Skip to main content

Lean Start-up in Established Companies: Potentials and Challenges

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations
  • 1903 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

References

  • Aaboen, L., Dubois, A., & Lind, F. (2012). Capturing processes in longitudinal multiple case studies. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2), 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & Van Rossum, W. (2006). Customer value propositions in business markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, G. (2015). Publishing qualitative versus quantitative research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research Technology Management, 47(1), 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open innovation where we’ve been and where we’re going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, W. H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Wang, D. N., & van Bever, D. (2013). Consulting on the cusp of disruption. Harvard Business Review, 91(10), 106.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goduscheit, R. C. (2014). Innovation promoters—A multiple case study. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (2003). All research is interpretive. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18(6/7), 482–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt, J., & Kirchmann, E. (2001). Teamwork for innovation–the ‘Troika’ of promotors. R & D Management, 31(1), 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M., & Noble, C. H. (2016). Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 613–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 239–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. New Jersey, USA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. (2010). ‘Good’ case research in industrial marketing: Insights from research practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuation with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to René Chester Goduscheit .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics