Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disruption und Innovationstransfer in der vierten industriellen Revolution – wie kann der Mittelstand die zweite Welle der Digitalisierung überleben?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transferinnovationen und Innovationstransfer zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft

Zusammenfassung

Die vierte industrielle Revolution bedroht Geschäftsmodelle von KMU. In diesem Beitrag werden wesentliche Treiber der vierten industriellen Revolution identifiziert sowie die strategischen Implikationen auf Unternehmen beschrieben. Daraus werden Herausforderungen im Innovationswettbewerb und Innovationstransfer von mittelständischen Unternehmen im Umfeld einer disruptiven zweiten Welle der Digitalisierung abgeleitet. Auf Basis empirischer Studien zu Ambidexterität und Absorptionsfähigkeit von Unternehmen wird aufgezeigt, welchen Chancen und Risiken gerade KMU bei disruptiven wissensbasierten Innovationen gegenüberstehen. Abschließend werden für KMU mögliche strategische Optionen und Wirkungszusammenhänge für Wissens- und Innovationstransfer vor dem Hintergrund der vierten industriellen Revolution analysiert.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Antonin, C., & Bunel, S. (2021). The power of creative destruction – Economic upheaval and the wealth of nations. Belknap.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arbussà, A., & Coenders, G. (2007). Innovation activities, use of appropriation instruments and absorptive capacity: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 36(10), 1545–1558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2009). The entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W., & Pflaum, A. (2019). Begriff der Digitalisierung – Extension und Intension aus betriebswirtschaftlicher Perspektive. In W. Becker, B. Eierle, A. Fliaster, B. Ivens, A. Leischnig, A. Pflaum & E. Sucky (Hrsg.), Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt (S. 3–13). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W., Eierle, B., Fliaster, A., Ivens, B., Leischnig, A., Pflaum, A., & Sucky, E. (Hrsg.). (2019). Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belitz, H., Eickelpasch, A., & Lejpras, A. (2012). Innovationspolitik für den Mittelstand hat sich bewährt. DIW Wochenbericht, 79(49), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitkom e. V. (2018). Digitalisierung der Wirtschaft. Bitkom e. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitkom e. V. (2019). Mittelstand sieht sich bei Digitalisierung noch als Nachzügler, Pressemeldung April 2019. Bitkom e. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitkom e. V. (2021). Corona führt zu Digitalisierungsschub in der deutschen Industrie, Pressemeldung April 2021. Bitkom e. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bughin, J., Deakin, J., & O’Beirne, B. (2019). Digital transformation: Improving the odds of success. The McKinsey Quarterly, 22, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, A. C., Cucchiella, F., Fratocchi, L., Pelagagge, P. M., & Scacchia, F. (2002). A methodological framework for innovation transfer to SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(5), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellacci, F. (2008). Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy, 37(6), 978–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellacci, F., & Natera, J. M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), 579–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavusgil, S. T., Calantone, R. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. Journal of Business & Industrial MarketingJournal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 18(1), 6–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D., MacKenzie, N. G., & Carter, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship: Implications for venture creation in the fourth industrial revolution. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1028–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small–to medium–sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658–1676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Hrsg.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (S. 1–14). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24(2), 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R & D. Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commerzbank. (2018). Commerzbank Mittelstandsstudie – Mittelstand lässt Potenziale von Big Data liegen, Commerzbank, Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corral de Zubielqui, G., Jones, J., Seet, P. S., & Lindsay, N. (2015). Knowledge transfer between actors in the innovation system: A study of higher education institutions (HEIS) and SMEs. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(3/4), 436–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corral de Zubielqui, G., Jones, J., & Lester, L. (2016). Knowledge inflows from market–and science–based actors, absorptive capacity, innovation and performance – A study of SMEs. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(6), 1650055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corral de Zubielqui, G., Lindsay, N., Lindsay, W., & Jones, J. (2019). Knowledge quality, innovation and firm performance: A study of knowledge transfer in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 53(1), 145–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz–Gonzalez, J., Lópe–zSáez, P., Navas–López, J. E., & Delgado–Verde, M. (2015). Open search strategies and firm performance: The different role of technological environmental dynamism. Technovation, 35, 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeClercq, D., Thongpapanl, N., & Dimov, D. (2013). Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs: The roles of internal and external rivalry. Small Business Economics, 42(1), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte. (2017). Digitale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit – Wo steht der Standort Deutschland? Deloitte, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Gambardella, A., Grazzi, M., & Orsenigo, L. (2008). Technological revolutions and the evolution of industrial structures: Assessing the impact of new technologies upon the size and boundaries of firms. Capitalism and Society, 3(1), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dziallas, M., & Blind, K. (2019). Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis. Technovation, 80–81, 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • etventure. (2018). Digitale Transformation 2018 – Hemmnisse, Fortschritte, Perspektiven, etventure, Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flor, M. L., Cooper, S. Y., & Oltra, M. J. (2018). External knowledge search, absorptive capacity and radical innovation in high–technology firms. European Management Journal, 36(2), 183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., & Louçâ, F. (2001). As time goes by: From the industrial revolutions to the information revolution. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, X., Fu, X., Romero, C. C., & Pan, J. (2021). Exploring new opportunities through collaboration within and beyond sectoral systems of innovation in the fourth industrial revolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 30(1), 233–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gann, D. (2001). Putting academic ideas into practice: Technological progress and the absorptive capacity of construction organizations. Construction Management and Economics, 19(3), 321–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, B., Schasse, U., Belitz, H., Eckl, V., & Stenke, G. (2020). Forschung und Entwicklung in Staat und Wirtschaft: Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (No. 2–2020), Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI)/Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2003). R&D and absorptive capacity: Theory and empirical evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henneke, D. (2014). Dynamische Fähigkeiten und Unternehmenserfolg, Inauguraldissertation an der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bern, Bern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heracleous, L., Papachroni, A., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2017). Structural ambidexterity and competency traps: Insights from Xerox PARC. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 327–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirt, M., & Willmott, P. (2014). Strategic principles for competing in the digital age. McKinsey Quarterly, 5, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iborra, M., Safón, V., & Dolz, C. (2020). What explains the resilience of SMEs? Ambidexterity capability and strategic consistency. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 101947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IMD. (2021). World competitiveness report 2021. International Institute for Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infront Consulting & Management. (2018). Konzerne auf den Spuren von Startups 2018 – wie etablierte Unternehmen Acceleratoren, Company Builder und Innovation Labs als Instrumente der digitalen Transformation nutzen, Infront Consulting & Management, Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infront Consulting & Management. (2021). Konzerne auf den Spuren von Startups 2021 – von Spielwiesen zu digitalen Geschäftseinheiten und Innovationsplattformen, Infront Consulting & Management, Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • IW Consult. (2019). Digitalisierung der KMU in Deutschland, IW Consult, Köln.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagermann, H., & Winter, J. (2018). Die zweite Welle der Digitalisierung – Deutschlands Chance, Deutschland und die Welt 2030, Acatech und Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. (2013). Umsetzungsempfehlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0 – Abschlussbericht des Arbeitskreises Industrie 4.0, Promotorengruppe Kommunikation der Forschungsunion Wirtschaft – Wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapas, J. (2008). Industrial revolutions and the evolution of the firm’s organization: An historical perspective. Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 2(2), 15–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, M. L. (2021). Big Tech mergers: Innovation, competition for the market, and the acquisition of emerging competitors. Information Economics and Policy, 54(3), 100883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Kim, E., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Balancing absorptive capacity and inbound open innovation for sustained innovative performance: An attention–based view. European Management Journal, 34(1), 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klenner, P., Hüsig, S., & Dowling, M. (2013). Ex–ante evaluation of disruptive susceptibility in established value networks – When are markets ready for disruptive innovations? Research Policy, 42(4), 914–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioannou, G. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1335–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau. (2021). Digitalisierung und Mittelstand, Pressemeldung März 2021 Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritikos, A. S., Hafenstein, M., & Schiersch, A. (2017). Auch kleinste Betriebe stoßen erfolgreich Innovationen an, sie tun es nur seltener. DIW Wochenbericht, 84(37), 755–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasagni, A. (2012). How can external relationships enhance innovation in SMEs? New evidence for Europe. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 310–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, D., & Neary, J. P. (2007). Absorptive capacity, R&D spillovers, and public policy. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(5), 1089–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Malerba, F. (2017). Catch–up cycles and changes in industrial leadership: Windows of opportunity and responses of firms and countries in the evolution of sectoral systems. Research Policy, 46(2), 338–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Malerba, F., & Primi, A. (2020). The fourth industrial revolution, changing global value chains and industrial upgrading in emerging economies. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 23(4), 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., Yun, J. J., Pyka, A., Won, D., Kodama, F., Schiuma, G., Park, H., Jeon, J., Park, K., Jung, K., Yan, M., Lee, S., & Zhao, X. (2018). How to respond to the fourth industrial revolution, or the second information technology revolution? Dynamic new combinations between technology, market, and society through open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(3), 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J., Welsch, H., & Stoica, M. (2003). Organizational absorptive capacity and responsiveness: An empirical investigation of growth–oriented SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1315–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limaj, E., & Bernroider, E. W. (2019). The roles of absorptive capacity and cultural balance for exploratory and exploitative innovation in SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 94, 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, T., & Mubarik, M. S. (2020). Balancing innovation and exploitation in the fourth industrial revolution: Role of intellectual capital and technology absorptive capacity, in. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Economic development as a learning process: Variation across sectoral systems. Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., & Bisson, P. (2013). Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. McKinsey Global Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matt, D. T., & Rauch, E. (2020). SME 4.0: The role of small–and medium–sized enterprises in the digital transformation. In D. T. Matt, V. Modrák & H. Zsifkovits (Hrsg.), Industry 4.0 for SMEs (S. 3–36). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messer, J., & Martin, A. (2019). Open Innovation in KMU: Eine empirische Analyse ausgewählter Faktoren, Flensburger Hefte zu Unternehmertum und Mittelstand, 18, Dr. Werner Jackstädt-Zentrum für Unternehmertum und Mittelstand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mina, A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E., & Hughes, A. (2014). Open service innovation and the firm’s search for external knowledge. Research Policy, 43(5), 853–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen, M., Østbye, S., & Woll, K. (2014). Non–R&D SMEs: External knowledge, absorptive capacity and product innovation. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 447–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K. I. (2021). The role of absorptive capacity and innovation strategy in the design of industry 4.0 business models – A comparison between SMEs and large enterprises. European Management Journal, 39(3), 333–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münter, M. T. (1999). Wettbewerb und die Evolution von Industrien. PCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münter, M. T. (2021). Disruption and dynamics of competitive advantage – A short survey on empirical patterns of entrepreneurial innovation and firm dynamics in the light of technological regimes. In V. Ratten (Hrsg.), Entrepreneurial connectivity – Network, innovation and strategy perspectives (S. 23–42). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münter, M. T., & Freude, C. (2021). Corona und Digitalisierung – wo steht der saarländische Mittelstand? saaris Saarland Innovation & Standort.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münter, M. T., Emrich, E., Gassmann, F., Rampeltshammer, L., Koch, M., Nguyen, Q. N., Betzold, R., Jordanow, S., & Heidenreich, S. (Hrsg.). (2021). Unternehmensgründungen im Umfeld saarländischer Hochschulen – Empirische Ergebnisse und regionalökonomische Effekte. universaar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A. (2007). The impact of absorptive capacity on SMEs’ collaboration. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 653–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. (2004). R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation, 24(2), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B., van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), 1016–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly III, C. A., Harreld, J. B., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging business opportunities. California Management Review, 51(4), 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Hrsg.). (2019a). Digital innovation – Seizing policy opportunities. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, Ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Hrsg.). (2019b). What works in innovation policy? New insights for regions and cities: Developing strategies for industrial transition. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, Ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Hrsg.). (2020). The digitalisation of science, technology and innovation: Key developments and policies. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, Ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrilli, M. D., & Elola, A. (2012). The strength of science and technology drivers for SME innovation. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 897–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattinson, S., & Preece, D. (2014). Communities of practice, knowledge acquisition and innovation: A case study of science–based SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrillo, A., De Felice, F., Cioffi, R., & Zomparelli, F. (2018). In Digital transformation in smart manufacturing, IntechOpen (Hrsg.), Fourth industrial revolution: Current practices, challenges, and opportunities (S. 1–20). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72304. www.intechopen.com/chapters/58010

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Popkova, E. G., Ragulina, Y. V., & Bogoviz, A. V. (2019). Fundamental differences of transition to industry 4.0 from previous industrial revolutions. In E. G. Popkova, J. V. Ragulina & A. V. Bogoviz (Hrsg.), Industry 4.0: Industrial revolution of the 21st century (S. 21–29). Springer International.

    Google Scholar 

  • PwC. (2017). PwC Mittelstandspanel – Digitalisierung im Mittelstand, PricewaterhouseCoopers GmbH (PwC), Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammer, C., Spielkamp, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2009). Innovation success of non–R&D performers: Substituting technology by management in small firms. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammer, C., Doherr, T., Krieger, B., Marks, H., Niggemann, H., Peters, B., Schubert, T., Trunschke, M., & von der Burg, J. (2021a). Innovationen in der deutschen Wirtschaft: Indikatorenbericht zur Innovationserhebung 2020, ZEW–Innovationserhebung–Mannheimer Innovationspanel (MIP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammer, C., Füner, L., Gottschalk, S., Marks, H., Heimer, T., Nachtigall, H., & Treperman, H. (2021b). Studie zum Zusammenhang zwischen der Durchführung von Digitalisierungs- und Innovationsvorhaben im Mittelstand: Abschlussbericht, ZEW – Leibniz-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, E., Matt, D. T., Brown, C. A., Towner, W., Vickery, A., & Santiteerakul, S. (2018). Transfer of industry 4.0 to small and medium sized enterprises. Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering, 7(2), 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta–analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, M. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: How the EU can lead it. European View, 17(1), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung – eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus. Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Portfolio Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, L. (2015). Industrial revolution–industry 4.0: Are German manufacturing SMEs the first victims of this revolution? Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 8(5), 1512–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto–Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Martinez–Conesa, I. (2018). Information technology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: A study in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 931–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2013). Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises. Small Business Economics, 41(3), 537–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) entreprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian, H., Dogbe, C. S. K., Pomegbe, W. W. K., Sarsah, S. A., & Otoo, C. O. A. (2021). Organizational learning ambidexterity and openness, as determinants of SMEs’ innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 414–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. (2016). The economics for the common good. Princeton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Historical coevolution of governance and technology in the industrial revolutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 14(4), 365–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Tunzelmann, N., & Acha, V. (2005). Innovation in “low–tech” industries. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (S. 407–432). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tunzelmann, N., Malerba, F., Nightingale, P., & Metcalfe, S. (2008). Technological paradigms: Past, present and future. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(3), 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voigt, K. I., Müller, J. M., Veile, J. W., Becker, W., & Stradtmann, M. (2019). Industrie 4.0 – Risiken für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen. In W. Becker, B. Eierle, A. Fliaster, B. Ivens, A. Leischnig, A. Pflaum & E. Sucky (Hrsg.), Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt (S. 517–538). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, V. (2021a). Innovationen und Digitalisierung in Unternehmen bedingen sich gegenseitig, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, V. (2021b). Künstliche Intelligenz: hohe Wachstumschancen, aber geringe Verbreitung im Mittelstand, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou, T., Ertug, G., & George, G. (2018). The capacity to innovate: A meta–analysis of absorptive capacity. Innovations, 20(2), 87–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. htw saar, Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Saarbrücken, Deutschland

    Markus Thomas Münter

Authors
  1. Markus Thomas Münter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Thomas Münter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät Gesundheitsmanagement, Hochschule Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Deutschland

    Mario A. Pfannstiel

  2. Hochschule Neu-Ulm, Fakultät GM, Institut für Vernetzte Gesundheit, Neu-Ulm, Deutschland

    Alma Dautovic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Münter, M.T. (2023). Disruption und Innovationstransfer in der vierten industriellen Revolution – wie kann der Mittelstand die zweite Welle der Digitalisierung überleben?. In: Pfannstiel, M.A., Dautovic, A. (eds) Transferinnovationen und Innovationstransfer zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37157-9_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37157-9_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-37156-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-37157-9

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation