Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available ScienceDirect
online atonline
Available www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia CIRP-D-19-02278

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP-D-19-02278
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)
Procedia 000–000
CIRP 93 (2020) 736–741
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

53rd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

53rd
53rd CIRP
CIRP Conference
Conference on
on Manufacturing
Manufacturing Systems
Systems
How Current Trends in Mechanical Engineering Can Shape
How Current Trends
28th CIRP inConference,
Design Mechanical
Interorganizational Engineering
May 2018,
R&D Can Shape
Nantes, France

A new methodology to Interorganizational

analyze thea functionalR&D anda physical architecture of
Marc Wiedenmann *, Simon Dreher , Philipp Humbeck , Oliver Schöllhammer ,
a b

existing
Marcproducts fora*,anSimon
Wiedenmann assembly
Drehera,oriented
Thomas product
Bauernhansl b
Philipp Humbeck a family
, Oliver identification
Schöllhammer b
,
Thomas Bauernhanslb
University of Stuttgart, Graduate School of Excellence advanced Manufacturing Engineering, Nobelstr. 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
a
b Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstr. 12, 70569 Stutgart, Germany
a
University of Stuttgart, Graduate School of Excellence advanced Manufacturing Engineering, Nobelstr. 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
* Corresponding b
Écoleauthor. Fraunhofer Institute
Tel.:Supérieure
Nationale +49(0)711 685 for
d’Arts etManufacturing
81143; E-mailArts
Métiers, etEngineering
address: and Automation IPA, Nobelstr.
4 Rue 12,
marc.wiedenmann@gsame.uni-stuttgart.de
Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 70569Fresnel,
Augustin Stutgart,Metz
Germany
57078, France
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49(0)711 685 81143; E-mail address: marc.wiedenmann@gsame.uni-stuttgart.de
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
Abstract
Abstract
Today's trends in mechanical engineering industry require cooperation in research and development (R&D) between multiple cross-industry
Abstract
companies. However, they often have low success rates. Although current trends facilitate cooperation and thus contribute to the success of
Today's trends in mechanical engineering industry require cooperation in research and development (R&D) between multiple cross-industry
cooperations, there is little knowledge about the relevance of these trends for distinct types of cooperation in terms of their success. Therefore,
Incompanies.
today’s
this
However,
study business
they often the
environment,
aims to identify
have lowtowards
trend
success-related
successmore
R&D trends
rates.product
Although current
for bilateralvariety andtrends
cooperation,
facilitate cooperation
customization
networks andisecosystems.
unbroken. Dueand thus contribute
to this
By means
to thethe
development,
of
success
needand
a literature analysis
of
cooperations,
agile and there is little
reconfigurable knowledge
production about emerged
systems the relevance
to of these
cope with trends for
various distinctand
products types of cooperation
product families. in
To terms
designof and
theiroptimize
success.production
Therefore,
explorative workshops, insights on how to shape R&D cooperations are gained and potential for further scientific investigation is highlighted.
this study
systems as aims
well to
as identify
to choosesuccess-related R&D trends
the optimal product for bilateral
matches, productcooperation, networks
analysis methods are and ecosystems.
needed. Indeed, By
mostmeans of known
of the a literature analysis
methods aimand
to
explorative
analyze a workshops,
product or one insights
product on how
family onto shape
the R&D
physical cooperations
level. Different are gained
product and potential
families, for
however, further
may scientific
differ investigation
largely in terms of is highlighted.
the number and
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
nature
© 2020
This isofancomponents.
The Authors.
open This fact
accessPublished
article impedes
by
under the CCanBY-NC-ND
Elsevier efficient comparison
B.V. and choice of appropriate product family combinations for the production
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
© 2019
system.
This is A The
an new Authors.
open access Published
methodology by Elsevier
articleisunder
proposed B.V. existing
to analyze
the scientific
CC BY-NC-ND products
license in CIRP
view of their functional and physicalSystems
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) architecture. The aim is to cluster
Peer-review under responsibility of the committee of the 53rd Conference on Manufacturing
This
these is an open
Peer-review
products inaccess
under
new article under
responsibility
assembly of the
the CC
oriented BY-NC-ND
scientific
product families license
committee of the
for the (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
53rd CIRPofConference
optimization on Manufacturing
existing assembly lines and theSystems
creation of future reconfigurable
Peer-review
assembly underBased
systems. responsibility
on Datum of Flow
the scientific
Chain, committee
the physical ofstructure
the 53rdofCIRP
the Conference
products is on Manufacturing
analyzed. Functional Systems
subassemblies are identified, and
Keywords: Mechanical engineering; R&D; Trend analysis; Cooperation; Network; Ecosystem
a functional analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
Keywords: Mechanical engineering; R&D; Trend analysis; Cooperation; Network; Ecosystem
similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An industrial case study on two product families of steering columns of
thyssenkrupp
1. Introduction Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation R&D of inthe proposed partnerships
corporate approach. and in different cooperation
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
1. Introduction R&D in corporate partnerships and indevelopment
modes, in order to share costs, shorten times and
different cooperation
Peer-review
Recent undertrendsresponsibility of the scientific
in the mechanical committee
engineering of the 28th
industry are CIRP Design relevant
transfer Conference 2018.
know-how. This progression leads to a
modes, in order to share costs, shorten development times and
both an opportunity
Recent trends in andmechanical
the a challengeengineering
for companies industry in this
are multilateral
transfer network
relevant of interrelations
know-how. This and interdependencies
progression leads to ina
Keywords: Assembly; Design method; Family identification
sector: on the one hand, enormous cost-saving
both an opportunity and a challenge for companies in this potentials can be subsystems and activities [4]. Value is no longer
multilateral network of interrelations and interdependencies created by one
in
realized, and on the other hand, companies must
sector: on the one hand, enormous cost-saving potentials can be be able to keep company alone and exploited by one client. A
subsystems and activities [4]. Value is no longer created by process of "value
one
track of and
realized, newontechnologies
the other hand, as companies
quickly asmust possible
be able andto react
keep co-creation"
company develops
alone in which
and exploited bythe
onepartners
client. A must workoftogether
process "value
accordingly
1.track
Introduction in order to remain competitive
of new technologies as quickly as possible and react of [1]. To provide to generate
the product
co-creation" a joint
range and
develops value proposition
characteristics
in which the partners [5].
must workchanging
This
manufactured and/or
together
opportunitiesinfor
accordingly orderthe toeconomic development[1].
remain competitive of Toinnovative corporate
provide assembled
to generate inenvironment
this system.
a joint Inand
value this the associated
context,
proposition the[5].main competitive
challenge
This changingin
solutions,
Due to the
opportunities new and
for fast complementary
development
the economic competencies
in the ofdomain
development innovative and
of dynamics
modelling
corporate and ultimately result
analysis is and
environment in
now not an increased
the only importance
to cope competitive
associated with singleof
technologies
communication are essential.
solutions, newandandan complementary Therefore,
ongoing trend ofcompetencies research
digitization and and interorganizational
and products,
dynamicsa ultimately cooperation
limited product resultrange in
in an R&D to
or existingensure
increasedproduct the long-term
families,
importance of
development (R&D)
digitalization,
technologies are isessential.
manufacturing an extremely
enterprisescritical
are field
Therefore, facing in important
terms of
research anda but
competitiveness.
also to be able tocooperation
interorganizational analyze andintoR&D compare products
to ensure to define
the long-term
company's infuture
challenges
development today’ssuccess
(R&D) market
is an [2].
extremely However,
critical fieldathe
environments: growing
incontinuing
terms of a new Nevertheless,
product families.
competitiveness. in recent
It canyears, the results
be observed thatof classical
various empirical
existing
complexity
tendency
company's of
towards products
futurereduction and
successof productproduction makes
development
[2]. However, it
the times almost
and
growing studies
product show that
families are
Nevertheless, interorganizational
regrouped
in recent inthe
years, types
function of cooperation
resultsofofclients
various tend
orempirical
features.
impossible
shortened
complexity to
productprovide all
lifecycles.and
of products the necessary
In addition,
production expertise
theremakes within
is an increasing one to
it almost However, have low
studies show success
assembly rates fluctuating
oriented product families
that interorganizational between
types ofare 50 % and 57 %
hardly to find.
cooperation tend
company
demand
impossible [2]. Especially
of customization,
to provide all being in mechanical
at the same
the necessary engineering
time inwithin
expertise industry,
a global one [6–9].
to On For
havethelowthis
productreason,
success familymany studies
rates level, aim
products
fluctuating to identify
differ50mainly
between key factors
% andin57two%
investments
competition
company [2]. for
with the development
competitors
Especially all overand
in mechanical implementation
theengineering
world. This trend,
industry, of main
that have
[6–9]. For positive
characteristics:
this reason,effectstheon
(i)many the success
number
studies of
aim toofidentify
such cooperation
components and
key (ii) the
factors
innovative
which
investments technologies
is inducing
for the have reached
the development
development from
and dimensions
macro tothat
implementation microcan [10].of
of type
that components
have (e.g. mechanical,
positive effects on the success electrical,
of suchelectronical).
cooperation
barely
markets, be
innovative made
results alone by
in diminished
technologies the company itself [3].
lot sizes dimensions
have reached This
due to augmenting requires
that can Classical methodologies considering mainly single products
[10].
product
barely be varieties (high-volume
made alone to low-volume
by the company production)
itself [3]. This requires [1]. or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
To cope with
2212-8271 © 2019 this
Theaugmenting variety
Authors. Published as wellB.V.
by Elsevier as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
identify
2212-8271 possible
© 2019 The optimization
This is an open access article under the CCpotentials in the(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
BY-NC-ND license
Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. existing causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
Peer-review under
production responsibility
system, it is of the scientific
important to have committee
a preciseof the 53rd CIRP Conference
knowledge on Manufacturing
comparison Systemsproduct families. Addressing this
of different
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 53rd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
2212-8271 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 53rdDesign
CIRP Conference
Conference2018.
on Manufacturing Systems
10.1016/j.procir.2020.03.027
 Marc Wiedenmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 736–741
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
On the one hand, trends in mechanical engineering call for
interorganizational cooperation. But they can also facilitate
interorganizational collaboration, due to new technologies and
thus contribute to an increase of the success rate. However,
there is little knowledge about the relevance of these trends for
the success factors of various types of cooperation. This has not
yet been sufficiently investigated in the relevant literature and
is therefore subject of the present paper. The following research
question can be derived from the problem outlined:
Which trends in mechanical engineering are relevant for the
success of various types of interorganizational cooperation
in R&D?
The paper is structured as follows: in section 2 the
methodology is clarified, section 3 describes the theoretical
basis, section 4 presents the results and section 5 summarizes
with a discussion and conclusion.
2. Methodology
Within the project presented in this paper, a literature
analysis, exploration workshops and a validation workshop
were carried out. The research is based on the knowledge
process of design-oriented business informatics [11]. The
analysis phase initially serves to elaborate the problem with
subsequent derivation of the resulting research question. In
addition, this phase serves to determine the research design
with the aim of answering the research question. Subsequently,
a detailed literature analysis and two workshops on explorative
data collection take place during the design phase. The main
findings of the literature analysis are presented in section 3.
Both the two explorative workshops and the validation
workshop were conducted with three experts working in the
central R&D department of a global mechanical engineering
company located in Germany. The literature analysis focuses
on scientific publications and existing research results
regarding recent trends in mechanical engineering industry,
different types of interorganizational cooperation and success
factors of such forms. Two explorative workshops serve to
generate empirical findings as well as to supplement and
validate the theoretical foundations while a final validation
workshop is conducted in order to examine and critically
discuss the results [12].
The first exploration workshop is conducted to identify
relevant trends for interorganizational R&D management.
Workshop 2, on the one hand, serves to analyze the potential
impact of the identified trends on the success factors of
interorganizational cooperation by carrying out an impact
analysis according to Gausemeier [13]. On the other hand, a
pairwise comparison for each type of interorganizational
cooperation is carried out in Workshop 2. Within the various
types of interorganizational R&D cooperation, all success
factors are compared with each other and their importance is
analyzed and evaluated by a direct comparison. Subsequently,
the partial results from Workshop 2 will be linked. By
combining the partial results of both workshops, conclusions
can be drawn as to which trends are relevant for the success of
which type of interorganizational cooperation and should
737
therefore be given attention by the management of
interorganizational R&D.
In Workshop 3, the insights gained are discussed with the
group of experts. Thereby, the designed construct can be
iteratively improved from a scientific point of view, practical
recommendations for action can be derived and research gaps
can be identified.
3. Theoretical basis
3.1. Key trends in mechanical engineering industry
In contrast to other industries, the mechanical engineering
industry is still in its infancy in terms of exploiting potential of
current trends like digitization [14]. The scientific foundation
of the relevant trends this paper addresses was established on
an analysis by the German Engineering Federation (VDMA) in
cooperation with the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and
Innovation Research (ISI) in 2019. This study provides an
overview of 70 current trends in mechanical engineering and
constitutes the basis of this work. For a detailed description and
positioning of the individual trends, reference is made to the
publication of the VDMA due to the limited scope of this work.
[15]
3.2. Types of interorganizational R&D cooperation
In recent years, the developments discussed above have led
to an increase in interorganizational cooperation especially in
the R&D area. The cooperation with external partners is always
associated with a certain risk of unwanted leakage of
knowledge. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of
interorganizational cooperation outweigh the risks: both
practitioners and scientists emphasize the importance of R&D
cooperation with other organizations [16], particularly in the
context of business-to-business markets [17]. Despite or
perhaps because of the increasing importance of
interorganizational cooperation, no consistent definitions of
related terms have been established [18,19]. For this reason, an
attempt is made in the following to differentiate the three terms
bilateral cooperation, network and ecosystem [20,21].
The scientific literature generally agrees that from a
transaction-cost-theoretical view the term bilateral cooperation
means voluntary cooperation between two companies which
remain legally and, in parts, economically independent [22].
Thereby, it can be distinguished from pure market forms and
from hierarchical forms like mergers and acquisition. It also
excludes cooperation of legally independent companies within
a group. Cooperation thus represents a hybrid form between
market and hierarchy, which, depending on the form it takes, is
coined more by market-related or hierarchical characteristics
and by predominantly sequential dependencies [23].
Bilateral cooperation and networks can have many
similarities in terms of their characteristics [24]. Networks
show an increasingly vertical orientation of cooperation, which
is why the boundaries between vertical cooperation and
networks are likely to be fluent [25]. However, networks have
more complex structures, since they can involve several types
of bilateral cooperation and are coined by reciprocal
738 Marc Wiedenmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 736–741
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
dependencies [24]. Networks therefore consist of several
different actors, predominantly suppliers, who create value
from direct and indirect interaction [26]. Thus they are not built
on a common goal that is pursued and show a relatively low
commitment by the parties involved [27]. Hence, companies
can be part of a network without even knowing since
relationships are not of primary importance, but network
effects resulting from the interaction [28]. Participants often
have different visions, interests and values [29–31].
On a more superficial level, there are also many similarities
between networks and ecosystems. Both are structural media
for a common exchange [28,30]. In addition, however, there
are also differences between the two concepts suggesting a
delimitation. Ecosystems are shaped between selected partners,
e.g. suppliers, and increasingly also between complementary
partners, who pursue a common goal that they cannot achieve
alone. When networks are initially established, they are usually
based on a focal firm or bilateral cooperation [32]. The
literature highlights the advantages in terms of resources,
information and status that arise from inter-company structures
and links. Ecosystem approaches, on the other hand, are coined
by the intense reciprocal interaction of different activities and
actors. Their impacts focus on a central value proposition that
underlies the ecosystem as it evolves [32]. The concepts vary
in the perception of their actors: in ecosystems highly
heterogenous but interdependent partners from different
industries work together to support the development of
innovative products and services. Compared to networks the
partners satisfy customer needs collectively and not by the
focal firm alone [31,33]. Cooperation in ecosystems aims to
create a win-win situation for all participants [34]. The partners
are connected by a common vision and common goals [35].
Hence, the partners show a high commitment to the value
proposition and the ecosystem can be identified as a new
perspective on value creation in networks beyond established
network management [27]. Central elements are increased
openness, a broader perspective, increased amount of various
partners, high commitment and reciprocal dependencies [4].
Figure 1 summarizes the differentiation.
Figure 1. Differentiation of types of interorganizational R&D cooperation
3
3.3. Success factors of interorganizational R&D
Success factors are „[…] the few key areas where ‘things
must go right’ for the business to flourish. […] As a result, the
critical success factors are areas of activity that should receive
constant and careful attention from management” [10]. They
do not represent a generally valid recipe that guarantee the
success of a company when applied. Rather, they are intended
to provide support for the development of solutions and
contribute to a better understanding of problems [36,37]. Since
the success of interorganizational types of cooperation has very
often been the subject of scientific studies in recent years, there
is also an abundance of (supposedly) identified success factors
in general [38]. Since success factors also depend on the
specific context of the cooperation, Engelhard/Sinz identify
several R&D-specific success factors for interorganizational
cooperation that are based on the studies of Rotering, Fontanari
and Wolff et al. [39]. These listed factors serve as a basis for
the present study, supplemented by further literature:
• Strategy
Interorganizational cooperation is often considered very
successful, if the companies involved have compatible
corporate strategies. A high strategic fit of the partners implies
that the companies share similar views on current and future
developments and pursue compatible visions and missions
[40,41]. The long-term corporate goals and strategies need not
be identical, but should be highly compatible and
simultaneously achievable within the common planning
horizon, without any disadvantages for any partner [9,41].
• Organization
In order to avoid misunderstandings and to realize potential
synergies, areas of responsibility, competencies and tasks must
be clearly defined and transparent [39]. A dedicated
cooperation department functions not only as a central point of
contact for partners, but also acts as a filter and can examine
new potential partners for possible cooperation [42]. In
practice, such a cooperation department is often directly linked
to top management and, as a cross-sectional function, can take
over the planning of resource allocations, coordinate projects,
 Marc Wiedenmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 736–741 739
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

collect and process newly developed know-how and assess the 4.2. Impact of relevant trends on success factors of
projects carried [39,42,43] interorganizational R&D
• Interfaces
The compatibility of the IT and software structures simplifies The relevant trends identified in section 4.1 are now
communication between the partners. In case of a high examined with regard to their impact on success factors of
geographical distance between the partners, compatible interorganizational cooperation, for which an impact analysis
technical interfaces can contribute to overcoming them [2]. A is carried out [13]. This influence is assessed based on the
compatible IT and software structure in the R&D area also criteria “strong influence” (2), “weak influence” (1) and “no
facilitate cooperation, since R&D results are not reformatted influence” (0). The participating experts are first invited to
and therefore easy to access. However, the interfaces must not make an individual assessment. In a second step, the individual
only be technically compatible, but also humanly compatible assessments are compared and discussed in order to obtain a
[39]. final assessment of the impact of the relevant trends on the
• Culture defined success factors of interorganizational types of
Similar or common perceptions and behaviors of the cooperation. Based on the expert evaluation, it can be said that
partners are necessary. This applies in particular to R&D, the trends Startups, Platform Economy, Cyber Security, Mixed
where participants often belong to different backgrounds, Reality and Agile Teams have the strongest impact on the
research areas or geographical regions. The different corporate success factors of interorganizational cooperation in R&D. In
cultures of the partners are intensively linked due to the close contrast, trends such as Competition from China, Big Data,
cooperation of the employees. They must be compatible and, at Internet of Things have less influence on success factors.
best, create a common shared culture. This can form the basis Meanwhile a statement can be made regarding the affected
for mutual trust – both credibility and benevolent trust. [44] success factors. Thus, the success factors Mindset and Culture
• Mindset seem to be most strongly influenced by current trends in
By this factor the personality and the (value) orientation of interorganizational R&D. While the success factor Interfaces
each employee involved in the cooperation with regard to his or with 19 points reflects a medium impact, the success factors
her willingness to change and innovate is described. The Organization and Strategy seem to be of least importance in
attitudinal commitment has an emotional and behavioral aspect this context. Table 1 also illustrates this. The central finding
and is present when employees are highly committed to the here is that the experts surveyed consider the 25 highly
success of the collaboration, can identify with it and are even technical trends to have the greatest impact on non-technical
proud of it. They might provide services that go beyond the success factors such as Mindset and Culture. This seems
contractual agreements without demanding compensation astonishing because it could be assumed that technical trends
payments and thus take short-term risks in order to secure the also have the greatest impact on "hard" success factors such as
long-term success of the cooperation. The commitment is said Interfaces and Organization. As a result, there are major
to have a stabilizing effect on the relationship and success. [44] implications for the handling of such trends regarding change
management. Accordingly, it is not primarily the technical
4. Results realization or implementation of these trends that is important
for successful interorganizational cooperation, but the so-called
In section 4 the empirical exploration as described above "soft side" of these trends. It can, therefore, be concluded that
and its results are presented. In section 4.1. the pre-selection of change management in transformation processes, which are
relevant trends is dealt with first. Section 4.2. then describes Table 1: Results of the impact analysis (green: ecosystem / red: network /
the impact of relevant trends on success factors in blue: bilateral cooperation)
interorganizational R&D. The relevance of success factors for Success
the various types of R&D cooperation is examined in section factor Mindset Culture Interfaces
Organi-
zation
Strategy
Trend
4.3, before section 4.4. combines the previously compiled
results to answer the research question. Startups
Platform economy
1
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
2
2
7
6
Cyber-security 1 1 2 1 0 5
Mixed reality 1 2 1 1 0 5
4.1. Identification of relevant trends for interorganizational Agile teams 2 1 1 1 0 5
R&D Blockchain 1 0 2 1 0 4
Cultural diversity 2 2 0 0 0 4
Work 4.0 1 1 2 0 0 4
During workshop 1, the 70 trends relevant to the mechanical New technology culture
Digital natives
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
4
engineering industry were briefly presented and discussed in Open source 0 1 2 1 0 4
Responsible research 2 1 0 0 1 4
order to ensure a common understanding. The participating Tactile internet 0 0 1 2 0 3
experts were then asked to make an individual preselection of Autonomous agents
Data driven enterprise
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
3
those trends that are relevant in the context of R&D in general. As a service infrastructure 0 0 2 1 0 3
Citizen science 1 1 0 0 1 3
This first filter stage reduced the number of trends to be New distribution of
1 1 0 0 1
considered to 46. This procedure was used again to select the power 3
Share economy 1 1 0 0 1 3
trends specifically relevant for the management of Artificial intelligence 1 0 1 0 1 3
1 0 1 0 1 3
interorganizational R&D. After the second filter stage, the Machine learning
Deep learning 1 0 1 0 1 3
experts named 25 trends that need to be considered. Internet-of-Things 0 0 1 1 0 2
Big data 0 0 1 1 0 2
Competition from china 0 0 0 0 1 1
23 21 19 16 12
740 Marc Wiedenmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 736–741
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 5

often triggered by such trends, is of great importance. Hence,
the main challenge is that in interorganizational R&D projects,
the involved employees have a similar willingness to innovate
and see the innovation process as a learning process. The partial
results also indicate a need for further research at this point.
Some trends raise the question of why experts, for example, do
not attribute the trend Work 4.0 to the success factor
Organization, although this would initially be obvious. Table 1
summarizes the results of section 4.1 as well as 4.2.
4.3. Relevance of success factors for various types of
interorganizational R&D
For each type of interorganizational cooperation, a pairwise
comparison was made. All success factors are juxtaposed and
evaluated for their respective importance by direct comparison.
The decision possibilities are limited in this procedure to "2"
(X is more important than Y), "1" (X and Y equally weighted)
and "0" (X is less important than Y). The group of experts
proposed to select the two most relevant success factors in
porder to differentiate between highly important and not so
important factors. By adding the individual evaluations, a
statement can be reached regarding the overall importance of
each success factor. Each of the described interorganizational
forms of cooperation has a different manifestation of the
underlying success factors as shown in figure 2. When
considering bilateral cooperation, attention must be paid to the
success factors Strategy (27.5%) and Organization (25%).
Thus, "hard" success factors are clearly important according to
5. Discussion and conclusion
The gained insights allow a statement on the different
relevance of current trends in R&D with regard to the design of
interorganizational cooperation in order to answer the stated
research question. Finally, due to the strength of the impact of
a trend on a success factor (section 4.2.) and the individual
relevance of each success factor for the respective type of
interorganizational cooperation (section 4.3), it can be deduced
that certain trends can have a higher significance for the success
of the respective type of interorganizational cooperation than
others. Based on the two most important success factors for
each type of interorganizational R&D, the corresponding “most
important” trends can be selected.
According to the experts, the success factors “Organization"
and "Strategy" are of great importance with regard to bilateral
R&D cooperation. Conversely, the trends Start-Ups, Platform
Economy and Tactile Internet are therefore highly relevant for
this form of cooperation. The trends Cyber-security,
Blockchain, Open Source, Tactile Internet, Infrastructure aaS,
Start-Ups and Work 4.0 are important for the successful
management of R&D networks. Regarding the successful
management of R&D ecosystems, all trends that have an
influence on the success factors Mindset and Culture are of
importance. This also shows that R&D ecosystems as a whole
are affected most by the identified trends. Figure 2 summarizes
the most relevant trend per type of R&D cooperation.
Type of R&D Bilateral cooperation Network Ecosystem
cooperation

the experts. Since bilateral cooperation is an instrument for

achieving individual corporate goals, it seems plausible that Most relevant
Organization Interfaces Mindset

there should be a high strategic fit between the partners and that success factors Strategy Organization Culture

a dedicated department coordinates this partnership, which is

relevant for corporate success, regarding the goals to be
achieved. In networks, attention should be paid to Interfaces •
•
Startups
Platform economy
•
•
Cyber-security
Blockchain
•
•
Cultural diversity
Startups
(27.5%) and Organization (22.5%). Companies that are part of • Tactile internet • Open source • Responsible
• Tactile internet research
a network are aware of this, but this participation is not Corresponding
trends • Infrastructure as a • Mixed reality
necessarily decisive for the success of the company. service •
•
Agile teams
New technology
Consequently, a high strategic fit does not necessarily have to culture
• Digital natives
exist between companies in networks, which explains the low • Autonomous agents
level of the success factor "Strategy". Rather, the technical Figure 2. The impact of relevant trends in mechanical engineering on the
interfaces and a corresponding coordination of the relationships various types of interorganizational R&D cooperation
are relevant for the management in order to ensure a smooth
flow of service provision. According to the experts, the success The workshops were held with experts from the R&D sector
factors Mindset (27.5%), Culture (22.5%) and Strategy of a global mechanical engineering company to gain new
(22.5%) are of central importance in ecosystems. At least in insights that help to answer this research question. A final
part, this can be explained by the fact that in ecosystems all validation workshop was held with the same experts to present
participating companies commit themselves to a common value and evaluate the results. Here, the experts conclude that the
promise to the customer and this promise creates a much more success factors Mindset and Culture may be decisive to master
emotional bond to the system. This would explain why the the transformation from a network to an ecosystem.
experts consider the "soft" factors such as Mindset and Culture The aim of this study was to enable a first step towards
particularly critical for the success of ecosystems. The meaning increasing the success rate of interorganizational cooperation
of the success factor Strategy is furthermore explained by the by presenting the potential impact of current trends in this
fact that new, innovative products and services are often context. The results illustrated in section 4 show that,
developed in ecosystems that are crucial for the success of a considering different types of interorganizational cooperation,
company and that the companies should therefore have a high some trends are of very high relevance, others of lower.
strategic fit for this sub-area. Building on this, a more in-depth analysis can now take place
of how these relevant trends effectively affect
interorganizational R&D cooperation. Furthermore, the experts
 Marc Wiedenmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 736–741
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
were only asked to choose relevant trends and not why they
chose particular ones. This remains open and can be subject to
further investigations.
The results of the present study also need to be limited. On
the one hand, there is no agreement in literature on the
delimitation of the different types of interorganizational
cooperation. Terms such as cooperation, network, ecosystem
and others are discussed controversially and defined
differently. Within the framework of the present work, one
possibility was chosen to differentiate these from each other.
Here we can refer to further research needs. On the other hand,
only one VDMA study published in 2019 was used as the basis
for relevant trends in mechanical engineering. The empirical
research has shown that these trends are not fully
comprehensive, on the one hand, and not free of overlaps, on
the other. For a more extensive consideration of this factor, the
basis would have to be expanded in subsequent studies.
Furthermore, the empirical data collection of this work was
carried out only with experts from one company. Higher
external validity can be achieved by a larger number of experts
from different companies and by considering other business
areas within the mechanical engineering industry.
References
[1] Bauernhansl T, Hompel MT, Vogel-Heuser B (2014) Industrie 4.0 in
Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik: Anwendung, Technologien,
Migration. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden.
[2] Zentes J, Swoboda B, Morschett D, (Eds.) (2005) Kooperationen,
Allianzen und Netzwerke: Grundlagen - Ansätze - Perspektiven. 2nd ed.
Gabler, Wiesbaden.
[3] Backhaus K, Plinke W (1990) Strategische Allianzen als Antwort auf
veränderte Wettbewerbsstrukturen. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für
betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, Sonderheft Sonderheft(27):21–34.
[4] Adner R (2017) Ecosystem as Structure. Journal of Management
43(1):39–58.
[5] Iansiti M, Levien R (2004) Strategy as Ecology March 2004:1–11.
[6] Ernst D, Bamford J (2005) Your Alliances Are Too Stable. Harvard
Business Review 83(6):133-41, 150.
[7] Hoang H, Rothaermel FT (2016) How to Manage Alliances
Strategically. MIT Sloan Management Review 58(1):69–76.
[8] Lunnan R, Haugland SA (2008) Predicting and measuring alliance
performance: a multidimensional analysis. Strategic Management
Journal 29(5):545–56.
[9] Tjemkes B, Vos P, Burgers K (2017) Strategic Alliance Management.
Routledge, Second Edition. | New York Routledge, 2017. | Revised
edition of the authors’ Strategic alliance management, 2012.
[10] Rockart JF (1979) Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs.
Harvard Business Review 57(2):81–93.
[11] Oesterle H, Becker J, Frank U, Hess T, Karagiannis D, Krcmar H, Loos
P, Mertens P, Oberweis A, Sinz EJ (2010) Memorandum zur
gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik. Schmalenbachs Z
betriebswirtsch Forsch 62(6):664–72.
[12] Mayer HO (2013) Interview und schriftliche Befragung: Grundlagen
und Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung. 6th ed. Oldenbourg,
München.
[13] Gausemeier J, Fink A, Schlake O (1996) Szenario-Management: Planen
und Führen mit Szenarien. 2nd ed. Hanser, München.
[14] Accenture. Digitalisierung entzaubern: wie die deutschen Top500
digitale Blockaden lösen. https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-
5/Accenture-Top500-DE-Executive-Summary-Final-Web.pdf (accessed
on 24.03.2020).
[15] Maiser E, Moller B, Voglhuber-Slavinsky A, Schirrmeister E.
Trendradar für den Maschinen- und Anlagenbau.
https://future.vdma.org/viewer/-/v2article/render/35178592 (accessed on
24.03.2020).
[16] Thorelli HB (1986) Networks: Between markets and hierarchies.
741
Strategic Management Journal 7(1):37–51.
[17] Håkansson H, (Ed.) (2015) Industrial technological development: A
network approach. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.
[18] Hammes W (1994) Strategische Allianzen als Instrument der
strategischen Unternehmensführung. Deutscher Universitätsverlag,
Wiesbaden, s.l.
[19] Kupke S (2009) Allianzfähigkeit von Unternehmen: Konzept und
Fallstudie. Zugl.: Potsdam, Univ., Diss, 2008. 1st ed. Gabler,
Wiesbaden.
[20] Kale P, Singh H (2009) Managing Strategic Alliances: What Do We
Know Now, and Where Do We Go From Here? Academy of
Management Perspectives 23(3):45–62.
[21] Grant RM, Baden-Fuller C (2004) A Knowledge Accessing Theory of
Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management Studies 41(1):61–84.
[22] Wöhe G, Döring U, Brösel G (2016) Einführung in die allgemeine
Betriebswirtschaftslehre. 26th ed. Verlag Franz Vahlen, München.
[23] Gulati R (1995) Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of
Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances. AMJ 38(1):85–112.
[24] Sydow J (1992) Strategische Netzwerke: Evolution und Organisation.
Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden.
[25] Michel U (1996) Wertorientiertes Management strategischer Allianzen.
Zugl.: Stuttgart, Univ., Diss., 1995. Vahlen, München.
[26] Lacoste S (2016) Sustainable value co-creation in business networks.
Industrial Marketing Management 52:151–62.
[27] Aarikka-Stenroos L, Ritala P (2017) Network management in the era of
ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial
Marketing Management 67:23–36.
[28] Archpru Akaka M, Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2012) An Exploration of
Networks in Value Cocreation: A Service-Ecosystems View. Special
Issue – Toward a Better Understanding of the Role of Value in Markets
and Marketing, Review of Marketing Research 9:13–50.
[29] Barile S, Lusch R, Reynoso J, Saviano M, Spohrer J (2016) Systems,
networks, and ecosystems in service research. Journal of Service
Management 27(4):652–74.
[30] Möller K, Halinen A (2017) Managing business and innovation
networks—From strategic nets to business fields and ecosystems.
Industrial Marketing Management 67:5–22.
[31] Adner R, Kapoor R (2010) Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems:
How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm
Performance in New Technology Generations. Strategic Management
Journal 31(3):306–33.
[32] Kapoor R (2018) Ecosystems: broadening the locus of value creation. J
Org Design 7(1):1–16.
[33] Moore J (1933) Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition.
Harvard Business Review 71(3):75–86.
[34] Adner R, Euchner J (2014) Innovation Ecosystems: An Interview with
Ron Adner. Research-Technology Management 57(6):10–4.
[35] Lingens B, Böger M, Gackstatter S, Lemaire A (2019) Business
ecosystems Partnership of equals for corporates, SMEs and startups
Management summary.
[36] Menon A, Varadarajan PR (1992) A Model of Marketing Knowledge
Use within Firms. Journal of Marketing 56(4):53.
[37] Homburg C, Krohmer H (74, 2004) Die Fliegenpatsche als Instrument
des wissenschaftlichen Dialogs, Wissenschaftliche Arbeitspapiere,
Mannheim, Universität Mannheim.
[38] Russo M, Cesarani M (2017) Strategic Alliance Success Factors: A
Literature Review on Alliance Lifecycle. International Journal of
Business Administration 8(3):1.
[39] Engelhard J, Sinz EJ, (Eds.) (1999) Kooperation im Wettbewerb. Gabler
Verlag, Wiesbaden.
[40] Bronder C, Pritzl R (1992) Wegweiser für Strategische Allianzen:
Meilen- und Stolpersteine bei Kooperationen. Gabler Verlag,
Wiesbaden.
[41] Child J, Faulkner D, Tallman S (2005) Cooperative Strategy. Oxford
University Press.
[42] Kale P, Dyer JH, Singh H (2002) Alliance Capability, Stock Market
Response and Long-Term Alliance Success: The Role of the Alliance
Function. Strategic Management Journal 23(8):747–67.
[43] Dyer JH, Kale P, Singh H (2001) How to Make Strategic Alliances
Work. MIT Sloan Management Review 42(4):37–43.
[44] Cullen JB, Johnson JL, Sakano T (2000) Success Through Commitment
and Trust: The Soft Side of Strategic Alliance Management. Journal of
World Business 35(3):223–40.