112 Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol 9, No 4, pp. 112-124 The Covid-19 crisis has undermined and disrupted several business fields. Organizations are called to address the new challenges by rethinking their business models. Employing an EFTE (estimate, feedback, talk, estimate) approach, the paper highlights 50 paradoxes to be taken into considera- tion in the strategic transformation process. Business Models Beyond Covid-19. A Paradoxes Approach Carlo Bagnoli1, Francesca Dal Mas2, Helena Biancuzzi3, and Maurizio Massaro4 Please cite this paper as: C. Bagnoli, F. Dal Mas, H. Biancuzzi and M. Massaro (2021), Business Models Beyond Covid-19. A Paradoxes Approach, Journal of Business Models pp. 112-124. Keywords: Paradoxes, Post-pandemic business models, Covid-19 1 Full Professor of Business Policy and Strategy at the Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. 2 Senior Lecturer in Strategy and Enterprise at the Lincon International Business School of the University of Lincoln, UK. 3 independent researcher, Ipazia Observatory on Gender Research, Rome, Italy. 4 Associate Professor in Accounting, Digital Management, and Control, Department of Management of the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. ISSN: 2246-2465 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5278/jbm.v9i3.6419 Abstract https://doi.org/10.5278/jbm.v9i3.6419 Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 113 Introduction The Covid-19 pandemic and related healthcare emergency at the beginning of 2020 disrupted sev- eral businesses worldwide (WHO, 2020). Non-phar- maceutical interventions forced many enterprises to close their doors to clients and visitors. Half of the world’s population was quarantined. However, paradoxically, pandemics and natural disasters, in general, have also proved capable of changing the course of history, triggering the innovation of reli- gious, political, economical but also technological systems. To explain this co-existence of harmful and propi- tious effects, the etymology of the term paradox comes to our aid, according to which something, which apparently contradicts common opinion (παρά-against and δόξα-opinion), proves to be val- id instead. The fundamental characteristic of the paradox is, in fact, the co-existence of two opposing poles: one does not exclude the other. The crisis triggered by the current pandemic is, therefore, paradoxically, a significant threat but, at the same time, also an excellent opportunity to in- novate the whole society and, more specifically, in- dividual companies. The real challenge is to use the paradoxical method to stimulate people to review their lifestyle, work and consumption habits and, companies, to rethink their existing business model (Bagnoli, Massaro, et al., 2018; Nielsen et al., 2018; Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), developing strate- gic innovation. It is necessary to identify the strategic paradoxes that the current crisis has brought out and try to “manage” them, not solve them, by innovating the business model. The business strategies that lead to choosing one of the (apparently) opposing poles that characterize a paradox (e.g. work from the office or remotely) hide the competitive context’s real com- plexity, resulting, therefore, not very useful for win- ning the competition. A paradox is characterized by only apparently opposing poles (Bagnoli et al., 2021). It is “manageable” only by adopting an approach that leads to uniting, through a circular process, the two poles themselves, which end up acting as an attrac- tor for the other, thus generating a balanced dynam- ic and supporting the creative creation of new busi- ness models (Bagnoli et al., 2021). The paper adopts a scientific approach based on the management, not elimination, of paradoxical choices to deepen the strategic handling of a cri- sis. Following an EFTE (estimate, feedback, talk, estimate) approach, the article aims to provide or- ganizations with a methodology to recognize and address the paradoxes that can impact the single building blocks of the business models, following the pandemic restrictions, legal constraints, and new consumer habits. The ambition is not to provide valid erga omnes answers, but to stimulate the indi- vidual company to ask itself the correct questions to be addressed, according to the situation. The ac- ceptance of a paradoxical approach leads to reject- ing the artificial simplification of the complexity that characterizes real contexts and, therefore, the use of a process for the management of the linear crisis that leads to dichotomous solutions of the “black or white” type or, however, to compromises of “grey.” Instead, it leads to the use of a process for the man- agement of the circular crisis to arrive at paradoxi- cal solutions of the “black and white” type. Starting from these premises, it is essential to combine the activities to be carried out “during” and “after” the cri- sis with those to be carried out “before” and “beyond” the crisis itself. Approach An EFTE (estimate, feedback, talk, estimate) ap- proach (Nelms and Porter, 1985) was employed. The methodology allowed to gather experts’ opinion on a particularly complex situation, like the one on Cov- id-19 possible post-pandemic business models. Nine experts coming from academia and the business consulting sector were involved in the analysis. The experts were selected based on their specific exper- tise. More precisely, the aim was to gather people with a multidisciplinary background, coming from sociology, business strategy, innovation, engineer- ing and business processes, sustainability, market- ing and communication, and public policies. Experts were selected and invited within the network of the nine universities shaping the “SMACT competence center,” one of the eight highly specialized Industry 4.0 Competence Centers born in Italy on the initia- Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 114 tive of the Ministry of Economic Development. The SMACT competence center stands as a public-pri- vate body that systematizes the skills in the industry 4.0 field of research, technology providers and early adopter companies (SMACT, 2021). The protocol described by Nelms and Porter (1985) was employed during the investigation and observa- tion, namely following these steps: 1. Experts were given background information to be used in making opinion judgments; 2. Experts gathered face-to-face in an e-con- ference room. Questions regarding the back- ground information were resolved by an ap- pointed Delphi manager, who also acted as the Principal Investigator of the study. Discussion among the participants was encouraged. Still, eventual problems of social interaction were avoided due to the different competencies of the participants. Dedicated translation tools (Bagnoli et al., 2021; Dal Mas et al., 2020; Se- cundo et al., 2019) were employed to facilitate the dialogue, the sharing, and the creation of new knowledge. 3. A Delphi questionnaire was given to each ex- pert, which later needed to be filled and re- turned to the Delphi leader. 4. The questionnaire results were summarized and shared within the group. 5. The feedback results were discussed freely in the group, still maintaining the anonymity of each individual’s survey response. 6. The processes terminated once sufficient stability was found, and a report was created (Bagnoli et al., 2020), to summarize the re- sults. Key insights The strategic transformation of the business model A strategic transformation or innovation takes the form of creating a new market by developing a unique value proposition and, therefore, of a new business model (Bagnoli et al., 2019; Bagnoli, Bravin, et al., 2018; Nielsen et al., 2018; Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). The latter can be achieved through the development of: • innovative products (goods and/or services), presented or combined in a new way, to create a radically different experience in customers, involving them also on an emotional, intellec- tual and/or spiritual level; • innovative processes for the production and/ or distribution of existing or new products that may lead to the acquisition of new cus- tomer groups; • innovative value chains, to create a new mar- ket space which, making the competition ir- relevant, allows for an increase in the value for both the company and the customer (Kle- witz and Hansen, 2014; Schneider and Spieth, 2013; Teece, 2010). In general terms, one of the first challenges that companies need to overcome is the classic para- dox between pursuing a competitive strategy of differentiation, increasing the value perceived by the customer and, therefore, the selling price of the product, or cost leadership, by lowering the cost of producing the product, leveraging a lower offer, in whole or in part, to that of competitors. Most of the companies resolve the paradox by trying to compro- mise the two opposing poles, meaning to invest in products that can be appreciated and valued by the target customers, still with an eye on cost reduction to keep a fair or moderate price. The process for implementing a strategic transfor- mation may consist of four steps. Step 1. Mapping the current business model using the business model canvas. The starting point is defined for the (re)design of the business model, considering the company ’s strengths and weaknesses. The organization should identify the essential elements that distinguish each of the building blocks (value proposition, suppliers and supply channels, resources, internal and exter- nal processes, products and distribution channels, customers, and society). Such an analysis should be conducted by filling in the single building blocks of Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 115 the business model canvas. While the more tradi- tional and well-known approach by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010, 2012) would for sure fit the purpose, we would recommend using the revised version by Biloslavo and colleagues (2018), as it includes the so- cial dimension as a central element of today ’s most successful organizations, allowing to consider sus- tainability into the picture and develop sustainable business models (Buser and Carlsson, 2020; Cosenz et al., 2020; Glinik et al., 2020; Lozano, 2018; Lüde- ke-Freund et al., 2020). The business model canvas allows imagining what the characteristics of the fu- ture and desired business model will be, in this case, once the pandemic caused by Covid-19 has passed or come to a “new normal” (Cobianchi et al., 2020). The following Figure 1 shows a possible framework for the analysis. Step 2. Identifying the uncertainties arising from the crisis by developing a scenario-planning process A scenario planning process allows identifying and connecting the socio-economic and technological variables that will drive the change and determine the new post-crisis reference context. More pre- cisely, this step describes a specific collection of uncertainties, varying “realities” of what might hap- pen in the future. The areas of reflection must cover all the aspects of the uncertainty: e.g. economic, po- litical, social, legal, environmental. Examples of the uncertainties developed during the study and the pandemic era have been: • Political: e.g., the role of the European Un- ion (e.g. disintegration of the EU Market and Schengen area) and the Brexit effect; • Economic: e.g., economic recession following the pandemic and mandatory closure of busi- nesses (Carnevale and Hatak, 2020); • Social: e.g., the duration of the social distanc- ing enforced measures and the consequent change in consumers’ and people’s habits (Carnevale and Hatak, 2020); • Technological: e.g., use of devices like the In- ternet of Things - IoT for people tracing (Wang et al., 2020) and of social media networks to communicate with the population (Massaro et al., 2021); • Environmental: e.g., “green waves” and new consumer habits; • Legal: e.g., protectionism to support and boost local productions. Step 3. Evaluating the possible impacts of the identified uncertainties on the individual building blocks Once the existing business model has been mapped and once the sector scenarios have been defined, it will be possible to identify the impacts on the single Figure 1. The business model canvas framework (Adapted from Biloslavo et al. (2018)) Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 116 building blocks, namely, which processes or actors may be more affected by the pandemic, the environ- mental changes, the enforced measured, and the new consumer habits. The building blocks which end up more impacted by the new scenarios should lead to new strategic choices, considering how to com- promise among opposing options or interests. Step 4. Redesigning the business model to exploit the opportunity of the crisis Last but not least, it is necessary to reflect on how to move from a diagnosis phase to a response phase to identify the projects that can guide the change in the business model. Before deciding on any signifi- cant changes in the business model, it is essential to think about how the crisis will affect the existing performance metrics. The following Table 1 illustrates the paradoxes, as identified by the expert panel, that companies should take into consideration in their analysis be- fore the strategic choices are made. Some examples can be reported (Bagnoli et al., 2020). Table 1 # Phases and building blocks Paradoxes 1 Paradoxes for all the phases of the crisis All the phases Practical experience vs theoretical knowl- edge 2 Phase “before”: before the crisis Scenario planning vs antifragility 3 Prevention vs assurance 4 Phase “throughout”: during the crisis Keeping what is existing vs experimenting new solutions 5 Phase “after”: to a new normal Temporary vs permanent 6 Continuous vs intermittent 7 Phase “beyond”: strategic transformation once the crisis is over Coming back to a “new normal” vs strategic transformation 8 Waiting vs acting 9 Contingent vs structural Table 1. 50+ paradoxes to rethink post-pandemic business models Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 117 Table 1 # Phases and building blocks Paradoxes 10 Paradoxes for all the building blocks Society Open vs closed 11 Linear economy vs circular economy 12 Global vs local 13 Private vs public 14 Shareholders vs stakeholders 15 Sharing vs exclusivity 16 Digital transformation vs human touch 17 Leadership through gurus vs through sergeants 18 Suppliers Short supply chains vs long supply chains 19 Concentrated supply chains vs extensive supply chains 20 Partnerships vs markets 21 Resources Just in time vs safety stocks 22 Human resources vs cyber-physical sys- tems 23 Workers vs IT technicians Table 1. 50+ paradoxes to rethink post-pandemic business models (Continued) Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 118 Table 1 # Phases and building blocks Paradoxes 24 Paradoxes for all the building blocks Resources Physical offices vs virtual offices 25 Local staff vs worldwide talents 26 Cash or guarantees 27 Internal processes Offshoring vs reshoring 28 Office work vs remote work 29 Isolated productive cells vs humanless production systems 30 Production systems oriented to efficient flexibility vs redundant flexibility 31 External processes Advertising image vs reassuring truth 32 Offline vs streaming events 33 Physical stores vs e-stores 34 Sanitized "hand" deliveries vs automated deliveries 35 Products Offline vs online services 36 Shared products vs personal ones 37 Good looking vs safe packaging Table 1. 50+ paradoxes to rethink post-pandemic business models (Continued) Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 119 Table 1 # Phases and building blocks Paradoxes 38 Self-sanitizing materials vs materials easy to sanitize 39 Safety through innovation vs regulation 40 Quality assurance vs safety assurance 41 Low-cost goods vs sustainable goods 42 Traditional vs smart appliances 43 Products to support physical and virtual interaction with people vs robots 44 Clients and markets “Made-in” push markets vs Covid-19-pull ones 45 Global vs local markets 46 Traditional market segments vs new con- sumer tribes 47 Traditional market vs e-marketplace 48 Essential needs vs transcendental aspira- tions 49 New necessities vs new habits 50 Value proposition Strengthening the culture and corporate identity vs changing to adapt to the new context Table 1. 50+ paradoxes to rethink post-pandemic business models (Continued) Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 120 The mandatory closure of several non-essential fac- tories and offices has had the effect of interrupting many enterprises’ production, causing the interrup- tion of the supply by the global suppliers, especially the big ones located in China. Such a disruption, refer- ring to the “Suppliers” building block, imposes compa- nies to question whether short supply chains should replace long ones (paradox #18 of table 1). Organiza- tions will need to compromise between the need to stock up on global procurement markets and use local suppliers, even supporting the national economy ’s re- covery. While the first option seems more convenient from a purely economic perspective, it highlights the risk to suffer one more supply interruption for health or political reasons. Therefore, the pandemic has underlined the vulnerability of global supply chains, starting from the Chinese one. Again, the enforced closure of many factories and offices has had the effect of interrupting the pro- duction even of many western and local companies. Therefore, they stopped the supplies to their cus- tomers, impacting the “Resources” building block. To prevent disruptions in the availability of resources and goods, companies should then think of the best strategy to compromise the “just in time” stock man- agement versus having enough safety stocks (para- dox #21 of table 1). While, on the one hand, there is the need to encourage production philosophies that aim to optimize the entire production process, in- ventories may be essential to maintain the business. New “just in case” stock strategies may support to compromise between the two competing needs. Still considering the “Resources” building block, new frontiers emerge about human resource manage- ment. Therefore, the opportunities and tools provided by the smart and remote work allow the company to think about whether to invest in local people or to open up to worldwide talents, who would not need to reside in the proximity of the firm’s plants or offices (paradox #25 of table 1). Pre Covid-19, the location of the corpo- rate headquarters in a large and preferably world me- tropolis appeared as a decisive factor in attracting the best talents, thanks to the possibility of quickly reach- ing the workplace by train or subway. This might not be more true if companies moved their offices in the countryside, in healthier and cheaper contexts, allow- ing their employees to work remotely, enhancing the wellbeing and supporting the work-life balance. The closure of almost all public places like shops, theatres, cinemas, auditoriums, restaurants, gyms, and fitness centres, had that effect of replacing physical interactions with virtual ones, maximiz- ing the use of e-stores and digital platforms and impacting the “External processes” building block. Companies should then think if the pandemic has led to the definitive affirmation of e-commerce and home delivery or if there is still room for customers to enjoy the physical experience of purchase and/or consumption (paradox #33 of table 1). In China, the clerks of many chain stores (ex: Red Dragonfly) have been transformed into online vendors and restaurant waiters in food-delivery porters (e.g. Ele.me, 7Fresh of JD.com and Meituan). New “ghost kitchens” were born; namely, restaurants aimed exclusively at deliv- ery or takeaway, while Deliveroo has announced its intention to invest in home shopping. Discushesions and Conclusions The Covid-19 crisis impacts the individual business model’s building blocks and the relationships among them and, therefore, on the entire business model of several organizations. The possible choices at the level of the various elements of the business model should be consistent with each other. The main takeaway message of our study is the ap- proach described in the paper, which should push organizations to identify the strategic paradoxes that the current crisis has brought out in their business model’s building blocks. The big challenge is mapping and understanding the most affected building blocks, recognizing the potential paradoxes suggested by the crisis, and rethinking the strategic choices to com- promise between the opposing poles, needs, and interests. Paradoxes can hardly be “fixed.” Still, com- panies should try to “manage” them, not solve them, taking the chance to innovate their business model. Innovating the strategy means, first of all, overcom- ing the paradox between increasing the value offered and lowering the cost of production, through a new Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 121 value proposition, within a new market space. The pandemic crisis will probably lead to the destruction of many established markets, in some cases by ac- celerating (e.g. digital transformation) and in others slowing down (e.g. globalization) developments that were already underway in the competitive context. The pandemic crisis, therefore, has stressed the need for all companies to redefine their business model. Some can limit themselves to polishing it. Still, most organizations, namely the smaller, more fragile, and less digital ones and those operating in the sectors most affected by the constraints and consequences of Covid-19 (like travels and tourism), are forced to change or rethink it radically. These reflections suggest a final strategic paradox to be faced for a company but, perhaps, first in im- portance, as regards its deep essence, the starting point necessary to redefine the business model con- sistently. The expert panel involved in the study identified the 51st paradox as the durability vs adaptation of cor- porate identity. A possible way to manage this stra- tegic paradox is to refer to the concept of continuity. In this perspective, the central aspects of the cor- porate identity remain nominally the same, assum- ing, however, substantially, over time and space, different meanings to allow the company to adapt to the changed reference context. Being an innovative company, for example, is an identity feature that can take on substantial and very different meanings over time and space, which require equally different ac- tion programs to be implemented. For example, to- day, developing products with self-sanitizing mate- rials has become a central innovative element during the Covid-19 crisis, which can lead to competitive advantage. Before, this topic was yes present, still not central. Persistence in expressing the corporate identity is also functional to reassure the organiza- tion members regarding business continuity, a criti- cal aspect not to lose the best human resources due to the crisis. Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 122 References Bagnoli, C., Biazzo, S., Biotto, G., Civiero, M., Cucco, A., Lazzer, G.P., Massaro, M., et al. (2020), Business Models Beyond Covid-19 50+1 Paradossi Da Affrontare per l’efficace Gestione Strategica Di Una Crisi, Venezia, available at:https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22301.95202. Bagnoli, C., Bravin, A., Massaro, M. and Vignotto, A. (2018), Business Model 4.0, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, Venezia. Bagnoli, C., Dal Mas, F., Lombardi, R. and Nucciarelli, A. (2021), “Translating knowledge through business model tensions. A case study.”, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 182–197. Bagnoli, C., Dal Mas, F. and Massaro, M. (2019), “The 4th industrial revolution: Business models and evidence from the field”, International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 34–47. Bagnoli, C., Massaro, M., Dal Mas, F. and Demartini, M. (2018), “Defining the concept of Business Model. A litera- ture review”, International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, Vol. 9, pp. 48–64. Biloslavo, R., Bagnoli, C. and Edgar, D. (2018), “An eco-critical perspective on business models: The value tri- angle as an approach to closing the sustainability gap”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 174, pp. 746–762. Buser, M. and Carlsson, V. (2020), “Developing new strategies towards environmental sustainability: small constructions companies experimenting with business models”, Journal of Business Models, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 101–114. Carnevale, J.B. and Hatak, I. (2020), “Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19: Implications for human resource management”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116 No. August, pp. 183–187. Cobianchi, L., Pugliese, L., Peloso, A., Dal Mas, F. and Angelos, P. (2020), “To a New Normal: Surgery and COV- ID-19 during the Transition Phase”, Annals of Surgery, Vol. 272, pp. e49–e51. Cosenz, F., Rodrigues, V.P. and Rosati, F. (2020), “Dynamic business modeling for sustainability: Exploring a system dynamics perspective to develop sustainable business models”, Business Strategy and the Environ- ment, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 651–664. Dal Mas, F., Garcia-Perez, A., Sousa, M.J., Lopes da Costa, R. and Cobianchi, L. (2020), “Knowledge Translation in the Healthcare Sector. A Structured Literature Review”, Electronic Journal Of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 198–211. Glinik, M., Rachinger, M., Ropposch, C., Ratz, F. and Rauter, R. (2020), “Exploring Sustainability in Business Models of Early-Phase Start-up Projects: A Multiple Case Study Approach”, Journal of Business Models, No. In press. Klewitz, J. and Hansen, E.G. (2014), “Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 65, pp. 57–75. Lozano, R. (2018), “Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic perspective”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1159–1166. Lüdeke-Freund, F., Rauter, R., Pedersen, E.R.G. and Nielsen, C. (2020), “Sustainable Value Creation Through Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 123 Business Models: The What, the Who and the How”, Journal of Business Models, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 62–90. Massaro, M., Tamburro, P., La Torre, M., Dal Mas, F., Thomas, R., Cobianchi, L. and Barach, P. (2021), “Non- pharmaceutical interventions and the Infodemic on Twitter: Lessons learned from Italy during the Covid-19 Pandemic”, Journal of Medical Systems, Vol. 45 No. 50, available at:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10916-021-01726-7. Nelms, K.R. and Porter, A.L. (1985), “EFTE: An interactive Delphi method”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 43–61. Nielsen, C., Lund, M., Montemari, M., Paolone, F., Massaro, M. and Dumay, J. (2018), Business Models: A Re- search Overview, Routledge, New York. Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010), Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Chang- ers, and Challengers, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 30, Book, , available at:https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEURO- SCI.0307-10.2010. Osterwalder, P. and Pigneur, Y. (2012), Business Model Generator: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changes, and Challengers, John Wiley & Sons Inc. Schneider, S. and Spieth, P. (2013), “Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agen- da”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 1340001. Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Simeone, L. and Schiuma, G. (2019), “Creativity and stakeholders’ engagement in open innovation: Design for knowledge translation in technology-intensive enterprises”, Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, No. April 2018, pp. 0–1. SMACT. (2021), “SMACT Competence Center”, What Is SMACT Competence Center?, available at: https://www. smact.cc/ (accessed 20 February 2021). Teece, D.J. (2010), “Business models, business strategy and innovation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 No. 2–3, pp. 172–194. Wang, C.J., Ng, C.Y. and Brook, R.H. (2020), “Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: Big Data Analytics, New Technol- ogy, and Proactive Testing.”, JAMA, Vol. 323 No. 14, pp. 1341–1342. WHO. (2020), “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic”, Health Topics, available at: https://www.who.int/ emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 (accessed 8 April 2020). Journal of Business Models (2021), Online First 124 Carlo Bagnoli MSc, PhD is a Full Professor of Business Policy and Strategy at the Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. He received a PhD in Business Economics at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. He was visiting research fellow at the University of Florida. He is the proponent and the Scientific Coordinator of the Strategy Innovation Hub. He is also the Founder and Scientific Director of Strategy Innovation Srl: a Ca’ Foscari University spin-off focused on action research. His research interests include knowledge management, competitive strategy, and business model innovation. He is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of JOBM. Francesca Dal Mas MSc, JD, PhD is a Senior Lecturer in Strategy and Enterprise at the Lincon International Business School of the University of Lincoln, UK. Her research interests include the impact of new technologies on sustainable business models, knowledge management, and knowledge translation. She is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of JOBM. Helena Biancuzzi JD, is completing her Master Degree in business economics. In 2018-19, she was a research fellow at the Department of Economics and Statistics of the University of Udine, Italy. She is a Member of Ipazia, the Observatory on Gender Research. In 2019 and 2020, she was the winner of the European grant DigitaHealthEurope - in the context of Digital Single Market strategy. She authored several papers in the field of Public Management, particularly in the healthcare sector, co-production processes, and knowledge translation. Maurizio Massaro MSc, PhD is an Associate Professor in Digital Management and Control at the Department of Management of the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. His research interests include the impact of new technologies on sustainable business models, innovation, and knowledge management. He is the Scientific Chief of the MIKE – Most Innovative Knowledge Enterprise Award for Italy. About the Authors