Venturing for Commercialization of R&D Results

  • Heinrich Arnold
  • Michael Erner
  • Peter Möckel
  • Christopher Schläffer


In the current rapidly changing environment of the telecommunications industry – an environment that offers a multitude of prominent directions in technological and market development – it is essential to drive innovation and extend the portfolio of business areas. Deutsche Telekom Laboratories supports the creation of new business fields with a venturing approach that allows for external commercialization of R&D results. In collaboration with a network of external partners, R&D results are spun out, developed externally, and, if successful, spun back in.


Recombination Marketing Exter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Birkinshaw, J. 1997. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations, The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal 18: 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burgelman, R. A. 1983a. A Model of the Interaction of Strategic Behavior, Corporate Context, and the Concept of Strategy. Academy of Management Review 8: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgelman, R. A. 1983b. A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28: 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgelman, R. A. and Valikangas, L. 2005. Managing internal corporate – Venturing cycles. Mit Sloan Management Review 46: 26–.Google Scholar
  5. Carrier, C. 1996. Entrepreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 21:5–20.Google Scholar
  6. Chandy, R. K. and Tellis, G J. 2000. The Incumbent’s Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing 64: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesbrough, H. 2000. Designing Corporate Ventures in the Shadow of Private Venture Capital. California Management Review 42: 3–49.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, K. S. 2004. A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella: labels and perspectives. International Journal of Management & Enterprise Development 1: 1–1.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, W. M., Levin, R. C. and Mowery, D. C. 1987. Firm Size and R & D Intensity: A Re-Examination. The Journal of Industrial Economics 35: 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dushnitsky, G. and Lenox, M. J. 2005. When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal 26: 947–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EIRMA. 2003. Innovation Through Spinning In and Out. Research Technology Management 46: 63–64.Google Scholar
  12. Ernst, H., Witt, P., and Brachtendorf, G. 2005. Corporate venture capital as a strategy for external innovation: an exploratory empirical study. R & D Management 35: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freese, B. 2006. Corporate-venture-Capital-Einheiten als Wissensbroker: empirische Untersuchung interorganisationaler Beziehungen zwischen Industrie- und Start-up-Unternehmen. Dt. Univ.-Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, C., Bower, J.L. 2002. Disruptive Change – When trying harder is part of the problem. Harvard Business Review 80: 95–101.Google Scholar
  15. Keil, T. 2004. Building External Corporate Venturing Capability. Journal of Management Studies 41: 799–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maula, M., Autio, E. and Murray, G. 2005. Corporate Venture Capitalists and Independent Venture Capitalists: What do they know, Who do They Know and Should Entrepreneurs Care? Venture Capital 7: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miles, M. P. and Covin, J. G. 2002. Exploring the Practice of Corporate Venturing: Some Common Forms and Their Organizational Implications, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 26: 21–40.Google Scholar
  18. Rohrbeck, R. and Arnold, H. M. 2006. Making university-industry collaboration work – a case study on the Deutsche Telekom Laboratories contrasted with findings in literature. ISPIM Annual Conference: “Networks for Innovation”, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  19. Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J. and Keil, T. 2005. Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 29: 493–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J. J. 1999. Toward a Reconciliation of the Definitional Issues in the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 23: 11–27.Google Scholar
  21. Siegel, R., Siegel, E. and MacMillan, I C. 1988. Corporate Venture Capitalists: Autonomy, Obstacles, and Performance. Journal of Business Venturing 3: 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tidd, J. and Barnes, S. 2000. Spin-in or spin-out? Corporate venturing in life sciences. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 1: 109–116.Google Scholar
  23. Zahra, S. A. 1993. Environment, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Financial Performance – a Taxonomic Approach. Journal of Business Venturing 8: 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zahra, S. A. 1995. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Financial Performance – the Case of Management Leveraged Buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing 10: 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zahra, S. A. 1996a. Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal 39: 1713–1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zahra, S. A. 1996b. Technology strategy and financial performance: Examining the moderating role of the firm’s competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing 11: 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinrich Arnold
    • 1
  • Michael Erner
    • 1
  • Peter Möckel
    • 1
  • Christopher Schläffer
    • 2
  1. 1.LaboratoriesDeutsche Telekom AGBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Deutsche Telekom AGBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations