Data analysis Case Study 1: Theory-testing research: testing a necessary condition

capabilities that are similar to Nokia’s. If we match this expected value similar with the one that is actually observed in each case different or similar, as in Table 5.2, we see that the observed value matches with the predicted one in all cases. No “black swan” has been found. Hypothesis 3a predicts that in each of the five radical innovation pro- jects a short-term commitment between partners will exist. If we match this expected value short-term with the one that is actually observed in each case short-term or long-term, as in Table 5.1, we see that the observed value matches with the predicted one in cases 1, 2, 3, and 5, but does not match in case 4. Case 4, thus, is a “black swan”, which demonstrates that the proposition that short-term commitment of partners is a necessary condition for success in a radical innovation project is not true for all cases. Hypothesis 3b predicts that in each of the five incremental innovation projects a long-term commitment between partners will exist. If we match this expected value long-term with the one that is actually observed in each case long-term or short-term, as in Table 5.2, we see that there are many cases in which the observed value does not match with the expected one, indicating that the proposition is not true.

5.2.11 Implications for the theory

The two hypotheses on technological capabilities 2a and 2b were confirmed in all cases. This is an indication that the propositions from which these hypotheses were derived are correct, at least for the Nokia cases. The other hypotheses were rejected. The hypothesis that a success- ful radical innovation project requires an alliance with new partners 1a was rejected in one of the five radical innovation projects. This suggests that building an alliance with a new partner is not a necessary condition for a successful radical innovation project. The hypothesis that a successful incremental innovation project requires an alliance with existent partners 1b was rejected in four of the five incremental innovation projects. This suggests that the proposition from which this hypothesis was derived is not correct. The two hypotheses 3a and 3b about the level of commitment that would be found in each successful innovation project were rejected in five of the ten innovation projects. The rejections of these hypotheses can mean that the propositions from which these hypotheses were derived are not correct, or that they do not apply to certain Nokia projects. Since we also found single cases in which hypotheses were accepted, we do not conclude that the propositions are definitively incorrect; the proposition might be cor- rect for a smaller domain.

5.2.12 Replication strategy

Although two hypotheses were confirmed, we cannot be sure that the underlying proposition is correct in the entire domain that is covered by the theory. We therefore propose a replication strategy to study innovation projects that are different from the ones studied here, i.e. innovation projects in different fields from telecommunication, and involving other companies than Nokia. We do not think that the rejection of the other hypotheses means that the underlying propositions are definitely not true. The proposition might be true for certain innovation projects but not for all Nokia’s and perhaps other projects. To assess this possibility we propose that the proposition be tested in different cases from the domain that is covered by the theory. Other innovation projects, which are different from the ones studied here, could be selected, i.e. innovation projects in other fields than telecommunication and involving other companies than Nokia.

5.3 Methodological reflection on Case Study 1

5.3.1 Theory

In Case Study 1, the object of study was innovation projects in which two or more firms collaborated on product innovation. Two main types of inno- vation are distinguished: radical innovation in which both the technol- ogy and the market are new and customer needs are unknown, and incremental innovation, consisting of the improved use of existing tech- nologies to meet known customer needs. It is theorized that radical and incremental innovations require differ- ent collaboration characteristics, and two sets of propositions were formu- lated, one for radical and one for incremental innovations. Each proposition described a necessary relation: success was not possible with- out a specific value for the independent concept “necessary condition”. The literature suggests that certain collaboration characteristics are important for achieving success. However, it does not suggest that they are necessary for success. The propositions, therefore, could also have expressed probabilistic relations. The choice for the necessary condition