When Does Search Openness Really Matter? A Contingency Study of Health‐Care Innovation Projects

Abstract

Given the growing popularity of the open innovation model, it is increasingly common to source knowledge for new product ideas from a wide range of actors located outside of organizational boundaries. Such open search strategies, however, might not always be superior to their closed counterparts. Indeed, widening the scope of knowledge sourcing at the ideation stage typically comes at a price given the substantial monetary and nonmonetary costs often incurred in the process of identifying, assimilating, and utilizing external knowledge inputs. Considering both the benefits and costs of search openness, the authors develop a project‐level contingency model of open innovation. This model suggests that search openness is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U‐shape) related to new product creativity and success. They hence assume that too little as well as too much search openness at the ideation stage will be detrimental to new product outcomes. Moreover, they argue that the effectiveness of open search strategies is contingent upon the new product development (NPD) project type (typological contingency), the NPD project leader (managerial contingency), and the NPD project environment (contextual contingency). To test these propositions empirically, multi‐informant data from 62 NPD projects initiated in the English National Health Service (NHS) were collected. The econometric analyses conducted provide considerable support for a curvilinear relationship between search openness and NPD outcomes as well as for the hypothesized contingency effects. More specifically, they reveal that explorative NPD projects have more to gain from search openness at the ideation stage than their exploitative counterparts. Moreover, the project‐level payoff from search openness tends to be greater, when the project leader has substantial prior innovation and management experience, and when the immediate work environment actively supports creative endeavors. These findings are valuable for NPD practice, as they demonstrate that effective knowledge sourcing has much to contribute to NPD success. In particular, pursuing an open search strategy might not always be the best choice. Rather, each NPD project is in need of a carefully tailored search strategy, effective leadership, and a supportive climate, if the full value of external knowledge sourcing is to be captured.

Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm's innovative performance and productivity

“…The importance of collaborative strategies is demonstrated in various studies. These studies investigate the extent to which different alliance types lead to improvement in firm's performance outcomes (e.g., Köhler, Sofka, & Grimpe, 2012;Laursen & Salter, 2006;Salge, Farchi, Barrett, & Dopson, 2013). Cooperation with suppliers, for instance, has been shown to help improve exploitation-related performance, such as input quality improvements, process innovations, and cost reductions because suppliers may possess knowledge related to the actual production processes (Sobrero & Roberts, 2002).…”

Lead User Method vs. Innovation Contest An Empirical Comparison of Two Open Innovation Methodologies for Identifying Social Innovation for Flood Resilience in Indonesia

“…First, further research should also include a comparison between open innovation search strategies and their closed counterparts for a more systematic exploration of key contingency factors (Salge et al 2013). …”

The Open Innovation Research Landscape: Established Perspectives and Emerging Themes across Different Levels of Analysis

“…Given such variance in the effectiveness of OI, there has been increasing interest in its context dependency (di Benedetto 2010;Huizingh 2011). So far, only few studies investigate contingencies of the openness-performance relationship, including the strategic orientation of firms (Cheng and Huizingh 2014), individual-level characteristics (e.g., Salter et al 2015), or new product development (NPD) project characteristics (e.g., Salge et al 2013), or the integration of key individuals . Given this need for a contingency perspective and a multi-level understanding of OI, it seems relevant to explore how factors residing at one level of analysis constitute contingencies for applications of OI at higher or lower levels of analysis.…”