Open innovation: past, present and future trends

[EN] Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide interested parties with the means of grasping how the literature on open innovation has evolved over the course of time. In this way, the authors furthermore contribute towards a better understanding, scaling and positioning of this field of research. Design/methodology/approach This study applies a combination of bibliometric techniques, such as citations, co-citations and social network analysis in order to map the scientific domain of open innovation. Currently, bibliometric analysis represents a methodology in effect on a global scale to evaluate the existing state of fields of research (Mutschke et al., 2011). This spans the application of quantitative and statistical analysis to publications such as articles and their respective citations and serving to evaluate the performance of research through returning data on all of the activities ongoing in a scientific field with summaries of these data generating a broad perspective on the research activities and impacts, especially as regards the researchers, journals, countries and universities (Hawkins, 1977; Osareh, 1996; Thomsom Reuters, 2008). Findings This research aims to map and analyse the intellectual knowledge held on open innovation. To this end, the authors carried out a bibliometric study with recourse to co-citations. Based on cluster and factorial analyses, it is possible identify and classify the several theoretical perspectives on open innovation across six areas: open innovation concept, open innovation and networks, open innovation and knowledge, open Innovation, and innovation spillovers, open innovation management and open innovation and technology.JoAo J. Ferreira and Cristina I. Fernandes acknowledge the financial support from NECE - Research Unit in Business Sciences funded by the Multiannual Funding Programme of R&D Centres of FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (Project UID/GES/04630/2013).Fernandes, C.; Ferreira, J.; Peris-Ortiz, M. (2019). Open innovation: past, present and future trends. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 32(5):578-602. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2018-0257S578602325Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2017). Understanding the human side of openness: the fit between open innovation modes and CEO characteristics. R&D Management, 47(5), 727-740. doi:10.1111/radm.12264Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui Bono? The Selective Revealing of Knowledge and Its Implications for Innovative Activity. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 270-291. doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0193Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399-1417. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0618Ballell, L., Bates, R. H., Young, R. J., Alvarez-Gomez, D., Alvarez-Ruiz, E., Barroso, V., … Cammack, N. (2013). Fueling Open-Source Drug Discovery: 177 Small-Molecule Leads against Tuberculosis. ChemMedChem, 8(2), 313-321. doi:10.1002/cmdc.201200428Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108Belussi, F., Sammarra, A., & Sedita, S. R. (2010). Learning at the boundaries in an «Open Regional Innovation System»: A focus on firms’ innovation strategies in the Emilia Romagna life science industry. Research Policy, 39(6), 710-721. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.014Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117-127. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.017Berkhout, G., Hartmann, D., & Trott, P. (2010). Connecting technological capabilities with market needs using a cyclic innovation model. R&D Management, 40(5), 474-490. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00618.xBerthon, P., Ewing, M. T., & Napoli, J. (2008). Brand Management in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises*. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 27-45. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627x.2007.00229.xBianchi, M., Campodall’Orto, S., Frattini, F., & Vercesi, P. (2010). Enabling open innovation in small- and medium-sized enterprises: how to find alternative applications for your technologies. R&D Management, 40(4), 414-431. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00613.xChen, J., Chen, Y., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011). The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 31(8), 362-373. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.03.002Cheng, C.-F., Lai, M.-K., & Wu, W.-Y. (2010). Exploring the impact of innovation strategy on R&D employees’ job satisfaction: A mathematical model and empirical research. Technovation, 30(7-8), 459-470. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.03.006Chesbrough, H. and Bogers, M. (2014), “Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation”, in Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds), New Frontiers in Open Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3-28.Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open Innovation: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20-27. doi:10.5437/08956308x5504085Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open Innovation and Strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57-76. doi:10.2307/41166416Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). The Open Innovation Journey: How firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation, 31(1), 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.007Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H., & Kjær, J. S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation—Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy, 34(10), 1533-1549. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.002Cooke, P. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation. Research Policy, 34(8), 1128-1149. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.12.005Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate®Idea-to-Launch Process—Update, What’s New, and NexGen Systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213-232. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.xDahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013Dahlander, L., O’Mahony, S., & Gann, D. M. (2014). One foot in, one foot out: how does individuals’ external search breadth affect innovation outcomes? Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 280-302. doi:10.1002/smj.2342Di Gangi, P. M., & Wasko, M. (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 303-312. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.04.004Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R and D Management, 36(3), 333-346. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00429.xDoloreux, D., & Melançon, Y. (2008). On the dynamics of innovation in Quebec’s coastal maritime industry. Technovation, 28(4), 231-243. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.10.006Drechsler, W., & Natter, M. (2012). Understanding a firm’s openness decisions in innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 438-445. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.003Chatenier, E. du, Verstegen, J. A. A. M., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Omta, O. S. W. F. (2010). Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R&D Management, 40(3), 271-280. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00590.xEbner, W., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Community engineering for innovations: the ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Management, 39(4), 342-356. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00564.xEnkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.xFaems, D., De Visser, M., Andries, P., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Technology Alliance Portfolios and Financial Performance: Value-Enhancing and Cost-Increasing Effects of Open Innovation*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 785-796. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00752.xFaraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities. Organization Science, 22(5), 1224-1239. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0614Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2014). Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914-925. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.006Fetterhoff, T. J., & Voelkel, D. (2006). Managing Open Innovation in Biotechnology. Research-Technology Management, 49(3), 14-18. doi:10.1080/08956308.2006.11657373Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43(1), 1-20. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005Füller, J., Hutter, K., & Faullant, R. (2011). Why co-creation experience matters? Creative experience and its impact on the quantity and quality of creative contributions. R&D Management, 41(3), 259-273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00640.xFüller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand Community Members as a Source of Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 608-619. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00325.xGarriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1134-1144. doi:10.1002/smj.2049Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213-221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00605.xGrönlund, J., Sjödin, D. R., & Frishammar, J. (2010). Open Innovation and the Stage-Gate Process: A Revised Model for New Product Development. California Management Review, 52(3), 106-131. doi:10.1525/cmr.2010.52.3.106Hawkins, D. T. (1977). Unconventional uses of on-line information retrieval systems: On-line bibliometric studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28(1), 13-18. doi:10.1002/asi.4630280103Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953-969. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.010Hu, J.-L., & Hsu, Y.-H. (2008). The more interactive, the more innovative? A case study of South Korean cellular phone manufacturers. Technovation, 28(1-2), 75-87. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.010Hua, S. Y., & Wemmerlov, U. (2006). Product Change Intensity, Product Advantage, and Market Performance: An Empirical Investigation of the PC Industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 316-329. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00204.xHuizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2-9. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.002Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54. doi:10.1177/002224299806200303Hurmelinna, P., Kyläheiko, K., & Jauhiainen, T. (2007). The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis. Technovation, 27(3), 133-144. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.011Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Füller, J., Mueller, J., & Matzler, K. (2011). Communitition: The Tension between Competition and Collaboration in Community-Based Design Contests. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(1), 3-21. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00589.xHwang, A.-S. (2004). Integrating Technology, Marketing and Management Innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47(4), 27-31. doi:10.1080/08956308.2004.11671638Ili, S., Albers, A., & Miller, S. (2010). Open innovation in the automotive industry. R&D Management, 40(3), 246-255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00595.xJacobides, M. G., & Billinger, S. (2006). Designing the Boundaries of the Firm: From «Make, Buy, or Ally» to the Dynamic Benefits of Vertical Architecture. Organization Science, 17(2), 249-261. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0167Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016-1033. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0491Kaminski, P. C., de Oliveira, A. C., & Lopes, T. M. (2008). Knowledge transfer in product development processes: A case study in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) of the metal-mechanic sector from São Paulo, Brazil. Technovation, 28(1-2), 29-36. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.001Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). Determinants and archetype users of open innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), 331-341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00563.xKirschbaum, R. (2005). Open Innovation In Practice. Research-Technology Management, 48(4), 24-28. doi:10.1080/08956308.2005.11657321Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986), “An overview of innovation”, in Laudau, R. and Rosenberg, N. (Eds), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 275-306.Koc, T., & Ceylan, C. (2007). Factors impacting the innovative capacity in large-scale companies. Technovation, 27(3), 105-114. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.10.002Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867-878. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290-300. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.009Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197-224. doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222260108Lemon, M., & Sahota, P. S. (2004). Organizational culture as a knowledge repository for increased innovative capacity. Technovation, 24(6), 483-498. doi:10.1016/s0166-4972(02)00102-5Li, Y.-R. (2009). The technological roadmap of Cisco’s business ecosystem. Technovation, 29(5), 379-386. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.01.007Lichtenthaler, U. (2007). The Drivers of Technology Licensing: An Industry Comparison. California Management Review, 49(4), 67-89. doi:10.2307/41166406Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Open Innovation in Practice: An Analysis of Strategic Approaches to Technology Transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148-157. doi:10.1109/tem.2007.912932Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4), 317-330. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00561.xLichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the NIH syndrome. R and D Management, 36(4), 367-386. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00443.xLichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). External technology commercialization in large firms: results of a quantitative benchmarking study. R&D Management, 37(5), 383-397. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00487.xLichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2009). Opening up the innovation process: the role of technology aggressiveness. R&D Management, 39(1), 38-54. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00522.xLichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A Capability-Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1315-1338. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00854.xLove, J. H., Roper, S., & Bryson, J. R. (2011). Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services. Research Policy, 40(10), 1438-1452. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.016Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(4), 257-268. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2013.07.004Mention, A.-L. (2011). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31(1), 44-53. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.08.002Mutschke, P., Mayr, P., Schaer, P., & Sure, Y. (2011). Science models as value-added services for scholarly information systems. Scientometrics, 89(1), 349-364. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0430-xParida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound Open Innovation Activities in High-Tech SMEs: The Impact on Innovation Performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 283-309. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627x.2012.00354.xPiller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate users in new product development. R and D Management, 36(3), 307-318. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00432.xRampersad, G., Quester, P., & Troshani, I. (2010). Managing innovation networks: Exploratory evidence from ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 793-805. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.07.002Roberts, P. W., & Amit, R. (2003). The Dynamics of Innovative Activity and Competitive Advantage: The Case of Australian Retail Banking, 1981 to 1995. Organization Science, 14(2), 107-122. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.2.107.14990Rohrbeck, R., Hölzle, K., & Gemünden, H. G. (2009). Opening up for competitive advantage - How Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management, 39(4), 420-430. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00568.xRost, K. (2011). The strength of strong ties in the creation of innovation. Research Policy, 40(4), 588-604. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.12.001Salter, A., Criscuolo, P., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2014). Coping with Open Innovation: Responding to the Challenges of External Engagement in R&D. California Management Review, 56(2), 77-94. doi:10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.77Salter, A., Wal, A. L. J., Criscuolo, P., & Alexy, O. (2014). Open for Ideation: Individual‐Level Openness and Idea Generation in R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 488-504. doi:10.1111/jpim.12214Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. doi:10.1002/asi.4630240406Souitaris, V. (2002). Technological trajectories as moderators of firm-level determinants of innovation. Research Policy, 31(6), 877-898. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00154-8Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130-141. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.004Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2012). Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises. Small Business Economics, 41(3), 537-562. doi:10.1007/s11187-012-9453-9Stang, P. E., Ryan, P. B., Racoosin, J. A., Overhage, J. M., Hartzema, A. G., Reich, C., … Woodcock, J. (2010). Advancing the Science for Active Surveillance: Rationale and Design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Annals of Internal Medicine, 153(9), 600. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-153-9-201011020-00010Terwiesch, C., & Xu, Y. (2008). Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529-1543. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0884Thomsom Reuters (2008), “Using bibliometrics: a guide to evaluating research performance with citation data”, available at: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/325133_thomson.pdf(accessed 30 December 2018).Vrande, V. V. de, Vanhaverbeke, W., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Broadening the scope of open innovation: past research, current state and future directions. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4), 221. doi:10.1504/ijtm.2010.035974Von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2006). Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives. R and D Management, 36(3), 295-306. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00435.xVon Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(2), 154-164. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2012.04.003Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010). A Reflective Review of Disruptive Innovation Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 435-452. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.

Collective Action and Social Innovation in the Energy Sector: A Mobilization Model Perspective

This conceptual paper applies a mobilization model to Collective Action Initiatives (CAIs) in the energy sector. The goal is to synthesize aspects of sustainable transition theories with social movement theory to gain insights into how CAIs mobilize to bring about niche-regime change in the context of the sustainable energy transition. First, we demonstrate how energy communities, as a representation of CAIs, relate to social innovation. We then discuss how CAIs in the energy sector are understood within both sustainability transition theory and institutional dynamics theory. While these theories are adept at describing the role energy CAIs have in the energy transition, they do not yet offer much insight concerning the underlying social dimensions for the formation and upscaling of energy CAIs. Therefore, we adapt and apply a mobilization model to gain insight into the dimensions of mobilization and upscaling of CAIs in the energy sector. By doing so we show that the expanding role of CAIs in the energy sector is a function of their power acquisition through mobilization processes. We conclude with a look at future opportunities and challenges of CAIs in the energy transition.This research was conducted under the COMETS (Collective action Models for Energy Transition and Social Innovation) project, funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Program of the European Commission, grant number 837722

Desperately seeking niches: Grassroots innovations and niche development in the community currency field

The sustainability transitions literature seeks to explain the conditions under which technological innovations can diffuse and disrupt existing socio-technical systems through the successful scaling up of experimental ‘niches’; but recent research on ‘grassroots innovations’ argues that civil society is a promising but under-researched site of innovation for sustainability, albeit one with very different characteristics to the market-based innovation normally considered in the literature. This paper aims to address that research gap by exploring the relevance of niche development theories in a civil society context. To do this, we examine a growing grassroots innovation – the international field of community currencies – which comprises a range of new socio-technical configurations of systems of exchange which have emerged from civil society over the last 30 years, intended to provide more environmentally and socially sustainable forms of money and finance. We draw on new empirical research from an international study of these initiatives comprising primary and secondary data and documentary sources, elite interviews and participant observation in the field. We describe the global diffusion of community currencies, and then conduct a niche analysis to evaluate the utility of niche theories for explaining the development of the community currency movement. We find that some niche-building processes identified in the existing literature are relevant in a grassroots context: the importance of building networks, managing expectations and the significance of external ‘landscape’ pressures, particularly at the level of national-type. However, our findings suggest that existing theories do not fully capture the complexity of this type of innovation: we find a diverse field addressing a range of societal systems (money, welfare, education, health, consumerism), and showing increasing fragmentation (as opposed to consolidation and standardisation); furthermore, there is little evidence of formalised learning taking place but this has not hampered movement growth. We conclude that grassroots innovations develop and diffuse in quite different ways to conventional innovations, and that niche theories require adaptation to the civil society context

Evaluating Social Innovation

The philanthropic sector has been experimenting with innovative grantmaking in the hopes of triggering significant and sustainable change. FSG's latest research report, collaboratively written with the Center for Evaluation Innovation, challenges grantmakers to explore the use of Developmental Evaluation when evaluating complex, dynamic, and emergent initiatives

Network experiences lead to the adaption of a firm's network competence

Networks become increasingly important as external sources of innovation for firms. Through networks firms get in contact with different actors with whom they can exchange information and collaborate. A firm’s ability to be a successful network actor depends on its network competence. This term can be defined as having the necessary knowledge, skills and qualifications for networking as well as using them effectively. In this paper we investigate the link between a firm’s network competence and the benefits resulting from it in a two-way direction. First, the network competence of the firm facilitates the adoption of information from other network actors which may lead to innovation success. Second the perceived network benefits shall in their turn influence the network competence of the firm. Consequently, firms will adapt their network strategy corresponding their experiences. The objective of this paper is to investigate the dynamics of networking and its influence on the firm’s network competence. For this exploratory research 3 Belgian networks are examined. In-depth interviews are used in combination with semi-structured interview guides to conduct the research. Our results indicate that some firms perceive benefits from their network efforts, for others it is more a burden. Furthermore, in some of our cases we found that positive experiences with clear benefits motivate the firm to enhance its network competence. This is illustrated by the fact that collaborations are more frequently initiated, trust is more easily build, firms are more open to communicate information and the confidentiality threshold is overcome

Market fields structure & dynamics in industrial automation

There is a research tradition in the economics of standards which addresses standards wars, antitrust concerns or positive externalities from standards. Recent research has also dealt with the process characteristics of standardisation, de facto standard-setting consortia and intellectual property concerns in the technology specification or implementation phase. Nonetheless, there are no studies which analyse capabilities, comparative industry dynamics or incentive structures sufficiently in the context of standard-setting. In my study, I address the characteristics of collaborative research and standard-setting as a new mode of deploying assets beyond motivations well-known from R&D consortia or market alliances. On the basis of a case study of a leading user organisation in the market for industrial automation technology, but also a descriptive network analysis of cross-community affiliations, I demonstrate that there must be a paradoxical relationship between cooperation and competition. More precisely, I explain how there can be a dual relationship between value creation and value capture respecting exploration and exploitation. My case study emphasises the dynamics between knowledge stocks (knowledge alignment, narrowing and deepening) produced by collaborative standard setting and innovation; it also sheds light on an evolutional relationship between the exploration of assets and use cases and each firm's exploitation activities in the market. I derive standard-setting capabilities from an empirical analysis of membership structures, policies and incumbent firm characteristics in selected, but leading, user organisations. The results are as follows: the market for industrial automation technology is characterised by collaboration on standards, high technology influences of other industries and network effects on standards. Further, system integrators play a decisive role in value creation in the customer-specific business case. Standard-setting activities appear to be loosely coupled to the products offered on the market. Core leaders in world standards in industrial automation own a variety of assets and they are affiliated to many standard-setting communities rather than exclusively committed to a few standards. Furthermore, their R&D ratios outperform those of peripheral members and experience in standard-setting processes can be assumed. Standard-setting communities specify common core concepts as the basis for the development of each member's proprietary products, complementary technologies and industrial services. From a knowledge-based perspective, the targeted disclosure of certain knowledge can be used to achieve high innovation returns through systemic products which add proprietary features to open standards. Finally, the interplay between exploitation and exploration respecting the deployment of standard-setting capabilities linked to cooperative, pre-competitive processes leads to an evolution in common technology owned and exploited by the standard-setting community as a particular kind of innovation ecosystem. --standard-setting,innovation,industry dynamics and context,industrial automation