ادغام کشش بازار و فشار فن آوری در قبال شرکت های بزرگ و مدیریت نوآوری ، بینشی از صنعت نرم افزار آلمان

Within the framework of this paper, an extensive literature overview of technology and innovation management aspects on market pull and technology push will be given. The existing classification of market pull and technology push will be particularly shown and called into question by suggesting a conceptual framework. Additionally, the most common front end innovation models will be introduced. Finally, the authors will introduce how a technology-based service company is managing the connection of these two alternatives. A special focus will be laid on the accordant methods in order to search for current market needs and new related technologies. The selected case study will focus on one of Germany's biggest and most successful software development and information technology service providers. Based on interviews, document analysis, and practical applications, an advanced conceptual framework will be introduced as to how market pull and technology push activities within the corporate technology and innovation management can be integrated. Hence, the purpose of the paper is to introduce a theory-based conceptual framework that can be used in today's corporate environment. In this context, technology managers may use the results as a conceptual mirror, especially regarding the influencing factors of innovation impulses and the use of interdisciplinary teams (with people from inside and outside the company) to accomplish successful corporate technology and innovation management.

Organizations and businesses have recognized the need for finding new methods and paradigms to efficiently serve existing and new markets with new and/or modified products as well as services (Ansoff, 1965). Thus, the changing global environment is compelling organizations and businesses to permanently seek the most efficient models to maximize their innovation management efforts (Christiansen, 2000). As innovation is a responsibility of all business units and departments, their involvement needs to be determined accordingly (Tucker, 2002). In this context, an organization's ability to identify, acquire, and utilize (external) ideas can be seen as a critical factor in regards to its market success (Zahra and George, 2002). This so-called ‘Front-End of Innovation’ is therefore one of the most important areas of corporate management. Technology and technology-oriented companies, especially in the business-to-business area, are traditionally more influenced by new technologies than other companies. However, firms in the business-to-consumer sector focus more on end-users, and, therefore, market-induced impulses. The related scientific discussion regarding the ‘right’ innovation management and especially the ‘best’ source of innovation is similar to the question of whether the chicken or egg came first. The question becomes even more complex since there are several examples of successful technology-oriented companies as well as market-oriented ones. Therefore, the question is not which view is right or wrong, but if there is a practicable way to combine both views or even extend them to other related factors. Hence, the purpose of the paper is to introduce a theory-based conceptual framework that can be used in today's corporate environment. In order to achieve this, the related theoretical background (with a focus on the front end of innovation) is discussed, supplemented by a case study from the German software industry. Finally, the discussion and implication section summarizes and consolidates the findings of both parts with the introduction of • different case-specific sources for innovation impulses, • an extended conceptual framework for corporate innovation management and • an advanced front-end innovation approach.

As stated, technology push and market pull cannot be declared as the right or the wrong way to sustainable innovations. It depends on assorted variables—such as the specific industry, the company's history, etc.—which strategy suits best. Some companies are still on the right track by focusing on technology or market needs only. However, there are several examples that a one-sided innovation strategy does not work in the long term either. Against the background of the case, one can see that bringing technology and market together is not just a matter of (inter-organizational) communication and detailed definition of strategic search fields. All sides of innovation sources are encouraged to give practical input (e.g., the marketing contingent by setting minimum criteria for project evaluations rather than defining general targets) (Becker and Lillemark, 2006). By conducting interdisciplinary teams with lasting integration of internal and external parties, the danger of unidirectional research, as well as relying solely on market trends, can be reduced. Moreover, the researched company invests many efforts in the idea generation and evaluation phase, which is also very cost-intensive. In this context, recent research indicates that the idea quality and the idea generation phase are important determinants of innovative capacities, especially of large-scale firms (Koc and Ceylan, 2007). Within the framework of this paper, a new innovation management framework was introduced based on considerations of recent research (e.g., Burgelman and Sayles, 2004; Pearson, 1990; Pfeiffer et al., 1997, etc.). Summarizing the described procedures of the company, a holistic picture of their innovation triggers can be drawn (see Fig. 15). First of all, there is certain proof that the introduced framework is similar to the processes researched in the case. For example, incremental and radical product and process innovations are induced by market needs (strategic product management staff) and new technologies (strategic technology monitoring department), with relevant problems being supported and controlled by the upper management (corporate interest). In addition to that, the company has well-defined innovation processes depending on the different types of innovations. Still, there are several points which are not included in the model, such as the intervallic workshops for generating relevant problems. The influence of ‘regulatory push’ is relatively extraordinary as well. The term ‘regulatory push’ itself comes from the area of ecological economics, and more precisely, from eco-innovations (Rennings, 2000).1 Until now, no technology or innovation management literature could be identified which methodically deals with regulatory push in areas other than ecology. ‘Regulatory push’ can be used to summarize existing law, expected regulation, standards, political decisions, etc. The origin is not surprising, as ecologically generated innovations are strongly dependent on environmental regulations (for instance, the aforesaid example of the chemical industry in the last century). The regulatory push framework is complemented by other industry, company, economy, and culturally specific features, as these characteristics are leading to different starting conditions in terms of their innovation activities. Moreover, these features can explain the different intensity of the determinants and effects of innovations (Rehfeld et al., 2007). In this case, the regulatory push influences the relevant problems indirectly through market needs (e.g., customers say they need a new tool because of a certain new law), and directly, (e.g., through opportunities for new business models or even business units). Finally, the question remains as to why previous research did not include a factor like regulatory push. One reason could be the fact that earlier research was done in areas where there were no regulations (e.g., computer industry, desktop applications) or that the regulations were stable and implicit. The changes introduced in the case are obviously relevant for all companies, but in a special context in this case study, it is because their product and service portfolio is predominantly based on the consequences of legal issues. Therefore, the regulatory push impulses are elementary, affecting the incremental product and service improvements, as well as new product development. In terms of market pull and technology push, these stimuli can be seen as main influencing factors of new or changing market needs. So, the external political and legal influences are playing an especially important role for relevant problems and changing market needs in the future. Furthermore, relevant problems can be directly triggered by technology push, market pull, and/or corporate interest, as well as a combination of all these aspects together via workshops, scenario groups, etc. Fig. 16 shows the integration of the insights from the case into the adopted framework. Right now, it cannot be proven that this extended framework is valid for all branches or companies, but it may give some impulses for further research. It is at least applicable for the German software industry, especially in the context of companies in the environment of legal and regulatory issues, as their specific requirements are accordingly integrated. Whether this is a certain German phenomenon or not needs to be researched in future studies. Finally, a generalization of the model depends on the results of future research in this area. Moreover, there is a great deal of research done in the area of case-specific management systems within the literature focusing on innovation management. Still, there has not been any comprehensive theory developed yet of how to organize corporate innovation on an abstract level, combining the various research results. Hence, a draft of an advanced idea tunnel as a front end innovation model based on the case study will be introduced (see Fig. 17). Based on the idea tunnel, several elements were added (e.g., a pool for saving ideas). This is necessary in order not to loose deferred ideas, which are not appropriate to the current corporate strategy guidelines. Moreover, the front end is well-defined as the phase of idea collection and idea creation, enhanced by the level of creativity and the innovation culture of the corporation. Another important aspect concerns rejected ideas. A detailed and comprehensive feedback is crucial in two areas: firstly, regarding the willingness of the involved person for future input, and secondly, concerning the willingness of other people facing the internal and external effects of a disappointed and unsatisfied idea contributor. Moreover, it is important to guarantee a permanent input of market and technology expertise, and not only within the idea generation stage. Finally, this approach is in contrast to many others not solely aligned to product innovation, but all kinds of innovative ideas. Still, it is fundamental that there is a given process flow for each kind of innovation (Voigt and Brem, 2006).