This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
This research investigated influential factors on changes in networks of startups through a qualitative exploratory case study approach. Based on interviews with founders in Germany and selected stakeholders in entrepreneurial networks combined with a network mapping approach, we developed a framework of influential factors on network changes. In essence, this framework categorizes factors into sustainable resource acquisition, knowledge and skill acquisition, interpersonal factors, and interorganizational factors. Overall, our research contributes to a better understanding of factors that impact network changes by providing a construct with potential for theoretical standardization. In addition, this research offers important managerial implications.
Julia Keidel; Peter Bican; Frederik Riar. Influential Factors of Network Changes: Dynamic Network Ties and Sustainable Startup Embeddedness. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6184 .
AMA StyleJulia Keidel, Peter Bican, Frederik Riar. Influential Factors of Network Changes: Dynamic Network Ties and Sustainable Startup Embeddedness. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (11):6184.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJulia Keidel; Peter Bican; Frederik Riar. 2021. "Influential Factors of Network Changes: Dynamic Network Ties and Sustainable Startup Embeddedness." Sustainability 13, no. 11: 6184.
Recent digital transformation initiatives facilitate the access to platform-based business models on the demand side as well as enabling the necessary proximity to potential customers on the supply side. Due to this network connectivity between people, organizations, resources and entire industries, value and economic growth can be generated within the interactive ecosystem of digital platforms. The special feature of this business model is that competitive advantages, contrary to dominant paradigms, do not primarily rely on the physical infrastructure or the control over scarce and valuable resources. Despite the high practical relevance, little systematic knowledge exists on why platform-based business models often outperform traditional pipeline businesses in many respects. We contribute to this research gap by exploring the critical success factors of platform business models. Based on a qualitative analysis on digital platforms in the metal and steel industry, we identify six key success factors of platform-based business models: We relate these success factors to the design of the three dimensions of business models as described in the literature: (1) value creation, (2) value delivery, and (3) value capture dimensions. Furthermore, our analysis could extend these and design features of the business model by three additional success factors (4) the promotion and sensitization of digital transformation, (5) a suitable platform architecture and strategic judgement of platform providers, as well as (6) the promotion of a start-up culture as central success factors.
Daniel Rohn; Peter M. Bican; Alexander Brem; Sascha Kraus; Thomas Clauss. Digital platform-based business models – An exploration of critical success factors. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 2021, 60, 101625 .
AMA StyleDaniel Rohn, Peter M. Bican, Alexander Brem, Sascha Kraus, Thomas Clauss. Digital platform-based business models – An exploration of critical success factors. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 2021; 60 ():101625.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDaniel Rohn; Peter M. Bican; Alexander Brem; Sascha Kraus; Thomas Clauss. 2021. "Digital platform-based business models – An exploration of critical success factors." Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 60, no. : 101625.
Crises like the COVID‐19 pandemic affect firms’ innovation management and decision making. On the downside, crises lead to detriments like budget constraints, to which firms often respond by reducing their innovation activities. On the upside, crises are opportunities, where some firms exploiting changing market requirements and necessities excel. No matter in which direction, decision makers must react quickly but often rely on ad‐hoc decisions or even gut feeling when drafting their crisis response strategies. Through a series of distinct cases, we demonstrate that innovation management may fill this void through patent analytics. Drawing on biochemical expertise, we particularly describe the functions and effects of COVID‐19. To counter downside detriments, firms may circumvent budget constraints by discerning patents that can be (1) monetized, for example via sales or licensing deals, or (2) abandoned to achieve cost‐savings, allowing firms to maintain their innovation activities. To realize upside opportunities, firms and governments may use patent analytics to detect key biotechnology firms that are likely to successfully develop treatments and vaccinations against pandemics like COVID‐19. Promulgated U.S. interest in relocating foreign firms to the United States is not without technological and commercial reasoning. Herein, the insights of this study contribute to a better understanding of the use of patent information, such as smart patent indicators, harmonized patent data, novel annuity fee measures, and hand‐collected datasets of COVID‐19 and related antibodies’ patents to the management of innovation in times of crisis.
Carsten C. Guderian; Peter M. Bican; Frederik J. Riar; Sarbani Chattopadhyay. Innovation management in crisis: patent analytics as a response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. R&D Management 2020, 51, 223 -239.
AMA StyleCarsten C. Guderian, Peter M. Bican, Frederik J. Riar, Sarbani Chattopadhyay. Innovation management in crisis: patent analytics as a response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. R&D Management. 2020; 51 (2):223-239.
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarsten C. Guderian; Peter M. Bican; Frederik J. Riar; Sarbani Chattopadhyay. 2020. "Innovation management in crisis: patent analytics as a response to the COVID‐19 pandemic." R&D Management 51, no. 2: 223-239.
Attaining competitive advantage is especially crucial for innovative firms. Due to increased competition, firms employ various types of innovation activities to position themselves against their competitors. Ambidexterity and strategic agility have been found to strengthen this position. Whereas scholars analyzed strategic agility’s and ambidexterity’s impact on organizational performance, ambidexterity’s impact on the competitive advantage of organizations remains largely unexplored. Tensions between exploration and exploitation within an ambidextrous strategy make it difficult to reap benefits in establishing competitive advantage. Contrary, strategic agility centers on organization’s capacities to quickly respond to shifting demand, hence, increasing its competitive advantage. Through a mixed-method approach, comprising of a literature review and quantitative analyses of 150 German mid-sized firms in the engineering industry, it is demonstrated how ambidexterity, exploration and exploitation, in conjunction with strategic agility, affect the competitive advantage of firms. In order to sustain, firms should either favor an exploration strategy of innovation processes to come up with radically new knowledge, products and services, or combine an exploitation strategy with strategic agility. A strategy of sole exploitation is not beneficial towards increased competitive advantage, while an ambidextrous strategy seems to even negatively influence the competitive advantage of a firm. Lograr una ventaja competitiva es crucial para las empresas innovadoras. Como consecuencia del aumento de la competencia, las empresas utilizan diversos tipos de actividades innovadoras para posicionarse frente a sus competidores. Se ha descubierto que la ambidestreza y la agilidad estratégica fortalecen esta posición. Diversos estudios han analizado el impacto de la agilidad estratégica y la ambidestreza en el desempeño organizacional. Sin embargo, el impacto de la ambidestreza en la ventaja competitiva de las organizaciones permanece en gran parte inexplorado. Las tensiones entre la exploración y la explotación que definen una estrategia ambidiestra aumentan la dificultad de obtener beneficios al establecer una ventaja competitiva. Por el contrario, la agilidad estratégica se centra en las capacidades de la organización para responder rápidamente a la demanda cambiante y, por lo tanto, aumentar su ventaja competitiva. Mediante un enfoque de método mixto, que comprende tanto una revisión de la literatura como el análisis cuantitativos de 150 empresas medianas alemanas en la industria de la ingeniería, se demuestra cómo la ambidestreza, la exploración y la explotación, junto con la agilidad estratégica, afectan a la ventaja competitiva. Para ser sostenibles en el largo plazo, las empresas deben favorecer una estrategia de exploración de procesos de innovación para generar conocimientos, productos y servicios radicalmente nuevos, o combinar una estrategia de explotación con la agilidad estratégica. Una estrategia de explotación exclusiva no es beneficiosa para una mayor ventaja competitiva, mientras que una estrategia ambidiestra parece incluso influir negativamente en la ventaja competitiva.
Thomas Clauss; Sascha Kraus; Friedrich Lukas Kallinger; Peter M. Bican; Alexander Brem; Norbert Kailer. Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration-exploitation paradox. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleThomas Clauss, Sascha Kraus, Friedrich Lukas Kallinger, Peter M. Bican, Alexander Brem, Norbert Kailer. Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration-exploitation paradox. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleThomas Clauss; Sascha Kraus; Friedrich Lukas Kallinger; Peter M. Bican; Alexander Brem; Norbert Kailer. 2020. "Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration-exploitation paradox." Journal of Innovation & Knowledge , no. : 1.
After the 2007–08 global financial crisis, research flourished on entrepreneurship through digital innovation in the financial market as well as on investors’ influence on digital technology-based entrepreneurs’ funding decisions. This study combines these two research streams to analyze the decision-making criteria for funding financial technology companies (fintechs), hybrid companies that combine digital entrepreneurship, technology, and banking. The study first uses prior literature to derive important characteristics to define fintechs and then uses 12 expert interviews to elaborate on decision-making criteria in funding. Except for smaller peculiarities, fintech funding does not appear to differ from that of other digital entrepreneurship in different markets, and—as with most digital business models—scalability was identified as a key criterion. Additionally, by serving as a major provider of money for young companies, banks have changed their role and positioning in funding new financial technology entrepreneurs. Through developments in digital technology, banks have shifted from traditional money-lending activities (i.e., debt-financing) to becoming stakeholders in fintechs and, hence, equity investors. We also describe how these formerly distinct fields have converged due to regulatory requirements, digital newcomers, and a need for constant innovation, with their future sustainable development dependent on sharing and collaboration.
Kristin Hommel; Peter Bican. Digital Entrepreneurship in Finance: Fintechs and Funding Decision Criteria. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8035 .
AMA StyleKristin Hommel, Peter Bican. Digital Entrepreneurship in Finance: Fintechs and Funding Decision Criteria. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (19):8035.
Chicago/Turabian StyleKristin Hommel; Peter Bican. 2020. "Digital Entrepreneurship in Finance: Fintechs and Funding Decision Criteria." Sustainability 12, no. 19: 8035.
Digitalization plays a major role in contributing towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Without transformation of existing businesses, both economic and environmental challenges of the future cannot be solved sustainably. However, there is much confusion on interrelationships and terms dealing with digitization or digitalization: Digital business model, digital transformation, digital entrepreneurship. How do these terms interrelate with and to digitalization, and how do they support firms to grow sustainably? To answer this question, we identified seven core digital-related terms based on a structured literature search within the management and economics domain, namely: Digital, Business Model, Digital Business Model, Digital Technology, Digital Innovation, Digital Transformation, and Digital Entrepreneurship. Thereafter, we analyzed prior literature for deriving a common understanding and definition as a basis for interrelations within a conceptual framework. Definitions were presented in a case study setup with twelve innovation and research and development (R&D) managers from various business units of a German high-tech company. Based on these insights, we propose a conceptual framework on how Digital Readiness, Digital Technology, and Digital Business Models might sustainably relate to Innovation, moderated by a Digital Transformation Process. With this approach, we aim to equip practitioners and researchers alike in handling and addressing change through digitalization sustainably.
Peter M. Bican; Alexander Brem. Digital Business Model, Digital Transformation, Digital Entrepreneurship: Is There A Sustainable “Digital”? Sustainability 2020, 12, 5239 .
AMA StylePeter M. Bican, Alexander Brem. Digital Business Model, Digital Transformation, Digital Entrepreneurship: Is There A Sustainable “Digital”? Sustainability. 2020; 12 (13):5239.
Chicago/Turabian StylePeter M. Bican; Alexander Brem. 2020. "Digital Business Model, Digital Transformation, Digital Entrepreneurship: Is There A Sustainable “Digital”?" Sustainability 12, no. 13: 5239.
Research on R&D performance measures applied in firms is still scarce. Based on the established “R&D laboratory as a system” thinking, systematically derive and identify R&D department level key performance measures. Through a mixed‐method approach, grounded in (1) literature and (2) text analysis, 154 R&D performance measures were developed. Amongst those, an (3) online expert survey, as well as (4) three independent focus group workshops with >40 industry experts from more than ten industries identified and validated ten key R&D performance measures. All industry experts involved are members of an innovation network, additionally accounting for innovation network effects. In contrast to earlier research, some of the measures like degree of anticipation of internal customer needs were perceived both by the survey respondents and the focus groups as key measures, indicating that behavioral measures should not be excluded per se. However, the importance of external validity of R&D performance or indicators to measure performance in relation to activities outside the R&D department were not confirmed. Hence, we partly confirm the relevance of the original “R&D Lab” measures, contributing a more granular level, thereby drawing implications for future research and practice.
Peter M. Bican; Alexander Brem. Managing innovation performance: Results from an industry‐spanning explorative study on R&D key measures. Creativity and Innovation Management 2020, 29, 268 -291.
AMA StylePeter M. Bican, Alexander Brem. Managing innovation performance: Results from an industry‐spanning explorative study on R&D key measures. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2020; 29 (2):268-291.
Chicago/Turabian StylePeter M. Bican; Alexander Brem. 2020. "Managing innovation performance: Results from an industry‐spanning explorative study on R&D key measures." Creativity and Innovation Management 29, no. 2: 268-291.
The innovation of products, services, and business models is key to firm survival, performance, and growth in today’s turbulent business environments. However, accelerating environmental dynamics also require speeding up the innovation process. A suitable solution may be the use of agility, especially at the front end of innovation. In this study, we aim to identify agility enablers in this first stage of the innovation process. We follow a two-step procedure. First, we review existing agility frameworks and find that several agility enablers are already discussed, but no holistic framework exists yet. Second, we conduct qualitative expert interviews to obtain a better understanding of additional enablers and enabler attributes. By comparing the theoretical and managerial sources, we find gaps in each side’s attention. As a result, we introduce a novel, agile front end of innovation framework that helps firms pay attention to agility enablers that can speed up the innovation process.
Marco Brand; Victor Tiberius; Peter M. Bican; Alexander Brem. Agility as an innovation driver: towards an agile front end of innovation framework. Review of Managerial Science 2019, 15, 157 -187.
AMA StyleMarco Brand, Victor Tiberius, Peter M. Bican, Alexander Brem. Agility as an innovation driver: towards an agile front end of innovation framework. Review of Managerial Science. 2019; 15 (1):157-187.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarco Brand; Victor Tiberius; Peter M. Bican; Alexander Brem. 2019. "Agility as an innovation driver: towards an agile front end of innovation framework." Review of Managerial Science 15, no. 1: 157-187.