Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship
  4. Vol. 68, Issue 1
  5. pp. 31–55

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Schulz, P. Alles F&E? Performance-Effekte phasenspezifischer externer Kooperation in KMU. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 68(1), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.3790/zfke.68.1.31
Schulz, Philipp "Alles F&E? Performance-Effekte phasenspezifischer externer Kooperation in KMU" ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 68.1, , 31-55. https://doi.org/10.3790/zfke.68.1.31
Schulz, Philipp: Alles F&E? Performance-Effekte phasenspezifischer externer Kooperation in KMU, in: ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, vol. 68, iss. 1, 31-55, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/zfke.68.1.31
Format
Download

Alles F&E? Performance-Effekte phasenspezifischer externer Kooperation in KMU

Schulz, Philipp

ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, Vol. 68 (2020), Iss. 1 : pp. 31–55

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/zfke.68.1.31
Language
German
Pages
26

Pricing

Individual
€ 24.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Philipp Schulz, M.A., Technische Universität Dresden, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Nachwuchsforschergruppe Wissens- und Technologietransfer, Münchner Platz 2–3, 01187 Dresden, Deutschland

  • Philipp Schulz ist Doktorand in der Nachwuchsforschergruppe für Wissens- und Technologietransfer an der Technischen Universität Dresden. Er hält einen Bachelorabschluss von der Technischen Universität Chemnitz und einen Masterabschluss der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg. Seine professionellen Interessengebiete umfassen relationale und transaktionale Strategien der Wissensbeschaffung in Unternehmen. Derzeitige Arbeitsschwerpunkte sind Forschungs- und Entwicklungskooperationen, sowie Märkte für Technologie. Er ist sehr stark daran interessiert interdisziplinär zu arbeiten.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

References

  1. Arvanitis, S. und Woerter, M. (2015): Exploration or exploitation of knowledge from universities: does it make a difference?, in: Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 24(6), 596–623.  Google Scholar
  2. Barney, J. (1991): Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, in: Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.  Google Scholar
  3. Bianchi, M., Campodall’Orto, S., Frattini, F. und Vercesi, P. (2010): Enabling open innovation in small-and medium-sized enterprises: how to find alternative applications for your technologies, in: R&D Management, 40(4), 414–431.  Google Scholar
  4. Bogers, M. und Lhuillery, S. (2011): A Functional Perspective on Learning and Innovation: Investigating the Organization of Absorptive Capacity, in: Industry and Innovation, 18(6), 581–610.  Google Scholar
  5. Brunswicker, S. und Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015): Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organizational facilitators, in: Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241–1263.  Google Scholar
  6. Buganza, T., Colombo, G. und Landoni, P. (2014): Small and medium enterprises’ collaborations with universities for new product development: An analysis of the different phases, in: Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(1), 69–86.  Google Scholar
  7. Chesbrough, H. (2003): The Logic of Open Innovation: Managing Intellectual Property, in: California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58.  Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H. und Kjær, J. S. (2005): The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation – Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics, in: Research Policy, 34(10), 1533–1549.  Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, W. M. und Levinthal, D. A. (1990): Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.  Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R. und Walsh, J. P. (2002): Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D, in: Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.  Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, R. G. (2008): Perspective: The stage-gate® idea-to-launch process-update, what’s new, and nexgen systems, in Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213–232.  Google Scholar
  12. Czarnitzki, D. und Spielkamp, A. (2003): Business services in Germany: Bridges for innovation, in: The Service Industries Journal, 23(2), 1–30.  Google Scholar
  13. Eisenhardt, K. M. und Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996): Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms, in: Organization Science, 7(2), 136–150.  Google Scholar
  14. Enkel, E., Kausch, C. und Gassmann, O. (2005): Managing the risk of customer integration, in: European Management Journal, 23(2), 203–213.  Google Scholar
  15. Eom, B.-Y. und Lee, K. (2010): Determinants of industry–academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization, in: Research Policy, 39(5), 625–639.  Google Scholar
  16. Faems, D., De Visser, M., Andries, P. und Van Looy, B. (2010): Technology Alliance Portfolios and Financial Performance: Value-Enhancing and Cost-Increasing Effects of Open Innovation*, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 785–796.  Google Scholar
  17. Faems, D., Van Looy, B. und Debackere, K. (2005): Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250.  Google Scholar
  18. Fossas-Olalla, M., Minguela-Rata, B., López-Sánchez, J.-I. und Fernández-Menéndez, J. (2015): Product innovation: When should suppliers begin to collaborate?, in: Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1404–1406.  Google Scholar
  19. Ganotakis, P. und Love, J. H. (2012): The Innovation Value Chain in New Technology-Based Firms: Evidence from the U.K., in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 839–860.  Google Scholar
  20. Goel, R. K., Göktepe-Hultén, D. und Grimpe, C. (2017): Who instigates university–industry collaborations? University scientists versus firm employees, in: Small Business Economics, 48(3), 503–524.  Google Scholar
  21. Grant, R. M. (1996): Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm in: Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.  Google Scholar
  22. Greene, W. (1999): Marginal effects in the censored regression model, in: Economics Letters, 64(1), 43–49.  Google Scholar
  23. Greene, W. H. (2003): Econometric Analysis, [http://primoproxy.slub-dresden.de/cgi-bin/permalink.pl?libero_mab216023119], abgerufen am 11.06.2019.  Google Scholar
  24. Grimpe, C. und Hussinger, K. (2013): Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance, in: Industry and Innovation, 20(8), 683–700.  Google Scholar
  25. Grimpe, C. und Kaiser, U. (2010): Balancing Internal and External Knowledge Acquisition: The Gains and Pains from R&D Outsourcing, in: Journal of Management Studies, 47(8), 1483–1509.  Google Scholar
  26. Gruner, K. E. und Homburg, C. (2000): Does customer interaction enhance new product success?, in: Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1–14.  Google Scholar
  27. Hippel, E. von (1986): Lead Users: a source of novel product concepts, in: Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.  Google Scholar
  28. Hippel, E. von, Jong, J. de und Flowers, S. (2012): Comparing business and household sector in consumer products: findings from a representative study in the United Kingdom, in: Management Science, 58(9), 1669–1681.  Google Scholar
  29. IfM (2019): IfM Bonn: Mittelstand im Überblick. [https://www.ifm-bonn.org/statistiken/mittelstand-im-ueberblick/#accordion=0&tab=0], abgerufen am 28.05.2019.  Google Scholar
  30. Knudsen, M. P. (2007): The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), 117–138.  Google Scholar
  31. Kogut, B. und Zander, U. (1992): Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology, in: Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.  Google Scholar
  32. Koufteros, X. A., Cheng, T. C. und Lai, K.-H. (2007): „Black-box“ and „gray-box“ supplier integration in product development: Antecedents, consequences and the moderating role of firm size, in: Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 847–870.  Google Scholar
  33. Laursen, K. und Salter, A. (2006): Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms, in: Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.  Google Scholar
  34. Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B. und Park, J. (2010): Open innovation in SMEs – An intermediated network model, in: Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.  Google Scholar
  35. Love, J. H. und Roper, S. (2015): SME innovation, exporting and growth: A review of existing evidence, in: International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 28–48.  Google Scholar
  36. Love, J. H., Roper, S. und Bryson, J. R. (2011): Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services, in: Research Policy, 40(10), 1438–1452.  Google Scholar
  37. Love, J. H., Roper, S. und Vahter, P. (2014): Learning from openness: The dynamics of breadth in external innovation linkages, in: Strategic Management Journal, 35(11), 1703–1716.  Google Scholar
  38. Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C. und Hippel, E. von (2005): User innovators and „local“ information: The case of mountain biking, in: Research Policy, 34(6), 951–965.  Google Scholar
  39. Marsili, O. und Salter, A. (2006): The dark matter of innovation: design and innovative performance in Dutch manufacturing, in: Technology Analysis und Strategic Management, 18(5), 515–534.  Google Scholar
  40. Melton, H. L. und Hartline, M. D. (2010): Customer and Frontline Employee Influence on New Service Development Performance, in: Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 411–425.  Google Scholar
  41. Minguela-Rata, B., Fernández-Menéndez, J. und Fossas-Olalla, M. (2014): Cooperation with suppliers, firm size and product innovation, in: Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(3), 438–455.  Google Scholar
  42. OECD (2005): Oslo Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data, [https://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-en.htm], abgerufen am 11.06.2019.  Google Scholar
  43. OECD (2011): OECD Technology Classification, [https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/48350231.pdf], abgerufen am 11.06.2019.  Google Scholar
  44. Parida, V., Sjödin, D. R., Wincent, J. und Kohtamäki, M. (2014): Mastering the transition to product-service provision: Insights into business models, learning activities, and capabilities, in: Research-Technology Management, 57(3), 44–52.  Google Scholar
  45. Parker, D. B., Zsidisin, G. A. und Ragatz, G. L. (2008): Timing and Extent of Supplier Integration in New Product Development: A Contingency Approach, in: Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(1), 71–83.  Google Scholar
  46. Perkmann, M., Neely, A. und Walsh, K. (2011): How should firms evaluate success in university–industry alliances? A performance measurement system, in: R&D Management, 41(2), 202–216.  Google Scholar
  47. Peters, B. und Rammer, C. (2013): Innovation panel surveys in Germany, in: Gault, F. (Hrsg.) Handbook on Innovation Indicators and Measurement, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 135–177.  Google Scholar
  48. Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B. und Ragatz, G. L. (2005): Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design, in: Journal of Operations Management, 23(3), 371–388.  Google Scholar
  49. Ragatz, G. L., Handfield, R. B. und Scannell, T. V. (1997): Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 190–202.  Google Scholar
  50. Rosenkopf, L. und Almeida, P. (2003): Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility, in: Management Science, 49(6), 751–766.  Google Scholar
  51. Sánchez-González, G., González-Álvarez, N. und Nieto, M. (2009): Sticky information and heterogeneous needs as determining factors of R&D cooperation with customers, in: Research Policy, 38(10), 1590–1603.  Google Scholar
  52. Schmidt, T. (2010): Absorptive capacity – one size fits all? A firm-level analysis of absorptive capacity for different kinds of knowledge, in: Managerial and Decision Economics, 31(1), 1–18.  Google Scholar
  53. Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W. und Roijakkers, N. (2013): Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises, in: Small Business Economics, 41(3), 537–562.  Google Scholar
  54. Teirlinck, P. und Spithoven, A. (2013): Research collaboration and R&D outsourcing: Different R&D personnel requirements in SMEs, in: Technovation, 33(4), 142–153.  Google Scholar
  55. Tether, B. S. (2002): Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis, in: Research Policy, 31(6), 947–967.  Google Scholar
  56. Tether, B. S. und Tajar, A. (2008): Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base, in: Research Policy, 37(6–7), 1079–1095.  Google Scholar
  57. Theyel, N. (2013): Extending open innovation throughout the value chain by small and medium-sized manufacturers, in: International Small Business Journal, 31(3), 256–274.  Google Scholar
  58. Thomke, S. und Hippel, E. von (2002): Innovators, in: Harvard Business Review, 80(4), 74–81.  Google Scholar
  59. Tsai, K.-H. und Hsieh, M.-H. (2009): How different types of partners influence innovative product sales: Does technological capacity matter?, in: Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1321–1328.  Google Scholar
  60. Vahter, P., Love, J. H. und Roper, S. (2014): Openness and Innovation Performance: Are Small Firms Different?, in: Industry and Innovation, 21(7–8), 553–573.  Google Scholar
  61. Vanhaverbeke, W. (2017): Managing open innovation in SMEs, 1. Aufl., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  62. Veugelers, R. und Cassiman, B. (2005): R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing, in: International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5–6), 355–379.  Google Scholar
  63. Vossen, R. W. (1998): Relative strengths and weaknesses of small firms in innovation, in: International Small Business Journal, 16(3), 88–95.  Google Scholar
  64. Wernerfelt, B. (1984): A resource-based view of the firm, in: Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.  Google Scholar
  65. Wu, J. (2014): Cooperation with competitors and product innovation: Moderating effects of technological capability and alliances with universities, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 199–209.  Google Scholar
  66. Wu, S. J. und Ragatz, G. L. (2010): The role of integrative capabilities in involving suppliers in new product development: a knowledge integration perspective, in: International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 19(1–2), 82–101.  Google Scholar
  67. Zahay, D., Griffin, A. und Fredericks, E. (2004): Sources, uses, and forms of data in the new product development process, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 33(7), 657–666.  Google Scholar
  68. Zahay, D., Griffin, A. und Fredericks, E. (2011): Information use in new product development: an initial exploratory empirical investigation in the chemical industry, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(4), 485–502.  Google Scholar
  69. Zobel, A.-K. (2017): Benefiting from Open Innovation: A Multidimensional Model of Absorptive Capacity*, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 269–288.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen (KMU) sind stark auf externes Wissen angewiesen. Gleichzeitig weisen KMU einen geringen Strukturierungsgrad in der unternehmensinternen Forschung und Entwicklung (F&E) auf, wodurch der Zugriff auf externes Wissen auch über kooperative F&E hinaus erfolgen muss. Basierend auf Argumenten aus der ressourcenbasierten Sicht auf das Unternehmen (RBV) und aus der Forschung zu organisationaler Absorptionsfähigkeit wird argumentiert, dass KMU in verschiedenen Phasen des Innovationsprozesses von der Kooperation mit unternehmensexternen Partnern profitieren. Die aufgestellten Hypothesen werden anhand von Daten aus dem Mannheimer Innovation Panel (MIP) getestet. Der Datensatz umfasst 1.475 KMU. Der Einfluss von phasenspezifischer Kooperation auf den innovativen Umsatz geht weit über F&E hinaus und ist vom gewählten Partner abhängig.

