Search results

1 – 10 of 201
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 28 January 2020

Marcel Bogers, Henry Chesbrough and Robert Strand

This paper describes the case of how the Danish beer manufacturer, Carlsberg, developed the Green Fiber Bottle as part of its sustainability program through an open…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper describes the case of how the Danish beer manufacturer, Carlsberg, developed the Green Fiber Bottle as part of its sustainability program through an open innovation approach in collaboration with complementary partners. It thereby illustrates how a grand challenge associated with sustainability can be effectively addressed through open innovation and reveals the opportunities and challenges that emerge in that context.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper summarizes some key elements of the case and, in particular, discusses some of the lessons learned, which can be further explored in future research, practice, and policy.

Findings

The case suggests a number of key issues that are relevant when attempting to address grand challenges, in general, and sustainability in the food and beverage (F&B) industry, in particular, namely: leveraging open innovation in the face of sustainability as a grand challenge; sustainability beyond a solid business case; opportunities and challenges in the face of new business models; the importance of early wins for addressing societal challenges for signals and scaling; and the importance of the Nordic context and long-term vision.

Originality/value

The case describes a recent (and to some extent still ongoing) initiative of how a particular F&B company has explored new approaches to developing its sustainability program. Therefore, it highlights some of the unique characteristics of this case. This paper also lays the groundwork for the establishment of “Sustainable Open Innovation” as a domain in its own right.

Details

British Food Journal, vol. 122 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0007-070X

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 February 2005

Robert J. Allio

Ask an expert to describe an innovation system that enables companies to successfully advance valuable technologies that fit their current business model – and those that

Abstract

Purpose

Ask an expert to describe an innovation system that enables companies to successfully advance valuable technologies that fit their current business model – and those that do not fit it.

Design/methodology/approach

Strategy & Leadership interviewed Henry Chesbrough author of Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Harvard Business School Press, 2003). His book is based on numerous research projects he conducted.

Findings

He developed an open innovation model based on the observation that great inventions can come from both inside and outside the company and should then be commercialized both using the current business model and with alternative business models.

Research limitations/implications

Case studies are needed. Tools are needed for bringing the customer into the open innovation process.

Practical implications

Corporate leaders should review and consider the open innovation model as one approach in their search for new growth businesses.

Original/value

Open innovation is a radical approach to business growth that is being pioneered by a number of cutting edge firms.

Details

Strategy & Leadership, vol. 33 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1087-8572

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 30 November 2020

Sea Matilda Bez and Henry Chesbrough

A successful business model creates a heuristic logic that connects technical potential with the realization of economic value. But this logic constrains the subsequent…

Abstract

A successful business model creates a heuristic logic that connects technical potential with the realization of economic value. But this logic constrains the subsequent search for new, alternative models for other technologies later on. This logic gives rise to two behaviors that affect the implementation of Open Innovation inside organizations. The well-known Not-Invented-Here syndrome constrains the use of Outside-in Open Innovation, while a new syndrome we identify, the Fear of Looking Foolish, constrains the use of Inside-out Open Innovation. We focus particularly on the latter behavioral constraint in this chapter and present three mini-cases that demonstrate the constraints in action. We then sketch possible managerial solutions to overcome these behaviors.

To view the access options for this content please click here

Abstract

Details

Comparative Studies of Technological Evolution
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84950-118-7

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 6 November 2019

Alberto Onetti

The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the current practices in “corporate-startup collaboration” and “Open Innovation” (OI) in Europe. OI has increasingly…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the current practices in “corporate-startup collaboration” and “Open Innovation” (OI) in Europe. OI has increasingly become mainstream. A growing number of European corporates are adopting OI approaches to innovate and benefit from a more agile business environment. As Henry Chesbrough – the father of OI – finds out, there is “no single best model for engagement”. It highly depends on the goals that companies want to achieve. Models and approaches of corporate-startup collaboration are continuously evolving. A study of the variety of their effective-implementations in a real business context is therefore beneficial.

Design/methodology/approach

For the purpose of this research, the authors analyzed the European corporates that are considered as “innovation leaders” according to “SEP Europe’s Corporate Startup Stars” annual ranking. According to experts’ evaluations, these companies represent the most advanced case studies in open innovation. The paper analyses the experience of 31 European large corporates implementing effective corporate-startup collaboration. The research approach is exploratory and descriptive.

Findings

By adopting a practitioner-oriented perspective, the authors contribute to shed new light on how European corporates adopt OI and internalize arising innovations across organizational boundaries. Six key areas of OI activities have been identified and compared based on required resources’ commitment. Nearly all of the corporates have implemented low-commitment strategies such as organizing one-off startup events and/or sharing free resources with startups. By contrast, only a limited number of corporates engaged actively through acquisitions (M&A), which requires the highest level of commitment. Startup procurement and investments seem to be the most effective approaches to startup-corporate collaboration, while corporate accelerators and innovation outposts are adopted by only nearly half of the companies considered.

Research limitations/implications

Although the research is not a comprehensive survey, it is useful to identify current and future trends of successful corporate-startup collaboration as well as best practices by European leading companies working at the forefront of OI.

Practical implications

This study provides evidence of the main trends in corporate-startup collaborations, both opening up their innovation processes for mutual benefits. The results have important implications both for corporates and policy makers since the study also highlights the main barriers that hinder successful corporate-startup collaborations. Although many of the analyzed corporates report to have introduced “startup-friendly procedures” – including shortening payments times, simplification of vendor registration and qualification process – the vast majority of companies still need to be educated about the opportunities and benefits arising from Open Innovation (OI). This is particularly true for mid-size companies and small and medium-sized companies that based on some preliminary evidences have not yet fully engaged in open innovation due to limited resources and lack of ability to understand the disruption threats posed by recent technology and market evolution.

Originality/value

To date, there is little evidence on current practices of “Open Innovation” and “corporate-startup collaboration” in Europe. Only recently, large European corporations have concretely started to engage with startups. This paper attempts to shed new light on this so-far under-explored issue.

Details

Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 42 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0275-6668

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 9 May 2013

Pooran Wynarczyk

The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of open innovation practices on the innovation capability and export performance of UK small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs).

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of open innovation practices on the innovation capability and export performance of UK small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs).

Design/methodology/approach

The empirical (quantitative) investigation is based on a sample of 64 SMEs in the UK – 33 “open” innovation firms and 31 “closed” innovation firms.

Findings

The overall results demonstrate that the international competitiveness of SMEs is highly dependent on the cumulative effects and interrelationship between two key internal components, i.e. R&D capacity and managerial structure and competencies, coupled with two external factors, i.e. open innovation practices and the ability of the firm to attract government grants for R&D and technological development.

Research limitations/implications

Owing to the size of the sample, it has not been possible to undertake research within the context of specific regional disparities and/or sectoral characteristics.

Practical implications

In order to achieve and sustain competitive advantage in today's global market, SMEs need to collaborate with universities and other firms to advance and commercialise their technologies through “open innovation”.

Originality/value

Results show that open innovation activities and their impact on the international competitiveness of SMEs are complex and multi‐faceted. Essentially, they are highly related to and dependent upon the cumulative effects of, and interrelationship between, several key internal and external factors. Such factors cannot be fully explored through qualitative approaches as they require more complex and rigorous statistical analyses.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 16 July 2019

Pegah Yaghmaie and Wim Vanhaverbeke

Innovation ecosystems have not been defined univocally. The authors compare the different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature, the link with open…

Abstract

Purpose

Innovation ecosystems have not been defined univocally. The authors compare the different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature, the link with open innovation, the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, and the need to orchestrate them properly. In this way, the purpose of this paper is to provide a highly needed, concise overview of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking.

Design/methodology/approach

A systematic screening of the literature searching for publications focusing on innovation ecosystems is carried out in the paper. The authors found 30 publications and compared the different approaches to innovation ecosystems: the authors classify them according to industries, the level of analysis, their central focus on innovation ecosystems, whether frameworks are developed in the publications, the main actors, focus on SMEs or large companies, the success of innovation ecosystems and the role of the orchestrator.

Findings

The authors found different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature. Some papers look at the link with open innovation, and others at the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, the role of orchestrators, etc. The authors also provide an overview about the industries, the level of analysis, the central focus of the research, the main actors in the networks and the success factors. The authors observe that most publications have been written in Europe and apply to European ecosystems. The approach in Europe is, to some extent, also different from the main focus of leading American scholars.

Research limitations/implications

The authors compare different approaches to innovation ecosystems. This provides a highly needed understanding of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking. There are some limitations as well: the paper only does a literature review, and the authors are not developing a new framework to study innovation ecosystems.

Practical implications

The literature overview is not primarily focused on practitioners, but the tables in the paper provide a quick overview of good management practices for setting up and managing innovation ecosystems.

Social implications

Innovations ecosystems are, in some cases, established to solve major societal problems such as changes in healthcare, energy systems, etc. Therefore, they require the interaction between different types of partners including universities, research institutes and governmental agencies. Studying innovation ecosystems is crucial to facilitate social or societal changes.

Originality/value

The paper presents a highly needed overview of the literature about innovation ecosystems and a concise examination of the different aspects that are studied so far.

Details

EuroMed Journal of Business, vol. 15 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1450-2194

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 2 March 2012

Amy Muller, Nate Hutchins and Miguel Cardoso Pinto

While the open innovation concept proposed by Henry Chesbrough a decade ago has had some striking successes, the myriad options for engaging external partners can be

Abstract

Purpose

While the open innovation concept proposed by Henry Chesbrough a decade ago has had some striking successes, the myriad options for engaging external partners can be daunting, so leaders need a guide for getting started that matches the needs of their firm. This paper aims to address this issue.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper identifies that innovation processes involve three stages during which the business model elements are conceived and elaborated: idea‐generation, idea‐development, and commercialization. The question for leaders is: “In which of the three stages could your growth efforts benefit from an infusion of external ideas and expertise?”

Findings

The open‐innovation approach does not require a company to replace all its current research and development (R&D) efforts. But it does change the primary question leaders should be asking to “How can my company create significantly more value by leveraging external partners to bring many more innovations to market?”

Practical implications

The article shows executives how they can systematically assess an innovation process, understand where new venture business models are weakest, and select the points at which open innovation could add some needed spark.

Originality/value

The article leads executives through two‐step process for introducing a customized open innovation program: step one, assess where your company's innovation process would benefit from external input by using five key questions; and step two, learn how to manage external relationships.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 14 June 2013

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.

Design/methodology/approach

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Findings

Open innovation might well be a term that has only been with us since the beginning of the twenty‐first century, but the issues it raises have been with us as long as the market economy has existed. One of Henry W. Chesbrough's key observations, at the heart of his seminal 2003 work on the subject, was that “not all the smart people work for us”; external knowledge should be brought on board in order to maximize potential competitive advantage.

Practical implications

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.

Originality/value

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to‐digest format.

Details

Strategic Direction, vol. 29 no. 7
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0258-0543

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 30 October 2001

Abstract

Details

Comparative Studies of Technological Evolution
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84950-118-7

1 – 10 of 201