Open Innovation Framework Research Articles

A CONTINGENT PERSPECTIVE OF OPEN INNOVATION IN NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Studies of open innovation are predominantly concerned with firm-level strategy development. The result is that the literature has largely ignored the multiple contingencies that influence the implementation of an open strategy at the level of the NPD project. In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework of inbound open innovation at the NPD project level to assess factors that help determine the degree of openness along three dimensions. We argue that the margin of managerial action is not only constrained to the decision to open up the NPD project to a wide range of different types of external parties (breadth dimension), but that it is equally important to consider the depth of the relationships with different types of external parties (depth dimension) and the balance between the development of new and longstanding relationships (ambidexterity dimension). The calibration of these three dimensions represents the levers when managing an inbound open innovation strategy during an NPD project. Finally, we identify a range of contingencies, which potentially have a bearing on the appropriate calibration of the breadth, depth and ambidexterity dimensions of an open innovation strategy. We argue that appropriate calibration of the three dimensions of inbound open innovation is determined by the type of innovation (radical versus incremental), product complexity (discrete versus complex) and the appropriability regime (tight versus weak).

Catching Up: The Role of State Science and Technology Policy in Open Innovation

This article examines the impact of the emerging model of open innovation on state public policy, particularly the practice of technology-based economic development in weak research and development (R&D) states. Open innovation describes the nascent practice of firms using knowledge created outside their boundaries and also marketing ideas they would not commercialize themselves. Firms engaging in open innovation thrive on knowledge spillovers, and weak R&D regions could benefit from this model through the creation of Marshallian externalities. It is therefore interesting to ask whether weak R&D states take advantage of this model. This case study analysis shows that states involved in the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research partially support the emerging open innovation paradigm. All states have science and technology strategies and actively support and invest in their higher education infrastructure. They show variation in their support for university—industry partnerships, entrepreneurship, capital access, commercialization, and technology transfer. None of the states, however, uses the open innovation framework explicitly.

E‐GOVERNMENT SERVICE INNOVATION IN THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM

The paper features an original case study of integration of the Scottish criminal justice information systems, charting the ten‐year history of the project. After briefing referencing international e‐government experience, it critically assesses e‐government in the UK, arguing that following an auspicious start laying infrastructure, e‐government now focuses on cost‐saving process improvements and is less successful at inter‐organisational integration and citizen interactions, responding poorly to the challenges of interactive Internet (Web2) and service interoperability. Surveying literature on the use of project management techniques, it argues that popular e‐government tools prescribe closed innovation when more open innovation frameworks (Chesbrough, 2006) may be appropriate to e‐government. Two themes emerge: that the nature of e‐government project management is closed rather than open and secondly, that e‐government is often inadequately conceptualised in technical and organisational terms.

A Capability‐Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity

abstractWe merge research into knowledge management, absorptive capacity, and dynamic capabilities to arrive at an integrative perspective, which considers knowledge exploration, retention, and exploitation inside and outside a firm's boundaries. By complementing the concept of absorptive capacity, we advance towards a capability‐based framework for open innovation processes. We identify the following six ‘knowledge capacities’ as a firm's critical capabilities of managing internal and external knowledge in open innovation processes: inventive, absorptive, transformative, connective, innovative, and desorptive capacity. ‘Knowledge management capacity’ is a dynamic capability, which reconfigures and realigns the knowledge capacities. It refers to a firm's ability to successfully manage its knowledge base over time. The concept may be regarded as a framework for open innovation, as a complement to absorptive capacity, and as a move towards understanding dynamic capabilities for managing knowledge. On this basis, it contributes to explaining interfirm heterogeneity in knowledge and alliance strategies, organizational boundaries, and innovation performance.