Corporate venturing – a new way of creating a company’s future

Purpose – More and more companies are embarking on an experimental journey into an unpredictable future – a future that is characterised by uncertainty and new challenges. Corporate venturing enables established companies, so-called incumbents, to deal with new markets and business models in a highly flexible and innovative way, besides their existing business and well known, successful business models. A new innovator’s dilemma has emerged: not only established companies are required to be increasingly creative and to question existing thought patterns, but it is similar for start ups and new businesses. Research method – After conceptualising the paper and conducting literature bibliometry by VOSviewer, the research gap was identified. It is based on the three presented approaches: Causation, Effectuation and Bricolage as transformative approaches for strategic decision-making. Using a qualitative research by conducting 30 in-depth interviews, a transcription and a MaxQDA analysis, 5 identified corporate venturing tools were shown. Originality/value – The paper introduces a new approach of management which rapidly gains importance and which is crucial for companies in upcoming times to compete with flexible and disruptive start-up based business models.Thomas BAAKEN: [email protected] ALFERT: [email protected] KLIEWE: [email protected] BAAKEN, Professor - Managing Director of the Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, MünsterCarina ALFERT, MA - Academic Researcher, Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster, Münster & VU Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The NetherlandsThorsten KLIEWE, Professor - Research Director of the Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, MünsterAlfert C., Bossink B., Baaken T., Kliewe T., 2019, Linking corporate venturing and effectuation in established organizations. A theory-focused literature review, [in:] Proceedings of HTSF, High Tech Small Firms Conference, Enschede, Netherlands, 27-28 May 2019.Antoncic B., Hisrich R.D., 2003, Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept, “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, vol. 10(1), pp. 7-24, DOI: 10.1108/14626000310461187.Baker T., Miner A.S., Eesley D.T., 2003, Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process, “Research Policy”, vol. 32(2), pp. 255-276.Baker T., Nelson R.E., 2005, Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, vol. 50(3), pp. 329-366, DOI: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329.Battistini B., Hacklin F., Baschera P., 2013, The State of Corporate Venturing: Insights from a Global Study, “Research-Technology Management”, vol. 56(1), pp. 31-39, DOI: 10.5437/08956308X5601077.Birkinshaw J., Hill S.A., 2005, Corporate Venturing Units, “Organizational Dynamics”, vol. 34(3), pp. 247-257, DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.06.009.Bosma N.S., Stam E., Wennekers S., 2011, Intrapreneurship versus independent entrepreneurship: A cross-national analysis of individual entrepreneurial behaviour, Utrecht School of Economics, Working Papers, vol. 11(4).Bouette R.D., 2004, Creative Coupling Programme, Report prepared for the Government of Victoria, Melbourne.Bryman A., Bell E., 2015, Business research methods, Fourth edition, University Press, Oxford.Chesbrough H., 2010, Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers, “Long Range Planning”, vol. 43(2-3), pp. 354-363, DOI: 0.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010.Christensen C.M., Raynor M.E., McDonald R., 2015, What is disruptive innovation, “Harvard Business Review”, vol. 93(12), pp. 44-53.Christensen C.M., 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Christensen C.M., Overdorf M., 2000, Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change, “Harvard Business Review”, vol. 78(2), pp. 6-77.Covin J.G., Garrett R.P., Gupta J.P., Kuratko D.F., Shepherd D.A., 2018, The Interdependence of Planning and Learning among Internal Corporate Ventures, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 42(4), pp. 537-570, DOI: 10.1177/1042258718783430.Davey T., Meerman A., Galan-Muros V., Orazbayeva B., Baaken T., 2018, The State of University-Business Cooperation in Europe, Report for the European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels.Dew N., Sarasvathy S.D., 2001, Of immortal firms and mortal markets: Dissolving the Innovator’s Dilemma, Presented at: The Second Annual Technology Entrepreneurship Research Policy Conference, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, December.Dew N., Sarasvathy S.D., Rea S., Wiltbank R., 2008, Immortal firms in mortal markets?: An entrepreneurial perspective on the “innovator’s dilemma”, “European Journal of Innovation Management”, vol. 11(3), pp. 313-329, DOI: 10.1108/14601060810888982.Duymedjian R., Rüling C.-C., 2010, Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization and Management Theory, “Organization Studies”, vol. 31(2), pp. 133-151, DOI: 10.1177/0170840609347051.van Eck N.J., Waltman L., 2017, Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer, “Scientometrics”, vol. 111(2), pp. 1053-1070, DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7.Evald M.R., Senderovitz M., 2013, Exploring Internal Corporate Venturing in SMEs: Effectuation at Work in a New Context, “Journal of Enterprising Culture”, vol. 21(03), pp. 275-299, DOI: 10.1142/S021849581350012X.Fisher G., 2012, Effectuation, Causation, and Bricolage: A Behavioral Comparison of Emerging Theories in Entrepreneurship Research, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 36(5), pp. 1019-1051, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x.Franco M., de Fátima Santos M., Ramalho I., Nunes C., 2014, An exploratory study of entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs: The role of the founder-entrepreneur, “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, vol. 21(2), pp. 265-283, DOI: 10.1108/JSBED-10-2012-0112.Futterer F., Schmidt J., Heidenreich S., 2018, Effectuation or Causation as the Key to Corporate Venture Success? Investigating Effects of Entrepreneurial Behaviors on Business Model Innovation and Venture Performance, „Long Range Planning”, vol. 51(1), pp. 64-81, DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.008.Garrett Jr. R.P., Neubaum D.O., 2013, Top management support and Initial strategic assets: A dependency model for internal corporate venture performance, “Journal of Product Innovation Management”, vol. 30(5), pp. 896-915, DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12036.Harms R., Schiele H., 2012, Antecedents and consequences of effectuation and causation in the international new venture creation process, “Journal of International Entrepreneurship”, vol. 10(2), pp. 95-116, DOI: 10.1007/s10843-012-0089-2.Hmieleski K.M., Corbett A.C., 2006, Proclivity for improvisation as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions, “Journal of Small Business Management”, vol. 44(1), pp. 45-63, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00153.x.Faschingbauer M., Baierl R., Grichnik D., 2013, Effectuation: Gestalten statt Vorhersagen, [in:] Das unternehmerische Unternehmen: revitalisieren und gestalten der Zukunft mit Effectuation, Grichnik D., Gassmann O. (eds.), Springer-Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 3-21.Kliewe T., Alfert C., Baaken T., 2019, Corporate Venture Management und Entrepreneurial Marketing, [in:] Entrepreneurial Marketing, PraxisWISSEN Marketing, Rumler A., Stumpf M. (eds.), UNI-Edition, Berlin, pp. 16-30, DOI: 10.15459/95451.28.Kliewe T., Marquardt P., Baaken T., 2009, Leveraging Organizational Resources by Creative Coupling: An Evaluation of Methods for Intellectual Asset Identification, “Journal of Knowledge Globalization”, vol. 2(2), pp. 1-23.Kötting M., Kuckertz A., 2018, Innovationsförderung durch Corporate Venturing, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835366_Innovationsforderung_durch_Corpo rate_Venturing_Ein_ganzheitliches_Framework_fur_die_praktische_Umsetzung, [date of entry: 02.11.2018]Kuratko D.F., Covin J.G., Garrett R.P., 2009, Corporate venturing: Insights from actual performance, “Business Horizons”, vol. 52(5), pp. 459-467, DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor. 2009.05.001.Kuratko D.F., 2010, Corporate entrepreneurship: An introduction and research review, [in:] Handbook of entrepreneurship research, Springer, New York, pp. 129-163.Lévi-Strauss C., 1966, The savage mind, University Press, Chicago.Lumpkin G.T., 2007, Intrapreneurship and innovation, [in:] The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Baum J.R., Frese M., Baron R. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp. 237-264.MacMillan I.C., Block Z., Narasimha P.S., 1986, Corporate venturing: Alternatives, obstacles encountered, and experience effects, “Journal of Business Venturing”, vol. 1(2), pp. 177-191.Mainela T., Puhakka V., 2009, Organising New Business in a Turbulent Context: Opportunity Discovery and Effectuation for IJV Development in Transition Markets, “Journal of International Entrepreneurship”, vol. 7, pp. 111-134, DOI: 10.1007/s10843-008-0034-6.Mayring P., 2010, Qualitative inhaltsanalyse, [in:] Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 601-613.Mes F., 2011, Internal Corporate Venturing zur Steigerung der Innovationsfähigkeit etablierter Unternehmen, Gabler, Wiesbaden.Miles M.P., Covin J.G., 2002, Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Some common forms and their organizational implications, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 26(3), pp. 21-40, DOI: 10.1177/104225870202600302.Moe N.B., Dingsøyr T., Dybå T., 2010, A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project, “Information and Software Technology”, vol. 52(5), pp. 480-491, DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004.Narayanan V.K., Yang Y., Zahra S.A., 2009, Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework, “Research Policy”, vol. 38(1), pp. 58-76, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.015.Nolte A., Pe-Than E.P.P., Filippova A., Bird C., Scallen S., Herbsleb J.D., 2018, You Hacked and Now What?: Exploring Outcomes of a Corporate Hackathon, [in:] Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, t. 129.O’Reilly C.A., Tushman M.L., 2008, Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma, “Research in Organizational Behavior”, vol. 28, pp. 185-206, DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002.Parker S.K., Collins C.G., 2010, Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive Behaviors, “Journal of Management”, vol. 36(3), pp. 633-662, DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321554.Perry J.T., Chandler G.N., Markova G., 2012, Entrepreneurial effectuation: a review and suggestions for future research, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 36(4), pp. 837-861, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00435.x.Petzold N., Landinez L., Baaken T., 2019, Disruptive innovation from a process view: A systematic literature review, „Creativity and Innovation Management Journal”, vol. 28(1), pp. 1-18, DOI: 10.1111/caim.12313.Poguntke, M. 2016, Abstrakte Interaktionsmodelle für die Integration in bestehende Benutzerschnittstellen (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ulm).Scaringella L., Radziwon A., 2018, Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles?, “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, vol. 136, pp. 59-87, DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023.Sarasvathy S.D., 2001, What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?, The Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia, Virginia.Sarasvathy S.D., Berglund H., 2010, On the Relevance of Decision-making in Entrepreneurial Decision-making, [in:] Historical foundations of entrepreneurial research, Landström H., Lohrke L. (eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 163-184.Schmidt A.L., Alfert C., Petzold N., Junker C., 2018, Business Model Innovation in Corporate Ventures – The Nucleus of Disruption, [in:] Proceedings of 19th International CINet Conference Continuous Innovation: Spinning out and spinning in, Dublin, September.Sharma P., Chrisman J.J., 1999, Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 23(3), pp. 11-28.Stokes D., 2000, Entrepreneurial marketing: a conceptualisation from qualitative research, “Qualitative market research – an international Journal”, vol. 3(1), pp. 47-54, DOI: 10.1108/13522750010310497.1(99)32

Wirtschafts-Wissenschaftskooperationen an Fachhochschulen in Europa

Dieser Beitrag zeigt Ergebnisse einer Studie zu Wissenschafts-Wirtschaftskooperationen (WWK) in Europa, die 2011 für die Europäische Kommission durchgeführt wurde. Alle Hochschulen in 33 EU+-Ländern wurden einbezogen, ein Rücklauf von 6.280 vollständigen Interviews erzielt. WWK werden durch Faktoren beeinflusst, die die Wahrnehmung von Nutzen sowie von Barrieren und Treibern beinhalten. Auch situative Faktoren beeinflussen deren Ausmaß und Umfang. WWK können durch adäquate Strategien, Strukturen und Ansätze, operationale Aktivitäten sowie unterstützende Rahmenbedingungen verstärkt werden. Ein Modell wird vorgestellt, dass das Beziehungsgeflecht der verschie­denen Elemente innerhalb der WWK darstellt. Der Beitrag präsentiert einige detaillierte Ergebnisse zu Fachhochschulen in Europa. 30.03.2012 | Thomas Baaken (Münster) & Todd Davey (Münster/Amsterdam

Bricolage and Growth Hacking: Two Smart Concepts of Creating a Business Lacking Resources

The chapter presents two smart concepts of creating a new business without or with only low budget. Thus, it applies particularly e.g., for either students, refugees and/or people from developing countries. “Bricolage” stands for a behaviour in which the actor solves problems using only available resources. Contrary to the resource-creating mentality, only the resources of the repertoire at hand are used. “Growth Hacking” as a new method, using digital approaches in particular, can achieve high sales in a short time. The relevance of data-driven marketing within the framework of a growth strategy. Working primarily with data is a promising strategy for companies that can effectively, efficiently and cost effectively using online tools or online-offline combinations to achieve their growth objectives. Thus, the two concepts are complementing each other by dedication to two different stages of a start-up process. Bricolage for creating the start-up and Growth Hacking for getting it successfully to the market and make it grow sustainably. The Chapter is describing the two concepts and their interdependence by offering a conceptual framework

University-Business Cooperation and Entrepreneurship at Universities – An Empirical Based Comparison of Poland and Germany

The EU’s growth strategy for the coming decade (recorded and defined by Horizon2020) and the higher education modernisation agenda force all European countries to establish a more connected and better functioning relationship between the three most important players government, business and higher education institutions (HEI’s) in order to increase employment, productivity and social cohesion. This article explores the development of University-Business Cooperation (UBC) both in Poland and in Germany, shining a spotlight on the various factors influencing UBC, as well as providing a comparison of the two countries. The focus lays on a Polish-German comparison i.e. the compared analyses of the state of UBC in Germany and Poland from the perspective of HEI managers and researchers. Applying a UBC-ecosystem of different factors and action levels (http://ub-cooperation.eu/pdf/ UBCECO.pdf) the major differences of both countries are identified, addressed and commented to offer opportunities for improvements. This paper describes and discusses selected findings of a study, which had been conducted for the European Commission to analyse University-Business Cooperation in 33 European countries by the S2B Marketing Research Centre at Münster University of Applied Sciences.Thomas Baaken: [email protected] Rossano, M.A.: [email protected] von Hagenr: [email protected] Davey: [email protected] Meerman: [email protected]. Dr. hab. Thomas Baaken – Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster University of Applied Sciences Germany;Sue Rossano, M.A. – Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster University of Applied Sciences, Germany/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Friederike von Hagen, Dipl.-Kffr. – Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster University of Applied Sciences, Germany;Todd Davey, Ph.D. – Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster University of Applied Sciences, Germany;Arno Meerman, M.A. – Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster University of Applied Sciences, Germany.Adams J. D., Clemmons J. R. 2011 The Role of Search in University Productivity: Inside, Outside, and Interdisciplinary Dimensions, “Industrial and Corporate Change”, 20(1), 215-251.Baaken T. 2015 How Entrepreneurial Universities Get their Competencies and Knowledge Closer to Markets, International Conference “An Entrepreneurial University and its Role in the Regional Triple Helix Model”, Bialystok, Poland, 19. June 2015, Bialystok Science and Technology Park.Baaken T. 2013 Science-to-Business Marketing, [in:] Marketing in Forschung und Praxis, G. Hofbauer, A. Pattloch, M. Stumpf (eds.), uni-edition, Berlin, pp. 869-894.Baaken T., Davey T., Galán-Muros V., Meerman A., von Hagen F. 2014 A Comparison of the State of University-Business Cooperation in Germany and Poland, [in:] Managing Disruption and Destabilisation, T. Baaken, J. Teczke (eds.), Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie, Cracow, pp. 261-280.Baaken T., Kliewe T., Davey T. 2008 How to Get the Most out of the Networking and Innovation Process – the Partnering Approach: Partner Relationship Management, 28th Podim Conference “The Power of Networking”, Maribor, Slovenia.Baldini N., Grimaldi R., Sobrero M. 2006 Institutional Changes and the Commercialization of Academic Knowledge: A Study of Italian Universities Patenting Activities between 1965 and 2002, “Research Policy”, 35(4), 518-532.Barnett M. 2002 University-Industry Relationships in Dentistry: Past, Present, Future, “Journal of Dental Education”, 66(10), 1163-1168.Beise M., Stahl H. 1999 Public Research and Industrial Innovation in Germany, “Research Policy”, 28(4), pp. 397-422.Bekkers R., Bodas Freitas I. M. 2008 Analyzing Knowledge Transfer Channels between Universities and Industry: To what Degree Do Sectors also Matter?, “Research Policy”, 37(10), 1837-1853.Belkhodja O., Landry R. 2005 The Triple Helix Collaboration: Why Do Researchers Collaborate with Industry and the Government? What Are the Factors Influencing the Perceived Barriers? Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Triple Helix Conference, Turin, Italy.Bernasconi A. 2005 University Entrepreneurship in a Developing Country: The Case of the P. Universidad Catolica de Chile, 1985-2000, “Higher Education”, 50(2), 247-274.Boulton G., Lucas C. 2011 What Are Universities for?, “Chinese Science Bulletin”, 56(23), 2506-2517.Bozeman B., Boardman C. 2013 Academic Faculty in University Research Centers: Neither Capitalism’s Slaves nor Teaching Fugitives, “The Journal of Higher Education”, 84(1), 88-120.Carayol N. 2003 Objectives, Agreements and Matching in Science-Industry Collaborations: Reassembling the Pieces of the Puzzle, “Research Policy”, 32(6), 887-908.Clarysse B.; Tartari V.; Salter A. 2011 The Impact of Entrepreneurial Capacity, Experience and Organizational Support on Academic Entrepreneurship, “Research Policy”, 40, 1084-1093.Cyert R., Goodman P. 1997 Creating Effective University-Industry Alliances: An Organizational Learning Perspective, “Organizational Dynamics”, 25(4), 45-57.Davey T., Plewa C., Galan-Muros V. 2014 University-Business Cooperation Outcomes and Impacts – A European Perspective, [in:] Modern Concepts of Organisational Marketing, T. Kliewe, T. Kesting (eds.), Festschrift Thomas Baaken 60th birthday, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 161-176.Davey T. 2015 Entrepreneurship at Universities – Exploring the Factors Influencing the Development of Entrepreneurship at Universities. University-Industry Innovation Network Publishing, Amsterdam.Davey T., Baaken T., Galán-Muros V., Meerman A. 2011 Study on the Cooperation between Higher Education Institutions and Public and Private Organisations in Europe, Eu-ropean Commission, DG Education and Culture, Brussels.Davey T., Galán-Muros V., Meerman A., Kusio T. 2013 The State of University Business Cooperation in Poland, www.ub-cooperation.eu/pdf/poland.pdf, Münster.Davey T., Rossano S. 2015 Academic Entrepreneurs See Things Differently – An Analysis of Barriers, Drivers and Incentives Facing European Academic Entrepreneurs, presentation on the 3rd UIIN international conference „University-Industry Interaction”, 25th June 2015 Berlin 2015.Davey T., Rossano S., Van der Sijde P. 2015 Does Context Matter in Academic Entrepreneurship? The Role of Barriers and Drivers in the Regional and National Context, “Journal of Technology Transfer”, 40(5), 1-26.D’Este P., Perkmann M. 2011 Why Do Academics Work with Industry? A Study of the Relationship between Collaboration Rationales and Channels of Interaction, “Journal of Technology Transfer”, 36(3), 316-339.Dobija D. 2004 Human Capital Reporting in the Knowledge-Based Economy in Poland, [in:] The Knowledge-Based Economy in Transition Countries – the Case of Poland, K. Piech (ed.), University College, London, pp. 289-314.Etzkowitz H. 2001 The Second Academic Revolution and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science, “IEEE Technology and Society Magazine”, 20(2), 18-29.Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. 2000 The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, “Research Policy”, 29(2), 109-123.Eun J.-H., Lee K., Wu G. 2006 Explaining the “University-Run Enterprises” in China: A Theoretical Framework for University–Industry Relationship in Developing Countries and its Application to China, “Research Policy”, 35(9), 1329-1346.European Commission 2011. Council Conclusions on the Role of Education and Training in the Implementation of the ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’, Official Journal of the European Union (2011/C 70/01).Franco M., Haase H. 2012 Interfirm Alliances: A Collaborative Entrepreneurship Perspective, [in:] Entrepreneurship – Creativity and Innovative Business Models, T. Burger-Helmchen (ed), InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp. 115-138.Franco M., Haase H. 2010 Do Universities Impact Regional Employment? A Cross-Regional Comparison, “Actual Problems of Economics”, 7(109), 301-312.Geuna A., Rossi F. 2011 Changes to University IPR Regulations in Europe and the Impact on Academic Patenting, “Research Policy”, 40, 1068-1076.Geuna A., Nesta L. J. J. 2006 University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research: The Emerging European Evidence, “Research Policy”, 35(6), 790-807.Gillis M. R., McNally M. E. 2010 The Influence of Industry on Dental Education, “Journal of Dental Education”, 74(10), 1095-1105.Giuliani E., Morisson A., Pietrobelli C., Rabellotti R. 2008 Why Do Researchers Collaborate with Industry? An Analysis of the Wine Sector in Chile, South Africa and Italy, Cespri Università-Bocconi, 217/08.Hagen F. von 2015 A Comparison of the State of University-Business Cooperation in Germany and Poland, International Conference “An Entrepreneurial University and its Role in the Regional Triple Helix Model”, Bialystok, Poland, 19. June 2015, Bialystok Science and Technology Park.Jasiński A. H. 2014 The Potential of University-Business Cooperation and Technology-Transfer in Recent Poland, Guest Lecture as Visiting Professor at Münster University of Applied Sciences in 2014.Jasiński A. H. 2010 Technology-Transfer Processes and Barriers, [in:] Innovation in the Polish Economy in Transition: Selected Economic and Managerial Issues, A. H. Jasiński (ed.), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Białystok, pp. 87-100.Jones-Evans D., Klofsten M. 2000 Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe – the Case of Sweden and Ireland, “Small Business Economics”, 14(4), 299-309.Keck O. 1993 The National System for Technical Innovations in Germany, [in:] National Innovation Systems, R. Nelson (ed), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 115-157.Kliewe T., Meerman A., Baaken T., van der Sijde P. 2013 University-Industry Interaction: Challenges and Solutions for Fostering Entrepreneurial Universities and Collaborative Innovation, Proceedings of the University-Industry Interaction Conference, Amsterdam.Knie A., Simon D., Truffer B., von Grote C. 2002 Wissenschaft als Cross-over-Projekt: Die Wandlung der Forschungseinrichtungen von Teilelieferanten zu Komplettanbietern, Eine Studie auf Initiative des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung, Berlin.Laredo P. 2007 Revisiting the Third Mission of Universities: Toward a Renewed Categorization of University Activities?, “Higher education policy”, 20(4), 441-456.Louis K. S., Blumenthal D., Gluck M. E., Stoto M. A. 1989 Entrepreneurs in Academe: An Exploration of Behaviours among Life Scientists, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, 34(1), 110-131.Medlin C. J., Aurifeille J.-M., Quester P. G. 2005 A Collaborative Interest Model of Relational Coordination and Empirical Results, “Journal of Business Research”, 58(2), 214-222.Meerman A., Galan Muros V., Davey T., Baaken T. 2013 The State of University Business Cooperation in Germany, Münster.Murray F., Graham L. 2007 Buying Science and Selling Science: Gender Differences in the Market for Commercial Science, “Industrial and Corporate Change”, 16, 657-689.OECD 2002 Ben¬chmarking Science-Industry Relationships, online: http://ep2010.salzbur gresearch.at/knowledge_base/oecd_2002.pdf >, retrived: 28.07.2015.Owen-Smith J., Riccaboni M., Pammolli F., Powell W. W. 2002 A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences, “Management Science”, 48(1), 24-43.Patel I. G. 2003 Higher Education and Economic Development, [in:] Education, Society and Development: National and International Perspectives, B. G. Jandhyala (ed.), National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.Plewa C., Quester P. G., Baaken T. 2006 Organisational Culture Differences and Market Orientation: An Exploratory Study of Barriers to University-Industry Relationships, “International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation”, 5(5), 373-389.Plewa C. 2010 Key Drivers of University-Industry Relationships and the Impact of Organisational Culture Difference, Saarbrücken.Pniewska J., Markowski M., Kuźniewski D. 2014 University-Industry Cooperation in Emerging Economy Context – Case of Poland, [in:] Good Practice Series 2014 – Fostering University-Industry Relationships, Entrepreneurial Universities and Collaborative Innovation, A. Meerman; T. Kliewe (eds), UIIN, Amsterdam, pp. 198-214.Pierścieniak A. 2015 Collaboration between University and Business in Europe – Drivers and Barriers vs. Collaboration Key Factors for Future Perspective, “International Journal of Technology Innovation and Research”, 14(5), 1-14.Sam C., Sijde van der P. 2014 Understanding the Concept of the Entrepreneurial University from the Perspective of Higher Education Models, “Higher Education”, 68(6), 891-908.Santoro M. D., Bierly P. E. 2006 Facilitators of Knowledge Transfer in University-Industry Collaborations: A Knowledge-Based Perspective; “Transactions on Engineering Management”, 53(4), 495-507.Siegel D. S., Wright M., Lockett A. 2007 The Rise of Entrepreneurial Activity at Universities: Organizational and Societal Implications, “Industrial and Corporate Change”, 16(4), 489-504.Teczke J., Terblanche N. 2013 Management Science in Transition Period in South Africa and Poland, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie, Cracow.Weresa M. A., Gomułka M. 2006 Transformation of the National Innovation System in Poland, “International Journal Foresight and Innovation Policy”, 2(2), 159-174.Weresa M., Lewandowska M. S. 2014 Innovation System Restructuring in Poland in the Context of EU Membership, [in:] Poland: Competitiveness Report 2014. A Decade in the European Union, M. Weresa (ed.), Warsaw, pp 171-191.Weresa M. 2015 Poland’s National Innovation System and How it Evolved in 2007–2014, [in:] Poland: Competitiveness Report 2015 – Innovation and Poland’s Performance in 2007-2014, M. Weresa,, T. Golebiowski (eds.), Warsaw, pp. 209-220.Wilson T. 2012 Review of Business-University Collaboration. Department of Business, Innova-tion and Skills, UK Government, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/13842/1/wilson.pdf.Witty A. 2013 Encouraging a British Invention Revolution: Sir Andrew Witty’s Review of Universities and Growth. Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, UK Government, London.3-265(77)32

Herausforderung Deradikalisierung: Einsichten aus Wissenschaft und Praxis

Ver­glichen mit dem Themen­kom­plex "Ra­di­ka­li­sierung" wurde "De­ra­di­ka­lisierung" in der Wissen­schaft bis­her eher zweit­rangig be­handelt. Dieser Report ar­beitet sys­te­ma­tisch die zentralen Er­kennt­nisse aus der the­o­re­tischen Literatur und aus der De­ra­di­ka­lisierungs­praxis auf. Es zeigt sich, dass zentrale Akteure aus Praxis, Wissen­schaft, (Sicher­heits-)Be­hörden und Politik nicht nur unter­schied­liche De­fi­ni­tionen ver­wenden, es herrscht auch keine Einig­keit da­rüber, was De­ra­di­ka­lisierung (praktisch) zu be­deuten hat. Hinzu kommt, dass die Träger­land­schaft der Ex­tre­mis­mus­prä­ven­tion in Deutsch­land so divers ist wie das fö­de­rale System der Bundes­re­publik. Das in Deutsch­land be­steh­ende Hybrid­mo­dell aus staat­lichen und zivil­gesell­schaft­lichen Zu­stän­dig­keiten sowie die Viel­falt an An­sätzen und Pro­filen der Beratenden können, bei richtiger Ak­zen­tu­ierung, als Chance für die Arbeit ge­wertet werden. Der Report schließt mit ent­sprech­enden Hand­lungs­em­pfehlungen für Ent­scheidungs­trägerinnen und -träger

Marketing-making a difference for entrepreneurial universities

International audienceIn the knowledge economy, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are facing increasingly competitive environments. On the one side knowledge is now produced in a variety of organisations, so therefore universities are no longer the only producers or sources of knowledge. Universities are also competing with other education providers due to the growing offers of commercial education providers with a strong vocational dimension, and the emergence of new technologies in the higher education market offering virtual programs (Ferreira et al. 2007). Against this background HEIs are now operating in markets where it is imperative for them to make usage of marketing instruments if they want to succeed and remain sustainable. In this vein, the two core activities of HEIs, research and education, are addressing different markets and target groups. Consequently HEIs need to apply marketing, its toolbox and instruments to be successful in those markets, and they need to be entrepreneurial to access them. In this paper the markets for research in HEIs are examined more closely. The paper describes the particularities of a Marketing approach for science and recommends a comprehensive "Science-to-Business Marketing" approach, exhibiting and combining knowledge from different Marketing disciplines

Corporate Venture Management und Entrepreneurial Marketing

Immer mehr Unternehmen gehen auf eine experimentelle Reise in die Zukunft - eine Zukunft, die vielfach von Ungewissheit geprägt ist. Corporate Venture Management befähigt etablierte Unternehmen, sich neben dem bestehenden Geschäft auf flexible und experimentelle Weise mit neuen Märkten und Geschäftsmodellen auseinanderzusetzen und so dem Innovator's Dilemma zu begegnen. Dabei wird etablierten Unternehmen ein zunehmendes Maß an Kreativität und das Hinterfragen bestehender Denkmuster abverlangt. Neben praxisgeleiteten Ansätzen in Form kurzer Fallstudien wird Effectuation als transformativer Ansatz im Entrepreneurial Marketing vorgestellt.More and more companies are undertaking an experimental journey into the future − a future that is often characterized by uncertainty. Corporate venture management enables established companies to deal with new markets and business models in a flexible and experimental way, in addition to their existing business, to respond to the innovator's dilemma. Established companies are required to be increasingly creative and to question existing decision-making patterns. In addition to practice-oriented approaches in the form of short case studies, Effectuation is presented as a transformative approach in Entrepreneurial Marketing

Creating entrepreneurial value through university-industry interaction: how universities can acquire and satisfy business partners to exploit their entrepreneurial potential

Abstract not available

Creating a sustainable innovation environment within large enterprises: a case study on a professional services firm

International audienceThis paper considers the question of which structures, strategies and practical activities large firms can use to successfully create a sustainable innovation environment within an organisation. The paper has a special focus on communication activities used to support this change process. Using the ADKAR change management model as the underlying framework, this study analyses the story of a large professional service firm's national innovation program to show and discuss a successful example. The paper shows how the firm successfully managed both the change project and the stakeholder change to transform the nature of their organisation. The paper provides valuable insights for professionals, practitioners, consultants and academics involved in or studying the creation of innovation and how to affect this within large organisations