Athens Journal of Business & Economics –

Volume 8, Issue 4, October 2022 –Pages 345-362

Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

± +
By Manuel Niever∗, Ilona Martina Scholz & Carsten Hahn
With rising need for innovation within a complex and dynamic world,
cooperation between complementary partners offers potential to create
competitive advantage. Early-stage start-ups and small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) can exploit opportunities by cooperating early and jointly
developing new innovation. Despite research into cooperation between
established start-ups and SMEs existing, there is no specific concept or support
options for cooperation in an early stage. Intermediaries are named as a helpful
support option; however specific tasks are not analysed. This research provides
insight into various support options in the context of cooperation between early
phase start-ups and the German “Mittelstand”. Within the framework of the
Design Research Methodology (DRM) the results of a literature research and
qualitative interviews are presented in a Reference and Impact Model, which
show the need for support in the cooperation of start-ups and SMEs. Based on
the findings, a four-phased cooperation process is proposed, which includes
support possibilities in each individual phase. A comprehensive evaluation plan
in the context of practical application completes this work.

Keywords: innovation management, cooperation support, cooperation process,

early-stage start-ups, open innovation

Introduction

Cooperation between start-ups and SMEs have great potential to drive

innovations (Engels and Röhl 2019). Two worlds collide: start-ups work in agile
and in flat hierarchies, while medium-sized companies may be more flexible than
large corporations, but are still structured by rigid processes (Wrobel et al. 2017).
These differences can be seen as potential when it comes to cooperation, as both
parties can benefit from each other.
Whilst promising potential exists, challenges must be overcome in order to
use these opportunities. Studies differ to some extent on the success of such
cooperations. According to a study by the German Productivity and Innovation
Centre (RKW) in almost 70% of the cases cooperation goals are achieved
(Wallisch and Hemeda 2018). However, according to a study by Becker et al.
(2018), 38% of start-ups say they are rather dissatisfied and a further 8% are very
dissatisfied with their cooperation with SMEs (Becker et al. 2018).
In this context, intermediaries are seen as an important possibility for support,
especially in initiating contacts (Wrobel et al. 2017). In previous studies on

∗Research Assistant, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Germany.

±
Research Assistant, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Germany.
+
Professor, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Germany.

https://doi.org/10.30958/ajbe.8-4-3 doi=10.30958/ajbe.8-4-3
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

cooperation, recommendations for action are formulated for start-ups and SMEs,
but intermediaries themselves are not the focus of surveys or analyses (Becker et
al. 2018, Wrobel et al. 2017). Accordingly, the focus so far has been on possibilities
for improvement within the two parties themselves. Here, the research focuses on
support options for this particular type of cooperation in order to exploit the full
innovation potential.
Focusing on start-up founding teams which already cooperate with SMEs in
the early phase instead of on already established start-ups, this research opens up a
new perspective of collaboration in the context of open innovation. Through this
early cooperation, SMEs have early access to new innovations that can be
implemented in start-ups with the required degrees of freedom and agility. The
founding teams could thus benefit very early on from the support of an experienced
and well-equipped partner who can provide the necessary resources that the
founders lack. There is currently little literature on this type of cooperation, which
is why this research investigates with the aim to provide more insights and create
impulses for further research.

Literature Review

The State of the Art describes innovation processes within SMEs, as well as
founding processes and existing cooperations between start-ups and SMEs.

Innovation Processes of SME

There are numerous approaches to outline and describe innovation processes.

More “traditional” approaches as described in Geschka (1993), Thom (1980) and
Vahs and Brem (2015) (see Figure 1) as well as more agile approaches and open
innovation. Generally, an innovation process starts with a situational analysis of
the demand and ends in entering the market with a new product, service or
business model. Following the definition of innovation by Schumpeter (1926),
such a process is successful, when an invention becomes an innovation by the
diffusion into the market.

Figure 1. Examples of Innovation Processes

Thom Idea generation Idea acceptance Realization of ideas
1980

Geschka Preliminary phase

Planning and conceptual Development of product and Product and process
Market launch
1993 design processes development

Vahs und Idea Systematic

Situation analysis collection collection Market
Brem Problem definition Idea and storage
Screening Rating Selection Implementation
launch
2015 generation of ideas

Source: Vahs and Brehm 2015, Thom 1980, Geschka 1993.

With the different forms of representation of innovation processes, it becomes

clear that it is difficult to develop a process that is both generally valid and detailed
enough to represent its complexity (Vahs and Brem 2015). As explained by Tsifidaris
(1994) and Vahs and Brem (2015), the representation of an innovation process as a

346
Athens Journal of Business & Economics October 2022

phase model is problematic. This is due to the fact that in a real innovation process,
individual phases cannot be clearly separated from each other, which leads to
“iterative feedback” between individual phases (Tsifidaris 1994). Accordingly, the
representation as a phase model is to be seen as an aid, which represents innovation
processes as “multi-stage problem-solving processes” (Tsifidaris 1994). Thus, they
are to be understood as a model to support the planning and execution of
development activities instead of a true description of real decision-making
processes.
A further development of “traditional” innovation process models is the
concept of Open Innovation. The Open Innovation approach originates from
Chesbrough (2003) and describes the opening of the innovation process to the
outside (Vahs and Brem 2015). While closed innovation principles involve developing
resources within the company and retaining control over them, open innovation
relies on sharing knowledge and resources between parties (Chesbrough 2003).

Figure 2. Types of Open Innovation Processes

Outside-In Process
Integrating external knowledge,
customers and suppliers Inside-Out Process
Bringing ideas to market,
selling/licensing IP and multiplying
technology

Scanning of Proto- Development Products

new types
technologies

Coupled Process
couple outside-in and inside-out
processes, working in alliances
with complementaries

Source: Gassmann and Enkel 2004.

Figure 2 describes the three types of processes in open innovation: Outside-In,

Inside-Out and Coupled Process (Gassmann and Enkel 2004). In the outside-in
approach, external knowledge is used to improve one's own innovation processes.
This can be implemented through the integration of customers and suppliers as
well as external technology sourcing (Gassmann and Enkel 2004). In the inside-
out approach, innovation processes are initiated from within the company to the
outside. The aim is to bring the company's own ideas to the market. This can take
the form of intrapreneurship programs and business incubators (Wrobel et al.
2017). There is also a coupled approach in which both approaches are linked. For
this purpose, companies cooperate in strategic networks. Here, the exchange of
knowledge between the different parties is seen as critical to success. In this context
Gassmann and Enkel (2004) define cooperation as the joint development of
knowledge with competitor companies, customers and suppliers, joint ventures
and alliances or universities and research centers (Gassmann and Enkel 2004). The
cooperation between start-ups and SMEs can classified as such a coupled process,
as knowledge between both parties is shared.

347
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

Founding Processes of Startups

A start-up is understood as “a human institution designed to create a new

product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty” (Ries 2011). This
“temporary organization [is] in search of a scalable, repeatable, profitable business
model’ (Blank and Dorf 2012). From the emergence of an initial idea to the
founding and possible exit of a start-up, numerous steps are taken. Freiling and
Harima (2019) emphasize that the entrepreneurship process is not straightforward,
but true to Hayek's motto of “trial and error”, testing and learning from experience.
They divide the entrepreneurship process into three stages: pre-founding phase,
founding phase and growth phase. The aim of the pre-founding phase is finding a
promising idea (Jung 2004). Another classification divides start-ups into different
life-cycle stages: seed, start-up, growth, later and steady stage (Kollmann et al. 2020).
In this paper, the early phase of a start-up is understood as the seed stage.
Here, the iterative further development of a business idea plays a role and there are
no sales or users yet (Kollmann et al. 2020). In addition, the early-stage is characterized
by the fact that there is a financing gap, as there are no investors yet (Freiling and
Harima 2019). In this work, there is the premise that there is already at least an
initial concept that founders can present to interested companies. Otherwise, every
idea could be classified as the beginning of the pre-founding phase.
In the context of this research the following definition of founding teams was
used (Lechler and Gemünden 2002): Start-up founding teams consist of at least 2
natural persons who intend to jointly found a start-up and thereby assume a
significant share of equity capital and active management functions as well as
bear the business risks.

Cooperation of Startups and SME

The primary goal in cooperation between companies is the increase in

performance and improvement of the competitiveness of both parties (Benisch
1973). Cooperation goals are closely linked to cooperation motives and both are
often not distinguished from each other in the literature (Becker et al. 2018, Wrobel
et al. 2017). Access to resources and competences, which in turn serve the goal of
generating competitive advantages, are also main motives (Gerybadze 2005). For
such an exchange of resources, a complementary relationship between the partners
is important. If cooperation partners can close each other’s resource gaps, this is
referred to as a closing-gap alliance (Porter and Fuller 1989).
In the context of cooperation between start-ups and companies, numerous
different goals can be distinguished on both sides. The cooperation aims to create
advantages in that start-ups bring innovativeness and agility to the company, while
the latter provides resources (Kuckertz 2017). It can be stated that cooperation on
the part of the start-up is often seen as crucial for survival, while on the part of the
company it is often merely carried out as a defense strategy (Becker et al. 2018,
Kuckertz 2017).
A study by the Alexander Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society presents
a systemization of collaboration models between start-ups and SMEs according to

348
Athens Journal of Business & Economics October 2022

the phases Learn, Match and Partner (Figure 3). The classification is based on the
duration of the collaboration and the intensity of the cooperation.
In the Learn phase, the two parties get to know each other, and first contacts
and short-term activities take place. In this phase, intermediaries are also active,
connecting the two worlds. The aim is to develop understanding between the
parties involved, recognizing differences in processes and mindsets. The Match
phase includes aims to determine whether the two partners fit together. This takes
place in the context of medium-term activities such as accelerators or incubator
programs, innovation labs and pilot projects. In a best-case scenario, such a
cooperation then moves on to the next phase, the Partner phase. This phase is
characterized by medium- to long-term activities such as co-creation, joint
ventures and strategic alliances (Wrobel et al. 2017).

Figure 3. Learn-Match-Partner
Cooperation intensity

Joint
ventures
Strategic
alliance
Co-
Creation

Licensing
Accelerators Customer-
Incubators supplier
relations
Support in
scouting & Innovation
matching labs
Pilot
projects
Start-up
Workshops
safaris
& trainings
Start-up
Competitions
pitches Learn
Hackathons
Match
Meetups &
conferences Partner

Time

Source: Wrobel et al. 2017.

Methodology

Current research shows various possibilities for Start-ups and SMEs to

cooperate in order to maximize innovation potential (Wrobel et al. 2017, Becker et
al. 2018). However, specific approaches for cooperation with early-stage start-ups
are lacking, as well as support options for both parties through entities such as
intermediaries. Given recommendation for improvement on cooperation are
focused on an internal view of both parties, although external support options are
seen as valuable. Questions remain on what areas need support and how a
cooperation process looks like in this specific scenario.
Given the state-of-the-art insights on cooperation between established start-
ups and SMEs, the initial situation is resembled in an initial reference model as
seen in Figure 4. It explains how different factors have an influence on each other

349
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

and the goal of such an early cooperation, a cooperative spin-off. For example,
strong structural differences between partners increase power imbalances between
both parties (Wrobel et al. 2017). This in turn negatively influences trust between
partners and therefore also the effectiveness of the cooperation (Gründerszene
2020). Two other strong influences on the effectiveness of a cooperation are the
transparency and mutual understanding of both parties (Becker et al. 2018, Wrobel
et al. 2017). Cooperation with a firm can also slow down the speed of start-up
which in turn negatively influences the whole process of developing a promising
business model in uncertain market environment (Wrobel et al. 2017).

Figure 4. Initial Reference Model

-
Cooperative

-
spin-off - -
- - +
Effective - Development of a
sustainable business
Conditions of
extreme
cooperation
-
model uncertainty
- - - --
Mutual
-
Time-to-market
understanding

- - - --
Transparency of - - - - Selection of a - -
Trust in partner suitable business Process speed
cooperation
partner

- +
+
+
Power imbalance Combination of
complementary
+
+ resources

+
+
+
Stuctural
differences

Source: Own illustration based on literature review.

On the basis of this initial reference model, the initial impact model was
developed (see Figure 5). It shows what areas could be improved through support.
The aim is to reverse the negative influences described in the initial reference
model through support options in order to maximize potentials of such cooperation.
Initially three areas of possible support were identified: Support in organization
and planning, balancing power imbalances and identifying suitable business
partners (as highlighted blue in Figure 5). For example, support in the area of
organization and planning, such as defining clear cooperation goals (Wrobel et al.
2017), could have a strong positive effect on the transparency and therefore
positively influence the trust between partners as well as the effectiveness of the
cooperation. Supporting the cooperation by outbalancing power imbalances could
also have a strong positive effect on trust. The identification of suitable business
partners could additionally speed up the cooperation process and improve
understanding between partners (Becker et al. 2018).

350
Athens Journal of Business & Economics October 2022

Figure 5. Initial Impact Model

Cooperative
+ spin-off +
+ +
+ - +
Effective + Development of a
sustainable business
Conditions of
extreme
cooperation
+
model uncertainty

+ + + +
+
Mutual
Time-to-market
understanding
+
+ + +
+ + + + ++
Transparency of
Trust in partner
Selection of a
suitable business
+ + Process speed
cooperation
partner

+ + +
+
+
-
Support with organization Power imbalance Combination of

+
complementary
and planning
+
+
resources

+
+
+ Stuctural Support in
differences identifying suitable
partners

Support in balancing
power imbalances

Source: Own illustration based on literature review.

Based on this model the following research questions were derived and
hypotheses on the effects of the support are formulated.

Research Question 1: To what extent is there a need for support for cooperation
in start-up teams and companies?

H1: Support in identifying suitable partners has a positive effect on the

speed of the process.
H2: Support in identifying suitable partners has a positive effect on trust in
the cooperation partner.
H3: Support in planning and organisation improves the transparency of the
cooperation between the founding team and the SME.
H4: A mediator balances out power imbalances between the founding team
and the SME.

Research Question 2: How can a cooperation process between start-up teams

and SMEs with support possibilities in the individual phases be structured?

H5: Essential phases of the cooperation process are the selection of a

suitable cooperation partner, the validation of the business model in the
market and the subsequent evaluation regarding continuation.

This research is based on the Design Research Method (DRM) according to

Lucienne Blessing and Amaresh Chakrabarti (Blessing and Chakrabarti 2009). A
qualitative content analysis of interviews with start-up teams and SMEs was used
to gain an understanding of the point of views of the cooperation partners with
regard to cooperation, possible cooperation process and support needs, and to
further develop the impact model. Eight start-up teams and three SMEs in diverse
industries were included in this study. The evaluation was carried out by a

351
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

qualitative content analysis based on Mayring (2015). Based on the results a

cooperation process with support possibilities was developed.

Results

Four areas requiring support were identified: Support in identifying

appropriate partners, planning and organisation of the cooperation, finding team
and organisational form and balancing power imbalances (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Areas of Support in Cooperations between Early-Stage Start-Ups and

SME

Identification Planning and

of partners organization

Areas of
support
Team and Managing
organizational power
form imbalances

Source: Own research.

Support in Identifying Appropriate Partners

When identifying suitable partners, it becomes apparent that a distinction

must be made between selecting suitable business and finding the appropriate
contact within the chosen organization. Both are considered as challenging by the
participating companies. Besides restrictions in time, companies also struggle due
to reserved attitudes towards innovation and high-risk investments. Founders
struggle finding appropriate contacts due to missing networks and cooperative
formats, little interest from companies and niche positioning of their products. The
speed of the start-up is reduced due to the necessary time investment in finding
partners, which is why this form of cooperation appears unsuitable for some
participating founders of this study.
Specific demand for support was expressed in shape of offering loose and
open formats, access to networks, direct mediation and critical pre-screening of the
idea by other parties. In addition, templates already exist within some departments
to check fits with potential start-ups. Those could be used to increase results in
other companies.

352
Athens Journal of Business & Economics October 2022

Based on these results neither H1 nor H2 can be falsified, however given the
focus on time constraints it seems that H1 is a more important factor.

Support in Planning and Organisation of the Cooperation

On the founders’ side, interest in support regarding a structured procedure

was expressed in terms of ready-made contracts for this specific form of
cooperation. In addition, a clear definition of the objective in advance was
considered important, which could reduce concerns about the loss of the idea and
degrees of freedom. Thus, support in this area also has an influence on trust in the
cooperation partner. In addition, prefabricated processes were desired, which can
give an outlook on a possible course. In this way, founders as well as companies
are aware of the resource requirements and rough process in advance and can
decide to what extent they are prepared to do so.
On the company side, ready-made contracts are often used, and entire
departments are responsible for cooperation management. Here, too, the size of the
companies under consideration must be taken into account: Based on these results,
it cannot be concluded that this is the case in all companies and industries.
Nevertheless, support from third parties, such as higher education institutions, was
perceived as helpful. Based on these results H3 cannot be falsified.

Support in Finding Team and Organisational Form

In the early stages, the team itself is still developing. On the founders’ side,
one team with collaboration experience mentioned that finding the optimal team
members and form of the founding team took a long time. Therefore, it was stated
as important to find the common motivators of a team in advance, as well as
support in team building and team sourcing. The aspect of team sourcing, in terms
of adding another member to the team, was identified by another founder as an
aspect that early support could improve. Consultation in terms of necessary
managerial and technical knowledge to lead a start-up would have been helpful in
order to determine missing skillsets of the founding team early on and therefore
speeding up the process. The support of the founding team also seems to be
viewed as positive by the companies, as it reduces the fear of lacking commitment
from new founders.

Support in Balancing-Out Power Imbalances

There is interest in mediators; in the context of power imbalances, support

from experienced founders seems to be preferred to reduce uncertainties.
However, when considering the mediator role, it becomes clear that mediators
can provide support at numerous points and should not be reduced to their role in
the power balance. A stronger differentiation of the individual tasks of a mediator
role is necessary here. Based on the results, different tasks have been identified. A
mediator could use them in the context of cooperation in the early phase:

353
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

• Identification of suitable partners

• Challenging of the idea before contact initiation
• Initiation and maintenance of contacts: both for initial cooperation and for
inclusion in the network
• Mediation in negotiations and meetings
• Conducting joint workshops
• Provision of material (term sheets, prefabricated processes)
• Consulting services: provide contacts for different areas of expertise such
as law, taxes

The individual aspects listed so far cannot be conducted by a single person; a

network of different actors is needed. If an institution can provide this network, it is
also able to accompany the cooperation. However, this depends on the competencies
and resources of the institution. Otherwise, it is possible to work with external
partners to lead a cooperation. Therefore, a new hypothesis is as follows:

H6: A network of different individuals is necessary to support both founders

and SMEs.

Based on these findings the impact model was expanded, including the
different suggested support options, which are highlighted in blue in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Impact Model

+
Cooperative

+
spin-off + +
+ + Development of a
- + Conditions of
Effective
cooperation sustainable business extreme

+ + model uncertainty

+ + +
+ Teamsourcing
Mutual
+ +
Time-to-market

+ + understanding
++
Transparency of
+ + + + Selection of a + + + Support of the
Trust in partner founding team in Balancing gaps in
cooperation suitable business Process speed
the team and form the skillset
partner
+
finding process
+ + +
+
- Identification of
Competence/
knowledge acquisition
Combination of team motivators workshops
Assistance by
+
complementary
+
external or Support with organization Power imbalance
and planning resources
internal

+ +
intermediaries

+
+
Own examination
with the help of
Ready-made
Precise Stuctural templates −
definition of differences
contracts
goals

Support in Critical
Predefined identifying suitable examination of Joint
contracts partners the idea examination in
Support in balancing workshops
power imbalances

External
Access to relevant examination
Mentor Exchange in formats and contacts
networks

Mediation in
negotiations and casual and
Admission to structured
meetings networks Direkt
format
matchmaking

Source: Own research.

Phases of a Cooperation Process

The reported processes on the company side are arranged differently and
proceed according to different milestones. Nevertheless, they follow the same
pattern: search for and selection of cooperation partners, development of the form
of cooperation, a pilot and finally the decision on the continuation of the

354
Athens Journal of Business & Economics October 2022

cooperation. Therefore, a further subdivision would be possible, hence the

hypothesis is extended to include the development of the type of cooperation as an
additional important phase:

H5: Essential phases of the cooperation process are the selection of a suitable
cooperation partner, elaboration of the type of cooperation, validation of the
business model in the market and the subsequent evaluation with regard to
continuation.

Additionally to the results regarding the research questions, the following

insights were gained:

The main motives for cooperation on the company side in the early phase are
access to talent and knowledge.

Companies that work with start-up teams at an early stage are not primarily
pursuing the goal of finding or developing a new business model. Thus, gaining
competence in agile mindset and methods is one goal for participating in incubator
programs. In addition, access to talent is just as important, on the one hand for
acquiring talent, and on the other hand for networking for later collaborations. The
further development of ideas to the point of participation is seen as a “bonus”.

The need for support on the founder’s side depends on character and
experience.

The experience with and interest in support options and intermediaries on the
part of start-ups varies greatly. For example, some founders have had good
experiences with mentors, others have not. Some founders prefer direct contact
with the company, others prefer support from experienced founders. The choice of
tools seems to depend on the character type and experience of the founder. There
is no “one-fits-all” solution. Accordingly, when considering the individual support
options as part of constructing a process, it is significant to offer a selection from
which individual founding teams can choose the support they need.

Experienced founders prefer building their own networks.

In this study, founders with experience gained from other start-ups or from
working for accelerators and venture capitalists tended toward direct exchange
with cooperation partners and building a network, and less toward an intermediary
who establishes contacts. The role of an intermediary in the form of a person, is
given less attention. Instead, in one case the establishment of advisory boards is
preferred, which allows regular exchange with experts.

355
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

People are at the centre of cooperation.

Personal relationships and their impact on the success of a collaboration were

discussed for both companies and founders. This refers not only to the collaboration
between the start-up and the SME itself, but also to the relationship with a possible
intermediary, with specialist departments within the company and with external
consultants. The exchange in different networks between experienced founders,
people interested in founding, companies and experts is accordingly seen as an
important aspect. This both balances out uncertainties and forms new potentials
through synergies. The early integration of departments into the process is also seen
as a way of generating enthusiasm on both sides. This could be achieved, for
example, through joint workshops in which specific aspects are developed together.
Based on the results, the following process model was developed, which is
based on the Learn-Match-Partner Model as described in the literature review.
Despite the sequential representation as a process model, this needs to be seen an
agile approach with iterative and incremental activities within the individual
phases.

