Advertisement

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Abstract

In this study, a conceptual framework is employed, which is grounded in the theory of the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm applied to innovation management. The RBV is based on the works of Penrose and Wernerfelt and understands firms as bundles of resources. These bundles differ across firms and industries and persist over time406. In general, the RBV postulates that a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage is based on its unique resources and their interactions. So far, it has been stressed that Open Innovation is about integrating different resources and capabilities that originate from a variety of internal and external sources. Since the RBV emphasizes the bundling of unique resources, it is crucial for the understanding of Open Innovation407.

Keywords

Innovation Process Open Innovation Business Unit Dynamic Capability Innovation Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

o

  1. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Wernerfeit, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Vanhaverbeke, W. and Cloodt, M. (2006). Open innovation in value networks. In: Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: 274.Google Scholar
  4. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Silverman, B. S. (1999). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45(8): 1109–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford. p. 85.Google Scholar
  8. Liebermann, M. B. and Montgomery, D. B. (1998). First mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12): 1111–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Thomke, S. and Kuemmerle, W. (2002). Asset accumulation, interdependence and technological change: evidence from pharmaceutical drug discovery. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7): 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2): 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sanchez, R., Heene, A. and Thomas, H. (1996). Introduction: towards the theory and practise of competence-based competition. In: Sanchez, R., Heene, A. and Thomas, H. (Eds.). Dynamics of competence-based competition: theory and practise in the new strategic management. Oxford: 7.Google Scholar
  14. Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 51.Google Scholar
  15. Perks, H. and Easton, G. (2000). Strategic alliances: partner as customer. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4): 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 95.Google Scholar
  17. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 105.Google Scholar
  18. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33 (Spring): 123.Google Scholar
  19. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanchez, R., Heene, A. and Thomas, H. (1996). Introduction: towards the theory and practise of competence-based competition. In: Sanchez, R., Heene, A. and Thomas, H. (Eds.). Dynamics of competence-based competition: theory and practise in the new strategic management. Oxford: 8.Google Scholar
  21. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33 (Spring): 114–135.Google Scholar
  22. Liebermann, M. B. and Montgomery, D. B. (1998). First mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12): 1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1992). Capabilities-based competition. Harvard Business Review, 70(3): 164.Google Scholar
  24. Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 53.Google Scholar
  25. Rumelt, R. P. (1994). Foreword. In: Hamel, G. and Heene, A. (Eds.). Competence-based competition. New York: xix.Google Scholar
  26. Dougherty, D. (1995). Managing your core incompetencies for corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(3): 113.Google Scholar
  27. Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 56.Google Scholar
  28. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33 (Spring): 119.Google Scholar
  29. McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C. and Venkataraman, S. (1995). Denning and developing competence: a strategic process paradigm. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4): 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O. and Rajiv, S. (1999). Success in high-technology markets: is marketing capability critical? Marketing Science, 18(4): 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cooper, R. G. (2001). Winning at new products: accelerating the process from idea to launch. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 78.Google Scholar
  33. Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 97.Google Scholar
  34. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 57Google Scholar
  36. Herzog, P. (2007). Path dependencies in the context of innovation management: the disregard of market path dependence? Working Paper Series of the Institute of Business Administration at the Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Münster, No. 10. p. 4.Google Scholar
  37. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15: 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tripsas, M. (2000). Commercializing emerging technologies through complementary assets. In: Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: 172.Google Scholar
  39. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. p. 227.Google Scholar
  40. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15: 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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: 40.Google Scholar
  42. Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 65Google Scholar
  44. Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2007). Fähigkeit der externen Technologieverwertung: theoretisches Konzept und empirische Analyse. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 59 (März): 226.Google Scholar
  45. Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 86.Google Scholar
  46. Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 79.Google Scholar
  47. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 112.Google Scholar
  49. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 112.Google Scholar
  50. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. pp. 99 f.Google Scholar
  52. Herzog, P. (2007). Path dependencies in the context of innovation management: the disregard of market path dependence? Working Paper Series of the Institute of Business Administration at the Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Münster, No. 10.Google Scholar
  53. Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 214.Google Scholar
  54. Henderson, R. M. and Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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: 38.Google Scholar
