Implementing Open Innovation to Benefit from External Dynamics of Innovation

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


Innovation spaces of telco operators and web-based IP services converge; innovation in the telco domain is no longer restricted to operators and their suppliers. It is increasingly brought about by the millions of additional developers of web-based IP services and new IP equipment manufacturers. The choice of alternative technological paths is skyrocketing and renders the traditional closed approach of corporate R&D obsolete. Obviously, competing for the best innovation with the outside world is less an alternative for telco operators than ever before. The challenge for corporations now is to make maximum use of the innovative dynamics around them. Open Innovation is one approach that aims at making the corporation’s borders transparent enough for external contributions, while at the same time limiting the risks of reduced control over the innovation process.


Marketing Arena 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. Albers, S. and O. Gassmann (2005). Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement. Handbuch Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement: Strategie- Umsetzung- Controlling. S. Albers and O. Gassmann. Wiesbaden, Gabler: 3–22.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, H. and M. Dunaj (2007). Enterprise Architecture and Modularization in Telco R&D as a Response to an Environment of Technological Uncertainty. ICIN, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, H. M. (2003). Technology Shocks: Origins, Managerial Responses, and Firm Performance. Heidelberg and New York, Physica.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, H. M. (2008). Mehr als Methoden, Prozesse und Werkzeuge: Die wichtigsten Treiber für erfolgreiche Open Innovation. Innovationsführerschaft durch Open Innovation: Chancen für die Telekommunikations-, IT- und Medienindustrie. A. Picot and S. Doeblin. Berlin, Springer: 5–24.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, C. Y. and B. Clark (1997). “Managing in the age of modularity.” Harvard Business Review 75(5): 84–93.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, T., I. Pashby, et al. (2006). “Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool.” International Journal of Project Management 24(5): 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). “Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study.” Management Science 29(12): 1349–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Massachusetts Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, R. G. (1979). “Identifying Industrial New Product Success: Project NewProd.” Industrial Marketing Management 8(2): 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, R. G. and E. J. Kleinschmidt (1987). “New products: What separates winners from losers?” The Journal of Product Innovation Management 4(3): 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cusumano, M. A., Y. Mylonadis, et al. (1992). “Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta.” The Business History Review 66(1): 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dörflinger, T., F. Steinhoff, et al. (2008). “The relevance of usability-enhanced segmentations for new ICT product development.” Proceedings of Anzmac (Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy) 2007 Conference: “3Rs: Reputation, Responsibility & Relevance” (im Druck).Google Scholar
  13. Ernst, H. (2002). “Success Factors of New Product Development: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” International Journal of Management Reviews 4(1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greant, Z. (2008). Open Innovation and Open Source: Lessons Learned in the Mozilla Community. Innovationsführerschaft durch Open Innovation: Chancen für die Telekommunikations-, IT- und Medienindustrie. A. Picot and S. Doeblin. Berlin, Springer: 69–84.Google Scholar
  15. Gruner, K. E. and C. Homburg (2000). “Does Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success?” Journal of Business Research 49(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutberlet, M. (2008). Die Auswirkung neuer Geschäfts-, Wirtschafts-, und Gesellschaftsmodelle für die Zukunft der ITK Branche. Innovationsführerschaft durch Open Innovation: Chancen für die Telekommunikations-, IT- und Medienindustrie. A. Picot and S. Doeblin. Berlin, Springer. 1: 5–24.Google Scholar
  17. Hagedoorn, J., A. Link, et al. (2000). “Research partnerships.” Research Policy 29(4–5): 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrmann, F., I. Niedermann, et al. (2007). Users Interact Differently: Towards a Usability-Oriented User Taxonomy. Human-Computer Interaction. J. A. Jacko. Berlin, Springer: 812–817.Google Scholar
  19. Hippel, E. and R. Katz (2002). “Shifting innovation to users via toolkits.” Management Science 48(7): 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hippel, E. v. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hollingsworth, J. R. (2002). Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science. Berlin, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH.Google Scholar
  22. Lilien, G. L., P. D. Morrison, et al. (2002). “Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development.” Management Science 48(8): 1042–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mittelstraß, J. (1994). Die unzeitgemäße Universität. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Münch, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  25. Nevins, J. and D. Whitney (1989). Concurrent design of products and processes: a strategy for the next generation in manufacturing, McGraw-Hill Companies.Google Scholar
  26. Nieschlag, R., E. Dichtl, et al. (2002). Marketing. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  27. Prahalad, C. K. and M. S. Krishnan (2008). The New Age of Innovation: Driving Co-created Value through Global Networks, McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  28. Reichwald, R. and F. Piller (2009). Interaktive Wertschöpfung: Open innovation, Individualisierung und neue formen der Arbeitsteilung. Wiesbaden, Gabler.Google Scholar
  29. Riggs, W. and E. von Hippel (1994). “Incentives to innovate and the sources of innovation: the case of scientific instruments.” Research Policy 23(4): 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schläffer, C. and H. Arnold (2007). “Media and network innovation – technological paths, customer needs and business logic.” e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik 124(10): 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shane, S. (2002). “Selling university technology: patterns from MIT.” Management Science 48(1): 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon, H. (1989). “Die Zeit als strategischer Erfolgsfaktor.” Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 59(1): 70–93.Google Scholar
  33. Stopford, J. M. and C. W. F. Badenfuller (1994). “Creating Corporate Entrepreneurship.” Strategic Management Journal 15(7): 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thornberry, N. E. (2001). “Corporate Entrepreneurship: Antidote or Oxymoron?” European Management Journal 19(5): 526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tully, S. (1993). “The modular corporation.” Fortune International 127: 52–52.Google Scholar
  36. Wörner, H. (2008). Wissensgiganten und Realisierungszwerge in der IT-Industrie – Erfahrungen aus 40 Jahren Täitgkeit in der IT-Industrie. Innovationsführerschaft durch Open Innovation: Chancen für die Telekommunikations-, IT- und Medienindustrie. A. Picot and S. Doeblin. Berlin, Springer: 105–120.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