The Benefits of Innovation Awards for
Participating Firms
Kim Borgmann 2182580
MSc Thesis
Submitted for partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science in Strategic Innovation Management at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
The copyright belongs to the author.
The Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Accenture and the author declare that any information provided by third parties, which these parties do not want to be made public, will be kept in confidence.
Author Kim Borgmann 2182580
Supervisor
Professor van der Eijk
Date
November 12, 2013
Word Count 17.233
Copyright
Copyright © 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or published in any manner whatsoever without permission of the author of this thesis.
Executive Summary
Innovation award programs are an increasingly important mechanism to encourage innovation and have been organized since the early thirteenth century. However, the impact of innovation awards on firms has received little scrutiny. This paper seeks to address this and investigates the benefits of innovation awards for participating firms by looking at both large and small firms, winners and non-winners of the Accenture Innovation Awards 2012. The purpose of this research is to answer the following research question: What are the benefits of
participating in innovation awards regarding signaling of quality and learning?
To answer this research question, five sub-questions were posed and four propositions were created. The research showed that award competitions are designed and organized with the purpose to stimulate innovation or to reward outstanding performance. During these award competitions firms can obtain monetary funds, signaling of quality and new knowledge through learning by providing the best or first solution to a certain problem (Gemser, et al., 2008; Kay, 2011; Murray et al., 2012; Lampel, et al., 2012), or by creating and/or presenting a great innovation. Firms benefit from participating in award competitions because they offer opportunities to; generate publicity and signals of quality, thereby improving visibility and reputation (Lerner, 1999; Davis and Davis, 2004; Davidian, 2005; Kay, 2011; Murray et al, 2012; Lampel, et al., 2012), learn from experience and other participants, distinguish themselves from competitors (Azadegan and Pai, 2008) and ease the process of obtaining scarce resources and monetary funds (Lerner, 2007; Murray et al., 2012). This thesis focuses on internal and external signaling of quality and learning by participating to innovation awards.
Eight participants of the Accenture Innovation Awards 2012 have been interviewed by means of semi-structured interviews, to build case studies. Cross case analysis shows that, first winners and top three qualifiers can use the award in their external communication as a signal of quality. Not only do participants gain positive publicity, they can use the winning of an award or ending in the top three in their communication to offer trust. This in turn validates their product and ensures partners that they are making the right decision to cooperate with the firm. Furthermore, an internal signal of quality is offered within the larger firms that strengthens the business case and the ‘we’ feeling ensuring support and understanding for the innovation within the firm.
Second, participants learn and benefit from the process of participation by getting in contact with industry experts and having the opportunity to practice their pitch. This pitching experience in front of the jury, a large audience or to record the video, offers the participants the opportunity to learn from experience and the obtained feedback thereby getting the opportunity to simplify and clarify their story. In addition, award contests are fun and inspiring and encourage creativity.
These findings support the importance of the organization of similar innovation award contests by firms and institutions. Events such as the Accenture Innovation Awards do not only offer quality signaling and learning opportunities but they also offer the innovators a platform to present their innovation and to network in order to get in contact with suppliers, investors and distributors. Thus, offering value not only for the participants but also for visitors. In addition, institutions gain from the organization of these events because it enables them to create value for their partners, stakeholders or customers.
Acknowledgements
Different people have played a central role in the fulfillment of this thesis. Without their participation and support, this research could not have been concluded.
First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisors professor van der Eijk and Paul van Renselaar for their supervision while I was writing my thesis. They have offered me their time and knowledge, giving me constructive feedback that has helped me with my entire research. Your trust and guidance have been great support.
I would also like to thank all my interviewees for granting me their time. I found our interviews most interesting and I enjoyed the opportunity to take a peek in your firm and daily work.
In addition, I would like to thank Accenture and all my co-workers. This has been an awesome internship with much space for personal and professional development. Not only did I write my thesis, but I was able to help with the organization of the Accenture Innovation Awards in a team of 23 interns. Together we have shared blood, sweat and tears, Excel and PowerPoint, beers and dinners all in order to enable the seventh, and most awesome, Accenture Innovation Awards.
Lastly, special thanks also to my wonderful friends and family who have supported me throughout my entire study and different journeys. With your words of encouragement, love, friendship and time this research defines a great end of many years of sharing joyous time, education, travel, work and adventure.
Content
Executive Summary Acknowledgements
1. Introduction ... 7
1.1 Description and objective of the study ... 8
1.2 Scope ... 8
1.3 Overview of the study ... 9
2. Theoretical Development ... 9 2.1 Innovation ... 9 2.2 Awards ... 9 2.3 Signaling of quality ... 13 2.4 Learning ... 15 3. Conceptual Model ... 17 4. Methodology ... 18
4.1 A multiple case study approach ... 18
4.2 Data collection ... 18
4.3 The firms in the sample ... 19
4.4 Variables ... 19
4.5 Data analysis ... 20
4.6 Reliability, validity, and generalizability ... 20
5. Results ... 21
5.1 Thuisafgehaald.nl ... 23
5.2 PerfoTec ... 24
5.3 UWV ... 25
5.4 TNO ... 26
5.5 De Vegetarian Butcher (De Vegetarische Slager) ... 26
7.1 Managerial implications ... 36
7.2 Theoretical implications ... 36
7.3 Limitations ... 37
7.4 Future Research ... 37
8. Reference list ... 39
Appendix 1 Interview Guide ... 43
Appendix 2 Accenture Innovation Awards Process ... 45
Appendix 3 Interview Summary Files ... 46
Interview Summary File Thuisafgehaald.nl ... 46
Interview Summary File PerfoTec ... 47
Interview Summary File UWV ... 49
Interview Summary File TNO ... 51
Interview Summary File the Vegetarian Butcher ... 53
Interview Summary File Taxishark ... 55
Interview Summary File Jumbo ... 56
Interview Summary File ABN AMRO ... 58
List of tables and figures
Table 1 Defining awards and its benefits ... 11Table 2 Signaling through award competitions ... 15
Table 3 Interviewees... 19
Table 4 Quotes regarding constructs ... 22
Table 5 Summary of advantages and disadvantages ... 30
Table 6 Different views regarding proposition 1a and 1b ... 32
Table 7 Different views regarding proposition 2a and 2b ... 33
Table 8 Overview key outcomes ... 34
Table 9 Accenture Innovation Awards Proces ... 45
1. Introduction
“As early as the thirteenth century, governments established incentive systems to encourage innovations to address their most pressing needs” (Murray, et al., 2012: 1780). Despite this long history of innovation incentives and awards of governments, the impact of innovation awards on firms has received little scrutiny. This thesis seeks to address this by looking at a large Dutch innovation award – the Accenture Innovation Awards - and the benefits of participation. The innovation awards that this thesis will focus on are defined as awards that focus on new products, services and business models, awarding those that stand out the most. These type of awards are usually awarded using a panel of industry experts that have different backgrounds and varying expectations (Azadegan and Pai, 2008), same for the Accenture Innovation Awards.
The participants of the Innovation Awards are mostly Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) or startups.Hoffman et al. (1998) found that SMEs are generally innovative, however, this innovativeness does not translate directly into improved firm performance or greater profitability. Rosenbusch et al. (2011) concur and state that, while firms may be innovative, they need specialized organizational resources and capabilities to successfully obtain value from innovation. Indeed, liability of newness theory shows that startup firms have to occupy new roles as social actors, they have to deal with problems regarding mutual socialization of participants and they have difficulty competing with incumbent firms due to their low level of legitimacy (Singh, et al., 1986).
Innovation awards help firms gain legitimacy by sending out a signal of quality (Kay, 2011; Davis and Davis, 2004; Lerner, 1999; Gemser, et al., 2008) and offering an expert jury to evaluate the innovation (Gemser, et al., 2008), which in turn can lead to learning opportunities for participating firms. In addition, firms can learn from the examples and experiences of others (Löffler, 2001; Garvin, 1991) and use the innovation awards to gauge the market’s reaction. Awards may also be a source for obtaining needed resources and capabilities (Azadegan and Pai, 2008; Kay, 2011) as they help SMEs overcome the gap between science and the market (Van der Eijk et al., 2013). Awardees were found to grow significantly faster than similar firms that did not win an award and were more likely to attract financial investors and alternative sources of finance (Lerner, 1999). Awards can thus help a firm in distinguishing itself from its competitors (Azadegan and Pai, 2008).
both large and small winning and non-winning participants of 2012 of the different industries. Of the non-winners, only those that ended in the top 25 will be asked for the case studies.
The underlying logic of this research is theory building. This involves obtaining knowledge and insights from field based case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989), in this case eight case studies. The choice was made for theory building as innovation awards are a under-explored phenomenon. In such a situation, theory building is suitable to generate new and accurate insights into the specific situation rather than relying on past research, data and office bound thought experimentation (Glaser and Straus, 1967).
1.1 Description and objective of the study
The aim of this thesis is to bridge the gap in the literature regarding the importance of participation to innovation awards for firms and to derive the benefits of such award contests. The findings of this research will contribute to the current literature since this research looks at the gap of innovation award literature and the importance of such innovation awards to stimulate innovation and help firms in their innovation process. Next, the research scope will be defined and the research questions will be posed.
1.2 Scope
In this paper, two direct benefits of participating in innovation awards will be discussed; signaling of quality and learning, to ensure a specific research direction as well as a feasible timeframe. For the purpose of this research, the assumption has been made that participating to innovation awards has a positive impact on reputation and signaling of quality. Since obtaining financial resources - in case of the Accenture Innovation Awards - and firm performance are indirect effects, these topics will not be discussed. The focus of this thesis will be on the process of participation to the events, thus, specifically looking at the learning process and signaling properties generated during registration, jury events and the main event. In addition, it is difficult to see whether financial resources and firm performance were increased due to the participation in the awards or because of other effects. These indirect effects will need more data to ensure that they happened as a result of the innovation awards. Lastly, it was assumed that the Accenture Innovation Awards assist in the creation of external social networks because firms get the opportunity to get in contact with a large variety of people. However, due to time restraints this topic was excluded from the current scope.
Thus, the following research and sub questions have been defined:
What are the benefits of participating in innovation awards regarding signaling of quality and learning?
o What is innovation? o What is an award?
o What can firms gain by participating to innovation awards? o What is signaling of quality?
1.3 Overview of the study
This thesis is structured as follows; it starts with the theoretical development defining innovation and awards and reviewing the literature regarding awards and their direct benefits; focusing on signaling of quality and learning opportunities. Next the method regarding how data will be gathered and analyzed will be discussed. The result section will show the results of the eight case studies as well as a summarizing Table (5), showing all the benefits of the Innovation Awards as defined by the interviewees. In the discussion the findings will be interpreted and linked to the literature. The paper will then be concluded by answering the research question, giving managerial and theoretical implications, as well as defining the limitations and future research.
2. Theoretical Development
2.1 InnovationFor society it is of great importance that people innovate and that they publicize their innovations (van der Eijk et al., 2013). But innovation is not only crucial for society, it also plays a central role in the long term survival of a firm (Ancona and Caldwell, 1987). Rigby et
al. (2009: 79) concur and state that innovation can be seen as “both a vaccine against market
slowdowns and an elixir that rejuvenates growth.” It is one of the most important ways for a firm to create value (Schumpeter, 1934; Wijnberg, 2004). This is the most important distinction between an invention and an innovation. Schumpeter (1934) defined the difference between the two as being about the value capturing. An invention is an idea and concept for a new product or service, whereas an innovation is the first commercial transaction of the new product or service.
In answer to sub question 1, what is innovation? For the purpose of this research, in line with Schumpeter (1934) the following definition of innovation has been used; innovation is the development and implementation of something new, it is an idea that has been developed and then commercialized (De Jong and Vermeulen, 2003).
2.2 Awards
skills important for areas of innovation characterized by rapid development (Lampel, et al., 2012). Furthermore, awards can help in identifying unusual approaches as well as engage a wide variety of people. They incentivize innovation through competition (Murray, et al., 2012).
Quality awards aim to award firms that have been successful at finishing a quality program, by following the guidelines and criteria and thereby implementing effective quality improvement programs (Garvin, 1991). The announcement of firms of their participation to quality awards has a positive effect on a firms’ stock prices (Hendricks and Singhal, 1996). The report of the U.S. general accounting office (1990) states that there is a causal relationship between the total quality management practices in the Baldridge Award and corporate performance (as cited in Garvin, 1990). Garvin (1991) adds that quality awards make complex principles of quality management clear and accessible for everyone. Thus, awards can help firms make sense of a certain field or in this case the innovation process by imparting new knowledge and skills, contacts and signals of quality.
In addition, the winners of the Baldridge awards are obligated by law to share their experience publicly. This information is made available to other firms as a learning tool. The winners have a certain mark of distinction that sets them apart (Garvin, 1991), thus offering good learning opportunities. In case of the Baldridge award, Garvin (1991: 93) argues that it has “created a common vocabulary and philosophy, bridging companies and industries.” The award also has a conscious-raising aspect to it, having firms working towards a single purpose (Sims, et al., 1992). Lastly, Galvin (in Sims, et al., 1992: 137) states that “as a recent Baldridge winner, my associates and I are privileged to meet with thousands of business leaders”. Thus, awards may also offer networking opportunities.
According to Larsen and Lewis (2007), companies benefit from participating in innovation awards by getting attention, and thereby easing the process of obtaining scarce resources. This can help them overcome innovation barriers and thereafter, commercialize the innovation. Awards also help a firm in distinguishing itself from its competitors (Azadegan and Pai, 2008) by certifying organizational quality (Lerner, 1999). In addition, product awards lead to sales growth (Azadegan and Pai, 2008). Lastly, innovation awards offer opportunities for participating firms to gain new capabilities by learning from experience and gaining new knowledge (Azedegan and Pai, 2008; Van der Eijk, et al, 2013). Important reasons for participating in the Progressive Automotive X Prize, an inducement award, were found to be publicity, helping the environment and having fun. Other important incentives are access to new markets, building a positive reputation, winning, networking and political incentives (Murray, et al., 2012). Winners of awards gain visibility, monetary funds and relationships with key stakeholders such as investors and lead users (Lampel, et al., 2012). At the same time, awards may help consumers make sense of the market activity by framing the market information (Anand and Peterson, 2000).
However, not all awards have led to better performance of the firms, some even performed worse due to an overemphasis on the awards (Laszlo, 1996; Azadegan and Pai, 2008). In addition, Boudreau, et al. (2011) state that higher rivalry in a competition reduces the willingness of participants to exert effort because chances are low that they will win the award.
posts a certain problem for which participants need to develop a solution, the best solution winning the prize.
TABLE 1
Defining awards and its benefits
Author Awards Benefits
Lerner (1999) Small Business Innovation Research Program
“program awardees grew significantly faster than matched firms over a decade and were more likely to attract venture financing” (p. 285, 315).
Awards “help convey information to other potential investors”(p. 291).
“awards certified firms to investors” (p.311) and “played an important role in certifying firm quality” (p.315). “Awards in many cases led to spillovers” (p.316) Gemser, et al.
(2008)
Movie Awards “awards may provide the award winners with money and fame or other benefits, such as statuettes or specific privileges” (p.25).
“an award may function as a signal of quality that helps consumers and other actors in the value system in their product selection process” (p.25).
“Salient awards are assumed to be high up in a consumer’s consideration set and thus in the end are likely to have more effect on the purchase decisions than other types of awards”. (p.27).
Expert selected awards will have a positive effect on “box office revenues and share of screens” (p.30). “More and more organizations assume that winning awards will have a significant effect on their performance, and so they invest accordingly” (p.44). Löffler (2001) Quality Awards “another function of quality awards is to identify
excellent organizations and to make their strong points visible […] organizations” (p. 27).
“enabling organizational learning by identifying ‘best practice’ quality management” (p. 39).
Garvin (1991) Quality Awards “share their experiences publicly” (p.81).
“Predictor of long-term survival and a leading indicator of future profitability” (p.83).
“The award has created a common vocabulary and philosophy bridging companies and industries” (p.93). “Winners are compelled by law to share their knowledge” (p.93).
Van der Eijk, et
al., (2013)
Innovation Awards Offering innovation awards can help lower the risks of innovation for private parties and increase profits. Winning an award sends out a signal that will have a positive impact on suppliers’ and distributors’ willingness to cooperate
Participating in innovation awards provides learning opportunities.
Azadegan & Pai (2008)
Industrial Awards and Product Awards
“New product awards are associated with growth” (p.149
improvements within the organization” (p. 151).
“Enhanced creativity, financial support, and skilled resources are considered the most important factors for award-winning ideas […] as they can benefit by feeding of one another” (p.152).
“Award-winning suppliers show more successful long-term performance” (p.156).
Larsen & Lewis (2007)
Design Innovation Awards
“SMEs that have been recognized by design innovation experts as deserving of an award for their ‘groundbreaking’ new product should expect to be successful” (p.142). Murray, et al., (2012) Progressive Automotive X Prize (Grand Innovation Prize)
The prize “emphasized inspiring the formation of new industries and revitalizing markets that are currently stuck due to existing failures or [eliminating] a commonly held belief that a solution is not possible” (p. 1784).
“The most preferred rationale was publicity, helping the environment and having fun” (p. 1788).
Kay (2011) Ansari X Prize and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge
(Inducement Prize)
“Inducement prizes – where cash rewards are given to motivate the attainment of targets – have been long used to stimulate individuals, groups, and communities to accomplish diverse types of goals” (p. 360).
“entrants perceive also the benefits of increasing publicity, credibility and reputation, and learning through technology spillovers and best practice diffusion” (p.362).
“Perceived incentives [Inducement prize]: very diverse motivations: prize money is secondary. The competition offered significant exposure and publicity to teams. Sizeable market opportunities were perceived yet directly targeted by only few teams (p. 370), potential reputation (which may lead to commercialization)” (p.373).
Davis & Davis (2004)
Inducement Prize “There were significant spillover effects in the early aviation contests, since the participants could observe each other’s aircraft design and performance” (p.19). “Well-publicized prize contests can signal prize winner and sponsor reputation in a manner few patent races can”(p.20).
Lampel, et al. (2012)
Design Competition “Design competitions create temporary arenas of exploration where innovative solutions can emerge at far lower cost than similar efforts in permanent research and development establishments” (p.72).
Davidian (2005) Prize Competition “The most successful competitions produce excitement among the public, media, and educators. This excitement, in turn, encourages the participation of competitors and sponsors to earn their share of the fame associated with winning the prize. All other things being equal, challenges with greater potential to generate public excitement are more desirable” (p. 3).
In answer to sub question 2, what is an award? An award has been defined as a prize designed and organized as a competition to obtain monetary funds, signaling of quality and new knowledge through learning, for providing the best or first solution to a certain problem (Gemser, et al., 2008; Kay, 2011; Murray et al., 2012; Lampel, et al., 2012).
In answer to sub question 3, what can firms gain by participating to innovation awards? Firms can: generate publicity and signals of quality, thereby improving visibility and reputation (Lerner, 1999; Davis and Davis, 2004; Davidian, 2005; Kay, 2011; Murray et al, 2012; Lampel, et al., 2012), distinguish themselves from competitors (Azadegan and Pai, 2008) and ease the process of obtaining scarce resources and monetary funds (Lerner, 2007; Murray et al., 2012). In addition, participating to innovation awards offers many opportunities to learn from experts as well as successful firms in the industry (Garvin, 1991; Azadegan and Pai, 2008; Van der Eijk, et al, 2013). Furthermore, it is an excellent opportunity for self-assessment (Löffler, 2001). Other important advantages are access to new markets, winning, networking and political benefits (Murray, et al., 2012). However, participating in award competitions asks for an increased investment of time and money.
Since the scope was defined to only include signaling of quality and learning the following two sections will go into more detail regarding signaling of quality and learning. 2.3 Signaling of quality
Signaling theory is helpful for describing certain behavior when two parties have access to different information. Mostly, the sender has to choose how to communicate or signal certain information. The receiver must then choose how to interpret the signal (Connoly, et al., 2011), assess the source and accept it (Gemser, et al., 2008). For example, Spence’s (1973) research about labor markets showed how a job applicant can decrease information asymmetry that usually hinders the selection process of the prospective employer by engaging certain behavior. The research concluded that prospective employees of high quality can distinguish themselves by using their higher education as a signal of quality. Signals can thus help in distinguishing oneself from other people and firms. Thus, “signals influence outside observers’ perception of firm quality” (Connelly et al., 2011: 43). The signal is the mechanism through which the message, in this case the quality of the firm, employee, or product, is sent.
Firms strive for legitimacy in order to survive, and do so by signaling their unobservable quality by building a positive reputation (Coff, 2002; Deephouse 2000), or by winning an award (Lerner, 1999; Gemser et al., 2008). Awards themselves might serve as a signaling property for firms (Lerner, 1999). They generate positive publicity when the firms or institutions hosting it and the media publishing it are credible and influential. Awards that are well publicized signal award winner and sponsor reputation in a way hardly any patent race can (Davis and Davis, 2004). According to Goldberg et al. (2003), a firm’s reputation is a firm’s identity – as seen by the stakeholders – of its products and/or services in the market, the effective management of its resources and its potential for future success. A good reputation is seen as an indicator of a firm’s effectiveness in attracting investors, decreasing production costs and encouraging consumers to purchase the product. Quality signals, as obtained via awards, help a firm build a positive reputation and gain an image of quality (Davis and Davis, 2004; Kay, 2011). For the purpose of this paper it is assumed that winning will have a positive impact on reputation. Awards may impact reputation of a firm negatively since it can harm the trust a customer has in a firm. If a bank, for example, does not win the Innovation Award nor end in the top ten, clients may not trust the innovation. Since banking revolves around trust this can impact reputation negatively. Negative effects on reputation, however, will not be discussed in this paper.
By participating in awards, firms invest in signals of quality and indicators of successful enterprises (Goldberg, et al., 2003). This in turn leads to higher visibility which allows for easier access to financial resources or partnerships because the innovation will become more known among consumers, firms, and investors. Thus, an award may function as a signal of quality that helps consumers and other parties in the value system with their selection process (Gemser, et al., 2008) because signals of quality help reduce search costs (Chung and Kalnins, 2001). Goldberg, et al. (2003) add that awards offer a form of external verification through which firms can obtain prestigious funding. However, in their selection process, consumers do not simply accept these signals of quality that awards may provide, but they attempt to assess for themselves whether or not the source offering the cue is credible (Eagle and Chaiken, 1975; Mizerski, et al., 1979). This suggests that the firm offering the award needs to have a good reputation and a certain amount of credibility before the consumers accept the award to be credible. Therefore, awards with a representative jury are seen as more salient by consumers and are then more likely to have a positive effect on purchase decisions (Gemser, et al., 2008). Awards can thus generate consumer demand by signaling quality of both the credibility of the award itself and the quality of the product leading to, in the case of movie awards, higher box office revenues and share of screens (Gemser, et al., 2008).
Indeed, innovation awards can help create opportunities for firms to gain financial resources and establish a reputation by signaling quality (Lerner, 1999). In addition, awards can help participating firms to signal product and organizational quality to other parties (Lerner, 1999). This in turn may attract investors. Increased creativity, resources and financial support are seen as important outcomes of award-winning ideas (Caird, 1994; Azadegan et
al., 2008). As Larsen and Lewis (2007) found, participants of awards get attention from
different players in the market and thereby ease the process of obtaining scarce resources. This is particularly important for SMEs and startups.
Furthermore, participants see award contests as a powerful form of advertising (Brunt, et
al., 2008), publicity and reputation (Davis and Davis, 2004; Davidian, 2005; Kay, 2011), best
‘supplier of the year’ or innovator of ‘the product of the year’, may lead to renewed contracts or increased sales as well as an increase in creativity. This, because the recognition of the award is a clear signal of quality, both internally and externally. According to Davidian (2005) successful award programs generate excitement among the media and the public. This publicity in turn motivates participants to earn their share of the fame related to winning the award. Therefore, awards that have greater potential to generate excitement are more popular among firms.
In addition, the signals of quality generated by award contests may also be used for providing a signal of quality within the firm, thus, for the employees. Effort should be directed towards the management of people for innovation, by creating and maintaining an environment that stimulates and facilitates idea generation, creativity and innovation. Innovation scholars suggest that the employee should be extrinsically and intrinsically rewarded to encourage innovation (Amabile, 1998; Prajogo and Ahmed, 2006). As Angle (1988) states, being recognized for the achievement is an important motivator. Thus, award competitions may also be used as an internal signal of quality to motivate employees. Furthermore, the reputation of the firm is always important in the eyes of the employees. When employees identify themselves with their firm, the corporate culture is strengthened because they work better and become more creative (Dortok, 2006). Awards can generate positive signals of quality that can strengthen the perception of the employees regarding the reputation of the firm. In addition, awards can help as a motivator for firms and people because they acknowledge the accomplishments of the firm and employees alike, motivating creativity, leading to improvements within the firm (Azedegan and Pai, 2008).
However, there is also a downside to this signaling property since established firms that lose to a start-up or informally organized research and development team may lose some of their business reputation (Kay, 2011). However, this paper will focus on the benefits awards have to offer firms by sending a signal of quality.
TABLE 2
Signaling through award competitions
Signaling of quality Publicity Increase reputation Attention and recognition
Lerner (1999) Davidian (2005) Davis and Davis (2004) Larsen and Lewis (2007) Gemser, et al., (2008) Kay (2011) Kay (2011) Azadegan and Pai (2008) Van der Eijk, et al (2013) Murray et al (2012)
2.4 Learning
Indeed, an effect of participating in an innovation award is learning (Van der Eijk et al., 2013; Kay, 2011). This is because participants will learn to recognize barriers – such as gaining understanding in market needs, recruiting high-skilled staff, gaining a network and obtaining access to financial resources - better and find ways to overcome these (D’Este et al., 2012). In addition, many award programs offer workshops for participants that may be useful for conducting business. Researchers add that increased creativity, resources and financial support are seen as important outcomes for award-winners (Caird, 1994; Larsen and Lewis, 2007; Azadegan, et al., 2008) as they can profit from feeding and learning from one another (Azedegan and Pai, 2008). Freel (2000) states that accessing information gained from awards transcends the notion of one-on-one collaboration and can lead to a stimulus for change and innovation. Lampel, et al. (2012) add that awards encourage knowledge sharing, the development of communities and build innovation competencies by motivating learning through interaction. Awards can thus help firms obtain external knowledge via participation.
3. Conceptual Model
This conceptual model will summarize the theory and posit propositions to guide the results and discussion.
By participating in awards, firms invest in signals of quality and indicators of successful enterprises (Goldberg, et al., 2003) because, awards that are well publicized signal award winner and sponsor reputation in a way hardly any patent race can (Davis and Davis, 2004). Goldberg, et al. (2003) add that awards offer a form of external verification through which firms can obtain prestigious funding. In addition, award competitions offer a internal signal of quality and can be used in the internal communication to strengthen reputation and to acknowledge the accomplishments of the firm, as well as, the employees.
Proposition 1a: Winning an innovation award has a positive effect on external signals of
quality.
Proposition 1b: Winning an innovation award has a positive effect on internal signals of
quality.
Innovation awards offer learning opportunities for firms by recognizing and overcoming innovation barriers (D’Este, et al., 2012). Learning occurs by setting a benchmark and by offering the participants to get in contact with experts of the industry in the form of the expert jury as well as the visitors of the event. In addition, examples of excellent firms and their business conduct are offered, thereby gaining experience by observing other firms’ actions.
Proposition 2a: Participation in innovation awards offers learning opportunities for the
participants by coming into contact with industry experts
Proposition 2b: Participation in innovation awards offers learning opportunities for the
participants by offering excellent examples
4. Methodology
4.1 A multiple case study approachParticipation in innovation awards has rarely been analyzed in the literature. Therefore, there is little empirical work to understand the different phenomena such as processes, context and impact. “Because little is known, rich, detailed, and evocative data are needed to shed light on the phenomenon. Interviews, observations, open-ended questions and longitudinal investigations are methods for learning with an open mind” (Edmonson and McManus, 2007:1162). In such a case, multiple case studies are fruitful (Miles and Huberman, 1984; Eisenhardt, 1989) to uncover new constructs and advances in the literature (Dahlander, 2005). This paper therefore builds an explorative multiple case study of eight firms in the Netherlands which have participated to the Accenture Innovation Awards of 2012. This research design offers replication logic, meaning that the cases are treated as multiple independent experiments that may validate emerging conceptual insights (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997: 3). Denzin and Lincoln (1994) state that the use of qualitative research is valid for exploratory studies since it interprets specific phenomena and gives meaning to them, by approaching the phenomena, in this case the Accenture Innovation Awards, in their natural settings. Furthermore, collecting data in a qualitative way is the preferred method for nascent theory studies (Edmondson and McManus, 2007).
The Innovation Awards are a platform on which innovators can showcase their innovations to signal quality to consumers and other parties (Accenture.com) and to learn from the process.
4.2 Data collection
The study uses primary and secondary sources in order to create valid results, which allows for triangulation of evidence. Therefore, different data-collection approaches were used in different steps. Both primary and secondary sources, in the form of homepages, business and specialist press, were consulted. This data was used to conceptualize the different firms, their environment (Dahlander, 2005), business and the perception of outsiders. Next, face-to-face interviews were conducted with different participants.
The interviews lasted between 35 minutes and one hour and included questions about the firm and general information regarding the participation in the Innovation Awards, questions about the participation process (before, during and after the event), as well as the advantages and disadvantages of participation to innovation awards. In most cases the interview was conducted with the contact person during the Accenture Innovation Awards 2012. He/she was also the one responsible for the participation to the Innovation Awards. After asking for permission to record the interview, it was then conducted and transcribed within seven days. The interview guide had four different sections. It began with the background of the respondent and the sector the firm is in, as well as other general information about their participation in the Accenture Innovation Awards 2012. The second part of the interview posed questions regarding the reason for participation, the advantages and disadvantages. The third part went into more detail about the participation in the Accenture Innovation Awards following the structure of Table 9, which can be found in Appendix 2. Lastly, the question was posed whether the interviewee had anything to add to the interview. Both probing and open questions were used to obtain the necessary information from the interview. In Appendix 1, the interview guide can be found.
whole procedure was complemented with telephone correspondence and e-mail when necessary.
4.3 The firms in the sample
The eight firms have been selected based on their willingness to participate but also based on their employment status, four of the case studies regard larger firms and the other four regard small firms. Of these four larger firms two are winning firms and two non-winning firms, same for the small firms. This in order to differentiate between non-winning and non-winning firms, but also to examine the difference in firm size. In addition, it will offer insights in whether there is a distinction between winning and non-winning firms with regard to resources and capabilities. For the purpose of this research, large firms have been defined as those with more than 100 employees. The firms have been selected using the top 25 of the five different industries of the Accenture Innovation Awards 2012, thus resulting in a population of 125 possible firms. This in order to interview firms that have participated in the process of jury meetings and the innovation academy. Lastly, the firms in the sample are only those of the Accenture Innovation Awards 2012. For this research, recent participants hold a preference since time may change the way the participants view the outcome of the Innovation Awards and remembering specifics may become more difficult. Because of this, the participants are located in different industries.
TABLE 3 Interviewees
Winning Non-Winning(top 25)
Small firm Thuisafgehaald.nl
PerfoTec
De vegetarische Slager Taxishark
Large firm UWV
TNO
Jumbo ABN AMRO 4.4 Variables
Innovation Awards are prizes designed and organized as a competition to obtain
monetary funds, signaling of quality and new knowledge through learning, for providing the best or first solution to a certain problem (Gemser, et al., 2008; Kay, 2011; Murray et al., 2012; Lampel, et al., 2012).
Signaling of quality is a way to communicate or signal certain information. Such
motivating them to continue their effort. It also offers a form of trust, and eases decision making, it is a quality stamp or mark and highlights outstanding performance
Learning is the way in which people gain new knowledge. During award
competitions learning can occur through the sharing of knowledge by participants (Lampel et
al., 2012) and industry experts, by being able to recognize barriers better (van der Eijk et al.,
2013) and finding new ways to overcome these (D’Este et al., 2012). Furthermore, participants learn from the experience of participating in the award process, the registration, the workshops, the pitches and the feedback. Thus, learning, is the gaining and using of new knowledge through the experience of participating to the award contests. During these competitions, the participants get in contact with other participants as well as industry experts, they get the opportunity to pitch in front of a jury based on which they obtain feedback. This enables participants to recognize barriers better and find ways to overcome them.
4.5 Data analysis
After the transcription the interviews were coded, underlining and naming statements of value for the propositions and the research questions. Subsequently, an interview summary file was created of each interview (see Appendix 3) where all statements regarding a proposition have been summed beneath that proposition. As is regular for case study research, first the data was analyzed by building the individual cases based on interviews and secondary sources. Next the cases were compared through the use of the interview summary files and the summary of advantages and disadvantages as found in Table 5 to create a case study (Eisenhardt, 1989). Table 5 was developed by looking at the coded interview files. When the interviewees used positive words to describe certain phenomena, a + was assigned to this phenomena, if they used negative words, a – was assigned to this phenomena. Somewhat positive and/or negative received a +/-. When the phenomena were not mentioned, n/a was assigned to this phenomena. The most important points with respect to the aim of this study were analyzed in detail (Dahlander, 2005) by the use of the interview summary files.
While writing the case, the interview summary file and the coded interview were consulted several times to ensure that the cases continued to be consistent with the data. Furthermore, different reviewers have checked the work several times, including the cases and the interviews. Each time the research was developed, the researcher went back through the cases to confirm and adjust ideas as needed.
The first three sub-questions have been answered using the literature whereas the four propositions will be answered using both literature and the eight case studies conducted with large and small winning and non-winning firms who participated in 2012.
4.6 Reliability, validity, and generalizability
To ascertain the reliability of this research, semi-structured interviews (see Appendix 1) were conducted ensuring ease of replication for different researchers. By coding the interview transcripts and creating the interview summary file, clear structure was provided for the analysis of the data. The interviews and the cases were sent to the interviewees for confirmation, further ensuring the reliability of the data. In addition, even though the thesis was written in combination with a graduation internship at Accenture, no ‘hot bias’ was generated (Goldman, 1999: 230, cited in Aken et al., 2012). Accenture was interested in the research results but did not structure the research, nor did the researcher feel pressured to report certain results.
Swanborn (1996) states that different questions during an interview can also be considered different research instruments, thus ensuring triangulation. Thus, to generate additional reliability, questions were posed in such a way that particular variables were confirmed using different words. For example, signal of quality was also compared with positive publicity, validation, offering of trust and acknowledgement. The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner asking the interviewees for the advantages and disadvantages in an open manner, all confirmed the two advantages researched in this thesis. However, the remainder of the interview was guided towards these two different benefits in order to obtain more in-depth information regarding these two phenomena. However, by structuring the interview in this manner the interviewer may have guided the interviewees in a specific direction. This is a form of ‘cold bias’ in the form of confirmation bias (Goldman, 1999: 230, cited in Aken et
al., 2012) where the researcher was focused on confirming the pre-held assumptions and
propositions. Another form to ensure reliability is respondents and reliability. The population for this study consisted of 125 possible firms of which eight firms won an award. Only two of these firms were large. Besides the dependency on the two large firms, winners and non-winners were selected at random by picking a number and calling the contact person.
Validity refers to the relationship between research results and/or conclusions and the way in which they have been generated (Aken et al., 2012). By conducting semi-structured interviews constructs that were developed in the theoretical development could be discussed in detail and in-depth. Furthermore, two interview specialists were consulted for the creation of the interview, ascertaining that it was well structured and covered the research direction. The interviews were focused only on the participation to the Innovation Awards and the outcomes of this participation. Answers of the interviewees were summarized and confirmed, repeated and rephrased. By doing so it is believed that there are no plausible competing explanations for the conclusions drawn by the researcher.
This qualitative research is based on a rather large sample, namely eight case studies, by doing so the generalizability of the research outcomes were increased. In addition, signaling of quality and learning are two previous research outcomes of award competitions, therefore, it is believed that the findings of this study are generalizable to other similar award competitions.
Lastly, the data was triangulated by using interview data, as well as primary and secondary sources. Websites of the interviewees were consulted to review the communication regarding innovation awards. In addition, press releases as well as news articles were browsed to obtain additional information about the firm and the publicity gained regarding the Accenture Innovation Awards.
5. Results
TABLE 4
Quotes regarding constructs (For the Dutch quotes, see Appendix 2)
Signaling of Quality Learning Networking Disadvantages
Thuisafgehaald “We communicate our participation to the AIA on our website and on Facebook. Therefore, you can call it a form of validation and a quality signal.”
“I think it is good that we can communicate it, but I cannot state what we gained from this communication.”
“It is a fun experience.”
“We were disappointed with our prizes, Syntens never contacted us for consulting and we could have found the information received from Accenture’s consulting ourselves.” “It was good to practice my pitch, I used the experience gained in later pitches as well.”
“It was nice that while browsing the innovation market, you could immediately talk to the one responsible for the innovation.”
“It costs time, but that isn’t too bad. No large risks are involved with participation.”
PerfoTec “Since the AIA a publicity wave crashed over PerfoTec.” “We still use winning of the Awards in investor pitches and notice that it sharpens our image.” “It also influenced sales.” “It offers a quality signal and validation.”
“I outsourced the registration to a marketing communication firm.” “During the main event you’re just busy with the preparation for the two pitches, no time for other things.” “The questions posed by the jury and the public where sharp but not to difficult to answer.”
“Questions posed did not change my way of thinking nor did I consider changing my message.”
“Partly because of the AIA, two large parties decided to cooperate with us.”
“Mainly after winning you meet and talk to many people.”
“During the awards a network is established. Later I was invited by Albert Heijn and Rabobank to conduct business.”
“The amount of work. But in the end it wasn’t so bad.”
“Reputational damage, no I don’t see it.”
UWV “We use winning of the award in our communication.”
“Nice to see that our work is appreciated, it’s a good validation.”
“We can show the world that we have won an award, that we are appreciated and that is good.” “It also helped within UWV, to communicate something we can be proud off and people locate us faster.”
“An award offers acceptance and acknowledgement, a signal of quality and an image boost.”
“You wonder on what basis the jury selects the winner, I still don’t know.” “You gain energy from the event.” “We did not pitch and the registration did not pose any new questions.”
“Based on our participation tot the AIA some parties came to us wanting to implement Webcare as well.” “I don’ think networking is stimulated that much.” “It was a lot of fun to browse the innovation market, but for networking not so much.”
“It did not cost a lot of time.”
TNO “The Innovation Awards placed PowerMatcher on the map.” “Winning an award validates the partner’s decision”
“An award is a signal of quality, we use it in our presentations.” “Winning an award impresses the academic world. I use it for the introduction of my dissertation.”
“Being invited for the pitch made the participation more serious. We started improving our story by shortening and simplifying it.”
“Point of feedback from the jury was that our story was not always clear.” “Pitching in front of the jury was instructive.”
Our pitch helped “when we met with two moviemakers, based on the pitch they could easily understand what PowerMatcher is.”
“I did not receive any phone calls stating, I saw you at the AIA, lets meet.”
“We did strengthen some of our contacts.”
“Yes it does cost some time.” “I do not see any reputational damage in this competition.”
Vegetarian Butcher
“The AIA has a good appearance and matches well with all that we were doing.”
“I believe people have heard of the Vegetarian Butcher via the awards, it surely was nice communication.”
“We communicate our participation to the AIA on our website, social media and in the newsletter.”
“Via the AIA we wanted to show that we were innovative to get rid of our ‘geiten wollen sokken imago’.”
“It’s good substantiation for the external communication.”
“The registration also asked for a lot of facts and figures, financial data. From that moment on I looked for more supportive numbers in my communication.”
“Awesome to pitch in front of a critical jury, very instructive .” “During the registration different questions were posed for which you need to update you knowledge.” “The jury was very strict and official, but I thought, ok, nice let’s do this.” “Questions of the jury make you more alert, super instructive.” “Also showed me new ways in which people can look at our product.”
“I talked to one jury member during the main event.”
“I talked to some people but for my personal network.”
“For vegetarian Butcher I did not make any new contacts, but there were a lot of interesting contacts present for us. If I would have gone to the event with a different mindset, I could have established some interesting contacts.”
Taxishark “Quality signal, no. I did not communicate it via my website. If I ended in the top 3 I would have used it more as a signal of quality.”
“I enjoyed the pitch as well as meeting likeminded people.” “I learned from the enthusiasm of people, it energizes you the way people talk about their innovation and problems in an open manner which in turn can lead to new ideas.”
“No new questions were posed by the jury.”
“I was inspired by the innovation market.”
“What I learned is that I need to structure my pitch differently and share different information.”
“I did not gain any additional new contacts.” “Yes I discussed innovations with Snappcar, but that was not very specific.”
“I did not spend too much time on my participation.”
Jumbo “Participating to awards is an important PR consideration. Via awards you generate positive PR.”
“Winning an award provides a special quality seal for you product.”
“But winning an award does not stimulate sales.”
“Awards play an important role for the image of Jumbo towards enterprises. It shows that we are innovative and offers trust thereby changing the perception of other parties.”
“Also promotes the internal ‘we’ feeling.”
“To most customers awards mean nothing, it could even be off putting.”
“Pitching in front of the jury was fun and exciting. It felt a little like Idols.” “Preparation was intense because you want to win.”
“To be honest, the questions posed were not that hard.”
“Dependent on your goal, the process is instructive.”
“There are always some questions that motivate new thinking.”
“You check how other participants handle their participation or how they structured their pitch.”
“Especially last year’s pitch videos are very instructive.”
“What really helped was studying last year’s participants.”
“Participation was interesting to increase our network. Parties that were difficult to reach will look at you differently.”
“You receive positive publicity form award competitions which offers access to a network with which partnerships can be established.”
“I did, strangely enough, not improve my network via my booth on the innovation market.”
“Participation to awards is rather intensive, so we check whether we have a shot at winning.” “Time is scarce at Jumbo.” “But that it takes time is something you need to take for granted, so I wouldn’t call it a disadvantage.”
ABN AMRO “The received acknowledgement was important for external and internal purposes.”
“I don’t see our participation to the AIA as strong signal of quality, if we would have won we would have used it strongly for communication purposes.” “You can use an award as a signal of quality, but only if you win.” “Nomination changed the mindset of people in a positive way for Pinsparen, through this acknowledgement we could strengthen our business case.” “Nomination also shows our that we are innovative.”
“When recording our pitch, feedback would have been welcome.” “You do not receive any feedback about the reason for not being nominated.”
“Pitches in our room inspired me somewhat and were fun to listen too, it energized and motivated me for my work.”
“At the end I thought what did I gain from coming to the main event, nothing. It didn’t add anything, neither for my network. “
“Networking, no, not enough focus on the separate industries.” “I didn’t meet the right people to network with.”
“Quite some time was spent on the registration and follow-up communication..” “At the end you wonder what you gained by participating. I was looking for more feedback and expertise why we didn’t win. “ “Reputational damage, absolutely not.”
5.1 Thuisafgehaald.nl
also an easy way to get in contact with other innovators.” However, no further contact was undertaken after the awards and none of these contacts were with financial investors. According to Mr. Bakker, additional publicity was gained by participating in the innovation awards. Thuisafgehaald.nl was mentioned in various social media and MolBlog, however, Mr. Bakker did not notice any effects of this publicity. The position as winner was communicated actively on social media and thuisafgehaald.nl to signal quality. “winning the award is a form of validation that sends out a signal of quality.”
On their website they state the following: Publieksprijs het Samenspel Rabobank Utrecht The Next Web award - Best Web App 2013
Radicale Vernieuwers (Vrij Nederland/Kennisland) 2013 Blauwe Tulp Accenture Innovation Awards 2012
Tweede prijs Power to the Pioneers van VPRO en Tegenlicht 2012
This shows that they have been participating actively in various innovation contests and actively communicate previously won awards on their website to offer validation and sent a quality signal. During the interview, Mr. Bakker stated that he was disappointed with the outcome of the prizes of the Innovation Awards. He expected to gain and learn much from the prices won, consultancy of both Accenture and Syntens, however, this did not happen because he was not contacted by Syntens for the price nor did he gain any new insight of the consultancy of Accenture. “We could have gotten the list from the internet ourselves”, Mr. Bakker stated about the consulting of Accenture.
5.2 PerfoTec
PerfoTec developed a new technology to lengthen the shelf life of fruit and vegetables by using laser technology to make tiny holes in the packaging of fresh products. By measuring the respiration rate of fruit and vegetables and changing the packaging accordingly, the shelf life of fresh products can be lengthened significantly leading to a decrease in waste of almost 50% (PerfoTec.com). On their website they state:
“Out of more than 1,400 entries PerfoTec won the Green Tulip (Groene Tulp) Award at the Accenture Innovation Awards in the Netherlands. PerfoTec was rated best when it comes to sustainability, innovation, success and potential and was as a result judged as the most sustainable innovation. In addition, PerfoTec won the Blue Tulip (Blauwe Tulp) Award in the category ‘Making More out of Less’ in consumer goods and services.”
By looking at the different events itself, new experiences and contacts were gained. The registration was completed by a marketing communication bureau. The jury event was very useful because it taught Mr. Groeneweg how to explain his product within a short timeframe. This experience has been used in different sales pitches since and has helped Mr. Groeneweg structure his story in a clear and concise manner. Questions posed during the different events were not new, nor unexpected. But Mr. Groeneweg does not see the need to change his message.
Lastly, Mr. Groeneweg stated that the Innovation Awards had an optimistic innovative character, inspiring and energizing people again. Something that is often lacking in these pessimistic times.
5.3 UWV
The UWV Webcare Team is responsible for answering tweets or questions in blogs or LinkedIn related to UWV. The question will be answered using online means as well. Hence, others can benefit from the discussion at hand (uwv.nl). It is, thus, a form of online customer service. Webcare entered their service in the Accenture Innovation Awards because they were approached by Accenture, though there was some doubt in the beginning because they recently joined the Rijksbrede Benchmark (RBB) Award and became runner up. This result was somewhat disappointing. However, both awards are used in the external and internal communication of Webcare. On their info graphic they state:
Winner of the Accenture Innovation Awards Public Choice Award 2012. Runner up for the RBB Award 2012.
Indeed, winning the award is an important communication tool, a signal of quality and a sign of recognition and appreciation both within the organization and external. “Again the performance of these people was placed in the spotlight.” Both internally and externally, winning generated renewed interest, with different parties and firms reaching out to the Webcare team to see how they handle online customer service. In addition, it offers a sense of pride within UWV which positively boosts the business culture. The Awards themselves did not generate much additional publicity besides the @mentions in Social Media for which the Webcare team undertook an action to get exposure and generate as many shares and likes as possible. Furthermore, the Webcare team was already visible on various media websites, though the Accenture Innovation Awards were mentioned on their LinkedIn, Twitter and various blogs. Also, because they already are very active on social media, which according Mr. Bakker was the way to network, no real new contacts were generated. The event also did not allow for much networking. One could see that many startups were very internally focused or nervous. However, due to the Accenture Innovation Awards, different parties approached the Webcare team, after the event, to obtain additional information about their work.
According to Mr. Bakker, the Accenture Innovation Awards were energizing and positive. These type of events are always fun, especially the thrill of winning, which was also the main reason for Webcare to enter the Innovation Awards. It was a good event for Webcare branding.
5.4 TNO
PowerMatcher is an energy system architecture and communication protocol, which eases implementation of standardized, scalable smart grids, that can include both conventional and renewable energy sources, to improve the match between electricity production and consumption (powermatcher.net).Not only did TNO win the Accenture Innovation Awards in 2012, they also ended as category winner in the Sustania top 100. However, even though TNO won these two prizes, neither of them is communicated on the PowerMatcher website. This is because, as Mr. Kok stated, the web presence will change once an alliance is finalized. The winning of these awards is frequently communicated in PowerMatcher presentations though.
It was never expected that TNO would win with Powermatcher. However, Mr. Kok stated that once they were nominated for the top 25, the participation in the Accenture Innovation Awards became a serious affair. “That was the moment we needed to simplify and clarify our story, for that matter it has been a very instructive event.” Usually Mr. Kok tells his story to smart grid experts who know the jargon of the industry. During the Awards, the story needed to be downsized to a one minute pitch that was understandable for layman. Later on, this pitch was used by the chairman of TNO for the annual report. Furthermore, Mr. Kok used the gained experience of the pitch video for his pitch in front of the jury as well as for his dissertation ensuring that the introduction was clear for the readers. Since TNO is a large technical firm, counting 4000 employees, “the pitch video also offered clarification for TNO employees.” Furthermore, winning two awards helped in putting PowerMatcher on the map within TNO. Lastly, good feedback was given during and after the jury event. Questions posed were not difficult but general feedback was that the story was still somewhat difficult to understand.
Mr. Kok agreed that winning the Blue Tulip Award can be used as a signal of quality. It offers trust and validates PowerMatcher. The additional publicity was beneficial as well. Through such publicity, firms in the United States were aware of the PowerMatcher project. The winning of an award has also been mentioned in Mr. Koks’ dissertation. According to Mr. Kok, being able to mention that an innovation award was won with PowerMatcher offers a signal of quality in the academic world. Little dissertations exist that have won an innovation award before the research has been published.
According to Mr. Kok, networking opportunities were limited. Known contacts were strengthened but no new contacts were gained. Neither was TNO called by other firms to initiate a cooperation because they won an award with PowerMatcher. One reason for this might be that the cooperations that need to be established for Powermatcher, are for large projects and based on strong relationships and long term.
Lastly, the innovation awards do take up quite some time. Though reputational damage is unlikely, according to Mr. Kok, since the award is for Dutch firms only.
5.5 De Vegetarian Butcher (De Vegetarische Slager)
