User, and Open Collaborative Innovation: Ascendent Economic Models

In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation projects. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with - and may displace -producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We argue that a transition from producer innovation to open single user and open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare, and so worthy of support by policymakers.

Open Innovation, ambiguity and technological convergence

Objectives. Current paper aims to provide a fresh conceptual framework on the relationship among open innovation, decision ambiguity, and technological convergence. We argue that there is a curvilinear relationship between open innovation and both technological convergence and ambiguity. Contained level of convergence and ambiguity foster open innovation, whilst an excess of them is an impediment to collaboration. Technological convergence further acts as a moderator for ambiguity, in light of the benefits of isomorphism. Methodology. We propose a conceptual framework for open innovation decisions after accurately reviewing the main literature antecedents. Findings. We suggest an inverse u-shaped relationship between open innovation and either ambiguity or technological convergence. Research limits. In future, the theoretical framework proposed by thus study has to be tested with robust and proper statistical techniques on large scale samples. Practical implications. The model offers a heuristic for open innovation decisions under ambiguity. Originality of the study. To the best of our knowledge, the relationship linking open innovation, technological convergence and ambiguity emerges as a literature gap. This study tackles this issue, proposing an interpretation for the analysis of alliances decision in innovation

Bridging University-Firm relationships and Open Innovation literature: a critical synthesis

Open Innovation is understood as a flow of incoming and outgoing knowledge and technology which allows, at the level of a firm, the acceleration of the innovation process, as well as a faster establishment and access to new markets, for external use of that same innovation. This type of innovation includes technological innovation, which comes from internal and external sources, as well as different modalities of accessing the market and, therefore, commercializing the innovation. Resorting to a bibliometric analysis, using Open Innovation as the search keyword, we found that the majority of the existing studies on OI is of conceptual character. On the one hand, from the scarce existing empirical studies, the issue of the relation University – Enterprise (U-E), one of the components of the open innovation model, is analyzed in a relatively superficial way neglecting, or not referring in the most appropriated way, the mechanisms by which companies could obtain (via innovation) competitive advantage through the exploration of a more open model of innovation based on the relationships with universities. On the other hand, the existing studies on U-E relations do not highlight, at least in an explicit way, the question of the open innovation model. Such studies are still highly directed to a unidirectional profit optic, that is, are too centred on the advantages which the enterprises will be able to obtain from the relation with the universities, failing taking into account the value that potentially goes to universities from such links.Open Innovation; U-E relations; Emergency; Sustainability; Benefits

Enabling and Sustaining Collaborative Innovation

This paper extends the principles of open source software development to a non-industry-specific level by introducing the Open Source Innovation (OSI) model. OSI exhibits main differences to other related models and concepts such as the private-collective model, commons-based peer production, R&D networks and is therefore an innovation model in its own right. In order for OSI projects to be successful, numerous factors need to be fulfilled. We make the distinction between four categories of factors: economic, technical, legal, and social. In each category, we differentiate between enabling and sustaining factors. The enabling factors must be met at the beginning of the project, whereas the sustaining factors must be satisfied as the project progresses.OSI, open source innovation, R&D

Open Innovation Clusters: The Case of Cova da Beira Region (Portugal)

This paper aims to reveal the role played by open innovation schemes in the development of new competitive advantages. Furthermore, it aims to present a normative model for networking knowledge clusters, that is, traditional clusters that are applied to the case of the Cova da Beira region (Portugal) such as Agro-Food, Textile, and Public Sector; and a set of emergent clusters that include Bioscience, Biotechnology, Multimedia, Tourism, Health, and Knowledge. In this paper, the basic framework about clusters was expanded, taking as reference the studies of Porter (1985, 1990, 1998, 2005), Feldman (1994), Porter and Stern (2001), and Furman, Porter and Stern (2002). The problematic related to open innovation schemes is integrated in this framework in order to reveal the importance of building new kinds of open innovation networks that don’t involve the geographic concentration of the enterprises. After making a literature review in order to present the analytical framework that includes the clusters theory, a normative model is presented through the development of a case study applied to the Cova da Beira region (Portugal). This option is due to the existence of a local University that has historically interfaced the launching of open-innovation spin-offs into local and international clusters networks. The present paper reveals a high degree of originality, since it contributes to the introduction of the concept of open innovation into the literature about clusters. The main point is that open innovation provides two main implications to build up and leverage both internal and external knowledge into international clusters networks. First, this study presents a basic implication for several agents such as, entrepreneurs, researchers, and policy makers; that is, universities are principals in interfacing the sources of open innovation and the transfer of processes of knowledge into the international clusters networks. Second, it promotes the inclusion of the issue related to the creation of international and institutional networks in the short agenda of the referred agents in order to promote the introduction of new open innovation schemes.Clusters; Entrepreneurship; Institutional Networks; Open Innovation

Open, distributed and user-centered: Towards a paradigm shift in innovation policy

Today's innovation policies ignore that innovation is increasingly open, distributed and user-centered. In this paper we introduce the user-centered model as an alternative paradigm of how innovation 'works'. We discuss how it differs from traditional, linear producer-centered model, argue why it is legitimate to develop policies in support of it, and provide specific directions. �

How to invent a new business model based on crowdsourcing: the Crowdspirit ® case

Chesbrough's work on open innovation provides a theoretical framework to understand how firms can access external knowledge in order to support their R&D processes. The author defines open innovation as a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use both external and internal ideas and internal and external paths to market. He considers that industrial R&D is undergoing a paradigm shift from the closed to the open model. Information and communication technologies and especially web 2.0 technologies accelerate this shift in so far they provide access to collective and distributed intelligence disseminated in the “crowd”. This phenomenon named “crowdsourcing” is defined by Jeff Howe as “the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined - and generally large - network of people in the form of an open call.”Though this approach may sound appealing to firms and R&D organizations, there is little research available about the strategic use of crowdsourcing for innovation processes. In this paper we develop the argument that crowdsourcing raises a certain number of strategic issues that we discuss on the basis of a real size crowdsourcing experiment. We were associated in the project from the very outset up to the strategic analysis of a start-up: Crowdspirit. The company's concept is based on the outsourcing of the entire R&D process to a community of designers and users, in the domain of consumer electronics. Our data is made up of the minutes of three strategic workshops with the managers that we completed step by step by additional theoretical study and some benchmarking of crowdsourcing experiments on the web. Although we started this collaboration mainly to help the company design its optimal business model, this action research process has led us to address the following research questions: how can a firm create and capture value by means of a strategy based on crowdsourcing? What are the main strategic issues to be considered when a firm intends to open its innovation process through crowdsourcing? Due to the action research approach used, we do not dissociate the theoretical part from the empirical data, but rather to present our research process step by step. We therefore successively present four main phases of the strategic analysis carried out with the Crowdspirit team: (1) The emergence of the Crowdspirit business model; (2) The value creation process related to profiles of crowdspirit community of contributors (3) The challenging of the company's initial business model and (4) The creation of a new business model successively open and closed models. In the discussion we summarize the main strategic issues that emerged during the work on Crowdspirit's strategy with its managers, and interpret them on the basis of existing literature on open innovation. This leads us to complete Chesbrough's open innovation approach and Nambissan and Sawney network-centric innovation model by introducing new options for companies whose strategy is based on crowdsourcing.Open innovation, crowdsourcing, business models

How to invent a new business model based on crowdsourcing : the Crowdspirit ® case

Chesbrough's work on open innovation provides a theoretical framework to understand how firms can access external knowledge in order to support their R&D processes. The author defines open innovation as a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use both external and internal ideas and internal and external paths to market. He considers that industrial R&D is undergoing a paradigm shift from the closed to the open model. Information and communication technologies and especially web 2.0 technologies accelerate this shift in so far they provide access to collective and distributed intelligence disseminated in the “crowd”. This phenomenon named “crowdsourcing” is defined by Jeff Howe as “the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined - and generally large – network of people in the form of an open call.” Though this approach may sound appealing to firms and R&D organizations, there is little research available about the strategic use of crowdsourcing for innovation processes. In this paper we develop the argument that crowdsourcing raises a certain number of strategic issues that we discuss on the basis of a real size crowdsourcing experiment. We were associated in the project from the very outset up to the strategic analysis of the company. Our data is made up of the minutes of three strategic workshops with the managers that we completed step by step by additional theoretical study and some benchmarking of crowdsourcing experiments on the web. Although we started this collaboration with no other objectives than to help this company to design its optimal business model, this action research process has led us to address the following research questions: how can a firm create and capture value by means of a strategy based on crowdsourcing? What are the main strategic issues to be considered when a firm intends to open its innovation process through crowdsourcing? Due to the action research approach used, we do not dissociate the theoretical part from the empirical data, but rather to present our research process step by step. We therefore successively present the three main phases of the strategic analysis carried out with the Crowdspirit team: (1) elaboration of Crowdspirit business model; (2) value creation process related to profiles of crowdspirit community of contributors (3)Theoretical framework on business models based on crowdsourcing. In the conclusion we summarize the main strategic issues that emerged during this work on Crowdspirit's strategy with its managers, and interpret them on the basis of existing literature on open innovation. This leads us to complete Chesbrough's open innovation approach and Nambissan and Sawney network-centric innovation model by introducing new options for companies whose strategy is based on crowdsourcing.Open innovation, crowdsourcing, business models

TMT diversity and innovation ambidexterity in family firms

Purpose – Family firms that simultaneously engage in multiple levels of innovation – incremental andradical – are likely to enjoy performance advantages across generations. The purpose of this paper is to research under which management conditions (i.e. top management team (TMT) diversity in terms of generational or non-family involvement) family firms are more likely to achieve innovation ambidexterity. Also, the paper addresses the mediating role of open innovation (OI) breadth in this relationship. Design/methodology/approach – A large cross-sectional sample of 335 small- and medium-sized family firms is used. The hypotheses were tested in a mediation model. The relationship between TMT diversity andambidexterity is measured using a binominal regression analysis, the one between TMT diversity and OIbreadth using a Tobit model. Findings – Drawing on the family firm upper echelon perspective, the results indicate that TMT diversity induced through external managers and multiple generations is positively related to innovation ambidexterity. As the mediation analysis reveals, the relationship can be explained by the higherpropensity of diverse TMTs to get involved in OI breadth. The findings add to the discussion on family firm heterogeneity and its influence on different kinds of innovation. Originality/value–So far, few studies have been concerned with ambidextrous family firms. Contrary totheir reputation, this study identifies family firms as radical as well as open innovators. As such, this research takes account not only of the heterogeneity of family firms, but also of the heterogeneity of family firm innovation