Download pdf - Open innovation - research paper

A comparison between cross-functional teams and open innovation teams regarding the communication between

key decision-makers and these innovation teams

Jasper Joithe 4040430

Stijn Timmers 1318799

Delft University of Technology SPD research 2010

2

A comparison between cross-functional teams and open innovation teams regarding the communication between

key decision makers and these innovation teams

Jasper Joithea 4040430

Stijn Timmersb 1318799

Delft University of Technology

a Student of MSc Strategic Product Design at the Industrial Design Faculty, Delft University of Technology, Tel: +31 643154407, e-mail: [email protected], (corresponding author). b Student of MSc Strategic Product Design at the Industrial Design Faculty, Delft University of Technology, Tel: + 31618767801, e-mail: [email protected], (corresponding author).

ABSTRACT The complexity and the dynamic environment of current innovation management forces organizations to cooperate. A new cyclic approach of the innovation process is characterized by having multiple organizations from different industry sectors working together. The result is that project team members come from different organizations. These networked innovation teams bring new complexities to the table. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the communication between key-decision makers of host companies and team members of networked innovation teams and how this influences the outcome of the open innovation projects. The communication aspects of traditional cross-functional teams will serve as a frame of reference since these are already explored by literature. Participants of networked innovation teams have been interviewed. An analysis of the transcripts based on grounded theory shows that networked innovation teams seek for project management guidance to define goals, form teams, provide resources, enhance efficiency and make decision to reduce uncertainty. Closer management involvement reduces this uncertainty in cross-functional teams. Furthermore, the low frequency of meetings and the distance between management and team members increase the communication barriers.

Keywords Communication, open innovation, cross-functional teams, networked innovation teams, senior management, key decision-makers

INTRODUCTION In the current competitive and international business environment developments are sought to differentiate and stay alive. By focusing on innovations, companies strive for better positions within their markets. New product development is one way to innovate. Essentials for faster development and implementation demands more flexible organizations in the product life cycle (Clark and Wheelwright, 1993). This combined with the

increased competition obliges companies to have their own project teams, to seek for radical change to outperform the competition. So, cross-functional teams have been evolved to withstand this increased pressure. After several generations, where innovation has changed in regards to the structure, the process and the people involved, the most common teams are the so-called cross-functional teams (Holland et al., 2000).

Companies experience several advantages in having operational cross-functional teams. Those teams enhance e.g. the speed of the process and due to the complementary team, complex problems can be tackled easier. Furthermore, creativity is stimulated and customer needs are better embedded. Besides further benefits, cross-functional teams also bring obstacles along. Because of the team members from different departments, competition between resources might occur. This can affect the definition of a proper and coherent goal, which again can lead to an unclear direction or priorities. Additionally, the management support and the corresponding communication between key decision-makers and the team are perceived significant influences on success. Those so-called success factors for cross-functional teams are well-described in current empirical studies.

The downsides of cross-functional teams cause the exploration of further development on how innovation would be the most successful. This is also steered and pushed by the developments of the business environment. An example is that companies become more international oriented, due to new communication and logistical methods. Furthermore, to overcome the current complexity of innovations, companies are bundling their strengths. The sharing of knowledge between companies makes the innovation process more open and networked. This makes the team composition different from cross-functional teams. It is still ill-defined in literature whether cross-functional success factors are applicable for networked innovation teams as well.

3

In this research paper the search for success factors of those new open innovations team is initiated. The networked innovation teams discussed in this paper are considered as teams with open innovation processes.

This paper will mainly focus on the communication between host companies’ key decision-makers and the networked innovation team, because many success factors can be traced back to this particular scope. The current studies about success factors in cross-functional projects are used as frame of reference and can be compared with findings from interviews with networked innovation team members of Design Initiatief projects. Design Initiatief facilitates open innovation projects. The results must give a clear comparison between the communication between key decision-makers and team members of both cross-functional innovation teams and networked innovation teams.

The paper has been divided into several sections. The first section starts with a literature review of relevant concepts. In the second section the research method will be explained. The third section discusses the results, followed by the conclusion. The last section will state recommendations for further research and how Design Initiatief could improve open innovation team processes.

LITERATURE REVIEW Development of innovation projects Since 1950s the innovation process within companies or governments has started to get more structured and recognized. Economic and technological progression to stay alive in the competitive environments was the main driver of the development and the maturity of innovation management, according to Ortt and van der Duin (2008). Scientific research increased to become a crucial part of innovation management. After four generations this is still the same, although many differences have occurred during those changing approaches.

Currently, innovation management has reached the fourth generation, where innovation projects do not only occur in single departments of a company, but also between other departments internally as well as externally, with an emphasized focus on the market, following Rothwell (1994). Different disciplines of science, business, technology and markets are brought together to cover all aspects of the innovation process. This makes this generation significantly different from other generations concerning the innovation process. The process becomes more open with the increased influence of other parties and the alliances that are realized. This makes the new generation of innovation processes more open and therefore the name open innovation have appeared (Chesbrough, 2003). Also, many differences exist between other generations; researchers like Niosi (1999) and Rothwell (1994) have

identified differences amongst the innovation generations, regarding the conditions in which the processes occurred like the innovation process, the structure, the strategy and the innovation outcomes. Nevertheless, still parts of innovation processes of earlier generations are currently used to seek for economic and technological improvements.

Cyclic innovation The structure of the innovation process has changed over time. In the first two generations the process was linear, what means a sequential process from department to department within a company. This sequential process is also called ‘the pipeline model’. In the third generation companies tried to approach partners with particular market or technological knowledge. This interaction led to feedback loops within this remaining linear process. Lately, during the developments in the fourth generation, innovation processes have become more cyclic. Relatively, there is not yet much research done about this new way of innovation management in relation to research on earlier innovation generations. Nonetheless, e.g. Berkhout (2000) has tried to capture this entire new innovation process in a single model, called the Cyclic Innovation Model (CIM) (figure 1). This concept is not only a representation of the new innovation structure, but it is also applicable for other innovation aspects. The interaction between disciplines is visible with the four cycles between the four nodes, which represent the organizations in that particular field of knowledge.

Fig. 1 Cyclic Innovation Model (Berkhout, 2000)

Thus, this cyclic innovation process can be seen as a networked innovation process between companies, institutes or governments. Due to this networked cooperation, companies can focus on their core businesses again and bundle all the knowledge in singular processes, which are executed by project teams.

Innovation teams When looking in-depth at what happens within cyclic innovation process and the traditional pipe-line process several differences appear, regarding the drivers that force companies to innovate, companies’ organizational structure, leadership, et cetera. People who work within

4

the process are exposed to all the mentioned influences. The team composition has also been changed over time.

In the traditional ‘pipeline’ process the innovation development was sequential from department to department, which is a mono-functional approach. After each development stage the process is hand over to other departments. This is a rather static approach.

The fourth innovation generation has tremendously changed the innovation approach. Companies work more closely together and teams are formed with members from different companies to complement each other in the innovation process. These open innovation teams often operate project-based, through which every member gets involved in the process. Team members have to overcome the complexity of this networked innovation process, to start performing.

Another common way companies innovate is when members of several internal departments join forces to merge e.g. marketing, technological and R&D knowledge. These are internal cross-functional innovation teams. Ancona and Caldwell’s (1992) definition of a cross-functional team is; ‘members of different departments and disciplines are brought together under one manager and given the charge to make development decisions and enlist support for them throughout the organization’. The higher management of a company assigns a team consisting of employees from different departments and delegates assignments to this team to end up with differentiated and superior products eventually (Cooper, 1979). Still, many companies make use of cross-functional teams in new product development.

Success factors in cross functional innovation teams Since there is a lot of evidence regarding the team performance and the outcomes of cross functional teams, many success factors are identified which have an influence on the success rate of the innovation outcomes. Previous research has shown that a complex set of reasons affect the success of innovations. Success is interpreted differently amongst researchers. McDonough III (2000) defines it as success in comparison to the companies’ competitors performances, where Cooper and Kleinsmidt (2007) have developed a complete performance map to identify the success rate, with metrics like profit impact, sales impact, etc. Cooper (1999) identifies two types of success factors. Firstly, there are environmental factors, with a poor controllability. These appear in the market, technology or within the competitive set. Secondly, the factors exist which are more controllable, because these appear within the company’s innovation process. This controllable set of factors will be explained in detail, because Cooper (1979) mentions that the environmental variables do not play a critical role in relation to the success of innovations.

Controllable set of success factors It is hard to collect all the bits and pieces that might influence the outcome of an innovation process, because there is a lot of research done about the performance of cross-functional teams. Furthermore, the point of view can differ as well, e.g. Cooper (1999) (2000), Cooper and Kleinsmidt (1993) (2007) and Holland et al. (2000) discuss success factors from the innovation team’s perspective, while Thamhain (1990) explains it from a managerial point of view. Despite these differences, many success factors appear to be important in general.

True cross-functional teams are perceived as a significant part of innovation success and can cause the decrease in time to the market (Cooper and Kleinsmidt, 1993). Many departments have to be involved where each team member should possess an equal stake in the project. Thereby, the role of each team member must be clearly defined. The complete team must be accountable for the whole project process. Perceiving the importance of the project stimulates this accountability. Performance rewarding stimulates the level of motivation amongst team members (Steiner 1972). During the process many procedures have to be taken into account, this helps to increase the level of success. The team needs to be e.g. sufficiently prepared and understanding the customer needs. Time is needed in the initial phase to understand the goal and (corporate) objectives, to define the product and product strategy and plan the implementation before entering the development stage. Many teams rush through this front end. Project planning is also brought forward, by e.g. (Blindenbach-Driessen, 2006) and (Thamhain, 1990), as influence of success, although others state that planning functions as a barrier in innovation project teams (Barczak and Wilemon, 1991). Within the team strong leadership is needed, to recognize drivers and barriers in the innovation process to steer the team into the right direction. The project leader has to expose commitment as well. Commitment is important in both the team and between the team and the external parties, because it refers to a sense of duty that the team fells to achieve the project’s goals and the willingness to do what is needed to make the project successful (Brown et al., 1994).

Also senior management must act proactively towards the project team. Showing their involvement and commitment has a tremendous effect on the success of an innovation team, according to Cooper (2007). Additionally, this managerial involvement comes along with other tasks of the key decision-makers as well. Senior management must provide the project team enough and adequate resources and they should create an innovative climate and culture. Building in several decision points, to advise a go or no go, is an emphasis task of the management. Doing this deliberately influences the level of success. Namely, many managers are inexperienced in doing this, because they mainly focus on tangible aspects like financial benefits,

5

where understanding the innovation process in general is more preferred. Such actions set foundations for the team performance (McDonough III, 2000).

All those managerial influences have to be communicated with the project leader or with the whole team. Clear communication is therefore a necessity. Initially there is a lot of top-down communication to form a cross-functional team and make them aware of the goals and objectives and the available resources, expenditures and information. Later in the process, where the go/no go decisions are made, bottom-up communication occurs. The team justifies its intermediate outcomes. Internal communication is also mentioned as an influence on the success of projects. Poor communication among team member can disturb the process. Both internal and external communication flows must be frequent and genuine, to increase the chance of a successful outcome, according to Holland et al. (2000). Regular meetings, reviews and information sessions are needed, to establish a free flow of both vertical and horizontal communication (Thamhain, 1990). So, it can be stated that the importance of communication, especially with key decision-makers, cannot be neglected.

Communication in new product development It appears to be that a significant number of identified success factors are closely related to communication. Thus, both internal and external communications in cross-functional teams are relevant for success of new innovative product development. The cross-functional communication can be interpreted in many ways with different senders, receivers and mediators. Efficient communication, in general, needs two main motives. Firstly, there must be an intension to share information and secondly, it must affect the receiver, according to Moenaert et al. (2000). Barczak and Wilemon (1991) postulate the importance of understanding that the intensity of those communications flows needs to be high for non-routine and uncertain projects like innovative product development. When relating this to the success factors such as the leadership within the team, the project leader can be seen as the receiver (of top-down information), the mediator (between senior management and the team and between team members) or the sender (of bottom-up information).

Communication flow in and around cross-functional teams The communication tasks of the project leader are important to bridge the information gap, Galbraith (1973), between the project team and interfaces in particular. Previous research of Barczak and Wilemon (1991) has shown that specific division of communication between the project leader and external parties influences the success rate of innovation projects. The transparency of the communication decreases when more parties are involved and networks are getting more complex (Moenaert et al, 2000). The most successful project leaders communicate e.g. more with engineers than their less successful counterparts.

Furthermore, management and customer contact play an important role for successful project leaders, whereas less successful leaders do not discuss managerial issues and customer needs at all. The innovation project success rate increases as well, if the project leader discusses particular subjects with the team. The team needs to get familiar with customer demands and with financial and resource issues. The involvement of the management also needs to be noticeable amongst team members.

Communication between management and cross-functional teams Communication between the team representative and the senior management seems to be evident for successful new product innovation projects. Management is a useful tool for decreasing the level of uncertainty in new product development projects (Khandwalla, 1972). Besides the uncertainty reduction, management information is also useful to reduce goal divergence (Davila, 2000). Management control does not contain the stream of financial information singularly. Poskela and Martinsuo (2009) also mention the importance of the strategic fit regarding the choices made by the project team. So, managers have to give advice and directions. After every stage of the process the decision-makers have to advise the project team proactively. Successful communication needs to be frequent and direct (Daft, 1986), because distance between decision-makers and team members increases the communication barrier which affects the process performance subsequently (Allen, 1985). Especially the initial stage of the new product development needs managerial control. This fuzzy front end is the most troublesome phase of the innovation process (Herstatt, Verworn, Nagahira, 2004). On the other hand there is much space for opportunities, but senior management commitment is needed in projects with high uncertainty. However, management control can have negative effects on innovation projects as well, when rules are dictated and when decision-makers expose constraining behavior (Amabile, 1998).

Communication between management and open innovation teams There are many factors of success described which are related to cross-functional teams. Those are well-defined and often based on empirical studies. In this current innovation generation, many cross-organizational teams are working on new product development as well. Team members, with complementary capabilities, work together to seek for breaking innovations. So, the principles of such teams are similar to those of cross-functional teams, although the distance between the host companies and the team members seems to be bigger according to the described complexity (Moenaert et al.). Despite that e.g. Chesbrough (2003) and Berkhout and van der Duin (2007) already have been widely investigated the mean of open innovation, the factors that play a part in teams

6

that work with the relatively new open innovation processes are not yet well-defined. This article is mainly focused on the communication aspects between the open innovation project team and the key decision-makers of the host. The reason for this is focusing the subject, which leads to a reasonable scope in which the research will be performed. Furthermore, it covers the fact that in cross-functional teams external communication issues were highly influencing the performance. So, cross-functional innovation success factors will function as a frame of reference when exploring the barriers and enablers in open innovation projects. Then, a suitable and corresponding research question will be:

“What are the differences in the communication between the host company´s key decision makers and the team member of networked innovation teams in comparison with cross functional teams within a company?”

METHOD

Sample and data collection For this study Strategic Product Design (SPD) students of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) created a semi-structured interview (Given, 2008). Each SPD student group had to generate two or three “open-ended interview questions” (Given, 2008) related to their own research question. A semi-structured interview was chosen because it would give the students more control over their own research topics. Therefore an interview guide with carefully worded questions was developed in advance. The questionnaire included ten open-ended questions (appendix A).

Sample Data was collected from 23 participants of Design Initiatief (DI) projects. Design Initiatief was chosen because all members of their project groups are from different industries and furthermore all participants have different backgrounds. Each student group interviewed three participants for 60- 90 minutes. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Design Initiatief is a Dutch foundation that is hosting events to get different individuals from different industry sectors together. During these events cross-organizational teams are formed, that are interested in specific themes. The themes are created prior to the events and participants can chose themes on their own interest. From then on the teams coordinate and work on the projects on their own initiative.

Interview questions Does your host-company influence the participation within the DI-team? And how?

a. Do you have the ability to participate

individually or out of the name of your company?

b. Have you ever been confronted with conflicts with this complexity, affecting other participants of the DI-team?

The question investigates the influence of the host company on the participant. The aim was to see how much freedom, in relation to cross functional team, participants have to work on independent projects or on projects that do not necessary relate to the interest of their own companies. In addition it is important to see whether or not the influence of senior management decreases when the distance to the host company is getting bigger. Furthermore it aims to clarify the influence of senior management on the group dynamics of the open innovation team.

Do you perceive the DI-team as a part of your host-company? a. Do you feel more committed to the team and its

outcomes or do you see the benefit for your company as a priority?

b. Does this differ from working in (cross-functional) teams in your host-company?

This question seeks to explore how participants perceive the DI team as part of their host company and probes how the communication differs from cross functional teams and weather or not participants have experience in working such teams. It is also aiming to identify how participants perceive a team or new work environment out side their host company culture and how it differs from cross-functional teams in their host companies.

When working in a DI-team, can you mention problems, which you have had with the communication to key-decision makers in your host-company? And what do you think are the reasons for that?

This question investigates the communication barriers towards key-decision makers and weather those defer from cross-functional teams, because those factors are well defined by literature.

Data analyses using grounded theory

Coding process After the interviews and transcription, codes were developed to help to organize and interpret the raw data. The methodology is based on grounded theory, which consists of a set of systematic, but flexible, guidelines for conducting inductive qualitative inquiry aimed toward theory construction (Given, 2008, pp. 374). Three coding phases were planed; open coding, axial coding and selective coding (figure 2 and 3). Each coding phase went through several analytical iterations.

7

Fig. 2 Coding process based in the grounded theory

Open Coding The initial coding phase starts with on open coding phase (Given, 2008) to break down the raw data of six direct transcripts into segments using marginal notes on “Post its”. A total of 165 independent segments (Appendix C) in form of key words and ideas are identified. The dissected codes in this phase are not relating to the main research topic at this point. It is important to keep an open mind in this phase to avoid getting to early biased towards the information identified in the data. Multiple classifications, fluency and intensity are attached to any phenomena in order to structure and reduce data. In the end all codes are written down (appendix B) for deeper analysis in the second phase.

Fig. 3 Coding process

Axial Coding In the second phase, axial coding phase, concepts and categories are refined and their relationships are systematically structured. A total of 11 categories were created. The categories are then explored and deeply questioned and further subcategories were generated. For example the category “team” was divided into four subcategories; team forming, team process, team communication and problems in open innovation teams. The category “communication” was divided into external communication and team communication. In the first iteration of the axial coding the categories are

more openly explored and are not directly related to the research topic.

In the second iteration the categories are reformulated to focus more specifically on the research topic. Therefore new categories are developed, that directly relate in all aspects to the research topic. A total of 13 new categories have been created. Here the literature is already considered for theory building. A coding frame that lays out key concepts was generated.

Selective Coding

In the last phase of coding, several core categories were selected relating to the research topic. In this case it was not possible to create one core phenomena, therefore two core categories see have been identified; 1) the external management involvement and 2) the internal initial stage of the innovation process. Those two core categories are the key for the development of the theory concerning the research topic. It is important that the derived data concerning the two core categories are consistent with the raw data analyzed. The coding phase stops at the point when the central categories are the core of research storyline.

After coding phase

After the coding phase two core categories and their containing sub-categories are compared with the reviewed literature. All of the sub categories contain 4 codes. Each code represents a fragment or several fragments of text from the transcripts that highlight the phenomena. Those fragments are compared to similarities and differences in the literature related to the research question.

The results will be discussed in the flowing section.

RESULTS Since cross-functional influences are already described in the literature review, this part will mainly focus on the results of the analysis of the interviews. After the coding phases and the analysis several categories are identified that all have touch points with the communication with host’s decision-makers. All categories are explained and justified below with examples of quotes. Those quotes have frequently appeared in the transcripts. The categories are distinguished into internal and external ones. After the explanations the interrelation between categories and the internal and external environment is described.

Risk management (table 1a) In the current situation regarding the companies involved, there was much consideration whether they would join such projects. Decision-makers from especially small enterprises have difficulties to split their focus and investments, which means that they have to focus on their core business as well as the open innovation projects. These considerations influence the progress.

8

Table 1a External: Risk management

Code title Code phrase Reference

Time and risk in the open innovation process

“…if you have to explain there is a risk involved…then it’s difficult to get them on board”

1p7

Companies were busy with their own projects

“…you already notice the fact that it's not that nobody is gonna spend money, because they we're all busy with their own products.”

5p10

Employee’s willingness to take much risks

“…the once who are willing to stick out their necks, take a risk, who also have the possibility to do that because there is money involved and if there is money involved then you have to go to upper management.”

1p5

Table 1b External: Project guidance


Organizational control in the project

“organizational control, that's maybe the good word, yeah and that was kind of the basics of the failing of the project”

5p8

Rules and guidelines in the innovation process

“There's no rules, there's no guidelines. There's no specific guidelines as to how you work.”

6p6

Big host companies and their control of the team

“Especially larger companies have the tendency to think internally…they want to control everything that is going on, but you can’t control open innovation collaboration.”

