Innovation and Sustainable Business Development Operational Measures

Question: Describe about the Innovation and Sustainable Business Development for Operational Measures. Answer: Introduction: The review of the current market scenario explains that the businesses are facing extreme pressure to change the overall operational measures to withstand the fierce competition of the market. The previous report reflects that the pressure includes both the internal and external measures. Considering the similar subject, Abdeldayem (2010) claimed that the entrepreneurs make the mistake of continuing the same kinds of business model, which prevents the enterprise from innovating new concept that can easily proceed to limit the brand stagnancy occurrence. In the similar instance, Datta (2010) identified that many are entrepreneurs are recognising the opportunities regarding the greater integration, which enforces the entrepreneurs to proceed with the operational model out of the comfort zone. The firms tend to adopt more sustainable practices and outputs once it manages to retain its legitimacy. According to Niles (2011), certain firms express a keen interest towards the challenging cr iteria, however, the entrepreneurs are unsure of the actions that can be useful. Thus, due to insufficient guidance, the owners fail to satisfy the SOI (Sustainability-Oriented Innovation) practices. The current study attempts to identify the role and the business models and disruptive innovation concept. Further, it tends to initiate a comparative analysis between the chosen frameworks. Body: The move from the operational optimisation systems Buildings incredibly requires an abrupt step change process, in the context of both the mindset and the behaviour as well. In the words of Manzoor (2010), the sustainability-oriented innovation model helps the firm optimising the operational attributes and transforms the firms activity towards systems building approach. Therefore, linking the business model with innovation parameter can bring a strategic fit to the contemporary organisations. In the words of Katos (2012), the business model is a concept, which allows the firm to identify the strategic priorities and set goals to meet those priorities. A business model describes the value proposition, cost, suppliers, channels, revenue, key resources and key partners (Niles, 2011). In this context, Datta (2010) stated that the disruptive innovation is a powerful way to think about the innovation-driven growth. In the words of Corsi Di Minin (2013), Disruptive innovation creates new m arkets, value network and gradually disrupts an existing market by displacing the existing firms, products and strategic alliances. The business model has identified the practical aspect that determined the direction in which the products are made and channelized for sales. The current study identifies the transformation the retail industry has undergone within the last few years. In the circumstance of the existing concept, Manzoor (2010) determined that a few years ago the traditional retail business model has been amongst the most preferred model. The modern trade sector is still booming with the passing phase of time. Wider percentages of the retailers preferred to follow the B2C (Business to Customer) communication for enhancing the business prospects. In the particular tenure, the customers had the tendency of purchasing the products that are physically displayed in the stores (Katos, 2012). The tangible presence had been the primary criteria for the product purchase. Therefore, the retailers and the fashion assistants had to groom one-selves to present the exact voice modulation before the target customers while explaining the product specifications. The customers purchasing decisions were majorly dependent on the body language of the fashion assistants and its selling criteria. However, the recent reviews forecast that the retail division is getting entirely transformed into the e-commerce B2C model. In the context of the previous statement, Schmidt Druehl (2008) determined that the customers purchasing behaviour are changing with time. As per the present market scenario, the customers hardly have the leisure time to visit the retail store for the procurement action. Moreover, Soopramanien (2010) claimed that digitalisation had become a trend in the contemporary era. The customers appreciate the creative measures undertaken by the e-commerce for channelizing the product lines. The service lines are improved simultaneously beside the product enhancement actions. Thus, the customers hardly have any issues regarding the digital activities. The transformation from the traditional retail model to the e-commerce B2C model has been a disruptive advancement over the tenure of the past seven years. In the previous traditional retail business model the products were manufactured from the production house and passed on to the warehouse. After the product selection and scrutiny is done the entire product lines are forwarded to the logistics division and the distributors. The distributors take the initiatives of channelizing the final products to the retail outlets. Finally, the customers receive the final products from the retail store outlet. Figure 1: Traditional retail business model (Source: Wang et al. 2010, 228) In the specific business model, the chances of customer interaction were extremely. Thus, the chances of discrepancies were consecutively high. In the framework of the similar statement, Zhou Tian (2010) specified that excessive interaction often increases the curiosity amongst the customers, which majorly demands the unwanted query handling the process. Therefore, the brand switching tendency amongst the customers was significantly high. Additionally, the retail; business model had been extremely lengthy, thus, in the majority of times the products that already set a highly proportional demand in the market falls with a gradual margin due to insufficient supply. Considering the opinion of Taran et al. (2015), the traditional retail business model has been a slow and time consuming process, which prevented the potential growth rate of indifferent retail brands. Figure 2: E-commerce B2C model (Source: Singh et al. 2011, 71) On the other hand, Shaqrah (2010) specified that the B2C e-commerce model is short and efficient, where the primary source of the outline is the Business organisation, the control unit scrutinises the products standards and process the order to the second source website. The customers can easily get access to the website and purchase the products. The e-commerce B2C business model is designed with the triangular manner, where the customers can either have a direct contact with the business organisation via a direct visit, or the website enacts to be the mediator between the customers and the business organisation. The traditional business model provides the way to improve the sales volume through the number of steps (Zhou Tian, 2010). In the words of Miller Cross (2012), manufacturers choose to offer products either directly to the customers or outsources the process to the