Fabian Reck

Innovation networks in the German energy industry: An empirical analysis of inter-organizational knowledge transfer

Purpose This paper aims to focus on how different types of knowledge are exchanged within innovation networks in the German energy industry. External factors such as market pressure through liberalization, de-carbonization and decentralization challenge established actors in the industry. Answers to these challenges cannot be found by single actors but require networks to gather and concentrate innovation activities. This implies a need for knowledge transfer among energy providers. The authors aim at exploring knowledge exchange relations in-depth by treating them as multidimensional flows which can comprise technological, market, managerial or regulatory knowledge. In detail, the authors examine patterns of knowledge exchange on network-, dyad- and firm-level. Furthermore, first, empiric results are provided on how two of these patterns, namely, a firm’s propensity to form multiplex instead of uniplex ties as well as the composition of externally acquired knowledge concerning the four types, influence organizational innovativeness. Design/methodology/approach The authors address their research questions by conducting an in-depth investigation of the largest network of municipal utilities in Germany. The analysis is based on quantitative data collected via standardized online questionnaires drawing on socio-metric methods to reconstruct knowledge exchange networks as well as traditional approaches from socio-empiric research to evaluate firm innovativeness. Findings The findings indicate that while technological, market, managerial and regulatory knowledge represent different types of knowledge with different exchange patterns, these transfers are interdependent. In particular, the analysis reveals non-hierarchical relations of complementarity. The authors furthermore provide evidence for the existence of ideal profiles for attaining different types of innovation. One central tendency across all of these profiles is that outperformers acquire regulatory knowledge to a significantly lesser degree than other firms and focus more on the other types instead. Research limitations/implications This paper solely focusses on the largest network of municipal utilities whereby it is questionable how representative it is for the whole industry. Additionally, due to the cross-sectional design, the paper cannot fully rule out issues of endogeneity in the quantitative analysis. Practical implications This paper delivers valuable insights for managers in the energy sector who seek to either enter and manage inter-organizational networks or apply external knowledge to foster innovation. In particular, the authors reveal benchmark profiles for external knowledge acquisition which may serve as templates for strategic collaboration and innovation management. Originality/value To the authors’ knowledge, this paper presents the first innovation-related network analysis in the energy industry. Rather than operationalizing knowledge transfer as a simplex flow relation, the authors examine different types of knowledge, their patterns of exchange and their distinct effects on process, product and administrative innovations.

Der Blick fürs Ganze

In einer digitalisierten Welt hangt der Erfolg einer Innovation immer weniger vom Leistungspotenzial einer Einzeltechnologie ab. Vielmehr spielt das gesamte Ecosystem an voneinander abhangigen technologischen Losungen und Innovationsakteuren eine immer entscheidendere Rolle. In diesem Beitrag verdeutlichen wir, dass Verfugbarkeitsengpasse entweder bei Input- oder bei Komplementartechnologien den Markterfolg einer technologischen Innovation erheblich beintrachtigen konnen. Basierend darauf erlautern wir ein Rahmenmodell mit vier moglichen ecosystembezogenen Problemszenarien. Am Beispiel von sechs Anwendungsfeldern des industriellen 3D-Drucks veranschaulichen wir diese vier Szenarien und leiten geeignete Losungsstrategien ab. Insgesamt soll der Beitrag so unternehmerischen Entscheidungstragern eine Hilfestellung zur Lokalisierung von Herausforderungen im Innovationsecosystem bieten.

„Play to win“ versus „Play it safe“

In diesem Beitrag erlautern wir die Eigenschaften, die ein innovationsforderliches Partnerportfolio besitzen sollte, und analysieren, mit welchen Herausforderungen der Aufbau eines solchen Portfolios verbunden ist. Wir argumentieren aus theoretischer Perspektive, dass Unternehmen generell zum Aufbau von homogenen „Play it safe“-Netzwerken tendieren, und erlautern, warum diese Tendenz gerade bei der digitalen Transformation die Innovations- und Wettbewerbsfahigkeit unterminieren kann. Basierend auf einer empirischen Studie in der deutschen Energiebranche verdeutlichen wir diese Problematik und zeigen auf, dass sich die Partnerportfolios innovativer und weniger innovativer Unternehmen signifikant unterscheiden. Wahrend insgesamt die Tendenz zu „Play it safe“-Netzwerken klar erkennbar ist, sind die Partnerportfolios der innovationsstarksten Unternehmen eindeutig heterogener und ressourcenreicher. Top Performer gehen so insgesamt strategischer vor und verfolgen einen „Play to win“-Ansatz.

