The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to investigate the paradox that arises when firms simultaneously share and protect their knowledge in an alliance with other organizations. The goal of this paper therefore is to explore this tension field in such a coupled open innovation process and to identify which strategies can be developed to cope with this tension. Design/methodology/approach -The study was initially guided by a literature review and exploratory interviews, and it ultimately develops an inductive framework based on a multiple case study approach. The paper presents eight cases of a focal firm involved in a particular R&D collaboration. The case studies are based on a variety of data sources, including a number of semi-structured interviews. Findings -This paper unravels the tension field of knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations, with the knowledge characteristics at the core and with the knowledge embodiment and relational dimension as mediating factors. These forces are in turn influenced by the collaboration characteristics and environment. Moreover, the case studies show different ways to cope with the tension between knowledge sharing and protection, such as an open knowledge exchange strategy and a layered collaboration scheme with inner and outer members. Licensing is moreover presented as a concrete way to implement such coping strategies. Originality/value -This paper provides an holistic perspective on the knowledge paradox in R&D collaborations as a coupled process of open innovation. Moreover, it describes two concrete strategies to cope with the tension field as well as the role and implications of licensing as a particular mechanism to overcome the open innovation paradox.

Typology and Success Factors of Collaboration for Sustainable Growth in the IT Service Industry

“…Integration through an information system [41] Geographical Similarity Possibility of collaboration increases when partners are geographically more close [41] Knowledge management system Knowledge management system, including knowledge asset management [38] Characteristics of collaboration Collaboration Culture Fair collaborative atmosphere that enables partners to overcome differences between them [29,36,[42][43][44] Confidence -Perception that the partner will be honest. -Belief that the core competence will not leak out through collaboration.…”

“…The variables in the planning stage include cooperation role and responsibility (R&R) methods of work and performance allocation, and geographical similarity [28,38,39,41]. The next category, the "doing" phase, consists of two variables: mutual trust and partner characteristic [16,29,40,41,44,49,51]. In the social sciences, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of more than 0.6 is considered to be reliable [68].…”

Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation

“…Much recent research has also pointed at the importance of integrating patent strategy with firm strategy in general and technology strategy more specifically. For example, Alexy et al (2009) argue that there needs to be an alignment between the engagement in open innovation and firms' patent strategies, Manzini and Lazzarotti (2015) point at the different roles various intellectual property rights (IPRs) can play throughout an open innovation process, and Henkel et al (2013), Bogers (2011), Granstrand and Holgersson (2014), and Holgersson (2012) in various ways emphasize the roles patents can play to control and govern interorganizational technology strategies. However, the patent system has also received increasing criticism for being overused and misused by various actors (Burk andLemley, 2009, Jaffe andLerner, 2004), and especially for disabling cumulative innovation across firm boundaries (Bessen and Meurer, 2008, Boldrin and Levine, 2008, 2013, Brüggemann et al, 2016.…”

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be Too Much of a Good Thing?

“…Second, collaboration involves knowledge disclosure and the risk of opportunistic behavior by the partners (Foray and Steinmüller 2003;Bader 2008;Bogers 2011). Yet, the benefits and costs of collaboration may be highly firmspecific, depending on characteristics such as maturity or experience, availability of resources, and the alliance portfolio of the firm.…”