Enablers and Consequences of Interfirm Co-Production

As contemporary firms increase their reliance on information technology (IT) and are increasingly turning their attention to jointly creating value with their primary stakeholders, there is a growing need to understand what enablers promote from interfirm value co-creation from co-production in supply chains, how the co-production can be realized and what value can be created through the co-production. We integrate systems theory and the relational view perspectives to develop an explanatory model to explain how co-production mediates the impacts of enablers on the reciprocal benefits created in the global supply chain context. Drawing upon systems theory, we identify three constructs: platform compatibility (i.e., compatibility), co-production (i.e., synergy), and collaborative governance (i.e., integration effort). We draw on the relational view to identify two activities: process alignment and resource sharing for co-production, conceptualize three basic types of reciprocal benefits: market, innovation and anshin value, and theorize co-production—the synergy of process alignment and resource sharing activities—as key to the realization of synergy, thereby contributing to the reciprocal benefits in the context of interfirm supply chain. Based on survey data collected from 464 senior management representatives from 230 high-tech manufacturing firms from within Taiwan and China, we found 1) collaborative governance has a positive effect on platform compatibility, 2) both collaborative governance and platform compatibility promote co-production, 3) guanxi has a positive effect on collaborative governance and has a positive moderating effect on collaborative governance and co-production, and 4) co-production positively affects reciprocal benefits. Our findings highlight 1) the important role of co-production in mediating the platform compatibility and collaborative governance effects on reciprocal benefits, and 2) the complementary role of guanxi in strengthening the collaborative governance effect on co-production. These results provide insights into how firms can co-create value through enhanced interfirm co-production

Adaptive organizations in the digital age : complexity, creativity and innovation

Adaptive organizations are the contemporary kind of socio-technical systems derived from the need to respond effectively to changes in the dynamic and unpredictable landscape of the digital economy. These organizations are both internetworked and knowledge-driven, and thus responsive to challenges and opportunitiesof the digital age. The networking capability (e.g. ICT-enabled virtuality,organizational teaming, and knowledge hyperlinking) provides for the adaptive organizations to cope with one of the biggest challenges they face today – complexity. For a small number of businesses, embracing complexity yields a competitive edge in terms of creativity, innovation, information management, and human resources. If we consider our countries, unions, departments, projects as complex adaptive systems, then we need to take into account their specificities to address and guide them properly. This paper looks through the lens of system design, complex adaptive systems, and the tactical management adaptability and effectiveness to provide an analysis of the European (1) strengths in strategy and operations (2) problems in ‘silos’, matrix- organizations, insufficient information and communication flows, current project management and slow risk management (3) example of the freedom of movement for workers (4) ‘business model’, and (5) growth paradigm that need to be fundamentally redefined through the value co-creation and co- evolution. The solutions we provide here are both conceptual (e.g. greater effectiveness delivered through the existing governance structures by drawing attention to the missing link between tactics and empowered project management), and tangible (e.g. methods providing adaptability in dynamic and unpredictable environment that is preserved by continuous Sense-Interpret-Decide-Act (SIDA) Loop and Role-and-Accountability system design, with proper information sensors, emitters and risk management for strategy and tactics)

Exploring product–service systems in the digital era: a socio-technical systems perspective

Purpose – In the age of Industry 4.0, digital advancement is reshaping manufacturing models towards a Product-Service Systems (PSS). The drivers, readiness and challenges to move to a PSS model are not well understood and the exploitation of the digital era presents the gap of this research. Design/methodology/approach – The research was conducted using semi-structured interviews in six manufacturers. Two forum debates were also conducted to supplement and validate the findings. Findings – Social and economic motivations rather than environmental considerations were driving the change to PSS. Digital technologies could be an important driver, if manufacturers reached a certain PSS maturity level. A high-level of technical readiness was offset by a low-level of social investments and the strategic development of human resources. Value co-creation was a main challenge though manufacturers had the advantage of digital connectivity, which indicated new human requirements: the greater the enabling power of digital technologies, the greater the need for advanced human skills. Practical implications – Human resource management has underpinned lean models yet the role of employees within PSS is underdeveloped despite the impact of staff in exploiting digitalisation and value co-creation. A “learning organisation” and socio-technical fit is required for the “diffusion of innovation” of PSS. Originality/value – This research attempted to explore drivers, readiness and challenges for PSS from a socio-technical systems (STS) perspective. Three levels of PSS maturity with STS features was derived from the research providing guidance for manufacturers. Keywords Product-Service Systems, Drivers, Readiness, Challenges, Industry 4.0, Digitalisation, Socio-technical systems Paper type Research pape

Customer relationship management: digital transformation and sustainable business model innovation

