Skip to main content

Innovation and the Open Innovation concept

  • Chapter
Open and Closed Innovation
  • 2504 Accesses

Abstract

Theory and practice of innovation management lack a clear and generally accepted notion of the term ‘innovation’. On the one hand, literature on innovation management has created a plethora of definitions. Depending on particular research issues, different criteria to describe innovation have been used29. However, the scientific discussion is still far from reaching common agreement. Corporate practice, on the other hand, reveals a similar picture. Notwithstanding interfirm differences in defining innovation, even employees working within the same department of a firm do not necessarily share the same understanding of the term innovation30, often confusing it with invention31.

For a detailed overview of the different definitions of ‘innovation’ see Hauschildt and Salomo (2007), pp. 3 ff. Especially regarding studies on success factors for innovation, different definitions of innovation make it difficult to compare and generalize research results. See, for instance, Hauschildt and Salomo (2007), pp. 6 f.; Leker (2005b), p. 50; Tornatzky and Klein (1982), pp. 31 f.

See Leker (2005b), p. 52. However, speaking a common language internally is a prerequisite for comparable project evaluation, for instance.

According to Fleming and Sarenson (2004), p. 910, an “invention comes either from combining technological components in a novel manner, or through reconfiguring existing combinations”.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

o

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. pp. 3 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. pp. 6 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leker, J. (2005b). Successful innovation management: best practice or chance? PharmaChem, 4(11–12): p. 50

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornatzky, L. G. and Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1): pp. 31 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leker, J. (2005b). Successful innovation management: best practice or chance? PharmaChem, 4(11–12): p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. and Sørenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9): p. 910

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. p. 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (1988). What we’ve learned: Managing invention and innovation. Research-Technology Management, 31(1): p. 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (2007). Managing invention and innovation. Research-Technology Management, 50(1): p. 36

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlaak, T. M. (1999). Der Innovationsgrad als Schlüsselvariable. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomo, S. (2003). Konzept und Messung des Innovationsgrades: Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie zu innovativen Entwicklungsvorhaben. In: Schwaiger, M. and Harhoff, D. (Eds.). Empirie und Betriebswirtschaft: Entwicklungen und Perspektiven. Stuttgart: 399–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S., Cloutier, L. M. and Leker, J. (2006). The front end of innovation in an era of industry convergence: evidence from nutraceuticals and functional foods. R&D Management, 36(5): 487–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B. and Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3): 203–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, M. and Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2): 124–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(6): 357–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen, J.-A., Olsen, B. and Lumpkin, G. T. (2001). Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1): 20–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2): 110–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L. and Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuies and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3): pp. 440 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B. and Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3): pp. 203 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): p. 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. pp. 270 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S. and van den Ven, A. H. (1989). Toward a general theory of innovation processes. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies. Oxford: p. 32

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. p. 7 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. p. 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Saren, M. A. (1984). A classification and review of models of the intra-firm innovation process. R&D Management, 14(1): 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerpott, T. J. (1999). Strategisches Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement: eine konzentrierte Einführung. Stuttgart. p. 52

    Google Scholar 

  • Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., Johnson, A., Puri, P. and Seibert, R. (2002). Fuzzy front end: effective methods, tools and techniques. In: Bellvieau, P., Griffin, A. and Sommermeyer, S. (Eds.). The PDMA tool-book for new product development. New York: p. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S., Cloutier, L. M. and Leker, J. (2006). The front end of innovation in an era of industry convergence: evidence from nutraceuticals and functional foods. R&D Management, 36(5): 487–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talke, K. (2005). Einführung von Innovationen: marktorientierte strategische und operative Aktivitäten als kritische Erfolgsfaktoren. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1994). Third-generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(1): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2001). Winning at new products: accelerating the process from idea to launch. Cambridge. pp. 130 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, W. (2006). Innovation, research and technology intelligence in the chemical industry: integrated business, technical and systems approaches. Stuttgart. p. 791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuckenschneider, H. and Schwair, T. (2005). Strategisches Innovations-Management bei Siemens. In: Albers, S. and Gassmann, O. (Eds.). Handbuch Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement: Strategie — Umsetzung — Controlling. Wiesbaden: p. 767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahs, D. and Burmester, R. (2002). Innovationsmanagement: von der Produktidee zur erfolgreichen Vermarktung. Stuttgart. p. 107 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albers, S. and Gassmann, O. (2005).Handbuch Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement: Albers, S. and Gassmann, O. (Eds.). Handbuch Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement: Strategie-Umsetzung-Controlling. Wiesbaden: p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., Van Looy, B. and Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3): p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S., Leker, J. and Rühmer, S. (2006). Radical or not? Assessing innovativeness and its organisational implications. International Journal of Product Development, 3(2): p. 156.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397): 569–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1095–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewar, R. D. and Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11): 1422–1433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, M. and Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2): 124–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, C. M. and O’Connor, G. C. (2002). Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(6): 424–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4): 304–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: a critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4): 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, V. and Kopalle, P. K. (2006). The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of innovations ex post in making ex ante predictions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1): 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. (2006). The innovator’s dilemma as a problem of organizational competence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1): 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (1991). Commitment: the dynamic of strategy. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maisseu, A. P. (1995). Managing technological flows into corporate strategy. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(1): p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. B. and Wheelwright, S. C. (1993). Managing new product and process development: text and cases. New York. p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): p. 1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1999). Forschung und Entwicklung. München. p. 27

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. and Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2000). A different game. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. and Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2000). A different game. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. and Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2000). A different game. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: pp. 9 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H. (1995). Patenting strategies in the German mechanical engineering industry and their relationship to company performance. Technovation, 15(4): 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schewe, G. (1992). Imitationsmanagement: Nachahmung als Option des Technologiemanagements. Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schewe, G. (1996). Imitation as a strategic option for external acquisition of technology. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13(1): 55–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O. and Bader, M. A. (2006). Patentmanagement: Innovationen erfolgreich nutzen und schützen. Berlin. pp. 187 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Actitivity, 3: p. 803

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (2000). Appropriating the gains from innovation. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Günther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: pp. 247 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. and Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2002). Avoiding the pitfalls of emerging technologies. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: pp. 10 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, K. and Voeth, M. (2007). Industriegütermarketing. München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotier, P., Pfoertsch, W. and Michi, I. (2006). B2B brand management. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hultink, E. J., Hart, S., Robben, H. S. J. and Griffin, A. (2000). Launch decisions and new product success: an empirical comparison of consumer and industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(1): 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leker, J. and Herzog, P. (2004). Marketing in der chemischen Industrie. In: Backhaus, K. and Voeth, M. (Eds.). Handbuch Industriegütermarketing. Wiesbaden: p. 1185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotier, P., Pfoertsch, W. and Michi, I. (2006). B2B brand management. Berlin. p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hultink, E. J., Hart, S., Robben, H. S. J. and Griffin, A. (2000). Launch decisions and new product success: an empirical comparison of consumer and industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(1): pp. 11 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, K. and Voeth, M. (2007). Industriegütermarketing. München. pp. 9 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotier, P., Pfoertsch, W. and Michi, I. (2006). B2B brand management. Berlin. pp. 20 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotier, P., Pfoertsch, W. and Michi, I. (2006). B2B brand management. Berlin. p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. pp. 223 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. xx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B. and Gassmann, O. (2006). Gaining leverage effects from knowledge modes within corporate incubators. R&D Management, 37(1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschbaum, R. (2005). Open innovation in practice. Research-Technology Management, 48(4): 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huston, L. and Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop: inside Procter & Gamble’s new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(3): 58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. xx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capon, N., Farley, J. U. and Hoenig, S. (1990). Determinants of financial performance: a metaanalysis. Management Science, 36(10): 1143–1159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006b). Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: pp. 2 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. pp. 13 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. pp. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, J. D. (2002). Breaking out of the innovation box. Harvard Business Review, 80(8): p. 80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. xxiv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, J. D. (2002). Breaking out of the innovation box. Harvard Business Review, 80(8): p. 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006b). Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: p. 2 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, M. P., Sakkab, N. and Jonash, R. (2006). Maximizing return on innovation investment. Research-Technology Management, 49(6): pp. 35 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2001). Winning at new products: accelerating the process from idea to launch. Cambridge. p. 13

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J. F. (2006). Wither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world? In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3): p. 320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leker, J. (2005a). F&E-Controlling. In: Albers, S. and Gassmann, O. (Eds.). Handbuch Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement: Strategie-Umsetzung-Controlling. Wiesbaden: p. 569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3): p. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J., James, A. and Malik, K. (2003). The sourcing of technological knowledge: distributed innovation processes and dynamic change. R&D Management, 33(4): p. 398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. pp. 34 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 71

    Google Scholar 

  • Simard, C. and West, J. (2006). Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of innovation. In: Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: p. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimberly, J. R. and Bouchikhi, H. (2002). Designing the customized workplace. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Günther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: p. 400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosfuri, A., Motta, M. and Ronde, T. (2001). Foreign direct investment and spillovers through workers’ mobility. Journal of International Economics, 53(1): 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, P. and Niedergassel, B. (2007a). Facilitating open innovation: idea brokers in the chemical industry. PharmaChem, 6(3): 11 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, P. and Niedergassel, B. (2007b). Offen für Ideen von außen. Nachrichten aus der Chemie, 55(5): pp. 532 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, J. D. (2002). Breaking out of the innovation box. Harvard Business Review, 80(8): p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K. R. (2006). The use of university research in firm innovation. In: Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: pp. 134 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soininen, A. and Hurmelinna, P. (2005). ITC companies’ patent strategies and technology licensing practices in closed versus open innovation models. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference. Pisa, Italy, July 4-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedergassel, B., Herzog, P. and Leker, J. (2006). Knowledge conversion in the context of open innovation: an example from the chemical industry. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning. Santiago, Chile, 19–20 October 2006. p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierly, P. and Chakrabarti, A. K. (1999). Managing through industry fusion. In: Brockhoff, K. (Ed.). The dynamics of innovation: strategic and managerial implications. Berlin: p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, D. and Valikangas, L. (2001). Patterns of strategy innovation. European Management Journal, 19(4): p. 426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S., Cloutier, L. M. and Leker, J. (2006). The front end of innovation in an era of industry convergence: evidence from nutraceuticals and functional foods. R&D Management, 36(5): 487–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, P., Bröring, S. and Leker, J. (2006). Ambidextrous organization and open innovation: evidence from the chemical industry. Working Paper Series of the Institute of Business Administration at the Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Munster, No. 9. pp. 6 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3): pp. 38f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J. F. (2006). Wither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world? In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: p. 319.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3): pp. 319f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Managing differentiation and integration. Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R. and van den Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4): 514–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (1987). Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: in defense of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24(1): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S. and van den Ven, A. H. (1989). Toward a general theory of innovation processes. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies. Oxford: p. 641

    Google Scholar 

  • Schewe, G. (1994). Successful innovation management: an integrative perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 11(1): p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J. F. (2006). Wither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world? In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: pp. 232 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. and Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3): p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O. and Enkel, E. (2004). Implementing the open innovation approach: three core process archetypes. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference. Lisbon, Portugal, 6–9 July 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): p. 128

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M. (1992). Global sourcing strategy: R&D, manufacturing, and marketing interfaces. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noori, H. (1990). Managing the dynamics of new technology: issues in manufacturing management. Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. S. and Allred, B. B. (2003). A product and process model of the technology-sourcing decision. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(6): p. 485

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J., James, A. and Malik, K. (2003). The sourcing of technological knowledge: distributed innovation processes and dynamic change. R&D Management, 33(4): p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M. and Wheelwright, S. C. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Boston. p. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls-Nixon, C. L. and Woo, C. Y. (2003). Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change. Strategic Management Journal, 24(7): p. 652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli, P. (1999). The new deal at work: managing the market-driven workforce. Boston., Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, P., Hart, S. L. and Ramanantsoa, B. (1992). Strategic technology management. Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader, S. (1991). Informal technology transfer between firms: cooperation through information trading. Research Policy, 20(2): 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16(6): 291–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. and Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: the preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2): p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duysters, G. and de Man, A. P. (2003). Transitory alliances: an instrument for surviving turbulent industries? R&D Management, 33(1): p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spekman, R. A. and Lambe, C. J. (1997). Fruit fly alliances: the rise of short-lived partnerships. The Alliance Analyst, 15: 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3): p. 354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, C. J. and Spekman, R. E. (1997). Alliances, external technology acquisition, and discontinuous technological change. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(2): 102–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. and Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: the preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2): 167–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folta, T. B. (1998). Governance and uncertainty: the trade-off between administrative control and commitment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(11): 1007–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, H. K. and Corley, K. G. (2000). On the performance of technology-sourcing partnerships: the interaction between partner interdependence and technology attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1045–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshikawa, T. (2003). Technology development and acquisition strategy. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(6–7): 666–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 28(1): 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1): 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G. and Noorderhaven, N. (2002). External technology sourcing through alliances or acquisitions: an analysis of the application-specific integrated circuits industry. Organization Science, 13(6): p. 717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8): 791–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montoya, P. V., Zarate, R. S. and Martin, L. A. G. (2007). Does the technological sourcing decision matter? Evidence from Spanish panel data. R&D Management, 37(2): p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1999). Forschung und Entwicklung. München. p. 153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermes, M. (1993). Eigenerstellung oder Fremdbezug neuer Technologien. Kiel. p. 181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M. and Wheelwright, S. C. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Boston. p. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4): pp. 373 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A. (1992). Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: the US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Research Policy, 21(5): pp. 405 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy, 19(2): p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls-Nixon, C. L. and Woo, C. Y. (2003). Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change. Strategic Management Journal, 24(7): p. 652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C. and Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: the emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): p. 282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J. and Trewhalla, M. J. (1997). Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and learning. R&D Management, 27(4): p. 365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, W. and Schröder, H. H. (1977). Forschung und Entwicklung in der Unternehmung. Reinbek. p. 79

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester. p. 296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. pp. 20 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosfuri, A. (2006). The licensing dilemma: understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12): 1141–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. and Patterson, P. (1993). Managerial perceptions of technology licensing as an alternative to internal R&D in new product development: an empirical investigation. R&D Management, 23(4): pp. 327 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester. p. 299

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J. and Trewhalla, M. J. (1997). Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and learning. R&D Management, 27(4): p. 366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: 103–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J., Kim, C.-S. and Beldona, S. (2003). Interfirm learning in alliance and technology networks: an empirical study in the global pharmaceutical and chemical industries. In: Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (Eds.). Cooperative strategies and alliances. Oxford: p. 505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T. and Gemünden, H. G. (2003). Interorganizational relationships and networks: An overview. Journal of Business Research, 56(9): pp. 691 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7): p. 791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rühmer, S. and Leker, J. (2005). R&D networks in nanotechnology: balancing expectations, stimulating contributions. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference. Pisa, Italy, July 4-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (2003). The growth of alliances in the knowledge-based economy. In: Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (Eds.). Cooperative strategies and alliances. Oxford: p. 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J. (2004). Unternehmenskooperation. In: Schreyögg, G. (Eds.). Handwörterbuch der Unternehmensführung und Organisation. Stuttgart: 1541–1548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition: 1. A revolutionary mindset that redefines competition and cooperation: 2. The game theory strategy that’s changing the game of business. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4): p. 364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. and Osborn, R. N. (2003). Interfirm R&D partnerships: major theories and trends since 1960. In: Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (Eds.). Cooperative strategies and alliances. Oxford: p. 530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation, and innovation: organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18(1): p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatikonda, M. V. and Stock, G. N. (2003). Product technology transfer in the upstream supply chain. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(6): p. 446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, K. and Voeth, M. (2007). Industriegütermarketing. München. pp. 406 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leker, J. and Herzog, P. (2004). Marketing in der chemischen Industrie. In: Backhaus, K. and Voeth, M. (Eds.). Handbuch Industriegütermarketing. Wiesbaden: pp. 1187 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4): p. 364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (2003). The growth of alliances in the knowledge-based economy. In: Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (Eds.). Cooperative strategies and alliances. Oxford: p. 5

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3): p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dushnitsky, G. and Lenox, M. J. (2005a). When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): p. 948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H., Witt, P. and Brachtendorf, G. (2005). Corporate venture capital as a strategy for external innovation: an exploratory empirical study. R&D Management, 35(3): p.233

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J. and Keil, T. (2005). Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4): 493–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J. and Keil, T. (2005). Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4): p. 497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. and Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: selecting strategies for growth. Sloan Management Review, 26(3): p. 52

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, S. K., Gentry, S. T., Hume, D., Ramachandran, R. and Kingon, A. I. (2005). Strategies and tactics for external corporate venturing. Research-Technology Management, 48(2): p. 52

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4): pp. 366 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H., Witt, P. and Brachtendorf, G. (2005). Corporate venture capital as a strategy for external innovation: an exploratory empirical study. R&D Management, 35(3): p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. and MacMillan, I. C. (2000). Assessing technology projects using real options reasoning. Research-Technology Management, 43(4): p. 35

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlitz, M., Peske, T. and Schrank, R. (1999). Real options valuation: the new frontier in R&D project evaluation? R&D Management, 29(3): pp. 255 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. F. (2000). Managing real options. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: p. 274.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C, van Putten, A. B., McGrath, R. G. and Thompson, J. D. (2006). Using real options discipline for highly uncertain technology investments. Research-Technology Management, 49(1): 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. and MacMillan, I. C. (2000). Assessing technology projects using real options reasoning. Research-Technology Management, 43(4): 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit, H. T. J. and Trigeorgis, L. (2006). Strategic planning: valuing and managing portfolios of real options. R&D Management, 36(4): 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlitz, M., Peske, T. and Schrank, R. (1999). Real options valuation: the new frontier in R&D project evaluation? R&D Management, 29(3): 255–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, M. and Hassan, A. (2006). Application of real options analysis for pharmaceutical R&D project valuation: empirical results from a survey. Research Policy, 35(3): 343–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. F. (2000). Managing real options. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: 271–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folta, T. B. (1998). Governance and uncertainty: the trade-off between administrative control and commitment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(11): p. 1008

    Google Scholar 

  • Dushnitsky, G. and Lenox, M. J. (2005a). When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): p. 948

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. and Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: selecting strategies for growth. Sloan Management Review, 26(3): p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3): p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, S. K., Gentry, S. T., Hume, D., Ramachandran, R. and Kingon, A. I. (2005). Strategies and tactics for external corporate venturing. Research-Technology Management, 48(2): p. 50

    Google Scholar 

  • Dushnitsky, G. and Lenox, M. J. (2005a). When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): p. 949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folta, T. B. (1998). Governance and uncertainty: the trade-off between administrative control and commitment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(11): p. 1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. and Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: selecting strategies for growth. Sloan Management Review, 26(3): 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1999). Forschung und Entwicklung. München. p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. and Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: selecting strategies for growth. Sloan Management Review, 26(3): p. 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Hlavacek, J. D., Dovey, B. H. and Biondo, J. J. (1977). Tie small business technology to marketing power. Harvard Business Review, 55(1): 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, P. R. (2004). Cargill Dow LLC. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7(3–4): 209–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J. and Keil, T. (2005). Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4): p. 497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. and Osborn, R. N. (2003). Interfirm R&D partnerships: major theories and trends since 1960. In: Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (Eds.). Cooperative strategies and alliances. Oxford: p. 531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P. and Puranam, P. (2004). Choosing equity stakes in technology-sourcing relationships: an integrative framework. California Management Review, 46(3): p. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doering, D. S. and Parayre, R. (2000). Identification and assessment of emerging technologies. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: pp. 90 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester. p. 329

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J. and Trewhalla, M. J. (1997). Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and learning. R&D Management, 27(4): p. 363

    Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. pp. 205 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. pp. 81 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhorta, A. and Gupta, A. K. (2001). An investigation of firm’s strategic response to industry convergence. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2001, Best Paper Series: pp. 1 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rühmer, S. (2006). Innovationskooperationen in der Nanotechnologie: von kleinsten Partikeln zu Wertschöpfungsnetzwerken. Dissertation, Institute of Business Administration at the Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Münster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4): 361–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P. (1991). The governance of innovation: vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry. Research Policy, 20(3): 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A. and Moesei, D. D. (1996). The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1084–1119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. and Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: the preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2): 167–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4): p. 365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. and Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: selecting strategies for growth. Sloan Management Review, 26(3): pp. 5 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, H. K. and Corley, K. G. (2001). Organizational context as a moderator of theories on firm boundaries for technology sourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): p. 356.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3): p. 356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folta, T. B. (1998). Governance and uncertainty: the trade-off between administrative control and commitment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(11): pp. 1012 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagarajan, A. and Mitchell, W. (1998). Evolutionary diffusion: internal and external methods used to acquire encompassing, complementary, and incremental technological changes in the lithotripsy industry. Strategic Management Journal, 19(11): pp. 1066 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. and Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: the preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2): pp. 168 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. and Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: the preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2): pp. 171 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1989). Schnittstellen-Management: Abstimmungsprobleme zwischen Marketing und Forschung und Entwicklung. Stuttgart. pp. 21 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schewe, G. (1996). Imitation as a strategic option for external acquisition of technology. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13(1): 55–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schewe, G. (1992). Imitationsmanagement: Nachahmung als Option des Technologiemanagements. Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koruna, S. (2004a). Leveraging knowledge assets: combinative capabilities: theory and practice. R&D Management, 34(5): p. 507

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschirky, H., Koruna, S. M. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2004). Technology marketing: a firm’s core competence? International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2–3): p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1989). Schnittstellen-Management: Abstimmungsprobleme zwischen Marketing und Forschung und Entwicklung. Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. and Ryan, C. (1981). Taking technology to market. Harvard Business Review, 59(2): pp. 117 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. p. 12

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercialization of knowledge: review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4): p. 233.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16(6): 291–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader, S. (1991). Informal technology transfer between firms: cooperation through information trading. Research Policy, 20(2): 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 27 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. pp. 78 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1999). Forschung und Entwicklung. München. pp. 63 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 22f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercialization of knowledge: review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4): 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercialization of knowledge: review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4): p. 233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. and Ryan, C. (1981). Taking technology to market. Harvard Business Review, 59(2): pp. 117 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: p. 108

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 52 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. xxiv

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006a). New puzzles and new findings. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). The governance and performance of Xerox’s technology spin-off companies. Research Policy, 32(3): p. 403

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3): pp. 319 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercialization of knowledge: review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4): pp. 244 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: 103–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittag, H. (1985). Technologiemarketing: die Vermarktung von industriellem Wissen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Einsatzes von Lizenzen. Bochum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickery, G. (1988). A survey of international technology licensing. STI Review: 7–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodbeck, H. (1999). Strategische Entscheidungen im Technologiemanagement: Relevanz und Ausgestaltung in der unternehmerischen Praxis. Zürich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, J. J., Shah, B. R. and Voyzey, J. N. (2002). Intellectual property: partnering for profit. McKinsey Quarterly, Special edition: 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkenmeier, B. (2003). Externe Technologie-Verwertung: eine komplexe Aufgabe des integrierten Technologie-Managements. Dissertation No. 15240, ETH Zürich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivette, K. G. and Kline, D. (2000). Rembrandts in the attic: unlocking the hidden value of patents. Boston. pp. 93 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Amesse, F. and Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30(9): pp. 1460 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2007). Fähigkeit der externen Technologieverwertung: theoretisches Konzept und empirische Analyse. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 59 (März): pp. 222 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): p. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): p. 137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. and Leker, J. (2007). Industry convergence and its implications for the front end of innovation: a problem of absorptive capacity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(2): 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. and Leker, J. (2007). Industry convergence and its implications for the front end of innovation: a problem of absorptive capacity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(2): 270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M. (1997). From technological potential to product performance: an empirical analysis. Research Policy, 26(3): 345–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W. and de Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5): 551–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R. and Levinthal, D. A. (2002). The emergence of emerging technologies. California Management Review, 45(1): 50–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koruna, S. (2004a). Leveraging knowledge assets: combinative capabilities: theory and practice. R&D Management, 34(5): 505–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 65

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2007). Fähigkeit der externen Technologieverwertung: theoretisches Konzept und empirische Analyse. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 59 (März): p. 226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. pp. 64 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. pp. 68 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, W. (2006). Innovation, research and technology intelligence in the chemical industry: integrated business, technical and systems approaches. Stuttgart. p. 674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisch, M. S. (2003). Icing the cake: chemical makers work to get more of the benefits of intellectual property. Chemical & Engineering News, 81(26): p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 31 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Koruna, S. M. (2004b). External technology commercialization: policy guidelines. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2–3): p. 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: p. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, P. and Niedergassel, B. (2007a). Facilitating open innovation: idea brokers in the chemical industry. PharmaChem, 6(3): pp. 11 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, P. and Niedergassel, B. (2007b). Offen für Ideen von außen. Nachrichten aus der Chemie, 55(5): pp. 532 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. and Ryan, C. (1981). Taking technology to market. Harvard Business Review, 59(2): p. 119

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. and Ryan, C. (1981). Taking technology to market. Harvard Business Review, 59(2): 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V., Manzini, R. and Pizzurno, E. (2003). The market for technological intangibles: a conceptual framework for the commercial transactions. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference. Manchester, UK, July 2003. pp. 1 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O. (2004). The economics and management of technology trade: towards a prolicensing era? International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2–3): p. 212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, W. (2006). Innovation, research and technology intelligence in the chemical industry: integrated business, technical and systems approaches. Stuttgart. p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). The governance and performance of Xerox’s technology spin-off companies. Research Policy, 32(3): p. 404

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, D. A. (1983). Spin-offs and the new firm formation process. California Management Review, 25(2): 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. and Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2): p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M. and Wheelwright, S. C. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Boston. p. 669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herber, J., Singh, J. and Useem, M. (2000). The design of new organizational forms. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: p. 387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M. and Wheelwright, S. C. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Boston. p. 658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6): 730–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8): 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1095–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8): p. 105

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): p. 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M. and Wheelwright, S. C. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Boston. p. 659.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): pp. 71 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8): p. 105

    Google Scholar 

  • Herber, J., Singh, J. and Useem, M. (2000). The design of new organizational forms. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: p. 378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L. and Smith, W. (2002). Organizational technology. In: Baum, J. A. C. (Ed.). Blackwell companion to organizations. Maiden: p. 396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): p. 520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, B. L. T., Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Camping on seesaws: prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1): 41–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: strategy as structured chaos. Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7): 934–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In: Kilmann, R. H., Pondy, L. R. and Slevin, D. P. (Eds.). The management of organization design: strategies and implementation. New York: pp. 168 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): p. 24

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organisation. Harvard Business Review, 82(4): p. 76

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4): p. 47

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): p. 223

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organisation. Harvard Business Review, 82(4): pp. 75 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): pp. 210 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke, W. and Peeters, N. (2005). Embracing innovation as strategy: corporate venturing, competence building and strategy making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3): p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. and Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: selecting strategies for growth. Sloan Management Review, 26(3): 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke, W. and Peeters, N. (2005). Embracing innovation as strategy: corporate venturing, competence building and strategy making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3): p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M. and Wheelwright, S. C. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Boston. p. 669

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B. and Gassmann, O. (2006). Gaining leverage effects from knowledge modes within corporate incubators. R&D Management, 37(1): p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B. and Gassmann, O. (2006). Gaining leverage effects from knowledge modes within corporate incubators. R&D Management, 37(1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke, W. and Peeters, N. (2005). Embracing innovation as strategy: corporate venturing, competence building and strategy making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3): p. 249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, M. P., Colarelli O’Connor, G., Peters, L. S. and Morone, J. G. (1998). Managing discountinuous innovation. Research-Technology Management, 41(3): pp. 52 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, G. C. (2006). Open, radical innovation: toward and integrated model in large established firms In: Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: p. 79

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S., Leker, J. and Rühmer, S. (2006). Radical or not? Assessing innovativeness and its organisational implications. International Journal of Product Development, 3(2): pp. 156 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Degussa (2005). R&D open to new ideas, edited by Degussa AG, Corporate Innovation Management, Düsseldorf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degussa (2005). R&D open to new ideas, edited by Degussa AG, Corporate Innovation Management, Düsseldorf. p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedergassel, B., Herzog, P. and Leker, J. (2006). Knowledge conversion in the context of open innovation: an example from the chemical industry. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning. Santiago, Chile, 19–20 October 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (2005). Organisation angewandter Forschung in Unternehmen. In: Amelingmeyer, J. and Harland, P. E. (Eds.). Technologiemanagement & Marketing: Herausforderungen eines integrierten Innovationsmanagements. Wiesbaden: pp. 25 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degussa (2007). http://www.degussa.com/degussa/en/innovations/creavis/project_houses/. Last access: September 5, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutsch, A. and Dröscher, M. (2005). High-performance research for high-tech materials: 1. Degussa’s science-to-business center Nanotronics 2. Four percent for the future. Journal of Business Chemistry, 2(2): p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M. and Wheelwright, S. C. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Boston. p. 670

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr.Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2008). Innovation and the Open Innovation concept. In: Open and Closed Innovation. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8090-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics