Mitigating not-invented-here and not-sold-here problems: The role of corporate innovation hubs

Amann, Marie; Granström, Gabriel; Frishammar, Johan; Elfsberg, Jenny

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102377

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other scholars investigated single aspects of knowledge management. Amann et al (2021) examine the not-invented-here and not-sold-here problems with corporate incubators based on interviews. They identify the causes, the consequences and the mitigating mechanisms.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than a handshake – knowledge transfer in structured corporate–startup collaboration programs

Möllmann

2022

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to review the existing literature on structured corporate–startup collaboration programs (SCSCPs) concerning their objectives and organizational design components. The design components of the program execution are analyzed on how they impact knowledge transfer and how the extant literature on SCSCP considers the knowledge management topic. A new perspective to examine its ramifications will be discussed. Design/methodology/approach Through an integrative literature review, 103 papers on the topic of SCSCP are analyzed about references of objectives and design components of the programs. Findings The literature shows a strong focus on strategic objectives corporations pursue in implementing an SCSCP. The design components can be divided into governance mode, structural decisions, selection of ventures, program execution and follow up. Research limitations/implications The literature review shows a lack of insights into the knowledge transfer process between the corporation and the ventures. Therefore, this study suggests a practice-based, longitudinal perspective on the interaction processes that occur during the program execution of an SCSCP. Originality/value Compared to existing literature reviews, the study takes the corporation’s perspective on incubation and acceleration and reveals design components specific to the corporate forms. Furthermore, SCSCPs center around strategic value generation and the design of the programs can vary highly. It is proposed that knowledge transfer is the central aspect of corporate programs and that a practice-based perspective would enrich the research on knowledge transfer in highly complex setups like this.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than a handshake – knowledge transfer in structured corporate–startup collaboration programs

Möllmann

2022

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The open innovation research has predominantly put emphasis on why firms should open up their boundaries for external collaboration (Bogers et al, 2017(Bogers et al, , 2018Chesbrough, 2003;Tucci et al, 2016) and how organizations adhere to the challenges when moving from closed to open innovation (Amann et al, 2021;Chiaroni et al, 2010Chiaroni et al, , 2011Minshall et al, 2010;Ollila & Elmquist, 2011). Implicitly invented-here syndrome' (Amann et al, 2021) and other organizational obstacles in order to embrace openness. At the same time, there is also an increased awareness among innovation management…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The open innovation research has predominantly put emphasis on why firms should open up their boundaries for external collaboration (Bogers et al, 2017, 2018; Chesbrough, 2003; Tucci et al, 2016) and how organizations adhere to the challenges when moving from closed to open innovation (Amann et al, 2021; Chiaroni et al, 2010, 2011; Minshall et al, 2010; Ollila & Elmquist, 2011). Implicitly or explicitly, this mainstream research promotes openness as inherently superior to closed practices, with the presumption that firms actively should address and eliminate barriers such as the ‘not‐invented‐here syndrome’ (Amann et al, 2021) and other organizational obstacles in order to embrace openness. At the same time, there is also an increased awareness among innovation management scholars that the open innovation concept can be defined in various ways (Groen & Linton, 2010; Mowery, 2009) and encompass of a multitude of forms and implementations (Chesbrough, 2020; Stanko et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation approaches and innovation logics: An empirical study on developing entertaining digital games

Wikhamn,

Styhre

2023

Creat Innov Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper sets out to analyse how game developers create entertaining digital games and, more precisely, what forms of innovation approaches they adopt and why. Based on an empirical study of Swedish game development studios, we conceptualize two different approaches to innovation: a more inward‐oriented and developer‐centric (i.e., closed) approach and a more outward‐oriented and user‐centric (i.e., open) approach. Given that the firms in this study are acting under similar contingencies while adopting very different innovation approaches, we introduce innovation logics as a theoretical concept to understand how founders and managers justify their choice of approach (i.e., open vs. closed). Inspired by the ‘orders of worth’ framework by Boltanski and Thévenot, we highlight two distinctive innovation logics—that is, a creative logic versus an iterative logic—that the interviewees draw on. This paper contributes to the open innovation literature by highlighting two forms of innovation approaches and explaining how and why they differ in terms of ‘openness’ in relation to the surrounding ecosystem.

show abstract

“…However, in this study, we define an innovation ecosystem as a collaborative environment where interconnected but interdependent actors, such as the focal firm, customers, suppliers, startups and other organizations work together to create value. Startups, established companies, investors and academic institutions play a vital role (Adner, 2017;Amann, Granstr€ om, Frishammar, & Elfsberg, 2022). Therefore, collaborative arrangements emerge among participants to aid value creation for each stakeholder (Adner, 2006;Gomes, Facin, Salerno, & Ikenami, 2018;Granstrand & Holgersson, 2019).…”

Section: Open Innovation: From Single Inbound Projects To Ecosystems ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, in the era of OI, established companies face numerous challenges to perform effectively. Amann et al (2022) have identified two challenges: the Not-Invented-Here and Not-Sold-Here problems. These problems are associated with negative attitudes towards absorbing external knowledge or sharing internal knowledge externally.…”

Section: Open Innovation: From Single Inbound Projects To Ecosystems ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Startup engagement: a strategy framework for established companies

Bagno,

O’Connor,

Salerno

et al. 2023

INMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeEstablished companies often engage with startups as a way to improve their innovation performance. While there has been extensive discussion on the reasons, modes, and expected outcomes of these initiatives, there is still a need to understand more about how corporate engagements with startups (CEwS) evolve and how they can enhance a company’s innovation capability. This study proposes a framework of engagement strategies, discussing their purposes and implications to understand the subject better.Design/methodology/approachThis study involved managers from twelve large, established companies across various sectors. The authors used a multicase approach to analyze their experiences and offer a framework for corporate-startup engagement.FindingsThe framework for corporate-startup engagement consists of four main strategies: (1) innovative improvement, (2) R&D expansion, (3) more value to corporate venture capital and (4) ecosystem articulation. The authors found that ecosystem articulation, which combines the potentials of the other three strategies, is the most sophisticated approach.Originality/valueThis study offers a systematic view of the CEwS phenomenon, identifying the various modes of engagement, the reasons for adopting each one and potential ways to advance and improve them. For managers, the study reveals the CEwS as a lever to build innovation capabilities over time.

show abstract

Mitigating not-invented-here and not-sold-here problems: The role of corporate innovation hubs

Cited by 15 publications

References 38 publications

More than a handshake – knowledge transfer in structured corporate–startup collaboration programs

More than a handshake – knowledge transfer in structured corporate–startup collaboration programs

Innovation approaches and innovation logics: An empirical study on developing entertaining digital games

Startup engagement: a strategy framework for established companies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About