Managerial experimental approaches and business model dynamics: a systematic literature review
Abstract Managerial Experimental Approaches (MEAs) such as Lean Startup (LS), Agile, Design Thinking (DT), and Growth Hacking (GH) have gained prominence in business and management for their potential to shape Business Model Dynamics (BMDs) through innovation, validation, pivoting, and scaling. The lack of research on the influence and implications of MEAs in BMDs and their interconnections motivates the present study. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between MEAs and BMDs by systematically reviewing the current state of research. Key findings reveal both shared and unique contributions of each MEA to BMDs, such as LS’s focus on rapid validation, Agile’s emphasis on adaptability, DT’s role in fostering creativity and reducing biases, and GH’s alignment with measurable, data-intensive scaling. The study also uncovers significant synergies among the approaches and gaps in the literature, highlighting the potential for a more integrative view of leveraging MEAs. As a key contribution, we propose an organizing framework synthesizing fragmented insights, guiding scholars and practitioners in tailoring MEAs to dynamic business environments. By bridging theoretical gaps and providing actionable insights, this research advances the understanding of MEAs’ strategic value in shaping BMDs and lays the groundwork for future exploration.
Authors
- Michael Christofi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7457-2701)
- Gabriele Santoro (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6407-483X)
- Luca Simone Macca (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0687-1280)
Institutions
- Vilnius University (LT)
- University of Nicosia (CY)
- Mediterranean Institute of Management (CY)
- University of Turin (IT)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Review of Managerial Science
- Published
- 2025-04-11
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-025-00886-x
- Citations
- 3
- Primary Topic
- Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 6.68
Funders
- Università degli Studi di Torino