Abstract
Lean start-up is an emergent perspective on how entrepreneurs can bring new products and services to the market. This approach challenges the dominant role of lengthy business plans, linear product development processes, and seeking complete overview of the potential of the new products/services before market launch. Instead it suggests that start-ups could benefit from a ‘minimum-viable product’ approach where products and services are launched when they contain critical features. The emphasis in the lean start-up approach is on business models rather than the elaborate business plan. This chapter is based on the in-depth case studies from three established companies that have all sought to employ a minimum-viable product approach to developing and launching new products. The data will consist of rich interview data from the three companies and observations from various events at the companies (strategy meetings, development workshops etc.). The aim is to shed light on the implications for companies that seek to employ lean start-up. These implications will be aimed at aspects like innovation management, organizational structure, customer relations etc.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aaboen, L., Dubois, A., & Lind, F. (2012). Capturing processes in longitudinal multiple case studies. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2), 235–246.
Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & Van Rossum, W. (2006). Customer value propositions in business markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 90.
Barczak, G. (2015). Publishing qualitative versus quantitative research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 658.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.
Berends, H., Smits, A., Reymen, I., & Podoynitsyna, K. (2016). Learning while (re)configuring: Business model innovation processes in established firms. Strategic Organization, 14(3), 181–219.
Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 64.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.
Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research Technology Management, 47(1), 23–26.
Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open innovation where we’ve been and where we’re going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20–27.
Chesbrough, W. H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press.
Christensen, C. M., Wang, D. N., & van Bever, D. (2013). Consulting on the cusp of disruption. Harvard Business Review, 91(10), 106.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.
Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Praeger.
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. (2008). Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 317–338.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.
Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S., & Hölzle, K. (2007). Role models for radical innovations in times of open innovation. Creativity & Innovation Management, 16(4), 408–421.
Goduscheit, R. C. (2014). Innovation promoters—A multiple case study. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 525–543.
Gummesson, E. (2003). All research is interpretive. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18(6/7), 482–492.
Habtay, S. R. (2012). A firm-level analysis on the relative difference between technology-driven and market-driven disruptive business model innovations. Creativity & Innovation Management, 21(3), 290–303.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716.
Hauschildt, J., & Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation–the ‘Troika’ of promotors. R & D Management, 31(1), 41–49.
Kumar, M., & Noble, C. H. (2016). Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 613–620.
Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.
Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 239–245.
Noble, C. H., & Kumar, M. (2010). Exploring the appeal of product design: A grounded, Value-based model of key design elements and relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), 640–657.
O’Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2013). New market creation for breakthrough innovations: Enabling and constraining mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 209–227.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. New Jersey, USA: Wiley.
Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. (2010). ‘Good’ case research in industrial marketing: Insights from research practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 109–117.
Pullen, A. J., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Groen, A. J., & Fisscher, O. A. (2012). Open innovation in practice: Goal complementarity and closed NPD networks to explain differences in innovation performance for SMEs in the medical devices sector. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 917–934.
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuation with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 172–194.
van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6–7), 423–437.
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Towards a dialectic perspective on formalization in interorganizational relationships: How alliance managers capitalize on the duality inherent in contracts. Rules and Procedures. Organization Studies, 28(4), 437–466.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goduscheit, R.C. (2018). Lean Start-up in Established Companies: Potentials and Challenges. In: Boccardelli, P., Annosi, M., Brunetta, F., Magnusson, M. (eds) Learning and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62467-9_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62467-9_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62466-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62467-9
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)