Partnering for Research and Development within an Open Innovation Framework

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


The increasing stress of competition and technological change reduces the ratio of revenue expectation to internal development costs. As a consequence, more innovation work has to be accomplished for the same funds. Using the external world actively and strategically to enhance one’s own innovation potential provides a solution. An important element is a dedicated partnering concept involving public research institutions as well as industrial peer companies.

Building a regional cluster as well as a neutral platform for institutionalizing the collaboration among heterogeneous entities has proven to be the most prominent success factor. Therefore, Telekom Laboratories has cofounded the European Center for Information and Communication Technologies (EICT) which offers catalyzing services for public-private partnerships (PPP). This section highlights the critical success factors for a partnering strategy for modern R&D and innovation following the open innovation scheme in general, and deduces the service offering for PPP and regional clusters.


Marketing Expense Arena Tral 
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. Anderson J. 1997: “Technology foresight for competitive advantage,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 665–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold H., Dunaj M. 2007: “Enterprise Architecture and Modularization in Telco R&D as a Response to an Environment of Technological Uncertainty,” Proc. ICIN, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  3. Becker J., Krcmar H. 2008: “Integration von Produktion und Dienstleistung – Hybride Wertschöpfung”, Wirtschaftsinformatik 50 (2008) 3.Google Scholar
  4. Bub U., Schläffer C. 2008: “Umsetzung von offener Innovation durch industrielle Cluster und Public Private Partnerships”, Bullinger (ed.) “Beschleunigte Innovation mit regionalen und industrienahen Forschungsclustern”, Fraunhofer IRB.Google Scholar
  5. Chesbrough, H. 2003: “Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology,” Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen C., Overdorf M. 2000: “Meeting the challenge of disruptive change,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 66–76.Google Scholar
  7. Dodgson M., Gann D., Salter A. 2006: “The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble,” R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faems D., Van Looy B., Debackere K. 2005: “Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 238–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank A., V. Meyer-Guckel V., Schneider C. 2007: “Innovationsfaktor Kooperation – Bericht des Stifterverbandes zur Zusammenarbeit zwischen Unternehmen und Hochschulen,” Edition Stifterverband Berlin: Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, pp. 148.Google Scholar
  10. Koschatzky K., Hemer J., Stahlecker T., Bührer S., Wolf B. 2008: “An-Institute und neue strategische Forschungspartnerschaften im deutschen Innovationssystem,” Fraunhofer IRB.Google Scholar
  11. Lee C., Miller W., Hancock M., Rowen H. (eds) 2000: “The Silicon Valley Edge,” Stanford Business Press, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
  12. Meyer J.-A. 2002: “Knowledge and use of innovation methods in young SMEs,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 2, No. 2/3, pp. 246–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller S., Hancock M, Miller W. (eds) 2007: “Making IT – The Rise of Asia in High Tech,” Stanford Business Press, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
  14. Nambisan S., Sawhney M. 2007: “Marktreife Erfindungen,” Harvard Business Manager, Juni 2007.Google Scholar
  15. Rice J., Galvin P. 2006: “Alliance patterns during industry life cycle emergence”: the case of Ericsson and Nokia, Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Rothwell, R. 1992: “Successful Industrial-Innovation -Critical Factors for the 1990s,” R&D Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saxenian, A. L. 1994: The regional advantage – Culture and competition in the Silicon Valley and Route 128.Google Scholar
  19. Shin H., Dong H. 2006: “Convergence of telecommunications, media and information technology, and implications for regulation,” Info – The journal of policy, regulation and strategy for telecommunications, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soh, P.-H., Roberts E. 2005: “Technology Alliances and Networks: An External Link to Research Capability,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vanhaverbeke W., Peeters N. 2005: “Embracing Innovation as Strategy: Corporate Venturing, Competence Building and Corporate Strategy Making,” Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Walshok L., Furtek E., Lee Carolyn, Windham P. 2002: “Building Regional Innovation Capacity,” Industry & Higher Education, February 2002.Google Scholar
  23. Wissenschaftsrat 2007: “Empfehlungen zur Interaktion von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft,” Drs. 7865–07, Oldenburg.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