agile methods | Competivation
Design-oriented innovation research on AI applications

Design-oriented innovation research on AI applications

Around the world, many companies face the challenge of keeping pace with artificial intelligence (AI) and gaining a competitive edge through AI tools that leverage their specific expertise. This development is leading to a renaissance in design-oriented management and innovation research, which aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice. In the process, research is shifting from empirical work at universities to connective design in real-world laboratories of change.

 

In this blog post, I outline the development of the design-oriented research approach, highlight its advantages, and explain a general procedural concept.

 

A decisive year for AI adoption

2026 could be the year that determines for many companies whether they achieve a breakthrough in AI adoption or remain stuck with isolated pilot projects. According to an analysis by the market research firm Forrester, only 15 percent of decision-makers report that the use of AI has so far made a measurable contribution to their companies’ operating results. This could lead them to postpone about a quarter of their planned AI spending until 2027. However, the danger of being too hesitant in adopting AI is that it creates a gap that is difficult to close.1

On the other hand, pioneering companies are succeeding in achieving significant competitive advantages with AI tailored to their specific situations. These pioneers practice design-oriented management and innovation research to lay the groundwork for success. One example is Siemens, which aims to develop the world’s largest and broadest range of industrial AI applications and double its enterprise value.2

The German Economic Research Institute (IW) forecasts that the potential for increasing gross value added through the use of AI in Germany by 2034 stands at 440 billion euros. Of this, 110 billion euros is attributable to potential innovations and 330 billion euros to increased productivity. For Germany as an industrial hub, the application of AI in particular presents an opportunity. Google, a subsidiary of the U.S. technology conglomerate Alphabet, has also recognized this. It plans to invest 5.5 billion euros in Germany and open a center for AI applications in Berlin, where its own researchers will also be based.3

This new situation has exciting implications for the design of AI ecosystems.

 

Designing AI ecosystems

The opportunity for established companies lies in knowledge-specific AI, where AI tools leverage and amplify the companies’ specialized expertise.4 This is most effectively achieved within AI ecosystems.

The term “AI ecosystem” refers to a dynamic network with strong connections between various actors who use AI technologies to create and disseminate innovations. AI ecosystems can be concentrated in a single region and have developed around a central hub, such as a university or a company. The world’s best-known and most influential AI ecosystem emerged in Silicon Valley in the San Francisco Bay Area. Stanford University near Palo Alto formed the core of Silicon Valley in the 1930s. In 1939, Bill Hewlett and David Packard founded the company HP there in a garage. Later, leading semiconductor companies – which gave the valley its name – and some of the major AI providers established themselves here.

Stanford University served as a model for Helmut Schöneberger, the head of the Munich-based startup incubator UnternehmerTUM. Crucial to its success were the collaboration with the Technical University of Munich and the support of BMW shareholder Susanne Klatten. In addition, other startup incubators have emerged in Munich, such as the Center for Digital Technology and Management (CDTM), which offers the transdisciplinary master’s program in Technology Management, works closely with industry partners, and has spawned over 250 startups.

By 2025, startups in Munich had received 3.3 billion euros in venture capital, thereby pushing Berlin into second place in this category, where startups raised 2.7 billion euros. However, AI ecosystems with successful startups have also emerged in other German regions.

Key players in AI ecosystems include:

  • Decision-makers in relevant policy areas and at various levels of state and regional government
  • Universities and schools
  • AI startups that originated as spin-offs or have established themselves in a region
  • Venture capitalists who use venture capital to finance the growth of AI startups
  • Major providers of AI hardware and software that shape financial markets with their financial clout and have a significant impact on the environment and society, as well as
  • established companies and their employees, who use AI, collaborate with startups, and invest in them.

Pharmaceutical research provides an interesting example of new opportunities for collaboration between established companies and startups.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

In the pharmaceutical industry, tech-bio companies, such as the French startup Owkin, are accelerating early-stage drug discovery with the help of AI. A first wave of drugs developed in this way is currently in clinical trials. One possible form of collaboration is for AI biotechs to take on early-stage drug discovery and for established pharmaceutical companies to handle the later phases and commercialization. Another option is for pharmaceutical companies to acquire AI startups and build up their own relevant capabilities. In any case, this research-intensive industry is facing a fundamental change, in which the design of AI ecosystems is a key success factor.5 This example illustrates that as industries evolve, management research changes as well.

However, artificial intelligence is not only a driver of productivity and innovation but also poses a potential threat. In light of geopolitical shifts, it is crucial for Europe to regain its ability to shape the future. A trustworthy AI can be an important means to this end. The recent dispute between the U.S. government and the U.S. startup Anthropic illustrates just how political the design of AI ecosystems has become.6 This, too, is leading to significant changes in management research.

