I would say that the appeal of the Business Model Canvas is related to presenting a variant of contingency theory in grid/matrix form. Given a certain set of conditions plotted into this grid/matrix, you are then encouraged to take a line of action consistent with these aforementioned conditions.

While fashionable management techniques come and go, I believe that they can still be useful if managers use these to better make sense of where they are and intend to be in the near future. The Business Model Canvas, with its potential for presenting a broad variety of information, certainly qualifies.

The Business Model Canvas is built over many theories or consists with them.

In the  matrix, each element  has a root in one theory or more.For example, Key partnership consists with the following theories, at least it covers the main concept, collaboration, alliance, supply chain, open innovation, and open business model. This integration provides an advantage for Business Model Canvas over other models.

However, approaching BMC  doesn't have one path; each firm has its own conditions that lead to giving varying values based on the relative importance for each of nine elements in the matrix.

As Yujuico said, the contingency theory provides the base for this model.

I would agree the visualization is the most useful ingredient. By having everything on one page, one can very quickly see where the weak and strong points are, and remind the user not to forget any of the components, as they all need to be addressed for success. It also allows for customization for every new idea.

The strength of the visualisation (and possibly also its main weakness) is the reduction of complexity and provision of structure. This has been found important in other visualisations as well, e.g. I remember Edward Tufte's suggestion of "small multiples" (The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (2nd ed.), Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.). 

It is also a weakness of the canvas, though, as you may well describe the current BM and possible alternative configurations, but it does not really help you to figure out how to get from A (old) to B (new). So it is mainly a heuristic tool, but not a transformative one.

I think there are two aspects that can explain the Business Model Canvas success: On the one hand it has a theoretical background which supports its nine components and the relation between then (as described by our colleagues above). On the other hand it is a visual tool that anyone can use - from researchers to entrepreneurs and students. Adding to it, this "user friendly" canvas is nowadays used as a preliminary business plan, as a tool to expand/modify companies' current business model and to discuss new R&D projects. I think the many ways Business Model Canvas can be used explains a bit its success. 

As a Business Architecture practitioner, I have some serious concerns about how he canvas is used. I see the best use of the canvas as the ending point after considerable research and consideration of all of its components. However,  typically it is used as  a facilitation tool to get a myriad of post it notes somewhat arbitrarily posted to an image on the wall without much careful analysis of what are the right answers. It may look good but it may be too naive. It is good for visualization of the hard work required to answer the questions. I think that there are better ways of answering these questions more methodologically and many of these have been around for sometime. It comes across as an easy way to come up with a business model without the hard work. The hard work, however, is always needed. The business world, unfortunately, is always attracted to simplicity and in this case perhaps simplistic means to the ends.

Is Business Model Canvas successful? When I first saw it, I thought that it can maybe be used as a quick diagnosis tool and entry point into deeper analysis. I then used it for a concrete small business - and stopped mid-way. It felt to me too superficial, never coming to the really tricky/pivotal/key points. Is there research on the usefulness of the tool to practitioners/users?

I agree with all the statements made in the discussion board. I would like to direct the view to the limitations of the presented approach. The Business Canvas incorporates a limited scope of the operational/functional areas in delivering value to the end consumer to achieve corporate objectives. I believe “Frank” is right on the money that visualization provides structure. It’s a start to manifest business practices in a visual theory but it is only a start.

Practical approaches consider all operational and functional areas to create value for customers which is not considered in the business canvas.

The Business Model Canvas is a good visual description, so a theory that helps explain why managers learn quicker/faster/effective over just verbage would be helpful.

In addition, the Business Model Canvas purports to be crowdsourced, so any theory that explains why crowdsourcing leads to better solutions than an individual or small group of individuals may help. Of course, you may also find theory to argue the opposite - that crowdsourcing of answers may only lead to "average" solutions due to the many compromises involved.

In any case, it is a just a model of how firms create value. It has strengths and weaknesses, just as any other model of firm value creation, such as the Porter's (1985) Value Chain or Kaplan and Norton's (2001) Strategy Map. Both of which preceded the Business Strategy Canvas.

Not a panacea.    Works for some MDs and not for others, in my experience.   Good for  visual learners and for breaking up the elephant.  But other planners have proved just as successful for analysis and commiting ideas to paper.

Resources mixed with the right tactics will create capabilities.

The business model canvas is a good way to begin thinking about entrepreneurship, hence a good teaching tool.

The HBSP note, Note on business model analysis along with the business model canvas is useful in teaching business model.

I agree with most of the comments made. Although researchers tend punch on Osterwalder and Pignuer and the BMC we should not forget their contribution  made with this framework. I think his worldwide-success is a cause and consequence of at least seven points:

An excellent research-practitioner transfer: Osterwalder structured the complex system approach of the business model in a consumable version. Have a look on his PhD thesis which is really IS-complex stuff and then compare it with the practitioner book. Main elements are still there, but focused on the core. If you want a more complex picture and to dig deeper in the BMC, read the PhD-thesis.

Good marketing: Although the book is crowdsourced, it is still nearly the original version of the PhD.  Thus, I think the crowdsourcing BM was more to spread the model than to improve it.

Excellent Visualization: Its already discussed in the forum here that the BMC really “looks” good. Osterwalder's designer just applied what we do as consumers the whole day. We choose by the kind of presentation and appearance. Sadly, we as researcher are often satisfied if we just built boxes and arrows in power point. I think this needs to change I we want to get our models accepted outside the academia. A research stream that focuses on how good ideas travel by visualization explains much of the success of the BMC (search for “knowledge visualization”, or look at the work of Prof.Dr. Martin Eppler from St.Gallen).

From board meetings to group workshop: I think the most explanation (and contribution) for the success of a business framework is the idea that this model enables working in a group. It makes strategy sessions more productive. Strategy is not made by a single person preparing 70 slides in power point in a back office. The tool catches the wave to understand management as a collaborative process where people are coming together and need a common language. This model serves both. It gives a structure to talk and immediately starts a communication process between people that maybe have never speaked with each other before – on a neutral papersheet basis.

Seeing BMs as a flexible mind-shaping idea: Using Post-Its to mix, recombine or save new ideas is relatively new in management where before fix planning was king. Now, its flexibility and trial-and-error which are the answers on today’s turbulent environment. The tool reflects this in its usage.

Easy to copy: The model is relatively self-explaining, which makes it easy to understand and you can put it on one sheet of paper once you read the book (or understood the idea). This and the creative common license lead to a fast diffusion of the model.

Creative Commons License: It was extremely smart to choose a Creative Commons License. Often we as researcher aim to get into high ranked journals which require from us to leave the copyright to the publisher. The BMC is a free version. So, everyone can use it and it is even allowed to earn money with it (which makes it attractive to consultants).

I think the problem is that we as researchers try to see the BMC from the theory side (what provides the foundation to understand the reality), rather than seeing such a tool/framework from the user perspective (what does a manager need to understand the concept?). This is reflected in the understanding what business science actually means. If I want that people outside the academia use my research outcome to build better business models, I need to translate my research into their language (we expect exactly the same from researchers in engineering or natural sciences). Even if it means to cut some aspects which might be highly relevant for other researchers.

I don’t want to practice BMC Evangeliary. I totally agree with the shortcomings of the model made by my fore-speakers (and there are dozens more). But the way how Osterwalder transform his research into a practical tool which helps managers to think a new way and how this leads to develop new ideas HOW to make business; this all stimulates a foundation for a whole research field which was largely ignored by management research. Is it a fashion? Maybe, but still remember that Porters 5-Forces or the SWOT-analysis exist since 30 years.

Thanks Martin - very helpful.

In addition - and with regard to Tim's question - I would, first, not mix the market(ing) success of the BMC with its assumed advantages in application - these are two very different aspects. And second, I would first ask for the differences between BMC and other tools and then study whether BMC has some real advantages. These could - but must not - be on the technical level (visualisation, simplicity etc.), the cognitive level (easy to understand and apply), the level of contigencies such as "everybody is using it" etc.

A study without any bias towards assumed adavantages to identify differences between tools and then to assess their particular pros and cons would be interesting. I think Eppler and colleagues did some pioneering work in this field.

Good question. And I like the answers. It is not particularly new. In fact I had used a similar model early 90s when internal consultants of a large multinational had provided me with such a reference. However the way it has been made communicated has made it very accessible for many disciplines.

Another question is question

 As regards the theoretical explanation I tend to believe that the wide acceptance and accessibility are an important aspect. It resolves and becomes a substitute for tedious convincing and conversation between stakeholders with different background and interests when a business c changes or new business arises. In my view te BMC has gained authority in large groups of practitioners a.o. due to its open evolution. My 2' cts

Good question Tim. The academic field is divided among those that believe business plans are at the very least passé--that is, there is very little empirical proof that having a plan correlates to any meaningful entrepreneurial outcome measure (i.e., founding, funding, growth, survival, etc.)--and those that believe plans play an important role. That said, in my opinion, the question of whether business plans or lean startup canvases are the "best" approach for founders to pursue is the wrong question to ask. Neither is sufficient. The more important questions center around process (how thorough the founders have analyzed the opportunity, etc.) and cognition/metacognition (knowledge, judgment, decision making, reasoning, etc.). To those that believe business plans are passé, I would say show me a startup that has received series A funding without one. I've started eight companies and raised almost $50 million in equity financing and not once have I met a VC or institutional investor that would fund a business without one (a "plan"). And to those that believe Reis, Blank, and Maurya have the answer with the lean startup system, I would ask them to show me one investor that will fund a startup with nothing more than the lean startup canvas. Again, in my opinion, relying too heavily on the lean canvas system has the potential to create "lazy entrepreneurs"--those who believe starting a business requires nothing more than filling out the nine segments on the canvas. Again, in my opinion we need more focus on process, cognition, and metacognition.

Business plan or lean-startup system; which is the best way to build a startup? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Business_plan_or_lean-startup_system_which_is_the_best_way_to_build_a_startup [accessed Oct 16, 2015].