Introduction

My venture into the realm of social science commenced in 2006 when I pursued admission as a PhD candidate in the Enterprise Development and Work Life Research (EDWOR) II program headed by Professor Morten Levin and linked with the Value creation 2010 project (Levin 2002). Before this, I had spent twelve years as a researcher, delving into engineering domains concerning sustainable innovation, environmental technology, and life cycle thinking. During my PhD study, I aimed to explore the impact of network participation on internal company development processes (Rubach 2011). This research coincided with a period of significant public investment in tripartite network initiatives, aimed at enhancing the innovative capacity, efficiency, and competitiveness of Norwegian companies. These efforts sought to facilitate the discovery of new ideas and methods of operation.

My objective was to study the intricate dynamics within networks, examining their impact on participating companies and looking for any interconnections between these entities. How did companies leverage their involvement in networks to drive their internal development agendas? To answer this, I worked as an action researcher (Greenwood and Levin, c2007) on a regional industrial network project. It took me a long time to “discover” my conceptualisation model, which is based on the cogenerative learning model. I was honestly reluctant to use the cogenerative learning model. Firstly, because it at the time seemed too simplified to fit with my theoretical and empirical reasoning. Secondly, since my focus was not on the original use of the model, i.e. as described in Finnestrand (2023) tripartite collaboration or the role of the action researcher in the network, it did not seem right to use. A prolonged exploring process followed, which I later interpreted as an inability to focus and exploit the learning and knowledge that I had gained (Rubach 2011, p. 219). When working on a model for managing the research team I was heading, however, I finally got an “aha” experience of how I could use the cogenerative learning model for this and then the pieces of my PhD puzzle also finally made sense. The result was the Dual Organisation-Development (OD) Process. Luckily, my PhD supervisor Professor Morten Levin, found the new twist of using the cogenerative learning model acceptable. Furthermore, I learned that working on a different task might give unintended inspiration and reflections which might help you if you are stuck in your research.

In this paper, I present how the Dual OD process has informed and been used in a start-up company.

The paper is structured as follows: First, the theoretical framework of participatory organisation development and the cogenerative learning model is presented, before outlining how this was further developed into the dual organisation-development (OD) process model. The relevance of this for business modelling and innovation projects is also explained. Then the case company and the “DIgitalised Node-trading for renewable energy with GO (DINGO)” project are presented. The dual OD process is then used as a framework for explaining how the case played out. Finally, how the model has been deemed valuable in other project and business settings since then is presented in the final part of the paper.

Participatory Organisation Development and the Cogenerative Learning Model

The co-generative learning model, also known as the cogenerative Action Research model, was first developed by Elden and Levin (1991) and later refined by Greenwood and Levin (c2007) (see Fig. 1) and Klev and Levin (c2009). Klev and Levin applied this model as a process framework for organisational development (OD), integrating communicative processes from various arenas into a unified learning process (Klev & Levin, c2009, p. 73).

This model recognizes that insiders and outsiders bring different frameworks—such as ways of understanding, language, and cognitive maps—which must be combined to develop a “local theory,” a newly shared framework. Progress in the OD process is driven by knowledge development through concrete problem-solving actions. The sociotechnical systems perspective is evident here, as organisational development and adjustments are achieved through changes in practice.

The outcomes of an OD process should include both enhanced capabilities to perform the right tasks and improved capacity to handle future challenges more effectively. The success of the model is demonstrated through improved abilities in action (Klev & Levin, c2009). This model can be applied to understand developments in both collaborative or networking contexts and within individual companies or organisations. Engaging in concrete problem-solving helps reveal both tacit and explicit knowledge, as well as practical know-how (e.g., Lundvall and Johnson 1994; Polanyi 1967; Ryle 1949).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The cogenerative action research model (Greenwood & Levin, c2007, p. 94)

