Search results

The purpose of this paper is to uncover the mechanisms of organizations managing innovation outsourcing to business partners. In a business environment characterized by the development of deep, niche expertise in a particular domain, business partnerships can provide a source of innovative rejuvenation by outsourcing the innovation to business partners who have complementary skills and expertise. This paper addresses a critical challenge which the organizations are currently facing: how do you manage outsourcing of innovation to business partners effectively while maintaining your strategic competitiveness?

Exploratory multiple case studies of over 30 innovative European and US companies were done. It involved 50 semi‐structured interviews with senior executives from research and development, product management, information technology, and marketing.

The paper identifies three complementary models of managing outsourcing of innovation to business partner: acquisition, strategic alliances, and open source (OS). Based on these, a three‐dimensional “Co‐Innovation Space” is proposed that can help in analysis and planning of current and future innovation projects.

Although the research is carefully designed, it is an exploratory study and has the limitation of generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, findings from multiple case studies from diverse organizations shed a light to current innovation and strategic alliance literature.

Partnerships can open the door to multiple knowledge sources. Accessing and integrating information from these sources can greatly enhance knowledge base of organizations and can help fuel sustainable innovation. The models proposed in this study provide a lens to examine existing innovation project portfolios and/or to plan for future innovation programmes.

This study is probably among few to study such a large, diversified, and geographically scattered group of organizations. Although exploratory and preliminary, this makes the findings of the study insightful.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), typically with limited resources, strive hard to obtain the trust of ecosystem participants as an orchestrator. Accordingly, the firms do not have sufficient legitimacy to persuade other parties to join their networks. This study aims to investigate how an SME operating in the publishing industry orchestrates ecosystem participants. In particular, the study analyzes how the orchestrating firm stimulates interactions among ecosystem participants.

Case study research with a qualitative approach has been documented as a well-accepted method for investigating complex phenomena and for theory building. Collected data from various informants and different collection techniques are triangulated to ensure validity. Cross-case analysis to identify common patterns is undertaken as the basis for developing a sound conclusion.

The study demonstrated what orchestrating firms should do to foster innovations and how they benefit from other participants in the ecosystem. The analysis identified the orchestrator's four roles: entrepreneurship networks, knowledge activation, innovation intermediary and network leadership. Among the four roles, there are interrelationships, and to some degree, these overlap. The orchestrating firm must emerge into the ecosystem and work together with all members of the ecosystem. Managers of the orchestrating firm and network members should collaborate to find the most beneficial configuration for all ecosystem participants.

This research is limited to the knowledge-intensive publishing industry. The use of specific industries closely related to innovation provides an advantage in the way that enables researchers to conduct depth analysis, but at the expense of generalizability, and therefore, future research can analyze different industries.

This study focuses on networks as the unit of analysis. Previous studies assumed individual firms as the unit of analysis and ignored the fact that companies interact with other companies when pursuing open innovation. The study focuses on the interactions between actors as the unit of analysis and on the role of orchestrators undertaken by an SME.

Small firms rely on a variety of network partners, and in various roles, to initiate and implement innovations. While past typologies of innovation networking were defined at the level of firms or industries, the purpose of this paper is to develop a typology at the level of innovation objects.

Drawing on survey data of 594 innovations in Dutch small firms, cluster analysis is applied to develop a typology of networking patterns for innovation in small firms.

In total, six patterns of innovation networking were identified: supplier‐based, customer‐based, informal‐based, bank/accountant‐based, science‐based and government‐based. The supplier‐based pattern is most dominant and characterized by modest and simple contributions from networking partners, while governments tend to be involved in innovations marked by voluminous and complex partner involvement. Validity of the typology is suggested by two findings: more voluminous and complex networking patterns are correlated with firms’ internal capabilities, and with the newness and competence requirements of innovations.

For practitioners the typology provides a more fine‐grained view on how innovations in small firms are developed. This includes the role of relatives and friends, bank and accountants, and remote partners such as governments – network partners which so far were not covered in typologies of innovation networking.

This paper aims to understand how international interorganizational relationships (IORs) impact the organizational creativity of a local partner in an emerging country, and how the creative capacities of emerging countries firms are developing.

The study is exploratory and qualitative, based on five IORs between European multinational corporations (MNCs) and Tunisian firms operating in the consumer goods sector analyzed using the Gioia method.

The results show that it seems necessary for firms in emerging countries first to be legitimate, then to have dynamic capacities (learning capacities in particular), and that they know how to develop an innovation strategy and implement it concretely. The authors highlight three different organizational mechanisms. The first concerns analyzing the legitimacy of the local partner to engage in an innovation process based on its distinctive capacities and formalization of procedures. The second involves building dynamic capabilities, especially technological and managerial skills, in order to meet the challenges of the growing collaboration between the partners and to expand their mandate. The third deals with implementing an innovation strategy on two fronts: trust between partners and sustainable innovation.

The contributions focus on the international dimension of the IORs' impact on creativity and the role of the local partner's creative capacities. The work highlights to what extent “techno-centric” creativity plays a role in the absorption capacity of local partners, as well as the level of assistance provided by MNCs for developing innovation in emerging countries' firms. Moreover, our results show that increasing awareness of ecological and responsible consumption is reorienting production patterns on both local and global scales and offers many benefits for local and multinational firms. The limitations concern the sample size, the narrow diversity of the sector and the lack of information regarding multinational firms.

The originality of this paper is to show the construction of the creative process at the level of the local partner, from the execution of a specification to the implementation of a sustainable innovation strategy.

The aim of this study is to (1) construct a standard framework for assessing the capability of bioenergy enterprises' digital green innovation partners; (2) quantify the choice of partners for digital green innovation by bioenergy enterprises; (3) propose based on a dual combination empowerment niche digital green innovation field model.

Fuzzy set theory is combined into field theory to investigate resource complementarity. The successful application of the model to a real case illustrates how the model can be used to address the problem of digital green innovation partner selection. Finally, the standard framework and digital green innovation field model can be applied to the practical partner selection of bioenergy enterprises.

Digital green innovation technology of superposition of complementarity, mutual trust and resources makes the digital green innovation knowledge from partners to biofuels in the enterprise. The index rating system included eight target layers: digital technology innovation level, bioenergy technology innovation level, bioenergy green level, aggregated digital green innovation resource level, bioenergy technology market development ability, co-operation mutual trust and cooperation aggregation degree.

This study helps to (1) construct the evaluation standard framework of digital green innovation capability based on the dual combination empowerment theory; (2) develop a new digital green innovation domain model for bioenergy enterprises to select digital green innovation partners; (3) assist bioenergy enterprises in implementing digital green innovation practices.

This study explores the influence of partner innovation in board interlock networks on a firm's innovation tendency.

This study collects a sample of publicly listed Chinese firms from 2008 to 2017 and uses fixed-effects ordinary least squares regressions to analyze the data.

This study shows that interlocking partners with different innovation levels than that of the focal firm affect its innovation tendency in distinct ways. For more innovative partners, the innovation level has a U-shaped effect on the focal firm's innovation tendency. In the case of less innovative partners, the innovation level facilitates the focal firm's innovation tendency.

Going beyond previous research that emphasized the role of interorganizational networks in facilitating firm innovation through a unitary learning effect, this study differentiates network partners into two categories based on their relative level of innovation compared with the focal firm and takes the hitchhiking effect into account to highlight potential obstacles in the learning process depending on the innovation conditions of partners. The study advances the literature on organizational learning, social networks and innovation.

Interorganizational collaboration has been a major source of exploratory innovation. Despite much research, the authors’ understanding about how partner cultural distance is harnessed for exploratory innovation is limited. The authors’ conceptual framework aims to address this gap by explaining the social-psychological processes between perceived partner cultural distance and exploratory innovation.

Drawing on research in organizational learning and culture mixing, the authors propose a multilevel model with two parallel processes – cultural brokering and cultural defense. If managers are engaged in the former and are protected from the latter, then the partnership will produce more exploratory innovation. Cultural brokering is encouraged by prompting a learning mindset, while cultural defense is preempted by dampening social categorization across organizational boundaries.

Cultural brokering can be encouraged by building operational-level managers' (OLMs') collaborative strength through developing a learning orientation, allowing them delivery for exploration, cultivating mutual trust with partners. Cultural defense can be preempted by protecting OLMs from intergroup anxieties through providing organizational support to the OLMs, bridging social categorization faultlines and setting shared collaborative goals. Whether an alliance can unleash its potential depends on not just how cultural brokering is enabled but also how cultural defense is curtailed.

This paper takes a microfoundational approach and considers micro-level processes in a partnership. Furthermore, the model takes the operational managers' perspective and defines culture at the organizational level. All these differences allow us to provide a nuanced picture of how diverse partnerships can be harnessed for exploratory innovation through a few easily-implementable measures.

The purpose of this study is to shed further light on determinants of the openness degree to give a more conclusive evidence to the research in the field. In particular, the influence exerted by the technological strategy is still debated, in that evidence on the relationship between the technological strategy and openness is conflicting.

The authors put forward a structural equation model which enriches the state-of-the-art literature by explicitly testing the interplay among technological strategy, openness (innovatively measured in terms of partner intensity, phase intensity and variety in terms of partners, phases and contents) and innovation performance. Our study relies on data from 415 firms based on a research survey developed in Finland, Italy and Sweden.

Findings show that openness, if measured in terms of partner intensity and phase intensity, fully mediates the relationship between technological strategy and innovation performance, by suggesting that the effectiveness of a firm’s technologically aggressive behavior is strongly related to the intensification of collaboration with the partners along the innovation funnel. Conversely, openness variety seems to play an opposite role and is influenced differently by partner and phase intensity. This result likely emphasizes how the cost-side of open behavior becomes harder to manage, and thus costly, when it involves too many different types of partners, phases and contents.

Firms that adopt a technologically aggressive strategy are recommended to deeply open their innovation process to foster innovation performance. However, because of the fact that a high level of openness variety could generate some drawbacks, managers should be very careful in the management of different phases, sources and content. Therefore, what clearly emerges is a call to find adequate strategies for effectively managing the collaboration process to avoid the waste of resources and initiatives.

Originality and the value of the paper reside in a more fine-grained definition of the openness concept, which takes into consideration other facets of openness compared to those usually analyzed in the literature, and a powerful statistical model, such as structural equation modeling, offering great advantages and flexibility in matching the theoretical model with the data.

While co-innovation with third parties (e.g. customer or supplier) has been widely documented, the literature seems to pay scant attention on co-innovation with business partners. Building on the resource dependence theory (RDT) and the input-process-output model, the purpose of this paper is to examine how four criteria of business partner selection affect service delivery co-innovation, which, in turn, influences firms’ competitive advantage.

A mail survey was sent to 600 IT service firms in Taiwan, the target respondents being senior marketing managers in charge of collaborative new service development. A total of 120 usable questionnaires were collected, for a response rate of 20 percent.

The findings support the argument that all four criteria of business partner selection have positive relationships with service delivery co-innovation. Meanwhile, adopting these criteria, firms’ service delivery co-innovation is able to create superior competitive advantage.

The findings enrich the existing literature by proposing and empirically confirming that the use of appropriate criteria to select business partners enhances the effectiveness of firms’ service delivery co-innovation and competitive advantage.

Managers must be aware of the criteria to select their business partners, in terms of developing service delivery co-innovation.

This study adds to the service innovation literature by providing support for the RDT that partner reliability, partner complementarity, partner expertise, and partner compatibility are important business partner selection criteria to create service delivery co-innovation and achieve firms’ competitive advantage.

In this paper, the authors investigate whether the location of interorganizational partners affects the outcomes of process innovation. Herein, the term partner location refers to multiple degrees of proximity or distance, including in the same national province or state, in other national provinces or states, in the same country and in foreign countries. The purpose of this paper is to show that partner location, whether domestic or foreign, depends on which partner an organization needs in order to advance its process innovation.

To test the hypotheses, the authors employed a panel data regression model to analyze data from 28 Brazilian business sectors from 2003 to 2014, all collected for PINTEC: The Brazilian Survey of Technological Innovation, representing a total of 107,854 companies.

The results show that cooperation is significant with both national and foreign partners, even though they bear different effects on the various degrees of innovativeness related to process innovation.

For managerial practice, the results corroborate that the choice of partners has to be strategic and take their location into account. In particular, practices at the domestic level with suppliers and vocational training centers are relevant to increasing innovation at the micro level. At the same time, for higher levels of innovation, managers should prioritize, within the limitations of existing resources, cooperation with universities, competitors and suppliers from abroad, especially in developed countries.

The main academic contribution of the study is the highlighting partner location (i.e. proximate or distant) as relevant to results of process innovation. Nevertheless, the authors determined that this process is heterogeneous, given the function of each partner and taking the different degrees of innovativeness into account.