Menu Expand

Mit Stakeholder-Management zu Innovation

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Der Betriebswirt
  4. Vol. 62, Issue 4
  5. pp. 227–239

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Busch, M., Weissenberger-Eibl, M. Mit Stakeholder-Management zu Innovation. . Wie können mittelständische Unternehmen durch den Stakeholder-Navigator zu höherer Innovationsperformance gelangen?. Der Betriebswirt, 62(4), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.62.4.227
Busch, Malte and Weissenberger-Eibl, Marion A. "Mit Stakeholder-Management zu Innovation. Wie können mittelständische Unternehmen durch den Stakeholder-Navigator zu höherer Innovationsperformance gelangen?. " Der Betriebswirt 62.4, 2021, 227-239. https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.62.4.227
Busch, Malte/Weissenberger-Eibl, Marion A. (2021): Mit Stakeholder-Management zu Innovation, in: Der Betriebswirt, vol. 62, iss. 4, 227-239, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.62.4.227
Format
Download

Mit Stakeholder-Management zu Innovation

Wie können mittelständische Unternehmen durch den Stakeholder-Navigator zu höherer Innovationsperformance gelangen?

Busch, Malte | Weissenberger-Eibl, Marion A.

Der Betriebswirt, Vol. 62 (2021), Iss. 4 : pp. 227–239

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot, Deutscher Betriebswirte Verlag
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.62.4.227
Language
German
Pages
13

Pricing

Individual
€ 26.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Malte Busch arbeitet am Fraunhofer Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI Karlsruhe und ist im Gründungsteam des 2019 neugegründeten wissenschaftlichen Bereichs Joint Innovation Hub.

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Marion A. Weissenberger-Eibl leitet das Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI in Karlsruhe und ist Inhaberin des Lehrstuhls für Innovations- und TechnologieManagement am Institut für Entrepreneurship, Technologie-Management und Innovation am Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT).