1p4

Management structure “Compare to a more classical development project, there you have usually a management structure where somebody tells people something and define what needs to be done.”

2p3

Management support and company support

“It is even more critical when you even don’t have a management structure or a shared culture in which you do this.”

2p6

Table 1c External: Corporate vision


Open innovation project conflicts with host company

“If you go in such a process [open innovation process] it is not always totally in line with your strict company goals”

1p5

Conflicts in goals amongst different companies

“…if you are working for a profit company, it is a different way of working. They might not want to spend much time on research or things which are not going to give profit than non-profit organizations”

3p5

The idea has to fit the strategy of the host company

“I always try to embed the new ideas into our goals, which we have.” 4p7

Companies’ initial own goals “e.g. Philips and Scope and other companies, they all have one, in first instance a kind of own agenda.”

1p2

Commercial parties have short term focus on ROI

“What I noticed a bit, they have a shorter, a more short term view…” 2p4

Table 1d External: providing resources


Exchange of knowledge “They [bigger companies] have certain knowledge that is quite important to share with smaller companies who don’t have this luxury in a sense.”

1p6

Views on ROI “Well for a small firm it is only two people, so they just have to think what do we invest and what do we get back”

2p6

Different investment opinions in the group

“When I talk about €50.000,- subsidized money, they think that is next to nothing, since they are only interested in much larger amounts of money”

4p3

There is no place for open innovation in firms currently

“Really closed innovation, without looking to other parties…All development happens behind closed doors…They won’t share it with others and others won’t adjust.”

4p5

Funding is needed to set up the project

“There is one big issue, there needs to be funding there needs to be starting capital to start up such a project”

5p1

9

Table 1e External Management involvement


Senior management opinions “I have been committing myself based on the enthusiasm, based on the first experiences, but my boss doesn’t like it doesn’t want me to continue”

1p3

No restrictions by management “I’m actually completely free to organize my work as I want to, and they [management] will not tell me what to do.”

3p3

Scared of dependency of other parties host decisions

“He was also planning to work with the government… So if I had a company to invest money which dependent on the government…I don’t see it would happen. It is way too risky and that in my view would be a conflict.”

3p5

Host companies must involve and controlling more

“I think one of the things is that they could have a better role in that. To keep the project from falling and getting into thin air. If they were Controlling more and ask more of the team members then we could have come farther”

5p7

Creative freedom given by creative host companies

“That is mainly the case I think in the creative industry...those people have creation freedom to participate and engage themselves”

1p4

Table 2a Internal: forming group


Roles within the team “There is almost always a design party involved, takes kind of a facilitator role or an integrator role and the others sort of have to look for their role…”

1p2

Time needed to set up the team “Now we have a least a year or six, seven, eight months before teams are up to speed and understand each other and have a similar goal…”

1p3

Working with unknown people is very different

“You don’t know each others’ backgrounds or cultures very well, while companies can have totally different culture when doing things.”

6p4

Seeking for a common understanding takes time

“And now, more or less, at the point where we have a common understanding of the problem… And that took us at least a couple of months.”

2p2

Table 2b Internal: team commitment


Vision concerning the ROI of the DI project

“Well, the reason I quit, because I simply don’t see any money from it… I didn’t see anything coming back in the next ten years”

3p3

Other priorities in spending money

“But I can't do anything more because it will cost me money and hours. Which I can spend on other things.”

5p6

Personal meetings are crucial “…cause if you cannot be together, you cannot create together…We are now sitting face to face together with each other so that’s one of the main things…”

5p8

Team members commitment to the team and company

“We planned the next meeting to discuss what we want to do more in depth. That was the meeting that he cancelled, because at that point he had a client that went bankrupt”

2p5

Table 2c Internal: Defining goals and directions


Creating a common value proposition

“We have to agree the objectives, the value proposition and that is, I think, more difficult”.

2p5

Common goal definition “So, a normal project with a company or as a student usually has a much more clear briefing what you need to do.”

2p8

Time to set goals and involve host companies

In the business plan you will work out all the problems you see or the things you want to achieve through it, whether it’s gonna be fit for the companies or not. Then the management from different companies probably would be able to judge it’s good or not.”

3p6

Goal definition at the start of the project

“I think they [DI] can do something in my sector, but I still did not see any outcome of it.”

4p3

10

Table 2d Internal: Process structure


Tasks division is done within the team

We divided it ourselves I believe, the tasks were that there was one marketer, so she was more looking at the marketing aspects…”

5p4

No clear view on the total process

“Look I cannot oversee that, I cannot oversee the big picture. I was just in that small project”

5p13

Business model for structuring the process

“Right now, we already use a business model…I hope this model can be the first step for something else

4p3

Product decisions made in the end phase

“There should be a decision made in the end, what we are going to make... That’s the end were we benefit from the project.”

6p8

Table 2e Internal: High uncertainty


Time and risk of DI projects “Open innovation or not, if you have to explain the concept, …the roles…the responsibilities of different team members…that it takes some time…explain everything then it’s difficult to get them on board”

1p7

It is difficult to make things concrete

“What is difficult is the challenge to get at some point you have to get more concrete about…the meaning in more detail.”

2p3

Vague initial phase “There was a clear of the project in the future…but at the moment everything was too vague yet.”

3p4

Structure is necessary in unfamiliar networked innovation team

“Nobody has a real good idea of what the project would look like, what would it be, who are the partners are, so it's nice to have some structure, some of the organizational structure that you can corresponded to, to know what you are actually doing.”

6p7

Table 2f Internal: Team members withdraw


Open innovation project conflicts with host company

“It was over, it didn’t fit their agenda so if you go into an open innovation traject, if you go in such a process it is not always totally in line with your strict company goals”

1p5

Withdraw because the lack of short term benefits

“At some point I don’t see what I will get out of this…And one of the partners had this problem and they said we have to withdraw on the project.”

2p4

Different opinions about investments

“So they don't want to put money into it… If you don't have funding your product will certainly stop.”

5p5

Vision of the ROI “Well, the reason I quit, because I simply don’t see any money from it” 3p3

Table 2g Internal: Fuzzy front end


Fuzzy front end is always tough

“It is not only because of the interdisciplinary, this is also because of the fact that you have a vague idea and you need to bring this to something concrete.”

2p4

Difficult to involve team member is fuzzy front end

“they [team members] can easily say, yes I want to be involved, but then the next step is that they actually have to do something and that is much more difficult”

2p3

No strict rules and guidelines in the innovation process

“And on the other hand, you don't have a strict way of working. There's no rules, there's no guidelines. There's no specific guidelines as to how you work.”

6p5

Management structure and involvement in the initial stage

“Goal clarification is of course a characteristic of a fuzzy front end. This is even more critical when you even don’t have management structure or a shared culture.”

2p8

11

Table 2h Internal: Project leadership


Money and leadership are the most important

. A captain on the side of DI…And funding, and how do you get funding. Maybe it should not one of the companies who is involved in the project.”

5p7

Having a project leader is important

“And we...there should be a decision made in the end, what we are going to make, And for us, that's very important. Because we are going to use the outcome of the project as something for us”

6p8

High involvement idea owner “Because it is my idea that started the project and also I have the biggest involvement I guess.”

2p3

Time and commitment not equally divided

“I [as project leader] have to spend the most time on the project and I have the biggest commitment to the project.”

2p3

Fig. 4 Interrelations between categories

12

Project guidance (table 1b) Senior management guidance or other ways of project guidance are needed in networked innovation teams. According to the quotes, working with project guidance reduces uncertainty, especially in networked innovation projects were team members come from different organizations, although too much guidance can work constraining as well.

Corporate vision (table 1c) Project goals are usually more clearly defined in “host company” projects. Another aspect that comes with a networked innovation teams is that all participants come from a different “host” company culture. Procedures and process vary from company to company. So, employees firstly enter the project with the host companies’ goals in mind. An important finding is the difference between profit and non-profit organizations. These goals can differ greatly, which causes difficulties amongst team members in the initial phase.

Providing resources (table 1d) One major barrier for the reviewed open innovations projects is providing financial resources. Because of the fuzziness and the distance between core business and the projects host companies are not urged to invest money in the project. The perception amongst interviewees is that they think the funding is more a payment than an investment. This lack of financial supports touches the performance of the team members and the commitment amongst them.

Management involvement (table 1e) This category mainly describes the influences of the host managements on the teams. This category covers the ones above. The amount of communication between the key-decision makers and the innovation team influences the performance, the commitment, the uncertainty and so on. Basically, the involvement is needed keep the team members connected and continuing the process. Despite that, communication from host companies to a particular team member can affect other team members both negatively as well as positively.

Forming team (table 2a) The forming of networked innovation groups is seen as a very difficult and time consuming process since all team members come from different companies and have different fields of expertise. This is thought to be an important aspect because a team composed of different expertise can stimulate thinking amongst team members. However the team forming process, until a team sees itself as a unit takes considerable amount of time. This time consumption is often mentioned in the interviews.

Team commitment (table 2b) Commitment is an important factor in order to make progress when working in a team. From the interviews, this seems to be hard, because some perceive these projects as something aside and cannot see the benefits coming from it. Others are more willing to seek for success, which makes the division of work intensity and thus commitment not equally divided. The low frequency of meetings influences the level of commitment as well.

Define goals and directions (table 2c) The purpose and objective of a team should be defined by creating team goals. In networked innovation teams it is important to set team goals. This was further backed up that most projects were in need of more guidance and structure. Many participants initially brought their hosts’ goals and directions to the table. Therefore, it costs more time to develop one common goal. The importance of having one common goal is often mentioned.

Process structure (table 2d) This category is based on the innovation process. Interviewees mention the freedom and uncertainty in the first phase of the process. They had to set up their own process plan, divide tasks and make decisions by themselves, without the influence of management. This was an unfamiliar experience for some.

High uncertainty (table 2e) Particularly in the initial phase of innovation projects there is high uncertainty (Barczak and Wilemon, 2000). Innovation processes are risky and uncertain, especially these experimental design driven innovation processes. This was also derived from the interviews. In the open innovations teams this uncertainty was deepened, because of the need for control, common goals and process structure.

Team members withdraw (table 2f) Team members withdrew because the goal of the innovation project did not fit their company strategy and goal. Also, they withdrew from the open innovation project because it would be a too high investment for them or they would not see any benefits from the project outcome in the short term. Another important factor for the team members withdraw was the high uncertainty level of those processes.

Fuzzy front end (table 2g) According to the interviewees most of these innovation processes were still in the initial phase. This fuzzy front end consists of many sub-processes to overcome uncertainty, like creating goals, dividing roles and setting objectives. Especially in the set up that is used by the Design Initiatief this process phase is tough, because all team members of different organizations have to understand and appreciate the initial idea.

13

Project leadership (table 2h) In this team set up it is difficult to assign one project leader, although the interviewees mention that having a project leader is of great importance. Nevertheless the project leader cannot enforce other team members, because they do not have the same corporate understanding, since they are from different organizations. Therefore, team members outline their own level of commitment or this is steered by the host companies. Project leaders are not doing this. An independent project leader or project guidance is desired.

Interrelation between categories (figure 4) In this section the link between categories will be further explained, because there is much overlap between internal and external communication influences and between all categories separately. Furthermore in this part the connection with communication will be better defined. Figure 4 gives an overview of the relations between categories.

When using figure 4 as frame of reference it shows that the external decision-makers of the host companies influence the team internally. This influence is named ‘management involvement’. Information is communicated top-down to affect the performance of the networked innovation team. This flow of communication consists of information about available resources and corporate visions and goals. Furthermore, the external decision-makers influence the team with the amount of project guidance and the willingness to take risks. All those factors are guided towards the team members in the initial stage, that can be seen as the phase were all aspects appear in, because all members involved in a Design Initiatief team mention this fuzzy front end.

When companies refuse to bring in investments, the process will be disrupted and team members withdraw. The consideration of host companies whether or not to invest and take risks, influences the level of uncertainty within the group, which causes to withdraw subsequently. Besides financial resources as a factor of uncertainty, project guidance will have this effect as well. The less project guidance there is the more uncertainty and structure in the team. But on the other hand, the more project guidance, the more constraints to innovate are taken. Team members have the tendency to justify their process to management or another key decision maker. Thus, providing guidance by communicating e.g. goals and vision will directly influence the structure of the process. Nevertheless, in these networked innovations many goals and visions are proposed by host companies, which make common goal definition within the team more difficult. This complexity affects the uncertainty level as well. According to the interviewees it seems to be hard to commit when working with high uncertainty.

To conclude, it appears to be that all those factors are highly interrelated and it makes the management

involvement a delicate influence to the networked innovation team’s process performance. Tension exists regarding the managerial involvement in networked innovation teams. Communication, by providing guidance and resources, can make the process performance more clear. Important parameters in this interweavement of influences are the host companies’ organization structure and culture. There are differences mentioned between large and small companies and their innovation habits. Where e.g. in large companies employees are used to justify many decision bottom-up, small companies have a more dynamic and free approach to seek for differentiation. Hence, the way management involvement and key decision-makers’ visions is applied to networked innovation teams differs between company sizes, cultures, structures and innovation approaches (e.g. technology driven or design driven).

CONCLUSION The outcome of the analyses of the interviews is compared with findings from literature study. In this way a comparison can be made between cross-functional teams and networked innovation teams regarding the communication between the teams and the host companies’ decision-makers.

The outcomes have shown that management control of the networked innovation team differs from the control of cross-functional teams within a company. Several arguments within this subject confirm this statement. There is no such role division as in cross-functional teams exists, where everybody is assigned by a singular management with clearly defined tasks (Cooper and Kleinsmidt, 1993). The interviewed members of networked innovation teams are delegated by their own management or in some Design Initiatief projects, they were their own decision-makers. In a cross-functional setting the senior management has to communicate its (corporate) objectives and available resources to steer the team (Davila, 2000) (Thamhain, 1990). This guidance enforces commitment amongst team members and reduces uncertainty (Khandwalla, 1972). Besides that, it make the team aware of the strategic fit the project must possess (Poskela and Martinsuo, 2009). In the networked innovation teams different corporate goals and objective collide with each other, which lead to a higher uncertainty level and a lower level of commitment amongst team members. Because of this ambiguity, it appears to be that host companies’ decision-makers have a less understanding of the innovation process which affects their decisions subsequently. If with the communication, between team member and management, the decision-maker cannot clearly understand the benefits of the process, the chance of project cancelations increases. Also less financial investments are made, because of that. Many companies of this open innovation initiative withdrew, due to the inadequate short-term view on return on investments.

14

Furthermore, process monitoring is also part of the communication regarding management control. To increase the success of cross-functional teams, project guidance of management is evident. Senior management has to advise, steer and make decisions. (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). During the process several decision points (or go/no go decisions) are build in the process. (McDonough III, 2000). The interpreted outcomes have shown that this necessary management accountability (Cooper, 1999) is not similar to that of networked innovation teams. Those teams make their own value propositions, decisions and plans to structure the innovation process to overcome the high uncertainty. This high uncertainty is a typical characteristic of an innovation process and therefore the intensity of the communication flow between team and interfaces has to be high (Barczak and Wilemon, 1991).

Because of the aspects mentioned above, networked innovation teams appear to be more uncertain than the structured cross-functional teams. However, the more non-routine and highly uncertain the innovation process is, the better the fundament for radical innovations is.

The complexity of this new generation of innovation management (Berkhout et al., 2007), affects the networked innovation team’s external communication as well. The involvement of different organizations makes the complexity higher and thus the communication less transparent (Moenaert et al. 2000). The low frequency of meetings of network innovation team members and the increased distance between them and their decision-makers are reasons for that. To overcome the communication barrier frequent meetings are necessary with a direct and genuine share of information (Allen, 1985) (Daft, 1986). Despite that, the stream of information between team members and between team members and decision-makers in the networked innovation setting seemed to be perceived richer. Larger organizations share knowledge with small and medium enterprises, where cross-functional teams mainly operate internally.

Lastly, the role of the project leader changes in networked innovation teams according to the research outcomes. Literature states that the project leader in cross-functional teams is a leader of team as well as a mediator between senior management and the team (Barczak and Wilemon (1991). This second role of the project leader directly influences the communication quality. In networked innovation management both roles are changed. Due to the fact that team members have different host companies with different objectives, project leaders are not able to enforce too much. Also the role as mediator cannot be totally executed anymore, since there are more host companies’ decision-makers involved. The interviews have shown that a project leader do not communicate the entire event to all the managements.

With this comparison a better understanding is created on what differences their currently exist between the cross-functional teams and networked innovation teams regarding their external communication with decision-makers. This is based on the interviews with members of Design Initiatief teams. The interpretations have led to an assumption that team members of networked innovation teams currently do not yet perceive this innovation approach as new way of product development. Experience might enhance the networked innovation process as well as the way those external communication issues will be solved.

RECOMMENDATIONS In this part recommendations are given for further research. Besides this, advises are proposed to improve the projects that Design Initiatief initiates.

Recommendations for further research It is necessary to further investigate what kinds of characteristics are needed to steer networked innovation teams. Van der Duin et al. (2005) state that ‘Management of these networks requires a new type of leadership’ referring to open innovation networks. Therefore research on what kind of character traits a person must have to steer and influence a diverse team of individuals or how the involvement of senior management, one dominant firm or a single project manager would give new insights on how to further strengthen the possibility of a successful innovation process and ultimately a successful innovation. In order to discover what kind of new leadership is needed to steer open innovation projects, personality traits and characteristics of leaders could be of interest. Rooke and Torbert (2005) identified in their study seven different leadership characteristics. This could be an interesting starting point, since they have identified the action logic of those leaders and how they transform during time. Furthermore, they have generated generic profiles of the of those seven leadership characteristics. Furthermore, because of the low level of involvement of the hosts’ decision-makers during the open innovation process, it would be of great interest to see what the value of top-down communication in open innovation teams in later stages is. If open innovation teams should need a new kind of leader and a new kind of leader is created, then the value of top -down communication might not be needed anymore during the process. Thus if top-down communication is not needed anymore the importance will shift to only justification bottom-up and reflection top-down to key-decision makers. Before the process starts the involvement of the management of the host company will be always there. Since of the relative small sample size of this study ongoing open innovation teams and projects should be monitored and explored for further phenomena that

15

could help improve team processes. Besides investigating within Design Initiatief teams, exploring networked innovation teams in other professional circumstances can be useful to determine influences on the performance of those teams. To connect it to this research, networked innovation teams in open innovation processes must be investigation.

Recommendations for Design Initiatief The management support seems to be an important need in the current Design Initiatief teams. Therefore it is recommended that Design Initiatief strengthens its project management support. Design Initiatief can fulfil that role with their current capabilities. It has an extensive network of people with different experiences in open innovation and therefore has access to knowledge and experience. Project management support will help open innovations teams to get on track with their process earlier and therefore minimizing the chance of early withdraw of team members and increases the commitment of team members. Design Initiatief can stimulate meetings in the initial phase of the project. Therefore it should clearly communicate their role and how they can give support to the team. Small firms that are involved in IO teams might not have as much resources, such as money or manpower to fully focus on the IO project. Design Initiatief could in such situations take a more supportive role by providing, if possible, financial aid or more planning support. This supportive role must not be formalized, because that will affect the innovation process negatively. Each project needs specialized guidance by one independent person who also is involved in the team and the process. This can increase the willingness to innovate and to push through, the commitment and hopefully the outcomes of those rich projects.

REFERENCES

1. Allen, T.J. (1985). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge MA, MIT Press

2. Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review 76, pp. 77-87

3. Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D. (1992). Speeding

Product Development: Making Teamwork Work. Cambridge, MA: Sloan School of Management

4. Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D. (1991). Communications Patterns of New Product Development Team Leaders. Transactions on engineering management, 38 (2)

5. Berkhout, A.J. (2000). The dynamic role of

knowledge in innovation. An integrated framework of cyclic networks for the assessment of

technological change and sustainable growth. Delft University Press, Delft,

6. Berkhout, A.J. and van der Duin, P.A. (2007). New ways of innovation: an application of the cyclic innovation model to the mobile telecom industry. Technology Management 40 (4), pp. 294-309

7. Blindenbach-Driessen, F. and van den Ende, J.

(2006). Innovation in project-based firms: The context dependency of success factors. Research Policy 35, pp. 545-561

8. Brown H.K., Clark K.B., Holloway C.A. and

Wheelwright S.C., (1994). The perceptual Enterprise Machine. New York: Oxford University Press.

9. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory:

A practical guide through qualitative analysis. 10. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation. The

New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from New Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

11. Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1993).

Managing new product and process development. New York: The Free Press

12. Cooper, R.G. (1979). Identifying Industrial New

Product Success: Project NewProd. Industrial marketing management 8, pp. 124-135

13. Cooper, R.G. (1999). From experience: The

invisible success factors in product innovation. Product Innovation Management 16, pp. 115-133

14. Cooper, R.G. (2000). Product Innovation and

Technology Strategy. Research Technology Management 43 (1), pp. 38-41

15. Cooper, R.G. and Kleinsmidt, E.J. (1993). Major

new products: What distinguishes the winners in the chemical industry. Product Innovation Management 2, pp. 90-111

16. Cooper, R.G. and Kleinsmidt, E.J. (2007). Winning Businesses in Product Development: The Critical Success Factors. Research Technology Management

17. Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32 (5), pp. 554-571

18. Davila, T. (2000). An empirical study on the drivers

of management control systems' design in new

16

product development. Acounting, Organizations and Society 25, pp. 383-409

19. Van der Duin, P. (2005). Innovation in context:

From R&D management to innovation networks. Management Technology, pp. 227-246

20. Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex

organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 21. Given, L., (2008). The SAGE Encyclopia of

Qualitative Research Methods Vol 1&2. Sage Publications, California

22. Herstatt, C., Verworn, B., and Nagahira, A. (2004).

Reducing Project Related Uncertainty in the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation: A Comparison of German and Japanese Product Innovation Projects. International Journal of Product Development 1(1), pp. 43–65

23. Holland, S. et al. (2000). Critical success factors for

cross-functional teamwork in new product development, International Journal of Management Reviews 2 (3), pp. 231–259

24. Khandwalla, P. (1972). The effect of different types

of competition on the use of management controls. Accounting Research 10, pp. 275-285

25. McDonough III, E.F. (2000). Investigation of

Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-functional Teams. Product Innovation management 17, pp. 221-235

26. Moenaert, R.K. et al. (2000). Communication flows

in international product innovation teams. Product innovation management 17, pp. 360-377

27. Niosi, J. (1999). Fourth-generation R&D: from

linear models to flexible innovation. Journal of Business Research 45 (2), pp. 11-7

28. Ortt, J.R. and van der Duin, P.A. (2008). The

evolution of innovation management towards contextual innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 11 (4), pp. 522-538

29. Poskela, J. and Martinsuo M. (2009). Management

Control and Strategic Renewal in the Front End of Innovation. Product Innovation management 26, pp. 671-684

30. Rooke, D., Torbert, W.R., 2005. “Seven Transformations of Leadership”. Harward Business Review. April, pp. 1-14

31. Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11(1), pp. 7-31

32. Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group Process and

Productivity. New York: Academic Press. 33. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of

qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

34. Thanhaim, H. J. (1990). Managing Technologically Innovative Team Efforts Towards New Product Success. Product Innovation Management 7, pp. 5-17

17

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW OUTLINE What is your name?

Company: Location: Background / education: Nationality:

What is your position in your host-company?

And in the DI team? 3. How did you get involved in the DI-team? 4. How is the innovation process stimulated within your company?

a. Is this mostly pushed/pulled by one single department? b. Does the company stimulate the individual employee to explore himself to be flexible / creative / innovative? c. How is the top-management involved in decision making?

2. After the DI-project has been approved and will be continued, how are the tasks of this project divided among the

companies? a. How are the DI-project’s tasks divided within your host-company? b. How is the decision making of the different tasks taken care of? (e.g. Is there one general supervisor or are the

tasks divisionalized among the different departments?) 3. How do you communicate the insights of the DI-team to your key-decision makers within your host-company?

a. Do you have to communicate insights from other team members, who are specialized in other disciplines, to your company’s decision makers?

b. Does this change your role, in comparison when working in a team within your own company? 4. Does your host-company influence the participation within the DI-team? And how?

c. Do you have the ability to participate individually or out of the name of your company? d. Have you ever been confronted with conflicts with this complexity, affecting other participants of the DI-team?

5. Do you perceive the DI-team as a part of your host-company?

c. Do you feel more committed to the team and its outcomes or do you see the benefit for your company as a priority?

d. Does this differ from working in (cross-functional) teams in your host-company? 6. When working in a DI-team, can you mention problems, which you have had with the communication to key-decision

makers in your host-company? And what do you think are the reasons for that? [break] INTRODUCTION P2. Working within DI-team / Guidelines vs. Creative Freedom [Tijl] ‘Creative Tension’ is the tension between creativity and organizational control. This exists in every project and in all stages of the projects. The ideal tension is different at every stage of a project; at the start of a project, it is good to have a lot of creativity, without too many constraints by organizational control, this of course to come to new and innovative ideas. Later on it is most sufficient to have more control, because at this phase, it is necessary to get results and follow a certain path towards the production and launch of the new product or service, leaving less space for creativity.

As this tension exists in every project, it also exists in networked innovation teams, as the ones we are researching from Design Initiative. We want to focus at the last phase where DI is still a factor in the project (See Figure 1). This gives us the most insights on how DI directs both the team and the project in the right direction.

On top of this it will hopefully give us insights in how DI can improve this process in the future.

So, to summarize, we are interested in the way DI can influence the success of a project, by setting the right track (structure, set of rules, organizational controls, guidelines, etc.) at the start of this project.

18

Intro question:

In what way did DI organize and control the start of a project?

7. In every project initiated by DI, there is a certain organizational control (at the starting period); how do/did you

experience this over time?

a. What rules / guidelines provided by whom? b. (Many) Less or more than outside the DI-team? c. Like / Dislike rules and why?

8. How do/did this organizational control (at the starting period), in your opinion, contribute to the success of the project in the end?

a. What contributed, which not? b. Why? c. When is a project successful for you?

9. In what situation did you see there is a conflict of management approaches within the DI team?

a. What element do you think of when evaluating the situation? b. Do you have your own methods to observe this kind of situation?

10. What approaches you took or would have taken to handle the conflicts or utilize the complement within the DI-

team? a. How did it affect the later innovation dynamics? b. How do you improve the approaches to adapt to the DI team?

19

APPENDIX B: OPEN CODING

CODE SUBJECTS

Open coding phase Interview and page number

Axial Code - Category

How teams are formed 1p2 E1 Team leader 1p2 E1, E4 Roles within the team 1p2 E1 Process/project description 1p2 E2 Common goal definition within the team 1p2 E2, E3 Time needed to set up the team 1p3 E1 Senior management opinions 1p3 B, F Barriers within the team 1p3 E1, E3, E4 Experience to organize a team 1p3 G Experience to deal with such projects 1p4 G Commitment of team members 1p4 C, E4 Controllability of open innovation 1p4 F Open innovation project conflicts with host company 1p5 B, E4, F Team forming difficulties 1p5 E1, E4 Communication in company structures 1p5 B, D Communication and decision making in different company structures 1p5 B, D, F Type of innovation for different company sizes 1p6 D Exchange of knowledge 1p6 E2, E3 Capacity to deal with this form of innovation 1p7 G Time and risk of DI projects 1p7 C1 Method and risk 1p7 E2 Time and risk in the open innovation process 1p7 C1 Diversity in the team 1p8 E1 Team size 1p8 E1 Investments rather than costs 1p8 A Companies and their current innovation systems 1p8 D Extrinsic motivation vs intrinsic motivation 1p9 C Need for diversity within the team 1p9 E1 Role within the team 2p1 E1 Commitment through paying or labour 2p2 C Goal and value proposition as stimulus 2p3 C Getting the team on the same page 2p3 E1, E2, E3 Difficulties in the initial stage because of different commitment levels 2p3 C, E4 Process structure 2p4 E2 Different views on the outcome 2p4 E3, E4 Creating a common value proposition 2p5 C, E2, E3 Different roles and expertise 2p5 E1 Knowledge exchange within the team 2p5 E2, E3 Views on ROI 2p6 B, F Connection with open innovation 2p6 A, Right team composition 2p6 E1 One problem owner, different commitment levels 2p7 E1, C1 Common understanding of the problem 2p7 E2, E3 Common goal definition 2p8 E2, E3 Lack of management structure and involvement in the initial stage 2p8 B, D, E4 Small firms intensions to join DI 3p1 A Using capabilities to influence within the host company 3p2 B Small firms and their innovation needs 3p2 D Role of the long term strategist 3p2 B, F Not pushed to join open innovation by the host company 3p2 G Big investments by the management to innovate 3p2 C1, F Small company structure means more freedom and creativity 3p2 D No restrictions by management 3p3 B, F Collective decision making with management 3p3 B

20

Vision concerning the ROI of the DI project 3p3 C1, E4, F Risk when carrying all the responsibility 3p3 C1 Bad perception of DI projects 3p3 A, No experience with open innovation 3p4 G Open innovation problems 3p4 Vague initial phase 3p4 E2 Not many meetings in the open innovation project 3p4 E4 Idea generation with other companies 3p5 E2 Success if gathering certain parties with a purpose 3p5 A, E1 Conflicts in goals amongst different companies 3p5 C1, B, F Scared of dependency of other parties host decisions 3p5 E4 Time to set goals and involve host companies 3p6 E1 Authority through knowledge 3p7 E3, E4 Different level of enthusiasm (employees vs researchers) 3p7 C Different parties with different approaches/expectations 4p2 E4 Business model for structuring the process 4p3 E2 No clear goal at the start 4p3 E2, E4 Different investment opinions in the group 4p3 C1, E4, F No trust in open innovation because of the different company sizes 4p3 C1 DI purpose not clear communicated 4p4 A, There is no place for open innovation in firms currently 4p5 G Organization structure influences innovation 4p6 D The idea has to fit the strategy of the host company 4p7 B, F Familiarity with methods or models 4p9 G Models are used for structure 4p9 E2 Aspirations of project leader 4p10 Funding is needed to set up the project 5p1 D, C1 Only time and effort is put into it 5p1 C, C1 One captain is needed to steer the team 5p3 E1 Tasks division is done within the team 5p4 E2, E3 There was no project leader 5p4 E1, E2, E3, E4 With more funding more things could have been done 5p4 C, C1, D All the parties had different opinions about investments 5p5 C, C1, E3, E4 There was no believe in product success 5p5 C1, E1, E3 Same input lead to less effort 5p6 E1, E3 Other priorities in spending money 5p6 C1, D, F, G Host companies must involve and controlling more 5p7 B, C, F Money and leadership are the most important 5p7 B, C, D, F Personal meetings are crucial 5p7 C, E2, E3 There is no organizational control in the project 5p8 B, D, (F) Companies were busy with their own projects 5p8 C1 There was no pulling factor in the initial phase 5p9 A, C1, E3, E4 No clear view on the total process 5p13 E3, G The DI process has to be better communicated 5p14 A The project subject is not really concrete 6p2 C1, E3 One company pushes the project 6p2 D, G The position is still critical is this experimental phase 6p3 Working with unknown people is very different 6p4 C1, E1, E3 It is separately working together 6p4 E2, E3 Flexibility decreases conflicts 6p5 E2 Within a company you can go to the ceo 6p5 F Unfamiliar with the team member’s company culture 6p5 E2, E3 No strict rules and guidelines in the innovation process 6p6 E2, E3, G To participate in networked innovation team you cannot be strict 6p6 You cannot communicate everything with the host company 6p6 B, D, F Strategic decisions are made within the team 6p7 E2, E3 Structure is necessary in unfamiliar networked innovation team 6p7 E2, G Control is needed to keep team members committed 6p8 B, D, E3, F Having a project leader is important 6p8 F Product decisions have to be made in the end phase 6p8 B, D, E3, F

21

Second coding session own interviews DI is for the small and medium enterprises 1p1 A, The is always one role for the person with the most commitment 1p2 Subscription to DI must lead to commitment 1p2 A, C Companies have initially own goals 1p2 B Hard to bring people together with different background 1p3 E1 Common goal and value proposition definitions are crucial 1p3 E2 Investments can be barriers in later stages 1p3 C1, E4 DI tries to monitor and structure the process 1p3 A, E2 Creative people get freedom within creative host companies 1p4 F Big host companies do not like the lack of control of the DI team 1p4 Changes in direction can lead to withdraw 1p5 Hierarchy in big companies 1p5 People from big companies are not willing to take much risks and go to management

1p5

Innovation is easier in smaller companies 1p6 D Technology driven innovation is easier is big companies 1p6 D Knowledge transfer from big to small companies 1p6 E3 Attitude and capacity of a host company is needed to enter open innovation 1p7 D, F Have to learn each other 1p7 E1 Need for commitment and fully focus 1p8 Double role in the team 2p1 Management of DI makes decisions 2p1 A TU pays for DI project 2p1 F DI management helps team forming 2p2 A All involved parties are interested in the results 2p2 First understand the what tasks are needed, than making and dividing tasks 2p2 E2 Seeking for a common understanding takes time 2p2 E1, E2 Task division based on competences 2p2 High involvement idea owner 2p3 C Time and commitment not equally divided 2p3 C Difficult to involve team member is fuzzy front end 2p3 G Lack of management structure 2p3 D, E2, F Project leader cannot enforce too much 2p3 E3, E4 Innovation is an investment 2p3 A Team members have to create commitment 2p3 It is difficult to make things concrete 2p3 E2, E3, E4 Discussion about goals 2p4 E3, F Difficult to agree at the value proposition because of the different goals each party has

2p4

Fuzzy front end is always tough 2p4 G Commercial parties have short term focus on ROI 2p4 B, F Withdraw because the lack of short term benefits 2p4 E4 It is often not the main project for companies 2p4 Team members are not committed, they are more busy with the host company

2p5 C, C1, F

After a concrete value proposition commitment increases 2p5 C Control is needed in the initial phase 2p5 First there is control, commitment and goal, then creativity based on content 2p5 First teams have to understand the problem 2p5 E2, E3 Project within companies have more structure 2p6 D External person steers the project group 2p6 FB Lack of management and company support 2p6 B, E4, F DI starts helping to structure the projects 2p7 A,

22

Initial categories; selective coding, after first open iteration

A Design Initiatief involvement

B External communication

C Commitment

C1 Barriers for commitment

D Host company structure and size

E Team

E1 Team forming

E2 Team process

E3 Team communication

E4 Problems in networked innovation teams

F Influence of key-decision makers

G Experience of networked innovation teams

23

APPENDIX C: OPEN CODING SESSION SCREENSHOT