PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of an open outside‐in innovation management strategy on companies' innovativeness and innovation performance. Specifically, it focuses on the adoption of the open innovation paradigm in practice and the extent of collaboration with different stakeholders.Design/methodology/approachThe proposed hypotheses are tested empirically using survey data collected from stock‐listed companies in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The data include the complete responses from 141 R&D managers for the period from 2004 to 2008.FindingsThe openness of the outside‐in process in R&D management is of crucial importance for achieving high direct and indirect innovation output effects. In particular, openness towards customers, suppliers and universities has a significant positive impact on the different innovation performance measures. Regarding openness towards cross‐sector companies, the analysis reveals a significant negative effect on innovation performance.Research limitations/implicationsThe utilization of cross‐sectional data and its dependency on the perceptions and experiences of the respondents has its limitations. Thus, future research should be based on a more longitudinal design that emphasizes quantitative measurement techniques.Originality/valueTo date, the adoption of open innovation in practice has not been examined in depth. This study provides empirical insights into the open innovation approaches in German‐speaking countries and, by drawing important conclusions for managers involved in the R&D processes, fills a gap in the innovation management literature.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of inside-out open innovation (as opposed to closed innovation) on firm innovation performance. Inside-out open innovation involves the exploitation of existing internal technologies through innovation and commercialization. Design/methodology/approach -Hypotheses are tested empirically using survey data collected from stock-listed companies in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The data include the complete responses from 141 R&D managers for the period from 2004 to 2008. Findings -The results reveal that companies that emphasize inside-out open innovation are more likely to create radical innovations and tend to sell a greater number of new products. Companies pursuing closed innovation are more likely to exhibit a higher incremental product innovation performance.Research limitations/implications -The cross-sectional data approach and its dependency on the perceptions and experiences of the respondents has its limitations. Future research should extend the focus and concept of this study and explore additional closed and open innovation strategies. Originality/value -The adoption of open innovation in practice has not been examined in depth. This study provides empirical insights into the open innovation approaches in German-speaking countries and, by drawing important conclusions and implications for managers involved in the R&D processes, fills a gap in the innovation management literature.

This study investigates the efficacy of public RD support. Compared to most existing studies, we do not stop at substitution effects or general innovation outcome measures, but we are interested in knowing where the policy effect is highest: on innovation close to the market (i.e. incremental innovation) or on innovation that is still far from the market and hence more risky and radical. Using firm level data from the period 1999 to 2011, we find that the policy hits where the market failure is highest, that is, for radical innovation. Taking into account that the Swiss funding agency encourages collaboration, we find no evidence that the impact of the policy is positively effected by various RD collaboration patterns. AbstractThis study investigates the efficacy of public R&D support. Compared to most existing studies, we do not stop at substitution effects or general innovation outcome measures, but we are interested in knowing where the policy effect is highest: on innovation close to the market (i.e. incremental innovation) or on innovation that is still far from the market and hence more risky and radical. Using firm level data from the period 1999 to 2011, we find that the policy hits where the market failure is highest, that is, for radical innovation. Taking into account that the Swiss funding agency encourages collaboration, we find no evidence that the impact of the policy is positively effected by various R&D collaboration patterns.

Innovations are rarely generated in complete isolation. Due to the inherent uncertainty, the manifold underlying knowledge base and high financial investments, firms seek to integrate external partners for the generation of new products and processes. However there is an ongoing debate whether firms, which develop their innovations in close cooperation with external partners, such as suppliers, customers and governmental research institutions, can benefit with respect to innovation performance in contrast to firms which cooperate less. This paper aims at investigating how diversity in cooperation partners effects the firms' output innovation performance in terms of generated sales with innovative products. To address this question the authors analyze a large-scale sample of microdata from Swiss firms derived from four waves (1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008) of the Swiss innovation survey data according to the European Community Innovation Survey, applying a panel data analysis. The findings suggest, that firms with a higher diversity in cooperation partners could benefit in generating new product innovations.