@article{GleissLewandowski2022,
  author    = {Gleiß, Alexander and Lewandowski, Stefanie},
  title     = {Removing barriers for digital health through organizing ambidexterity in hospitals},
  series = {Journal of public health},
  volume    = {30},
  journal   = {Journal of public health},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Heidelberg},
  issn      = {2198-1833},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10389-021-01532-y},
  pages     = {21 -- 35},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Aim Hospitals noticeably struggle with maintaining hundreds of IT systems and applications in compliance with the latest IT standards and regulations. Thus, hospitals search for efficient opportunities to discover and integrate useful digital health innovations into their existing IT landscapes. In addition, although a multitude of digital innovations from digital health startups enter the market, numerous barriers impede their successful implementation and adoption. Against this background, the aim of this study was to explore typical digital innovation barriers in hospitals, and to assess how a hospital data management platform (HDMP) architecture might help hospitals to extract such innovative capabilities. Subject and methods Based on the concept of organizational ambidexterity (OA), we pursued a qualitative mixed-methods approach. First, we explored and consolidated innovation barriers through a systematic literature review, interviews with 20 startup representatives, and a focus group interview with a hospital IT team and the CEO of an HDMP provider. Finally, we conducted a case-study analysis of 36 digital health startups to explore and conceptualize the potential impact of DI and apply the morphological method to synthesize our findings from a multi-level perspective. Results We first provide a systematic and conceptual overview of typical barriers for digital innovation in hospitals. Hereupon, we explain how an HDMP might enable hospitals to mitigate such barriers and extract value from digital innovations at both individual and organizational level. Conclusion Our results imply that an HDMP can help hospitals to approach organizational ambidexterity through integrating and maintaining hundreds of systems and applications, which allows for a structured and controlled integration of external digital innovations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Michel2020,
  type      = {Master Thesis},
  author    = {Michel, Beno{\^i}t},
  title     = {Soutenir l'innovation dans le secteur spatial},
  series = {MEGA-Schriftenreihe},
  journal   = {MEGA-Schriftenreihe},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {2701-391X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43599},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435997},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XVII, 59},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Seit dem Beginn der Raumfahrzeit in den F{\"u}nfzigern haben Frankreich und Deutschland zur Entstehung einer europ{\"a}ischen Raumfahrtindustrie beigetragen. Beide L{\"a}nder sind in diesem Sektor Hauptakteure und Hauptpartner. Die Europ{\"a}ische Weltraumorganisation, die sich auf diese zivile und milit{\"a}rische Doppelindustrie st{\"u}tzt, hat Europa auf der Weltb{\"u}hne einen wichtigen Platz einger{\"a}umt. Um die Jahrhundertwende hat das Schaffen von Clustern dazu beigetragen, die Innovation in einem Sektor zu unterst{\"u}tzen, der wegen neuer internationaler Akteure in Frage gestellt wird. Diese Cluster haben sich auf der wirtschaftlichen Ebene des Sektors etabliert: in diesen Organisationen koexistieren private und {\"o}ffentliche Akteure, die von der Forschung bis zur Implementierung der entwickelten Technologien zusammenarbeiten. Zu der Vielzahl der Maßnahmen zur Innovationsf{\"o}rderung in Frankreich und Deutschland werden nun die von der Europ{\"a}ischen Kommission festgelegten europ{\"a}ischen Ziele hinzugef{\"u}gt. Wettbewerbscluster werden nicht mehr als privilegierte Instrumente der europ{\"a}ischen Weltraumpolitik identifiziert wie in den deutsch-franz{\"o}sischen Kooperationsprojekten der letzten Jahre. Die lokalen Kapazit{\"a}ten dieser Organisationen sind nicht den heutigen europ{\"a}ischen wirtschaftlichen Probleme angepasst und erlauben es nicht, sich effektiv in die moderne Raumfahrtindustrie zu integrieren.},
  language  = {fr}
}
@article{CaliendoHogenackerKuennetal.2015,
  author    = {Caliendo, Marco and Hogenacker, Jens and Kuenn, Steffen and Wiessner, Frank},
  title     = {Subsidized start-ups out of unemployment: a comparison to regular business start-ups},
  series = {Small business economics : an international journal},
  volume    = {45},
  journal   = {Small business economics : an international journal},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0921-898X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11187-015-9646-0},
  pages     = {165 -- 190},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Offering unemployed individuals a subsidy to become self-employed is a widespread active labor market policy strategy. Previous studies have illustrated its high effectiveness to help participants escaping unemployment and improving their labor market prospects compared to other unemployed individuals. However, the examination of start-up subsidies from a business perspective has only received little attention to date. Using a new dataset based on a survey allows us to compare subsidized start-ups out of unemployment with regular business founders, with respect to not only personal characteristics but also business outcomes. The results indicate that previously unemployed entrepreneurs face disadvantages in variables correlated with entrepreneurial ability and access to capital. Nineteen months after start-up, the subsidized businesses experience higher survival, but lag behind regular business founders in terms of income, business growth and innovation. Moreover, we show that expected deadweight effects related to start-up subsidies occur on a (much) lower scale than usually assumed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{CaliendoKuennWeissenberger2019,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Caliendo, Marco and K{\"u}nn, Steffen and Weißenberger, Martin},
  title     = {Catching up or Lagging Behind?},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {12},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43701},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-437012},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {From an active labor market policy perspective, start-up subsidies for unemployed individuals are very effective in improving long-term labor market outcomes for participants. From a business perspective, however, the assessment of these public programs is less clear since they might attract individuals with low entrepreneurial abilities and produce businesses with low survival rates and little contribution to job creation, economic growth, and innovation. In this paper, we use a rich data set to compare participants of a German start-up subsidy program for unemployed individuals to a group of regular founders who started from nonunemployment and did not receive the subsidy. The data allows us to analyze their business performance up until 40 months after business formation. We find that formerly subsidized founders lag behind not only in survival and job creation, but especially also in innovation activities. The gaps in these business outcomes are relatively constant or even widening over time. Hence, we do not see any indication of catching up in the longer run. While the gap in survival can be entirely explained by initial differences in observable start-up characteristics, the gap in business development remains and seems to be the result of restricted access to capital as well as differential business strategies and dynamics. Considering these conflicting results for the assessment of the subsidy program from an ALMP and business perspective, policy makers need to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of such a strategy to find the right policy mix.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{Hummel2011,
  author    = {Hummel, Detlev},
  title     = {Mittelstands- und Innovationsfinanzierung in Deutschland : Ergebnisse und Hintergr{\"u}nde einer bundesweiten Unternehmensbefragung},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-073-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-56751},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {VI, 131},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {Die vorliegende Studie analysiert die Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Unternehmensbefragung zum Finanzierungsverhalten deutscher KMU. Im Fokus stehen die Verf{\"u}gbarkeit konkreter Finanzierungsinstrumente f{\"u}r KMU und deren Akzeptanz im Mittelstand. Dies soll die derzeitigen M{\"o}glichkeiten und Grenzen des heimischen Banken- und Finanzsystems verdeutlichen. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus werden verschiedene Aspekte des Innovationsverhaltens der befragten Unternehmen beleuchtet. Es zeigt sich, dass die Finanzierung aus erwirtschafteten Gewinnen einen {\"u}berragenden Stellenwert besitzt. Zudem werden neben dem traditionell verankerten Bankdarlehen, vor allem kurzfristige, flexible, aber teure Kontokorrent- und Lieferantenkredite f{\"u}r Investitionszwecke genutzt. Alternative Finanzierungsinstrumente, wie Mezzanine, Beteiligungskapital sowie auch Kapitalmarktfinanzierungen haben bisher nur eine marginale Bedeutung erlangt. Als m{\"o}gliche Ursachen hierf{\"u}r sind mangelnde Kenntnisse und pers{\"o}nliche Vorbehalte auf Unternehmensseite, aber auch die grunds{\"a}tzliche Nichteignung dieser Alternativen festzustellen. So liegt das nachgefragte Finanzierungsvolumen bei KMU h{\"a}ufig unter den Mindestgrenzen derartiger Kapitalgeber. Staatliche F{\"o}rderinstrumente, welche vor allem von gr{\"o}ßeren mittelst{\"a}ndischen Unternehmen in Anspruch genommen werden, k{\"o}nnen dabei nur einen Teilbeitrag leisten, um die Finanzierungsrestriktionen zu reduzieren. Im Bereich der Innovationsfinanzierung zeigt sich daher vor allem bei mittelgroßen Projekten ein besonderer Finanzierungsengpass.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{BaumannKritikos2016,
  author    = {Baumann, Julian and Kritikos, Alexander},
  title     = {The link between R\&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different?},
  series = {Research Policy},
  volume    = {45},
  journal   = {Research Policy},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0048-7333},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.008},
  pages     = {1263 -- 1274},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {We analyze the link between R\&D, innovation, and productivity in MSMEs with a special focus on micro firms with fewer than 10 employees; usually constituting the majority of firms in industrialized economies. Using the German KfW SME-panel, we examine to what extent micro firms are different from other firms in terms of innovativeness. We find that while firms engage in innovative activities with smaller probability, the smaller they are, for those firms that do make such investment, R\&D intensity is larger the smaller firms are. For all MSMEs, the predicted R\&D intensity is positively correlated with the probability of reporting innovation, with a larger effect size for product than for process innovations. Moreover, micro firms benefit in a comparable way from innovation processes as larger firms, as they are similarly able to increase their labor productivity. Overall, the link between R\&D, innovation, and productivity in micro firms does not largely differ from their larger counterparts. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{AudretschHafensteinKritikosetal.2019,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Audretsch, David B. and Hafenstein, Marian and Kritikos, Alexander and Schiersch, Alexander},
  title     = {Firm Size and Innovation in the Service Sector},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42767},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427670},
  pages     = {46},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {A rich literature links knowledge inputs with innovative outputs. However, most of what is known is restricted to manufacturing. This paper analyzes whether the three aspects involving innovative activity - R\&D; innovative output; and productivity - hold for knowledge intensive services. Combining the models of Crepon et al. (1998) and of Ackerberg et al. (2015), allows for causal interpretation of the relationship between innovation output and labor productivity. We find that knowledge intensive services benefit from innovation activities in the sense that these activities causally increase their labor productivity. Moreover, the firm size advantage found for manufacturing in previous studies nearly disappears for knowledge intensive services.},
  language  = {en}
}