Content uploaded by Andreas Kuckertz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreas Kuckertz on Nov 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Three Configurations of Corporate
Innovation Programs and Their Interplay1
Michael Kötting
University of Hohenheim, Wollgrasweg 49, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany.
Mail: michael.koetting@zeb.de
Andreas Kuckertz (corresponding author)
University of Hohenheim, Wollgrasweg 49, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany.
Mail: andreas.kuckertz@uni-hohenheim.de; Phone: +4971145924820
Purpose: The success of corporate innovation is based less upon the success of a single innovation program
than on a holistic and overarching corporate innovation system integrating various activities. Taking this
perspective, this study extends existing research on the design of innovation programs.
Design/methodology/approach: Utilizing an inductive theory-building case study approach, this study
provides a detailed analysis of how one of the largest and most successful German technology companies
structures its many innovation activities.
Findings: The analysis identifies key elements of innovation programs and suggests three configurations
that illustrate how these generic elements can be structured so as to offer the best fit with the underlying
logic of the respective innovation program. Furthermore, this study highlights how the identified configu-
rations come together to deliver overarching strategic innovation goals.
Originality/value: Existing research too often focuses solely on single innovation programs. The current
research is among the first to take a holistic and overarching perspective, considering different innovation
programs within a single company and analyzing their configuration and their interplay.
Keywords: Corporate innovation, Innovation management, Innovation programs
Article classification: Case study
1 This is a preprint version. For the final version refer to “Three configurations of corporate innovation programs and
their interplay”. M. Kötting & A. Kuckertz. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2020, 23 (1): 90-113.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2018-0142
2
1. INTRODUCTION
There is a strong consensus in innovation management that a firm’s long-term success depends on its ability
to constantly renew itself by exploiting existing competencies and resources and simultaneously exploring
new ones (Levinthal and March, 1993; March, 1991). However, both explorative and exploitative activities
are characterized by fundamental design differences and therefore require different mindsets and organiza-
tional routines (Gupta et al., 2006). To ensure the effective use of explorative and exploitative activities,
organizations must meet certain prerequisites and framework conditions for each activity (Benner and Tush-
man, 2003; Christensen, 1997; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). If an organization meets such conditions, it
can avoid the so-called exploitation trap, that is, a situation where an inappropriate alignment of explorative
and exploitative activities renders exploration useless as it is stifled by exploitation (Sirén et al., 2012).
Although the simultaneous implementation of exploration and exploitation (commonly termed ambidexter-
ity) is considered a success factor (Gupta et al., 2006; Levinthal and March, 1993; March, 1991), achieving
it is challenging owing to the differing requirements and opposing logics of the activities (Gupta et al.,
2006). In this context, research specifically focuses on organizational mechanisms to facilitate ambidexter-
ity, such as formal structures or lateral coordination mechanisms (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch
and Birkinshaw, 2008; Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). A prominent ap-
proach implementing ambidexterity in this regard is to pursue so-called structural ambidexterity—the or-
ganizational separation of explorative and exploitative activities (Benner and Tushman, 2003; O’Reilly and
Tushman, 2008). Structural ambidexterity seeks to localize explorative and exploitative activities in distinct
organizational units (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch et al., 2009) so that every activity can be con-
ducted under the circumstances most conducive to its logic.
The concept of structural ambidexterity has also been applied in the corporate venturing (CV) literature
(e.g., Burgers et al., 2009; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2006; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2012). Accordingly, CV can
be perceived as both an explorative (Basu et al., 2011; Burgelman, 1983; Dushnitsky and Lenox, 2006) and
an exploitative activity (Schildt et al., 2005; van de Vrande et al., 2006). This is due to the fact that the goal
of both activities should be (strategic) learning (Sirén et al., 2012), which is based on knowledge that has
been created in CV units and that is useful to develop both new and existing products and services (Benner
and Tushman, 2003; Lubatkin et al., 2006). Because exploration and exploitation are not compatible owing
to their different requirements, in particular large organizations need to manage multiple innovation pro-
grams addressing these activities. Moreover, coordination between different units must be managed to ben-
efit from potential synergies.
While research on innovation management and CV does already address the design of innovation programs
(e.g., corporate incubators, corporate venture capital, strategic partnerships), it often focuses only on single
3
innovation programs (e.g., Allen and Hevert, 2007; Dushnitsky and Lenox, 2006; Maula et al., 2013; Röhm
et al., 2018; Vintergaard, 2005). Although these perspectives are quite informative, they do not usually
provide a holistic perspective, meaning that they tend to ignore how the program investigated is embedded
in its organizational context (Maine, 2008; O’Connor and Ayers, 2005). We therefore adopt the perspective
that the promotion of explorative and exploitative innovation is based less on a single process or the activ-
ities of a single innovation program but is more often embedded in the form of a holistic and overarching
corporate innovation system. The innovation system usually consists of several innovation measures that
are strongly interdependent. For this reason, an analysis of single innovation programs is not conducive to
understanding the innovation mechanisms within an organization. Instead a holistic view of a corporation’s
innovation activities is required because the elements of the innovation system must also be coordinated.
We therefore aim to explore the following research question: What elements constitute successful innova-
tion programs, how are those configured, and do different types of programs have the potential to enrich
each other? This work addresses the research question applying an approach designed to generate theory
(Ketokivi and Choi, 2014).
Using an inductive theory-building case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989), the research contributes to the
academic literature on innovation programs and innovation culture in two ways. Based on an extremely
detailed analysis of the way one of the largest and most successful German technology companies structures
its innovation activities we first identify the key elements of its innovation programs and suggest three
configurations that illustrate how the generic elements of an innovation program can be structured in such
a way as to best fit the underlying logic of the respective program. Second, and most importantly, we high-
light how the identified configurations come together to achieve the overarching strategic innovation goals
of the corporation. Consequently, by adopting an overarching and holistic perspective, this article contrib-
utes to understanding the identified gap in the literature that too often focuses on single innovation programs
and adds to our understanding of how different innovation programs can be combined to form a corporate
innovation system.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Multiple innovation programs to implement structural ambidexterity
2.1.1. Structural ambidexterity to balance explorative and exploitative activities
Successful organizations are characterized by the simultaneous utilization of explorative and exploitative
activities (Levinthal and March, 1993; March, 1991; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Following this promi-
nent concept of March (1991), the exploration of new opportunities alongside the simultaneous exploitation
of existing certainties are essential elements of organizational learning and therefore a major factor for a
4
firm’s long-term success. However, the simultaneous utilization of these fundamentally different activities
is highly complex, due to the significant design differences of both modes (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009).
Explorative activities aim to generate new competencies and innovative products and services (March,
1991) and Tushman and Smith (2002) consider fundamental research, experimenting, and prototyping as
appropriate measures for the implementation of exploration. The proposed measures are characterized by a
high degree of creativity and a decentralized and flexible organizational structure (Benner and Tushman,
2003; Christensen, 1997; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Exploitation, on the other hand, aims to leverage
existing competences to improve products and services (March, 1991). To realize this intent, measures such
as optimization, standardization, and refinement are appropriate (Tushman and Smith, 2002). The measures
are characterized by centralized and rigid processes and structures (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Tushman
and O’Reilly, 1996). Only by ensuring the different requirements for each activity, can organizations avoid
the so-called exploitation trap, the situation where an inappropriate alignment of explorative and exploita-
tive activities renders exploration useless because it is stifled by exploitation (Sirén et al., 2012).
The academic literature often cites the concept of ambidexterity as an appropriate measure to aid the sim-
ultaneous implementation and balancing of explorative and exploitative activities, (Gibson and Birkinshaw,
2004; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008; Raisch et al., 2009; Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Tushman and
O’Reilly, 1996). The concept of ambidexterity describes different behavioral (contextual ambidexterity),
processual (sequential ambidexterity) and structural mechanisms (structural ambidexterity) to separate and
balance explorative and exploitative activities within an organization (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;
O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). The approach of structural ambidexterity thus
describes the separation of explorative and exploitative activities in different organizational units (Benner
and Tushman, 2003; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). O’Reilly and Tushman (2004) concluded, that whereas
a more organic structure should be implemented in exploration-oriented units, structures that are more
mechanistic should be applied for exploitation-oriented units. Following this concept, every activity can be
utilized under the circumstances most conducive to its logic.
2.1.2. Structural ambidexterity through multiple innovation programs
Following literature on innovation management and CV, the use of innovation programs is supposed to
advance goals like providing a window on new technological opportunities, creating new growth options,
and fostering a more entrepreneurial culture (Burgelman, 1983; Basu et al., 2011; Dushnitsky and Lenox,
2006; Miles and Covin, 2002; Schildt et al., 2005). To this effect, innovation programs are usually bundled
in separate organizational units, so that their activities are not influenced by the daily operations of other
business units (Block and Macmillan, 1993). However, the design of innovation programs is very individual
and can take various forms (e.g., Keil et al., 2008; Schildt et al., 2005; van de Vrande et al., 2011). For
5
example, based on transaction cost theory, van de Vrande et al. (2006) differentiates governance modes for
(external) technology sourcing based on the degree of commitment and the degree of reversibility. Follow-
ing this distinction, innovation activities such as idea contests, hackathons and corporate accelerators are
associated with a low degree of commitment and a high degree of reversibility, while corporate incubators
and corporate venture capital units are associated with a high degree of commitment and a low degree of
reversibility.
The use of multiple innovation programs to implement structural ambidexterity within an organization has
already been proven successful in the academic literature (e.g., Burgers et al., 2009; Hill and Birkinshaw,
2006; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2012). This success is due to the fact, that depending on the design of a inno-
vation program, organizational activities can be perceived as both explorative (Basu et al., 2011;
Burgelman, 1983; Dushnitsky and Lenox, 2006) and exploitative (Schildt et al., 2005; van de Vrande et al.,
2006). The suitability of an innovation program for the implementation of explorative or exploitative ac-
tivities is very much dependent on the design and configuration of the respective program. Owing to the
presence of high uncertainty—regarding the technical realization and the marketing potential of an innova-
tion—in the context of explorative activities, innovation programs with a low degree of commitment and a
high degree of reversibility are particularly recommended (Nooteboom, 2004). In addition, the innovation
programs should have a high degree of creativity, organic structures, and flexible processes to meet the
requirements of exploratory activities. Exploitative activities, on the other hand, focus on existing compe-
tences and the improvement of existing products and services (March, 1991). Therefore, innovation pro-
grams with a high degree of commitment and a low degree of reversibility, such as corporate incubators
and corporate venture capital are more appropriate (Nooteboom, 2004).
2.2. Multiple innovation programs as part of a corporate innovation system
Organizations are complex systems whose elements are highly coherent and therefore there is a high de-
pendence between their elements (Tushman and Nadler, 1986). Accordingly, if organizations use different
innovation programs to implement structural ambidexterity, there must be a high level of interconnected-
ness between these programs, but also between the innovation programs and other business units of the
organization. For that reason, innovation programs should be considered less as autonomous and isolated
actors within an organization and more part of a holistic corporate innovation system (Maine, 2008; O’Con-
nor and Ayers, 2005). Furthermore, the business units of the organization should also be seen as an essential
component of the corporate innovation system, since innovation programs are highly dependent on their
support (Heller, 1999). Therefore, a key success factor of the corporate innovation system is the alignment
between the various actors (O’Connor and Ayers, 2005). In this systemic consideration, elements such as
6
leadership and culture, governance and decision-making, skills and personal development and also struc-
tures and processes are highly relevant and need to be considered within and across the different innovation
programs and business units (O’Connor and DeMartino, 2006).
While the academic literature has for many years been concerned with the design of innovation programs,
research often focuses solely on single innovation programs like corporate venture capital (e.g., Dushnitsky
and Lenox, 2006; Dushnitsky and Shaver, 2009; Keil et al., 2008; Maula et al., 2013; Röhm et al., 2018;
Siegel et al., 1988; Sykes, 1990), corporate incubators (e.g., Barbero et al., 2014; Becker and Gassmann,
2006; Branstad, 2010; Ford et al., 2010; Gassmann and Becker, 2006) or strategic partnerships (e.g., Alva-
rez and Barney, 2001; Colombo et al., 2006; Doz, 1988; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996; Narula and
Hagedoorn, 1999; Rothaermel and Deeds, 2004). Although these works often examine interactions and
interfaces between the single innovation programs and other business units (e.g., Chen and Kannan-Nara-
simhan, 2015; Gassmann and Becker, 2006; Robeson and O’Connor, 2007), there are very few papers with
an overarching orientation, considering also other innovation programs within the organizational bounda-
ries and their interplay (Maine, 2008; O’Connor and DeMartino, 2006). The embedding of innovation pro-
grams in an overarching corporate innovation system is thus rarely discussed in the academic literature.
One of the few exceptions is the work of O’Connor and DeMartino (2006) examining the structures and
mechanisms available to commercialize radical innovation as a management system and investigating the
underlying structures and logics. Another study examining multiple innovation programs of an organization
is that of Maine (2008), which analyzes the structure und interaction of the internal CV measures of an
established company in the chemical industry.
Following the call for further research on corporate innovation systems, we adopt the perspective that the
promotion of corporate innovation is less based on a single innovation program than it is embedded in the
form of a holistic and overarching corporate innovation system. Against the background of the research
question of this paper, we will therefore examine the innovation programs of one of the largest and most
successful German technology companies and analyze how those programs are structured and how they
interact.
3. CASE STUDY DESIGN: CORPORATE INNOVATION PROGRAMS
We employed an inductive theory-building case study approach to answer our research question (Eisen-
hardt, 1989) on how firms employ different innovation programs and how these programs differ and poten-
tially affect each other. This research approach—advocated by Eisenhardt (1989) in—is well established in
the academic literature (Welch et al., 2011) and appropriated for work such as this when a research question
is not satisfactorily answered in existing academic literature and therefore the generation of new theory is
required (Ketokivi and Choi, 2014). A major challenge associated with this theory-building approach is to
7
ensure an appropriate degree of generalizability (Langley, 1999; Welch et al., 2011). Ketokivi and Choi
(2004) argue using the term duality criterion, that it has to be guaranteed that generated theory is both close
to the empirical observations and at the same time seeking a sense of generality, which involves attempting
to abstract from the specific empirical context and thus to create a broader theoretical understanding (Gioia
et al., 2013). In order to guarantee the duality criterion in our work, we adapted the strict interpretation of
the grounded theory approach proposed by Glaser (1992), which prohibits considering existing knowledge
during the analysis. Instead, we opted for a research design that accounts for prior knowledge and compared
the observed empirical context in an iterative analysis with the general theory presented in our literature
review (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Accordingly, the results of our analysis are based on accepted general
theory, but do not neglect our specific empirical findings (Ketokivi and Choi, 2014). To ensure transparency
of analysis and theorizing, the results of the multi-step coding are documented in the form of a hierarchical
data structure (Gioia et al., 2013; Welch et al., 2011).
3.1. Research design and case selection
3.1.1. Design
The basis of our analysis is an in-depth, longitudinal analysis of an embedded case study (Yin, 2003).
Accordingly, we will analyze several innovation programs as sub-cases embedded in the overarching case
of one large corporation. Case studies, in contrast to other research methods, are particularly appropriate
for the investigation of dynamic and complex objects of investigation and can help develop a comprehen-
sive understanding of the analyzed phenomena (Eisenhardt, 1989). The appropriateness of this approach is
also supported by the academic literature, which records it being widely used in the fields of innovation
management and CV (e.g., Gassmann et al., 2012; Macher and Richmann, 2004; O’Connor and DeMartino,
2006; Vintergaard, 2005).
3.1.2. Case selection
This research seeks to explore the interplay between different innovation programs run by a corporation
and to analyze their design, and their dependencies both with the parent corporation and among each other.
Meeting this objective first demands the careful selection of a suitable case (Yin, 2003). To do that, we
searched for accepted success factors in the academic literature and used them as selection criteria. At the
level of the innovation program, there is a consensus that successful programs are operated on a long-term
basis (Vanhaverbeke and Peeters, 2005) and are based on strategic objectives (Covin and Miles, 2007).
Fig 1 Overview of the innovation programs examined
8
The success criteria identified led us to select a large German technology corporation as our unit of analysis.
The organization has more than 20 years’ experience with corporate venture capital and currently operates
a portfolio of five strategic innovation programs, most of which have been in place for several years (Figure
1). With a long and successful history of operating innovation programs, more than 200,000 employees and
sales of more than EUR 70 billion in 2017, the corporation offers a suitable case to study. A researcher
contacted the office of the board member responsible for technology and innovation. The office considered
our research highly relevant and put the research team in contact with the executives responsible for the
innovation programs. Descriptive information about the innovation programs is provided in Table 1. As is
customary, we have disguised names to protect the identity of the selected corporation (Gioia et al., 2013).
Table 1 Descriptive information about the analyzed innovation programs
3.2. Data collection and sources
3.2.1. Interviews
To support our analysis, we conducted 12 interviews in two waves, to allow for a longitudinal perspective
and to mitigate bias by combining retrospective and current data (Burgelman, 2011; Leonard-Barton, 1990).
The first wave of interviews took place between the end of 2014 and the middle of 2015 while the second
wave commenced in late 2017 and continued until the beginning of 2018. Our key informants were either
executives from a particular innovation program or senior experts. Diligent selection of key informants
(Appendix 1) ensured that they would have sufficient tenure, professional experience, and a comprehensive
background knowledge on the topic of innovation management, could offer insights into the strategic ori-
entation of the innovation programs, and would have information about the interplay with the parent cor-
poration (Kumar et al., 1993). In order to obtain an overarching view of all innovation programs, we con-
ducted interviews with an experienced manager acting as a managerial assistant to a board member too.
The managerial assistant was responsible for all innovation-related activities within the department of the
board member and was therefore a qualified informant for our study. Therefore, our choice of key inform-
ants helped mitigate recall problems that could potentially influence the results (Huber and Power, 1985).
In a move consistent with the theory-building objective, we adopted a focused approach in which findings
from prior research guided the data collection and analytical procedures (Eisenhardt, 1989). Since our re-
search question particularly targets gaining new insights into the design of innovation programs and their
interplay with each other, our data collection was focused on, but not limited to, these aspects. We devel-
oped a semi-structured interview protocol, which was further developed in the course of the study (Gioia
et al., 2013). Open-ended questions concerned the following topics: (1) history and development of the
9
program, (2) program objectives, (3) selection and promotion of innovation opportunities, (4) interplay with
business units and (5) interplay with other innovation programs. Each of the 12 interviews lasted for at least
one hour and was recorded and transcribed. On two occasions the interviewees did not consent to recordings
being made, and in those cases, we rely on extensive interview notes. In sum, we conducted a total of 12
interviews with a combined transcript length of 243 pages. In addition to the interviews, we gathered further
information from the key informants via email exchanges and phone calls and thus validated the research
results.
3.2.2. Archival data
We supplemented the interview data and follow-up information with extensive archival data about the par-
ent corporation and its innovation programs. The information was collected from a variety of sources such
as parent firm annual reports, company websites, and press databases. Such diverse sources helped trian-
gulate the primary data (Jick, 1979) and encouraged the authors to examine them from multiple angles (Yin,
2003). In total, we examined 694 pages of archival data (Appendix 2) to add to the information provided
by our key informants.
3.3. Data coding
As part of the data analysis, we consistently followed the inductive theory-building case study approach
(Eisenhardt, 1989). First, we carried out an iterative within-case analysis of each of the five innovation
programs and derived insights from the collected interview data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Subsequently,
we used the identified theoretical concepts to compare the different innovation programs in a cross-(sub-)
case analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
3.3.1. Within-case analysis
All collected data were compiled in an embedded case study and then subjected to intensive analysis (Miles
and Huberman, 1994). Using the QDA software MAXQDA 12, we followed prior research and coded each
section that picks up a particular thought with one or more in-vivo codes (Charmaz, 2006) and grouped
them in the first step into first-order codes (Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The coding was led
by the researcher who had the most experience of working with the case corporation (Pratt, 2009), while
several discussions within the research team helped to increase the validity of the initial coding before
proceeding to the next round of analysis.
The subsequent axial-coding pursues the identification of links among first-order codes (Locke, 2001).
Associated first-order codes were then grouped into more general second-order concepts (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967). These second-order concepts represent our preliminary proposition which we tested against
all available data using the constant comparison method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). As a last step, we linked
10
second-order concepts into aggregated dimensions. While considering relevant general theory (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998), we refined the clustering of codes and higher-level concepts within the research team in
numerous iterations until we reached theoretical saturation (Miles and Huberman, 1994), that is, no new
conceptual categories emerged from analyzing the data. The outcome of the within-case analysis (Appendix
3) is structured in form of a hierarchical data structure (Gioia et al., 2013).
The results of the within-case analysis were systematically compared with the information from the archival
data, to substantiate our findings from the coding, but also to identify differences between the coding and
the archival data. Whenever differences between coding and archival data were detected, the research team
discussed the findings in question with the key informants to ensure their reliability and validity. Doing so
allowed informants to suggest adjustments if our theoretical insights and their experiences did not corre-
spond and the process thus enhances the internal and external validity of our data structure (Gioia et al.,
2013). We revised the structure multiple times based on the suggestions of the informants and those of
academic colleagues.
3.3.2. Cross-(sub-)case analysis of the innovation programs
Based on the findings from the within-case analysis, we conducted a cross-(sub-) case analysis to system-
atically compare the different innovation programs (Eisenhardt, 1989). In the first step, we combined the
identified theoretical concepts in a case-ordered descriptive matrix (Miles and Huberman, 1994), selecting
the aggregated dimension of innovation-related goals as the lead criterion (Appendix 4). Next, we deter-
mined the specific characteristics of each theoretical concept for the five innovation programs. Based on
the lead criterion of innovation-related goals, we subsequently grouped the innovation programs and com-
pared the different configurations. Prior research indicates that the selected approach can promote a com-
prehensive understanding of different configurations and identify recurring patterns (Miles and Huberman,
1994).
4. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: UNDERSTANDING CORPORATE INNOVATION
PROGRAMS
4.1. A meta model for corporate innovation programs
The within-case analysis in the previous section illuminates the theoretical findings based on the imple-
mentation of different innovation programs. This section presents our empirical observations and the theo-
retical insights they generated (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). The results can be found in Figure 2, pre-
sented in the context of a meta model.
11
Fig. 2 Meta model for corporate innovation programs
The meta model consists of seven overarching principles that are subcategorized as two general principles
and five configurational principles. Whereas the general principles are valid across the various innovation
programs, the design of configurational principles varies depending on the respective goals of an innova-
tion program.
4.1.1. General principles of the meta model
4.1.1.1. Shared values of innovation programs
Despite design differences between innovation programs, they are subject to a set of shared values and
beliefs. For example, the programs seem to be open to external impulses and developments (openness to
external developments) and nurture a culture of openness and intense exchange among themselves (regular
exchange of knowledge across programs). As the managerial assistant to the board member remarked:
It essentially requires openness from the people. They need to talk to each other and get
a feeling of what is going on in the other areas. (A-BM)
Communication between the programs does not follow standardized procedures but happens informally
and on a personal level. The frequency of informal exchange reflects a high level of trust between the
individuals involved (Levin and Cross, 2004). To also create a trusting relationship with the business units,
an uncoordinated cannibalization of existing products and revenues is not condoned (avoiding uncoordi-
nated cannibalization of existing products). The Vice President (Startup Cooperation) noted:
At the moment, we are actually rejecting startups for the reason that the business units
do not want their revenues cannibalized. (VP-STCO)
The trusting relationship between the innovation programs and the business units is the prerequisite for the
joint and integrated development of new innovation and the targeted revaluation of existing products (Jan-
sen et al., 2009).
4.1.1.2. Commitment of top management
The support of top management is a key success factor for the operation of the innovation programs (Sper-
ber, 2017). For example, the Investment Director (Startup Venturing) remarked:
The support from the executive board is of course needed at the very highest level. (ID-
STVE)
In our case corporation, top management acts as sponsor of the various innovation programs, secures per-
sonal and financial resources, and actively lobbies within the company on behalf of the programs (effective
12
support of innovation programs). The participants in the innovation programs recognize the commitment
of their top management and acknowledge their involvement as an essential prerequisite for the success of
the programs. Moreover, from a higher-level perspective, top management is the driving force for the con-
tinuous improvement of the programs, including their synchronization and collaboration (continuous im-
provement of innovation programs).
4.1.2. Configurational principles of the meta model
4.1.2.1. Support by the innovation programs
One support service offered by the innovation programs is the identification of innovation opportunities
(identification of innovation opportunities). The Vice President (Startup Partnering B2C) stated:
Our scouts are simply in the market and speak to a great number of startups and busi-
nesses. (VP-STPA)
To facilitate identification, innovation programs benefit from their openness to external developments
(Vanhaverbeke et al., 2008; Vintergaard, 2005). Additionally, the programs have at their disposal the nec-
essary resources and methodological knowledge for the development of innovations. The Vice President
(Co-Creation) noted:
We have contacts, space. We have mentors. We have the skills. (VP-COCO)
In this way, the innovation programs offer the cultural and organizational framework to enable the pursuit
of identified innovation opportunities (space for learning, creativity, and innovation). However, the specific
scope of the support varies depending on the objectives of the innovation programs.
4.1.2.2. Leverage resources of business units
Based on innovation opportunities identified, the business units can decide if they would like to participate
in the development of an opportunity through the provision of resources. The Investment Director (Startup
Venturing) noted:
The business unit has the last word because they can object: No, I am not going to
introduce this to my market. (ID-STVE)
While the innovation programs provide the organizational framework, business units must play their part
by committing human resources (commitment of human resources) or by granting access to the market
(granting access to the market). The objective of the innovation program determines which specific re-
sources are needed. Independent of the nature of participation by a business unit, that objective remains the
precondition for the pursuit of an innovation opportunity (Gassmann and Becker, 2006).
