 |
The cogs and wheels of open innovation: The role of mechanisms in the capability lifecycle
|
Author: Henry Lopez-Vega, Linköping U.
Author: Nicolette Lakemond, Linköping U.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External knowledge search involves the identification and formulation of technology needs; the selection of an appropriate search tool; and the integration of solutions to innovation problems. To understand how firms build a capability to search over time, we use a capability life-cycle framework and the social mechanisms theory to explain how a collaboration mechanism links technological needs or opportunities to solutions. This paper reports upon a longitudinal study of a Brazilian multinational –Natura Cosmetics – and explains the evolutionary process of a collaboration mechanism over 14 years. We identified that the implementation of an open innovation strategy occurs in three phases: initiation, implementation and establishment. Moreover, the collaboration mechanism can be described by six explanatory practices and three sub-mechanisms. These three mechanisms help to explain the chain of external knowledge search. The phases as well as the collaboration mechanism enrich previous studies of knowledge search in open innovation by explaining the evolution of the implementation of an open innovation capability.
|
|
Search Terms: Knowledge search | Open innovation | mechanisms
|
|
Paper is No Longer Available Online: Please contact the author(s).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overcoming open innovation’s conceptual ambiguity: Mapping the innovation collaboration landscape
|
Author: Kathleen Diener, RWTH Aachen U.
Author: Dirk Luettgens, RWTH Aachen U.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WWith Chesbrough’s (2003) introduction of open innovation, the landscape of collaboration concepts for innovation has gained a new facet. The scientific relevance of this topic is strongly supported by the exponential growth of the open innovation literature within the past decade. Despite all this research, scholars like Dahlander, Gann or di Benedetto still criticize a conceptual ambiguity of the term open innovation and demand better precision of this concept in contrast to earlier forms of collaboration for innovation. Our paper investigates the mutual understanding of open innovation and its reflection in research and practice. Analyzing 1305 academic articles in the field by a novel form of co-citation analysis, we create a scientific map of the innovation collaboration landscape. We are able to capture the conceptual ambiguity underlying the open innovation and provide an integrative framework to resolve this discrepancy. Our framework contributes to the consolidation of open innovation research and supports further progress in this area. We find that different forms of collaboration for innovation can be structured by different degrees of proximity and formalization. This enables us to define four general collaboration types, including new forms like open innovation (low proximity with control distributed among the participating parties). We validate this framework by survey data from 64 intermediaries facilitating a collaborative innovation process.Data allow us to isolate a clear mental representation of open innovation viewing it as collaboration at low proximity and formalization in terms of distributed control among the collaboration participants.
|
|
Search Terms: Open Innovation | scientific mapping | conceptual ambiguity
|
|
Paper is No Longer Available Online: Please contact the author(s).
|
|
|
|
|
|
The crafting of physical spaces in an open innovation environment
|
Author: Altair Hazel Marroquin Cruz, Cass Business School, City U. London
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way of doing innovation is changing, organizations are opening organizational boundaries and new models of collaboration take place in emerging innovation spaces such as FabLabs and hackerspaces. I undertake a qualitative case study research that explores the relation between spaces and innovation with four Open Source Hardware (OSHW) organizations. From the finding I developed a framework that link organization’s objectives with socio-spatial experiences. The findings suggest that efficiency, productivity and collaboration with local communities are the main drivers and I argue that by crafting liminality organizations convey experiences that create the conditions and potentiality of new idea generation and collaboration with skilled resources. The implication for managers and public policy makers are to first define clear objectives to guide the creation of innovation spaces and find resources with the skills to manage them.
|
|
Search Terms: liminality | : open source innovation | user communities
|
|
Paper is No Longer Available Online: Please contact the author(s).
|
|
|
|
|
Perception vs Reality: the Adoption of Open Innovation in European Companies
|
Author: Daria Podmetina, Lappeenranta U. of Technology
Author: Roman Teplov, Lappeenranta U. of Technology
Author: Ekaterina Albats, Lappeenranta U. of Technology
Author: Justyna Dabrowska, Lappeenranta U. of Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since 2003, certain perception of open innovation has already managed to emerge both in academia and in business society despite the ongoing debates on the essence of the concept. In response to criticism of open innovation and continuing discussions in the academic literature on what open innovation actually is, by this study we examine whether there is any gap in understanding open innovation between academia and business (practitioners). Moreover, we investigate were exactly it lies. To undertake this research we use the data of the survey on open innovation conducted in 2014-2015 among 254 managers representing companies operating in Europe. Using logistic regression, we analyze the impact of the set of innovation activities (acknowledged by academia as open innovation) on the probability of firms to identify themselves as open innovation adopters. Our results prove that a gap between companies’ self-perception and actual open innovation adoption exists, and show that only three activities admitted by scholars as open actually effect companies self-reported status of open innovation adoption. We found that companies do not perceive commercialization of unused technologies as open innovation (practice/activity) and other nine activities being open according to academia do not yet determine the general open innovation adoption.
|
|
Search Terms: open innovation | open innovation activity | openness
|
|
Paper is No Longer Available Online: Please contact the author(s).
|
|
|
|
|