  56. 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: 36.Google Scholar
  57. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koruna, S. (2004a). Leveraging knowledge assets: combinative capabilities: theory and practice. R&D Management, 34(5): 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1107.Google Scholar
  63. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1106.Google Scholar
  64. Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). The interorganizational context of open innovation. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: 215.Google Scholar
  65. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford. p. 79Google Scholar
  66. Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 961–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Michalisin, M. D., Smith, R. D. and Kline, D. M. (1997). In search of Strategic assets. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(4): 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Grant, R. M. (2002). Contemporary strategy analysis: concepts, techniques, applications. Maiden. p. 144.Google Scholar
  72. Rouse, M. J. and Daellenbach, U. S. (1999). Rethinking research methods for the resourcebased perspective: isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5): 488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van den Berg, P. T. and Wilderom, C. P. M. (2004). Defining, measuring, and comparing organisational cultures. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4): 577.Google Scholar
  74. Rouse, M. J. and Daellenbach, U. S. (1999). Rethinking research methods for the resourcebased perspective: isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5): 492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2): 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8): 607–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2): 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 118.Google Scholar
  80. Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Michalisin, M. D., Smith, R. D. and Kline, D. M. (1997). In search of Strategic assets. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(4): 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1108.Google Scholar
  86. Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach. New York. pp. 187 f.Google Scholar
  87. Chatman, J. A. and Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A. and Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rank, J., Pace, V. L. and Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4): 523.Google Scholar
  90. Salomo, S. and Mensel, N. (2005). Initiativen für Innovationen: Förderung von Initiativ-Kompetenzen. In: Albers, S. and Gassmann, O. (Eds.). Handbuch Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement: Strategie-Umsetzung-Controlling. Wiesbaden: 478.Google Scholar
  91. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L. and Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? a longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4): 847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L. and Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? a longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4): 860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Becherer, R. C. and Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behavior among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(1): 28.Google Scholar
  94. Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. New York.Google Scholar
  95. Pinchot, G. and Pellman, R. (1999). Intrapreneuring in action: a handbook for business innovation. San Francisco.Google Scholar
  96. Åmo, B. W. and Kolvereid, L. (2005). Organizational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(1): 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rank, J., Pace, V. L. and Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4): 520.Google Scholar
  98. Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: action versus state orientation, self-discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(2): 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Huston, L. and Sakkab, N. (2007). Implementing open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 50(2): 23.Google Scholar
  100. Crawford, C. M. (1977). Marketing research and the new product failure rate. Journal of Marketing, 41(2): 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1): 39.Google Scholar
  102. Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J. E. and Seiart, M. (2005). Drivers of organizational creativity: a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D. R&D Management, 35(4): 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Angle, H. L. (1989). Psychology and organizational innovation. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. Oxford: 139.Google Scholar
  104. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J. E. and Seiart, M. (2005). Drivers of organizational creativity: a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D. R&D Management, 35(4): 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Angle, H. L. (1989). Psychology and organizational innovation. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. Oxford: 139.Google Scholar
  107. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A. and Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5): 950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Dhawan, S. K., Roy, S. and Kumar, S. (2002). Organizational energy: an empirical study in Indian R&D laboratories. R&D Management, 32(5): 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1154–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Eisenberg, J. (1999). How individualism-collectivism moderates the effects of rewards on creativity and innovation: a comparative review of practices in Japan and the US. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8(4): 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Eisenberger, R. and Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51(11): 1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S. and Pretz, J. (1998). Can the promise of reward increase creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3): 704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Angle, H. L. (1989). Psychology and organizational innovation. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. Oxford: 140.Google Scholar
  114. 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. 13 f.Google Scholar
  115. Höcker, H. and Nettelnbreker, H.-J. (2004). Accelerating the process of innovation: Degussa’s new bonus system creates innovation incentives for Creavis employees. Journal of Business Chemistry, 1(1): 22.Google Scholar
  116. Herzog, P. and Niedergassel, B. (2007a). Facilitating open innovation: idea brokers in the chemical industry. PharmaChem, 6(3): 12.Google Scholar
  117. Herzog, P. and Niedergassel, B. (2007b). Offen für Ideen von außen. Nachrichten aus der Chemie, 55(5): 533.Google Scholar
  118. Tao, J. and Magnotta, V. (2006). How Air Products and Chemicals “Identifies and accelerates”. Research-Technology Management, 49(5): 18.Google Scholar
  119. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. pp. 223 ffGoogle Scholar
  120. Bidault, F. and Fischer, W. A. (1994). Technology transactions: Networks over markets. R&D Management, 24(4): 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Zollo, M. and Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the MH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4): 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming N.I.H.. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 11Google Scholar
  124. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 24Google Scholar
  125. Katz, R. and Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1): 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Dodgson, M. (1993). Technological collaboration in industry: strategy, policy, and internationalization in innovation. London. pp. 101Google Scholar
  128. Dodgson, M. (1993). Technological collaboration in industry: strategy, policy, and internationalization in innovation. London. pp. 151Google Scholar
  129. Brockhoff, K. (1997). Industrial research for future competitiveness. Berlin. pp. 23Google Scholar
  130. Brockhoff, K. (1997). Industrial research for future competitiveness. Berlin. pp. 104Google Scholar
  131. Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston. pp. 159 f.Google Scholar
  132. Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 77Google Scholar
  133. 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: 17.Google Scholar
  134. West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3): 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. pp. 106Google Scholar
  136. Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. pp. 196.Google Scholar
  137. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 50.Google Scholar
  138. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the MH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4): 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar
  140. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the MH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4): 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 8.Google Scholar
  142. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 12.Google Scholar
  143. Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming N.I.H.. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  144. Katz, R. and Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. de Pay, D. (1989). Kulturspezifische Determinanten der Organisation von Innovationsprozessen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft, 1: 131–167.Google Scholar
  146. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  147. Menon, T. and Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science, 49(4): 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 42 f.Google Scholar
  149. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the MH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4): 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 140.Google Scholar
  151. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 139 ff.Google Scholar
  152. Menon, T. and Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science, 49(4): 504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Witzeman, S., Slowinski, G., Dirks, R., Gollob, L., Tao, J., Ward, S. and Miraglia, S. (2006). Harnessing external technology for innovation. Research-Technology Management, 49(3): 27.Google Scholar
  154. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 30.Google Scholar
  155. Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: 121.Google Scholar
  156. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 140 ff.Google Scholar
  157. 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: 58.Google Scholar
  158. de Pay, D. (1989). Kulturspezifische Determinanten der Organisation von Innovationsprozessen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft, 1: 156.Google Scholar
  159. de Pay, D. (1995b). Organisationsmaßnahmen zur Verkürzung der Innovationszeit europäischer Unternehmen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft, 1: 93.Google Scholar
  160. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 221 ff.Google Scholar
  161. Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming N.I.H.. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 52Google Scholar
  162. de Pay, D. (1995a). Informationsmanagement und Innovation. Wiesbaden. p. 133.Google Scholar
  163. Brockhoff, K. (1999). Forschung und Entwicklung. München. pp. 79.Google Scholar
  164. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 178.Google Scholar
  165. Gibson, D. V. and Rogers, E. M. (1994). R&D collaboration on trial: the microelectronics and computer technology corporation. Boston. p. 548.Google Scholar
  166. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. p. 246Google Scholar
  167. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 228 ffGoogle Scholar
  168. Leptien, C. (1995). Anreizsysteme in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  169. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 230.Google Scholar
  170. Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming N.I.H.. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar
  171. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the MH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4): 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 227.Google Scholar
  173. Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston. p. 160.Google Scholar
  174. Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: 133.Google Scholar
  175. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 135.Google Scholar
  176. Ford, D. and Ryan, C. (1981). Taking technology to market. Harvard Business Review, 59(2): 117–126.Google Scholar
  177. 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
  178. Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 51 f.Google Scholar
  179. 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: 23.Google Scholar
  180. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 186.Google Scholar
  181. Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. p. 52.Google Scholar
  182. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 137Google Scholar
  183. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the MH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4): 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 31 ffGoogle Scholar
  185. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 138Google Scholar
  186. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 57Google Scholar
  187. 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: 24.Google Scholar
  188. Mittag, H. (1985). Technologiemarketing: die Vermarktung von industriellem Wissen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Einsatzes von Lizenzen. Bochum. p. 6Google Scholar
  189. Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar
  190. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. pp. 199 f.Google Scholar
  191. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 240 ff.Google Scholar
  192. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 282.Google Scholar
  193. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the MH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4): 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 187.Google Scholar
  195. Sakkab, N. Y. (2002). Connect & Develop complements Research & Revelop at P&G. Research-Technology Management, 45(2): 43.Google Scholar
  196. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 148.Google Scholar
  197. Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 49.Google Scholar
  198. Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I. and Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1): 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Soutaris, V. (2001). External communication determinants of innovation in the context of a newly industrialised country: a comparison of objective and perceptual results from Greece. Technovation, 21(1): 26.Google Scholar
  200. Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 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: 72.Google Scholar
  202. O’Connor, G. C. and Ayers, A. D. (2005). Building a radical innovation competency. Research-Technology Management, 48(1): 24.Google Scholar
  203. 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: 71.Google Scholar
  204. Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2): 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston. p. 156.Google Scholar
  206. 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: 48.Google Scholar
  207. 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: 66.Google Scholar
  208. Iansiti, M. and West, J. (1997). Technology integration: turning great research into great products. Harvard Business Review, 75(3): 69.Google Scholar
  209. Rice, M. P., Kelley, D., Peters, L. and O’Connor, G. C. (2001). Radical innovation: triggering initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation. R&D Management, 31(4): 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Chandy, R. K. and Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4): 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L. and Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: an application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66(3): 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science, 12(1): 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Bromiley, P. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate risk-taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1): 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Dess, G. G. and Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1): 152.Google Scholar
  215. Trustorff, J.-H. (2006): Risikoorientierte Unternehmensführung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Managementansätze, Saarbrücken. pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar
  216. Leker, J. (2005a). F&E-Controlling. In: Albers, S. and Gassmann, O. (Eds.). Handbuch Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement: Strategie-Umsetzung-Controlling. Wiesbaden: 569.Google Scholar
  217. Smith, P. G. and Reinertsen, D. G. (1992). Shortening the product development cycle. Research-Technology Management, 35(3): 209.Google Scholar
  218. Calantone, R., Garcia, R. and Dröge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2): 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4): 101.Google Scholar
  220. 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: 90.Google Scholar
  221. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester. p. 286.Google Scholar
  222. Hauschildt, J. (1992). External acquisition of knowledge for innovations: a research agenda. R&D Management, 22(2): 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Ring, P. S. and van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Formal and informal dimensions of transactions. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies. Oxford: 171.Google Scholar
  224. Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Econometrica, 4: 386–405.Google Scholar
  225. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  226. Conner, K. R. and Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5): 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. 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: 91.Google Scholar
  228. Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp.42ff.Google Scholar
  229. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 89.Google Scholar
  230. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3): 38.Google Scholar
  231. Chesbrough, H. W. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47(1): 25.Google Scholar
  232. Bstieler, L. (2006). Trust formation in collaborative new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1): 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3): 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. p. 118Google Scholar
  235. Horibe, F. (2001). Creating the innovation culture: leveraging visionaries, dissenters and other useful troublemakers in your organization. Toronto. pp. 9 ff.Google Scholar
  236. Angle, H. L. (1989). Psychology and organizational innovation. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. Oxford: 159.Google Scholar
  237. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K. and Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: a longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1): 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K. and Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: a longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1): 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. Dornblaser, B. M., Lin, T.-M. and van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Innovation outcomes, learning, and action loops. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies. Oxford: 210.Google Scholar
  242. Ring, P. S. and van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Formal and informal dimensions of transactions. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies. Oxford: 171–192.Google Scholar
  243. Angle, H. L. (1989). Psychology and organizational innovation. In: van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. Oxford: 160.Google Scholar
  244. Henard, D. H. and Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3): 362–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  245. de Brentani, U. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5): 313.Google Scholar
  246. Witte, E. (1973). Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen: das Promotoren-Modell. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  247. Chakrabarti, A. K. and Hauschildt, J. (1989). The division of labor in innovation management. R&D Management, 19(2): 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  248. Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 317–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  249. Markham, S. K. (1998). A longitudinal examination of how champions influence others to support their projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(6): 490–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. Hauschildt, J. and Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation: the ‘troika’ of promotors. R&D Management, 31(1): 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard Business Review, 41(2): 77–86.Google Scholar
  252. Chakrabarti, A. K. (1974). The role of champion in product innovation. California Management Review, 17(2): 58–62.Google Scholar
  253. Day, D. L. (1994). Raising radicals: different processes for championing innovative corporate ventures. Organization Science, 5(2): 148–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. Hauschildt, J. and Gemflnden, H. G., Eds. (1999). Promotoren: Champions der Innovation. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  255. Markham, S. K. (2000). Corporate championing and antagonism as forms of political behavior: an R&D perspective. Organization Science, 11(4): 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. Folkerts, L. (2001). Promotoren in Innovationsprozessen: empirische Untersuchung zur personellen Dynamik. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  257. Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M. and Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product innovations: defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5): 641–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  258. Witte, E. (1973). Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen: das Promotoren-Modell. Göttingen. pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar
  259. Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. p. 214Google Scholar
  260. Witte, E. (1973). Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen: das Promotoren-Modell. Göttingen. p. 17Google Scholar
  261. Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. Hauschildt, J. and Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation: the ‘troika’ of promotors. R&D Management, 31(1): 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  263. Chakrabarti, A. K. and Hauschildt, J. (1989). The division of labor in innovation management. R&D Management, 19(2): 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. Hauschildt, J. and Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation: the ‘troika’ of promotors. R&D Management, 31(1): 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  265. Gemünden, H. G. and Walter, A. (1995). Der Beziehungspromotor: Schlüsselperson für interorganisationale Innovationsprozesse. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 65(9): 973.Google Scholar
  266. Walter, A. (1998a). Der Beziehungspromotor: Ein personaler Gestaltungsansatz für erfolgreiches Relationship-Marketing. Wiesbaden. pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar
  267. Walter, A. (1998b). Der Beziehungspromotor: Gestalter erfolgreicher Geschäftsbeziehungen: eine theoretische und empirische Analyse. Marketing ZFP, 21(4): 268.Google Scholar
  268. Walter, A. and Gemflnden, H. G. (2000). Bridging the gap between suppliers and customers through relationship promoters: theoretical considerations and empirical results. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(2/3): 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  269. Forrest, J. E. and Martin, M. J. C. (1992). Strategic alliances between large and small research intensive organizations: experiences in the biotechnology industry. R&D Management, 22(1): 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. Walter, A. (1998a). Der Beziehungspromotor: Ein personaler Gestaltungsansatz für erfolgreiches Relationship-Marketing. Wiesbaden. pp. 116 ff.Google Scholar
  271. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. pp. 235 ff.Google Scholar
  272. Ernst, H. and Lechler, T. (2003). The emergence of executive champions and their impact on innovation performance. Working Paper, WHU — Otto Beinsheim Graduate School of Management, No. 94.Google Scholar
  273. Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 131.Google Scholar
  274. Buckler, S. A. (1997). The spiritual nature of innovation. Research-Technology Management, 40(2): 43.Google Scholar
  275. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  276. van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5): 594.Google Scholar
  277. Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4): 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  278. van de Ven, A. H. and Grazman, D. N. (1997). Technological innovation, learning, and leadership. In: Garud, R., Nayyar, P. and Shapira, Z. (Eds.).Technological innovation: oversights and foresight. New York: 211.Google Scholar
  279. van de Ven, A. H. and Chu, Y.-H. (1989). A psychometric assessment of the Minnesota innovation survey. In: Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (Eds.). Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies. Oxford: 60.Google Scholar
  280. Swink, M. (2000). Technological innovativeness as a moderator of new product design integration and top management support. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3): 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  281. de Brentani, U. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: impact on performance of international new product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5): 312.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Personalised recommendations