In the present day markets, new product development and innovation are essential for value creation. Innovation, however, hardly provides benefits if rivals are able to copy it with little or no extra cost. Consequently, being able to build an appropriability regime that provides effective protection against imitation and enables getting returns on investments in innovation is necessary. The problem is that choosing the methods to protect different kinds of innovations is not straightforward. In this paper we study appropriating from radical and incremental innovations. It is widely known that many significant differences exist between the two innovation types, and the appropriability conditions are no exception. Empirical evidence on the topic is provided by analyzing survey data collected among 299 companies. As a result, the effects of environmental dynamism and research and development (R&D) intensity on radical and incremental innovation are illustrated, and knowledge is provided on the role of the appropriability regime in enhancing the potential to profit from radical and incremental innovations.
Given Chesbrough's idea of open innovation, it could be said that external knowledge is an important element in the optimisation of in-house innovation. External knowledge is distributed among various actors and is accessible through many channels. However, we still do not know much about the search strategies that affect innovation performance. Our study therefore explores the relationship between open knowledge search strategies and company-level innovative performance. This study examines the open search strategies of 193 firms on the basis of cross-sectional data from Finnish markets. We identified four specific strategies, namely (1) market-driven, (2) science-driven, (3) intermediary-driven and (4) generic-knowledge-driven. According to the results, all except intermediary-driven strategies positively affect innovation performance.
In the present day markets, new product development and innovation are essential for value creation. Innovation, however, hardly provides benefits if rivals are able to copy it with little or no extra cost. Consequently, being able to build an appropriability regime that provides effective protection against imitation and enables getting returns on investments in innovation is necessary. The problem is that choosing the methods to protect different kinds of innovations is not straightforward. In this paper we study appropriating from radical and incremental innovations. It is widely known that many significant differences exist between the two innovation types, and the appropriability conditions are no exception. Empirical evidence on the topic is provided by analyzing survey data collected among 299 companies. As a result, the effects of environmental dynamism and research and development (R&D) intensity on radical and incremental innovation are illustrated, and knowledge is provided on the role of the appropriability regime in enhancing the potential to profit from radical and incremental innovations.
Despite considerable progress in research related to network organizations in recent years, current understanding seems to be more concerned with the reasons why the network mode may be a superior mode of governance, but there is limited understanding of how networks are governed. This study contributes to narrowing this knowledge gap. Moreover, the article contributes to the debate over how networks are governed by identifying governance mechanisms for multi-party collaboration of public organizations. A qualitative methodology based on conversational interviews is used in the cross-case setting consisting of six non-profit multi-party networks including governmental, university and private organizations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.