Networks of Promotors as Success Factor for Radical Innovations: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings

Abstract

Based on the conceptual framework developed in the previous chapter, this chapter presents empirical findings regarding the role and relevance of transformational leaders like “promotors” and “champions” in innovation networks, and their effect on innovation success. Section 2.1 gives an introduction to state-of-the-art innovation network research, success factor research and open innovation research, as well as linking key findings from these areas to the research agenda of Innovation Communities. Section 2.2 develops the theoretical background and terminology for studying the role of innovators and extends well-known studies on key persons in innovation projects by using a cross-company, network-oriented perspective. The chapter also develops concepts of group interaction and identity and operationalizes the Innovation Community concept for a large-scale survey. In Sect. 2.3, the research hypotheses on innovation communities are developed, and measures for promotor roles, group identity, group interaction, project performance and degree of innovativeness are introduced. Section 2.4 presents the findings of the innovation networks survey. The hypothesized relationships were tested using a comprehensive sample of 107 German networks of companies and research institutions. The results support the proposition that group interaction and group identity factors are significantly higher in successful innovation networks. One important finding of the survey is that innovation communities have a considerable (positive) effect on project performance and overall innovation success, especially in radical innovation projects. These “promotor networks” can be considered to be an important success factor for radical innovation projects. The implications of these findings are discussed in Sect. 2.5.

Appendix

Item list (translated from German)

2.1.1 Promotor Roles

A key actor with a power promotor role…

… supports the innovation project from a higher hierarchical level.

… provides resources and financial support for the innovation project.

… makes significant decisions within the innovation project.

… motivates key actors to participate in inter-organizational exchange.

… sanctions incorrect behaviour by key actors within the project.

… ensures that opponents of the innovation project do not hamper its progress.

A key actor with an expert promotor role …

… provides (technical) know-how.

… pushes innovation-related technological developments forward.

… addresses and solves innovation-related (technical) problems.

… recognizes possibilities for further technological development of products and procedures.

… assesses proposals for solutions and if necessary, develops alternatives.

… questions opinions of the key actors, to ensure the best possible solution.

… initiates new strategies and approaches to project tasks.

A key actor with a process promotor role …

… is familiar with the partners, including knowledge of their modes of operation and corporate cultures.

… assumes a central role in the innovation-related communication process.

… distributes and coordinates the activities relevant to the innovation.

… seeks, filters and saves relevant information and passes them on as appropriate.

… translates and interprets information in the innovation-related communication process.

… ensures that resources and information are used in a controlled and appropriate manner.

… ensures that agreements between the key actors are kept.

… coordinates meeting of key actors.

… picks up on good ideas and makes sure that they match the strategy of the innovation project.

… ensures that deadlines and milestones are met.

A key actor with a relationship promotor role…

… has particularly good personal relationships with all important partners.

… has a particularly good inter-organizational and personal network.

… brings key actors together via his/her relationship network.

… can start cooperative efforts with partners, and support contract negotiations.

… moderates the cooperative effort of the key actors in difficult phases.

… works out compromises between key actors.

… promotes exchange of information between key actors to an especially high degree.

… ensures that all partners can contribute their ideas and opinions.

… ensures that personal conflicts do not negatively affect the project.

… initiates activities to improve the relationships between key actors.

2.1.2 Group Identity

Response scale: 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’

Boundary clarity:

• 1. The group of key actors behaves like a team.

• 2. The key actors see themselves as “insiders”.

• 3. The group of key actors is definitely perceived as an entity by outsiders.

• 4. All key actors currently involved fit into the group very well.

• 5. Every member of the group knows exactly who is member of the group and who is not.

• 6. The group of key actors is very stable, so there is little fluctuation.

External connectivity:

• 1. The group of key actors has a close exchange with other groups.

• 2. The group of key actors has many links to other partners or networks.

• 3. The group of key actors is open for new or additional partners or members.

• 4. Group members have access to contacts with relevant (technical) expertise concerning the radical innovation project.

• 5. Group members have very good access to decision-makers who are important for the radical innovation project.

