Open innovation deficiency: evidence on project abandonment and delay

While the concept of open innovation has drawn the attention of scholars and practitioners alike, it still remains difficult to capture it particularly in a quantitative, longitudinal setting where data about open innovation activities is largely absent. This impedes an adequate assessment of open innovations’ long-term implications for firms’ innovation and financial performance. While researchers have extensively examined the former link, the latter is controversially discussed against the backdrop of the costs and benefits of open innovation but remains largely unexplored. In this study, we develop and validate a longitudinal, text-based measure for firms’ open innovation activities, and probe related performance implications in a longitudinal, cross-industry setting. Combining machine-learning content analysis to create an open innovation dictionary, we analyze the 10-K annual reports of 8,491 publicly listed firms in the U.S. between 1994 and 2016. Our results support our theorizing that curvilinear relationships that take an inverted U-shape exist both between open innovation and innovation performance, and open innovation and financial performance.

Exploring the Scope of Open Innovation: A Bibliometric Review of a Decade of Research

The concept of open innovation has attracted considerable attention since Henry Chesbrough first coined it to capture the increasing reliance of firms on external sources of innovation. Although open innovation has flourished as a topic within innovation management research, it has also triggered debates about the coherence of the research endeavors pursued under this umbrella, including its theoretical foundations. In this paper, we aim to contribute to these debates through a bibliometric review of the first decade of open innovation research. We combine two techniques--bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis--to (1) visualize the network of publications that explicitly use the label `open innovation' and (2) to arrive at distinct clusters of thematically related publications. Our findings illustrate that open innovation research builds principally on four related streams of prior research, whilst the bibliographic network of open innovation research reveals that seven thematic clusters have been pursued persistently. While such persistence is undoubtedly useful to arrive at in-depth and robust insights, the observed patterns also signal the absence of new, emerging, themes. As such, `open innovation' might benefit from applying its own ideas: sourcing concepts and models from a broader range of theoretical perspectives as well as pursuing a broader range of topics might introduce dynamics resulting in more impact and proliferation.

The concept of open innovation, of which open source software is a well-cited example, has grown in popularity over the past decade. Firms engaged in open innovation leverage external knowledge to accelerate innovation and exploit innovation more effectively. One way in which firms can connect with external sources of knowledge is by participating in value networks with a multitude of external stakeholders. Nevertheless, there are few studies of open innovation value networks, with relatively little known about the characteristics that impact such networks. We seek to address this gap by exploring the networking arrangements of eight European firms that have a formal strategy around open source software (OSS). The findings reveal that firms selectively engage in two types of value networks in order to benefit from open collaboration and innovation – one a high-density network comprising a limited number of familiar partners, the other a low-density network comprising a larger number of often unknown partners. Additionally, these networks are influenced by certain characteristics such as the level of commitment, knowledge exchange, the alignment of objectives and governance.

Companies have historically invested in large research and development departments to drive innovation and provide sustainable growth. This model, however, is eroding due to a number of factors. What is emerging is a more open model, where companies recognize that not all good ideas will come from inside the organization and not all good ideas created within the organization can be successfully marketed internally. To date, Open Innovation concepts have been regarded as relevant primarily to ‘high-technology’ industries, with examples that include Lucent, 3Com, IBM, Intel and Millenium Pharmaceuticals. In this article, we identify organizations in industries outside ‘high technology’ that are early adopters of the concept. Our findings demonstrate that many Open Innovation concepts are already in use in a wide range of industries. We document practices that appear to assist organizations adopting these concepts, and discover that Open Innovation is not ipso facto a recipe for outsourcing R&D. We conclude that Open Innovation has utility as a paradigm for industrial innovation beyond high tech to more traditional and mature industries.

Open innovation (OI) is one of attractive concepts in innovation management literature. Many firms have been investing their resources and efforts into activities and development programs along with the OI concept to improve their innovation performance. The fundamental of OI concept relies on making the best usage of innovation through either integrating external complementary resources with internal ones or commercialising unused internal technologies to the market or both. Hence, the value creation and value capture in OI involve partnering firms with the perfect blend of complement traits and compatible ones. Given multiple choices of alliances in a technology market, managers are however vulnerable to a risk of selecting inappropriate partners especially external ones. The consequences possibly lead to unsmooth coordinations and failures in the OI activities and projects. Drawing on OI literature, this article presents the understanding of complementarity and compatibility dimensions and discusses the roles of managers in determining the appropriateness of external partners.

Industry 4.0 digital technologies in agribusiness will enable traditional farming systems to migrate to Agriculture 4.0. Open innovation emerges as an enabler for implementing these technologies and increased sector competitiveness. However, there are still doubts and questions about how technologies and open innovation relate to and will drive Agriculture 4.0. This study identified which digital technologies of Industry 4.0 have more adherence to agribusiness, what the barriers and facilitators for using these technologies are, and how open innovation can increase the competitiveness of agribusiness. The results show that of the Industry 4.0 technologies related to agribusiness, the Internet of Things (IoT) is the most prominent. The main barriers are the users’ need for more knowledge and advanced skills, which evidences the need for investment in training operators. Among the facilitators stand the pre-existence of several technologies, which bring with them already defined basic structures, control of the technology, and communication between systems. To overcome the barriers and enhance the migration to Agriculture 4.0, developing devices, tools, systems, software, and machines is essential. More stakeholders, managers, and practitioners may share such opportunities for innovation in agribusiness through the concept of Open Innovation. To benefit from it, facilitators, managers, and practitioners of agribusiness should search for alternatives for their problems with engineering solutions providers.

PurposeThe authors aim to investigate the concept of open innovation, identify different open innovation practices which help describe the continuum between closed and open innovation, and propose a framework that suggests an association between innovation contexts and practices.Design/methodology/approachThe authors first identify the variables to describe innovation contexts and practices. Such variables are developed based on the literature and on a previous paper by the same authors in 2011. Then, they establish an association between contexts and practices, and test it through cases drawn from the existing literature.FindingsThe paper proposes a detailed assessment of open innovation practices and suggests the association between each of them and diverse innovation contexts. A few case examples drawn from the literature prove coherent with the theoretical framework underlying the proposed association.Practical implicationsThe authors' results (and specifically the framework) enhance the organizations' awareness of the open innovation concept and the possible practices to implement it, as well as supporting managers to better select open innovation practices in different contexts.Originality/valueThis paper discusses the concept of open innovation practices to enhance the comprehension of the open innovation concept. Also, to the authors' knowledge, the proposed association between context and practices is original in that there are no similar theoretical frameworks that help organizations selecting innovation practices.

Open Innovation, Knowledge Flows and Intellectual Capital

Popularized in the early of 2000s, the concept of Open Innovation (OI) is a systematic process that instigates the circulation of ideas among different exploitation vectors focused on value creation. Over the past decade, the OI paradigm had a significant impact on the emergence of innovation networks and ecosystems. With the emergence of digital disruptive technologies, a new approach to OI has emerged -Open Innovation 2.0 (OI2) -incorporating technological, social, political, environmental dimensions, based on principles of integrated collaboration and co-created shared value, cultivating innovation ecosystems, unleashing the power of exponential technologies, with extraordinarily rapid adoption. This article will begin by explaining the evolution from IO to IO2. Key incentives, risks and costs associated with this new strategic approach to innovation will also be identified, as well as, the factors and the conditions of success that lead companies to formulate OI2 strategies starting from OI. This study will culminate in the identification of some initiatives developed in Portugal that are contributing to this transition. The analysis carried out will show that OI2 is not a panacea that can solve any challenge, but help drive significant structural changes and benefits through innovation to society and industry.

This paper first explains and demonstrates the emergence of open innovation. We also show the structure of open innovation among manufacturing firms and service firms. Last, we show the four factors of open innovation of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Third, we look into the open innovation of small and medium enterprises. Fourth, we examine the difference in open innovation according to the product life cycle. Fifth, we analyze the role of internal open innovation attitude regarding external open innovation. Sixth, we talk about the difference in open innovation according to whether a firm is modular or not. Seventh and last, we discuss the difference in open innovation according to regional innovation systems or clusters.

The concept of open innovation has successfully diffused among academicians and policy makers, framing innovation work in the post-bureaucratic era. Much of its initial theorising is built on single case studies of early adopters, but there is still a lack of quantitative studies in specific industries and geographical contingencies. In this paper, we report the results of a survey on open innovation (N = 114 firms), targeting the Swedish bio-pharmaceutical industry. The purpose is to shed light on how widespread the knowledge and practical utilisation of open innovation activities actually are in a particular industry. We find that very few respondents were aware of the open innovation concept, and also that open innovation related activities are, to a large extent, integrated within the ordinary innovation practices. At the same time, the application of open innovation activities relates to whether the firm has an innovation strategy, an own R&D department and has successfully launched innovations.

The development of digital technology has encouraged the adoption of Augmented Reality (AR) as a strategic innovation in various industries, but its application in Indonesia remains limited due to low awareness and a lack of an integrated innovation strategy. This research aims to develop a strategy to strengthen AR technology through the integration of the Stimuli-Organism-Response (SOR) model, the concept of Open Innovation (OI), and Organizational Performance (OP), with a case study on PT. X in the city of Bandung. A mixed methods approach was applied, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis using the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) method to determine the priority of the strategy, as well as Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the relationships between variables. The results showed that stimuli in the form of interactivity, augmentation, and AR aesthetics had a significant influence on internal organizational factors (organisms) and subsequently affected user behavioral responses, including reuse intentions. Meanwhile, open innovation plays an important role in strengthening organizational competitiveness through external collaboration, with inbound innovation being the most dominant factor. The research also resulted in three main strategies: improving interactive features and user experience, developing high-quality visual content, and strengthening collaborative networks through open innovation. The integration of SOR, OI, and OP models has proven effective in shaping a holistic, data-driven AR development strategy. The conclusion states that this approach can increase the adoption of digital technology and make a real contribution to organizational performance and digital economic growth in Indonesia.

Kari Karkkainen reviews Thoughts on Open Innovation (ed. Shane Coughlan, 2013) which is a collection of essays discussing various topics around the concept of Open Innovation.

Although sustainability is a key concern in today’s world, more efforts towards achieving sustainability are needed. User inclusion in the information system design process could enhance the outcome of a system’s action towards sustainability. It is, however, important to understand the design procedure of a system to achieve such goals. A framework denominating as the inclusive innovation framework presented in this paper incorporated analyses from open innovation, universal design, and sustainability to motivate the initiation of internal and external driving factors towards sustainability goals. The derived framework could promote the information system’s enabled sustainable goals by combining the use of universal design principles and the concept of open innovation. A requirement engineering model was also proposed that was interoperable within the three subjects of interest discussed in the paper and was necessary for understanding the application of an inclusive innovation framework. Two use cases were then presented as an illustration for arguing the validation of the proposed inclusive innovation framework. The findings from the use cases indicated that the use of universal design principles along with an open innovation concept could increase information systems’ enabled sustainability goals. This could be done by enhancing a system’s successfulness along with the increased user satisfaction.