From Closed to Open Innovation in Emerging Economies: Evidence from the Chemical Industry in Brazil

Thomas, Elisa

doi:10.22215/timreview/1144

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Spithoven et al (2013) and van de Vrande et al (2009) opine that SMEs, compelled by their lack of resources, depend more on OI even than large enterprises. Previous studies on SMEs’ OI have focused on issues like motives and drivers of SMEs’ OI adoption (Thomas, 2018; Scott and Chaston, 2013; van de Vrande et al , 2009; Lee et al , 2010), benefits of OI to SMEs (Dreimanis and Charalambous, 2017; Chesbrough et al , 2006; Lichtenthaler, 2008), internal business model dimensions of the concept (Chesbrough, 2003; West et al , 2006), to mention but a few, paying scant attention to issues such as the barriers to the SMEs OI adoption in emerging economies (Knudsen and Mortensen, 2011; Teirlinck and Spithoven, 2013; Verbano et al , 2015). Therefore, sufficient knowledge about SMEs’ barriers to OI is still measly in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the barriers to SMEs’ open innovation adoption in Ghana

Oduro

2020

IJIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Open innovation (OI) is now recognized as one essential innovation paradigm to help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) quell their liability of newness and smallness. However, little is known about SMEs’ OI barriers, particularly in emerging economies. Drawing on both network and transaction cost theory, this study aims to explore the barriers to SMEs’ OI adoption in Ghana. Design/methodology/approach The study adopted an exploratory sequential research design that involved both qualitative and quantitative study methodologies. A total of 644 responses (21 survey interviews and 623 usable questionnaires) across SMEs in Ghana were collected and analyzed in the study. A qualitative analysis involving quotations extracted from the respondent’s statement was used to present the qualitative findings, whereas SEM-partial least square, co-variance approach, was used to analyze the formulated hypotheses. Findings Results show that significant barriers to SMEs OI adoption are collaboration barriers – difficulty in finding the right partners and problems of cooperation and coordination of operational functions; organizational barriers – lack of flexible internal procedures and structures and organizational inertia; and strategic barriers – opportunistic behavior of partners and lack of strategic and resource fit. Contrary to existing findings, financial and knowledge barriers were disclosed as driving factors, rather than barriers, to SMEs’ OI adoption; these findings challenge conventional thinking about SMEs’ major OI barriers. Research limitations/implications This study focuses on only SMEs in one emerging economy, namely, Ghana, which may limit the generalization of the findings. Practical implications The findings of this study, while limited to Ghana, offer useful insights to SMEs managers, development practitioners and policymakers respecting the overall importance of the OI model, its associated impediments, as well as the strategic measures to quell those barriers. Originality/value This study provides a pioneering empirical investigation into the main barriers to SMEs’ OI adoption in a less-explored emerging market context through a mixed research approach.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the barriers to SMEs’ open innovation adoption in Ghana

Oduro

2020

IJIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…três deles (Leme et al, 2015;Moraes, de Oliveira e Miranda, 2016;da Silva et al, 2016) tratam inovação abertacomo a atual geração do processo de inovação nas organizações, que veio passando por uma sequencia de etapas de evolução ao longo do tempo até chegar neste estágio atual. dos outros dois autores que tratam dessa relação, um deles descreve inovação abertacomo uma prática da gestão da inovação (Ferrari, Scaliza e Jugend, 2019) e outro entende que inovação fechada e inovação abertasão práticas completamente distintas, que podem inclusive conviver simultaneamente dentro das organizações (Thomas, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

Gestão Da Inovação Aberta Nas Organizações Brasileiras

Silveira

Watté²,

Souza³

et al. 2020

Anais Do X Congresso Internacional De Conhecimento E Inovação (ciKi)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A inovação aberta tornou-se um dos temas mais importantes na gestão da inovação, entretanto ainda são obscuras as práticas de gestão mais eficazes no processo de inovação aberta nas organizações. Para isso a presente pesquisa busca por meio de uma revisão integrativa da literatura, entender o atual estágio de desenvolvimento da literatura científica sobre as melhores práticas de gestão de inovação aberta nas organizações brasileiras. A apresentação e discussão dos resultados do presente estudo foi conduzida a partir de quatro grandes linhas temáticas que foram comuns à maioria dos artigos selecionados.Sendo percebido que o principal benefício citado pelas organizações brasileiras, está relacionado a redução de custos de desenvolvimento de produtos, na medida em que os riscos são compartilhados.

show abstract

Science and Technology Parks as Innovation Intermediaries for Green Innovation

Hermann

Thomas

Pansera

2020

Engineering Assets and Public Infrastructures in the Age of Digitalization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses how science and technology parks (STPs) act as intermediaries for projects regarding green innovation. The empirical evidence is gathered through a case study of the City of Knowledge in Panama. For the recent Panama channel's expansion, local authorities faced the need to improve the water resource management to secure enough fresh water for the canal's operation. We inductively analysed data from 24 interviews, documents and participant observer. Preliminary results show the intermediation of STPs in green innovation processes in three phases: a first intermediation process is the STP as a hub for knowledge generation, including training for entrepreneurship. A second stage of the park as an innovation intermediary regards to an arena for knowledge and technology transfer, including collaboration with universities. A third phase implies financing and brokerage of green innovation between local and global actors. Our results challenge the existing literature about STPs with a narrow focus on economic spillover effects, or as hubs for attracting and developing cutting-edge technological innovations.

show abstract

From Closed to Open Innovation in Emerging Economies: Evidence from the Chemical Industry in Brazil

Cited by 8 publications

References 50 publications

Exploring the barriers to SMEs’ open innovation adoption in Ghana

Exploring the barriers to SMEs’ open innovation adoption in Ghana

Gestão Da Inovação Aberta Nas Organizações Brasileiras

Science and Technology Parks as Innovation Intermediaries for Green Innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About