Fast-connecting search practices: On the role of open innovation intermediary to accelerate the absorptive capacity

Kokshagina, Olga; Masson, Pascal Le; Bories, Florent

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.009

Cited by 57 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The internal effort required to recognize, assimilate and exploit external knowledge represents a firm's absorptive capacity; largely considered a function of the firm's level of prior related knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990;Spithoven et al, 2010;Patterson and Ambrosini, 2015;Saemundsson and Candi, 2017). When the absorptive capacity is absent internally, companies usually rely on an OI intermediary that is capable of developing its potential absorptive capacity (Kokshagina et al, 2017;Lin et al, 2020). This allows firms to access distant knowledge in a faster and more organized way (Howells, 2006), source knowledge from external actors outside their traditional links (Billington and Davidson, 2013), and organize search activities (Agogu e et al, 2017).…”

Section: Identification Of Future Research Avenuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The past, present and future of open innovation

Bigliardi

Ferraro

Filippelli

et al. 2020

EJIM

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThrough a comprehensive review of the literature on open innovation (OI), this study aimed to achieve two objectives: (1) to identify the main thematic areas discussed in the past and track their evolution over time; and (2) to provide recommendations for future research avenues.Design/methodology/approachTo achieve the first objective, a method based on text mining was implemented, with the analysis focusing on 1,772 journal articles published between 2003 and 2018. For the second objective, a review based on recent and relevant papers was conducted for each thematic area.FindingsThe paper identified nine thematic areas explored in existing research: (1) context-dependency of OI, (2) collaborative frameworks, (3) organizational dimensions of OI, (4) performance and OI, (5) external search for OI, (6) OI in small and medium-sized enterprises, (7) OI in the pharmaceutical industry, (8) OI and intellectual property rights, and (9) technology. The analysis of the most recent papers belonging to the more investigated areas offers suitable suggestions for future research avenues.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, no review has yet been undertaken to reorganize the OI literature.

show abstract

Section: Identification Of Future Research Avenuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The past, present and future of open innovation

Bigliardi

Ferraro

Filippelli

et al. 2020

EJIM

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some of these research projects have engaged with very similar empirical situations to those initially described by Chesbrough (2003), others have engaged with considerably different types of organisations, actors, and products. For example, scholars began to describe the platform-mediated crowdsourcing of ideas as a form of open innovation (Ebner et al, 2009), to analyse open innovation intermediary organisations that link firms with crowds (Kokshagina et al, 2017;Randhawa et al, 2017), or use open innovation as a reference when describing how government agencies allow citizens to provide feedback on the design of public services (Heimstädt & Reischauer, 2019;Mergel & Desouza, 2013). As described above, most recently scholars have argued that the production of scientific knowledge can be understood through the concept of open innovation as well (Beck et al, 2020).…”

Section: Openness In Innovation: Analytic and Flexiblementioning

confidence: 99%

The odd couple: contrasting openness in innovation and science

Heimstädt

Friesike

2020

Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last few decades, two domains have undergone seemingly similar transformations: Closed innovation turned into open innovation, closed science into open science. In this essay we engage critically with recent calls for a close coupling of the two domains based on their apparent commonality: openness. Comparing the historically-specific ways in which openness has been defined and mobilised, we find substantial differences between open innovation and open science. While openness in innovation was developed as an analytic concept and redefined quite flexibly over time, openness in science was created as a programmatic concept and its initial definition has been preserved rather rigidly. Contrasting openness in innovation and science helps anticipate some of the unintended consequences that a close coupling of these domains might yield. A close coupling might alienate advocates for change within the academic community, marginalise maintenanceoriented collaborations between science and practice, and increase the dependence of science on profit-oriented platforms. Reflecting upon these unintended consequences can help policy-makers and researchers to fine-tune their concepts for new forms of engagement across the science-practice divide.

show abstract

“…Such detailed framing is also apparent in some policy contributions (Bendis et al 2008 ). Though recent empirical work on innovation intermediation on the basis of platforms transcends this compartmentalisation (Hossain 2017 ; Kokshagina and Masson 2015 ), they focus more on processes behind the operation of platform-based intermediation than on their effects as interventions in innovation systems supporting open innovation.…”

Section: Unit Of Analysis: Geographically-bound Sectoral Systems Of Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lot of interest has been expressed in understanding the systemic role of intermediaries in supporting innovation processes (Dosi et al 2006 ; Duff 1996 ; Green et al 1999 ; Ngwenya and Hagmann 2011 ; Smits and Kuhlmann 2004 ). In addition, a significant body of literature has emerged about innovation intermediation with specific reference to Open Innovation (Antikaninen et al 2009 ; Chesbrough 2006 ; Katzy et al 2013 ; Kokshagina and Masson 2015 ) and innovation systems (Kerry and Danson 2016 ; Klerkx et al 2015 ; Nilsson and Sia-Ljungström 2013 ).…”

Section: Innovation Intermediariesmentioning

confidence: 99%