Case A

Case A is situated at the beginning of the process from an idea towards innovation. The corporate entrepreneur works in an engineering function and undertook initial steps for driving the idea towards an innovation and therefore the idea is in between the idea and concept phase.

4.2 THE SUB-CASES

It has been chosen for reasons of theoretical sampling, covering the front-end of the early stage. The research has been focused on the questions: how did the corporate entrepreneur get the idea and what were initial activities carried out? How does the corporate entrepreneur expect the process to continue?

To answer these questions, an individual in-depth interview via telephone has been conducted as described in the research methodology chapter. Furthermore, a design probe has been given to the corporate entrepreneur in order to capture the daily life and circumstances when working on the idea as well as success factors and obstacles and an emotional component. In addition, the corporate entrepreneur participated in an in-depth co-creation workshop with other corporate entrepreneurs using Lego Serious Play.

4.2.1.1 Findings

The corporate entrepreneur in Case A had two ideas: one related to a problem encoun-tered during projects, which had its focus outside the corporate entrepreneur’s expertise. Thus, the corporate entrepreneur did not possess the means to pursue the innovation and selected a passive role, submitting the idea but not desiring to drive it further. The second idea (which will be the base for the case) was related to the corporate entrepreneur’s own educational background, and therefore the corporate entrepreneur perceived to have the means for driving the idea further and selected a more active role. The virtual support structure intended to gather and discuss ideas was only used for the first idea that was outside the corporate entrepreneur’s domain of expertise.

The second idea had a relation to the corporate entrepreneur’s daily work, but was not in the own functional area. However, the effects of an underlying problem led to problems in the corporate entrepreneur’s own functional area, and from this the idea was developed.

The idea, first roughly prototyped was then concretised through various activities related to acquire know-how (such as learning to do 3D modelling) and information search. The main aim of the corporate entrepreneur was to apply for a patent, and for this aim all activities were conducted. The activities encompassed networking to detail the concept and get backup from experts for the idea.

However, the corporate entrepreneur’s network was limited to his/her own function.

The corporate entrepreneur actively champions the product, but expects that the active role ends after doing a second, refined prototype showing the functionality.

Somebody else would develop the idea towards implementation. The business case was perceived interesting for the corporate entrepreneur, but was finally not done due to the engineering background of the corporate entrepreneur. However, there would be an interest to follow the whole process as an observer.

It was not considered relevant to include customers early in the process. All activi-ties related to the innovation were conducted outside the working hours. The cor-porate entrepreneur perceives a lack of clarification whether it is allowed to engage in innovative activities during working time. The activities in the idea phase were mostly related to recognising and defining the opportunity, while the opportunity was detailed during the phase from idea to concept. Bootlegging was done between idea and concept to further engage in prototyping. Technical activities have been conducted early, while business-related activities are expected to be done after the patent application has been filed.

Besides these, the activities described by Burgelman (1980) were conducted in a similar way as described in his study: buffering took place at the beginning of the process, as well as bridging is expected in the concept phase. The fit to the fabric of the corporation is between idea and concept. Technical and need linking is expected in the concept phase, reflecting the technical emphasis of the corporate entrepreneur as well as the idea.

4.2.1.2 Analysis

It was observed that the process has been subject to resources such as own time and the mode of dealing with difficulties a time-based pacing process (Liao et al. 2005).

The corporate entrepreneur acquired new skills during the development of the idea, referring to capability building (Keil et al. 2009). Prototyping has been found important both in the early stage as working prototype (also in Brown 2009; Brown 2008) as well as later to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept and thus to give credibility (also in Carter et al. 1996). Opportunity recognition was based on a techni-cal problem, followed by a technitechni-cal detailing process with initial thoughts about the business model as also observed by Burgelman (1980).

Related to Research Question 2, the early stage of corporate venturing was found to

be valid. As expected by Noyes & Brush (2012), the case reveals elements of a pre-dictive and effectuative logic. The goal has been set and therefore points towards a predictive logic, as well as the outcomes did not reshape in major aspects. There were no self-selected stakeholders engaged in the process. However, small experiments were conducted and the project depended heavily on the means of the corporate entrepreneur.

The means of the corporate entrepreneur revealed a crucial detail: the type of the idea – whether it can be approached through the means of the corporate entrepreneur or not – determines the activity in developing the idea towards an innovation. If the idea is not accessible by the knowledge of the corporate entrepreneur, the only means available may be to hand it over to somebody more knowledgeable (in this case to bring it into the virtual support structure). Thus, the idea will not be actively championed.

However, if the same person has an idea possible for him/her to pursue and realise, he/she engaged in championing. Regarding the activities, an important detail is that the business case is conducted late, which can be explained by the engineering back-ground of the corporate entrepreneur. Further questioning revealed that creating a business model is not in the corporate entrepreneur’s skillset, but there would be an interest to accompany the whole process as an observer.

With respect to Research Question 3, several implications can be drawn for a support structure: the virtual platform is favouring ideas that are accessible to a wide audi-ence with various backgrounds (crowd). However, the crowd cannot give qualified feedback and thus cannot promote a very specific idea through the “community gate”.

Therefore, an expert commission should evaluate specialised ideas and seek contact.

Furthermore, a support structure should give networking support, as the own network of the corporate entrepreneur is limited to his/her own function. The network is used to drive the idea further and get input from sources more knowledgeable than the corporate entrepreneur him-/herself. The final implication towards the support struc-ture is related to the frame within the company: the corporate entrepreneur is acting in a grey area when using company resources to develop the idea as the desired amount of innovativeness within the company is not communicated. Thus, the frame should be clarified, for example by allowing employees to dedicate a certain amount of time for innovative activities.