To organize or not to organize: ideation in innovation ecosystems - Lotte Geertsen

To organize or not to organize: ideation in innovation ecosystems
An in-depth understanding of the collaborative ideation process at
Science Parks in the Netherlands
Department of Economics and Business Administration
MSc Business Administration - Strategy & Organization
Author: C.H.E. Geertsen
Student number: 2562139
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. T. Elfring
Application date: January 16, 2015
Submission date: June 30, 2015
Word count: 9,952

Preface
Before I invite you to experience the journey of how to organize collaborative ideation at Science
Parks, I would like to thank several people who helped me towards this end goal of a written thesis
product. First, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. T. Elfring for his very clear, supportive
and scientific advising role in this research trajectory. Next to that, I very much appreciated the help I
have received from all colleagues at Indicia Value Architects, in particular Dr. G. Post. Furthermore,
I’m very grateful to everyone who participated in this study. I very much enjoyed each interview and
also view this as an extension of my professional network. And also I would like to thank all other
people for the unconditional support I received. I want to express a special thanks to my fellow student
Carlijn Tempelaars and I’m very thankful to have received her constructive criticism and laughter
during the entire master program.
Next to this thesis study, I developed an online digital magazine including the results of this research,
more information about innovation ecosystems and additional interviews. You can learn and get
inspiration at: magazine.indicia-valuearchitects.nl.
The copyright rests with the author. The author is solely responsible for the content of the thesis,
including mistakes. S&O cannot be held liable for the content of the author’s thesis.

Abstract
~ The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas – Linus Pauling ~
As we are living in a knowledge and network economy, competitive advantage from new
innovations cannot be done by acting solo. Access to knowledge and markets is given as
companies and institutions make these resources available for partners. This requires for both
partners to join the innovation funnel together.
To start up this funnel, companies need to share ideas so that these ideas and knowledge cross
over. A sharing collaboration is needed. Collaboration comes, among other elements, from
proximity and trust. This proximity is a key element at Science Parks. How do these
companies and institutions benefit from this proximity and enhance the outcomes of
collaborative ideation? Therefore the research question is: 'How to design and organize the
collaborative ideation process in particular to foster interactions among the actors of
Science Parks?'
This research focuses on the way the process of 'ideation' is facilitated in the context of a
Science Park. A Science Park is characterized by a strong clustering of knowledge and R&D,
where public and private parties together give meaning to the open innovation model and to
do so - with the use of private and public resources - collaborate in collective projects and
programs and invest in joint sharing of both facility sharing and shared service centers.
Collaborative ideation is perceived by many Science Parks as an important activity to feed the
'innovation funnel' with ideas, new product concepts and technological challenges.
Through a multiple case study at four different Science Parks in-depth interviews were held
from four different perspectives which led to valuable results. One central dilemma showed to
play an important role: connecting versus protecting.
Overall, it is found through this research that collaborative ideation should contain a sharing
culture, where creativity is organized and where people’s opportunities are used in their full
potential. It would be interesting to conduct more research in other industries and on how to
exactly organize this creativity and what tools are useful.
Keywords: Open Innovation –Business Innovation funnel – Collaborative Ideation –
Innovation Ecosystems - Science Parks

Master thesis – C.H.E. Geertsen – To organize or not to organize: ideation in innovation ecosystems 4
Table of contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Setting the scene...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Problem introduction............................................................................................................... 6
1.3. Research relevance.................................................................................................................. 7
1.4. Research question.................................................................................................................... 8
1.5. Contribution to literature......................................................................................................... 8
1.6. Thesis structure........................................................................................................................ 9
2. Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................. 10
2.1. Collaborative ideation ........................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Science Park .......................................................................................................................... 12
3. Research methods.......................................................................................................................... 14
3.1. Research design..................................................................................................................... 14
3.2. Research context.................................................................................................................... 14
3.3. Data collection & key concepts............................................................................................. 14
3.4. Data analysis.......................................................................................................................... 16
4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 17
4.1. Why – benefits....................................................................................................................... 17
4.2. When – conditions................................................................................................................. 18
4.3. How – strategies.................................................................................................................... 19
4.4. What – mechanisms............................................................................................................... 20
5. Discussion & conclusion............................................................................................................... 22
5.1. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 22
5.2. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 25
5.3. Theoretical and practical implications................................................................................... 25
5.4. Limitations & future research................................................................................................ 26
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix A: Conceptual Model of Collaborative Ideation................................................................... 33
Appendix B: Context of Dutch Science Parks ...................................................................................... 34
Appendix C: Framework of Dutch Science Parks................................................................................. 35
Appendix D: Summary data respondents.............................................................................................. 36
Appendix E: Interview invitation to respondents.................................................................................. 37
Appendix F: Interview questions to respondents .................................................................................. 38
Appendix G: Results analysis................................................................................................................ 39

1. Introduction
1.1. Setting the scene
Nowadays, we are all part of a network and knowledge economy (Alexy, George & Salter,
2013), with a strong clustering of knowledge and Research and Development at Science Parks
as one of the practical outcomes. Here knowledge workers can meet and exchange ideas (van
Dinteren, 2009; Post, 2015) and innovative success can be gained through closed innovation,
open innovation or a combination of both. Not all experts agree on what is optimal, either not
to share knowledge and minimize knowledge spillovers (Cassiman & Veugelers, 2002) or to
share knowledge and expect valuable knowledge in return (Yang, Phelps, and Steensma,
2010).
Companies, both large and small, are looking for new ways to compete in their markets in
order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). This
competitive advantage is mainly determined by controlling the valuable resources of an
organization (Barney, 1991; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Teece, 1986). Organizations would
like have access to each other’s resources and therefore develop different forms of
collaboration strategies (Bresser & Harl, 1986; Hillman & Hitt, 1999; Kale & Singh, 2009;
Oliver, 1990; Podolny & Page, 1998). In order to gain innovative success there are two most
valuable resources for an organization. First, knowledge has to be embodied in technology,
processes and/ or routines. Second, access to respective product markets has to be available
(Grant, 1996; Gulati & Singh, Kogut & Zander, 1992).
Organizations, looking for innovative success, apply the business innovation funnel (Cooper
& Edgett, 2007). This business innovation funnel starts with many ideas from which a few
elements are selected to be enriched into business innovations. Finally, these newly developed
innovations have to deliver turnover growth (visualized in Figure 1).
Figure 1: Business Innovation Funnel [source: Cooper & Edgett, 2007]

The fuzzy front-end in Figure 1 requires many ideas to start the process. Also in this stage are
knowledge sharing and subsequent collaborations between players, which depend on the
social network of these players and the proximity within this network. Proximity shows to
have a strong social pressure in informal groups which leads to sharing based on trust
(Festinger, Schachter & Back, 1950). Next to that, proximity shows to be an important
element within a culture of helping. The further people and/ or organizations are separated
from each other the less likely it is that they will collaborate (Kraut & Egido, 1988).
Knowledge sharing and collaboration is facilitated by proximity, which is a key policy
element of an innovation cluster or Science Park. A central element in the theory of clustering
is the idea that physical clustering of businesses within specialized sectors contributes to
regional economic growth (Porter, 1998). The spatial proximity of companies and institutions
within related industries creates a specific setting in which learning, knowledge sharing and
mutual competition are encouraged (Raaijmakers, 2012). Additionally, active participation
within the innovation ecosystem of a Science Park provides actors access to knowledge,
facilities, complementary contacts and network structures (Post, 2009).
The question is how to benefit from this proximity and enhance the outcomes of sharing ideas
and knowledge. But experts disagree on whether to structurally manage the fuzzy front end of
innovation or rather let it be the result of informal (even chance) encounters (Birkinshaw,
Bouquet & Barsoux, 2011; Goman, 2012). In essence innovation is about bringing together
‘neue Kombinationen’ (Schumpeter, 1911). But how do these new combinations come
together? Is it only by informal contacts and by chance or can this sharing of ideas be
structurally designed and organized?
1.2. Problem introduction
For innovative success, (breakthrough) ideas through novel collaborations are necessary. It
starts with the idea generation phase of the innovation value chain (Hansen & Birkinshaw,
2007). Given that ‘a good preparation is half the battle’ this first phase is very important. A
collaboration of organizations or individuals can be defined as 'collaborative ideation'
(Harvey, 2014) and is characterized by extraordinary group creativity (Cotton, Shen & Livne-
Tarandach, 2011; Ericscson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Robers, Dutton, Spreitzer,
Heaphy & Quinn, 2005). Group creativity output improves when there is a greater variety of
resources that provide input and by that raise the chance of a breakthrough idea (Harvey,
2014). If this is only a random process a breakthrough idea can be treated as an exception,

which is not a preferable situation (Harvey, 2014). Moreover, actors should be brought
together and be involved in the idea generation process so that they integrate their opinions
and perspectives to achieve cross-fertilization (Harvey, 2014). Therefore, collaborative
ideation helps an organization to improve its positioning within the technological field and
economical market (Alexy et al., 2013). This specifically accounts for an innovation
ecosystem because actors, from different parties, are dependent on each other's behavior and
contribution (Adner, 2012; Pisano & Teece, 2007) to achieve successful innovations (Stam,
2009; West, 2003).
The following example at Maintenance Value Park explains how the practical issue ‘working
at heights’ can be resolved using collaborative ideation. Many key components in chemical
systems are high or in places difficult for inspection, maintenance and repair. The standard
solution was to build scaffolds that allow the technical inspector to climb upwards.
Unfortunately, building such a scaffold is case specific and therefore very costly.
Furthermore, it may not even be the best qualitative solution. After a collective brainstorm
and sharing of ideas, a project was started with a group of different actors (large company,
small company, supplier, research institute) to develop a better solution. This resulted in a
novel construction with ´rope-access teams´ and drones with attached cameras to inspect,
maintain and repair the chemical system. Together the actors made a significant contribution
in optimizing maintenance and achieved structural cost savings.
1.3. Research relevance
It is acknowledged that generation of new ideas increasingly result from accidental or
unexpected encounters and collisions of knowledge domains that seem to have nothing in
common at first sight (Pelle, 2015). Collaborative ideation allows for developing complex
connections that were previously unrelated (Bartunek, Gordon & Weathersby, 1983; Bledow,
Frese, Anderson, Erez & Farr, 2009; Koestler, 1964). Unfortunately, this process has received
too little attention (Post & Smulders, 2015).
Therefore it is important to examine collaborative ideation since it is assumed that it increases
the chance on ideas and breakthrough ideas as it shapes the collaborative behavior of different
external actors. This is done by involving knowledge and competences outside the
organization (Alexy et al., 2013). When knowledge is to be revealed it is important to
examine the essential issue of how to design the process so that it maximizes innovative
success (Alexy, 2013; Krogh et al., 2012).

1.4. Research question
Arising from the description above, the main research question is:
'How to design and organize the collaborative ideation process in particular to foster
interactions among the actors of Science Parks?'
The following sub questions are established in order to be able to answer the research
question.
1. What are the benefits to consider collaborative ideation?
2. What are the conditions to decide to start collaborative ideation?
3. What strategies can be chosen for collaborative ideation?
4. What mechanisms are used during collaborative ideation?
1.5. Contribution to literature
This research contributes to consisting literature in three different ways. First, this research
builds on the of idea production as it offers a structural overview of the process and the
underexplored process-based facilitators (benefits, conditions, strategies, mechanisms,
deliverables) in the process of collaborative ideation (Harvey, 2014). This will result in new
understandings and insights of extraordinary group creativity as a consistent process of
producing breakthrough ideas (Harvey, 2014). Furthermore, it is unclear how groups use the
resources, tools and processes that facilitate group creativity (Harvey, 2014). This research
may identify a novel collaboration method as a standard tool in the competitive toolbox of the
organization (Alexy et al., 2013).
Second, a new template for collaborative ideation and design of the creative process in the
group (Harvey, 2014) and its embedding in the organizational strategy is provided (Alexy et
al., 2013). Relationships are strongly dependent on knowledge brokering within a network
and this research extends the understanding of knowledge stickiness (Zahra & Nambisan,
2011) by adding new insights on the successful governing of networks (Alexy et al., 2013).
Third, the concept of collaborative ideation is empirically investigated at several Science
Parks by providing a new framework that will help platforms to become more successful
(Gawer & Cusumano, 2014). This research focuses on the organization of innovative activity
and open innovation (Alexy et al., 2013; Chesbrough, 2003; Dahlander & Gann, 2010;
Laursen & Salter, 2006).

1.6. Thesis structure
This thesis consists of four sections (Figure 2). First, an overview of the reviewed literature is
given. Second, the methodological design is explained and shows the related choices. Third,
the most important results are presented, based on an extensive results analysis. Finally, the
discussion and conclusion are presented; this is then discussed at the level of implications,
limitations and suggestions for future research.
Figure 2: Thesis structure

2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Collaborative ideation
Innovation is a developmental process that is triggered by input from basic research, applied
research and/ or the market. The aim is to bring new products and/ or services to the market.
The innovation value chain of Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) consists of three different
phases: Idea Generation, Conversion and Diffusion (Figure 3).
Figure 3: The innovation development process [Source: Hansen & Birkinshaw (2007)]
It all starts with the idea generation phase where ideas are generated in three possible ways:
(1) In-house: ideas are generated within a unit, (2) Cross-pollination: ideas are generated
through collaboration across units within one organization and (3) External: ideas are
generated in collaboration with parties outside the organization. These forms of idea
generation, hereafter referred to as collaborative ideation, depend on so-called inter-
organizational relationships, which are important for the flow of new knowledge (Zahra &
Nambisan, 2011). In this phase organizations try to generate high-quality ideas from outside
the organization itself. This external approach requires interfaces that are sufficiently 'open' in
order to allow other external organizations to 'plug in' complements, at the same time,
improve and innovate these complements and make money from own investments (Gawer &
Cusumano, 2014). This belief is in line with prior research about open innovation such as
described by Chesbrough (2003) and von Hippel (2005). However, it also pinpoints important
trade-offs between the complexity of 'open', or collaborative ideation, and 'close' innovation.
Several researchers suggest that opening up these interfaces results in increasing the
complementors' incentives to innovate (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014).
Collaborative ideation in the fuzzy front-end is based on a dialectical model that understands
collective processes and recognizes a constant struggle between conflicting forces which act
as drivers of change and novelty (Hegel, 1977; Marx, 1967). In this model people engage in

social interactions from different perspectives and different understandings (Bartunek, 1984;
Berger & Luckmann, 1966), which need to be integrated (Harvey, 2014). In this model, the
engagement of actors with one another changes their perspectives, which allows the
development of new ideas (Bartunek, 1984; Benson, 1977). The goal of this model is to
consistently produce (breakthrough) ideas, enable extraordinary group creativity that results in
more (radical) innovations (Harvey, 2014). It is very important that collaborative ideation is
consistently organized, as random variation treats a breakthrough idea as an exception. This
may lead to more incremental innovations instead of radical innovations (Harvey, 2014).
Next to that, reorganizing knowledge and identifying categories before collectively generating
ideas contributes to the structure of creative thinking and results in more original and high-
quality ideas (Mobley, Doares & Mumford, 1992; Mumford, Baughman & Sager, 2003). In
theory, every idea can be a breakthrough. What matters is how you treat it (Harvey, 2014). In
time, the consistent production of potential breakthrough ideas can become more difficult as
the group experiences some kind of creativity exhaustion (Harvey, 2014). Another difficulty
that can occur is the lack of conflict or diversity within the group during the process of
collaborative ideation (Harvey, 2014). This diversity aspect has been successfully applied
before in the developing shared problem understanding (Harvey, 2014; Smulders, 2013).
Based on the definition as described above and on literature reviews by Alexy et al. (2013)
and Harvey (2014), the following conceptual model of the collaborative ideation process
could be established (see Figure 4). It includes the different process steps and underlying
elements of collaborative ideation, which will be explained next. More details on this
conceptual model, concerning the dimensions and elements, are given in Appendix A.
Figure 4: Conceptual model of the collaborative ideation process [Source: own research]

The process starts with a need to collaborate in order to get (radical) innovations. This is quite
difficult without partners or without the ecosystem (Alexy et al., 2013; Harvey, 2014). 'Why'
an actor considers using collaborative ideation will be based on weighing deliverable direct
and indirect benefits (Alexy et al., 2013). Direct benefits can be described as intentionally and
active (Alexy et al., 2013), which are expected to be preferred over traditional collaboration
models (Ahuja, 2000) if there is a high level score on these benefits. Indirect benefits on the
other hand can be described as unknowingly and passive (Alexy et al., 2013) and play a subtle
important role that can lead to unintentional collaborative behavior (Alexy et al., 2013).
In the next step, the conditions of internal and external resources give an answer to 'when'
collaborative ideation is decided to be applied. Internal resources reflect on all aspects and
capabilities of the existing organization while external resources reflect on all social and
environmental aspects and forces (Alexy et al., 2013; Harvey, 2014). Subsequently, the
determined strategy gives an answer to 'how' collaborative ideation will be used. A
determined strategy depends on two choices; between problem or solution revealing (Alexy et
al., 2013) and on a choice between path extension or creation (Alexy et al., 2013). This step is
followed by the action oriented step of collaborative ideation and 'what' mechanisms are used
in this step (Harvey, 2014). In the final stage this process will deliver an increased chance on
breakthrough ideas, which lead to radical innovations (Harvey, 2014). Furthermore, it is
important to consistently follow this process, therefore it can also be seen as a cycle which is
constantly restarted.
2.2. Science Park
The ecosystem concept is borrowed from biology where it refers to 'a complex set of
relationships among the living resources, habitats, and residents of an area, whose functional
goal is to maintain an equilibrium sustaining state' (Jackson, 2011). In nature clustering
around a natural drinking place is a result of the scarcity of water in the near environment.
Humans and businesses gather in ecosystems for this same reason. 'The presence of (scarce)
resources, (natural) sources, (skilled) labor and financial resources explain the emergence of
concentrations of economic activity', (Post, 2009).
The business ecosystem was defined by James Moore (1993), describing it as 'an economic
community supported by a foundation of interacting organizations and individuals, the
organisms of the business world.' Nowadays the following definition is developed with a
particular set of elements: (1) dynamic, purposive communities with (2) complex, interlocking

relationships built on collaboration, trust and co-creation of value and (3) specializing in
exploitation of a shared set of complementary technologies or competencies (Gobble, 2014).
Such business or innovation ecosystems are important because you can benefit as a player
from relationships or networks around you (Gobble, 2014). Consequently, helping another
player in your ecosystem can help you (Gobble, 2014). This makes ecosystems fertile ground
for creating new ventures of different types (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). Moreover, growth has
been taking place of innovation ecosystems due to an increase in digital content of products
and services and in the number of digital innovations comprising physical and digital
components. Within these ecosystems there should be more openness in order to lower the
barrier to participate in the ecosystem with limited resources and capabilities (Zahra &
Nambisan, 2011).
In general there are two different categories of innovation ecosystems: internal at company
level and external at industry level (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014). For externally focused
innovation ecosystems there are three types (Gobble, 2014). The thinker-type focuses on
attaching resources to new ideas. It is concerned with the discovery, design and delivery of
new ideas (Adner & Kapoor, 2010). Within this thinker-innovation ecosystem the proposed
community of research will be narrowed down in this research to the so-called 'triple helix'
which includes research, industry and government. In other words, this research will focus on
micro innovation ecosystems, hereafter called Science Parks, which are active on an industry
level as a thinker-type and includes all three element of the triple helix.
A successful innovation ecosystem is one that is both productive and robust (Gobble, 2014).
For an innovation ecosystem to be productive it needs to translate knowledge into increased
value for partners. For robustness it is important that the ecosystem is resistant to disruption.
This can be done by reduction of development costs and risks and by combination of
complementary knowledge which enables partners to address high complex problems (Leten,
van Haverbeke, Roijakkers, Clerix, 2013).

3. Research methods
3.1. Research design
The aim of this exploratory research is to develop more in-depth knowledge and
understanding, and to include these lessons learned in the design process about the
phenomenon ‘collaborative ideation’, at Science Parks. There is no prior research that
investigated this in-depth and therefore indicates necessity of novel theory (Edmondson and
McManus, 2007). This research is an ontological worldview which will be based on
relativism and constructivism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Saunders et al., 2009).
The concept of collaborative ideation at Science Parks raises many questions on its
functioning in practice (Alexy, 2013; Harvey, 2014) and how it can be improved (van Aken &
Andriessen, 2011). Therefore, the research question has a design-oriented approach with the
aim to shape the design from the exploratory research (Creswell, 2007; Guba & Lincoln,
1994). The meaning of this concept can be determined through case study research
comprehension (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). A research design that perfectly fits this kind of
research topic is qualitative research as it leads to new integrations and revision of the
conceptual framework (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Consequently, the sub questions are
descriptive and results from these questions are used to establish a qualitative design in the
discussion and conclusion (van Aken & Andriessen, 2011).
3.2. Research context
The conceptual model of collaborative ideation is explored at different Dutch Science Parks.
This specific context currently counts 39 Science Parks (Buck, 2014) and houses 1,709
business (excluding universities and research institutes such as TNO), 41,448 jobs and 827
spin-offs (Buck, 2014). Results from Buck Consultants International (2014), commissioned
by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, show the distribution of the parks in four stages. More
details on the Dutch Science Parks are available in Appendix B.
3.3. Data collection & key concepts
This qualitative study is based on inductive reasoning and will provide insights and new
constructs on designing the collaborative ideation process (Creswell, 2007; Edmondson &
McManus, 2007). These new insights and constructs give substantial meaning to the
established conceptual model of the literature chapter, a design-oriented approach (van Aken
& Andriessen, 2011). Consequently, it is important that open-ended data is gathered that need
interpretation for meaning (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). For that reason, this research

holds a multiple case study of 16 semi-structured interviews with 17 participants, conducted
at all development stages (idea, startup, grow and mature) of Dutch Science Parks (Buck,
2014). The interviews are conducted with stakeholders with different perspectives, based on
the triple-helix structure (government, industry, research). Case selection is based on time of
speed and accessibility. An overview of the selected cases is given in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Case selection of Dutch Science Parks [Source: Buck Consultants International, 2014]
In these different cases the four dimensions (Appendix C) of a Science Park are determined
and analyzed with the use of results from Buck (2014). As can be seen in Appendix C, the
four dimensions were analyzed using the results from Buck (2014). Moreover, an overview of
the respondent categories is given (Table 2). In addition, Appendix D provides a summary of
the respondent data including the respondent functions.
Table 2: Respondent categories at Dutch Science Parks [source: own research]
This table represents the intra-variability in Science Parks and represents inter-variability in
perspectives of the actors at a Science Park (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The conceptual model of collaborative ideation is analyzed using semi structured interviews.
In Appendix E the invitation to the interview is provided and this is followed by the global

interview questions presented in Appendix F. In-depth understanding during the interview is
developed with the conceptual model from Appendix A.
Before the actual interviews were held, two pilot interviews were conducted to check the
accuracy of the conceptual model and the interview questions. This resulted in the final
conceptual model given in Appendix A. Next to that, useful information from these two pilot
interviews was treated as an extra source of information which is also taken into account in
the results and discussion chapter.
The situation and context were clearly defined at the beginning of each interview, in order to
create a baseline from which the participants could provide an answer. Moreover, all 19
participants, divided over 18 interviews (including pilot interviews) were recorded. All
respondents received an interview report and were asked to verify the content. All
respondents confirmed that the content of the interview report is correctly interpreted. In
addition, different sources of data such as informative documents were gathered to triangulate
the data (Baxter, 2008; Seale, 1999).
3.4. Data analysis
The study required a systematic analysis of the large amount of qualitative data that was
gathered (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Because of this large amount of data, data reduction by
‘coding’ was required. All interview transcripts were coded using the qualitative analysis
software tool Atlas.ti (Table 3). Furthermore in the next chapter ‘Results’ the ranking of
topics is given, based on the two most answered elements according to the respondents and
based on one most important element according to private observations of the researcher.
Table 3: Coding process of this empirical qualitative study [source: own research]

4. Results
In this results section a clear summary is given of the collected data. Since the interviews
were held in Dutch, the quotations in this chapter are translated from Dutch. The results are
presented based on the four elements of the conceptual model: benefits, conditions, strategies
and mechanisms. Furthermore, this results chapter is based on the total results analysis
(Appendix G).
4.1. Why – benefits
As there are different reasons to consider collaborative ideation, the first question is: ‘Why do
you use collaborative ideation?’ (Table 4).
Table 4: Most important benefits of collaborative ideation [source: own research]
New knowledge is the most desirable benefit to gain from collaborative ideation. This is
confirmed by the following quote:
‘That is the driving force of innovation, the knowledge or solution you do not have and
which someone else could have, but he or she does not know you are looking for it.’
(Respondent #01)
Second, the synergy level is considered an important benefit. When executed with the
community in a short time-to-market process you can stay ahead of competition. This is
illustrated by the quote:
‘And then you see that it really is a must to work together to achieve integrated solutions
and that is what we all go from. On your own you cannot get more solutions. So there is a
necessity.’
(Respondent #03)
Furthermore, the element and awareness of purposeful learning is an important benefit within
collaborative ideation as you can learn either as an individual or as a company from the
gained experiences. This is illustrated with the following quote:
‘What I see is a lot of activity from people coming in and out and who are doing
meaningful things together, which makes them happy. I see an inspiring environment
where people can be working on technology that matters.’
(Respondent #11)

The above shows that, by sharing and interacting, a so-called collusion of hunches, new
knowledge can be established from which the effect is greater than the sum of the separate
elements. This provides the benefit of purposeful learning.
4.2. When – conditions
A decision to apply collaborative ideation is influenced by several conditions, therefore the
subsequent question was asked to the respondents: ‘When do you use collaborative ideation?’
(Table 5).
Table 5: Most important conditions of collaborative ideation [source: own research]
The analyzed data show that shared value and shared interest is the most important condition
to decide to apply collaborative ideation. This is supported by the quote:
‘It may be that we say yes, that looks good, they do things that we find relevant, we have
common interests and we do not know each other so well already so we join.’
(Respondent #16)
A second important condition explained by the respondents is the level of enthusiasm of the
participants. This can be made clear with the following quote:
‘You also need people excited to participate in such a project. Not every engineer is
enthusiastic about it. And engineers are not directly the people who will passionately
share knowledge.’
(Respondent #09)
Funding & ROI for collaborative ideation is found an equal important condition. The
availability of sufficient funding can come from different sources; however it is an important
precondition to start collaborative ideation. The following quotes explain this matter:
‘You see that funding is a very important precondition. Participants do have concrete
project ideas, the only dilemma is who will pay and how to get it financed.’
(Respondent #03)
‘I try to stay away from money very often, because if money is you ask for money it often
works more difficult.’
(Respondent #04)
Finally, whether Intellectual Property is protected and whether a Non Disclosure Agreement
is established, is also considered important by the respondents. This is made clear with use of
the following quote:

‘If we are going to share knowledge with other parties, then we of course use a non
disclosure agreement. Open innovation sounds nice, but you have to realize that there
are no or only a few companies willing to put their ideas and technology on the street,
you must also protect yourself.’
(Respondent #10)
These four conditions show an interesting and difficult conflict here: ‘connecting’ versus
‘protecting’. The conditions ‘shared value’ and ‘enthusiasm’, people’s inner incentives to
share ideas, are opposed to the conditions ‘funding & ROI’ and ‘IP protection’. Companies
fear sharing ideas, since the Intellectual Property can be stolen and profit can be lost. The
most dominant half is likely to win the discussion. In order for ‘connecting’ to triumph, the
resources ‘shared value’ and ‘enthusiasm’ must outweigh these fears. Next to that, it is
important to have a certain level of a ‘complementary value chain commitment’, ‘creative
thinking’, ‘company culture’, ‘group diversity’ and ‘time available’. All these added elements
are considered important by several respondents (see Appendix G).
4.3. How – strategies
The third element from the conceptual model was asked to discover the choice of
collaborative ideation strategy. The related question is: ‘How do you use collaborative
ideation?’ (Table 6).
Table 6: Most important strategies of collaborative ideation [source: own research]
As it becomes clear from the above table, ‘themes’ is considered the most important by the
respondents since it aids in developing a collaborative ideation strategy based on themes
connecting the future development trajectory. This can be explained with the following
quotes:
‘To establish the R&D calendar, meaning the main issues you will focus on the next
eighteen months or the next three years, we try to determine a common denominator to
see what we should do or what we should try to get organized.’
(Respondent #02)
The second element of the collaborative ideation strategy is the Technology Readiness Level.
This element is important to stay away from competition and valorization. Respondents
explain that you need to stay in between those two items:
‘Technology Readiness Level: when you are at a too high level and you come close to the
market… If you come too close to the market, the competition sensitivity is too high. Then
intensive cooperation is difficult… You should also not be too far away from the market,

for example on fundamental research, it also will not work because you have no idea of
the business case and because companies do not want to invest in it. So you miss the
commitment of the businesses and so you have to fit it in between.’
(Respondent #16)
‘Yes, you have to be early to increase the willingness to collaborate. The closer you are to
a product, the more competition will play a role and confidentiality comes into play… So
you have to look for generic issues that hold for everyone. There you can easily find
willingness to collaborate.’
(Respondent #03)
The third most important strategic element is path extension or the way to extend existing
paths not too far away from the core business. This is clarified with the next quote:
‘It should fit our core business… we experience the importance of certain technological
developments which we think we require in the future.’
(Respondent #12)
Further analysis of the data (see Appendix G) per Science Park and per perspective support
the above strategies to be the most important.
4.4. What – mechanisms
Besides considering how to start collaborative ideation, a fourth questions needs to be
answered: ‘What do you use during collaborative ideation?’ (Table 7).
Table 7: Most important mechanisms of collaborative ideation [source: own research]
The organization mechanism is considered the most important, meaning that respondents
appreciate that one party is responsible for the organization and direction of all soft facilities.
Furthermore, respondents do not believe in accidental encounters:
‘It sounds a bit bland, but the accidental encounter does not exist. At least it is always a
very carefully organized accidental encounter. Or it is a carefully organized way to let the
encounter occur accidentally.’
(Respondent #02)
‘You have to organize the sharing otherwise it will not occur. You do not initiate such
things yourself.’
(Respondent #06)
The importance of providing distinctive hard facilities at a Science Park can be illustrated
using the following quotes:
‘Good facilities are very important because you need to be able to conduct experiments on
a very high level.’
(Respondent #12)

‘You need distinctive facilities because when you have the same facilities as the rest you
will never reach the world class level… these are expensive so it is best to share these
facilities with each other.’
(Respondent #14)
Finally, the level of active participation from the community at the Science Park contributes
to collaborative ideation. An active community is not based on single moments but as a chain
or movement, within the ecosystem of the Park:
‘You must have a certain critical mass, that there is indeed a possibility to interact and
so that things happen.’
(respondent #10)
‘At the moment, the number of companies is relatively low, so the number of
participants seems to be important.’
(respondent #15)
There are several mechanisms that distinguish one Science Park from another. However, one
element greatly contributes to collaborative thinking; the ‘soft facilities’, or intangible aspects.
These aspects, like organizing meetings, building connections, creating a community, a liquid
network of sharing, are essential to increase the chance of sharing ideas. This provides a solid
baseline from which a breakthrough idea can be further developed. Together with distinctive
hard facilities: lab facilities, coffee houses, lunch spots or other meeting places, and the active
participation of the community and getting the Science Park in motion will help increase the
chance on breakthrough ideas.

5. Discussion & conclusion
In this chapter the research (sub) questions will be answered and the results from this study
are compared to the conceptual models as discussed in chapter 2. Furthermore, the theoretical
and managerial implications, validity and limitations are presented and avenues. This chapter
will conclude with recommendation for future research.
5.1. Discussion
The aim of this study was to formulate an answer and create more in-depth understanding of
the collaborative ideation process at Science Parks. The research question was:
'How to design the collaborative ideation process in particular to foster interactions among
the actors of Science Parks?'
This question is answered using four sub questions in the following paragraphs.
5.1.1. What are the benefits to consider collaborative ideation?
Three important benefits were indentified from the interviews: new knowledge, synergy and
purposeful learning. First, the benefit ‘new knowledge’ is in line with the indirect benefit
‘structural compatibility’, as the value of the external knowledge objectively addresses the
needs (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Lane & Lubatkin, 1998). Second, the benefit of synergy is
also consistent with an existing indirect benefit: ‘content compatibility’. This is the overlap in
the categorization and language of the existing body of knowledge (Grant, 1996; Lane &
Lubatkin, 1998). Synergy awareness within the ecosystem of the Science Park leads to people
interacting and sharing ideas. This can result in a collision of hunches which can beneficially
provide new knowledge, purposeful learning or both. Purposeful learning could not be
connected to the existing benefit and therefore can be added to the conceptual model.
5.1.2. What are the conditions to decide to start collaborative ideation?
Shared value, enthusiasm, funding & ROI and IP protection were identified as conditions to
start collaborative ideation. ‘Shared value’ is in line with the internal resource ‘organizational
capabilities’ given that it is about disclosing knowledge (von Krogh, Wallin & Sieg, 2012)
and reap external knowledge (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). The ‘enthusiasm’ condition is
in line with ‘cognitive resources’ as it builds upon the full engagement and motivation of
participants with the creative task (West, 2002). The condition of ‘funding & ROI’ can be
added to the conceptual model since there is no connection to the existing resources. Fourth,
the ‘IP protection’ condition is in line with the ‘degree of modularity’ resource since this
withholds releasing without disclosing ownership (Henkel & Baldwin, 2012; West, 2003).

These conditions are in conflict of ‘connecting versus protecting’. This is challenging since
money and profits are involved.
5.1.3. What strategies can be chosen for collaborative ideation?
Three most important strategies can be appointed: themes, Technology Readiness Level and
path extension. Both the strategies ‘themes’ and path extension are in line with the conceptual
model. In fact, the strategy element ‘themes’ is similar to ‘problem revealing’ and this
combined with ‘path extension’ results in the so-called issue spreading, or broadcast search
(Alexy, 2013). The ‘Technology Readiness Level’ can be added to the conceptual model since
it gives meaning to the pre-competitive development stage. In combination with ‘themes’ and
‘path extension’, the Technology Readiness Level reveals the opportunity of ideas to be
shared by people based on the pre-competitive stage of these ideas.
5.1.4. What mechanisms are used during collaborative ideation?
The results from the previous chapter showed the following three most important
mechanisms: organize soft facilities, distinctive hard facilities, participation. All three
mechanisms are new to the conceptual model and therefore can be added to the literature.
First, soft facilities need to be organized by one responsible party. This is supported by the
appropriate distinctive hard facilities to set interactions in motion and build relationships and
trust. The level of active participation of the community also contributes to the process of
collaborative ideation. A situation for a coincidental interaction to occur needs to be created
by organizing soft facilities of a Science Park and hold a party responsible for it. These
facilities are stimulated by facilities at the park that stimulates interaction to create an active
community that is participating within a sharing network.
5.1.5. A new conceptual model
The answers to the sub questions can be combined in an improved conceptual model for
collaborative ideation. The adapted conceptual model is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5: New conceptual model of collaborative ideation process at Science Parks [source: own research]
In three out of four process steps, this new conceptual model cares about people for at least
one of the elements per step. In the current conceptual model the dimension ‘who’ is not
explicitly included, but this research shows its importance. The different dimensions and
elements of the collaborative ideation process seem to be very much interlinked and do not
only seem to work in a sequential process of steps. For these reasons a holistic conceptual
model fits better to the process of collaborative ideation in particular to foster interactions
among actors at Science Parks (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Holistic model for collaborative ideation at Science Parks [source: own research]

5.2. Conclusion
Overall the main claim of this research is that collaborative ideation cannot be based on
coincidental encounters but the fuzzy front-end of innovation should be well organized. A
novel holistic model presents a previously unnoticed element people in the center. Three
interrelated partial recommendations can be given to design the collaborative ideation process
at Science Parks.
First, the collaborative ideation process needs communal forces or a sharing culture to be
able to achieve interactions among actor and create the possibility of a collision of hunches.
This can only be achieved if ‘connecting’ wins the battle from ‘protecting’. Hereby, active
participation of the community of actors is required.
Second, in order to have impact the collaborative ideation process requires organized
creativity to increase the chance of successfully allowing ideas to become breakthrough
ideas. Therefore it is important to have one responsible party for the organization of these soft
facilities at the Science Park.
Third, although you cannot fully control interests and skills of the actors at the Sciene Park
you do have the possibility to stimulate people’s opportunities. By explicitly adding the
element of people in the model there is more focus on motivating actors. This third
recommendation is depending on the company’s culture, its leadership capabilities and time
available to join collaborative ideation.
Overall, these three recommendations will provide a better organized collaborative ideation
process which is an important tool to enhance and facilitate innovation and collaboration in
Science Parks.
5.3. Theoretical and practical implications
Here, new elements of the conceptual model are presented which have implications for the
theoretical field. This research added new in-depth understanding about the collaborative
ideation process to the existing literature. New insights are provided on the literature of open
innovation and the innovation value chain. Different benefits, conditions, strategies and
mechanisms provide actors at Science Parks new insights with a holistic model, indicating the
practical indications. The following elements should be taken into account: importance of
‘people’, protection and funding issues which may obstruct collaborative ideation tools before
and during the collaborative ideation process.

5.4. Limitations & future research
In the chapter ‘Research Methods’, the methodological limitations were stated already.
Moreover, the results are only applicable to the Dutch Science Parks. Additional to this
limitation is the fact that all included Science Parks in this research are ‘thinker-type’ Parks.
One may expect this to be different for Science Parks that contain service development for
example. This investigation of service Parks is an interesting field for future research. Next to
that, the Science Parks of this research develop products that are dominated by ‘hardware’
developments. These product developments can be distinguished by an extreme high level of
funding that is required for the development of new ideas. Since funding is shown here as a
hard condition for collaborative ideation, it is interesting to conduct more in-depth
understanding of this principle in future research. Finally, these hardware product
developments at Science Parks are carried out by specialists, mostly highly educated technical
engineers, and so the human factor of these specialists would be interesting to investigate in
more depth in future research.

Bibliography
Adner, R. 2012. The wide lens. New York: Portfolio/Penguin.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure
of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations.
Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306–333.
Ahuja, G. 2000. The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation
of interim linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 317-343.
Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui Bono? The selective revealing of
knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review ,
270-291.
Bamey, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management. 17: 99-120.
Bartunek, J. M. 1984. Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The
example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 355–372.
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. 1983. Developing complicated
understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8: 273–284.
Baughman, W. A., & Mumford, M. D. 1995. Process-analytic models of creative capacities:
Operations influencing the combination-and-reorganization process. Creativity Research
Journal, 8: 37–62.
Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), 554-559
Benson, J. K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22:
1–21.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.
Birkinshaw, J., Bouquet, C., & Barsoux, J. -L. (2011). The 5 Myths of Innovation. MIT Sloan,
43-50.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. 2009. A dialectic perspective on
innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2: 305–337.
Brabantse Ontwikkelings Maatschappij (2015). Brabantse universiteiten en hogescholen
bundelen samen met BOM krachten voor nieuwe manier van innoveren. Retrieved on March
11, 2015, at BOM: http://www.bom.nl/over-bom/actueel/371/brabantse-universiteiten-en-
hogescholen-bundelen-samen-met-bom-krachten-voor-nieuwe-manier-van-innoveren
Bresser. R. K.. & Harl, J. E. 1986. Collective strategy: Vice or virtue? Academy of
Management Review. 11: 408-427.

Buck, R. (2014, December 1). Inventarisatie en analyse campussen 2014. Opgeroepen op 19
maart 2015, via BCI Global:
http://www.bciglobal.com/publicaties_detail.asp?cat=5022&dc=26480
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. 2002. R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical
evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92: 1169-1184.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Thriving in an era of open innovation. Sloan Management
Review, 44(3), 35–41.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
Cooper, R. G., & Edgett, S. J. (2007). Generating breakthrough new product ideas. Canada:
Product Development Institute.
Cotton, R. D., Shen, Y., & Livne-Tarandach, R. 2011. On becoming extraordinary: The
content and structure of the developmental networks of Major League Baseball Hall of
Famers. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 15–46.
Creswell, J., Hanson, W., Clark Plano, V., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative Research
Designs: Selection and Implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 236-263.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. 2010. How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39: 699-709.
Edmondson, A.C. & McManus, S.E. (2007) Methodological fit in Management field research.
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1155–1179. 
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2012). Management Research. London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, K. 1993. The role of deliberate practice in
the acquisition of expert performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100:
363–406.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups.
Standord, California: Standford University Press.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. 1992. Creative cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Bradford/MIT Press.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417-433.
Gobble, M. M. (2014). Charting the Innovation Ecosystem. Research Technology
Management, 57(4), 55.

Goman, C. K. (2012, 2 21). What innovation? Stop trying so hard. Retrieved 6 9, 2015, from
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2012/02/21/what-innovation-stop-
trying-so-hard/
Grant, R. M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational
capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7: 375-387.
Guba, E. & Linkoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research in N. K. Denzin
and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 105-
117.
Gulati, R., & Singh, H. 1998. The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs
and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 781
814.
Hansen, M., & Birkenshaw, J. (2007). The innovation value chain. Harvard Business Review ,
121-130.
Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity.
Academy of Management Review , 324-343.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. The phenomenology of spirit. (Translated by A. V. Miller.) New
York:Oxford University Press.
Henkel, J., & Baldwin, C. Y. 2011. Modularity for value appropriation: Drawing the
boundaries of intellectual property. Finance Working Paper no. 11-054, Harvard Business
School, Boston.
Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. 1999. Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of
approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review. 24: 825-
842.
Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem. Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation. http://www. erc-assoc. org/docs/innovation_ecosystem. pdf.
Kale, P., & Singh, H. 2009. Managing strategic alliances: What do we know now, and where
do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives. 23(3): 45-82.
Koestler, A. 1964. The act of creation. New York: Penguin.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1998. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning.
Organizafion Science. 7: 502-518.
Kraut, R., Egido, C., & Galegher, J. (1988). Patterns of contat and communication in
scientific research collaboration. Association for Computing Machinery , 1-12.
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational
learning. Strategic management journal, 19(5), 461-477.

Laursen, K., 8E Salter, A. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining
innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing lirms. Sfrafegic Management Journal. 27:
131-150.
Leten, B., Vanhaverbeke W., Roijakkers N., Clerix, A., van Helleputte, J. (2013). IP Models
to orchestrate innovation ecosystems: IMEC, a public resarch institute in nano-electrics.
California Management Review, 55(4), 51-64.
Marx, K. 1967. Capital. (Translated by S. Moore & E. Aveling.) New York: International
Publishers.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Sage.
Mobley, M. I., Doares, L. M., & Mumford, M. D. 1992. Process analytic models of creative
capacities: Evidence for the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research
Journal, 5: 125–155.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business
Review, 71(3), 75–86.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., & Sager, C. E. 2003. Picking the right material:
Cognitive processing skills and their role in creative thought. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical
and creative thinking: 19–68. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Oliver, C. 1990. Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future
directions. Academy of Management Review. 15: 241-265.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective (2003 classic ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. 2007. How to capture value from innovation: Shaping
intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review. 50(1): 278-
296.
Podolny, J. M., 8E Page, K. L. 1998. Network forms of organization. Annual Review of
Sociology, 24: 57-76.
Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business
Review , 77-91.
Post, G. (2015, January 12). Senior Business Consultant at Minase. (L. Geertsen,
Interviewer).
Post, G. (2009). De campus als innovatie-ecosysteem. Opgeroepen op November 25, 2014,
van Minase:
http://www.minase.nl/sites/default/files/contacten/De%20campus%20als%20innovatie-
ecosysteem%20-%20bijgewerkte%20versie%20april%202012.pdf

Post, G., & Smulders, O. (2015, March 25). Collective Ideation at Dutch Science Parks. (L.
Geertsen, Interviewer)
Raaijmakers, M. (2012). Masterthesis Economic Geopgraphy. Clustering; een misleidend
dogma of het investeren waard? Nijmegen.
Roberts, L., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E., & Quinn, R. 2005. Composing the
reflected best selfportrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30: 712–736.
Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students.
Pearson Education Limited.
Schumpeter, J.A., (1911), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits,
Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, New Brunswick (U.S.A) and London (U.K.):
Transaction Publishers.
Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. 2005. Conceptual combination: Alternative
knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17: 79–98.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
Smulders, O. (2013). Local open innovation: how to go from ideas to solutions. Technology
Innovation Management Review , 21-26.
Stam, W. 2009. When does community participation enhance the performance of open source
software companies? Research Policy, 38: 1288-1299.
Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration,
collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15: 285-305.
van Aken, J. E., & Andriessen, D. (2011). Handboek ontwerpgericht wetenschappelijk
onderzoek. Boom, Den Haag.
van Dinteren, J., Ruiter, M., Jansen, P., van Aar, U., & Brorens, B. (2011). Science parks:
Innovation or image? Nijmegen: Royal Haskoning urban solutions.
von Hippel, E. A. (2005). Democratizing innovation.
von Krogh, G., Wallin, M. W., & Sieg, J. H. 2012. A problem in becoming: How firms
formulate sharable problems for innovation contests. Paper presented at the Research Policy
Special Issue Conference "Open Innovation: New Insights and Evidence," London.
West, J. 2003. How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform
strategies. Research Policy, 32: 1259-1285.
West, M. A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity
and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 51: 355–387.

Yang, H., Phelps, C, & Steensma, H. K. 2010. Learning from what others have learned from
you: The effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Academy of Management
Journal 53: 371-389.
Zahra, A. and Nambisan, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship in global innovation ecosystems.
Academy of Marketing Science 1, 4-17.

Appendix A: Conceptual Model of Collaborative Ideation

Appendix B: Context of Dutch Science Parks
Number of parks per stage Growth*
Idea 12 plus 4
Startup 9 minus 1
Growth 10 plus 2
Maturity 8 plus 1
Total 39 plus 6
*Growth = absolute value from 2012 to 2014 in number of parks per stage
Average growth of parks
per stage
medio 2012 medio 2014 Groei
Number of companies 1506 1709 +13,5%
Number of jobs 33824 41448 +22,5%
Number of spin offs 646 827 +28,0%

Appendix C: Framework of Dutch Science Parks
Dimension Explanation Source
1. Physical high quality
business locations and
research facilities
Availability of physical space that offers high quality
residential options for knowledge-intensive activity and
for (sharing) lab, cleanroom and testing facilities
Buck
Consultants
International
(2014)
2. Focus on R&D /
innovation activities
To achieve innovation, joint product development and
exchange of knowledge, the focus should be on R&D
and/ or knowledge-intensive activities
Buck
Consultants
International
(2014)
3. Manifest knowledge
carrier
A large manifest knowledge carrier is physically and
substantially present with research activities and forms
the "anchor tenant" on campus. Type of knowledge
carriers are an R&D center of a large international
company, (technical) college, university medical center/
hospital, large research institute. Manifest means that
the company/ institution has a substantial size and
reputation on a specific topic or technology
Buck
Consultants
International
(2014)
4. Active open innovation
A dedicated open innovation organization is present
which is engaged in partnerships within and outside the
campus, knowledge transfer, knowledge transfer,
networking, business development and acquisition of
companies
Buck
Consultants
International
(2014)

Appendix D: Summary data respondents
No. Respondent category Respondent function Development stage
01 Government Program director Idea or startup
02 Government Project manager Idea or startup
03 Government Campus manager Growth or mature
04 Government Marketing & Communications director Growth or mature
05 Industry - 1 - Startup Automation engineer Idea or startup
06 Industry - 1 - Startup Founder & technical director Idea or startup
07 Industry - 1 - Startup Founder Growth or mature
08 Industry - 1 - Startup Founder & technical director Growth or mature
09 Industry - 2 - Large company Maintenance & Reliability manager Idea or startup
10 Industry - 2 - Large company Technology & Innovation director Idea or startup
11 Industry - 2 - Large company Managing director Growth or mature
12 Industry - 2 - Large company Senior Director Business Excellence Growth or mature
13 Education or Research Institute Senior Lecturer Maintenance & Reliability Idea or startup
14 Education or Research Institute Senior manager new business development Idea or startup
15 Education or Research Institute Senior Business Developer Growth or mature
16 Education or Research Institute Managing director Growth or mature
17 Pilot interviewee Senior consultant n.a.
18 Pilot interviewee Cross-industry & creativity expert n.a.
19 Government Projectmanager Idea or startup

Appendix E: Interview invitation to respondents
Tilburg, April 20, 2015
~ The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas – Linus Pauling ~
Dear Sir / Madam,
Let me first introduce myself to you. My name is Lotte Geertsen and I'm currently working on
finishing my master's in the direction strategy and innovation at the Free University of Amsterdam.
In my thesis, I conduct research on the way the process of 'ideation' is facilitated in the context of a
(innovation) campus. A campus is characterized by a strong clustering of knowledge and R&D, where
public and private parties together give meaning to the open innovation model and to do so - with the
use of private and public resources - collaborate in collective projects and programs and invest in joint
sharing of both physical and service facilities (facility sharing and shared service centers).
Collaborative ideation is perceived by many campus organizations as an important activity to feed the
'innovation funnel' with ideas, new product concepts and technological challenges.
In my thesis, I examine which approaches and tools are used to facilitate the process of ideation within
a campus. This can be done by, among other options, enabling 'casual encounters' but also by
organizing 'ideation events' and / or using online communities and collaborative workspaces.
At four innovation campuses in the Netherlands I want to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews
in which an established framework drawn on 'collaborative ideation' is tested and complemented with
applications from practice. This provides an improved framework with useful tools, techniques,
methods to organize the interaction between 'residents' and other stakeholders systematically in order
to maximize the yield of (collaborative) ideation. In the appendix of this letter you will find an
overview of the campuses I will examine and an overview of the different categories of respondents I
will interview.
I like to hear from you if I may contact you to schedule an interview. Thank you in advance for your
response. You can reach me by telephone: 06 33,660,848 or e-mail: c.h.e.geertsen@gmail.com.
Sincerely,
Lotte Geertsen
T: +31(0) 6 336 60 848
E: c.h.e.geertsen@gmail.com

Appendix F: Interview questions to respondents
Question Dimensions
WHY:
Benefits
Why do you use collaborative ideation? - direct benefits
- indirect benefits
WHEN:
Conditions
When do you use collaborative ideation? - Internal resources
- External resources
HOW:
Strategies
How do you use collaborative ideation? - Mode of revealing
- Goal
WHAT:
Mechanisms
What do you use during collaborative
ideation?
- Collective attention
- Enacting ideas
- Building on similarities

Appendix G: Results analysis
Analysis displayed per Science Park

Analysis displayed per perspective

To organize or not to organize: ideation in innovation ecosystems - Lotte Geertsen

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à To organize or not to organize: ideation in innovation ecosystems - Lotte Geertsen

Similaire à To organize or not to organize: ideation in innovation ecosystems - Lotte Geertsen (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

To organize or not to organize: ideation in innovation ecosystems - Lotte Geertsen