Open innovation and HEIs: introduction

Citation

Rose, M. and Jack, S. (2012), "Open innovation and HEIs: introduction", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 18 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr.2012.16018daa.001

Open innovation and HEIs: introduction

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Volume 18, Issue 4.

The ENGAGE HEI conference was established in 2007 with a grant from the Institute of Advanced studies at Lancaster University by Dr Sarah Robinson and Prof. Nigel Lockett. It was integrated into our ESRC project of RES-180-25-0024 – Knowledge and technology transfer, innovation and competitive advantage: past and present which also commenced in 2007.

The aim of ENGAGE HEI is to act as a platform to encourage knowledge transfer practitioners and academics engaged in knowledge exchange and enterprise activities to produce REF-able outputs from their outreach activities through collaboration and debate. The emphasis to-date has been on the social processes involved in HEI engagement with business and social enterprises focusing on open innovation, knowledge exchange networks, social capital, the history and development of university outreach work and its benefits to entrepreneurship learning and teaching. The first conference in May 2007 attracted over 30 papers and resulted in two special issues (International Small Business Journal and Education and Training). There have been subsequent conferences at Birmingham City University (2009) resulting in a special issue of International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research and at Bradford University Business School (2010) and resulting in the current special issue.

The health and performance of the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector is crucial to regional and national economies of most developed countries (Jones et al., 2010; Thorpe et al., 2009). Often seen as “tiny acorns from which large oak trees can grow” (Thorpe et al., 2009, p. 201), the view of governments throughout the developed world is that this sector should be supported and encouraged. In order to achieve this, a number of government schemes and policies have been introduced in the UK to encourage interaction and engagement between HEIs and SMEs (Johnston et al., 2008). There seems to be a common belief that by forging links between universities and business, knowledge will be stimulated, ideas will be exchanged and so nations will become more competitive.

Ideally HEI-SME engagement is seen as a two-way practise, the notion being that while HEIs are encouraged to interact and engage with the smaller business community, SMES are enticed to play a “demand-led role” by government and to collaborate for research and opportunities (Johnston et al., 2008). The ability to learn through acquiring and applying new knowledge is important for enhancing organisational performance especially within the SME sector (Jones et al., 2010). However, the importance of innovation to regional development and how science can create and sustain wealth, to bring wider social, cultural and economic benefits over time is crucial if less understood (Howells, 2006). Yet, innovation is key for economic growth and prosperity, a view increasingly supported by governments and policy makers throughout the world.

Open innovation is defined by Henry Chesbrough (2006, p. 1) as “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively. [This paradigm] assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as they look to advance their technology”. This area of research has strong antecedents, stretching before the development of corporate R&D departments in big business, when there were extensive networks of innovation around businesses. Recent research on open innovation focuses on an external focus for innovation by companies and to changing perspectives on the “knowledge landscape”, including universities, research institutions and other companies world-wide. There are therefore many advantages to broadening understanding about the link between knowledge exchange and open innovation.

However, what is also interesting is the impact and influence social aspects might have on the relationship between open innovation and knowledge exchange. Lockett and Jack (2008) argued that there are many advantages to “possessing” social capital. It has been associated with enhanced business, knowledge and innovation performance (Cooke and Wills, 1999; Yli-Renko et al., 2001). Within the context of innovation, Howells (2006) notes that more research which considers the range of intermediaries, the types of functions or roles they offer, how these have evolved over time and the nature of the relationships they are immersed in is needed. In innovation, most work on intermediaries has focused on their function and not their network relationships (Howells, 2006).

A focus on the role of HEIs in open innovation inevitably leads to the consideration of the “enterprising academic” and the “enterprising university” within the Triple Helix model of industry-government-university relationships (Etzkowitz, 2008). Research around this phenomenon has began in the USA but has extended to Europe (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Etzkowitz, 2002; Rinne and Koivula, 2005). In 2010 University of Salford was described as “one of the two intensively entrepreneurial universities in the UK” (Independent, 24 July 2010). The origins of the University of Salford's “modern renaissance” lay in savage higher education funding cuts in the 1980s when the university saw its budget cut by 44 per cent. Enterprising activity became the route to survival (Brandon, 1999). As PVC for Enterprise, James Powell was intensely involved in developing an integrated approach to “academic enterprise” at University of Salford, from the mid-1990s. As the keynote speaker at ENGAGE 2010, he shared his experience of the challenges as well as the opportunities that pursuing “academic enterprise” brought. His paper, in this special issue, shows how he used his personal and institutional experience were to develop a research methodology to better understand the role of leadership in academic enterprise and partnership with business. The article explores how achieving meaningful dialogue between small business is time consuming and success requires commitment from key actors.

Identifying ways of overcoming the challenges of university-industry relations as a dimension of open innovation systems is addressed in differing ways in the articles in this Special Issue. Using a large-scale survey technique Howell's et al. demonstrates that while university-industry collaboration can stimulate innovation, significant barriers remain between SMEs and universities based upon lack of understanding. Policy formulation and implementation around business engagement is also of importance as Vega et al. demonstrate using a multidisciplinary framework building on the systems of innovation literature.

Understanding the motivation of academic researchers who engage with business is the focus of Padilla-Meléndez and Garrido-Moreno's paper. Using a quantitative methodology they demonstrate that key forces include the extent to which business engagement enhances their professional profile. In this context they conclude that much depends on the nature of their own personal networks and the attitudes within their particular discipline.

In their investigation of the initiation and development of effective business relationships, Darabi and Clark highlight the importance of trust for collaboration for both practitioners and academics. The authors also identify barriers and drivers to initiating trust based relationships and suggest a model for collaboration which might support the development of relationships between local business schools and SMEs.

Bantock also deals with relationships and collaboration and considers business engagement between higher education institutions and industry through the lens of complexity theory. He uses a narrative event sequence methodology (Buttriss and Wilkinson, 2006) to deal systematically with the relationship between events occurring over time. Bantock's work shows the tensions that exist and that individuals have to deal with. He also demonstrates that more consideration needs to be given to the world business development managers act within and the constraints they experience.

Networks and social behaviour are clearly a key to successful and constructive industry-HEI relations contributing to open innovation. Mortati and Cruikshank use an interdisciplinary approach based on design theory to develop a networking tool to enhance the benefits SMEs gain from networking. Their paper has especial relevance to this Special Issue because the research was conducted around Innovation, Design, Entrepreneurship and Science, a classic example of efforts to foster open innovation. Developed at the Innovation Campus at Daresbury, and involving hi-tech SMEs, this was a collaboration between the three leading Business/Management Schools in the northwest of England (Lancaster, Liverpool and Manchester) and Lancaster's Design Research and Innovation Centre, ImaginationLancaster.

Mary Rose and Sarah JackGuest Editors

About the Guest Editors

Sarah Jack is Professor of Entrepreneurship at Lancaster University. Her research involves the use of qualitative methods to consider social aspects of entrepreneurship. Her work has been published widely in international and national journals. She has received various grants from funding bodies including: Knowledge Transfer Partnership, Nuffield Foundation, Carnegie Trust and EPSRC.

Mary Rose is Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development in the Management School at Lancaster University, UK. She specialises in evolutionary approaches to innovation and the relationships between innovation, entrepreneurship and communities of practice. She has published widely on the evolution of business values, networking behaviour by family firms and the problem of leadership succession. This has included numerous articles in refereed journals, whilst she has authored and co-authored three books and edited nine.