Section 1.b Introduction

Author(s):  
Nuša FAIN ◽  
Beverly WAGNER

Open innovation has been described as a means of assisting firms utilising ideas and knowledge from inside and outside the firm.  It has been defined as “a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organisational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organisations business model” (Chesbrough et al, 2014, p vi). Open innovation strategies may lead to better financial performance by reducing costs related to innovation, increasing commercialisation and financial gain. Understanding open innovation in some way explains how sharing knowledge with internal and external stakeholders can promote innovation.  Understanding processes can reinforce the importance of engaging with customers early in concept development and design stages of new products and services. Also openness can promote co-creation between firms, customers, suppliers, academia and government. The essence of such cooperation by internal and external stakeholders creates relationships to explore common interests and goals. From an open innovation perspective, value creation and capture is accomplished by (i) outside-in open innovation, i.e. ideas drawn into the organisation from the external environment. This involves opening up organisation’s innovation processes to external inputs and contributions, (ii) Inside-out open innovation utilises unused or underused ideas and assets gathered from outside the organisation and (iii) Coupled open innovation links outside-in and inside-out open innovation processes combining knowledge inflows and outflows to collaboratively develop and commercialise an innovation. Traditionally, knowledge is considered as being held by the firm as core competences and it is assumed that this is a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Accordingly knowledge used in, and resulting from, innovation and the knowledge resulting from the innovation remains within boundaries of the firm. Open innovation opposes this view as it integrates diverse knowledge from the wider environment into the business ecosystem and creates new knowledge for multiple stakeholders. Due to the inter-disciplinary nature of open innovation it can be discussed and theorised from many viewpoints, such as strategy, value chain, business models, core competencies, knowledge creation and more recently in design management. Levels of analysis vary with considerable research frequently conducted at organisational level, while more is needed in areas such as inter-organisational value networks. To date, large organisation have been at the focus of open innovation research, primarily because they are able implement open innovation to some degree without strategic change. More recently, open innovation practices in SMEs have become important, as these small firms have insufficient resources to cover all innovation activities and must look beyond firm boundaries for growth opportunities. Thus, inter-organisational networks are important drivers of innovation in SMEs as they often struggle to make the best use of strong network ties.  Exploring open innovation in SMEs can provide insight into how best to utilise their networks.

Author(s):  
Kisoon Shin ◽  
Daeho Lee ◽  
Kwangsoo Shin ◽  
Eungdo Kim

The pharmaceutical industry, where research and development (R&D) efficiency is central to company survival, has recently faced significant challenges. To increase efficiency, companies must implement strategies such as open innovation (OI), wherein they sell their intellectual property, maximize their use of external resources, adjust their structures, and implement new business models. In this study, we divided 701 U.S. pharmaceutical companies according to their OI strategies to measure and compare their R&D efficiencies between 2001 and 2016. We analyzed the deal data of companies by first dividing them into four groups (inside-out, outside-in, coupled, and closed) to calculate R&D efficiency using stochastic and meta-frontier analyses. In the first group analysis, the coupled group shows high technical efficiency, but in an overall comparison, the inside-out group achieves the highest efficiency values. These values increased between 2005 and 2010, when the R&D crisis in the industry was great at its highest. We thus identified the characteristics of each group based on our results, and presented extensive analyses using a time-series comparison and enterprise-level analysis. We claim that pharmaceutical companies can still cope with the current R&D crisis by implementing different OI strategies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giustina Secundo ◽  
Antonio Toma ◽  
Giovanni Schiuma ◽  
Giuseppina Passiante

PurposeDespite the abundance of research in open innovation, few contributions explore it at inter-organizational level, and particularly with a focus on healthcare ecosystem, characterized by a dense network of relationships among public and private organizations (hospitals, companies and universities) as well as other actors that can be labeled as “untraditional” player, i.e. doctors, nurses and patients. The purpose of this paper is to cover this gap and explore how knowledge is transferred and flows among all the healthcare ecosystems’ players in order to support open innovation processes.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is conceptual in nature and adopts a narrative literature review approach. In particular, insights gathered from open innovation literature at the inter-organizational network level, with a particular attention to healthcare ecosystems, and from the knowledge transfer processes, are analyzed in order to propose an interpretative framework for the understanding of knowledge transfer in open innovation with a focus on healthcare ecosystem.FindingsThe paper proposes an original interpretative framework for knowledge transfer to support open innovation in healthcare ecosystems, composed of four main components: healthcare ecosystem’s players’ categories; knowledge flows among different categories of players along the exploration and exploitation stages of innovation development; players’ motivations for open innovation; and players’ positions in the innovation process. In addition, assuming the intermediary network as the suitable organizational model for healthcare ecosystem, four classification scenarios are identified on the basis of the main players’ influence degree and motivations for open innovation.Practical implicationsThe paper offers interpretative lenses for managers and policy makers in understanding the most suitable organizational models able to encourage open innovation in healthcare ecosystems, taking into consideration the players’ motivation and the knowledge transfer processes on the basis of the innovation results.Originality/valueThe paper introduces a novel framework that fills a gap in the innovation management literature, by pointing out the key role of external not R&D players, like patients, involved in knowledge transfer for open innovation processes in healthcare ecosystems.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 2442-2457
Author(s):  
Marita McPhillips ◽  
Magdalena Licznerska

Digital transformation is a key driving force of open innovation to capture and transfer knowledge inside and outside of a company’s bounds. New challenges in organizing multiple knowledge flows imply the need for increased competences related to this paradigm of future employees. In this article, we organize and aggregate the competencies required for open innovation collaboration and develop a competence profile that organizes individual competencies in an open innovation context. Based on elements of the European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework, we delineate an OI Competence Profile and list the core competencies to manage and accelerate the inflow and outflow of knowledge. We explore this profile by comparing data from 2332 students from four European universities to find differences in the distribution of OI competencies between countries. The study contributes to understanding the individual competencies that target the future OI needs of companies necessary in the context of digital transformation. It also introduces an interdisciplinary approach to integrate the research streams of management practice, open innovation, and entrepreneurial education.


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Candelo ◽  
Diego Matricano ◽  
Mario Sorrentino

Over the last decades, management scholars have largely investigated several aspects related to Open Innovation Processes – OIPs that concern the beginning, the diffusion and the future developments of the phenomenon, its typologies, its linkages with strategies and business models, its implementation, and even errors to be avoided when managing them. However, there is one aspect that seems to be underexplored and this deals with the involvement of top management.OIPs, like all the other managerial activities, need to be planned and defined ex ante; implemented, launched and managed; analyzed ex post. Thus, a decisional process – pertaining the activities to be carried out, human resources to be involved, criticalities to be avoided and results to be exploited – needs to be managed. Accordingly, the research question posed herein is: How do top managers handle OIPs?In order to respond to the above research question, a case study is presented hereinafter. This case study deals with an OIP launched by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), one of the top ten global carmakers, and concerning the car of the future. In particular, through this case study, it is rebuilt and analysed how FCA top managers have handled the whole OIP.By leveraging on the achieved results, the paper speculates on the strong commitment that top managers need to put in practice if they aspire to make OIPs successful.


Author(s):  
Mehdi Bagherzadeh ◽  
Sabine Brunswicker

To increase the incentive for external sources to form interactive relationships, some firms selectively reveal their internally developed knowledge for free. However, ‘selective revealing' is in conflict with the firm's interest in control over IP and challenges the governance of knowledge flows in open innovation. Taking a behavioral perspective, this paper proposes a complementary role of ‘selective revealing' and ‘behavioral control' and its relationship with a firm's source choice. We draw upon a sample of 125 large firms in the United States and Europe to statistically support the proposed complementarity. Results suggest that in value chain-centric and competitor relationships, firms may opt for guided revealing. In contrast, firms primarily engaged with universities are unable to establish guided revealing as a governance mechanism.


Author(s):  
Minwir Al-Shammari

In today’s dynamic business environment, change is omnipresent. Organizations have to develop sound change management strategies in order to counter the same. Transition to knowledge-based economies made establishment of effective knowledge management (KM) mechanisms within companies crucial to achieve business competitiveness. This chapter addresses background concepts, critical issues, and future trends related to the blueprinting of CKM as a knowledge-based strategy for anticipating and meeting customers’ needs profitably. Crafting CKM requires a set of activities, i.e. plan, design, build, and implement, which seek to create or leverage the firm’s distinctive core competencies (DCCs) in order to attain a sustainable competitive advantage (SCA). This chapter advocates the premise that successful businesses are those that have both vision and commitment to make that vision a reality. The vision might be customer-oriented, e.g. the strategy is CKM, the processes include CKM value chain primary activities (capture data from customers, create profiles of customers, compose knowledge about customers, maximize value for customers, measure return on relationships with customers, and master the learning throughout CKM change), and CKM value chain support activities: reorganizing people, reconfiguring processes, and retooling Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 248
Author(s):  
Ashkan Rangamiztousi ◽  
Kamariah Bt Ismail

Open Innovation is a phenomenon that has become increasingly important due to found shorter innovation cycles, industrial R&D escalating costs as well as in the dearth of resources. Researchers have suggested various kinds of practices and ways to categorized them. However, most of prior studies only used some of the practices to measured open innovation, but the measurements were very generic as some practices are broadly defined, and the list of open innovation activities not included new activities and completed list of practices. Hence, it is crucial to identify a new list of open innovation practices and study on similar practices in developing countries to help their companies understand open innovation and its practices as well. This study reviewing prior studies on open innovation adoption published between 2003 and March 2014 and identified 36 different practices. Therefore, we created a new list of open innovation practices that cover most of strategies and practices mentioned in prior studies. This study used quantitative methodology, 400 high rank executives manager of Malaysia SMEs participated and completed the survey and further analyzed using the appropriate statistical procedures. The results indicated that Malaysian SMEs use three core processes of open innovation including coupled, outside-in, and inside-out practices in their open innovation processes, respectively. 


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Chesbrough ◽  
Eric L. Chen

Pharmaceutical drug development costs have risen rapidly over the past twenty years.  However, the number of new molecular entities being approved has not increased.  As pharmaceutical companies scale back their R&D in light of this deteriorating productivity, significant unmet medical needs remain unaddressed.  Much of these rising costs can be traced to work on compounds that are abandoned before getting to market.  There is a growing need to recover these abandoned compounds. The inside-out branch of open innovation provides a way to increase the performance of pharmaceutical firms, both in addressing unmet societal needs, and potentially in identifying new revenue sources and business models for a more distributed model of commercializing new drugs.  This aspect of open innovation is not much discussed in the literature to date. The medical research community, in conjunction with a number of industry and nonprofit organizations, has started several projects to recover more abandoned compounds.  These new initiatives are still at an early stage, and have not received much critical evaluation to date.  Examining four of these initiatives, we find that they do extend the cognitive frames in the research phase, while doing less to extend those frames in the commercialization phase.


2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suntje Schmidt ◽  
Verena Brinks ◽  
Sascha Brinkhoff

AbstractWe define innovation and creativity labs as physical spaces for testing innovative ideas, alternative business models, new economic practices or flexible cooperation structures. As such, they are fields of experimentation and crystallization points for temporary practices that generate product, process, and organizational innovations. In these places, processes of interdisciplinary collaboration, and open innovation embrace and combine knowledge from multiple fields of expertise, most prominently from the creative and technology intensive sectors. This paper discusses the results of a research project that compiled an inventory of the dynamic spatial and organization development of innovation and creativity labs in Berlin. The empirical evidence highlights the variety of temporary spatial configurations ranging from grassroots labs, different forms of coworking, design and research and development (R & D)-oriented studios, to incubation and acceleration models. This diversity epitomizes distinct temporary social settings in an economic environment characterized by diverse modes of democratization, flexibility, commercialization and decentralization of innovation processes.


2011 ◽  
pp. 63-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minwir Al-Shammari

The ability of an organization to compete in rapidly changing business environments is contingent upon its ability to develop competitive strategies that enable leverage of distinctive core competencies and delivery of value-adding products or services to customers. Once the competitive strategies have been identified, a plan is developed to support those strategies. The plan will specify the design and use or creation of strengths in the organization’s resources. The current chapter looks into the reorganization of people in teams as a major pillar of CKM. Although this chapter is devoted to discussion of the role of people in CKM, the role of people as well as ICTs and business processes will continue to play a significant role in the CKM core value chain activities covered in the remaining parts of this book. Setting the stage for CKM strategic change, requires reinvention of the internal setup of organizations manifested by its three major infrastructural components: reorganizing people, retooling ICTs, and redesigning processes. This chapter explores the role of one organizational architectural component, reorganizing people, as it relates to CKM strategic change. King (1995) introduces the concept of Strategic Capabilities Architecture wherein the guiding architecture of a firm should be based on the strategic vision. In other words, this vision bridges the existing status of the firm (“Where it is”) and its projected future status (“Where it wants to be”) related to the firm’s current and future capabilities. The guiding rule here is that no single capability of the firm can provide a SCA to the firm. The firm cannot compete on the basis of “low cost” or “best quality” or “customer service.” The SCA of the firm derives from the “synergy” of the firm’s various capabilities. Porter, as cited in Pastore (1995), proposes a similar concept in his notion of “complementarities”. He argues that the various competitive capabilities of the firm should be “complementary” or “synergistic” so that capabilities cannot be easily imitated by rivals. The same argument has been made with reference to different ICT-related innovations, such as BPR (Davenport & Short 1990, Davenport 1993, Davenport & Stoddard 1994). Organizational reinvention, or transformation, as a concept and an approach has become popular in recent years, largely from its alignment with contemporary trends in corporate strategy, technology, and human resources, rather than from its inherent attractions. It intends to bring about a remarkable shift in one or more of technological, human, process, and/or structural dimensions of organizations (Blumenthal and Haspeslagh, 1994). However, if it is viewed independently of these advantages, the approach promises great benefits but also can be difficult, challenging, and disruptive (Graetz et al., 2006).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document