An innovating business model for the higher education sector: A platform-based approach to university career services

Abstract

With a changing landscape of higher education institutions (HEIs), the authors explore the concepts of a platform business model in the context of university career services. Through an inductive, multiyear case study of an HEI, this study analyzes how university career services can innovate and transform by operating as a platform. This exploratory research bridges the gap between HEIs and business by applying a well-developed theoretical framework for platform business models to HEIs.

Keywords

Business model career center career services higher education platform

Higher education (HE) career service centers in the United States have been challenged to define the roles they play in helping students to get hired after college, as well as the added value they bring to HE. Several environmental factors have contributed to this debate, including the globalization of the workforce, a decrease in federal and state funding, technological advancements, and the cost of education (Leonhardt, 2014; Young, 2016). For example, as the cost of education becomes more of a burden, and the job search process becomes increasingly complex, many prospective students may wonder whether HE is worth the investment (Lapovsky, 2018; Young, 2016). This naturally places pressure on university career services, which traditionally have been responsible for preparing students to seek and acquire jobs in a transactional way. In other words, students (i.e., job seekers) use the services to fulfill their needs, such as advice or resume review, to successfully land a job. Once a student’s needs have been satisfied, the transaction is complete. Therefore, the role of university career service centers is completed upon job placement (Berndt et al., 2014; Munk, 2016). This aligns with a linear value chain business model.

The job search process, however, is no longer linear. Instead, it is much more dynamic, particularly given technology and networking. For example, more than 70% of jobs are not posted but are found by networking referrals (NPR, 2011). Moreover, a resume is only one piece of the complex job-finding puzzle. Universities have recognized that this linear business model is no longer sufficient for staying competitive in the HE sector nor for students in the job market. Creating individual connections in this job environment requires scalability across thousands of students and other stakeholders and must remain sustainable as new students enter each year. There is a strong need for a continuous, collaborative, and proactive learning environment, one that includes a robust quantity of connections between students and other stakeholders—starting when students arrive on-campus and continuing after graduation. University career services can be facilitators that actively shape an ecosystem with multiple stakeholders to facilitate connections that lead to jobs. As such, career centers, as an industry, have been looking at new business models they can implement to address the growing needs and changes in the industry (Contomanolis et al., 2015; Dey and Cruzvergara, 2014; Lee and Patel, 2019).

In the past decade, the emphasis on business models has risen steeply with the development of the Internet and technology, which have also been factors contributing to the need for career centers to change (Christensen and Eyring, 2011; Smith, 2015; Tian and Martin, 2014). In today’s increasingly connected and globalized economy, along with increasing educational and hiring technology, innovating business models help to secure and expand competitive advantage (Doz and Kosonen, 2010). For example, firms that are financially successful assign twice as much importance to developing and sustaining business models compared to firms that are not financially successful (IBM, 2007). Currently, much of management research regarding business models has focused on for-profit firms, partly because profitability can be used to quantify the impact of models. Innovating business models is, however, arguably as important to nonprofit organizations, such as higher education institutions (HEIs). HEIs must also innovate their business models to deliver more value with fewer resources, all the while staying competitive in today’s dynamic environment (Tian and Martin, 2014).

This study examines the process of innovating the business model in one specific area of HEIs—university career services—through an in-depth case study. We suggest that using a platform-based business model as opposed to a linear value-chain model is more relevant to the business problems facing career services. In a platform-based model, a focal organization brings together groups of stakeholders on multiple sides of networks, effectively acting as a platform (Chesbrough, 2007). By documenting and analyzing the transformation of the business model of a university career center in a case study, this research observes that university career services can be successfully transformed into a platform-based business model to help solve issues such as competition, scalability, and sustainability. The findings can also be generalized to other areas of HE.

Literature review

Business models and the platform-based model

A business model provides a structure and process through which organizations create and deliver values by articulating the value propositions a focal organization brings to its stakeholders (Amit and Zott, 2001; Chesbrough, 2007). The concept of a business model entails the creation, delivery, and commercialization of new ideas and technologies. As values are being created, delivered, and commercialized, the design of a business model becomes critical. This especially includes identifying stakeholders and understanding what values are meaningful to each party. For a focal organization to succeed, a business model must not only be scalable and sustainable in the long term but must also address the following questions (Zott et al., 2011):

Who are you as an organization, and what are your strengths and weaknesses?

Who are your stakeholders, and what are their roles?

What value propositions are being created?

How are those specific value propositions being exchanged between the focal organization and its stakeholders?

Who are other indirect stakeholders involved in the value-creation and delivery process?

Answering these questions becomes more challenging when they involve services as opposed to goods (Meyer and DeTore, 2001). Although drawing a line between goods and services is at times difficult, an organization needs to identify different stakeholders and their needs, create value, recognize how this value can be delivered, and then deliver it. This process must be clarified and clearly communicated and then agreed upon in advance as many of the considerations involved are intangible concepts.

Historically, a value chain has served as the business model to describe how values are passed from one party to another party (e.g. from suppliers to manufacturers, assemblers, retailers, and end-customers) and how some form of monetary value will flow in reverse (Lee and Yang, 2000). In this linear process, value is added at each step of the process, and each party serves as a key driver in providing value to the downstream customers. As organizations respond to customers’ evolving needs, upstream suppliers must also respond to the organization’s evolving demands. To survive competition, each organization focuses on building assets to create better product design, reduce production or logistic costs through economies of scale, and improve distribution efficiency. In the linear model, the only way to create value is to increase the scale.

Alternatively, one of the most innovative business models is a platform-based business model (Chesbrough, 2007). In a platform-based model, a focal organization brings together groups of stakeholders on multiple sides of networks, effectively acting as a platform. Stakeholders on all sides are the major sources from which to derive value; the platform performs the role of integrating its own assets so that stakeholders can exchange value in any direction. Value does not flow from and to one direction; rather, there is give and take of value flow (Chesbrough, 2007).

An organization that owns a platform must have certain core assets and skills. More specifically, it should understand the needs of all sides and attract stakeholders on all sides with appropriate resources to fulfill those needs. To survive competition, a platform owner must induce an even greater multiplicity of stakeholders to join the platform (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002): with a stronger network, the platform will provide greater value to all agents in the ecosystem (Brandenburger and Stuart, 1996). In many cases, differentiation does not come from a product but from integrating an organization’s resources with the resources of other agents to deliver value to its customers. All stakeholders in the ecosystem can be considered customers. As more stakeholders participate in a platform, they are motivated to make the platform successful because their success is derived from its success (Seddon et al., 2004). Unlike the traditional value chain model, in which one side pushes value to the other side, a platform-based business model uses a network effect, in which one user has an effect on the value of that product or service as it is delivered to others. Network effects become greater and more valuable as more people join the platform, creating a positive feedback loop. For instance, an app store with many users may attract more app developers, and this may in turn result in many high-quality apps, begetting even more users.

Our research questions are as follows. In the changing landscape of HE and university career services, how can the current business model of university career services be transformed into a platform-based business model? How would this transformation take place, and why would it be valuable?

Methods

Case study as a methodology

We developed an in-depth, inductive case study to analyze the transformation of the business model of a university career center from that of a value chain to a platform-based model. To date, we are not aware of previous studies on the business model choices of university career centers. We therefore applied this case study methodology for several reasons. First, we wanted to obtain a holistic view of the relationships and interactions between stakeholders (Eisenhardt, 1989). Rather than focusing on certain variables or specific aspects, we were interested in describing and understanding the career center’s overall ecosystem as it relates to platform models and as it exemplifies use of the platform model in HEIs. Additionally, our research questions concern how and why certain decisions are made in real-world interactions, which are impossible to determine through controlled experiments or manipulating behaviors.

Case studies also help to contextualize conditions in a new and natural setting, such as university career centers, while deepening the understanding of processes and core concepts, as well as the framework of business model choice and organizational transformation. Furthermore, a case study is a useful methodology for analyzing understudied areas (Eisenhardt, 1989) such as university career services and HEIs in general, areas that have not been commonly examined in relation to platform-based business models to the best of our knowledge. A case study also allows for findings of new constructs or confirmation of previous ones that can then be tested in the future. Therefore, first-hand evidence was gathered through an in-depth qualitative study of a single organization.

Research setting: Overview of the focal organization

Our research context, then, is the career services center of a private research university in the United States. Traditionally, university career services have focused on helping students to create and refine their resumes and hone their interview skills for job placements. However, in this case, the university’s leadership recognized that the existing business model was no longer sufficient to stay competitive in a dynamically changing society. In 2013, the university and its career center launched a 6-year strategic initiative to innovate and transform the way career education was conducted. With new leadership in the center, a steering committee of students, alumni, faculty, university administration, parents, and recruiters came together to envision the next generation of career services. A committee member said,

We are moving into a world where things are hyper-connected […] and to get the next opportunity you need to be connecting with other people […] People who leverage their network are the people who are going to get ahead professionally in the new world of career services.

The goal of this strategic initiative was to make career and professional development part of the student experience, from day one to graduation. Thus the stakeholders in career development extended beyond the career coach and employer–student relationships to encompass campus partners, family and friends, faculty, and alumni. There was therefore a need to create a platform to capture and engage all the stakeholders within this ecosystem.

Research design and data sources

During this organizational transformation, we observed and documented the changes. In particular, we focused on why and how the business model of this university career services center transformed the way it operated. An overview of the data collection is presented in Table 1. The authors also conducted a university-wide survey (N = 153) and semi-structured interviews (N = 30) with those who could shed light on the transformation of the career services. These participants were undergraduates and graduates, career coaches, and university leaders. Most of the interviews lasted between 30 min and 90 min, with an average of 60 min, and were held in on-campus meeting rooms so that participants could freely express their thoughts on career services. Although we prepared an interview protocol, our primary goal was to understand how the students and other stakeholders viewed career services. The interview protocol evolved during the study as we learned more and identified opportunities for greater exploration. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by a third party for analysis. Secondary resources included the university website, internal documents, consumer insights research, and media coverage of the career center’s organizational transformation. Based on the primary and secondary data gathered, we looked for patterns and themes that emerged multiple times across multiple sources.

Table 1.

Data collection overview.

Date	Primary and secondary data sources
July 2014	400-page “current organizational state” audit report, which included primary and secondary research (e.g. interviews and focus groups with 20 students and 20 career coaches, competitive review, brand overview)
April 2015	11 focus groups with undergraduates and graduates (N = 18); university-wide survey (N = 153)*
May 2015	4 in-depth interviews with career coaches on-campus*
June 2015	2 in-depth interviews with community leaders on-campus*
September 2015	Technology overview: website, website strategy, and career services management system
January 2016	Brand launch event survey (N = 153)*
June 2016	Annual report data: interviews with 15 internal staff on organizational management*; presentation slides of use cases for project management tool
September 2016	Organizational strategy–related documents including brand identity guide and branding brief
2014–18	Publicly available career services or career center–related media articles; publicly available industry reports, including annual National Association of Colleges and Employers and Gallup-Purdue Index reports; organizational charts; list of partnerships; annual first destination report from survey; training and monthly marketing materials; internal business strategy presentation slides and reports; social media strategy reports, conducted during organizational change; career center guidebooks

Source: Compiled by the authors over 4 years.

*All primary research was conducted in compliance with institutional review board approval.

Findings

Our findings revealed three key themes relating to how university career services can innovate and transform their business models into platform-based ones: (a) redefining the organization’s mission, (b) creating an ecosystem beyond student–employer relationships, and (c) enriching an ecosystem with relevant technology tools.

Redefining the organization’s mission

One of the fundamental findings was that the role of university career services must begin as soon as students arrive on campus, as opposed to a few months prior to their graduation. Thus, a shift away from offering career services and, instead, highlighting the importance of ongoing career education was vital (Audit report, 2014; Brand strategy report and identity guide, 2016). The role of career education was stated to be to equip students with the knowledge, skills, connections, networks, and mindset to allow them to explore and find the right opportunities during their university tenure and beyond (Audit report, 2014; Internal business strategy presentations, 2014–2017; Interview with career coaches, 2015). Students can take and use these assets far beyond their first job after graduation. This realization by the focal organization led to several strategic decisions.

First, its mission and vision were redefined to highlight the importance of building an ecosystem of stakeholders and forming the connections needed to help students (the primary stakeholders) find meaningful work. This also spoke to how the organization saw itself scaling over 6 years to serve 14,000 students. Forty staff members alone could not become experts in the thousands of areas of student interest, which were constantly evolving. However, it was possible for them to become experts in creating and scaling the ecosystem of stakeholders. This mission and vision fundamentally shifted the organization as a whole (Branding strategy and identity guide, 2016; Internal business strategy presentations, 2014–2017; Interviews with career coaches, 2015; Organizational charts, 2014–2017; Training and monthly marketing materials, 2014–2017).

In accordance with the new vision and mission, the word “center” was removed from the career center’s name. It was replaced with a newly created acronym that included the words “education” and “meaningful work.” This new name was designed to be something simple, memorable, and positive, driven by the vision, mission statement, and product offerings (Brand strategy and identity guide, 2016). According to the university career services leadership, the reason for the name change was to emphasize that career education went beyond the physical boundaries of a building and that career education was embedded throughout the campus as well as off-campus (Brand strategy report and identity guide, 2016). This allowed the career center not only to create a larger ecosystem but also to remain competitive by making more connections with students. As an audit report (2014) identified, two key forms of competition were student time and competing resources on campus. By no longer being restrained by a building, both digitally and physically, more stakeholders could be engaged, thus allowing greater chances to compete for time and against other resources.

Additionally, the audit report (2014) and brand strategy (2016) highlighted how students often associated rigid, difficult, or even negative images with a career development center (Brand strategy and identity guide, 2016; Audit report, 2014). For example, a student said, “People are generally depressed at career development workshops because those who come do not have jobs or things are not working out well” (Focus groups, 2015). Another student commented, “I know it is rare to find a dream job […] career stuff should not be the worst experience in your life” (Focus groups, 2015).

Next, we observed how the focal organization shifted from offering services to offering education. New, career-related courses were introduced and new partnerships were created for courses across campus between different departments and the focal organization (Technology overview, 2015). Previously, the focal organization considered itself to be competing for students’ time against career-related resources offered by other departments. In an ecosystem-based mission, however, the organization’s motto shifted to “building bridges, developing an opportunity ecosystem” with all coexisting resources on campus, including faculty and student organizations (Brand strategy and identity guide, 2016). Therefore, through partnerships with departments and faculty members, the courses targeted various cohorts of students. By building optional, for-credit career courses with partners around campus, the organization lessened students’ previous perception that they had to pick from an array of competing options (Audit report, 2014; Brand strategy and identity guide, 2016; Internal business strategy presentation, 2014–2017; Interviews with career coaches, 2015; Focus groups, 2015). For example, first-year students took courses that exposed them to new industries by bringing in guest alumni or industry experts each week. The course was created in partnership with the focal organization and one of the university’s seven schools (Interviews with career coaches, 2015). These guest speakers introduced first-year students to their respective fields. A student stated, “I need to be able to learn from other experiences, seeing what you should and should not do” (Focus groups, 2015). In contrast, juniors and seniors could take more in-depth courses geared specifically toward them. These courses delved into specific majors and interests, providing the soon-to-graduate students with a set of frameworks and tools as well as a network of peers and mentors. Furthermore, PhD students from disciplines such as the humanities, science, engineering, and education could take courses in creating a digital portfolio to better communicate their professional field and career goals. They received feedback from several stakeholders, including other students, alumni, employers, and faculty who were brought together by the career center. In fact, all courses allowed experiential education to become a key component of career education (Brand launch event survey, 2016; Brand strategy report and identity guide, 2016; Focus groups, 2015; Internal business strategy presentations, 2014–2017; Interviews with career coaches, 2015; Organizational charts, 2014–2017; Technology overview, 2015). Through partnering with different on-campus entities, the issue of competition was also addressed, as former competitors became partners in this greater career education ecosystem.

Last, all new students were automatically opted into cohort email listservs that provided regular updates, such as career newsletters. Previously, they had had to opt in explicitly to receive such communications. This new practice created a more inclusive environment, reduced the barrier to entry for students, and led to more students engaging with the focal organization (Interviews with career coaches, 2015; Technology overview, 2015; Training and monthly marketing materials, 2014–2017).

Creating an ecosystem beyond student–employer relationships

In the traditional career services business model, university career centers play a passive role, simply matching students with job opportunities. As the career center transformed, it discovered that career education should not only focus on student–employer relationships; it should also be multidimensional. Career education extends to many stakeholders: family, friends, faculty, alumni, university resources, and community members in the career center’s network who can provide insight and knowledge (Brand strategy report and identity guide, 2016; Internal business strategy presentation, 2014–2017; Organizational charts, 2014–2017; Technology overview, 2015).

The focal organization took the following steps to create an ecosystem of stakeholders and scale for more sustainable growth. Most importantly, it identified nine key stakeholders: students, career educators, employers, alumni, faculty, upper university administration, parents/families, university staff and partners, and media and national career educators (Audit report, 2014). This expansive list was motivated by the observation that students are more resourceful than ever due to the Internet and advances in technology (Technology overview, 2015). In fact, students considered all of their personal acquaintances and networks to be part of their accessible resources. For instance, one said,

It does not matter where I met them, but I do care what career fields they are currently in. It does not matter whether I met him at a conference or once in my life. If he has a job that I want, I would ask for advice. (Focus groups, 2015)

Undergraduates also mentioned how their parents or siblings influenced their career-related decisions. Other students, especially those pursuing advanced degrees, stressed the importance of speaking to faculty members and having them be part of their career education. This highlighted the need for a larger and richer ecosystem, which led to more frequent interactions and positive network effects among stakeholders (Focus groups, 2015; Audit report, 2014):

I would definitely consult with my [faculty] advisor about my career options when it’s time for me to graduate. He is a lot older and wiser than I am and has experienced working with students. I am sure there were many previous students who were in the similar situation as I am, and he might know how everyone ended up choosing what they are doing now. My [faculty] advisor will be the first person to ask. (PhD student, Focus groups, 2015)

The need to expand the ecosystem of key stakeholders was echoed by career coaches:

Anybody who cares can be a part of your career community, because a career community for one could look totally different than the other. Even though they might know each other and help each other with their careers, maybe for student A, their parents are in a field of work they want to be in, so that expands their career community. Student B, on the other hand, does not want to do anything like what their parents do. So, that’s not a direct connection, even though the parents might know other people. It’s different for every individual, but I think anybody that cares, including peers, parents, and faculty members, can be part of one’s career community.(Interviews with career coaches, 2015)

Second, the focal organization articulated the needs and wants of each stakeholder based on the data gathered. It espoused the overall themes of meaningful work and connections, because connections are essential to creating a long-lasting ecosystem of stakeholders (Audit report, 2014; Brand launch event survey, 2016; Brand strategy and identity guide, 2016; Internal business strategy presentation, 2014–2017).

The focal organization also redefined the way it measured success, in terms of being more scalable, along with changes in the business model (Annual report, 2016; Internal business strategy presentation, 2014–2017; Training and monthly marketing materials, 2014–2017). Rather than focusing on the job placement rate, which was unsustainable and not always relevant to the stakeholders (i.e., sometimes their needs were more than placement), the focal organization decided that outcomes should be measured based on the process by which students find meaningful opportunities. These opportunities could include anything from designing a career pathway to finding mentors. Thus, the more connections made, the higher the likelihood for students to find meaningful opportunities, which served as a basis for new metrics (Internal business strategy presentation, 2014–2017; Training and monthly marketing materials, 2014–2017).