Cohesion:

• 1. For the key actors, it is important to be part of the project.

• 2. The key actors are strongly tied to the project.

• 3. Every key actor is fully integrated into the group.

• 4. There are no personal conflicts within the group.

• 5. There is a personal affinity amongst the key actors.

• 6. The network is characterized by a strong personal cohesion amongst the key actors.

• 7. Each protagonist is proud to be a part of the group.

Common language and understanding:

• 1. The key actors agree upon the importance of the innovation.

• 2. The key actors use the same “language” (the same terminology, technical language etc.).

• 3. There are no conflicts due to conceptual misunderstandings.

Cooperative working atmosphere:

• 1. There is an atmosphere of confident amongst the key actors.

• 2. There is a cooperative working atmosphere in this group.

• 3. All members of the group can express their opinions openly.

• 4. The members of the group share ideas without being called upon to do so; they feel free to share their ideas.

Cognitive similarity:

• 1. The key actors are similar in terms of education and professional career.

• 2. The key actors are similar regarding occupational roles, functions or tasks.

• 3. The key actors have similar beliefs and opinions.

• 4. The key actors have a common “world view”.

2.1.3 Group Interaction

Response scale: 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’

Communication:

• 1. There is frequent communication between the key actors.

• 2. The key actors frequently communicate directly or personally.

• 3. The key actors frequently communicate in spontaneous meetings or telephone calls.

• 4. Project-relevant information is communicated and shared openly.

• 5. In given situations, important information is not withheld from others.

• 6. The key actors are satisfied with the information received from other members of the group.

• 7. Communication takes place even without the consent or knowledge of higher authorities.

• 8. Information circulates rapidly within the group of key actors.

• 9. It is easy to get answers to difficult questions within the group.

Coordination:

• 1. Clear goals that are understood by all are defined within the project.

• 2. These goals are generally accepted.

Balance of member contributions:

• 1. There is a balance in the contributions of the key actors.

• 2. The members of the group recognized the specific strengths and weaknesses of individual group members.

• 3. The key actors contribute to the achievement of the goals in accordance with their individual potentials.

Mutual support:

• 1. The key actors support each other as best as they can.

• 2. If conflicts arise, they are resolved easily and quickly.

• 3. Discussions and controversies are conducted constructively.

• 4. Suggestions and contributions from group members are dealt with and discussed respectfully.

• 5. The group is able to reach a consensus regarding important issues.

Effort:

• 1. Each of the key actors fully supports the innovation project.

• 2. The innovation project has the highest priority for each of the key actors.

• 3. The innovation project is important for the key actors as a group.

2.1.4 Project Performance

Response scale: 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’

• 1. Until now, the radical innovation project has been very successful (effectiveness).

• 2. The project results so far were of high quality (effectiveness).

• 3. The key actors of the network are satisfied with the present result (effectiveness).

• 4. Until now, the product has required little rework (effectiveness).

• 5. For now, everything indicates a future success of the radical innovation (effectiveness).

• 6. Until now, all goals regarding the radical innovation project were achieved (efficiency).

• 7. From the network's perspective, one can be satisfied with how the project progressed (efficiency).

• 8. Until now, the project has been cost-efficient (efficiency).

• 9. The project is within schedule (efficiency).

• 10. The project is within budget (efficiency).

2.1.5 Project Innovativeness

Response scale: 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’

• 1. The technology included in the innovation is/was very new to us and to our partners (technology).

• 2. The technology included in the innovation has replaced technologies used so far (technology).

• 3. The innovation is based on technological knowledge we have had very little experience with (technology).

• 4. The design of the innovation is based to a very low degree on technology already utilized (technology).

• 5. We have virtually no experience with the technical components used in the innovation (technology).

• 6. The innovation appeals to many customers whom we do not yet serve (market).

• 7. The innovation provides completely new customer benefits (market).

• 8. The innovation requires new cooperative efforts with market partners that we do not have yet (organization).

• 9. The innovation requires skills that the (network) management has not aquired so far (organization).