Open innovation: effects from external knowledge sources on abandoned innovation projects

Abstract

Purpose

Innovation projects are often risky and costly. But not all innovation projects lead to commercialisation; some are abandoned, and these abandoned innovation projects can be classified as a waste of resources. Therefore, this paper studies the influence of different external sources and a firm’s decision to abandon an innovation project. The purpose of this paper is to provide a broader understanding of abandoned projects.

Design/methodology/approach

The data applied are quantitative data and the empirical background is the Danish Innovation Survey 2009. The sample consists of Danish manufacturing firms with ten employees or more (n=840). The results are based on logistic regression analysis.

Findings

Results reveal that firms should consider that the involvement of customers can lead them to abandon innovation projects. However, if firms combine customers with universities, it will decrease the likelihood of innovation projects being abandoned. A more in-depth analysis shows that the involvement of customers from “Europe” (countries in Europe excluding Denmark) and the “US” leads to innovation projects being abandoned while customers from “other countries” (the rest of the world, including China and India) have the opposite effect.

Originality/value

The contribution is to the limited literature on abandoned innovation projects by suggesting that the type of external sources is a significant factor in firms’ decisions to abandon innovation projects. The paper identifies that the involvement of certain external sources leads firms to decide to abandon innovation projects, and that the country of origin of the external sources is an important criterion to consider in relation to a firm’s decision to abandon innovation projects.

Citation

Tranekjer, T.L. (2017), "Open innovation: effects from external knowledge sources on abandoned innovation projects", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 918-935. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-04-2016-0076