Angela Roth, Martin Dumbach, Barbara Schliffka and Kathrin M. Möslein
Increasing demographic diversity within societies and workforces causes challenges with regard to the innovation performance of companies. By definition, innovation communities…
Abstract
Purpose
Increasing demographic diversity within societies and workforces causes challenges with regard to the innovation performance of companies. By definition, innovation communities nowadays are composed of members with diverse function background and age diversity. The challenging question is how to manage diverse corporate innovation communities. The purpose of this paper is to find out which factors determine the success of corporate innovation communities in times of demographic shifts.
Design/methodology/approach
The empirical field to answer the research question are three corporate innovation communities in companies of different industries and size. Multiple case study methodology is applied to gather and analyse the data.
Findings
The study presents an empirically derived framework to structure success factors of diverse corporate innovation communities chronologically in the three phases of preparation, execution and finalization of a community work process. The success factors are described in detail and finally a time sequential guideline for those who are responsible for community management in demographic change is provided.
Research limitations/implications
It is contributed to the literature on innovation communities and it is shown that innovation communities are not only an instrument to solve innovation tasks but are also a promising means to tackle other challenges of recent demographic changes. As limitation must be considered, that the analysed innovation communities only received corporate support for a short period of time and the supporting organizations operate in manufacturing industries in Germany only.
Practical implications
The paper highlights that managers need to be aware that diversity in corporate innovation communities per se does not lead to success. Furthermore, a guideline of success factors for managers of diverse corporate innovation communities is presented which highlights important aspects that managers need to consider during the community work process.
Social implications
Due to demographic shifts in Germany and other European countries, societies in general and workforces in particular have modified. Most pervasive shifts take place with regard to age structures and diversity. Implications how manager could handle diversity successfully are therefore of high relevance for societies.
Originality/value
This study provides a theoretical understanding of the implications of organizational and age diversity on corporate innovation community management. Extant authors have already focussed on success factors in innovation communities and diverse settings isolated, but have not merged these issues.
Details
Keywords
Jörg B.A. Haller, Vivek K. Velamuri, Dirk Schneckenberg and Kathrin M. Möslein
Firms increasingly integrate a wide range of actors in the early ideation and concept creation phases of innovation processes leading to the collection of a large number of ideas…
Abstract
Purpose
Firms increasingly integrate a wide range of actors in the early ideation and concept creation phases of innovation processes leading to the collection of a large number of ideas. This creates the challenge of filtering the most promising ideas from a large number of submissions. The use of external stakeholders into the evaluation and selection of submissions (i.e. open evaluation (OE)) might be a viable alternative. The purpose of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art analysis on how such OE systems are designed and structured.
Design/methodology/approach
Since OE is a new phenomenon, an exploratory qualitative research approach is adopted. In all, 122 instances of OE in 90 innovation contest cases are examined for their design elements.
Findings
This research reveals that OE systems are configured in many different ways. In total, 32 design elements and their respective parameters are identified and described along the six socio-technical system components of an OE system. This study allows for a comprehensive understanding of what OE is and what factors need to be taken into consideration when designing an OE system.
Practical implications
Scholars and professionals may draw insights on what design choices to make when implementing OE.
Originality/value
The comprehensive analysis performed in this study contributes to research on open and user innovation by examining the concept of OE. In particular, it extends knowledge on design elements of OE systems.
Details
Keywords
Ralf Reichwald, Jörg Siebert and Kathrin Möslein
From an exploratory study of 37 large multinationals, this paper aims to report key findings, derive learnings for the design of corporate leadership systems and identify future…
Abstract
Purpose
From an exploratory study of 37 large multinationals, this paper aims to report key findings, derive learnings for the design of corporate leadership systems and identify future research issues for a better understanding of individual leadership in corporate leadership systems.
Design/methodology/approach
The study reported builds on ten years of ongoing research on the nature of leadership, leadership communication, and institutional support structures in large multinationals. As such, it is part of ongoing longitudinal leadership research, following a hermeneutic approach.
Findings
From a qualitative as well as quantitative perspective the paper reviews the implementation and usage of corporate leadership instruments and discusses current practices of large corporations trying to select, support, measure, motivate and develop very large numbers of leaders around the world. A conceptual leadership system is presented as a basic frame of reference.
Research limitations/implications
The exploratory research approach has its strength in framing the field of corporate leadership systems. Further in‐depth research is needed on the nature of each the four key fields of the conceptual framework described.
Practical implications
Those who are responsible to design and revise corporate leadership systems will find a valuable frame of reference and selected benchmark data as a basis for the assessment and further development of the corporate leadership landscape.
