Deutsche Telekom Laboratories as a Testbed for Modern Technology and Innovation Management

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


Deutsche Telekom Laboratories has been set up with the ambition to be one of the leading places for corporate research and innovation in the industry. Consequently, not only the topics that are being worked on must be leading edge but also the way in which work is done. Scientific research in innovation research and management science as well as operational specifics and practical experience are the foundation of applied technology and innovation management at Telekom Laboratories. Telekom Laboratories has completed its first five years of operation – sufficient time to validate which approaches proved successful and which not. In this sense, the implementation and innovation management oriented “Innovation Development” unit of Telekom Laboratories1 has proved a very successful and extraordinary testbed for advanced methods in the management of technology and innovation coming from science (Yin 2008) and, as such, has already frequently been the subject of innovation researchers’ investigations. The methods and tools in this book are all described by the Telekom Laboratories experts themselves, who took findings from science, made them practically applicable as tools, methods, and instruments, and validated their applicability through years of use. In this sense, this work is the result of a participatory test of hypotheses on how modern technology and innovation management should work.


Blin Kreis Picot 
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. Arnold, H. M. 2003. Technology Shocks: Origins, Managerial Responses, and Firm Performance. Physica-Verlag Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K. B. 1997. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review 75(5): 84–93.Google Scholar
  3. Christensen, C. M. and Raynor, M. E. 2003. The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  4. Lam, A. 2007. Knowledge networks and careers: Academic scientists in industry-university links. Journal of Management Studies 44(6): 993–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lambert, R. 2003. Lambert Review of Business–University Collaboration: Final Report.Google Scholar
  6. Leydesdorff, L. and Meyer, M. 2006. Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems. Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy 35(10): 1441–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mintzberg, H. 1989. Mintzberg on management inside our strange world of organizations. Free Press et al.: New York.Google Scholar
  8. Mittelstraß, J. 1994. Die unzeitgemäße Universität. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  9. Münch, R. 2007. Die akademische Elite. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  10. Picot, A. and Doeblin, S. Ed. 2009. Innovationsführerschaft durch Open Innovation, Chancen für die Telekommunikations-, IT- und Medienindustrie. Münchner Kreis, Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  11. Picot, A. and Schneider, D. 1988. Unternehmerisches Innovationsverhalten, Verfuegungsrechte und Transaktionskosten. Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Theorie der Verfügungsrechte, ed. D. Budäus, E. Gerum and G. Zimmermann, 91–118. Gabler: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  12. Presse, V., Steinhoff, F. et al. 2008. User clinics as efficient tool for identifying and addressing segment-specific customer requirements in R&D projects. R&D Management Conference: Emerging methods in R&D management, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. 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, Greece.Google Scholar
  14. Saez, C. B., Marco, T. G. et al. (2002). Collaboration in R&D with universities and research centres: an empirical study of Spanish firms. R & D Management 32(4): 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schumpeter, J. A. and Röpke, J. 2006. Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Duncker & Humblot: Berlin.Google Scholar
  16. Spiegel Online. 2008. Exportweltmeister für Ideen: In Deutschland erfunden, in Japan gebaut. EINESTAGES. September 3, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. von Eggelkraut-Gottanka, Thomas. 2009. What does indoor location tell us about interpersonal communication? – An analysis using real-time location tracking data. Presented at KITES-Cespri, University of Bocconi, Italy.Google Scholar
  18. von Eggelkraut-Gottanka, Thomas. 2009. The daily working behavior of R&D personnel: An Analysis of mobility patterns and communication using real-time location tracking data. DRUID-DIME Winter Conference, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  19. von Eggelkraut-Gottanka, Thomas. 2008. Analyzing communication behavior and communication networks in the context of R&D. Presented at Deutsche Telekom Laboratories, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  20. Yin, R. 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods).Google Scholar
  21. Zerdick, A. 2001. Die Internet-Ökonomie: Strategien für die digitale Wirtschaft. Springer.Google 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