Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

  • Chapter
Open and Closed Innovation

  • 1872 Accesses

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.

See Penrose (1959); Wernerfelt (1984).

See Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt (2006), p. 274.

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

Access this chapter

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

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfeit, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford. p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomke, S. and Kuemmerle, W. (2002). Asset accumulation, interdependence and technological change: evidence from pharmaceutical drug discovery. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7): 619–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2): 135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perks, H. and Easton, G. (2000). Strategic alliances: partner as customer. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4): 328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33 (Spring): 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33 (Spring): 114–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1992). Capabilities-based competition. Harvard Business Review, 70(3): 164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1994). Foreword. In: Hamel, G. and Heene, A. (Eds.). Competence-based competition. New York: xix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1995). Managing your core incompetencies for corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(3): 113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33 (Spring): 119.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C. and Venkataraman, S. (1995). Denning and developing competence: a strategic process paradigm. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4): 254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O. and Rajiv, S. (1999). Success in high-technology markets: is marketing capability critical? Marketing Science, 18(4): 549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 57

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15: 288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. p. 227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15: 285–305.

    Article  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: 40.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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): 226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. pp. 99 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 214.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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: 38.

    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: 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koruna, S. (2004a). Leveraging knowledge assets: combinative capabilities: theory and practice. R&D Management, 34(5): 508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford. p. 79

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 961–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (2002). Contemporary strategy analysis: concepts, techniques, applications. Maiden. p. 144.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2): 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8): 607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2): 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach. New York. pp. 187 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J. A. and Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinchot, G. and Pellman, R. (1999). Intrapreneuring in action: a handbook for business innovation. San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åmo, B. W. and Kolvereid, L. (2005). Organizational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(1): 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huston, L. and Sakkab, N. (2007). Implementing open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 50(2): 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, C. M. (1977). Marketing research and the new product failure rate. Journal of Marketing, 41(2): 57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R. and Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51(11): 1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S. and Pretz, J. (1998). Can the promise of reward increase creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3): 704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Herzog, P. and Niedergassel, B. (2007a). Facilitating open innovation: idea brokers in the chemical industry. PharmaChem, 6(3): 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, P. and Niedergassel, B. (2007b). Offen für Ideen von außen. Nachrichten aus der Chemie, 55(5): 533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tao, J. and Magnotta, V. (2006). How Air Products and Chemicals “Identifies and accelerates”. Research-Technology Management, 49(5): 18.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidault, F. and Fischer, W. A. (1994). Technology transactions: Networks over markets. R&D Management, 24(4): 373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M. and Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming N.I.H.. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 24

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M. (1993). Technological collaboration in industry: strategy, policy, and internationalization in innovation. London. pp. 101

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M. (1993). Technological collaboration in industry: strategy, policy, and internationalization in innovation. London. pp. 151

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1997). Industrial research for future competitiveness. Berlin. pp. 23

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1997). Industrial research for future competitiveness. Berlin. pp. 104

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston. pp. 159 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford. p. 77

    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: 17.

    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): 321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. pp. 106

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. pp. 196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 5 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming N.I.H.. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Pay, D. (1989). Kulturspezifische Determinanten der Organisation von Innovationsprozessen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft, 1: 131–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, T. and Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science, 49(4): 497–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 42 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 139 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, T. and Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science, 49(4): 504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: 121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 140 ff.

    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: 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pay, D. (1989). Kulturspezifische Determinanten der Organisation von Innovationsprozessen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft, 1: 156.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pay, D. (1995b). Organisationsmaßnahmen zur Verkürzung der Innovationszeit europäischer Unternehmen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft, 1: 93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 221 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming N.I.H.. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 52

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pay, D. (1995a). Informationsmanagement und Innovation. Wiesbaden. p. 133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1999). Forschung und Entwicklung. München. pp. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, D. V. and Rogers, E. M. (1994). R&D collaboration on trial: the microelectronics and computer technology corporation. Boston. p. 548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge. p. 246

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. pp. 228 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Leptien, C. (1995). Anreizsysteme in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming N.I.H.. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 56 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrwald, H. (1999). Das “Not Invented Here”-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung. Wiesbaden. p. 227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston. p. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. (1985). The management and marketing of technology. In: Lamb, R. and Shrivastava, P. (Eds.). Advances in strategic management. London: 133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 51 f.

