Strategic corporate venturing to design targeted innovation initiatives
High-tech multinationals face a strong need for efficient innovation. Methods beyond conventional research, referred to as corporate venturing (CV), have proven capable of increasing innovativeness. This work presents the results of a conducted action research project following the action innovation management research-framework (AIMR-framework). Over a six-month period, the author accompanied a CV management team of a high-tech multinational corporation.
The course of the project and the results are presented in this paper. First, specific characteristics of central CV management units are compiled. Next, best practices from across CV literature are systematically extracted to match these characteristics. As a result, an aligned CV initiative for integration of novel technologies is proposed.
The paper contributes to the methodological base of corporate technology management and innovation management literature. By design, the proposed CV initiative connects internal and external stakeholders and combines attributes, such as a broad scope of innovation, employee-sourced ideas, and direct financial support. The methodology applied in this work paves the way for strategic CV by which corporate innovation units can increase their innovation capabilities. The findings will subsequently help managers to increase their company´s innovation capabilities and thus provide a competitive advantage.
Keywords: corporate innovation management, technology management, corporate venturing, corporate innovation initiative portfolio, action innovation management research framework
1 Introduction
1.1 Recent developments in corporate venturing
Innovation is an essential element of today’s corporate strategies. Corporations pursue innovation in multiple ways (Cefis and Marsili, 2005; Gardiner et al., 2006; de Jong et al., 2015; Bradley et al., 2018; Zander, 2022). As one element, corporate venturing (CV) refers to a loose set of corporate innovation initiatives (CIIs) designed to accelerate, create, capture and deliver different types of innovation (Burgelman, 1983; Gutmann, 2019). As a typical characteristic, CIIs include some form of innovation funnel and project portfolio management (Enkel and Sagmeister, 2020; Kock and Gemünden, 2021).
Over recent years CV received increased attention, resulting in a growing number of presented CIIs (Zahra et al., 2016) (see Figure 1). Some types, such as accelerator and incubator emerged dominant but remain rather vague (Roessler and Velamuri, 2015). Overall comparability between CIIs is described as low as well as high in ambiguity which limits overall effectiveness of CV research (Phan et al., 2009; Heinzelmann et al., 2020). Recently, scholars have begun to form clusters in which CIIs are taken and put in context to each other (Gutmann, 2019; Heinzelmann and Baltes, 2019; Heinzelmann et al., 2020).
Like a puzzle, the ideal corporate innovation initiative portfolio (CIIP) follows the MECE-principle (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive). Each CII acts as an essential part of the CIIP, while no two CIIs compete against each other (Rasiel, 1999; Gutmann, 2019). This systematic approach to CIIs and the CIIP is referred to as strategic CV management.
Figure 1: Number of publications on the topic “corporate venturing” over time, Compound annual growth rate between 2005-2020 of 13 %, Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI. Source: webofscience, 14.04.2021
1.2 Strategic corporate venturing management in high-tech multinational corporations
In multiple high-tech industries, such as the chemical and pharmaceutical industry innovation is a key element of business value (Shah, 2004; Festel, 2013; Festel and Rammer, 2015; Bradley et al., 2018; Glaß et al., 2020). Within multinational corporations (MNC) central functions manage CV activities. This setting comes with several characteristics which allow the application of strategic CV management (see Table 1).
Table 1: Selected characteristics of corporate innovation management functions.
The relevance of each characteristic partially depends on the industry. As an example, the value chain of pharmaceutical product supply holds a high level of complexity. The endto-end process is initiated by patient demand, which results in dedicated research and development activities. The successful identification of an active pharmaceutical ingredient is followed by the development and approval of a novel drug. From there, the drug manufacturing starts with the raw materials. Afterwards, the drug substance is synthesized and combined with excipients to form a final drug product. Following, the drug product is packaged, distributed, and made available to patients. Each part of this chain is essential and contributes towards overall value generation (Friend, 2011) (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Schematic value chain of end-to-end product supply in pharmaceutical industry, adapted from (Friend, 2011).
With respect to the different dimensions and scope, CII design and management are complex. It remains desired to design a CII closely aligned with the specific needs and capabilities of central innovation functions. With an action research project in mind, the authors aim to answer the following research question:
RQ: How to design a corporate innovation initiative (CII) with respect to the characteristics of a corporate innovation management function?
To answer this question, this work is structured as follows. First, the action innovation management researchframework (AIMR-framework by Guertler et al. 2019) and the methods applied within the framework are described. Next, insights into several literature analyses are gathered, mapping various established CIIs, and identifying best practices. The extracted insights from literature are applied to propose an CII aligned with the characteristics of central corporate innovation management functions. Results are discussed and recommendations for management and avenues for future research are presented.
2 Methods
2.1 The action innovation management research-framework
Innovation management research can be triggered by academia or in practice, that is, by identifying a research gap or noticing specific industry needs (Kaplan, 1998; Mumford, 2001; Eikeland, 2006). Close scholar-practitioner relation can help to overcome the frequent perception of research being an activity isolated from practitioners (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Ven and Ven, 2007). Therefore, action research is a favorable method. Guertler et al. 2019 provided an overview of action research and described its high compatibility with technology and innovation management research. Action research and innovation management show similarities such as close practitioner contact and uncertainty in outcome, making the method highly compatible with innovation management (Frederiksen and Brem, 2017; Guertler et al., 2019). Subsequently, Guertler et al. formulated the AIMR-framework to specifically enable action research in innovation management (see Figure 3) (Guertler et al., 2020). The framework is already embraced, to promote rigor and diversity in innovation management (Ritala et al., 2020).
Figure 3: The action innovation management research – framework by Guertler et. al. 2019.
The AIMR-framework suggested by Guertler et al. 2019 was applied to guide the overall action research project. The different phases of the framework are briefly summarized in the following:
1. Analysis & Framing
The project is initiated, and general scope and framing are derived. Practitioner and scholarly goals and results are defined. When the researcher joins the practitioner, he holds the role of an academic-practice co-creator.
2. Project Planning
The project planning starts with extensive exchange to gain a detailed understanding of the practitioner’s specifics. Afterwards a project plan is developed and research methods are selected (Mumford, 2001). Next, a basic literature analysis is performed to identify relevant literature steams and a suitable CIIP framework. From here, the characteristics of corporate innovation management functions are established (see Table 1).
3. Execution on Action
The execution phase includes the application of previously defined tasks and methods. Existing CIIs are systematically identified, prioritized and reviewed. During execution, agile iterations are possible by facilitating the “intra-project pivot” integrated in the AIMR-framework.
4. Reflection & Learning
Aligned with Guertler et al. the reflection and learning blends with the iterative approach during the previous phase. Overall insights are discussed in dedicated review meetings and aligned with overall scope.
5. Communication & Pivoting
Communication is split between tangible results for the practitioner and academic results. The practitioner results potentially including confidential information are handed over at the end the co-creation. The academic results are developed for public communication.
2.2 Applied methods within the AIMR-framework
Across its phases, the AIMR-framework recommends the application of different methods of primary and secondary research. The selected and applied methods are shown in Figure 4 and described in the following.
Figure 4: Applied research methods during the action research project.
2.2.1 Literature analyses
Three interconnected literature analyses are conducted over several months in different phases of the action research project. The initial literature analysis targets the identification of a structuring framework for existing CIIs. The second literature analysis focuses on CII case studies. CIIs are identified across various literature streams. The growing understanding during the action research project steadily influences the targeted literature streams. This iterative approach based on practitioners needs aims at a holistic screening of the heterogeneous literature. CIIs identified during the second literature analysis are categorized and prioritized by mapping in the framework of the first literature analysis. From there, respective literature streams are derived and further explored in the third literature analysis. The final analysis aims at extracting best practices for the later proposal of a CII aligned with the characteristics of a corporate innovation management function. Further details on the approach are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Overview of sequential literature analysis
2.2.2 Practitioner observation
Practitioner observation is applied to explore the practitioner’s characteristics and existing CIIP. Participatory observation serves as a qualitative method of organizational research to develop understanding of the research subject through intensive interactions with people relevant to the research (Jorgensen, 2015). Key limitation of participating observation is that the intersubjective verifiability of the data obtained is limited due to the single source. In addition, the long presence in the field makes the method very timeconsuming (Jorgensen, 2015). Furthermore, potential conflicts in confidentiality limit the extent of publicly sharing detailed insights during the phase of Communication & Pivoting. The possible restriction of objectivity due to the intensive cooperation was considered and accepted due to the chance of an in-depth understanding.
3 Resulting insights
3.1 Frameworks for clustering corporate innovation initiatives
The landscape of CV research is fragmented and ambiguous (Phan et al., 2009; Gutmann, 2019; Heinzelmann and Baltes, 2019). The first innovation management literature analysis revealed six frameworks to structure CIIs. As one of the earliest, (Miles and Covin, 2002) present four forms of CV by differentiate between internal and external focus of entrepreneurship and direct or indirect investment resulting in a 2×2 matrix. Narayanan et al., 2009 and Selig and Baltes, 2019 later follow this differentiating between the source of innovation. Next to mention is Blume, 2020. Here, a specific focus is set on open innovation. In addition, CIIs are arranged regarding the maturity of the innovation projects. Enkel and Sagmeister, 2020 map CIIs to dynamic capability development. In a review of previous frameworks, Gutmann, 2019 derived the following seven dimensions: locus of opportunity, prioritization of objectives, ambidexterity, link to the corporate firm, level of investment intermediation, equity involvement, and the direction of innovation flow. Subsequently, Gutmann, 2019 presents a framework based on innovation flow and objectives, resulting in a 3×3 matrix. A novelty of this framework is the consideration of an “insidein flow of innovation” as a distinct characteristic of the CIIP in MNCs (see Figure 5).
As of writing, none of the frameworks for clustering CIIs appears dominant. For this work, the framework of Gutmann 2019 was selected based on several criteria: As other, it is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, allowing for a clear allocation of each identified CII. Furthermore, while early frameworks follow a 2×2 matrix (Miles and Covin, 2002), a 3×3 matrix allows for a higher degree of differentiation. Finally, the selected framework uniquely includes the insidein flow of innovation connecting to internal open innovation initiatives and the conducted action research project. The framework can be seen in Figure 5. Detailed description regarding each category can be found in the respective publication (Gutmann, 2019).
Figure 5: Gutmann’s harmonized 3×3 framework for Corporate Venturing, figure adapted from (Gutmann, 2019). Highlighted modes of corporate venturing (IV, VII, VIII, IX) refer to exploitation, the others (I, II, III, V, VI) to exploration of innovation
3.2 Structured analysis of corporate innovation initiatives
During the second literature analysis 19 case studies on CIIs are identified. The CIIs are analyzed, summarized and specific characteristics of the CII are given (see Table 3). In addition, the CIIs are mapped in the related area of the presented framework of (Gutmann, 2019) (see Figure 6).
Table 3: Selected corporate innovation initiatives from literature, area in respect to the framework of (Gutmann, 2019).
Figure 6: Corporate venturing framework of (Gutmann, 2019) including mapped corporate innovation initiatives identified from literature (see Table 3).
The research question focuses on the design of a CII harmonized with the characteristics of a corporate innovation management function. These concentrate on integration (outside-in innovation flow) of emerging technologies (primarily strategic objectives). This mainly correlates with the exploitation of innovation. Within this target area, nine CIIs are identified.
3.3 Best practices across different literature streams
In the third and final literature analysis, each framing, focus and literature stream of the nine identified CIIs is further explored. This allows the extraction and aggregation of best practices across different literature streams such as new product development, venture capital and innovation project portfolio management. Insights from 21 publications are mapped with the characteristics of a corporate innovation management function (see Table 4) and considered in CII proposal.
Differentiated risk analysis
Under the area new product development, multiple works of Cooper at al. present the Stage-Gate method (Cooper, 2008, 2019; Cooper and Edgett, 2014). Recent works focus on management of high uncertainty (Cooper, 2019). The presented expected project value takes the different phases of innovation projects into account. First there are the development costs and the associated risk of development. Later there are implementation costs as well as the associated implementation risk.
→ These insights contribute towards a differentiated evaluation of proposals.
Community approach
Best practices from (corporate) venture capital (VC) studies were gathered (Clarysse, 2005; Cavagnaro et al., 2016; Gompers et al., 2020). VC is focused on active deal generation and the process is divided into three phases: sourcing, selection, and post-investment management. A quantitative identification of key success factors remains challenging (Clarysse, 2005). A survey among 1110 VCs by Gompers, 2020 provides detailed insight. During sourcing >30% of proposals come from direct or indirect contacts of the VC management. 47% of survey participants rate the team as the most important factor. Others follow that assessment (Cavagnaro et al., 2016). This is followed by business-related factors at 37% (Gompers et al., 2020).
→ These insights contribute towards the phased structure of the CII, the roles for sourcing and execution within a network and community approach.
Project lineage
It was shown that pharmaceutical organizations learn from continuous venture activities (Dunlap‐Hinkler et al., 2010). These results where generalized by an empirical analysis of 257 firms (Kock and Gemünden, 2019). The authors showed that the factors innovativeness and risk taking both linked to entrepreneurial orientation positively moderate the relationship between managerial practices and performance of continuous innovation project portfolio management practices.
→ These insights contribute towards a repetitive and learning approach for projects and the CII itself.
Dynamic portfolio management
A risk-positive, entrepreneurial orientation can leverage the quality of innovation project portfolio management (Kock and Gemünden, 2021). This includes adjustments as rigor as project termination as uncertainty reduces over time (Kaufmann et al., 2021). Subsequently, performance measurements should focus on overall portfolio success (Bailey et al., 2019).
→ These insights contribute towards a dynamic portfolio design and risk-positive attitude.
The overall gained insights from literature were considered in the proposed CII which is presented in the following chapter.
4 Proposed corporate innovation initiative for integration of emerging technologies
In the first chapter of this work, specific needs of innovation management units in MNCs were identified from literature and practice (see Table 1). In subsequent literature analyses elements from CIIs and best practices from selected literature streams were collected (see chapter 3). Subsequently, these insights are combined. The characteristics of innovation management units in MNCs are addressed by selected features of CIIs (see Table 4).
Table 4: Features of proposed corporate innovation initiative aligned with characteristics of corporate innovation management functions.
The features in Table 4 guide the proposal of a CII, which is presented in the following. The description focuses on operations and corresponding roles. In essence, the proposed CII maintains a dynamic and rolling innovation project portfolio. The core process is a regularly triggered funding procedure including a screening phase, a selection phase, and an ongoing supporting phase. Regular project selection allows competence to build up and to learn from past funding rounds (Kock and Gemünden, 2019). Next to these events the community is continuously maintained to foster cross-functional exchange regarding novel emerging technologies and therefore potential new projects (de Jong et al., 2015; Garrett, 2015). The proposed setup includes five dedicated roles. Each role comes from a different area across the organization. To keep operations efficient, each employee involved contributes to the initiative as one of multiple responsibilities (Table 5).
Table 5: Overview of roles for the proposed corporate innovation initiative (CII).
After presenting these roles the specific operations of the funding process are described in Table 6.
Table 6: Overview of the proposed corporate innovation initiative’s (CII) annual funding process
5 Discussion
This work describes an action research project proposing a CII based on strategic CV. First, practitioner needs are identified. Next, selected CIIs are analyzed across various literature streams and best practices are extracted. As result, a CII for integration of emerging technologies across a wide area of applications is proposed. The CII is characterized by idea sourcing from frontline employees, expert evaluation with cross-functional exchange, efficiency, and a rolling innovation project portfolio.
The systematic research approach is supported by the application of multiple frameworks. First, the AIMRframework guides through the phases of the action research project. By ‘intra-project pivoting’, the framework allows for the necessary flexibility in operations. This scalability and flexibility make it a promising addition for innovation management research.
Next, for the systematic literature analysis, a framework for CV was applied to support structuring the heterogeneous research landscape. As a result, potentially otherwise overlooked best practices are included in the results. For example, multiple best practices from venture capital and new product development literature are incorporated. Also, the framework itself gave guidance, highlighting the inside-in flow of innovation.
The systematic approach in this work confirms the need for harmonized structures in CV research. Generally, initiatives are often not described in such a level of detail to be fully comprehensible in regard to complexity, operations, and motivation. While the applied framework of Guertler et al. 2019 was among the most sophisticated frameworks available, there are more characteristics to distinguish CIIs and that are relevant for CII design. Some examples for additional characteristics are budget, timeline, type of resource allocation and level of employee involvement.
The proposed CII is derived from multiple research findings. First, VC research shows advantages of community project selection. To better cope with the high level of uncertainty of early-stage innovation projects moderated open discussions are prioritized over individual complex quantitative scoring. Second, it is shown in literature that a lineage of work increases quality of outcome and characterizes innovation leaders. As a result, a repetitive process of portfolio assembly 5 Discussion is proposed. Third, evaluation of innovation projects is aligned with positive research findings from new product development, the differentiation between technology maturity and implementation risk allows for a sophisticated discussion. Risk of technological development can be assessed by subject matter experts, while implementation risk is linked to project sponsor commitment and project customer need. After project assessment the portfolio is jointly formed balancing cost, risk, time, and expected benefit.
The proposed CII is aligned with the needs of corporate innovation management units responsible for pursuing CV across the organization. The presented characteristics were derived from academic literature and practitioner insight. The literature foundation lets the authors hope that the identified features of corporate innovation units are generally valid and that the proposed CII can support other CV functions in need of integration of emerging technologies in their respective CIIP.
6 Conclusion and Outlook
Central CV management functions aim at increasing the level of corporate innovation. Specific characteristics of these units and corporate structures in general challenge the integration of external emerging technologies. This work shows how strategic CV can be applied to address such specific innovation needs. It thus contributes to management and research in different ways.
First to mention are the several contributions towards management. The described action research project can serve as a template for practitioner-scholar interaction. The applied framework of Guertler et al. 2019 shall encourage practitioners to strategically assess their CIIP. This might reveal blank spots where innovation management can be further improved. Here the presented CIIs can serve as a starting point. Also, practitioners are advised to incorporate cross-functional communities from throughout the whole company, strengthening the inside-in innovation flow.
Second to mention are the scholarly contributions. The detailed application and discussion of the AIMR-framework strengthens its role in innovation management. The work confirmed it as an advantageous framework to follow scholar-practitioner cooperation in innovation management. Furthermore, a CII was designed and proposed based on practitioners’ needs. The authors can confidently claim that they have found no identical CII within their literature research, making the proposed CII a potentially valuable addition.
The pursuit of cost-effectiveness across the whole value chain does not stop at innovation management. Here practitioners need pragmatic decision guidelines for CII and CIIP setups. In order to achieve this, CV research needs sophisticated multidimensional frameworks to cope with the fuzzy nature of innovation. Current research started with CII interactions analyzed (Heinzelmann and Baltes, 2019; Heinzelmann et al., 2020) and should continue towards CIIP analysis. Detailed specifications on different CIIPs might allow cross-corporation comparability and reveal blank spaces where novel CIIs are yet to be developed. Here, comparing studies between CIIPs of top performers and others would be of great scholarly and practitioner interest.
7 References
Abrell, T., Karjalainen, T.-M. (2017) The Early Stage of Internal Corporate Venturing: Entrepreneurial Activities in a Large Manufacturing Company. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 25, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495817500017
Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W. (2008) Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696– 717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Antonczyk, R.C., Salzmann, A.J. (2012) Venture capital and risk perception. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 82, 389– 416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-012-0556-1
Bailey, C.A., Jones, K.T., Rosenbaugh, J.M. (2019) Managing Exploratory Projects Like a Venture Capitalist: How Large Enterprises Use Internal Venture Capital Structures to Manage the Creation of New Offerings. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 47, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1109/ EMR.2018.2890241
Blume, T. (2020) New Taxonomy for Corporate Open Innovation Initiatives: Best Practices and an Empirical Validation among Germany’s 500 Biggest Companies. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Bradley, C., Hirt, M., Smit, S. (2018) Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick: People, Probabilities, and Big Moves to Beat the Odds. s.l.: John Wiley & Sons.
Lean Venturing: Entrepreneurial Learning to Model and Grow New Business (2012, Seoul, South Korea). 2012. Ed. Breuer, H., Mahdjour, S. Seoul, South Korea, 14 p.
Burgelman, R.A. (1983) A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392619 Measuring Institutional Investors’ Skill from Their Investments in Private Equity (2016, Cambridge, MA). 2016. Ed. Cavagnaro, D., Sensoy, B., Wang, Y., Weisbach, M. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research. w22547 p.
Cefis, E., Marsili, O. (2005) A matter of life and death: innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 1167–1192. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth081 Chesbrough, H., Garman, A.R. (2009) How Open Innovation Can Help You Cope in Lean Times. Harvard Business Review, Dec. 2009
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Clarysse, B. (2005) How Do Early Stage High Technology Investors Select Their Investments? Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series 2005/2, 2005, 41
Cooper, R., Edgett, S.J. (2001) Portfolio Management for New Products: Picking The Winners. Product Innovation Best Practices Series
Cooper, R.G. (2008) Perspective: The Stage-Gate ® Idea-toLaunch Process—Update, What’s New, and NexGen Systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x
Cooper, R.G. (2017) Idea-to-Launch Gating Systems: Better, Faster, and More Agile: Leading firms are rethinking and reinventing their idea-to-launch gating systems, adding elements of Agile to traditional Stage-Gate structures to add flexibility and speed while retaining structure. ResearchTechnology Management, 60, 48–52. https://doi.org/10.108 0/08956308.2017.1255057
Cooper, R.G. (2019) The drivers of success in new-product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005
Cooper, R.G., Sommer, A.F. (2020) New-Product Portfolio Management with Agile: Challenges and Solutions for Manufacturers Using Agile Development Methods. Research-Technology Management, 63, 29–38. https://doi. org/10.1080/08956308.2020.1686291
Dunlap‐Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M., Mudambi, R. (2010) A story of breakthrough versus incremental innovation: corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 106–127. https://doi. org/10.1002/sej.86
Dziallas, M. (2020) How to evaluate innovative ideas and concepts at the front-end? Journal of Business Research, 110, 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.008
Edison, H., Smørsgård, N.M., Wang, X., Abrahamsson, P. (2018) Lean Internal Startups for Software Product Innovation in Large Companies: Enablers and Inhibitors. Journal of Systems and Software, 135, 69–87. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.09.034
Product Innovation through Internal Startup in Large Software Companies: A Case Study (2016, Limassol, Cyprus). 2016. Ed. Edison, H., Wang, X., Abrahamsson, P. Limassol, Cyprus, IEEE. 128–135 p.
Edwards, K., Cooper, R.G., Vedsmand, T., Nardelli, G. (2019) Evaluating the Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: Experiences From Three SME Manufacturing Firms. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16, 1950048. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019500482
Eikeland, O. (2006) Phrónêsis, Aristotle, and Action Research. International Journal of Action Research, 2, 5–53
Enkel, E., Sagmeister, V. (2020) External corporate venturing modes as new way to develop dynamic capabilities. Technovation, 96–97, 102128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2020.102128
Festel, G. (2013) Technology transfer by new ventures within the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Chemistry, Oct. 2013
Festel, G., Breitenmoser, P., Würmseher, M., Kratzer, J. (2015) Early stage technology investments of pre-seed venture capitalists. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 7, 370. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2015.073647 Festel, G., Rammer, C. (2015) Importance of venture capital investors for the industrial biotechnology industry. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 21. https://doi.org/10.5912/ jcb685
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. s.l.: Cambridge University Press.
Frederiksen, D.L., Brem, A. (2017) How do entrepreneurs think they create value? A scientific reflection of Eric Ries’ Lean Startup approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11365-016-0411-x
Friend, S. (2011) Pharma 2020: Supplying the future – Which path will you take? PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2011, 36
Gardiner, C., Kitchen, S., Dauer, R., Kottke-Marchant, K., Adcock, D. (2006) Recommendations for Evaluation of Coagulation Analyzers. Laboratory Hematology, 12, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1532/LH96.05031
Garrett, R.P. (2015) Internal Corporate Ventures. In: Cooper, C.L. (ed.), Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: pp. 1–4.
