Understanding Knowledge Absorption for Inbound Open Innovation Practices

Abstract

The successful integration of internal and external knowledge is crucial for the success of inbound open innovation processes. Yet, to date, our understanding of how different kinds of knowledge characteristics affect the knowledge absorption process in inbound open innovation is still rather fragmented. In this chapter, the authors provide an overview of how different aspects of knowledge (i.e., internal and external knowledge antecedents: prior knowledge, internal and external knowledge structure, knowledge source, types of knowledge, and knowledge environment) related to knowledge absorption in the inbound open innovation process. In the discussion, the authors highlight how far different knowledge characteristics either help or hinder knowledge absorption and, thereby, the potential success of inbound open innovation practices. Moreover, they point towards areas that promise to be fruitful for future research exploring the link between aspects of knowledge and absorptive capacity in the context of inbound open innovation.

A taxonomy of knowledge risks for healthcare organizations

“…As health-care organizations exhibit a multitude of interdependent processes and interactions (Braithwaite, 2018), operational KRs are significantly represented in our proposed taxonomy as explained in Table 3. Examples of those discussed include acquisition risk (Durst and Zieba, 2017), especially with the current economic downturn and hospitals unable to secure the required resources and knowledge assets; complexity (Zincir and Rus, 2019), as demonstrated in the collaborative nature of medical services delivery; and outsourcing (Tadelis, 2007), which is a common practice in health care imperilling core knowledge assets.…”

“…2.2.3 Operations-related knowledge risks. Health-care organizations are complex entities, with a multitude of processes, interactions, teams and dependencies (Zincir and Rus, 2019). Thus, KM practices cut across most operational units and functions (Walburg, 2006;Karamitri et al, 2017) and identifying KRs within the operational landscape and managing them appropriately can help abolish or minimize their negative effects on operations and performance.…”

“…This could be hampered, thus jeopardizing the attainment of stated objectives (Lambe, 2013). c omplexity : refers to the multitude of inter-reliant processes, tools, teams, technologies and resources needed for the functioning of an organization and the delivery of its services (Zincir and Rus, 2019); integration : the process of onboarding new staff members of varying skill sets into existing departments, thus leveraging the combined conceptual knowledge and learnt techniques through a transfer and acquisition process (Baroody, 2003; Schneider, 2012); communication/exchange/transfer : according to Argote and Ingram (2000), knowledge transfer and exchange is the process by which a team or a department is affected by the work of another. It is seen as primarily a people-to-people process by Tangaraja et al (2016).…”

A Novel Metaphor Concerning the Terminology of Open Innovation

“…Inbound open innovation activities and outbound open innovation activities, which are the drivers and enabling factors (Galati et al, 2016), act as the input and output terminals respectively. Inbound open innovation enables an organization to explore the external knowledge sourced from outside the firm in order to create competitive advantage (Hung & Chou, 2013;Bianchi et al, 2011;Naqshbandi et al, 2016;Zincir & Rus, 2019;Sivam et al, 2019;De Beule & Van Beveren, 2019).…”