Capabilities. Frequentis develops communication and information systems for safety critical areas. Frequentis operates in the telecommu-
nications industry and can be said to have similar capabilities to Nokia. Commitment. The joint development agreement between Nokia and
Frequentis is not a long-term commitment. Case 8 is a project targeted at the design, development, and marketing
of the value-added mobile applications for clients of Telefónica Móviles. It was organized as a joint development agreement between
Nokia and Telefónica Móviles, signed in 2001. The two companies established a joint Services Creation Center, which has the latest Nokia
infrastructure and technology to execute the new developments.
New partner? Telefónica Móviles and Nokia are new partners. Capabilities. Telefónica Móviles is a leading mobile telephone oper-
ator and so it can be said to have similar capabilities to Nokia. Commitment. The joint development agreement between Nokia and
Telefónica Móviles is not a long-term commitment. Case 9 is a project for delivering network operations services to operators.
It was organized in a co-production contract between Nokia and Primatel, signed in 2001. This non-exclusive cooperation reinforced Nokia’s capa-
bility to support network operations for advanced 2G and 3G networks. Working with Nokia, Primatel built on its extensive previous experience
with mobile networks to support the development, management, integra- tion, and optimization of network operations for 3G and 2G.
New partner? This is the first time that Nokia and Primatel work together. Capabilities. Primatel Ltd is Finland’s leading provider of telecom-
munication solutions. Primatel specializes in comprehensive design, implementation, and maintenance of telecommunication networks
and has similar capabilities to Nokia.
Commitment. The co-production contract between Nokia and Primatel is not a long-term commitment.
Case 10 is a project targeted at the development of 3G wireless com- munications products in China. It was a combined venture of Nokia,
Texas Instruments TI, China PTIC Information Industry, China Academy of Telecommunications Technology CATT, and Korea’s
LG Electronics, established in 2002. LG, Nokia, and TI have each taken a 13.5 per cent equity stake in the company, which was founded with an
initial investment of 28 million.
New partner? This is the first time that Nokia has collaborated with any of the partners in this combined venture.
Capabilities. China PTIC Information Industry and CATT have simi- lar capabilities to Nokia. But, in contrast, TI and LG Electronics are
major players in the microelectronics industry, which means that they have quite different capabilities from Nokia, which specializes in mobile
telecommunications.
Commitment. This joint venture is an example of a long-term commitment. These data are summarized in Table 5.2.
5.2.10 Data analysis
Hypothesis 1a predicts that in each of the five radical innovation pro- jects an alliance was formed with new partners. If we match this
expected value new with the one that is actually observed in each case new or not new, as in Table 5.1, we see that the observed value
matches with the predicted one in cases 1, 2, 4, and 5, but does not match in case 3. Case 3, thus, is a “black swan”, which demonstrates
that the proposition that newness of the partner is a necessary condi- tion for success in a radical innovation project is not true for all cases.
Hypothesis 1b predicts that in each of the five incremental innovation projects an alliance was formed with existent partners “not new”. If
we match this expected value not new with the one that is actually observed in each case new or not new, 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.
Hypothesis 2a predicts that in each of the five radical innovation pro- jects an alliance was formed with partners with technological capabil-
ities that differ from Nokia’s. If we match this expected value different with the one that is actually observed in each case differ-
ent or similar, as in Table 5.1, we see that the observed value matches with the predicted one in all cases. No “black swan” has been found.
Hypothesis 2b predicts that in each of the five incremental innov- ation projects an alliance was formed with partners with technological
Table 5.2
Incremental innovation projects
Collaboration history Technological capabilities
Level of commitment
Case 6 Not new
Similar Short-term
Case 7 New
Similar Short-term
Case 8 New
Similar Short-term
Case 9 New
Similar Short-term
Case 10 New
Similar Long-term
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