Finally, the focal organization restructured itself to focus on and foster the engagement and interaction of stakeholders. The organization previously consisted of four teams: employer services, career counseling, mentoring services, and administrative services. After restructuring, the employer services team was transformed into a hub for customized industry connections and employer engagement consisting of multiple sub-teams, each in charge of a specific industry (e.g. government, art, science, technology). Each sub-team featured years of collective experience in its given industry in addition to experience in HE, thus leveraging its experience to engage employers in mutually beneficial relationships. The teams served as a bridge between employers, students, and career coaches to understand the most recent and emerging trends in their respective industries, making connections between stakeholders. With strong and relatable industry experiences, they could speak the language of their respective industries. The teams also trained a group of 8–10 undergraduate and graduate students who served as industry “experts.” These selected students were chosen based on their involvement and leadership in on/off-campus activities, as well as their industry internship experience. The focal organization grew from 27 people in 2013 to 40 people by 2016, with plans until at least 2020 to grow further (Organizational charts, 2014–2017).

Enriching an ecosystem with relevant technology tools

Our study found that utilizing relevant technology tools played an important role in making the ecosystem more scalable, competitive, and sustainable. In this section, we selected three examples of how technology was incorporated in university career services to those ends. Foremost, the focal organization decommissioned the previous college career network used by students, employers, and career resources and adopted a new career management and recruiting platform that was faster, more user-friendly, scalable, mobile-friendly, and open to future integration with other platforms. Because of the rapid proliferation of smartphones, students use them to search for information and resources more than ever before. Therefore, making sure the platform was designed for mobile use was important. The focal organization was one of the first major university clients to introduce Handshake, a career and recruitment management platform, now used by over 500 universities. Compared to previous college career networks, this new platform provided additional tools (e.g. for maintaining a career journal, for integrating with social media). Most importantly, it allowed all stakeholders to connect in one place online (Audit report, 2014; Internal business strategy presentations, 2014–2017; Monthly training materials, 2014–2017; Social media strategy reports, 2014–2017; Technology overview, 2015).

Second, the focal organization officially embraced social media channels as a way to conduct marketing campaigns (Social media strategy reports, 2014–2017). Since a university career center serves students who are technology-savvy, identifying channels that were part of their daily lives and routines was important. Social media can be a powerful tool for increasing brand recognition and delivering key messages, especially among younger people. Thus embracing social media helped the organization to compete for students’ attention and time more effectively. For example, it conducted a social media campaign through Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, asking students, employers, alumni, and community members to share what “meaningful work” meant to them and measured students’ engagement and view counts. The focal organization found that social media not only improved the loyalty of students already utilizing career services but also led to a higher conversion rate among those who had never interacted with career services (Social media strategy report, 2014–2017).

Last, the focal organization introduced a project management tool called Trello, a web-based collaboration software that allows colleagues to track which projects are being worked on, who is working on which projects, and how projects are progressing. This allowed the organization to remain more sustainable while taking on more projects and initiatives. Its branding and marketing arm interviewed 15 internal staff members to understand how projects were being managed and tracked, identifying five areas in which a project management tool could be helpful: (a) knowledge sharing and cross-training, (b) collaboration across teams, (c) transparency across teams and leadership, (d) understanding the big picture and future directions of the organization, and (e) better customer strategies. The team considered project management tools in total and decided to launch one. The goal was to improve the focal organization’s performance and help it operate more efficiently and effectively (Monthly training materials, 2014–2017; Interviews with internal staff, 2015).

Conclusions

Did transforming to a platform model result in change for the career center? Based on the metrics the career education organization gathered through an annual survey, students showed increased confidence in the overall job search process after the business model transformation. Also, the transformation led to greater brand awareness across the campus: according to the annual survey, the career center distributed to students, awareness of career services increased from 33% to 80%, and the engagement level increased from 29% to 76%. The department also identified that, 2 years after the transformation to a platform model, they were making digital connections with an estimated 119,000 people through their redesigned website, their new career technology platform, and through social media. This included different stakeholders in the ecosystem connecting with each other and with in-house career educators.

Yet, this organizational transformation also had practical challenges. First, a significant financial commitment was asked of the university. It financially supported the change by approving an increase in staff from 27 to 40 in the span of the first 2 years of change (Organizational charts, 2014–2017). Second, it allocated significant resources to train people to become skillful as and reposition themselves as connectors rather than service providers. This process consumed a large amount of time and team building in order for the staff to adjust to rapid change in the organization and their fundamental work (Interviews with career coaches, 2015). Finally, the university career services center had to overcome its previous reputation and perceptions of it through a series of rebranding campaigns. This required everyone in the center to be part of strategic branding projects and initiatives, so they could offer their knowledge and expertise as well as being the voice of the changing organization.

The aim of this study was to understand how university career services can innovate by operating as a platform business model in the dynamic landscape of modern HE. The findings have both theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretically, the study highlights three elements of the platform business model that emerged during this innovation: competitiveness, sustainability, and scalability. First, a platform-based business model helps career services and HE stay more competitive. Unlike the linear value chain business model, a platform-based model creates values and facilitates the exchange of those values between different stakeholders (Amit and Zott, 2001; Chesbrough, 2007). In the case of the focal organization, students were already obtaining career-related information from other stakeholders, such as student clubs, alumni, academic departments, and faculty. Rather than competing against the nine stakeholders (i.e., students, career educators, employers, alumni, faculty, upper university administration, parents/families, university staff and partners, and media and national career educators), there was a need to integrate and collaborate with them, conducting open discussions to share knowledge and resources. By embracing them, the career center transformed itself into a connector, a facilitator, and a platform while staying relevant in the context of career services. This approach was achieved by proposing a vision for the organization to aspire to developing a set of activities to engage these stakeholders. For instance, career education courses were offered in partnership with various departments and faculty members. This further promoted a sense of community and connections.

Moreover, a platform-based business model allows career services and HE to be more sustainable. A platform can leverage the fact that its stakeholders constantly create value for the platform and provide information on current trends and developments without directly investing resources to maintain up-to-date information (Brandenburger and Stuart, 1996). In the case of the focal organization, it invested heavily in technology tools (such as career management systems, social media, communications, and project management) to reimagine the way stakeholders shared and exchanged information in a quicker and more affordable, efficient manner. That way, the focal organization could then focus on its core competencies: creating an ecosystem of stakeholders, deepening its relationship with them, understanding the importance and value of each stakeholder (including students), distributing information that each stakeholder could find valuable, controlling the quality of the platform, understanding direct and indirect network effects, meeting stakeholders’ expectations, and monitoring interaction and engagement.

Last, a platform-based business model allows career services, and HE in general, to reach scales with limited resources and fewer setbacks. With the rise and fall of new industries and roles, a university career center cannot possess subject-matter expertise across all industries. By onboarding stakeholders connected to subject-matter experts, university career centers can serve more needs. For instance, the focal organization hired student “experts” in government, art, science, and technology who interacted with other students via office hours and workshops. Moreover, once a platform has been established, it is less costly to onboard another stakeholder, because onboarding does not require recreating the ecosystem.

This study provides practical considerations for career educators and HE leaders and practitioners. A platform business model can help organizations cope with the quickly changing landscape of declining resources and increasing demand. For example, by connecting stakeholders instead of viewing them as competition, new resources and increased sustainability can result. With technology quickly increasing in impact, strategically using technology in service of a platform business model versus allowing technology to lead strategy is important. In this particular case, the strategic use of technology to help build a platform business capability helped to harness its power to increase sustainability and scalability by connecting stakeholders directly.

Our study is not without limitations. This article is based on a single, in-depth case study that analyzes why and how a business model of a university career services has transformed. While an inductive case study is a recommended methodology for an underexplored research topic and setting, future studies might explore other nonprofit contexts in which a platform-based business model could be applied or might focus on a specific aspect of the platform-based business model to test with bigger data sets.

We hope that this article will spark a conversation about how we can further theorize and apply best practices from management scholarship to innovate business models in HE and the nonprofit sector. Business models have mostly been studied in for-profit firm contexts, and as far as we know, this is the first case study to examine the transformation of a business model in HE and university career services. Best practices from management and business literature should also be applied to HE and other nonprofit organizations. Although a university has traditionally been considered a place of learning and personal growth, the evidence is clear from previous studies that the main reason students choose to attend college is to improve their employment opportunities, obtain better financial security, and secure a better job (Fishman, 2015). Therefore, critically evaluating university career services and HEIs to ensure that they remain competitive and impactful is crucial.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

June Y. Lee

References

Amit

Zott

(2001) Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7): 493–520.

Berndt

Brigham

Luzader

, et al. (2014) Redefining work: career services and recruiting for traditional, virtual, and self-employment in an era of career outcomes accountability. In: Presentation at the NACE Conference, San Antonio, TX, 8-11 June 2014.

Brandenburger

Stuart

(1996) Value-based business strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 5(1): 5–24.

Chesbrough

(2007) Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership 35(6): 12–17.

Chesbrough

Rosenbloom

(2002) The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 529–555.

Christensen

Eyring

(2011) The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Contomanolis

Cruzvergara

Dey

, et al. (2015) The Future of career services is now. NACE Journal. Available at: https://www.naceweb.org/j112015/future-of-career-services.aspx (accessed 10 November 2018).

Dey

Cruzvergara

(2014) Evolution of career services in higher education. New Directions for Student Services 148: 5–18.

Doz

Kosonen

(2010) Embedding strategic agility: a leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning 43(2): 370–382.

10.

Eisenhardt

(1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.

11.

Fishman

(2015) College decisions survey: part 1 deciding to go to college. New America. Available at: http://dev-edcentral.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/FINAL-College-Decisions-Survey-528.pdf (accessed 15 October 2018).

12.

IBM (2007) Paths to success: three ways to innovate your business model. Available at: http://www-935.ibm.com/services/uk/bcs/pdf/paths_to_success.pdf (accessed 15 October 2018).

13.

Lee

Yang

(2000) Knowledge value chain. Journal of Management Development 19(9): 783–793.

14.

Lee

Patel

(2019) Redefining career communities in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education 8(5): 1–11.

15.

Leonhardt

(2014) Is college worth It? Clearly, new data say. New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it-clearly-new-data-say.html (accessed 10 November 2018).

16.

Meyer

DeTore

(2001) Perspective: creating a platform-based approach for developing new services. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18(3): 188–204.

17.

Munk

(2016) Universities can’t solve our skills gap problem, because they caused it. TechCrunch. Available at: http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/08/universities-cant-solve-our-skills-gap-problem-because-they-caused-it/ (accessed 1 November 2018).

18.

NPR (2011) A successful job search: It’s all about networking. Available at: NPR. https://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133474431/a-successful-job-search-its-all-about-networking (accessed 10 November 2018).

19.

Seddon

Lewis

Freeman

, et al. (2004) The case for viewing business models as abstractions of strategy. The Communications of the Association for Information Systems 13(1): 64.

20.

Smith

(2015) US Smartphones in (2015) Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/03/PI_Smartphones_0401151.pdf (accessed 10 November 2018).

21.

Tian

Martin

(2014) Business models for higher education: an Australian perspective. Journal of Management Development 33(10): 932–948.

22.

Young

(2016) Reinventing the career center. The chronicle of higher education. Available at: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Reinventing-the-Career-Center/238107. (accessed 15 October 2018).

23.

Zott

Amit

Massa

(2011) The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of Management 37(4): 1019–1042.