Master thesis
Wessel de Weijer
Success factors of Crossovers
Background information
Name
Wessel de Weijer
ANR
280104
Academic supervisor
Martyna Janowicz
Second reader
Jörg Raab
Table of Contents
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Relevance ...................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Theoretical background..................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Innovation process ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 SME’s ........................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Success factors ............................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1 Cognitive distance .................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.2 Geographical proximity ............................................................................................................ 18
2.3.3 Trust.......................................................................................................................................... 19
3. Methodological framework ............................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Research design ........................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Case selection .............................................................................................................................. 21
3.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.4 Measures .................................................................................................................................... 24
3.4.1 Success ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.4.2 Cognitive distance .................................................................................................................... 25
3.4.3 Geographical distance .............................................................................................................. 28
3.4.4 Trust.......................................................................................................................................... 28
Page 2 of 96
3.4.5. Control variables ..................................................................................................................... 29
3.5 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................ 29
4. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Within case analysis .................................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Cross case analysis....................................................................................................................... 39
4.3 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................. 40
4.4 Exploratory analysis..................................................................................................................... 46
5. Reflection and discussion .................................................................................................................. 52
5.1 Explanatory findings .................................................................................................................... 52
5.2 Exploratory findings..................................................................................................................... 56
5.3 Research quality indicators ......................................................................................................... 59
5.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 60
6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 62
6.1 Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 64
7. Literature ........................................................................................................................................... 66
8. Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Appendix 1: Topic guide and example questions .............................................................................. 71
Appendix 2: Operationalization table ............................................................................................... 72
Appendix 3: List of codes ................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix 4: Within case analysis ...................................................................................................... 75
Appendix 5: Cross case analysis ........................................................................................................ 90
Page 3 of 96
1. Introduction.
Over the last decade there has been an increased interest in crossovers. Crossovers stir the interest
of both entrepreneurs and policy makers, because of their large innovation potential (Gassmann,
Zeschky, Wolff & Stahl, 2010). Crossovers are of importance to entrepreneurs because of their
potential for innovations and growth. Reliance on exploitation alone causes organizations to miss out
on opportunities for innovation. Exploration, the external sourcing of knowledge, is required for an
organization's survival (March, 1991). But when sourcing knowledge exclusively within the focal
industry, organizations might encounter obstacles in the innovation process such as differences in
structure and strategic focus (Gassmann et al., 2010). Forming alliances with organizations from
other industries might provide new opportunities for innovation and growth of the organization.
These crossovers occur more frequently and often with great success than ever before, for example
between biotechnology and information technology (Geum et al., 2012). The products crossovers
introduce tend to be more innovative than products that are developed in collaborations within the
same industry (Kotabe, & Swan, 1995).
In this study, crossovers are defined as collaborations among organizations from different industries,
that are set up with the eye to produce innovations. Crossovers can produce innovations in two
ways: By creating new combinations of existing ideas from different industries, or by creating a new
application of one industry’s technologies to another industry (Gassman, Daiber & Enkel, 2011;
Kotabe & Swan, 1995). In order to define a collaboration as a crossover, three requirements have to
be met:
Page 4 of 96
1. It concerns a collaboration among at least two organizations.
2. The collaboration is aimed to produce an innovation.
3. At least one collaboration partner originates from another industry than the focal
organization is from.
Studies in the field of collaboration and innovation have identified success factors for collaborations
within the same industry aimed at producing innovations. These success factors were found to be
applicable to collaborations that meet the first two requirements, but did not involve at least one
organization from another industry than the focal industry. Success factors include variables that
have a positive influence on the innovative outcomes as well as continuity and financial outcome of
the crossover when present, but also variables that negatively influence these outcomes and form
obstacles in the process of the crossover when absent (Rockart, 1986). With success factors, this
study refers to variables that are relevant both before and during the process of the crossover.
One of the success factors from scientific theory on collaboration and innovation involves the
knowledge base of the collaborating organizations (Nooteboom, Van Haverbeke, Duysters, Gilsing, &
Van den Oord, 2007). The advantage of a smaller overlap in knowledge base is that the collaborating
partner can offer more new knowledge than when there is a larger overlap in knowledge base. This
likely provides the organizations with more learning opportunities, resulting in an increased
innovative performance of the collaboration (Wuyts, Colombo, Dutta, & Nooteboom, 2004). A small
overlap in knowledge base provides organizations with knowledge with a high novelty value
(Nooteboom et al., 2007). However, because of the small overlap, organizations might encounter
problems with the recognition of new opportunities and successful development of new knowledge
into innovations, also known as their absorptive capacity (Nooteboom et al., 2007). Recognizing new
opportunities and converting ideas into successful innovations becomes harder due to issues with
communication between organizations resulting from a lack of overlap in knowledge base. This lack
Page 5 of 96
of overlap, or cognitive distance, might lead to obstacles that hinder innovative outcomes
(Nooteboom et al., 2007).
In general, when organizations from different industries collaborate, there is often a smaller overlap
in knowledge base than when organizations collaborate within the same industry (Nooteboom et al.,
2007). However, scientific research does not yet provide a decisive answer on how this success factor
of within industry collaboration can be applied to collaborations among organizations from different
industries. In general, crossovers tend to have a higher cognitive distance between involved
organizations than collaborating partners from the same industry focused at producing innovations
(Nooteboom et al., 2007). There might be individual cases of collaborations within the same industry
that have a high cognitive distance, but this study focuses on crossovers. Industries tend to have
industry related knowledge, not readily available to other industries. This knowledge has a high
novelty value for organization not familiar with that specific industry. Crossovers therefore tend to
have high levels of cognitive distance among collaborating organizations (Nooteboom et al., 2007).
Another success factor provided by literature on traditional collaboration aimed at producing
innovations is the geographical distance between collaborating partners (Litter, Leverick and Bruce,
1995). Theory suggests that organizations collaborating with organizations in geographical proximity
are likely to communicate more frequently and openly share knowledge than organizations
separated by a large geographical distance. The resulting improvements in communication and
knowledge sharing are likely to increase the success rate among collaborating organizations in terms
of innovativeness (Litter, Leverick and Bruce, 1995).
Another success factor is the level of trust between collaborating partners. A lack of trust between
partners might hinder the sharing of knowledge, which can have a negative impact on the innovative
outcomes of collaborations aimed at producing innovations (Litter, Leverick and Bruce, 1995). After
all, problems with knowledge sharing might lead to less new ideas that can be developed into
innovations (Wuyts et al., 2004).
Page 6 of 96
In general, the innovations produced by crossovers tend to be more radical than innovations
produced by other collaborations within the same industry (Gassmann et al., 2010). Engaging in a
crossover often has a positive effect on the innovative potential and overall performance of an
organization (Enkel & Gassmann, 2010). However, even though crossovers offer great promise, they
also generate unique challenges that are not present in the traditional collaborations within the
same industry, like differences in organizational structure and strategy (Gassmann, Daiber & Enkel,
2011). Scientific literature does not yet provide sufficient insight in how to make crossovers
successful and how to overcome challenges associated with crossovers. Furthermore, scientific
research has yet to investigate whether these success factors known to influence collaborations
aimed at producing innovations are also applicable to crossovers, and what other success factors of
crossovers are that policy makers and entrepreneurs have to consider (Gassmann et al., 2010). This
study’s aim is therefore twofold. First, this study aims to evaluate if the three success factors of
collaborations aimed to produce innovations, the level of cognitive distance, the level of geographical
distance and the level of trust, are also relevant for crossovers. Second, this study aims to explore
other factors that can influence the success of crossovers. These new success factors are identified
by evaluating the innovation process of crossovers. The innovation process described by Hansen and
Birkinshaw (2007) consists of three stages: Idea generation, idea development and idea diffusion.
These stages are used to take respondents through the innovation process of the crossovers.
More specifically, this study focuses on crossovers between two small- or medium sized enterprises
(SME’s) because the innovation potential is especially high for crossovers between smaller
organizations. Such organizations are characterized by a high degree of specialization (Romer, 1987;
Nooteboom, 1994), which makes collaboration essential in their innovation process. In order to
remain innovative and to be able to compete with larger organizations, SME's have to collaborate
across industries and overcome the downsides of a highly specialized organization (Nooteboom,
1994). Moreover, SME's are of great importance to the government: These enterprises make up 60%
Page 7 of 96
of the gross domestic product and export value of the Netherlands and 58% of the Dutch workforce
is employed by an SME (CBS, 2012).
In summary, crossovers are of great importance to the government and policy makers on societal
and economy level, and to SME's in terms of innovation, profit and even survival, but also present
challenges not encountered in collaborations within the same industry that aim to produce
innovations. However, scientific literature provides little insight into how crossovers can successfully
produce innovations. More understanding of the success factors of crossovers is needed (Gassman
et al., 2011). Three success factors suggested by scientific literature on collaboration and innovation
are evaluated: The level of cognitive distance, the level of geographical distance and the level of trust
between the two SME’s involved in the crossover. Furthermore new success factors are explored by
analyzing the process of crossovers and aspects of the collaboration of both successful and less
successful crossovers. The process of crossovers is evaluated using the innovation value chain by
Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007). By asking respondents to describe the crossover across the three
different stages in the innovation value chain and asking them about what they regard as success
factors to crossovers, this study aims to explore new success factors of crossovers that are at play in
each of these stages. The following research question is answered by this study:
What are the factors underlying the success of crossovers between two small- or medium sized
enterprises?
1.1 Relevance
Current scientific literature endorses the fact that crossovers are distinct from traditional
collaborative efforts to produce innovations in a number of ways. Crossovers clearly encounter
unique obstacles in the innovation process, such as differences in organizational focus and a limited
number of generated ideas (Gassmann et al., 2010). However, currently there is no scientific
Page 8 of 96
research on how the success factors of within industry innovation can be applied to crossovers in
light of their unique challenges.
This study aims to contribute to current scientific literature by addressing two issues. First of all,
since there is no empirical data on how the success factors of collaborations aimed to produce
innovations can be applied to crossovers, three success factors on innovation in a collaborative
context are hypothesized to be also applicable to crossovers: The level of cognitive distance, the level
of geographical distance and the level of trust. By evaluating these hypotheses, this study aims to
further the understanding provided by these findings. Secondly, new success factors of crossovers
are explored to expand the current knowledge on collaboration and innovation with a new set of
factors that more accurately predict the success of crossovers.
Next to the scientific relevance, this study also has practical relevance since crossovers stir the
interest of governments, policy makers and entrepreneurs: The former because of the potential they
yield in terms of innovation and growth (Gassmann et al., 2010) and the latter because of the
potential they yield to deliver solutions to societal challenges (EIM, 2005). Gaining insight into the
success factors of crossovers that this study aims to identify, might be of great importance to
entrepreneurs who seek to expand their organizations and produce more innovative products.
Studying crossovers and their success factors is also relevant for policy makers, because crossovers
can potentially help solve societal issues that cannot be addressed by collaborations within only one
industry. Crossovers are characterized by a broad knowledge base that spans across at least two
different industries (Gassman et al., 2011). Governments and policy makers have indicated that due
to this broad knowledge base, crossovers can be of great importance in addressing societal
challenges. The European Union has identified six grand societal challenges to be addressed in the
future. They are global warming, tightening supplies, ageing societies, public health, pandemics and
security. These issues impact the whole of society and involving multiple industries is likely necessary
for moving towards solutions to these challenges. Acquiring more understanding of the success
Page 9 of 96
factors of crossovers is therefore very relevant for policy makers that aim to resolve issues that
impact society as a whole. Furthermore, with more insight in the success factors of crossovers, the
government and policy makers can more effectively resolve market failures through government
intervention. Market failures like the untapped innovation potential of crossovers among SME's can
be resolved by targeting subsidization more effectively and thus make organizations that participate
in crossovers more successful.
Page 10 of 96
2. Theoretical background
The theoretical background elaborates on the innovation process of crossovers. Furthermore,
success factors that are known to influence the outcomes of collaborations aimed at producing
innovations are discussed and applied to crossovers in order to arrive at three hypotheses.
2.1 Innovation process
When looking at innovations, this study adopts Freeman’s (1991) widely used definition of
innovation. Freeman defines innovation as an ongoing process initiated by a new market opportunity
for a technology based invention which leads to development, production and marketing tasks aimed
at making a commercial success of the invention (Freeman, 1991). Highly innovative products are
often associated with having a high degree of newness (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). This degree of
newness can be viewed from different levels: An innovation can be new to the firm, the industry, or
even to the world (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). Since crossovers involve organizations from two
different industries, newness needs to be considered from the viewpoint of both involved industries.
Scientific literature does not yet provide distinguished stages in the process of crossovers (Gassman,
Daiber, & Enkel, 2011). However, there are several models that describe the innovation process of
collaborations in general that can be applied to crossovers. These models usually identify three
stages that cover the process from idea generation to commercialization of an innovation (Baregheh,
Rowley, Sambrook, 2009). This study focuses on the innovation value chain by Hansen and
Birkinshaw (2007). The innovation value chain describes the innovation process along three
sequential stages: Idea generation, idea development and idea diffusion (Hansen & Birkinshaw,
2007). The innovation value chain is a general model of innovation. However, only very few
organizations innovate alone (Tether, 2002). Hansen and Birkinshaw endorse the fact that innovation
Page 11 of 96
is seldom achieved by only one organization without collaborating with any partners, and their
model of the innovation process can therefore also be applied the collaborative innovation process.
Idea generation consists of the creation of ideas internally, and the sourcing of ideas externally. In
case of crossovers, the ideas are generated by applying technologies or ideas from one organization
to the other, or by generating new combinations of two existing technologies or ideas (Gassman,
Daiber & Enkel, 2011; Kotabe & Swan, 1995). Looking at crossovers, Iske proposes that the idea
generation phase can be either based on a problem, or focused on competencies (Iske, 2010). In the
former case, partners start to look for solutions to an existing problem, e.g. one of the European
grand challenges. In the latter, partners evaluate what their competencies are and how they can
benefit from each other (Iske, 2010). At the end of the first stage, a selection is made on which ideas
will be further developed in the idea development stage.
In the second phase, the idea development stage, the selected ideas are developed into new
products. The funding and development into product innovations have to be considered in the idea
development phase. In this phase, screening is also important. Pilots are conducted or prototypes are
tested in order to make informed decisions on the final product that proceeds to the next stage.
The last phase is idea diffusion. When an idea is selected and developed into a product, it will be
distributed. It is important that the available distribution channels are used and that regions and
groups of potential customers are reached (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007). An invention becomes an
innovation only after it has went through production and marketing tasks and is diffused into the
marketplace (Freeman, 1991).
2.2 SME’s
According to the definition used by most scientific studies and Statistics Netherlands, small
enterprises consist of 5 up to 50 full time employees. Medium sized enterprises consist of 50 up to
250 full time employees (Nooteboom, 1994; CBS, 2012). The number of full time employees or FTE’s
Page 12 of 96
is taken into consideration to correct for the increase in part time jobs over the last decade (CBS,
2012). Scientific research has identified several aspects on how SME’s differ in terms of collaboration
and innovation from their larger counterparts with more than 250 FTE’s. The consensus is that small
firms are more specialized and have to collaborate with other organizations in order to innovate (De
Jong & Freel, 2010; Tether, 2002). SME’s have behavioral advantages compared to larger
organizations in terms of potential flexibility and involvement of the customer (Nooteboom, 1994).
Furthermore, SME’s tend to be better at translating technology to a variety of different markets as
opposed to large enterprises. However, SME’s also have disadvantages. Large organizations have the
benefit of economies of scale, and tend to have more experience than SME’s. The risks associated
with innovating are indifferent to size, while the expected returns are positively related to size
because of economies of scale. In regard to that aspect, SME’s have higher risks compared to the
expected return on investments in R&D (Nooteboom, 1994).
2.3 Success factors
Success factors are those factors that make the difference between winning and losing at new
product development (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1995). Success factors concern areas that the
organization has to give continuous attention to in order to achieve high levels of performance, as
well as areas that organizations should avoid because they might pose problems to the current
operational activities or the future success (Rockart, 1986). From this perspective, success factors of
crossovers are regarded as areas of interest that crossover partners have to take into consideration
in order to achieve their current as well as their future goals. However, there are different studies
that adopt different goals when referring to success factors (Leidecker & Bruno, 1984). The most
widely used goal when referring to success factors is maximizing profits.
Scientific literature does not identify success factors of crossovers. However, scientific research has
identified several success factors for innovation and collaboration processes (Montoya-Weiss &
Calantone, 1994). This study evaluates three of the success factors of collaboration and innovation in
Page 13 of 96
general by applying them to crossovers. There are several success factors known to scientific theory
(for an overview of these success factors, see Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994), but this study
focuses on three of them because they are likely to be also applicable - as will be explained in the
following sections - to crossovers: Level of cognitive distance, level of geographical distance and the
level of trust. These three factors are theorized to also have an influence on the success of crossovers
and they are the object of the three hypotheses.
2.3.1 Cognitive distance
One factor that affects the success of collaborations aiming to innovate is the cognitive distance
between the focal organizations and the collaborating partner (Nooteboom et al., 2007). Cognitive
distance stands for the dissimilarity between organizations’ knowledge base. This similarity in
knowledge base consists of similar market and technological competences, and can be built on
shared experiences and understandings (Boschma, 2005). Differences in organizational focus yield
cognitive distance between organizations. For a long time, scientific studies viewed cognitive
distance as a thread to the innovation process only because a high cognitive distance is associated
with a low absorptive capacity (Mowery, Oxley & Silverman, 1996; Mowery, Oxley & Silverman,
1998). Absorptive capacity is the ability to seek, recognize and adopt external knowledge and
develop, adapt and distribute this knowledge as new products (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).
Recognizing valuable knowledge and learning from other organizations becomes more difficult when
there is a smaller overlap in knowledge base. Furthermore, a small cognitive distance facilitates
effective communication and collaboration (Boschma, 2005).
But more recently, research also found that cognitive distance is associated with a higher potential
for learning for both partners than when there are few similarities in knowledge base of both
organizations (Enkel & Gassmann, 2010). A small overlap in knowledge base, i.e. a high level of
cognitive distance, is associated with more potential knowledge spillovers between organizations
(Desrochers & Leppäla, 2011). Knowledge spillovers are externalities of the knowledge market,
Page 14 of 96
where one organization provides other organizations with learning opportunities. Knowledge
spillovers often have a positive effect on the success of an innovation (Carlino, 2001). Without
knowledge spillovers, it is impossible for organizations to learn from each other. These learning
opportunities are essential to the success of innovations, because they facilitate the generation of
new ideas that can be developed into successful innovations (Desrochers & Leppäla, 2011). But the
level of cognitive distance does not only positively influence the number of spillovers between
organizations; the knowledge shared between partners is also likely to have a high novelty value. This
facilitates the creation of new combinations of resources into innovative products (Nooteboom et al.,
2007).
The novelty value of the knowledge base tends to with the level of cognitive distance between
partners. However, the absorptive capacity tends to be low, when the level of cognitive distance is
high. When this happens, there is not sufficient mutual understanding to develop new knowledge
into new products (Nooteboom et al., 2007). This results in an inverted U shape where a medium
level of cognitive distance leads to the highest level of learning and thus the success of the crossover
(Figure 1; Nooteboom et al., 2007).
Page 15 of 96
Figure 1. Optimal cognitive distance (Nooteboom et al., 2007)
Cognitive distance can be influenced, in order to arrive at the optimal level of cognitive distance at
which the collaborative innovation is the most likely to be successful (Nooteboom et al., 2007). First
of all, organizations can have an influence on cognitive distance by selecting partners based on an
analysis of patent portfolios of potential partners. This way, organizations are able to assess the
overlap and differences in knowledge base. Second, organizations can have an influence on their own
absorptive capacity. A better transfer of knowledge within the focal organization is known to
positively influence the absorptive capacity of that organization (Nooteboom, 2007). When
knowledge is spread throughout the organizations, employees tend to be more involved in the
crossover and opportunities are more easily recognized. When there are already established
effective communication channels within the organization, organizations are also more likely to
effectively handle knowledge spillovers from outside the organization, resulting in a higher
absorptive capacity (Nooteboom, 2007). Organizations can also directly invest in their absorptive
capacity by means of technical training (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) Training might improve the
capabilities of employees to communicate more effectively with employees of organizations from
Page 16 of 96
other industries. This results in a better understanding and increases the absorptive capacity (Cohen
& Levinthal, 1990). Third, organizations experienced in acquiring knowledge from outside the
organization and that invested in research development, often have a higher absorptive capacity
than organization that lack experience in collaboration and innovation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1989).
Organizations that lack this experience might need to invest more in research and development and
collaborations within the same industry, before deciding to collaborate with organizations from
different industries in order to innovate (Cohen & Levinthal, 1989).
These findings on cognitive distance within collaborative innovation are expected to be also
applicable to crossovers. Since crossovers consist of partners from different industries, involved
organizations tend to provide unique industry related knowledge, i.e. knowledge with a high novelty
value. Research suggests that the positive effect of cognitive distance on the success of the
collaborative innovation due to an increased novelty value, is stronger when an innovation is more
radical and explorative instead of incremental and exploitative (Nooteboom, 2007). This finding is
also in line with the study by Kotabe and Swan (1995), who found that crossovers are more likely to
produce radical innovations, while collaborative efforts within the same industry are more likely to
produce incremental innovations. According to these findings, cognitive distance might be as
important to crossovers as they are to collaborations within the same industry that aim to innovate.
But also the negative effect of cognitive distance on the innovative outcomes of collaborations, are
expected to be applicable to crossovers. A lack of overlap in knowledge base might make it harder for
organizations to recognize, adopt and develop new knowledge. A small absorptive capacity,
associated with a high cognitive distance, makes it difficult for organizations to take advantage of the
potentially available knowledge with high novelty value. The two opposing effects of cognitive
distance on the success of collaborations aimed to produce innovations, suggest there is a curvilinear
relation between the cognitive distance and the success of crossovers
This leads to the first hypothesis:
Page 17 of 96
H1: There is a curvilinear relation between the cognitive distance between two collaborating SME’s,
and the success of the crossover.
2.3.2 Geographical proximity
Geographical distance is the physical distance between the locations the collaborating partners are
based at. According to scientific theory, the level of geographical distance is another factor that has a
positive effect on the success of collaborations in an innovative context. Geographical proximity
increases the chance of organizations encountering potential collaboration partners to start a
collaborative innovation with (De Jong & Freel, 2010). Furthermore, theory suggests that
geographical proximity is seen as the key aspect that encourages the exchange of ideas between
partners from different industries (Carlino, 2001). Geographical proximity is an important factor in
knowledge spillovers between organizations (Jaffe, Trajtenberg, & Henderson, 1993). Organizations
that operate in geographical proximity are more likely to share new knowledge, than organizations
that are separated by a large geographical distance (Carlino, 2001; Nooteboom et al., 2007). Next to
the sharing of new knowledge, it is equally important to be able to convert new knowledge in new
ideas and eventually innovations (Nooteboom et al., 2007). Geographical proximity might help
organizations overcome problems in communication and might facilitate more frequent interaction
and better opportunities for resolving conflicts (De Jong & Freel, 2010). Also, geographical dispersion
might exacerbate initial differences between organizations that have a high cognitive distance.
Geographical proximity helps to overcome differences and allows for better cooperation
(Chamakiotis, Dekonick, & Panteli, 2013). In other words, low levels of geographical distance may
often substitute for high levels of cognitive distance, by increasing the absorptive capacity of involved
organizations (Boschma, 2005).
These theories on spillovers between geographically proximate organizations are especially focused
on the collaboration between different industries (Carlino, 2001). Therefore these theories are by
definition applicable to crossovers. Organizations come in contact with potential collaboration
Page 18 of 96
partners from other industries more easily if they are located in geographical proximity of the focal
organization (Carlino, 2001). Furthermore, geographical distance might act as a substitute for a large
cognitive distance between crossover partners, by increasing the absorptive capacity of the involved
organizations (Boschma, 2005). This makes geographical proximity a success factor that is expected
to be relevant for crossovers as well. Therefore, geographical proximity will be taken into
consideration in this study as a success factor of crossovers by evaluating the second hypothesis:
H2: The smaller the geographical proximity between two collaborating SME’s, the more successful
the crossover.
2.3.3 Trust
Trust is another major success factor for collaborative new product development (Bstieler, 2006).
Trust can be defined as the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence
(Moorman, Zaltman, Deshpande, 1992) irrespective of the ability to control or monitor the exchange
partner (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). At the individual level, trust is dependent on
interpersonal interaction (Atkinson & Butcher, 2003). On the organizational level, which this study
adopts, trust is based on the global evaluation of the organization’s perceived trustworthiness
(Atkinson & Butcher, 2003). There are two theories on how this global evaluation is assessed in
interorganizational trust. Zaheer, McEvily and Perrone (1998) view interorganizational trust as
expressed by the members of the focal organization. Creed and Miles (1996) adopt a more abstract
concept of interorganizational as expressed by a combination of the embedded disposition of the
organization, characteristic similarities and experiences with reciprocity. The similarities and
experiences with reciprocity follow from the actions of the organizations of interest, while the
embedded disposition follows from the management philosophy manifested in the organization.
Since this study interviews managers and entrepreneurs, global evaluation of trustworthiness from
the view point of members of the focal organization is the most applicable to this research (Zaheer,
McEvily & Perrone, 1998).
Page 19 of 96
It is expected that trust has a positive effect on the outcome of crossovers. Having high levels of
interorganizational trust are found to have a positive effect on the interorganizational flexibility
(Faems et al., 2008) and cooperation (Buckley & Casson, 1988). High levels of interogranizational
trust also contribute to the transfer of resources and knowledge between organizations (Lew,
Sinkovics, & Kuivalainen, 2013). In buyer-seller relationships, trust is known to boost the innovative
performance due to the increased commitment of both parties to innovate (Tsai, Joe, Ding, & Lin,
2013). Trust also has a positive effect on absorptive capacity of an organization, because trusting
partners are less likely to run into misunderstandings (Nooteboom et al., 2007). Collaboration among
partners that trust each other, allows involved organizations to better integrate external and new
resources and develop radical innovation streams (Lew, Sinkovics, & Kuivalainen, 2013).
Potential collaborative partners have to be selected based on the perceived trustworthiness before
the innovation process starts and during the collaboration involved partners have to build or
maintain this level of trust. When collaborating partners do not trust each other, there will be likely
problems in communication and knowledge sharing (Litter, Leverick and Bruce, 1995). In crossovers,
both collaborating organizations are from different industries, so it is likely that both organizations
are unfamiliar with collaborating with the other industry. The differences in organizational focus and
organizational culture which might cause problems to the success of the crossover might be
overcome more easily when collaborating organizations build high levels of trust (Wuyts et al., 2004).
This also fits with the findings that there are more opportunities for continuous improvements and
adaptation when collaborating partners express high levels of trust towards each other (Sendjaya &
Sarros, 2002). Because of the potential differences in organizational focus or culture, it might be
especially important for crossovers to invest in trust. This way the organizations can overcome the
initially low level of trust and make knowledge sharing during the crossover more likely. This leads to
the second hypothesis:
H3: The higher the level of trust between two collaborating SME’s, the more successful the crossover.
Page 20 of 96
3. Methodological framework
This methodological framework outlines the research design of this study and how the sample frame
of this study is composed. Furthermore it is explained how cases are selected, how data is collected
and analyzed. This framework ends with an evaluation of the qualitative research quality indicators.
3.1 Research design
This research is a case study with a cross sectional design. It is in part explanatory and in part
exploratory. The explanatory part consists of the testing of three hypotheses as put forward in the
theoretical framework. Since the literature on crossovers remains limited, this research will also be
partially explorative. The exploratory part consists of the effort to identify additional success factors
that might be unique for the context of crossover innovation. The unit of observation is at the level
of the individual. The unit of analysis is a crossover.
3.2 Case selection
In order to develop a sample frame, the Crossover Casebase in possession of the Innovation Centre
Syntens was used as a starting point. Syntens is an organization that stimulates sustainable growth
and innovation among SME’s. Syntens has 240 innovation advisors and is in contact with a total of
70.000 SME’s. Because of their extensive network among SME’s in The Netherlands, the Crossover
Casebase of Syntens made an appropriate sample frame for this case study. The Crossover Casebase
is a database that contains cases of crossovers mapped across nine different industries. This
database was developed in 2013 by a project team that the researcher participated in. The project
team interviewed innovation advisors and consultants working at Syntens. For every of the nine
included industries, one innovation advisor or consultant working in that industry was asked to name
examples of crossovers from that industry. The aim of the Crossover Casebase was to have an
Page 21 of 96
overview of examples of crossovers that would provide insight on how crossovers are initiated and
how they can be stimulated and become successful.
It was determined by the project team if the collaborating partners are from different industries by
looking at the nine industries that are promoted by the Dutch government as topsectors. These
topsectors are: Agriculture and Food, Horticulture, High Tech Systems, Energy, Logistics, Creative
Industry, Life sciences and health, Chemistry, and Water. They are the industries with a high
potential to grow that are likely to contribute to addressing societal issues. The Dutch policy on
topsectors provides a clear distinction of sectors, making it possible to identify crossovers accurately.
The nine topsectors are not meant to cover all industries exhaustively. There are other industries not
included in the list of topsectors, but the topsectors were used in this study because they are widely
used as a demarcation of industries in the policy documents and studies mentioned in the
introduction. The policy on topsectors includes several guidelines to which organizations belong to
which topsector. These guidelines are called 'roadmaps' and they point to the relevant activities for
every topsector. Molecular diagnostics and home care are two examples of roadmaps within the
topsector of Life sciences and health. By using these guidelines in combination with the judgment of
an involved consultant of Syntens, organizations were properly assigned to different industries in the
Crossover Casebase.
As mentioned in the introduction, this study focused on crossovers that include two collaborating
partners from different industries and both of them had to be small- or medium sized to be included.
An SME is defined as an enterprise consisting of at least 5 and a maximum of 250 employees. This is
in line with the common definition in scientific literature and Statistics Netherlands (Nooteboom,
1994; CBS, 2012). However, the Crossover Casebase also includes collaborations among more than
two organizations, and collaborations among an SME and a larger organization. In order to allow for
better comparison, this study included only cases that involved two SME’s. This way, one could be
sure that differences in success of the crossovers are not affected by differences in size of involved
Page 22 of 96
organizations or differences in number of collaborating partners within a crossover. Therefore, only
cases from the Crossover Casebase are included that involve two SME’s. Another selection criteria
was that there had to be agreement between the two involved crossover partners on the success of
the collaboration in order to be taken into consideration in the analysis. This was done to improve
confirmability and avoid conflicting perceptions of entrepreneurs and managers on the success of the
crossover. All cases in the sample frame met the following four requirements. Note that they are
more narrowly defined compared to the three requirements of crossovers in general that was listed
in the introduction.
1. It concerns a collaboration among two organizations, each with 5 up to 250 full time
employees.
2. The collaboration is aimed to produce an innovation.
3. At least one collaboration partner originates from another industry than the focal
organization is from.
4. Both collaborations partners agreed on the successfulness of the innovation.
The original Crossover Casebase consisted of 39 different cases. There are 36 possible combinations
of two different topsectors. For seven combinations of topsectors, the project team of Syntens could
not find cases of crossovers. However, for six combinations two cases were included and for two
combinations three cases were included. After applying the selection criteria, 15 cases were selected.
17 cases were excluded from the sample frame because one of the involved partners had more than
250 employees and one case was excluded because one of the partners had less than 5 employees.
Six cases were left out of the sample frame because they consisted of more than two collaborating
partners. This resulted in 15 cases that passed the selection criteria. Because of the low number of
cases in the sample frame, no selection was made on the dependent variable success and all cases in
the sample frame were contacted. Six cases turned out to be applicable and there was sufficient
Page 23 of 96
variance among the levels of success among these six cases. Otherwise, the researcher would have
had to look for unsuccessful cases not included in the Crossover Casebase. However, it turned out
that there was already sufficient variance among the success of included cases.
3.3 Data Collection
All 15 cases that matched the selection criteria were included in the sample frame and contacted by
the researcher by telephone. For six cases, either one of the managers or both managers of the
organizations involved in the case did not want to participate in this study. Three interviews were
conducted with only one of the managers involved in one of the cases. During these interviews it
turned out that the three cases did not match the selection criteria as previously assessed by the
researcher. More specifically, these three cases turned out to include more than two organizations
and therefore they were not included in the data analysis. For the remaining six cases, data was
collected by interviewing managers and entrepreneurs that participated in the crossover. Data was
collected through semi-structured interviews with 11 managers and entrepreneurs that were
involved in 6 crossover in the sample frame. One of the organizations participated in two cases: They
first started to work on the crossover with one partner but this collaboration was terminated
preemptively. In a second case, they worked together with another partner towards a crossover.
The 11 interviews in this case study were done using a topic list with sensitizing concepts that had
been derived from the theoretical framework. The researcher also asked open questions to uncover
new success factors. The different topics and corresponding examples of questions and probes used
in the interviews are displayed in the table in appendix 1.
3.4 Measures
In this section, the measures of all the sensitizing concepts are explained into detail. The full
categorization process is also summarized in the operationalization table in Appendix 2.
Page 24 of 96
Success
When measuring the success of cases, two aspects are taken into consideration. First of all,
respondents will be asked how they evaluate the financial outcomes of the crossover for their
organization. This includes outcomes as profit and turnover generated that can be attributed to the
crossover. Although success is hard to define when two or more partners collaborate (Litter, Leverick
& Bruce, 1995), profit and turnover are the most widely used measures for success of innovative
projects (Leidecker & Bruno, 1984). Second, because some innovations might take more time to
become successful, respondents were also asked when they expected to be making a profit from the
crossover and their expectations for the future of the crossover. This is in line with the perspective of
Rockart (1986) on success factors, since this measurement of success acknowledges the attainment
of current and future goals. All cases were assigned to three categories: High, medium and low levels
of success.
When both organizations were making a profit from the crossover and both organizations had high
expectations for the future, that case was categorized as highly successful. When both organizations
were generating turnover, and both organization were expressing high expectations for the future,
that case was categorized as medium successful. When at least one organization was not making a
turnover and none of the respondents in that case had high expectations for the future, that case
was categorized as a low level of success. All cases could be adequately attributed to one of the three
categories using this operationalization, since no cases with large differences in financial outcome for
both involved organizations and where the both involved partners had entirely different views on the
future were selected.
Cognitive distance
Respondent were asked to about the differences in focus between their organization and the
crossover partner. Furthermore they were asked about the collaboration and the learning
opportunities and how they recognized and developed newly acquired knowledge. Cases were
Page 25 of 96
attributed to three categories: High, medium and low levels of cognitive distance. When there were
too many differences in knowledge base and there were many potential knowledge spillovers with a
high novelty value, but too little absorptive capacity to recognize or develop this new knowledge,
these cases were categorized as having a high level of cognitive distance. When there were enough
differences in knowledge base to provide potential knowledge spillovers with novelty value, and
there was enough absorptive capacity to recognize or develop this new knowledge, these cases were
categorized as having a medium level of cognitive distance. When there were too few differences in
knowledge base and there were only few potential knowledge spillovers with a small novelty value,
even when there was high absorptive capacity to recognize or develop new knowledge, these cases
were categorized as having a low level of cognitive distance. This categorization was summarized in
Figure 2.
Page 26 of 96
Figure 2: Operationalization of cognitive distance
Note that this model does not include crossovers that could be categorized with low levels of
absorptive capacity and low levels of novelty value. This is because theory suggests that there is a
trade-off between absorptive capacity and novelty value, due to the positive association of cognitive
distance and novelty value and the negative association of cognitive distance and absorptive
capacity. However, since learning is the product of both absorptive capacity and novelty value, it is to
be expected that collaborations within this category have also low levels of learning. However, in line
with the trade-off suggested by scientific theory, no cases in the sample frame of this study turned
out to have low levels of absorptive capacity and novelty value.
Page 27 of 96
Geographical distance
Geographical distance was measured in kilometers between the offices of two organizations. Only
two organizations in this study were located in more than one office, so in these cases the main
office was selected. With main office, this study refers to the first location the organization was
established in and where it has located its main operational activities. The data was obtained from
the register of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce and the geographical distance between the two
locations was measured using Google Earth. The largest geographical distance between two
collaborating organizations was 135 kilometer and the lowest distance was 9 kilometers. All cases
were assigned to three categories: High, medium and low geographical distance. These categories
were distributed evenly across the full range of included geographical distances. Cases in the highest
33,33 percentile of this range, i.e. cases that involved organizations that were separated by 93 up to
135 kilometers, were categorized as having high geographical distance. Cases in the lowest 33,33
percentile of this range, i.e. cases that involved organizations that were separated by 9 up to 51
kilometers, were categorized as having low geographical distance. All other cases, involving
organizations that were separated by 51 to 93 kilometers were categorized as having medium
geographical distance.
Trust
The respondents were asked about the collaboration and how trustworthy they deemed the other
organization directly. Furthermore indirect question on their expectations of the other, how these
expectations were met and if there was need for control were asked to assess the level of trust
between organizations in a case. All cases were attributed to three categories: High, medium and low
levels of trust. When there were no problems regarding trust and both involved partners expressed
high levels of trust since the beginning of the crossover, those cases were categorized as having high
levels of trust. When there were some problems regarding trust in the during the crossover, but
these problems were resolved and later both involved partners expressed high levels of trust, these
Page 28 of 96
cases were categorized as having medium levels of trust. When there were problems regarding trust
during the crossover and these problems were not resolved and low levels of trust are expressed by
at least one involved partner, these cases were categorized as having low levels of trust.
Control variables
There might still be a big difference between a collaboration among two organizations with each 5
employees and a collaboration involving 500 people. Therefore, the size of the collaborating
organizations is taken into consideration as a control variable. The number of full time employees
involved in each organization was obtained from the register of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce.
The highest total number of FTE’s involved in a case was 321, the lowest 18. Three categories were
distributed evenly across the full range of possible number of employees in the sample. Cases that
involved 18 up to 119 employees were categorized as having a small size. Cases that involved 120 up
to 220 employees were categorized as having a medium size. Cases that involved 221 up to 321
employees were categorized as having a large size. Note that these labels are different from the
definition of small- and medium sized enterprises used by Statistics Netherlands (CBS, 2012). All
cases were SME’s, this operationalization of size categorizes these SME’s as either, small, medium or
large in size in order to analyze if differences in size can be attributed to differences in success
between crossovers.
3.5 Data analysis
The interviews were transcribed and coded using the software for qualitative analysis, Atlas TI.
Sensitizing concepts were used in order to test the three hypotheses and open coding was used in
order to identify new success factors of crossovers. First all section were coded that detailed on one
of the sensitizing concepts. Based on the codes regarding the sensitizing concepts, cases were
attributed to different categories as described in the section on measures. Concept matrices were
created to show the relation of the six cases to the sensitizing concepts. Pattern matching was used
Page 29 of 96
to evaluate the three hypotheses. Pattern matchin is a visual inspection if the expected pattern aligns
with the observed pattern (Dul & Hak, 2008). As for the explorative part, all interviews were also
coded in more detail using open codes. Grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss (1967) was used to
analyze the collected data and identify new success factors of crossovers. In this iterative process,
quotations from the interviews were coded and these codes were combined or split into new codes.
In a co-occurance table new success factors are identified and grouped according to the network
view of codes created in Atlas TI.
Page 30 of 96
4. Results
First an overview of the used codes and collected data in general is provided. The within case analysis
that follows provides a summary for every crossover as well as the findings on the success, cognitive
distance and trust of every crossover. After the within case analysis, the geographical distance and
the control variables size and size difference are analyzed for every case. The cross case analysis that
follows compares the findings of the within case analyses and tests the three hypotheses using
pattern matching. The result section ends with the explorative part, where co-occurrence tables are
provided for the codes that describe the different stages in the innovation value chain and the codes
that describe obstacles and success factors, in order to identify new success factors of crossovers.
In total, 11 interviews were conducted. Interviews were between 25 minutes and an hour long with
an average duration of 39 minutes. All interviews were transcribed and coded using a total of 88
different codes. These included 13 codes for the sensitizing concepts and 75 open codes used for
exploration of new success factors. Open codes were created during three rounds of coding and
included activities and aspects of the involved organization and its collaboration with the crossover
partner that the respondent explicitly mentioned as being of importance or that the researcher
deemed potentially relevant.
After merging codes a total of 81 codes were used. The codes ‘Contact’ and ‘Communication’ were
merged to one code named ‘Communication’. The codes ‘University’, ‘Research’ and ‘Analysis’ were
merged into one code named ‘Research’. These codes were merged into one code because the
quotations of these codes appeared to be comparable in content during the second round of coding.
The code ‘Finding partners’ was merged with the code ‘Selecting partners’, because the code ‘Finding
partners’ was only linked to one quotation that was comparable to the quotations coded with
‘Selecting partners’. The codes ‘Market’, ‘Legitimacy’ and ‘Independence’ were deleted, since they
were each only linked to one quotation and there were no similar codes they could be merged with.
Page 31 of 96
After the coding of quotations and the merging of different codes during three rounds, a total of 76
different codes were linked to quotations from the 11 interview transcripts. Between 31 and 76
codes were applied to every interview with an average of 49 different codes per interview.
4.1 Within case analysis
The next paragraphs focus on the analysis within cases. The within case analysis of the first two cases
is included in this report, while the other four cases are analyzed in a similar manner in appendix 3.
Case 1
This crossover consists of two partners; one chemical company specialized in cleaning carpets (1a)
and a carpet manufacturer (1b). The two organizations already collaborated in an international
project before deciding to create the crossover. The aim of the crossover was to develop a cradle-tocradle carpet made exclusively from natural materials and to develop a new sustainable method of
cleaning carpets that does not rely on chemicals that are not potentially harmful to the environment.
Three years ago, the two organizations decided to collaborate and combine knowledge from the
chemical industry and the food industry. The carpet manufacturer now produces carpets made from
materials naturally found in potatoes and the chemical company adopted cleaning technology
originally used for the washing of lettuce. The sustainable carpet and the maintenance contracts are
sold together.
The carpet manufacturer is already generating turnover from the production of new carpets and is
expecting to make a large profit in the future by further diffusion the innovation internationally. The
chemical company is also expecting to make a large profit due to the crossover. However, because
maintenance becomes more profitable at a later stage in the product life cycle, the chemical
company expects to gain profits from the crossover in one or two years. Since both organizations are
not yet making a profit from the crossover, but one organization is already generating turnover and
both organizations are expecting high profits within one or two years, this case is categorized as
Page 32 of 96
having a medium level of success. The quotations linked to the code ‘Success’ are translated in Table
1 below.
Interview Quotes
1a
“The story of [this crossover] in particular is a
success. (…) [the crossover] is widely spread
across the media. Looking at the brand
awareness, I am inclined to label it already as
successful. However, we are not yet
profitable. (…) [The partner] already notices
the benefits. (…) I am expecting to be
profitable myself in one or two years from
now, when our market increases. And the
market is potentially very big. It might even be
bigger than most firms realize already. The
future looks really bright for us.”
1b
“[The crossover] is really successful to us. The
first turnover is coming in and it’s good to see
that it pays off after a long development
phase. We are not there yet. A bright future
lies ahead, but we get the first signals that we
will be very successful. [The crossover] is
already bringing in revenue but there are still
opportunities to further distribute the
innovation, especially internationally. (…) Our
future looks promising.”
Summary
Success
The crossover is not yet
profitable for both
organizations, but both
organizations are
expecting profits within
two years. The first
organization mentions
having increased brand
awareness. The second
organization is already
making turnover. Both
organizations see
promising opportunities
for the crossover in the
future.
Medium
Table 1. Categorization of success of case 1
The carpet manufacturer already acquired knowledge on natural materials from the food industry in
previous projects. The chemical company had the idea of the production and cleaning of an
environmentally sustainable carpet. Because both organizations already collaborated before in an
international project, and because of their unique knowledge on natural materials and the chemical
company contacted the carpet manufacturer. This unique knowledge suggests a high novelty value of
potential knowledge spillovers. Both organizations were willing to learn from each other and
expressed a mutual understanding. That the carpet manufacturer tried to adapt their communication
Page 33 of 96
to facilitate better knowledge transfer suggests a high level of absorptive capacity. The combination
of a high level of novelty value and a high level of absorptive capacity, results in a medium level of
cognitive distance, as also explained Table 2 below.
Interview
Quotes
Summary
Cognitive
distance
1a
“I know [the crossover partner] very well. I
know him for years. We have collaborated
earlier. (…) The carpet industry where he
belongs to, often sells carpets alongside
maintenance contracts. That is how we
came to know each other. It was a logical
step for us to collaborate. (…) The
communication was good. There were no
problems understanding each other.”
Medium
1b
“You have to leave out some details that
might distract. For me it is business as
usual, I know it by heart, but I do
understand that for others this might be a
complicated matter. (…) You don’t want to
bother the other, it is really difficult for
someone outside the business. (..) There
was a lot of understanding. I think that the
success is that there was mutual
understanding.
The first organization
contacted the second
organization because
they needed a reliable
partner that could offer
them new knowledge
needed to develop the
crossover, especially on
natural materials and the
production of carpets.
Both organizations have
collaborated with each
other before. Both
organizations mention
that there was a mutual
understanding. The
second organization adds
that they were
committed to adapt to
make better
communication possible.
The novelty value might
have been high, both
organizations also had
high absorptive capacity
resulting in a medium
level of cognitive
distance.
Table 2. Categorization of cognitive distance of case 1
As mentioned earlier, the crossover partners shared a history of collaboration. The chemical
company contacted the carpet manufacturer not only because of the unique knowledge available,
Page 34 of 96
but also because they were looking for a trustworthy partner. Both organizations expressed high
levels of trust since the beginning of the crossover. That both organizations had a shared vision that
was clear to all involved parties helped to maintain the initially high level of trust. Therefore this case
is labelled as having high levels of trust among the crossover partners.
Interview
Quotes
Summary
Trust
1a
“It was a logical step for us to collaborate
with [the partner]. It was necessary for us to
collaborate with a partner we trusted and he
was the obvious choice. (…) Just like we, he
had a direct interest in making the process a
success.”
High
1b
“He thought we would be a trustful partner,
so that made me enthusiastic from the start.
There was a perfect fit and it felt good to
collaborate. (…) It is nice to have a partner
with the same goal in mind. A partner that
you can trust. (…) We had a shared vision for
the future and I was confident that we
would make it together.”
Both organizations
expressed high trust in
each other from the start
of the crossover. Both
partners are mutually
dependent and had a
shared vision.
Table 3. Categorization of trust of case 1
Case 2
This crossover involves a small consultancy company specialized in innovation in the healthcare
sector (2a), and a small game company from the creative industry (2b). The consultancy company
had the idea of a dementia simulator. They noticed that it is hard for employees in the healthcare
sector to relate to the worldview of patients with dementia. With the dementia simulator, healthcare
professionals are given a unique opportunity to see the world from the perspective of a patient with
dementia. The consultancy company contacted the game company and they combined the
knowledge of the disease with creative concepts and simulation technics. The game company
created a mobile living room inside a trailer that simulates an average day of a patient with dementia
Page 35 of 96
with audio and visual projections. The game company was only involved in the creation of the
simulation. They are already paid for their contribution to the project. The simulation is now
available all over the Netherlands and the consultancy company is even planning to expand their
activities internationally.
The consultancy company is generating turnover with this innovation and already got enough
funding to diffuse the innovation internationally. They have high expectations for the future for the
innovation produced by the crossover. The second organization finished their contribution to the
crossover and got paid by the consultancy company for their work. Furthermore, both organizations
are very proud of their work and receive positive market feedback, making this a highly successful
crossover for both organizations.
Interview Quotes
2a
“[The crossover] is used all over the country
and until the end of the year we are fully
booked by healthcare institutions. We are
simply generating turnover. (…) We created
a starting firm and we managed to get
funding. There are lots of opportunities to
expand further. The idea, the concept, is
enthusiastically received in the market and
all involved collaboration partners are
satisfied with the results. Everyone is proud
of what we did. (…) ”
2b
“I think we are successful. We are very
proud. (…) It is nice to see the personal
reaction of people and the media attention
is a good thing. That proves for us that the
project is successful.”
Summary
Success
The first organization is
generating turnover and
attracted sufficient funding
to diffuse the innovation
internationally. The second
organization also
recognizes the success of
the crossover, since they
finished the project and
were paid by the first
organization. Both
organizations are proud
and receive positive
feedback from the market.
High
Table 4. Categorization of success of case 2
There are a lot of differences between the creative industry and the healthcare sector that provided
both organizations with learning opportunities of high novelty value. The consultancy company is
Page 36 of 96
specialized in the healthcare sector and needed the industry related knowledge that the partner
from the creative industry could provide them with. Both organizations made an effort to facilitate a
smooth transfer of knowledge, by organizing workshops and by being patient and understanding in
their communication. The high level of absorptive capacity together with the high level of novelty
value results in a medium level of cognitive distance for this crossover.
Interview Quotes
2a
“You have to understand that they are a
different company and that you have to be
more patient sometimes. Sometimes you
have to explain something some more. That
does not annoy me, I understand that from
their point of view. (…) If you are
transparent about that, than that will be
alright. And also in this case everything
went alright. (…) There was knowledge
exchange: We were getting the benefits of
their concept and design and they could get
the benefits of our expertise. In order
facilitate smooth knowledge transfer, we
organized two workshops. (…) This way of
exchanging knowledge worked really well.
(…) It takes parties from different domains
to work on such a societal challenge.”
2b
“There are some differences between us
and them. They have another way of
looking at their work. (…) You have to adapt
to other parties you collaborate with. You
have to try and find common ground. (…)
We have to absorb knowledge from our
client and find ways to deliver this
knowledge. (…) We had to show them how
to do it during some tests, otherwise it is
always hard to explain a concept to a client.
After those test they got a clear view on
what the final concept would look like. (…)
Understanding is important. You have to
understand their situation and history. It’s
therefore important to have a session
Summary
Cognitive
distance
Both organizations
indicated that there were
differences between them,
suggesting a high level of
novelty value. However,
both organizations also
indicated that they were
committed to share
knowledge and facilitated
workshops. Furthermore
both organizations made
effort to take time for each
other and be
understanding. The high
level of absorptive capacity
results in a medium level
of cognitive distance,
judging from the common
ground both parties found
when collaborating.
Medium
Page 37 of 96
where they can transfer their knowledge to
us.”
Table 5. Categorization of cognitive distance of case 2
At first, the game company felt that the consultancy company was not convinced of their capabilities
to successfully develop a simulation of an average day of a patient with dementia. Although there
might have been some issues with the level of trust initially, both organizations ended up expressing
high levels of trust after the first few meetings. During these meetings, the game company convinced
the consultancy company of their competency and trustworthiness. The levels of trust at the end of
the collaboration might have been high, because of the initial problems with trust this crossover is
categorized as having a medium level of trust overall.
Interview Quotes
2a
“I think that trust is a key factor. Trust has
to do with liking each other on a personal
level. (…) It is easier when you have a
connection with that person. The personal
factor and team composition are really
important. (…) I think we achieved that.”
2b
“Especially in the beginning, we felt that
they wondered if we could do it
successfully. We had to prove ourselves.
And so we did and that worked out really
great. After a few sessions together, we
won their trust.
Summary
Trust
In the beginning, the
second organization felt a
lack of trust from the first
organization. However,
after a few meetings both
partners expressed high
trust in each other.
Medium
Table 6. Categorization of trust of case 2
To improve the readability and overview of this study, the case descriptions and categorizations of
the other four cases can be seen in appendix 4.
Page 38 of 96
4.2 Cross case analysis
Geographical distance
With the locations obtained from the register of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce, the distance
between the two collaborating partners in the crossover was measured using Google Earth. For every
case the results are illustrated in the overview table of geographical distance as seen in appendix 3.
According to the categorization explained in the methodological framework, the cases were assigned
to three categories: High whenever the distance was between 93 and 135 kilometers, medium when
the distance was between 51 and 93 kilometers and low whenever the distance was between 9 and
51 kilometers. Note that the distance in kilometers between the crossover partners of case 6 was
measured as both 0 and 47. Since the crossover partners of case 6 started to collaborate from the
same location, the distance in kilometers between both organizations was defined as zero. The last
half year of the crossover the collaboration partners worked from different locations located 47
kilometers away from each other. This provided no problems for categorization since both distances
were labeled as having a small geographical distance as explained by the methodological framework.
Control variables
Two control variables were used in this research: The size of the crossover and the differences in size
between the two crossover partners. The number of full time employees was obtained from the
register of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce as seen in the table of size and difference in size in
appendix 3. These numbers were added for every case in the third column of this table to arrive at
the total number of full time employees involved in the crossover. In the fourth column the cases
were labelled as having a small size whenever the total was between 18 and 119 employees, as
having a medium size whenever the total was between 120 and 220 employees, and as having a large
size when the total was between 221 and 321 employees. The difference between both
organizations was calculated by dividing the lowest number of employees within a case by the
Page 39 of 96
highest number of employees within a case, as seen in the fifth column. When the ratio was between
0,89 and 0,65 the case was categorized as having a large difference in size between crossover
partners. When the ratio was between 0,65 and 0,39 the case was categorized as having a medium
difference in size and when the ratio was between 0,39 and 0,13 the case was categorized as having
a large difference in size.
4.3 Hypotheses
Before testing the hypotheses, the results of the above categorization are summarized in Table 7.
Cases
Success
Cognitive
distance
Geographical Trust
distance
Size
Difference
in size
1
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Large
Large
2
High
Medium
Large
Medium
Small
Small
3
Low
High
Small
Low
Small
Medium
4
Medium
Medium
Small
Medium
Medium
Small
5
Low
High
Small
Low
Large
Medium
6
High
Low
Small
High
Small
Medium
Table 7. Overview of categorization
First hypothesis: Cognitive distance
The concept matrix for cognitive distance is shown in Table 8 below. In the columns the three
different categories of cognitive distance are represented, while the three categories of success are
mapped across the rows. According to the first hypothesis, there should be a curvilinear relation
between the cognitive distance and the success of two collaborating partners within a crossover. The
cases with the highest cognitive distance were categorized as being the least successful cases (3 and
5). This is in line with the prediction that a high level of cognitive distance makes it impossible for
Page 40 of 96
organizations to recognize and develop the potential knowledge spillovers with a high novelty value.
Cases with a medium cognitive distance, hypothesized to be highly successful, were actually spread
across the categories medium and high level of success: Two cases with a medium cognitive distance
were categorized as having a medium level of success (1 and 4) and one case with a medium
cognitive distance was categorized as having a high level of success (2). Since there are no cases with
a medium level of cognitive distance and a low level of success, these cases provide no reason for
rejecting the first hypothesis. However, the first hypothesis also predicts that crossovers with a low
level of cognitive distance are less successful than crossovers with a medium level of cognitive
distance. A high level of cognitive distance might cause problems with the abortive capacity, but low
levels of cognitive distance are expected to limit the novelty value of potential knowledge spillovers.
Contrary to this notion, there was one case that was found to have a low level of cognitive distance
while also being categorized as having a high level of success (6). This case deviates from the
expected curvilinear pattern and visual inspection of the concept matrix of cognitive distance
suggests a negative rather than a curvilinear relation of cognitive distance and success.
Cognitive distance
Success
High
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
6
2
High
1, 4
3, 5
Table 8: Concept matrix of cognitive distance
Because the case that deviates from the curvilinear pattern (6) is also the only of the six cases that
had a low level of novelty value, it is worth having a more detailed look at the absorptive capacity
and novelty value across the cases. This provides more insight on the theorized relationship of
cognitive distance on the success of crossovers and might even provide an explanation for the
Page 41 of 96
deviating results. In Table 9, the categorization of cases on the novelty value and absorptive capacity
of both involved crossover partners is illustrated. In the concept matrices of novelty value and
absorptive capacity shown in Table 10 and 11, the levels of respectively the novelty value and
absorptive capacity are compared to the success of cases.
Case
Novelty
value
Absorptive
capacity
Cognitive
distance
Success
1
High
High
Medium
Medium
2
High
High
Medium
High
3
High
Low
High
Low
4
High
High
Medium
Medium
5
High
Low
High
Low
6
Low
High
Low
High
Table 9. Categorization of novelty value and absorptive capacity
Success
High
Novelty value
Absorptive capacity
Low
High
Low
6
2
Success
High
2, 6
1, 4
Medium
1, 4
Medium
Low
3, 5
Low
Table 10. Concept matrix of novelty value
High
3, 5
Table 11. Concept matrix of absorptive capacity
Looking at Table 10, two things stand out. First, the data shows that the case that deviated from the
expected curvilinear relation of cognitive distance on the success of crossovers (6) is the only case
with a relatively low novelty value. The other cases (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) are all categorized as having a
high novelty value. Second, both cases that had a high level of success (2 and 6) were categorized
with a different level of novelty value. These two findings suggest that for these six cases, there was
Page 42 of 96
no observable relation between the novelty value and the success of crossovers. Looking at the
concept matrix of absorptive capacity, Table 11 , it is striking that the two cases with a low level of
success (3 and 5) are also the two cases that had a low absorptive capacity. There were four cases
with a high absorptive capacity, of which two resulted in a medium level of success (1 and 4) and two
were categorized with a high level of success (2 and 6). This is in line with the expected positive
relation of absorptive capacity and success.
The data on the six crossovers does not support the first hypothesis of the curvilinear relationship
between cognitive distance and success. Therefore the first hypothesis is rejected. However, the data
does suggest a negative relation of cognitive distance on success. Furthermore, the data does
provide support for the thesis that the absorptive capacity has a positive effect on the success of
crossovers. The effect of novelty value on success was not observed in the data.
It was theorized that the positive relationships of absorptive capacity and novelty value on success,
combined with the negative relationship between absorptive capacity and novelty value, would
result in a curvilinear relationship of cognitive distance on success. The fact that there was a positive
effect of absorptive capacity on success, while the effect of novelty value on success could not be
observed in the data, provides a possible explanation to why the data shows a negative effect of
cognitive distance on the success of crossovers.
Second hypothesis: Geographical distance
In the next concept matrix on geographical distance, Table 12, all six cases are mapped according to
their categorization on geographical distance and success. There was one case where the involved
crossover partners were separated by a large geographical distance (2). This case had a high level of
success. There was one case that was categorized with a medium geographical distance (1) and this
case had a medium level of success. Four cases were categorized as having a small geographical
distance among the crossover partners (3, 4, 5 and 6). Two of these cases were categorized as having
a low level of success (3 and 5) and the other two cases had either a medium level of success (4) or a
Page 43 of 96
high level of success (6). The data illustrated in Table 12, the concept matrix of geographical
proximity, does not show that geographical proximity and success are positively related. Therefore
the second hypothesis is rejected.
Geographical distance
Small
Success
High
6
Medium 4
Low
Medium
Large
2
1
3, 5
Table 12. Concept matrix of geographical distance
Third hypothesis: Trust
In the next concept matrix of trust, Table 13, the three categories of trust are displayed in the
columns and the three categories of success are displayed in the rows. Two cases were categorized
with high levels of trust among the crossover partners. One of these cases was highly successful (6)
and the other had a medium level of success (1). There were also two cases categorized as having a
medium level of trust. One of the cases with a medium level of trust was categorized with a high
level of success (2), the other with a medium level of success (4). The two cases that had low levels of
trust also had a low level of success (3 and 5). Table 13 shows that having low levels of trust can be
associated with low levels of success, in line with the third hypothesis.
Page 44 of 96
Trust
Low
Success
Medium
High
High
2
6
Medium
4
1
Low
3, 5
Table 13. Concept matrix of trust
Control variables
Looking at the concept matrices of the control variables size and difference in size, as seen in Table
14, no pattern can be observed between on one hand the size and differences in size, and success on
the other. Three cases were categorized as having a small size. These cases include the two cases
labeled with a high level of success (2 and 6) and on case labeled with a low level of success (3).
There was one case in the categories medium size and medium level of success (4). The two cases
with a large size were either categorized with a medium level of success (1) or a low level of success
(5). For difference in size, two cases had a small difference in size between the involved crossover
partners: One case with a high level of success (2) and one case with a medium level of success (4).
Three cases were categorized with a medium level of differences in size, two of which had a low level
of success (3 and 5) and one who had a high level of success (6). There was one case with large
differences in size between the crossover partners and this case had a medium level of success (1).
The cases seem to be randomly scattered across the different categories, suggesting that the control
variables did not interfere with the patterns observed in the previous concept matrices displayed in
Tables 8 through 13.
Page 45 of 96
Size
Difference in size
Small Medium
Success
High
2, 6
Medium
Low
Large
High
4
3
Small
Medium Large
2
6
1
Medium 4
5
Low
1
3, 5
Table 14. Concept matrices of the control variables size and difference in size
4.4 Exploratory analysis
In order to explore new success factors of crossovers, factors not included in the hypotheses of this
study, a co-occurrence table was created as shown in the appendix 5. Since this study views success
factors as variables that either have a positive effect on the success when present, or that have a
negative effect on the success of the crossover when absent, the codes success factor and obstacle
were combined in the co-occurrence table of success factors. In the first column, the codes that were
linked to the same quotations as the codes success factor or obstacle are listed. The second column
of the table provides the number of overlapping quotations. In order to provide a clear overview of
the most relevant codes and quotations, codes that had a total number of overlapping quotations
lower than 2 were left out of the table. In the third column the relevant quotations were translated
and the fourth and last column provides a list over other codes that were linked to the quotations
included in the third column.
The co-occurrence table of success factors from appendix 5 provides an overview of the 19 codes
that were linked to the codes success factor and obstacle. In order to structure these codes and gain
Page 46 of 96
more insight in the relations between these codes, a network view of the 19 codes and their relations
was created as seen in Figure 3. The codes in the network view were grouped into three topics based
on the content of the quotes and their association with other codes, as derived from the cooccurrence table of success factors.
1. Collaborative and innovative culture
2. Contractual agreements
3. Interaction of sensitizing concepts
Figure 3. Network view of codes co-occuring with ‘Success factor’ or ‘Obstacle’
Page 47 of 96
First, the group of codes ‘Collaborative and innovative culture’ consists of the codes ‘Culture’,
‘Openness’, ‘Involvement’, ‘Participating’, ‘Commitment’, ‘Innovation’, ‘Persistence’ and ‘Trial and
Error’. The codes ‘Openness’, ‘Involvement’, ‘Participating’ and ‘Commitment’ describe aspects of the
collaboration and are grouped as factors associated with a collaborative organizational culture. In
five of the six cases, these aspects were suggested to have a positive effect on the success of
crossovers (1, 3, 4, 5, and 6). By having an open culture, collaborating partners are more likely to
learn from each other (1, 4 and 6). Furthermore, being involved in the work of others and being
committed to collaborate is suggested to decrease potential resistance to change which otherwise
might become an obstacle to success (3, 4, 5 and 6). In order to create and maintain a collaborative
culture, the roles of the project leader and potential customers seem especially of importance. Three
cases mentioned that having one of the organizations adopt the role of project leader, provided
opportunities to create a collaborative working environment among involved actors (2, 4 and 5). The
same three cases also suggested that having a collaborative culture where customers are highly
involved, increases the success of crossovers. By involving potential customers from the beginning of
the crossover, crossovers are suggested to facilitate diffusion of the innovation across the market.
The codes ‘Persistence’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Trial and Error’ deal with aspects of the innovative culture
of an organization. Four out of six cases provided quotations that suggested a positive effect of these
aspects of the innovative culture of an organization on the success of the crossover (1, 3, 4 and 5).
The quotations on these codes suggest that when the organizational culture facilitates
experimentation and persistence in the light of challenges increases the success of the crossover that
organization is involved in. Furthermore, in this data the codes describing an innovative culture are
related to the codes ‘Customer’ and ‘Research’. Three cases (2, 4 and 5) mention that involving
customers in the innovation process has a positive effect on the success of the crossover. There was
one case that suggested that involving universities and research institutions improves the credibility
of the innovation and thus the success of the crossover (2). The associations among these factors
Page 48 of 96
imply that it is important for crossovers to have a collaborative and innovative culture in order to
become successful.
The second topic of interest that surfaced from the network view involves contractual agreements.
This includes the codes ‘Funding’, ‘Costs’, ‘Time’, ‘Contract’ and ‘Expectations’. The quotations linked
to these codes describe that acquiring sufficient funding and discussing other contractual
agreements might form obstacles in the crossover process. Five cases described that acquiring
sufficient funding is difficult and takes a lot of time (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). One case acquired funding
within six to seven months (2). For one case it took more than two years (1) and others never
acquired enough funding to continue the crossover without having to rely on government subsidizing
(3, 5). Although the involvement of universities and research institutions seems to benefit the
success of the crossover through increased credibility among potential customers (2), three cases
also mention that making clear arrangements might be more difficult when these institutions are
involved, due to differences in expectations and commercial focus (1, 4 and 5). Persistence,
suggested to be an aspect of an innovative culture, was valued as an important factor to overcome
these obstacles (1). Two of the six cases suggested that clear contractual agreements between the
two involved organizations might positively affect the success of the crossover (1 and 3). Although
contractual agreements are suggested to be relevant to the success of crossovers, the data does not
provide a decisive answer to the exact nature of this relation, because there were also three cases
that suggested that clear contracts did not have a positive effect on the outcome of the crossover (2,
4 and 5). Rather, they perceived the mutual expectations partners had in regard to these contractual
agreements as being an important factor that influenced the success of the crossover. Through
management of expectations, the demands of the crossover partner might become better aligned
with the capabilities of the focal organization resulting in an increased understanding between
crossover partners (2).
Page 49 of 96
The third and last topic of interest in the network overview is the interaction between the codes of
the two sensitizing concepts geographical distance and cognitive distance (2). Furthermore the code
‘Frequent interaction’ seems of interest, because it is linked to quotations on both geographical
distance and cognitive distance (1, 3 and 6). In order to gain more insights on geographical distance
and its relevance, a co-occurrence table was made for the code geographical distance and all open
codes, as can be seen in appendix 6. The first column in the table of appendix 6 illustrates which
open codes are linked to the same quotations as the code geographical distance. In order to provide
a clear overview and only include relevant co-occurring codes, open codes that shared less than 1
quotation with the code geographical distance were left out of the co-occurrence table, as seen in
the second column. In the third column, relevant quotations that received both codes are translated.
All quotations coded with both frequent interaction and geographical distance also overlapped with
the quotations coded with ‘Communication’.
There was one case where the quotes on cognitive distance and geographical distance overlapped
(2). The respondent involved in this crossover stated that despite a low level of geographical
distance, there was a high level of cognitive distance. In two cases it was mentioned by the
respondents that they perceived geographical proximity as a way to meet new partners for future
collaboration (1 and 3). The co-occurrence table furthermore shows that two respondents regarded
geographical proximity as a way to facilitate more frequent interaction and better communication
among existing collaborating partners (1 and 6). It was mentioned by one case that had a high level
of success (6) and one case with a medium level of success (1). However, there was also one case
with a large geographical distance that also interacted frequently (2). There was one case that was
categorized with a low level of success and that had no frequent interaction, even though they were
categorized as having a small geographical distance (3). This does not provide a definite answer to
the relation between frequent interaction and geographical distance. However, the data suggests
that frequent interaction might have a positive effect on the success of crossovers, since there was
one case with a low level of success and no frequent interaction (3). The partners in this case
Page 50 of 96
interacted five times a year. The table in appendix 6 includes two cases with a medium level of
success that interacted twice a week (1) and twice a month (2). Furthermore, there was one case
with a high level of success that shared a workspace for the first half year and interacted twice a
week in the last half year. Since the second hypothesis on geographical distance was not supported,
these findings suggest that frequent interaction might be a more relevant success factor of
crossovers than geographical proximity.
Page 51 of 96
5. Discussion
This discussion reflects on the findings of this research by elaborating on their place in the current
literature. Both the explanatory findings and exploratory findings are discussed. First the explanatory
findings are summarized and their place in scientific theory is discussed. After that, the findings on
the exploratory part of this study are discussed in a similar manner. Then an assessment was made of
the research quality indicators with regard of this research, followed by the limitations of this study.
5.1 Explanatory findings
The explanatory part of this study found that absorptive capacity is positively associated with the
success of crossovers between two SME’s. Furthermore, this study found a negative relation
between cognitive distance and success of crossovers between two SME’s, rather than the expected
curvelinear relation described by the first hypothesis. No effect of novelty value on the success of
crossovers between two SME’s was observed in the data. Also, the geographical distance between
crossover partners was not observed to have an effect on the success of crossovers, rejecting the
second hypothesis. The third hypothesis was supported and suggests that trust is a success factor
that is also applicable to crossovers between two SME’s.
Cognitive distance
That there was no effect observed in the data of novelty value on the success of crossovers between
two SME’s, could be the result of a low variance among the novelty values associated with the six
analyzed cases. The low variance on novelty value among selected cases might be charakteristic for
crossovers in general. Theory already suggested that crossovers generally have a higher cognitive
distance between partners than similar collaborations within the same industry (Nooteboom et al.,
2007). Furthermore, Kotabe and Swan (1995) already suggested that crossovers tend to produce
more radical innovations and that within industry collaborations tend to produce more incremental
Page 52 of 96
innovations. This suggests that the novelty value of potential spillovers tends to be relatively high for
crossovers. When the knowledge avaiblable to the crossover partners tends to be of relatively high
novelty value, organizations can increase the success of the crossover by increasing absorptive
capacity and thus decreasing their cognitive distance to the partner. This might explain the observed
positive effect of absorptive capacity on the success and the negative effect of cognitive distance on
the success, while novelty value was not observed to be of great importance to the success of
crossovers between two SME’s. These effects are in line with the studies of Mowery, Oxley and
Silverman (1996; 1998) that focus on the effects of absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and
success of collaborations aimed to produce innovation. These studies do not focus on the novelty
value of potential spillovers.
Figure 3: Graph of cognitive distance (Nooteboom et al., 2007)
Looking at the graph of cognitive distance by Nooteboom (Nooteboom et al., 2007), it is likely that
the six crossovers included in this sample are all located at the right side of the graph. Because these
collaborations include two different industries, each with their own unique industry related
Page 53 of 96
knowledge, they are associated with high novelty values. In the right part of the graph, changes in
novelty value yield only small benefits for learning, while increasing the absorptive capacity has a
large positive impact on the overall level of learning between the crossover partners.
This finding suggests that the main obstacle for two small or medium sized crossover partners lies in
having a low level of absorptive capacity. Collaborating with another organization from a different
industry already provides the focal organization with spillovers with sufficient novelty value in order
to learn and make the innovation successful. Investing even more in knowledge spillovers with a high
novelty value, might therefore not result in a higher level of success of the crossover between two
SME’s. Investing in absorptive capacity is likely to benefit learning and thus the success of the
crossover between two SME’s. Organizations can invest in absorptive capacity for example through
technical training, improved communication and internal knowledge transfer (Cohen & Levinthal,
1990). This includes the establishment of effective communication channels within the focal
organization. When knowledge is easily shared through the entire organization, new knowledge from
the crossover partner is also more easily recognized and adopted effectively by the organization
(Nooteboom, 2007).
Geographical proximity
Theory suggested that geographical distance decreased the chance for organizations to meet
potential collaboration partners and might form obstacles to collaborations that aim to produce
innovations, eventually resulting in a lower level of success (Carlino, 2001; De Jong & Freel, 2010).
Although respondents mentioned that they regarded geographical proximity as a success factor,
there was no effect of geographical distance on the success of crossovers partner between two
SME’s observed in the data. Respondents also mentioned that geographical proximity facilitated
frequent interaction and knowledge sharing. Besides that, studies indicated that high levels of
cognitive distance could be overcome by having low levels of geographical distance (Boschma, 2005).
However, the data in this research did not provide indications that these mechanisms of geographical
Page 54 of 96
proximity are also applicable to crossovers between two SME’s. One case mentioned that despite the
geographical proximity, high levels of cognitive distance were perceived between the crossover
partners. The other way around, several cases had a high level of geographical distance among
partners, but were still able to have high levels of absorptive capacity and novelty value. These
differences in findings, suggest that geographical distance is not as relevant for the success of
crossovers between two SME’s as expected. Analysis of the data suggested that frequent interaction
is a more important factor for success than geographical distance. This is in line with scientific theory
that states that geographical proximity might provide more frequent interaction and better
opportunities for conflict resolution (De Jong & Freel, 2010). Theory furthermore states that a large
geographical dispersion might exacerbate initial differences between organizations (Chamakiotis,
Dekonick, & Panteli, 2013). This case study was conducted in The Netherlands and the crossover
partners with the highest geographical distance were located 135 kilometers away from each other.
It could be the case that the crossover partners studied in this research were located too close to
each other for these effects to have a considerable impact on the success of the crossover between
two SME’s.
Trust
This study found that a low level of trust between crossover partners is likely to result in a low level
of success of the crossover between two SME’s. This is in line with theory that suggested trust to be a
major success factor for collaborations aimed at producing innovations (Bstieler, 2006). When there
are differences in focus between the two organizations, high levels of trust between crossover
partners helps to overcome these differences and facilitate the transfer of resources and knowledge,
in line with scientific theory on collaboration and innovation (Lew, Sinkovics, & Kuivalainen, 2013). In
other studies, interorganizational trust was found to be positively related to cooperation (Buckley &
Casson, 1988). SME’s involved in crossovers might face more differences between them and the
Page 55 of 96
crossover partner than partners collaborating within the same industry, making the role of trust to
overcome these differences and increase the success of crossovers between two SME’s essential.
5.2 Exploratory findings
The exploratory analysis provided three topics of interest that could provide insight on new success
factors of crossovers. First, the data suggested that having an innovative and collaborative
organizational culture is positively associated with the success of crossovers between two SME’s.
Second, there were mixed findings on the role of contractual agreements and their effect on the
success. Third, frequent interaction was suggested to be a more important success factor for
crossovers between two SME’s than geographical distance, as already discussed in the previous
paragraph on explanatory findings.
Collaborative and innovative culture
The exploratory analysis of this study found that a collaborative culture, focused on commitment,
involvement, participation, and openness between actors involved in the crossover between two
SME’s, is likely to result in high levels of success of the crossover. Respondents mentioned that
especially for partners from different industries, it is important to be highly involved with the work of
the crossover partner and show commitment to make the innovation successful. This way, crossover
partners can better understand each other and adapt accordingly to facilitate better knowledge
transfer. Nooteboom and colleagues (2007) already stated that when employees are more involved
the absorptive capacity and thus the success tends to be high for collaborations in an innovative
context. Another scientific study showed that differences in organizational culture between
collaborating partners might pose problems to the successful collaboration and production of
innovations (Wuyts, Colombo, Dutta & Nooteboom, 2004).
In another study, it was found that a high level of commitment of collaborating partners to innovate
tends to result in high levels of success (Tsai, Joe, Ding, & Lin, 2013). Respondents also mentioned
Page 56 of 96
that having an open perspective towards the crossover partner provided them with learning
opportunities, while at the same time increasing the involvement and commitment of the crossover
partner. Al together, this study found that having a collaborative organizational culture, where
openness, involvement, participation and commitment are highly valued, is a success factor of
crossovers between two SME’s.
Next to a collaborative culture, having an innovative culture was also found to be a success factor of
crossovers between two SME’s. In this context, an innovative culture is focused on experimentation
of different ideas that could be developed into innovations. Respondents mentioned that they
regarded innovation as a trial and error process. They furthermore endorsed that it was of great
importance to have a organizational culture that values persistence. Crossovers offer unique
challenges to the innovation process, such as the lack of experience with knowledge specifically
related to the other industry (Gassmann et al., 2010). Respondents endorsed that this is a challenge
every crossover is confronted with. It was also observed that respondent perceived persistence in
light of these challenges as an important factor to the success of crossovers. These findings suggest
that having an innovative organizational culture, where experimentation and persistence are highly
valued, is a success factor of crossovers between two SME’s.
Contractual agreements
Funding was perceived by the respondents as an obstacle to the success of crossovers between two
SME’s. The innovation value chain by Hansen & Birkinshaw (2007) mentions that seeking and
acquiring sufficient funding is an essential step in the idea development stage. Respondents
endorsed the importance of this step, but also noted that it was time consuming and challenging.
Since even cases that were categorized with a high level of success stated to have experienced
problems with seeking and acquiring funding, it is too preliminary to assume that seeking funding is a
relevant success factor for crossovers between two SME’s.
Page 57 of 96
The topic of contractual agreements also includes the agreements between the two crossover
partners on time and costs they will invest in the crossover. How agreements between collaborating
partners affect the success of crossovers was not clearly observed in the data, since two cases
suggested that there is a positive relation and three cases suggested that there is no relation
between clear contracts and the success of crossovers. The latter three cases mentioned that the
expectations that crossover partners have in regard to the contractual agreements on time and costs
are more important. When the expectations are aligned, understanding between crossover partners
is suggested to be high. This finding on the expectations of partners is in line with the notion that
understanding between partners has a positive effect on the absorptive capacity (Boschma, 2005;
Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Nooteboom et al., 2007).
This study also found three types of actors that are mentioned as being able to influence the success
of crossovers between two SME’s when present: Project leaders, customers and research
institutions. These three actors also have an effect on the innovative and collaborative organizational
culture and the contractual agreements. First, having a project leader was mentioned to positively
affect the success of a crossover. The project leader is able to foster involvement, participation and
persistence and thus create a working environment where collaboration and innovation are highly
valued. Furthermore, the project leader has an important role in the creation of agreements that
both organizations can agree on. The project leader has to create contractual agreements that are in
line with the expectations of the involved organizations. Second, involving customer at an early stage
of the collaborations might increase the success of the crossover. Involving potential customers
makes sure that the innovation satisfies the demands of these customers and even provides access
to other market segments that could otherwise not have been reached. The involvement of
customers at an early stage is suggested to have a positive influence on the diffusion of the
organization and thus the success of the crossover. This is in line with the findings of Nooteboom
(1994) that suggest that SME’s might have behavioral advantage over larger organizations through
more direct contact with customers. Third, collaborating with research institutions might increase
Page 58 of 96
the credibility of the innovation and facilitates diffusion across the market. Potential customers
might perceive innovations that were developed in collaboration with research institutions as being
of higher value was suggested during the interviews. However, collaborating with research
institutions also might pose problems to the acquiring of sufficient funding. It was mentioned by
respondents that research requires a lot of investment from crossover partners, but is not
guaranteed to result in new knowledge that can be developed in a successful product.
5.3 Research quality indicators
In this paragraph, five research quality indicators are evaluated in regard to this research: Credibility,
transferability, dependability, confirmability.
The research has to be credible according to respondents involved in the crossovers included in this
study. By interviewing entrepreneurs and managers from both collaborating partners in every case,
this study aims to described crossovers and their relevant success factors in such a way that they fit
within the different perspectives.
Furthermore, this is an exploratory case study, so the tentative findings should be investigated in
future research in order to be extrapolated to other countries or types of organizations. This study
was conducted among crossovers that involved two SME’s, and one has to be cautious when
generalizing the findings of this study to crossovers that involve more than two organizations and
crossovers that involve large organizations with more than 250 full time employees. However, this
study described the involved organizations and industries into detail to provide clearness on the
transferability of this research.
By providing clear and complete descriptions of used measures and procedures, this study will aim to
be dependable. This way, future research could replicate this study.
By involving two actors for every crossover, this study aimed to keep confirmability as high as
possible. To avoid issues with confirmability, only cases where selected and analyzed where both
involved respondents agreed on the same level of succes of the crossover. In line with the works of
Page 59 of 96
Freeman (1991) and Garcia and Calantone (2002) on the definition of success, this study focused on
cases where both partners regarded the the outcome of the crossover to be innovative.
5.4 Limitations
In this paragraph, three limitations of this study are discussed. First of all, although it was aimed to
keep confirmability as high as possible, as this is a qualitative case study, the main thread to the
quality of this research remains the objectivity of the researcher. This study aimed to diminish the
researcher’s bias by asking open questions instead of leading questions. A widely used model of the
innovation and collaboration process (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007) was used as a guideline through
the interview to explore new success factors, but respondents were also asked directly for their view
on success factors of crossovers. Researcher bias was also kept as low as possible during the analysis.
Different researchers could have coded the interview transcripts in a different way because every
researcher has its own personal bias. Therefore, this study aimed to diminish researcher bias by
keeping open codes as close as possible to the exact quotations from the interview transcripts. All
included codes and the procedures regarding the linking and merging of codes were well
documented.
A second limitation of this research might be the relatively low sample size. With a larger sample size
there might have been more variance on novelty value, proving a more accurate overview of the
relationship between novelty value and success of crossovers. Although this study provided an
interpretation derived from scientific theory of why the variance on the novelty value could have
been low due to the type of innovations that crossovers tend to produce, this study does not yet
provide scientific literature with a definite answer on the relation between novelty value and success
of crossovers. However, this study also aimed to explore new success factors of crossovers, making a
small sample case study the most appropriate research design. With this qualitative case study, a
more in depth overview was provided on the application of success factors of collaboration and
Page 60 of 96
innovation on crossovers, as well as more profound insight on new success factors of crossover and
their underlying relations.
Third, this study was conducted among crossovers that consisted of two SME’s. As mentioned by the
previous section on research quality indicators, one should be careful extrapolating the findings of
this study to other contexts.
Page 61 of 96
6. Conclusion
In this conclusion, the findings of this research are summarized an answer is given to the research
question:
What are the factors underlying the success of crossovers between two small- or medium sized
enterprises?
In order to answer this research question, 11 managers and entrepreneurs of SME’s involved in 6
crossovers were interviewed. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded. Through
explanatory analysis, three success factors known to theory on collaboration and innovation were
tested in the context of crossovers between two SME’s. Furthermore, exploratory analysis was
conducted in order to identify new success factors. In total, this study found four factors that
underlie the success of crossovers between two SME’s, as explained into more detail below.
This study found that rather than the curvilinear relation between cognitive distance and success in
collaborations in an innovative context, there is a negative relation between cognitive distance and
success in crossovers. There was no observable relation between novelty value and success, although
there was a positive effect observed of absorptive capacity on the success of the crossover. Because
crossovers consist of two organizations from different industries each with unique industry related
knowledge, it is suggested that crossovers have a relatively high level of novelty value and that
investing in absorptive capacity yields higher benefits to the success of crossovers than investing
more in partners that provide knowledge with a higher level of novelty value. Therefore the first
factor underlying the success of crossovers between two SME’s that this study proposes is investing
in absorptive capacity.
The second hypothesis was rejected since no effect was observed between the geographical distance
of two SME’s involved in a crossover. However, explorative analysis found that frequent interaction
Page 62 of 96
might be a more important factor that influences the success of crossovers between two SME’s than
geographical distance. There were mixed findings on the relation between geographical distance and
frequent interaction, but the explorative analysis suggested a positive effect of frequent interaction
on the success of crossovers between two SME’s. Therefore this study proposes that frequent
interaction is a second factor underlying the success of crossovers between two SME’s.
The third hypothesis was supported by the data. Low levels of trust were observed to hinder the
success of the studied crossovers, suggesting a positive relation between trust and the success of
crossovers between two SME’s. Therefore trust is proposed to be a third success factor of crossovers
between two SME’s.
The exploratory analysis showed that having an innovative and collaborative culture is associated
with high levels of success of the crossover. In this context, a collaborative culture is defined as an
organizational culture that highly values participation and commitment by involved actors, as well as
the open sharing of knowledge. An innovative culture highly values experimentation and persistence,
even in the light of challenges. Because these interrelated concepts turned out be also related to the
success of crossovers between two SME’s, this study proposes that having a collaborative and
innovative culture is a fourth success factor that fits with the research question.
Next to the four proposed success factors of crossovers between two SME’s, the exploratory analysis
also provided more insight in other factors that could be important to the success of crossovers but
whose findings remain tentative. For one, this study showed that the crossovers included in this
study perceived seeking and acquiring sufficient funding as an obstacle to the success of the
crossover. The two least successful cases were also the cases that never attracted sufficient funding
to continue without reliance on governmental subsidizing. However, since even highly successful
cases perceived seeking funding as a time consuming challenge, the exact relation between the
ability to seek and acquire sufficient funding and the success of crossovers between two SME’s
remains unclear. Furthermore, this study found that it is important for crossovers to establish clear
Page 63 of 96
contractual agreements and strive for alignment in the expectations of each other’s contribution to
the crossover. However, since this research obtained mixed findings on the relation between clear
contractual agreements and the success of crossovers, contractual agreements were not proposed to
be a success factor of crossovers between two SME’s. Finally, this study suggested that there is an
important role for the project leader in a crossover of two SME’s, the potential customers and
research institutions. These actors might have an influence on the success of crossovers between
two SME’s.
6.1 Recommendations
There is a huge untapped potential of crossovers among SME’s as explained in the introduction. First
because crossovers tend to cover a broader knowledge base, making it possible to produce more
radical innovations and address societal challenges that cannot be solved by organizations from only
one industry. Second, especially crossovers among SME’s provide untapped potential, because SME’s
make up a large portion of the Dutch workforce. However, SME’s often lack the capacity to
experiment and innovate compared to larger organizations even though this study found that having
a collaborative and innovative organizational culture that promotes experimentation is a factor that
influences the success of crossovers between two SME’s. In order to take advantage of the untapped
potential of crossovers among SME’s, this study recommends government and policy makers to
facilitate the building of absorptive capacity among SME’s. By providing these parties with a platform
where they can meet new collaborating partners from other industries, and where there are
opportunities to transfer knowledge among SME’s, crossovers among two SME’s might become more
successful. It is important for such a platform to facilitate experimentation and promote involvement
and participation of SME’s in a crossover. Furthermore, this study obtained preliminary findings that
managers and entrepreneurs regarded the seeking and acquiring of sufficient funding and subsidizing
as a difficult and time consuming activity, leaving opportunities for governments to improve the
allocation process of subsidizing and funding.
Page 64 of 96
Entrepreneurs involved in crossovers are recommended to have frequent interaction with the
crossover partner. This increases the understanding and involvement between the two crossover
partners. SME’s are also advised to invest more in absorptive capacity, rather than in more novelty
value, when aiming to produce innovations with a collaboration partner from another industry. By
providing personnel with adequate training, the understanding between two crossover partners
might increase, resulting in improved learning opportunities and thus increased likelihood of success
of the crossover between two SME’s. Project leaders involved in a crossover between two SME’s are
advised to promote a collaborative and innovative organizational culture that highly values
involvement, participation, open communication and experimentation. Another way for
entrepreneurs and managers to increase the success of the crossover between two SME’s is to invest
in R&D and communication channels within the own organization. These factors are also known to
increase the absorptive capacity and thus the success of crossovers.
This study also makes recommendations for future research. As concluded, this study found a
negative rather than a curvilinear relation between cognitive distance and success of crossovers
between two SME’s. Future research should compare the effect for crossovers and collaborations
within the same industry aimed to produce innovations, in order to provide a definite answer on the
relation between cognitive distance and success. Furthermore, more research is needed on the
relation between geographical distance and frequent interaction. These two variables were
mentioned by respondents to be interrelated and of importance to the success of crossovers,
although the data analysis only showed a positive effect of frequent interaction on the success of
crossovers between two SME’s. Since the exact role of contractual agreements between small and
medium sized crossover partners on the success of crossovers remains also unclear, future research
should investigate how this factor influences the success of crossovers. Future research could
incorporate a high sample quantitative research design among organizations of all sizes. This way,
the limitations of this study as described in the previous section could be overcome. This might limit
the depth of the analysis, but the large sample increases the generalizability of the findings.
Page 65 of 96
7. Literature
Atkinson, S. & Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in managerial relationships. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 18(4), pp. 20-39.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, S. & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation.
Management Decision, 47(8), pp.1323-1339.
Bstieler, L. (2006). Trust formation in collaborative new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 23, pp. 56-72.
Boschma, R.A. (2005). Proximity and innovation:a critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, pp. 61-74.
Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 5(3), pp. 1-9.
Buckley, P.J. & Cassson, M.C. (1988). A theory of cooperation in international business. In F.J.
Contractor and L. Peter (Eds.), Cooporative strategies in international business, 1st ed., Lexington, pp.
31-53.
CBS (2012). Data obtained May 2013 from http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/
Carlino, G. A. (2001). Knowledge spillovers: Cities' role in the new economy. Business Review, 4, pp.
7-26.
Chamakiotis, P., Dekonick, E.A., & Panteli, N. (2013). Factors influencing creativity in virtual teams: An
Interplay between technology, teams and individuals. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(3),
pp. 265-279.
Page 66 of 96
Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 128-152.
Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995). Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new
product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, pp. 374-391.
Creed, D. R., Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational
forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler
(Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, 16-38. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Desrochers, P. & Leppäla, S. (2011). Opening up the 'Jacobs spillovers'black box: local diversity,
creativity and the process underlying new combinations. Journal of Economic Geography 11(5), pp.
843-863.
EIM (2005). Transsectorale innovatie door diffusie van technologie: Theorie, praktijk en toekomst.
Enkel, E. & Gassmann, O. (2010). Creative imitation: exploring the case of cross-industry innovation.
R&D management, 40(3), pp. 256-270.
Faems, D., Janssens, M., & Van Looy, B. (2008). Toward an integrative respective on alliance
governance: Connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Academy of
Management Journal, (51)6), pp. 1053-1078.
Freeman, C. (1991). The nature of innovation and the evolution of the productive system. In OECD
(Eds.), Technology and productivity – The challenge for economic policy, pp. 303-314.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: A literature review. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19,
pp. 110-132.
Page 67 of 96
Gassmann, O., Zeschky, M., Wolff, T., & Stahl, M. (2010). Crossing the Industry-Line: Breakthrough
Innovation through Cross-Industry Alliances with 'Non-Suppliers'. Long Range Planning, 43(5-6), pp.
639-654.
Gassmann, O., Daiber, M. & Enkel, E. (2011). The role of intermediaries in cross-industry innovation
processes. R&D Management, 41, pp. 457–469.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Geum, Y., Kim, C., Lee, S. & Kim, M. (2012). Technological Convergence of IT and BT: Evidence from
patent analysis. ETRI Journal, 34(3), pp. 439-449.
Hansen, M. T. & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). The innovation value chain. Harvard Business Review, June, pp.
1-13.
Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R., (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers
as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), pp. 577-598
De Jong, J.P.J., & Freel, M. (2010). Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high
technology small firms. Research policy, 39, pp. 47-54.
Kotabe, M. & Swan, K. S. (1995). The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new product
development. Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp. 621–636.
Leidecker, J.K. & Bruno, A.V. (1984). Identifying and using critical success factors. Long range
planning,17(1), pp. 23-32.
Lew, Y.K., Sinkovics, R.R., & Kuivalainen, O. (2013). Upstream internationalization process: Roles of
social capital in creating exploratory capability and market performance. International business
Review, 22, pp. 1101-1120.
Page 68 of 96
Litter, D., Leverick, F. and Bruce, M. (1995). Factors affecting the process of collaborative product
development: A study of UK manufacturers of information and communications technology
products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(1), pp. 16–32.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,
2(1), pp. 71-87.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp. 709-734.
Montoya-Weiss, M.M. & Calantone, R.J. (1994). Determinants of new product performance: A review
and meta analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(5), pp. 397-417.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of
market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Market
Reserach, 29, pp. 314-328.
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E., Silverman, B.S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), pp. 77-91.
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E., Silverman, B.S. (1998). Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation:
Implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, 27, pp. 507-523.
Nooteboom, B. (1994). Innovation and diffusion in small firms: Theory and evidence. Small Business
Economics, 6, pp. 327-347.
Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V. & Van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal
cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), pp. 1016-1034.
Rockart, J.F. (1986). A Primer on critical success factors. In C.V. Bullen (Eds), The Rise of Managerial
Computing: The Best of the Center for Information Systems Research, McGraw-Hill.
Page 69 of 96
Romer, P.M. (1987). Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization. American Economic
Review, 77(2), pp. 56-62.
Sendjaya, S. & Sarros, J. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development and application in
organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, pp. 57-64.
Tether, B. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why? An empirical analysis. Research Policy
31, pp. 947-967.
Tsai, Y.H., Joe, S.W., Ding, C.G., & Lin, C.P. (2013). Modeling technological innovation performance
and its determinants: an aspect of buyer-seller social capital. Technological forecasting & social
change, 80, pp. 1211-1221.
Wuyts, S., Colombo, M.G., Dutta, S. & Nooteboom, B. (2004). Empirical tests of optimal cognitive
distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(2), pp. 277-302.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of
Interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Sciense, 9(2), pp. 141-159.
Page 70 of 96
8. Appendices
Appendix 1: Operationalization matrix
Topics
Example of questions
Success
Do you regard the crossover as a success? Is the
crossover profitable?
Idea generation
How were new ideas generated in the beginning of the
collaboration? How were they selected? How did you
select the collaborating partner?
Idea development
How were the generated ideas developed into
innovations? How did the funding and screening go?
Idea diffusion
How was the innovation diffused across the market?
Did you make use of the available distribution
channels?
Geographical proximity
How close is your organization to the partner
organization? Do you think the distance between each
other had an impact on the innovation process? In what
way?
Trust
Did the partner meet your expectations? Did the
partner meet mutual agreements in time? How much
control was necessary?
Cognitive distance
Was there a shared knowledge base? What differences
did you encounter between you and the partner? How
did this impact the innovation process?
Absorptive capacity
How did you recognize the opportunities the crossover
partner could offer you? What did you learn from the
crossover partner? How did you develop the newly
acquired knowledge into a new product?
Open questions
What is your view on the success factors of the
crossovers? To what extent can the success be
attributed to relevant factors? Are there other factors
that could have influenced the outcome of the
crossover? What obstacles did you encounter in the
innovation process?
Page 71 of 96
Appendix 2: Topic guide and example questions
Variable name
Dimensions
Operationalization
Measurement
Success
High
The crossover is either making
a profit for both partners or
the crossover generates
turnover for both partners.
Both partners are expecting to
be very profitable in the near
future.
Medium
The crossover is not yet
making a turnover for both
involved partners, but both
partners are expecting a profit
in the future.
Entrepreneurs and
managers involved in the
crossover are asked if they
regard the crossover as
successful, if they are
making a profit, and what
their expectations of the
future are.
Low
The crossover was either
terminated preemptively, or is
not making turnover for both
involved partners and both
partners don’t have high
expectations for the future.
High
There are too many
differences in knowledge
base. There are many
potential knowledge spillovers
with a high novelty value, but
too little absorptive capacity
to recognize or develop this
new knowledge.
Medium
There are enough differences
in knowledge base to provide
potential knowledge spillovers
with novelty value, and there
is enough absorptive capacity
to recognize or develop this
new knowledge.
Low
There are too few differences
in knowledge base. There are
only few potential knowledge
Cognitive
distance
Entrepreneurs and
managers involved in the
crossover are asked about
the learning opportunities
the crossover partner
provided, differences in
organizational focus
between them and how
they developed newly
acquired knowledge into
innovations.
Page 72 of 96
spillovers with a small novelty
value, even when there is high
absorptive capacity to
recognize or develop new
knowledge.
Geographical
distance
Trust
High
The distance between the
main offices of two
organizations is between 93
and 135 kilometers.
Medium
The distance between the
main offices of two
organizations is between 51
and 93 kilometers.
Low
The distance between the
main offices of two
organizations is between 9
and 51 kilometers.
High
There were no problems
regarding trust and both
involved partners expressed
high levels of trust since the
beginning of the crossover.
Medium
There were some problems
regarding trust during the
crossover, but these problems
were resolved and later both
involved partners expressed
high levels of trust.
Low
There were problems
regarding trust during the
crossover and these problems
were not resolved. Low levels
of trust are expressed by at
least one involved partner.
Location of main office is
obtained from the register
of the Chamber of
Commerce. Distance is
measured by using Google
Earth.
Entrepreneurs and
managers involved in the
crossover are asked about
their expectations of the
crossover partner, their
need for control and if
mutual agreements were
met in time.
Page 73 of 96
Appendix 3: List of codes
Codes on sensitizing
concepts (13)
Absorptive capacity
Cognitive distance
Geographical proximity
Idea development
Idea diffusion
Idea generation
Obstacle
Success
Success factor
Trust
Open codes (75)
Analysis
Application
Business model
Capacity
Clear
Collaboration
Commitment
Communication
Complexity
Contact
Contract
Control
Costs
Crossover
Culture
Customer
Differences
Expectations
Experience
Feasibility
Finding
Flexibility
Focus
Frequent
interaction
Funding
Goal
Independence
Initiating
Innovation
International
Investment
Knowledge
Learning
Legitimacy
Market
Marketing
Motivation
Mutual dependence
Network
Obstacle
Openness
Opportunity
Overview
Participating
Patent
Patience
Persistence
Planning
Problem solving
Profiling
Profit
Project leader
Proud
Publicity
Research
Resistance
Responsibility
Risk
Roles
Selecting ideas
Selecting partners
Shared experience
Shared goal
Size
Societal challenge
Speed
Testing
Time
Training
Trial and Error
Trust
Understanding
University
Production
Vision
Page 74 of 96
Appendix 4: Within case analysis
Case 3
This crossover consists of a company from the pharmaceutical industry (3a) and a grower of daffodil
bulbs (3b). 10 year ago, scientific research found that there is a chemical compound found in daffodil
bulbs that could diminish the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. The pharmaceutical company
contacted the grower because they expected an increase in the demand of daffodil bulbs in the
future. The grower now supplies the pharmaceutical company with bulbs. Medication based on the
chemicals in daffodil bulbs is already distributed in hospitals and pharmacies, but unfortunately the
medication is only useful for 10 to 15% of the total number of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.
The expected increase in demand for the pharmaceutical industry was not met, since the medication
produced from chemicals in daffodil bulbs is only useful for 10 to 15% of the population with
Alzheimer’s disease. The pharmaceutical industry still has problems with attracting enough funding
for the crossover and the grower decided to continue the collaboration but with a minimal
contribution. Together with the uncertainties both organizations foresee in the future of the
crossover, this case is categorized as having a low level of success.
Interview Quotes
3a
“The past years have been very successful
by means of publicity. We reached the
exact profiling we were looking for.
However, I have to admit that we expected
to receive funding more quickly due to the
publicity. More importantly, we expected to
proceed as an independent actor, but we
are still heavily dependent on governmental
subsidizing. (…) I am hoping, and expecting,
to achieve this in the next two years. There
is enough demand from the market, but we
will have to wait and see if we can reach
sufficient capacity to satisfy this demand.
[The produced medicine] is already
Summary
Success
Both partners are satisfied
with the promotional
activities of the crossover.
However, the first
organization expected to
receive more funding more
quickly. They see
opportunities for the
future, although the future
is still uncertain. The
second organization has
reduced its participation to
the crossover to a side
project. They don’t hold
Low
Page 75 of 96
distributed to patients, but the medicine
reaches only a small target group. The
medicine only works for 10 to 15% of all
patients. (…) We would have liked to have
helped a larger target group, but
unfortunately we are not there yet.”
3b
high expectations for the
future.
“Except for the promotional activities, [the
crossover] did not offer me many benefits. I
have to admit I like participating [in the
crossover], but my own enterprise is still
the most important thing for me. (…) Now,
this project is only a side project for me.”
Horticulture and the pharmaceutical industry are very different industries in terms of risks and
margins. In the pharmaceutical industry, organizations have to make large investments and only
when an effective medication is found it is that they are able to generate turnover to cover the made
investments. The risks associated with these investments are much smaller in the horticulture, where
a supplier can count on a relatively stable price. The pharmaceutical company tried to facilitate
better communication and knowledge sharing, but both organizations agreed that the differences in
focus between both organizations were problematic. The differences might have provided both
organizations with learning opportunities, but the lack of absorptive capacity rendered the potential
knowledge spillovers out of reach, categorizing this case as having a high level of cognitive distance.
Interview Quotes
3a
“Growers are more concerned with their
own production. That’s not surprising, so
we looked for alternatives. [With this
crossover] we tried to form the link
between the scientific world and growers.
(…) That was arduous. (…) Growers are not
used to the higher risk margins and it’s
therefore hard to come up with good
Summary
Cognitive
distance
Both organizations
indicated that they belong
to very different industries
with different associated
risks and margins. The first
organization added that
they felt a big distance
between them and the
High
Page 76 of 96
alternatives for them. (…) It is an entirely
different market with different margins and
risks. (…) Even though the grower is located
fairly close to us, we occasionally felt a big
distance between us.”
3b
“I always go to their office. I know my office
might not be as fancy as theirs, but still… I
think it would be good if they knew better
how things are going over here. Maybe
then they would understand me better. (…)
We are worlds apart. (…) Of course they
tried to explain things to me, but with these
big differences it is hard to reconcile. (…) On
the other hand, they are also not familiar
with my industry.”
second organization. The
first organization made a
deliberate effort to
overcome these
differences, but the
differences were too big to
reconcile according to the
second organization. There
might have been many
learning opportunities, but
a lack of absorptive
capacity results in high
level of cognitive distance.
The level of trust was initially not a problem and both organizations agreed to collaborate with
enthusiasm. However, there were a lot of uncertainties regarding the future of the crossover. These
uncertainties became a problem to the level of trust between the two organizations. Despite the lack
of trust, both organizations decided to continue the collaboration, but the grower decided to limit its
contribution to the crossover. Therefore this crossover is categorized as having a low level trust.
Interview Quotes
3a
“When there are a lot of uncertainties and
the future of the collaboration is unclear,
then people start to distrust each other.
Some distrust might not be a problem, (…)
but real distrust is obviously never a good
thing. You want to have an open
conversation with each other at all times.
Distrust could hinder good collaboration so
that might also hinder the success [of the
crossover].”
3b
I trusted the crossover partner. They were
really helpful and willing to make
concessions when we wanted something.
(…) In the beginning we had lots of
Summary
Trust
In the beginning both
Low
partners expressed trust to
each other. However,
during the collaboration
the second organization
grew distrustful due to
differences between them.
According to the second
organization, there was not
enough trust to continue
the close collaboration and
regard it as a side project
since.
Page 77 of 96
ambitious plans, however, after some time
we grew into a more distant buyer-supplier
relationship. (…) I’m not sure if there was
enough trust for a closer relationship.
(…)We are worlds apart. (…) (…) Of course
they tried to explain things to me, but with
these big differences it is hard to reconcile.
(…) Nowadays, I see the crossover just as a
side project.”
Case 4
This crossover consists of a high tech company from the space technology industry (4a) and a
company from the fish industry (4b). The high tech company is specialized in cameras used in space
programs. These cameras can make three dimensional and highly detailed photographs, which
makes them also applicable in the food industry. With these advanced cameras they are able to
detect bacteria and other contaminants during the process. This way, when fish is contaminated the
fish can be isolated from the batch right away, instead of only at the end of the process when the
whole batch might already be infected. There is already one camera system in operation. The high
tech company is producing more camera systems and is also looking for other applications in other
industries. The fish company is planning to deploy more camera systems and further improve the
quality control in all process steps.
The fish company has taken the first camera system in operation and with direct positive results on
the quality control. They are planning to implement more systems across all process steps in one
year and are expecting to be very profitable within two year. To date, the crossover is not yet
profitable for both organizations. Although the high tech company only sold one camera system to
date, the high tech company is planning to produce and sell more camera systems in the near future.
Furthermore they are developing more applications of the new camera technology, for example for
other industries and other countries. Since the crossover is already showing the first signs of financial
Page 78 of 96
success and both organizations are having high expectations of the future of the crossover, this case
is categorized as having a medium level of success.
Interview Quotes
4a
“[The crossover] is already a success for us,
a technological success. We have shown
that we can do this and that there are a lot
of organizations willing to invest and
implement it. For our company, it is not yet
a success, but we are sure it will be a
success. We haven’t sold many, but we are
developing more applications. (…) When
there are more applications, you have to
make less adaptations and it will be a also a
commercial success. (…) In one year there
will be positive cash flow, and then there
are less costs than revenue. After two year
the investments will be paid back.”
4b
“It is too early to call [the crossover] a
success since we are still experimenting
with more applications. But the evaluations
up till now are looking good. Employees are
satisfied, we are satisfied. We all learned a
lot during this project. (…) It will take some
time before [the crossover] is profitable.
Now only the first system is put to use, but
wherever it is used the quality increases
directly. (…) In one year, when there are
more systems in operation across the whole
organization, the costs will decrease and we
will be making our first profits thanks to this
new system. That is very quickly. I think we
can definitely call it a huge success in one or
two years from now.”
Summary
Success
Both organizations indicate
that there are only a few
new systems in operation
and that the crossover is
not yet profitable. Both
organizations see the
crossover becoming very
profitable within two year.
The future looks promising
due to the development of
more applications of the
new technology.
Medium
The industry related knowledge both organizations could offer the collaborating partner from the
other industry had a high novelty value. Both organizations mentioned that there were many
differences between the fish industry and the high tech industry, especially regarding the focus on
Page 79 of 96
technology. Both organizations made elaborate efforts to better understand the crossover partner.
The high tech company even deployed personnel that could bridge the gap in technological focus
between both organizations. This suggests a high absorptive capacity on both sides of the crossover.
This case was categorized as having a medium level of cognitive distance since the absorptive
capacity and the novelty value of potential knowledge spillovers were both high.
Interview Quotes
4a
“De client has something and wants to
distinguish himself, and we might have the
technology to offer a solution. (…) We are
active in various markets and notice that
every partner bring his own specific
knowledge. In that case it is not that easy to
work together on one technology or one
solution. (…) However it can also be
complementary. They know everything
about detecting bacteria and how to put
the technology to good use. We know
everything about cameras, so we choose to
collaborate with partners that are already
active in the target market. (…) That is one
of the fun things about entering a new
market. Especially the food industry, the
fish industry, is very different from the
advanced technologies used in space
programs. Those space technology firms are
more comparable to us and are more
deeply rooted in technology. They are
different from [the crossover partner] and
that provides a fun collaboration. They
know everything about the product, we
know everything about the technology. If
we talk to each other, we can achieve fully
new solutions we could think of ourselves.
The client doesn’t have to be bother with
technical details. That means that we have
to look into the situation of the client. We
have to translate the technology into a
solution for the client. (…) We have to take
a step in the direction of the client and
Summary
Cognitive
distance
Both organizations
indicated that their
industries are very
different and provide a lot
of learning opportunities,
suggesting a high novelty
value. Both organizations
made an effort to
understand the other
organization better and
meet each other halfway.
The first organization even
had employees that could
bridge the gap between
both organizations. The
combination of a high level
of novelty value and
absorptive capacity results
in a medium level of
cognitive distance.
Medium
Page 80 of 96
understand what their product or problem
is. That means that we have to have
employees that stand between the client
and ourselves and that is exactly what we
did with [the crossover]. We are learning
many new things about their market. That
is a challenge and we have to take a bigger
step in the direction of the client than we
are used to.”
4b
“Nowadays, we have grown to 120 full time
employees. We often say: They are all
bilingual: They speak the language of the
fish industry, but also the language of the
client.(…) Both parties have a lot of
knowledge that the other is not familiar
with of course. We don’t have that much
technically schooled personnel, while they
operate at the core of the technological
sector. We are more familiar with the ins
and outs of the fish industry. So you have to
meet each other halfway. That takes
patience and understanding from both
parties. You have to say directly when the
other is going to quickly for you or when
the other uses expressions that you are not
familiar with. (…) We are talking about
differences, but you have to remember that
there are also similarities. You are working
together for a reason: Apparently there you
have a shared goal. (…) Furthermore, you
are both prepared to collaborate in a big
project and you are both a company that
looks at themselves as innovative and
progressive. Those are similarities you have
to remember.”
There were no problems with the level of trust between both partners. However, the two
organizations did not explicitly express high level of trust towards the crossover partner either. Both
organizations stressed their dependence on the crossover partner: The high tech company needed
Page 81 of 96
the fish company to gain access to the fish industry and further diffuse their innovations. The fish
company needed the high tech company because of their technological knowledge. The mutual
dependence, based on instrumental considerations, might have fostered trust between both
organizations, although not of a high level. Therefore this case was categorized as having a medium
level of trust between the two crossover partners.
Interview Quotes
4a
“Fortunately, there were no problems
[regarding trust] with this collaboration. We
explicitly chose to develop the product with
this one customer, knowing that there are
more customers in the market. [The
partner] is very important to us. (…) They
want to be at the top segment of the
market and we can help them develop.”
4b
“We had to agree on who had to bring in
which knowledge and who was responsible
for what. I have to say that this went very
smooth. (…) There are differences, but you
have to remember the similarities. You are
working together because of a shared goal.
You have to look at those similarities as
well.”
Summary
Trust
Both partners mentioned
that there were no
problems with the level of
trust between them.
However, neither of the
organizations expressed a
high level of trust. There
were some differences
according to the second
organization, but both
organizations noted that
there was a mutual benefit
to collaborate.
Medium
Case 5
This crossover consists of the same high tech company from the space technology industry involved
in the previous case (5a), but a different company from the fish industry (5b). Before starting the
crossover detailed in case 4, the high tech company contacted another organization from the fish
industry to collaborate on the same innovation, i.e. a portable camera system that could detect
bacteria and contaminations in every process step in the fish industry. However, the process started
with a discussion on the property rights of the innovation both organizations aimed to produce, by
the fish company involved in this case even labelled as a messy discussion. After this discussion, both
Page 82 of 96
organizations agreed on a contract. The fish company complied to let the high tech company have
the property rights and both signed the agreement. However, the high tech company was still not
convinced that the agreements would be met by the crossover partner and they terminated the
crossover preemptively. The high tech company continued to produce the innovation with the other
fish company as described in case 4. The fish company involved in this case also found a different
partner to collaborate with and produced a different innovation that could also detect bacteria on
fish, but this follow-up collaboration was not included in this research.
Although both organizations have collaborated in this crossover during the idea generation stage, the
crossover was terminated before the idea was developed. Because the crossover was not finished,
this case is categorized as having a low level of success.
Interview Quotes
5a
“We noticed in the beginning of the
collaboration that it was not going to work.
(…) We did not want to develop a product
and see along the way if it was going to be
successful or not. (…) We had the
agreements on paper, but after half a year
we felt that [the crossover partner] could
not meet these expectations. We had no
other choice than to terminate the project.
We took our loss and paid for the first part
of the development.”
5b
“The contracts were eventually prepared
and signed, but they were not convinced
that we could meet the expectations. They
felt uncomfortable after the messy debate
we had over the contracts. We had no
choice but to agree. After all, we weren’t
enthusiastic ourselves.”
Summary
Success
The crossover was
terminated preemptively.
Both organizations agreed
on a contract, but the first
organization did not expect
the second organization to
meet their expectations.
Low
The novelty value of the knowledge that both organizations could provide the crossover partner with
is just as high as in case 4, because both cases are on the same innovation only with different fish
Page 83 of 96
companies involved. There were many potential knowledge spillovers of high novelty value available
to both organizations, since the high tech industry has knowledge on camera technology and the fish
industry on what bacteria to look for and how a camera system can be implemented in the fish
industry. However, because there were many differences in focus between the two organizations,
there were problems with absorbing the potential knowledge spillovers. The high tech company
mentioned that the differences were fundamental in nature and that they terminated the crossover
because they could not overcome these differences. The level of cognitive distance was categorized
as being too high to facilitate effective knowledge transfer.
Interview Quotes
5a
“It can be difficult when the client does not
fully comprehend the limitation and
possibilities. He often has his own view on
this. That means that we have to take care
of management of expectations. That is
important: Close collaboration with the
right expectations and the right agreements
on what to achieve. The client has his own
view because the technology is new to their
market. You have to stay realistic. That
might be a challenge sometimes. (…) You
have to work closely and you try to have
clear contracts, (…) but in some
collaborations it goes wrong. Then you have
different expectations and demands. You
can’t help that by having a agreement on
paper. They are an organization with their
own focus, their own agenda and vision.
You can’t change that by having a hard
contract is my experience. (…) We aim to
make business at an early stage, but
sometimes this fails and then you have to
count your losses.”
5b
“Honestly, there were a lot of differences
between us. You can’t blame [the crossover
Summary
Cognitive
distance
Both organizations
High
indicated that there were
many differences between
them. The second
organization indicates that
the differences were
fundamental and that they
could not bridge the gap
between them. The first
organization adds that they
have a different focus and
vision and had to end the
collaboration preemptively
because of that. There
might have been many
learning opportunities, but
there was not enough
absorptive capacity to take
advantage of these
opportunities. This
suggests that the crossover
was terminated because of
the high level of cognitive
distance.
Page 84 of 96
partner] for that. There were just too many
differences between us. There was no
match en you can’t blame them for that.(…)
Early there was a discussion on the patents
of the technology. (…) It didn’t feel good.
We have had some discussions with
partners before, (…) but when your visions
are that far apart, those differences might
be hard to reconcile. There will always be
differences, but when those differences hit
the core of your enterprise… When you
have to make concessions to the long time
focus you aim for… [The crossover partner]
must have felt the same and that’s where it
went wrong. (…) This partner was
fundamentally different from other
partners we worked with in the past.”
As mentioned before, the high tech company did not have trust that the fish company in this case
could meet their expectations. Because of the messy discussion on the patents, the high tech
company did not believe that the fish company would become a reliable future client. The fish
company also expressed that they felt not comfortable working together with this partner at an early
stage of the collaboration. Therefore this crossover is categorized as having a low level of trust.
Interview Quotes
5a
“I already ran into some problems once. In
the beginning, we couldn’t get a grip on the
intentions of the other party. We wanted to
have clear arrangements, clear plans on
how the collaboration would develop. (…)
That’s where it went wrong that time. (…)
You start a project, and when you see that
it doesn’t work out, you have to say: This no
longer works for us. We don’t have trust
that you will become a real client for us in
the future.”
Summary
Trust
Both organizations
mentioned there were
problems with the level of
trust at an early stage.
After a discussion both
partners agreed on a
contract, but the first
organization was not
convinced that their
expectations could be met
by the second
Low
Page 85 of 96
5b
“It was in a very early stage that I didn’t feel organization.
comfortable with this partner. We have a
lot of experience when it comes to
innovative projects, (…) but this partner
deviated from other partners we have come
to know. (…) We just didn’t match. At an
early stage, there was some discussion on
the patents of the innovation. (…) We
ended up signing the contracts, but they
were not convinced that we could meet
their expectations. (…) We agreed on
terminating the project, after all we weren’t
enthusiastic as well.”
Case 6
After their graduation, two students Aerospace technology decided to start their own company in
order to apply space technology learned in their study to every day products. They came in contact
with a material researcher that also just started his own company in the chemical industry. Both
small enterprises collaborated to produce a system that could absorb carbon dioxide in places with
severe air pollution and that could release the absorbed carbon dioxide in greenhouses to put the
chemicals to good use. The chemical company developed a material that could absorb the
greenhouse gasses and the space technology company developed the system around this material
that facilitated the installation and transportation of the absorbed greenhouse gasses. After a year of
collaborating, the crossover partners already signed contracts with three clients and various systems
are already operational.
Both organizations thought the crossover had already exceeded their expectations. They are both
generation turnover from the crossover and since they just signed a contract with a large
organization with high capacity, they are expecting to be very profitable in the near future. Both
organizations also build an international network and are planning to diffuse the innovation outside
of the Netherlands. Because both organizations are close to making a profit and have high
Page 86 of 96
expectations on the financial outcomes of this crossover in the future, this case is categorized as
having a high level of success.
Interview Quotes
6a
“I regard last year as both an organizational
and a personal success worth sharing. (…)
We did not expect to be this far after one
year of collaborating. We worked hard for it
and it is good to see that are expectations
are exceeded. (…) After we contracted a
large firm as one of our clients, our
investments will be paid back very soon.
Combined with the international
opportunities, there is no need to worry.”
6b
“I think [the crossover] is a huge success. I
have to say we absolutely didn’t expect to
be this successful. (…) Our focus was on
learning new things, not on making lots of
money, so it exceeded all our expectations.
(…) Signing a large firm really accelerated
the process, in terms of both turnover and
future perspective. The future is looking
good. (…)”
Summary
Success
Both organizations are
generating turnover and
are expecting to be
profitable very soon. There
are promising
opportunities to grow,
even internationally. Both
organizations indicated
that their expectations
have been exceeded.
High
The high tech industry and the chemical industry have a long history of close collaborations. Space
technology is often combined with knowledge on materials from the chemical industry. There were
not many differences between both organizations and the novelty value of the potential knowledge
spillovers between the two organizations was relatively low compared to other cases. The absorptive
capacity might have been high because both organizations were collaborating closely and even
worked in the same office during the first half year, because of the low novelty value this crossover is
still categorized as having a low level of cognitive distance.
Page 87 of 96
Interview Quotes
6a
6b
Summary
Cognitive
distance
“For my previous job I already had contact
with companies from the high tech
industry, more specifically the space
technology industry. That was more like a
customer-supplier relation. But for this
project we deliberately chose to collaborate
as equal partners. So there were not many
differences. We deliberately chose to
collaborate as equal partners in this project.
I have to say I felt quite at home in their
office. I was one of the guys there. I think I
can safely say that nowadays I have enough
experience in both industries. The
differences are therefore not that big. (…) I
made a selection of the most appropriate
materials and presented them to [the
crossover partner]. That was exciting. I was
excited to see if it would fit with their
expectations. But that ended up going really
well.”
Both organizations stated
Low
that there were not many
differences since they are
both focused on
technology. The industries
they belong to have a
history of close
collaboration, suggesting a
smaller level of novelty
value compared to other
cases. The entrepreneur of
the first organization
already had some
experience with working
together with the high tech
industry. Both
organizations indicated
that sharing a work floor
increased their
involvement and
willingness to learn. The
“We thought of the enterprise as a way to
novelty value of this
learn new things and apply things we
crossover is relatively low,
already learnt. (…) The chemical industry
so even though both
and the space technology industry are both organizations showed that
really technical fields. Since the beginning
they have a high level of
of space programs, they have been looking
absorptive capacity, the
at applications for daily life usage, also in
crossover is categorized as
combination with the chemical industry.
having a medium level of
Chemistry is an addition to our industry that cognitive distance.
provides new and complementary
perspectives, so those industries are more
closely related than you would think. That
becomes apparent when looking at this
building. Companies from the high tech
industry, the chemical industry, but also
space and aerospace technology and
mechanical engineering share a work floor.
(…) They always appreciate it when you
show genuine interest in their activities and
wanting to learn something new. That
complementary perspective, that was
Page 88 of 96
exactly what [the crossover partner] offered
us.”
Because both organizations worked in the same office for the first half year of the crossover, both
organizations were able to build trust at an early stage. The close collaboration increased the
involvement of both organizations in the partner’s contribution and both organizations expressed
high levels of trust during the crossover. Even during the latter half year of the crossover both
organizations continued to express high levels of trust in each other, judging from the friendly and
involved contact between both parties. That both organizations were exclusively working on making
the crossover a success and that there were no distractions from other projects, might have helped
to build the high level of trust between the crossover partners within this case.
Interview Quotes
6a
“We talked to each other daily and naturally
there was enough control on each other’s
work, but not out of distrust or something.
The opposite is true, there were really
involved. (…) We deliberately chose to
collaborate as equal partners in this project.
I have to say I felt quite at home in their
office. I was one of the guys there.”
6b
“I am really happy with our collaboration.
Since the beginning.(…) Initially we shared
our workspace. (…) We gave each other
regularly updates on our progress and the
expectations for the upcoming week. (…)
This was the only product that we and [the
crossover partner] worked on. There were
not a bunch of other projects going on so
you had difficulties in planning. That was a
huge benefit. You know from each other
that you can focus exclusively on this
project without many distractions.”
Summary
Trust
Both organizations worked High
from the same office in the
beginning and both
expressed trust since the
beginning of the crossover.
Both organizations were
very involved with each
other work and there were
no distractions that could
pose problems to the
mutually high level of trust.
Page 89 of 96
Appendix 5: Cross case analysis
Overview table of geographical distance
Interview
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
6a
6b
Distance in
kilometers
72
Geographical
distance
Medium
135
Large
9
Small
36
Small
43
Small
0 / 47
Small
Overview table of size and difference in size
Interview
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
6a
6b
Number of
employees
28
213
32
36
45
19
86
120
93
228
6
12
Total number
of employees
241
Size
Large
Difference in
size (ratio)
0,13
Difference
in size
Large
68
Small
0,89
Small
64
Small
0,42
Medium
206
Medium
0,72
Small
321
Large
0,41
Medium
18
Small
0,50
Medium
Co-occurrence table of success factors
Codes
Success
Quotes
Co-occurring
Page 90 of 96
Communication
factors
13
Research
9
3a: “[The crossover partner] had sufficient
capacity, so we decided to collaborate.
However, unfortunately the initial
enthusiasm faded away. Even though [the
crossover partner] is located fairly close to
us, we occasionally felt a big distance
between us. (…) For the last year, we only
talked to each other once a month, even
though they are located at walking
distance.”
3b: “In the beginning we frequently
contacted each other. We had lots of
ambitious plans, however, after some time
we grew into a more distant buyer-supplier
relationship. I thought it took them too
long to provide an overview of all involved
parties. That is way I began to wonder
whether to continue in this project or not.”
4b: “Don’t think in obstacles, because that
might result in resistance. Thinking about
opportunities, experimenting with new
things, and being open-minded about
change, might reduce the number of
obstacles that you encounter on your way.
(…) Of course, we were in contact with a
lot or companies. We contacted
companies, arranged meetings and met
others at conferences. It is possible that
you don’t speak them ever again, but you
did acquire new knowledge. This
knowledge can be applied to future
collaborations. I don’t regard that as an
obstacle.”
1b: “You have to be patient. Especially
when collaborating with universities. You
have to accept that things might not go as
quickly as you would hope for. You have to
overcome these challenges. When starting
a new project you have one guarantee: You
will encounter unexpected obstacles on
your way. So you have to be prepared and
be persistent “
3a: “In order to develop better medication,
a lot of research is needed. There is a lot of
codes
Frequent
interaction
Cognitive
distance
Culture
Openness
Knowledge
Trial and error
Persistence
Funding
Customer
Involvement
Page 91 of 96
Funding
8
Commitment
6
potential, but the bottleneck is the capacity
at this moment. (…) It is hard to attract
sufficient funding and capacity to satisfy
demands.
3b: “Collaborating with universities has
benefits to the communication with and
the acceptation by society. When you
worked with universities, you win the
customers’ trust that it is a reliable
product.”
4a and 5a: “As a company you have to be
involved from the start and think of
solutions together with the customer. (…)
During the first phase, we also collaborate
with universities. We look for research on
the topic, see if there are opportunities to
test the idea and we look for literature
published in scientific journals. We also
have scientists working for us and they can
collaborate directly with universities.”
1a: “We requested the right subsidizing,
Time
but after two years, we were right where
Costs
we started.”
2a: “It cost a lot of effort to attract funding.
I think that is only logical. It took us six to
seven months, and required a lot of
effort.”
3a: “I have to admit that we expected the
profiling to bring in funding more quickly.
More importantly, I hoped to continue as a
independent company without having to
rely on subsidizing.”
4a and 5a: “The start-up costs are very
high and there are few clients that can
afford all these costs. An obstacle can be
that clients might want to collaborate, but
are not in the financial position to do so.”
4b: “In other projects, funding remains an
obstacle in the first phase. These are risky
projects. (…) Investors are aware of those
risks too, so you have to convince them
that it is going to be a success.”
3b: “Involvement is important. [The
crossover partner] was really involved.
Involvement
Participating
Page 92 of 96
Participating
6
Expectations
5
They pushed hard for it to be a success.”
5a: “The beginning is always stressful for
both parties. You don’t know each other
well, but you are still expressing your
commitment to each other to collaborate
for at least the next couple of years.”
6b: “This was the only product that we and
[the crossover partner] worked on. There
were not a bunch of other projects going
on so you had difficulties in planning. That
was a huge benefit. You know from each
other that you can focus exclusively on this
project without many distractions.”
4a and 5a: “When people from other
industries ask us to produce a solution, we
tell them that they have to think and help
us as well. (…) That is a challenge, because
there are not many technicians in the food
industry. We have to take a bigger step in
the direction of the client than we are used
to.”
4b: “The most important thing is that the
whole organization is involved with the
innovation. When you isolate yourself and
decide how to innovate, you are
guaranteed to face a lot of resistance
because employees were not expecting
change. Therefore we let employees
participate and this honest and polite way
of doing business is appreciated by all of
them. (…) Change has to be incorporated in
your organization. Change has to be
obvious instead of something you fear.
Change has to come from the inside of the
organization.”
2a: “I think it is best to make clear
arrangements on the expectations, roles
and funding. Furthermore you have to
make arrangements about the future,
about intellectual property.”
4a and 5a: “It can be difficult when the
client does not fully comprehend the
limitation and possibilities. He often has his
own view on this. That means that we have
to take care of management of
Expectations
Involvement
Commitment
Innovation
Culture
Funding
Cognitive
distance
Page 93 of 96
Frequent
interaction
5
Project leader
5
expectations. That is important: Close
collaboration with the right expectations
and the right agreements on what to
achieve. The client has his own view
because the technology is new to their
market. You have to stay realistic. That
might be a challenge sometimes.”
1b: “Being located near [the crossover
partner] is of course a benefit. It is easier
to have a meeting and you don’t have to
spend much time traveling. We work a lot
with entrepreneurs from this area. You
meet them more easily.”
3a: “Even though [the crossover partner] is
located fairly close to us, we occasionally
felt a big distance between us. (…) For the
last year, we only talked to each other
once a month, even though they are
located at walking distance.”
3b: “Five times a year, we have a meeting
at their office. I always go to their office. I
know my office might not be as fancy as
theirs, but still… I think it would be good if
they knew better how things are going
over here. Maybe then they would
understand me better.”
6a: “Especially the first months when I
worked at their office, we had a close
collaboration. During the development, we
created more distance, but we still had a
face-to-face meeting twice a week. And of
course we called each other often.”
2a: “From the very first start, we thought
of a business model. This model was not
clear from the beginning, but was
developed just like the idea. Project
management is also an important factor. It
means staying in contact with all parties
and creating a working environment.
Making arrangements is not enough, you
want to create a culture based on
enthusiasm.”
4a and 5a: “Together with the client, we
want to provide practical solutions within
one year and with limited costs. You have
Communication
Geographical
distance
Cognitive
distance
Involvement
Culture
Customer
Costs
Page 94 of 96
Feasibility
4
Business model
3
Contract
3
Innovation
3
Trial and Error
3
Openness
2
to be in the lead in order to achieve these
goals.”
4a and 5a: “You have to test the feasibility
of the solution before developing a
product. You have to do this in the first
phases. In the latter phases, it is almost
always possible to make the developed
idea into a product.”
3a: “You have to look for business models
that both parties feel comfortable with.
There has to be a mutual benefit for both
partners. (…) You have to avoid
uncertainties; it has to be clear what both
partners are expecting.”
4a and 5a: “It is a collaborative
development and although you try to have
clear contracts (…) it might go wrong
because of differences in expectations or
demands. You can’t change that by having
clear contracts.”
4a and 5a: “We explicitly chose to develop
the product with this one customer,
knowing that there are more customers in
the market. [The partner] is very important
to us. (…) They want to be at the top
segment of the market and we can help
them develop.”
1a: “In the development, you encounter a
lot of dead ends. You might think that you
are on the right track, but after a while you
see another route and decide to take that
route. When you aim to produce
something entirely new, it might be
necessary to start all over a few times.”
1a: “When you think you know everything,
that’s where it goes wrong.”
6b: “People always appreciate it when you
show genuine interest in their expertise
and want to learn something new.”
Expectations
Customer
Innovation
Persistence
Culture
Page 95 of 96
Appendix 6: Explorative analysis
Open codes
Frequent
interaction
Geographical
distance
4
Testing
2
Research
2
Cognitive
distance
1
Quotes
1b: “Being located near [the crossover partner] is of
course a benefit. It is easier to have a meeting and you
don’t have to spend much time traveling. We work a lot
with entrepreneurs from this area. You meet them
more easily.”
3a: “Even though [the crossover partner] is located
fairly close to us, we occasionally felt a big distance
between us. (…) For the last year, we only talked to
each other once a month, even though they are located
at walking distance.”
6a: “Especially the first months when I worked at their
office, we had a close collaboration. During the
development, we created more distance, but we still
had a face-to-face meeting twice a week. And of course
we called each other often.”
1a: “Nearby, there is a stand that sells French fries.
They peel their own potatoes, so we contacted them if
we could run some tests.”
3a: “We deliberately decided to be located in the
middle of this area. We wanted to build an extensive
network of growers from this area and create a link
between them and scientific research.”
2b: “Because we were in a different part of the country
[than the crossover partner], we didn’t have meetings
frequently. When we were very busy, we had a meeting
every two weeks.”
Page 96 of 96