13
4.1.2.3. Design of structures and processes for development
Depending on the innovation program, the structures and processes for the development of innovation op-
portunities can be informal (informal structures and processes) or follow formal requirements (formal
structures and processes). The managerial assistant to the board member stated:
If you applied a template to identify the potential next big thing, you would have to
throw out 95 percent of all ideas. (A-BM)
However, the Vice President of Startup Cooperation remarked:
We have a rigid application process with clear criteria, although there is a risk of falling
through the cracks. (VP-STCO)
While creative objectives tend to require informal structures and processes, formalized procedures are
suited for predictable developments (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Christensen, 1997; Tushman and
O’Reilly, 1996).
4.1.2.4. Alignment between innovation program and business unit
Like structures and processes, the alignment between the innovation programs and the business units is also
designed individually for each innovation program. As the Vice President (Internal Incubator) put it:
You […] basically have to leave it to the free play of the forces to see if a collaboration
with a business unit results. (VP-ININ)
The Vice President (Startup Cooperation) however noted:
We simply need the exchange with the business units to hear from them: Okay, we need
the following... (VP-STCO)
The interview excerpts above illustrate how a distinction can be made if either a low degree of alignment
(low degree of alignment and coordination) or a high degree of alignment (high degree of alignment and
coordination) is evident. While a high degree of alignment is indicated for the specific development of
products and services, a low degree of alignment is conducive for the objective of learning (Benner and
Tushman, 2003; Christensen, 1997; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996).
4.1.2.5. Innovation-related goals
Over the course of the analysis, the individual goal has emerged as a critical differentiation criterion be-
tween the innovation programs. For example, the Investment Director (Startup Venturing) remarked:
We intend to develop new business models based on our core businesses, our assets,
and our know-how. (ID-STVE)
14
Additionally, the Senior Expert (Startup Partnering B2B) had a stronger focus on short-term sales:
We are looking for innovations that are so ripe you can sell those products on the market
and generate revenue. (SE-STPA)
Those remarks indicate the programs pursue the exploration of new innovations (exploration of new inno-
vations); however, the exploitation of existing products is the primary focus (exploitation of existing prod-
ucts). Hence, they operate in an area of tension between exploration and exploitation where structural am-
bidexterity is guaranteed through the organizational separation and the individual design of the programs
(Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch et al., 2009).
The sustained transformation of corporate culture could be identified as an additional objective (transfor-
mation to an entrepreneurial culture). In this context, the goal is to create a culture of greater individual
responsibility and of openness to new developments. The results of exploration and exploitation (Gibson
and Birkinshaw, 2004; He and Wong, 2004; Lubatkin et al., 2006) and specifically of cultural transfor-
mation then have significant positive effects on the entire innovation system (Matzler et al., 2013) and on
corporate performance. The Vice President (Internal Incubator) stated:
The goal is to create innovation and to generate experiential knowledge. And this has a
positive impact on corporate culture. (VP-ININ)
4.2. Three configurations of innovation programs
The cross-(sub-)case analysis investigated configurations of innovation programs to identify patterns in
their expression. The program objective reflected in the principle innovation-related goals was used as the
lead criterion within the case-ordered predictor-outcome matrix. The result indicated that each objective
featured a distinct configuration, and therefore we grouped those configurations into exploration-oriented
programs (startup venturing and innovation fund), exploitation-oriented programs (startup cooperation and
startup partnering) and transformation-oriented programs (transformation program).
4.2.1. Exploration-oriented programs
The goal of the exploration-oriented programs investigated is the exploration of new innovations (Figure
3). The Investment Director (Startup Venturing) stated:
Now we want to take it a step further and invest in innovations that are highly relevant
to us. (ID-STVE)
If they are to benefit the innovation programs, innovation opportunities must be identified and be capable
of being developed in a protected space with the involvement of the business units. The business units
supply human resources and access to the relevant market. The combination of resources and development
15
of opportunities (Sirmon et al., 2007) must occur in accordance with informal processes that do not hinder
the exploration through imposing standardized practices or by exposing them to excessive bureaucracy
(Jansen et al., 2006). Moreover, a high degree of alignment between the innovation programs and the busi-
ness units is required to ensure the targeted development of opportunities and to address the needs of the
business units (Jansen et al., 2006). The expression of the configuration is thus in agreement with the current
insights in the academic literature regarding the execution of exploratory measures (March, 1991).
Fig. 3 Configuration of exploration-oriented programs
4.2.2. Exploitation-oriented programs
Exploitation-oriented programs aim to exploit existing products (Figure 4) and use standardized processes
and structures to do so. With the involvement of the business unit, innovation opportunities are identified
and combined with existing products and then marketed (Kuckertz et al., 2017). At this point, the innovation
opportunities will be characterized by advanced market readiness and will be capable of being combined
with existing products with little development expense required to subsequently transition to the marketing
stage. The fact that the innovation opportunities are highly marketable also results in opportunities that are
often less radical than those progressed under the exploration-oriented programs (Bower and Christensen,
1995). Exploitation-oriented programs require an alignment with the business units to ensure a fit between
the existing products and the innovation opportunities (Jansen et al., 2006). The formal choice of structures
and processes is recommended to maximize the marketing of identified opportunities (Uotila et al., 2009).
Fig. 4 Configuration of exploitation-oriented programs
4.2.3. Transformation-oriented programs
In contrast to both previously presented configurations, transformation-oriented programs have no market
or product focus (Figure 5). Instead, the programs target the transformation of corporate culture and aim to
shape a culture of individual responsibility and openness toward external developments. The Vice President
(Co-Creation) stated:
Transformation mainly pursues this approach of cultural change, so primarily the train-
ing of internal entrepreneurs. (VP-COCO)
16
To this end, the transformation-oriented programs provide a protected space, where selected representatives
of the business unit can pursue their own ideas over a defined period (Feurer et al., 1996). Given the pro-
grams are not focused on marketing ideas, they do not need to be tightly aligned with the business units.
Instead the programs benefit from a high level of autonomy (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). The creativity and
culture focus of the programs means their structures and processes are necessarily informal, and accord-
ingly, informal mechanisms used to foster individual employee development suit such an environment
(Brand, 1998; Cummings, 1965).
Fig. 5 Configuration of transformation-oriented programs
4.3. Interplay between the innovation programs
We already nominated the exchange of knowledge across the different innovation programs as belonging
to the general principles. However, the design of the knowledge exchange between the individual innova-
tion programs differs significantly. While an explicit knowledge exchange in the form of innovation oppor-
tunities takes place between exploration-oriented and exploitation-oriented programs, the knowledge ex-
change between transformation-oriented programs and exploration-oriented and exploitation-oriented pro-
grams is focused on the provision of an entrepreneurial culture (Figure 6).
Fig. 6 Interplay between the configurations
4.3.1. Interplay between exploration-oriented and exploitation-oriented programs
In general, there is a regular and informal exchange of knowledge between exploration-oriented and ex-
ploitation-oriented programs. The Vice President (Startup Cooperation) noted:
We also give each other hints. Sometimes we pass leads on and simply add: Look, these
are interesting. (VP-STCO)
It is very common that innovations developed out of exploration-oriented programs suit further marketing
through exploitation-oriented programs. Such a path of incremental development of innovation opportuni-
ties has already been explored in literature via real options theory (van de Vrande et al., 2009;
Vanhaverbeke et al., 2008). However, it should be noted that in our case, the onward development of inno-
vations from exploration-oriented programs through exploitation-oriented programs is by no means a pre-
designed path of development. In fact, the lead actors of the programs decide in each individual situation
17
whether and to what extent opportunities are worth exchanging. So, the Vice President (Internal Incubator)
stated:
The development [through multiple stages and programs] is not a defined process.
There is no example of an innovation that developed in this systematic way. (VP-ININ)
In the opposite case, however, the results of the exploitation-oriented programs in general are not suitable
as an input for the exploration-oriented programs. As the opportunities of the exploitation-oriented pro-
grams are already at a very mature stage, the development in the context of the exploration-oriented pro-
grams is not appropriate.
4.3.2. Interplay with transformation-oriented programs
Likewise, transformation-oriented programs are part of a constant knowledge exchange with the other pro-
grams. In this situation, the knowledge exchange is less explicit than in the case of the interplay between
exploration-oriented programs and exploitation-oriented programs. A Senior Expert from an exploitation-
oriented program remarked:
We don’t have a clear interface [to the Transformation Program]. As said before, maybe
on an individual basis, but I can presently not recall that there would somehow be an
exchange happening. (SE-STPA)
This can be explained by the fact that the transformation-oriented programs do not usually yield relevant
innovation opportunities but rather focus on the transformation of the culture and employee mindset. For
this reason, the programs are not limited to related innovations, but give the employees freedom. The Senior
Expert (Innovation Fund) noted:
The innovations that are driven by [the Internal Incubator] are usually so early or so far
away from our strategic goals that in practice, very seldom is a topic from the program
so mature that it could be further developed by [the Innovation Fund]. (SE-INFU)
Nevertheless, transformation-oriented programs represent a crucial element within the trio of our configu-
rations. The transformation of the corporate culture creates the climate for exploration-oriented programs
and exploitation-oriented programs. Both configurations derive considerable advantages from an entrepre-
neurial culture (Gilsing and Nooteboom, 2006; Matzler et al., 2013). As the managerial assistant to the
board member stated:
Employees have to speak up: Hey, we are market leaders today, and we would like to
remain there tomorrow too. Revenues go down, people, wake up. Therefore: Culture
cannot be underestimated. (A-BM)
18
5. DISCUSSION
This study employed an inductive theory-building case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Ketokivi and
Choi, 2014) to explore what elements contribute to successful innovation programs, how those elements
are configured, and how the different types of programs have the potential to enrich each other. Based on
our analysis, through the observation of the empirical context and the iterative comparison with general
theory (Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1998), new theoretical insights were generated and theoretical
and practical implications and also avenues for further research identified. Limitations associated with this
work are also presented in the following section.
5.1. Theoretical implications
The results of this work have two major theoretical implications for the literature on innovation programs
and the literature on innovation culture, respectively. These implications are based on our in-depth analysis
of how one of the largest and most successful German technology companies structures its innovation ac-
tivities. Following this approach, we were able to identify the key elements and the innovation-related goals
of the corporation’s innovation programs. The key elements were then structured using a meta model and
subdivided into seven principles. Two of the principles feature overall applicability and are thus equally
relevant for the innovation programs. Five principles, however, are individually configured depending on
the respective innovation program.
First, this study contributes to our understanding of how different innovation programs are configured and
how the identified principles of an innovation program can be structured to best fit the underlying logic of
the respective program. With regard to exploration-oriented programs, members of the business units im-
plementing the innovation programs develop and subsequently market innovation opportunities that have
been identified in the programs. The development process of innovation opportunities is based on informal
structures and processes and occurs with a high degree of alignment and coordination with the business
units. With regard to the less formal design of the processes, our observations are in line with existing
literature (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Christensen, 1997; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). What is atypical,
however, is the tight alignment with the business units: It is typically argued that exploration-oriented in-
novation units should act as autonomously as possible in order to develop innovations without prejudice to
existing business units (Uittenbogaard et al., 2005; Vanhaverbeke and Peeters, 2005). However, this is
deliberately not done in the analyzed case in order to achieve greater acceptance within the organization.
This leads to less disruption and avoids cannibalizing innovations within the core business but supports the
organization in the case of advances into adjacent business areas (Ford et al., 2012). The findings of our
analysis thus contribute to the question on how autonomously an organizational unit entrusted with the
19
exploration of new services and products can be designed. As shown in our case, companies can choose a
moderate level of autonomy to leverage synergies with existing business units while simultaneously pro-
ducing radical innovations. If innovations are developed without any relation to the existing core organiza-
tion, a conglomeration of diverse independent initiatives will emerge. This may in turn lead to high financial
inefficiencies (Powell, 2010) and thus needs to be avoided.
Exploitation-oriented programs on the other hand focus on the development of existing products. To that
end, the programs identify relevant opportunities that are subsequently marketed by the business units
alongside existing products. The revaluation of products relies on formal structures and processes and oc-
curs with a high degree of alignment and coordination with the business units. The observations within the
exploitation-oriented programs coincides with the findings of existing literature. Thus, exploitive processes
follow formal structures and are characterized by a high degree of centralization (Benner and Tushman,
2003; Christensen, 1997; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Conflicts between the innovation programs and
the business units are unusual due to the high level of alignment (Chesbrough and Socolof, 2000).
Transformation-oriented programs aim to transform the corporate culture. For this purpose, business unit
staff are tasked with the development of new products through innovative approaches within the framework
of the programs. Owing to the focus being less on the marketing aspect of the products than on the experi-
ence of innovative work methods, close alignment to business units is not necessary. Through the transfor-
mation of corporate culture, transformation-oriented programs have an indirect impact on exploration-ori-
ented and exploitation-oriented programs. While Benner and Tushman (2003) argue that different cultures
are appropriated for the types of programs due to their fundamental design differences, they also claim, that
cultures within different organizational units should not diverge too much to maintain compatibility be-
tween them. Therefore, in order to increase the innovativeness within exploration-oriented programs and
concurrently avoid the divergence of cultures, the whole innovativeness of the corporate culture should be
increased. In the analyzed case, this is the primary objective of transformation-oriented programs. Regard-
ing transformation-oriented programs within an innovation system, we contribute to the existing literature
by illustrating the importance of an innovative corporate culture as a fundamental requirement..
As a second contribution, and most importantly, we highlight how the identified configurations interact
with each other to achieve the overarching strategic innovation goals of the corporation. We were able to
show that the various programs maintain regular exchanges with each other. While van de Vrande et al.
(2006) discovered how different forms of innovation programs can be used to incrementally increase the
degree of commitment in respect to an innovation, such a predefined and structured way of development
was in the observed case neither planned nor supported by appropriated formalities and structures. Instead,
the programs act in a semi-coordinated but largely autonomous manner. An exchange between the programs
takes place regularly but is not formalized and only on the initiative of individual employees. Nevertheless,
20
regular knowledge exchange is pivotal for the programs, in that such exchanges both communicate innova-
tion opportunities and experiences, and also create an innovation culture.
Consequently, the paper addresses the perceived gap described in the literature, in that research too often
focuses on single innovation programs, by adopting an overarching and holistic perspective. It also adds to
our understanding of how different innovation programs can be combined into a corporation-wide innova-
tion system.
5.2. Practical implications
The findings of this work also have practical implications. When implementing innovation programs in the
future, companies should explicitly consider different objectives and choose configurations in accordance
with those objectives. The implementation of multiple innovation programs for different objectives is there-
fore useful. Our findings should encourage companies to create the overarching framework conditions that
facilitate openness with respect to external developments and a constant knowledge transfer between inno-
vation programs. Moreover, top management will be required to stand behind the measures and to strive
for a continuous improvement of the innovation programs and their interplay. Being aware of the potential
interplay of innovation programs seems to be of utmost importance: Not only are innovation programs
mostly path dependent, but also dependent on the approach and success of other, simultaneously conducted
innovation programs. This calls for a holistic perspective, even from the viewpoint of managers responsible
for just a single innovation program.
5.3. Further research and limitations
Our meta model of a corporate innovation system encompassing 16 elements encapsulated in seven princi-
ples proposes a unique dimension for future theoretical and applied research in the field of innovation man-
agement. The identified principles represent a starting point for further research. While the focus of this
work already includes initial first steps toward identifying details of the element regular knowledge ex-
change across programs, many of the other principles and elements represent promising avenues for further
research. Alongside the characterization and in-depth discussion, testing our results using quantitative
methods is also particularly noteworthy.
Furthermore, the configurations shown in this work offer considerable research potential. Whereas the pre-
sented configurations have proven successful in the context of the analyzed company, the generalization of
the findings is possible but limited (Ketokivi and Choi, 2014; Welch et al., 2011). Therefore, research could
be conducted replicating the parameters of this work with the goal of confirming the presented configura-
tions in the context of other companies and industries, or of identifying further configurations. Taking the
21
findings of this work, but also the above-mentioned limitations into account, we believe this paper offers
promising avenues for further research.
6. CONCLUSION
Innovation programs, and in particular the interaction of various innovation programs within a corporate
innovation system, play an important role for established organizations. Despite this importance, prior re-
search provided only limited insights into this field of research. So far, previous work has focused mainly
on the consideration of individual innovation programs, but without placing them in a larger and overarch-
ing corporate context. The present work addresses this gap in academic literature. We have presented a
meta model for a corporate innovation system, shown how this meta model is designed for different types
of innovation programs, and how different innovation programs interact. With this focus, this work is the
first of its kind.
REFERENCES
Allen, S.A. and Hevert, K.T. (2007), “Venture capital investing by information technology companies:
Did it pay?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 262–282.
Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2001), “How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large
partners”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 139–148.
Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M.W. (2009), “Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambi-
dexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 696–717.
Barbero, J.L., Casillas, J.C., Wright, M. and Ramos Garcia, A. (2014), “Do different types of incubators
produce different types of innovations?”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 151–168.
Basu, S., Phelps, C. and Kotha, S. (2011), “Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital
investments and why”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 153–171.
Becker, B. and Gassmann, O. (2006), “Gaining leverage effects from knowledge modes within corporate
incubators”, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1–16.
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The
productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 238–256.
Block, Z. and MacMillan, I.C. (1993), Corporate venturing: Creating new businesses within the firm,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
22
Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995), “Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave”, Harvard Busi-
ness Review, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 43–53.
Brand, A. (1998), “Knowledge management and innovation at 3M”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17–22.
Branstad, A. (2010), “A study of management tasks and stakeholders in a hybrid corporate incubator”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 294–312.
Burgelman, R.A. (1983), “A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 223–244.
Burgelman, R.A. (2011), “Bridging history and reductionism: A key role for longitudinal qualitative re-
search”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 591–601.
Burgers, J.H., Jansen, J.J., van den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2009), “Structural differentiation
and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 206–220.
Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis,
SAGE Publications, London, UK.
Chen, R.R. and Kannan-Narasimhan, R.P. (2015), “Formal integration archetypes in ambidextrous organ-
izations”, R&D Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 267–286.
Chesbrough, H.W. and Socolof, S.J. (2000), “Creating new ventures from Bell Labs Technologies”, Re-
search-Technology Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 13–17.
Christensen, C.M. (1997), The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Colombo, M.G., Grilli, L. and Piva, E. (2006), “In search of complementary assets: The determinants of
alliance formation of high-tech start-ups”, Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1166–1199.
Covin, J.G. and Miles, M.P. (2007), “Strategic use of corporate venturing”, Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 183–207.
Cummings, L. (1965), “Organizational climates for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 220–227.
Doz, Y. (1988), “Technology partnerships between larger and smaller firms: Some critical issues”, Inter-
national Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 31–57.
23
Dushnitsky, G. and Lenox, M.J. (2006), “When does corporate venture capital investment create firm
value?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 753–772.
Dushnitsky, G. und Shaver, J.M. (2009), “Limitations to interorganizational knowledge acquisition: The
paradox of corporate venture capital”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 1045–1064.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: Opportunities and chal-
lenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25–32.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Schoonhoven, C.B. (1996), “Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation:
Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 136–150.
Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K. and Wargin, J. (1996), “Developing creative teams for operational excel-
lence”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5–18.
Ford, S.J., Garnsey, E. and Probert, D. (2010), “Evolving corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Technol-
ogy incubation at Philips”, R&D Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 81–90.
Ford, S.J., Mortara, L. and Probert, D.R. (2012), “Disentangling the complexity of early-stage technology
acquisitions”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 40–48.
Gassmann, O. and Becker, B. (2006), “Towards a resource-based view of corporate incubators”, Interna-
tional Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 19–45.
Gassmann, O., Widenmayer, B. and Zeschky, M. (2012), “Implementing radical innovation in the busi-
ness: The role of transition modes in large firms”, R&D Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 120–132.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organiza-
tional ambidexterity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209–226.
Gilsing, V. and Nooteboom, B. (2006), “Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of
pharmaceutical biotechnology”, Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1–23.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15–31.
Glaser, B.G. (1992), Basics of grounded theory analysis, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative re-
search, Aldine De Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.
24
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G. and Shalley, C.E. (2006), “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 693–706.
He, Z.L. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hy-
pothesis”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 481–494.
Heller, T. (1999), “Loosely coupled systems for corporate entrepreneurship: Imagining and managing the
innovation project/host organization interface”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 25–31.
Hill, S.A. and Birkinshaw, J. (2006), “Ambidexterity in corporate venturing: Simultaneously using exist-
ing and building new capabilities”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2006 No. 1, pp. C1-C6.
Hill, S.A. and Birkinshaw, J. (2012), “Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1899–1931.
Huber, G.P. and Power, D.J. (1985), “Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for
increasing their accuracy”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 171–180.
Jansen, J.J., Tempelaar, M.P., van den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2009), “Structural differentiation
and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 797–811.
Jansen, J.J., van den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2006), “Exploratory innovation, exploitative inno-
vation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators”, Manage-
ment Science, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1661–1674.
Jick, T.D. (1979), “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 602–611.
Keil, T., Maula, M.V.J., Schildt, H.A. and Zahra, S.A. (2008), “The effect of governance modes and relat-
edness of external business development activities on innovative performance”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 895–907.
Ketokivi, M. and Choi, T. (2014), “Renaissance of case research as a scientific method”, Journal of Oper-
ations Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 232–240.
Kuckertz, A., Kollmann, T., Krell, P. and Stöckmann, C. (2017), “Understanding, differentiating, and
measuring opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation”, International Journal of Entrepreneur-
ial Behavior & Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 78–97.
25
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1993), “Conducting interorganizational research using key
informants”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1633–1651.
Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.
24 No. 4, pp. 691–710.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990), “A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single
site with replicated multiple sites”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 248–266.
Levin, D.Z and Cross, R. (2004), “The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in
effective knowledge transfer”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1477–1490.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), “The myopia of learning”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
14 No. S2, pp. 95–112.
Locke, K. (2001), Grounded theory in management research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006), “Ambidexterity and performance in small-to
medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration”, Journal of Man-
agement, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 646–672.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it
to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135–172.
Macher, J.T. and Richman, D.B. (2004), “Organisational responses to discontinuous innovation: A case
study approach”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 87–114.
Maine, E. (2008), “Radical innovation through internal corporate venturing: Degussa’s commercialization
of nanomaterials”, R&D Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 359–371.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science, Vol.
2 No. 1, pp. 71–87.
Matzler, K., Abfalter, D.E., Mooradian, T.A. and Bailom, F. (2013), “Corporate culture as an antecedent
of successful exploration and exploitation”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 17
No. 5, pp. 1–23.
Maula, M.V.J., Keil, T. and Zahra, S.A. (2013), “Top management’s attention to discontinuous techno-
logical change: Corporate venture capital as an alert mechanism”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 926–947.
Miles, M.P. and Covin, J.G. (2002), “Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Some common forms
and their organizational implications”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 21–40.
26
Miles, M.P. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, SAGE
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Narula, R. and Hagedoorn, J. (1999), “Innovating through strategic alliances: Moving towards interna-
tional partnerships and contractual agreements”, Technovation, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 283–294.
Nooteboom, B. (2004), “Governance and competence: How can they be combined?”, Cambridge Journal
of Economics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 505–525.
O’Connor, G.C. and Ayers, A.D. (2005), “Building a radical innovation competency”, Research-Technol-
ogy Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 23–31.
O’Connor, G.C. and DeMartino, R. (2006), “Organizing for radical innovation: An exploratory study of
the structural aspects of RI management systems in large established firms”, Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 475–497.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2004), “The ambidextrous organization”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 74–81.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the inno-
vator’s dilemma”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185–206.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2013), “Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, future”, Acad-
emy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 324–338.
Powell, B.C. (2010), “Equity carve-outs as a technology commercialization strategy: An exploratory case
study of Thermo Electron's strategy”, Technovation, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 37–47.
Pratt, M.G. (2009), “For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative re-
search”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 856–862.
Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moder-
ators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375–409.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M.L. (2009), “Organizational ambidexterity: Balanc-
ing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp.
685–695.
Robeson, D. and O’Connor, G. (2007), “The governance of innovation centers in large established com-
panies”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 1–2, pp. 121–147.
27
Röhm, P., Köhn, A., Kuckertz, A. and Dehnen, H.S. (2018), “A world of difference?: The impact of cor-
porate venture capitalists’ investment motivation on startup valuation”, Journal of Business Economics,
Vol. 88 No. 3-4, pp. 531–557.
Rothaermel, F.T. and Deeds, D.L. (2004), “Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A
system of new product development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 201–221.
Schildt, H.A., Maula, M.V.J. and Keil, T. (2005), “Explorative and exploitative learning from external
corporate ventures”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 493–515.
Siegel, R., Siegel, E. und MacMillan, I.C. (1988), “Corporate venture capitalists: Autonomy, obstacles,
and performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 233–247.
Sirén, C.A., Kohtamäki, M. and Kuckertz, A. (2012), “Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit per-
formance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap”, Strategic Entre-
preneurship Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 18–41.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2007), “Managing firm resources in dynamic environments
to create value: Looking inside the black box”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 273–
292.
Sperber, S.C. (2017), “The top managers’ impact on opening the organizational culture to innovation”,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 1–42.
Strauss, A.L. (1987), Qualitative analysis for social scientists, Cambridge University Press, New York,
NY.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Sykes, H.B. (1990), “Corporate venture capital: Strategies for success”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 37–47.
Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (1986), “Technological discontinuities and organizational environ-
ments”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 439–465.
Tushman, M.L. and Nadler, D. (1986), “Organizing for innovation”, California Management Review,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 74–92.
Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1996), “Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and
revolutionary change”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 8–29.
28
Tushman, M.L. and Smith, W. (2002), “Organizational technology: technological change, ambidextrous
organizations, and organizational evolution”, in Baum, J.A.C. (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organ-
izations, Blackwell, London, pp. 386–414.
Uittenbogaard, B., Broens, L. and Groen, A.J. (2005), “Towards a guideline for design of a corporate en-
trepreneurship function for business development in medium-sized technology-based companies”, Crea-
tivity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 258–271.
Uotila, J., Maula, M.V.J., Keil, T. and Zahra, S.A. (2009), “Exploration, exploitation, and financial per-
formance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 221–
231.
van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006), “Choosing governance modes for exter-
nal technology sourcing”, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 347–363.
van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Duysters, G. (2009), “External technology sourcing: The effect
of uncertainty on governance mode choice”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 62–80.
van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Duysters, G. (2011), “Technology in-sourcing and the creation
of pioneering technologies”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 974–987.
Vanhaverbeke, W. and Peeters, N. (2005), “Embracing innovation as strategy: Corporate venturing, com-
petence building and corporate strategy making”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 246–257.
Vanhaverbeke, W., van de Vrande, V. and Chesbrough, H. (2008), “Understanding the advantages of
open innovation practices in corporate venturing in terms of real options”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 251–258.
Vintergaard, C. (2005), “Opportunities in corporate venturing – Actors creating passageways”, Interna-
tional Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 215–239.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011), “Theorising from case
studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 215–239.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case study research: Design and methods, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
29
Table 1: Descriptive information about the analyzed innovation programs
Transformation
P
rogram Startup
Venturing Startup
Cooperation Startup
P
artnering Innovation
Fund
General information
Year of
establishment 2011
(Extension in 2017) 2012 2017 2013 2016
Orientation
Target
group Employee teams
(Ideation Phase) Startups
(Startup Phase) Startups
(Expansion Stage) Startups
(Expansion Stage) Internal innovation
p
rojects
Strategic
objective Transformation of
corporate culture Promotion of relevant
innovations Revaluation of existing
p
roducts and services Revaluation of existing
p
roducts and services Funding of relevant
innovations
Success
criteria Number of program
p
articipants Development of
invested startups Number of sold
p
roducts/services Number of sold
p
roducts/services Number of marketable
p
roducts
Fit with
core business No specifications Relevance must be
assured Complementary to core
business, no cannibaliza-
tion
Complementary to core
business, no cannibaliza-
tion
Relevance must be
assured
Governance
Processes Barely structured,
very individualistic Semi-structured
p
rocesses Structured
p
rocesses Structured
p
rocesses Semi-structured
p
rocesses
Structure Protected space within
organization Autonomous
organization unit Unit integrated in
organization Unit integrated in
organization Unit integrated in
organization
Alignment with
b
usiness units Selective
cooperation Selective
cooperation Selective
cooperation Regular
cooperation Regular
cooperation
D
evelopmen
t
Support
Services Mentoring,
infrastructure Mentoring, infrastructure,
small investments Technical infrastructure,
joint marketing Joint product
marketing Moderate to high
investments
Participant
develo
p
ment Development via
b
usiness uni
t
Individual
develo
p
ment Strengthening of
p
artnershi
p
Strengthening of
p
artnershi
p
Transfer to business
unit
30
a) The Internal Incubator and Co-Creation are highly integrated, so that a differentiated analysis of the two programs was not expedient. The two programs are grouped and ana-
lyzed as Transformation Programs. Fig. 1 Overview of the innovation programs examined
31
Fig. 2 Meta model for corporate innovation programs
32
Fig. 3 Configuration of exploration-oriented programs
33
Fig. 4 Configuration of exploitation-oriented programs
34
Fig. 5 Configuration of transformation-oriented programs
35
Fig. 6 Interplay between the configurations
36
Appendix 1: Interviews with key informants
Interviews Pages Overarching
perspective Transformation
Program Startup
Venturing Innovation
Funda) Startup
Cooperationa) Startup
Partnering
2014/2015
Vice President Internal Incubator (VP-ININ) 16,0 0,0 16,0 0,0 - - 0,0
Senior Expert Startup Venturing (SE-STVE) 12,0 0,0 0,0 12,0 - - 0,0
Vice President Startup Partnering B2C (VP-STPA) 8,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 - - 8,0b)
Investment Director CVC (ID-CVC) 6,0 0,0 0,0 6,0b) - - 0,0
42,0 0,0 16,0 18,0 - - 8,0
2017/2018
Managerial Assistant to the Board Member (A-BM) 21,0 6,3 10,9 0,9 1,1 0,0 1,8
Vice President Internal Incubator (VP-ININ) 41,0 8,2 31,5 1,3 0,0 0,0 0,0
Vice President Co-Creation (VP-COCO) 16,0 0,9 13,9 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,9
Investment Director Startup Venturing (ID-STVE) 38,0 6,6 0,0 29,8 0,7 0,0 1,0
Vice President Startup Cooperation (VP-STCO) 21,0 2,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 18,4 0,3
Vice President Startup Partnering B2C (VP-STPA) 10,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 10,0
Senior Expert Startup Partnering B2B (SE-STPA) 26,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 26,0
Senior Expert Innovation Fund (SE-INFU) 28,0 0,8 0,0 2,8 24,5 0,0 0,0
201,0 25,0 56,3 34,9 26,4 18,4 40,0
243,0 25,0 72,3 52,9 26,4 18,4 48,0
a) Innovation programs were set up after mid-20152015, so they could not be considered in the first wave of interviews
b) Recording was not allowed by these interviewees; instead interview notes were produced
37
Appendix 2: Details of archival data
Source / Audience Pages
External / external
News articles (since 2010) 387
Internal / external
Annual reports (since 2010) 147
Press releases (since 2010) 99
Websites (actual version) 61
694
38
Appendix 3: Data structure
•At the moment, we are actually rejecting startups for the reason that the business units do not want their revenues cannibalized.(VP-STCO)
*)
•Blockchain is just a great example. [Vice President] is currently building a new business unit. Why should we intervene now? (SE-STPA)
•We will not gain a foothold in fields that we previously have not explored. But we develop new business based on our footprint. (SE-INFU)
•We do not want to completely reinvent the world. Instead, we aim to improve existing products to increase customer satisfaction.(SE-STPA)
•So, if I have an idea, I’m supposed to convince someone in top-management to side with me: Okay, I support this topic. (SE-INFU)
•For each investment we have a sponsor from top-management, SVP or higher up, with a general interest in the idea. (ID-STVE)
•A top-management-board oversees all innovation topics within the company/group. (A-BM)
•The support from the executive board is of course needed at the very highest level. (ID-STVE)
*)
•We constantly check all activities. It will certainly look different two years from now as compared to th e present situation. (VP-ININ)
•Nowadays, you basically have to accept a permanent beta-status and you have to constantly scrut inize your own actions. (ID-STVE)
•Basically, it is a constant re-organization process. (A-BM)
•We get a sense of the activities from a higher level perspective and try to sort and prioritize them in new ways. (SE-INFU)
•Together we analyze if this could be suitable for our market and onboarding of the partner then happens in parallel. (VP-STCO)
•We have scouting-offices and among them one in the USA. Then we have one in Israel. (SE-STPA)
•Our scouts simply are in the market and speak to a great number of startups and businesses. (VP-STPA)
*)
•There is a specific partn ering-team for targeted scouting. (ID-STVE)
•We have contacts, space . We have mentors. We have the skill s. (VP-COCO)
*)
•So, what we do is somewhat like grade school for startups. Meaning, they learn the method, like Business Model Canvas. (VP-COCO)
•We have several lectures and really a timetable. Every two weeks, t here are some courses covering relevant top ics. (VP-ININ)
•Workshops teaching entrepreneurial methods, which are these three-day bootcamps, are currently offered twice a year. (VP-ININ)
•No cannibalization of the business units revenues
•No obstruction of new developments
•Stay away from fields without an existing footprint
•Improvement of existin g products
•Support of ideas by top-management
•Investment partners from top-management
•Top-management-b oard for innovation topics
•Basic support by executive board
•Constantly check activities
•Constantly scrutinize actions
•Constant re-organization process
•Assure oversight of progr ams
•Collaborative screening of the market and onboarding of partners
•Scouting offices in va rious regions
•Scouts interact with many startups and businesses
•Partnering-team fo r targeted scouting
•Contacts, space, mentors and skills in programs
•Communicate methodical startup know-how
•Regular courses covering relevant topics
•Workshops teaching entrepreneurial methods
Avoiding uncoordinated
cannibalizati on of
existing products
Effective support
of innovation
programs
Continuous
improvement of
innovation programs
Identification
of innovation
opportunities
Space for learning,
creativity, and
innovation
SHARED VALUES
OF INNOVATION
PROGRAMS
COMMITTMENT OF
TOP MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT BY THE
INNOVATION
PROGRAMS
•There are many smart and interesting minds outside. When we believe someone is good, then we should cooperate with them. (VP-COCO)
•For internal initiatives, we certainly can attract external know-how into the company. (SE-INFU)
•We need to connect external start-ups w ith our business units and then sup port emerging co-creation. (VP-COCO)
•We have to open up more decidedly so we can see the real problems out there. (VP-ININ)
•Establish external cooperations
•Bring external know-how into the company
•Co-creation between business units and external startups
•Need to address cu stomers’ real problems
Openness
to external
developments
•It essentially requires openness from the people. They need to talk to each other and get a feeling of what is going on in the other areas.(A-BM)
*)
•In fact, we are regularly in touch with everyone when we exchange ideas on topics, including startups. (ID-STVE)
•Communication plays a huge role, in that everyone really talk s openly with each other. (VP-ININ)
•Well, we have that, let’s say, we have regular exchanges with the other programs and the contact works very well. (SE-STPA)
•Employee openness is necessary
•Regular exchange of ideas
•Open communication between programs
•Regular exchange with other programs
Regular exchange
of knowledge
across programs
Aggregated Dimensions2nd Order ThemesIn-vivo Codes 1st Order Codes
*) Quotes were also cited in the analysis section
39
Continued Appendix 3
•At the end of the day, as said before, if we want to bring a product to the market, we need the business unit. (SE-STPA)
•When I enter into a partnership with someone but don’t have a segment, I cant bring the product to the market. (VP-STPA)
•The business unit has the last word because they can object: No, I am not going to introduce this to m y market. (ID-STVE)
*)
•We do not just want to build castles in the air, but actually bring products on the market and we do this via the business units. (SE-STPA)
•When you apply to participate, we assume that you have discussed your release status with your manager. (VP-ININ)
•Often, an approved release issued after the application is not useful. This is a problem. However, most teams can find a solution. (VP-ININ)
•The business units have to exhibit at least as much commitment that they are ready to assign thei r own personnel for the development. (SE-INFU)
•Ultimately, we need the collaboration of individual people at a very personal level. (ID-STVE)
•Further development of ideas is highly individualized. (VP-COCO)
•There is no prefabricated program course, only a goal. (VP-ININ)
•If you applied a template to identify the potential next big thing, you would have to throw out 95 percent of all ideas. (A-BM)
*)
•Once you begin to shuffle this into processes, you are facing a problem because it misses the real content. (ID-STVE)
•We have a rigid application process with clear criteria, although there is a risk of falling through the cracks. (VP-STCO)
*)
•Now, when a group comes with an existing idea, then the expectation tends to be a structured approach. (SE-STPA)
•Here we have the connector strip, here is a partner who is docking, totally easy, everything standardized. (SE-STPA)
•The onboarding of our pa rtners is standardized and relatively problem-free. (VP-STPA)
•You […] basically have to leave it to the free play of the forces to see if a collaboration with a business unit may result. (VP-ININ)
*)
•The collaboration is open in both directions. (A-BM)
•Cooperation with the business units is not formalized. Completely individually. It depends very much on individual persons. (VP-ININ)
•Yes. Whereby it is very rare that somehow we get a concrete case fro m the business units. (VP-COCO)
•We simply need the exchange with the business units to hear from them: Okay, we need the following ... (VP-STCO)
*)
•Our organizational design provides that every key account manages a business unit. (SE-STPA)
•Some key account managers have weekly telcos with their business units to coordinate their efforts. (VP-STPA)
•You cannot concentrate on three business units to understand how they work. Therefore, we have split our responsibilities. (SE-STPA)
•Business units for marketing necessary
•Innovation program c annot market a product
•Business unit has last word with market launch
•Market launch via business units
•Inform manager about release
•Participation can be arranged
•Business units need to assign personnel
•Cooperation of business units indispensable
•Individual development of ideas
•No prefabricated program course, just the goal
•Structured proc ess would lead us to elimin ate many ideas
•Rigid processes miss the content of ideas
•Rigid application process with clear criteria
•Existing ideas follow structured process
•Partners dock via standardized procedure
•Onboarding of partners is standardized
•Cooperation with business unit needs to fall into place
•Cooperation in both directions is open
•No formalized cooperation with business units
•No business cases from business units
•Active exchange with business units i s needed
•Each business unit is managed by a key account
•Regular coordination between key accounts and business units
•Key accounts have deep insights into business units
Granting
access to
the market
Commitment
of human
resources
LEVERAGE
RESOURCES OF
BUSINESS UNITS
Inform al
structures and
processes
Formal
structures and
processes
DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
AND PROCESSES FOR
DEVELOPMENT
Low degree
of alignment
and coordina tion
High degree
of alignment
and coordina tion
ALIGNMENT BETWEEN
INNOVATION PROGRAM
AND BUSINESS UNIT
Aggregated Dimensions2nd Order ThemesIn-vivo Codes 1st Order Codes
*) Quotes were also cited in the analysis section
40
Continued Appendix 3
•The aim is to test new potential, strategic innovations. (SE-INFU)
•We intend to develop new business models based on our core businesses, our assets, and our know-how. (ID-STVE)
*)
•There are a number, currently there are five, so-called innovation priorities. In these fields, we want to innovate.(SE-INFU)
•Now we want to take it a step further and invest in innovations that are highly relevant to us. (ID-STVE)
*)
•Transformation mainly pursues this approach of cultural change, so primarily the training of internal entrepreneurs. (VP-COCO)
*)
•The goal is to create innovation and to generate experiential knowledge. And this has a positive impact on corporate culture.(VP-ININ)
*)
•The goal is in fact to promote innovation and entrepreneurship. (VP-ININ)
•We want to shift the focus from p roject organization to innovation organization. (VP-ININ)
•We aim to attract innovative solutions that are truly product-oriented. (SE-STPA)
•In the world today, a big company cannot cover everything. Consequently, there is a need to work with partners. (A-BM)
•Naturally, it makes sense to increase our real net output ratio through partners. (VP-STCO)
•We are looking for innovations that are so ripe you can sell those products on the market and generate revenue. (SE-STPA)
*)
•Test strategic innovations
•Develop new business models based on existing assets
•Pursuing innovation priority
•Invest in highly relevant innovation
•Cultural change with the training of internal entrepreneurs
•Innovation and experiential knowledge impact corporate culture
•Promote in novation and ent repreneurship
•Shift away from a project organization to an innovation
organization
•Attract innovative solutions into the company
•Company cannot cover all competencies
•Increase of real net output ratio through partners
•Innovations must have marketability and generate revenue
Exploration
of new
innovations
Transformation t o an
entrepreneuri al culture
Exploitation
of existing
products
INNOVATION
RELATED GOALS
Aggregated Dimensions2nd Order ThemesIn-vivo Codes 1st Order Codes
*) Quotes were also cited in the analysis section
41
Appendix 4: Case-ordered descriptive matrix
INNOVATION
RELATED GOALS SUPPORT BY THE
INNOVATION PROGRAMS
Exploration
of new
innovations
Exploitation
of existing
products
Transformation
to an entrepreneu-
rial culture Identification of
innovation
opportunities
Space for learning,
creativity, and inno-
vation
Transformation-oriented
Programs
Transformation Program - - + - +
Exploration-oriented Programs
Startup Venturing + - - + +
Innovation Fund + - - + +
Exploitation-oriented Programs
Startup Cooperation - + - + -
Startup Partnering - + - + -
42
Continued Appendix 4
LEVERAGE RESOURCES
OF BUSINESS UNITS
DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
AND PROCESSES FOR
DEVELOPMENT ALIGNMENT BETWEEN
INNOVARTION PROGRAM
AND BUSINESS UNIT
Granting
access to
the market
Commitment
of human
resources
Informal
structures and
processes
Formal
structures and
processes
Low degree
of alignment
and coordina-
tion
High degree
of alignment
and coordina-
tion
Transformation-oriented
Programs
Transformation Program - + + - + -
Exploration-oriented Programs
Startup Venturing + + + - - +
Innovation Fund + + + - - +
Exploitation-oriented Programs
Startup Cooperation + - - + - +
Startup Partnering + - - + - +
43
Continued Appendix 4
SHARED VALUES OF
INNOVATION PROGRAMS COMMITMENT OF
TOP MANAGEMENT
Openness
to external
developments
Regular exchange
of knowledge
across programs
Avoiding
uncoordinated
cannibalization Effective support
of innovation
programs
Continuous
improvement of
innovation pro-
grams
Transformation-oriented
Programs
Transformation Program + + + + +
Exploration-oriented Programs
Startup Venturing + + + + +
Innovation Fund + + + + +
Exploitation-oriented Programs
Startup Cooperation + + + + +
Startup Partnering + + + + +
