Uncategorized

Download e-book Das Profit-Center-Konzept (German Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Das Profit-Center-Konzept (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Das Profit-Center-Konzept (German Edition) book. Happy reading Das Profit-Center-Konzept (German Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Das Profit-Center-Konzept (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Das Profit-Center-Konzept (German Edition) Pocket Guide.

Sail Insight is therefore entitled to use all contents regardless of the type of use in the context of the offer of the Sail Insight platform, as well as in the context of any other activity of Sail Insight or a company affiliated with Sail Insight. This also includes the right of modification and processing, provided that legitimate interests of the user are not affected. In this context, the user waives all intellectual property rights to the extent permitted by law. In the case of the use of created contents outside the Sail Insight products, Sail Insight will, as far as possible, draw attention to the fact that the content comes from the user.

In this case, the user will be informed and, if applicable, prosecuted for any violation of these GTC in accordance with Section Registration: In order to use the full spectrum of the Sail Insight App, a one-time registration is required see section 4, below. Sail Insight is not responsible for your actions. All contents of the Sail Insight products, regardless of whether they were provided by Sail Insight itself, partners or users, do not represent an addition or replacement to the information of a doctor or pharmacist.

By agreeing to these Terms, you acknowledge that you are solely responsible for your health as a user. The user accepts these terms and conditions as well as all other agreements, to which they may refer, either by i their use, if no registration is necessary, or ii registration, if a profile is necessary. These General Terms and Conditions shall apply until revoked in the currently valid version dated 29 March These GTC apply to all access points, including sub domains or mobile applications for Sail Insight products. You can find further information in our privacy policy.

The mobile apps are only available to smartphone owners. Only the basic function is available free of charge on the mobile apps.

The user is offered three different registration options: by means of a registration form on the platform by means of one of the apps: for registration, the user must enter the data in the registration form, e. Registration is only possible with the civil name, i. This data can be subsequently extended or reduced by the user in his own profile on the platform. By registering as a Premium Member, you agree to be at least 16 years of age and to be entitled under applicable law to enter into contracts. If the above information does not apply, Sail Insight is not bound by the Premium Terms.

Each user may only register once with Sail Insight and confirms with his registration that he has not yet had a user account with Sail Insight and has not deleted an activated user account before. In this case the transmitted data will be deleted immediately. If the user provides false, incorrect, outdated or incomplete information, or if Sail Insight has reasonable grounds to believe that information is false, incorrect, out of date or incomplete, Sail Insight has the right to block or delete the user account with immediate effect and without prior notice and to prohibit the current and future use of the Premium Service or any part thereof without being obliged to reimburse the registered user.

Sail Insight reserves the right to contact you at any time to verify the registration data. Every user has to convince himself of the identity of another user before he enters into any kind of interaction with him, e. The German organisational model, with TIB as publications agency and with long-term data archives which were under contract with TIB and operated as publication agents, needed to be transferable to other countries. Figure 4: International organisational structure of publication agencies and publication agents which finally led to DataCite.

The service gained 17 new partners from different disciplines, including data centres from outside of Germany. Between and the work of the project was presented at various events in Germany and internationally. Further data centers outside of Germany expressed interest in assigning DOI names to their data sets, and technical libraries from other countries became interested in offering DOI registration as part of their service. In February at a workshop on data citation jointly organised by the International Council of Scientific and Technical Information ICSTI and CODATA in Paris, the six libraries signed a Memorandum of Understanding to "establish a not-for-profit agency that enables organisation to register research datasets and assign persistent identifiers to them.

The scope was then no longer a European one but rather a global one. An annual event was introduced as an important gathering of members and stakeholders to propagate data citation. In , the consortium consists of 30 members in 16 countries. This emphasizes the need for local representatives to work together with a globally organized framework such as DataCite.

These institutes are working mostly with discipline-specific datacenters within the scope of their scientific area. The number of DOI names registered by DataCite, in cooperation with data centers from all over the world, has increased to over 4 million. In the time between and , the technical infrastructure for the registration of DOI names, along with several additional services, was established and expanded.

Furthermore, DataCite offers a detailed statistic portal where stats and numbers of registered and resolved DOI names are displayed. In co-operation with CrossRef, a content negotiation service was established. It provides information about research data from various research data repositories. In August Thomson Reuters and DataCite announced an official collaboration to ensure that all high quality research data from repositories worldwide that work with DataCite will be harvested by the Data Citation Index.

Michael Lautenschlager as the Speaker; Dr. Gerhard Schneider University of Freibug ; Dr. Uwe Ulbrich University of Cologne. Brase, U. Schindler and M. Farquhar, J. Brase, A. Gastl, H. Gruttemeier, M. Heijne, A.

NEWSLETTER

Heller, A. Piguet, J. Rombouts, M. Sandfaer, I. Sens : Approach for a joint global registration agency for research data. Term Paper at Potsdam University Lautenschlager and J. Lautenschlager, C. Kauhs, M. Reinke, G. Schneider, I. Sens, U. No monthly fees are charged in the one-way type.

These differences in fee structure are another indicator of the differential usage scenarios of one-way carsharing compared to the roundtrip types. Turning to the number of cars per capita, the results are rather different. The ratios, though, seem to suggest that cooperatives have a higher density of cars in the cities they operate in compared to other operators. This can be understood as a sign of inefficiency, which can be explained by the lack of a profit motive.

By far the lowest rate of cars per people in the operating area is observed for Type 4 but the low rate has to be interpreted with care since the number of cars shared through a P2P platform was divided by the total German population as cars are offered throughout the whole of Germany. The interesting conclusion that can be drawn from the highly significant differences in terms of fleet size and from the insignificant differences in terms of number of cars per capita, is that different business models are present in cities of different size, while being equally viable in terms of coverage in the cities they operate in.

Cooperatives occupy the niche of small towns that larger operators avoid due to a lack of scale economies and profit opportunities. B2C roundtrip operators typically serve in one or more medium-sized cities with a sizeable fleet and a more professional and impersonal business model. B2C one-way operators focus on the largest cities where density of usage is high enough to warrant the one-way concept such that coverage around the city remains secured. Hence, supply occurs everywhere where car owners live and, thus, is viable both in any urban and rural environment.

In line with the theory of path dependence, we can observe that incumbents from related industries use some of their specific resources and competences when choosing a business model type for the carsharing market. For example, the national railway leverages its national network to set up carsharing in many towns and cities through initially stationing shared cars at the railway stations using the B2C roundtrip model. They further rely on their classic customer groups by focusing advertising for carsharing as part of an integrated multi-modal mobility solution. Car manufacturers and car rental organizations on the other hand build on their existing competences in producing and management of large car fleets, respectively, which explains why they choose for a fast and large-scale roll-out of cars made possible by the one-way business model.

Instead, we observe solely startups in the P2P segment. They were able to enter despite a lack of financial resources by facilitating private car owners to offer their own cars as the key resources using a two-sided P2P platform model. Relation between fleet size and firm age for the different business model types. More generally, the continuous entry of cooperatives and B2C roundtrip organizations throughout the whole period likely reflects the low barriers to enter with these business models, in contrast to high barriers to enter with a B2C one-way and P2P business model.

Software that is shared between providers Schwarz et al.

Navigation menu

Using a new comprehensive database on all German carsharing providers in , we have been able to analyze four carsharing business model types in terms of their characteristics and success. The key results hold that fleet size is significantly different across business models, ranging from a few cars cooperatives in small towns to a few hundred B2C roundtrip in larger cities to over a thousand B2C one-way in largest cities up to multiple thousands P2P across the country.

By contrast, when analyzing for each operator the number of cars per capita in the city they operate in, we do not find significant differences across business models. The latter result indicates that each business model is viable, but in different types of urban environments. The more general conclusion that can be drawn from the results thus holds that business models will continue to co-exist for a while. Since the business models each occupy different city niches that only partially overlap, the viability of operators in each of the four business models seems secured, at the least in the short-term.

Given the advantages of all carsharing business model types in different urban environments, one cannot expect a convergence towards one dominant business model in the short run , as predicted by the standard model of industry evolution based on network externalities associated with a dominant design.

As we have shown, network externalities can explain why older firms within each business model type have grown larger than their competitors adopting the same business models, indicating a first mover advantage inside of each business model type. However, at the level of the industry as a whole, first mover advantages are absent as the industry is geographically segmented along the four business model types with cooperatives dominating small towns, B2C roundtrip the larger cities, B2C one-way the largest cities, and P2P cars being spread out over the whole country.

Another interesting observation are spillover effects that occur through the popularity and attention around the large one-way and P2P systems to the older carsharing types of cooperatives and B2C roundtrip carsharing, as indicated by a recent rise of entries in the latter categories. This trend of new local carsharing organizations might continue, especially in smaller towns and cities where the large providers do not meet their growth and profitability demand. We conclude that the theory of dominant design is not always applicable in its simple format of exploration phase, formation of a dominant design and a following shake-out.

There are exceptions, especially in the innovative service sector and in new types of markets as the sharing economy. This study thus provides indicative evidence that not all sharing economy sectors are prone to natural monopolies and winner-takes-all dynamics, because network externalities are tied to the local level.

With ongoing technological advances and continuous entry, business models can be expected to evolve Markides and Sosa Possibly, future developments in technologies and business operations may still lead to convergence in the longer run , for a number of reasons. The P2P model is potentially the most disruptive as prices lie well below B2C models. Private car owners have purchased their vehicle for other purposes than rental and thus they usually are not aiming to profit from a car, but to make a little extra income.

Thus, the rental prices are generally lower than the B2C alternatives. P2P carsharing can get a further boost when private lease companies integrate P2P sharing into their business by incentivizing their leasers to rent out their cars at times they do not make use of the car. Finally, once private cars and lease cars have smart locks by default or other viable ways to remove the personal key exchange between car owner and user, the convenience of locating and opening a P2P shared car will approach the current convenience levels of B2C cars.

Hence, the prospects of P2P sharing are advantageous and P2P carsharing can become a serious rival of B2C business models in small and large cities. Cooperatives may nevertheless continue to operate even if P2P grows, if their members remain loyal to the ideological and environmental principles of joint ownership. Ideology may also extend to data ownership in the future, where consumers concerned about privacy may prefer a small, not-for-profit cooperative over a large and commercially oriented P2P platform. Cooperatives and small roundtrip providers will profit further from collaboration, e.

Further in the future, however, P2P may be overtaken again by the one-way model. Once self-driving cars will diffuse, it is unlikely that people will own such cars. Rather, self-driving cars are commercially best exploited in a one-way business model, picking up nearby passengers and dropping them off at the desired location International Transport Forum Also note that one-way, self-driving shared cars would substitute for taxi services and ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft. This scenario does thus not solely affect the future of carsharing, but of the entire car transportation system.

A fusion of the taxi, ride-hailing and carsharing markets will lead to a single market with strong externalities, rendering a dominant design more likely. In such a scenario, the P2P business model in cities may only be limited to those who wish to drive a car themselves. The traditional roundtrip and also the P2P carsharing systems might remain viable longer in rural areas and for long-distance transportation, since an automated shared car system will take longer to become profitable in such market segments. Only if an automated shared car system becomes organized nationally or internationally, it could take over the remaining segments as well.

The analysis of this paper does have some limitations, mostly due to data restrictions. Success could only be measured with non-financial indicators and future research could benefit greatly from more data on the performance of the carsharing providers. It also has to be noted that the numbers of cars do not equal the usage of them and is likely different between the business model types. In particular, usage of P2P cars is considerably lower than for other business models. We further note that only firms with an internet presence were included in the database which possibly leads to the exclusions of smaller, community focused carsharing initiatives without a website.

The carsharing market in Germany is a rather specific case, in particular given its strong cooperative tradition. Specific findings may not be easily generalizable to other countries. The larger trends and geographies identified on the other hand escape institutional or cultural contexts and may well be transferred to other settings and, to some extent, to other sharing economy sectors.

It is especially interesting to see what roles new technologies can play in the developments of sharing markets. Our database delivered explorative insights into the different types of business models on the German carsharing market, their diffusion, size and organization characteristics. We gained some first insights in path dependencies, entry conditions and possible future developments.

These findings, together with improved datasets, open an array of possible future research questions into carsharing or the sharing economy in general. One possible improvement to this study lies in the definition of success and variables to measure success. Comparable financial data of all firms would make it possible to compare the types on their financial success, while data on the number of customers and the number of bookings would make it possible to compare them in terms of diffusion success.

Also, a systematical longitudinal analysis of the changes in business model indicators could give interesting insights. And, for a comprehensive analysis of carsharing organizations and their performance, the local context in which they operate deserves more attention. In particular, niche markets e.

Cradle to Cradle® (English new Edition) | C2C-Centre

Finally, future research efforts can be directed at extending the data to other countries to understand to what extent national regulatory contexts affect the viability of business models and the size of the car sharing market in total. Notwithstanding the limitations and its exploratory nature, our study gives insights into the different types of carsharing business model, their diffusion and success. Our results suggest that the current diversity in business models is likely to persist in the near future, even if technological advances may eventually boost the P2P and one-way business models in the longer run.

Our main contribution has thus been empirical, yet motivated by more general theories about dominant design, first-mover advantage and path dependence. The challenge for future research will be to come up with more detailed data about carsharing organizations and their success, which would allow for explanatory analysis and prospective modelling.

Earlier experiments were set up in Switzerland Sefage , France Procotip and the Netherlands Witkar but failed to operate successfully and were suspended. A stand-alone carsharing organization refers to an organization that is not owned by or closely connected to an incumbent firm e. Some studies use the business model canvas instead Osterwalder, Alexander; Pigneur , which include some additional dimensions. Note, however, that the number of cars offered by peer-to-peer platforms does not imply that all cars are rented out frequently.

While cooperatives and B2C business model providers can be assumed to offer cars only at locations where demand is sufficient at least to break even, many P2P cars are also offered at locations with little or no demand, because a private car owner does not bear any marginal cost by supplying the car. Again, results proved insignificant at the ten percent level. Skip to main content Skip to sections. Advertisement Hide. Download PDF. Carsharing business models in Germany: characteristics, success and future prospects. Open Access. First Online: 20 June To distinguish between the main business model types, we built on work by Shaheen and Cohen , Shaheen et al.

Typically, the carsharing market is divided into three basic types: cooperatives with a communal interest to share cars and a not-for-profit orientation, B2C carsharing where a firm owns a fleet of cars which they rent out on-demand for short time periods and P2P carsharing where cars are shared between individuals and a firm acts as a mediating platform. The B2C business model is generally further divided into roundtrip and one-way models Vaskelainen ; Shaheen et al.

Open image in new window. For each of the four business models, in line with existing literature on carsharing Bohnsack et al. At this stage of the market development and with our focus on the operators we decided to analyze only these three main dimensions. The value network dimension shows how the organization is connected to other players in- and outside of the industry and includes indicators on the owner background and the partner network.

The value capture dimension shows how and in what manner value is captured and includes indicators on profit orientation and the fee structure. Table 1 Business model dimensions and variables. Data was collected for all carsharing firms in Germany, which are accessible to the public and have an online homepage. The firms were identified through a member list of the Bundesverband Carsharing, the umbrella organization of German carsharing providers, that can be accessed on its website Mitglieder; BCS or through a systematic keyword search in public search engines step 1.

This leads to a total of carsharing operators in Germany. Type 1 contains all firms operating as a cooperative, Type 2 contains all firms that operate with a B2C roundtrip model, Type 3 contains firms offering a B2C one-way service and Type 4 contains the firms operating as P2P carsharing platforms. It is clear that most organizations operate using the cooperative model 51 organizations or the B2C roundtrip model These business models are also the most established as evidenced by the high age of cooperatives and B2C roundtrip organizations.

These companies mostly operate in a single city or region. Only a few firms operate according to the B2C one-way model 4 or the peer-to-peer model 3 and these firms were established more recently. The one-way operators are active in the largest German cities. Therefore no precise data is collected on the number of cities where P2P carsharing is offered b City-related partners include municipalities, local utilities, building associations c Car-related partners include car dealers, car leasing companies, car rental companies.

Based on the differentiation into four business models, we are able to compare the success of the carsharing operators. The business model types clearly differ in the average number of cars that operators offer to their users. Cooperative firms operate with the lowest number of cars on average, generally only running in one small city.

TU Dresden

Recall that cooperatives are also the oldest operators on average. Hence, their small size and high age suggest cooperatives have little growth ambition; instead they are not-for-profit and rooted in a local community. B2C roundtrip providers operate many more cars with an average of cars per firm.


  • Bambini e televisione: Orientamenti per la ricerca e strategie educative (Strategie di comunicazione) (Italian Edition).
  • How To Earn Cash From Social Media.
  • Table of Content.

The variance is quite large with operators in a single city having only 45 cars on average, while roundtrip operators operating on a national scale naturally having much larger fleets with on average cars. The four B2C one-way operators have a very large fleet with cars on average. This is made possible by the density benefits in large cities in which the one-way model is viable.

Finally, P2P platforms offer by far the largest number of cars. This can be explained by the zero marginal costs of car owners in supplying their car. Furthermore, we can ask the question whether operators benefit from first-mover advantages.