An important aspect that is often overlooked in AI ecosystems is the environmental and social impact of AI technologies. For instance, large language models require the work of crawlers that collect data and annotators who comment on, evaluate, and label texts and images. This work often takes place out of the public eye, frequently in countries of the “Global South.” Transparency in these supply chains is low.7

 

Management research in real-world laboratories of change

Empirical approaches, predominantly originating from universities, have long dominated business research. The authors publish the results of their work in academic journals, which practitioners rarely read. Critics of this retreat into an “academic ivory tower” argue that the practical relevance of research has diminished. This criticism is not new, but it has grown stronger.8

Universities defend their position by arguing that the practical relevance of empirical research is based on “field trips” in which the perspectives of relevant actors are analyzed. However, the goal of such work is generally not to design concrete objects – such as new AI-based business models –within their specific context.9

In this respect, business research differs from the design-oriented approach of engineering sciences, which takes place predominantly in laboratories and pilot plants.

Due to the growing importance of inter- or transdisciplinary research, the proportion of connective design is also increasing in management science. This practice- and design-oriented research is increasingly taking place in real-world laboratories of change.10 A key driver of this development is artificial intelligence, which acts as a catalyst for the founding of startups and the realignment of established companies. We believe that, following a phase of retreat into universities, management research should once again take place more strongly in practice and utilize design-oriented approaches.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

This response to the questions of how and where research approaches should be conducted marks the beginning of a new chapter in the history of management research. A key feature of this reorientation toward connective design is research in which scientists, consultants, and practitioners bring their diverse perspectives and strengths together. The benefit lies in better solutions to complex problems based on new scientific insights.11

The development of humanoid robots provides an example. In this rapidly growing market, companies have the best chances when they combine software and hardware expertise. Data from the real world is the biggest bottleneck here. The Metzingen-based manufacturer Neura Robotics has therefore decided to build training facilities for robots. One of the first of these “gyms” is being developed in collaboration with the Technical University of Munich at the Munich Institute of Robotics and Machine Intelligence (MIRMI) at Munich Airport. In international competition with companies from the U.S. and China, rapid scaling is crucial for this AI application.12

Since design-oriented management research is less widespread, I would like to briefly outline its history. Personally, over the past few decades, I have repeatedly observed how different the thought and language patterns of the relevant actors are in theory and practice.

 

Principles and pioneers of creative management research

Design-oriented management research is based on similar principles and has been shaped by several pioneers.13 These principles are:

  1. Action research, pioneered by social psychologist Kurt Lewin. Lewin advocated for a connection between theory and practice to solve real-world problems.
  2. General design theory, as defined by Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon.14 Simon defines this as the science of designing human-made artifacts and systems.
  3. Action Science, conceived by Harvard professor Chris Argyris.15 Argyris’s primary goal is to make knowledge usable in order to improve actions within organizations.
  4. The Design Science Research (DSR) approach developed by Alan Hevner at the University of South Florida.16 This concept, which is particularly widespread in business informatics, focuses on solving complex, real-world problems through innovative IT systems.
  5. Action Design Research (ADR), described by various scholars, which combines Action Research and Design Science Research.
Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

Pioneers of design-oriented management research include Joan Ernst van Aken and Georges Romme, who teach at Eindhoven University, as well as David Denyer from Cranfield University in the UK. Van Aken aims to bridge the gap between management theory and practice. The focus is on transdisciplinary research to solve practical management problems. Building on design theory, Romme tests iterative processes in organizational design.17  Denyer views management knowledge as a malleable resource for solving real-world problems. His solution-oriented approach seeks to ensure practical application through mechanisms of action and evidence-based verification using various information sources.

The advantages of a design-oriented approach are particularly evident in innovation and sustainability research.

 

Advantages in innovation and sustainability research

When applying AI, the advantages of a design-oriented approach to innovation and sustainability research unfold most notably in companies that practice this approach in self-similar Strategy 5.0 labs. The goal of such a real-world lab is to connect the various fields of action for AI applications.18 It is helpful if the countercurrent principle – combining a top-down AI strategy with a bottom-up, harmoniously diverse range of AI applications – is effectively implemented.

Based on our experience from a series of projects, the following benefits are of particular importance:

  • The removal of barriers to innovation
  • high-performing and trustworthy innovation ecosystems
  • motivated high-performance teams
  • connective design as a core competency
  • improved technology transfer
  • accelerated learning loops using agile methods, as well as
  • concrete results and measurable success for all stakeholders.

These advantages enable a realignment of innovation systems.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

The shortcomings in Germany’s energy and mobility transition are an example of how important it is to remove barriers to innovation.19 The aim here is to translate new insights from innovation research into practical action.

The goal is to design high-performing and trustworthy innovation ecosystems.20 A hallmark of these systems is improved collaboration among stakeholders from the political, scientific, economic, and social sectors.

Motivated high-performance teams play a key role in shaping innovation research.21 Leaders have the task of exemplifying and fostering an entrepreneurial mindset. This begins with education and continues throughout one’s professional career.

A core competency to be developed in this context is connective design.22 This requires a reorientation of teaching and research using AI as a tool. Such human-centric AI permeates all disciplines.

A positive side effect is improved technology transfer.23 The goal here is to overcome the German paradox between strengths in basic research and weaknesses in commercialization.

One way to achieve this is through accelerated learning loops within organizations.24 Agile methods are used for this purpose. It is important to adapt a general approach to specific types of problems and the situation at hand.

In doing so, all stakeholders should focus on concrete results and measurable successes.25 In joint programs, this is achieved through transparent performance management.

In the following, I would like to explain a suitable approach.

 

Steps of a general procedural concept

An example of design-oriented innovation and sustainability research is the AI-based strategic and organizational realignment of a company.26 For topics such as this, a general procedural concept consisting of the six steps shown in the figure has proven effective.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

The first step is an analysis of the state of research, best-practice examples, and the specific initial situation. The task here is to combine an internal and an external perspective in an audit.

It is then crucial to develop a comprehensive understanding of the problem’s complexity, to identify its causes, and to coordinate efforts among the relevant stakeholders. Collaboration between various disciplines and practitioners is more successful than disciplinary research approaches.

Transdisciplinary teams also play a key role in the subsequent design and selection of creative solutions. What may be uncharted territory for a single organization can, when taken as a whole, contribute significantly to scientific progress.

A defining characteristic of design-oriented innovation research is the implementation of pilot projects for Minimum Viable Solutions (MVS). These pilots are tested in real-world laboratories of change. For established companies, working in learning loops often requires a shift in mindset. Human resources development can support this effort.

The fifth step is planning and executing the implementation. This is closely linked to financing the scaling process. German startups have long complained of disadvantages, for example, compared to the U.S. Therefore, an improvement in the political framework conditions should be sought, particularly in this step.

In parallel, transparent performance measurement takes place, for example, using the Objectives and Key Results (OKR) method. In this context, “transparent” means that performance management does not occur in sectoral silos. For a policy that sets goals but neglects to measure success, this involves a learning process aimed at joint system design by innovation managers.

 

Innovation managers design complex, evolutionary systems

As early as in our 2014 book publication “The Innovation Manager,” we concluded that a central task of innovation managers lies in the design of innovation systems and the connection of various fields of action.27 Subsequently, we engaged intensively with the behavioral economic perspective of such connective design.28

The scientific foundation for connective design is the theory of complex, evolutionary systems. The application of this approach to socio-technical systems has triggered a paradigm shift in strategic management.29 U.S. digital companies have mastered this new management paradigm better than the European economy.30

Another insight is that innovation research is a transdisciplinary design task.

 

Interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary?

We deliberately use the term transdisciplinary to make it clear that, unlike the term interdisciplinary, it is not merely about mediating between scientific disciplines, but also about involving non-scientific actors and establishing a connection between theory and practical design.31 The particular complexity of transdisciplinary innovation research stems from

  • the heterogeneity of the disciplines, which ranges from natural science and technical research through various policy fields to management science and organizational psychology
  • the diverse interests and thought patterns, e.g., of scientists and practitioners
  • the dynamics of development and the number of levels, from geopolitics down to the individual, as well as
  • the different roles of the actors, e.g., as neutral observers or personally affected individuals.

Unfortunately, transdisciplinary innovation research has so far lacked recognition in universities. The reasons for this are manifold. One important reason is likely that the traditional academic and publication system tends to reward disciplinary excellence. This presents an opportunity for applied research.

 

Transdisciplinary research on sustainability innovations

Our book, published in 1994, on the “ecological reorientation” of automotive companies emerged from consulting projects and accompanying research at the University of Stuttgart.32 This research was transdisciplinary, but had only a limited impact because German companies and policymakers at the time did not implement our recommendations – for example, regarding new propulsion systems.

Thirty years later, this industry – so vital to the German economy – is grappling with serious problems. VW, the world’s second-largest automaker by vehicle sales, is undergoing a process of strategic and organizational realignment.33 At the same time, the geopolitical landscape is marked by extreme uncertainty.

This example illustrates that, when it comes to sustainability innovation, transdisciplinary and design-oriented research is of crucial importance for securing our country’s prosperity. 34 In recent years, the field has evolved dynamically. The intersection of environmental technology and artificial intelligence has moved to the center of attention. New market leaders can emerge from collaborations between established companies and digital greentech startups if European policymakers succeed in improving the framework conditions.35

One example is the German-Luxembourgish startup R3 Robotics, which has developed an AI-powered robotics platform for battery recycling. In this way, Europe can reduce its dependence on imports and increase the sustainability of batteries.36

In my personal experience, students remain very interested in such topics because they recognize the resulting career opportunities. This provides important impetus for our expert network.

 

Combining management consulting and human resources development with design-oriented innovation and sustainability research

Our expert network Competivation has long combined management consulting and human resources development. The advantage for clients is a better value for money than with traditional consultants, as the focus is on the qualifications of the employees who are actively involved in the projects.

For several years now, we have been supplementing this service with design-oriented innovation and sustainability research. In doing so, we supervise the theses of dual-track students and external doctoral candidates who are working on relevant projects within the client organization. The advantage here is that the research is tailored to the specific situation of the company. The researchers and their companies benefit from the extensive experience of our experts.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

With this approach, Competivation has created a unique international selling point geared toward the needs of the AI era.

Design-oriented research also has far-reaching implications for university teaching. We see ourselves as an innovative educational provider that teaches the ability to a of AI-supported connective design of solutions for complex management problems.37

 

Conclusion

  • When applying AI, many companies face the challenge of defending their position and gaining competitive advantages through a specific approach
  • In this context, the design of AI ecosystems is crucial
  • Parallel to this development, research approaches and locations are shifting toward design-oriented innovation research in real-world laboratories of change
  • In this context, design-oriented management and innovation research is experiencing a renaissance stemming from a number of advantages
  • In this transdisciplinary research approach, a six-step procedure has proven effective, which is adapted to the respective problem type and situation.
Learning from successful digital companies

Learning from successful digital companies

Six of the seven most valuable companies in the world are leaders in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Start-ups are also providing important impetus for the current topic of generative AI. This raises the question of what established companies can learn from these digital champions. The search for answers to this question leads us to a paradigm shift in strategic management that has not been understood by established companies for a long time. Closely linked to this is a change in personnel management and culture.

 

In this blog post, I explain an approach that has contributed to the success of digital companies. In the USA, this approach is known as the „geeky leadership style“.

 

Increasing the enterprise value of the „big six“

The seven most valuable companies in the world (as of 27.06.2024) include Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Alphabet, Amazon and Meta. These „big six“ from the USA are benefiting to varying degrees from the current boom in generative artificial intelligence.1 Microsoft alone is currently worth 77% more than all 40 DAX companies combined.

However, the success of US companies is not only based on their digital expertise, but also on management innovations. This combination has led to an advantage over established companies. While the expertise in the different waves of digitalization is obvious, the new management approaches in the success phases of digital companies are far less transparent.

 

Causes of the success phases of digital companies

We therefore investigated the question of what the European economy can learn from successful digital companies. The result is a causal chain that begins with the connection between the first development stage of market- and finance-oriented strategic management and the second stage, which is determined by technology and innovation. This connection has had a theory-changing effect and led to a paradigm shift from a more mechanistic to a complexity-managing strategic management. This paradigm shift has shaped the culture in the success phases of digital companies. During these phases, an innovation-promoting personnel management and disruptive corporate culture has emerged, which represents a difficult barrier for established companies to overcome.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

I would like to explain these three causes in the following sections. A better understanding of the causes can help established companies to better manage the digital transformation. However, a basic prerequisite for this is a willingness to learn and to question traditional cultural norms. The starting point is a system-oriented combination of Strategy 1.0 and Strategy 2.0.

 

System-oriented combination of Strategy 1.0 and 2.0

Since the early 1980s, the traditional market- and finance-oriented strategic management (Strategy 1.0) has been expanded to include a technology- and innovation-oriented second stage of development (Strategy 2.0).2 Successful digital companies have used this expansion to their advantage. On the one hand, their success is based on their lead in digital technologies. At least as important is the system-oriented integration of analysis-oriented strategic action and a culture that promotes innovation. In this way, they have succeeded in implementing a new integrated approach to designing innovation systems.3 This approach is not limited to their own company, but also includes start-up ecosystems.

In successful start-up ecosystems, four sectors work together in partnership. Politicians actively promote education, new technologies and innovations. Science successfully spins off start-ups. Venture capitalists and corporate venture management finance not only the founding but also the scaling of start-ups. Society also plays an important role by creating a positive climate for innovation and attractive framework conditions.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

This interplay has led to the success story of Silicon Valley, which is several decades ahead of Europe.4 However, the example also shows the tension between the current AI boom and the exploding cost of living on the US West Coast.

The development of start-up ecosystems was stimulated by the design science5 and methods such as design thinking, which emerged in the 1960s.6 Design thinking supports the interdisciplinary learning process for designing digital business models. Innovative technologies act as enablers of new forms of problem solving and satisfying customer needs. The action research7 developed by psychology professor Kurt Lewin in the USA back in the 1940s provides the theoretical basis for learning loops that start from hypotheses, design something that can be tested with customers and whose results lead to possible changes in direction. In the early 1990s, agile software development methods such as Scrum were developed on this basis.8 Start-ups that use these concepts have become the most valuable companies in the world.

The example of Amazon shows that these companies also had to overcome critical phases. After the failure of a project to improve collaboration between functional areas, Jeff Bezos recognized the need for a change of direction. He introduced the „two-pizza principle“ for agile teams and implemented the concentration of project managers on a single project (single-threaded leaders). To enable agile teams to work as independently as possible, it was necessary to develop a modular IT architecture. This internal initiative formed the starting point for the founding of Amazon Web Services (AWS), today’s global market leader in the cloud business. 9

The theoretical basis for such activities was provided by a paradigm shift in strategic management that took place in the 1990s. I would like to briefly describe how I experienced this period.

 

Paradigm shift from mechanistic to complexity management

After about a decade in strategy consulting, I had the impression that the existing, relatively mechanistic strategy concepts were not sufficient to cope with the complexity of innovation and sustainability issues. In my search for better solutions, I came across evolutionary and complexity theories and completed an external habilitation at the University of Stuttgart in 1991 on the seemingly necessary paradigm shift in strategic management.10

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

Complexity-based strategic management is based on three theoretical foundations that have influenced each other. Firstly, evolutionary theories have emerged in various disciplines. They view the dynamic sequence of imbalances as a balance between chaos and order, the outcome of which depends on the initial conditions.11 Important impetus then came from the Santa Fe Institute, founded in the USA in 1984, and the theory of complex adaptive systems developed there. This deals with the creation of suitable framework conditions for a more self-organized interaction of competent actors at the „edge of chaos“ based on simple rules.12 The theory of complex interactive relationship processes makes a contribution to the application in organizations. The focus here is on local, non-linear interactions between actors, from the course of which patterns emerge that are difficult to predict. 13

These relatively abstract-sounding ideas were difficult to convey to established companies in the 1990s. As a result, even the large consulting firms did not jump on the bandwagon. Nevertheless, the theories have found their way into practice. This path led from Stanford University to Google. As digitalization progressed, the importance of evolutionary and complexity theories increased significantly.

In 1995, the book Competing on the Edge was published by future Google manager Shona Brown and Stanford professor Kathleen Eisenhardt, who attempt to apply complexity theories to strategic management.14 They divide their recommendations for action into the fields of chaos edge, time harmony and timing. The focus here is on overcoming complexity by finding the right balance. In the field of chaos edge, the recommendations for action are as follows:

  • Using professional improvisation to find the middle ground between too much structure and too much confusion and
  • utilize synergies between businesses through joint adaptation in order to find the balance between too much cooperation and too much selfishness.

The recommendations in the Time Harmony field are:

  •  Deriving benefits from the future and the past through targeted renewal and
  •  Carry out experiments to shape tomorrow with experience today.

The last recommendation concerns the timing. It reads:

  •  Set the tempo to synchronize transitions and find your own rhythm.

These recommendations for action have shaped the HR management and culture of Google and other digital companies.

 

Innovation-promoting personnel management and disruptive corporate culture

A specific leadership style has developed in digital companies, which is referred to as the „geeky leadership style“ in the USA. The term geek is undergoing a positive change in meaning. This form of personnel management is culturally influential. It is characterized by the following four cultural norms: 15

  •  A specific scientific approach (Science)
  •  Personal responsibility (ownership)
  •  a high speed of iterations (Speed) and
  •  Openness.

The disruptive nature of such a culture lies in the fact that it is difficult for established companies to develop due to behavioral barriers. I would like to explain this briefly.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

The scientific approach based on action learning and design theory is geared towards data-based, adaptive design. Digital companies such as Google used these findings early on and developed infrastructures for testing hypotheses. The test results then form the starting point for intensive, fact-based argumentation by the stakeholders. In contrast, decisions in established companies are based more on the convictions and power of managers and the opinions of experts. The cultural change to a more scientifically oriented approach can therefore trigger resistance in established companies because those responsible fear a loss of importance. Personnel development at universities and in practice should create a conscious counterbalance here.

Digital start-ups are characterized by the personal responsibility of managers with a higher degree of autonomy, empowerment of agile teams and less coordination effort. Established companies, on the other hand, often struggle with increasing bureaucratization, where many are allowed to have a say and demonstrate their power by exercising a veto. Microsoft was also faced with the challenge of regaining a culture of ownership, which it has succeeded in doing under the leadership of Satya Nadella. Bayer’s attempt to reduce bureaucracy with the help of the humanocracy concept developed by management guru Gary Hamel is the subject of much public debate.16 It remains to be seen how successful this attempt will be.

One root of the „geeky leadership style“ is the agile manifesto written in 2001, which emphasizes the speed of rapid iterations. Established hardware-oriented companies often find it difficult to link this approach, which originated in software development, with their existing product innovation process. In view of the increasing importance of software in the automotive industry, for example, hybrid approaches that combine existing skills with digital expertise are becoming increasingly important. One indicator of success here is that companies achieve their set time targets and do not fall victim to the 90 percent syndrome, in which the players realize too late that they are missing their targets.

Characteristics of the cultural norm of openness are the sharing of information, receptiveness to other arguments, the willingness to re-evaluate situations and change one’s own direction. The opposite of openness is widespread defensive behavior patterns, which Harvard professor Chris Argyris has described as a characteristic of established companies since the 1980s.17 The negative consequence is often that the community punishes those who violate prevailing norms. An extreme form of defensive behavior is the tacit toleration of unethical or punishable activities. On the other hand, a culture characterized by openness can be recognized, for example, by the fact that young employees are allowed to openly contradict their boss in an internal meeting without having to expect sanctions.

This example leads us to an approach on how established companies can reduce the cultural distance to the digital world.

 

Adapting and exemplifying cultural norms

Managers of established companies have the task of finding an individual approach to the cultural norms of successful digital companies. Knowledge of the theoretical principles outlined above can be helpful in this regard. However, success in the digital world does not mean that these norms can be transferred 1:1 to an established company. They need to be adapted to the specific situation and framework conditions of the respective company. Once there is a consensus regarding this situational adaptation, it is important for managers to exemplify changed cultural norms. Appropriate personnel development and promotion policies then play an important role. The idea of a rapid, comprehensive digital transformation is therefore unrealistic. A successful digital realignment in established companies is more likely to be a specific, longer-term process.18

 

Collaboration with start-ups as an underutilized opportunity

One way for established organizations to learn from successful digital companies is to work more closely with start-ups. Unfortunately, too little use is made of this opportunity. A study by the German Start-up Monitor concluded that cooperation between corporations and SMEs and young companies fell by ten percent between 2020 and 2023. Verena Pausder, head of the start-up association, sees this backward trend as an alarm signal and is promoting a revival of the partner culture.19 The current topic of generative artificial intelligence in particular offers a variety of approaches to this. There are a number of initiatives, such as the „Hinterland of Things“ conference, which has been taking place in East Westphalia since 2018 and brings together various players. But overall, there is still considerable potential for expansion in the design of start-up ecosystems.

 

Conclusion

  • Many of the world’s most valuable companies have evolved from start-ups to digital champions in a relatively short space of time
  • To answer the question of what established companies can learn from this, we have analyzed the development of strategic management
  • In contrast to established companies, digital companies have actively driven a paradigm shift in strategic management from mechanistic to complexity management during their success phases
  • A change in personnel management and culture has played an important role here
  • Managers in established companies are faced with the task of exemplifying cultural norms that are adapted to the situation
  • They should make greater use of the opportunity to work together with start-ups

 

Literature

[1] Sommer, U., AI sparks price fireworks. In: Handelsblatt, December 27, 2023, p.1, 4, 6

[2] Servatius, H.G., Evolution of strategic management. In: Competivation Blog, 28.06.2024

[3] Servatius, H.G., Gestaltung des Innovationssystems von Unternehmen. In: Servatius, H.G., Piller, F.T. (eds.), Der Innovationsmanager – Wertsteigerung durch ein ganzheitliches Innovationsmanagement, Symposion 2014, pp. 21-64

[4] Keese, C., Silicon Valley – What is coming to us from the most powerful valley in the world, Knauer 2014

[5] Simon, H.A., The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed., MIT Press 1981 (1st ed.1969)

[6] Kelly T., Kelly, D., Creative Confidence – Unleashing the Creative Potential within us all, William Collins 2013

[7] Marrow, A.J., Kurt Lewin – Life and Work, Ernst Klett 1977

[8] Sutherland, J.J., The Scrum Fieldbook – A Master Class on Accelerating Perfomance, Getting Results, and Defining the Future, Currency 2019

[9] Bryar, C., Carr, B., Working Backwards – Insights, Stories, and Secrets from Inside Amazon, Macmillan 2021

[10] Servatius, H.G., Vom strategischen Management zur evolutionären Führung – Auf dem Weg zu einem ganzheitlichen Denken und Handeln, Poeschel 1991

[11] Beinhocker, E.D., Die Entstehung des Wohlstands – Wie Evolution die Wirtschaft antreibt, mi-Fachverlag 2007

[12] Lewin, R., Die Komplexitätstheorie – Wissenschaft nach der Chaos-Forschung, Hoffmann und Campe 1993

[13] Stacey R., Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management – Meeting the Challenge of Complexity, Routledge 2012

[14] Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., Competing on the Edge – Strategy as Structured Chaos, Harvard Business Review Press 1998

[15] McAfee, A., The Geek Way – The Radical Mindset That Drives Extraordinary Results, Macmillan 2023

[16] Hamel, G., Zanini, M., Humanocracy – Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People Inside Them, Harvard Business Review Press 2020

[17] Argyris, C., Overcoming Organizational Defences – Facilitating Organizational Learning, Allyn and Bacon 1990

[18] Servatius, HG, Triple strategic realignment. In: Competivation Blog, 07.06.2024

[19] Müller, A., Schimroszik, N., Mittelstand moves away from start-ups. In: Handelsblatt, June 13, 2024, p.22

 

Evolution of strategic management

Evolution of strategic management

Digital companies have combined the first development stage of market- and finance-oriented strategic management with a second stage characterized by technology and innovation. Even before the emergence of strategic management, such connectivity of fundamental orientations has been a success factor of European hidden champions. The ability to connect is also currently an opportunity for European industry, which must reorient itself towards digitalization, sustainability and resilience based on its traditional strengths.

In this blog post, I explain the basics and characteristics of the first two development stages of strategic management and discuss the role of generative artificial intelligence (AI) as a game changer.

 

Linking strategy 1.0 and 2.0

Almost every second German company fears that the deindustrialization of Germany as a business location can hardly be stopped and that it will continue to lose its attractiveness. This is the sobering result of a study by the Federation of German Industries (BDI). According to the respondents, the situation is worse than it has been for a long time.1

Of course, this is above all a wake-up call for politicians. However, it also raises the question of how companies can adapt their strategic management to a changed environment.

The task of strategic management as an interdisciplinary field is to shape corporate development and master new challenges. In recent decades, the framework conditions for the economy have changed fundamentally. We divide the resulting evolution of strategic management into five development stages.2 There are many interactions and feedback loops between these stages. The link between Strategy 1.0 and Strategy 2.0 is currently of particular importance, with digital companies playing a key role.3

 

Four basic orientations

Strategic management has developed from strategic planning since the 1960s.4 Long before that, one of the strengths of the little-known European world market leaders was their combination of technology, innovation, market and financial orientation. To this day, the four basic orientations of this type of company are focused on specific, knowledge-intensive business areas.5 This has contributed to the high reputation of German engineering in the world.

The triumphant advance of the first development stage of market- and finance-oriented strategic management, on the other hand, began in diversified large US companies. An important benefit for those responsible lay in the integrative view of operational functions and the support of portfolio decisions. This new management theory reached large German companies in the 1970s. At the same time, functional strategies gained in importance. However, strategy implementation often failed due to a complexity that was not mastered by personnel management.

Technology and innovation aspects played a subordinate role in this first stage. As a result, the spread of strategic management among European hidden champions and SMEs was rather low. This prompted me to start a doctorate in strategic technology management at the end of the 1970s. Interestingly, the US industry was in a deep crisis at that time.6 In my dissertation, I developed a resource-oriented methodology for the development of technology strategies and thus made a contribution to the second development stage of technology and innovation-oriented strategic management.7 An important finding was that successful corporate innovation systems consist of interconnected fields of action. Their design depends on the ability to combine the development and implementation of strategies with an entrepreneurial culture. 8

In Europe, tapping into the potential of digital cross-sectional technologies has been less successful. Ultimately, it was US start-ups that brought together the first and second development stages of strategic management as part of various waves of digitalization. This is how the most valuable companies in the world today were created. The diagram illustrates the four orientations that link the first two development stages of strategic management.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

In the following, I would like to explain the basics and characteristics of these two stages of development in more detail.

 

Market and finance-oriented strategic management

The origins of the concept of strategy lie in the military sector. An early transfer to the business world took place at Harvard Business School, where a course on business policy was launched in 1911 to create a framework for business management theory. The focus of business policy is on vision and mission.9 Another foundation of the first stage is a look into possible futures, which is described by the term foresight.10 In this development phase, strategic management gradually replaced the long-term planning that had been widespread until then.  However, strategic management has never been a homogeneous concept. Various schools emerged relatively early on to describe the multitude of possible strategic processes. The analytical process is only one of the variants. 11

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

The focus of the first development stage of strategic management (Strategy 1.0) is on competitive advantages in sales markets.12 The overriding goal is to increase the value of the company for shareholders.13 Stakeholder theory was initially unable to assert itself against this dominant shareholder value view. The positioning school, which was shaped by academics and management consultancies and views strategy development as a primarily analytical process, had a strong influence on practical strategy work. One popular method is the portfolio analysis of strategic business fields, which seems relatively mechanistic from today’s perspective. 14

The main criticism of Strategy 1.0 is that the primarily analytical approach alone does not succeed in overcoming implementation problems. The top-down approach and the difficulty of harmonizing functional strategies contribute to the failure of strategy implementation. Despite criticism, this first stage of development has long been widespread, especially in established large companies. It is also still the focus of teaching at many universities, which differentiate between the subjects of strategic management and technology and innovation management.

 

Technology and innovation-oriented strategic management

The second, technology and innovation-oriented stage of strategic management is based more strongly on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship research therefore provides an important basis for Strategy 2.0.15 In the USA, the financing of start-ups through venture capital16 and corporate venture management gained importance much earlier than in Europe.17 Another important foundation is the holistic design theory coined by Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon.18 Of the functional business management theories, research and development (R&D) management19 and production management20 deal primarily with technological topics.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

Since the 1980s, the second stage of strategic management has developed very dynamically in various phases.21 The focus here is on technologies and innovation advantages. Technology and innovation management integrates classic management tasks in a system-oriented approach.22 The importance of personnel management, culture and organization should be emphasized. The task of innovation managers is to shape the connected fields of action of their company’s innovation system.23 This system-oriented view of fields of action forms a common framework for the actors involved. The evolution of such an open, complex system results from the interaction of the actors with their environment. In recent decades, the importance of new business models24 and a culture that promotes innovation25 has increased significantly. Initially, it was primarily start-ups with agile methods that exploited the potential of digital technologies.26

These start-ups have given rise to the US digital giants, whose market power is sometimes viewed critically. For established companies, digital change and the associated dependence on IT companies represent a major challenge.27 The following figure summarizes the development of technology and innovation-oriented strategic management over time.

Lernprozess Innovationsstrategie

A new wave of digitalization is coming from generative artificial intelligence (AI) with large language models, which enables productivity advantages and changed forms of knowledge work. In June 2024, AI supplier Nvidia briefly became the most valuable listed company in the world.28 In this current wave, the cards between companies and economic blocs could be reshuffled. The question arises as to how Europe can master the resulting risks.

 

Generative AI as a game changer for Europe

When we published our book The Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence as a Game Changer in 2020, the current hype surrounding generative AI was not yet foreseeable. In the last chapter of the book, we take a critical look at European and German innovation policy.29 An exciting question is to what extent generative AI will contribute to a successful reorientation of the German economy or accelerate its further decline. Both seem possible. Our country is therefore at a turning point.

We can learn from the success story of the European hidden champions that it is crucial to connect the sectors of politics, science, business and society as well as the strategic fields of action of companies. Our recommendation is therefore to try to regain a culture of solidarity. It would be important for everyone involved to develop a corresponding mindset. The elites should set an example and hope that citizens will follow their example. Education and training on the topic of cultural connectedness can contribute to this.

 

Conclusion

  • The success of digital companies results from the combination of the first and second development stages of strategic management
  • One problem of the first market- and finance-oriented stage is coping with the complexity of strategy implementation
  • Digital champions are better than established companies at exploiting the potential of information technology and successfully shaping the associated fields of action of their innovation systems
  • A new chapter in the combination of Strategy 1.0 and 2.0 has begun with the topic of generative artificial intelligence (AI)

 

Literature

[1] Höpner, A., „Deindustrialization can hardly be stopped“. In: Handelsblatt, June 18, 2024, p.18

[2] Servatius, H.G., Strategy 5.0 for mastering the new challenges. In: Competivation Blog, 28.06.2022

[3] Servatius, H.G., Personnel management in the age of connective management. In: Competivation Blog, 19.01.2021

[4] Ansoff, I.H., Declerck, R.P., Hayes, R.L. (eds.), From Strategic Planning to Strategic Management, John Wiley 1976

[5] Simon, H., Hidden Champions des 21.Jahrhunderts – Die Erfolgsstrategien unbekannter Weltmarktführer, Campus 2007

[6] Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., Restoring Our Competitive Edge – Competing Through Manufacturing, John Wiley 1984

[7] Servatius, H.G., Methodology of Strategic Technology Management – Basis for Successful Innovations, Erich Schmidt 1985

[8] Schein, E.H., Organizational Culture and Leadership – A Dynamic View, Jossey Bass 1986

[9] Bleicher, K., Das Konzept Integriertes Management, Campus 1991

[10] Müller, A.W., Müller-Stewens, G., Strategie Foresight – Trend- und Zukunftsforschung in Unternehmen – Instrumente, Prozesse, Fallstudien, Schäffer Poeschel 2009

[11] Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J., Strategy Safari – Eine Reise durch die Wildnis des strategischen Managements, Ueberreuter 1999

[12] Porter, M.E., Competitive Strategy – Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, The Free Press 1980

[13] Rappaport A., Creating Shareholder Value – The New Standard for Business Performance, The Free Press 1986

[14] Kirsch, W., Roventa, P. (eds.), Bausteine des Strategischen Managements – Dialoge zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis, De Gruyter, 1983

[15] Ronstadt, R.C., Entrepreneurship – Text, Cases and Notes, Lord Publishing 1984

[16] Gladstone, D.J., Venture Capital Handbook – An Entrepreneur’s Guide to Obtaining Capital To Start a Business, Buy a Business, Or Expand An Existing Business, Reston Publishing 1983

[17] Servatius, H.G., New Venture Management – Successful Solution of Innovation Problems for Technology Companies, Gabler 1988

[18] Simon, H.A., The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed., MIT Press 1981 (1st ed. 1969)

[19] Brockhoff, K., Research and Development – Planning and Control, Oldenbourg 1988

[20] Zäpfel, G., Strategic Production Management, De Gruyter Oldenbourg 2000

[21] Zahn, E. (ed.), Handbuch Technologie-Management, Schäffer-Poeschel 1995

[22] Servatius, H.G., Piller, F.T. (eds.), The innovation manager – value enhancement through holistic innovation management, Symposion 2014

[23] Servatius, H.G., Triple strategic realignment, Competivation Blog, 07.06.2024

[24] Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Business Model Generation – A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, Wiley 2010

[25] Mc Afee, A., The Geek Way – The Radical Mindset That Drives Extraordinary Results, Macmillan Business 2023

[26] Ries, E., The Lean Startup – How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses, Crown Currency 2011

[27] Rogers, D.L., The Digital Transformation Roadmap – Rebuild Your Organization for Continuous Change, Columbia Business School Publishing 2023

[28] Brüntjen, J.S., Narat, I., Maisch, M., Share price quake shakes Nvidia. In: Handelsblatt, June 26, 2024, p.30-31

[29] Kaufmann, T. Servatius, H.G., Das Internet der Dinge und Künstliche Intelligenz als Game Changer – Wege zu einem Management 4.0 und einer digitalen Architektur, Springer Vieweg 2020, p.203 ff.

 

 

Interessiert?

CONNECTIVE MANAGEMENT

Vereinbaren Sie einen unverbindlichen Gesprächstermin:

 














    +49 (0)211 454 3731