Innovation Management and Digitization: Will Everything Remain Different?

Nestle, Volker

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57642-4_3

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Human Factors and Business Technology Management (Btm)1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The resulting environments and spaces have numerous labels and orientations (e.g. living lab, design lab, maker space, innovation intermediary, innovation platform and hackathons) (Nestle et al ., 2021) are established for internal and/or for external purposes and can have different characteristics (e.g. Nyström et al ., 2014: ambidexterity, reciprocity, temporality and multiplicity).…”

Section: Human Factors and Business Technology Management (Btm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guest editorial: Human factors in business technology management

Rehman,

Shah,

Danzinger

et al. 2023

EMJB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Human Factors and Business Technology Management (Btm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guest editorial: Human factors in business technology management

Rehman,

Shah,

Danzinger

et al. 2023

EMJB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical interaction platforms: A taxonomy of spaces for interactive value creation

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical interaction platforms (PIPs) such as living labs, innovation hubs and fab labs can play a key role for complex innovation tasks in the context of grand challenges. Although research focuses predominantly on aspects like collaboration within and organization of these spaces, little research has shed light on the development process of the PIP itself. This paper aims to contribute to innovation literature by identifying essential dimensions for the design and sustainable operation of PIPs. We use and transfer conceptual knowledge and empirical evidence in an iterative taxonomy development process. Five iterations were performed: (1) initial screening of PIPs, (2) an expert workshop, systematic literature reviews on (3) platform classifications and (4) on platform‐mediated value creation, and (5) a taxonomy evaluation by practitioners. The resulting PIP taxonomy consists of 18 design dimensions summarized in five groups: physical architecture, platform actors, key‐value propositions, value creation and revenue logic. It contributes with (1) a tangible framework for PIP concept development building on established design dimensions from platform‐, business model‐ and value creation literature. (2) It emphasizes criteria that require thorough reflection in the design phase (e.g., IP rights), enabling practitioners to identify and overcome critical issues early.

show abstract

Innovation Management and Digitization: Will Everything Remain Different?

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

Guest editorial: Human factors in business technology management

Guest editorial: Human factors in business technology management

Physical interaction platforms: A taxonomy of spaces for interactive value creation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About