other sales outlet as well. Distributors are the units who purchase the products from the manufacturers and sales the products against a profit margin. It has been identified that the technology distributor purchases the end products from the manufacturer and sales through the retail outlet as well (Wang et al. 2010). The retail outlets purchase a product directly from the distributors and sells the products to the walk-in customers. The majority of the departmental stores is considered as the stores as a large volume of customer footfall observed in the retail stores (Soopramanien, 2010). On the contrary, Peters et al. (2009) stated that a large amount of retail stores is considered as the departmental stores. For example, Walmart, Tesco, etc. regarded as departmental stores. Finally, the traditional model ends with the franchise model, which allows the stores to add some element of the franchise company within its business model. In this context, Schmidt Druehl (2008) stated that the franchise business model allows the customers either to buy from the franchisor or the parent franchise distributor as well. The business to consumer business model (B2C) helps to sell the product directly to the customers. In this regards, Adams et al. (2015) stated that the customers could view the product specification and take decisions by comparing the products offered by other competitors. The website sends information to the customers through email, and the goods are dispatched immediately. The overall order processing time is lesser in this scenario. Not only this, but Abdeldayem (2010) also stated that customers also receive a free warranty period for each product sold through the online media. The customers can test products through a traditional business model. Also, Cofta (2006) stated that the transaction becomes safe and secured. However, the customers have to travel a certain distance to visit the stores. Shaqrah (2010) also identified that there is a limited time for opening and shutting down the stores. On the other hand, the prime advantage of the e-business model is its ubiquity. Also, Singh et al. (2011) stated that the second biggest advantage of the e-business with the traditional model is its cost effectiveness. The cost involvement in the e-commerce business environment is lesser compared to the traditional business model. The e-business does not require fixed cost commitment. At the same time, the customer service parameter is also considered flexible. However, the customers cannot feel the product, which is a significant disadvantage of this business model. The payment security is another disadvantageous factor in the online business model, which is not found in the traditional business model. However, Taran et al. (2015) stated that the secured payment gateway is satisfying a potential mass to people in the global business market. Conclusion: The current essay successfully describes the conceptual knowledge of the search engine optimisation and the impacts of e-commerce business environment. The top motivator factor for shopping online has been identified in the essay. The current development could be a value addition to the marketers. A few disadvantages of e-commerce is the dependability of technology, privacy, security, maintenance cost and increased global competition. In contrast to the traditional business model, the online business model provides a modern purchase platform to the users. The statistical data analysis shows that disruptive innovation would generate massive usage of the e-commerce technology in the coming future. With the rapid expansion of the internet, the online business model is set to play a significant role in the coming days. Therefore, the security parameters and other privacy issues are to be considered to exploit its full potential to increase the customer traffic in the future days. The dis ruption needs to be carried away by the researchers to give a new dimension to the e-commerce industry. The innovation, novelty is considered as the useful analytical dimension for the review of the e-commerce business. Therefore, the product innovation and e-commerce innovation is needed to address the sustainability of the firm ventures. In addition to the operational flexibility, the triple bottom line approach also needs to be maintained by the e-commerce firms, to manage the sustainable brand positioning in the global market. The right alignment between the disruptive innovation and social balance can only promote a glorious future to the entrepreneurs. Reference Abdeldayem, M. M. (2010). A study of customer satisfaction with online shopping: Evidence from the UAE. International Journal of Advanced Media and Communication, 4(3), 235. Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., Overy, P. (2015). Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(3), 1435. Cofta, P. (2006). Convergence and trust in eCommerce. BT Technology Journal, 24(2), 214218. Corsi, S., Di Minin, A. (2013). Disruptive innovation in reverse: Adding a geographical dimension to disruptive innovation theory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(1), 7690. Datta, P. (2010). A preliminary study of ecommerce adoption in developing countries. Information Systems Journal, 21(1), 332. Katos, V. (2012). An integrated model for online transactions: Illuminating the black box. Information Management Computer Security, 20(3), 184206. Manzoor, A. (2010). E-commerce: An introduction. Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Miller, R. L., Cross, F. B. (2012). The legal environment today: Business in its ethical, regulatory, e-commerce, and global setting (7th ed.). Boston, MA, United States: South-Western College Publishing. Niles, N. J. (2011). A new definition of A business model. Journal of Business Economics Research (JBER), 6(12), 2536. Peters, K., Albers, S., Asselmann, D., Schfers, B. (2009). ECommerce revisited. Marketing ZFP, 31(JRM 2), 85104. Schmidt, G. M., Druehl, C. T. (2008). When is a disruptive innovation disruptive? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 347369. Shaqrah, A. A. (2010). A conceptual model of customer innovation centric. International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management, 1(2), 5771. Singh, S., P.Shukla, S. S., Rakesh, N., Tyagi, V. (2011). Problem reduction in online payment system using hybrid model. International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 3(3), 6271 Soopramanien, D. (2010). Conflicting attitudes and scepticism towards online shopping: The role of experience. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(3), 338347. Taran, Y., Boer, H., Lindgren, P. (2015). A business model innovation typology. Decision Sciences, 46(2), 301331. Wang, L., Kess, P., Iskanius, P. (2010). Knowledge transfer of manufacturer-distributor partnerships in china. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 8(3), 228. Zhou, M., Tian, D. (2010). An integrated model of influential antecedents of online shopping initial trust: Empirical evidence in a low-trust environment. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 22(2), 147167.