Virtual Community Models in Relation to E-Business Models

2011 ◽  
pp. 647-654
Author(s):  
Lee Moh Shan ◽  
Juliana Sutanto ◽  
Atreyi Kankanhalli ◽  
Bernard C.Y. Tan
Keyword(s):  
Web Sites ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Digital Medium ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Community Model ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Online Web

Virtual communities were initially recognized as social phenomena. This is evident from the definition of virtual community as “a social aggregation that emerges from the Net when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 2000, p. 5). The idea of a virtual community as a profitable business model was subsequently raised by Hagel and Armstrong (1996, 1997) who claimed that the benefits of a virtual community would arise from two aspects: from the unique capabilities of the digital medium where the virtual community is located in and from the virtual community model itself. The latter aspect is what differentiates virtual communities from other online Web sites. Unlike other online Web sites, a virtual community is intended to create a “sense of community” that binds individuals to the Web site and serves as the “push” factor for repeat visits. Table 1 summarizes some of the proposed business benefits stemming from a virtual community (Bank & Daus, 2002; Hagel & Armstrong, 1996, 1997). Although the startup cost of a virtual community is comparatively low, the costs of maintaining it are significantly higher (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997; Kim, 2000). Therefore the decision of whether to create a virtual community in support of an e-commerce Web site is not to be taken lightly. Critics have also questioned the validity of the suggested benefits of a virtual community, particularly since there are no clear-cut measures to verify that these benefits can be attributed to the virtual community. Additionally, the fundamental premise which the virtual community relies on for its success, that is, its unique capacity for interaction amongst members and/or with the company (Balasubramanian & Mahajan, 2001; Lechner & Hummel, 2002; Mynatt, O’Day, Adler, & Ito, 1997), is subject to high risks of failure. This is because customers can always turn this capability to the company’s disadvantage by spreading adverse comments about the company’s products and services. Hence, a virtual community actually has the means to work both for as well as against the company sustaining it. This article seeks to explain how virtual communities can be made to work for the organization by proposing a fit between the virtual community model to be adopted and the company’s e-business goals.

Virtual Community Models in Relation to E-Business Models

2009 ◽  
pp. 669-677
Author(s):  
Lee Moh Shan ◽  
Juliana Sutanto ◽  
Atreyi Kankanhalli ◽  
Bernard C.Y. Tan
Keyword(s):  
Web Sites ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Digital Medium ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Community Model ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Online Web

Virtual communities were initially recognized as social phenomena. This is evident from the definition of virtual community as “a social aggregation that emerges from the Net when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 2000, p. 5). The idea of a virtual community as a profitable business model was subsequently raised by Hagel and Armstrong (1996, 1997) who claimed that the benefits of a virtual community would arise from two aspects: from the unique capabilities of the digital medium where the virtual community is located in and from the virtual community model itself. The latter aspect is what differentiates virtual communities from other online Web sites. Unlike other online Web sites, a virtual community is intended to create a “sense of community” that binds individuals to the Web site and serves as the “push” factor for repeat visits. Table 1 summarizes some of the proposed business benefits stemming from a virtual community (Bank & Daus, 2002; Hagel & Armstrong, 1996, 1997). Although the startup cost of a virtual community is comparatively low, the costs of maintaining it are significantly higher (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997; Kim, 2000). Therefore the decision of whether to create a virtual community in support of an e-commerce Web site is not to be taken lightly. Critics have also questioned the validity of the suggested benefits of a virtual community, particularly since there are no clear-cut measures to verify that these benefits can be attributed to the virtual community. Additionally, the fundamental premise which the virtual community relies on for its success, that is, its unique capacity for interaction amongst members and/or with the company (Balasubramanian & Mahajan, 2001; Lechner & Hummel, 2002; Mynatt, O’Day, Adler, & Ito, 1997), is subject to high risks of failure. This is because customers can always turn this capability to the company’s disadvantage by spreading adverse comments about the company’s products and services. Hence, a virtual community actually has the means to work both for as well as against the company sustaining it. This article seeks to explain how virtual communities can be made to work for the organization by proposing a fit between the virtual community model to be adopted and the company’s e-business goals.

Virtual Community Models in Relation to E-Business Models

2011 ◽  
pp. 232-239
Author(s):  
Lee Moh Shan ◽  
Juliana Sutanto ◽  
Atreyi Kankanhalli ◽  
Bernard C.Y. Tan
Keyword(s):  
Web Sites ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Digital Medium ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Online Web

Virtual communities were initially recognized as social phenomena. This is evident from the definition of virtual community as “a social aggregation that emerges from the Net when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 2000, p. 5). The idea of a virtual community as a profitable business model was subsequently raised by Hagel and Armstrong (1996, 1997) who claimed that the benefits of a virtual community would arise from two aspects: from the unique capabilities of the digital medium where the virtual community is located in and from the virtual community model itself. The latter aspect is what differentiates virtual communities from other online Web sites. Unlike other online Web sites, a virtual community is intended to create a “sense of community” that binds individuals to the Web site and serves as the “push” factor for repeat visits. Table 1 summarizes some of the proposed business benefits stemming from a virtual community (Bank & Daus, 2002; Hagel & Armstrong, 1996, 1997). Although the startup cost of a virtual community is comparatively low, the costs of maintaining it are significantly higher (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997; Kim, 2000). Therefore the decision of whether to create a virtual community in support of an e-commerce Web site is not to be taken lightly. Critics have also questioned the validity of the suggested benefits of a virtual community, particularly since there are no clear-cut measures to verify that these benefits can be attributed to the virtual community. Additionally, the fundamental premise which the virtual community relies on for its success, that is, its unique capacity for interaction amongst members and/or with the company (Balasubramanian & Mahajan, 2001; Lechner & Hummel, 2002; Mynatt, O’Day, Adler, & Ito, 1997), is subject to high risks of failure. This is because customers can always turn this capability to the company’s disadvantage by spreading adverse comments about the company’s products and services. Hence, a virtual community actually has the means to work both for as well as

Virtual Community Models in Relation to E-Business Models

2011 ◽  
pp. 527-532
Author(s):  
Lee Moh Shan ◽  
Juliana Sutanto ◽  
Atreyi Kankanhalli ◽  
Bernard C.Y. Tan
Keyword(s):  
Web Sites ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Digital Medium ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Online Web

Virtual communities were initially recognized as social phenomena. This is evident from the definition of virtual community as “a social aggregation that emerges from the Net when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 2000, p. 5). The idea of a virtual community as a profitable business model was subsequently raised by Hagel and Armstrong (1996, 1997) who claimed that the benefits of a virtual community would arise from two aspects: from the unique capabilities of the digital medium where the virtual community is located in and from the virtual community model itself. The latter aspect is what differentiates virtual communities from other online Web sites. Unlike other online Web sites, a virtual community is intended to create a “sense of community” that binds individuals to the Web site and serves as the “push” factor for repeat visits. Table 1 summarizes some of the proposed business benefits stemming from a virtual community (Bank & Daus, 2002; Hagel & Armstrong, 1996, 1997). Although the startup cost of a virtual community is comparatively low, the costs of maintaining it are significantly higher (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997; Kim, 2000). Therefore the decision of whether to create a virtual community in support of an e-commerce Web site is not to be taken lightly. Critics have also questioned the validity of the suggested benefits of a virtual community, particularly since there are no clear-cut measures to verify that these benefits can be attributed to the virtual community. Additionally, the fundamental premise which the virtual community relies on for its success, that is, its unique capacity for interaction amongst members and/or with the company (Balasubramanian & Mahajan, 2001; Lechner & Hummel, 2002; Mynatt, O’Day, Adler, & Ito, 1997), is subject to high risks of failure. This is because customers can always turn this capability to the company’s disadvantage by spreading adverse comments about the company’s products and services. Hence, a virtual community actually has the means to work both for as well as

Online Communities and Community Building

2011 ◽  
pp. 2893-2898
Author(s):  
Martin C. Kindsmüller ◽  
Sandro Leuchter ◽  
Leon Urbas
Keyword(s):  
Online Community ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Bulletin Boards ◽  
Real Community ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Tacit Assumptions

“Online community” is one of today’s buzzwords. Even though superficially it is not hard to understand, the term has become somewhat vague while being extensively used within the e-commerce business. Within this article, we refer to online community as being a voluntary group of users who partake actively in a certain computer-mediated service. The term “online community” is preferred over the term “virtual community,” as it denotes the character of the community more accurately: community members are interacting online as opposed to face to face. Furthermore, the term “virtual community” seems too unspecific, because it includes other communities that only exist virtually, whereas an online community in our definition is always a real community in the sense that community members know that they are part of the community. Nevertheless, there are other reasonable definitions of online community. An early and most influencing characterization (which unfortunately utilizes the term “virtual community”) was coined by Howard Rheingold (1994), who wrote: “…virtual communities are cultural aggregations that emerge when enough people bump into each other often enough in cyberspace. A virtual community is a group of people […] who exchanges words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks” (p. 57). A more elaborated and technical definition of online community was given by Jenny Preece (2000), which since then, has been a benchmark for developers. She stated that an online community consists of four basic constituents (Preece, 2000, p. 3): 1. Socially interacting people striving to satisfy their own needs. 2. A shared purpose, such as interest or need that provides a reason to cooperate. 3. Policies in the form of tacit assumptions, rituals, or rules that guide the community members’ behavior. 4. A technical system that works as a carrier that mediates social interaction. Not explicitly mentioned in this characterization but nevertheless crucial for our aforementioned definition (and not in opposition to Preece’s position) is voluntary engagement.

E-Commerce Business Models

2010 ◽  
pp. 347-358
Author(s):  
Khaled Ahmed Nagaty
Keyword(s):  
Web Sites ◽  
Web Site ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Business Models ◽  
High Availability ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages

In this article the author explained the classes of e-commerce business models and their advantages and disadvantages. He discussed the important issues and problems facing e-commerce web sites and how to build a successful e-commerce Web site using techniques of security, privacy and authentication, guidelines of maintenance, collecting user’s information for personalization, using multi-tier architecture to achieve high performance and high availability.

Trust in Virtual Communities

2008 ◽  
pp. 2500-2504
Author(s):  
Eun G. Park
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Trust Building ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Trust Establishment ◽  
Cultural Aspects ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Technical Solutions

Trust is one of the key factors that emerged as a significant concept in virtual communities. Trust is so complicated that it is hard to define in one standardized way. Trust issues have evolved into two major ways in the fields of virtual community and security. Among a huge literature concerning trust in virtual communities, a majority of literature addresses technical solutions on trust-building by providing new Web-based applications. They range from human users authorization, semantic Web, agent technologies and access control of network to W3C standardization for content trust and security. Some examples include AT&T’s Policymaker or IBM’s Trust Establishment Module (Blaze, Feigenbaum, & Lacy, 1996; Herzberg, 2000). Only a minority deals with understanding the concept of trust and sources of trust-building from social and cultural aspects. It appears to miss the essence of trust in virtual communities, although an integrated approach is needed for building trust in communication and the use of virtual communities. This article aims to present the definition of trust and relevant concepts for recognizing sources of trust-building in virtual communities. This article also presents future research implications for further development on trust and trust-building in virtual communities.

Trust in Virtual Communities

2011 ◽  
pp. 449-451
Author(s):  
Eun G. Park
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Trust Building ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Trust Establishment ◽  
Cultural Aspects ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Technical Solutions

Trust is one of the key factors that emerged as a significant concept in virtual communities. Trust is so complicated that it is hard to define in one standardized way. Trust issues have evolved into two major ways in the fields of virtual community and security. Among a huge literature concerning trust in virtual communities, a majority of literature addresses technical solutions on trust-building by providing new Web-based applications. They range from human users authorization, semantic Web, agent technologies and access control of network to W3C standardization for content trust and security. Some examples include AT&T’s Policymaker or IBM’s Trust Establishment Module (Blaze, Feigenbaum, & Lacy, 1996; Herzberg, 2000). Only a minority deals with understanding the concept of trust and sources of trust-building from social and cultural aspects. It appears to miss the essence of trust in virtual communities, although an integrated approach is needed for building trust in communication and the use of virtual communities. This article aims to present the definition of trust and relevant concepts for recognizing sources of trust-building in virtual communities. This article also presents future research implications for further development on trust and trust-building in virtual communities.

MOOS as Virtual Communities

2011 ◽  
pp. 329-333
Author(s):  
Shannon Roper ◽  
Sharmila Pixy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Worlds ◽  
Online Community ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Social Constructs ◽  
Book Series ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Defined Culture

Many researchers have observed that the Internet has changed the concept of virtual communities (Barnes, 2001, 2003; Jones, 1995, 1998; Rheingold, 1993). A unique example of virtual communities is a MOO—a specialized interactive online community that is usually based on a work of fiction such as book series, theater or television (Bartle, 1990). MOOs share many of the features of multi-user dimensions (MUDs) in that both allow participants to create their own virtual worlds, but some researchers consider MOOs to be “more sophisticated” (Barnes, 2001, p. 94). In a MOO community, the participants or “players” create their own virtual communities—fantasy communities complete with world structures, interpersonal norms and social constructs. Individual participants create characters complete with environment, history and personality constructs. The characters interact and influence each other and their environments, just as do the members of real-world communities. The MOO discussed in this case study is based on acclaimed fantasy author Anne McCaffery’s book series set on the fictional world of “Pern.” The players on DragonWings1 MOO create and develop characters over long periods, often many years, leading to the establishment and creation of a strong MOO. In this article we provide a case study of the DragonWings MOO as a unique virtual community. Because the concept of virtual communities is evolving with the Internet, and no definitive understanding of virtual community or virtual culture yet exists, we have chosen to structure our analysis of DragonWings MOO around the classical anthropological definition of culture and community. A seminal definition of culture, first articulated by Tylor (1871), provides the springboard for a number of anthropological definitions widely used today. Building on Tylor, White (1959), a prominent cultural scholar, defined culture as “within human organisms, i.e., concepts, beliefs, emotions, attitudes; within processes of social interaction among human beings; and within natural objects” (p. 237). He also identified symbols as a primary defining characteristic of culture. White’s simple yet comprehensive definition yields clear criteria that lend themselves to our analysis of MOOs. At the broadest level, an application of the criteria provides support for the acceptance of the Internet as a distinct and unique culture. At a more particular level, they provide a convenient tool for the analysis of a MOO as a virtual community. In the remainder of this article, we will utilize the definition outlined above to demonstrate the features that make DragonWings MOO a unique example of a virtual community.

Cyber-Identities and Social Life in Cyberspace

2010 ◽  
pp. 27-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Berki ◽  
Mikko Jäkälä
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Identity Management ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Social Boundaries ◽  
Social Software ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Future Research Agenda ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
Definition Of

Information and communication technology gradually transform virtual communities to active meeting places for sharing information and for supporting human actions, feelings and needs. In this chapter the authors examine the conceptual definition of virtual community as found in the traditional cyberliterature and extend it to accommodate latest cybertrends. Similar to the ways that previous social and mass media dissolved social boundaries related to time and space, cyber-communities and social software seem to also dissolve the boundaries of identity. This, in turn, questions the trust, privacy and confidentiality of interaction. The authors present a way of classifying and viewing self-presentation regarding cyber-identity management in virtual communities. It is based on the characteristics that cyber-surfers prefer to attribute to themselves and accordingly present themselves to others. In so doing, the authors coin the terms for five distinct phenomena, namely nonymity, anonymity, eponymity, pseudonymity and polynymity. They subsequently compare and contrast these terms, summarising information from their investigation, and outlining emerging questions and issues for a future research agenda.

Exploring the Common Ground of Virtual Communities

2002 ◽  
pp. 67-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Dirksen ◽  
Bas Smit
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Social Activity ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Constructive Work ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
Actual Field ◽  
The Common ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Definition Of

A great deal of the literature on virtual communities evolves around classifying the phenomenon1 while much empirically constructive work on the topic has not been conducted yet. Therefore, the research discussed in this paper proposes to explore the actual field of the virtual community (VC). By means of a comparative ethnographic research, virtual communities are to be defined in terms of their inherent social activity, the interaction between the groups of people and the information and communication technology (ICT), and the meanings attached to it by its members. This chapter will report on the initial propositions, research questions and approach of the explorative research of working towards a “workable definition” of virtual communities. It will also present its “work to be done” which will ultimately form the basis of moving beyond defining virtual communities, i.e., actually designing and deploying one.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document