Stefan H. Hallerstede

Open innovation platforms

Part I identified three facets of OIP lifecycle management. The following Part II sheds light on these three facets: open innovation platforms (chapter 1), open innovation intermediaries (chapter 2) and lifecycle models for OIPs (chapter 3). It closes with a short summary of the major findings (chapter 4).

Open innovation intermediaries

Long before open innovation and even innovation was subject to research, innovation intermediaries arose due to the fact that there has always been a gap between organizers that seek solutions to an innovation problem and innovators that can provide a solution to an organizer’s problem. An early example is the 16th century wool industry in which traders (‘middlemen’) functioned as informal disseminators of knowledge of technical improvements for wool processing.

Communication of research

Research aims at the publication of findings in order to discuss them with the research community and make them available to practitioners. A common mean to do so is publishing in conferences and journals. As claimed in Part III.1.5, foundations and results of the single cases were discussed with the OIIs and the research community in order to validate and improve them. Table 59 lists previous publications that revealed parts of this thesis and the major overlaps with it.

Akzeptanzorientiertes Application Lifecycle Management

ZusammenfassungZahlreiche Softwareprojekte in Unternehmen scheitern bereits kurz nach der Einführungsphase. Ein wesentlicher Grund hierfür ist mangelnde Akzeptanz durch die Nutzer. In diesem Beitrag werden die Konsequenzen der Akzeptanzproblematik für das IT-Management mittels Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) beschrieben. Der Bedeutungsschwerpunkt bei akzeptanzkritischen Anwendungen — im Gegensatz zu unternehmenskritischen Anwendungen — verschiebt sich auf die Phasen Anforderungen, Design, Betrieb und Optimierung. Die Erprobung des Konzepts bei der agilen Entwicklung einer webbasierten Anwendung zeigt, wie eng Supportteam, Entwickler und Nutzer zusammenarbeiten müssen. Aus der Fallstudie werden Implikationen für die Praxis abgeleitet (z.B. dass Schnelligkeit bei änderungen wichtiger ist als Fehlerfreiheit) und in das ALM-Modell eingearbeitet.

Case 3: Atizo

The third case investigates the open innovation intermediary Atizo with its OIP atizo.com. Table 23 summarizes the key facts on the Atizo case. The structure of this case follows the structure described in chapter 2.

Managing the lifecycle of online innovation contests – a case study on an innovation intermediary’s approach

Online innovation contests (OICs) are a popular means to integrate external innovators into the innovation process of organisations. There are specialised innovation intermediaries that take care of the design and management of OICs based on their experience. Combining extant research in innovation management and information systems management, we integrate prior research in the field of open innovation and application lifecycle management (ALM). The paper presents a case study of an established innovation intermediary and analyses its approach to design and manage OICs. We find that structuring the process of OIC design and management along the phases of ALM is suitable. Compared to a more traditional application development, data stresses the importance of the social aspect. We also find that the manager of an OIC’s lifecycle has to specialise in designing and managing the social subsystem rather than the technical subsystem of an OIC.

Motivation and relevance

Thomas J. Peters expresses the challenge corporations are confronted with if they want to ensure their survival: they have to innovate or die. Innovation as a critical success factor for organizations was already recognized by Schumpeter in the 1930s and constantly gained importance since then.

Structure of thesis

This work is divided into five parts. The structure reflects a linear-analytic case study design according to Yin. The parts are broken down into chapters, which are further split into sections and subsections. The five parts build on each other and should, therefore, be read subsequently.

Summary and contribution

This thesis dealt with managing the lifecycle of OIPs. It provided groundwork in structuring and prioritizing an OIP’s lifecycle by developing the OIP lifecycle model. Furthermore, it provided guidelines on what to do in each phase of an OIP’s lifecycle and how to deal with challenges that arise. Based on this knowledge, practitioners can now manage the lifecycle of OIPs based on an informed approach. In addition, researchers can answer the initially stated question whether it is more important to take care of a user-centered design process during development, or whether it is more important to invest time in community management.

Summary of Part II

This part set the foundations for the analyses to come. Open innovation platforms (OIPs) were introduced as socio-technical systems that incorporate IT-based tools for open innovation in a virtual environment. These tools include innovation contests, innovation communities, innovation market places and innovation toolkits.