Gassmann, O., Schweitzer, F. eds. (2014) Management of the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation. s.l.: Springer International Publishing.
Glaß, J., Landwehr-Zloch, S., Kleemiss, W., Küchenthal, C., Vossen, M. (2020) Kulturkreisübergreifendes Innovationsmanagement – Erfahrungsberichte aus der Praxis. In: Landwehr-Zloch, S., and Glaß, J. (eds.), Innovationsmanagement der chemischen Industrie im digitalen Zeitalter: Den digitalen Wandel effektiv gestalten. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer: pp. 229–240.
Gompers, P.A., Gornall, W., Kaplan, S.N., Strebulaev, I.A. (2020) How do venture capitalists make decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 135, 169–190. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.06.011
Grimpe, C. (2006) Making use of the unused: shelf warmer technologies in research and development. Technovation, 26, 770–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2004.10.001
Guertler, M., Sick, N., Kriz, A. (2019) A Discipline-Spanning Overview of Action Research and Its Implications for Technology and Innovation Management. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9, 19
Guertler, M.R., Kriz, A., Sick, N. (2020) Encouraging and enabling action research in innovation management. R&D Management, 50, 380–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/ radm.12413
Gutmann, T. (2019) Harmonizing corporate venturing modes: an integrative review and research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 69, 121–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11301-018-0148-4
In Search of Synergies between Corporate Entrepreneurship Activities : A Literature Review Research Agenda (2019, Valbonne Sophia-Antipolis, France). 2019. Ed. Heinzelmann, N., Baltes, G.H. Valbonne Sophia-Antipolis, France, IEEE. 1–9 p.
Critical Actions of and Synergies between Corporate Entrepreneurship Programs (2020, s.l.). 2020. Ed. Heinzelmann, N., Selig, C.J., Baltes, G.H. s.l., 1–9 p.
Ismail, M., Bello-Pintado, A., García-Marco, T., Lazzarotti, V. (2023) Enhancing open innovation: Managing not invented here syndrome in collaborative projects. Technovation, 128, 102879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2023.102879
de Jong, M., Marston, N., Roth, E. (2015) The Eight Essentials of innovation performance. McKinsey Quaterly, 2015, 12 Jorgensen, D.L. (2015) Participant Observation. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. s.l.: American Cancer Society: pp. 1–15.
Jouret, G. (2016) Inside Cisco’s Search for the Next Big Idea. harvard business review, 2016, 6
Kaplan, R.S. (1998) Innovation Action Research: Creating New Management Theory and Practice. Journal of Management Accounting Research, no.10, 89–118 Katz, R., Allen, T.J. (1982) Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12, 7–20. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.x
Kaufmann, C., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G. (2021) Strategic and cultural contexts of real options reasoning in innovation portfolios. Journal of Product Innovation Management, n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12566
Keil, T., McGrath, R.G., Tukiainen, T. (2009) Gems from the Ashes: Capability Creation and Transformation in Internal Corporate Venturing. Organization Science, 20, 601–620. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0373
Keller, W., Landwehr-Zloch, S., Weyland, S. (2020) Rechnungswesen in der Chemischen Industrie. Thesen zur digitalen Transformation. Controller Magazin, 45, 68–72
How to Design an Internal Crowdsourcing System? (2017, Seoul, South Korea). 2017. Ed. Knop, N., Durward, D., Blohm, I. Seoul, South Korea,
Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G. (2019) Project Lineage Management and Project Portfolio Success. Project Management Journal, 50, 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819870357
Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G. (2021) How entrepreneurial orientation can leverage innovation project portfolio management. R&D Management, 51, 40–56. https://doi. org/10.1111/radm.12423
Lee, Y., Fong, E., Barney, J.B., Hawk, A. (2019) Why Do Experts Solve Complex Problems Using Open Innovation? Evidence from the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry. California Management Review, 62, 144–166. https://doi. org/10.1177/0008125619883617
