Open Innovation Among Dutch MNEs - qualitative research among 10 MNEs - Manag. Summary 2009 MSc Thesis, Free University Amsterdam

1. Master Thesis Business Administration
OPEN INNOVATION AMONG DUTCH MNEs: AN EXPLORATORY
INVENTORY OF MOTIVES, EXPECTANCIES AND BARRIERS
Author: Haydar Azhari Supervisor: Prof.dr. H. Gerrits
1800213@student.vu.nl
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Master of Science in Business Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Administration, 2008-2009
Specialization E-Business & IT-Industry August 29, 2009

2. Don't agonize. Organize.
~ Florynce Kennedy
If you want to build a ship, don't herd people together to collect
wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them
to long for the endless immensity of the sea.
~ Antoine de Saint-Exupery

3. OPEN INNOVATION AMONG DUTCH MNEs: AN
EXPLORATORY INVENTORY OF MOTIVES,
EXPECTANCIES AND BARRIERS
Abstract
Open innovation has gained increased attention in the literature since it
was coined by Chesbrough (2003). Its use is widespread, especially by
large firms. Prior research predominantly focused on US-based
technological firms, and no satisfactory inventory has been provided of
open innovation among large firms in an EU-country. The aim of this
study is therefore to explore the motives, and, expectancies and barriers
of MNEs in the Netherlands to make use of open innovation next to
closed innovation. In-depth, semi structured interviews were conducted
with ten large firms for this end. Findings indicate that the underlay of the
twelve motives for open innovation is to strengthen the strong elements
of closed innovation and compensate for the weak elements. The eleven
expectancies were discerned into strategic expectancies (long term) and
practical expectancies. Barriers were found to be of an organizational and
cultural nature, both within the firm and outside the firm.
Key words
Open innovation • Closed innovation • MNEs • Motives • Expectancies •
Barriers

4. Open innovation among Dutch MNEs:
An exploratory inventory of motives, expectancies and barriers
Thesis as part of the Master of Science program in Business
Administration (2008-2009), speciality E-Business & IT-Industry
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Author: Haydar Azhari | Student number: 1800213
Ms. Oslofjordweg 253
NL – 1033 SL Amsterdam
Phone: +31 6 336 120 99
E-mail: 1800213@student.vu.nl | haydar.azhari@gmail.com
Thesis supervisor: Prof.dr. J.W.M. (Han) Gerrits
Knowledge, Information, and Networks
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
De Boelelaan 1105, room 3A-29
NL – 1081 HV Amsterdam
Phone: +31 (0) 20 598 3627
E-mail: hgerrits@feweb.vu.nl

6. Foreword
Innovation has been going since time immemorial. Verily, it is inherent
to the human nature. It all begins very simple: an idea or a vision in the
mind of the individual, and develop it further with peers. Inventions
made centuries ago of which seems so logical to us that we not thinks
about its genesis, all began by some thinking, trying and configuring by a
bunch of out of the box thinking people not hindered by the mainstream
paradigm. As Pablo Picasso said: “I am always doing that which I cannot
do, in order that I may learn how to do it.” Innovation is thus an
iterative process, characterized by its experimental matter of course, not
determined or bounded by prefixed pathways.
In our contemporary world of speedy changes, globalization and
recession, organizations try to speed up and excel in innovation. But the
highly competitive nature of business made the focus primarily on self
success and the subsequent protection of that success, losing precious
time and effort that could be invested in tomorrow‟s innovation. With
advancing years, organizations realized that the traditional patterns of in-
house innovation are dwindling. Today‟s pioneering organizations are
those that by trial and error are renewing themselves and the world by
bundling their forces. By doing open innovation. Back to basics is what
lies behind this progress: one cannot survive on its own, collective
efforts open unknown doors. Unboundedness and patience is the way to
move in this direction, if we want to follow in the footsteps of history‟s
greatest innovators in these times of economic downfall.
vi