    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: 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 137

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 138

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 57

    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: 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittag, H. (1985). Technologiemarketing: die Vermarktung von industriellem Wissen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Einsatzes von Lizenzen. Bochum. p. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp. 65 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. pp. 199 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 240 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 282.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakkab, N. Y. (2002). Connect & Develop complements Research & Revelop at P&G. Research-Technology Management, 45(2): 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston. p. 148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S. (2005). The front end of innovation in converging industries: the case of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Wiesbaden. p. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I. and Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1): 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 288.

    Article  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: 72.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, G. C. and Ayers, A. D. (2005). Building a radical innovation competency. Research-Technology Management, 48(1): 24.

    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: 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston. p. 156.

    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: 48.

    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: 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M. and West, J. (1997). Technology integration: turning great research into great products. Harvard Business Review, 75(3): 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate risk-taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1): 40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Trustorff, J.-H. (2006): Risikoorientierte Unternehmensführung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Managementansätze, Saarbrücken. pp. 5 ff.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. G. and Reinertsen, D. G. (1992). Shortening the product development cycle. Research-Technology Management, 35(3): 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4): 101.

    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: 90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester. p. 286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. (1992). External acquisition of knowledge for innovations: a research agenda. R&D Management, 22(2): 106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Econometrica, 4: 386–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K. R. and Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5): 477.

    Article  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: 91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyens, K. (1998). Externe Verwertung von technologischem Wissen. Wiesbaden. pp.42ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3): 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47(1): 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bstieler, L. (2006). Trust formation in collaborative new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1): 60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3): 323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. p. 118

    Google Scholar 

  • Horibe, F. (2001). Creating the innovation culture: leveraging visionaries, dissenters and other useful troublemakers in your organization. Toronto. pp. 9 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Witte, E. (1973). Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen: das Promotoren-Modell. Göttingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A. K. and Hauschildt, J. (1989). The division of labor in innovation management. R&D Management, 19(2): 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 317–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation: the ‘troika’ of promotors. R&D Management, 31(1): 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard Business Review, 41(2): 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A. K. (1974). The role of champion in product innovation. California Management Review, 17(2): 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. L. (1994). Raising radicals: different processes for championing innovative corporate ventures. Organization Science, 5(2): 148–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Gemflnden, H. G., Eds. (1999). Promotoren: Champions der Innovation. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, S. K. (2000). Corporate championing and antagonism as forms of political behavior: an R&D perspective. Organization Science, 11(4): 429–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkerts, L. (2001). Promotoren in Innovationsprozessen: empirische Untersuchung zur personellen Dynamik. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, E. (1973). Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen: das Promotoren-Modell. Göttingen. pp. 5 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. München. p. 214

    Google Scholar 

  • Witte, E. (1973). Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen: das Promotoren-Modell. Göttingen. p. 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation: the ‘troika’ of promotors. R&D Management, 31(1): 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A. K. and Hauschildt, J. (1989). The division of labor in innovation management. R&D Management, 19(2): 161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J. and Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation: the ‘troika’ of promotors. R&D Management, 31(1): 42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemünden, H. G. and Walter, A. (1995). Der Beziehungspromotor: Schlüsselperson für interorganisationale Innovationsprozesse. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 65(9): 973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, A. (1998a). Der Beziehungspromotor: Ein personaler Gestaltungsansatz für erfolgreiches Relationship-Marketing. Wiesbaden. pp. 61 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, A. (1998b). Der Beziehungspromotor: Gestalter erfolgreicher Geschäftsbeziehungen: eine theoretische und empirische Analyse. Marketing ZFP, 21(4): 268.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, A. (1998a). Der Beziehungspromotor: Ein personaler Gestaltungsansatz für erfolgreiches Relationship-Marketing. Wiesbaden. pp. 116 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. pp. 235 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2006). Leveraging knowledge assets: success factors of external technology commercialization. Wiesbaden. p. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckler, S. A. (1997). The spiritual nature of innovation. Research-Technology Management, 40(2): 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5): 594.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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). Conceptual framework and hypotheses. In: Open and Closed Innovation. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8090-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation