Business Model Approach to Foreign

Market Entry Mode

A case study on a Swedish gear manufacturing firm

BACHELOR THESIS WITHIN: Business

Administration
NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15
PROGRAMME OF STUDY: International Management
AUTHOR: Fredrik Hildebrand, Axel Nilsson, Axel
Rydberg
JÖNKÖPING May 2019
Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration
Title: Business Model Approach to Foreign Market Entry Mode
Authors: Fredrik Hildebrand, Axel Nilsson, Axel Rydberg
Tutor: Andrea Kuiken
Date: 2019-05-17
Key terms: Business Model, Foreign Market Entry Mode, Internationalization, Value
Creation

Abstract

Background: The increasing presence of globalization in our everyday life makes it apparent
that internationalization is no longer a topic relevant only for a few multinational companies,
but for essentially every company that wishes to expand or even survive in their domestic
market as well as in foreign markets. In light of this, research on how firm chooses FMEM
has surged, and it is evident that it is an important topic. Numerous theories and factors have
been examined in order to explain what motivates the choice of FMEM, but there is notable
absence in connecting the business model to the FMEM. Despite the increasing attention and
prominence of the business model, to date, there is little research that looks at FMEM
decisions through a business model perspective.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to answer the calls for new aspects and theories on the
FMEM research field by exploring the role that the business model has on the choice of
FMEM. This study will be executed through mapping a company’s business model and
FMEM choice by collecting qualitative data through interviews to find links between the
business model and the entry mode.

Method: This research is conducted through a qualitative single case study, using in-depth
interviews for primary data collection.

Conclusion: The results of the analysis that was based on the empirical findings derived from
the data collection, led to several conclusions being drawn. Firstly, the business model of the
case company has had a great impact on the choice of FMEM of that company. Secondly,
apart from influencing the choice of FMEM, the company’s business model has also
contributed to the company further committing to their existing FMEM. Thirdly, as long as
the case company intends to operate the same business model, with the same value drivers, it
is likely to continue its commitment towards its existing FMEM.

Acknowledgments
We would firstly like to thank Swepart AB for the interviews and their participation in our
thesis.

We would also like to extend our gratitude towards Andrea Kuiken, our thesis tutor, for her
invaluable feedback and guidance. We would also like to thank our seminar group for their
dedicated feedback.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 6
1.1 Background 6
1.2 Problem Definition 8
1.3 Purpose 9
1.4 Key definitions and concepts 9
2. Literature Review 11
2.1 Literature Search Strategy 11
2.2 Foreign Entry Mode 12
2.2.1 Internationalization 12
2.2.2 Types of entry modes and entry mode combinations 13
2.2.3 Factors influencing the decisions of which entry mode to use 16
2.2.3.1 Broader theories: Eclectic theory & Transaction Cost Theory 16
2.2.3.2 External factors: Risk and Resources & Networks 17
2.2.3.3 Internal factors: OC Perspective vs. TC/Internalization Perspective 19
2.2.4 FMEM Conclusion 20
2.3 Business Model Literature 20
2.3.1 Business Model History and Origins 20
2.3.2 Business Model Literature 21
2.3.4 Business Model Conclusion 25
2.4 Literature Conclusion 25
3. Methodology 27
3.1 Research Philosophy 27
3.2 Research Approach 27
3.3 Research Design 28
3.4 Method 28
3.4.1 Single case study method 28
3.4.2 Sampling 29
3.4.3 Data Collection 31
3.4.4 Data Analysis 33
3.4.5 Data Quality 33
3.4.6 Ethical Issues 34
4. Empirical Findings 36
4.1 Company Description 36
4.2 Foreign Market Entry Mode 37
4.3 Customers & Customer relationship 37
4.4 Product Offering 38
4.5 Resources and Activities 39
5. Analysis 40
5.1 Export Characteristics 40
5.2 Customer Relationship 41
5.3 Research & Development Capability 43
5.4 Value Drivers 44
5.5 Business Model Logic 45
6. Conclusion 47
7. Discussion 49
7.2 Limitations 50
7.3 Implications and suggestions for further research 52
7.3.1 Managerial implications 52
7.3.2 Suggestions for further research 52
8. Reference List 53
Appendix 60
Appendix 1 60
Appendix 2 60
Appendix 3 61
Appendix 4 65

Tables
Table 1. Main differences in types of entry modes 13
Table 2. Characteristics of participants 30
1. Introduction
_____________________________________________________________________________________

This chapter begins with an introduction on the background of internationalization and the
business model. Thereafter, a presentation of the problem definition followed by the purpose
and key definitions.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

1.1 Background

The changes that are shaping today’s world economy mostly come from global companies
that have experienced spectacular growth (Jaworek & Kuzel, 2015). Firms have expanded
their operations to foreign markets as a response to the forces of globalization that have
prevailed in the last decades (Brouthers & Hennart, 2007; Puthusserry, Khan & Rodgers,
2018). These expansions are visible as the signs of internationalization are present
everywhere in our everyday life. As we walk through the streets, we see commercials for
South Korean KIA cars. In the evenings, we eat Swiss Nestlé chocolate as we watch our
American Netflix on our Japanese Sony television. Internationalization is no longer a topic
relevant only for a few multinational companies, but for essentially every company that
wishes to expand or even survive in their domestic market as well as in foreign markets.
Besides giving people the benefit of an increased variety of sweets to choose from,
internationalization is a driving force of growth for smaller firms. Because of this, it becomes
very important to firms who are going abroad to make as few mistakes as possible since those
can become very costly.

The question of how a firm chooses to enter a foreign market is not only important to the firm
itself due to its strategic impact, its impact on profitability and long term success (Laufs &
Schwens, 2014; Lai, Chen & Chang, 2012; Mukundhan & Nandakumar, 2016; Ahi,
Baronchelli, Kuivalainen & Piantoni, 2017; Bruneel & De Cock, 2016; Schellenberg, Harker
& Jafari, 2018), but it also stands as a key question in international business research (Wulff,
2016). The strategy and profitability concerns are not solely excluded to the foreign market
entry mode (FMEM) decision, but is at large a matter concerning the business model of a
firm, as it represents the rationale behind the firm (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). The

7
business model serves as the epicenter for value creation (Amit & Zott, 2001), and because of
this, becomes an influential factor when choosing the entry mode.

In the attempts to explain why firms choose a specific entry mode over another, researchers
have tried to connect various underlying factors to the decision. These factors can be divided
into internal and external factors of the firm. External factors are those that are considered to
be out of control for the firm such as foreign market attractiveness (size and growth), cultural
distance, host country risk (uncertainty), and legal restrictions (Morschett, Schramm-Klein &
Swoboda, 2010; Erramilli, 1992). Internal factors are those that are endogenous of the firm,
meaning that the firm can assert control over them. Internal factors can be specific resources
such as firm-specific capabilities, organizational culture, specialized assets, size, reputation
and experience (Ekeledo & Sivakumar, 2003). Moreover, corporate policy as well as the
desire to become rapidly established in foreign markets are also considered to be internal
factors (Erramilli, 1992). Marinescu (2016) takes on three different aspects - firm specific,
industry specific and country specific; ranging from micro to macro levels, when considering
the firm’s choice of FMEM. Other researchers have connected various internal factors to
FMEM decisions such as commitment, risk, control (Laufs & Schwens, 2014), the board of
directors (Lai, Chen & Chang, 2012), stakeholders (Mukundhan & Nandakumar, 2016),
male- or female leadership (Pergelova, Angulo-Ruiz & Yordana, 2018), CEO succession
characteristics, compensation (Datta & Herrman, 2002; Musteen, Datta & Herrmann, 2008),
and firm productivity (Hsu, 2016; Raff, Ryan & Stähler, 2017; Tomiura, 2007). For instance,
a firm will have to take into consideration how much risk (financial, intellectual property
theft, technology spillovers etc.) is connected with establishing a subsidiary of its own in a
foreign country, compared to entering into a joint venture or exports (Laufs & Schwens,
2014). The FMEM decision can also be considered to facilitate the penetration of other
markets connected to the one the firm is entering, further proving the strategic importance of
choosing an appropriate entry mode (Javalgi, Deligonul, Ghosh, Lambert & Cavusgil, 2010).

Ojala & Tyrväinen (2006) delves deeper into the micro level factors behind the choices of
FMEM, with a particular focus on the business model. The business model can be seen as
how the different pieces of the business fit together, and thus represents an internal
perspective of the firm. This is what separates the business model from e.g. business strategy,
which includes external perspectives such as competitors (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2005). For
firms that want to experience growth in foreign markets, it is vital to define their value

8
creation and value capturing activities before entering those markets. This becomes important
because the value creation depends not merely on achieving a specific relationship with a
foreign market or customer, but hinges more on the rationale of the firm (McQuillan &
Sharkey Scott, 2015). Despite increasing attention and the recognition that business models
are important for internationalization decisions (Ojala & Tyrväinen, 2006; McQuillan &
Sharkey Scott, 2015; Hennart, 2014) to date, little research exists on this topic.

1.2 Problem Definition

The literature is differentiated in its efforts to describe why firms choose a FMEM over
another, and the call for further research to deepen the understanding of a firm’s FMEM is
widespread (Ojala & Tyrväinen, 2006; Surdu & Mellahi, 2016; Schellenberg, Harker &
Jafari, 2017; Bruneel & De Cock, 2016). However, there seems to be a limited scope of
literature that connects the FMEM with the business model of a firm. Schellenberg et al.
(2017) calls for the incorporation of new theories while trying to explain the
internationalization of firms to better understand the phenomena. Furthermore, Bruneel &
DeCock (2016) also joins the call for more research on internationalization, but focuses on
small, medium enterprises (SMEs), as most studies are covering multinational enterprises
(MNEs) and thus are missing an important aspect of the contemporary business environment.
Ojala & Tyrväinenen (2006) explicitly calls for further research which involves the business
model and internationalization.

The FMEM choice has been described above as one of the most important strategic decision a
firm can make in its internationalization process due to its consequences to the firm’s
performance. The business model is described as an important strategic part of the business
and its main concerns are how the firm captures and creates value (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2010). The business model includes a more complete spectrum of internal factors, in contrast
to prior research which has looked at single factors in isolation. Moreover, according to Amit,
Massa & Zott (2011) the business model has become a new unit of analysis that gives a more
holistic analysis compared to the traditional units of analysis such as the firm and/or the
network of a firm. Incorporating the business model when looking at a firms FMEM will thus
allow for a more complete analysis of what is influencing a firm’s FMEM decision, from an
internal perspective. Considering the important role the business model plays to the success

9
of a company (Chesbrough, 2010), it becomes an appropriate choice when exploring new
aspects within the FMEM research field.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to answer the calls for new aspects and theories on the FMEM
research field by exploring the role that the business model has on the choice of FMEM. This
study will be executed through mapping a company’s business model and FMEM choice by
collecting qualitative data through interviews to find links between the business model and
the entry mode. We aim therefore to answer the following research question:

RQ: How does the business model affect the FMEM of a SME manufacturing company?

To answer this research question, we conduct a qualitative study, adopting a single case study
approach. We will map the business model of the case company and explore how the
business model affects the FMEM. This paper will be structured as follows. First, the
introduction will present the topic and problem formulation along with key definitions.
Second, the body of knowledge will be introduced to show the relevant academic knowledge
related to the topic. Third, the methodology will describe how this study was executed.
Fourth, the empirical findings will be presented. Fifth, an analysis connecting the relevant
academic literature to the findings will be done ending with a conclusion. Sixth, a discussion
will go deeper into the findings. Last, conclusions and recommendations for further studies
will be presented.

1.4 Key definitions and concepts

Internationalization: the process of increasing the presence of a firm in international

markets and being able to adapt its products or services towards those markets (Reddy, 2014)

Foreign market entry mode (FMEM): Institutional arrangement that enables the firm’s
products, technology, human skills, management, or other resources into a foreign market
(Root, 1987)

10
Business Model: The rationale behind how a firm operates, creates and captures value
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)

Business Model Canvas: Template for holistic analysis of a firm (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2010)

Equity entry mode: Foreign market entry mode which requires the firm to commit assets.
(Hollender, Zapkau & Schwens, 2017)

Non-Equity entry mode: Foreign market entry mode which does not require the firm to
commit assets. (Hollender, Zapkau & Schwens, 2017)

Small and medium-sized enterprise (SME): A small company has 50 or less employees,
with a turnover of less than 10 million euros. A medium company has a range of 50-250
employees, with a turnover of up to 10-50 million euros ("What is an SME? - Internal
Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs - European Commission", 2019).

2. Literature Review
_____________________________________________________________________________________

This chapter provides an overview of the existing literature that is related to our topic.
Firstly, the literature search strategy is introduced, then literature on foreign market entry
mode and business models is examined, and finally, a literature review conclusion.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

2.1 Literature Search Strategy

In order to gather sufficient and relevant data for the literature review, a three-step process
was followed. First, databases such as Google Scholar, Emerald Insight, Proquest and
Business Source Premier were used to generate articles that would provide a starting point
from which an overview of the literature on our topics could be achieved. For the business

11
model topic, Proquest, Emerald Insight and Business Source Premier was mainly used. Using
the keywords “Business model literature review” and simply “Business model” and applying
filters for the years 2005-2019 and peer-reviewed articles only. For FMEM, the keywords
“internationalization” and “mode of entry”, along with a data range from 2005-2019, were
searched on Google Scholar. The second step in this process was identifying relevant
literature and influential authors in both topics. The relevance of the literature was
determined by factors such as whether the journal was peer-reviewed or not, how recent the
article was and to what degree it would add to the knowledge of the literature review.
Influential authors in both topics were identified by the number of citations. The third and last
step was to find further influential articles by identifying relevant references in already
gathered literature, which allowed for identification of additional articles. Through this
process, an overview of the different themes, influential authors and important articles was
generated.

2.2 Foreign Entry Mode

2.2.1 Internationalization

Internationalization refers to the process of increasing the presence of a firm in international

markets and being able to adapt its products or services towards those markets (Reddy, 2014).
Research has shown that companies pursuing internationalization should have a solid
organizational structure of their foreign activities and operations, combined with having an
understanding of the many advantages and disadvantages that come with different entry
modes into foreign markets (Laufs & Schwens, 2014; Pinho, 2007). Pinho (2007) suggests
three ways in which internationalization benefits a firm, including, improving their
managerial skills and competences, using company resources more wisely, and allowing for
more adaptability when endeavoring in various business risks. There are also other
advantages that come when operating in both international and domestic markets. On the
international side, expanding a firm’s presence in foreign markets provides benefits for the
firm through international competition, thus also strengthening its position in the domestic
market. This ties into the domestic market, as Pinho (2007, p.715) states “internationalization
promotes socio-economic development, generates foreign exchange, increases employment

12
opportunities and reduces the national deficit.”, which further highlights the incentive for
companies to go international.

When an SME or any other firm wants to enter a new market, the mode of entry a firm
decides to use is crucial in determining if they will be successful or not. These entry modes
are channels that a firm uses to assist them in entering their products, technology, and other
resources, into a foreign market. However, due to an SMEs inadequate skill and experience
when first entering foreign markets, they need to carefully decide which road to take (Reddy,
2014; Pinho, 2007). The foreign entry mode that the firm or organization chooses to utilize
will affect the impact of what organizational structure they will use in that specific market
(Hollender, Zapkau & Schwens, 2017). The research concerning the performance of different
foreign market entry modes is diverse, mostly due to each firm’s prerequisites and
characteristics being different, with studies showing that one entry mode may outperform
another, thus, generating ambiguous conclusions (Hollender et al., 2017).

2.2.2 Types of entry modes and entry mode combinations

Table 1. Main differences in types of entry modes

Choice of Entry Mode Level of Resource Levels of Control Levels of Knowledge
Commitment Base and
Competencies

Equity Modes

Joint Ventures High High

Moderate/High
(Shared)

Wholly Owned High High High

Subsidiaries

Non-Equity Modes

Exporting Low Low Low

Licensing Low Moderate/Low Low

(Shared)

13
Foreign market entry modes can be classified into categories of investment (equity) vs.
noninvestment (non-equity) (Reddy, 2014; Hollender et al., 2017; Pinho, 2007), low vs. high
control, shared vs. full control (Ahsan & Musteen, 2011; Herrmann & Datta, 2002; Erramilli
& Rao, 1993; Blomstero, Sharma & Sallis, 2006), and risk vs. return (Argarwal &
Ramaswami, 1992; Hollender et al., 2017). Within these categories there are many types of
entry modes, these include – franchising, wholly owned subsidiaries (WOS), greenfield and
brownfield investments, and acquisitions (Petersen & Welch, 2002; Laufs & Schwens, 2014;
Hollender et al., 2017; Pinho, 2017; Ahsan & Musteen, 2011), with the most common ones
being exporting, licensing, joint venture (JVs), and sole venture (Agarwal & Ramaswami,
1992).

Hollender et al. (2017) classify joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries as equity
modes, while non-equity modes include licensing and exporting. The advantages and
disadvantages of this classification of entry mode can be looked at through resource
commitment, levels of control and risk, and knowledge base and competencies. The equity
entry mode requires a high level of resources committed by the firm when setting up
operations abroad but give them a “greater closeness to host country market and customers.”
(Hollender et al., 2017, p.251). Whereas, non-equity modes provide the opposite, using lower
amounts of resources but are further away from the foreign market. In addition, Herrmann &
Datta (2002) state that there are varying levels of risk exposure when it comes to full control
and shared control entry modes, with the FMEM choice deciding what degree of risk a firm
will experience. Laufs & Schwens (2014) declare that the more resources a firm use, the
greater the risk of losing them if entry into the foreign market doesn’t work out, and therefore
can have a more damaging impact on the firm.

Blomstermo et al. (2006) identify control as vital since it attributes to the achievement of the
firm’s purpose, and decides the performance, risks and returns of the investment that was
made abroad. With high control entry modes, there is a need for more resource commitment
abroad, whereas low control modes require limited resource commitment. Higher control
modes are also used since the firm may want to adapt to the foreign market and build
personal relationships when abroad. Through gaining experience and confidence, firms will
have a better understanding and assessment of the risks and opportunities that high control

14
entry modes can provide for them (Blomstermo et al., 2006). When focusing on the levels of
control, defined by Pinho (2007, p.716) as “the level of authority a firm may exercise over
systems, methods and decisions in the foreign affiliate”, both he and Ahsan & Musteen
(2011) declare that the equity modes (JVs and WOS) require high levels of control, while
non-equity modes (exporting and licensing) demand less (Hollender et al., 2017; Pinho, 2007;
Ahsan & Musteen, 2011). Similarly, Erramilli & Rao (1993) declare firms usually choose
acquisitions or greenfield investments when they desire higher amounts of control and
ownership. Furthermore, firms can select joint ventures or licensing for shared control, which
entails lower amounts of ownership (Herrmann & Datta, 2002; Gatignon & Anderson, 1988).

There are also differences in knowledge base and competencies for full control and shared
control entry modes. For firms to function effectively and successfully in foreign markets,
full control demands firms to expand their own knowledge pool and capabilities. While firms
opting for shared control entry modes already have access to information on competitors,
markets, and governmental policies provided by their local partner (Herrmann & Datta,
2002).

The studies have also found that some companies use multiple modes, or mode combinations
to enter foreign markets (Petersen & Welch, 2002; Benito, Petersen & Welch, 2011).
Petersen & Welch (2002) identify four types of multiple modes in their study – unrelated,
segmented, complementary, and competing modes. The unrelated mode is defined as an
occurrence of when a firm applies multiple entry modes when entering the foreign market,
but do not have a connection with each other in that market. The segmented mode refers to
multiple modes being used in the same market to serve different segments. The
complementary mode is different to the segmented mode as it serves only one market and is
used to complement each other to reach the firm’s objectives. Finally, the competing mode
refers to multiple modes being put up against each other to compete, and as Petersen &
Welch (2002, p.160) state, they “target the same segment(s) and perform the same business
activities, but the ownership (in-house vs. outsourcing) and location (home country vs. host
country location) differ”.

Furthermore, Benito et al. (2011) argue that these entry mode combinations can develop over
time. A firm may start with one entry mode, and as that operation unfolds, they may combine
their current mode with another due to changing circumstances. The authors provide a few
15
perspectives on why mode combinations are used, with their main suggestion being the
decision-making process of the firm and how it can indicate the need for multiple modes.
Other reasons for using multiple modes include wanting to achieve specific goals, generating
more revenue, or as quoted by Benito et al. (2001, p.808), “adding modes that are deemed to
deliver control in managerial, marketing, financial and/or technological senses”. However, as
Petersen & Welch (2002) and Benito et al. (2011) have pointed out in their studies, there is
limited research that focuses on this phenomenon due to the multiple modes being classified
as anomalies by some researchers.

2.2.3 Factors influencing the decisions of which entry mode to use

The previous section identified a variety of different entry modes. When deciding on which
entry to use, there are a multitude of factors and reasons for why firms decide on these entry
modes, which will be discussed below.

2.2.3.1 Broader theories: Eclectic theory & Transaction Cost Theory

The Dunning framework, also known as the eclectic theory, is illustrated in the articles
written by Agarwal & Ramaswami (1992) and Pinho (2007) which uses the factors of
ownership advantages of a firm, location advantages of a market, and internalization
advantages, to see how they affect the entry mode choice. Ojala & Tyrväinen (2007) state in
their paper that researchers have found that the advantages in this theory do influence the
FMEM. The main determinants that influence ownership advantages are mainly centered
around asset power and the skills that firms possess. A firm that understands how to use and
capitalize on these competitive advantages will be able to face the challenges of contending
with host country firms. Asset power is defined by size, multinational experience, and the
skills used to create diversified products (Agarwal & Ramaswami, 1992; Javalgi et al., 2010).
Agarwal & Ramaswami (1992, p.3) describe the size of the firm as being expected to be
“positively correlated with its propensity to enter foreign markets in general”, which is why
firms tend to select sole or joint ventures as their foreign entry market choice. Congruently,
Pinho (2007) states that larger firms are able to assimilate with the high risks and costs of
foreign markets, while also being in strategic positions in these markets to make smart

16
investments due to having a surplus of resources. The other component of asset power is the
multinational experience of a firm. The firms that don’t have experience in foreign markets
usually tend to use non-investment entry modes as they encounter problems through
overstating potential risk, while understating potential returns when working within the
market. In contrast, experienced firms will tend to use investment entry modes (Agarwal &
Ramaswami, 1992; Pinho, 2007).

Firms looking to enter attractive foreign markets should look at the aspects of market
potential (size and growth) and investment risk when selecting their market entry strategy, as
the returns on investment will be much higher (Agarwal & Ramaswami, 1992). However,
Pinho (2007, p.719) argues that not every firm can “maximize its return in an equal way”.
These factors of the location specific advantages suggest that within countries with high
market potential, equity modes are preferred to non-equity modes because of the differences
in long-term profitability. The final factor of the eclectic theory looks at internalization
advantages within a firm, and is based on the relationship between the risks of sharing assets
and skills with the host country, compared with integrating them within the firm. As defined
by Wulff (2016), it also decides whether firms should internalize based on cost efficiency, or,
if they should utilize contractual agreements with local firms.

Transaction cost analysis is another theory (TCT) that can be used to explain the factors that
influence entry mode decisions. In the paper by Ojala & Tyrväinen (2007), they provide a
study carried out by researchers that concludes how SMEs prefer equity modes of entry when
they have greater asset-specific investments, while on the contrary, less asset-specific
investments are tied to non-equity modes. Javalgi et al. (2010) define this theory as the role of
control each entry mode type grants a firm. Wulff (2016, p.944) provides another
explanation, stating that firms “should internalize its foreign transaction if the costs of
internalization are less than those of entering through the market”. Among the other theories
in FMEM, they assert that this transaction cost theory is most commonly applied.

2.2.3.2 External factors: Risk and Resources & Networks

There are various factors that can influence the decision of which FMEM a firm will use.
Argarwal & Ramaswami (1992, p.3) describe the tradeoffs between risk and return to be the
determinant for choice of FMEM through the normative decision theory, suggesting that “a

17
firm is expected to choose the entry mode that offers the highest risk-adjusted return on
investment.”. While, Pinho (2007) and Ahsan & Musteen (2011) both state that with each
entry mode there comes varying levels of “resource requirements, organizational control,
expected future returns and risk exposure”, as quoted by Ahsan & Musteen (2011, p377)
(Argarwal & Ramaswami, 1992; Pinho, 2007; Ahsan & Musteen, 2011). Therefore, it is
important to consider these factors when choosing which mode to use, as it can affect the
performance of the firm.

There is a strong relationship between networks and a firm’s export performance and are also
vital to their internationalization process (Stoian, Rialp & Dimitratos, 2016). Babakus, Yavas
& Haahti (2006) and Belso-Martínez (2006) have suggested that both local and foreign
networks, as well as knowledge, have had a clear and direct impact on the exporting activities
a firm carries out. Networks with competitors and customers also help the export
performance through influencing export intensity and satisfaction (Belso-Martínez, 2006).
Research has demonstrated that the size of the firm, usually in SMEs, can sometimes be a
liability due to the struggle of getting access to resources in the form of human and financial
capital, thus hindering the advancement of the firm’s exporting (Zhou, Wu & Luo, 2007).
However, Stoian et al. (2016) indicate that networks are crucial in the international expansion
of SMEs and can in turn overcome the liability of smallness.

Lo, Chiao & Yu (2016) emphasize how using local networks or forming strategic alliances in
host countries can make the transition of entering into the foreign market much smoother.
Sharma & Blomstermo (2003) also acknowledge the benefits of networks as they state that
the internationalization process of a firm is motivated by the knowledge a firm possesses,
which they use to establish these network ties in domestic markets. The network ties can be
broken down into three dimensions, with the first being the accessibility of information for a
firm, and how the firm can use it to their advantage in the market. The second dimension is
the timing of when information arrives at the firm for them to use at their disposal. The third
dimension relates to referrals, which Sharma & Blomstermo (2003, p.744) describe as
involving the firm’s interests being “represented in a positive light, at the right time, and in
the right place”. Even though these dimensions can positively affect the internationalization
process, they are not the same for all firms, and can produce different outcomes when used
(Sharma & Blomstermo, 2003).

18
Johanson & Vahlne (2009) state that firms gain a better understanding of internationalization
through the knowledge supplied by inter-organizational networks. Furthermore, Colombo,
Laursen, Magnusson & Rossi-Lamastra (2012) state that this is particularly relevant for
SMEs due to the fact that they face higher resource constraints than larger firms. Colombo et
al. (2012, p.182) also express that “SMEs are able to supplement their limited internal R&D
base and gain access to new markets and innovation sources”. This is supported by Ripolles
Meliá, Blesa Pérez & Roig Dobón (2010) who claim innovation can point SMEs in the
direction of high control FMEMs and to undertake more international activities. Along with
knowledge, inter-organizational networks also provide access to external resources in
financial, human, and technological forms. These are available through the connection and
relationship between a firm and their business partners (Stoian et al., 2016; Johanson &
Vahlne, 2009). Coviello & Munro (1995) have argued that these relationships affect the
FMEM of a firm and can provide new knowledge associated with the host country and
market selection.

2.2.3.3 Internal factors: OC Perspective vs. TC/Internalization Perspective

Madhok (1997) states that both the organizational capability (OC) perspective of a firm and
the transaction cost and internalization perspectives can affect the FMEM. The internalization
perspective focuses on transaction costs and market failure, exploiting a firm’s advantage,
and minimizing costs when doing business with a partner. The FMEMs which enable higher
control is preferred when the firm’s competitive advantage is based on embedded resources
which are not easily imitable. The organizational capabilities perspective draws attention
away from the transactions and delves more into the capabilities a firm possesses. It focuses
on the boundaries of a firm’s capabilities, further development of a firm’s competitive
advantage, and the benefits of minimizing costs (Madhok, 1997). Valiyan, Jahromi, &
Boudlayee (2016) suggest that organizational capabilities derive from a firm’s ability to
cultivate both tangible and intangible resources, for help in performing tasks or activities that
will positively affect performance and help achieve set goals. Sungyuan & Ussahawanitchakit
(2015, p.55) characterize organizational capabilities as “a firm’s ability to perform and repeat
a productive task which relates either directly or indirectly to a firm capacity for creating
value through affecting the transformation of input into output”. Hussain, Sreckovic, &
Windsperger (2018) suggest the OC perspective views the firm through using their resources
and organizational capabilities to gain a competitive advantage through exploring and

19
exploiting new knowledge. Madhok (1997) argues that from a logical standpoint,
organizational capabilities are less restrictive than the transaction cost perspective, and that
the OC argument is concentrated on bounded rationality, whereas the TC argument is
motivated by opportunism. The findings he gathered was that even though the TC perspective
suggests some credible concerns, the OC perspective is more suited to explain the
decisionmaking process of firms when entering a foreign market (Madhok, 1997).

2.2.4 FMEM Conclusion

The literature on entry modes into foreign markets is quite vast and has been well researched.
It demonstrates selecting a foreign market entry mode has become increasingly strategic and
is critical for making the transition abroad for a firm as smooth as possible. There are
different modes of entry a firm could choose from, and there are a number of varying factors
that can influence the entry mode decision. These factors can be divided into sections on
broader theories, external factors, and internal factors on FMEM. Broader theories include
the eclectic theory and transaction cost theory. The external factors focus on risk and
resources, as well as how networks can impact the firm. The internal factors range from
organizational capabilities, to experience, and to resources. These are a part of how a
company creates and captures value, as what the business model is entails. Firms may want to
opt to be in full control of their decisions and select to pursue a joint venture or make an
acquisition. Or they may want to limit their resource commitment and choose a shared
control entry mode such as joint ventures. Hence, the FMEM is one of the most strategic
decisions an internationalizing firm will have to make. Similarly, the business model deals
with strategic decision making within the firm as it represents the rationale behind the
business and will be discussed further in the next section.

2.3 Business Model Literature

2.3.1 Business Model History and Origins

The business model is a term that was first mentioned in an academic article by Bellman,
Clark, Malcolm, Craft, & Riccardi (1957), where the authors used what they called business
models to create and design a business game for executive training purposes. Though it was
20
already mentioned in the 1950s, the term did not rise to renown until late 1990s, when
academic research on the concept was starting to appear with some of the earliest contributors
being Timmers (1998), who wrote about business models in relation to the rising electronic
commerce (e-commerce). The business model’s ascent to prominence occurred around the
same time as the digital economy was being introduced to the world, (Osterwalder, Pigneur &
Tucci, 2005; Fielt 2013), which could help explaining why the greatest amount of research
has come from e-commerce and that the early work focused on revenue streams for webbased
firms (Morris, Schindehutte & Allen, 2005). According to Morris, et al. (2005), the business
model concept is based on central ideas in business strategy, where it draws on several
different theories such as resource-based theory, strategic network theory and cooperative
strategies. However, it is mainly built on the value chain concept along with notions of value
systems and strategic positioning.

2.3.2 Business Model Literature

Although the academic research on the business model concept started appearing in the late
1990s, there is still no generally accepted definition (Morris, et al. 2005; D’Souza,
Wortmann, Huitema, & Velthuijsen, 2015). With many authors proposing their own
definition of the business model, with their own key components, depending on the purpose
of the article, it is no wonder that no consensus regarding the nature of the concept is
achieved. Among the first to try to conceptualize and define the business model is Amit &
Zott (2001). In their work, the business model is presented as a unit of analysis that unites
five existing theoretical frameworks, that is, value chain analysis, Schumpeterian innovation,
resource-based view, strategic network theory, and transaction cost economics. By
incorporating parts of each of the aforementioned theories, the business model allows the
analysis of the four sources of value creation in e-business (Efficiency, Complementarities,
Lock-in, and Novelty). The definition of Amit & Zott (2001, p. 511) “A business model
depicts the content, structure, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value
through the exploitation of business opportunities”, is consistent with the previously
mentioned theoretical frameworks, and reflect the value creation focus of the authors.

Amit & Zott’s understanding of the business model and its definition can be seen in contrast
to contemporary authors such as Winter & Szulanski (2001, p.731), who defines the business
model as “Business model is typically a complex set of interdependent routines that is
21
discovered, adjusted, and fine-tuned by “doing””. Winter & Szulanski’s (2001) use and
purpose of the business model could be viewed as less conceptualized and vaguer compared
to Amit & Zott (2001), due to the lack of explanation of what the author refer to when using
the term business model. Winter & Szulanski (2001) also stress the importance of the
business model being dynamic and able to change and evolve, something that Amit & Zott
(2001) do not bring up. Tikkanen, Lamberg, Parvinen, & Kallunki (2005), do not agree with
previous authors, and criticize them for reducing the concept of the business model to a
limited number of components. Tikkanen et al. (2005), claims this is oversimplifying the
concept and instead tries to extend, enrich and redefine the business model concept. The
authors describe the business model as a cognitive phenomenon that is also built on the
material aspects of the firm. By emphasizing the business model from a cognition viewpoint,
Tikkanen et al. (2005) do manage to extend the concept and take on a completely different
view compared to previous authors.

Morris et al. (2005) note that there is a lack of consensus not only regarding how to define the
business model concept, but also what the key components of the model are. In response to
this disarray, Morris et al. (2005), attempt to bring order by creating a framework that is
based on commonalities in previous literature. The framework consists of six components
that can be derived through answering six questions (See Appendix 1). Each of these
components can then be evaluated at three levels - Foundational, Proprietary and Rules. The
Foundational level defines the model in terms of a standardized set of questions. At the
Proprietary level, the model becomes strategy specific for a certain company, and thereby
harder to replicate. The final level, Rules, sets guidelines and rules that ensures the
foundational and proprietary levels are reflected in the ongoing strategic actions. The
components of this framework are, similarly to Amit & Zott (2001), rooted in previous
theoretical works such as Schumpeterian innovation, resource-based view, strategic network
theory and transaction cost economics.

Osterwalder & Pigneur (2005), agree with Morris et al. (2005) about the fragmented state of
the literature, and suggests that the reason for this stems from the fact that different authors
writes about business models when they do not necessarily mean the same thing. Osterwalder
& Pigneur (2005) also, similarly to Morris et al. (2005), attempts to structure the different
views on the business model, although through a different approach. By dividing the different
concepts and definitions into three categories (levels): Overarching Business Model Concept,

22
Taxonomies, and instance level, an overview of the different conceptualizations of business
models emerges. Osterwalder & Pigneur (2005) uses a similar approach to Morris et al.
(2005) in order to derive the components of their business model, which is comparing the
most common components of the most commonly mentioned models. From this, they derived
nine components: value proposition, target customer, distribution channel, relationship, value
configuration, core competency, partner network, cost structure and revenue model.
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2005) perception of the business model differs from Amit & Zott
(2001), since they include revenue model which describes value caption, while Amit & Zott
(2001) explicitly states that value caption is not a part of the business model.

Osterwalder & Pigneur (2005) also explicitly states that business models are different from
both business strategy and business process models, as these two are often used
interchangeably with the business model concept. Business process models are concerned
with how a business case is implemented in processes, and business strategy includes
competition, which business models do not, as it is mainly centering around how the different
pieces of the business fit together. The business model can instead be seen as the conceptual
link between strategy, business organization and systems.

In 2010, Osterwalder & Pigneur published Business Model Generation: a handbook for
visionaries, game changers, and challenges, which further develops and describes the
components suggested in their previous work. Some of the previous components, for example
cost structure and value proposition, where kept as they were, while some changed names and
were refined, such as value configuration and core competencies, which were merged and
changed into key resources and key activities. However, the changes to components were
minor, and the essence of their concept of business model were kept the same. What is
significant with this book is the proposed framework, the Business Model Canvas (BMC)
(see Appendix 2), which provides a holistic view of the company’s business logic.
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010, p.14) also provides a definition that captures these nine
interrelated components: “A business model describes the rationale of how an organization
creates, delivers, and captures value”. Since it was published, the BMC has grown to become
popular and widely used among businesses. It has been especially recognised for its
usefulness when it comes to illustrating, analysing and understanding a company’s business
model (Sort & Nielsen, 2018; Joyce & Paquin, 2016; Abraham, 2013), but is also criticized
for being “profit first”-oriented and that it de-emphasises the environmental and social

23
aspects of the business model (Joyce and Paquin, 2016). In response to this, Joyce & Paquin
(2016) have launched the Triple Bottom Line Business Model Canvas (TLBMC), that builds
on the original BMC, but also takes into account the environmental and social aspects of
operating a business.

Amit & Zott has, just as Osterwalder & Pigneur, published later work that furthers their
previous research. Building on previously mentioned sources of value drivers, Amit & Zott
(2007) identifies two critical themes of business model design – novelty centered, and
efficiency centered (though there are others value-creation themes such as lock-in and
complementarities). Novelty centered business models focus on business model innovation,
while efficiency centered business models focus on doing things in a more efficient way. The
findings of their study show that there is a positive association between novelty centered
business models and a firm’s performance. However, there is no clear positive association
between efficiency centered business models and a firm’s performance. (Amit & Zott, 2007).
In 2010, Amit & Zott revised their previous definition of the business model claiming that it
can be conceptualized as either a set of transactions (according to their 2001 definition), or as
an activity system. An activity system being defined as “a set of interdependent
organizational activities centered on a focal firm, including those conducted by the focal firm,
its partners, vendors or customers, etc.” (Amit & Zott, 2010, p.216). The activity system
perspective of the firm can be useful for firms that is trying to innovate their existing business
models. By changing one of the design elements, that is content, structure and governance,
business model innovation is allowed (Amit & Zott, 2012).

2.3.3 Business Model Literature and FMEM

There has been research on the individual elements of the business model, though research on
the business model as a whole has not been extensively studied in relation to the choice of
FMEM. Because the business model is a wide model that seeks to explain the value creation
and value capture of a company based on the logic of that company, it incorporates several
different internal aspects of a firm, meaning that several of these aspects have already been
researched in FMEM literature. An example of one aspect of a firm’s business model that has
been studied in relation to a firm’s FMEM is resources (Madhok, 1997). According to
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010), a firm’s key resources plays a major part in the firm being
able to deliver its value offering and is therefore a component in the business model canvas.

24
A company’s resources affect its organizational capabilities, and thus is a major factor in
influencing the firm’s choice of FMEM (Madhok, 1997).

Another aspect of the business model that has already been studied in the FMEM literature is
efficiency. In Amit & Zott’s activity system perspective on the business model, efficiency,
which is centered around reducing transaction cost, is a source of value creation. This is
studied in relation to FMEM through the transaction cost theory. Transaction cost is a major
determinant according to the internalization theory on FMEM, as it states that a firm should
choose to internalize its foreign transactions if it is the most cost-effective decision (Gatignon
& Anderson, 1988; Wulff, 2016).

2.3.4 Business Model Conclusion

The business model literature has developed in “silos”, meaning that the different views of
the nature of the business model has proceeded to evolve in isolation. Furthermore, within
each silo, there has arisen a fauna of business model conceptualizations, leading to even more
fraction and confusion of what a business model is. This continuing of research developing in
isolation from each other has contributed to prevent and hinder cumulative research
advancement within the field. This can be explained through researchers using the same term
to explain different concepts. Amit & Zott (2011) suggests that in order to enhance clarity in
the field, researchers should adopt more exact concepts and terminology. By using more
precise and clear concepts to indicate the researcher’s focus, there would be less confusion as
to what role that researcher gives the business model. However, despite the differences
among researchers, there are some commonalities that can be found among them which can
be seen as emerging themes in the business model literature. These themes are (1) business
model is seen as a new unit of analysis; (2) the business model is a holistic approach that
explains how firms “do business”; (3) the activities of the focal firm influence the
conceptualizations of the business model; (4) business models seek to explain both value
creation and value capture (Amit & Zott, 2011).

2.4 Literature Conclusion

The FMEM literature attempts to explain the decision-making process behind how firms enter
a foreign market. They have used external and internal factors, as well as overarching general
25
theories to understand the rationale behind the specific entry modes. The business model
research has been focused on presenting the reasoning of a business in how it creates and
captures value. However, despite the research on FMEM that takes on an internal perspective
exists, there is a notable absence of research that takes a more complete and holistic view - a
business model view. Even though these two streams of research have been concerned with
the performance and strategic matters of the firm, they generally have not been fully
researched together in the academic literature.

26
3. Methodology
_____________________________________________________________________________________

In this chapter, first the methodology concerning the research philosophy, approach and
design, is presented. This is followed by the method part which deals with the case study
approach, sampling, data collection and analysis and ending with the ethical issues.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

3.1 Research Philosophy

The research philosophy of this study is interpretivism because the researchers’ intention is to
create new, richer understandings through thoughts and reflections (Saunders, Lewis &
Thornhill, 2016). Interpretivism argues that humans and their social world cannot be studied
with the rigid outlines of a positivist philosophy, which goal is to discover universal “laws”
that apply to everybody (Saunders et al., 2016). Interpretivism adheres to the complexity,
richness and multiple interpretations of the subject in matter, and allows the researchers to
make meaning in their research (Saunders et al., 2016). This is relevant for the study as it
aims to explore how the business model, and its components, influence the foreign market
entry mode of a firm. An interpretivist philosophy would then enable the researchers to
obtain a more accurate idea of what is really contributing to the business model as it is a
complex phenomenon, supported by various activities. As a result, adopting a positivistic
stance could put constraints on the result of the study because of the highly structured design,
and therefore may disregard other relevant findings (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Putting
numerical values on complex phenomenon can be misleading and fail to show a complete
picture of what is being studied.

3.2 Research Approach

The aim of this paper is to explore a phenomenon which is not well researched, therefore an
inductive approach is suitable (Saunders et al., 2016). The researchers will collect data and
develop theoretical connections as the data are collected and analyzed; theory will follow
data. Considering the exploratory nature of this paper, an inductive approach allows the
researcher to consider a variety of factors which are important when answering the research

27
question. Moreover, it is also suitable when the researchers are going from specific
observations to broader generalizations and theories which are relevant for this this research.
An inductive strategy is also typically associated with a qualitative research approach
(Bryman & Bell, 2015), therefore a qualitative research approach will also be utilized. A
qualitative approach will allow the study to dive deeper into the research question and obtain
rich and in-depth data (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). The data will thus be collected from in
depth interviews and subsequently connected to relevant theory in the analysis.

3.3 Research Design

According to Marshall & Rossman (2016) it is very important to match the research question
to the purpose of the study which will help clarify the intent of the study. Saunders et al.
(2016) states that there are five different purposes of studies in business research: (1)
exploratory, (2) descriptive, (3) explanatory, (4) evaluative, and (5) a combination of
purposes. Exploratory studies aim to discover what is happening and how patterns are linked
together (Saunders et al., 2016; Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Descriptive studies aim to
describe and document the phenomenon of interest, where the aim of explanatory studies is to
find causal relationships between the variables that are being researched (Saunders et al.,
2016; Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Evaluative studies aim is to find out how well something
functions (Saunders et al., 2016). An exploratory study is suitable where there is limited prior
research, the topic of interest is poorly understood, and where one wants to clarify the nature
of the issue or problem. Moreover, an exploratory study gives the researchers flexibility in
the sense that they can adapt to change and also change the direction of the research. An
exploratory study is also well suited for qualitative research as it typically focuses on content
and is emergent and evolving. The pairing of qualitative research with an exploratory design
is therefore well aligned with the intent of this paper.

3.4 Method

3.4.1 Single case study method

A case study is applicable when trying to explain specific existent circumstances and is well
suited for exploratory research (Yin, 2014). The research requires in depth data gathering to
understand a complex social phenomenon, which is one of the prerequisites of a qualitative

28
study (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Case studies are also appropriate when the connections
between the studied phenomenon and the context is not apparent (Saunders et al,. 2016; Yin,
2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Furthermore, Yin (2014) states that the case study method
is largely chosen due to the type of research question the study puts forward; “How” and
“Why” questions are those that merit this specific method. Case studies also have the
advantage of being more flexible when it comes to incorporating different perspectives, data
collection tools, and interpretive strategies (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Thus, the nature of
this paper’s research question and topic, is well aligned with the prerequisites of a case study
and is valued as the method which will give this study the most appropriate data to analyze.
Furthermore, this paper will adopt a holistic design which means that there will be a single
unit of analysis as this paper will look into the business model of a firm and how it influences
the FMEM (Yin, 2014). Yin (2014) further states that there are five major rationales for a
single-case design: critical, unusual, common, revelatory, and longitudinal. This paper
follows the common case rationale, as the case will focus on a manufacturing SME to gain
insights to make further contributions to the field of internationalization (Yin, 2014).

3.4.2 Sampling

In the search for a suitable firm, one important criterion was set: the firm had to be engaged
in some form of international activity as described in the literature review. Furthermore, to be
able to gather data that is pertinent to the study, the firm should have at least entered a foreign
market in the last ten years. The second criteria were that the firm should be considered a
SME, preferably a medium sized company. The rationale behind this was that more things are
happening in medium sized enterprises in comparison to small companies that only comprise
of a few individuals. A medium sized enterprise would thus give the paper a more diversified
phenomena to research. In contrast, a large sized enterprise would have many different
activities going on simultaneously, making it difficult to get a holistic understanding of the
firm. The third criteria were that the company in question had to be an established company.
This entails that the company has done business for an extended period of time, accumulated
knowledge of its industry, and has developed its way of conduct and how it creates value.

As the research data will not be statistically analyzed with the aim to generalize from the
sample, a random sample was not needed (Collin & Hussey, 2014). Therefore, an initial
search was conducted using the personal network of the researchers of this paper. After

29
having identified two possible candidates, initial probing interviews were held in order to
confirm if the criteria of internationalization were met. Both candidates met the criteria,
however, one was ruled out due to restricted access. The firm that was chosen and examined
was Swepart Transmission AB. Snowball sampling was an important factor for this paper as
the initial contact person aided in the pursuit of other participants. After the initial contact
with the firm, several shorter communications were held to ensure access to participants and
that they were suitable, i.e. that they have good knowledge and understanding of the business
and its rationale as well as internationalization.

The participants came from different departments of the firm such as production/R&D-,
logistics- and the customer department. Moreover, a participant with lengthy experience
within the company and who occupies a senior position was also important to include, as they
will have a more in-depth perspective of the firm and its business as a whole. The
characteristics of the participants can be seen in the table below.

Table 2. Characteristics of participants

Interviewee Interviewee Interviewee C Interviewee D
A B
Position Product Logistics Key Account
engineer manager manager Financial
Account
manager

Interview
135 75 60 47
Duration
(min)

Age 26 26 48 34

Years in firm 4 2 24 12

Education No higher
BSc BSc 1 year
education
Mechanical Industrial Business
Engineering Economics administration

30
3.4.3 Data Collection

Primary Data

The primary data for this study, which is new information that has been collected for the
purpose of this research, will consist of information collected through individual interviews.
A total of four interviews were conducted with a duration ranging from one hour to the
longest interview which lasted almost three hours.

Interviews as a method allows the researchers to gather in depth knowledge from the
participants regarding their research question(s) (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Interviews are
suitable for this study because they aid in the quest to develop an understanding of the
participant’s surroundings or when the logic of a certain situation is not clear (Collin &
Hussey, 2014). The interview guides that were utilized (see Appendix 3) was derived from
the literature review; it was constructed with the business model in mind (using the business
model canvas for inspiration), while connecting it to the FMEM literature as well. This study
will use semi-structured interviews which are scripted interviews asking specific questions
which will let the interviewees talk about the intended topic and which enables the
researchers to develop and pose questions during the interviews (Collin & Hussey, 2014).
This means that the questions were tweaked and changed in relation to how the interview
progressed and allowed for other areas to be discerned. This also resulted in some questions
being excluded from the interview because the respondent had given answers that had made
other questions irrelevant. Furthermore, the primary data was recorded by using handwritten
notes and by an audio device to enable a deeper analysis of the content in a later stage of the
research. In contrast to an unstructured interview, where no questions are prepared in
advance, the semi-structured interview helped guide the data collection toward the research
question and make the data more in-depth. However, one of the semi-structured interviews
also transformed into a mobile interview (interviewing while walking) which was conducted
during a guided tour of the facilities of the firm. This part of the interview was not prepared
for by the researchers and can therefore be considered as more of an unstructured interview.
Three types of questions were used during the interviews: open-, closed- and probing
questions (Collin & Hussey, 2014). Open questions were posed in order to get longer answers
where the respondent needed to develop his/her responses. More closed questions were posed
when the respondent would not supply a precise answer to an open-ended question.

31
Furthermore, probing questions were asked in response to what the interviewees said, to gain
a better understanding of the issue which is being studied. Examples of probes are responses
such as “Why?”, “Can you explain that in more detail” and, “What do you think is most
important” (Collin & Hussey, 2014).

Secondary Data

Secondary data was collected through Swepart’s website. The database Retriever Business
was used to collect information concerning financial reports and to go through recent press
releases and news articles. The database was accessed through Jönköping University online
library. Informational posters that were observed during a guided tour at Swepart in Liatorp
also contributed to the data collection. The secondary data complemented the primary data in
increasing the understanding of the company, and it was also used to confirm data that was
collected through the interviews.

Procedure

The interviews were held at Sweparts headquarters in Liatorp. To conduct the interviews in
private, access to one of their conference rooms in a secluded part of their building was
granted. The interviews were split up so that only two separate interviews per occasion were
conducted. There were two interview occasions in total, and they were six days apart.
Moreover, the interview structure contained 4 sections. The first section included
introductory questions concerning general information about the company and the participant
role in the company. The second section included questions concerning the business model
and internationalization, specifically the FMEM. The last section included more holistic
questions, based on the previous answers from the participant, with the goal to get more
differentiated answers as well as allowing the participant to speak freely about our questions
and the answers. Lastly, the participants were sent an email where their individual responses
were summarized and were asked to expand on some of the findings as well as corroborate
the findings.

3.4.4 Data Analysis

32
Thematic analysis was used to analyze the collected data. Firstly, an examination of the
transcriptions from the interviews was carried out. Secondly, coding was utilized to discern
prominent factors that were of importance. Codes emerged from going over the transcripts
when the interviewee for instance talked about why Swepart have been so successful. For
instance, the codes “SHARED VALUE CREATION” and “PARTNERS” were linked to
sections where the interviews talked about their customers and the characteristics of their
customer relationships. “PRODUCT CORRECTNESS” derived from sections regarding their
production and “CONTROL/INTERNAL CONTROL” became evident while analyzing the
descriptions of their value creation. “SELF-SUFFICIENCY” and “ADAPTATION” emerged
while analyzing the parts concerning the ability to create a product on their own. This data
was then arranged accordingly. Thirdly, the codes and the supplied data were examined to
find underlying themes and links to the research question. Product correctness and control
was later linked to the underlying theme of “Quality” as they both serve to achieve quality.
Partners and shared creation are linked to “Networks” as they represent relationships which
Swepart are engaged in. Self-sufficiency and adaptation are linked to “Research and
development” as these are closely linked to the ability to operate on their own. Fourthly,
further examination of the themes and links was carried out to find connections between
them. These refined themes were posed against each other and connections such as “Product
correctness” and “Research & Development” emerged. Fifthly, these themes and links were
grouped together to further strengthen the analysis. Lastly, a deeper analysis of the themes
and links was done to give further insights and context as well as connect them to relevant
academic literature.

3.4.5 Data Quality

To ensure that this paper has high research quality, the various criteria with which qualitative
research is measured against have been taken into consideration. Lincoln and Guba (1989)
delves deeper into the criterions for qualitative research and presents a construct to capture
the concerns of trustworthiness: dependability, credibility, confirmability and transferability.
This research will adhere to Lincoln and Guba’s construct as it aligns with the approach of
this paper.

33
To achieve dependability, the researchers coded the interviews separately and discussed the
coding before coming to a final conclusion on how to code. In effect, this has worked as a
type of external audit for the individual member, carried out by the other members. To further
strengthen the dependability of the paper, the common pitfalls of researcher and participant
error and bias were taken into account. A discussion was held between the researcher to
highlight different factors that could influence the way the data were being interpreted. Other
things within the grasp of the researcher such as conducting the interviews during a suitable
time (i.e. not just before the end of a work day or on lunch time) and in a secluded area, being
well prepared and able to conduct the interviews in a purposeful manner (i.e. no hunger or
fatigue) were taken into account. Credibility is closely linked to dependability. It emphasizes
that the representations of the researchers’ socially constructed realities match what the
participants intended. Data triangulation, member checks which includes letting the
respondents go over the collected data and peer reviews within the group as well as with
individuals outside the group were used for the purpose of achieving credibility (Guba &
Lincoln, 1985; Saunders et al, 2016). To achieve confirmability, the process and findings of
this study will be presented in such a manner so that the conclusions and inferences can be
thought of as a logic end point to the study; the reader should see that the “bottom line” adds
up (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Lastly, transferability is achieved by giving a full description of
the research questions, design, context, findings and interpretations in order to give the reader
full insight in what have been done and how. This will allow the reader to judge the
transferability of the paper by him/herself (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).

3.4.6 Ethical Issues

The various ethical issues that might surface during the research such as harm to participants,
lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy and if deception is involved were taken into
consideration (Bryman & Bell, 2003). The participants of this study were informed of the
purpose, how their information would be used, and gave their consent to use their answers.
Anonymity and confidentiality were offered to all participants to ensure the protection of
individuals and data. Furthermore, the data we collected will be used in aggregate which
further ensures the participants’ protection. As the research is not connected to any
controversial characteristics and the participants did not express any issues, the privacy of the
participants was not considered as a major factor during the interviews. Moreover, issues

34
related to misrepresentation have been carefully considered, such as falsely reporting research
findings, fabrication and alternation of data.

35
4. Empirical Findings
_____________________________________________________________________________________

This chapter will present the empirical findings. Firstly, an overview of the company will be
given, followed by the presentation of the findings on each topic derived from the interviews.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

4.1 Company Description

The participant firm for this study is Swepart Transmission AB. Swepart is one of Sweden’s
leading transmission and gear manufacturers, operating in the niched gear manufacturing
industry. The company was founded in 1945 and has approximately 250 employees in their
two locations, with a turnover which recently passed 500 million Swedish kronor. It has a
profit margin goal of 10%, which is an ambitious goal in the metal industry. It still has some
way to go, since it now reaches a profit margin of about 7.11 % ("SwePart Transmission AB -
Företagsinformation", 2019). The company has two modernly equipped factories in southern
Sweden located 50 kilometers apart. One is located in the region of Småland, in a small town
called Liatorp, and the other manufacturing facility in the region of Skåne, Sibbhult. The
Liatorp location, with its 180 employees, can be seen as the firm headquarters where all the
functions of the firm are located, e.g research and development, IT and finance.

Swepart offers its customers a complete solution; from thought to finished product, meaning
that it is capable of both developing a product as well as producing it. Swepart has a range of
customers that include Husqvarna, Komatsu, Voith, Knorr Bremse, Mack, Atlas Copco. With
Scania, Volvo, and ABB Robotics being their three main customers. The main foreign
markets that Swepart is in includes Brazil, United States, China, and Germany. The company
primarily works with producing gearboxes, precision-grounded gearwheels and other
transmission parts for the heavy vehicle industry - with each product developed being tailored
to the customer’s needs.

4.2 Foreign Market Entry Mode

36
Swepart’s foreign market entry mode is exporting. Though they are stationed in Sweden, their
products can be found in various countries around the world. Swepart began exporting
indirectly, as they sold their products to their customers who then shipped them to their
facilities in foreign markets. Later on, Swepart began exporting more directly, by sending
their products straight to the customers in foreign markets. As one of the interviewees
described their internationalization process:

“We had domestic customers, mainly Volvo and Scania, and naturally, they asked if, instead
of sending the gears to Gothenburg, we could simply send them directly to their factories in
Brazil. It started with simply changing the address on the packages, but as their factories,
who are companies in their own right, became more autonomous, they started placing their
own orders.”

Even though customers have asked Swepart to expand abroad, in the form of setting up
foreign production subsidiaries, they have not done so on the grounds of quality assurance
and cost-effectiveness.

“Now we have expanded our facilities with 5000m2 here in Liatorp. We could have built
5000m2 in Russia, next to Volvo, but to what end? [...] It’s a form of quality assurance”

Though Swepart only exports tangible products, it also shares its knowledge, competence and
“know-how” with its customers/partners abroad. Swepart also has international collaborations
with The Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL) at RWTH
Aachen University in Germany for research and development purposes.

4.3 Customers & Customer relationship

Swepart’s customer base is made up from their three biggest customers, Scania, Volvo, and
ABB Robotics. They are not only customers but are also direct competitors and partners. The
customers act as competitors when they decide to manufacture and develop products for their
needs in-house, instead of outsourcing it to Swepart. When customers instead act as partners,
they co-develop products and help each other. Because of this, the bigger customers play an

37
integral role in their process of delivering value. As described by a product engineer in the
process of developing a new product in collaboration with a customer:

“It’s important to help, it is in everyone's interest that it will be good. Especially in the
technical part, there we have a dialogue that is very good”

Swepart’s customer relationships are characterized by a long-term perspective. Most often, in

the beginning of a relationship, they get asked to develop prototypes to see if they are able to
deliver according to the customers’ specifications. This will most often set the stage for an
ongoing relationship where both partners seek to collaborate to improve their products and
relationship in the long-term.

4.4 Product Offering

Swepart’s product offering consists of various subparts such as gears and transmissions
primarily to the heavy vehicle industry. Each product is developed and tailored according to
the customer’s needs. Sometimes existing product designs can be used more than once, but if
that is the case, it generally requires adjustment for the specific purpose of that product. The
R&D department at Swepart is highly regarded. The company not only develops the product
design, but also manufacture it themselves. The purpose of developing the product
themselves is to get the contract to batch produce it in the next stage. Developing the product
gives approximately a 3-year contract, while production could give up to 15 years of
continuous orders.

In order to fulfill requirements and standards set both by the industry and its customers,
Swepart’s products have to maintain high quality. By adding value through the quality of its
products, delivery precision, competence, and human capital, Swepart manages to not only
meet industry requirements, but also exceed them, making them a leader within their field of
expertise. This is illustrated by the quotes below (See Appendix 4 for more quotes):

“[...] we deliver what we say we are going to deliver on time. [...] Good at high precision
gears and low tolerance. Specifically the high quality.”

38
Customers have high demands when it comes to distribution of the products. When delivering
to the United States for example, it is of high importance that everything is delivered on time.
Being able to hold high quality and high reliability is a prerequisite for exporting.

4.5 Resources and Activities

“We do not offer cheap or expensive products, the price is what it is, because of the machines
we have”

As mentioned in the quote above, the machines are among the most important physical assets
Swepart has along with the production facility. However, the most important assets overall
are not physical assets, but rather intangible ones in the form of human capital and
certificates. Swepart follow industry certificates, such as the IATF, which is prerequisite for
the industry. Customers also have their own quality requirements, which are often stricter,
and are followed up by regular customer audits on Swepart. When posed with a question
about whether they would still be able to sell to their international clients without their
industry certificates, Swepart’s key account manager answered:

“No, absolutely not, we would barely be able to sell to small companies in Sweden, since it is
so well recognized.”

The R&D has attributed to Swepart’s overall product quality, which has been a main factor as
to why customers decide to work with Swepart and keep returning to them. When asked to
put the R&D function in perspective, the interviewees responded (See Appendix 4 for more
quotes):

“There are many customer who like that we have an R&D department. [...] Our prototype
department makes us strong. [...] That the customer can come here with a thought and we
solve the rest, it makes us strong”

5. Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________

39
In this chapter, the empirical findings will be analyzed. First, an overview of Swepart’s export
characteristics will be given. Then, the parts relating to the business model will be analyzed,
ending with the business model logic as a whole.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

5.1 Export Characteristics

The data derived from the empirical findings showed that Swepart is international through
their exporting of products to foreign markets. Exporting is one of the most common foreign
market entry modes (Agarwal & Rashamaswani, 1992), and is connected to low resource
commitment and non-equity entry modes (Hollender et al., 2017; Laufs & Schwens, 2014).
The levels of control a company has in foreign markets is defined by Pinho (2007, p.716) as
“the level of authority a firm may exercise over systems, methods and decisions in the foreign
affiliate”. Both Pinho (2007) and Ahsan & Musteen (2011), claim that non-equity entry
modes, such as exporting, which is the case of Swepart, is associated to low levels of control.
That exporting leads to lower levels of control is natural when control is defined as the
authority a firm exercise over different aspects in a foreign affiliate. In contrast, the empirical
findings of this case study showed that exporting as an entry mode instead leads to higher
control, but of the firm’s internal operations. By keeping all operations central and in close
proximity to each other, it becomes easier for Swepart to control and ensure quality
throughout the different stages of their sale process, from product development to
manufacturing and the shipping their products. This adds to the overall control of the value
creation of Swepart. Because of this, it can be argued that exporting leads to high control of
internal operations, as the empirical findings has shown, but little-to-no control in foreign
markets, as proposed by Pinho (2007) and confirmed by the empirical findings.

When looking at the research question of this case study in reverse, that is, how does the
FMEM affect Swepart’s business model, we can conclude that exports allow Swepart to
continue creating value using their current business rationale. This entails that exports do not
change the firm’s operations in any major way, allowing the firm to continue to operate the
same way it always has. Many researchers state the FMEM choice is one of the most
important strategic decision an internationalization firm will make (Laufs & Schwens, 2014;

40
Lai et al., 2012; Mukundhan & Nandakumar, 2016; Ahi et al., 2017), it can therefore be
argued that choosing other entry modes, such as brownfields or joint-ventures, can have
major implications on the firm's value creation as those entry modes will, at a greater length,
affect how the firm operates. For instance, partnering up with another company can shift
various activities towards the new partner, which will change its business model, and when
acquiring a foreign firm, the parent-firm will more likely be faced with adjusting to a
different value creating process to its own.

5.2 Customer Relationship

Swepart have a network of customers stationed all around the globe, with many of them being
Swedish companies that have expanded abroad. Networks are external factors that can
potentially influence the FMEM decision and have a positive impact on a firm’s export
performance through administering innovative behavior and providing market knowledge for
the firm (Babakus, Yavas & Haahti, 2006; Belso-Martínez, 2006). However, there has been
limited evidence in this area of knowledge and needs to be further investigated (Stoian, Rialp
& Dimitratos, 2016). Lo, Chiao & Yu (2016) have indicated that by using local networks or
forming strategic alliances in host countries it can make it easier for the firm to transition into
that foreign market.

To keep the IATF industry-certificate is Swepart’s main priority and is key in maintaining the
high requirements set by customers when it comes to the quality of products and delivery
precision. Though the certificate is of great importance, the empirical findings show that the
customers’ own requirements are even stricter and that their high standards are reason for
Swepart committing their business operations domestically, rather than going abroad.
Additionally, the interviewees state that most high-quality gear manufacturers are located in
Northern Europe, thus explaining Swepart’s reluctance to open a facility abroad, despite the
many requests from its customers. When asked to set up a facility in China to expand their
operations abroad, Swepart declined, stating that their most important value - quality, might
diminish due to various factors such as differences in human capital, culture, and general
quality standards. As described by an interviewee, “They don’t have the Swedish mentality”.
Furthermore, it would take at least 15 years for that facility to generate profit, adding to the
reason why Swepart prefer to abstain from expanding their production facilities abroad.

41
Sharma & Blomstermo (2003) and Johanson & Vahlne (2009) both acknowledge that a firm’s
understanding of the internationalization process is expanded through the knowledge supplied
by inter-organizational networks. The empirical findings have shown that Swepart not only
exports tangible products, but also shares its knowledge and competence with its customers
abroad. The findings show that customers have different roles, through acting as both
competitors and partners. When acting as partners, they work together to develop products
through sharing competence, “know-how”, and product knowledge with one another.
Herrmann et al. (2002) describe the differences in knowledge base between full control
(greenfield investments or cross-border acquisitions) and shared control (licensing or joint
ventures) modes of entry, stating that firms that decide to go for shared modes of entry
already have access to vital information that is supplied by their local partners. Though
exports are not considered to be among the shared control entry modes, in Swepart’s case,
taking their extensive collaboration with their customers into account, their exports exhibit
characteristics of shared control. Thus, arguments could be made for their exports to be
somewhat of shared control through a joint venture approach.

Colombo et al. (2012) and Ripolles Meliá et al. (2010) state that the R&D department of a
firm and its innovation can assist the firm in finding new markets and engage in more
international activities. However, they also claim that SMEs are limited in their internal R&D
base and that they are directed towards high control FMEMs, which is contrasted in the
empirical findings of this case study. Swepart pride themselves on being able to customize
their products exactly to the customer’s demands, which is achievable due to the the R&D
division. The R&D department is highly regarded and is a trait of their overall product quality
and their whole value offering. In the empirical findings, when describing their customer
relationships, an interviewee stated that Swepart and their customers often work together
when developing products. For example, Swepart works with Scania, a major manufacturer
of commercial vehicles, who often have their technicians working with technicians of
Swepart in order to develop and supervise the work in their own interest, ensuring that the
product quality is up to their standards and that they will deliver on time. These
collaborations could be seen as some form of alliance or partnership, but they are instead
embedded in the customer relationships, as no formal agreements concerning alliances or
partnerships exists.

42
5.3 Research & Development Capability

Swepart use their R&D department, often jointly with its customers, to adjust and develop its
products to its customers’ needs. This allows Swepart to adapt its products according to
different markets and can in the long run validate their specific market entry mode, that is
exports. In contrast, Blomstermo et al. (2006) state that higher control modes are used when
the firm want to adapt to foreign markets, suggesting that firms should utilize modes such as
acquisitions or wholly owned subsidiaries over exports when adapting to the market. As
Swepart’s products are pragmatic and more generic by nature, their products are less sensitive
to specific country trends. Moreover, the R&D function of the company, alongside with the
nature of the product, can make the choice of higher control modes (e.g. wholly owned
subsidiaries), less attractive, when it comes to the concern of product adaptation. By having
their own department that can develop and design (new) products, the need for specific entry
modes which facilitates adaptation becomes less necessary. Furthermore, as there are few
other competitors who operate their own R&D function, this strengthens the competitive
advantage that Sweparts has and contributes to the value creation and capture process of the
firm by attracting and retaining customers.

According to the organizational capabilities-perspective, the value of a resource is based on

its contribution to the competitive advantage of the firm (Madhok, 1997). The R&D function
can thus be seen as very valuable to Swepart as it is a major contributor to quality, which is a
major competitive advantage of Swepart. By entering a foreign market, a company needs to
transfer its resources or capabilities to that market in some way. In addition, a company
should do so in a manner which does not erode their competitive advantage (Erramilli,
Agarwal & Dev, 2002; Madhok 1997). As Swepart does not have any wholly owned
subsidiaries or licensing agreements, the transfer of capabilities and resources is done mainly
through their finished products via exports. Congruently with the thoughts of Madhok (1997),
Swepart has opted to maintain a higher control over their capabilities through exports, when
faced with different options of collaborations or setting up operations abroad.

One important factor regarding the characteristics of the capabilities which contributes to the
export entry mode is that Swepart’s capabilities can be thought of as being embedded in the
organization, meaning that they are comprised of matters that are intangible such as
experience, knowledge and routines which comes together in their value creation. This makes

43
them imperfectly imitable (Erramili et al., 2002) and cannot therefore easily be transferred.
As noted from the interviews, Swepart have been approached by other firms wanting to join
them or produce for them, as well as debating themselves whether the firm (Swepart) should
start up a factory abroad. Swepart have come to the conclusion that, if they would expand
abroad, it would erode their competitive advantage because their capabilities will decrease,
meaning that they will not be able to ensure the same quality in production or delivery. For
instance, choosing a licensing or acquisition entry mode for Swepart, when the firm’s
capabilities are embedded, would not enable the value creation of the firm to be intact.

5.4 Value Drivers

Swepart’s business model can be viewed from an activity system perspective as presented by
Amit & Zott (2010). This framework is based on four sources of value creation, later known
as business model design themes; Novelty, Lock-in, Complementarities, and Efficiency
(NICE). Applying Swepart’s business model to this activity system perspective allows us to
analyse its sources of value creation.

Swepart’s business model is mainly complementarities- and efficiency-centered, meaning that

the greatest sources of value stem from these activities. As explained by Amit & Zott (2010),
complementarities exist when the bundling of activities within a single system creates more
value than performing each activity separately. In Swepart’s case, the bundling of activities
refers to Swepart offering not only to manufacture the product for the customer, but also to
develop it. This leads to greater value since Swepart can design the product after their own
machines and standards directly, compared to if the customer would develop the product
themselves, only to have Swepart adjusting the design to fit their prerequisites. This process
means lower costs for the customers, as well as Swepart gaining a bigger part of the total
revenue generated by each customer project.

Efficiency-centered business models aim to enhance efficiency within the organization by

lowering transaction costs (Amit & Zott, 2010). Swepart’s efficiency focus ties into its
complementarities, since designing the product at the same location as it is being produced,
dramatically reduces transaction costs, compared to if the customer were to design it
themselves. This is aligned with Amit & Zott (2011), claiming that the the different value
drivers enhance the effectiveness of the others, which in this case refers to the

44
complementarities enhancing the efficiency value driver. The horizontal integration of the
Sibbhult manufacturing facility is another demonstration of efficiency gains, since the close
location of Sibbhult to Liatorp allows the sharing of functions such as R&D, finance etc., as
well as knowledge exchange and even the possibility of the two factories lending out
personnel to each other when there is a need for it. Keeping all vital functions of the firm
centralized, from product design to manufacturing, lowers transactions costs, and therefore
enhances efficiency, while at the same time helping to ensure that the high-quality standards
are maintained.

When considering Swepart’s value drivers as described above, it can be argued that these
would not be possible if Swepart were to choose an equity entry mode, since a prerequisite
for these value drivers is the pooling of their different functions. The different functions
support each other, and their cooperation is greatly enhanced because of the proximity
between them. The only FMEM that allows Swepart to maintain this symbiosis is exporting.
In contrast, it might be argued that Swepart still can offer product design in Sweden, while
having manufacturing in a foreign country where it might be cheaper, but that would affect
their quality assurance according to Swepart themselves, which, by extension, would affect
their value offering and ultimately, their business model, which is the foundation that they
compete upon.

5.5 Business Model Logic

As described in the literature review, the business model is defined in this paper as: “A
business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures
value” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p.14). Adhering to this definition, Swepart’s business
model concept can be explained as follows: Swepart offers their customers high quality
products at a competitive price. This is their value offering. This high quality is enabled much
thanks to a highly competent and highly regarded R&D function that can assist Swepart’s
customer in their product development, as well as giving input and suggestions for cost
cutting. The product developing process is often done jointly with the R&D function of its
customers through knowledge exchange and support from both sides, as it is in Swepart’s, as
well as the customer’s interest that the product becomes as good as possible. The R&D is not
the only function contributing to the high quality, but competent machine operators, along
with modern machines and facilities, are also contributors to achieving high quality. Having a
45
supreme quality is something that allows Swepart to differentiate themselves in the market,
but also comes with another advantage: without strict rules and routines when manufacturing
their products, Swepart would not be able to keep industry and customer certificates. Without
these certificates, Swepart would, as mentioned in the empirical findings, lose most of their
customers, both international and domestic. To summarize, Swepart’s business concept is
built around the high quality of their products. This quality is supported by key resources and
activities (previously mentioned R&D function, competence, machines and facilities). The
high quality is also what enables Swepart to sell their products to their customers, and what
makes them competitive in their market. This is confirmed further by Swepart themselves as
they describe their business concept as “Swepart Transmission AB shall by means of high
competence and cost efficiency be a leading supplier of transmission products [...]”.
("Company | Swepart", 2019)

6. Conclusion
_____________________________________________________________________________________

In this chapter, a conclusion that summarizes the focal points of analysis will be presented.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

We set out to explore how a firm’s business model influences the foreign market entry mode
choice of said firm. Using a single case study, we have found that the business model of a
niched manufacturing firm does in fact influence the foreign market entry mode.

Swepart have been shipping their products world-wide for a long period of time, more than
20 years, and have established a good understanding of the different foreign markets they
interact with. Still they remain engaged with exports. According to Agarwal & Ramaswani
(1992), multinational experience is considered to be a determinant of the FMEM choice a
firm makes, and firms with experience usually tend to go with investment modes (e.g.
acquisition) over non-investment modes (e.g. exports). This path of internationalization is not
followed by Swepart, who have continually shown a stronger commitment to their specific
entry mode by choosing to expand their own production capability in Sweden rather than

46
building manufacturing plants abroad. The rationale behind this decision is that quality is the
decisive factor. Swepart is, in fact, able to move their production to foreign countries where it
is cheaper to produce. However, according to the empirical data, they will not be able to
deliver the same quality, which is one of their competitive advantages. This is one reason
why Swepart is chooses exporting over other entry modes.

It is evident that quality has a great influence over the FMEM of Swepart. Though quality
itself is not Swepart’s business model, it is enabled through the logic of its business model.
The different parts of the business model, e.g. key activities in the form of R&D, key
resources in the form of high-quality machines and facilities, and customers as partners and
co-developers, all work together to support the high quality of Swepart. In this way,
Swepart’s business model has directly enabled and supported the further commitment to their
current FMEM. However, the business model has not only affected Swepart’s FMEM by
enabling their high-quality product offering, but other aspects of their business model, such
as their value drivers, which are also heavily influential in their choice and commitment to
exporting. As discussed in the analysis, a prerequisite for Swepart’s sources of value creation,
which are according to this paper’s definition a major part of the business model, is the
pooling of their different functions. This pooling is only possible with an exporting mode of
entry, and so, the conclusion can be drawn that as long as Swepart intends to operate the
same business model, with the same value drivers, it is likely to continue its commitment
towards exporting. By having a business model which emphasizes quality, Swepart is being
steered towards entry modes which maintains this competitive advantage. In the case of
Swepart, this results in exports and a strengthened engagement towards this specific entry
mode. In the next chapter, we will discuss other perspectives who are found relevant to this
case study, as well as the implications of the conclusions drawn in this chapter.

47
7. Discussion
_____________________________________________________________________________________

This chapter will discuss insights and contributions to the topic of business models and
FMEM, as well as go over limitations of the paper. Implications and suggestions for further
research will be presented at the end.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

7.1 Insights and contributions

7.1.1 Business model

The original idea of this paper was to use the business model canvas by Osterwalder &
Pigneur (2010) in order to map Swepart’s business model, and then from that draw
conclusions on how their business model had affected the choice of entry mode. However,
when writing the interview guide, and when writing the empirical findings that was derived
from the interviews, it became evident that the business model canvas is not a “one-size-
fitsall” solution. Not all of the nine components of the business model canvas were relevant,
or even applicable to Swepart’s business model, and even less relevant when it came to their
effect on Swepart’s FMEM. Because of this, the activity system of Amit & Zott (2010) was
used as well as the business model canvas. This added value to the paper as it allowed for
analyzing Swepart’s sources of value creation, which was key in explaining the rationale of
their business model. The conclusion that can be drawn here is that a single model or
framework is not enough to fully understand a company’s business model, rather a mixture of
models and frameworks should be used to better understand a firm’s business model.

The findings, together with the analysis clearly show that the different aspects of Swepart’s
business model, such as resources and partners, played a major role in determining their
choice of FMEM. Even though we found evidence supporting the different theories in the
entry mode literature, it is evident that it is not these factors alone that determine the FMEM,
but rather the interactions between them. Therefore, this paper contributes to the entry mode
literature by demonstrating the importance of taking a holistic view that allows for these
interactions to be recognized.

48
In addition, we contribute to the business model literature. Whereas a large variety of models
exist, our study gives some insights in the relevance of different models in this context. We
set out to use the business model canvas, but during the analysis it appeared that it did not
allow us to analyse all the important aspects of Swepart’s business model, hence a mixture of
models was needed.

7.1.2 Control

In our literature review, Blomstermo et al. (2016) describe control to be important in

determining and affecting a firm’s performance and purpose. While levels of control in entry
modes differ, Pinho (2007) and Ahsan & Musteen (2011) link high levels of control to joint
ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries, whereas exporting and licensing are associated with
lower levels of control. Through our findings and analysis, we noticed exporting, being the
main entry mode of Swepart, to have low levels of control when in the foreign market, which
is confirmed by the literature. However, we have derived that Swepart’s export activities
exhibit high levels of control, given through the firm’s internal operations. The desire for
internal control might be influenced by the fact that the firm operates in a niched
manufacturing industry. As their competitive advantage is based on quality, the firm will
therefore strive to maintain this kind of control as the link between control and quality
became evident in our findings. This type of control, internal control, is found lacking in the
existing literature on FMEM, as the modes of entry are solely discussed in terms of control in
the external market. This is of high relevance as our findings showed that internal control
played a major part in determining Swepart’s FMEM. Considering that it played a major role
for Swepart, it is likely that it also can be a determining factor for other, similar companies,
and is therefore worth exploring further.

7.2 Limitations

When analyzing Swepart’s internationalization and their FMEM, the more conventional way
of internationalization has been considered: the downstream route to internationalization.
This route is concerned with the expansion into foreign markets via exports, licensing,
contracts and foreign direct investments (Kuada & Sørensen, 1999). By only having this
perspective, the upstream route of internalization which relates to a firm’s engagement in
49
international transactions or relationships to improve its efficiency and knowledge as well as
managerial and technological capabilities for the purpose of strengthening its competitive
position in the domestic and/or foreign market(s) (Kuada & Sørensen, 1999), is left
unexplored. By also incorporating the upstream route, more factors could have been included
into the analysis which could have yielded more differentiated findings. Moreover, as the
home market for gears is relatively small, it forces firms to expand into foreign markets to
reach growth targets. This could have influenced the findings, making them less applicable to
firms in other, larger markets. Furthermore, the niched characteristics of the gear and
transmission market could also have influenced the findings. Choosing a firm operating in a
niche market for this case study had the advantage of allowing us to more easily get a
complete understanding of the competitors, the partners and the logic of the market,
compared to if we would have chosen a firm operating in a bigger market, as that
environment would be more complex and harder to get an overview of. However, if we
would have instead chosen a firm in a wider market, our results would be applicable to a
greater number of firms, but the findings might be less accurate and complete.

The number of respondents can also be argued as few, for a medium sized company. Efforts
could have been made to interview more specific country/region managers to get more
indepth insights into the operations. However, the participants that were chosen were selected
based on their key positions within the firm and because they know the firm well. The fact
that the participants all came from different departments of the firm was a consciously made
choice to achieve data triangulation.

By choosing a single case study, our aim was to get a deeper understanding of how this
particular firm operated in order to correctly assess its business model and how it affected its
FMEM. By prioritizing deeper understanding of a single firm, the results of this case study
become relevant to a much narrower audience. If we instead would have chosen a multiple
case study, the results of this paper would have become more generalizable but provided a
less accurate answer to our research question.

7.3 Implications and suggestions for further research

7.3.1 Managerial implications

50
The findings of this study show that the business model is of high relevance when it comes to
the FMEM of a firm. When a firm is faced with the choice of expanding into a foreign
market, it becomes beneficial for the firm to take their business model into consideration
(McQuillan & Sharkey Scott, 2015). By doing this, it enables the firm to include all the
internal factors which serve as the basis for their competitive advantage (Amit & Zott, 2010)
and choose the FMEM which maintains or even strengthens them. Furthermore, the findings
of this case study show that it might also prove useful for firms who are already committed to
a specific FMEM to examine it and evaluate how well it is aligned with the business model.
This could provide a new perspective for the firm to evaluate their current international
strategy and build up a more cohesive value creation.

7.3.2 Suggestions for further research

As this paper has dealt with the business model in relation to FMEM, multiple new research
directions have opened up. Firstly, a new direction for the business model research would be
to take a business model approach to the upstream route to internationalization as it is not
explored in this paper. Looking at how the business model influences the internationalization
of a firm’s value chain could give further insights into how firms expand into foreign
markets. Secondly, as this paper is focused on a firm in a relatively small home market, a
future research direction is to do the same research as this paper, but in a different home
country context. By looking at a firm with a relatively large home market, other valuable
insights might be reached which can further contribute to the academic field of business
models and internationalization. Thirdly, looking at another type of market, a less niched
market, could yield insights which could further extend the findings of this research paper.
Lastly, a new direction for business model research relates to control. This study found that
control was an important factor when considering different foreign market entry modes.
Therefore, a new direction for research could be to investigate how the internal control
affects the foreign market entry mode. Moreover, what level of internal control the different
entry modes give could also be a valid subject to examine.
8. Reference List

Abraham, S. (2013). Will business model innovation replace strategic analysis?. Strategy &
Leadership, 41(2), 31-38. doi: 10.1108/10878571311318222

Agarwal, S., & Ramaswami, S. (1992). Choice of Foreign Market Entry Mode: Impact of

51
Ownership, Location and Internalization Factors. Journal Of International Business Studies,
23(1), 1-27. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490257

Ahi, A., Baronchelli, G., Kuivalainen, O., & Piantoni, M. (2017). International Market Entry:
How Do Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Make Decisions?. Journal Of International
Marketing, 25(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1509/jim.15.0130

Ahsan, M., & Musteen, M. (2011). Multinational enterprises' Entry Mode Strategies and
Uncertainty: A Review and Extension. International Journal Of Management Reviews, 13(4),
376-392. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00296.x

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal,
22(6-7), 493-520. doi: 10.1002/smj.187

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2007). Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial
Firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181-199. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0232

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long
Range Planning, 43(2-3), 216-226. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004

Amit, R., & Zott, C. & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and
Future Research. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1674384

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating Value Through Business Model Innovation. MIT Sloan
Management Review.

Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Haahti, A. (2006). Perceived Uncertainty, Networking and Export
Performance: A Study of Nordic SMEs. European Business Review, 18(1), 4-13. doi:
10.1108/09555340610639815

Bellman, R., Clark, C., Malcolm, D., Craft, C., & Ricciardi, F. (1957). On the Construction of
a Multi-Stage, Multi-Person Business Game. Operations Research, 5(4), 469-503. doi:
10.1287/opre.5.4.469

Belso-Martínez, J. (2006). Do industrial districts influence export performance and export

intensity? Evidence for Spanish SMEs' internationalization process. European Planning
Studies, 14(6), 791-810. doi: 10.1080/09654310500496115

Benito, G., Petersen, B., & Welch, L. (2011). Mode Combinations and International
Operations. Management International Review, 51(6), 803-820. doi: 10.1007/s11575-
0110101-4

Blomstermo, A., Deo Sharma, D., & Sallis, J. (2006). Choice of foreign market entry mode in
service firms. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 211-229. doi:
10.1108/02651330610660092

52
Brouthers, K., & Hennart, J. (2007). Boundaries of the Firm: Insights From International
Entry Mode Research. Journal Of Management, 33(3), 395-425. doi:
10.1177/0149206307300817

Bruneel, J., & De Cock, R. (2016). Entry Mode Research and SMEs: A Review and Future
Research Agenda. Journal Of Small Business Management, 54, 135-167. doi:
10.1111/jsbm.12291

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carlos Pinho, J. (2007). The impact of ownership. International Marketing Review, 24(6),
715-734. doi: 10.1108/02651330710832676

Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range
Planning, 43(2-3), 354-363. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010

Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2014). Business research (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan Higher
Education.

Colombo, M., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2012). Introduction:
Small Business and Networked Innovation: Organizational and Managerial Challenges.
Journal Of Small Business Management, 50(2), 181-190. doi:
10.1111/j.1540627x.2012.00349.x

Company | Swepart. (2019). Retrieved from http://www.swepart.com/company/

Coviello, N., & Munro, H. (1995). Growing the Entrepreneurial Firm: Networking for
International Market Development. European Journal Of Marketing, 29(7), 49-61. doi:
10.1108/03090569510095008

Datta, D., Hermann, P., & Rasheed, A. (2002). Choice of foreign market entry modes:
Critical review and future directions. Managing Transnational Firms: Resources, Market
Entry And Strategic Alliances, 85-153. doi: 10.1016/s0747-7929(02)14034-0

D’Souza, A., J.C. Wortmann, G. Huitema, H. Velthuijsen (2015) A business model design
framework for viability; a business ecosystem approach, Journal of Business Models, Vol. 3,
No. 2 pp. 1-29

Ekeledo, I., & Sivakumar, K. (2004). International market entry mode strategies of
manufacturing firms and service firms. International Marketing Review, 21(1), 68-101. doi:
10.1108/02651330410522943

Erramilli, M. (1992). Influence of some external and internal environmental factors on

foreign market entry mode choice in service firms. Journal Of Business Research, 25(4),
263276. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(92)90024-6

Erramilli, M., Agarwal, S., & Dev, C. (2002). Choice Between Non-Equity Entry Modes: An

53
Organizational Capability Perspective. Journal Of International Business Studies, 33(2),
223242. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491014

Erramilli, M., & Rao, C. (1993). Service Firms' International Entry-Mode Choice: A
Modified Transaction-Cost Analysis Approach. Journal Of Marketing, 57(3), 19. doi:
10.2307/1251852

Fielt, E. 2014, ‘Conceptualising Business Models: Definitions, Frameworks and

Classifications’, Journal of Business Models, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 85-105.

Gatignon, H., & Anderson, E. (1988). The Multinational Corporation's Degree of Control
over Foreign Subsidiaries: An Empirical Test of a Transaction Cost Explanation. The Journal
Of Law, Economics, And Organization. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036954

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park ; London ;
New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Hennart, J. (2014). The Accidental Internationalists: A Theory of Born Globals.

Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice, 38(1), 117-135. doi: 10.1111/etap.12076

Herrmann, P., & Datta, D. (2002). CEO Successor Characteristics and the Choice of Foreign
Market Entry Mode: An Empirical Study. Journal Of International Business Studies, 33(3),
551-569. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491031

Hollender, L., Zapkau, F., & Schwens, C. (2017). SME foreign market entry mode choice and
foreign venture performance: The moderating effect of international experience and product
adaptation. International Business Review, 26(2), 250-263. doi:
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.07.003

Hsu, J. (2016). Firm Productivity and Mode of Foreign Expansion: Evidence from Taiwanese
Manufacturing Firms. Global Economic Review, 45(4), 405-415. doi:
10.1080/1226508x.2016.1218293

Hussain, D., Sreckovic, M., & Windsperger, J. (2017). An organizational capability

perspective on multi-unit franchising. Small Business Economics, 50(4), 717-727. doi:
10.1007/s11187-017-9891-5

Javalgi, R., Deligonul, S., Ghosh, A., Lambert, D., & Cavusgil, S. (2010). Foreign market
entry mode behavior as a gateway to further entries: The NAFTA experience. International
Business Review, 19(3), 209-222. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.12.001

Jaworek, M., & Kuzel, M. (2015). Transnational Corporations in the World Economy:
Formation, Development and Present Position. Copernican Journal Of Finance &
Accounting, 4(1), 55. doi: 10.12775/cjfa.2015.004

54
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (2006). Commitment and opportunity development in the
internationalization process: A note on the Uppsala internationalization process model.
Management International Review, 46(2), 165-178. doi: 10.1007/s11575-006-0043-4

Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design
more sustainable business models. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 135, 1474-1486. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067

Kuada, J., & Sørensen, O. (1999). Upstream and Downstream Processes of

Internationalisation: Some Ghanaian Evidence. Journal Of Euromarketing, 7(4), 7-41. doi:
10.1300/j037v07n04_02

Lai, J., Chen, L., & Chang, S. (2012). The board mechanism and entry mode choice. Journal
Of International Management, 18(4), 379-392. doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2012.08.006

Laufs, K., & Schwens, C. (2014). Foreign market entry mode choice of small and
mediumsized enterprises: A systematic review and future research agenda. International
Business Review, 23(6), 1109-1126. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.03.006

Lo, F., Chiao, Y., & Yu, C. (2016). Network and Institutional Effects on SMEs’ Entry
Strategies. Management International Review, 56(4), 531-563. doi: 10.1007/s11575-
0160289-4

MADHOK, A. (1997). COST, VALUE AND FOREIGN MARKET ENTRY MODE: THE
TRANSACTION AND THE FIRM. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 39-61. doi:
10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199701)18:1<39::aid-smj841>3.3.co;2-a

Marinescu, N. (2016). Greenfields and acquisitions: A comparative analysis. Bulletin of the

Transilvania University of Brasov. Economic Sciences.Series V, 9(1), 295-300.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (Cal.)
[etc.]: SAGE.

McQuillan, D., & Sharkey Scott, P. (2015). Models of Internationalization: A Business

Model Approach to Professional Service Firm Internationalization. Advances In Strategic
Management, 309-345. doi: 10.1108/s0742-332220150000033008

Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Swoboda, B. (2010). Decades of research on market
entry modes: What do we really know about external antecedents of entry mode choice?.
Journal Of International Management, 16(1), 60-77. doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2009.09.002
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur's business model: toward
a unified perspective. Journal Of Business Research, 58(6), 726-735. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.001

Mukundhan, K., & Nandakumar, M. (2015). Stakeholder Influences on the Choice and

55
Performance of FDI-based Market Entry Modes. International Studies Of Management &
Organization, 46(1), 63-74. doi: 10.1080/00208825.2015.1007017

Musteen, M., Datta, D., & Herrmann, P. (2008). Ownership structure and CEO
compensation: Implications for the choice of foreign market entry modes. Journal Of
International Business Studies, 40(2), 321-338. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2008.63

Naldi, L. (2008). Growth through Internationalization: a Knowledge Perspective on SMEs

(Ph.D). Jönköping International Business School

Nydam Wulff, J. (2016). A systematic assessment of empirical research on foreign entry

mode. European Journal Of Marketing, 50(5/6), 942-972. doi: 10.1108/ejm-02-2014-0126

Ojala, A., & Tyrväinen, P. (2007). Business models and market entry mode choice of small
software firms. Journal Of International Entrepreneurship, 4(2-3), 69-81. doi:
10.1007/s10843-006-0001-z

Osterwalder, A. (2004). The Business Model Ontology: A proposition in a design science

approach. University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. (2005). Clarifying Business Models: Origins,
Present, and Future of the Concept. Communications Of The Association For Information
Systems, 16. doi: 10.17705/1cais.01601

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model Generation: a Handbook for Visionaries,
Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons.

