@article{PuteanusBirkenbachHoelzle2015, author = {Puteanus-Birkenbach, Katja and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneur oder der Begriff des unternehmerischen Denken und Handelns}, series = {Entrepreneurship education: das Potsdamer Modell der Gr{\"u}ndungslehre und -beratung}, journal = {Entrepreneurship education: das Potsdamer Modell der Gr{\"u}ndungslehre und -beratung}, publisher = {BoD}, address = {Norderstedt}, isbn = {978-3-7357-6095-1}, pages = {85 -- 95}, year = {2015}, language = {de} } @article{HoelzlePuteanusBirkenbachWagner2015, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Puteanus-Birkenbach, Katja and Wagner, Dieter}, title = {Das Potsdamer Modell der Entrepreneurship Education}, series = {Entrepreneurship education : das Potsdamer Modell der Gr{\"u}ndungslehre und -beratung}, journal = {Entrepreneurship education : das Potsdamer Modell der Gr{\"u}ndungslehre und -beratung}, publisher = {BoD}, address = {Norderstedt}, isbn = {978-3-7357-6095-1}, pages = {VII -- IX}, year = {2015}, language = {de} } @article{HoelzlePuteanusBirkenbach2015, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Puteanus-Birkenbach, Katja}, title = {Die Entrepreneurship Academy Potsdam}, series = {Entrepreneurship education: das Potsdamer Modell der Gr{\"u}dungslehre und -beratung}, journal = {Entrepreneurship education: das Potsdamer Modell der Gr{\"u}dungslehre und -beratung}, publisher = {BoD}, address = {Norderstedt}, isbn = {978-3-7357-6095-1}, pages = {53 -- 57}, year = {2015}, language = {de} } @article{GoepelHoelzleKnyphausenAufsess2012, author = {G{\"o}pel, Monique and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Knyphausen-Aufsess, Dodo Zu}, title = {Individuals' innovation response behaviour a framework of antecedents and opportunities for future research}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {21}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12000}, pages = {412 -- 426}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Innovation response behaviour is defined as individuals novelty-supporting or novelty-impeding action when navigating innovation initiatives through the organization. A typology of innovation response behaviour is developed, distinguishing between active and passive modes of conduct for novelty-supporting and novelty-impeding behaviour, respectively. The antecedents of innovation response behaviour are delineated based on West and Farr's five-factor model of individual innovation. Moreover, we argue that within organizational contexts, individuals often fail to implement their ideas due to innovation barriers, perceived as factors that are beyond their control. Based on the theory of planned behaviour, we reveal how these barriers influence individuals intentional and exhibited innovation response behaviour. Propositions about proximal and distal antecedents of individuals innovation response behaviour are derived. Proposing a research framework to study the organizational process of innovation from an actor-based perspective, this paper intends to link existing research on individual innovation with the process of innovation at the organizational level, explicitly accounting for the socio-political dynamics and arising managerial problems associated with successful innovation implementation within organizational realities. Implications for research in innovation management are discussed and avenues for future research outlined.}, language = {en} } @misc{HoelzleBjoerkVisscher2019, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie and Visscher, Klaasjan}, title = {Editorial}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {28}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12307}, pages = {3 -- 4}, year = {2019}, abstract = {The new year starts and many of us have right away been burdened with conference datelines, grant proposal datelines, teaching obligations, paper revisions and many other things. While being more or less successful in fulfilling To-Do lists and ticking of urgent (and sometimes even important) things, we often feel that our ability to be truly creative or innovative is rather restrained by this (external pressure). With this, we are not alone. Many studies have shown that stress does influence overall work performance and satisfaction. Furthermore, more and more students and entry-levels look for work-life balance and search for employers that offer a surrounding and organization considering these needs. High-Tech and start-up companies praise themselves for their "Feel-Good managers" or Yoga programs. But is this really helpful? Is there indeed a relationship between stress, adverse work environment and creativity or innovation? What are the supporting factors in a work environment that lets employees be more creative? What kind of leadership do we need for innovative behaviour and to what extent can an organization create support structures that reduce the stress we feel? The first issue of Creativity and Innovation Management in 2019 gives some first answers to these questions and hopefully some food for thought. The first paper written by Dirk De Clercq, and Imanol Belausteguigoitia starts with the question which impact work overload has on creative behaviour. The authors look at how employees' perceptions of work overload reduces their creative behaviour. While they find empirical proof for this relationship, they can also show that the effect is weaker with higher levels of passion for work, emotion sharing, and organizational commitment. The buffering effects of emotion sharing and organizational commitment are particularly strong when they are combined with high levels of passion for work. Their findings give first empirical proof that organizations can and should take an active role in helping their employees reducing the effects of adverse work conditions in order to become or stay creative. However, not only work overload is harming creative behaviour, also the fear of losing one's job has detrimental effects on innovative work behaviour. Anahi van Hootegem, Wendy Niesen and Hans de Witte verify that stress and adverse environmental conditions shape our perception of work. Using threat rigidity theory and an empirical study of 394 employees, they show that the threat of job loss impairs employees' innovativeness through increased irritation and decreased concentration. Organizations can help their employees coping better with this insecurity by communicating more openly and providing different support structures. Support often comes from leadership and the support of the supervisor can clearly shape an employee's motivation to show creative behaviour. Wenjing Cai, Evgenia Lysova, Bart A. G. Bossink, Svetlana N. Khapova and Weidong Wang report empirical findings from a large-scale survey in China where they find that supervisor support for creativity and job characteristics effectively activate individual psychological capital associated with employee creativity. On a slight different notion, Gisela B{\"a}cklander looks at agile practices in a very well-known High Tech firm. In "Doing Complexity Leadership Theory: How agile coaches at Spotify practice enabling leadership", she researches the role of agile coaches and how they practice enabling leadership, a key balancing force in complexity leadership. She finds that the active involvement of coaches in observing group dynamics, surfacing conflict and facilitating and encouraging constructive dialogue leads to a positive working environment and the well-being of employees. Quotes from the interviews suggest that the flexible structure provided by the coaches may prove a fruitful way to navigate and balance autonomy and alignment in organizations. The fifth paper of Frederik Anseel, Michael Vandamme, Wouter Duyck and Eric Rietzchel goes a little further down this road and researches how groups can be motivated better to select truly creative ideas. We know from former studies that groups often perform rather poorly when it comes to selecting creative ideas for implementation. The authors find in an extensive field experiment that under conditions of high epistemic motivation, proself motivated groups select significantly more creative and original ideas than prosocial groups. They conclude however, that more research is needed to understand better why these differences occur. The prosocial behaviour of groups is also the theme of Karin Moser, Jeremy F. Dawson and Michael A. West's paper on "Antecedents of team innovation in health care teams". They look at team-level motivation and how a prosocial team environment, indicated by the level of helping behaviour and information-sharing, may foster innovation. Their results support the hypotheses of both information-sharing and helping behaviour on team innovation. They suggest that both factors may actually act as buffer against constraints in team work, such as large team size or high occupational diversity in cross-functional health care teams, and potentially turn these into resources supporting team innovation rather than acting as barriers. Away from teams and onto designing favourable work environments, the seventh paper of Ferney Osorio, Laurent Dupont, Mauricio Camargo, Pedro Palominos, Jose Ismael Pena and Miguel Alfaro looks into innovation laboratories. Although several studies have tackled the problem of design, development and sustainability of these spaces for innovation, there is still a gap in understanding how the capabilities and performance of these environments are affected by the strategic intentions at the early stages of their design and functioning. The authors analyse and compare eight existing frameworks from literature and propose a new framework for researchers and practitioners aiming to assess or to adapt innovation laboratories. They test their framework in an exploratory study with fifteen laboratories from five different countries and give recommendations for the future design of these laboratories. From design to design thinking goes our last paper from Rama Krishna Reddy Kummitha on "Design Thinking in Social Organisations: Understanding the role of user engagement" where she studies how users persuade social organisations to adopt design thinking. Looking at four social organisations in India during 2008 to 2013, she finds that the designer roles are blurred when social organisations adopt design thinking, while users in the form of interconnecting agencies reduce the gap between designers and communities. The last two articles were developed from papers presented at the 17th International CINet conference organized in Turin in 2016 by Paolo Neirotti and his colleagues. In the first article, F{\´a}bio Gama, Johan Frishammar and Vinit Parida focus on ideation and open innovation in small- and medium-sized enterprises. They investigate the relationship between systematic idea generation and performance and the moderating role of market-based partnerships. Based on a survey among manufacturing SMEs, they conclude that higher levels of performance are reached and that collaboration with customers and suppliers pays off most when idea generation is done in a highly systematic way. The second article, by Anna Holmquist, Mats Magnusson and Mona Livholts, resonates the theme of the CINet conference 'Innovation and Tradition; combining the old and the new'. They explore how tradition is used in craft-based design practices to create new meaning. Applying a narrative 'research through design' approach they uncover important design elements, and tensions between them. Please enjoy this first issue of CIM in 2019 and we wish you creativity and innovation without too much stress in the months to come.}, language = {en} } @misc{BjoerkHoelzle2018, author = {Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {Editorial}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {27}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12298}, pages = {373 -- 374}, year = {2018}, abstract = {"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead." With the last issue of this year we want to point out directions towards what will come and what challenges and opportunities lie ahead of us. More needed than ever are joint creative efforts to find ways to collaborate and innovate in order to secure the wellbeing of our earth for the next generation to come. We have found ourselves puzzled that we could assemble a sustainability issue without having a call for papers or a special issue. In fact, many of the submissions we currently receive, deal with sustainable, ecological or novel approaches to management and organizations. As creativity and innovation are undisputable necessary ingredients for reaching the sustainable development goals, empirical proof and research in this area are still in their infancy. While the role of design and design thinking has been highlighted before for solving wicked societal problems, a lot more research is needed which creative and innovative ways organisations and societies can take to find solutions to climate change, poverty, hunger and education. We would therefore like to call to you, our readers and writers to tackle these problems with your research. The first article in this issue addresses one of the above named challenges - the role of innovation for achieving the transition to a low-carbon energy world. In "Innovating for low-carbon energy through hydropower: Enabling a conservation charity's transition to a low-carbon community", the authors John Gallagher, Paul Coughlan, A. Prysor Williams and Aonghus McNabola look at how an eco-design approach has supported a community transition to low-carbon. They highlight the importance of effective management as well as external collaboration and how the key for success lay in fostering an open environment for creativity and idea sharing. The second article addresses another of the grand challenges, the future of mobility and uses a design-driven approach to develop scenarios for mobility in cities. In "Designing radical innovations of meanings for society: envisioning new scenarios for smart mobility", the authors Claudio Dell'Era, Naiara Altuna and Roberto Verganti investigate how new meanings can be designed and proposed to society rather than to individuals in the particular context of smart mobility. Through two case studies the authors argue for a multi-level perspective, taking the perspective of the society to solve societal challenges while considering the needs of the individual. The latter is needed because we will not change if our needs are not addressed. Furthermore, the authors find that both, meaning and technology need to be considered to create radical innovation for society. The role of meaning continues in the third article in this issue. The authors Marta Gasparin and William Green show in their article "Reconstructing meaning without redesigning products: The case of the Serie7 chair" how meaning changes over time even though the product remains the same. Through an in-depth retrospective study of the Serie 7 chair the authors investigate the relationship between meaning and the materiality of the object, and show the importance of materiality in constructing product meaning over long periods. Translating this meaning over the course of the innovation process is an important task of management in order to gain buy-in from all involved stakeholders. In the following article "A systematic approach for new technology development by using a biomimicry-based TRIZ contradiction matrix" the authors Byungun Yoon, Chaeguk Lim, Inchae Park and Dooseob Yoon develop a systematic process combining biomimicry and technology-based TRIZ in order to solve technological problems or develop new technologies based on completely new sources or combinations from technology and biology. In the fifth article in this issue "Innovating via Building Absorptive Capacity: Interactive Effects of Top Management Support of Learning, Employee Learning Orientation, and Decentralization Structure" the authors Li-Yun Sun, Chenwei Li and Yuntao Dong examine the effect of learning-related personal and contextual factors on organizational absorptive capability and subsequent innovative performance. The authors find positive effects as well as a moderation influence of decentralized organizational decision-making structures. In the sixth article "Creativity within boundaries: social identity and the development of new ideas in franchise systems" the authors Fanny Simon, Catherine Allix-Desfautaux, Nabil Khelil and Anne-Laure Le Nadant address the paradox of balancing novelty and conformity for creativity in a franchise system. This research is one of the first we know to explicitly address creativity and innovation in such a rigid and pre-determined system. Using a social identity perspective, they can show that social control, which may be exerted by manipulating group identity, is an efficient lever to increase both the creation and the diffusion of the idea. Furthermore, they show that franchisees who do not conform to the norm of the group are stigmatized and must face pressure from the group to adapt their behaviors. This has important implications for future research. In the following article "Exploring employee interactions and quality of contributions in intra-organisational innovation platforms" the authors Dimitra Chasanidou, Nj{\aa}l Sivertstol and Jarle Hildrum examine the user interactions in an intra-organisational innovation platform, and also address the influence of user interactions for idea development. The authors find that employees communicate through the innovation platform with different interaction, contribution and collaboration types and propose three types of contribution qualities—passive, efficient and balanced contribution. In the eighth article "Ready for Take-off": How Open Innovation influences startup success" Cristina Marullo, Elena Casprini, Alberto di Minin and Andrea Piccaluga seek to predict new venture success based on factors that can be observed in the pre-startup phase. The authors introduce different variables of founding teams and how these relate to startup success. Building on large-scale dataset of submitted business plans at UC Berkeley, they can show that teams with high skills diversity and past joint experience are a lot better able to prevent the risk of business failure at entry and to adapt the internal resources to market conditions. Furthermore, it is crucial for the team to integrate many external knowledge sources into their process (openness) in order to be successful. The crucial role of knowledge and how it is communicated and shared is the focal point of Natalya Sergeeva's and Anna Trifilova's article on "The role of storytelling in the innovation process". They authors can show how storytelling has an important role to play when it comes to motivating employees to innovate and promoting innovation success stories inside and outside the organization. The deep human desire to hear and experience stories is also addressed in the last article in this issue "Gamification Approaches to the Early Stage of Innovation" by Rui Patricio, Antonio Moreira and Francesco Zurlo. Using gamification approaches at the early stage of innovation promises to create better team coherence, let employees experience fun and engagement, improve communication and foster knowledge exchange. Using an analytical framework, the authors analyze 15 articles that have looked at gamification in the context of innovation management before. They find that gamification indeed supports firms in becoming better at performing complex innovation tasks and managing innovation challenges. Furthermore, gamification in innovation creates a space for inspiration, improves creativity and the generation of high potential ideas.}, language = {en} } @article{HoelzleRhinow2019, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Rhinow, Holger}, title = {The Dilemmas of Design Thinking in Innovation Projects}, series = {Project Management Journal}, volume = {50}, journal = {Project Management Journal}, number = {4}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {Thousand Oaks}, issn = {8756-9728}, doi = {10.1177/8756972819853129}, pages = {418 -- 430}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Organizations have discovered Design Thinking as a promising framework or language for innovation-focused project teamwork. The goal is to develop new products and services by being customer-centric and working iteratively and in an interdisciplinary way, using specific working principles and methods to create a common language among all stakeholders. The empirical results in this article show that Design Thinking teamwork is different from other forms of teamwork. The difference in Design Thinking team-based project work is that the teams go through a specific learning process that poses individual challenges but also provides the individual with experience-based learning. We show that teams going through this learning process repeatedly find themselves in seemingly insolvable conflicts-so called structural dilemmas-within the framework of project deadlines and under the influence of strategic guidelines of the organization. We explore these structural dilemmas and develop ways to overcome them.}, language = {en} } @article{SchmeissHoelzleTech2019, author = {Schmeiss, Jessica and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Tech, Robin P. G.}, title = {Designing Governance Mechanisms in Platform Ecosystems: Addressing the Paradox of Openness through Blockchain Technology}, series = {California Management Review}, volume = {62}, journal = {California Management Review}, number = {1}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {Thousand Oaks}, issn = {0008-1256}, doi = {10.1177/0008125619883618}, pages = {121 -- 143}, year = {2019}, abstract = {The paradox of openness is inherent to all platform ecosystems-the tension in enabling maximum openness to create joint innovation while guaranteeing value capturing for all actors. Governance mechanisms to solve this paradox are embedded into the technical architecture of the platform, addressing the dimensions of access, control, and incentives. Blockchain technology offers unique ways to design novel governance mechanisms through the standardization of interactions. However, the design of such an architecture requires careful consideration of the cost associated with it.}, language = {en} } @article{RoseGroegerHoelzle2021, author = {Rose, Robert and Groeger, Lars and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {The Emergence of Shared Leadership in Innovation Labs}, series = {Frontiers in Psychology}, volume = {12}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers in psychology}, address = {Lausanne, Schweiz}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.685167}, pages = {1 -- 13}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Implementing innovation laboratories to leverage intrapreneurship are an increasingly popular organizational practice. A typical feature in these creative environments are semi-autonomous teams in which multiple members collectively exert leadership influence, thereby challenging traditional command-and-control conceptions of leadership. An extensive body of research on the team-centric concept of shared leadership has recognized the potential for pluralized leadership structures in enhancing team effectiveness; however, little empirical work has been conducted in organizational contexts in which creativity is key. This study set out to explore antecedents of shared leadership and its influence on team creativity in an innovation lab. Building on extant shared leadership and innovation research, we propose antecedents customary to creative teamwork, that is, experimental culture, task reflexivity, and voice. Multisource data were collected from 104 team members and 49 evaluations of 29 coaches nested in 21 teams working in a prototypical innovation lab. We identify factors specific to creative teamwork that facilitate the emergence of shared leadership by providing room for experimentation, encouraging team members to speak up in the creative process, and cultivating a reflective application of entrepreneurial thinking. We provide specific exemplary activities for innovation lab teams to increase levels of shared leadership.}, language = {en} } @article{RoseHoelzleBjoerk2020, author = {Rose, Robert and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie}, title = {More than a quarter century of creativity and innovation management}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {29}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12361}, pages = {5 -- 20}, year = {2020}, abstract = {When this journal was founded in 1992 by Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger, there was no academic outlet available that addressed issues at the intersection of creativity and innovation. From zero to 1,163 records, from the new kid on the block to one of the leading journals in creativity and innovation management has been quite a journey, and we would like to reflect on the past 28 years and the intellectual and conceptual structure of Creativity and Innovation Management (CIM). Specifically, we highlight milestones and influential articles, identify how key journal characteristics evolved, outline the (co-)authorship structure, and finally, map the thematic landscape of CIM by means of a text-mining analysis. This study represents the first systematic and comprehensive assessment of the journal's published body of knowledge and helps to understand the journal's influence on the creativity and innovation management community. We conclude by discussing future topics and paths of the journal as well as limitations of our approach.}, language = {en} } @article{HoelzleBoerBjoerk2020, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Boer, Harry and Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie}, title = {Creativity in and from people, processes, objects, and war zones}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {29}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12405}, pages = {377 -- 379}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{HenikeKamprathHoelzle2020, author = {Henike, Tassilo and Kamprath, Martin and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {Effecting, but effective?}, series = {Long range planning : LRP ; international journal of strategic management / Strategic Planning Society}, volume = {53}, journal = {Long range planning : LRP ; international journal of strategic management / Strategic Planning Society}, number = {4}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0024-6301}, doi = {10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101925}, pages = {16}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Business model (BM) visualisations have become popular instruments with which to explain and manage today's complex business interactions. Using verbal and graphic elements, they provide simplified representations of reality and can support BM tasks that go beyond working memory's capacities. Visualisations thus reduce cognitive load and represent how practitioners and researchers think about BMs. However, they can also affect their thinking. This constitutes a thus far insufficiently explained tension between effectively reducing reality's complexity and the resulting cognitive biases. Building on cognitive load and framing theory, we qualitatively analysed 103 BM visualisations to explain how visual elements affect visualisations' cognitive effectiveness (helpfulness and ease of applicability) and unfold visual framing effects. By identifying five visual framing effects, we contribute to the cognitive BM perspective and explain how this set of cognitive factors affects BM management and research. We also found that most BM visualisations are not cognitively effective because they consist of unclear and non-parsimonious elements, limiting their cross-contextual application. Furthermore, the analysis revealed certain visualisations with strictly operationalised BM dimensions. These findings provide essential contributions to the literature on BM methods. We conclude by discussing how practitioners and researchers can use BM visualisations and their cognitive impacts accordingly.}, language = {en} } @misc{RoseGroegerHoelzle2021, author = {Rose, Robert and Groeger, Lars and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {The Emergence of Shared Leadership in Innovation Labs}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-54872}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-548724}, pages = {1 -- 13}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Implementing innovation laboratories to leverage intrapreneurship are an increasingly popular organizational practice. A typical feature in these creative environments are semi-autonomous teams in which multiple members collectively exert leadership influence, thereby challenging traditional command-and-control conceptions of leadership. An extensive body of research on the team-centric concept of shared leadership has recognized the potential for pluralized leadership structures in enhancing team effectiveness; however, little empirical work has been conducted in organizational contexts in which creativity is key. This study set out to explore antecedents of shared leadership and its influence on team creativity in an innovation lab. Building on extant shared leadership and innovation research, we propose antecedents customary to creative teamwork, that is, experimental culture, task reflexivity, and voice. Multisource data were collected from 104 team members and 49 evaluations of 29 coaches nested in 21 teams working in a prototypical innovation lab. We identify factors specific to creative teamwork that facilitate the emergence of shared leadership by providing room for experimentation, encouraging team members to speak up in the creative process, and cultivating a reflective application of entrepreneurial thinking. We provide specific exemplary activities for innovation lab teams to increase levels of shared leadership.}, language = {en} } @article{BjoerkHoelzleBoer2021, author = {Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Boer, Harry}, title = {'What will we learn from the current crisis?'}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {30}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford [u.a.]}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12442}, pages = {231 -- 232}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @incollection{HoelzleTiberius2020, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Tiberius, Victor}, title = {Aspekte, Standpunkte und Ausblicke}, series = {Perspektiven des Entrepreneurships : Unternehmerische Konzepte zwischen Theorie und Praxis}, booktitle = {Perspektiven des Entrepreneurships : Unternehmerische Konzepte zwischen Theorie und Praxis}, editor = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Tiberius, Victor and Surrey, Heike}, publisher = {Sch{\"a}ffer-Poeschel Verlag}, address = {Stuttgart}, isbn = {978-3-7910-4473-6}, pages = {13 -- 17}, year = {2020}, language = {de} } @article{HoelzleBjoerkBoer2021, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie and Boer, Harry}, title = {Light at the end of the tunnel}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {30}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford [u.a.]}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12427}, pages = {3 -- 5}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @book{MeinelDoellnerWeskeetal.2021, author = {Meinel, Christoph and D{\"o}llner, J{\"u}rgen Roland Friedrich and Weske, Mathias and Polze, Andreas and Hirschfeld, Robert and Naumann, Felix and Giese, Holger and Baudisch, Patrick and Friedrich, Tobias and B{\"o}ttinger, Erwin and Lippert, Christoph and D{\"o}rr, Christian and Lehmann, Anja and Renard, Bernhard and Rabl, Tilmann and Uebernickel, Falk and Arnrich, Bert and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {Proceedings of the HPI Research School on Service-oriented Systems Engineering 2020 Fall Retreat}, number = {138}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-513-2}, issn = {1613-5652}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-50413}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-504132}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {vi, 144}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Design and Implementation of service-oriented architectures imposes a huge number of research questions from the fields of software engineering, system analysis and modeling, adaptability, and application integration. Component orientation and web services are two approaches for design and realization of complex web-based system. Both approaches allow for dynamic application adaptation as well as integration of enterprise application. Service-Oriented Systems Engineering represents a symbiosis of best practices in object-orientation, component-based development, distributed computing, and business process management. It provides integration of business and IT concerns. The annual Ph.D. Retreat of the Research School provides each member the opportunity to present his/her current state of their research and to give an outline of a prospective Ph.D. thesis. Due to the interdisciplinary structure of the research school, this technical report covers a wide range of topics. These include but are not limited to: Human Computer Interaction and Computer Vision as Service; Service-oriented Geovisualization Systems; Algorithm Engineering for Service-oriented Systems; Modeling and Verification of Self-adaptive Service-oriented Systems; Tools and Methods for Software Engineering in Service-oriented Systems; Security Engineering of Service-based IT Systems; Service-oriented Information Systems; Evolutionary Transition of Enterprise Applications to Service Orientation; Operating System Abstractions for Service-oriented Computing; and Services Specification, Composition, and Enactment.}, language = {en} }