Search results

This paper seeks to explore how market orientation facilitates the strategic flexibility of business models grounded in open innovation. The authors suggest that the new paradigm of open innovation may impact a firm's adaptability and responsiveness under conditions of environmental flux. However, extending innovation capacity by opening the innovation process poses major challenges for firms. The aims of this study are to explore the characteristics of open innovation activity and to contemplate the role of strategic flexibility in the design of business models based upon open innovation.

The study draws upon a qualitative research approach through a longitudinal case study in the field of open source software (OSS). The empirical case illustrates how an OSS firm utilizes signals in its environment to flexibly alter its business model.

A business model that embodies open innovation raises dilemmas between open and closed innovation paradigms. However, the authors' case highlights that an ambidextrous approach that combines market orientation with the principles of open innovation increases profitability, shortens time to market through effective market access, and enhances innovation capability.

The results have profound implications for industrial marketers, managers, management consultants and business educators. They can use the insights gleaned from this research to guide the development of business models that involve open innovation. The results indicate that firms involved in open innovation need reactive strategic flexibility to cope with the environmental diversity and variability. However, this study analyzes a single case in the field of OSS and one should be cautious when generalizing the findings.

This paper improves the understanding of the relationship between flexibility and market orientation. It combines two areas that have previously been discussed separately, i.e. market orientation and open innovation.

The purpose of this study is to figure out the factors for sustainable growth of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

In all, 27 SMEs in the area of IT (Information Technology) in Korea were analysed through interview method basically.

It is found that sustainable development of SMEs requires two kinds of open innovation which are knowledge strategy and business model. According to developing process, SMEs change their open innovation strategy in knowledge strategy and business model. The highest growth limit of SMEs depends on open innovation in knowledge strategy and business model in sequence from closed innovation in both, through open innovation in both, to open innovation in knowledge strategy and closed innovation in business model and to closed innovation in knowledge strategy and open innovation in business model.

First, the present study was conducted with IT sector SMEs in Korea. It is true that the IT sector is one of the most rapidly changing industrial sectors and is one of representative business types of SMEs in which manufacturing and service industries coexist and diverse sizes of SMEs exist (Malerba, 2002). Second, the present study relies on case study methods. It is true that case study is a method that gives excellent qualitative analysis in firm studies (Yin, 2008).

SMEs cannot survive if they do not accept open innovation in knowledge strategy and business model. SMEs that show absolute limitations in resources and manpower should absolutely implement open innovation strategies to secure more diverse resources from markets and external knowledge bases rather than preparing all resources and capabilities by themselves (Van de Vrande et al., 2009; Yun and Mohan, 2012a, 2012b).

SMEs should bear in mind the two different levels of open innovation, such as knowledge strategies and business models (Chesbrough, 2007; Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007).

SMEs should not confuse between temporally sustainable development and infinite sustainable development. Firms that take closed innovation strategies in both knowledge strategies and business models can also grow for some time. However, because of the deepening of knowledge-based economy, not only the amount of knowledge existing in the world and the speed of knowledge distribution increased but also the customers’ demands and expectations have been observed to increase in the market immediately through social networking sites (SNS), etc. (Yun and Ryu, 2012).

Many companies claim they are adopting an open approach to innovation, but each of them with its own way. This paper aims to explore the different models for opening up the innovation process adopted in practice.

The paper employs an extended survey among Italian manufacturing companies; cluster analysis; and ANOVA.

The study distinguishes four different open innovation models with respect to two variables, representing the degree of openness: the number and type of partners with whom the company collaborates (partner variety) and the number and type of phases of the innovation process actually open to external collaborations (innovation phase variety). They are: open innovators, closed innovators, integrated collaborators and specialised collaborators. The paper describes each cluster in terms of firm‐specific variables that characterize and support open innovation choices; finally, it tries to draw some tentative explanation of the influence of openness on the innovative performance of companies.

The number of respondents is still limited (i.e. about 100). Moreover, only the relationship between some firm‐specific factors and the degree of openness (defined specifically in terms of partner variety and phase variety) is studied: a wider investigation is recommended to include more contextual factors, i.e. external/environmental ones, or more variables that can help to define the openness degree.

The paper provides managerial implications because it suggests that open innovation is not an “on/off” choice, but it can be interpreted and adopted with different degrees, consistently with the company's specific context.

The paper introduces a new perspective that integrates both the number/typology of partners and the number/typology of phases, in order to understand if such a perspective can confirm the existence of different open innovation models.

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).

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

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.

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.

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”.

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.

Many companies claim they are adopting an open approach to innovation, but each of them with its own way. This paper aims to explore the different models for opening up the innovation process adopted in practice.

The paper utilises an extended survey among Italian manufacturing companies, cluster analysis and ANOVA.

The study distinguishes four different open innovation models with respect to two variables, representing the degree of openness: the number and type of partners with whom the company collaborates (partner variety), and the number and type of phases of the innovation process open to external collaborations (innovation phase variety). They are: open and closed innovators, integrated and specialized collaborators. The paper describes each cluster in terms of firm‐specific variables that characterize Open Innovation choices; at last, it tries to draw some tentative explanation of the influence of openness on the innovative performance of companies.

The number of respondents is still limited (about 100). Moreover, it studied only the relationship between some firm‐specific factors and the degree of openness (in terms of partner and phase variety): a wider investigation is recommended to include more variables to define the openness degree and more contextual factors.

The paper provides managerial implications because it suggests that open innovation is not an “on/off” choice, but it can be interpreted and adopted with different degrees, consistently with the company's specific context.

The paper introduces a new perspective that integrates the number/typology of both partners and phases, in order to understand if such perspective can confirm the existence of different open innovation models.

The paper aims to examine the influence of closed and open innovation practices on economic performance. This papert also examines the mediating roles of innovation performance and firm performance. The study uses innovation theory based on knowledge management for theoretical support.

The methodology involves two steps. First, all the variables relevant to the adoption of innovative approaches and performance parameters are identified. Subsequently, primary data are gathered from decision-makers of 200 biotechnological firms and a structural equation modeling analysis is performed.

The study's results showed that the open innovation practice, such as interaction with large research and development (R&D) firms and customers, influences the performance parameters. The findings indicate that closed and open innovation practices positively impact performance measures like innovation, firm and economic performance. The results also indicate the mediating role of firm performance. However, the innovation performance was not found to mediate the relationship.

This examination gives experimental bits of knowledge from any confining influence innovation approaches in India. Analysts and specialists of firms can use the results of the current study to comprehend the effect of various innovation practices on different performance measures.

Prior research on open innovation has not investigated changes in knowledge acquisition strategies of firms over time overlooking how learning from past knowledge acquisition can change subsequent search strategies. Also, prior research has focused principally on product innovation overlooking process innovation. The purpose of the paper is to introduce the concept of dynamic openness, which is defined as temporal changes in external knowledge search strategy. We explore four dynamic openness strategies – closing down, opening up, persistent open and persistent closed – and examine the impact of these strategies on both product and process innovation.

The authors used a panel dataset of 16,021 firms based on five waves (2009–2017) of the UK Community Innovation Survey (UKIS). All models are estimated using firm and year fixed effects (FE) method to control for endogeneity that arises from unobserved heterogeneity. Endogeneity and robustness tests were carried out to ensure the validity of results.

The results show that firms do use dynamic openness strategies over time leveraging learning from past searches. Specifically, the study indicates that closing down is not an effective strategy for either type of innovation. For process innovation, firms should pursue opening up strategy rather than persistent open strategy, whereas for product innovation firms could pursue either strategy, highlighting important contextual differences.

The paper contributes to the literature on knowledge acquisition in open innovation: (1) by theorizing the underlying reasons – learning from past collaborations, absorptive capacity and external knowledge heterogeneity – why firms pursue one dynamic openness strategy over another and (2) by extending literature by delineating the dynamic openness strategies that firms should pursue in process innovation vs product innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a comprehensive theoretical framework to explain the different diffusion dynamics of a technology realized under an open source (OS) regime vs a technology realized under a closed-proprietary (CP) regime.

Following a systematic combining approach, theoretical predictions derived from literature on diffusion of innovation and on open innovation were matched with empirical observations derived from a case study of two mobile operation systems, which were released under different technological regimes.

This paper proposes a theoretical framework and a set of original theoretical propositions that can help to explain the differences in the diffusion dynamics of technologies that are released under different regimes (i.e. CP vs OS).

This paper provides managers a better understanding of the diffusion dynamics of technologies released according to an open innovation strategy. In addition, the empirical case study improves the understanding of an important industry (the MOS industry) that has not been fully investigated from the innovation diffusion perspective. Nevertheless, the efficacy and generalizability of the theoretical framework proposed in this paper require future empirical tests.

This paper makes an original contribution to the open innovation and innovation diffusion literature by linking, in a conceptual model, three antecedents of the diffusion of a new technology that previous literature has considered only separately: the regime under which the technology is released (OS vs CP), the contingencies related to the characteristics of the technology and to the network of its adopters, and the resulting barriers to adoption.

Rapid advancements in blockchain technology transform various sectors, attracting the attention of industrialists, practitioners, policymakers and academics, and profoundly affect construction businesses through smart contracts and crypto-economics. This paper explores the blockchain innovation ecosystem in construction.

Through a qualitative study of 23 diverse interviewees, the study explores how open or closed the blockchain innovation ecosystem in construction is and who its emerging orchestrators are.

The data showed that construction aims towards an open innovation blockchain ecosystem, although there are elements of hybridisation and closedness, each system pointing out to different orchestrators.

The study has implications for governments and large companies in construction, showing that open innovation initiatives need to be encouraged by policymakers through rules, regulations and government-sponsored demonstrator projects.

The data showed that there is lack of readiness for business model change to support open innovation blockchain ecosystems in construction.

This is the first study applying the open innovation theory in the construction industry and sheds light into the phenomenon of blockchain, suggesting routes for further democratisation of the technology for policymakers and practitioners.

In organisational and innovation research, the term “open innovation” refers to the inflow and outflow of knowledge to and from organisations: with open innovation theory suggesting active exchanges of knowledge with external actors leads to the development of exploitable new ideas. In the field of education, however, the exchange of knowledge with external parties represents a paradigm shift. In response, this article presents findings from research design to explore the nature and composition of school innovation networks, and the effects of such these networks on knowledge mobilisation.

The study draws on data from a representative random sample of 411 German school leaders. Respondents were asked to detail their engagement in open and closed innovation activity and their school's external collaborations during the last 12 months. A latent class distal outcome model was developed to examine whether different types of collaboration associate with different knowledge mobilisation processes.

The study findings suggest that schools in Germany mainly use internal knowledge for innovation, with external knowledge exchange taking place on a very limited basis. Knowledge mobilisation varies depending on the innovation network. The authors use the findings to indicate new insights for how schools can further innovate learning and teaching in future.

Although there is increasing discussion on Professional Learning Networks in schools, the discourse on knowledge mobilisation within educational networks is limited, making concept of open innovation so far completely absent from discourses on school improvement. This paper initiates the population of this new research space.