Pergelova, A., Angulo-Ruiz, F., & Yordanova, D. (2018). Gender and international entry
mode. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 36(6), 662-685.
doi: 10.1177/0266242618763012

Petersen, B., & Welch, L. (2002). Foreign operation mode combinations and
internationalization. Journal Of Business Research, 55(2), 157-162. doi:
10.1016/s01482963(00)00151-x

Puthusserry, P., Khan, Z., & Rodgers, P. (2018). International new ventures market expansion
through collaborative entry modes. International Marketing Review, 35(6), 890913. doi:
10.1108/imr-01-2017-0001

Raff, H., Ryan, M., & Stähler, F. (2012). Firm Productivity and the Foreign-Market Entry
Decision. Journal Of Economics & Management Strategy, 21(3), 849-871. doi:
10.1111/j.1530-9134.2012.00346.x

Reddy, K. (2014). Extant reviews on entry-mode/internationalization, mergers & acquisitions,

and diversification: Understanding theories and establishing interdisciplinary research.
Pacific Science Review, 16(4), 250-274. doi: 10.1016/j.pscr.2015.04.003

56
Ripolles Meliá, M., Blesa Pérez, A., & Roig Dobón, S. (2010). The influence of innovation
orientation on the internationalisation of SMEs in the service sector. The Service Industries
Journal, 30(5), 777-791. doi: 10.1080/02642060802342679

Root, F. (1987). Entry strategies for international markets. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Books.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students.
Harlow: Pearson.

Schellenberg, M., Harker, M., & Jafari, A. (2017). International market entry mode – a
systematic literature review. Journal Of Strategic Marketing, 26(7), 601-627. doi:
10.1080/0965254x.2017.1339114

Schiavi, G., & Behr, A. (2018). Emerging technologies and new business models: a review on
disruptive business models. Innovation & Management Review, 15(4), 338-355. doi:
10.1108/inmr-03-2018-0013

Sharma, D., & Blomstermo, A. (2003). The internationalization process of Born Globals: a
network view. International Business Review, 12(6), 739-753. doi:
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2003.05.002

Sort, J., & Nielsen, C. (2018). Using the business model canvas to improve investment
processes. Journal Of Research In Marketing And Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 10-33. doi:
10.1108/jrme-11-2016-0048

Stoian, M., Rialp, J., & Dimitratos, P. (2016). SME Networks and International Performance:
Unveiling the Significance of Foreign Market Entry Mode. Journal Of Small Business
Management, 55(1), 128-148. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12241

Sungyuan, T., & Ussahawanitichakit, P. (2015). Dynamic organizational capability and firm
success: an empirical investigation of cosmetic businesses in Thailand. The Business And
Management Review, 7(1), 53-66.

Surdu, I., & Mellahi, K. (2016). Theoretical foundations of equity based foreign market entry
decisions: A review of the literature and recommendations for future research. International
Business Review, 25(5), 1169-1184. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.03.001

SwePart Transmission AB - Företagsinformation. (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.allabolag.se/5560928508/swepart-transmission-ab

Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J.H., Parvinen, P., Kallunki J.P. (2005) "Managerial cognition, action
and the business model of the firm", Management Decision, Vol. 43 Issue: 6, pp.789809,
https:// doi.org/10.1108/00251740510603565

Timmers, P. (1998). Business Models for Electronic Markets. Electronic Markets, 8(2), 3-8.
doi: 10.1080/10196789800000016

57
Tomiura, E. (2007). Foreign outsourcing, exporting, and FDI: A productivity comparison at
the firm level. Journal Of International Economics, 72(1), 113-127. doi:
10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.11.003

Valiyan, H., Jahromi, A., & Boudlayee, H. (2016). The relationship between the central
capabilities with the organization success (case study: standardization organization of
Golestan province). Problems And Perspectives In Management, 14(3), 422-428. doi:
10.21511/ppm.14(3-si).2016.17

What is an SME? - Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs - European

Commission. (2019). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-
friendlyenvironment/sme-definition_en

Winter, S., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as Strategy. Organization Science, 12(6),
730-743. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.6.730.10084

WZL der RWTH Aachen, R. (2019). WZL Internetseiten - Gear Department WZL Gear
Research Circle. Retrieved from https://www.wzl.rwth-
aachen.de/cms/www_content/en/a703c6927f962ca5c1256eae003d442b.htm?fbclid=IwAR35
x16-oF3NzoIy8Qr_81vRnsIv7667DGnUZ_o7LgqzNcFUespKaOIiijo

Yin, R. (2014). Case study research (5th ed.). London: Sage Publication.

Zhou, L., Wu, W., & Luo, X. (2007). Internationalization and the performance of born-global
SMEs: the mediating role of social networks. Journal Of International Business Studies,
38(4), 673-690. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400282

58
Appendix

Appendix 1.
Morris et al. (2005) Framework

Appendix 2.
Business Model Canvas

59
Appendix 3.

Interview Guidelines

Our interview will be conducted with at least 4 representatives from the Company which will
be able to answer questions concerning the different components to their business model
(components according to BMC), and FMEM.

We will pose different kinds of questions, open and closed. We will begin with more open
ended questions and then continue with probing questions to get more detailed information.
Closed questions will be posed when the interviewee strive to far from our intended/original
question and probing questions will then be posed to extract more information. The questions
are thus intended to guide the collection and make it possible for us to deepen our
understanding of the prevailing conditions of their business. As Swedish is the native
language for the interviewees, the interviews will be conducted in Swedish because we
believe it will come as most natural for the interviewees and will thus allow for a richer
information exchange.

We will begin every interview session by informing them of our purpose and ask them if they
are doing this voluntarily. Anonymity will be offered to the company and the interviewees if
they wish it. We will also inform that we will have an objective viewpoint on the matters that
the interviewee brings up and will not be condemning any personal opinions. Furthermore, a
confidentiality agreement will be presented to the interviewee to make sure that we, as
researchers, will not pass on any information that we collect from the interviewee to a third
party, without his/her written agreement.

After the interviews, when we have transcribed the information, we will send a copy back to
the interviewees and give them an opportunity to go over what we have collected to make
changes if they feel that something is wrongly expressed or that something needs to be taken
out from the content.

Introduction Questions

Q: Hur länge har du jobbat i företaget?

How long have you worked for this company?

Q: Vad har du gjort under tiden du jobbat där?

What have been your positions at this company throughout the years you have worked here?

Q: Vad är din roll i företaget idag?

What is your role in the company today?

Q: Beskriv affärsverksamheten i stora drag.

Describe, in general, the business operations of the company.

60
Q: Kan du berätta på vilket sätt företaget är internationellt.
Describe in which way you think that the company is international.

Q: Kan du beskriva företagets internationaliseringsprocess? (Motivation, drivande

faktorer, FMEM)
Can you describe the company’s internationalization process? (Motivation, driving factors,
FMEM)

Q: Vilka delar av er affärsmodell har påverkat/driver mest ert val av FMEM? What
parts of your business model has affected your choice of FMEM?

Q: Beskriv er strategi kring FMEM.

Describe your FMEM strategy.

Q: Vad är er plan för att växa/expandera inom nuvarande form? What

are you plans for expanding your operations?

Q: Hur resonerar ni kring samgrupperingen av era funktioner? (Hur har detta

påverkat er internationalisering?)
What is the reasoning behind the pooling of your different functions? (How has this affected
your internationalization?)

Attention: If the respondent states a specific mode of internationalization, this mode will
affect the following questions.
In the following questions, which concerns internationalization or Foreign Market Entry
Mode (FMEM), the FMEM which were revealed in the introductory questions will be
referred to when we pose questions containing the words ‘internationalization’, or ‘FMEM’
etc.

Customers

Q: Kan du beskriva era kunder? (d.v.s hur ser kundkaraktärerna ut, nätverk etc.) Vilka
är era största kunder? Kan du berätta lite om era internationella kunder? Hur skiljer
sig de åt?
Can you describe Sweparts customers. (E.g. What are the characteristics of your customers?
Networks...etc.) Can you tell us about your biggest customers and your international
customers? How do they differentiate?

Q: Hur ser ert kundsegment ut?

What does your customer segment look like?

Q: Kan du berätta lite om ert värdeerbjudande? Har ni samma värdeerbjudande till

alla kunder?

61
Can you describe Sweparts value proposition? Do you have the same value proposition to all
customers?

Q: Hur har era kunder påverkat er och er internationalisering? (Relationer,

kommunikation, kundens marknad, etc?)
Can you tell us about how the customers have affected the firm? How have they affected
Swepart’s internationalization? (Relationship, communication, customer’s market?)

Q: Hur påverkar era största kunder er affärsverksamhet? Hur påverkar dem er

internationalisering?
Can you tell us about how has your biggest customers affected your business operations?
How do they affect your internationalization?

Q: Kan du berätta om hur era kundrelationer ser ut? (Anpassar ni er mycket efter
kunder, är det återkommande kunder, skiljer sig relationerna mellan internationella
och svenska kunder?) Hur har det påverkat er FMEM?
Can you tell us about Swepart’s customer relationships and how they look like? (Do you
adjust a lot to your customers, are they recurring customers? Do the relationship between the
Swedish and the international customers differ?) And how has this affected your FMEM?

Q: Vad gör ni för att hålla kvar era kunder?

Can you tell us why customers keep on conducting business with Swepart and what Swepart
do in order to retain customers?

Q: Beskriv hur ni säljer/leverar era produkter till kunden. Har det drivit er mot en
specifik väg mot internationalisering?
Can you describe how you sell and deliver your products. How has it affected the company,
related to internationalization?

Product offering

Q: Kan du berätta om hur Swepart skapar värde för kunden? Hur skapar ni värde
genom ert FMEM?
Can you tell us about how Swepart creates value for their customers? How do Swepart create
value through the FMEM?

Q: Var placerar ni er i marknaden? (D.v.s, är ni en lågprisaktör, är ni bäst, erbjuder ni

bäst service/underhåll). Hur har det påverkat er internationalisering?
Where are you placed in the market? (E.g. Are you the cheapest?, Are you the best? Do you
provide the best service?) How has this affected your internationalization?

Q: Vilka krav ställer era kunder på er? Har dessa krav påverkat er internationalisering
(t.ex. behöva upprätta en lagerlokal i något land etc.?)
What demands does your customers have? Have these demands affected your
internationalisation? (E.g. by having started a warehouse somewhere?

62
Q: Hur har erat värdeerbjudande påverkat er internationalisering?
Can you tell us about Swepart’s value offering and your internationalization? How has your
value offering affected your internationalization?

Value Chain

Q: Kan du berätta lite om företagets tillgångar? (Fysiska, humankapital, intellektuella)

Can you talk a little about the company resources/assets?

Q: Vilka tillgångar/resurser har varit viktigast för er FMEM? Kan du säga lite om hur
era tillgångar har påverkat er FMEM?
Which assets/resources have been the most important in regard to your FMEM? Can you tell
us how they have affected your FMEM?

Q: Vilka kompetenser är avgörande för att ni ska kunna leverera ert värdeerbjudande?
Vilka har bidragit mest till er FMEM?
What competencies are important for Swepart to deliver their value offerings? Can you tell us
about the competences and put them in relation to your FMEM?

Q: Vilka är de aktiviteter gör ni i företaget som krävs för att kunna operera? Har dessa
påverkat er FMEM?
What are the activities you do in order to operate?

Q: Vilka är era viktigaste partners/leverantörer? Hur har de påverkat er FMEM?

Who are your most important partners/suppliers? How have they affected your FMEM?

Revenue/Cost

Q: Vilka är era huvudsakliga inkomstkällor? (D.v.s design, produktutveckling,

produktion etc.)
What are the company’s main sources of income? (E.g. design, product development,
production)

Q: Kan du beskriva er inkomstmodell?

Can you describe your revenue model?

Q: Kan du berätta lite om er prissättning av era produkter, och kopplat till det, hur har
det påverkat er FMEM?
How do you price your services/products? How has it affected your FMEM?

Q: Har någon av dessa frågor påverkat er FMEM?

Has any of these two questions affected your FMEM?

63
Q: Vilka områden kostar mest pengar? Kan du säga nått om era kostnader och er
internationalisering? (Vilka resurser kostar mest, vilka aktiviteter kostar mest) Which
sections of the company cost the most money to operate? Can you tell us something about
the costs and your internationalization? (Which resources cost the most? Which activities
cost the most?)

Q: Kan du berätta lite om hur ni tänkte angående kostnader och ert val av FMEM?
Påverkade det vilket FMEM?
Can you tell us about the costs and the FMEM you have? Was cost an important factor?

Appendix 4.

Quotes from interviews:

“We have the experience, we have the knowledge, we deliver good products”

“When delivering products to Mack in the USA, we can’t tell them we will be one week late.
[...] We deliver power take-offs to them and have not missed a single delivery since 2004.”

“It has absolutely contributed. We’ve been involved with the product development of 60% of
our total sales to Volvo.”

“We are quite unique by having a R&D department.”

“If they [the customers] want to test an idea, yes, then they will ask our R&D department”

“We are doing a project directly towards the USA and I believe that with Trump that they
want to keep everything in USA. They were doing that for quite a long time before they
contacted our R&D department. The production still ended up in Liatorp”

64