Abstract

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) strongly depend on external knowledge. At the same time, SMEs face several resource constraints. Especially the marginally structured internal research and development (R&D) function leads to knowledge sourcing beyond cooperative R&D. Using arguments from the Resource-Based View of the firm (RBV) and Absorptive Capacity (AC), this study hypothesizes on external collaboration and innovative sales taking partner- and stage-specificity into account. Data originates from the Mannheim Innovation Panel (MIP) comprising 1.475 SMEs Results suggest a broad impact of stage-specific collaboration on innovative sales, which depends on the type of partner.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Philipp Schulz: Alles F & E? Performance-Effekte phasenspezifischer externer Kooperation in KMU 1
Zusammenfassung 1
Abstract 1
I. Einleitung 2
II. Konzeptionelle Grundlagen 3
III. Theoretische Fundierung phasenspezifischer Effekte 5
1. Kooperation mit Kunden 5
2. Kooperation mit Lieferanten 6
3. Kooperation mit Universitäten 7
IV. Zwischenfazit und Ableitung von Hypothesen 8
V. Daten und Operationalisierung 9
1. Datensatz 9
2. Abhängige Variable 9
3. Unabhängige Variablen 1
4. Kontrollvariablen 1
VI. Empirische Strategie und Ergebnisse 1
1. Deskriptive Statistiken 1
2. Ergebnisse aus den Regressionsverfahren 1
3. Robustheitsprüfungen und Erweiterungen 1
VII. Diskussion und Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis 1
1. Diskussion 1
2. Implikationen für die Praxis 2
3. Limitationen und zukünftige Forschungsfelder 2
Literatur 2

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.