7. One could guess that this global economical crisis enforces upon
organizations to cut down their innovation activities, in order to
concentrate on short term financial stability. Short sightedness however
might badly effect long term developments. Organizations anyhow need
a long breath to deal with the expected and unexpected challenges of this
crisis. We are witnessing history: it will be business Darwinism as we
have never seen it before. The winners will be those organizations that
excel in balancing between handling short term pressures and fostering
long term growth opportunities. And open innovation might be one of
their many important instruments for success.
This thesis is about open innovation. I was highly interested in getting to
know why organizations do open innovation. I wanted to know their
true motives. For this end, it was obvious that I had to conduct in-depth
interview with large Dutch corporations. My first thought was: that
won‟t be a sinecure. Thus I had some doubts beforehand whether my
research would be feasible, whether I could find enough organizations
that are willing to participate in my research. Fortunately I tend to have
an optimistic nature, so I searched for interviewees for all I was worth.
And eventually, I ended up interviewing eleven organizations, face-to-
face as well as by telephone. The actual conduct was likewise challenging,
as is the case with many things in our professional life that we do for the
first time. I was confident however that it would work out just fine, as I
knew that I was going to deal with mature people: professionals who are
willing to reflect on their organization. As a result, I ended up gaining
good insight in the business field of those organizations, and their
vii

8. pursuit of innovation power. Open innovation seems promising for the
future, as practically all firms believed that collaborative innovation
practices will only increase. Also I became more and more interested in
following business news. The business analyses of the companies I
interviewed on sites like Z24.nl have let me reflect more on the
companies, and in how they are putting effort in coping with the effects
of the current global recession.
For me this thesis marks the final accomplishment of the Master of
Science in Business Administration program 2008-2009 at the Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam. It was an exciting and challenging year, with
this thesis being the stiffest yet most valuable intellectual experience. It
took me three and a half month to complete this longitudinal research,
especially due to a time-consuming yet highly interesting data collection
process. The brainwork was during the whole course of the thesis at its
height. Fortunately, my productivity was greatly stimulated by listening
softly on the background to relaxing Turkish instrumental music and
soundtrack music by Patrick Doyle. The magnificence of Doyle‟s music
lies in the combination of melancholy and suspense in his compositions,
which increased my reflective power I guess. This is not surprising, as
the salutary effect of (instrumental) music on the individuals‟
productivity has been scientifically proven (e.g. Dr. Georgi Lozanov).
Therefore, I would personally advocate that organizations stimulate their
employees to listen to instrumental music softly on the background while
working, for it relax one‟s mood and so enhances the productivity (see
viii

9. also BrainRadio.nl). After all, the last thing firms need right now are
stressful employees who lose their temper, vitality, and, creativity.
In sum, my motivation was to produce a highly qualitative study on open
innovation that is useful for both theoreticians and practitioners. It took
me hence an overdose of meticulousness, perseverance and intensive
„innovation zeal‟ during the last couple of months, but with some
dashing vision I can say that I have produced a creditable study that
hopefully sheds new light on organizations‟ pursuit of (open) innovation
power.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to several people.
Firstly I would like to thank all the interviewees of the multinationals
who were kind enough to take the time and effort to participate in my
research. I am also grateful to my thesis supervisor, prof.dr Han Gerrits,
for his supervision and feedback. This corporate innovation wizard
provided me initially with this topic, and from there I had to pick it up
and work it out. At last, I greatly thank my family and friends for their
great support and patience during these past months of hard work and
throughout my life in the past, present and for what will come in the
(bright) future. “Le travail paie un jour.”
Haydar Azhari. August 2009
ix

10. Management summary
Open innovation practices are nowadays prevalently used next to closed
innovation by many large firms in different industries. Open innovation
are the structural practices of the organization to connect with channels
inside the organization previously not involved in the innovation process
and/or commercial or societal channels outside the organizational
borders in order to find new ideas or combine them with internal ideas
and if possible co-develop and co-market them. Closed innovation is
characterized by the firm relying almost exclusively on its own resources
for idea generation and the subsequent development of ideas into
products and services (e.g. manufacturing, marketing , distributing etc.).
Open innovation and closed innovation are now increasingly interwoven.
It is however not known in detail what the motives are of large firms to
make use of open innovation next to closed innovation.
What are the motives of Dutch MNEs to make use of open innovation next to closed
innovation? This is the main research question that is central in this
explorative study, which aims to reveal the motives of MNEs in the
Netherland to make use of open innovation next to closed innovation. In
addition the study also focuses on the expectancies firms have of it (in
terms of benefits) and the barriers they encounter in using and
optimizing open innovation.
In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten large
Dutch organizations. Open innovation was operationalized by three
different types: inter-organizational networking (with parties outside the
x

