• Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of 37 one-stop-shop (OSS) business models for residential building renovations currently operating in the EU market complemented by interviews. • OSSs have been evaluated across eight indicators assessing crucial aspects of their business model during planning phase (ex-ante) and after implementation in the market (ex-post) • Integration of evaluation methods provides stakeholders and policymakers with improved insights into OSSs’ influence within the renovation market. • Meticulous design and effective execution of the OSS business models, with close alignment between pre- and post-implementation assessments. • Future OSS developments require improved customer-centricity, thorough competitor analysis, enhanced communication, and cost-quality balance for sustained success and market longevity. One-stop-shop (OSS) business models offering integrated renovation services, making renovation more affordable and feasible, are a requirement of European Union policies aiming in energy efficiency in buildings. The present paper offers an ex-ante (pre-implementation) and ex-post (post-implementation) evaluation of 37 OSS business models currently operating in the EU renovation market. The evaluation was performed using eight indicators that evaluate key factors in a business model followed by interviews with representatives of each of the examined OSSs. Findings indicate meticulous design and execution, with alignment between pre- and post-implementation evaluations, albeit with a lack of rigorous competitor analysis. While OSSs generally delivered expected value propositions, some struggled with clear communication and initial market assumptions, emphasizing the need for customer-centric strategies and adaptability to market dynamics for sustained success. The study also provides suggestions for future OSS development, which include comprehensive competitor analysis, enhanced communication strategies, and strategic partnerships to ensure long-term sustainability and success.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pardalis et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: