Collaborative Innovation between Family Businesses and Start-Ups : An empirical study on how family business attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups

Abstract Background: Innovation is a key factor in the development of new businesses as well as in the sustainable success of existing organisations. Especially for family businesses, innovation is the main strategic instrument to ensure economic growth, prosperity, and transgenerational survival. However, many organisations are unable to achieve success by themselves; thus, collaborative innovation becomes increasingly important. While collaborative innovation with start-ups is highly promising for corporations, it remains unclear how feasible the decision for this approach is for family firms due to their distinct attributes. Purpose: This thesis aims to research how particular family business attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups. Thereby we contribute to existing academic literature and provide valuable insights for family firms to further increase their innovation potential. Method: To fulfil the purpose of this exploratory research study, secondary data, in the scope of a literature review as well as additional valuable sources and primary data, in the form of qualitative interviews, are gathered. The in-depth interviews allow us to collect responses on sensitive information on firm insights, while triangulation with secondary data enables us to generate a deep understanding of different perspectives significant to this study. In total, ten semi-structured interviews from six family businesses are conducted. Later, Grounded Theory is used for analysing the data. Conclusion: The results show that two of the examined attributes, namely risk aversion and unwillingness to collaborate with external partners, have a negative influence on the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups. The other two attributes, long-term orientation and unwillingness to invest in innovation purposes both demonstrate ambivalent findings. Thus, their influence cannot be clearly evidenced in this study