All categories

2 years ago

One size does not fit all. Business models heterogeneity among Internet of Things architecture layers

1 answer:

6 0

As physical devices are connected and the digital and physical worlds interact, the new paradigm known as the Internet of Things (IoT) is anticipated to have a substantial impact on business over the coming years. While earlier research on the business ramifications of this paradigm largely treated the Internet of Things (IoT) as integrated technology, in this study we look at its various components and determine whether companies involved in the creation of IoT solutions have adopted unique business models to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the particular IoT architecture layer they work in.

What data is collected on a sample of IoT Italy association's members?

We examine several aspects of the business model and provide a reinterpretation of the business model Canvas framework tailored to the IoT environment based on primary survey data gathered on a sample of IoT Italy association members. We demonstrate how businesses must develop ad hoc business models and concentrate on various business model Canvas dimensions due to the unique characteristics of each IoT layer. We think that our research makes some significant contributions to practitioners as well as academics. In the latter case, we offer a tool that can be used to decide how to create the business model for IoT applications.

Learn more about Internet of Things (IoT): brainly.com/question/19995128

#SPJ4

You might be interested in

Which statement is true of an e-marketplace?

Aloiza [94]

Answe and Explanation:

The correct answer is option A

A. It reduces marketing costs more than traditional sales channels.

7 0

3 years ago

During the current year, the company had the following summarized activities: Purchased short-term investments for $10,000 cash.

aivan3 [116]

Answer:

short-term investment 10,000 debit

cash 10,000 credit

note receivables 5,000 debit

cash 5,000 credit

equipment 18,000 debit

cash 5,000 credit

note payable 13,000 credit

cash 11,000 debit

common stock 1,000 credit

additional CS 10,000 credit

cash 9,000 debit

note payable 9,000 credit

Patents 3,000 credit

cash 3,000 debit

Building 24,000 debit

cash 8,000 credit

note payable 16,000 credit

cash 1,000 debit

equipment 1,000 credit

Explanation:

To record the entries we need to alwasy make debit = credit

we must use account names to represent each concept which are quite easy you don't have to overthink ou write what it is telling you it happen

Whe nthe company use cash use cash account

when it purchase equipment use equiptment

7 0

3 years ago

Two firms, A and B, each currently emit 100 tons of chemicals into the air. The government has decided to reduce the pollution a

LekaFEV [45]

Answer:

It is likely that C. Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200.

Explanation:

So two firms, A and B, each currently emit 100 tons of chemicals into the air, and from now on each one will require a pollution permit for each ton of pollution emitted into the air.
Each firm gets 40 pollution permits, which it can either use or sell to the other firm. That means that if both firms choose to keep their respective 40 permits, they would still have to reduce the pollution by 60 tons (100 minus 40 is 60).
It costs Firm A $200 for each ton of pollution that it eliminates before it is emitted into the air. Because it costs so much to eliminate a ton of pollution, it would make sense for Firm A to get as many pollution permits as possible, as long as they get them for less than $200 each.
It costs Firm B $100 for each ton of pollution that it eliminates before it is emitted into the air. Since here it costs less to eliminate a ton of pollution, it would make sense for Firm B to sell as many pollution permits as possible, as long as they sell for higher than $100.

With that in mind, the outcome that makes the most sense would be Option C. Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200. This way both firms spend the least amount of money while at the same time pleasing the government.

To demonstrate it, let's do some actual calculations for each case.

Case A) Both firms will use their own pollution permits.

In this case, each firm will have to independently reduce their pollutants by 60 tons, as noted before. That represents a high cost, as we will now determine:

For Firm A, the cost would be

$60tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton}=12000dollars$

For Firm B, the cost would be

$60tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton}=6000dollars$

Case B) Firm A will buy some of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost less than $100.

Since Firm B could spend $100 to reduce a ton of pollution, it wouldn't sell its pollution permits for less than $100 each: If Firm B sold its pollution permits for less than $100 each, it would have to reduce even more tons of pollutants (spending $100 for each one), and would end up losing money! Let's say it sold 10 pollution permits for $90 each, so it would have to reduce 70 tons of pollutants instead of 60. Its total cost would be:

Cost for Firm B (Case B):

$70tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton}-(10*90dollars)=6100dollars$

Which is higher than the cost calculated for Firm B in Case A, so it's not worth it.

Case D) Firm B will buy all of Firm A's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200.

This is a similar case than Case B, in the sense that since it costs Firm A so much to reduce a ton of pollutant ($200 for each one), it wouldn't sell its pollution permits for less than $200 each, or it would end up losing money as well. Let's say Firm A sold all of its 40 pollution permits for $150 each, and so it would have to reduce 100 tons of pollutants instead of 60. Its total cost would be:

Cost for Firm A (Case D):

$100tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton}-(40*150dollars)=14000dollars$

Which is higher than the cost calculated for Firm A in Case A, so it's not worth it.

Finally, Case C) Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200.

As mentioned before, this one makes the most sense because both firms would spend the least amount of money. Let's determine the total costs for each one, knowing that:

Firm A would buy 40 pollutant permits from Firm B, for (let's say) $150 each.
Firm A would still need to reduce 20 tons of pollutants. And
Firm B would have to reduce 100 tons of pollutants, instead of 60.

Cost for Firm A (Case C):

$(20tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton})+(40*150dollars)=10000dollars$

Which is less than the $12000 Cost calculated in Case A.

Cost for Firm B (Case C):

$(100tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton})-(40*150dollars)=4000dollars$

Which is less than the $6000 Cost calculated in Case A.

Since both firms each spend $2000 less in Case C than in case A, it would make sense for them to follow this option.

4 0

3 years ago

Which of the following inventory costing methods will always result in the same values for ending inventory and cost of goods so

Helen [10]

Answer

The answer and procedures of the exercise are attached in the following archives.

Explanation

You will find the procedures, formulas or necessary explanations in the archive attached below. If you have any question ask and I will aclare your doubts kindly.

5 0

4 years ago

Ryan is deciding between attending Western State University and Eastern State University. He cannot attend both universities sim

Alenkasestr [34]

Answer:

attend Eastern State University, if MUE/PE EXCEEDS MUW/PW

Explanation:

A rational individual will always choose the alternative that provides the highest marginal utility per dollar invested.

If MUE and MUW represent the marginal utilities, and PR and PW represent the prices, Ryan should attend the university that provides the highest utility per dollar, i.e. the highest MU and the lowest P.

He should attend Eastern State University if the MUE/PE (marginal utility per dollar of Eastern State University) is higher than MUW/PW (marginal utility per dollar of Western State University).

7 0

4 years ago