Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

„Play to win“ versus „Play it safe“

Strategische Gestaltung eines innovationsförderlichen Partnerportfolios und seine Bedeutung im Digitalisierungskontext

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag erläutern wir die Eigenschaften, die ein innovationsförderliches Partnerportfolio besitzen sollte, und analysieren, mit welchen Herausforderungen der Aufbau eines solchen Portfolios verbunden ist. Wir argumentieren aus theoretischer Perspektive, dass Unternehmen generell zum Aufbau von homogenen „Play it safe“-Netzwerken tendieren, und erläutern, warum diese Tendenz gerade bei der digitalen Transformation die Innovations- und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unterminieren kann. Basierend auf einer empirischen Studie in der deutschen Energiebranche verdeutlichen wir diese Problematik und zeigen auf, dass sich die Partnerportfolios innovativer und weniger innovativer Unternehmen signifikant unterscheiden. Während insgesamt die Tendenz zu „Play it safe“-Netzwerken klar erkennbar ist, sind die Partnerportfolios der innovationsstärksten Unternehmen eindeutig heterogener und ressourcenreicher. Top Performer gehen so insgesamt strategischer vor und verfolgen einen „Play to win“-Ansatz.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Zur Bestimmung der Innovationsleistung wurden die Befragten gebeten, zu bewerten, inwiefern ihr Unternehmen neue Produkte und Dienstleistungen in den Markt einführt, bestehende Produkte und Dienstleistungen erweitert und verbessert, sowie in die Entwicklung und Erprobung neuer Technologien investiert. Zur Triangulation dieser Messgröße wurden Unternehmenshomepages, Pressemitteilungen und Geschäftsberichte im Hinblick auf Initiativen der Unternehmen zu den aktuellen Innovationsthemen in der Energiebranche wie „Smart Home“, „Virtuelle Kraftwerke“ oder „Elektromobilität“ (Edelmann 2015) ausgewertet. Zudem wurden die Siegerlisten der wichtigsten branchenbezogenen Innovationspreise (z. B. VKU-Innovationspreis (VKU 2018)) nach den an der Untersuchung beteiligten Unternehmen gescannt. Beide Analysen deuten auf eine hohe Validität der in der Studie erhaltenen Angaben hin.

  2. 2.

    Aus Komplexitätsgründen bilden wir in diesem Beitrag nur die Kombinationen von Diversität, Innovativität und Komplementarität ab. Für organisationale Ähnlichkeit, Bestehensdauer der Beziehung, strukturelle Äquivalenz und Zusammenarbeit im operativen Tagesgeschäft ergibt sich jeweils ein ähnliches Bild.

Literatur

  • Abrahamsen MH, Henneberg SC, Naudé P (2012) Using Actors’ Perceptions of Network Roles and Positions to Understand Network Dynamics. Ind Market Manag 41: 259–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Kwon SW (2002) Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. Acad Manage Rev 27: 17–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afuah A (2000) How Much Do Your Co‐opetitors’ Capabilities Matter in the Face of Technological Change? Strat Manage J 21: 397–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja G (2000a) Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Admin Sci Quart 45: 425–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja G (2000b) The Duality of Collaboration: Inducements and Opportunities in the Formation of Interfirm Linkages. Strat Manage J 21: 317–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker WE, Grinstein A, Harmancioglu N (2016) Whose Innovation Performance Benefits More from External Networks: Entrepreneurial or Conservative Firms? J Prod Innovat Manage 33: 104–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum JAC, Calabrese T, Silverman BS (2000) Don’t Go It Alone: Alliance Network Composition and Startups’ Performance in Canadian Biotechnology. Strat Manage J 21: 267–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum JA, Shipilov AV, Rowley TJ (2003) Where Do Small Worlds Come From? Ind Corp Change 12: 697–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Yoo Y (2007) Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction. Org Sci 18: 631–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge/MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacilo A, Schmidt S, Wittlinger P, Herrmann F, Bauer W, Sawade O, Doderer H, Hartwig M, Scholz V (2015) Hochautomatisiertes Fahren auf Autobahnen – Industriepolitische Schlussfolgerungen. Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation (IAO), Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Capaldo A (2007) Network Structure and Innovation: The Leveraging of a Dual Network as a Distinctive Relational Capability. Strat Manage J 28: 585–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capaldo A, Petruzzelli AM (2014) Partner Geographic and Organizational Proximity and the Innovative Performance of Knowledge-Creating Alliances. Eur Manage Rev 11: 63–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellermann D, Fliaster A, Kolloch M (2017) Innovation Risk in Digital Business Models: The German Energy Sector. J Bus Strat 38: 35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman H (2015) Gewohnte Wege verlassen: Innovation in der Energiewirtschaft. Ernst & Young GmbH, Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvardsson B, Holmlund M, Strandvik T (2008) Initiation of Business Relationships in Service-Dominant Settings. Ind Market Manag 37: 339–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang E (2011) The Effect of Strategic Alliance Knowledge Complementarity on New Product Innovativeness in China. Org Sci 22: 158–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald M, Kruschwitz N, Bonnet D, Welch M (2014) Embracing Digital Technology. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 55: 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Fliaster A (2007) Innovationen in Netzwerken: Wie Humankapital und Sozialkapital zu kreativen Ideen führen. Rainer Hampp Verlag: München

    Google Scholar 

  • Fliaster A, Spiess J (2008) Knowledge Mobilization through Social Ties: The Cost-Benefit Analysis. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 60: 99–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: A Theory of Embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91: 481–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R (1995) Social Structure and Alliance Formation Pattern: A Longitudinal Analysis. Admin Sci Quart 40: 619–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? Am J Soc 104: 1439–1493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Khanna T, Nohria N (1994) Unilateral Commitments and the Importance of Process in Alliances. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 35: 61–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Lavie D, Madhavan R (2011) How Do Networks Matter? The Performance Effects of Interorganizational Networks. Res Organ Behav 31: 207–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann WH (2007) Strategies for Managing a Portfolio of Alliances. Strat Manage J 28: 827–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halvorson HG, Rock D (2015) Beyond Bias. https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00345. Zugegriffen: 15. Februar 2018

  • Inkpen AC, Tsang EWK (2005) Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer. Acad Manage Rev 30: 146–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen M, Roy A (2008) Staging Exchange Partner Choices: When Do Status and Reputation Matter? Acad Manage J 51: 495–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale P, Singh H, Perlmutter H (2000) Learning and Protection of Proprietary Assets in Strategic Alliances: Building Relational Capital. Strat Manage J 21: 217–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale P, Singh H (2009) Managing Strategic Alliances: What Do We Know Now, and Where Do We Go From Here? Acad Manage Perspect 23: 45–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim JW, Higgins MC (2007) Where Do Alliances Come From?: The Effects of Upper Echelons on Alliance Formation. Res Pol 36: 499–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim TY, Oh H, Swaminathan A (2006) Framing Interorganizational Network Change: A Network Inertia Perspective. Acad Manage Rev 31: 704–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koka BR, Prescott JE (2002). Strategic Alliances as Social Capital: A Multidimensional View. Strat Manage J 23: 795–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koza MP, Lewin AY (1998) The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances. Org Sci 9: 255–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D (2007). Alliance Portfolios and Firm Performance: A Study of Value Creation and Appropriation in the US Software Industry. Strat Manage J 28: 1187–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D, Miller S (2008) Alliance Portfolio Internationalization and Firm Performance. Org Sci 19: 623–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Berente N (2012) Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organ Sci 23: 1428–1447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA, March JG (1994) The Myopia of Learning. Strat Manage J 14: 95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak A, Jarvenpaa SL, Bagherzadeh M (2015) A Review of Interorganizational Collaboration Dynamics. J Manage 41: 1338–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariotti F, Delbridge R (2012) Overcoming Network Overload and Redundancy in Interorganizational Networks: The Roles of Potential and Latent Ties. Org Sci 23: 511–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer I, Ebers M (2006) Dynamics of Social Capital and their Performance Implications: Lessons from Biotechnology Start-Ups. Admin Sci Quart 51: 262–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell W, Singh K (1996) Survival of Businesses Using Collaborative Relationships to Commercialize Complex Goods. Strat Manage J 17: 169–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitrega M, Pfajfar G (2015) Business Relationship Process Management as Company Dynamic Capability Improving Relationship Portfolio. Ind Market Manag 46: 193–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Acad Manage Rev 23: 242–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nebus J (2006) Building Collegial Information Networks: A Theory of Advice Network Generation. Acad Manage Rev 31: 615–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld D (2005) Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involvement in Innovation. Admin Sci Quart 50: 100–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community. Org Sci 15: 5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozcan P, Eisenhardt KM (2009) Origin of Alliance Portfolios: Entrepreneurs, Network Strategies, and Firm Performance. Acad Manage J 52: 246–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parise S, Casher A (2003) Alliance Portfolios: Designing and Managing Your Network of Business-Partner Relationships. Acad Manage Exec 17: 25–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway L, Robertson M, Munir K, Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Networking and Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Int J Manag Rev 5: 137–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny JM (1994) Market Uncertainty and the Social Character of Economic Exchange. Adm Sci Quart 39: 458–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Admin Sci Quart 41: 116–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences. Am J Sociol 110: 1132–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullen AJ, Weerd‐Nederhof PC, Groen AJ, Fisscher OA (2012) Open Innovation in Practice: Goal Complementarity and Closed NPD Networks to Explain Differences in Innovation Performance for SMEs in the Medical Devices Sector. J Prod Innovat Manage 29: 917–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos C, Henneberg SC, Naudé P (2012) Understanding Network Picture Complexity: An Empirical Analysis of Contextual Factors. Ind Market Manag 41: 951–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reck F, Fliaster A, Kolloch M (2017) Understanding the Effect of Network Management Capability on Innovation: A Multi-Path Model. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta/GA, 04.–08. August

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range. Admin Sci Quart 48: 240–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuer JJ, Ragozzino R (2006) Agency Hazards and Alliance Portfolios. Strat Manage J 27: 27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf L, Almeida P (2003) Overcoming Local Search through Alliances and Mobility. Manage Sci 49: 751–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf L, Padula G (2008) Investigating the Microstructure of Network Evolution: Alliance Formation in the Mobile Communications Industry. Org Sci 19: 669–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT (2001) Complementary Assets, Strategic Alliances, and the Incumbent’s Advantage: An Empirical Study of the Industry and Firm Effects in the Biopharmaceutical Industry. Res Pol 30: 1235–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ, Baum JAC (2008) Introduction: Evolving Webs in Network Economies. In: Baum JAC, Rowley TJ (eds.) Network Strategy. Emerald, Bingley/UK: xiii–xxxi

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammarra A, Biggiero L (2008) Heterogeneity and Specificity of Inter‐Firm Knowledge Flows in Innovation Networks. J Manage Stud 45: 800–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar MB, Echambadi RA, Harrison JS (2001) Alliance Entrepreneurship and Firm Market Performance. Strat Manage J 22: 701–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar MB, Aulakh PS, Madhok A (2009) Process Capabilities and Value Generation in Alliance Portfolios. Org Sci 20: 583–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke O, Goerzen A (2010) Alliance Management Capability: An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement. J Manage 36: 1192–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels R (1999) Interorganizational Endorsement and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures. Adm Sci Quart 44: 315–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart TE (2000) Interorganizational Alliances and the Performance of Firms: A Study of Growth and Innovation Rates in a High-Technology Industry. Strat Manage J 21: 791–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VKU (2018) VKU-Innovationspreis. https://www.vku.de/verband/veranstaltungen/vku-innovationspreis/. Zugegriffen: 15. Februar 2018

  • Wadhwa A, Kotha S (2006) Knowledge Creation through External Venturing: Evidence from the Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturing Industry. Acad Manage J 49: 819–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassmer U (2010) Alliance Portfolios: A Review and Research Agenda. J Manage 36: 141–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo Y, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World. Organization Science 23: 1398–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer A, Bell GG (2005) Benefiting from Network Position: Firm Capabilities, Structural Holes, and Performance. Strat Manage J 26: 805–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Deutschland

    Fabian Reck

  2. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Innovationsmanagement, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Deutschland

    Alexander Fliaster

Authors
  1. Fabian Reck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Fliaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabian Reck .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Unternehmensführung & Controlling, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Wolfgang Becker

  2. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Internationale Rechnungslegung und Wirtschaftsprüfung, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Brigitte Eierle

  3. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Innovationsmanagement, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Alexander Fliaster

  4. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Vertrieb und Marketing, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Björn Ivens

  5. School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Alexander Leischnig

  6. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Supply Chain Management, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Alexander Pflaum

  7. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Produktion und Logistik, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Eric Sucky

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Reck, F., Fliaster, A. (2019). „Play to win“ versus „Play it safe“. In: Becker, W., et al. Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22129-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22129-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-22128-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-22129-4

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation