Fig 4 - uploaded by Konstantin Schneider
Content may be subject to copyright.
Selected business model evolutions 9 

Selected business model evolutions 9 

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
For most of the stakeholders from industry, research, and politics, thinking out of the box is not an easy process. Trying new ways beyond one’s own competencies, products, service ranges and markets requires long-term commitment and the willingness to take risks, because success cannot be taken for granted. On the contrary, new cross industry and...

Context in source publication

Context 1
... practice, there are many examples of how established companies have developed their business models through dynamization of their core competencies, based on different drivers. These examples show that business models are not static objects but must be continuously optimized and innovated by the companies to be able to maintain a sus- tainable position in the market ( figure 4). In this respect also, product and technological innovations play only a minor role. ...

Similar publications

Conference Paper
Full-text available
In this workshop we will use Dürer machines, both physical (made of thread) and virtual (made of lines) to create anamorphic illusions of objects made up of simple boxes, these being the building blocks for more complex illusions. We will consider monocular oblique anamorphosis and then anaglyphic anamorphoses, to be seen with red-blue 3D glasses.

Citations

... Die Clusterinitiativen als Branchenspezialisten sollten diese Anstrengungen nicht konterkarieren, sondern ihr Branchenknowhow gerade dann einbringen, wenn es um übergreifende Zusammenarbeit bzw. mehr Diversität innerhalb eines Clusters geht (Brandt 2014;Meier zu Köcker et al. 2016). ...
Chapter
Das Thema Cluster hat seinen Zenit in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung überschritten. Die teils völlig überhöhten Erwartungen konnten nicht erfüllt werden, die Kritik an Konzept und praktischer Umsetzung füllt Bücherwände. Dennoch ist eine Vielzahl von Clusterinitiativen weiter vor Ort aktiv und behauptet sich in der aktuellen Förder- und Netzwerklandschaft. Die Diskussion über die praktische Clusterpolitik hat zudem zahlreiche Erkenntnisse hervorgebracht, die in den aktuellen Diskussionen um Regionale Innovationsstrategien, Resilienz oder Smart Specialisation mannigfaltigen Nutzen stiften können. Aus Sicht der kommunalen und regionalen Akteure gibt es somit gute Gründe, den Clusteransatz inhaltlich-strategisch zu durchdringen und vor allem die Lehren aus der Clusterdiskussion zu ziehen – damit aktive Standortentwicklung im Rahmen integrierter Wirtschaftsförderung zukünftig noch besser gelingen möge.
Article
Full-text available
The concept of proximity, whilst attractive cognitively, is still a poorly explored area in management sciences. The earliest publications on proximity were published at the end of the twentieth century and the development of this concept was strongly influenced by The French School of Proximity (Kirat & Lung, 1999; Rallet & Torre, 1999; Torre & Gilly, 2000; Carrincazeaux et al., 2001; Torre & Rallet, 2005). However, the most influential publications are by Boschma, who distinguished five basic dimensions of proximity: geographical, social, cognitive, organizational and institutional (Boschma 2004, 2005; Boschma & Frenken, 2010; Boschma et al., 2014; Balland et al., 2015). Proximity is particularly important for the development of cooperation between business entities embedded in a specific territory – the idea of proximity is related to all concepts of regional development based on knowledge and innovation (Martin, 2003). This also applies to the cluster concept (Porter, 1998; 2000; 2001; 2003) in which references to all dimensions of proximity can be found. Applying the proximity category to the cluster concept can be treated as an attempt to understand and explain factors of a non-economic nature that may affect (positively or negatively) the development of innovation in clusters. On the one hand, proximity is recognized in the literature as a factor facilitating access to knowledge and fostering the development of innovation (Tremblay et al., 2003; Boschma, 2005; Paci et al., 2014). The superior role of geographical proximity in achieving external economies has already been indicated by the classics – Marshall (1925) and Hearn (1864). The importance of geographical proximity to create a competitive advantage through innovation is also emphasized in all theories of regional development originating from the Marshall district (Aydalot, 1986; Camagni, 1991; Cooke et al., 1997; Braczyk et al., 1998). The similarity of knowledge systems (cognitive proximity), relationships based on trust (social proximity) and organizational links between cooperating organizations (organizational proximity) enable and facilitate the creation and exchange of knowledge, stimulating innovation activity (Uzzi, 1997; Boschma, 2005). On the other hand, being too close can also have a negative impact on the development of innovation in clusters. Maximizing proximity may lead to isolation and closure, and the related lack of new information and ideas inhibits the innovative activity of cluster entities (Grabher, 1993; Uzzi, 1997; Oerlemans & Meeus, 2005; Boschma, 2005; Balland et al., 2015). Therefore, in order to develop innovation in clusters, an optimal level of proximity should be sought, although in the literature there is no agreement on what scale of proximity would be most beneficial for innovative processes.
Article
Full-text available
Open innovation is a concept, whose attributes can be perceived as naturally complementing the proximity-based offer of clusters. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential role of clusters as intermediaries of open innovation for cluster members. A literature review and an exploratory study were performed, involving in-depth interviews with experts in the field of innovation and clusters in Poland. This article conceptually links open innovation and clusters, proposes and categorizes roles of clusters as open innovation intermediaries, as well as indicates factors that might affect the successful adoption of this role. Furthermore, it points out that clusters could not only manage and mediate their network of members but also shape and co-create a broader open innovation ecosystem. The findings contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the potential roles of open innovation intermediaries in regard to clusters in the context of transitioning economies. With clusters playing the role of an open innovation intermediary, public support at cluster level could increase the openness to cooperation not only for member companies but all participants in the regional innovation ecosystem.