The Positions of Virtual Knowledge Brokers in the Core Process of Open Innovation

Hacievliyagil, N.K.; Maisonneuve, Y.E.; Auger, Jean‐François; Hartmann, Ludwig

doi:10.18848/1832-3669/cgp/v03i05/55779

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another issue examined is the adherence to the model by many reputable companies, as a matter of business strategy (Hacievliyagil et al, 2008). They publicize the model making its implementation in a laboratory in real life, subject to experiment and obtaining results which could lead to its improvement.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third problem is related to the opening up to the flows of knowledge and learning with respect to the global economy, which led firms like Procter & Gamble, and Philips to establish internal frontiers with limits on the free flow of information between their departments (Hacievliyagil, Auger, Maisonneuve & Hartmann, 2008;Meer, 2007). If this is confirmed, then obviously there is an incompatibility that the model does not explain.…”

Section: Problems Not Resolved By Open Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Closed versus Open Innovation: Evolution or Combination?

Marques

2014

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of open innovation has attracted great interest from the academic and industrial sectors alike. Despite the ongoing debate, we can see some lack of consistency of its principles. The purpose of this paper is to set out a conceptual reflection on the foundations of innovation and its process and discuss new proposals from the literature on open innovation. We question whether this concept is really a new model, or if it is nothing more than a recent combination, sponsored by academics. We have examined Chesbrough's six principles of open innovation, showing how they are based on a false dichotomy that opposes necessarily closed innovation to open innovation. We show how this new paradigm lacks conceptual clarity confusing innovation with innovation process, resurrecting the linear view, and ignoring many earlier studies. We hope to contribute to the discussion on innovation management and to enrich understanding for all concerned.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problems Not Resolved By Open Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closed versus Open Innovation: Evolution or Combination?

Marques

2014

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance of the external source in open innovation is based on the assumption that the innovator for a particular product does not need to be the manufacturer of the product. In other words, any agent that derives benefits from an innovative product can also be a source of innovation (Hacievliyagil et al, 2007). Accordingly, firms who embrace open innovation are able to scale down internal research and development resources, while expanding the scope of their innovation activities to improve organisational performance.…”

Section: Open Innovation Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Empirical findings by Hacievliyagil et al (2007) show that though in many instances firms may open up the flow of knowledge, the internal boundaries are tightened. Cassiman and Valentini (2009) also examine the argument that firms that employ open innovative systems are active in both the buying and selling market for technology and did not find support for this hypothesis for Belgian firms.…”

Section: Open Innovation Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Innovation: Systematisation of Knowledge Exploration and Exploitation for Commercialisation

Amponsah

Adams

2017

Int. J. Innov. Mgt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the intricacies of various determinants that can be used to systematise open innovation processes as the functional streaming of knowledge, both inbound and outbound, to expedite internal innovation and extricate the market for external use of innovation. Drawing on extant open innovation literature and data collected from organisations on the list of Thomas Reuters Derwent World Patents Index covering North America, Europe, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North African for their open innovation practices, a model was developed that conceptualises the systematisation of open innovation processes toward commercial activities. The results show that the systematisation of open innovation requires a balancing act of knowledge exploration (KET) and exploitation (KEL) ambidexterity for commercialisation of the firm, and that a relationship exists between these variables. Using the contingency-based approach to organisational development, the paper adds to the understanding of the role of open innovation processes, systematisation, content and context as well as the research and development aspect of open innovation.

show abstract

“…In addition, the intermediary may be responsible for typical issues of innovation management in an interorganizational context, such as conflict management and prevention of opportunistic behaviour (Hacievliyagil, Maisonneuve, Auger, & Hartmann, 2007). The governance can ensure that the actors engage in collective and mutually supportive action and that conflict is addressed (Provan & Kenis, 2008).…”

Section: Ttos As Intermediaries Of Collaborative Randd Projects: a Revimentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the Gap: Lessons from the UK to Brazil about the Roles of TTOs throughout Collaborative R&D Projects

Thomas

Vieira

Balestrin

2017

BAR, Braz. Adm. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature about collaboration for innovation has reported fundamental activities performed by intermediaries. In this paper, universities' technology transfer offices (TTOs) are placed as intermediaries between academic research and the industry. Our study focuses on collaborative research and development (R&D) projects between universities and industry in order to understand the roles of TTOs throughout the whole duration of the project. The main aim of this paper is to identify the roles of TTOs throughout collaborative R&D projects and suggest some lessons for Brazilian TTOs based on the experience of the United Kingdom. Through qualitative case studies in the United Kingdom and Brazil, the analyses show that both TTOs performed critical activities for collaborative R&D projects. Similar activities at both TTOs were the management of partnerships in terms of negotiating contracts and the protection and licensing of intellectual property. Findings also show that the search for partners in the beginning of the project, the pacifier role of the TTO to help mutual understanding, and the active commercialisation of academic research to external partners happened only in the UK case, which may generate implications for TTOs in Brazil.

show abstract

The Positions of Virtual Knowledge Brokers in the Core Process of Open Innovation

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Closed versus Open Innovation: Evolution or Combination?

Closed versus Open Innovation: Evolution or Combination?

Open Innovation: Systematisation of Knowledge Exploration and Exploitation for Commercialisation

Mind the Gap: Lessons from the UK to Brazil about the Roles of TTOs throughout Collaborative R&D Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About