Mapping the Open Innovation Ecosystem: An Analysis of the Technical and Strategic Level

2014 ◽  
Vol 945-949 ◽  
pp. 450-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murilo Agio Nerone ◽  
Osíris Canciglieri ◽  
Maria Teresinha Arns Steiner ◽  
Robert I.M. Young
Keyword(s):  
Open Innovation ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Current View ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
To Come ◽  
New Variables ◽  
Type Classification

The scope of this paper is to further extend the classification of the open innovation activities in order to provide a template to the case studies and theories, in the field, to come. Also, it serves as guidance to practitioners deploy supportive capabilities to their exact needs. A review of the literature, indexed by ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus, of the studies that could respond the why’s and how’s of the open innovation process was done. Based on this review, we propose an extension of the current view (inbound, outbound and coupled) encompassing two other variables, called levels (technical level and strategy level). These two new variables crossed against the current archetype (inbound, outbound and coupled) provide a six type classification. We further analyze each of these types, examining their usefulness and exemplifying how it has been applied by companies.

Is Co-working Increase Survivability? Study on how Collaborating and Networking Facilitates Open Innovation Process for Startups

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-75
Author(s):  
Elissa Dwi Lestari
Keyword(s):  
Open Innovation ◽  
Deep Understanding ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Multiple Case ◽  
Start Ups ◽  
Community Manager

Startups, as they are bounded to their liabilities of newness and smallness, need to collaborate extensively with their external partners through the open innovation process. This study aims to depict Co-working space's pivotal role in building up a working innovation ecosystem that facilitates open innovation for startups. To get a more deep understanding of the phenomena, this study used an exploratory study based on three case studies of Co-working spaces operated in the Jakarta region. The study shows that the open innovation process among startups is not naturally existed, but instead, it is purposefully designed by the role of a community manager who acts as the ecosystem catalyst. The community manager becomes the ecosystem enablers that facilitate the networking process by connecting members. As a result, these activities will help the emerging of mutual connection and collaboration processes among members that empower open innovation among startups members. The multiple-case design makes the study conclusions might be difficult to generalize. Future research, including quantitative studies, will help the conclusions examination and the knowledge enrichment of start-ups' open innovation process. This paper will enrich the knowledge concerning how Co-working spaces member seizing opportunities that lead to the open innovation process.

Understanding the relationship between organizational culture and inbound open innovation

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz Barjak ◽  
Fabian Heimsch
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Culture ◽  
Open Innovation ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
External Pressure ◽  
External Control ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Process Innovations ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
The Relationship

PurposeThe relationship between corporate culture and inbound open innovation (OI) has been limited to two sub-constructs: a culture for openness and an innovation culture, but until now a richer conceptualization of corporate culture is missing.Design/methodology/approachThe authors apply Quinn and Rohrbaugh's (1983) competing values framework and regress these together with company internal and external control variables on five measures of inbound OI, reflecting product innovation, process innovation and the sourcing of innovation activities. The authors use data from a survey of more than 250 Swiss companies, primarily SMEs.FindingsThe importance of the firms' market environments suggests that the results are affected by the specific situation in which the firms found themselves at the time of the survey: after a strong currency shock, inbound OI activities seem to be a reaction to external pressure that favored planning and rule-oriented (formal) cultures to implement cost-cutting process innovations.Practical implicationsCompanies should develop a vision and a strategy, ensure open and transparent communication, have suitable reward and support mechanisms in place, adjust structures and processes, and institutionalize and formalize any change whenever they are confronted with a situation that requires a quick reaction and an adjustment to their degree of openness.Originality/valueThe paper clarifies the relationship between cultural traits and inbound OI, using a well-established understanding of corporate culture and differentiating between innovation types. It points to the importance of the external environment in order to understand the role of culture.

MAPPING THE PERCEPTION AND REALITY OF OPEN INNOVATION

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (06) ◽  
pp. 1340016 ◽  
Author(s):  
JUSTYNA DĄBROWSKA ◽  
IRINA FIEGENBAUM ◽  
ANTERO KUTVONEN
Keyword(s):  
Open Innovation ◽  
Innovation Management ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Current State ◽  
Business Practitioners ◽  
The Right ◽  
Innovation Practices ◽  
Innovation Processes

Open innovation holds great potential for improving the efficiency of companies' innovation processes, but also presents substantial risks. A key issue in innovation management is finding the right balance of openness, i.e., determining how open companies should be in their innovation activities. However, academics and business practitioners hold conflicting notions of what constitutes open innovation practice and of how "open innovation companies" are defined. In this paper, we present three in-depth case studies of global R&D-intensive companies, where we find that the firms' perception of their openness differs from their actual situation (as determined by the innovation practices that they apply), and that each company has a different view as to what constitutes open innovation. We claim that resolving conceptual ambiguity and differentiating between openness (as a philosophical aspect) and open innovation (as a way of structuring the innovation process) in research is critical in order to clarify the current state of open innovation research and enable the communication of results to practitioners.

scholarly journals THEORETICAL BASES OF THE INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY OF THE CANNING ENTERPRISE RESEARCH

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1(63)) ◽  
pp. 139-144
Author(s):  
O.I. Laiko ◽  
V.S. Ivanchenkov ◽  
I.V. Strutynska
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Innovative Activity ◽  
Black Sea Region ◽  
Financial Investment ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Canning Industry

It is considered the essence of the terms of innovations and innovative activity of the canning industry enterprise, on example of enterprises of the Ukrainian Black Sea region. It is improved the classification of types of innovations and innovative processes for canning enterprises, by allocating relevant classification groups, that are actual in the aspect of modern scientific and practical approaches. The economic essence of the category of innovative susceptibility of enterprises is determined. According to the modern requirements and challenges that arise in the process of transformation of the national economic system it is determined the need of update of the theoretical basis for the study of innovation processes, and it is proved the necessity of formulation of the objective definitions and classifications of innovations, of the types of innovation activities that make key-point in the research process of the current realities of economic development. As a result of the research of various types and definitions of innovations, it is established that the most important for the analyzing process of innovations for enterprises in the canning industry are such classifications, which are based on the degree of participation in the production process (production and non-productive innovations: administrative, in other processes of internal management, in the processes of supply-sales, in circulation processes, financial services), on the functional purpose of innovations (production and technological, personnel, economic, logistic, marketing, financial, investment, infrastructure innovations). The definition of innovations for canning enterprises is given in the article, it is developed the classification of types of innovation for the canning enterprise that is oriented on objective features and distinguishes of the innovation process, which is actually carried out by domestic enterprises that allows to take into account the aspect of actuality.

scholarly journals Accelerating chemical start-ups in ecosystems: the need for biotopes

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarten J.G.M. van Gils ◽  
Floris P.J.T. Rutjes
Keyword(s):  
Open Innovation ◽  
Organizational Capacity ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Ecosystem Model ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Innovation Practices ◽  
Start Ups

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to clarify the relationship between start-ups and an innovation ecosystem. Start-ups need resources available in the ecosystem to grow, but experience organizational capacity limitations during their open innovation practices. This study frames the “open innovation” interface and discloses ways to accelerate the process of connecting start-ups’ demands to ecosystem’s supplies. Design/methodology/approach A case study was used to describe the development of a conceptual ecosystem model to frame the “open innovation” interface and its subsequent implementation at nine start-up hotspots in the Dutch chemical industry. To develop the ecosystem model, the system of innovation concept was enriched with the perspective of a chemical start-up to pinpoint critical resources for growth. Findings It is suggested that the most relevant “open innovation” interface for start-ups looking to grow is an innovation biotope: a well-defined, business-oriented cross-section of an ecosystem. All stakeholders in a biotope are carefully selected based on the entrepreneurial issue at stake: they can only enter the secured marketplace if they are able to provide dedicated solutions to start-ups. The biotope enables “open innovation in a closed system” which results in acceleration of the innovation process. Originality/value This is the first study to report on the definition and implementation of an innovation biotope as the “open innovation” interface between an ecosystem and start-ups. In addition, it provides a powerful tool, the ecosystem canvas, that can help both regional and national innovation systems to visualize their ecosystem and identify blind spots.

DIFFERENT MODES OF OPEN INNOVATION: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 615-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
VALENTINA LAZZAROTTI ◽  
RAFFAELLA MANZINI
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Open Innovation ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Innovation Modes ◽  
A Company

Starting from the several conceptual and empirical studies about open innovation modes, this paper attempts to integrate them by suggesting a framework which reveals four basic ways to collaborate. Two variables are considered that represent the degree of openness for a company: (i) the number/type of partners with which the company collaborates, briefly labelled as "partner variety"; (ii) the number/type of phases of the innovation process that the company opens to external contributions, briefly labelled as "innovation funnel openness". By crossing these two variables, four basic modes of open innovation are identified: closed innovators, open innovators, specialized collaborators and integrated collaborators. The framework shows its practical validity in an empirical study that is conducted in Italy with the specific aim at verifying whether companies can really be mapped using this framework, i.e. whether the four modes of open innovation can be found in real companies (framework applicability); whether different modes correspond to different companies' strategies, capabilities, organisational and managerial processes (framework explicative power and usefulness). The framework shows that, in some cases, being totally open in innovation activities is not the only and most suitable option, but that different degrees and ways of "openness" can be implemented successfully, as well as the totally closed option.

scholarly journals Why Open Innovation is Easier Said Than Done: An Organizational Identity Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-67
Author(s):  
Maral Mahdad ◽  
Chiara E. De Marco ◽  
Andrea Piccaluga ◽  
Alberto Di Minin
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Identity ◽  
Open Innovation ◽  
Organizational Transformation ◽  
Identity Transformation ◽  
Identity Change ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Managerial Skills ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Identity Ambiguity ◽  
University Scientists

In this article, we explore and interpret organizational identity transformation associated with open innovation strategy of the largest telecommunication company in Italy, Telecom Italia (TIM). When TIM established eight joint laboratories within five major Italian universities to benefit from opening its business model, it transferred some of the R&D employees to the new laboratories to work with the university scientists. This organizational transformation created underexplored conditions for R&D employees engaged in the open innovation activities of the firm. Our interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) answers the question of “How do R&D employees experience organizational identity change in the process of open innovation?”. We based our analysis on interpreting lived experiences of 14 employees. Studying the phenomena of organizational identity change during the process of open innovation implementation suggests the following: (1) The process of open innovation through mobility of skilled R&D employees triggers organizational identity ambiguity and change, (2) Organizational identity ambiguity phase in the process of open innovation can be shortened by the support of parent company and managerial skills highlighting sensemaking mechanisms, (3) Constructing a shared organizational identity with university members involved in this process is an undeniable element of OI success for this strategy. We contribute to the literature by establishing linkages among organizational identity and open innovation and by building on recent works on the role of individuals within open innovation ecosystem. Our qualitative analysis draws on a conceptual framework for open innovation and organizational identity transformation.

Governance in Digital Open Innovation Platforms

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Likoebe Maruping ◽  
Yukun Yang
Keyword(s):  
Open Innovation ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
Platform Governance ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Innovation Output ◽  
Pass Through ◽  
Innovation Platform

Open innovation is defined as an approach to innovation that encourages a broad range of participants to engage in the process of identifying, creating, and deploying novel products or services. It is open in the sense that there is little to no restriction on who can participate in the innovation process. Open innovation has attracted a substantial amount of research and widespread adoption by individuals and commercial, nonprofit, and government organizations. This is attributable to three main factors. First, open innovation does not restrict who can participate in the innovation process, which broadens the access to participants and expertise. Second, to realize participants’ ideas, open innovation harnesses the power of crowds who are normally users of the product or service, which enhances the quality of innovative output. Third, open innovation often leverages digital platforms as a supporting technology, which helps entities scale up their business. Recent years have witnessed a rise in the emergence of a number of digital platforms to support various open innovation activities. Some platforms achieve notable success in continuously generating innovations (e.g., InnoCentive.com, GitHub), while others fail or experience a mass exodus of participants (e.g., MyStarbucksIdea.com, Sidecar). Prior commentaries have conducted postmortems to diagnose the failures, identifying possible reasons, such as overcharging one side of the market, failing to develop trust with users, and inappropriate timing of market entry. At the root of these and other challenges that digital platforms face in open innovation is the issue of governance. In the article, governance is conceptualized as the structures determining how rigidly authority is exerted and who has authority to make decisions and craft rules for orchestrating key activities. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive framework for understanding governance as applied to open innovation that takes place on digital platforms. A governance perspective can lend insight on the structure of how open innovation activities on digital platforms are governed in creating and capturing value from these activities, attracting and matching participants with problems or solutions, and monitoring and controlling the innovation process. To unpack the mystery of open innovation governance, we propose a framework by synthesizing and integrating accreted knowledge from the platform governance literature that has been published in prominent journals over the past 10 years. Our framework is built around four key considerations for governance in open innovation: platform model (firm-owned, market, or community), innovation output ownership (platform-owned, pass-through, or shared), innovation engagement model (transactional, collaborative, or embedded), and nature of innovation output (idea or artifact). Further, we reveal promising research avenues on the governance of digital open innovation platforms.

The Effect of Research & Development Activities and Open Innovation Activities: A Key to Low/ Medium Technology Industries and Firms in Catalonia

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abd El salam El Rayyes ◽  
Jaume Valls-Pasola
Keyword(s):  
Open Innovation ◽  
Current Issue ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Industrial Sector ◽  
University Research ◽  
Research Development ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Statistical Institute ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Technology Industries

Research and Development (R&D) activities and Open Innovation activities (OI) have been of crucial importance in Low/Medium Technology (LMT) sectors that are based on the innovation abilities of LMT firms. This article analyzes the links between OI activities and R&D activities in Catalan (Spain) LMT firms. First, we develop a model of how innovation is developed within LMT Catalan firms. By analyzing R&D and OI activities in LMT firms, we measure both internal and external activities of these firms. Secondly, we explore the effects of R&D activities and OI activities in the industrial sector, and then the effects of both in the market of the Catalonia region. Catalan LMT firms have unique opportunities in the innovation process, yet face some obstacles. The objective of this article is to advocate for bridges to be built between university research and public centers, and LMT firms in Catalonia. To define the current issue within the field of Catalan LMT firms, we sample 2008 to 2010 data from the Spanish National Statistical Institute (INE), Statistical Institute of Catalonia (IDESCAT), and the Organization for Economic, Cooperation and Development (OECD).

How to Integrate Suppliers into the Innovation Process? An Explorative Case of Champion Formalization in the Purchasing Department in Times of Open Innovation

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (06) ◽  
pp. 1750036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian A. Maier ◽  
Peter Rück ◽  
Alexander Brem
Keyword(s):  
Open Innovation ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Innovation Management ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Success Stories ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Purchasing Department ◽  
Development Teams

Literature on the champion theory proposes the informal character of the champion’s role and also notes difficulties in institutionalizing it. Nevertheless, formally institutionalized roles that seem to fit the description of a champion can be recognized in organizations, especially as enablers of open innovation activities. However, research cannot answer how this institutionalization occurs and which factors influence it. To answer these questions, we investigate a unique single case in which a champion role was institutionalized in the purchasing department of a multinational company. The new role’s task is to identify, select, and integrate supplier innovations. Our results indicate that the informal role of the champion can be successfully institutionalized when certain success factors are considered, which are management commitment, use of success stories, and matching of champions with research and development teams. We contribute to innovation management literature by using the well-established champion theory to explain how and why large multinational companies formally establish the role of the innovation champion. Our research offers pathways for further research about both, the antecedents and the consequences of role formalization. Practitioners can build on the success factors derived in this study when formally implementing innovation champions as enablers of open innovation activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document