Magretta, J. (2002), “Why business models matter”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, No. 5m, pp. 86-92.

Malhotra, N. K. (2006), Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada. 4 ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS.

Munõz, M., Mejia, J., Gasca-Hurtado, G. P. (2014), “Methodology for Establishing Multi-Model Environments in Order to Improve Organizational Software Processes”, International Journal of Software Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 909-933.

Mutka, S. et Aaltonen, P. (2013), “The impact of a delivery project’s business model in a project-based firm”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31, pp. 166-176.

Nielsen, C. et Lund., M. (Eds.). Business model: networking, innovating and globalizing. 1 ed., Ventus Publishing Aps, Frederiksberg.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. e Tucci, C. L. (2005), “Clarifying business models: origns, present and future of the concept”, Communications for the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 16, pp 1-25.

Osterwalder, A. et Pigneur, Y. (2011), Business model generation - Inovação em modelos de negócios, 1 ed., Alta Books, Rio de Janeiro, RJ.

PMI – Project Management Institute. (2003), Organizational project management maturity model: knowledge foundation, 1 ed.,PMI, Harrisburg, PA.

PMI – Project Management Institute. (2008), Um guia do conhecimento em gerenciamento de projetos (Guia PMBOK®), 4 ed. PMI, Harrisburg, PA.

Pmsurvey.org. (2011), “Project management institute chapters - 2011 edition”, disponível em: http://www.pmsurvey.org/ (Acesso em 29 de maio de 2012).

Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive strategy, 1 ed., Free Press, New York, NY.

Porter, M. E. (2001), “Strategy and the internet”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 69-78.

Rabechini Júnior, R. (2005), Competências e maturidade em gestão de projetos: uma perspectiva estruturada, 1 ed. Annablume, São Paulo, SP.

Rappa, M. (2010), “Business models on the web: managing the digital enterprise”, disponível em: http://digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html (Acesso em 12 de maio de 2011).

Rodrigues, L. C., Silveira, A., Kono, C. M., Lenzi, F. C. (2013), “Inovação e modelo de negócio – um estudo de caso no setor vitivinicultor”, Revista Ibero-americana de Estratégia – RIAE, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 250-273.

Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J. e Linder, J. (2005), “The power of business models”, Business Horizons, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 199–207.

Shenhar, A. (2004), “Strategic project leaderships toward a stratefig approach to project management”, R&D Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 569-578.

Shenhar, A. et DVIR, D. (2010), Reinventando gerenciamento de projetos: a abordagem diamante ao crescimento e inovação bem-sucedidos, 1 ed., M. Books, São Paulo, SP.

Siqueira, L. D. et Crispim, S. F. (2011), “Modelos de negócios na era digital”, artigo apresentado no XIV SemeAd 2011: Seminários em Administração da FEA-USP, São Paulo, SP, 13-14 de Outubro, 2011, disponível em: http://www.ead.fea.usp.br/semead/14semead/resultado/ (Acesso em 13 de agosto de 2011).

Siqueira, L. D. (2012), Alinhamento dos projetos de tecnologia da informação (TI) aos modelos de negócios, Dissertação de Mestrado em Administração, Universidade Municipal de São Caetano do Sul, São Caetano do Sul, SP.

Stahler, P. (2002), “Business models as an unit of analysis for strategizing”, artigo apresentado no I International Workshop on Business Models, Lausanne, 04-05 de Outubro, 2002, disponível em: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/showciting?cid=172784 (Acesso em 02 de março de 2011).

Swanson, S. A. (2012). “IT project can’t just be about new technology. They must align with organizational strategy to deliver meaningful business benefits”, PMI Network, p.38-43.

Timmers, P. (1998), “Business models for electronic markets”, Journal on Electronic Markets, vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 3-8.

Turban, E., Mclean, E., Wetherbe, J. (2004), Tecnologia da informação para gestão: transformando os negócios na economia digital, 3 ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS.

Venkatraman, N. et Henderson, J. C. (1998), “Real strategies for virtual organizing”, Sloan Management Review, vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 33-48.

Weill, P. et Vitale, M. R. (2001), Place to space: migrating to e-business model, 1 ed., Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L. (2011) “The business model: recent developments and furture research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 1019-1042.