Full size image

Starting a business can be seen as a cogenerative learning process, contributing to organisational development. Your problem definition centres on what you aim to develop, produce, and others to use—essentially, your innovation. This could be either a physical product or a service. A useful and popular tool for establishing a business model is The Business Model Canvas (BMC) by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010). The BMC divides the process into nine building blocks: Customer Segments, Value Propositions, Channels, Customer Relationships, Revenue Streams, Key Resources, Key Activities, Key Partners and Cost Structure. Developing innovations necessitates interaction (e.g., Håkansson and Waluszewski 2007; Hoholm and Håkansson 2012; Hoholm and Olsen 2012), and the BMC highlights the necessity of multiple interfaces and interactions with external parties—suppliers, customers, partners, and other actors essential for running a business and creating a “local theory,” a newly shared framework for the venture. Over time, both the framework and the actor-network are likely to become more complex, providing more opportunities for change and development. The company must stay motivated to learn from its actor-network and engage in continual learning to become more efficient and knowledgeable in its daily work through conscious interaction with other companies and organisations.

However, the interactions and actor-network required to set up and run an initial business might differ from those needed for innovations aimed at future versions of the business. Research-based innovation projects are often constructed with this in mind, and they have a different logic than business models, especially when seeking public funding. Such projects are usually driven by one or a few actors, distinct from the daily work network in a company. Furthermore, an innovation project typically runs over a comparatively short period to achieve specific goals.

Publicly funded projects can emerge as long-term results of interactions among multiple actors or through policy-driven initiatives designed to facilitate research-based innovation. In the latter initiatives, intermediary actors often facilitate transactions between parties that may lack access to or trust in each other (Marsden 1982). These intermediary actions, however, can also leverage previous and current networks belonging to the entrepreneurs themselves. It is nevertheless difficult to imagine how an innovation project will unfold some years down the line from writing the project funding application. The network you set up might not be the same as when the end date has passed. It is, however, a requirement to envision how the project network you intend to set up will work and perform during the project period. This is also mirrored in an increasing focus on outcome and impact in the project funding applications.

A company that in parallel is working on its initial business and a future version of the business via a research-based innovation project enters both a dual innovation and a dual actor network situation.

The Dual Organisation-Development (OD) Process

As highlighted in Finnestrand et al. (2023), it is important to develop capabilities in an organisation to transform, exploit and use new knowledge both during and after projects, so that the learning from it is not forgotten and gets used. To transfer more substantial knowledge, or to transfer knowledge that is more complex and more embedded (sticky), Håkansson and Ingemansson (2011) conclude there is a need for both cooperation and networking. Such interaction can lead to creating new and/or joint knowledge, which we need to aim for when initiating innovation projects. Håkansson and Ingemansson further state that the kind of interaction they have called networking happens when three or more knowledge bodies confront each other.

These multiple confrontations situation is mirrored in the dual organisation-development (OD) model for network participation (Rubach 2011), see Fig. 2, which is based on the co-generative learning model. The organisation part of Fig. 2 can represent a start-up company and its daily work organisation working according to the current business model, and the network part can be an innovation project initiated to work towards a future business model.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The dual organisation-development (OD) model (Rubach 2011)

Full size image

Viewing organisational development as a learning process emphasises the crucial role of problem owners and highlights the importance of continuous, long-term change (Klev & Levin, c2009). When problem owners are actively involved from the beginning, a coreflective learning process is initiated, fostering dialogue and expanding learning opportunities through diverse perspectives.

To ensure this, participants in an innovation project must be motivated to collaborate and explore opportunities together. Key elements for success include collaboration, time, training, and trust. Investing in these elements allows participants to access a web of knowledge, embrace new ideas, and adopt a collaborative working structure (Miles et al. 2005). However, obstacles such as reluctance to invest time in the collective intraorganisational and interorganisational processes can hinder this development (Miles et al. 2005; Rubach 2011). To overcome these challenges, actors must become learning organisations (Finnestrand 2023; Miles et al. 2005; Senge, c2006).

Collaborative projects often rely on work being done outside the collaborative arenas, limited to common meetings and workshops. Most of the project work is carried out individually within each partner’s organisation, which can cause problems if the project manager is not present to oversee and ensure task completion. This risk can lead to project tasks being neglected amid daily work activities, despite their importance to the organisation.

In general, for network participation to be valuable, engaged managers must anchor and legitimise the involvement within their own organisations (Rubach 2011, 2013). A network facilitator can help match organisational needs with network activities, maintaining focus on tasks and preventing initiatives from fading (Rubach 2011, 2013). In a project, this role normally is filled by a project manager. When taking part in a network, appointing I-shaped representatives can help maintain the essential bridge between the participating organisation and the network. I -shaped individuals deliver results in their own job (vertical part of the “I”), collaborate across company borders (upper horisontal part of the “I”), and collaborate within the company (lower horisontal part of the “I”) (Rubach 2011). It is derived from what Hansen (2009) calls “lone stars” and “butterflies”. “Lone stars” are people who deliver on their own goals, but who are not team players. I interpreted this as people who participate in networks for their own benefit, but who do not create processes internally in their own organisation based on the work they do outside. However, they use it to build themselves and their own expertise, which in a way benefits the company, albeit to a very limited extent. Hansen (2009) points out that you can’t build a collaborative climate in a company with “lone stars”. “Butterflies” are people who work well across the organisation, but who do not deliver to the same extent in their own job. Hansen (2009) characterises these as team players who flutter from place to place and who willingly spin around the world and participate in committees, seminars and work groups. They show up everywhere, while their own work tasks are not in focus. I interpret this as those who do not bring much back to their own jobs and do not get something concrete out of what they are involved in. They are unable to use this to realise value in the form of value creation for their own company.

In innovation projects you not only need the skilled employees. The employees also need support from both their own managers and the project manager to manage to bridge the project activities and their company internal activities. Ideally, all involved should possess the necessary skills and competencies for their roles and being I -shaped project workers to enable a Dual OD Process. For project teams not working in close proximity, robust communication strategies are vital. Barnes et al. (2006) and Calamel et al. (2012) recommend face-to-face meetings and extended exchanges to address geographic challenges. These activities, however, are time-consuming and must be reflected in the project’s budget. Otherwise, opportunities for learning and knowledge transfer might be lost.

The “DIgitalised Node-Trading for Renewable Energy with GO (DINGO)” Project

The company behind the DIgitalised Node-trading for renewable energy with GO (DINGO) project aims to make the renewable energy market more transparent and efficient to accelerate the energy transition from fossil and nuclear-based sources to renewable sources. To do this, the company has developed a digital platform for the peer-to-peer matching of consumption and production of renewable energy enabling corporates to buy renewable energy directly from specific power plants. This is enabled by what is generally called Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs), and in Europe Guarantees of Origin (GOs).

Guarantees of Origin (GO) serve as Europe’s energy tracking system, with each GO representing one megawatt-hour (MWh) of generated electricity. They certify the environmental credentials of the produced MWh, verifying its energy source. The European Energy Certificate System operates under a common protocol called EECS2, while individual countries implement its rules through Domain Protocols. Mandated by the European Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC, all European countries must establish GO systems. As of January 21st, 2020, the RED II regulation mandates the documentation of renewable energy claims through GO retirement. Additionally, RED II extends the GO system to encompass biogas, hydrogen, heating, and cooling. Similar systems, like REC and I-RECs, are prevalent outside Europe, collectively termed Energy Attribute Certificates (EAC) globally. (Mills, Kildal & Rubach, 2024)

Power producers are issued GOs for the renewable energy they generate. The issuing is done by public bodies, like Statnett (NECS) in Norway. The power producers can sell these GOs themselves, through brokers, via portfolio companies or other partners, like Becour. Most GOs (around 70%) are sold to businesses that want to document their renewable power claims. These businesses include large multinationals, such as those in the RE100 initiative, which have committed to using 100% renewable energy. Businesses purchase GOs to meet their renewable energy targets and to document their renewable claims to customers, investors, and other stakeholders. Furthermore, electricity suppliers use GOs to disclose the origin and environmental attributes of the electricity they sell to consumers. They must cancel GOs for the delivered amount of energy in the registry to make renewable claims on electricity bills and advertisements (AIB 2023; Skaar 2018).

The GO market, where people and organisations trade renewable energy with guaranteed origin (GO), generates economic benefits for the producers of renewable energy. The intention is that these benefits are used to develop new and more renewable energy. Most of the economic revenue, however, disappears on the way from the energy user and the producer (Skaar, 2018). Therefore, the project owner, Becour, applied for public project funding in 2018 with an aim to develop a digital solution that would make this market more transparent, reliable and more effective.

The purpose of this research-based innovation project was to develop a tracking mechanism that created a more direct connection between the consumer and the producer. This would allow energy consumers to make a conscious choice regarding energy sources and to use their consumer power to influence the energy market towards a more renewable and sustainable direction. In the methodology section of the project application, it was highlighted that both quantitative and qualitative methods would be used. Organisational development (Klev & Levin, c2009; Rubach 2011), action research (Greenwood & Levin, c2007; Van de Ven 2007) and network-based innovation (Miles et al. 2005; Rubach 2011) were stated as organisationally methods to be used. The project was financed by a Norwegian regional research fund called Oslofjordfondet, the project partners Østfold Energi AS, Zephyr AS and Lyse Produksjon AS and by Becour AS. Partners and collaborators were NORSUS AS (previously Østfoldforskning AS), Vestlandsforsking, NMBU, Sariba AS, Østfold Energi AS, Zephyr AS, Lyse Produksjon AS and Turku School of Economics. The project also received funding through SkatteFUNNFootnote 1. The project started in August 2018 and ended in September 2021.

This paper is based on a case study (Berg and Lune 2012) which has also been a longitudinal process study (Van de Ven 2007, p. 194) of the start-up company. The insights written about here are based on the yearly and end-of-project reports delivered to Oslofjordfondet and SkatteFUNN and reflection sessions that were performed via TEAMS with representatives for most partners after the project had ended. Furthermore, “inside” action research has been used, where the historical written sources have been paired with an insider’s perspective (Ragin and Amoroso 2011, p. 101). The researcher also studies her own practice (see, for example, Coghlan and Brannick 2005), is an engaged participant and shares her experience (Van de Ven, 2007). Due to the focus on the author’s reflections on her own experiences and practice, first-person pronoun will be used when appropriate to enhance clarity.

Integration of the DINGO Project in the Start-up

The Start-up Company (Project Owner)

While the company was piecing together the first business model, ideas for how to work in a different way as well as shape the market emerged (Syväri 2022). This was a result of some back-of-the-napkin sketches and discussions among some of the founders. These ideas included enabling use of digitalisation technology to create transparent contracts for the documentation of renewable energy between renewable electricity producers and electricity users. The solutions should further stimulate new renewable energy production. So, in parallel with the first business model being set up, the DINGO project was planned, a network of project partners was established, and public funding was applied for. In this, also a PhD-student was invited to join the reference group enabling her to follow both the company and the DINGO project as the case study in her thesis work (Syväri 2022).

The project received funding, and after six months in business also the research project could be put in motion. Meanwhile, the initial business model was tested out in the market, with different minor variations over time. From the outside, the company at this stage appeared to be an energy and sustainability consultancy while also selling GOs, el-certificates, doing climate reporting and alike. This was confirmed by investors reviewing the firm. Variations over the business model came as a result of trial and error, and subsequent internal review of these However, the daily business operations were in this phase far from the digital future visions represented by the DINGO project.

During the first year, there was only a minor overlap between the daily business activities in the company and the project. The CEO was the main bridge walker, taking ideas back and forth between these two domains, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The common problem definition was thus non-existent. This is described by Syväri (2022, p. 126) as that the R&D and sales functions had become siloed.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Interaction between the daily business (current business model) and the innovation project (future business model)

Full size image

As time passed by, the project became even more important than what was expected. Changes in the market sparked new ideas and were fed into the project. For instance, it became clear that what impact (environmental, social, economic) the renewable energy producer could demonstrate and document was a much more important component than anticipated. This was something one immediately could start working on. The issue had briefly been touched upon at an early stage in the project, but now it also become a much more important part of the solution for the future and new partnerships outside the innovation project’s domain were necessary to establish to work on the new issues. Changes in the business model also led to changes in the staffing, where some chose to leave the company. The changes also made it necessary to move resources from some of the daily business activities and feed them into project tasks. This way of circling back and forth between the daily business and the project’s networks, shifting of focus and resource allocation between them became more regular as time passed by. Furthermore, the IT-related project activities were in the beginning only done by hired-in resources. A year into the project, the company hired a part-time resource to work on such project tasks. The project then also became an increasingly important part of the daily work for a larger part of the workforce. Having internal dedicated project resources also strengthened the understanding of and the focus on the project’s focus areas in the company’s own daily operation, which again strengthened and propelled the project activities forward. Furthermore, I myself gradually increased my work percentage as an employee in the company. By being the origin of the Dual OD process model and having this process model in mind when working in the interphase between the project and the daily operations in the business, this most likely also made the integration stronger. This is because the bridge, i.e. the overlap between the daily work issues and those of the innovation project becomes more visual and stronger if more people are involved and “walk” on this bridge. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.

However, the major shift happened in January 2020, when the company decided to introduce weekly status meetings for all employees where the ongoing projects were reported. This came about after some internal friction between the DINGO project and the rest of the organisation (Syväri, p. 127). The measure severely enhanced the understanding of the DINGO project in the organisation and the motivation for contributing to its activities. This worked well even during the home-office periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. This practice was kept until mid-March 2021 when the format of the meeting was reviewed, and it was decided that it was necessary to get more room for also other tasks than project work in these weekly meetings. The new format was therefore a Friday morning meeting – Weekly Review and Planning. As the DINGO project was starting to reach the end of the project period, this worked well as an arena for keeping all updated on the activities in the project. It did, however, lose a bit of the reporting to all employees about the project’s subject matters. Furthermore, to get the project’s activities more integrated into the company it was decided to employ more people with IT competence. As already mentioned, in the first part of the project such resources were hired on a consultancy basis, but during 2020 two people were employed on a full-time basis. This also helped in making the project better integrated into the organisation.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Interaction between the daily business (current business model) and the innovation project (future business model)

Full size image

For the company, the project over time became an important part of the daily business logic, and the implications became greater than expected. In early 2022, the resulting digital ecosystem which had been developed through the DINGO project had been integrated in the business and taken into use by employees and customers. It thus became the core of the company’s new business model, and the company established themselves as an energy-technology company in the market space The project also became a stepping-stone to involvement in other innovation projects with other actors in the market and other research projects and research networks, such as FME Norwegian Centre for Energy Transition (NTRANS).

The Project Participants

Up until the COVID-19 pandemic closed the society in March 2020, the collective domain of the project was established and nurtured through common project meetings with all partners attending. In these meetings, the Dual OD model was presented and highlighted as the ideal way we wanted to work on the project. Losing the possibility to meet each other physically probably influenced the making of a new, common “network organisation” consisting of the project partners. The plan was to have bi-annual research partner meetings with discussions of different project-related topics and creative workshops across the different mindsets represented in the project. The pandemic made this impossible and lessened the possibility of interacting with the producers in creative workshops. These were exchanged with one-to-one meetings with the different partners, so ideas and feedback were picked up in TEAMs-presentation and became input to new development. However, even though this also gave valuable input for further developments in the project, the project lost the discussions and idea generation that could have happened within a larger participating group. It turned out that the “DINGO-network feeling” was difficult to build and maintain via digital meetings only.

This lack of meeting places might also have influenced the anchoring and usefulness of the project back home in each participating organisation. Except for the partner on IT development, which had continuous ongoing activities related to the project, the rest of the partners mainly became engaged in activities based upon contact from the project management. There were no activities initiated by “push” from the project partners. They had to be “pulled” into the project’s task and reminded of the project’s existence. The research institutions also lost some of their focus and connection to the company in this period, and the company on their side did not reach out to inform and share knowledge that might have led to better outcomes for all parties. This could imply that the project was not anchored well enough in the single participating organisation and that internal activities related to the project were missing. For the energy producers, one possible explanation could be that the pilot developed through the project was not introduced as a service for commercial testing and use within the time frame of the project. Thus, to study and make use of feedback on how the new service influenced those partners that were producers of renewable energy was not possible within the project’s duration.

The Dual OD Process: A Valuable Model for Business Development?

A Hindsight Reflection Session with the Support Team

The goal of the DINGO project was to create a practical, scalable digital platform that connects energy producers with consumers. A key objective from the outset was to successfully integrate the project into the organisation and to have a close collaboration with the project partners. Despite efforts to mindfully apply the dual OD process to achieve this, several challenges were encountered. Why did these difficulties arise, and what lessons can be learned?

In May 2024, I, therefore, performed a reflection session with the CEO and CDO of the company regarding the DINGO project and the usefulness of the dual OD-process model mirrored against the different actor groups. This is summarised in the following.

We checked in with the renewable energy producers but didn’t involve them much. It was, however, difficult to engage them fully as they were not accustomed to project-based work. They were primarily interested in the outcomes we delivered.

Our collaboration with one of the academic partners failed. They were caught up in their own bubble and we didn’t succeed in aligning their tasks with our objectives. Their involvement became more like a research alibi. The other academic partnership was mutually beneficial, with both parties understanding and gaining from each other. We had many productive discussions.

The hired-in IT consultants from the software company provided significant value. The individuals involved in DINGO have become crucial for our ongoing development and continue to work with us. This is our best example of a successful collaboration.

The process consultant from the other involved IT company was instrumental in structuring things. He continues to offer valuable advice years later, helping us focus on and prioritise key areas for the business. The knowledge he gained through the DINGO project enabled this.

Many of the company’s internal team members didn’t fully understand the project. We struggled to involve those outside the internal project group adequately, leading to poor prioritisation and frustration among some employees.

Summarised, it was agreed that a more conscious use of the process model might have led to better results and tighter collaboration with all project partners. The most important lesson learned from this project is the need for consistent and thorough problem definition. This should be addressed both in group discussions and one-on-one meetings to ensure all participants are aligned. This process must occur repeatedly throughout the project, as the problem owner’s focus may shift over time. Without regular check-ins, project partners who are not involved in the problem owner’s daily operations might miss these changes, leading to misaligned problem-solving efforts. A key shortcoming of the project was the failure to maintain continuous communication with all partners. While essential, this can be time-consuming and challenging for a start-up with limited resources. Additionally, it is critical for work-package leaders—if different from the project manager—to understand the importance of staying involved and maintaining regular communication with both the problem owner and other partners. Failure to do so can result in work packages becoming isolated from the broader project, as occurred with some work packages in the DINGO project.

Has the company demonstrated improved capabilities in practice, as highlighted by Klev and Levin (c2009) as a key outcome of an Organisation Development (OD) process? If the organisational learning gained during the DINGO project, along with the involvement of key personnel from Becour, is sustained, the company expects to be better equipped for its next innovation project.When we discussed the future use of the Dual OD process model there was scepticism about using it as a strict A-B-C systematic process model. To use it as a framework or vision rather than a strict model was proposed as a better way ahead. To use the learnings from the DINGO project systematically for how to set up and improve the workflow in new projects, as highlighted by Finnestrand et al. (2023), was also emphasised.

Related to current business use, it was highlighted that one of the company’s team members effectively uses his networks within AI in the company’s exploration of this field. He is working collaboratively and sharing insights both externally and internally. It was, however, concluded that the company could be more planned by briefing and debriefing him more actively, and using this to show internally a practical approach to integrating external inputs.

The company is also currently in the middle of an internal process mapping project, facilitated by the process consultant in the DINGO project. An insight from the reflection on DINGO is that the company needs to consider how to systematically include external elements in its internal processes moving forward with the process mapping project to keep the organisation open for development opportunities.

Other Uses of the Dual OD Process Model

The model is also used as part of the onboarding of new employees in the company in a session called “How do we ensure that external activities like attendance at conferences and in networks lead to business development”. When it is decided that the company shall partake in an external event, like a conference or a network, this is discussed and planned up front with the relevant team in the organisation. This is to formulate a mandate which normatively shall be based on a cogenerated “problem definition”, i.e. where gaps between the present state and desired state are revealed and discussed (Elden and Levin 1991; Greenwood & Levin, c2007; Klev & Levin, c2009). The employee best suited for handling the set mandate is chosen as the company representative. She hopefully will experience knowledge exchange and learning in the external setting. However, it is acknowledged that it is ultimately management’s responsibility to design and develop internal arenas (organisational infrastructure) for learning, reflection, and dialogue—or at least ensure that existing arenas are used for utilising the representative’s knowledge (e.g. Eikeland & Berg, 1997; French & Bell, c1984; Klev & Levin, c2009). The company representative must on her side also act as an internal process facilitator in this (e.g. Klein, c2004; Wenger, c2003). Together this can ensure that the resources spent on external activities are transformed and maximised into the development of the company’s own organisation. These are the steps used when it is decided that the company consider joining an external activity, like a network or a conference:

  • Discuss, plan and anchor internally

  • Decide what the mandate for partaking is (the “problem definition”)

  • Discuss the selection of “representative” – who is participating?

  • What is our contribution? We must contribute with our knowledge and viewpoints since the participants are collectively responsible for ensuring that the network or conference develops and becomes what we want it to be

  • Making sure to visualise and utilise the “representative’s” learning when returning from the external activity. This could be at the daily morning meeting or a Lunch&Learn

  • Have/create arenas internally in the organisation to make use of the learnings (include in team meetings agenda), and to make sure they are followed up over time (TO DO cards)

This way the company aim to develop employees who can view the organisation from both the inside and the outside (Klein, c2004; Hansen 2009). They become a kind of broker who can act as a “bridge” between the company and the external activities in which it takes part. Furthermore, it enables the organisation to learn and build on different external activities so that these do not become stand-alone activities with no organisational use but rather lead to learning and development.

The Crucial Role of Research in Early-Stage Business Development

Becour’s success in developing a scalable, advanced technical solution was largely built on leveraging research as a foundation for innovation and growth. Without this research, the company likely would have struggled to compete in a global market that lacks transparency, especially as climate and sustainability concerns become increasingly important to both industry and consumers. It also enabled Becour to transition from a trading and consultancy-based business to an energy technology company driven by digitalisation opportunities.

Additionally, being part of a publicly funded research project helped Becour attract investors and customers, even though it took several years for the technical solutions from the project to become usable. This involvement also opened the door to other innovation- and research projects, and partnerships beyond the scope of the original DINGO project.

Conclusions

Being introduced to the co-generative learning model, initially developed by Max Elden and Morten Levin in 1991, has profoundly influenced my approach to collaborative settings. It clarified both the theoretical and empirical aspects of my PhD research, leading to the development of the dual organisation-development process, which later guided me in business development and project management processes.

This paper has presented a case study of a startup, introducing the dual OD model as a valuable framework for understanding the complex interaction between daily business operations, business modelling, and a research-based innovation project. It highlights the critical role of research-based innovation in early-stage business development and integration into the business organisation. Such activities can also have a ripple effect on business developments and partnerships for years.

Additionally, the paper pays tribute to Professor Morten Levin, emphasising the lasting impact of his mentorship and the co-generative learning model. Entrepreneurs can gain practical insights from the dual OD model, which offers a framework for navigating the challenges and opportunities of integrating business modelling with external activities, thereby facilitating successful business development.