Lichtenthaler, E. (2004) Coordination of Technology Intelligence Processes: A Study in Technology Intensive Multinationals. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 16, 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537 320410001682892
Ma, J., Harstvedt, J.D., Jaradat, R., Smith, B. (2020) Sustainability driven multi-criteria project portfolio selection under uncertain decision-making environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106236. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106236
Makarevich, A. (2017) Organizing for success in internal corporate venturing: An inductive case study of a multinational consumer goods company. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26, 189–201. https://doi. org/10.1111/caim.12213
Masucci, M., Parker, S.C., Brusoni, S., Camerani, R. (2021) How are corporate ventures evaluated and selected? Technovation, 99, 102126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2020.102126
Miles, M.P., Covin, J.G. (2002) Exploring the Practice of Corporate Venturing: Some Common Forms and Their Organizational Implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 21–40. https://doi. org/10.1177/104225870202600302
Mumford, E. (2001) Advice for an action researcher. Information Technology & People, 14, 12–27. https://doi. org/10.1108/09593840110384753
Narayanan, V.K., Yang, Y., Zahra, S.A. (2009) Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38, 58–76. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.015
Phan, P.H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., Tan, W.-L. (2009) Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.01.007
Pohlisch, J. (2020) Internal Open Innovation—Lessons Learned from Internal Crowdsourcing at SAP. Sustainability, 12, 4245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104245
Powell, B.C. (2010) Equity carve-outs as a technology commercialization strategy: An exploratory case study of Thermo Electron’s strategy. Technovation, 30, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.06.003
Rasiel, E.M. (1999) The Mckinsey Way. s.l.: McGraw-Hill Education.
Ries, E. (2014) Lean Startup: Schnell, risikolos und erfolgreich Unternehmen gründen. s.l.: Redline Wirtschaft.
Ritala, P., Schneider, S., Michailova, S. (2020) Innovation management research methods: embracing rigor and diversity. R&D Management, 50, 297–308. https://doi. org/10.1111/radm.12414
Rockefeller, R. (1979) The Ivory Tower Syndrome. School Press Review, 55
Roessler, M., Velamuri, V.K. (2015) Corporate Incubation as a Tool to Foster Business Model Innovation. 2015, 15
Salvato, J.J., Laplume, A.O. (2020) Agile Stage-Gate Management (ASGM) for physical products. R&D Management, 50, 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/ radm.12426
Sanchez, H., Robert, B., Pellerin, R. (2008) A Project Portfolio Risk-Opportunity Identification Framework. Project Management Journal, 39, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pmj.20072
Towards an effective management of corporate entrepreneurship activities (2019, Valbonne SophiaAntipolis, France). 2019. Ed. Selig, C.J., Baltes, G.H. Valbonne Sophia-Antipolis, France, IEEE. 1–9 p.
Shah, N. (2004) Pharmaceutical supply chains: key issues and strategies for optimisation. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 28, 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compchemeng.2003.09.022
Skovvang Christensen, K. (2005) Enabling intrapreneurship: the case of a knowledge‐intensive industrial company. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8, 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060510610171
Soukhoroukova, A., Spann, M., Skiera, B. (2012) Sourcing, Filtering, and Evaluating New Product Ideas: An Empirical Exploration of the Performance of Idea Markets: Idea Markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00881.x
Ven, A.H.V. de, Ven, V.H.H.P. of O.I. and C.A.H.V. de (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. s.l.: OUP Oxford.
Intra-corporate crowdsourcing (icc): leveraging upon rank and site marginality for innovation (2010, MIT Sloan School of Management). 2010. Ed. Villarroel, J.A., Reis, F. MIT Sloan School of Management, 6 p.
Zahra, S., Neubaum, D., Hayton, J. (2016) Handbook of Research on Corporate Entrepreneurship. s.l.: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Zander, K.S. (2022) The Influence of Market Orientation on Innovativeness. Journal of Business Chemistry, no.19. https://doi.org/10.17879/95009504748