These modes are each connected to different types of knowledge : know-what, know-why, knowhow, and know-who. STI mainly uses and produces know-what and know-why, which can be acquired through reading or formal education. DUI, on the other hand, develops know-how and know-who, which are more established in practical experience and social relations. The central message is that the most innovative companies are those who manage to combine the two
modes of innovation. 

From this paper, there are several managerial implications that managers should focus on.

First, managers should adopt a dualistic strategy (STI + DUI) tailored to the sector and type of work. Tailoring the dual strategy to the type of work ensures that innovation processes are both systematic and grounded in practical experience, maximizing the organization’s capacity to adapt in a complex and uncertain environment. However, this implies that they must address the tensions between STI and DUI before their combination. Therefore, they have to make sure that coordination mechanisms and knowledge-management practices align with both approaches, as resolving these conflicts maximizes organizational adaptability and innovation performance.

Moreover, they should create an environment that promotes knowledge exchange, as the four types of knowledge are acquired through different channels. Indeed, as tacit knowledge requires prior skills and social interaction, practices like job rotation, cross-functional teams, and collaboration with external stakeholders help employees integrate it and support innovation grounded in expertise and practical experience. 

The STI/DUI framework has key limitations, especially for digital innovation. It assumes stable knowledge bases, while digital products like AI systems and apps evolve rapidly, update continuously, and often develop outside traditional R&D. Because digital innovation depends on fast iteration and real-time data, the model cannot fully capture how these processes work. Managers should therefore treat STI/DUI as a baseline and complement it with agile, data-driven
capabilities.

Furthermore, industries such as construction, trade, and basic services often lack internal R&D making it unrealistic to adopt STI and DUI. These firms fall into the paper’s “Low Learning” category, meaning they first need to build fundamental learning or basic R&D partnerships. Managers in these sectors should approach the combination of STI and DUI as a long-term goal rather than an immediate strategy.

Finally, some industries operate under strict regulatory and documentation requirements. Pharmaceuticals, aerospace, medical devices, and fintech require highly codified, traceable, and stable processes, which reduces the usefulness of informal, experience-based DUI learning. In such environments, managers should prioritize STI routines, documentation, and standardisation, since these are essential for compliance and legal certainty.

Additional research helps contextualize these findings. Parrilli et al. show that the effectiveness of STI, DUI, or combined modes varies across regions depending on local capabilities, while HervasOliver et al. highlight that SMEs in catching-up countries tend to rely on DUI due to limited R&D resources, making the combined mode harder to implement. Together, these studies underline that innovation strategies must be adapted to the firm’s environment, capabilities, and institutional
context.

References : 

(Article) Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Parrilli, M. D., & Sempere-Ripoll, F. (2021). SME modes of innovation in European catching-up countries: The impact of STI and DUI drivers on technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521006004 

(Article) Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B.A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680-693. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222526843_Forms_of_Knowledge_and_Modes_of_Innovation 

(Article) Parrilli, M. D., Balavac, M., & Radicic, D. (2020). Business innovation modes and their impact on innovation outputs: Regional variations and the nature of innovation across EU regions. Research Policy, 49(8), 104047. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332030125

Firstly, it covers the advantages with curiosity; when our curiosity is triggered it may be the starting point of a process which makes it evolve to creativity, then to experimenting and finally to a potential source of innovation.

Secondly, it indicates the obstacles and reasons why leaders limit curiosity; though it might have all the benefits one can imagine, in a business context curiosity doesn’t always have its place, at least not in its extreme form. The main reasons go from the place where people don’t often feel free to be curious by fear of overstepping or being judged to the place where employers fear that employees will be inclined to seek exploration at the expense of the work they should be doing.

Finally, it gives several ways to stimulate curiosity. The first one is to hire out of curiosity from the start, to make it an important feature one has to have, to be an asset for a given company. The author also encourages us to ask “Why?”, “What if??” and “How could we…?” question to avoid a certain status quo, and focus on learning objectives.

Three managerial implications were made.The general perception is that project managers and leaders have more knowledge than their subordinates, which is not always the case. Humans are naturally afraid of being judged and thought of as incompetent or unintelligent, and this is especially true for new employees. The article highlights that leaders can encourage curiosity by showing inquisitiveness and being curious themselves. In order to model inquisitiveness, managers must change the underlying corporate mental model.

Secondly, to avoid a status quo situation, businesses can use curiosity as an advantage and as a source of imitation to innovation. Curiosity leads to people asking questions that lead to contemplating a wide range of options and perspectives, which can be used to unravel the real needs of the customers. Managers should encourage curiosity and use it as a resource when using a market pull strategy.

Lastly, managers should let employees explore and expand their interest. Managers must accept that motivation and drive comes from varied work, sense of achievement and recognition. Consequently, an implication could be a more agile organization where employees get the opportunity to work in different departments in order to gain knowledge, spark curiosity and find out what they are most passionate about in the organization.

However, there are some limitations to this article. Firstly, curiosity in companies whose strategy is based on economies of scale, can encounter trouble. Even if the employees are curious, there are often barriers that prevent them from contributing to the company. The barriers can come from the company, its organizational structure, or even from the resources. A solution may be to transition from the top-down approach and act as a company with horizontal hierarchy.

As a second limitation, curiosity, if exaggerated, can create distances. Being too curious might worsen your relationship with others. If too many questions are asked, people will think that you are too noisy and might keep a distance from you. As a result, curiosity can create the opposite effect and we end up less informed than desired. This way, curiosity could lead to a bad working atmosphere and demotivate workers.

Finally, we found two further references :
(Video) Bob Borchers, TEDXTalks (2016, 28 October) The Power of Curiosity. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRiEJIEbTDo
(Article) Arikan, A.M., Arikan, I., & Koparan, I. (2020). Creation Opportunities: Entrepreneurial Curiosity, Generative Cognition, and Knightian Uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 45(4)
The first reference is a tedX talk presented by Bob Borchers, where he explains the power of curiosity and its importance in an innovation context. Furthermore he presents the link between luck and curiosity and gives concrete examples of products and inventions born thanks to curiosity and luck, for example super glue and play-doh.

The second reference is an article which explores the process of opportunity formation. It suggests that entrepreneurial curiosity leads to opportunity identification and the formation of entrepreneurial opportunities under Knightian uncertainty, including the cognitive generative processes of entrepreneurs.

The first category are people who are naturally born with the spirit of innovation and who are innovative leaders like the well-known Steve Jobs. The others are people like you and me. But by taking a few actions, it is possible to become innovative leaders too.

1. The large majority of innovative leaders like to discover the world by talking to people who are different from them. This exchange allows them to get different perspectives on a subject. What they seek above all is to have a maximum of diversity in the way they see things and to enhance their knowledge by learning from others.

2. Secondly, innovative people are people who give impact to their ideas. They do this by believing in their ideas and challenging them with the reality of the world.

3. In contrast, innovators are often people who find it difficult to implement their ideas. That is why it is best for them to collaborate with people who can help them in the execution of their innovative ideas.

In terms of implications, we have identified several. Firstly, to be a good innovator you have to be prepared to try and experiment. Indeed, it is about experimenting quickly. It is this kind of behaviour that helps them to think differently and when it comes to combining things with new things, it is this kind of everyday behaviour that helps them to have good ideas!

Secondly, you have to talk to people who are not like us and who have different perspectives. That is, people who don’t have the same experiences as us. This allows you to explore other horizons and to have another look at a subject.

Thirdly, you need to ask lots of provocative questions to challenge the current status of an idea or project. Indeed, you need to continually challenge an idea or project to see if a change or update needs to be made.

About the limitations, we said that we must “try and experience everything”. But it depends on the project, you can’t try everything! The nature of the project is the first limit.
The first example is that if you want to test a new recipe for cooking you must experiment and test, but in more complex projects it is not always possible to experiment totally. The second example is an Amusement Park, it is impossible to experiment with different locations for this park or to experiment with different themes for this park. There is also a cost limit. It costs time and money to experiment!
The cost limit is the second limit. We said also that we must “talking with people who are not like us”. But the opinion of people should not be used to decide if the project is done or not, but rather to improve and point out the difficulties of the project. Be aware that if we talk about our project to people who have a different perspective from us or from the project, it is possible that the person does not understand our vision of the project and has a biased opinion.
Finally, we said that we must “ask questions” but be careful not to go around in circles with questions that might be too complex or that would waste too much time, It is also difficult to find relevant and quality questions that really move the project forward.

Thanks the analyzing of the further sources, it is also interesting to note that, although the sources are different, their views are very similar. For example, in the video “what makes a great innovator”, three tips are given. These are: the willingness to learn, the question of why and courage. This is quite like the implications we have noted in the video we have chosen.

We learn from the second source that a company director has recruited an accountant in his innovation department. Of course, he did not have the skills but he saw in him the perfect character of an innovative person. He describes him as someone who believes 100% in his ideas and wants to develop them. He will not stop at the first difficulty.

• (Video) Why innovation is all about people rather than bright ideas, Alexandre Janssen, TedxFryslân
• (Video) What makes a great innovator? , Wide Ideas

About the steps for innovation. First comes the decision to innovate or not. It is either an internal decision, or external decision. What we mean by that is that it can be imagined by someone in the firm, someone can come with the right idea. But often it’s the market which forces innovation. Either because a competitor gains a market advantage, which forces the others to innovate to stay competitive. Other possibilities are legislation which change the market rules, client mentality changes, …

About the make or buy dilemma. The paper shows us that there are a lot of significant factors. We choose to highlights some of those factors. First, the paper shows that size has a big impact on this decision. First, little firms don’t have the available resources to invest in both those ways, which mean that they often have to choose between make or buy. And that in general big firms invest in both solutions depending on the project. Then, the export part of the business also has a role. Firms that have more than 10% of their business which comes from export tend to innovate more than the others. We won’t go over every significant factor, but we wanted to talk about the costs. It is contra intuitive, but actually, higher cost and higher risk of obstacles for innovation, tend to motivate innovation. As long as the risk and cost are not too high. So innovation increases with obstacles, until a certain point. The explanation given by the paper is that hard innovation is an entry barrier, and builds a higher competitive advantage, because it is harder to manage.

We took four concrete examples to show the four possible ways to innovate. For large companies in a high technological sector, we choose Tesla. They focussed on external sources with a mixed approach in which they “copied” existing products and they adapted it. Indeed, the electric vehicle already existed but they changed some characteristics through internal research and innovation to bring a modified product on the market. Apple is the second example that we took in the high technological sector. They had to work by themselves through internal innovation and they became successful afterwards.

Brembo, world leader in brakes, decided to innovate trough their process. They had already interesting and qualitative products. Their goal was to improve their economy of scale through an innovative process. Finally, we wanted to see how a small company in a traditional sector should innovate and we took Leboncoin to analyse it. Leboncoin could just copy Ebay for example, but they decided to review the whole process and to innovate through it.

The main implication is that if a company want to grow need to invest more especially if you are a small company. The best practice is a mixed approach between internal and external source of innovation.

Unfortunately, this method isn’t concretely possible for everyone because of the size of the companies and the resources they have. In this case if you are a small company, you should focus more on one dimension. If you are in a very high-tech sector, you should be focusing on internal R&D and provide innovation to overcome barriers to entry and because the protection process of new innovations is very concrete and very complex to go around, so it’s very difficult to “copy” others innovation. On the other hand, if you are a small company in a traditional sector, you should focus more on the external innovation. That’s because it’s harder to protect new innovations and because in these kinds of sectors, usually there is already a dominant design, so it’s easier to enter the market just by copying other products and then integrate it.

Completely different is if you are a big company, you should definitely have a mixed approach, but if it’s a high-tech sector you have to be more focus externally, to use start-up and smaller companies’ ideas. Otherwise, if you operate in a traditional sector, adopt a mixed approach focused on internal innovation, especially process innovation to exploit economies of scale.

Regarding the limitations, we found 3 important limitations. The first limitation is that even though the best option seems to be to make and buy innovation, it’s not always possible. Indeed, if a firm has the monopoly on a product or innovation, this firm can’t buy the innovation from another company. The only option is to create innovation within the firm if the company is the first to think about it. For example, in 2007, Apple invented the first smartphone, the first phone with completely touch-based interface. So they couldn’t have bought it from any other firm.

The second limitation is that in this paper, they only talk about the firm’s level so does the company chooses to make, buy or do both as their global strategy. Sometimes a firm can choose to mostly buy innovation technologies but for a specific project create the innovative technology within the firm or the other way around. So, choosing one strategy doesn’t mean not using another way for one or two projects.

The last limitation that a manager should be careful about before deciding to buy or make the technology is the policies of his country. Indeed, each country has specific policies about innovation that make it more or less interesting. For example, firms in China have a bigger incentive to innovate because there’s a patent box that lowers the tax rate on qualifying R&D which can be interesting for the manager to consider. And the other way around, if the firm is located in Germany, there’s a lack of tax incentives so as a manager you might choose not to innovate but mostly to buy innovation.

About the 2 futher references, we choosed 2 texts. The first one is “Complementary interregional linkages and Smart Specialisation: an empirical study on European regions”. Those texte explain how the linkages between different regions impact the development of innovations. With this linkages the regions share knowledge and so they add all the capacities they have, that share is a good for the increasing of development. To show what is the impact, the paper propose to input a new indicator : CL ( complementary interregional linkages).

The second text is “The role of corporate incubators as invigorators of innovation capabilities in parent companies”. In this one they explain that the innovation are principaly made by start-ups but they are to small to develop the innovation themselves so they are help by the Incubator company. The biggers companies notices the help of the incubator and so they also begins to appeal to the incubator for the research.

Complementary interregional linkages and Smart Specialisation : an empirical study on European regions. (2021, janvier). Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00343404.2020.1861240

Gonthier, J. (2019, 15 mars). The role of corporate incubators as invigorators of innovation capabilities in parent companies – Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship . SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13731-019-0104-0?error=cookies_not_supported&code=7ac2511f-4b0b-4cbd-9fd2-dcf626f6216c

Raghuvanshi, J., Agrawal, R., & Ghosh, P. K. (2019). Measuring the innovation capability of micro enterprises in India. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(5), 1405–1430. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-08-2018-0229

Singh, D., Khamba, J., & Nanda, T. (2017). Influence of technological innovation on performance of small manufacturing companies. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(7), 838–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-02-2016-0035

Baum, C. F., Lööf, H., Nabavi, P., & Stephan, A. (2016). A new approach to estimation of the R&D–innovation–productivity relationship. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 26(1–2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2016.1202515

In a society that is always looking to innovate and create new things, patents allow the use as well as the commercialization of an exclusive and temporary invention. Also, they allow to protect innovations by keeping competitors away. The objective of this article is to analyse and to understand the fate of patents in our society. This article therefore deals with the different motivations for patents and their uses, particularly those whose main objectives are commercialization or prevention.

The first key point of this article presents the different types of patents. Firstly, there are the “used patents”, which are used to have marketing exclusivity for a certain product. These are the most classic and widespread patents. Secondly, there are “non-used patents”, which are more developed in this article. They are not used for commercial purposes, but are used by companies for other purposes. These “non-used patents” are classified according 3 types. The prospective patent, which still needs to be further developed by exploring the market, such as still looking for commercial opportunities. The preemptive patent, which protects the company by blocking other companies or preventing similar inventions. Then, the failed patent, which are the only patent that is not actually used. The failed patent may have been due to an obsolescence or to a changing environment. Among the non-use patents, the type of prospective patent remains the most used with 67%, followed by failed at 55% and pre-emptive at 38.4%.

The second important point of this article is that the use of these patents depends on different characteristics. This article compares the use of patents for commercial purposes with preemptive patents. Indeed, the size of the company, the competition, the speed of innovation and the sector in which the company works, or the effectiveness of the patent will influence the use and therefore the type of patent used. For example, a large company with an efficient patent and significant competition will be more likely to use a preemptive patent than a commercial patent.

The manager should of course look at the different implications that our project has. And for that he would have to do an in-depth market study to see where the different companies are in their researches, how big the companies are and how far they are in the different innovations. But in our case, we would rather do an extensive market study based on the patents that the companies own because this is our main concern. In order to do that the manager has to be very conscientious because he will have to be strategic. By strategic we mean that he will not only have to look if he should take a patent to use it or not but also if it could be beneficial to have a patent for the company.

The manager could take patents to block competitors to develop a product that needs this patent and so the companies would have to buy it from him, and in this way the company will make more money. Or the manager could also buy a patent if he thinks that his company is producing a more developed version of a product that needs to avoid other companies to work on it while they can buy a patent on the latest version. So, the article finds that there are actually more failed patents than preemptive patents. This is why we think that managers should also focus on avoiding patent failure all-together by keeping track of the changes in the industry.

The study also shows that there are more failed patents in fast moving industries than slower moving industries. So, as a manager, you should ask yourselves, how has the industry changed over the years? What are the key trends that are affecting it today? No in-depth analysis and regular control over these subjects expose the manager to the risk of failure. Thinking in terms of avoiding failed patents will drive you, as a manger, to not only avoid all the cost related to a patent, it will also act as a filter for the different ideas that are not worth transforming to opportunities with patents.

What concerned the limitations, we talked about the failed patent, a patent which cannot be used anymore because of technology, market obsolescence or low value of invention. If we take the example of a pharmaceutical firm and they develop a part of a vaccine, in order to keep the property right on it, they patent it. Unfortunately, one month later, another firm find the final vaccine and their patent become non-used failed. However, pharmaceutical firm is always inspired by products already created during their researches. In this view, they can create another medicine in 10 years based on this patent.

An other limitation is that patents are granted by individual nations, but do not apply across borders. To receive worldwide protection, an inventor must file a patent application in each country, which can be crucial. Even if ownership of patents is in private hands, the state may still have the right to use them for its own purposes or in case of emergency. Many countries have specific laws to facilitate these arrangements. There is no universal consensus on patents, so the way they are patented, but also controlled, punished in the case of “spillover” differs from one country to another. Here the whole article is based on patents that have been granted both in Europe, Japan and the United States. The limit is that the manager has to look if the measures in force in his country are the same as those in the article. For example: some countries may prohibit the principle of pre-emptive non-used patent or have stricter laws on this subject, if for example a country severely punishes a company that uses a patent just to block its competitors but with no intention to market this product, a company will be more likely to not take this kind of strategy into account.

About the further references, we found 2 hat are interesting.

The first one is: How trade secret Hurt innovation? From Harvard business review. When we think about innovation, we quickly think about how to protect this. The first thing that comes to mind is to patent our innovation. But some manager and entrepreneur think that trade secrecy is a better option as a tool to protect. Three theories are exposed. One who support trade secrecy and two who don’t and suggest that it’s hurting innovation.
So we learn that trade secrecy is disincentive for innovation due to different reasons. Let’s take one of the reasons and explaine the main idea. When company use trade secrecy the employees have to sign non-compete contract and non-disclosure agreement. These documents will limit wat he can do. The employee will avoid to switch companies and it won’t remain himself competitive from an innovation point of view. This article is interesting because it shows us a different way to deal with the protection of innovation.

The second article is : A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning. From the technological forecasting & social change. The aim here is to try to codify and quantify the strategic value of a patent to help manager to take strategic decision. It points out the strength and weakness of patent from a strategical point of view. The analysis is done through five criteria the claim of the patent, the citations of the patent, the market coverage of the patent, the strategic and economic relevance. The objective of the paper is really to provide a practical and replicable framework in strategic analysis of manager. So indeed, this paper is here to convince us that patent is considered as a strategic asset and is part of the strategic vision of the company. This was mentioned in our application point when we qualified patent as strategic tool.

Firstly, we advise to managers to well identify the different links of their innovation process. By correctly identifying the various actors in the process, it will be much easier to incorporate them into the circular improvement process that we want to implement. When these are identified, it is the duty of a good manager to include each one of them from the very beginning and to keep them in touch until the end. Moreover, when a student leaves university, there is often a certain disparity between the theory learned throughout his studies and what he is actually asked to do at his first job. Managers could think of ways to involve students in working life, e.g. through workshops, internships, etc. There are also some disparities between R&D expectations at private and national level. Politicians can play an important role and it is precisely those who are in favor of R&D and who are ready to actively collaborate with the private sector to boost innovation that should be supported. Managers need to think about how to work with those in the political world who have innovative ideas and the power to act.

Regarding the limitations of this article, we will mention three of them. While doing further research on the actor-network theory, we noticed that the article omitted an important explanation. This theory considers that all the actors involved in an innovation process are on the same conceptual level. In this case, stakeholders include human beings but also non-human elements such as a computer machine. This seems to be one of the weaknesses of the actor-network theory. In our opinion, it is too reductive to put a computer at an equivalent level with the person who controls it. Second, companies and universities do not have the same special interests about students. While a university wants its students to master intellectual and academic skills, a company prefers its students to be trained to work effectively immediately after graduation. This makes it difficult for students to be involved upstream in terms of professional expectations. Finally, for a public-private partnership in R&D investment to run smoothly, there needs to be transparency and strong trust between the people involved. This kind of collaboration cannot be done hastily, it requires real research work on the reliability or not of the partners.

Further references :

Islam, N., Mäntymäki, M., & Turunen, M. (2019). Why do blockchains split ? An actor-network perspective on Bitcoin splits. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 148, 1-10.

Waeraas, A. & Nielsen, J. A. (2015). Translation Theory ‘Translated’: Three Perspectives on Translation in Organizational research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 236-270.

Lee, H., Harindranath, G., Oh, S., & Kim D-J. (2015). Provision of mobile banking services from an actor-network perspective: Implications for convergence and standardization. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 90, 551-561.

We found 3 key points which are the 3 distinct cycles of market (with each different levels of knowledge). Departmental cycle: it’s the knowledge that we find in each department separately. The second one is interdepartmental cycle; it’s the cycle where you see if every decision from one department to another is well coordinate. Project-to-firm levels cycle: It’s where you see if your strategy is in cohesion with the market. Each cycle can help understand the market better and improve his comprehension and if one of this cycle is misunderstood, we can perceive a wrong comprehension of the market.

We selected tree main implications managers have to be careful to when it comes to introducing a new product on the market. These implications will help to get a good market’s understanding.
The first one is to keep a departmental specialization and expertise while partially removing the boundaries between those departments. This can be done by improving communication between them and by understanding the daily reality of other departments. Market research should not be done without the input of all the departments because if one department dominates the new product development, the market understanding will be biased and limited to its market’s perspective.
So, interdepartmental relationships seem necessary, but they are not sufficient. The second implication states that companies should create new modes of interaction between departments when they want to develop a new product. Innovators should sometimes violate established ways of working to avoid getting stuck on their retained processes of interaction.
The last implication is to be ready to change the strategy and the organizational procedures of the firm if it is needed to understand more easily the new market. We know that retained procedures and strategy can be anti-innovative, so we have to think about it.

We also found three different limitations. Firstly, there are many management scientists who claim that innovators should understand the market, but they cannot explain why innovators do not follow this seemingly obvious advice. Moreover, knowledge about innovation management is limited, the concepts and their interactions have not been adequately defined.
Secondly, no pattern of the events themselves could be identified in this work. The results of 18 cases in five different companies are difficult to present, especially for a sound theory that included three processes at three levels of analysis.
Finally, additional research is needed to refine the types of knowledge required and to confirm or disprove this implication. Some theories ignore the relationship between enterprises and the environment.

Finally, we found three further references:
Akerman, N. (2015). Knowledge-acquisition strategies and the effects on market knowledge-profiling the internationalizing firm. European Management Journal, 33, 79-88. Online:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263237314000784
Ridge, J., Johnson, S., Hill, A. & Bolton, J. (2017). The role of top management team attention in new products introductions. Journal of Business Research, 70, 17-24. Online https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296316305665
Gabrielson Sherry (2016). Effect of unassigned seating on knowledge sharing between business departments. Capella University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Online: https://search-proquest-com.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be:2443/abicomplete/docview/1810159079/fulltextPDF/A6E567D09D544922PQ/1?accountid=12156