Originality/value
This paper presents original findings in a highly relevant, but under‐researched field of corporate leadership practice.
Details
Keywords
Anne S. Huff and Kathrin M. Möslein
Strategy researchers have given very little attention to services, even though they now dominate the gross domestic product of almost all countries. We encourage more research…
Abstract
Strategy researchers have given very little attention to services, even though they now dominate the gross domestic product of almost all countries. We encourage more research focused on service as the basic mode of generating revenue today, especially as the economic landscape is being restructured by recent financial crises. This chapter suggests a basic framework for services research and then outlines issues in three areas that are particularly important to customer-oriented service innovation: individuation, standardization, and export. Illustrative examples from Germany provide more specific contexts for considering the range of activity in this under-researched domain.
Ronald J. Ferguson, Michèle Paulin, Kathrin Möslein and Christina Müller
Emerging biotechnology firms rely on a network of socio‐economic partnerships that can be classified as “interimistic” or close, collaborative but relatively short‐lived. Few…
Abstract
Purpose
Emerging biotechnology firms rely on a network of socio‐economic partnerships that can be classified as “interimistic” or close, collaborative but relatively short‐lived. Few studies have assessed the importance of relational governance to the performance of these partnerships. The purposes of this research were to determine the effect of relational governance on the performance of financial partnerships and to compare biotechnology manager assessments of their financial and non‐financial partnerships.
Design/methodology/approach
Interviews were conducted with managers of emerging biotechnology companies and lead investors in Canada, France and Germany. Relational governance was assessed by relational norms such as flexibility, information sharing, solidarity and fairness. Performance was assessed by overall effectiveness and partnership benefits. First, the contribution of relational governance to partnership effectiveness and benefits was examined. Second, for the financial partnerships, the perceptions of both biotech managers and lead investors were compared. Third, the biotech manager perceptions of their financial and non‐financial partnerships were compared.
Findings
Relational governance is positively associated with performance. Communication (information sharing) was most predictive of partnership performance. Biotech managers view their financial partnerships as being less relational than do their lead investors. Also, biotech managers view their financial partnerships to be less relational than those with their non‐financial partners.
Originality/value
The findings extend our knowledge of the positive influence of relational governance from longer lasting exchanges to “interimistic” technology partnerships. The communication of pertinent and timely information is particularly relevant for both biotech managers and lead investors and can allay fears of opportunistic behaviour and develop trust and commitment.
Details
Keywords
Donald D. Bergh and David J. Ketchen
Welcome to the fifth volume of Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (RMSM). We are delighted to provide you with this latest installment of the RMSM series and hope…
Abstract
Welcome to the fifth volume of Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (RMSM). We are delighted to provide you with this latest installment of the RMSM series and hope that you will find it to be as informative and educational as we do. This volume represents the work of a diverse set of scholars, some of whom are former presidents and fellows of the Academy of Management, some are ascending and up-and-comers, while others are highly accomplished methodologists who come from outside the strategy field. All of the authors have drawn upon deep and rich methodological experiences to put together excellent chapters. Their contributions not only address important and timely methodological topics but provide plain and straightforward insights as to how we can improve the application of research methods in strategy and management.
Julia M. Jonas, Julian Boha, David Sörhammar and Kathrin M. Moeslein
To further extend the understanding of multidimensional engagement of stakeholders embedded in service systems, the purpose of this paper is to explore the antecedents that…
Abstract
Purpose
To further extend the understanding of multidimensional engagement of stakeholders embedded in service systems, the purpose of this paper is to explore the antecedents that constitute stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational service ecosystems where stakeholders co-create innovations over time.
Design/methodology/approach
An explorative, longitudinal case study design is employed to analyze stakeholders’ engagement in co-innovation in an inter-organizational service system in an engineering context.
Findings
The study identifies eight antecedents for stakeholder engagement in innovation in the context of a B2B environment. Building on related engagement research, the empirical data show how stakeholder engagement is influenced at both individual and organizational levels by the antecedents friendship, common experiences, self-representation, trust, a common goal, resource dependency, level in the hierarchy, institutional arrangements, and local proximity.
Originality/value
The paper extends current understanding of engagement and illuminates stakeholder engagement on a micro level, addressing four key issues for stakeholder engagement in a service ecosystem. How can stakeholder engagement be maintained over time? Does stakeholder engagement at specific hierarchical levels enhance or hinder inter-organizational co-innovation? Is strong engagement necessary for innovation activities? Are the different engagement antecedents linked?