IP Modularity: Profiting from Innovation by Aligning Product Architecture with Intellectual Property

Abstract

Firms seeking to take advantage of distributed innovation and outsourcing can bridge the tension between value creation and value capture by modifying the modular structure of their technical systems. Specifically, this article introduces the concept of “IP modularity,” which seeks to protect and capture value from intellectual property. The article defines what it means for a system to be “IP-modular,” illustrates the application of this concept in a number of practical situations, and presents a comprehensive framework that can be used to design and evaluate value capture strategies for modular systems.

The Role of Innovation Intermediaries in Firm‐Innovation Community Collaboration: Navigating the Membership Paradox

“…While a control bent may reduce external contributions (Krogh, Haefliger, Spaeth, and Wallin, 2012;West and O'Mahony, 2008) and lead to mundane, overcommercialized products (Jarvenpaa and Lang, 2011), an emphasis on openness can risk the generation of "missed" or even wasteful ideas (Dahlander and Magnusson, 2005;Piezunka and Dahlander, 2015). Moreover, it can make intellectual property difficult to protect and contributions difficult to appropriate (Henkel et al, 2013). For example, the Henkel anecdote illustrates Henkel's perceived dilemma of either supporting a wasteful-potentially harmful-design idea (i.e., encouraging people to eat detergent) or creating unintended community frustrations.…”

Convergent innovation for sustainable economic growth and affordable universal health care: innovating the way we innovate

“…Moving beyond viewing human development as a peripheral, corporate social‐responsibility (CSR) activity, private enterprises need to make it a core principle guiding their innovation and business strategy. We have seen this happen in pockets, as documented by the scholars studying innovation for the BoP markets . For instance, ITC, through its e‐Choupal initiative, has effectively sourced directly from the rural community.…”

Mission: Possible but Sensitive — Knowledge Protection Mechanisms Serving Different Purposes

“…On the other hand, it is difficult to see how tacitness would, by nature, improve knowledge sharing efficiency, but it surely can provide an innovating organisation with the needed protection against imitation (Szulanski, 2003;Zander and Kogut, 1995). However, at the same time it needs to be remembered, that different mechanisms can be used simultaneously, and/or to cover different parts of an innovation and the related knowledge (Henkel et al, 2013;Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen, 2007;James et al, 2013). Even the goals (imitation prevention, safe knowledge exchange, etc.)…”

“…Therefore, examination of different mechanisms and their uses in a same study could benefit both research and practice. In particular, the aspect of preventing imitation versus enabling safe knowledge transfer (e.g., Andries and Faems, 2013) H. Olander, P. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & M. Vanhala through strategic utilization of the different mechanisms and their specific features (see, e.g., Henkel et al, 2013) calls for deeper understanding. Managers have previously tended to look at intellectual property environment as well as the industry as something beyond their own control (Pisano and Teece, 2007).…”