11. firm); intra-organizational networking (open innovation within the firm);
and; consumer-centric networking (open innovation with the consumer
base).
Findings show that motives for open innovation among Dutch MNEs
are strategic and practical in nature, meant for strengthening the strong
elements of closed innovation and to compensate for the weak elements
of closed innovation. Open innovation thus complements closed
innovation. Strong elements of closed innovation are: Technological
Innovation Factor, Competitive Factor, Incremental Innovation, and,
Safe Revenue Streams. Weak elements of closed innovation are
Traditional Work Patterns and an overall Inadequate Process for certain
circumstances in the environment of firms.
Expectancies in terms of benefits that Dutch MNEs have of open
innovation are:
 strategic expectancies, concerning the competitiveness of the firm
and long term oriented; and;
 practical expectancies, concerning the human (creativity) factor in the
organization, marketing benefits (applicable in intra-organizational
networking and consumer-centric networking), cost management and
risk sharing, and, practicality in working out and testing propositions
and concepts.
Barriers that Dutch MNEs face in using and optimizing open innovation
are organizational barriers and cultural barriers, both within and outside
the organization.
xi

12. Contents
Abstract iii
Foreword vi
Management summary x
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction of the topic ....................................................................... 1
1.2 Research objectives ................................................................................ 3
1.3 Research question and sub questions .................................................. 3
1.4 Relevance ................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Scope ........................................................................................................ 5
1.6 Research method .................................................................................... 6
1.7 Thesis outline .......................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework 9
2.1 Closed innovation................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 The virtuous cycle of innovation ............................................... 9
2.1.2 Types of innovation .................................................................. 11
2.2 Open innovation .................................................................................. 13
2.2.1 Definition.................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Accelerators ................................................................................ 15
2.2.3 Benefits ....................................................................................... 18
2.2.4 Barriers ........................................................................................ 20
2.2.5 Types of open innovation ........................................................ 20
2.2.5.1 Three core processes ........................................................... 21
xii

13. 2.2.5.1.1 Commercial versus societal user-driven open innovation .... 25
2.3 Open versus closed innovation .......................................................... 34
Chapter 3. Research Methodology 37
3.1 Research approach ............................................................................... 37
3.2 Data collection ...................................................................................... 38
3.3 Operationalization ................................................................................ 47
3.4 Data analysis .......................................................................................... 49
Chapter 4. Research Results 55
4.1 Open innovation in Dutch MNEs ..................................................... 55
4.1.1 Inter-organizational networking .............................................. 55
4.1.1.1 Motives ............................................................................. 56
4.1.1.2 Expectancies ..................................................................... 63
4.1.1.3 Barriers ............................................................................ 69
4.1.2 Intra-organizational networking .............................................. 73
4.1.2.1 Motives ............................................................................. 74
4.1.2.2 Expectancies ..................................................................... 77
4.1.2.3 Barriers ............................................................................ 81
4.1.3 Consumer-centric networking ................................................. 82
4.1.3.1 Motives ............................................................................. 83
4.1.3.2 Expectancies ..................................................................... 84
4.1.3.3 Barriers ............................................................................ 86
4.1.4 Overview..................................................................................... 88
4.2 Closed innovation in Dutch MNEs ................................................... 90
4.2.1 Strong elements.......................................................................... 90
4.2.2 Weak elements ........................................................................... 93
xiii

14. 4.2.3 Overview..................................................................................... 95
4.3 The innovation context per MNE ..................................................... 95
Chapter 5. Conclusion and Discussion 98
5.1 Conclusion and discussion .................................................................. 98
5.2 Managerial implications ..................................................................... 107
5.3 Limitations and directions for future research ............................... 107
References 110
Appendices
Appendix I: Interview Questions ........................................................... 122
Appendix II: Data Matrix ........................................................................ 123
xiv

15. Appendix II: Data Matrix
Q MNE
MNE1 Shell MNE2 Deloitte MNE3 Sara Lee MNE4 Akzo Nobel MNE5 Océ
Q1 Mono-disciplinary, Company focused on The classic closed Innovation CI R&D is some 70-80% of all Technology-driven CI R&D,
Inter-disciplinary business services (tax, audit, Funnel (stagegating); Semi- research activities – innovation
multidisciplinary – innovation
R&D ; financial advisory. closed innovation process funnel - Technology driven funnel, stagegating –
consultancy) – safe revenue industry; Partnering however Development different
CI-CR&D ; CI-II streams; CI-CR&D ; CI-SCP ; CI-II has always been the case, semi-
department than Resarch ; In
CI-CR&D ; CI-SRS; CI-II closed innov.process general very closed, but
partnering was done when
CI-CR&D ; CI-SCP needed (semi-closed)
CI-CR&D ; CI-SCP
Q2 Incremental innovation Working multidisciplinary, Adequate process, building
large part of work; Well Adequate for innovation multifunctionally – preliminary Adequate for technological- technology that corresponds
established process ; within business sphere, i.e. market research; Sound for driven solutions ; Incremental with customers‟ needs – loyal
Adequate for incremental innovation incremental innovation, innovation large part of customers=safe revenue
technological technological innovation; Good development activities; (no real streams 70% of revenue
innovation, which is a CI-TWP ; CI-II profit rendering results, fixed radical innovation; Techn. recurring; Techn.innovation
competitive factor business models important for comp.position and breakthrough products
CI-CF ; CI-II ; CI-TIF ; of firm important for competiteveness;
CI-SRS ; CI-II ; CI-CR&D ; CI-TIF ; CI- Incremental innovation large
SRS CI-TIF ; CI-II ; CI-CF part of work
CI-II ; CI-TIF ; CI-CF ; CI-
SRS
Q3 CI difficult for radical Hierarchy: trad. work
innovation; not easy to patterns, no right conditions Difficult to find growth When low internal speed and Medium-sized firm in industry,
generate radical ideas ; (time, budget) for working opportunities and bring fast to flexibility; No time and Not leading firm in industry,
Traditional work out (deviant) ideas and make market; Difficult organization patience to develop new less budget than HP/Canon,
patterns reason of innovation; not right climate wise to develop new business competences and expertise brings with it limitations; CI
comfort zone for fostering radical models not adequate for changed
(objectivistic thinking) – innovation and creating new environment that is highly
not very dynamic; business models CI-TWP competitive (rel. low time-2-
123

16. Incremental innov. CI-TWP market)
reduces „real‟ innovation CI-IP
CI-IP ; CI-TWP
Q4 Way to find renewal Provide platform for the org. Interacting with outside world, Pragmatic way of realizing a
„options‟, facilitate community to generate and bringing forth a fruitful particular goal by utilizing OI is about using IP in new
(radical) innovation OI- work out ideas dialogue for the org. external channels markets and gain growth
MTV-SIV opportunities
Q5 Intra-organizational Partnerships with external Partnerships with external
„incubator‟, to collect Company-wide innovation parties, e.g. suppliers ; parties (e.g. suppliers, other Partnering with other firms
ideas from employees in vehicle focused on Focus on customers to gain firms); Joint development to advance tech. in firms‟ core
non-hierarchal way, employees insight in their preferences programs markets or gain foot on new
work ideas out, test their OI-INTRA_ON markets; Doing research in an
viability; links with OI-CONS_CN ; OI- OI-INTER_ON open campus to develop new
universities and thought INTER_ON applications
leaders OI-INTER_ON
OI- INTRA_ON ; OI-
INTER_ON
Q6 Create structural vehicle Structural innovation vehicle Collect new ideas; Solve Extend firms‟ competences &
Extend competences &
to collect new ideas – special budget made technological problems and resources; Obtain external
resources, e.g. gain root to
(change org.dynamics), available; Create radical needs; Gain external ideas, knowledge and market; Create radical
facilitate and accelerate innovation; Stimulate knowledge; Stimulate. org technology; Accelerate innovation for current core
(radical) innovation; org.dyanmics; Collect new dynamics; Extend org. Innovation – adequate markets; Use research center
spend money on ideas; Accelerate new and competences and resources; innovation budget to stimulate
for new tech. development,
generating innov.; current innov.projects Better speed to market org.vitality and better speed to
thus have a structural
(specific) problem OI-MTV-NI ; OI-MTV-PS ; market; innovation vehicle; Better
solving OI-MTV-CRI ; OI-MTV- OI-MTV-ECR ; OI-MTV-EK ; coping with environment –
SOV ; OI-MTV-SIV ; OI- OI-MTV-SOV OI-MTV-AIP ; OI-MTV-NI ; speed 2 market, also important
OI-MTV-NI ; OI- MTV-NI ; OI-MTV-AIP ; OI-MTV-STM OI-MTV-NT ; OI-MTV- for org.dynamics. Large budget
MTV-SIV ; OI-MTV- OI-MTV-LIB ECR ; OI-MTV-EK ; OI- plays role in going outside org.
CRI ; OI-MTV-PS ; OI- MTV-LIB ; OI-MTV-SOV
MTV-LIB ; OI-MTV- OI-MTV-STM OI-MTV-CRI ; OI-MTV-SIV
SOV ; OI-MTV-AIP OI-MTV-ECR ; OI-MTV-NT
OI-MTV-STM ; OI-MTV-LIB
124

17. OI-MTV-SOV
Q7 – n/a – Social within the org.; foster Commercial goal (for problem- – n/a – – n/a –
innovative culture in org. OI- solving, e.g. NineSigma) ; Social
EXP-FIM goal with consumers
Q8 Testing new concepts; Corporate level attention: New growth opportunities – New growth opportunities –
Sense of urgency for broader scope for market better competitiveness; Possible access to new markets; Finding new growth
action and renewal – entry new products/services reduction of costs; Testing Increase profit; sense of opportunities – enter new
foster innov. mindset ; – sense of urgency and viability new ideas and urgency; Test (feasibility) new markets with specific
New growth render new revenue streams concepts; Sense of urgency for concepts – possibly reducing technology to increase
opportunities; and stimul.compet. in action; (customer) Value costs and risks and creating competitiveness– by doing
Commercial success; bus.sector; new growth Creation; Have more innovative value; More entrepreneurial research and testing new techn.
Competitive continuity opportunities; testing org. spirit; Learning while doing spirit; Gain new skills, i.e. and concepts - also by
feasibility new ideas and and sharper internal insight; Use learning by doing reducing costs and risks
OI-EXP-NGO ; OI- bus.cases; useful for as marketing tool; through partnering;
EXP-CC ; OI-EXP- publicity/marketing means; OI-EXP-ANM ; OI-EXP-CS ;
TFNC ; OI-EXP-CS ; useful for (org./professional) OI-EXP-VC ; OI-EXP-LP ; OI-EXP-LP ; OI-EXP-FIM ; OI-EXP-NGO ; OI-EXP-
OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP- learning means OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP-SU ANM
FIM OI-EXP-TFNC OI-EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP-
OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-MT ; OI-EXP-NGO ; NGO ECR
NGO ; OI-EXP-LP ; OI- OI-EXP-RCR ; OI-EXP-FIM OI-EXP-VC ; OI-EXP-RCR OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-RCR
EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP-CS ; OI-EXP-NGO
OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-MT ;
OI-EXP-FIM
Q9 Actively search for Important to have senior Use more existing channels, Always make goals clear, more
external ideas also commitment/expertise to partners, build more current specific more concrete, to Upper management was
possible (next to internal make ideas more succesfull network instead of looking for make OI more efficient and skeptical in begin, but as result
ideas) elsewhere effective of success team + budget
OI-OBS-LPK extended
OI-MTV-LIB
Q10 Not always easy to sell At first lack of expertise, Some internal barriers to Culture determines type of Complexity in org issues like
tested concepts to other senior knowlegde; communicate with outside partnership; Partner selection administrative processes,
subsidiaries Decreasing attention in org. world, difficult to accept this is not a sinecure: geographical overhead; IP issues have to
OI-OBS-MPF community; way of thinking and working distance is not handy in fixed well beforehand; Not
125

18. practice; Not each partner has org. can function in OI context
OI-OBS-LPK ; OI-OBS- OI-OBS-CUL same focus, priorities as you; OI-OBS-CMX ; OI-OBS-IPI;
CUL Intellectual Property issues can OI-OBS-CUL
be problematic
OI-OBS-CUL ; OI-OBS-PS ;
OI-OBS-MPF ; OI-OBS-IPI
Q11 Life blood of org., (Safeguarding and CI is stable process, fruitful CI means more risks involved
essential for innov. in optimizing) core business Effective way for product tech. wise, good competitive in innov. process than in earlier
this type of industry activities; Operational development factor times
CI-TIF excellence
CI-TWP ; CI-II CI-TIF ; CI-CF
Q12 Develop new (techn.) Create better conditions for
Effective way for developing
concepts and new innovative org.culture concepts; 2-way OI makes org. more dynamic OI not necessity, but offers
business models to OI-MTV-SIV ; OI-MTV- communication and more possibilities and
make it successful. OI- SOV interaction with consumers OI-MTV-SOV opportunities
EXP-CS (develop brand awareness) OI- OI-EXP-NGO
EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP-MT ;
OI-EXP-VC
Partner with key suppliers and
find external solution for
tech.needs
OI-MTV-ECR ; OI-MTV-PS
Q13 No essential change in Better idea generation and Be faster, more flexible when Window opportunities through
R&D, but better way to innovation output than in CI OI helps in realizing external partnering in development OI; CI –OI not black and
find/work out seeds for OI-EXP-FIM possibilities, foster phase than is the case in CI – white, firm operates in gray
innov. OI-MTV-SIV ; innov.mindset important in the type of area between CI and OI
(OI-MTV-SOV) OI-EXP-FIM ;OI-MTV-EK industry; Better able with OI to
innovate in business models
than in CI
OI-EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP-
CS
126

19. Q14 CI/R&D stays leading, More multidisciplinary Hybride model: closed and Many closed parts will exist in CI stays important on several
OI only „small‟ part of working, but CI is leading in open innovation is interrelated. company, because control on parts; But hybride model is
org., delivers viable business, OI just vehicle for OI will increase however: more innovation cycle is important more the case – Resarch
innov. seeds to R&D new propositions open, faster, more (e.g. IP) CI-CF department proportion CI-
CI-CR&D multidisciplinary and partner OI will incease – the trend is OI=50-50 ; OI not necessity,
with several partners becoming more open – more but partnering will only
simulaneously multidisciplinary, more increase
CI-SCP partnering
CI-SCP
OI-MTV-ECR
Q MNE
MNE6 DSM MNE7 Philips MNE8 SABIC MNE9 TomTom MNE10 ABN Amro
Q1 Closed R&D lab, innovation
CI, tech.driven industry; funnel, hardcore research Conservative industry, Software company : scrumming. Banking industry: internal
CI is about generating IP (basic technologies, technology-driven, around 60- Tech.push industry, leasing product development, from
and be competitive generating IP) – gained good 70% closed research activities; market position. Open source idea to launch.
money with this process. multidisciplinary teams; stage community
CI-CR&D Also semi-closed, always gating mechanism/innovation
been with universities funnel from idea to launch CI-TIF
CI-CR&D ; CI-SCP ; CI-TIF CI-CR&D
; CI-SRS ; CI-CF CI-CR&D
Q2 CI is comp.factor in B2B Right process for company, in
market; Important for CI‟s importance and Good as techn.innovation Efficient for radical and which operation excellence is
increasing profit. CI is dominance has decreased, as factor, incremental innovation incremental innovation; essential. Bank has to
acceptable for optimzing market conditions has (development process with Comp.differentiation through safeguard revenue streams
products that customer changed stage gating mechanisms often Products render safe revenue and be competitive
asked for, incremental Only techn.superiority not internal/closed) streams
innov. enough, marketing also CI-TIF ; CI-CF ; CI-II CI-II ; CI-SRS ; CI-CF
CI-II ; CI-CF; CI-SRS important CI-II ; CI-SRS
CI-IP
Q3 CI is a slow process, Lack of (human) resources,
127

20. takes too long, and is CI not adequate for changed competences and facilities for Not adequate in a certain part Only traditional work
inadequate for environment – is not enough new growth research. With CI of predevelopment phase of activities, no room for deviant
breakthrough to excel in paradigm shift not possible to gain pre- product ideas “radical innovation”.
innovation/market CI-TWP ; competitive benefits. Not Therefore, need for incubator
conditions (than OI); adequate (enough) for that generate projects out of
Difficult therefore to get breakthough innovation for ideas, that don‟t fit in the
funding because risks are sustainability, e.g. bio-based regular banking dept. but are
high. CI-IP polymers, CO2 reduction); related to the scope of a bank
With CI not always possible to
create value in product CI-TWP
development, internal scope is
not adequate, links with outside
world are therefore essential
CI-TWP ; CI-IP
Q4 Way of operating in the Ecosystem of innovation, to Access to more resources, Leveraging intellectual capital
current business world create value instruments than is the case OI means accelerating that exist within and outside
internally, to benefit from the innovation the org.
power of uniting forces for pre-
competitive means
Q5 Value chain partnering; Partnerships with external Participation in research Essential partnership in Intra-org. innovation vehicle,
Offering res.facilities in partners (e.g. suppliers, institures, for pre-competitive predevelopment phase with incubator ; Innovation of
open campus; Intra-org. competitors, other firms), means; Open campus for partner in the value chain, services with external partners
OI in global virtual R&D open innovation campus research ends; because of interdependency in joint development context
departments setting ; User-driven (social) Global virtual R&D network OI-INTER_ON (e.g. joint-ventures)
OI-INTER_ON ; OI- research, e.g. HomeLab OI-INTER_ON ; OI- OI-INTER_ON ; OI-
INTRA_ON OI-INTER_ON ; OI- INTRA_ON INTRA_ON
CONS_CN
Q6 Have a structural innovation
OI important for org. Extend comp. snd resources Extend comp. and resources: Dependency of other parties in vehicle – aided by adequate
dynamics – large innov. ; better speed to market by research for radical innovation value chain: extend resources in innovation budget, to
budget reserved to obtain accelerating innov.projects, and problem solving; Foster. pre-development phase; generate new ideas and create
external knowledge, obtaining new ideas and org. dynamics ; Obtain new Specific problem solving and radical innovation from the
128

21. tech., then also accelerate ex.knowledge ; better org. ideas for trends, product accelerate innovation projects org. point of view; Also to
innovation projects and dynamics through strategic development from partners in extend org. competences and
have better time-2- approach and by combining value chain OI-MTV-IDP ; OI-MTV-AIP resources in innovation
market by knowing the ingredients for new projects
value chain, extend innovations, being able to OI-MTV-CRI ; OI-MTV-ECR ;
comp.&resources with adapt easy OI-MTV-PS ; OI-MTV-NI ; OI-MTV-NI ; OI-MTV-SIV
partners in val.chain. OI-MTV-ECR ; OI-MTV- OI-MTV-SOV OI-MTV-LIB ; OI-MTV-CRI
OI-MTV-AIP ; OI- SOV ; OI-MTV-STM ; OI- OI-MTV-SOV ; OI-MTV-
MTV-STM MTV-AIP ; OI-MTV-NI ; ECR
OI-MTV-SOV ; OI- OI-MTV-EK
MTV-ECR
OI-MTV-LIB ; OI-
MTV-EK
OI-MTV-NT ;
Q7 – n/a – Social research in HomeLab, – n/a – – n/a – – n/a –
to resarch mindset of
customer (research goal)
Q8 Important for Q8 Q8
competitiveness, Increase competitiveness – Increase competitiveness;
commercial success – e.g. access new markets and have Reduce costs and risks of pre- Proper product development, Sense of urgency to leverage
reducing costs & risks in more commercial success; competitive research and find test feasibility new concepts ; intellectual capital ; New
value chain for.ex.; Share costs and riskss; Value new growth opportunities and Reduce costs and risks ; growth opportunities and
through new growth creation, e.g. better business increase profit-rendering Increase comp. through with this commercial success
opportunities, access 2 models and develop them activities; Create added value in prioritzing for the bank; Test feasibility
new markets, value faster; Sense of urgency prod.development; Sense of new ideas and concepts; Use
creation by knowing the action and obtaining outside urgency through technology OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-TFNC for marketing and image
value chain; Test new knowledge; Foster push and for action and value OI-EXP-RCR means and use learning points
concepts and products; innov.mindset in open creation in value chain; for optimizing internal
OI creates SU for proper campus; Test new concepts, Exchange knowledge and processes
action; OI will foster products; Better learning and increase learning power of org.
knowledge management adapting in finding the right through interaction with outside OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP-
and more innov.mindset; thing, how to combine things world TFNC ; OI-EXP-NGO ; OI-
OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-VC ; OI-EXP-CC EXP-MT ; OI-EXP-LP ; OI-
129

22. FIM OI-EXP-CS ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-VC ; OI-EXP-LP EXP-CS
OI-EXP-NGO ; OI- TFNC OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-RCR
EXP-VC OI-EXP-ANM ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-FIM ; OI-EXP-SU
OI-EXP-CS ; OI-EXP- LP OI-EXP-CS ; OI-EXP-NGO
CC OI-EXP-FIM ; OI-EXP-SU
OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-RCR
RCR
OI-EXP-TFNC ; OI-
EXP-ANM ; OI-EXP-
LP
Q9 Ambitions increased as Q9 Work from strategy, Demarcate well your limits: Less space to act because of
result of (commercial) structured and well what is common interest with No, exp. the same, not adjusted. lowering budget (ec. crisis)
success thoughtout to function partners and what is meant for Only currently less growth
effectively in OI context - business exploitation,, to bring potential as result of crisis
not put everything at your back to the company
supplier OI-EXP-SU
OI-OBS-LPK
Q10 Fear for complexity and Psychological factors: Not- Fear of leaking IP; Partner selection is
non-strategic moves; invented-here syndrome ; IP issues because of peer Partners have diff. of painstaking; And sometimes
People seeing demerits to Lack of practical knowledge companies doing common innovation, different priorities and focus between
OI, afraid of losing job; to work efficient in OI interest research together; mindset/culture and focus; partners don‟t match; Lack of
fear for leaking IP context ; Research has diff. sometimes business department Complexity to innovate in practical knowledge how to
OI-OBS-CMX ; OI- focus advises not to go in OI mode conservative automotive engage in and succeed in OI
OBS-CUL OI-OBS-LPK ; OI-OBS- because of IP reasons industry, also due to high PLC
OI-OBS-IPI CUL OI-OBS-IPI OI-OBS-IPI ; OI-OBS-MPF OI-OBS-MPF ; OI-OBS-
OI-OBS-MPF OI-OBS-CMX LPK
OI-OBS-PS
Q11 CI is important as CF for CI is important to find new
company for incremental things out, let hardcore CI is an internal process CI through scrumming means Safeguarding operational
innov. and generating IP technicians experiment, not dominated by tech.push and innovation through large excellence
to protect inventions regulate everything, diversity dictated by (central) business flexibility and adaptability.
is important in org. dept. CI stays important Innovating by org. strengths
CI-TWP element for company and
130

23. especially in this industry: you
kow what you can achieve with
this process
Q12 OI comp. necessity: Window opportunities ;
you‟d better do it comp. necessity ; loose OI means: extend resources, Key of OI is accelerating Leveraging intellectual capital
innovation funnel gain access to smartest brains, innovation in predevelopment and creating (radical)
OI-EXP-SU gain broad research horizon phase innovation which doesn‟t fit
through collaboration with in regular dept. and
external parties. Find jointly OI-MTV-IDP ; OI-MTV-AIP increasing ec.profit by new
solutions for world problems business models
through the best means and
instruments possible.
Q13 OI creates good business CI=not-invented-here
models; Have helped in syndrom With OI people gain new ideas, CI is especially adequate for OI has strengthened executive
diversification of OI= a mindset, proudly become somewhat more products in B2C market; capacity of org. by leveraging
company; offensive IP found elsewhere innovative; And through OI OI is especially important in internal and external ideas; OI
strategy corporation advances in B2B market segment. (diff. in is constantly being done with
OI-MTV-SOV research that is not possible context CI-OI) other (external) parties; OI
with CI. OI mindset is doesn‟t focus on core
important in org. business and market of the
org.; OI incubator is diff.
entity, positioned outside the
banking org.
Q14 CI will decrease (slightly), OI increases, all parts of org.
OI will increaseOI use open innovation, it‟s a Expectation was not to replace Tech.driven company, so CI is The physical relation between
important to survive in need to have (inavoidable), internal processes, that‟s a leading; the incubator and rest of org.
highly comp.environment to extend innov. instruments; misconception. Closed R&D OI used only pragmatically, to is tense, as trad. work and
Partnering, alliances, stays essential, even when support predevelopment of thinking patterns are reason
venturing has become engaging in OI. B2B products with external for mistrust and suspicion of
essential, to extend playing Collab.innovation has become parties (dependent of other entr.activities in the incubator
field and opport. essential as result of changed parties in the value chain
131

24. OI-MTV-SOV environment. Because of pre-
competitive research, OI will
increase. CI model will decrease
only qualitatively.
132