No description available.

[pt] A transição energética se põe como um dos grandes desafios de nosso tempo. Até 2050 são previstos mais de 13 trilhões de dólares de investimentos só em energia elétrica, sendo 77 por cento em fontes renováveis. Nesse contexto o paradigma das inovações abertas deve exercer um papel fundamental, reduzindo os custos das tecnologias atuais, criando novos mercados e remodelando os existentes através da interação dos cinco principais atores desse processo: universidades, corporações, governos, empreendedores e capitalistas de risco. No nosso primeiro artigo, mostramos a importância da interação desses três primeiros atores ao redor de políticas públicas orientadas às missões. Construímos um framework capaz de endereçar as melhores práticas desse tipo de política quando estas são aplicadas à transição energética. No segundo, buscamos identificar os padrões que levaram startups de energia ao sucesso ou ao fracasso o longo dos últimos 20 anos. Descobrimos que os modelos de negócio, os valores investidos e o perfil dos investidores exerceram um papel fundamental nestas trajetórias. Por fim, dada a relevância da relação entre startups e corporações na transição energética, analisamos no terceiro artigo o papel do corporate venture capital (CVC) ao longo dos últimos 25 anos e identificamos a existência de uma quinta onda de CVC, que possui notáveis particularidades e que leva as unidades de CVC ao centro estratégico de inovação das corporações modernas. De modo geral concluímos que todos os cinco principais atores possuem papeis distintos, mas fundamentais, na transição energética. / [en] The energy transition is one of the most significant challenges of our time. By 2050, more than 13 trillion of dollars of investments are expected in the electricity sector, with 77 percent from renewable sources. In this context, the open innovation paradigm should play a key role in reducing the costs of current technologies, creating new markets and reshaping the existing ones through the interaction of the five main stakeholders in this process: universities, corporations, governments, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. In the first article, we show the importance of the interaction of the first three actors around mission-oriented public policies. We build a framework that can address the best practices of this type of policy when applied to the energy transition context. In the second, we seek to identify the patterns that have led energy startups to success or failure over the past 20 years. We find that business models, invested values, and investor profiles play a key role in these trajectories. Finally, considering the relevance of the relationship between startups and corporations during the energy transition, we analyzed in the third article the role of corporate venture capital (CVC) over the last 25 years and we recognize the fifth wave of CVC, which has many particularities and drives the CVC units to the innovation s strategic center of modern corporations. Overall, we conclude that all these main five stakeholders have a distinct but fundamental role in the energy transition.

Innovation has increasingly become a crucial factor in the development of contemporary societies, to such an extent that Innovation has now come to be regarded as a key issue for the achievement of sustainable economic growth and resilient social welfare systems. Therefore, the phenomenon of Innovation has been extensively analysed during the past century; and analyses have been carried out from a wide range of approaches: Economics, Technical Studies, and Cultural Studies, amongst others. However, practically none of those works tried to deepen the link between Innovation and Foresight (especially with its more integrative approaches: Images of the Future and Participatory Foresight). The aim of this research is to contribute to theoretical development within the cross-disciplinary field of Foresight and Innovation through the analysis of the links existing between these two aspects and the proposal of new ways to approach their study (based on the use of social media communication tools). This doctoral dissertation comprises a total of 5 essays (2 articles, 2 book chapters and 1 paper at an international congress) plus 4 annexes (2 articles, 1 book chapter and 1 paper at a national congress). All these essays and annexes are the result of the work that the candidate carried out as a researcher of FUTURLAB – The Foresight Laboratory (University of Alicante), with the invaluable help of the researchers from the Finland Futures Research Centre (Finland).

[ES] Esta investigación propone un modelo que orienta a las PYMES en sus procesos para incrementar su capacidad innovadora. La metodología utilizada se basó en la caracterización de las prácticas para la construcción y el desarrollo de la capacidad de innovación a partir de revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura científica. Posteriormente, se validó en una muestra de las pymes para los sectores priorizados por el gobierno (Agroindustria, Sistema Moda, Construcción y TIC), el nivel de aplicación de las variables y estadísticamente se definió el modelo que explica la incidencia de las variables en los resultados financieros de las pymes. Por último, se realizó un mapeo riguroso de los actores que componen el Sistema Nacional de Competitividad, Ciencia y Tecnología e Innovación de Colombia, al identificar su geolocalización, objetivo, instrumentos disponibles y roles bajo la teoría de Ecosistemas de Innovación. Como variable dependiente se consideraron los resultados exitosos de las empresas medidos a partir de la rentabilidad igual o superior a la media del sector. Precisamente, se identificaron nueve variables relacionadas con aquellos factores que permiten la construcción y el desarrollo de la capacidad innovadora, las cuales inciden en los resultados financieros de las pymes. Por otra parte, frente al mapeo de actores del ecosistema y de los instrumentos disponibles para promover el desarrollo de estrategias innovadoras en las pymes de los 4 sectores de estudio, se evidenció una alta concentración de geolocalización en las 2 ciudades más grandes de Colombia (Bogotá D.C. y Medellín), y pese a que ofrecen programas con alcance nacional se tiene poco acceso por la falta de recursos. Estas brechas se describen en el CONPES 3866 sobre la adquisición de conocimiento y tecnología, y ponen en desventaja a empresas localizadas en regiones apartadas de ciudades intermedias que no cuentan con actores articuladores y facilitadores. Sumado al modelo, este proyecto explica las variables que inciden en el éxito financiero de las pymes con lo cual podrán proponerse programas relacionados. / [CA] Aquesta investigació proposa un model que orienta a les PIMES en els seus processos per a incrementar la seua capacitat innovadora. La metodologia utilitzada es va basar en la caracterització de les pràctiques per a la construcció i el desenvolupament de la capacitat d'innovació a partir de revisions sistemàtiques de la literatura científica. Posteriorment, es va validar en una mostra de les pimes per als sectors prioritzats pel govern (Agroindústria, Sistema Moda, Construcció i TIC), el nivell d'aplicació de les variables i estadísticament es va definir el model que explica la incidència de les variables en els resultats financers de les pimes. Finalment, es va realitzar un mapatge rigorós dels actors que componen el Sistema Nacional de Competitivitat, Ciència i Tecnologia i Innovació de Colòmbia, en identificar la seua geolocalització, objectiu, instruments disponibles i rols sota la teoria d'Ecosistemes d'Innovació. Com a variable dependent es van considerar els resultats reeixits de les empreses mesurats a partir de la rendibilitat igual o superior a la mitjana del sector. Precisament, es van identificar nou variables relacionades amb aquells factors que permeten la construcció i el desenvolupament de la capacitat innovadora, les quals incideixen en els resultats financers de les pimes. D'altra banda, enfront del mapatge d'actors de l'ecosistema i dels instruments disponibles per a promoure el desenvolupament d'estratègies innovadores en les pimes dels 4 sectors d'estudi, es va evidenciar una alta concentració de geolocalització en les 2 ciutats més grans de Colòmbia (Bogotà D. C. i Medellín), i malgrat que ofereixen programes amb abast nacional es té poc accés per la falta de recursos. Aquestes bretxes es descriuen en el *CONPES 3866 sobre l'adquisició de coneixement i tecnologia, i posen en desavantatge a empreses localitzades en regions apartades de ciutats intermèdies que no compten amb actors *articuladores i facilitadors. Sumat al model, aquest projecte explica les variables que incideixen en l'èxit financer de les pimes amb la qual cosa podran proposar-se programes relacionats / [EN] This research proposes a model that guides SMEs in their processes to increase their innovative capacity. The methodology used was based on the characterization of practices for the construction and development of innovation capacity based on systematic reviews of the scientific literature. Subsequently, the level of application of the variables was validated in a sample of SMEs for the sectors prioritized by the government (Agribusiness, Fashion System, Construction and ICT), and statistically the model that explains the incidence of the variables in the financial results of SMEs. Finally, a rigorous mapping of the actors that make up the National System of Competitiveness, Science and Technology and Innovation of Colombia was carried out, by identifying their geolocation, objective, available instruments and roles under the theory of Innovation Ecosystems. As a dependent variable, the successful results of the companies were considered, measured from profitability equal to or greater than the sector average. Precisely, nine variables were identified related to those factors that allow the construction and development of innovative capacity, which affect the financial results of SMEs. On the other hand, facing the mapping of ecosystem actors and the available instruments to promote the development of innovative strategies in SMEs of the 4 study sectors, a high concentration of geolocation was evidenced in the 2 largest cities of Colombia (Bogotá D.C. and Medellín), and even though they offer programs with a national scope, there is little access due to lack of resources. These gaps are described in CONPES 3866 on the acquisition of knowledge and technology and put at a disadvantage companies located in remote regions of intermediate cities that do not have coordinating and facilitating actors. Added to the model, this project explains the variables that affect the financial success of SMEs with which related programs can be proposed. / Diaz Delgado, MF. (2023). Modelo multidimensional para la construcción y desarrollo de la capacidad de innovación abierta en pymes [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/193494

Open innovation is a phenomenon that has gained vast attention since its introduction in 2003. It has been identified that organizations are experiencing a shift from the innovation process towards an open innovation approach. However, research on open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has shown to require more attention in the literature. This study investigated the effect of resources and capabilities in Swedish SMEs to address the challenges of liability of smallness. The purpose of this research is to investigate the challenges that Swedish SMEs in the high-tech industry face while opting for an open innovation approach. For that, the following research question was answered: How do resources and capabilities affect Swedish SMEs in engaging in open innovation to overcome the liability of smallness?  A resource-based theory has been implied in this study which examines from five distinct perspectives namely, strategy, process, corporate structure, cross-company network, and culture.  This thesis paper is a qualitative study that has been conducted by semi-structured interviews with five Swedish SMEs. The empirical data was then thematically analyzed and seven themes have been developed from the data analysis. The findings reveal that firstly, Swedish SMEs in the high-tech industry are open to external collaboration and accepting innovative ideas coming from both internal and external sources. Therefore, empirical evidence shows that Swedish SMEs are not always reluctant to make a shift towards open innovation. Rather it has been found that SMEs are open to opportunities to tackle the obstacle of smallness. Secondly, resources and capabilities have a positive effect on the performance of the SMEs. Allocation of resources both financial and human resources results in the successful commercialization of a project, thus by gaining a competitive advantage the performance of the firm improves significantly. Thirdly, whilst the liability of smallness has shown to have an impact on Swedish SMEs in the high-tech industry, it has also been identified how smallness also can be viewed as an asset. Smallness as an asset has been found to make an impact on Swedish SMEs in the high-tech industry and the unique opportunities that they possess. Leveraging open innovation and capitalizing on flexibility, linear corporate structure, inclusive culture, and leveraging formal and informal networks to engage in external collaboration has been shown to have an effect on SMEs and contribute to smallness as an asset. Therefore, a comprehensive conceptual framework has been developed in this study that integrates insights gained from the research.

Involving customers in the creation and design process of new products and services has been dis-cussed in practice and research since the early 1980’s. As one of the first researchers, von Hippel (1986) shed light on the concept of Lead Users, a group of users who are able to provide most accu-rate data on future needs for organizations. Subsequently, many scholars emphasized different areas of contribution for customers and how they provide assistance to the process of innovation. First of all, customers may contribute to product innovation (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987; Driessen & Hillebrand, 2013; Füller & Matzler, 2007; Gruner & Homburg, 2000; Sawhney, Verona, & Prandelli, 2005; Snow, Fjeldstad, Lettl, & Miles, 2011; Yang & Rui, 2009) and service innovation (Abecassis-Moedas, Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, Dell’Era, Manceau, & Verganti, 2012; Alam, 2002; Chesbrough, 2011; Larbig-Wüst, 2010; Magnusson, 2003; Paton & Mclaughlin, 2008; Shang, Lin, & Wu, 2009; Silpakit & Fisk, 1985), e.g., by co-creating values (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004), such as concepts or designs as well as reviewing and testing them throughout the stages of the process of innovation. From the customers’ point of view, being involved in innovation processes and becoming a part of the organ-ization is a desire of an increasing number of them. Customers are demanding more individual and more tailored products. They are increasingly knowledgeable and capable of designing and produc-ing their own products and services. Due to the fact that their influence on product development is positively related to the quality of the new product (Sethi, 2000), more and more organizations appreciate them as innovation actors and are willing to pay them for their input. Today, customers are not only involved in the qualification of products (Callon, Méadel, & Rabeharisoa, 2002; Callon & Muniesa, 2005; Grabher, Ibert, & Flohr, 2009) but also allowed to customize and evaluate them on the path to innovation (Franke & Piller, 2004; Piller & Walcher, 2006; von Hippel & Katz, 2002; von Hippel, 2001). Moreover, there is an abundance of studies that stress the customers’ influence on effectiveness (de Luca & Atuahene-Gima, 2007; Kleinschmidt & Cooper, 1991; Kristensson, Matthing, & Johansson, 2008; Still, Huhtamäki, Isomursu, Lahti, & Koskela-Huotari, 2012) and risk (Bayer & Maier, 2006; Enkel, Kausch, & Gassmann, 2005; Enkel, Perez-Freije, & Gassmann, 2005). While the latter comprises the risk of customer integration as well as the customers’ influence on market risks, e.g., during new product development, studies on effectiveness are mostly concerned with customer-orientation and products/services in line with customers’ expectations (Atuahene-Gima, 1996, 2003; Fuchs & Schreier, 2011). The accompanying change in understanding became known as open innovation (OI; first coined by Chesbrough in 2003) and represents a paradigm shift, where organizations switch their focus from internally generated innovation (i.e., ideation, in-house R&D, etc.) toward external knowledge and open innovation processes, thus, allowing them to integrate external ideas and actors, i.e. custom-ers (Chesbrough, 2006) and other external stakeholders (Laursen & Salter, 2006). Since then, OI has been identified as a success factor for increasing customer satisfaction (Füller, Hutter, & Faullant, 2011; Greer & Lei, 2012) and growing revenues (Faems, De Visser, Andries, & van Looy, 2010; Mette, Moser, & Fridgen, 2013; Spithoven, Frantzen, & Clarysse, 2010). In addition to that, by open-ing their doors to external experts and knowledge workers (Kang & Kang, 2009), organizations cope with shorter innovation cycles, rising R&D costs, and the shortage of resources (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004). Parallel to the paradigm shift in innovation, another shift has taken place in information and com-munication technologies (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). Only a few years ago, when customer integration was still very costly, companies had to fly in customers, provide facilities onsite, permanently assign employees to such activities, and incentivise each task execut-ed by customers. Today, emerging technologies (subsumed under the term ‘social software’) help integrating customers or other external stakeholders, who are increasingly familiar with the such technologies from personal usage experience (Cook, 2008), and grant them access from all over the world in a 24/7 fashion. Examples include blogging tools, social networking systems, or wikis. These technologies help organizations to access customer knowledge, facilitate the collaboration with customers (Culnan, McHugh, & Zubillaga, 2010; Piller & Vossen, 2012) at reduced costs and allow them to address a much larger audience (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). On the other hand, customers can now express their needs in a more direct way to organizations. However, each technology or application category may present a completely different benefit to the process of innovation or parts of it and, thus, the innovation itself. Reflecting these developments, organizations need to know two things: how can they exploit the customers’ knowledge for innovation purposes and how may the implementation of social soft-ware support this. Hence, this research addresses the integration of customers in organizational innovation, i.e. new product development. It addresses how and why firms activate customers for innovation and which contribution customers provide to the process of innovation. Additionally, it investigates which tasks customers may take over in open innovations projects and which strategies organiza-tions may choose to do so. It also addresses which social software application supports each task best and how organizations may select the most suitable application out of a rapidly growing num-ber of alternatives. The nature of this research is recommendatory and aims at designing a solution for organizations that are interested in the potential contribution of customers during innovation, already involve customers in innovation tasks or plan to do so. Following the recommendations of this research should result in a more effective organizational exploitation of customer knowledge and their workforce and, thus, a value added to innovation and the outcomes of the process of innovation, e.g., a product that better fits the customers’ expectations and demands or consequently a better adoption of the product by the customer.

No description available.

Involving customers in the creation and design process of new products and services has been dis-cussed in practice and research since the early 1980’s. As one of the first researchers, von Hippel (1986) shed light on the concept of Lead Users, a group of users who are able to provide most accu-rate data on future needs for organizations. Subsequently, many scholars emphasized different areas of contribution for customers and how they provide assistance to the process of innovation. First of all, customers may contribute to product innovation (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987; Driessen & Hillebrand, 2013; Füller & Matzler, 2007; Gruner & Homburg, 2000; Sawhney, Verona, & Prandelli, 2005; Snow, Fjeldstad, Lettl, & Miles, 2011; Yang & Rui, 2009) and service innovation (Abecassis-Moedas, Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, Dell’Era, Manceau, & Verganti, 2012; Alam, 2002; Chesbrough, 2011; Larbig-Wüst, 2010; Magnusson, 2003; Paton & Mclaughlin, 2008; Shang, Lin, & Wu, 2009; Silpakit & Fisk, 1985), e.g., by co-creating values (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004), such as concepts or designs as well as reviewing and testing them throughout the stages of the process of innovation. From the customers’ point of view, being involved in innovation processes and becoming a part of the organ-ization is a desire of an increasing number of them. Customers are demanding more individual and more tailored products. They are increasingly knowledgeable and capable of designing and produc-ing their own products and services. Due to the fact that their influence on product development is positively related to the quality of the new product (Sethi, 2000), more and more organizations appreciate them as innovation actors and are willing to pay them for their input. Today, customers are not only involved in the qualification of products (Callon, Méadel, & Rabeharisoa, 2002; Callon & Muniesa, 2005; Grabher, Ibert, & Flohr, 2009) but also allowed to customize and evaluate them on the path to innovation (Franke & Piller, 2004; Piller & Walcher, 2006; von Hippel & Katz, 2002; von Hippel, 2001). Moreover, there is an abundance of studies that stress the customers’ influence on effectiveness (de Luca & Atuahene-Gima, 2007; Kleinschmidt & Cooper, 1991; Kristensson, Matthing, & Johansson, 2008; Still, Huhtamäki, Isomursu, Lahti, & Koskela-Huotari, 2012) and risk (Bayer & Maier, 2006; Enkel, Kausch, & Gassmann, 2005; Enkel, Perez-Freije, & Gassmann, 2005). While the latter comprises the risk of customer integration as well as the customers’ influence on market risks, e.g., during new product development, studies on effectiveness are mostly concerned with customer-orientation and products/services in line with customers’ expectations (Atuahene-Gima, 1996, 2003; Fuchs & Schreier, 2011). The accompanying change in understanding became known as open innovation (OI; first coined by Chesbrough in 2003) and represents a paradigm shift, where organizations switch their focus from internally generated innovation (i.e., ideation, in-house R&D, etc.) toward external knowledge and open innovation processes, thus, allowing them to integrate external ideas and actors, i.e. custom-ers (Chesbrough, 2006) and other external stakeholders (Laursen & Salter, 2006). Since then, OI has been identified as a success factor for increasing customer satisfaction (Füller, Hutter, & Faullant, 2011; Greer & Lei, 2012) and growing revenues (Faems, De Visser, Andries, & van Looy, 2010; Mette, Moser, & Fridgen, 2013; Spithoven, Frantzen, & Clarysse, 2010). In addition to that, by open-ing their doors to external experts and knowledge workers (Kang & Kang, 2009), organizations cope with shorter innovation cycles, rising R&D costs, and the shortage of resources (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004). Parallel to the paradigm shift in innovation, another shift has taken place in information and com-munication technologies (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). Only a few years ago, when customer integration was still very costly, companies had to fly in customers, provide facilities onsite, permanently assign employees to such activities, and incentivise each task execut-ed by customers. Today, emerging technologies (subsumed under the term ‘social software’) help integrating customers or other external stakeholders, who are increasingly familiar with the such technologies from personal usage experience (Cook, 2008), and grant them access from all over the world in a 24/7 fashion. Examples include blogging tools, social networking systems, or wikis. These technologies help organizations to access customer knowledge, facilitate the collaboration with customers (Culnan, McHugh, & Zubillaga, 2010; Piller & Vossen, 2012) at reduced costs and allow them to address a much larger audience (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). On the other hand, customers can now express their needs in a more direct way to organizations. However, each technology or application category may present a completely different benefit to the process of innovation or parts of it and, thus, the innovation itself. Reflecting these developments, organizations need to know two things: how can they exploit the customers’ knowledge for innovation purposes and how may the implementation of social soft-ware support this. Hence, this research addresses the integration of customers in organizational innovation, i.e. new product development. It addresses how and why firms activate customers for innovation and which contribution customers provide to the process of innovation. Additionally, it investigates which tasks customers may take over in open innovations projects and which strategies organiza-tions may choose to do so. It also addresses which social software application supports each task best and how organizations may select the most suitable application out of a rapidly growing num-ber of alternatives. The nature of this research is recommendatory and aims at designing a solution for organizations that are interested in the potential contribution of customers during innovation, already involve customers in innovation tasks or plan to do so. Following the recommendations of this research should result in a more effective organizational exploitation of customer knowledge and their workforce and, thus, a value added to innovation and the outcomes of the process of innovation, e.g., a product that better fits the customers’ expectations and demands or consequently a better adoption of the product by the customer.:1 Introduction 2 Theoretical foundation 3 Research areas and focal points 4 Research aims and questions 5 Methods 6 Findings 7 Conclusion References Essay 1: The Role of External Knowledge in Open Innovation – A Systematic Review of Literature Essay 2: External Knowledge in Organisational Innovation – Toward an Integration Concept Essay 3: Idea Mining – Text Mining Supported Knowledge Management for Innovation Purposes Essay 4: How do Tasks and Technology fit? – Bringing Order to the Open Innovation Chaos

Aus Sicht der Innovationsforschung besteht der Kern eines erfolgreichen Unternehmens aus folgender Formel: Innovative Ideen + Gute Umsetzung = Unternehmenserfolg. Hierbei spielten Service Center in der allgemeinen Managementwahrnehmung bislang eine untergeordnete Rolle. Damit wird ihnen Unrecht getan. Denn im Innovationsprozess stehen die Service Center am Ende des Produktzyklus. Was übersehen wird, ist, dass sie zugleich den Anfang eines neuen Produktzyklus bilden können. Insbesondere da in den Service Centern alle Erfahrungen zusammen laufen - vor allem die der Kunden. Um dieses Missverhältnis zwischen allgemeiner Wahrnehmung und effektiver Bedeutung von Service Centern für den Innovationsprozess herauszuarbeiten und Korrekturmöglichkeiten aufzuzeigen, wurden im Rahmen der Dissertation informationstechnische Methoden und Werkzeuge entworfen, entwickelt und eingesetzt. Am Ende entstand daraus sogar ein eigenes Produkt, das in Kundensituationen eingesetzt werden kann.:1 Einleitung 1.1 Ausgangssituation 1.2 Methodischer Bedarf 1.3 Zielsetzung und Forschungsfrage 1.4 Forschungsansatz 1.5 Iteratives Vorgehen bei der Entwicklung der IT-Lösung 2 Kundenzentriertes Innovationsmanagement im Service Center als Entwicklungsobjekt 2.1 Begriffsbildung 2.1.1 Definition von Innovationsmanagement 2.1.2 Open Innovation 2.1.3 Kundenzentriertes Innovationsmanagement 2.1.4 Service Center 2.1.5 IT-gestütztes kundenzentriertes Innovationsmanagement im Service Center 2.2 Einbettung der Begrifflichkeit in das aktuelle Forschungsumfeld 2.2.1 Kundenmanagement 2.2.2 Innovationsmanagement 2.2.3 Open Innovation 2.2.4 Kundenintegration in Innovationsmanagementaktivitäten 2.2.5 Service Center 2.2.6 IT-Lösungen für Kundeneinbindung in Innovationsmanagement 2.2.7 IT-Lösungen im Service Center Umfeld 2.2.8 Qualitätsmanagement 2.2.9 Wissensmanagement 2.2.10 Marktforschung 2.2.11 Zusammenfassung relevanter, quantitativer, empirischer Studien 2.3 Empirische Untersuchung 2.3.1 Begründung und Grundlagen der empirischen Untersuchung 2.3.2 Konzeption der qualitativen Datenerhebung durch Experteninterviews 2.4 Analyse der Nachteile und Restriktionen 2.4.1 Restriktion auf Kundenseite 2.4.2 Restriktion auf Unternehmensseite 2.4.3 Zusammenfassung 2.5 Analyse der Vorteile 2.5.1 Unterstützung des gesamten Innovationsprozesses 2.5.2 Vielfalt an Kundeninformationen 2.5.3 Repräsentativität 2.5.4 Vorhandene Informationsfülle 2.5.5 Informationstiefe 2.5.6 Direkte Aufnahme von Kundenbedürfnissen 2.5.7 Einblick in Nutzungsverhalten 2.5.8 Geringe Verarbeitungszeit von Informationen 2.5.9 Iterationsmöglichkeit 2.5.10 Unterstützungsmöglichkeit bei allen Innovationstypen 2.5.11 Zusammenfassung 3 Anforderungen für kundenzentriertes Innovationsmanagement im Service Center 3.1 Einzelanforderungen und Anforderungsrahmenkonzept 3.2 Grundvoraussetzungen 3.2.1 Einbindung in bestehende Strukturen 3.2.2 Minimale Auswirkung auf den Service Center Betrieb 3.2.3 Reporting 3.3 Anforderungen hoher Priorität 3.3.1 Adaptierbarkeit auf Unternehmensziele 3.3.2 Modulare Struktur der Lösung 3.3.3 Bidirektionale Ausrichtung der Lösung 3.3.4 Berücksichtigung der besonderen Kundeneigenschaften 3.4 Anforderungen mittlerer Priorität 3.4.1 Anpassung auf Kundeneigenschaften 3.4.2 Anpassung auf Mitarbeitereigenschaften 3.4.3 Bewertung und Verifikation durch Kunden 3.5 Anforderungen niedriger Priorität 3.5.1 Einstellung auf individuelle Unternehmensstrukturen 3.5.2 Optimierte Lösung für Informationsaufnahme 3.5.3 Vereinfachte Implementierung 4 Spezifikation des Unterstützungssystems für Innovationsmanagement im Service Center 4.1 Funktionalitätsentwicklung 4.1.1 Übersetzung der Anforderungen in Funktionalitäten 4.1.2 Zusammenfassung zu Services und Servicegruppen 4.1.3 Identifikation der Kernfunktionalitäten 4.2 Servicegruppe 1: Aufnahme der Kundeninformation 4.2.1 Einbeziehung bestehender Datenquellen 4.2.2 Vorqualifizierung 4.2.3 Informationserfassung 4.3 Servicegruppe 2: Informationsaufbereitung 4.3.1 Analyse der Kundeninformation 4.3.2 Detaillierung der Information 4.4 Servicegruppe 3: Entwicklung der Innovationsidee 4.4.1 Analyse Innovationspotential 4.4.2 Erfassung der Innovationsidee 4.4.3 Bewertung der Innovationsidee 4.4.4 Analyse des Anpassungsbedarfs 4.5 Servicegruppe 4: Verifikation und Bewertung der Innovationsidee 4.5.1 Anfrage nach weiterem Feedback 4.5.2 Verwaltung Feedback 4.6 Servicegruppe 5: Verwaltung und Management 4.6.1 Managementunterstützung 4.6.2 Berichtswesen 4.7 Prozess- und Produktmodell 4.7.1 Aufnahme Kundeninformation 4.7.2 Informationsaufbereitung 4.7.3 Entwicklung von Innovationsideen 4.7.4 Verifikation und Bewertung 4.7.5 Verwaltung und Management 4.8 Diskussion der optionalen Funktionalitäten 4.8.1 Aufnahme der Kundeninformation 4.8.2 Informationsaufbereitung 4.8.3 Verifikation und Bewertung der Innovationsidee 4.8.4 Aufnahme der Kundeninformation 4.8.5 Verwaltung und Management 5 Technologische Umsetzung des Lösungsmodells 5.1 Vorgehensbeschreibung 5.2 Ausgangssituation im Referenzunternehmen 5.2.1 Unternehmenskontext 5.2.2 Strukturelle Rahmenbedingungen 5.2.3 Systemtechnische Gegebenheiten 5.3 Design der technischen Lösung 5.3.1 Prozessmodell 5.3.2 Datenmodell 5.3.3 Konzeption der grafischen Nutzeroberfläche 5.4 Prototypische IT-Lösung 5.4.1 Vorgehen zur Softwareimplementierung 5.4.2 Generelle Aspekte der technischen Unterstützungslösung 5.4.3 Technische Unterstützungslösung für die Aufnahme der Kundeninformation 5.4.4 Technische Unterstützungslösung für die Detaillierung der Kundeninformation 5.4.5 Technische Unterstützungslösung für die Aufnahme von Innovationsideen 5.4.6 Technische Unterstützungslösung zur Bewertung und Verifikation 5.4.7 Technische Unterstützungslösung für Verwaltung und Management 5.5 Evaluation der Unterstützungslösung 5.5.1 Bewertung, basierend auf Anforderungsrahmenkonzept 5.5.2 Besonderheiten und kritische Aspekte beim Betrieb der Lösung 5.5.3 Diskussion von Implikationen und möglichen Modifizierungen 5.5.4 Konklusion der Evaluationsergebnisse 5.6 Skizzierung der nächsten Erweiterungsschritte 5.6.1 Stärken und Einsatzbereiche von Semantic Web Technologien 5.6.2 Verwendung zu Requirements Engineering mit großen Stakeholdergruppen 5.6.3 Einsatz semantischer Technologien zur Suche im Unternehmenskontext 5.6.4 Konzeption der nächsten Erweiterungsstufe als Semantic Web Lösung 5.6.5 Möglichkeiten der Einbindung unstrukturierter Daten mittels NLP 6 Zusammenfassung 6.1 Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse 6.1.1 Vor- und Nachteile bestehender Kundenkontakte 6.1.2 Anforderungen an Innovationsmanagement im Service Center 6.1.3 Gesamtmodell einer informationstechnischen Unterstützungslösung 6.1.4 IT-Unterstützung für Innovationsmanagement im Service Center 6.2 Reflexion des gewählten Forschungsansatzes 6.3 Ansatzpunkte für weitere Forschung 6.4 Fazit und abschließende Bemerkung Literaturverzeichnis A Untersuchungsdesign der Experteninterviews B Ergebnisse der Experteninterviews C Modell zum kundenzentrierten Innovationsmanagement im Service Center D Technische Umsetzung E Analysen und Diskussionen zu weiteren relevanten Inhalten aus Forschung und Praxis F Selbstständigkeitserklärung

現今產業環境變化加速，知識工作者高度流動、產品生命週期越來越短、以及研發成本不斷提高，「創新」出現了革命性的變化。封閉已經成為過去，現在是「開放式經營模式」的時代，要掌握決勝未來的關鍵，就必須掌握與合作夥伴創新的能力。這個新模式，不只改變了企業的成長動能，更重要的是它改變了遊戲規則。「開放式經營模式」已經成為跨越地理疆界、打破速度、解決資源匱乏的新存亡關鍵。 / 企業向外尋找創新來源的過程中，必須積極地自外界搜尋、截取新的想法、資源，同時也要讓企業內部所研發創新的技術向外流出，讓外界運用。此外，企業必須進行經營模式的創新，與更多的供應商、顧客形成一新的產業生態系，企業主導其經營模式成為平台，與經營的夥伴共同承擔風險，同時共享其利潤，從中為整個產業生態系創造更大的價值，也為自己的企業創造更大的價值，此即為「開放式經營模式」的典範。 / 本研究將分析探討究竟企業是如何逐漸從原先的經營模式逐漸演進為開放式經營模式，理解其演進發展的過程中關鍵的成功因素為何，企業需經歷哪些重大的變革，以及企業欲成為開放式經營模式之平台的主導廠商，需要哪些關鍵的能力及資源。本研究採用歷史研究法及個案研究法，以台積電作為個案之例進行研究，發現從企業的核心策略演進分析、策略性資源演進分析、顧客介面演進分析、價值網絡演進分析，分別找出了企業演進為開放式經營模式的關鍵因素，且發現這些關鍵之間彼此有著緊密地互動與連結，而「開放式經營平台」即扮演著此一重要的角色。 / 透過本研究的分析探討，提供業界企業經營模式的演進以成為開放式經營模式之模型參考，以及企業欲實踐開放式經營模式實務上的作法，對於Chesbrough（2006）所提出之開放式經營模式的理論得到了實務上的驗證。此外，本研究亦提供了一結合Chesbrough（2006）開放式經營模式觀點以及Hamel（2000）經營模式理論之基礎架構，可作為研究探討企業開放式經營模式之演進歷程分析的理論基礎，且針對原先學者所提出的理論進行相關的討論與進一步的詮釋與修正。此外此一基礎架構也提供產學界對於未來開放式經營模式相關的管理議題，有更多後續的研究與發展。 / The environment of industry is rapidly changing and highly turnover rate of knowledge workers. Product lifecycle become shorter. R&D cost increases constantly. “Innovation” has the revolutionary change. Closing has already become the history. Now, it’s the era of “Open Business Model”. For controlling the key of success in the future, we should control the ability to innovate with partners. This new model not only transforms the growth kinetic energy of the enterprise but also changes the game rule more importantly. “Open Business Model” have become the live or dead key of crossing over the geographical boundaries, breaking the limitation of pace, and solving the problem of deficient resources. / In the process of enterprise finding innovative sources from the outwards, enterprise must search for the external world actively, acquire the new ideas and resources, and let the internal technology of R&D innovation flow to the outwards for the application of external world at the same time. Besides, enterprises must proceed the innovation of business model and collaborated with more suppliers and customers to sustain in the new eco system. Enterprises will lead and change business model in e-platform, undertake the risks with business partners, and share the profits together at the same time. In the process, not only it creates more values for the entire eco system, but also it creates much more values for itself. It’s the paradigm of “Open Business Model”. / The research analyzed and observed how the enterprise developed from the original business model to the open business model gradually. We realized what the critical successful factors are in the development period of evolution process, what the significant changes the enterprise need to experience, and what the keys of capability and resources the enterprise need to become the leading manufacturer of the open innovation platform. The research adopts historical research and case study method, and takes the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) as a case study for the research. Based on the open business model perspectives, “core strategy”, “strategic resources”, “customer interface” and “value network”, the research find out the key factors in the evolution period. Moreover, the research observed the “Open Innovation Platform” plays an important role on interactive relationship between these critical factors. / The research also provides enterprise the framework of how to evolve into open business model, as well as the practical experience of how to approach the open business model. The theory of open business model which Chesbrough (2006) proposed is verified in real business. In addition, the research also provides the basis of the theoretical framework which is the combination of Chesbrough (2006) open business model perspective and Hamel (2000) business model theory. It could be used as the foundamental theory of analyzing the open business model evolution for the following research. This research also provides the topics of the following open business model or other related managerial issues for the academic and practical research.