Kundengetriebene Innovation und Digitalisierung

In diesem Beitrag betrachten wir die Wirkmechanismen, Potenziale und Limitationen von kundengetriebener Innovation im Kontext der Digitalisierung. Am Beispiel der Energiebranche zeigen wir auf, inwiefern die Integration von Kunden zur Bewaltigung der spezifischen Herausforderungen bei der Generierung von digitalen Innovationen beitragen kann, welche strategischen Vorteile Unternehmen durch kundengetriebene Innovation erzielen konnen und welche Probleme bei der praktischen Realisierung dieser potenziellen Vorteile auftreten konnen. Basierend auf 43 Interviews mit Branchenexperten entwickeln wir ein Rahmenmodell, welches die Zusammenhange zwischen Digitalisierung und kundengetriebener Innovation in funf Themenfelder strukturiert („Akzeptanz“, „Attraktivitat“, „Affektion“, „Aktualitat“, „Anpassung“). Dieses „5A-Modell“ hilft dabei, Anwendungszwecke kundengetriebener Innovation klarer abzugrenzen, um so die Nutzung der Methode zielorientiert zu planen und effektiv umzusetzen.

Anbau, Umbau, Neubau?

ZusammenfassungIn diesem Beitrag betrachten wir, wie Unternehmen aus Automobil‑, Bahn‑, Luft- und Busverkehr ausgehend von ihrem bisherigen Geschäftsmodell die digitale Transformation umsetzen. Wir analysieren dabei den jeweiligen Transformationsprozess im Detail anhand der drei Elemente „Strategisches Handlungsmuster im Umgang mit digitalen Geschäftschancen“, „Fokus der digitalen Transformation“ und „Modus der Geschäftsmodellentwicklung“. Es zeigt sich, dass etablierte Unternehmen oft adaptive oder expansive Handlungsmuster verfolgen, sich vor allem auf Wertangebot und Wertabschöpfung fokussieren und hauptsächlich auf die Erweiterung und Revision bestehender Geschäftsmodelle setzen. Als Handlungsempfehlung schlagen wir vor, dass Firmen ihr Portfolio an Geschäftsmodellinitiativen in Richtung neuer Geschäftsmodelle anpassen, sich mehr auf die Entwicklung eigener Kompetenzen hinsichtlich Digitalisierung konzentrieren und geeignete Strukturen und Prozesse zur Stimulierung von Innovation und Lernorientierung bei der Geschäftsmodellentwicklung schaffen.AbstractIn this paper, we examine how companies in the mobility sector propel digital transformation of their current business models. In particular, we analyze the digital transformation processes in detail based on the three key elements—“Strategic Pattern of Response to Digital Business Opportunities”, “Focus of the Digital Transformation”, and “Mode of Business Model Development”. Results show that well-established companies often follow adaptive and expansive logic, focus on value proposition and value capture and mainly rely on the extension and revision of existing business models. Based on these insights, we argue that firms have to adjust their portfolio of business model initiatives towards the creation of new businesses, concentrate more on the development of their digitization-related competencies and establish adequate structures and processes for stimulating innovation and learning-orientation for the new business model development.

The Antecedents of Transaction Costs in Digital Ecosystems: A Configurational View on the Interplay of App Architecture and Platform Governance

The locus of value creation and innovation in the software industry is shifting more and more to platform ecosystems on which numerous developers create extensions with additional functionalities based on the platforms core architecture. While such complementors may strongly profit from platforms, there are considerable costs. Recent studies therefore examined the costs of fitting apps to the specifications of certain platforms; however, these works largely neglect costs arising from the transactional relationship between platform and complementor. In order to shed light on this, our work examines how design choices of platform governance and app architecture impact the emergence of four types of cost-inducing hazards within the transactional context of the ecosystem. By using a configurational approach based on fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA), we display complex interactional effects of the causal conditions on complementors’ perception of hazardous environments and thus provide valuable insights for both practice and theory on platform ecosystems.

Minimizing Complementors’ Risk in Third-Party Innovation: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of Digital Platform Configurations

The emergence of platforms is shifting the locus of digital innovation to ecosystems on which numerous developers create extensions with additional functionalities. Despite all the potential benefits for complementors, however, this new organizing logic of digital innovation also introduced essential new risks. Recent studies in IS focused on risk of IT projects from a contingency perspective neglecting the complexity of ecosystems. In order to shed light on this, our work examines how app architecture as a complementor´s control mechanism and four types of ecosystem hazards shape the likelihood and impact of the risk of failure in third-party innovation. By using a configurational approach based on fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA), we display complex interactional effects of the causal conditions on complementors’ perception of hazardous environments and thus provide valuable insights for both practice and theory on platform ecosystems.

Preparing Energy Providers’ Knowledge Base for Going Digital

Within this study, we develop a procedure for strategic knowledge management which focuses on small and medium energy providers in order to help them assemble and improve their organizational knowledge base for digital innovation. This tool called EPOS procedure is designed to fulfill nine functional requirements. These are drawn from literature, confirmed via empirical data and cross-checked in discussions with practitioners in order to ensure its usability and effectiveness. The procedure comprises four general phases in which knowledge needs are determined, deficiencies within the current knowledge base uncovered, action plans formulated and improvement measures implemented. By extending hitherto existingapproaches insofar as the multidimensional nature of knowledge and innovation, the importance of a certain amount of slack, a long-term strategic perspective and context specifics in the energy industry are concerned, the study provides substantial prescriptive suggestions for management in the energy sector.