Open Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and Divergence

Almirall, Esteve; Casadesus-Masanell, Ramón

doi:10.5465/amr.35.1.zok27

Cited by 138 publications

(214 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

208

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Greenstein (1996) has noted that openness in the aerospace industry increases costs because it requires the cooperation of multiple suppliers in a complementary configuration. Almirall and Casadesus-Masanell (2010) also concluded that openness has drawbacks, which they even quantify as a divergence cost, suggesting that when a product or system is opened to outside actors, control over design and development of the technology is weakened. These themes all point in the direction of closure.…”

Section: Open and Closed Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the “paradox of openness” in energy and transport innovation: Insights from eight corporate clean technology research and development case studies

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Using an inductive case study approach drawn from original interview data, this article investigates the innovation approaches among a sample of international energy companies, or corporate firms. It first presents a conceptual framework synthesized from the business studies, entrepreneurship, evolutionary economics, innovation studies, management science, organization studies, political science, and sociology literature. This framework suggests that corporate approaches to clean technology innovation will cut across the four dimensions of organizational multiplicity and stakeholder involvement, information sharing, coordination and control, and market orientation. It then explores how eight firms-the Algal Carbon Conversion Flagship and Aurora Algae (biofuel), DONG and Statoil (carbon capture and storage), Tesla and Volkswagen (electric vehicles), and Siemens and Vestas (offshore wind turbines)-approach clean technology development with "open innovation" attributes mixed with "closed" attributes. Although the study finds striking similarities among the particular approaches embraced by each corporate actor, it also notes that approaches are technology and firm specific, and the potential for different permutations leads to an almost endless number of possible stylistic combinations. The innovation profiles depicted also reveal conflict and competition among various stakeholders, the implication being that corporate innovation in the energy sector remains a conflicted, disjointed, and messy process.

show abstract

Section: Open and Closed Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the “paradox of openness” in energy and transport innovation: Insights from eight corporate clean technology research and development case studies

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The knowledge coming into the firm from highly embedded IFRs is likely redundant, so it may serve to distract and overwhelm the innovating firm's internal effort, rather than add strength or resources [2]. The firm tries to use its R&D expertise and knowledge to drive innovation but is significantly hindered by the lack of unique information flowing into its structural boundaries.…”

Section: Moderating Role Of Randd Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The firm tries to use its R&D expertise and knowledge to drive innovation but is significantly hindered by the lack of unique information flowing into its structural boundaries. Research suggests that highly embedded relationships can derail a technology development trajectory by limiting creativity and restricting access to fresh ideas [2]. This benefit, coupled with the firm's struggle to sort out and evaluate knowledge redundancy from the same highly embedded IFRs, combines to hinder firm platform innovation.…”

Section: Moderating Role Of Randd Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the firm resides in the middle of the information flows, it must balance its role as an influencer (or controller) with its role as a motivator. Control over information flows has advantages in an efficient NPD process (e.g., [2]). Marketing managers should encourage IFR partners to communicate freely with one another and with other parties outside the IFR, placing their own firm at the information center.…”

Section: Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interfirm Relational Strategies and Innovation: the Role of Interfirm Relational Traits and Firm Resources

Yim¹,

Josephson

Johnson

et al. 2015

Cust. Need. and Solut.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on relational and resource-based perspectives, this article investigates the indirect effect of interfirm relational strategies (relational proclivity and capability) on firm platform innovation, through their association with key interfirm relational traits (information flows and relational embeddedness). Given differences in firm usage and deployment of resources, the authors examine the moderating effects of two firm-level strategic levers critical to the innovation process: marketing intensity and R&D intensity. The test of this conceptual model uses primary and secondary data from 237 firms operating in high-tech industries. The results indicate that relational proclivity and capability positively influence interfirm relationship traits of information flows and relational embeddedness. These traits then have profound effects on firm platform innovation. In terms of moderation, the authors demonstrate that marketing intensity improves the ability of relational embeddedness to enhance platform innovation, whereas R&D intensity improves the ability of information flows to enhance platform innovation. The authors conclude with implications for marketing theory and practice.

show abstract

“…Further, Almirall and Casadesus-Masanell (2010) suggest that an open approach to innovation, which might include markets for inventions, can allow firms to discover new combinations of product features that would be less likely to emerge if R&D efforts were 'closed'. However, this beneficial effect comes with the drawback of reducing the possibility of firms controlling the trajectory of their innovation processes.…”

Section: Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Markets for Inventions and Implications for R&D Allocation Strategies

Conti

Gambardella

Novelli

2013

ANNALS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. is, the trade of elements of knowledge which are 'disembodied' from individuals, organizations and products. The aims of this paper are to bring together the various streams of research in this area and discuss their major assumptions and limitations, in order to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the phenomenon, and identify promising paths for future research. We start our review by identifying the object of market exchange -that is, an invention whose knowledge has been codified and disembodied from individuals, organizations or artifacts. We then identify those factors that enable firms to trade inventions, distinguishing between institutional-, firm-, and industry-level factors. We close our analysis of the extant literature by discussing the implications of markets for inventions for firm behavior and performance. Against this background, we highlight an important avenue for future research. A neglected implication of the development of invention markets is that firms are confronted with a wide variety of technological paths from which to choose, because the opportunity to acquire technologies on the market offers them a greater variety that can their internal R&D departments. However, the streams of research on markets for inventions and on R&D allocation strategies have been surprisingly disconnected so far. Hence, in the final section, we start to establish and explore the link between these literatures, and to identify a research agenda in this domain. Permanent repository link3

show abstract

Open Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and Divergence

Cited by 138 publications

References 33 publications

Navigating the “paradox of openness” in energy and transport innovation: Insights from eight corporate clean technology research and development case studies

Navigating the “paradox of openness” in energy and transport innovation: Insights from eight corporate clean technology research and development case studies

Interfirm Relational Strategies and Innovation: the Role of Interfirm Relational Traits and Firm Resources

Research on Markets for Inventions and Implications for R&D Allocation Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About