Zusammenfassung
In diesem Beitrag erläutern wir die Eigenschaften, die ein innovationsförderliches Partnerportfolio besitzen sollte, und analysieren, mit welchen Herausforderungen der Aufbau eines solchen Portfolios verbunden ist. Wir argumentieren aus theoretischer Perspektive, dass Unternehmen generell zum Aufbau von homogenen „Play it safe“-Netzwerken tendieren, und erläutern, warum diese Tendenz gerade bei der digitalen Transformation die Innovations- und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unterminieren kann. Basierend auf einer empirischen Studie in der deutschen Energiebranche verdeutlichen wir diese Problematik und zeigen auf, dass sich die Partnerportfolios innovativer und weniger innovativer Unternehmen signifikant unterscheiden. Während insgesamt die Tendenz zu „Play it safe“-Netzwerken klar erkennbar ist, sind die Partnerportfolios der innovationsstärksten Unternehmen eindeutig heterogener und ressourcenreicher. Top Performer gehen so insgesamt strategischer vor und verfolgen einen „Play to win“-Ansatz.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Zur Bestimmung der Innovationsleistung wurden die Befragten gebeten, zu bewerten, inwiefern ihr Unternehmen neue Produkte und Dienstleistungen in den Markt einführt, bestehende Produkte und Dienstleistungen erweitert und verbessert, sowie in die Entwicklung und Erprobung neuer Technologien investiert. Zur Triangulation dieser Messgröße wurden Unternehmenshomepages, Pressemitteilungen und Geschäftsberichte im Hinblick auf Initiativen der Unternehmen zu den aktuellen Innovationsthemen in der Energiebranche wie „Smart Home“, „Virtuelle Kraftwerke“ oder „Elektromobilität“ (Edelmann 2015) ausgewertet. Zudem wurden die Siegerlisten der wichtigsten branchenbezogenen Innovationspreise (z. B. VKU-Innovationspreis (VKU 2018)) nach den an der Untersuchung beteiligten Unternehmen gescannt. Beide Analysen deuten auf eine hohe Validität der in der Studie erhaltenen Angaben hin.
- 2.
Aus Komplexitätsgründen bilden wir in diesem Beitrag nur die Kombinationen von Diversität, Innovativität und Komplementarität ab. Für organisationale Ähnlichkeit, Bestehensdauer der Beziehung, strukturelle Äquivalenz und Zusammenarbeit im operativen Tagesgeschäft ergibt sich jeweils ein ähnliches Bild.
Literatur
Abrahamsen MH, Henneberg SC, Naudé P (2012) Using Actors’ Perceptions of Network Roles and Positions to Understand Network Dynamics. Ind Market Manag 41: 259–269
Adler PS, Kwon SW (2002) Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. Acad Manage Rev 27: 17–40
Afuah A (2000) How Much Do Your Co‐opetitors’ Capabilities Matter in the Face of Technological Change? Strat Manage J 21: 397–404
Ahuja G (2000a) Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Admin Sci Quart 45: 425–455
Ahuja G (2000b) The Duality of Collaboration: Inducements and Opportunities in the Formation of Interfirm Linkages. Strat Manage J 21: 317–343
Baker WE, Grinstein A, Harmancioglu N (2016) Whose Innovation Performance Benefits More from External Networks: Entrepreneurial or Conservative Firms? J Prod Innovat Manage 33: 104–120
Baum JAC, Calabrese T, Silverman BS (2000) Don’t Go It Alone: Alliance Network Composition and Startups’ Performance in Canadian Biotechnology. Strat Manage J 21: 267–294
Baum JA, Shipilov AV, Rowley TJ (2003) Where Do Small Worlds Come From? Ind Corp Change 12: 697–725
Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Yoo Y (2007) Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction. Org Sci 18: 631–647
Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge/MA
Cacilo A, Schmidt S, Wittlinger P, Herrmann F, Bauer W, Sawade O, Doderer H, Hartwig M, Scholz V (2015) Hochautomatisiertes Fahren auf Autobahnen – Industriepolitische Schlussfolgerungen. Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation (IAO), Stuttgart
Capaldo A (2007) Network Structure and Innovation: The Leveraging of a Dual Network as a Distinctive Relational Capability. Strat Manage J 28: 585–608
Capaldo A, Petruzzelli AM (2014) Partner Geographic and Organizational Proximity and the Innovative Performance of Knowledge-Creating Alliances. Eur Manage Rev 11: 63–84
Dellermann D, Fliaster A, Kolloch M (2017) Innovation Risk in Digital Business Models: The German Energy Sector. J Bus Strat 38: 35–43
Edelman H (2015) Gewohnte Wege verlassen: Innovation in der Energiewirtschaft. Ernst & Young GmbH, Düsseldorf
Edvardsson B, Holmlund M, Strandvik T (2008) Initiation of Business Relationships in Service-Dominant Settings. Ind Market Manag 37: 339–350
Fang E (2011) The Effect of Strategic Alliance Knowledge Complementarity on New Product Innovativeness in China. Org Sci 22: 158–172
Fitzgerald M, Kruschwitz N, Bonnet D, Welch M (2014) Embracing Digital Technology. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 55: 1–12
Fliaster A (2007) Innovationen in Netzwerken: Wie Humankapital und Sozialkapital zu kreativen Ideen führen. Rainer Hampp Verlag: München
Fliaster A, Spiess J (2008) Knowledge Mobilization through Social Ties: The Cost-Benefit Analysis. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 60: 99–117
Granovetter M (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: A Theory of Embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91: 481–510
Gulati R (1995) Social Structure and Alliance Formation Pattern: A Longitudinal Analysis. Admin Sci Quart 40: 619–652
Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? Am J Soc 104: 1439–1493
Gulati R, Khanna T, Nohria N (1994) Unilateral Commitments and the Importance of Process in Alliances. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 35: 61–69
Gulati R, Lavie D, Madhavan R (2011) How Do Networks Matter? The Performance Effects of Interorganizational Networks. Res Organ Behav 31: 207–224
Hoffmann WH (2007) Strategies for Managing a Portfolio of Alliances. Strat Manage J 28: 827–856
Halvorson HG, Rock D (2015) Beyond Bias. https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00345. Zugegriffen: 15. Februar 2018
Inkpen AC, Tsang EWK (2005) Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer. Acad Manage Rev 30: 146–165
Jensen M, Roy A (2008) Staging Exchange Partner Choices: When Do Status and Reputation Matter? Acad Manage J 51: 495–516
Kale P, Singh H, Perlmutter H (2000) Learning and Protection of Proprietary Assets in Strategic Alliances: Building Relational Capital. Strat Manage J 21: 217–237
Kale P, Singh H (2009) Managing Strategic Alliances: What Do We Know Now, and Where Do We Go From Here? Acad Manage Perspect 23: 45–62
Kim JW, Higgins MC (2007) Where Do Alliances Come From?: The Effects of Upper Echelons on Alliance Formation. Res Pol 36: 499–514
Kim TY, Oh H, Swaminathan A (2006) Framing Interorganizational Network Change: A Network Inertia Perspective. Acad Manage Rev 31: 704–720
Koka BR, Prescott JE (2002). Strategic Alliances as Social Capital: A Multidimensional View. Strat Manage J 23: 795–816
Koza MP, Lewin AY (1998) The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances. Org Sci 9: 255–264
Lavie D (2007). Alliance Portfolios and Firm Performance: A Study of Value Creation and Appropriation in the US Software Industry. Strat Manage J 28: 1187–1212
Lavie D, Miller S (2008) Alliance Portfolio Internationalization and Firm Performance. Org Sci 19: 623–646
Lee J, Berente N (2012) Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organ Sci 23: 1428–1447
Levinthal DA, March JG (1994) The Myopia of Learning. Strat Manage J 14: 95–112
Majchrzak A, Jarvenpaa SL, Bagherzadeh M (2015) A Review of Interorganizational Collaboration Dynamics. J Manage 41: 1338–1360
Mariotti F, Delbridge R (2012) Overcoming Network Overload and Redundancy in Interorganizational Networks: The Roles of Potential and Latent Ties. Org Sci 23: 511–528
Maurer I, Ebers M (2006) Dynamics of Social Capital and their Performance Implications: Lessons from Biotechnology Start-Ups. Admin Sci Quart 51: 262–292
Mitchell W, Singh K (1996) Survival of Businesses Using Collaborative Relationships to Commercialize Complex Goods. Strat Manage J 17: 169–195
Mitrega M, Pfajfar G (2015) Business Relationship Process Management as Company Dynamic Capability Improving Relationship Portfolio. Ind Market Manag 46: 193–203
Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Acad Manage Rev 23: 242–260
Nebus J (2006) Building Collegial Information Networks: A Theory of Advice Network Generation. Acad Manage Rev 31: 615–637
Obstfeld D (2005) Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involvement in Innovation. Admin Sci Quart 50: 100–130
Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community. Org Sci 15: 5–21
Ozcan P, Eisenhardt KM (2009) Origin of Alliance Portfolios: Entrepreneurs, Network Strategies, and Firm Performance. Acad Manage J 52: 246–279
Parise S, Casher A (2003) Alliance Portfolios: Designing and Managing Your Network of Business-Partner Relationships. Acad Manage Exec 17: 25–39
Pittaway L, Robertson M, Munir K, Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Networking and Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Int J Manag Rev 5: 137–168
Podolny JM (1994) Market Uncertainty and the Social Character of Economic Exchange. Adm Sci Quart 39: 458–483
Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Admin Sci Quart 41: 116–145
Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences. Am J Sociol 110: 1132–1205
Pullen AJ, Weerd‐Nederhof PC, Groen AJ, Fisscher OA (2012) Open Innovation in Practice: Goal Complementarity and Closed NPD Networks to Explain Differences in Innovation Performance for SMEs in the Medical Devices Sector. J Prod Innovat Manage 29: 917–934
Ramos C, Henneberg SC, Naudé P (2012) Understanding Network Picture Complexity: An Empirical Analysis of Contextual Factors. Ind Market Manag 41: 951–972
Reck F, Fliaster A, Kolloch M (2017) Understanding the Effect of Network Management Capability on Innovation: A Multi-Path Model. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta/GA, 04.–08. August
Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range. Admin Sci Quart 48: 240–267
Reuer JJ, Ragozzino R (2006) Agency Hazards and Alliance Portfolios. Strat Manage J 27: 27–43
Rosenkopf L, Almeida P (2003) Overcoming Local Search through Alliances and Mobility. Manage Sci 49: 751–766
Rosenkopf L, Padula G (2008) Investigating the Microstructure of Network Evolution: Alliance Formation in the Mobile Communications Industry. Org Sci 19: 669–687
Rothaermel FT (2001) Complementary Assets, Strategic Alliances, and the Incumbent’s Advantage: An Empirical Study of the Industry and Firm Effects in the Biopharmaceutical Industry. Res Pol 30: 1235–1250
Rowley TJ, Baum JAC (2008) Introduction: Evolving Webs in Network Economies. In: Baum JAC, Rowley TJ (eds.) Network Strategy. Emerald, Bingley/UK: xiii–xxxi
Sammarra A, Biggiero L (2008) Heterogeneity and Specificity of Inter‐Firm Knowledge Flows in Innovation Networks. J Manage Stud 45: 800–829
Sarkar MB, Echambadi RA, Harrison JS (2001) Alliance Entrepreneurship and Firm Market Performance. Strat Manage J 22: 701–711
Sarkar MB, Aulakh PS, Madhok A (2009) Process Capabilities and Value Generation in Alliance Portfolios. Org Sci 20: 583–600
Schilke O, Goerzen A (2010) Alliance Management Capability: An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement. J Manage 36: 1192–1219
Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels R (1999) Interorganizational Endorsement and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures. Adm Sci Quart 44: 315–349
Stuart TE (2000) Interorganizational Alliances and the Performance of Firms: A Study of Growth and Innovation Rates in a High-Technology Industry. Strat Manage J 21: 791–811
VKU (2018) VKU-Innovationspreis. https://www.vku.de/verband/veranstaltungen/vku-innovationspreis/. Zugegriffen: 15. Februar 2018
Wadhwa A, Kotha S (2006) Knowledge Creation through External Venturing: Evidence from the Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturing Industry. Acad Manage J 49: 819–835
Wassmer U (2010) Alliance Portfolios: A Review and Research Agenda. J Manage 36: 141–171
Yoo Y, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World. Organization Science 23: 1398–1408
Zaheer A, Bell GG (2005) Benefiting from Network Position: Firm Capabilities, Structural Holes, and Performance. Strat Manage J 26: 805–826
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reck, F., Fliaster, A. (2019). „Play to win“ versus „Play it safe“. In: Becker, W., et al. Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22129-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22129-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-22128-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-22129-4
eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)