Email Subscription Join 55.6K other subscribers Email Subscription Categories 2 Minute Lessons (15) Air Force (21) Ardent (9) Business Model versus Business Plan (64) California Coastal Commission (9) China (9) Commencement Speeches (9) Conservation (4) Convergent Technologies (4) Corporate/Gov't Innovation (133) Covid-19/Recovery (10) Customer Development (331) Customer Development Manifesto (34) E.piphany (13) Educators Summit (7) ESL (8) Family/Career/Culture (85) Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation (14) Hacking For Defense (45) Hacking for Diplomacy (10) Hacking for Recovery (5) Harvard Business Review (12) Innovation Doctrine (3) Innovation Outposts (4) Investment Readiness Level (6) Lean LaunchPad (120) Life Sciences (NIH) (26) Market Types (15) Marketing (28) MIPS Computers (2) National Security (50) Navy (8) NIH (National Institutes of Health) (18) NSF (National Science Foundation) (19) Rocket Science Games (10) Science and Industrial Policy (29) Secret History of Silicon Valley (26) SiriusXM Radio Show (50) SuperMac (13) Teaching (182) Technology (89) Technology Innovation and Great Power Competition (19) Technology Innovation and Modern War (23) Tesla (5) Uncategorized (8) Venture Capital (86) Vertical Markets (5) Zilog (5) 2 Minute Lessons (15) Business Model versus Business Plan (64) California Coastal Commission (9) Commencement Speeches (9) Conservation (4) Convergent Technologies (4) Corporate/Gov't Innovation (133) Covid-19/Recovery (10) Customer Development (331) Customer Development Manifesto (34) Educators Summit (7) Family/Career/Culture (85) Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation (14) Hacking For Defense (45) Hacking for Diplomacy (10) Hacking for Recovery (5) Harvard Business Review (12) Innovation Doctrine (3) Innovation Outposts (4) Investment Readiness Level (6) Lean LaunchPad (120) Life Sciences (NIH) (26) Market Types (15) MIPS Computers (2) National Security (50) NIH (National Institutes of Health) (18) NSF (National Science Foundation) (19) Rocket Science Games (10) Science and Industrial Policy (29) Secret History of Silicon Valley (26) SiriusXM Radio Show (50) Technology (89) Technology Innovation and Great Power Competition (19) Technology Innovation and Modern War (23) Uncategorized (8) Venture Capital (86) Vertical Markets (5) Get Steve Blank via your RSS Feed RSS - Posts RSS - Comments Get Steve Blank via your RSS Feed Recent Posts Lean Launch Pad 2026 @ Stanford – Lessons Learned Presentations Incorruptible Hacking for Defense @ Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations Anthropic Mythos – We’ve Opened Pandora’s Box AI and Teaching – The Brave New World Nowhere Is Safe Solving Yesterday’s Problems Will Kill You Your Startup Is Probably Dead On Arrival Time to Move On – The Reason Relationships End You Only Think They Work For You Lean Launch Pad 2026 @ Stanford – Lessons Learned Presentations Hacking for Defense @ Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations Anthropic Mythos – We’ve Opened Pandora’s Box AI and Teaching – The Brave New World Nowhere Is Safe Solving Yesterday’s Problems Will Kill You Your Startup Is Probably Dead On Arrival Time to Move On – The Reason Relationships End You Only Think They Work For You Archives June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 April 2023 February 2023 January 2023 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 Other Stuff About Steve Startup Tools Secret History Books for Startups Slides/Videos Raising Money Books for Startups The Mission Model Canvas – An Adapted Business Model Canvas for Mission-Driven Organizations As we prepared for the new Hacking for Defense class at Stanford, we had to stop and ask ourselves: How do we use the Business Model Canvas if the primary goal is not to earn money, but to fulfill a mission? In other words, how can we adapt the Business Model Canvas when the metrics of success for an organization is not revenue? Alexander Osterwalder and I think we have the answer – the new Mission Model Canvas. Here are our collective thoughts. The Lean Startup is the way most innovators build startups and innovate inside of existing companies. As a formal method, the Lean Startup consists of three parts: The Business Model Canvas – to frame hypotheses Customer Development – to test those hypotheses in front of customers Agile Engineering – to build Minimum Viable Products to maximize learning The Business Model Canvas has been a great invention for everyone from startups to large companies. Unlike an org chart, which describes how a company executes to deliver known products to known customers, the Business Model Canvas illustrates the search for the unknowns that most new ventures face. The 9 boxes of the canvas let you visualize all the components needed to turn customer needs/problems into a profitable company. From Revenue Streams to Mission Achievement The Business Model Canvas has served all of us well in thinking about building businesses – and therein lies the problem. In a business the aim is to earn more money than you spend. What if you’re a government or a military organization or part of the intelligence community? In these cases you don’t earn money, but you mobilize resources and a budget to solve a particular problem and create value for a set of beneficiaries (customers, support organizations, warfighters, Congress, the country, etc.) For these organizations, the canvas box labeled Revenue Streams doesn’t make sense. In a mission-driven organization such as the defense and intelligence community, there is no revenue to measure . So the first step in building a canvas for mission-driven organizations is to change the Revenue Stream box in the canvas and come up with a counterpart that would provide a measure of success. We’re calling this alternative Mission Achievement . Later in this post I’ll explain how we’ll measure and describe Mission Achievement , but first our Mission Model Canvas needs four more tweaks. Customer Segments is changed to Beneficiaries Cost Structure is changed to Mission Cost/Budget Channel is changed to Deployment Customer Relationships is changed to Buy-in/Support The rest of this blog post explains the how and why of these changes to the canvas. Customer Segments Change to Beneficiaries At first glance, when developing a new technology for use in the defense and intelligence community, the customer appears obvious – it’s the ultimate war fighter. They will articulate pains in terms of size, weight, form fit, complexity and durability. But there are other key players involved. Requirement writers and acquisition folks look at systems integration across the battlefield system, while contracting officers, yet another segment, will count beans , measure the degree of competition and assess the quality of market research involved. The support organizations need to worry about maintainability of code or hardware. Does legal need to sign off for cyber operations? So yes, war fighters are one customer segment, but others need to be involved before the war fighter can ever see the product. So the first insight is that in the defense and intelligence community mission models are always multi-sided markets with the goal of not just building a great demo but getting the product adopted and deployed. Second, in the defense and intelligence communities almost all of the mission models look like that of an OEM supplier – meaning there are multiple layers of customers in the value chain. Your product/service is just part of someone else’s larger system. So to differentiate “customers” from the standard business model canvas we’ll call all the different customer segments and the layers in the defense and intelligence value chain beneficiaries . The Value Proposition Canvas Of all the nine boxes of the canvas, two important parts of the model are the relationship between the Value Proposition (what you’re building) and the beneficiaries. These two components of the business model are so important we give them their own name, Product/Market Fit. Because of the complexity of multiple beneficiaries and to get more detail about their gains and pains, Osterwalder added an additional canvas called the Value Proposition Canvas. This functions like a plug-in to the Mission Model Canvas, zooming in to the value proposition to describe the interactions among these beneficiaries, war fighters, etc. and the product/service in more detail. Using the Value Proposition Canvas with the Mission Model Canvas lets you see both the big picture at the mission model level and the detailed picture of each beneficiary at the “product/market fit” level. In the defense and intelligence community mission models, there will always be multiple beneficiaries. It’s important that each beneficiary gets its own separate Value Proposition Canvas . Distribution Channel changes to Deployment In the commercial world we ask, “What type of distribution channel (direct sales, app store, system integrator, etc.) do we use to get the product/service from our company to the customer segments?” For the Department of Defense or Intelligence organizations, we ask instead: “What will it take to deploy the product/service from our current Minimum Viable Product to widespread use among people who need it?” (What architecture components can they innovate on and what can’t they?) “What constitutes a successful deployment? (number of users, units in the field, time to get it into the field, success in the field, etc.)” “How do we turn a Horizon 3 innovation into something that gets adopted by a Horizon 1 organization ?” Customer Relationships changes to Buy-In/Support In an existing business, Customer Relationships is defined as establishing and maintaining a relationship to support existing customers. In a startup we redefined Customer Relationships to answer the question: How does a company get, keep and grow customers? For the defense and intelligence communities, we have modified Customer Relationships to mean, “For each beneficiary (customer segment), how does the team get “Buy-In” from all the beneficiaries?” Customer discovery helps you understand whose buy-in is needed in order to deploy the product/service (legal, policy, procurement, etc.) and how to get those beneficiaries to buy-in? (Funding? Mandates? User requested? etc.) In addition, the long-term support and maintenance of new projects need to be articulated, understood and bought-into by the support organizations. At the Pentagon a favorite way to kill something is to coordinate it to death by requiring buy-in from too many people too early. How to determine who are the small group of critical people to get buy-in from – and how to determine who are the next set required to sustain the iterative development of future MVP’s – is one of the arts of entrepreneurship in the defense and intelligence community. Revenue Streams changes to Mission Achievement Mission Achievement is the value you are creating for the sum of all of the beneficiaries / the greater good. It’s important to distinguish between the value for individual beneficiaries (on the Value Proposition Canvas) and overall Mission Achievement . For example, Mission Achievement could be measured in a variety of ways: the number of refugees housed and fed, the number of soldiers saved from roadside bombs, the number of cyberattacks prevented, the increased target surveillance of sensor fusion, etc. None of these are measured in dollars and cents. Keep in mind, there is only mission achievement if it delivers value to the end beneficiary. [Update: Watch the Mission Model Canvas Videos ] Introduction to the Mission Model Canvas (2:19) Mission Model Canvas: Beneficiaries & Stakeholders (2:49) Mission Model Canvas: Value Proposition (1:33) Mission Model Canvas: Buy-In (1:35) Mission Model Canvas: Deployment (1:26) Mission Model Canvas: Mission Achievement (1:16) Mission Model Canvas: Key Activities (0:53) Mission Model Canvas: Key Resources (0:37) Mission Model Canvas: Partners (0:57) Mission Model Canvas: Mission Budget (1:17) Mission Model Canvas: Key Concepts (2:44) Lessons Learned In the defense and intelligence community the metrics of success are not revenue but mission achievement We’ve modified the Business Model Canvas into a Mission Model Canvas Changed Revenue Streams to Mission Achievement Changed Customer Segments to Beneficiaries Changed Cost Structure to Mission Cost/Budget Changed Channel to Deployment Changed Customer Relationships to Buy-in/Support We’ve modified the Business Model Canvas into a Mission Model Canvas Changed Revenue Streams to Mission Achievement Changed Customer Segments to Beneficiaries Changed Cost Structure to Mission Cost/Budget Changed Channel to Deployment

Changed Customer Relationships to Buy-in/Support Organizations without specific revenue goals can now use a version of the Business Model Canvas Print (Opens in new window) Print Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram Share on Tumblr Filed under: Business Model versus Business Plan , Customer Development , Hacking For Defense , Science and Industrial Policy , Teaching | LuisH Garcia , on February 23, 2016 at 7:12 am said: I´m enjoying this point of view. One more time is demonstrated the strength and flexibility of the BMC by Osterwalder. Thanks Proffessors. Loading... Reply I´m enjoying this point of view. One more time is demonstrated the strength and flexibility of the BMC by Osterwalder. Thanks Proffessors. Charlie Scuilla , on February 23, 2016 at 2:39 pm said: Steve: I always liked the Canvas Business Model for startups. Your innovation to extend it to Mission-Oriented Organizations is “brilliant.” I will contribute to the discussion as we move forward on topic. Food for thought – How do you maximize your budget? How do you increase your budget? How do you leverage “outside” money? How important is vision? How do you deal with mission failure? How do you deal with mission success, etc. Loading... Reply I always liked the Canvas Business Model for startups. Your innovation to extend it to Mission-Oriented Organizations is “brilliant.” I will contribute to the discussion as we move forward on topic. Food for thought – How do you maximize your budget? How do you increase your budget? How do you leverage “outside” money? How important is vision? How do you deal with mission failure? How do you deal with mission success, etc. Masato Iino , on February 23, 2016 at 2:54 pm said: Hi Steve, this is Masato Iino an admirer of you from Japan. Thank you for sharing the great insight. It certainly is a step forward to apply BMC to non-profit driven organization. Business organization and those non-profits are differently motivated, but “multilayer procurement” and “deployment” are common to most B2B businesses. In order to broaden use of BMC to apply to non-profits, I would replace “R$” with “Self-sustaining Driver”. This Self-sustaining Driver includes Revenes for businesses, and mission for non-profits. Appreciate your thoughts! Loading... Reply Hi Steve, this is Masato Iino an admirer of you from Japan. Thank you for sharing the great insight. It certainly is a step forward to apply BMC to non-profit driven organization. Business organization and those non-profits are differently motivated, but “multilayer procurement” and “deployment” are common to most B2B businesses. In order to broaden use of BMC to apply to non-profits, I would replace “R$” with “Self-sustaining Driver”. This Self-sustaining Driver includes Revenes for businesses, and mission for non-profits. Appreciate your thoughts! Tristan Kromer , on February 23, 2016 at 7:30 pm said: I like most of these modification. Reframing the language makes it much easier to communicate with stakeholders without requiring a translator. I’m not 100% sold on removing Revenue. Even mission driven organizations need revenue. Even a pure non-profit has a customer who donates money in exchange for a value proposition. e.g. Donates money in exchange for feeling like a good person (and a new tote bag!) Removing any mention of the customer and the revenue model risks missing an important aspect of creating a non-profit…particularly if the customer has a completely different set of metrics for success. e.g. A politician whose metric might be the # of articles written about the program mentioning the politician’s name. Loading... Reply Alex Osterwalder (@AlexOsterwalder) , on February 24, 2016 at 12:55 am said: @tristan Great points! In fact, I believe that not-for-profit NGOs with donors or other revenue streams should continue to use the Business Model Canvas rather than the Mission Model Canvas. The Mission Model Canvas was conceived for organizations that have budgets (rather than customer revenues) that will match the cost structure. For example, imagine the European Union or member states using the Mission Model Canvas to find a solution to the refugee/migration challenge. They can use the Canvas to come up with alternative solutions. Each solution can be evaluated a) on the required Mission Budget of the solution, and, b) on Mission Achievement Factors. To pick a solution decision makers need to balance between cost and impact of each solution. Revenues are not a decisive factor. For a not-for-profit NGO with donors (or even customers) the situation is different. They need to have a clear value proposition to donors and/or other customers, which will result in revenues from donors and/or other customers. Donor and other revenues are a decisive factor in the survival of the organization. It could be interesting, however, to design a Mission Model Canvas for the mission and beneficiaries of the NGO – in addition to their Business Model Canvas. Loading... Reply Pablo Padilha , on February 24, 2016 at 3:43 am said: Hello Steve and Ostewalder The proposed @tristan makes sense. I like to think that the “revenue sources” can always be replaced by the metric or metrics that need within a business model aimed at NGOs or non-profit. Loading... Reply Tristan Kromer , on February 24, 2016 at 7:52 am said: That makes sense to me. Doing a BMC first for the larger org and then zooming in for the team with the Mission with this canvas seems wise. In that case, it may be helpful to refactor the look/feel/shape of the Mission canvas. We, humans, are a little dumb and lazy. With so many canvases derivatives looking identical, many of us innovators assume they are replacements as a default when they may be complementary. Not a criticism or your work. Just a default human behavior to not think too hard about the tools we use. There are a lot of entrepreneurs out who have to be disabused of the notion that the lean canvas must be a “leaner” replacement to the BMC even though both tools aren’t inherently lean at all. It’s how we use them to iterate. Loading... Reply Jen , on February 25, 2016 at 7:26 am said: Then why not call it the government canvas – rather than risk this Mission canvas being adopted by NGOs and social entrepreneurs who really need to be using the BMC? Loading... Reply Amanda Brooks , on July 2, 2016 at 4:47 pm said: Thoroughly enjoyed the rerun of the strategyzer webinar tonight with Steve and Alexander. I’ve been using the canvas in a similar way for a while in an existing organisation so was excited to see it reshaped in this way. One thing I wondered for social enterprises is whether they could use the MMC to validate their social model alongside the BMC to validate the business model. Loading... Reply Aramis Rodriguez (@RodriguezAramis) , on May 31, 2017 at 10:44 am said: Good clarification, however deserves, also, to specify the following: 1-A business model, either of a company or an NGO is designed to be sustained over time, either incorporating changes or not. 2-A certain project, that is born within an organization could have a beginning and an end. That is, from the time it is conceived until it fulfills its mission, and then disappears. Although the idea of the Vision Model Canvas is exciting, I still do not know its use by the temporal variable. A business is always going to be “rolling”, with changes or not, however a project that is born to fulfill a mission has time of expiration. Thank you Loading... Reply I like most of these modification. Reframing the language makes it much easier to communicate with stakeholders without requiring a translator. I’m not 100% sold on removing Revenue. Even mission driven organizations need revenue. Even a pure non-profit has a customer who donates money in exchange for a value proposition. e.g. Donates money in exchange for feeling like a good person (and a new tote bag!) Removing any mention of the customer and the revenue model risks missing an important aspect of creating a non-profit…particularly if the customer has a completely different set of metrics for success. e.g. A politician whose metric might be the # of articles written about the program mentioning the politician’s name. Alex Osterwalder (@AlexOsterwalder) , on February 24, 2016 at 12:55 am said: @tristan Great points! In fact, I believe that not-for-profit NGOs with donors or other revenue streams should continue to use the Business Model Canvas rather than the Mission Model Canvas. The Mission Model Canvas was conceived for organizations that have budgets (rather than customer revenues) that will match the cost structure. For example, imagine the European Union or member states using the Mission Model Canvas to find a solution to the refugee/migration challenge. They can use the Canvas to come up with alternative solutions. Each solution can be evaluated a) on the required Mission Budget of the solution, and, b) on Mission Achievement Factors. To pick a solution decision makers need to balance between cost and impact of each solution. Revenues are not a decisive factor. For a not-for-profit NGO with donors (or even customers) the situation is different. They need to have a clear value proposition to donors and/or other customers, which will result in revenues from donors and/or other customers. Donor and other revenues are a decisive factor in the survival of the organization. It could be interesting, however, to design a Mission Model Canvas for the mission and beneficiaries of the NGO – in addition to their Business Model Canvas. Loading... Reply Pablo Padilha , on February 24, 2016 at 3:43 am said: Hello Steve and Ostewalder The proposed @tristan makes sense. I like to think that the “revenue sources” can always be replaced by the metric or metrics that need within a business model aimed at NGOs or non-profit. Loading... Reply Tristan Kromer , on February 24, 2016 at 7:52 am said: That makes sense to me. Doing a BMC first for the larger org and then zooming in for the team with the Mission with this canvas seems wise. In that case, it may be helpful to refactor the look/feel/shape of the Mission canvas. We, humans, are a little dumb and lazy. With so many canvases derivatives looking identical, many of us innovators assume they are replacements as a default when they may be complementary. Not a criticism or your work. Just a default human behavior to not think too hard about the tools we use. There are a lot of entrepreneurs out who have to be disabused of the notion that the lean canvas must be a “leaner” replacement to the BMC even though both tools aren’t inherently lean at all. It’s how we use them to iterate. Loading... Reply Jen , on February 25, 2016 at 7:26 am said: Then why not call it the government canvas – rather than risk this Mission canvas being adopted by NGOs and social entrepreneurs who really need to be using the BMC? Loading... Reply Amanda Brooks , on July 2, 2016 at 4:47 pm said: Thoroughly enjoyed the rerun of the strategyzer webinar tonight with Steve and Alexander. I’ve been using the canvas in a similar way for a while in an existing organisation so was excited to see it reshaped in this way. One thing I wondered for social enterprises is whether they could use the MMC to validate their social model alongside the BMC to validate the business model. Loading... Reply Aramis Rodriguez (@RodriguezAramis) , on May 31, 2017 at 10:44 am said: Good clarification, however deserves, also, to specify the following: 1-A business model, either of a company or an NGO is designed to be sustained over time, either incorporating changes or not. 2-A certain project, that is born within an organization could have a beginning and an end. That is, from the time it is conceived until it fulfills its mission, and then disappears. Although the idea of the Vision Model Canvas is exciting, I still do not know its use by the temporal variable. A business is always going to be “rolling”, with changes or not, however a project that is born to fulfill a mission has time of expiration. Thank you Loading... Reply @tristan Great points! In fact, I believe that not-for-profit NGOs with donors or other revenue streams should continue to use the Business Model Canvas rather than the Mission Model Canvas. The Mission Model Canvas was conceived for organizations that have budgets (rather than customer revenues) that will match the cost structure. For example, imagine the European Union or member states using the Mission Model Canvas to find a solution to the refugee/migration challenge. They can use the Canvas to come up with alternative solutions. Each solution can be evaluated a) on the required Mission Budget of the solution, and, b) on Mission Achievement Factors. To pick a solution decision makers need to balance between cost and impact of each solution. Revenues are not a decisive factor. For a not-for-profit NGO with donors (or even customers) the situation is different. They need to have a clear value proposition to donors and/or other customers, which will result in revenues from donors and/or other customers. Donor and other revenues are a decisive factor in the survival of the organization. It could be interesting, however, to design a Mission Model Canvas for the mission and beneficiaries of the NGO – in addition to their Business Model Canvas. Pablo Padilha , on February 24, 2016 at 3:43 am said: Hello Steve and Ostewalder The proposed @tristan makes sense. I like to think that the “revenue sources” can always be replaced by the metric or metrics that need within a business model aimed at NGOs or non-profit. Loading... Reply Hello Steve and Ostewalder The proposed @tristan makes sense. I like to think that the “revenue sources” can always be replaced by the metric or metrics that need within a business model aimed at NGOs or non-profit. Tristan Kromer , on February 24, 2016 at 7:52 am said: That makes sense to me. Doing a BMC first for the larger org and then zooming in for the team with the Mission with this canvas seems wise. In that case, it may be helpful to refactor the look/feel/shape of the Mission canvas. We, humans, are a little dumb and lazy. With so many canvases derivatives looking identical, many of us innovators assume they are replacements as a default when they may be complementary. Not a criticism or your work. Just a default human behavior to not think too hard about the tools we use. There are a lot of entrepreneurs out who have to be disabused of the notion that the lean canvas must be a “leaner” replacement to the BMC even though both tools aren’t inherently lean at all. It’s how we use them to iterate. Loading... Reply That makes sense to me. Doing a BMC first for the larger org and then zooming in for the team with the Mission with this canvas seems wise. In that case, it may be helpful to refactor the look/feel/shape of the Mission canvas. We, humans, are a little dumb and lazy. With so many canvases derivatives looking identical, many of us innovators assume they are replacements as a default when they may be complementary. Not a criticism or your work. Just a default human behavior to not think too hard about the tools we use. There are a lot of entrepreneurs out who have to be disabused of the notion that the lean canvas must be a “leaner” replacement to the BMC even though both tools aren’t inherently lean at all. It’s how we use them to iterate. Jen , on February 25, 2016 at 7:26 am said: Then why not call it the government canvas – rather than risk this Mission canvas being adopted by NGOs and social entrepreneurs who really need to be using the BMC? Loading... Reply Then why not call it the government canvas – rather than risk this Mission canvas being adopted by NGOs and social entrepreneurs who really need to be using the BMC? Amanda Brooks , on July 2, 2016 at 4:47 pm said: Thoroughly enjoyed the rerun of the strategyzer webinar tonight with Steve and Alexander. I’ve been using the canvas in a similar way for a while in an existing organisation so was excited to see it reshaped in this way. One thing I wondered for social enterprises is whether they could use the MMC to validate their social model alongside the BMC to validate the business model. Loading... Reply Thoroughly enjoyed the rerun of the strategyzer webinar tonight with Steve and Alexander. I’ve been using the canvas in a similar way for a while in an existing organisation so was excited to see it reshaped in this way. One thing I wondered for social enterprises is whether they could use the MMC to validate their social model alongside the BMC to validate the business model. Aramis Rodriguez (@RodriguezAramis) , on May 31, 2017 at 10:44 am said: Good clarification, however deserves, also, to specify the following: 1-A business model, either of a company or an NGO is designed to be sustained over time, either incorporating changes or not. 2-A certain project, that is born within an organization could have a beginning and an end. That is, from the time it is conceived until it fulfills its mission, and then disappears. Although the idea of the Vision Model Canvas is exciting, I still do not know its use by the temporal variable. A business is always going to be “rolling”, with changes or not, however a project that is born to fulfill a mission has time of expiration. Thank you Loading... Reply Good clarification, however deserves, also, to specify the following: 1-A business model, either of a company or an NGO is designed to be sustained over time, either incorporating changes or not. 2-A certain project, that is born within an organization could have a beginning and an end. That is, from the time it is conceived until it fulfills its mission, and then disappears. Although the idea of the Vision Model Canvas is exciting, I still do not know its use by the temporal variable. A business is always going to be “rolling”, with changes or not, however a project that is born to fulfill a mission has time of expiration. Carl Frampton vs Scott Quigg Live Free Online , on February 24, 2016 at 8:46 am said: Hmm it seems like your website ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to the whole thing. Do you have any points for newbie blog writers? I’d genuinely appreciate it. Loading... Reply Hmm it seems like your website ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to the whole thing. Do you have any points for newbie blog writers? I’d genuinely appreciate it. Gabor Levai , on February 25, 2016 at 8:11 am said: Only one thing is missing from your modell, the way how to define “mission achievment’s measures instead of revenue stream. Aim of a mission driven organization is always a positive change in life of beneficiaries. It would be great to connect your model with theory of change methodology for example Best Gabor Levai Loading... Reply Only one thing is missing from your modell, the way how to define “mission achievment’s measures instead of revenue stream. Aim of a mission driven organization is always a positive change in life of beneficiaries. It would be great to connect your model with theory of change methodology for example Best Gabor Levai Lory Block , on February 25, 2016 at 8:29 am said: I’m interested in your assumption that mission-based organizations don’t need to think about revenue streams. I wonder if that’s a wise assumption to make as sustainable growth with impact is the focus of most mission-based organizations today. They don’t see their missions as time-limited and as external funding sources dry up, they are working hard to figure out what a new business model that delivers sustainable growth looks like. I work with a values-based financial cooperative. We have set up top-of-the-house metrics for impact as well as what we refer to as confidence (e.g. return on equity and membership growth). What about leaving revenue streams in and then adding mission achievement as a third box on the bottom of the canvas? Loading... Reply I’m interested in your assumption that mission-based organizations don’t need to think about revenue streams. I wonder if that’s a wise assumption to make as sustainable growth with impact is the focus of most mission-based organizations today. They don’t see their missions as time-limited and as external funding sources dry up, they are working hard to figure out what a new business model that delivers sustainable growth looks like. I work with a values-based financial cooperative. We have set up top-of-the-house metrics for impact as well as what we refer to as confidence (e.g. return on equity and membership growth). What about leaving revenue streams in and then adding mission achievement as a third box on the bottom of the canvas? Josep Cortes , on February 25, 2016 at 9:44 am said: Hi, I appreciate and understand your comments and your ideas, but in my opinion the BMC is an open model that you can design and convert in anything you need to organise your project. Mision Model Canvas is a concept traslated from BMC, so, a concept of thousands you can imagine to organize your ideas and projects, yes, I think that’s clear for everyone, however, for me, as engineer, I would like to point how can we share experiences using (X)BMC to learn its application to real projects. Any ideas? Loading... Reply Hi, I appreciate and understand your comments and your ideas, but in my opinion the BMC is an open model that you can design and convert in anything you need to organise your project. Mision Model Canvas is a concept traslated from BMC, so, a concept of thousands you can imagine to organize your ideas and projects, yes, I think that’s clear for everyone, however, for me, as engineer, I would like to point how can we share experiences using (X)BMC to learn its application to real projects. Any ideas? John DiLuna , on February 26, 2016 at 1:49 pm said: Steve and Alex: Thank you for making this important contribution. For almost a decade, my teams have been drawing on entrepreneurial best practices (design-thinking, Lean Startup, Business Model Canvas) and adapting them for use in the federal government. One of the most compelling components of adapting the BMC for government has been the explicit use of the word “customer” when speaking specifically about a customer of a government service – whether it be a citizen, a warfighter, or another government employee. By focusing on the customer – the person who directly extracts value from the product/service provided – it forces government teams to think explicitly about the work they are doing that delivers value, the customer experience associated with delivering that value…and, just as importantly, think less about work that does not. We often ask “would your customers buy from you?” and “whose mission would be impacted if ceased to exist?” Admittedly, I need to take some more time to digest the concept of a “beneficiary” vice “customer” in the Mission Model Canvas, but my initial reaction is to take exception. On one hand, we still get blank stares from government employees who are reluctant to think about serving customers; but I still group much of this reticence as an excuse, placing it in the bucket of “it is much easier to say that I am serving the public, constituents, stakeholders etc than do the hard work of identifying my customers and understand their needs.” On the flip side, there are have been some recent shifts in US government (Executive Order 13571, US Digital Service, GSA’s 18F Teams, Customer Experience Officers, and VA’s MyVA transformation) that indicate there is an appetite for government to think about themselves as service providers who have customers and where these customers decide whether or not to do business with them. These are often breakthrough conversations as people latch onto the concept of delivering something of unique value and providing a unique customer experience. As it is explained, Beneficiaries, include functions such as acquisition, legal, procurement (which are part of every revenue-generating operation) but could also include other external influencers like politicians, oversight committees, and lobbyists whose equities may compete with the primary customer. My concern is the solution that best serves the customer (citizen, a warfighter, or another government employee) may get significantly watered down when we settle for adapting it to the various stakeholders and beneficiaries that like to tinker with great ideas and, as you state, “coordinate it to death”. All of the groups you categorize as Beneficiaries are important to the success of the solution, but none hold the unifying power of a customer. Jointness (military jargon for “integration of the strengths of multiple organizations in a coordinated effort to achieve a common goal”) can only succeed when everyone is clear on objectives and priorities. Focusing on the customer is very often a powerful means to achieve unity of effort. Loading... Reply Steve and Alex: Thank you for making this important contribution. For almost a decade, my teams have been drawing on entrepreneurial best practices (design-thinking, Lean Startup, Business Model Canvas) and adapting them for use in the federal government. One of the most compelling components of adapting the BMC for government has been the explicit use of the word “customer” when speaking specifically about a customer of a government service – whether it be a citizen, a warfighter, or another government employee. By focusing on the customer – the person who directly extracts value from the product/service provided – it forces government teams to think explicitly about the work they are doing that delivers value, the customer experience associated with delivering that value…and, just as importantly, think less about work that does not. We often ask “would your customers buy from you?” and “whose mission would be impacted if ceased to exist?” Admittedly, I need to take some more time to digest the concept of a “beneficiary” vice “customer” in the Mission Model Canvas, but my initial reaction is to take exception. On one hand, we still get blank stares from government employees who are reluctant to think about serving customers; but I still group much of this reticence as an excuse, placing it in the bucket of “it is much easier to say that I am serving the public, constituents, stakeholders etc than do the hard work of identifying my customers and understand their needs.” On the flip side, there are have been some recent shifts in US government (Executive Order 13571, US Digital Service, GSA’s 18F Teams, Customer Experience Officers, and VA’s MyVA transformation) that indicate there is an appetite for government to think about themselves as service providers who have customers and where these customers decide whether or not to do business with them. These are often breakthrough conversations as people latch onto the concept of delivering something of unique value and providing a unique customer experience. As it is explained, Beneficiaries, include functions such as acquisition, legal, procurement (which are part of every revenue-generating operation) but could also include other external influencers like politicians, oversight committees, and lobbyists whose equities may compete with the primary customer. My concern is the solution that best serves the customer (citizen, a warfighter, or another government employee) may get significantly watered down when we settle for adapting it to the various stakeholders and beneficiaries that like to tinker with great ideas and, as you state, “coordinate it to death”. All of the groups you categorize as Beneficiaries are important to the success of the solution, but none hold the unifying power of a customer. Jointness (military jargon for “integration of the strengths of multiple organizations in a coordinated effort to achieve a common goal”) can only succeed when everyone is clear on objectives and priorities. Focusing on the customer is very often a powerful means to achieve unity of effort. Erik Holthe Eriksen , on February 29, 2016 at 9:20 am said: Hi, I really like this version and I was working with a similar version for some projects. In my experience funding and future funding is an important aspect like any commercial startup and I think this part is more similar to revenue streams than mission achievement. I like the model but kind of see this part of revenue streams missing out a bit. Another aspect is implementation within an organization which always is a struggle for experiment projects, and not just beneficiaries support. Usually after experiments there is a report and after that it can take years before you see any thing showing up in the field. I really hope the deployment part also includes implementation by organization and not only technical. I think the defense can learn a lot by adopting lean perspectives in sw and hw, but one major problem is that the leadership is usually dinosaurs who can’t keep up with the advice they get on especially technology, and the younger generations are trying to get a word out about the new innovation models and tech, but unfortunately these things take time, tens of years. The greatest thing is that this model will save money, time and be more beneficial for the user – if you get the customer development part right. Regards, Erik Loading... Reply Hi, I really like this version and I was working with a similar version for some projects. In my experience funding and future funding is an important aspect like any commercial startup and I think this part is more similar to revenue streams than mission achievement. I like the model but kind of see this part of revenue streams missing out a bit. Another aspect is implementation within an organization which always is a struggle for experiment projects, and not just beneficiaries support. Usually after experiments there is a report and after that it can take years before you see any thing showing up in the field. I really hope the deployment part also includes implementation by organization and not only technical. I think the defense can learn a lot by adopting lean perspectives in sw and hw, but one major problem is that the leadership is usually dinosaurs who can’t keep up with the advice they get on especially technology, and the younger generations are trying to get a word out about the new innovation models and tech, but unfortunately these things take time, tens of years. The greatest thing is that this model will save money, time and be more beneficial for the user – if you get the customer development part right. Regards, Erik Ondine Hogeboom , on April 13, 2016 at 12:25 pm said: Hi Steve and Alex, Thanks for the post and great to see that you are both thinking about mission driven organizations. I think context is everything and the mission model canvas appears to have been developed for a specific user. I have recently completed research on Lean Start-up and it’s implementation within the social impact sector and have a few interesting observations I would like to share: Social entrepreneurs can be stuck in a ‘mission mindset’ placing predominant focus on the cause or mission as opposed to the organization they are trying to build. Most research participants (all social entrepreneurs / advisors to social impact driven organizations including NPO’s) found a conceptual framework like the BMC to be extremely helpful in bringing focus to the business and organizational requirements needed. The research revealed however, that the BMC is viewed as incomplete and 66% of research participants had developed their own version of the BMC or had modified the existing BMC. The predominant gaps identified in the BMC were centered around articulating future vision (understanding theory of change) / social purpose, generation of impact from a tri-impact perspective (financial, social and environmental) , organizational sustainability & governance (environmental and social), multiple stakeholders / beneficiaries and value destruction (when you create value you may, in turn, destroy value for another stakeholder group / social system or the environment). What was also interesting was that the shortcomings of the BMC created a perception that Lean Start-up is not a good fit for social enterprise as 91% of participants believed that the BMC is Lean Start-up. There is some amazing work being done on the development of highly innovative social impact driven design tools by people such as Antony Upward (The Flourishing Business Model Canvas), Alexandre Joyce (The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas), Claude Michaud (Social Business Model Canvas). These innovators are addressing the complexity involved in designing mission / impact driven organizations. It would be amazing to see all of you thought leaders working together, sharing your knowledge, experience and insights in improving design tools for businesses of the future, those who do good TO to well. PS I would be happy to share my research as well. Loading... Reply Hi Steve and Alex, Thanks for the post and great to see that you are both thinking about mission driven organizations. I think context is everything and the mission model canvas appears to have been developed for a specific user. I have recently completed research on Lean Start-up and it’s implementation within the social impact sector and have a few interesting observations I would like to share: Social entrepreneurs can be stuck in a ‘mission mindset’ placing predominant focus on the cause or mission as opposed to the organization they are trying to build. Most research participants (all social entrepreneurs / advisors to social impact driven organizations including NPO’s) found a conceptual framework like the BMC to be extremely helpful in bringing focus to the business and organizational requirements needed. The research revealed however, that the BMC is viewed as incomplete and 66% of research participants had developed their own version of the BMC or had modified the existing BMC. The predominant gaps identified in the BMC were centered around articulating future vision (understanding theory of change) / social purpose, generation of impact from a tri-impact perspective (financial, social and environmental) , organizational sustainability & governance (environmental and social), multiple stakeholders / beneficiaries and value destruction (when you create value you may, in turn, destroy value for another stakeholder group / social system or the environment). What was also interesting was that the shortcomings of the BMC created a perception that Lean Start-up is not a good fit for social enterprise as 91% of participants believed that the BMC is Lean Start-up. There is some amazing work being done on the development of highly innovative social impact driven design tools by people such as Antony Upward (The Flourishing Business Model Canvas), Alexandre Joyce (The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas), Claude Michaud (Social Business Model Canvas). These innovators are addressing the complexity involved in designing mission / impact driven organizations. It would be amazing to see all of you thought leaders working together, sharing your knowledge, experience and insights in improving design tools for businesses of the future, those who do good TO to well. PS I would be happy to share my research as well. George Simons , on May 11, 2016 at 12:28 pm said: Hi Steve, great post! I’d be curious to know what you think of the Innovative Non-Profit BMC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pcnRlPJvj8 I’m creating a modern charter school model for the XQ Super School Challenge, hosted by Lauren Powell Jobs. As many have pointed out, Non-Profits are usually in at least two business: one with their donors, and one with their beneficiaries. As such I’m creating three BMC: one for Donors/ Gov, a second for beneficiaries/ students, and a third for our educational technology platform. Breaking it out to such a degree has proven useful so far. Loading... Reply Hi Steve, great post! I’d be curious to know what you think of the Innovative Non-Profit BMC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pcnRlPJvj8 I’m creating a modern charter school model for the XQ Super School Challenge, hosted by Lauren Powell Jobs. As many have pointed out, Non-Profits are usually in at least two business: one with their donors, and one with their beneficiaries. As such I’m creating three BMC: one for Donors/ Gov, a second for beneficiaries/ students, and a third for our educational technology platform. Breaking it out to such a degree has proven useful so far. Shared Value Agents (@SharedValuAgent) , on May 16, 2016 at 2:22 pm said: Thanks, @SGBlank & @AlexOsterwalder , for making your work more accessible for mission orgs. I see value in your comment to keep Business Model Canvas together with Mission Model Canvas since everyone’s mission relies on revenue even if they don’t earn it from customers. I’d be curious your reactions to other reasons that I mentioned in recent article: The Secret Sauce in Shared Value, Lean Startup, Behavioral Economics and Social Enterprise? http://nextbillion.net/the-secret-sauce-in-shared-value-lean-startup-behavioral-economics-and-social-enterprise/ I’ve been a fan & using business model canvas for my lean startup social enterprise. More from my microfinance & NGO consulting I elsewhere proposed alternative ways NGOs not taking payments for services could still incorporate dynamics from market transactions to drive up value and sync their business model with mission impact. What do readers think? http://goo.gl/zeQayq Excited to continue the dialogue, Chris Loading... Reply Thanks, @SGBlank & @AlexOsterwalder , for making your work more accessible for mission orgs. I see value in your comment to keep Business Model Canvas together with Mission Model Canvas since everyone’s mission relies on revenue even if they don’t earn it from customers. I’d be curious your reactions to other reasons that I mentioned in recent article: The Secret Sauce in Shared Value, Lean Startup, Behavioral Economics and Social Enterprise? http://nextbillion.net/the-secret-sauce-in-shared-value-lean-startup-behavioral-economics-and-social-enterprise/ I’ve been a fan & using business model canvas for my lean startup social enterprise. More from my microfinance & NGO consulting I elsewhere proposed alternative ways NGOs not taking payments for services could still incorporate dynamics from market transactions to drive up value and sync their business model with mission impact. What do readers think? http://goo.gl/zeQayq Excited to continue the dialogue, Chris Patrick Hew , on May 2, 2017 at 8:52 am said: I am puzzled by what the MMC actually represents? I’m happy that a BMC represents the hypothesis that a startup is pursuing as they search for a viable business model. As a BMC’s hypotheses mature, the startup transitions into a profitable & lasting business. What is the end state of mature hypotheses under an MMC? Loading... Reply John DiLuna (@jdiluna) , on May 2, 2017 at 10:46 am said: While not perfect, I think the answer lies somewhere in “service utilization.” In business, money is the consideration that a consumer offers to acquire the good or service. Businesses compete for share of wallet as validation that their business model is working; it is a convenient and universal measurement. I believe that “effort” is the consideration that people use to acquire government services as conceived through the MMC. People weigh whether the benefit they receive from the government service is worth the effort they need to expend to gain access to it including opportunity costs. To get to the desired outcome, however, we must think of Effort as a time coupled with customer experience. Loading... Reply I am puzzled by what the MMC actually represents? I’m happy that a BMC represents the hypothesis that a startup is pursuing as they search for a viable business model. As a BMC’s hypotheses mature, the startup transitions into a profitable & lasting business. What is the end state of mature hypotheses under an MMC? John DiLuna (@jdiluna) , on May 2, 2017 at 10:46 am said: While not perfect, I think the answer lies somewhere in “service utilization.” In business, money is the consideration that a consumer offers to acquire the good or service. Businesses compete for share of wallet as validation that their business model is working; it is a convenient and universal measurement. I believe that “effort” is the consideration that people use to acquire government services as conceived through the MMC. People weigh whether the benefit they receive from the government service is worth the effort they need to expend to gain access to it including opportunity costs. To get to the desired outcome, however, we must think of Effort as a time coupled with customer experience. Loading... Reply While not perfect, I think the answer lies somewhere in “service utilization.” In business, money is the consideration that a consumer offers to acquire the good or service. Businesses compete for share of wallet as validation that their business model is working; it is a convenient and universal measurement. I believe that “effort” is the consideration that people use to acquire government services as conceived through the MMC. People weigh whether the benefit they receive from the government service is worth the effort they need to expend to gain access to it including opportunity costs. To get to the desired outcome, however, we must think of Effort as a time coupled with customer experience. George Munchus , on June 8, 2019 at 5:18 pm said: Very practical Loading... Reply Andreas , on October 20, 2019 at 6:47 am said: A „mission driven“ organisation most likely still wants to generate tangible value which can get a price tag? Otherwise this would be either idealistic or sponsored for any purpose like political or scientific goals in e.g. social studies. Loading... Reply A „mission driven“ organisation most likely still wants to generate tangible value which can get a price tag? Otherwise this would be either idealistic or sponsored for any purpose like political or scientific goals in e.g. social studies. Lloyd Wiltz , on December 7, 2019 at 5:54 am said: Steve, I am a big fan of the Mission Model Canvas for use in Social Organizations whether its the government or community. I have personally deployed both models the Business and Mission Canvases. And, have seen some remarkable key results and objectives met. Nonetheless, the Chief of AFPC’s Innovation Program recently launched essentially the AF HR Innovation Lab which covers the entire life cycle of military and civilian personnel for the Air Force, from accession through retirement, including readiness, growth, development and deployment. AFPC’s diverse workforce, with five subordinate units, has approximately 2,500 Air Force military, civilian and contractor personnel responsible for worldwide operations for nearly two million total force Airmen, retirees and family members. On behalf of @MelindaManohan (LinkedIn), I would like to invite a H4D Leader to be a speaker at the upcoming AFPC Innovation Symposium. Loeka Learn | Design | Think | Lead lloyd.wiltz@us.af.mil Loading... Reply I am a big fan of the Mission Model Canvas for use in Social Organizations whether its the government or community. I have personally deployed both models the Business and Mission Canvases. And, have seen some remarkable key results and objectives met. Nonetheless, the Chief of AFPC’s Innovation Program recently launched essentially the AF HR Innovation Lab which covers the entire life cycle of military and civilian personnel for the Air Force, from accession through retirement, including readiness, growth, development and deployment. AFPC’s diverse workforce, with five subordinate units, has approximately 2,500 Air Force military, civilian and contractor personnel responsible for worldwide operations for nearly two million total force Airmen, retirees and family members. On behalf of @MelindaManohan (LinkedIn), I would like to invite a H4D Leader to be a speaker at the upcoming AFPC Innovation Symposium. Loeka Learn | Design | Think | Lead lloyd.wiltz@us.af.mil Anonymous , on May 5, 2020 at 11:45 am said: Very interesting. Can you please make all the embedded canvas pictures as downloadable canvas files so we can apply them in practice in our everyday lives? Thank you! Loading... Reply Very interesting. Can you please make all the embedded canvas pictures as downloadable canvas files so we can apply them in practice in our everyday lives? Thank you! YP , on May 5, 2020 at 11:46 am said: Very interesting. Can you please make all the embedded canvas pictures as downloadable canvas files so we can apply them in practice in our everyday lives? Thank you! Loading... Reply Very interesting. Can you please make all the embedded canvas pictures as downloadable canvas files so we can apply them in practice in our everyday lives? Thank you! Mark Emerson , on September 20, 2021 at 10:14 pm said: Loving the BMC and VPC and the methodology generally. But as this article has identified, there are different business models that require a slight tweak to the BMC, etc. The military and government ‘businesses’ most likely will benefit from the proposed changes to CS, CR, VP, Channel and Revenue Stream. However, there is a rather huge industry type that continues to be overlooked (not intentionally I’m sure) for which most of the BMC/VPC applies but not quite. And that is the Not-For-Profit sector which includes charities and organisations that still need to generate revenue (although usually through donations and bequests, etc), still incur operating costs, still have customer segmentation (in order to approach their customer base with relevant requests for financial/volunteer support), still need to manage the CR, will likely utilise traditional business channels (internet, person-to-person, social media, etc) and all the other BMC blocks. The current language within the BMC/VPC is heavily commerically oriented, naturally and by definition. However, if the model could be further tweaked to be ‘Ministry’ focused, the commercial necessities of NFP would be softened, more palatable and would align more with the business’ operations. Would love to hear the thoughts of others on this as this noobie with the BMG and BMC/VPC gets increasingly consumed with excitement and anticipation of the benefits it offers… Loading... Reply Tristan Kromer , on September 21, 2021 at 6:12 am said: Hi Mark, There is an adaptation of the BMC called the Mission Model Canvas that is exactly what you are proposing. Loading... Reply Mark Emerson , on September 21, 2021 at 11:04 pm said: Thanks Tristan. I’ve read all the material on the MMC as I indicated in my post. But the language is naturally related to military activity and internal organisation (I actually served in Australia’s RAAF for over 8years) that is quite foreign to charities and NFP (I actually worked as IT Manager, Systems Analyst, Business Analyst and Project Manager, which are very much aligned with the ‘standard’ BMG methodology (they still operate as ‘businesses’ afteral but they don’t really feel comfortable with the commercial connotations of businesses) but some/much of the commercial language within the standard BMG (BMC/VPC) could be modified to more adequately address the nature of Not-For-Profits and Charities. Loading... Reply Loving the BMC and VPC and the methodology generally. But as this article has identified, there are different business models that require a slight tweak to the BMC, etc. The military and government ‘businesses’ most likely will benefit from the proposed changes to CS, CR, VP, Channel and Revenue Stream. However, there is a rather huge industry type that continues to be overlooked (not intentionally I’m sure) for which most of the BMC/VPC applies but not quite. And that is the Not-For-Profit sector which includes charities and organisations that still need to generate revenue (although usually through donations and bequests, etc), still incur operating costs, still have customer segmentation (in order to approach their customer base with relevant requests for financial/volunteer support), still need to manage the CR, will likely utilise traditional business channels (internet, person-to-person, social media, etc) and all the other BMC blocks. The current language within the BMC/VPC is heavily commerically oriented, naturally and by definition. However, if the model could be further tweaked to be ‘Ministry’ focused, the commercial necessities of NFP would be softened, more palatable and would align more with the business’ operations. Would love to hear the thoughts of others on this as this noobie with the BMG and BMC/VPC gets increasingly consumed with excitement and anticipation of the benefits it offers… Tristan Kromer , on September 21, 2021 at 6:12 am said: Hi Mark, There is an adaptation of the BMC called the Mission Model Canvas that is exactly what you are proposing. Loading... Reply Mark Emerson , on September 21, 2021 at 11:04 pm said: Thanks Tristan. I’ve read all the material on the MMC as I indicated in my post. But the language is naturally related to military activity and internal organisation (I actually served in Australia’s RAAF for over 8years) that is quite foreign to charities and NFP (I actually worked as IT Manager, Systems Analyst, Business Analyst and Project Manager, which are very much aligned with the ‘standard’ BMG methodology (they still operate as ‘businesses’ afteral but they don’t really feel comfortable with the commercial connotations of businesses) but some/much of the commercial language within the standard BMG (BMC/VPC) could be modified to more adequately address the nature of Not-For-Profits and Charities. Loading... Reply There is an adaptation of the BMC called the Mission Model Canvas that is exactly what you are proposing. Mark Emerson , on September 21, 2021 at 11:04 pm said: Thanks Tristan. I’ve read all the material on the MMC as I indicated in my post. But the language is naturally related to military activity and internal organisation (I actually served in Australia’s RAAF for over 8years) that is quite foreign to charities and NFP (I actually worked as IT Manager, Systems Analyst, Business Analyst and Project Manager, which are very much aligned with the ‘standard’ BMG methodology (they still operate as ‘businesses’ afteral but they don’t really feel comfortable with the commercial connotations of businesses) but some/much of the commercial language within the standard BMG (BMC/VPC) could be modified to more adequately address the nature of Not-For-Profits and Charities. Loading... Reply Thanks Tristan. I’ve read all the material on the MMC as I indicated in my post. But the language is naturally related to military activity and internal organisation (I actually served in Australia’s RAAF for over 8years) that is quite foreign to charities and NFP (I actually worked as IT Manager, Systems Analyst, Business Analyst and Project Manager, which are very much aligned with the ‘standard’ BMG methodology (they still operate as ‘businesses’ afteral but they don’t really feel comfortable with the commercial connotations of businesses) but some/much of the commercial language within the standard BMG (BMC/VPC) could be modified to more adequately address the nature of Not-For-Profits and Charities. Leave a Reply Cancel reply contact: info@kandsranch.com contact: info@kandsranch.com @sgblank Get the Podcasts for Free Powered by WordPress.com . WP Designer. Discover more from Steve Blank Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive. Continue reading