Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the relational dynamics for innovation and, in particular, the impact of the openness of innovation process on the innovation capacity of organisations in restricted geographical contexts.Design/methodology/approachThrough a negative binomial regression, the work analyses how the characteristics of the openness of the organisation’s innovation process in the period 2004-2010 influence the firm’s patent productivity in the following period (2011-2016).FindingsThe breadth of the open innovation (OI) process, here measured by the number of external network ties that an organisation realises for the realisation of its patents, has a positive effect on patent productivity. The depth of the openness, that is, the intensity of external network ties, has an equally positive influence on the innovative performance. However, after a tipping point, the patent productivity tends to decrease, underlining the costs and problems of OI practices.Research limitations/implicationsThis study considers only patent collaborations in the city of Florence. Therefore, it focusses on codified innovations and on a single territorial case study.Practical implicationsThe results underline the importance of the adoption of OI practices in restricted geographical contexts (such as cities, clusters or industrial districts) but with several limitations. Only collaborating more with others does not foster the organisation’s invention productivity, but different types of evidence are found here.Originality/valueAn original database has been created, containing all the information on patents realised in the area of Florence from 2004 until 2016, and a social networks analysis was applied to identify the local innovation networks.
Highlights
In the early 2000s, Chesbrough (2003) coined the term open innovation (OI) to highlight the growing relevance of opening up the innovation development process outside a firm’s normal boundaries. Chesbrough (2006) defined OI as:© Francesco Capone and Niccolò Innocenti
We conducted a likelihood ratio test, as reported at the bottom of each model; these tests clearly indicated the negative binomial regression (NBR) may be expected to perform better than the Poisson estimator (Greene, 2003)
The first hypothesis is the only one not confirmed, indicating that just collaborating with others when producing a patent is negatively correlated with the invention productivity of the organisation
Summary
In the early 2000s, Chesbrough (2003) coined the term open innovation (OI) to highlight the growing relevance of opening up the innovation development process outside a firm’s normal boundaries. Chesbrough (2006) defined OI as:© Francesco Capone and Niccolò Innocenti. In the early 2000s, Chesbrough (2003) coined the term open innovation (OI) to highlight the growing relevance of opening up the innovation development process outside a firm’s normal boundaries. Chesbrough (2006) defined OI as:. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
