Organisationsmodelle für Innovation

  • Arbeitskreis Organisation der Schmalenbachgesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e. V.
  • Mark Ebers
Originalartikel
  • 895 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag diskutiert verschiedene aufbauorganisatorische Gestaltungslösungen, die Unternehmen nutzen können, um Produkt- und Geschäftsmodellinnovationen erfolgreich zu entwickeln und umzusetzen. Er argumentiert, dass verschiedene Typen von Produkt- und Geschäftsmodellinnovationen durch unterschiedliche Organisationsformen unterstützt werden müssen, um erfolgreich zu sein. Der Beitrag analysiert drei in Forschung und Praxis als bedeutend identifizierte Organisationsmodelle – das integrierte, kooperative und autonome – in Hinblick auf ihre organisatorische, personelle und finanzwirtschaftliche Steuerung, ihre Anwendungsbedingungen sowie Wirkungen und illustriert sie anhand praktischer Beispiele.

Schlüsselwörter

Innovation Ambidextrie Organisation 

Organizing for Innovation

Abstract

The present paper discusses different organization forms that firms can apply for successfully developing and implementing product and business model innovations. It argues that different types of product and business model innovations need to be supported by distinct organization forms in order to succeed. Providing illustrative practical examples, the paper analyzes three organization forms that are prominent in both theory and praxis – the integrated, cooperative and autonomous form – focusing on their organizational design, human resource requirements and financial control. It moreover delineates important contingencies of their application and pertinent performance consequences.

Keywords

Innovation Ambidexterity Organization 

JEL Klassifikation

L20 M10 O30 

Literatur

  1. Afuah, Allan. 2003. Innovation management: strategies, implementation, and profits, 2. Aufl., New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Afuah, Allan. 2009. Strategic innovation. New game strategies for competitive advantage. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J., und J. Narus. 1990. A model of distributor firm and manufacturing firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing 54(1):42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andriopoulos, Constantine, und Marianne W. Lewis. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20(4):696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antons, David, und Frank T. Piller. 2015. Opening the black box of “not invented here”: attitudes, decision biases, and behavioral consequences. The Academy of Management Perspectives 29(2):193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Associates, W. L. Gore. 2015. Unsere Unternehmenskultur. http://www.gore.com/de_de/careers/whoweare/workinginourculture/gore-company-culture.html. Zugegriffen: 23. Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  7. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku. 2005. Resolving the capability – rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing 69(4):61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baldwin, Carliss, und Eric von Hippel. 2011. Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science 22(6):1399–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barghop, D., H. Reiners, und L.C. Schatilow. 2015. Mit Zukunftsbild zur unternehmerischen Erneuerung (corporate rethinking). In Change Management in Versicherungsunternehmen, Hrsg. G. Zimmermann, 95–108. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Benner, Mary J. 2009. Dynamic or static capabilities? Process management practices and response to technological change. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26(5):473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkinshaw, Julian, und C. Gibson. 2004. Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Review 45(4):47–55.Google Scholar
  12. Block, Z., und I.C. MacMilllan. 1993. Corporate venturing. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  13. Boumgarden, Peter, Jackson Nickerson, und Todd R. Zenger. 2012. Sailing into the wind: exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal 33(6):587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, Shona L., und Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 1997. The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1):1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruce, M., F. Leverick, D. Littler, und D. Wilson. 1995. Success factors for collaborative product development: a study of suppliers of information and communication technology. R&D Management 25(1):33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burgelman, R.A. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: insights from a process study. Management Science 29(12):1349–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burgelman, R.A. 1985. Managing the new venture division: research findings and implications for strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 6(1):39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burns, Tom, und George Macpherson Stalker. 2001. The management of innovation, 3. Aufl., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chemmanur, Thomas J., und Paolo Fulghieri. 2014. Entrepreneurial finance and innovation: an introduction and agenda for future research. Review of Financial Studies 27(1):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chesbrough, Henry, und Richard S. Rosenbloom. 2002. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3):529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen, Wesley M., und Daniel A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1):128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper, Robert G., und Elko J. Kleinschmidt. 1986. An investigation into the new product process: steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management 3(2):71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Covin, Jeffrey G., und P. Miles Morgan. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 23(3):47–63.Google Scholar
  24. Davis, Jason P., Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, und Christopher B. Bingham. 2009. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly 54(3):413–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dougherty, Deborah, und Cynthia Hardy. 1996. Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal 39(5):1120–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ebers, Mark, und Ludger Becker. 2015. Organisation von Innovationen: Balance von Bestands- und neuartigen Geschäften. Audit Committee Quarterly 1:11–13.Google Scholar
  27. Faems, Dries, Maddy Janssens, Anoop Madhok, und Bart van Looy. 2008. Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Academy of Management Journal 51(6):1053–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fagerberg, Jan, und Bart Verspagen. 2009. Innovation studies – the emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy 38(2):218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fast, N.D. 1979. The rise and fall of corporate new venture divisions. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.Google Scholar
  30. Foss, Nicolai J. 2003. Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the oticon spaghetti organization. Organization Science 14(3):331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garrett, Robert P., und Jeffrey G. Covin. 2015. Internal corporate venture operations independence and performance: a knowledge-based perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(4):763–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garud, Raghu, Philipp Tuertscher, und Andrew H. van de Ven. 2013. Perspectives on innovation processes. The Academy of Management Annals 7(1):775–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gassmann, O., und B. Becker. 2006. Towards a resource-based view of corporate incubators. International Journal of Innovation Management 10(1):19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerybadze, Alexander. 1995. Strategic alliances and process redesign: effective management and restructuring of cooperative projects and networks. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gilbert, Clark. 2005. Unbundling the structures of inertia: resources versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal 48(5):741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goold, Michael. 1996. Parenting strategies for the mature business. Long Range Planning 29(3):358–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gulati, Ranjay, Phanish Puranam, und Michael Tushman. 2012. Meta-organization design: rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal 33(6):571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guth, W.D., und A. Ginsberg. 1990. Guest editors’ introduction: corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal 11(5):5–15.Google Scholar
  39. Hauschildt, Jürgen, und Sören Salomo. 2014. Innovationsmanagement, 6. Aufl., München: Vahlen.Google Scholar
  40. Henderson, Rebecca M., und Kim B. Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1):9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoegl, M., und H.G. Gemuenden. 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science 12(4):435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1983. The change masters: innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  43. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1989. When giants learn to dance. Mastering the challenge of strategy, management, and careers in the 1990s. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  44. Katz, Ralph, und Thomas J. Allen. 1982. Investigating the not invented here (nih) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D project groups. R&D Management 12(1):7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lavie, Dovev, Uriel Stettner, und Michael L. Tushman. 2010. Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals 4:109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lavie, Dovev, Jingoo Kang, und Lori Rosenkopf. 2011. Balance within and across domains: the performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization Science 22(6):1517–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lawson, Benn, Kenneth J. Petersen, Paul D. Cousins, und Robert B. Handfield. 2009. Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product development teams: the effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26(2):156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lin, Zhiang, Haibin Yang, und Irem Demirkan. 2007. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science 53(10):1645–1658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Luger, Johannes, Alexander Zimmermann, Michael Schäffer, und Florian Bertram. 2014. Innovation richtig organisieren. Neue Technologien erfolgreich implementieren. Zeitschrift Führung und Organisation (ZFO) 83(5):340–346.Google Scholar
  50. March, James G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1):71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayer, Kyle J., und Nicholas S. Argyres. 2004. Learning to contract: evidence from the personal computer industry. Organization Science 15(4):394–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McGrath, Rita Gunther. 2001. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal 44(1):118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Michl, Theresa, Bernhard Gold, und Arnold Picot. 2013. Managing strategic ambidexterity: the spin-along approach. International Journal of Technology Management 61(1):47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moogk, Dobrila Rancic. 2012. Minimum viable product and the importance of experimentation in technology startups. Technology Innovation Management Review 2(3):23–26.Google Scholar
  55. Nelson, Richard R. 1993. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nooteboom, Bart, Wim van Haverbeke, Geert Duysters, Victor Gilsing, und Ad van den Oord. 2007. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy 36(7):1016–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Osterloh, Margit, Jetta Frost, und Bruno S. Frey. 2002. The dynamics of motivation in new organizational forms. International Journal of the Economics of Business 9(1):61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Reilly III, Charles A., und Michael L. Tushman. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28:185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Reilly III, Charles A., J. Bruce Harreld, und Michael L. Tushman. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: ibm and emerging business opportunities. California Management Review 51(4):75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Reilly III, Charles A., und Michael L. Tushman. 2011. Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. California Management Review 53(4):5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. O’Reilly III, Charles A., und Michael L. Tushman. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives 27(4):324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Poppo, Laura, und Todd R. Zenger. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal 23(8):707–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Porter, M.E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raisch, Sebastian, und Julian Birkinshaw. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management 34(3):375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5. Aufl., New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rohrbeck, R., K. Hölzle, und H.G. Gemünden. 2009a. Opening up for competitive advantage – how deutsche telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management 39(4):420–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rohrbeck, René, Mario Döhler, und Heinrich Arnold. 2009b. Creating growth with externalization of r&d results – the spin-along approach. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 28(4):44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rowe, Peter G. 1987. Design thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Ryall, Michael D., und Rachelle C. Sampson. 2009. Formal contracts in the presence of relational enforcement mechanisms: evidence from technology development projects. Management Science 55(6):906–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sarasvathy, S.D. 2001. Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review 26(2):243–263.Google Scholar
  71. Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional advantage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Schofield, Malcolm, und David Arnold. 1988. Strategies for mature business. Long Range Planning 21(5):69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sharon, James D., Michael J. Leiblein, und Shaohua Lu. 2013. How firms capture value from their innovations. Journal of Management 39(5):1123–1155.Google Scholar
  74. Shipper, Frank, Charles C. Manz, und Greg L. Stewart. 2013. W. L. Gore & associates: developing global teams to meet 21st century challenges. In The management of strategy: concepts and cases, Hrsg. Duane R. Ireland, Robert E. Hoskisson, & Michael A. Hitt, 178–189. Mason, OH: South-Western College Publishing.Google Scholar
  75. Shrader, R.C., und M. Simon. 1997. Corporate versus independent new ventures: resource, strategy, and performance differences. Journal of Business Venturing 12(1):47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stettner, Uriel, und Dovev Lavie. 2014. Ambidexterity under scrutiny: exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal 35(13):1903–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Talke, Katrin. 2007. How a corporate mindset drives product innovativeness. Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft 77(02 (Special Issue)):45–68.Google Scholar
  78. Tushman, Micheal L., und Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38(4):8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vahs, Dietmar, und Ralf Burmester. 2014. Innovationsmanagement. Von der Produktidee zur erfolgreichen Vermarktung, 4. Aufl., Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
  80. Wan, William P., Robert E. Hoskisson, Jeremy C. Short, und Daphne W. Yiu. 2011. Resource-based theory and corporate diversification. Journal of Management 37(5):1335–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. White, Steven. 2005. Cooperation costs, governance choice and alliance evolution. Journal of Management Studies 42(7):1383–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Word, Jeffrey. 2014. SAP HANA essentials, 5. Aufl., Frisco: Epistemy Press.Google Scholar
  83. Zahra, S.A. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: a taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing 8(4):319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zahra, S.A. 1995. Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing 10(3):225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zahra, Shaker A. 1996. Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal 39:1713–1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zenger, Todd R. 2002. Crafting internal hybrids: complementarities, common change initiatives, and the team-based organization. International Journal of the Economics of Business 9(1):79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e.V. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arbeitskreis Organisation der Schmalenbachgesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e. V.
  • Mark Ebers
    • 1
  1. 1.Seminar für ABWL, Unternehmensentwicklung und Organisation, WiSo FakultätUniversität zu KölnKölnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations