Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

This research paper investigates open innovation—that is, the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge in order to innovate—in the context of nonprofit sports clubs, and is based on the content analysis of semi-structured interviews held with representatives of eleven sports clubs. The study develops a framework that describes open innovation activities in nonprofit sports clubs as facets of four superordinate dimensions, namely permeability of the club’s boundary, application and implementation of open innovation practices, managerial competencies, and the environmental and organizational surroundings in which the club operates. Within these dimensions, subordinate facets such as commitment of the club’s president and the strategic use of coopetitive environments explain how and why sports clubs are successful at implementing innovations and how their nonprofit status (e.g., volunteer work) contributes to (or is in conflict with) innovation. The findings provide implications for nonprofit organizations inside and outside the sports sector.

Résumé

Ce document de recherche étudie l’innovation ouverte – l’utilisation intentionnelle d’entrées et de sorties de connaissances pour innover – dans le cadre de clubs de sport à but non lucratif, et repose sur l’analyse du contenu d’entretiens semi-directifs réalisés avec des représentants de onze clubs de sport. L’étude élabore un cadre qui décrit les activités d’innovation ouverte dans les clubs sportifs sans but lucratif comme les facettes de quatre dimensions ultra-ordonnées, à savoir la perméabilité de la limite du club, l’application et la mise en œuvre de pratiques d’innovation ouverte, des compétences managériales et le cadre général et organisationnel dans lequel fonctionne le club. Entre ces dimensions, les facettes secondaires comme l’engagement pris par le président du club et l’utilisation stratégique des environnements compétitifs expliquent comment et pourquoi les clubs sportifs réussissent à mettre en œuvre des innovations et comment leur statut à but non lucratif (p. ex., le travail bénévole) contribue à cette innovation ou se concilie mal avec elle. Les résultats fournissent les conséquences pour les organisations à but non lucratif, à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur du secteur sportif.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Forschungsarbeit untersucht das Open Innovation Konzept - d. h. die Nutzung zweckbestimmten ein- und ausströmenden Wissens, um Innovationen einzuführen - in gemeinnützigen Sportvereinen und beruht dabei auf der Inhaltsanalyse leitfadengestützter Interviews von Vertretern elf gemeinnütziger Sportvereine. Die Studie entwickelt ein Rahmenwerk, das Open Innovation Aktivitäten in gemeinnützigen Sportvereinen als Facetten von vier übergeordneten Dimensionen beschreibt, nämlich die Durchlässigkeit der Vereinsgrenze, die Anwendung und Implementierung von Open-Innovation-Praktiken, Managementkompetenzen und das allgemeine und organisatorische Vereinsumfeld. Innerhalb dieser Dimensionen erklären untergeordnete Facetten, z. B. das Engagement des Vereinsvorsitzenden und die strategische Nutzung des Wettbewerbsumfelds, wie und warum Sportvereine bei der Implementierung von Innovationen erfolgreich sind und wie ihr gemeinnütziger Status (z. B. ehrenamtliche Arbeit) zur Innovation beiträgt (oder ihr entgegensteht). Die Ergebnisse liefern Implikationen für gemeinnützige Organisationen innerhalb und außerhalb des Sportsektors.

Resumen

El presente documento de investigación trata de la innovación abierta - es decir, del uso de flujos intencionales de entrada y salida de conocimiento con el fin de innovar - en el contexto de los clubes deportivos sin ánimo de lucro, y se basa en el análisis de contenido de entrevistas semiestructuradas mantenidas con representantes de once clubes deportivos. El estudio desarrolla un marco que describe las actividades de innovación abiertas en clubes deportivos sin ánimo de lucro como facetas de cuatro dimensiones superordenadas, a saber, permeabilidad de los límites del club, aplicación e implementación de prácticas de innovación abiertas, competencias gerenciales y los entornos organizativos en el que el club opera. Dentro de estas dimensiones, facetas subordinadas como el compromiso del presidente del club y el uso estratégico de entornos competitivos explican cómo y por qué los clubes deportivos tienen éxito en la implementación de innovaciones y cómo su estatus sin ánimo de lucro (p.ej.: trabajo voluntario) contribuye a (o está en conflicto con) la innovación. Los hallazgos proporcionan implicaciones para las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro dentro y fuera del sector deportivo.

摘要

本研究论文以非营利性体育俱乐部为背景,对开放式创新(open innovation)进行探究。开放式创新是指利用知识之有目的地流入与流出以进行创新。对十一家体育俱乐部的代表进行了半结构式访谈(semi-structured interviews),并对访谈内容进行分析,并以此为基础进行研究。本研究建立了一个框架,通过以下四个超级纵坐标维度(super ordinate dimension)的各个方面描述了非营利性体育俱乐部的开放式创新活动:即俱乐部范围的渗透性、开放式创新实践的实施与执行、管理能力以及环境与组织运营环境。在这些维度里,次级方面诸如俱乐部总裁的投入度以及竞争性环境的战略使用说明了体育俱乐部成功执行创新的原因与方式,也说明了俱乐部的非营利性状况(比如:志愿工作)是如何促进创新或与创新产生矛盾的。本研究的结果为体育部门内外的非营利性组织提供了一些启示。

ملخص

تبحث هذه المقالة البحثية الإبتكار المفتوح - هذا هو، إستخدام أفكار هادفة داخلية وخارجية من المعرفة من أجل الإبتكار- في سياق الأندية الرياضية الغير ربحية، وتقوم على أساس تحليل محتويات لمقابلات شبه منظمة التي عقدت مع ممثلي إحدى عشرة نوادي رياضية. الدراسة تضع الإطار الذي يصف أنشطة الإبتكار المفتوح في النوادي الرياضية الغير ربحية مثل جوانب من أربعة أبعاد تنسيق ممتاز، وهي المرورعبر الحدود، تطبيق وتنفيذ ممارسات النادي للإبتكار المفتوح، الكفاءات الإدارية، والمناطق المحيطة البيئية والتنظيمية التي يعمل فيها النادي. ضمن هذه الأبعاد، وأوجه تابعة مثل إلتزام رئيس النادي والإستخدام الإستراتيجي للبيئات التنافسية يشرح لماذا وكيف أن الأندية الرياضية ناجحة في تنفيذ الإبتكارات وكيف وضعهم الغير ربحي (على سبيل المثال، العمل التطوعي) يساهم في (أو يتعارض مع) الإبتكار. النتائج تقدم إقتراحات للمنظمات الغير ربحية داخل وخارج قطاع الرياضة.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexy, O., & Henkel, J. (2010). Promoting the penguin? Permeable firm boundaries and their intraorganizational implications. Munich: Technische Universität München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. (2006). How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Research Policy, 35(9), 1291–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, G. A., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2005). Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform. Environment and Planning: Government and Policy, 23(3), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Currency Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuer, C. (2012). Sportentwicklungsbericht 2011/2012 [Sport development report 2011/2012. Analysis of the situation of sports clubs in Germany]. Cologne: Sportverlag Strauß.

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bygstad, B., & Lanestedt, G. (2009). ICT based service innovation: A challenge for project management. International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 234–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caza, A. (2000). Context receptivity: Innovation in an amateur sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 14(3), 227–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatenier, E. D., Verstegen, J. A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Omta, O. S. (2010). Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R&D Management, 40(3), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open innovation: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    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 

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2007). White paper on sport {SEC(2007) 932} {SEC(2007) 934} {SEC(2007) 935} {SEC(2007) 936}. Brussels.

  • da Mota Pedrosa, A., Välling, M., & Boyd, B. (2013). Knowledge related activities in open innovation: Managers’ characteristics and practices. International Journal of Technology Management, 61(3), 254–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte, DSSV, & DHfPG (2014). DSSV Eckdaten 2014 [DSSV Data Report 2014]. Hamburg: SSV-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • DOSB (2010). Bestandserhebung 2009 [Survery 2009]. Frankfurt: German Olympic Sports Confederation. Retrieved from http://www.dosb.de/de/service/download-center/statistiken/.

  • DOSB (2013). Bestandserhebung 2013 [Survey 2013]. Frankfurt: German Olympic Sports Confederation. Retrieved from http://www.dosb.de/de/service/download-center/statistiken/.

  • Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T., & Ollila, S. (2009). Exploring the field of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 326–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, J. T., & Garner, L. T. (2011). Volunteering an opinion: Organizational voice and volunteer retention in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 813–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 431–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 589–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science, 18(6), 885–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., Brock, K., de Wit, M., & Embuldeniya, D. … Vaillancourt, Y. (2003). The capacity to serve: A qualitative study of the challenges facing Canada’s nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Toronto: Canadian Cantre for Philanthropy.

  • Hoeber, L., & Hoeber, O. (2012). Determinants of an innovation process: A case study of technological innovation in a community sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 26(3), 213–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, S., & Smart, P. (2009). Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: A corporate social responsibility perspective. R&D Management, 39(4), 394–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoye, R. (2007). Commitment, involvement and performance of voluntary sport organization board members. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7(1), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoye, R., & Doherty, A. (2011). Nonprofit sport board performance: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Sport Management, 25(3), 272–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyysalo, S. (2009). User innovation and everyday practices: Micro-innovation in sports industry development. R&D Management, 39(3), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsbergen, S., Tolsma, J., & Ruiter, S. (2013). Bringing the beneficiary closer: Explanations for volunteering time in Dutch private development initiatives. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 59–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knockaert, M., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2011). The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: The case of science-based entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 35(4), 777–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamprecht, M., Fischer, A., & Stamm, H.-P. (2011). Sports clubs in Switzerland. Magglingen: BASPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiponen, A. (2000). Competencies, innovation and profitability of firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letaifa, S. B., & Rabeau, Y. (2012). Évolution des relations coopétitives et rationalités des acteurs dans les écosystèmes d'innovation [Evolution of coopetition relationships and rationalities of actors in the innovation ecosystem]. Management International/International Management/Gestión Internacional, 16(2), 57–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje, C. (2004). Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: An empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation, 24(9), 683–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, H. O. (2008). Interview und schriftliche Befragung [Interview and written surveys] (Vol. 4). Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse [Qualitative content analysis] (Vol. 10). Weinheim: Belz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. C. (2013). Innovation risk. Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, S. (2008). Goals of sports clubs. European Journal for Sport and Society, 5(2), 121–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change—The case of the NHS in the 1980s. Public Money & Management, 12(3), 27–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(3), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of nonprofit board members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert, F., Marques, P., & Le Roy, F. (2009). Coopetition between SMEs: An empirical study of French professional football. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, T., Egli, B., & Nagel, S. (2013). ‘Continue or terminate?’ Determinants of long-term volunteering in sports clubs. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. C. T., & Stewart, B. (2010). The special features of sport: A critical revisit. Sport Management Review, 13(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M. A., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 382–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2009). Do innovations really pay off? Total stock market returns to innovation. Marketing Science, 28(3), 442–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt (2013). Datenreport 2013 [Data report 2013]. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steptoe, A. S., & Butler, N. (1996). Sports participation and emotional wellbeing in adolescents. The Lancet, 347(9018), 1789–1792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrane, S., Blaabjerg, S., & Møller, R. H. (2010). Innovative path dependence: Making sense of product and service innovation in path dependent innovation processes. Research Policy, 39(7), 932–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNS Opinion & Social (2014). Sport and physical activity. Special Eurobarometer, 412/Wave EB80.2. Brussels: European Commission.

  • von Hippel, E. (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, S. M. (2013). Partners for business-to-business service innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(1), 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2013). Understanding the importance of organizational resources to explain organizational problems: Evidence from nonprofit sport clubs in Germany. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), 461–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. (2014). The study of service innovation for digiservice on loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 819–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joerg Koenigstorfer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wemmer, F., Koenigstorfer, J. Open Innovation in Nonprofit Sports Clubs. Voluntas 27, 1923–1949 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9571-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9571-5

Keywords

Navigation