Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Digital business model configurations in the travel industry

Mariia Perelygina a, *, Deniz Kucukusta b, Rob Law c
a
School of Hospitality Management and Tourism, Technological University Dublin, Ireland
b
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
c
Asia-Pacific Academy of Economics and Management, University of Macau, Macau

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study is amongst the first applications of digital business models (BMs) research to the travel industry. A
Business model systematic and comprehensive taxonomy of digital BM configurations in the travel industry is developed, sup­
Digitalization ported by examples of real-world companies. Based on qualitative research, 53 digital BMs are identified and
Travel industry
classified based on primary value drivers, including 10 novel configurations that are absent from previous
Value driver
studies. The paper contributes to framing digital BM configurations in the travel industry and supports estab­
lishing a common understanding among scholars. From the practical side, this study offers templates for building
or transforming BMs and could serve as a guide to the current digital travel business landscape.

1. Introduction traditional business models (BMs) cannot answer the challenges of the
new digital environment (Mitas et al., 2015). To meet the challenges of
The adoption of digital technologies has fundamentally changed the the new digital environment, companies must therefore foster digital
travel industry. Since the introduction of the first global distribution transformation, including a reinvention of operating models, skills, and
system (GDS), new information and communication technologies (ICTs) organizational structures (Markovitch & Willmott, 2014). In these
have continuously affected the travel industry, with several waves of conditions, devising and implementing innovative BMs is essential for
fundamental transformations initiated by ICT adoptions (Buhalis & Law, travel companies to achieve a competitive advantage (Souto, 2015) and
2008; Mitas, van der Ent, Peeters, & Weston, 2015). The most recent is therefore a critical point for success in the digital travel business.
wave of technological transformation has been named as digitalization, The process of digitalization has seen the emergence of innovative
which has generated a shift in the entire travel ecosystem (Solvoll, Alsos, travel companies with new BMs in the travel industry. Hopper provides
& Bulanova, 2015). In their Life in the Digital Vortex, Shan, Wade, and a mobile app that supplies predictions of airline ticket price fluctuations;
Noronha (2017) show that education, hospitality and tourism, and the accommodation search engine Trivago compares prices among on­
manufacturing are the industries that are now experiencing the greatest line travel agencies (OTAs); the digital law agencies AirHelp and
levels of digital disruption. The nascent digital travel industry is char­ ClaimCompass help customers to claim compensation from airline
acterized by customer-centricity and a high degree of personalization companies. A number of these companies have adopted some variation
(Skift, 2018) and by a boom in online distribution (World Economic of a platform BM (Viglia, Werthner, & Buhalis, 2016). For instance,
Forum, 2017), including mobile channels. JetSmarter is a service for sharing private flights and making charter
Technological changes present an array of business opportunities but flight bookings; TripTogether is a social platform for collaborative travel
also a new set of threats (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2014; Buhalis & Law, 2008). planning; and Viator is a worldwide marketplace of local tours and ex­
The global economy, advancement in ICTs and increasing customer cursions. These companies would hardly exist without digital technol­
expectations have created a new landscape for business (McKinsey ogies, which are at the very core of their BMs.
Center for Business Technologies, 2012; Mitas et al., 2015). In this new Researchers in the tourism field have confirmed the current trend of
context, digital transformation is strategically important and even crit­ the widespread emergence of new BMs that have a high degree of
ical for companies (Höttges, 2017), which must constantly innovate to competitiveness and even pose existential risks for traditional ones (e.g.,
avoid falling behind (Dahlman, 2007). The limited resources of Hsu, King, Wang, & Buhalis, 2017; Mitas et al., 2015). However, no

* Corresponding author. School of Hospitality Management and Tourism, Technological University Dublin, Grangegorman, Park House, 191 North Circular Road,
Dublin, D07 EWV4, Ireland.
E-mail address: mariia.perelygina@tudublin.ie (M. Perelygina).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104408
Received 5 July 2020; Received in revised form 30 July 2021; Accepted 31 July 2021
Available online 9 August 2021
0261-5177/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

systematic identification of the digital BM configurations in the travel and business processes. Specialists have described a BM as an interme­
industry has been performed, and it remains unclear how these new diate layer between strategy and business processes (Morris, Schinde­
travel businesses operate. Current literature on the digital travel in­ hutte, & Allen, 2005; Veit et al., 2014). The term revenue model refers to
dustry omits meaningful typologies and classifications of BMs and their the revenue sources, including their volume and distribution (Amit &
value creation and capture mechanisms (Reinhold, Zach, & Laesser, Zott, 2001), and researchers consider this to be a component of BM
2020). With building a new BM recognized as a critical part of the digital (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014).
transformation of businesses (Berman, 2012), investigation of the digital The concept of digital BMs is also interpreted differently by different
BMs that are forming is essential for understanding the impact of digi­ academics. Some researchers simply equate digital BMs to BMs driven
talization on the industry. Research into digital BMs is needed to fathom by a single technology. For instance, some studies have interpreted a
the scope of the changes associated with digital disruption and major digital BM as equal to an Internet-of-Things BM (e.g., Fleisch, Wein­
recent technological innovations. Examining new digital BM configu­ berger, & Wortmann, 2014). Katunskis and Neamtu (2016) introduced
rations in the travel industry and their core elements can also contribute the digital BM concept from an Industry 4.0 perspective. A few re­
to the discovery of new ways of building competitive advantages, searchers used the term digital business model as a synonym of e-business
creating value and generating revenue. Furthermore, such research (e.g., Novak, 2014). Veit et al. (2014, p. 48) defined a BM as a digital BM
supports industry–education synergy and plays a role in mapping out the ‘if changes in digital technologies trigger fundamental changes in the
modern digital tourism ecosystem. way business is carried out and revenues are generated’. This definition
This study therefore investigates the digital BM configurations that was adopted for this study, because it reflects the significance and depth
exist in the travel industry. The research objectives are as follows: of the changes that the adoption of ICTs have wrought to traditional
ways of doing business in the travel industry. From this perspective, the
1. to identify and to classify digital BM configurations in the travel concept of digital BMs may incorporate BM configurations interpreted in
industry; various frameworks as e-BMs, IT-enabled, and Internet-based BMs.
2. to analogize these digital BM configurations with those in the
literature; 2.2. BM configurations and value drivers approach
3. to describe digital BM configurations that have not been presented in
the literature. The description of a kind of BM is called a BM configuration or BM
pattern. BM configuration is “a stripped-down characterization that
2. Literature review captures the essence of the cause-effect relationships between cus­
tomers, the organization and money” (Baden-Fuller & Mangematin,
2.1. Concepts of business models and digital business models 2013, p. 419). Researchers have grouped, classified and compared BM
configurations based on their characteristics, context and dimensions,
The use of the term ‘BM’ is now popular among managers, consul­ both within and across industries. Several typologies and taxonomies of
tants and scholars. However, even a cursory analysis of the sources re­ BMs are limited to a particular industry or by some other criteria: for
veals that the term is used to refer to a range of phenomena. According example, Timmers (1998) listed 11 types of e-BMs, Fleisch et al. (2014,
to research by Zott, Amit, and Massa (2011), the use of the term in ac­ 2015) identified BM configurations for the Internet-of-Things, whilst
ademic and non-academic journals began in the period of 1975–1980. Lüdeke-Freund, Carroux, Joyce, Massa, and Breuer (2018) created a
DaSilva and Trkman (2014) and Novak (2014) both noted that the first taxonomy of 45 sustainable BM configurations. Other academics are
academic paper to use the term business model was published in 1957, primarily concerned with the development of generic taxonomies of BM
and the number of mentions and specific academic studies on BM has configurations that can be found across industries.
grown ever since (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014). Although it was initially Unlike BM typologies, BM taxonomies are built on empirical data
perceived as a mere buzzword (Magretta, 2002; Ghaziani & Ventresca, (Lambert, 2006; Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010). Valid and reliable BM
2005; Seddon, Lewis, Freeman, & Shanks, 2004), a significant increase taxonomies should be based on sound underlying criteria (Taran, Niel­
in the use of the term business model in the text and titles of academic sen, Montemari, Thomsen, & Paolone, 2016). Two theoretical frame­
papers began in 1995 (Zott et al., 2011) and continued afterwards works for BM taxonomies have become common among scholars:
(DaSilva & Trkman, 2014; Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017; Novak, 2014). Business Model Navigator (BM Navigator) by Gassmann, Frankenberger,
Since the focus of the study is digital BMs, the literature review embraces and Csik (2014) and the 5-V framework of Taran et al. (2016). These two
a large segment of studies on BMs in Information Systems. taxonomies partially overlap, with several BM configurations listed in
The meaning of the BM concept has evolved in the literature, with both, but for the most part there is little repetition. Based on a com­
significant changes in the definition of a BM over time. Earlier studies parison of the BM configurations listed in both taxonomies, these
tended to define BM in parallel with the term strategy (Porter, 2001; frameworks are complementary to some extent.
Magretta, 2002) or as a component of business strategy (Chesbrough & The BM Navigator (Gassmann et al., 2014) is a well-known tool for
Rosenbloom, 2002), whilst recent studies have tended to define a BM as BM classification. This framework is based on four dimensions: who (the
the logic of value creation and the coordination of business resources. In target customer segment); what (the value proposition for this target
general, the term implies a way of doing business (DaSilva & Trkman, customer segment); how (the value chain used to carry the value
2014). Following recommendations of George and Bock (2011) to proposition); and why (the profit mechanism, revenue model). Gass­
combine theoretical frameworks for BM research, this study adopts a mann et al. (2014) identified and described 55 actual BM configurations
definition by Zott and Amit (2010): a BM is a “set of activities, as well as based on these four dimensions, and their classification scheme has been
the resources and capabilities to perform them - either within the firm, applied in academic and practitioner studies (see Turber & Smiela,
or beyond it through cooperation with partners, suppliers or customers.” 2014; Fleisch et al., 2014, 2015).
(p. 217). This view on BMs includes resources and value structure as well The 5-V framework (Taran et al., 2016) was developed based on a
as transactions and activities. systematic literature review and lists 71 BM configurations. Each
Scholars have pointed out that academics and practitioners possible BM configuration is driven by one of five value drivers: value
frequently misuse and misunderstand what is meant by a BM. Ches­ proposition, value segment, value configuration (core resources, activ­
brough and Rosenbloom (2002), DaSilva and Trkman (2014), Zott and ities and distribution channels), value network (partners for collabora­
Amit (2013), Fjeldstad and Snow (2018) and Magretta (2002) reported tion) or value capture (revenue model). Unlike components or building
that BM has been often confused with other terms, such as strategy, blocks of BMs, value drivers show the core part that “drives” value
economic model, revenue model, business concept, organizational design, creation in the BM configuration. They could be any factor or source (for

2
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

example, an activity or competence) that enhances the total value commerce-type models to the emergence of content-type and
created and delivered by a company (Amit & Zott, 2001; Taran et al., context-type models and to the current diversity of e-BMs, their hy­
2016). Value drivers show a source of differentiation that provide a bridization and the growth of platform-based BMs.
company’s business model competitive advantages (Mishra, 2017, pp.
91–145). Different authors identify different key value drivers for BMs. 2.4. Taxonomy as scientific knowledge
Originally introduced by Amit and Zott (2001), value drivers included
efficiency, complementarities, lock-in, and novelty. Sustainability, Taxonomy development is one of the classic means of organizing and
cybersecurity and improved customer experience may be examples of acquiring scientific knowledge. Scholars highlight multiple sides of the
value drivers for Internet-of-Things BMs (Westerlund, Leminen, & importance and significance of taxonomy as scientific knowledge.
Rajahonka, 2014). Mishra (2017, pp. 91–145) pointed out management First of all, a taxonomy as a classification meets the need to frame.
logics, core resources, value opportunities, and value activities as value The importance of a taxonomy is to demarcate a kind (one group of
drivers for BMs. Five value drivers in the 5-V framework by Taran et al. entities) from all other entities (Hodgson, 2018). Similar to taxonomies
(2016) are largely based on previous studies. For instance, value drivers in other fields such as biology where animals are organized into kinds,
identified by Amit and Zott (2001) are associated with value drivers in taxonomies in the management field and, for instance, in the BM
5-V framework (lock-in is included into value segment, novelty – value research, help to organize into kinds based on similarities and differ­
proposition, and etc.). The definitions of each value driver in the 5-V ences (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010). It reduces the complexity of a
framework are provided in Table 3. domain by structuring of domain’s objects. (Ko & Gillani, 2020). Sec­
Although this BM framework is relatively new, it has already proved ondly, taxonomy development serves to unify language among scien­
its reliability in describing and mapping BM configurations. Thus, the tists. Thus, a taxonomy supports communication and establishing
five -V-framework was applied in studies by Aranha, Garcia, da Silva, common understandings (Hodgson, 2018). Thirdly, taxonomies provide
and Santos (2017) and Nielsen and Dane-Nielsen (2019). In comparison, a base for further theory generation. Unlike deductive methods, an
to BM Navigator and other frameworks, it shows a number of advantages empirically-developed taxonomy permits the development of a testable
for adoption. First, Taran et al. (2016) largely summarize other frame­ and rigorous theory (Hodgson, 2018). For instance, Lambert (2006)
works and lists of BM configurations including the BM Navigator by stresses the need for inductively-developed taxonomies of BMs through
Gassmann et al. (2014). Second, its value drivers approach gives an grounded theory for subsequent generalization and theory development
opportunity to reveal a key factor of competitiveness in the market, the in this field. Fourthly, the demarcative quality of taxonomies can be used
source of differentiation and to classify BM configurations. for various research applications. Thus, entities may be further investi­
gated within kinds as well as among kinds (Lambert, 2006). Fifthly, the
2.3. BM configurations in the travel industry nature of taxonomies gives them the ability to be updated over time.
Regardless of a field of study, whether biology or management, a tax­
The emergence of new BMs in the travel industry gives rise to the onomy has no fixed number of kinds and may grow and incorporate new
need to identify its particular set of BM configurations. Recent overviews entities (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010; Lambert, 2006).
of BM studies in tourism by Reinhold, Zach, and Krizaj (2017, 2019) Taxonomy development as theory building requires necessary
show that the vast majority of papers have investigated some topic criteria for evaluation. Since taxonomies help to explain similarities and
related to BMs, rather than being focused on identifying BM configu­ differences among objects, a taxonomy should have certain qualities and
rations. Nonetheless, a few attempts have been made to identify and sufficiently describes and classifies objects in a specific domain of in­
classify BM configurations in tourism. Among these studies, airline terest. Nickerson, Varshney, and Muntermann (2013) proposed the
companies have attracted the most research attention: for instance, following taxonomy evaluation criteria: conciseness, robustness,
Papatheodorou and Lei (2006), Frank (2011) and Diaconu (2012), comprehensiveness, extensibility, explanatory power. Although this
Magdalina and Bouzaima (2021) investigated BM configurations and framework is relatively new and criteria are subjective, it widely
their effectiveness among airports and airlines, and Reinhold, Beritelli, accepted framework (Szopinski, Schoormann, & Kundisch, 2019).
and Grünig (2019) and Linton and Öberg (2020) developed typologies of Recently, Szopinski, Schoormann, and Kundisch (2020, pp. 5056–5065)
destination management organizations, Freytag and Hjalager (2021) have recommended supplementing this framework with usefulness and
analyzed food tourism BM configurations. However, these classification applicability. Combining these two frameworks, the study adopts seven
efforts have been very narrow in their focus on a single sector of the evaluation criteria for the taxonomy.
industry.
Digital BM configurations in the travel industry have been even less 3. Methodology
well investigated than other BM-related topics. Kreinberger, Thinnes,
and Timmermans (2014) have suggested a taxonomy of BMs for the 3.1. Research approach
re-use of digital public content for tourism. This taxonomy has an
applied character and includes eight BM configurations. Daniele and This study adopted pragmatic grounded theory as research approach.
Frew (2006) specified five BM configurations in an article focused on The choice of scientific paradigm for research should be led by a
online travel intermediaries: agency (the online intermediary deducts a research question (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Because the
commission from each sale); merchant (marking up the price negotiated research question that guides this study entailed uncovering the various
with suppliers); distressed inventory (focusing only on last minute models that are effective in the given context, it was critical to accept the
bookings); demand collection (accepting trade-offs between suppliers possibility of multiple points of view and at the same time condense
and customers); and comparison shopping (offering price comparison these views into a single reality. Therefore, a pragmatic research para­
across suppliers). Based on an overview of the general architecture of a digm was considered particularly well-suited to this study. Pragmatism
tourism enterprise, Schmidt et al. (2017) suggested four models of states that no theory or perspective can explain reality fully, and thus
tourism enterprises that were being enabled by the application of ICTs: endorses pluralism (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010), a critical mode of
omnichannel businesses, ecosystem drivers, suppliers and modular thought and an orientation toward the applicability of findings (Maxcy,
producers. However, as the authors themselves admitted, this classifi­ 2003). In addition, filling the research gap identified in the literature
cation does not represent underlying digital capabilities, nor is it of a review demanded a theory-building approach, therefore the grounded
conceptual nature. The recent study by Reinhold et al. (2020) presents a theory method was adopted. Grounded theory is a common research
historical overview of the e-BM development of B2C online travel ser­ method in the social sciences that was first introduced by Glaser &
vice providers. E-BMs evolved from the predominance of Strauss, 1967 as an alternative to classical grand theory approaches. In

3
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

contrast with other approaches, grounded theory is not required to accelerators and incubators (managing directors, CEOs and COOs with
choose a certain theoretical framework before data collection (Corbin & at least 2 years of experience in the digital travel business); and (c)
Strauss, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As a specific type of grounded tourism market experts (business researchers, journalists and consul­
theory, the pragmatic approach combines both inductive and deductive tants in the digital travel business with at least 7 years of experience).
methods. Strübing (2007) described the research process of pragmatic
grounded theory in terms of a continuous movement from data to hy­ 3.3. Sample
pothesis and back to data.
The interviewees had diverse sociodemographic characteristics.
3.2. Data Collection Details of the age, gender, level of education and location of the par­
ticipants are shown in Table 1. The participants’ ages ranged from 24 to
This study took a qualitative approach. The preliminary step was the 63 years, although some participants preferred to state an age range
collection of secondary data to draft a pool of possible participants. This rather than give their exact age. Most participants were male, which
secondary data was sourced from freely accessible documents, including represents the current gender balance among leaders in the digital travel
news items from professional media outlets, market analytics reports, industry. The level of education varied from high school to doctoral
business research reports and reports from international non- degree, although most had completed a postgraduate or higher degree.
governmental and intergovernmental tourism organizations. Based on The participants had a mean of 14.4 years of experience in the travel
the analysis at the preliminary step, sampling technique and selection industry.
criteria were settled and possible participants were selected and invited Thirty-five participants were interviewed for the study; each was the
for the interview. sole representative of his or her company. Twenty-seven participants
A stratified purposive sampling technique was used to select inter­ were digital travel business leaders, three were leaders of travel accel­
view participants. Given the diversity of stakeholders in the digital erators and incubators, and five were market experts. The uneven dis­
travel space, it was decided that as large a range of possible opinions tribution of participants across these three occupational groups was
should be collected from representatives of various groups of experts reflective of the target population: for instance, the group of digital
and practitioners. The stratification technique was thus seen as the most travel business leaders was significantly larger than the others due to the
suitable because of its capacity to attain a full picture of a research predominance of digital travel businesses in the tourism ecosystem.
phenomenon (Orcher, 2016). The selection criteria and sub-groups From a geographical perspective, the participants and their companies
(strata) were chosen to maximize the representation of various points are based in multiple countries that represent diverse regions and cul­
of view from across the travel industry. The criteria for stratification was tures. This study had no regional perspective, so the representation of
occupation, with three groups of participants: (a) leaders of digital travel participants from various parts of the world was crucial.
businesses (CEOs, COOs, managing directors, presidents, executive vice
presidents and founders of digital travel companies with at least 2 years
of experience in the digital travel business); (b) leaders of digital travel

Table 1
Profiles of participants.
ID Location Age Gender Education level Industry exp. (yrs) Occupation strata Interview language

P1 Melbourne 40 F MBA 2 Business English

P2 Sydney 63 M MBA 43 Market Expert English
P3 Sydney 30–40 M MBA 5 Business English
P4 Sydney 36–45 M MBA 7 Business Russian
P5 Tallinn 31 M Postgraduate 14 Business Russian
P6 Hong Kong 36–45 M Master’s 10 Business English
P7 Melbourne 49 F Postgraduate 9 Business English
P8 Hong Kong 36–45 M Doctoral 20 Expert English
P9 Assam 29 F Bachelor’s 2 Business English
P10 New Delhi 31 M Bachelor’s 5 Business English
P11 Istanbul 24 M Bachelor’s (incomplete) 3 Business English
P12 Almaty 51 M Higher 3 Business Russian
P13 Gdansk 37 M Master’s 15 Business English
P14 Breda 57 M Master’s 38 Market Expert English
P15 Ljubljana 31 M Master’s 16 Business English
P16 Jerusalem 37 M MBA 30 Business English
P17 Dornbirn 41 M Bachelor’s 19 Business English
P18 Singapore 36–45 M College 7 Business English
P19 London 45 M Undergraduate (incomplete) 11 Business English
P20 Munich 58 M University (higher) 34 Business English
P21 Toronto 53 M Bachelor’s 30 Business English
P22 Johannesburg 32 M Postgraduate 9 Business English
P23 Barcelona 45 M Bachelor’s 20 Business English
P24 Tel Aviv-Yafo 38 M Bachelor’s 11 Business Russian
P25 Jacksonville, Florida 44 F Bachelor’s 15 Business English
P26 São Paulo 36–45 M Doctoral 13 Business English
P27 Moscow 33 M Higher (incomplete) 7 Market Expert Russian
P28 Phuket 25 M Higher 7 Business Russian
P29 San Francisco 62 M Bachelor’s 36 Expert English
P30 San Francisco 44 M High school 20 Business English
P31 New York 49 M MBA 18 Business English
P32 Mexico 32 M MBA 4½ Business English
P33 Shannon 39 M MBA 5 Accelerator English
P34 Tel Aviv 48 M MBA 15 Accelerator English
P35 New York 26–35 M College degree 2 Accelerator English

4
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

3.4. Interviews decided that data saturation had been reached and data collection
considered complete (see Dingwall, Murphy, Watson, Greatbatch, &
This study had an exploratory character, for which semi-structured Parker, 1998). The data analysis process began immediately after col­
interviews were adopted as the most suitable research method. In gen­ lecting the records of the interviews. The details of the data analysis
eral, interviews give opportunities for a detailed investigation and in- process are provided in the following section.
depth understanding of the context through the perspective of individ­
ual participants (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013). 3.5. Data analysis
Semi-structured interviews feature an overall topic, general themes,
selected issues and specific questions (Lee, 1999); they are more flexible The study adopted a qualitative method of content analysis. Unlike
than structured interviews, but more focused on a subject than un­ the basic and interpretive approaches to content analysis, the qualitative
structured interviews. For example, semi-structured interviews allow for (thematic) content analysis uses systematic techniques for the analysis
the use of clarifying questions and for verification of the correctness of of texts, focused not only on manifest content but also latent content
the interviewer’s understanding by summarizing explanations back to (themes and core ideas) (Drisko & Maschi, 2015). The qualitative con­
the participant (Saunders et al., 2009). tent analysis does not employ any statistical methods.
Followed the recommendations of Hennink, Hutter, and Bailey The data analysis process combined inductive and deductive
(2011), the interviews were structured into four sections: terminology methods of analysis. Combining inductive and deductive techniques
reconfirmation, opening questions, key questions and closing questions. provides the benefits of both and increases the validity and reliability of
The first section - terminology reconfirmation - ensured that the inter­ the findings. The inductive part involved the derivation of codes, cate­
viewer and interviewee agreed on the meaning of key terms. Definitions gories and themes from the data, whilst the codes and categories for the
of three terms (Digitalization, BM configuration, Digital BM) were pre­ deductive analysis were elaborated from the literature. The develop­
sented to each participant in a written or oral way. In response, in­ ment of the categorization matrixes followed Mayring’s (2014) sys­
terviewees could agree, correct the given definitions or suggest their tematic framework. Although this framework is relatively new, its
own definitions. The second section of the interview - opening questions reliability has already been proved in academic studies by Moradi and
– aimed to establish a rapport with the interviewee and provided support Vagnoni (2018), Szűcs (2018), and Yanes, Zielinski, Diaz Cano, and Kim
to the narrowing of the interview to the key questions posed in the (2019) and others. No software was used for the inductive part of the
remaining sections. Opening questions were broadly related to the topic analysis; the deductive part was undertaken with the assistance of NVivo
of the interview, for example, “How would you describe the influence of 11.
digitalization on BMs in the travel industry?” The third and main section of Text coding started from highlighting and labelling key segments,
the interview asked key questions to collect data to examine digital BMs following by their summarization into themes. For example, highlights
in the travel industry: about a primary value driver regarding the Metasearch Platform
configuration included ‘shows you [client] the lowest price’ (P8), ‘offers
• (for Digital Travel Business Leaders) What is a BM of your current a lot of transparency in terms of information’ (P32), ‘it’s easy to use, you
company? Previous companies? BMs of your competitors? have a better user experience’ (P9) and others. They were organized into
• (for Travel Accelerators & Incubators Leaders) What BMs did you face themes of easy-to-use, transparency, usability and economy. Since all
in your experience? What are the BMs of companies in your accel­ these themes are product-related, value proposition is assigned as the
erator/incubator? primary value driver of the Metasearch Platform configuration. To check
• (for Market Experts) What BMs did you face in your experience? the reliability of encoding, two researchers independently encoded
• Could you describe each digital BM configuration in the travel in­ randomly selected interview transcripts. After the discussion of in­
dustry you are familiar with? consistencies, coding rules were adjusted to derive reliable consistent
• What are the primary value drivers of each digital BM in the travel coding results. The process of comparison and analogization with find­
industry that you have described? ings in previous literature started after the end of data analysis when all
• Could you please provide examples of companies for each digital BM 53 BM configurations were identified and described.
configuration from the real world?
4. Findings
The first question from this section had a narrative perspective and
was adapted to each stratum of the sample due to the different experi­ 4.1. BM configurations in the travel industry
ences and qualifications of the groups of participants. The use of ques­
tions with a narrative perspective gives advantages to clarify different The identification of digital BMs in the travel industry revealed 53
facets of research issues through personal stories and reveal comple­ configurations. Table 2 lists these BM configurations with examples of
mentary perspectives for researchers (Flick, 2004). In addition to the companies that operate under each BM and the number of participants
abovelisted questions, the procedure for conducting interviews included that described each of the models during the interviews. The in­
clarifying questions and tests of the correctness of understanding by terviewees noted that the BM configurations are flexible and could be
summarizing explanations provided by the participant (Saunders et al., adjusted to fit a given context and business idea. At the same time, all
2009) as it is allowed by the format of a semi-structured interview. The revealed configurations fit the adopted definition of digital BMs and the
test of understanding gives an opportunity for the interviewee to eval­ criteria of fundamental changes caused by adoption of ICTs. It is also
uate the sufficiency and accuracy of the interpretation and correct if important to note that BM configurations could be implemented for both
necessary (Healey & Rawlinson, 1994). The closing section of the the B2B and B2C sectors and that they are also applicable for non-profit
interview collected personal information about the participant, organizations. Examples are not provided for the Customer Data
including their demographic details and professional background. Monetization configuration because it might be considered unethical. In
The data collection process was considered complete at the moment cases of multiple BM within one company, BM configurations are pre­
of data saturation. Saturation means the collection of sufficient and sented separated and specific business units are provided as their
redundant data that include information about all investigated aspects examples.
(Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). In the grounded theory The BM configuration to which the participants most commonly
approach, a theory might be developed to the point when no new themes referred was the OTA; 14 interviewees mentioned this particular
and categories emerge (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). configuration. They confirmed that OTA is the most popular BM
When the interviews were no longer providing new observations, it was configuration in the digital travel ecosystem: ‘OTA is very dominant in

5
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

Table 2
Taxonomy of digital business model configurations in the travel industry.
Business model configuration n Example companies In existing literature

Online Travel Agency (OTA) (Sub-types: 14 Expedia; Booking.com; Yatra; MakeMyTrip; Travelata; Level Travel; E-shop (T)
Merchant/Agent) CTrip; ROOMKEY
Affiliate (Lead generator) 9 Travel Noire; OneDollarTrips; Y Travel Blog; Local Adventurer Brokerage (T)
Online Travel Marketplace (OTM) 7 WeTravel; Get Your Guide; Viator; TourRadar; KLOOK; KKday; Shop in Shop (G), E-mall (T)
withlocals.com; Isratourist
Facilitator (Solution Provider) 7 YouLi; TripHero Value Chain Service Provider (T), Layer Player
(G)
Metasearch Platform 7 Skyscanner; Trivago; Momondo; GDX; Rome2Rio; Kiwi.com; Kayak Comparison shopping (Daniele & Frew, 2006)
Display Advertising 6 Conde Nast Traveler Advertising (Rappa, 2004)
SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) 6 Hotailors; Bókun; FareHarbor; Sift Science; Peakwork; Traveltainment; Ojala (2012)
BoxEver; BD4Travel
E-commerce 6 Melbourne Observation Wheel; Lake Constance DMO Digitization & E-commerce (G)
Sharing Platform (Peer to Peer/P2P Platform) 6 BlaBlaCar; Grab; AirBnB; GetMyBoat; JetSmarter; Uber; Stasher; Peer-to-Peer (G, T)
Bounce
Mass Customization (Dynamic Packaging) 5 X-TUI; Hotelplan; Holidays.ch; Lufthansa Holidays; Vacations by Mass Customization (G), Mass-customized
Marriott; RoutePerfect Commodity (T)
Subscription (Membership) 4 SkyHi; Bidroom; FinalPrice Subscription (T,G)
White Label 4 TRAVELfusion White Label (G, T)
Cross-selling (Cross bundling) 4 Frontier Airlines Cross-selling (G)
Expertise Monetization 4 AirHelp; Trivago Inside-out (T)
Infomediary (Content aggregator) 4 Trip101; Mezi; National Geographic Infomediary (T)
‘Turn-key’ Solution 4 CarTrawler; Habashwe Africa Full Service Provider (T)
Meta-booking Platform 3 TripFactory; Rentalcars.com; GoEuro; Reservamos –
Modular Solution 3 Autobooker; DESTYGO; Cangooroo (Juniper) Modular Producer (Weill & Woerner, 2018)
Customer Data Monetization 3 – Leverage Customer Data (G)
Disintermediation 3 Marriott; Qantas; Lufthansa Disintermediation (T), Direct Selling (G)
First Discoverer 3 Trivago Breakthrough Markets (T)
Club (Small Niche) 3 Russian Expeditions; Eclipse Traveling; VAWAA; ALTOURISM –
Custom Content 3 The View South; TravIndi –
On-the-go (Mobile First) 3 HotelTonight –
Affiliate Network 3 Travelpayouts –
Travel Commerce Platform 3 go global; instant travel; Travelfusion; Travolutionary; Travelport; –
HotelBeds
Unsold (distressed) Inventory 3 Daycation; HotelsByDay; SeatFrog Distressed Inventory (Daniele & Frew, 2006)
Crowd Sourcing 2 Atlas Obscura; Google Maps; TripAdvisor Crowd Sourcing (T,G)
Analytics & Connections 2 PhocusWright; Skift; Arival –
Virtual Community 2 TripTogether; TravelMassive Virtual Community (Weill & Vitale, 2001)
Expense Management 2 Deem; SAP Concur; GetThere by Sabre; Lola; Rocketrip –
Ecosystem Creator 2 LeezAir Adaptive (T), Open Business (G)
Crowd Investing/Crowdfunding Platform 2 we4tourism; TravelStarter Two-sided Market (G), Multi-sided platforms (T)
Trusted Service Leader (‘big players’) 2 TUI Customer Loyalty (G), Trusted Product/Service
Leader (T)
No Win, No Fee 2 AirHelp; Compensair; RefundMyTicket; Pruvo; DreamCheaper –
Edufication 2 Center Smart Tourism –
Accelerators/Incubators 2 Chan Brothers; Booking Booster; Propeller Shannon Business Incubators (Grimaldi & Grandi, 2005)
Independent Consultant 2 TravIndi; Travel Tech Consulting Inc. Trusted Advisor (T)
Barter 2 The Travel Leaf; That Travel Blog Barter (T, G)
Rent Instead of Buy 2 Mytriphoto Rent Instead of Buy (G)
License 1 Wcities Licensing (G)
Low-coster 1 Oyo Rooms; CheapTrip No Frills (G, T)
Freemium 1 Free Walking Tours Melbourne Freemium (T, G)
Ultimate Outsourcing 1 G Adventures Core Focused (T)
Affinity Club 1 Rocketmiles; LTM group; Travel Pool Affinity Club (T), Customer Loyalty (G)
Deal of the Day (Daily Deal) 1 TravelBird; Secret Escapes; Travelzoo Revenue Sharing (G)
Open Access/Open Source 1 Flio Open Source (G)
Self-service 1 Keesy Self-service (T, G)
Gamification 1 Adventure Junky; Stray Boots, Questo Gamification (Celaya, Vázquez, Rojas, Yuste, &
Riaza, 2016)
Hidden Advertising 1 Maps.me Embedded Advertising (Celaya et al., 2016)
Auction 1 Room Auction E-auction/Auction (T), Auction (G)
Venture Capitalists 1 Thayer Ventures Venture Capital Firms (Breznitz, Forman, & Wen,
2018)
Ultimate Luxury 1 Quintessentially Travel; Luxury Link; Virtuoso Ultimate Luxury (T)

Note. (G) = BM patterns in Gassmann et al. (2014); (T) = BM configurations in Taran et al. (2016).

6
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

kind of online distribution’ (P29). There are two sub-types of OTA BMs: interactions between Affiliates (for example, travel bloggers), who
Merchant and Agent, with the difference lying in the payment stream: generate leads (consumer interest, clicks on websites and further pur­
under the Merchant model, the OTA takes online payments on the chases), and OTAs, which pay commissions to the Affiliates for each
website; under the Agent model, the OTA takes payment at check-in and booking. Companies that follow an Analytics and Connection BM, such
the hotel and OTA then share the revenue. An OTA may also combine as Skift, Phocuswright and Arival, have tourism professionals as cus­
these two sub-types. Well-known examples of OTAs are Expedia, tomers. They organize events for tourism professionals, offer business
Booking.com, Yatra, MakeMyTrip, Travelata and CTrip. research reports and provide news from the industry.
The list of digital BM configurations includes the BMs of pure tourism The findings indicate that digital travel companies are not limited to
companies that provide mainly offline travel services and the BMs of the application of a single BM configuration. They might combine and
companies that intersect with other industries. On the one hand, the BM create multiple BMs even within one company: ‘By the way, these can be
configurations of E-commerce (e.g., Melbourne Observation Wheel and used in combination, of course’ (P31). Some combinations have been
Lake Constance DMO) and Disintermediation (e.g., Qantas and Luf­ tested over time and become typical: ‘There are others that have kind of a
thansa airlines) involve the core travel services of offline experiences, mixed model where they can transact that they also can lead to other pro­
accommodation and transportation. On the other hand, the SaaS BM viders’ (P32). As a result, there is no restriction on the number of actual
configuration is linked to ‘pure tech players’ (P1). Companies that BMs that can be created and implemented in the digital travel industry.
operate under this BM offer software (e.g., FareHarbor), data storage
and analysis (e.g., Boxever), fraud protection for payments (e.g., Sift 4.2. Classification of digital BM configurations
Science) and other technological solutions for travel companies. An
intersection was also found between the finance and tourism industries The revealed BM configurations in the travel industry were classified
in the configurations of Accelerators-Incubators (e.g., Propeller Shan­ by the primary value driver. A primary value driver refers to a key part
non) and Venture Capitalists (e.g., Thayer Ventures). These are not and the core strengths of each BM configuration. Following the 5-V
directly linked to travel services and tourists but are focused on travel framework by Taran et al. (2016), the developed classification in­
companies. Crowdsourcing/Crowdinvesting platforms (e.g., we4tour­ cludes five groups: primarily driven by value proposition, value
ism) support travel companies in obtaining funding from the general segment, value configuration, value network, or value capture. Table 3
public. These companies operating at the intersection of finance and presents the classification.
tourism are all engaged in helping travel companies start and grow. Interviewers specified a primary value driver for each BM configu­
Although these companies are at the intersections of the industries and ration separately. For BM configurations primarily driven by value
do not offer travel products, they are a critical part of the digital travel proposition, participants of the study referred to such features of prod­
ecosystem (market). ucts/services as uniqueness, easy-to-use, transparency, customization,
Although a few configurations might look similar, they have been reliability, durability and others. The group of BMs primarily driven by
distinguished based on particular criteria. For example, the complexity value segment is mainly associated with customer loyalty, trust and
of the digital travel ecosystem demands a large number of Facilitators communication. The drivers of BM configurations driven by value
(Solution Providers) and ‘Turn-key’ Solutions, which are apparently configuration mostly include intangible resources (for example, clients
similar. Companies that operate under these BMs facilitate payments for base), distribution features and techniques for cost reduction (for
and management of group tours (YouLi), localization (Habashwe Africa) example, disintermediation). The key drivers of the group driven by
and marketing across cultures (China Digital). The main difference be­ value network are building partnerships and expanding networks. Each
tween Facilitators (Solution Providers) and ‘Turn-key’ Solutions lies in configuration in the group of value capture is driven by a specific rev­
the value configuration: facilitators offer a single solution whilst ‘Turn- enue model.
key’ Solutions eliminate the need for whole units of in-house operations In terms of numbers, the classification of 53 BM configurations in the
(marketing, finance or others). The Modular Solution configuration sits travel industry includes:
in between the ‘Turn-key’ Solution (or Full Service Provider) and
Facilitator (Solution Provider) BMs. Travel companies will outsource • 24 BM configurations - primarily driven by value proposition
certain functions to companies that offer Modular Solutions, with the • 5 BM configurations - primarily driven by value segment
solution implemented as a module: for example, Autobooker provides • 9 BM configurations - primarily driven by value configuration
website modules with car rental solutions to other companies. • 8 BM configurations - primarily driven by value network
Digital BMs have various sources of profit-making. Even pure • 7 BM configurations - primarily driven by value capture.
tourism players do not merely profit from selling travel services but also
gain revenue from data (Customer Data Monetization), their knowledge 5. Discussion
in a certain narrow area (Expertise Monetization), advertising space
(Display Advertising and Hidden Advertising) and their reputation as 5.1. Revealed digital BM configurations and previous literature
independent reliable experts (Independent Consultant). Apart from the
production of travel services or tourism-related content, a number of The list of the digital BM configurations revealed in this study pro­
digital BM configurations focus on the aggregation and/or comparison vided in Table 2 also includes references to the alternative names used
of the value propositions of other companies. Meta-search Platforms and for the same BM configurations in the literature. In many cases, these
Meta-booking Platforms aggregate the offers of various OTAs and make reference to the BM Navigator of Gassmann et al. (2014) and the
compare prices across suppliers; Travel Commerce Platforms aggregate 5-V classification list provided by Taran et al. (2016). References to
suppliers on one site; and Infomediaries (for example, travel magazines) other literature are provided in cases with no analogues in either of these
collect content from various content-creators. Companies that operate sources.
under an Unsold (distressed) Inventory BM market and sell the unused The names used for BM configurations in Table 2 sometimes differ
inventory of other businesses, such as plane seats (SeatFrog) and ac­ from the names used for analogous BM configurations in the literature.
commodations (HotelsByDay, Daycation). In summary, digital travel Some configurations are given two names. The variety of names used for
companies are competing successfully with a range of innovative and BM configurations reflects the usage of practitioners in the travel in­
creative BMs. dustry, some of whom use more specific names for particular models and
Several digital BMs are based on connecting various stakeholders. others who use the name that is most common in the travel industry. It
OTMs and Sharing (P2P) Platforms work as intermediaries to connect should be noted that references to previous studies have been chosen
service providers and end users; Affiliate Networks organize effective based on full compliance of the definitions with the descriptions by

7
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

Table 3
Digital BM configurations in the travel industry grouped by primary value drivers.
Primary value driver Digital BM configurations Definition of value driver

Value Proposition Affiliates “a company’s offering of products and

Custom Content services that customers are willing to
Cross-selling (Cross bundling) pay for. It identifies the values that a company
Crowd Sourcing brings to its customers, and the features
Edufication of this offering (e.g. high performance,
Expense Management reliability, durability, design, availability
Expertise Monetization of a wide range of products and services,
Facilitator (Solution Provider) customization, etc.) that are able to satisfy
Gamification its customers’ needs” (Taran et al., 2016, p. 501).
Independent Consultant
Infomediary (Content aggregator)
License
Low-coster
Mass Customization (Dynamic Packaging)
Meta-booking Platform
Metasearch Platform
Modular Solution
On-the-go (Mobile First)
Rent instead of Buy
SaaS
Sharing Platform
Travel Commerce Platform
Trusted Service Leader (“big players”)
Turn-key Solution
Value Segment Analytics & Connections “the customer segments a company aims
Club (Small Niche) to serve. It also includes the actual
First Discoverer interactions or relationships established with these
Ultimate Luxury customer segments, in terms of trust, loyalty,
Virtual Community lock-in, co-creation, personal assistance,
or self-service” (Taran et al., 2016, p. 501).
Value Configuration Customer Data Monetization “the efficient mix of key resources (e.g. tangible,
Disintermediation financial, human, intellectual), key activities
E-commerce (e.g. production, service delivery, logistics)
OTM and distribution channels needed to create
OTA and deliver the Value Proposition to the
Self-service selected Value Segment in a cost effective manner …,
Ultimate Outsourcing and the cost structure needed to make the BM work”
Unsold (distressed) inventory (Taran et al., 2016, p. 501).
White Label
Value Network Accelerators/Incubators “identifies the network of partners who engage
Affiliate Network in different kinds of cooperation with a
Affinity Club company, with the goal of achieving economies
Crowd investing/crowdfunding platform of scale, risk reduction and/or tapping into new
Deal of the Day (Daily Deal) knowledge or resources” (Taran et al., 2016, p. 501).
Ecosystem Creator
Open Access/Open Source
Venture Capitalists
Value Capture Auction “describes how, and how much, the customers
Barter pay for the delivered products/services
Display Advertising offered” (Taran et al., 2016, p. 501).
Freemium
Hidden Advertising
No win, no fee
Subscription (Membership)

interviewees. These definitions in the references may differ from other (Comparison Shopping) were both presented as travel intermediaries by
sources as well as from everyday use of the associated names of the BM Daniele and Frew (2006). Another group of the BM configurations
configurations. identified in this study have not been described in the literature, either
Most of the listed digital travel industry BM configurations have been in the general stream of BM literature or in tourism studies.
described in the general stream of BM literature. Gassmann et al. (2014) The findings of this study correspond with the results of recent
and Taran et al. (2016) have already presented a number of these BM studies on the digital travel industry. Thus, the list of identified BM
configurations, including Sharing Platform, Freemium, White Label and configurations includes different types of platforms, aggregators and
Mass Customization. There were, however, a number of BM configura­ other multi-sided models. These results are also supported by Reinhold
tions identified that have been presented in specialized literature but not et al. (2020). The highest frequency of references to the OTA configu­
listed in the BM Navigator or 5-V framework. For instance, the SaaS BM rations around the interviewees corresponds with the strong position of
has been previously investigated by Ojala (2012), and the Gamification OTAs in the market (Mitas et al., 2015). The existing body of literature
BM was described by Celaya et al. (2016). Furthermore, a few identified about OTAs is also substantial and includes investigations of differences
BM configurations have been introduced only in the tourism literature: between merchant model and agent model, details of their revenue
for example, Distressed Inventory and Metasearch Platforms models and value proposition, and other topics (i.e. Liao, Ye, & Wu,

8
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

2019; Zhang, Denizci Guillet & Kucukusta, 2015; Toh, Raven, & DeKay, approach provides an opportunity to enter the market faster than
2011). competitors. Other potential benefits of this BM are real-time
The list of digital BMs overlaps with the findings of previous studies updates, dynamic pricing and constant connection with travel­
in the tourism field. Three of the five configurations listed by Henne lers. Constant access to customers’ locations also provides good
(2014) were supported by the study findings, and the remaining two opportunities for personalization. HotelTonight is therefore an
BMs in Henne’s typology are traditional BMs that were not in the digital example of the application of the On-the-go BM.
scope of this study. All four models of tourism enterprises enabled by 5. Affiliate Network. Companies that operate with this BM aim to
ICTs provided by Schmidt et al. (2017) were reflected in the findings of organize effective communication and collaboration between
this study, in essence if not in name. For example, Schmidt et al. (2017) Affiliates (Lead Generators), such as travel bloggers and key
identified the Ecosystem Driver BM, whilst their Supplies type equates to opinion leaders, and suppliers. Suppliers pay commissions to
the E-commerce BM configuration. The findings also support five of the Affiliate Networks and Affiliates. This BM may also be interpreted
eight BM patterns in Kreinberger et al. (2014): Freemium, White La­ as a particular case of the Two-Sided Market (Gassmann et al.,
beling, Crowdfunding, Advertising and Customization. Furthermore, all 2014) or of Multi-sided Platforms (Taran et al., 2016) because it
five configurations presented in Daniele and Frew (2006) were found in involves various companies. One of the most well-known Affiliate
our study. At the same time, the number of BM configurations in the Networks in the travel market is Travelpayouts.
travel industry revealed in this study differs significantly from that in 6. Travel Commerce Platform. This is another particular case of the
previous studies. Whilst previous studies in the tourism field included Two-Sided Market (Gassmann et al., 2014) or Multi-sided Plat­
between four and eight BMs, this study identified 53 BM configurations. form (Taran et al., 2016). Travel Commerce Platforms, such as
In summary, the findings of this study are a list of digital BM con­ Travelport, connect several stakeholders, generally by aggre­
figurations found in the travel industry. To a large extent, the list of gating various suppliers and their offers into a single search en­
revealed digital BM configurations incorporates the BM configurations gine. Working with a Travel Commerce Platform, travel
explored in earlier tourism literature. Most BM configurations that have distributors and OTAs need only sign one contract instead of
been identified in previous research are reflected in the study findings. many. Travel Commerce Platforms aggregate a large number of
The following section presents the exceptions and describes the novel offers, so their customers have no need to compare offers across
digital BM configurations identified in this study. suppliers.
7. Analytics & Connections. Companies with this BM configuration in
5.2. Novel BM configurations the travel industry earn money through various channels, by
reporting news, selling research and organizing events for pro­
In addition to the BM configurations noted in the previous literature, fessionals in the industry. They work within the travel industry,
this study revealed 10 novel digital BM configurations. Based on the data although their work is connected with travel services only indi­
collected from interviews, the names and descriptions of these config­ rectly. Among others, Phocuswright, Arival and Skift apply the
urations are provided below, along with examples of companies that Analytics & Connections BM configuration.
operate under them. 8. Expense Management. This BM configuration has grown out of the
business travel market. Companies with this BM configuration
1. Meta-booking Platform. This BM has grown on the basis of the motivate business travellers to spend less, so that their employers
Metasearch Platform configuration. Like Metasearch Platforms, can reduce business travel budgets. Well-known companies that
Meta-booking Platforms help consumers to search for the apply this BM configuration are Deem and Rocketrip.
cheapest price for the same products or services. Both BMs 9. No Win, No Fee. Companies that operate under thus configuration
involve comparing across the databases of various suppliers to earn revenue only when their customers win or benefit from their
show a range of possible options in one place. However, in services. This BM configuration has roots in legal agencies. After a
contrast to a Metasearch Platform, a Meta-booking Platform owns customer request, these companies work to obtain money to
the full cycle of a travel consumer’s purchasing experience, which the customer is entitled. If they succeed in having the
without redirecting users to a third-party website. For example, money granted to the customer, they receive a commission. Air­
the Meta-booking Platforms Omio (formerly GoEuro) and Res­ Help and Compensair are famous for operating with this BM
ervamos offer and sell tickets from multiple transportation configuration. The main driver of this BM is the value capture
suppliers. revenue model. Companies receive a commission or a flat fee only
2. Club (small niche). The Club companies focus on a very narrow from winning cases; customers lose nothing if the case is not
segment or set of products. New digital ICTs allow people in resolved in their favour. This BM has recently been expanded by
different corners of the world to find each other based on shared the emergence of rebooking services that try to rebook tickets or
narrow interests. Thus, Eclipse Traveling organizes tours specif­ accommodation for a cheaper price. Customers pay a commission
ically to observe eclipses. The main drivers of this configuration from their rebooking cost savings, but only when the price for
are the interests of customers in a certain type of tourism and tickets or accommodation is reduced.
their loyalty to the ‘club’. This BM configuration should be 10. Edufication. This name was created via analogy with the Gamifi­
distinguished from the Membership configuration: Membership cation BM. Edufication travel companies aim not only to offer a
implies a subscription and regular payments, whereas under the particular value proposition but also to educate their customers.
club, BM customers pay per purchase. In this case, therefore, a For instance, travel companies educate customers on sustainable
consumer’s affiliation to a ‘club’ has more of an emotional and behaviour (Center Smart Tourism) or legal literacy (AirHelp).
psychological meaning.
3. Custom Content. This BM configuration has been created in These ten BM configurations have not been presented in the aca­
response to the growing need for digital content. These com­ demic literature. They feature in neither the general BM literature nor in
panies offer exclusive digital content (text, photo, video, AR and that on tourism studies. Oliveira and Martins (2010) noted that BM
VR solutions, etc.): for example, The View South produces tailor- configurations tend to be adopted across industries, so it is to be ex­
made films for travel companies. pected that these new digital BM configurations can already be found in
4. On-the-go (Mobile First). Companies that operate under this other industries or will be adopted in the near future.
configuration make their offerings available only in a certain
digital channel, usually through a mobile application. This

9
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

5.3. Taxonomy evaluation the primary value drivers in the original classification by Taran et al.
(2016) with a single exclusion. The Barter BM configuration in the 5-V
The developed taxonomy of digital business model configurations in framework is linked to value network while findings of this study link
the travel industry (Table 2) requires evaluation of quality regarding Barter to value capture. Both participants who have described this BM
taxonomical modelling. The evaluation follows the adopted approach of stated that it is primarily driven by the revenue model, i.e. value cap­
the combination of taxonomy evaluation criteria by Nickerson et al. ture. At the same time, it should be noted that the comparison of the
(2013) and Szopinski et al. (2020). It includes seven criteria: usefulness, findings of this study and the classification by Taran et al. (2016) is fair
comprehensiveness, applicability, robustness, conciseness, extensibility, only in cases when the revealed BM configurations have analogues in the
and explanatory power. The evaluation was conducted after the end of original classification.
data analysis and taxonomy development. This section presents the Elements of BMs might be similar across multiple configurations,
evaluation by each criterion. however only being a core element of a BM configuration make it a
For the first and the fourth criteria, usefulness and robustness, long- primary value driver. For example, educational components or gamifi­
term view and reevaluation of a taxonomy’s application over time are cations element might be founded in different travel businesses with
essential (Szopinski et al., 2020). After use and feedback, future works different BM configurations. However, these components will define the
and publications should fully evaluate the taxonomy’s usefulness and BM configurations (Edufication and Gamification respectively) only if
robustness. At the same time, usefulness from the short-term perspective they are primary value drivers. Another example is the revenue model
might be estimated by compliance with the goals and objectives of the (value capture). The same revenue model (for example, advertising)
taxonomy development (Szopinski et al., 2020). Since the initial might be just one of the components of a BM or the primary value driver.
objective was identification and classification of digital BM configura­ Thus, Advertising BM configuration is built around this revenue stream.
tions in the travel industry, the developed taxonomy satisfies this cri­
terion as being applicable for researchers and practitioners. 6. Conclusions
In terms of the second criterion, the proposed taxonomy is compre­
hensive to classify all revealed BM configurations; no BM configurations Under the impact of digitalization, a range of new BMs based on new
fall out of the classification. At the same time, new digital BMs config­ technologies is developing in today’s global travel industry. This study
urations are growing extensively driven by rapid digitalization of the investigated the digital BM configurations in the travel industry. The
industry. New entities are likely to be added to the taxonomy soon. In data analysis was conducted in two ways: inductive (data-driven) and
this case, this specific does not affect taxonomy’s comprehensiveness deductive (theory-driven). 53 digital BM configurations were identified
because incorporation of new species or models over time is an inherent in the travel industry and compared to those introduced in the literature.
quality of any taxonomy (Lambert, 2006). Moreover, the possibility for Ten BM configurations were found to be absent from the literature and
future inclusions of new entities says about good extendibility of the are therefore described in detail. The classification of digital BM con­
taxonomy (sixth criterion). figurations includes 5 groups distinguished by primary value drivers.
Regarding other criteria, the taxonomy demonstrates strong appli­ This study offers both theoretical and practical contributions.
cability providing examples of existing real-world companies for each The main significance of this study is its detailed examination of the
BM configuration. Since the taxonomy applies a parsimonious number digital travel business from the perspective of BMs. First, this study aims
of dimensions, it could be evaluated as concise. Moreover, extra di­ to make a shift in the theorization of the BMs in the travel industry.
mensions may be added to the taxonomy as it shows the proposed Digital technologies create a huge range of opportunities for travel
classification of digital BM configurations in the travel industry by pri­ companies to build an innovative BM: to create a value proposition,
mary value drivers. Future discussions may rise regarding the explana­ build a network, approach a customer segment, develop and distribute
tory power (seventh criterion) of the developed taxonomy. Although this products and services and make profit. Digital travel companies apply
study provides the theoretical foundation for the BM taxonomy, clear BMs from other industries and build completely new BMs. Previous
distinctions between configurations may be hampered by various rea­ studies have had a fragmented character and tended to oversimplify the
sons. For example, the same BM configuration may be implemented in diversity of players in the digital travel ecosystem. The proposed tax­
different ways. Thus, SaaS may include a broad range of services and onomy and classification of aim to frame digital BM configurations and
products implemented with various revenue models, although the BM is support establishing common understandings among scholars in the
the same across companies. Further complications may be caused by tourism field. The list of digital BM configurations in the travel industry
combinations of a few BMs within one company. These specifics of BM provided here can form a basis for future studies and further theory
taxonomies are described in previous literature and considered natural generation. When discussing players in the digital travel ecosystem,
due to specifics of taxonomies in the management field (Baden-Fuller & scholars might refer to this practicable and feasible framework. The use
Morgan, 2010). of the taxonomy and the classification of digital BMs in the travel in­
dustry makes the digital travel ecosystem more tangible. Moreover, the
5.4. Value drivers of digital BM configurations real-world examples given for the various configurations allows for a
comprehensive understanding of ‘who is who’ in the current travel
The proposed classification of digital BM configurations by the pri­ ecosystem. Furthermore, the application of the findings of this study is
mary value driver (Table 3) shows the variety of value drivers in the not limited to a single region or country due to its international
digital travel ecosystem. These findings correspond with the results by approach.
Reinhold et al. (2020): BMs in the current digital travel ecosystem Second, the study contributes to the understanding of the architec­
combine different variants of value creation activities and diverse rev­ ture of BM configurations in the travel industry. While the common
enue streams. At the same time, there is a relative predominance of the approach interprets a BM as a sum of blocks (elements), the applied 5-V
BM configurations driven by value proposition among five groups. Value framework (Taran et al., 2016) allowed revealing a primary value driver
proposition is a primary driver for almost half of the identified BM of each identified BM configuration. The value driver approach helped
configurations. In general, this predominance of BM configurations to prioritise elements that ‘drive’ each BM configuration, and, as the
driven by value proposition in the developed classification corresponds result, to explore the architecture of value creation.
to the adopted 5-V framework (Taran et al., 2016) even although a Third, the study integrates the digital travel industry into the field of
significant part of the identified digital BMs in the travel industry is BM research. With digital BMs recognized as one of the key issues of the
without parallel in this framework. modern digital economy, the literature in the BM field has grown.
All primary value drivers of the revealed BM configurations match However, the travel industry was excluded from this general increase in

10
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

attention. The identification of digital BMs in the industry provides a Impact statement
bridge between tourism research and BM studies.
This study also contributes to the BM field through its exploration of This study is one of the first attempts to contribute to the digital
novel BM configurations. The results include 10 newly explored digital business models (BMs) research in the tourism field. The findings of the
BM configurations that had not been previously presented in the tourism study potentially would make a shift in the understanding of the great
or BM literature. The description of these novel BM configurations en­ variety of BM configurations grown in the industry due to the digital
larges the already great variety of BM configurations described in the transformation. Also, the study contributes to classifying BM configu­
literature. Although they have been identified in the travel industry, rations in the travel industry by revealing primary value drivers. In
these new BM configurations are likely to appear in other industries. addition, this study supports the development of industry-education
Therefore, the study contributes to the general BM literature by aug­ synergy and provides a bridge between tourism research and BM studies.
menting the variety of BM configurations. Moreover, the recent pandemic is forcing travel companies to instant
For practitioners, the systematic and comprehensive list of digital digital transformation. The competitiveness of travel services will
BM configurations in the travel industry and their classification by pri­ further increase in the post-pandemic era. Scholars and practitioners
mary value drivers provided here is of great value. As a comprehensive predict that the most digitally advanced tourism places will get the
tool, the list of digital BMs might be useful for traditional travel com­ leading positions after reopening. In these conditions, the knowledge
panies beginning their digital transformation and for digital players in about digital business model configurations in the travel industry be­
the travel industry. The compiled taxonomy of BM configurations can be comes of critical importance for both academics and practitioners.
used by managers to evaluate the current operations of their company
and its competitors. For instance, the managers of a travel company Author contributions
might wish to analyse the effectiveness and competitiveness of a current
BM when they seek to use existing digital opportunities for value crea­ Mariia Perelygina: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
tion. Meanwhile, travel start-ups looking for new business ideas could Writing - Original Draft, Deniz Kucukusta: Supervision, Validation,
use the classification of digital BM configurations to identify possible but Writing - Review & Editing, Rob Law: Supervision.
underused opportunities to develop new digital travel businesses. The
compiled list of BM configurations is also created for managers to draw
inspiration from for BM design and innovation. Declaration of competing interest

7. Limitations and future directions None.

Given the limitations of the exploratory approach, this study lacks References
the statistical generalization of quantitative studies. The investigation
aimed to develop a model rather than to prove it. The applied pragmatic Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22
(6–7), 493–520.
grounded theory approach has great advantages for model creation and Aranha, E. A., Garcia, N. A. P., da Silva, G. N., & Santos, P. (2017). Open innovation and
hypothesis development, but quantitative methods are recommended business model in Brazilian small business. International Journal of Business
for future research in this field. Another significant limitation is caused Management and Economic Research (IJBMER), 8(5), 1008–1015.
Baden-Fuller, C., & Mangematin, V. (2013). Business models: A challenging agenda.
by the rapid changes occurring in BMs around the travel ecosystem. This Strategic Organization, 11(4), 418–427.
study gives a snapshot of the digital travel industry at the moment of Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business models as models. Long Range
data collection. However, digital travel is one of the most rapidly Planning, 43(2–3), 156–171.
Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital transformation: Opportunities to create new business
developing industries. Given that the building of an innovative BM is
models. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 16–24.
one of the key components of competitiveness in the digital era, new Breznitz, D., Forman, C., & Wen, W. (2018). The role of venture capital in the formation
digital BMs will continue to appear in the travel industry. Therefore, the of a new technological ecosystem: Evidence from the cloud. MIS Quarterly, 42(4).
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism
list of digital BMs in the travel industry derived in this study is highly
management: 20 years on and 10 years after the internet—the state of eTourism
likely to be supplemented rapidly by new innovative BMs. The devel­ research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609–623.
oped taxonomy of digital business model configurations in the travel Celaya, J., Vázquez, J. A., Rojas, M. J., Yuste, E., & Riaza, M. (2016). How the new business
industry has limited explanatory power and robustness due to the spe­ models in the digital age have evolved. Dosdoce. Retrieved from http://blogconlicencia.
com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/New-Business-Models.pdf.
cifics of taxonomy development in the BM field. Also, future evaluations Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing
are required to explore the usefulness of the proposed taxonomy because value from innovation: Evidence from xerox corporation’s technology spin-off
this quality implies analysis of the application of a taxonomy over time. companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Procedures and techniques
A number of research directions deserve the further consideration of for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
scholars. First, cases of multiple BMs within one company require Dahlman, C. (2007). Technology, globalization, and international competitiveness:
further investigation. Combinations of two, three or more BMs within a Challenges for developing countries. In D. O’Connor, & M. Kjollerstrom (Eds.),
Industrial development for the 21st century (pp. 28–83). New York: United Nations.
single company require analysis from different perspectives. Second, Daniele, R., & Frew, A. J. (2006). Business models for travel eMediaries: Examining and
researchers might pay attention to the key factors of successful BM applying theoretical frameworks. Information Technology in Hospitality, 4(2–3),
configurations in the travel industry. Certain BM configurations have 71–82.
DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long
proven to be more popular and sustainable than others. BM innovation
Range Planning, 47(6), 379–389.
processes and stakeholders’ attitudes to BM configurations are prom­ Diaconu, L. (2012). The evolution of the European low-cost airlines’ business models.
ising topics in this regard. Third, future studies might investigate con­ Ryanair case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 342–346.
Dingwall, R., Murphy, E., Watson, P., Greatbatch, D., & Parker, S. (1998). Catching
nections between BM configurations and revenue model configurations.
goldfish: Quality in qualitative research. Journal of Health Services Research and
For instance, digital BM configurations in the travel industry tend to Policy, 3(3), 167–172.
have typical revenue models. Four, the connection between BM con­ Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2015). Content analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
figurations and their value drivers is another promising topic. Espe­ Fjeldstad, Ø. D., & Snow, C. C. (2018). Business models and organization design. Long
Range Planning, 51(1), 32–39.
cially, future works might be interested in investigating why and how a Fleisch, E., Weinberger, M., & Wortmann, F. (2014). Business models and the internet of
primary value driver works as a source of value for a BM configuration. things [White paper]. St. Gallen: Bosch Internet of Things & Services Lab, Universität
St. Gallen.
Fleisch, E., Weinberger, M., & Wortmann, F. (2015). Business models and the internet of
things. In P. Z. Ivana, P. Krešimir, & S. Martin (Eds.), Interoperability and open-source
solutions for the Internet of things (pp. 6–10). Berlin: Springer.

11
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies
I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 178–183). London: Sage. for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal
Frank, L. (2011). Business models for airports in a competitive environment. One sky, of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22.
different stories. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 1(1), 25–35. Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013). A method for taxonomy
Freytag, P. V., & Hjalager, A. M. (2021). The coextension of food and tourism business development and its application in information systems. European Journal of
models. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism, 5(3), 163–175. Information Systems, 22(3), 336–359.
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2014). The business model navigator: 55 Nielsen, C., & Dane-Nielsen, H. (2019). Value creation in business models is based on
models that will revolutionise your business. Harlow: Pearson. intellectual capital–And only intellectual capital! Journal of Business Models, 7(2),
George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for 64–81.
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83–111. Novak, A. (2014). Business model literature overview. Financial Reporting, 1, 79–130.
Ghaziani, A., & Ventresca, M. J. (2005). Keywords and cultural change: Frame analysis of Ojala, A. (2012). Software-as-a-Service revenue models. IT Professional, 15(3), 54–59.
business model public talk, 1975–2000. Sociological Forum, 20(4), 523–559. Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2010). Understanding e-business adoption across
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative industries in European countries. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(9),
inquiry. Chicago: Alden. 1337–1354.
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: An Orcher, L. T. (2016). Conducting research: Social and behavioral science methods. New York,
assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111–121. NY: Routledge.
Healey, M. J., & Rawlinson, M. B. (1994). Interviewing techniques in business and Papatheodorou, A., & Lei, Z. (2006). Leisure travel in europe and airline business models:
management research. In V. J. Wass, & P. E. Wells (Eds.), Principles and practice in A study of regional airports in great britain. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12
business and management research (p. 123-146). Aldershot: Dartmouth. (1), 47–52.
Henne, J. (2014, 3 July). Business model dynamics in the tourism industry [Paper Porter, M. E. (2001). Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 63–78.
presentation]. In First IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference. Retrieved from http://essay. Rappa, M. A. (2004). The utility business model and the future of computing services.
utwente.nl/65327/1/Henne_BA_MB.pdf. Enschede, The Netherlands. IBM Systems Journal, 43(1), 32–42.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. London: Sage. Reinhold, S., Beritelli, P., & Grünig, R. (2019a). A business model typology for
Hodgson, G. M. (2018). Taxonomic definitions in social science, with firms, markets and destination management organizations. Tourism Review, 74(6), 1135–1152.
institutions as case studies. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(2), 207–233. Reinhold, S., Zach, F. J., & Krizaj, D. (2017). Business models in tourism: A review and
Höttges, T. (2017). Foreword. In F. Abolhassan (Ed.), The drivers of digital transformation research agenda. Tourism Review, 72(4), 462–482.
(pp. 45–55). Saarbrucken: Springer. Reinhold, S., Zach, F. J., & Krizaj, D. (2019b). Business models in tourism – state of the
Hsu, A. Y., King, B., Wang, D., & Buhalis, D. (2017). Entrepreneurship in the art. Tourism Review, 74(6), 1120–1134.
contemporary tourism ecosystem: The case of incoming tour operators in Taiwan. In Reinhold, S., Zach, F. J., & Laesser, C. (2020). E-business models in tourism. In Z. Xiang,
R. Schegg, & B. Stangl (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism M. Fuchs, U. Gretzel, & W. Höpken (Eds.), Handbook of e-Tourism (pp. 1–30). Cham:
2017 (pp. 101–113). Rome, Italy: Springer. Springer.
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital ubiquity: How connections, sensors, and data Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A
are revolutionizing business. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 90–99. guide for social science students and researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Katunskis, M., & Neamtu, P. C. (2016). The impact of digitalization on business models: How Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th
are business models fostered by the increased presence of digitalization? Saarbrücken. ed.). Harlow, England; New York: FT/Prentice Hall.
Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Schmidt, R., Möhring, M., Keller, B., Zimmermann, A., Toni, M., & Di Pietro, L. (2017).
Ko, A., & Gillani, S. (2020). A research review and taxonomy development for decision Digital enterprise architecture management in tourism–State of the art and future
support and business analytics using semantic text mining. International Journal of directions. In I. Czarnowski, R. Howlett, & L. Jain (Eds.), Intelligent decision
Information Technology and Decision Making, 19(1), 97–126. technologies 2017: Proceedings of the 9th KES international Conference on intelligent
Kreinberger, N., Thinnes, F., & Timmermans, N. (2014). Business models for tourism decision technologies (pp. 93–102). Springer.
[White Paper]. Europeana Creative. Retrieved from http://pro.europeana.eu/files Seddon, P. B., Lewis, G. P., Freeman, P., & Shanks, G. (2004). The case for viewing
/Europeana_Professional/Projects/Project_list/Europeana_Creative/WP3%20-% business models as abstractions of strategy. Communications of the Association for
20Business%20Model%20Frameworks/eCreative_WP3_White_Paper_Business Information Systems, 13(1), 64.
_Models_Tourism_v1.0.pdf. Shan, J., Wade, M., & Noronha, A. (2017). Life in the digital vortex. Global Center for Digital
Lambert, S. (2006). A business model research schema. BLED 2006 Proceedings, 43. Business Transformation: An IMD and Cisco initiative. Retrieved from https://www.
Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: imd.org/globalassets/dbt/docs/digitalvortex2017.
Sage. Skift. (2018). Megatrends: Defining travel in 2018. Retrieved from https://skift.com/wp-
Liao, P., Ye, F., & Wu, X. (2019). A comparison of the merchant and agency models in the content/themes/skift/img/megatrends-2018/Skift-Megatrends-2018.pdf.
hotel industry. International Transactions in Operational Research, 26(3), 1052–1073. Solvoll, S., Alsos, G. A., & Bulanova, O. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship – review and
Linton, G., & Öberg, C. (2020). A conceptual development of a business model typology future directions. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15(sup1),
in tourism: The impact of digitalization and location. Technology Innovation 120–137.
Management Review, 10(7). Souto, J. E. (2015). Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., & Breuer, H. (2018). The sustainable context of incremental innovation and radical innovation. Tourism Management, 51,
business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented 142–155.
business model innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 15, 145–162. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks,
Magdalina, A., & Bouzaima, M. (2021). An empirical investigation of European airline CA: Sage publications.
business models: Classification and hybridisation. Journal of Air Transport Strübing, J. (2007). Research as pragmatic problem-solving: The pragmatist roots of
Management, 93. empirically-grounded theorizing. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92. handbook of grounded theory (pp. 580–602). SAGE Publications.
Markovitch, S., & Willmott, P. (2014). Accelerating the digitization of business processes. Szopinski, D., Schoormann, T., & Kundisch, D. (2019). Because your taxonomy is worth
New York: McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from http://digitalstrategy.nl/files/201 it: Towards a framework for taxonomy evaluation. In Proceedings of the European
4-J-Accelerating-the-digitization-of-business-processes.pdf. conference on information systems(ECIS) (pp. 1–19) (Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden).
Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model Szopinski, D., Schoormann, T., & Kundisch, D. (2020). January). Criteria as a prelude for
research. The Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73–104. guiding taxonomy evaluation. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii international
Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: conference on system sciences. HICSS.
The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. Szűcs, I. Z. (2018). Teacher trainers’ self-reflection and self-evaluation. Acta Educationis
In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and Generalis, 8(2), 9–23.
behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Taran, Y., Nielsen, C., Montemari, M., Thomsen, P., & Paolone, F. (2016). Business model
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures configurations: A five-V framework to map out potential innovation routes. European
and software solution. Beltz: Klagenfurt. Journal of Innovation Management, 19(4), 492–527.
McKinsey Center for Business Technologies. (2012). Perspectives on digital business. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social
Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_ & behavioral research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
service/bto/pdf/mcbt_compendium_perspectives_on_digital_business.ashx. Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets, 8(2), 3–8.
Mishra, C. S. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation. In Creating and sustaining competitive Toh, R. S., Raven, P., & DeKay, F. (2011). Selling rooms: Hotels vs. third-party websites.
advantage. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(2), 181–189.
Mitas, O., van der Ent, M. A. J., Peeters, P. M., & Weston, R. (2015). Research for TRAN Turber, S., & Smiela, C. (2014). A business model type for the internet of things. In
committee – the digitisation of tourism enterprises. Directorate General for Internal proceedings of the 22nd European conference on information systems (ECIS) 2014 (pp.
Policies, European Parliament. Retrieved from https://pure.buas.nl/ws/files/710 1–10) (AIS).
312/Mitas_ea_research_for_TRAN_committee_the_digitisation_of_tourism_enterprises_ Veit, D., Clemons, E., Benlian, A., Buxmann, P., Hess, T., Kundisch, D., et al. (2014).
2015.pdf. Business models. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(1), 45–53.
Moradi, A., & Vagnoni, E. (2018). A multi-level perspective analysis of urban mobility Viglia, G., Werthner, H., & Buhalis, D. (2016). Disruptive innovations. Information
system dynamics: What are the future transition pathways? Technological Forecasting Technology & Tourism, 16(4), 327–329.
and Social Change, 126, 231–243. Weill, P., & Vitale, M. (2001). Place to space: Migrating to eBusiness models. Boston, MA:
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: Harvard Business Press.
Toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 726–735. Weill, P., & Woerner, S. (2018). What’s your digital business model? Six questions to help
you build the next-generation enterprise. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

12
M. Perelygina et al. Tourism Management 88 (2022) 104408

Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2014). Designing business models for the Deniz Kucukusta, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the
internet of things. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(7), 5–14. School of Hotel & Tourism Management at The Hong Kong
World Economic Forum. (2017). Digital transformation initiative. Aviation, travel and Polytechnic University (deniz.kucukusta@polyu.edu.hk)
tourism industry [White paper]. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/digita
l-transformation/wp-content/blogs.dir/94/mp/files/pages/files/wef-dti-aviati
on-travel-and-tourism-white-paper.pdf.
Yanes, A., Zielinski, S., Diaz Cano, M., & Kim, S. I. (2019). Community-based tourism in
developing countries: A framework for policy evaluation. Sustainability, 11(9), 2506.
Zhang, L., Denizci Guillet, B., & Kucukusta, D. (2015). Online travel agents—hotels’ foe
or friend? A case study of mainland China. Journal of China Tourism Research, 11(4),
349–370.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long
Range Planning, 43(2–3), 216–226.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust
construct for strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11(4), 403–411.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and
future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042. Rob Law, Ph.D., is a Chair Professor in the Department of In­
tegrated Resort and Tourism Management, University of
Macau (roblaw@um.edu.mo).
Mariia Perelygina, Ph.D., is a Post-Doctoral Researcher in the
School of Hospitality Management and Tourism, Technological
University Dublin (mariia.perelygina@tudublin.ie).

13