Figure 8. Learn-Match-Test-Partner
Agreement on
development of possible Signed cooperation Evaluation of business
cooperation contract model and cooperation

LEARN MATCH TEST PARTNER

Assessment of Transition to long-

Contact initiation Implementation
potential term partnership

Source: Own research.

The developed process model as seen in Figure 8 is divided into four different
phases:

1. Learn: In this phase, SMEs and founders get to know each other and learn
about the respective problems and approaches to solving them. The aim is
to establish contacts and get to know potential cooperation partners.
2. Match: This phase focuses on evaluating ideas and finding a suitable fit
between the partners. In this phase it is determined whether the problem of
the SME fits the solution of the founders. The focus here is on examining
both the content and the cultural compatibility between parties.
3. Test: If there is compatibility between the SME and the start-up, a pilot
project is launched. Prototypes are jointly developed and tested in the
market. The phase ends with a joint evaluation of the business model and
teamwork.
4. Partner: After evaluation of the first pilot, the two parties have numerous
options for long-term cooperation.

356
Athens Journal of Business & Economics October 2022

At the end of each phase there are milestones which decide whether the joint
work will be continued.

1st milestone: Consent to develop the form of cooperation

2nd milestone: Signed cooperation agreement
3rd milestone: Evaluation of the business model and the cooperation

The first phase of the cooperation is about establishing contact and getting to
know the partners, the Learn phase. The aim of this phase is to find out whether
there is serious interest in cooperation and a possible joint spin-off. In this phase,
the problem or initial situation is analysed on the company side and the idea is
developed on the start-up side and then both are brought together. The goal of the
phase is to determine whether the idea and the solution are compatible and to
decide whether there is serious interest in cooperation.
At the process level, both parties should therefore come together. Two
different scenarios are possible in this regard: Either problems and solutions are
developed separately and brought together (e.g., idea competitions, matching
events) or the idea is already developed in cooperation (e.g., university projects).
For ideas that have been developed without the company, support is needed to
find suitable cooperation partners. Loose formats for exchange can be offered, as
well as structured formats in which a cooperation is accompanied by an
intermediary role. In some cases, the idea itself already emerged in joint
cooperation. In both cases, a pre-formulated process for the course of a cooperation
with clear indications on duration and exchange of resources can bring
transparency.
On the content level, problem and solution are considered, and a fit between
the two is found (problem-solution fit). A critical preliminary examination of the
idea before contact is established can help both founders and companies. To
identify the problem-solution fit, templates and workshops are good tools. Such
joint workshops could build trust between the parties early on. In addition, both
parties get to know each other's way of thinking, from which benefits can be
derived even if no fit is identified.
At the relationship level, there is a relaxed way of working together and
getting to know each other. The focus is on building trust. This can be supported
by facilitating intermediaries. The founding team itself can also be supported to
identify common potentials, goals and knowledge gaps. If skills are lacking,
workshops can be offered on the content level to compensate for the lack of
knowledge. Contact persons for support at the content level (e.g., law, tax,
marketing, sales) can also compensate for missing knowledge gaps.
During this phase, both parties should intensively discuss what their respective
goals are in a cooperation and whether they derive mutual benefit from a
cooperation. The goal of this phase is the decision to continue working together
and the willingness to work out the concrete form. This can also take place in the
context of agreeing to a process.

357
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

In the Match phase, the potentials of the cooperation are explored intensively
in order to discover and use synergies together. In terms of content, the
compatibility of the partners is examined on the one hand (partner fit) and the
compatibility of the product on the other (product fit). However, the fit should not
only be checked at a superior level, between the SME and the start-up, but also
between the specialist department and the founding team. In this phase, the
business model is also fine-tuned in order to test it in the later phase. To promote
trust, the content-related aspects can be developed together in workshops to
maintain interest and enthusiasm. Support that was already used in the Learn
phase, such as the support of the founding team in the development of knowledge
competence and team-building measures, can be further applied here. At the end
of this phase, the decision is made to carry out a joint pilot project. Thus, the
milestone is the signing of a cooperation agreement on the joint pilot. In particular,
the objectives, rights and obligations of the parties and the duration are to be
defined.
Within the Test phase, the product is tested in the market and the business
model is validated accordingly (product-market fit). For this purpose, a prototype
or MVP is first developed or the existing one is further developed. On the
company side, the agreed resources are made available. The duration of this phase
is defined in advance in the cooperation agreement so that a clear framework is
created. At the end of this phase, the goals set in advance are used to evaluate the
results and decide whether and how to continue. The pilot phase can be supported
through exchange with the network. Mentors can also help to motivate and support
the team on a regular basis (e.g., weekly).
The Partner phase is the goal of the process: a joint long-term cooperation.
However, this can look different, which is why the concrete contents of the phase
can differ greatly. Even if both partners agree at the beginning that they want a
joint spin-off, this can change during the cooperation. The process ends at this
point, as it transitions into a new type of collaboration. At the same time, all
participants remain part of the network and can continue to exchange ideas at
further events. Even if the cooperation ends, the network can still be used to
continue the exchange in the future. At the content level, the market launch is now
planned, and the concrete form of the cooperation is worked out.
For evaluation purposes, it is suggested to use the process in the context of a
cooperation initiation. By using the process model and the assistance mentioned
above, participating SMEs and founders can provide further conclusions on the
research topic. A purely theoretical evaluation within the framework of workshops
would be another possibility, but deeper conclusions can be drawn through the
actual use of the process, since the developed model and its support are actually
used.
The aim of the evaluation is to find out whether the developed cooperation
process supports cooperation between start-up teams and SMEs and to what extent
the support options are seen as helpful. The Evaluation therefore focuses on the
later. Furthermore, it evaluates to what extent the need for support is met by the
provided assistance.

358
Athens Journal of Business & Economics October 2022

In order to be able to assess the development of the attitudes of the founding

teams and SMEs over the course of the cooperation process, questionnaires will be
made along the process. Figure 9 illustrates the process accordingly. Expectations
and reflections can be mirrored through an initial and final questionnaire, as well
as during the milestones.
A standardised questionnaire is recommended, which allows for partially
open questions.

Figure 9. Evaluation Process

LEARN MATCH TEST PARTNER

Assessment of Transition to long-

Contact initiation Implementation
1 2 Potential 3 4 term partnership

Initial 2nd questionnaire: 3rd questionnaire: Final

questionnaire End of LEARN End of MATCH questionnaire

Source: Own illustration.

Discussion and Limitations

The developed cooperation process can be used in the context of initiating

contact between founding teams and SMEs to bring clarity into the process and
thus accelerate it. The process was designed in such a way that it can be used both
as part of institutional support and as an aid for unaccompanied cooperation.
In the survey of the companies, the different fits were mentioned as important
points in the process and also as challenges. Here it could be investigated how
strongly cooperation success is influenced by the different aspects. An evaluation
of success factors in the selection of suitable partners has already been carried out
in other fields.
The process can also be applied by adapting it to other departments and types
of cooperation. The central point here is to define in advance what is to be
achieved within the framework of the cooperation, from which the content-related
aspects can be derived. In this way, the superordinate process according to Learn-
Match-Test-Partner can be used to systematise the respective process and to
identify own support possibilities in the process.
This type of cooperation is rarely encountered in practice. The majority of
respondents had no experience of such cooperation. Therefore, no investigation
could take place regarding specific success factors, as there was not enough
information available. An explorative research approach was chosen, which by its
nature is not suitable to falsify hypotheses that have been established, but rather to
establish new hypotheses. In this respect, the reference and impact model can be
seen as a collection of hypotheses that can and should be examined in greater
depth in further research.
Reference and impact models are only able to represent the actual initial
situation to a limited extent. It should be noted, for example, that there may be far

359
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

more interrelationships between the individual factors. The relationships in this

model were raised to an abstract level and thus a focus was set.

Conclusion

This research resulted in a cooperation process, which assigns the identified

support possibilities to the individual phases. The process is divided into the four
phases of Learn-Match-Test-Partner, during which the intensity of the cooperation
increases.
Numerous support options for cooperation emerged from the analysis. For
support in organization and planning, identification of suitable partners, aspects
ranging from tools such as templates, access to networks to accompaniment of the
process by external or internal facilitators were identified. To balance power
imbalances, mentors, networks and moderation in meetings were added. In this
context, the role of an intermediary can take on more tasks than mere mediation.
The necessary qualities for this were also identified next to the need for support on
the part of the founding teams in finding a team and form.

References

Becker W, Ulrich P, Botzkowski T, Fibitz A, Stradtmann M (2018) Kooperationen

zwischen Mittelstand und Start-up-Unternehmen. (Cooperation between medium-
sized companies and start-ups). Management und Controlling im Mittelstand.
Springer Gabler.
Benisch W (1973) Kooperationsfibel: Bundesrepublik und EWG. (Cooperation guide:
Federal Republik and EEC). 4th Edition. Heider.
Blank SG, Dorf B (2012) The startup owner’s manual. The step-by-step guide for building
a great company. K & S Ranch.
Blessing LTM, Chakrabarti A (2009) Drm, a design research methodology. Springer.
Chesbrough HW (2003) The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review
44(3): 35–41.
Engels B, Röhl K‑H (2019) Start-ups und Mittelstand. Potenziale und Herausforderungen
von Kooperationen. (Start-ups and medium-sized businesses. Potentials and
challenges of cooperations). Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut der Deutschen
Wirtschaft: Vol. 134. IW Medien.
Freiling J, Harima J (2019) Entrepreneurship. Gründung und Skalierung von Startups.
(Entrepreneurship. Creation and scaling of startups). Gabler Verlag.
Gassmann O, Enkel E (2004) Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process
archetypes. In R&D Management Conference (RADMA), Lissabon.
Gerybadze A (2005) Management von Technologieallianzen und Kooperationen.
(Management of technology alliances and cooperatives). In S Albers, O Gassmann
(eds.), Handbuch Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement. Strategie - Umsetzung
– Controlling, 155–174. Gabler Verlag.
Geschka H (1993) Wettbewerbsfaktor Zeit. Beschleunigung von Innovationsprozessen.
(Time as a competitive factor. Acceleration of innovation processes). Verl. Moderne
Industrie.

360
Athens Journal of Business & Economics October 2022

Gründerszene (2020) Deutsche Gründer- und Innovationsstudie 2020. Retrieved from:

https://bit.ly/3jRXX19. [Accessed 22 August 2021]
Jung V (2004) Markteintrittsgestaltung neugegründeter Unternehmen. Situationsspezifische
und erfolgsbezogene Analyse. (Market entry design of start-up companies. Situation-
specific and success-related analysis). University Dissertation. Zugl.: Karlsruhe.
Informationstechnologie und Ökonomie: Vol. 26. Lang.
Kollmann T, Jung PB, Kleine-Stegemann L, Ataee J, Cruppe K de (2020) Deutscher
Startup Monitor 2020. (German Startup Monitor 2020). Bundesverband Deutsche
Startups e.V.
Kuckertz A (2017) Management: corporate entrepreneurship. Lehrbuch. Springer Gabler.
Lechler T, Gemünden HG (2002) Gründerteams. Chancen und Risiken für den
Unternehmenserfolg. (Founder teams. Opportunities and risks for corporate success).
DtA-Publikationen zu Gründung und Mittelstand. Physica-Verlag HD.
Mayring P (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. (Qualitative
content analysis. Basics and techniques) (12., überarbeitete Auflage). Beltz Verlag.
Porter ME, Fuller MB (1989) Koalitionen und globale Strategien. (Coalitions and global
strategies). In ME Porter (ed.), Globaler Wettbewerb. Strategien der neuen
Internationalisierung, 363–399. Gabler Verlag.
Ries E (2011) The lean startup. How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to
create radically successful businesses. 1st Edition. Crown Business.
Schumpeter JA (1926) Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. (Theory of economic
development). 2. Aufl.. Duncker & Humblot.
Thom N (1980) Grundlagen des betrieblichen Innovationsmanagements. (Basics of
operational innovation management) (2., völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage). Hanstein.
Tsifidaris M (1994) Management der Innovation. Pragmatische Konzepte zur
Zukunftssicherung des Unternehmens. (Managing innovation. pragmatic concepts to
secure the future of the company). Praxiswissen Wirtschaft: Vol. 17. Expert-Verl.
Vahs D, Brem A (2015) Innovationsmanagement. Von der Idee zur erfolgreichen
Vermarktung. (Innovation management. From the idea to successful marketing) (5.,
überarbeitete Auflage). Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag.
Wallisch M, Hemeda A (2018) Mittelstand meets Startups 2018. Potenziale der
Zusammenarbeit. (Medium-sized companies meet startups 2018. Potentials of
cooperation). RKW Kompetenzzentrum.
Wrobel M, Schildhauer T, Preiß K (2017) Kooperationen zwischen Startups und
Mittelstand. Learn.Match.Partner. (Cooperations between startups and medium-
sized businesses. Learn.Match.Partner.). Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet;
Spielfeld Digital Hub.

361
Vol. 8, No. 4 Niever et al.: Innovation Driven by Cooperation of Startups and SME

362