References

  1. Aaltonen, K./Kujala, J. (2016): Towards an Improved Understanding of Project Stakeholder Landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), S. 1537–1552.  Google Scholar
  2. Aboelmaged, M./Hashem, G. (2019): Absorptive Capacity and Green Innovation Adoption in SMEs: The Mediating Effects of Sustainable Organisational Capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, S. 853–863.  Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, R./Wade, J. (2015): A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, S. 669–678.  Google Scholar
  4. Bauchmüller, M./Weiß, M. (2021): Klimawandel: Klage gegen RWE erhält neue Argumente. [online] Süddeutsche.de. Available at: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-klimaschutz-rwe-klage-peru-1.5197145 [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  5. Busch, M. (2018): The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations on a Multinational Company’s Corporate Social Responsibility Approach during a Crisis (Dissertation, Strategisches Management). Coventry University.  Google Scholar
  6. Busch, M./Weissenberger-Eibl, M. A. (2020): Mit Ambidexterität durch unruhige Zeiten – Wie können Unternehmen mit organisationaler Ambidexterität den Wandel erfolgreich gestalten? Der Betriebswirt 61 (4), S. 217–230.  Google Scholar
  7. Dabrowska, J./Lopez‐Vega, H./Ritala, P. (2019): Waking the Sleeping Beauty: Swarovski’s Open Innovation Journey. R&D Management, Vol. 49(5), S. 775–788.  Google Scholar
  8. Dhanaraj, C./Parkhe, A. (2006): Orchestrating Innovation Networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), S. 659–669.  Google Scholar
  9. Didonet, S./Simmons, G./Díaz-Villavicencio, G./Palmer, M. (2016): Market Orientation’s Boundary-Spanning Role to Support Innovation in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, S. 216–233.  Google Scholar
  10. Ebner, A. (2010): Varieties of Capitalism and the Limits of Entrepreneurship Policy: Institutional Reform in Germany’s Coordinated Market Economy. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 10, S. 319–341.  Google Scholar
  11. Fonseca, L./Azevedo, A. (2020): „COVID-19: Outcomes for Global Supply Chains“, Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 15, No. Special Issue, S. 424–438.  Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, R./Dmytriyev, S./Phillips, R. (2021): Stakeholder Theory and the Resource-Based View of the Firm. Journal of Management, 47(7), S. 1757–1770.  Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, R./Harrison, J./Wicks, A./Parmar, B./Colle, S. (2010): Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, M. (1970): The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13.  Google Scholar
  15. Heider, A./Gerken, M./van Dinther, N./Hülsbeck, M. (2021): Business Model Innovation through Dynamic Capabilities in Small and Medium Enterprises – Evidence from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Business Research, 130, S. 635–645.  Google Scholar
  16. Kemfert, C. (2021): Klimaurteil gegen Shell – „Signale, dass mit Klimaverschmutzung kein Geld mehr zu machen ist“. [online] Deutschlandfunk. Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/klimaurteil-gegen-shell-signale-dass-mit-klimaverschmutzung-100.html [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  17. Limaj, E./Bernroider, E./Choudrie, J. (2016): The Impact of Social Information System Governance, Utilization, and Capabilities on Absorptive Capacity and Innovation: A Case of Austrian SMEs. Information & Management, 53(3), S. 380–397.  Google Scholar
  18. Loureiro, S./Romero, J./Bilro, R. (2020): Stakeholder Engagement in Co-Creation Processes for Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review and Case Study. Journal of Business Research, 119, S. 388–409.  Google Scholar
  19. Luyet, V./Schlaepfer, R./Parlange, M./Buttler, A. (2012): A Framework to Implement Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 111, S. 213–219.  Google Scholar
  20. Meck, M./Theurer, M. (2021): RWE-Chef im Interview: „Wind und Sonne reichen nicht“. [online] FAZ.NET. Available at: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/rwe-chef-krebber-wind-und-sonne-reichen-nicht-17407016.html [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, R. K./Agle, B. R./Wood, D. J. (1997): Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.  Google Scholar
  22. Öberg, C. (2019): The Role of Business Networks for Innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2), S. 124–128.  Google Scholar
  23. Pera, R./Occhiocupo, N./Clarke, J. (2016): Motives and Resources for Value Co-creation in a Multi-Stakeholder Ecosystem: A Managerial Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), S. 4033–4041.  Google Scholar
  24. Reypens, C./Lievens, A./Blazevic, V. (2020): Hybrid Orchestration in Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Networks: Practices of mobilizing multiple, diverse stakeholders across organizational boundaries. Organization Studies, 42(1), S. 61–83.  Google Scholar
  25. Savage, G./Nix, T./Whitehead, C./Blair, J. (1991): Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational Stakeholders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(2), S. 61–75.  Google Scholar
  26. Stamper, C./Johlke, M. (2003): The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on the Relationship between Boundary Spanner Role Stress and Work Outcomes. Journal of Management, 29(4), S. 569–588.  Google Scholar
  27. Teece, D./Pisano, G./Shuen, A. (1997): Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), S. 509–533.  Google Scholar
  28. Vahlne, J./Jonsson, A. (2017): Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability in the Globalization of the Multinational Business Enterprise (MBE): Case Studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26(1), S. 57–70.  Google Scholar
  29. Wang, C./Rafiq, M. (2014): Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High-Tech firms, in: British Journal of Management, Vol. 25(1) (2014), S. 58–76.  Google Scholar
  30. Weissenberger-Eibl, M. A./Hampel, T. (2019): Absorptive Capacity: Die Fähigkeit zu innovieren. Wissensmanagement, 1(2), S. 42–44.  Google Scholar
  31. Busch, M. (2018): The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations on a Multinational Company’s Corporate Social Responsibility Approach during a Crisis (Dissertation, Strategisches Management). Coventry University.  Google Scholar
  32. Busch, M./Weissenberger-Eibl, M. A. (2020): Mit Ambidexterität durch unruhige Zeiten – Wie können Unternehmen mit organisationaler Ambidexterität den Wandel erfolgreich gestalten? Der Betriebswirt 61 (4), S. 217–230.  Google Scholar
  33. Dabrowska, J./Lopez-Vega, H./Ritala, P. (2019): Waking the Sleeping Beauty: Swarovski’s Open Innovation Journey. R&D Management, Vol. 49(5), S. 775–788.  Google Scholar
  34. Dhanaraj, C./Parkhe, A. (2006): Orchestrating Innovation Networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), S. 659–669.  Google Scholar
  35. Didonet, S./Simmons, G./Díaz-Villavicencio, G./Palmer, M. (2016): Market Orientation’s Boundary-Spanning Role to Support Innovation in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, S. 216–233.  Google Scholar
  36. Ebner, A. (2010): Varieties of Capitalism and the Limits of Entrepreneurship Policy: Institutional Reform in Germany’s Coordinated Market Economy. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 10, S. 319–341.  Google Scholar
  37. Fonseca, L./Azevedo, A. (2020): „COVID-19: Outcomes for Global Supply Chains“, Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 15, No. Special Issue, S. 424–438.  Google Scholar
  38. Freeman, R./Dmytriyev, S./Phillips, R. (2021): Stakeholder Theory and the Resource-Based View of the Firm. Journal of Management, 47(7), S. 1757–1770.  Google Scholar
  39. Freeman, R./Harrison, J./Wicks, A./Parmar, B./Colle, S. (2010): Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  40. Friedman, M. (1970): The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13.  Google Scholar
  41. Heider, A./Gerken, M./van Dinther, N./Hülsbeck, M. (2021): Business Model Innovation through Dynamic Capabilities in Small and Medium Enterprises – Evidence from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Business Research, 130, S. 635–645.  Google Scholar
  42. Kemfert, C. (2021): Klimaurteil gegen Shell – „Signale, dass mit Klimaverschmutzung kein Geld mehr zu machen ist“. [online] Deutschlandfunk. Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/klimaurteil-gegen-shell-signale-dass-mit-klimaverschmutzung-100.html [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  43. Limaj, E./Bernroider, E./Choudrie, J. (2016): The Impact of Social Information System Governance, Utilization, and Capabilities on Absorptive Capacity and Innovation: A Case of Austrian SMEs. Information & Management, 53(3), S. 380–397.  Google Scholar
  44. Loureiro, S./Romero, J./Bilro, R. (2020): Stakeholder Engagement in Co-Creation Processes for Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review and Case Study. Journal of Business Research, 119, S. 388–409.  Google Scholar
  45. Luyet, V./Schlaepfer, R./Parlange, M./Buttler, A. (2012): A Framework to Implement Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 111, S. 213–219.  Google Scholar
  46. Meck, M./Theurer, M. (2021): RWE-Chef im Interview: „Wind und Sonne reichen nicht“. [online] FAZ.NET. Available at: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/rwe-chef-krebber-wind-und-sonne-reichen-nicht-17407016.html [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  47. Mitchell, R. K./Agle, B. R./Wood, D. J. (1997): Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.  Google Scholar
  48. Öberg, C. (2019): The Role of Business Networks for Innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2), S. 124–128.  Google Scholar
  49. Pera, R./Occhiocupo, N./Clarke, J. (2016): Motives and Resources for Value Co-creation in a Multi-Stakeholder Ecosystem: A Managerial Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), S. 4033–4041.  Google Scholar
  50. Reypens, C./Lievens, A./Blazevic, V. (2020): Hybrid Orchestration in Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Networks: Practices of mobilizing multiple, diverse stakeholders across organizational boundaries. Organization Studies, 42(1), S. 61–83.  Google Scholar
  51. Savage, G./Nix, T./Whitehead, C./Blair, J. (1991): Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational Stakeholders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(2), S. 61–75.  Google Scholar
  52. Stamper, C./Johlke, M. (2003): The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on the Relationship between Boundary Spanner Role Stress and Work Outcomes. Journal of Management, 29(4), S. 569–588.  Google Scholar
  53. Teece, D./Pisano, G./Shuen, A. (1997): Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), S. 509–533.  Google Scholar
  54. Vahlne, J./Jonsson, A. (2017): Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability in the Globalization of the Multinational Business Enterprise (MBE): Case Studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26(1), S. 57–70.  Google Scholar
  55. Wang, C./Rafiq, M. (2014): Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High-Tech firms, in: British Journal of Management, Vol. 25(1) (2014), S. 58–76.  Google Scholar
  56. Weissenberger-Eibl, M. A./Hampel, T. (2019): Absorptive Capacity: Die Fähigkeit zu innovieren. Wissensmanagement, 1(2), S. 42–44.  Google Scholar
  57. Aaltonen, K./Kujala, J. (2016): Towards an Improved Understanding of Project Stakeholder Landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), S. 1537–1552.  Google Scholar
  58. Aboelmaged, M./Hashem, G. (2019): Absorptive Capacity and Green Innovation Adoption in SMEs: The Mediating Effects of Sustainable Organisational Capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, S. 853–863.  Google Scholar
  59. Arnold, R./Wade, J. (2015): A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, S. 669–678.  Google Scholar
  60. Bauchmüller, M./Weiß, M. (2021): Klimawandel: Klage gegen RWE erhält neue Argumente. [online] Süddeutsche.de. Available at: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-klimaschutz-rwe-klage-peru-1.5197145 [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  61. Aaltonen, K./Kujala, J. (2016): Towards an Improved Understanding of Project Stakeholder Landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), S. 1537–1552.  Google Scholar
  62. Aboelmaged, M./Hashem, G. (2019): Absorptive Capacity and Green Innovation Adoption in SMEs: The Mediating Effects of Sustainable Organisational Capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, S. 853–863.  Google Scholar
  63. Arnold, R./Wade, J. (2015): A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, S. 669–678.  Google Scholar
  64. Bauchmüller, M./Weiß, M. (2021): Klimawandel: Klage gegen RWE erhält neue Argumente. [online] Süddeutsche.de. Available at: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-klimaschutz-rwe-klage-peru-1.5197145 [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  65. Busch, M. (2018): The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations on a Multinational Company’s Corporate Social Responsibility Approach during a Crisis (Dissertation, Strategisches Management). Coventry University.  Google Scholar
  66. Busch, M./Weissenberger-Eibl, M. A. (2020): Mit Ambidexterität durch unruhige Zeiten – Wie können Unternehmen mit organisationaler Ambidexterität den Wandel erfolgreich gestalten? Der Betriebswirt 61 (4), S. 217–230.  Google Scholar
  67. Dabrowska, J./Lopez-Vega, H./Ritala, P. (2019): Waking the Sleeping Beauty: Swarovski’s Open Innovation Journey. R&D Management, Vol. 49(5), S. 775–788.  Google Scholar
  68. Dhanaraj, C./Parkhe, A. (2006): Orchestrating Innovation Networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), S. 659–669.  Google Scholar
  69. Didonet, S./Simmons, G./Díaz-Villavicencio, G./Palmer, M. (2016): Market Orientation’s Boundary-Spanning Role to Support Innovation in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, S. 216–233.  Google Scholar
  70. Ebner, A. (2010): Varieties of Capitalism and the Limits of Entrepreneurship Policy: Institutional Reform in Germany’s Coordinated Market Economy. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 10, S. 319–341.  Google Scholar
  71. Fonseca, L./Azevedo, A. (2020): „COVID-19: Outcomes for Global Supply Chains“, Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 15, No. Special Issue, S. 424–438.  Google Scholar
  72. Freeman, R./Dmytriyev, S./Phillips, R. (2021): Stakeholder Theory and the Resource-Based View of the Firm. Journal of Management, 47(7), S. 1757–1770.  Google Scholar
  73. Freeman, R./Harrison, J./Wicks, A./Parmar, B./Colle, S. (2010): Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  74. Friedman, M. (1970): The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13.  Google Scholar
  75. Heider, A./Gerken, M./van Dinther, N./Hülsbeck, M. (2021): Business Model Innovation through Dynamic Capabilities in Small and Medium Enterprises – Evidence from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Business Research, 130, S. 635–645.  Google Scholar
  76. Kemfert, C. (2021): Klimaurteil gegen Shell – „Signale, dass mit Klimaverschmutzung kein Geld mehr zu machen ist“. [online] Deutschlandfunk. Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/klimaurteil-gegen-shell-signale-dass-mit-klimaverschmutzung-100.html [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  77. Limaj, E./Bernroider, E./Choudrie, J. (2016): The Impact of Social Information System Governance, Utilization, and Capabilities on Absorptive Capacity and Innovation: A Case of Austrian SMEs. Information & Management, 53(3), S. 380–397.  Google Scholar
  78. Loureiro, S./Romero, J./Bilro, R. (2020): Stakeholder Engagement in Co-Creation Processes for Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review and Case Study. Journal of Business Research, 119, S. 388–409.  Google Scholar
  79. Luyet, V./Schlaepfer, R./Parlange, M./Buttler, A. (2012): A Framework to Implement Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 111, S. 213–219.  Google Scholar
  80. Meck, M./Theurer, M. (2021): RWE-Chef im Interview: „Wind und Sonne reichen nicht“. [online] FAZ.NET. Available at: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/rwe-chef-krebber-wind-und-sonne-reichen-nicht-17407016.html [Accessed 14 November 2021].  Google Scholar
  81. Mitchell, R. K./Agle, B. R./Wood, D. J. (1997): Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.  Google Scholar
  82. Öberg, C. (2019): The Role of Business Networks for Innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2), S. 124–128.  Google Scholar
  83. Pera, R./Occhiocupo, N./Clarke, J. (2016): Motives and Resources for Value Co-creation in a Multi-Stakeholder Ecosystem: A Managerial Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), S. 4033–4041.  Google Scholar
  84. Reypens, C./Lievens, A./Blazevic, V. (2020): Hybrid Orchestration in Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Networks: Practices of mobilizing multiple, diverse stakeholders across organizational boundaries. Organization Studies, 42(1), S. 61–83.  Google Scholar
  85. Savage, G./Nix, T./Whitehead, C./Blair, J. (1991): Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational Stakeholders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(2), S. 61–75.  Google Scholar
  86. Stamper, C./Johlke, M. (2003): The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on the Relationship between Boundary Spanner Role Stress and Work Outcomes. Journal of Management, 29(4), S. 569–588.  Google Scholar
  87. Teece, D./Pisano, G./Shuen, A. (1997): Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), S. 509–533.  Google Scholar
  88. Vahlne, J./Jonsson, A. (2017): Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability in the Globalization of the Multinational Business Enterprise (MBE): Case Studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26(1), S. 57–70.  Google Scholar
  89. Wang, C./Rafiq, M. (2014): Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High-Tech firms, in: British Journal of Management, Vol. 25(1) (2014), S. 58–76.  Google Scholar
  90. Weissenberger-Eibl, M. A./Hampel, T. (2019): Absorptive Capacity: Die Fähigkeit zu innovieren. Wissensmanagement, 1(2), S. 42–44.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Medium-sized companies are under great pressure to change and face the challenge of remaining competitive in volatile organizational environments. Challenges such as digitalization, sustainability and business model adaptations require new and innovative approaches. These challenges require companies to have a deep understanding of how their stakeholders’ expectations are changing and how to effectively involve them.

The aim of this article is to show how an innovation-focused stakeholder navigator can be used to provide a systematic and systemic view of the challenges faced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The navigator serves as an orientation aid that provides an overview of the necessary organizational resources and capabilities, the specific stakeholder expectations and their goals, the geographical scope of the stakeholders, the cooperation potential, and the derived participation strategies.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Malte Busch / Marion A. Weissenberger-Eibl: Mit Stakeholder-Management zu Innovation. Wie können mittelständische Unternehmen durch den Stakeholder-Navigator zu höherer Innovationsperformance gelangen? 1
Abstract 1
Zusammenfassung 2
1. Einführung 2
2. Der innovations-gerichtete Stakeholder-Navigator 4
2.1 Ressourcen und Fähigkeiten (interner Fokus) 5
2.2 Identifikation, Erwartungen und Ziele der Stakeholder (externer Fokus) 6
2.3 Standort (geografische Ausdehnung) 6
2.4 Innovationsnetzwerke 8
2.5 Kooperationspotenzial & Partizipationsstrategien 9
3. Fazit 1
Literatur 1

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.