Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unternehmerische Chancen in dem frühen Entwicklungsprozess akademischer Spin-Offs

Der Einfluss des Humankapitals im Kontext des wissensbasierten Ansatzes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Fallstudien zur Gründung und Entwicklung innovationsorientierter Unternehmen

  • 5320 Accesses

Überblick

Akademische Spin-Offs sind gewerbliche Ausgründungen von Hochschulabsolventen oder Mitarbeitern öffentlicher Forschungseinrichtungen. Mittels der Kommerzialisierung von Technologien aus der akademischen Mutterorganisation können derartige Unternehmen einen wertvollen Beitrag zum technologischen und ökonomischen Fortschritt einer Volkswirtschaft leisten. Voraussetzung für die Entstehung entsprechender Effekte ist die Identifikation unternehmerischer Chancen und deren erfolgreiche Überführung in marktfähige Anwendungen. In diesem Zusammenhang ist das Humankapital der Gründer von höchster Relevanz. In Abhängigkeit des Humankapitals ergeben sich unterschiedliche Erfolgspotentiale für ein akademisches Spin-Off. Dessen Bedeutung muss jedoch mit dem Entwicklungsprozess eines akademischen Spin-Offs und in Abhängigkeit zu der Natur einer Chance differenziert betrachtet werden.

Bezugnehmend fokussiert die vorliegende ganzheitliche und explorativ ausgerichtete Studie konzeptionelle und methodische Grundlagen zu der Beziehung des Humankapitals akademischer Spin-Offs und dem Umgang mit unternehmerischen Chancen. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist diese Untersuchung in der klassischen Entrepreneurship-Forschung zu verorten. Der Bezugsrahmen erstreckt sich über die Analyse der frühen Phasen des Entwicklungsprozesses akademischer Ausgründungen und untersucht hierbei die differenzierte Bedeutung des Humankapitals im Zeitverlauf und dessen determinierende Wirkung auf die Natur einer Chance. Anhand einer Fallstudie über ein akademisches Spin-Off im frühen Entwicklungsstadium werden diese Zusammenhänge dezidiert aufgezeigt. Gleichzeitig werden basistheoretische Annahmen im Kontext des wissensbasierten Ansatzes analysiert und hinterfragt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Häufig verwendete Synonyme in diesem Zusammenhang sind „university spin-off“ und „university spin-out“ (USO) (vgl. bspw. [61], S. 874 und [85], S. 147).

  2. 2.

    U.a. der wissensbasierte Ansatz („knowledge-based-view“), der Kernkompetenzansatz („competence-based-view“) und der Ansatz der dynamischen Fähigkeiten („dynamic-capabilities“) (vgl. bspw. [33], [65] und [90]).

  3. 3.

    Ausnahmen bilden bspw. Liebeskind ([50]), Grant ([32]) und Spender ([85]). Dennoch bedienen sich diese Autoren auch des epistemologischen Ansatzes.

  4. 4.

    Im Deutschen werden häufig die Begriffe verborgenes, stilles oder implizites Wissen als Synonym verwendet.

  5. 5.

    Harper ([36], S. 617) folgend, besteht ein Gründerteam aus Individuen, die ein gemeinsames Ziel verfolgen, welches erst unter optimalem Einsatz individueller unternehmerischer Tätigkeiten erzielt werden kann.

  6. 6.

    Für einen Überblick bisheriger Ergebnisse vgl. u. a. Colombo und Grilli ([14], S. 797–799).

  7. 7.

    Für Definitionen des Begriffes „Grundlagenforschung“ vgl. u. a. Salter und Martin ([69]) und OECD ([60])

  8. 8.

    Vor- und Nachteile von Planungsdokumenten sind bei Dencker et al. ([21], S. 520) nachzulesen.

Literatur

  1. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (2005) Entrepreneurship, innovation, and technological Change. Now Publishers Inc, Hannover

    Google Scholar 

  2. Balconi M (2002) Tacitness, codification of technological knowledge and the organisation of industry. Research Policy Jg 31:357–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17:99–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Becker GS (1975) Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bercovitz J, Feldmann M (2006) Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. J Technol Transfer 31(1):175–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bosma N, Van Praag M, Thurik R, De Wit G (2004) The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of startups. Small Bus Econ 23:227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bower DJ (2003) Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm. R D Management 33(2):97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Breznitz SM, O’Shea RP, Allen TJ (2008) University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters. J Prod Innovat Manag 25:129–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brüderl J, Preisendörfer P, Ziegler R (1992) Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. Am Sociol Rev 57(2):227–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chandler GN, Jansen E (1992) The Founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance. J Bus Ventur 7:223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chandy RK, Tellis GJ (1998) Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. J Marketing Res 35:474–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chesbrough H, Rosenbloom RS (2002) The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind Corp Change 11(3):529–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chiesa V, Piccaluga A (2000) Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. J Bus Ventur 19(1):55–79

    Google Scholar 

  14. Colombo MG, Grilli L (2005) Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: a competence-based view. Res Pol 34(6):795–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Companys YE, McMullen JS (2007) Strategic entrepreneurs at work: the nature, discovery, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Small Bus Econ 28:301–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Conner KR, Prahalad CK (1996) A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organ Sci 7(5):477–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooper AC, Gimeno-Gascon FJ, Woo CY (1994) Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. J Bus Ventur 9(5):371–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Danneels E (2004) Disruptive technology reconsidered: a critique and research agenda. The J. Prod. Innov. Manage 21:246–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Davidsson P, Honig B (2003) The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. J Bus Ventur 18:301–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Delmar F, Shane S (2003) Does business-planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strateg Manag J 24:1165–1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dencker JC, Gruber M, Shah SK (2009) Pre-entry knowledge, learning, and the survival of new firms. Organ Sci 20(3):516–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Djokovic D, Souitaris V (2008) Spinouts from academic Institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research. J Technol Transfer 33:225–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res Pol 11:147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dosi G (1988) Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J Econ Lit 26(3):1120–1171

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dunn P, Cheatham L (1993) Fundamentals of small business financial management for start Up, survival, growth, and changing economic circumstances. Managerial Finance 19(8):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eckhardt JT, Shane SA (2003) Opportunities and entrepreneurship. J Manage 29(3):333–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550

    Google Scholar 

  28. Eisenhardt KM, Santos FM (2002) Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy? In: Pettigrew A, Thomas H, Whittington R (Hrsg) Handbook of strategy and management. Sage, London, UK, S 139–164

    Google Scholar 

  29. Franklin S, Wright M, Lockett A (2001) Academic and Surrogate Entrepreneurs in University Spin-out Companies. J Technol Transfer 6(1-2):127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gimeno J, Folta TB et al (1997) Survival of the fittest? entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Adm Sci Q 42(4):750–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grant R (2002) The knowledge-based view of the firm. In: Choo CW, Bontis N (Hrsg) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York, S 133–148

    Google Scholar 

  32. Grant RM (1996a) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7(4):375–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grant RM (1996b) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J 17(Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm):109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gruber M (2007) Uncovering the value of planning in new venture creation: A process and Contingency Perspective. J Bus Ventur 22(6):782–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gruber M, MacMillan IC, Thompson JD (2008) Look before you leap: market opportunity identification in emerging technology firms. Manage Sci 54(9):1652–1665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Harper DA (2008) Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. J Bus Ventur 23:613–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hatch NW, Dyer JH (2004) Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strateg Manag J 25(12):1155–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Heirman A, Clarysse B (2004) How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. J Technol Transfer 29(3/4):247–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg Manag J 24(10):997–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Helmers C, Rogers M (2011) Does patenting help high-tech start-ups? Res Pol 40:1016–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT (2003) The performance of incubent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manage Rev 28(2):257–274

    Google Scholar 

  42. Honig B, Karlsson T (2004) Institutional forces and the written business Plan. J Manage 30(1):29–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the Literatures. Organ Sci 2(1):88–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kazanjian RK, Drazin R (1990) A stage-contingent model of design and growth for technology based new ventures. J Bus Ventur 5(3):137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kirzner IM (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. J Econ Lit 35:60–85

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kock A, Gemünden HG, Salomo S, Schultz C (2011) The mixed blessings of technological innovativeness for the commercial success of new products. J Prod Innov Manage 28:28–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ Sci 3(3):383–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lane PJ, Lubatkin M (1998) Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strateg Manag J 19:461–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Leonard-Barton D (1990) A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organ Sci 1(3):248–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Liebeskind JP (1996) Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J 17(Knowledge and the Firm):93–107

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lockett A, Wright M (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res Pol 34:1043–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lockett A, Wright M, Franklin S (2003) Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Bus Econ 20:185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Marvel MR, Lumpkin GT (2007) Technology entrepreneurs’ human capital and its effect on innovation radicalness. Entrep Theor Pract 31(6):807–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. McDermott CM, Colarelli O’ConnorG (2002) Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. J Prod Innov Manage 19:424–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. McEvily SK, Chakravarthy B (2002) The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strateg Manag J 23(4):285–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mian SA (1997) Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. J Bus Ventur 12:251–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mosey S, Wright M (2007) From human capital to social capital: a longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrep Theor Pract 31(6):909–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ndonzuau FN, Pirnay F, Surlemont B (2002) A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation 22:281–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Nicolaou N, Birley S (2003) Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. J Bus Ventur 18(3):333–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. OECD (2002) The measurement of scientific and technological activities. proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Frascati Manual. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  61. Patel PC, Fiet JO (2011) Knowledge combination and the potential advantages of family firms in searching for opportunities. Entrep Theor Pract 35(6):1179–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  63. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB et al (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. Anchor Day Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  65. Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporate. Harv Bus Rev 68(3):79–91

    Google Scholar 

  66. Priem RL, Butler JE (2001) Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Acad Manage Rev 26(1):22–40

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rappert B, Webster A, Charles D (1999) Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Res Pol 28(8):873–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Reed R, DeFillippi RJ (1990) Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 15(1):88–102

    Google Scholar 

  69. Salter AJ, Martin BR (2001) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res Pol 30:509–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Samuelsson M, Davidsson P (2009) Does venture opportunity variation matter? investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures. Small Bus Econ 33:229–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Schmidt A, Heinrichs S, Walter A (2011) Technologiebasierte Spin-offs - Ein Forschungsüberblick zu Einflussgrößen ihrer Entwicklung. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 81(6):677–714

    Google Scholar 

  72. Scott M, Bruce R (1987) Five stages of growth in small business. Long Range Plan 20(3):45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Sexton D, Bowman-Upton N (1991) Entrepreneurship: Creativity and Growth. MacMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  74. Shane S (2000) Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ Sci 11(4):448–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Shane S (2001a) Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Manage Sci 47(2):205–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manage Rev 25(1):217–226

    Google Scholar 

  77. Shane S, Stuart T (2002) Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Manage Sci 48:154–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Shepherd DA, DeTienne DR (2005) Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrep Theor Pract 29(1):91–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Simonin BL (1999) Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strateg Manag J 20(7):595–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Singh R (2001) A comment on developing the field of entrepreneurship through the study of opportunity recognition and exploitation. Acad Manage Rev 26(1):10–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Smilor RW, Gibson DV, Dietrich GB (1990) University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. J Bus Ventur 5(1):63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Smith BR, Matthews CH, Schenkel MT (2009) Differences in entrepreneurial opportunities: the role of tacitness and codification in opportunity identification. J Small Bus Manag 47(1):38–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Smith KG, Mitchell TR, Summer CE (1985) Top level management priorities in different stages of the organizational life cycle. Acad Manage J 28(4):799–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Spender JC (1989) Industry recipes: an enquiry into the nature and sources of managerial judgement. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  85. Spender JC (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J 17(Winter Special Issue):45–62

    Google Scholar 

  86. Steffensen M, Rogers EM, Speakman K (1999) Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. J Bus Ventur 15:93–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Sternitzke C (2010) Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations. Res Pol 39:810–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Stuart TE, Hoang H et al (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Adm Sci Q 44(2):315–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (Sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Teece DJ, Pisano G et al (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Ucbasaran D, Westhead P, Wright M (2008) Opportunity identification and pursuit: does an entrepreneur’s human capital matter? Small Bus Econ 30:153–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Ucbasaran D, Westhead P, Wright M (2009) The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. J Bus Ventur 24:99–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Unger JM, Rauch A, Frese M, Rosenbusch N (2011) Human capital and entrepreneurial success: a meta-analytical review. J Bus Ventur 26:341–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Vanaelst I, Clarysse B, Wright M, Lockett A, Moray N, S’Jegers R (2006) Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: an examination of team heterogenity. Entrep Theor Pract 30(2):249–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Van deVAH, Hudson R, Schroeder DM (1984) Designing new business startups: entrepreneurial, organizational, and ecological considerations. J Manage 10(1):87–107

    Google Scholar 

  96. Veryzer RWJ (1998) Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. J Prod Innov Manage 15(4):304–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Pol 33(1):147–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5:171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wiklund J, Shepherd D (2003) Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strateg Manag J 24(13):1307–1314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Winter S (1987) Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In: Teece D (Hrsg) The Competitive Challenge-Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Ballinger

    Google Scholar 

  101. Winter SG, Szulanski G (2001) Replication as strategy. Organ Sci 12(6):730–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Wright M, Vohora A, Lockett A (2004) The formation of high-tech university spinouts: the role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. J Technol Transfer 29(3/4):287–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Wright M, Hmieleski KM, Siegel DS, Ensley MD (2007) The Role of human capital in technological entrepreneurship. Entrep Theor Pract 31(6):791–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Yin RK (1981) The Case study crisis: some answers. Adm Sci Q 26(1):58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Yin RK (2003) Case study research. Design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  106. Zahra SA, Van de Velde E, Larrañeta B (2007) Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Ind Corp Change 16(4):569–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Zander U, Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organ Sci 6(1):76–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, Westring 425, 24118, Kiel, Deutschland

    Andreas Winkelbach

Authors
  1. Andreas Winkelbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Winkelbach .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Lehrstuhl für Gründungs- und Innovationsmanagement, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany

    Achim Walter

  2. Zentrum für Entrepreneurship, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany

    Anke Rasmus

  3. TRUMPF Werkzeugmaschinen GmbH + Co. KG, Ditzingen, Germany

    Felix Riesenhuber

  4. Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG, Frankfurt a.M., Germany

    Jens Schmidthals

  5. Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany

    Petra Dickel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Winkelbach, A. (2014). Unternehmerische Chancen in dem frühen Entwicklungsprozess akademischer Spin-Offs. In: Walter, A., Rasmus, A., Riesenhuber, F., Schmidthals, J., Dickel, P. (eds) Fallstudien zur Gründung und Entwicklung innovationsorientierter Unternehmen. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03598-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03598-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-03597-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-03598-3

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation