Search results

Four management capabilities for successfully operationalizing open innovation are: strategy and culture, ecosystem capability, internal capability and technology enablement. Surveying more than 1,000 executives on current open innovation practices and capabilities, IBM IBV was able to identify how the different operating model capabilities interact and complement each other to drive better innovation and business performance.

To help organizations build and improve their open innovation capabilities, the IBM Institute for Business Value (IBV) partnered with APQC to develop the Ecosystem-Enabled Innovation Maturity Model (EEIMM) - an open standards model encompassing four domain competencies required for successful open innovation. To assess the maturity and benchmark the performance of organizations’ open innovation capabilities, the IBV, in collaboration with Oxford Economics, used the EEIMM to survey over 1000 leaders responsible for open innovation at their organizations.

Four management capabilities for successfully operationalizing open innovation are: strategy and culture, ecosystem capability, internal capability and technology enablement. IBV analysis found that organizations that are more advanced in developing the four building blocks see significantly better performance across key financial and innovation metrics.

For every dollar of investment, the proportion of direct revenue attributed to open innovation is four times higher than for traditional innovation.

Leading organizations are embracing open innovation as a critical component of innovation strategy and investment. They recognize that adopting open innovation yields far greater returns than traditional innovation can. Recent research by the IBM Institute for Business Value (IBM IBV) reveals, for example, that as many as 84 percent of executives now view open innovation as important for their organization’s future growth.

This study aims to investigate the direct effect of intellectual capital on the organizational performance of Indonesian state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and their subsidiaries. Furthermore, it also examines whether the relationship is mediated by open innovation and moderated by organizational inertia.

This study is designed as quantitative research. A survey method is employed to collect data by distributing questionnaires to the upper-level managers of the SOEs and their subsidiaries. A total of 293 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents, and 97 responses were obtained for further analysis. The partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is used to test the hypotheses. A mediation-moderation research framework is employed.

The results show that intellectual capital has a positive effect on organizational performance. Further results also demonstrate that open innovation mediates the intellectual capital–organizational performance relationship and organizational inertia moderates the intellectual capital–organizational performance relationship. Theoretically, the findings contribute to the resource-based view (RBV) and knowledge-based view (KBV) by providing empirical evidence of the importance of distinctive internal resources in achieving superior organizational performance. Practically, the findings provide strategic information for managers that they should properly manage intellectual capital, open innovation and organizational inertia because of their effects on organizational performance.

First, this study addresses the previous research gaps by confirming that intellectual capital has a positive effect on organizational performance in the research setting of an emerging market. Second, by using a mediation research framework, this study shows that open innovation mediates the relationship between intellectual capital and organizational performance. Third, by using a moderating research framework, this study also reveals that organizational inertia weakens the relationship between intellectual capital and organizational performance. Those associations are rarely researched.

This paper aims to review the extant literature on open innovation and new product development (NPD) using bibliometric analysis to gauge the evolving journey of this concept in the domain of Business and Management.

The researcher used the Scopus database to search the relevant documents for bibliometric analysis. The data range was from 2006 till June 2023. Citation analysis, co-citation analysis and co-occurrence of authors' keywords were used for bibliometric analysis.

The paper charts the intellectual structure of literature related to open innovation and NPD. The five major themes emerge as prominent themes in the literature, i.e. Open Innovation: Conceptualization, Dynamic Capabilities and Competitive Advantages; Open Innovation: Contingencies and Possibilities; Co-creation and New Product Development (NPD); Open Innovation for Businesses: A Shifting Paradigm; and Implementing of Open Innovation in Industries: Cases. Besides this, the study also reveals the most influential authors, journals and countries in their contribution to open innovation and new product development. Future research directions are also presented.

The present study contributes on academic and managerial fronts. The study provides important insights contributing to the open innovation and NPD literature. From the organizational point of view, the study provides a detailed understanding of the concept of open innovation and NPD that can aid managers in acquiring a comprehensive knowledge of the concept before using it as a strategic intervention.

The present study identifies the gradual progression of this research area over time. It delineates key themes emerging from past literature, providing avenues for future research.

This chapter asks how we can understand the managerial practices in open innovation, a recently popularized way of organizing innovative work. Open innovation implies opening up the borders of the organization, creating a context where conventional steering and managerial tools no longer apply. Utilizing a collaborative research approach, following an open innovation collaboration over 8 years, this chapter outlines the managerial practices that direct the collaboration. These practices are important for meaning making and identity creation in the collaboration and can be understood as a form of authorship, a continuous intervention strategy to manage, develop and change the organizational context.

In the knowledge economy, greater togetherness is the prerequisite for innovating and having more: selflessness extends scope while selfishness increases limitations. But human beings are not automatically attracted to innovation: between the two lies culture and cultural values vary widely, with the egoistic accent or the altruistic intonation setting the scene. In the representations of open innovation we submit to the reader’s attention, selfishness and selflessness are active in the cultural space.

Popularized in the early 2000s, open innovation is a systematic process by which ideas pass among organizations and travel along different exploitation vectors. With the arrival of multiple digital transformative technologies and the rapid evolution of the discipline of innovation, there was a need for a new approach to change, incorporating technological, societal and policy dimensions. Open Innovation 2.0 (OI2) – the result of advances in digital technologies and the cognitive sciences – marks a shift from incremental gains to disruptions that effect a great step forward in economic and social development. OI2 seeks the unexpected and provides support for the rapid scale-up of successes.

‘Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come’ – this thought, attributed to Victor Hugo, tells us how a great deal is at stake with open innovation. Amidon and other scholars have argued that the twenty-first century is not about ‘having more’ but about ‘being more’. The promise of digital technologies and artificial intelligence is that they enable us to extend and amplify human intellect and experience. In the so-called experience economy, users buy ‘experiences’ rather than ‘services’. OI2 is a paradigm about ‘being more’ and seeking innovations that bring us all collectively on a trajectory towards sustainable intelligent living.

The resource crisis in healthcare can be alleviated by engaging external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery. The authors use value and open innovation concepts to understand what motivates the stakeholders to join the healthcare innovation ecosystem and what value such an ecosystem brings to healthcare.

A systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework method was applied to reach the research objective. Out of a total of 509 identified articles published till 2021, 25 were selected as relevant for this review.

Six categories of actors were identified, including innovation intermediaries, which were so far neglected in the healthcare innovation literature. Furthermore, patients, healthcare providers, innovation suppliers, investors and influencers were described. The authors also distinguished internal and external stakeholders. The authors show why and how open innovation projects contribute to involving external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery by contributing to patient autonomy, relationship building, knowledge transfer, improving collaborative mindset and culture, advancing know-how and bringing additional finances.

This article is the first one to systematically describe the value of open innovation in healthcare. The authors challenge the positivist approach in value presented by value-based healthcare. The authors show how openness contributes to addressing the resource crisis by involving new stakeholders and resources in the care delivery process.

Innovation challenges are increasingly complex, cutting across distributed actors from different disciplines, organizations, and fields. Solving such challenges requires creating the capacities of opening up for innovation to access and develop a greater amount and variety of knowledge and resources. Perspectives on open source, open innovation, and interorganizational collaboration have explored such capacities, but from different origins and scopes of analysis. Our practice-based integrative framework of “opening innovation” helps highlight these differences and connect their relative strengths. Through a critical literature review paired with an analysis of different empirical cases from Hacking Health, a non-profit organization helping drive digital health innovation, the authors reveal the user-centric, firm-centric, and field-centric approaches to opening innovation that progressively connect a greater variety of actors and resources. The authors show how specific new relational practices they produce address the new relational dynamics these connections bring to accumulate more resources for innovation to keep progressing.

Researchers have shown increased interest in open innovation – that is, the inflow and outflow of ideas, or the collaborative efforts of innovating – while previous research on acquisitions of innovative firms has foremost focused on the inflow only. Open innovation, however, introduces several new challenges related to acquisitions of such firms, not the least related to intellectual property rights and innovative skills that may be distributed among several parties. This paper explores what issues the literature on open innovation and acquisitions deals with related to acquisitions in open innovation environments.

A systematic literature review is conducted to achieve the purpose of the paper. Two main questions are addressed. First, how can acquisitions be understood in relation to open innovation? Second, what does the open innovation literature say on matters of distributed innovations in relation to acquisitions?

The paper concludes that there is a quite limited amount of research concerning itself with open innovation and acquisitions combined. Furthermore, acquisitions are for the most part seen as a means to reach innovation in transaction-based transfers between parties.

With acquisitions of innovative firms, in general, being seen as an important means to reach new ideas, while open innovation is on the rise, the juxtaposing of these phenomena would be of high practical and theoretical relevance to study further.

This research aims to identify the key factors affecting Outbound Open Innovation between Startups and Big organizations using the multiple criteria decision-making analysis (MCDM) approach. The MCDM technique ranks the four key factors identified from the literature study that can help to improve collaboration opportunities with Startups.

Identification of key factors affecting Outbound Open Innovation between Startups and big organizations based on extant literature. A questionnaire is prepared based on these four identified key factors to gather views of the startup's employees, from the designer level to the startup's founder. MCDM techniques are used to evaluate the questionnaire. The ensemble technique is used to rank the key factors coming from three different MCDM methods.

The findings from the MCDM approach and Ensemble techniques give insight to the big organizations to facilitate outbound Open Innovation effectively. It also provides insight into the requirements of the startups and the kind of support they seek from the big organizations. The ranking can help the big organization close the gaps and make an informed decision to increase the effectiveness of the collaborations and boost innovation.

This is a unique research work where the MCDM approach is used to identify the ranking of key factors affecting outbound open innovation between startups and big organizations. The MCDM technique is followed by the ensemble method to rationalize the findings. Technology Relevance ranks highest, followed by Innovation Ecosystem, Organization commitment and Knowledge Sharing.

Prior innovation orientation research has mostly focused on performance consequences, with some recent work examining its relationship with innovative practices such as open innovation. Yet, despite this growing body of open innovation research, there are still gaps and limitations. Notably, most prior studies have been conducted in Europe, limiting their generalizability to the rest of the world, and are replicative, exploring performance and competitive outcomes. There is very limited work examining the potential limitations of open innovation. This study extends innovation orientation research and examines the limitations of open innovation in North America.

This study explores the relationships between innovation orientation and performance, open innovation and performance and innovation orientation and open innovation among 386 North American companies.

This study is novel as it examines the relationships between innovation orientation and performance, open innovation and performance and innovation orientation and open innovation among North American companies. The research uncovers a linear relationship between innovation orientation and performance, a correlation between innovation orientation and open innovation and a counterintuitive curvilinear relationship between open innovation and performance. The curvilinear relationship, shaped as an inverted u-shape, suggests there are limitations to the strategy's effectiveness, actionable insight to companies, consultants and scholars alike. In the discussion section, findings are further unpacked with regard to their implications for the scholarly literature. The paper concludes with managerial considerations for creating an innovation orientation and the most effective level of open innovation for maximum competitive and performance implications.

Beyond the innovation orientation and open innovation research contributions, this study offers managerial insight for executives seeking to enhance competitiveness and drive firm performance.