[EN] The point of departure for this study is the understanding of customer relationship management (CRM) as a set of technological solutions key for efficient business management, the benefits of which, highlighted by previous works, are presented and defined here as crucial for entrepreneurial success. Of particular interest for this purpose are the existing studies on sustainability, which provide a viable research model to assess and validate the potential effect of each CRM component (sales, marketing, and services) on the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social). Upon confirmation of our hypotheses, the subsequent validation of such model should bring a better understanding of the way in which CRM-related benefits may increase the positive impact of its components on each dimension of sustainability. CRM can hence be considered a sort of Green IT, oriented toward digital transformation and sustainable business model innovation. Indeed, this research model may be the basis for a more specific methodology to measure the impact and benefits of applying CRM, understood, as we will contend, both in terms of sustainable business models and innovation.Gil Gómez, H.; Guerola-Navarro, V.; Oltra Badenes, RF.; Lozano Quilis, JA. (2020). Customer relationship management: digital transformation and sustainable business model innovation. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istra ivanja. 33(1):2733-2750. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1676283S27332750331Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., … Lang, D. J. (2016). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30-39. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-yAlegre, J., Sengupta, K., & Lapiedra, R. (2011). Knowledge management and innovation performance in a high-tech SMEs industry. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 31(4), 454-470. doi:10.1177/0266242611417472Arsić, S., Banjević, K., Nastasić, A., Rošulj, D., & Arsić, M. (2018). Family Business Owner as a Central Figure in Customer Relationship Management. Sustainability, 11(1), 77. doi:10.3390/su11010077Bose, R. (2002). Customer relationship management: key components for IT success. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(2), 89-97. doi:10.1108/02635570210419636Bradshaw, D., & Brash, C. (2001). Managing customer relationships in the e‐business world: how to personalise computer relationships for increased profitability. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 29(12), 520-530. doi:10.1108/09590550110696969Cantner, U., Joel, K., & Schmidt, T. (2009). The use of knowledge management by German innovators. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 187-203. doi:10.1108/13673270910971923Chen, A. J. W., Boudreau, M., & Watson, R. T. (2008). Information systems and ecological sustainability. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 10(3), 186-201. doi:10.1108/13287260810916907Chen, I. J., & Popovich, K. (2003). Understanding customer relationship management (CRM). Business Process Management Journal, 9(5), 672-688. doi:10.1108/14637150310496758Christofi, M., Leonidou, E., & Vrontis, D. (2015). Cause-related marketing, product innovation and extraordinary sustainable leadership: the root towards sustainability. Global Business and Economics Review, 17(1), 93. doi:10.1504/gber.2015.066533Chua, A. Y. ., & Banerjee, S. (2013). Customer knowledge management via social media: the case of Starbucks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 237-249. doi:10.1108/13673271311315196Claycomb, C., Dröge, C., & Germain, R. (1999). The Effect of Just‐in‐Time with Customers on Organizational Design and Performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 10(1), 37-58. doi:10.1108/09574099910805923Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. doi:10.2307/2393553Stefanou, C. J., Sarmaniotis, C., & Stafyla, A. (2003). CRM and customer‐centric knowledge management: an empirical research. Business Process Management Journal, 9(5), 617-634. doi:10.1108/14637150310496721Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models. Management Science, 42(5), 693-716. doi:10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational Innovation and Performance: The Problem of «Organizational Lag». Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392. doi:10.2307/2393031Dervitsiotis, K. N. (2010). Developing full-spectrum innovation capability for survival and success in the global economy. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(2), 159-170. doi:10.1080/14783360903549865Dewhurst, F., Martínez Lorente, A. R., & Dale, B. G. (1999). Total quality management and information technologies: an exploration of the issues. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(4), 392-406. doi:10.1108/02656719910249333Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121. doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/113.0.co;2-eEpiphany.com. (2001). CRM benefits. Retrieved from http://www.ephany.com/market/crm_benefits.html2001European Commission. (2013). One trillion euro to invest in Europe’s future—The EU’s budget framework 2014–2020. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2013/11/one-trillion-euro-to-invest-in-europe-s-future-the-eu-s-budget-framework-2014-2020Fidel, P., Schlesinger, W., & Cervera, A. (2015). Collaborating to innovate: Effects on customer knowledge management and performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1426-1428. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.026FIDEL, P., SCHLESINGER, W., & EMILO, E. (2018). EFFECTS OF CUSTOMER KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND CUSTOMER ORIENTATION ON INNOVATION CAPACITY AND MARKETING RESULTS IN SMEs: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF INNOVATION ORIENTATION. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(07), 1850055. doi:10.1142/s136391961850055xGallego, J., Rubalcaba, L., & Hipp, C. (2012). Organizational innovation in small European firms: A multidimensional approach. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 31(5), 563-579. doi:10.1177/0266242611430100Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87. doi:10.1177/002224299906300205Gholami, H., Zameri Mat Saman, M., Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., Sharif, S., & Zakuan, N. (2018). Proposed Analytic Framework for Student Relationship Management based on a Systematic Review of CRM Systems Literature. Sustainability, 10(4), 1237. doi:10.3390/su10041237Gibbert, M., Leibold, M., & Probst, G. (2002). Five Styles of Customer Knowledge Management, and How Smart Companies Use Them To Create Value. European Management Journal, 20(5), 459-469. doi:10.1016/s0263-2373(02)00101-9Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. Omega, 25(1), 15-28. doi:10.1016/s0305-0483(96)00043-6Grawe, S. J., Chen, H., & Daugherty, P. J. (2009). The relationship between strategic orientation, service innovation, and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(4), 282-300. doi:10.1108/09600030910962249Huang, E. Y., & Lin, C. (2005). Customer‐oriented financial service personalization. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(1), 26-44. doi:10.1108/02635570510575171Huang, P.-S., & Shih, L.-H. (2008). Effective environmental management through environmental knowledge management. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 6(1), 35-50. doi:10.1007/bf03326058Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation matter?: a test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 899-906. doi:10.1002/smj.197Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429-438. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015Karimi, J., Somers, T. M., & Gupta, Y. P. (2001). Impact of Information Technology Management Practices on Customer Service. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 125-158. doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045661King, S. F., & Burgess, T. F. (2008). Understanding success and failure in customer relationship management. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(4), 421-431. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.02.005Krizanova, A., Gajanova, L., & Nadanyiova, M. (2018). Design of a CRM Level and Performance Measurement Model. Sustainability, 10(7), 2567. doi:10.3390/su10072567Liao, S., Fei, W.-C., & Chen, C.-C. (2007). Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability: an empirical study of Taiwan’s knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Information Science, 33(3), 340-359. doi:10.1177/0165551506070739Lin, R., Che, R., & Ting, C. (2012). Turning knowledge management into innovation in the high‐tech industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(1), 42-63. doi:10.1108/02635571211193635Lopez-Nicolas, C., & Molina-Castillo, F. J. (2008). Customer Knowledge Management and E-commerce: The role of customer perceived risk. International Journal of Information Management, 28(2), 102-113. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.09.001March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Holcom, K. (2001). Re-engineering the customer relationship: leveraging knowledge assets at IBM. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 155-170. doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00108-7Mckenzie, C. R. M., & Liersch, M. J. (2011). Misunderstanding Savings Growth: Implications for Retirement Savings Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(SPL), S1-S13. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.spl.s1Menguc, B. (2006). Creating a Firm-Level Dynamic Capability through Capitalizing on Market Orientation and Innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 63-73. doi:10.1177/0092070305281090Mishra, D., Akman, I., & Mishra, A. (2014). Theory of Reasoned Action application for Green Information Technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 29-40. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.030Molla, A. & Abareshi, A. (2011). Green IT adoption: A motivational perspective. In Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 7–11 July; p. 137.Introductory Chapter: Framework for Energy and Environmental Management in Industry. (s. f.). Applied Industrial Energy and Environmental Management, 1-22. doi:10.1002/9780470714379.chNgo, L. V., & O’Cass, A. (2012). In Search of Innovation and Customer-related Performance Superiority: The Role of Market Orientation, Marketing Capability, and Innovation Capability Interactions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 861-877. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00939.xPanayides, P. (2006). Enhancing innovation capability through relationship management and implications for performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 466-483. doi:10.1108/14601060610707876Pohludka, M., Stverkova, H., & Ślusarczyk, B. (2018). Implementation and Unification of the ERP System in a Global Company as a Strategic Decision for Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Sustainability, 10(8), 2916. doi:10.3390/su10082916Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4-9. doi:10.1108/10878570410699249Rao, H., & Drazin, R. (2002). OVERCOMING RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS ON PRODUCT INNOVATION BY RECRUITING TALENT FROM RIVALS: A STUDY OF THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY, 1986-94. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 491-507. doi:10.2307/3069377Robson, P. J. A., & Bennett, R. J. (2000). Small Business Economics, 15(3), 193-208. doi:10.1023/a:1008129012953Rollins, M. & Halinen, A. (2005). Customer knowledge management competence: Towards a theoretical framework. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii (pp. 1–10). IEEE.Romano, A. C. Jr (2000). Customer relations management in information systems research. In H. M. Chung (Ed.), Proceedings of the Americas Conference in Information Systems (AMCIS), Long Beach, California, 10–13 August, pp. 811–819.Romano Jr, N. C., & Fjermestad, J. (2001). Electronic Commerce Customer Relationship Management: An Assessment of Research. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 61-113. doi:10.1080/10864415.2001.11044232Sahay, B. S., & Ranjan, J. (2008). Real time business intelligence in supply chain analytics. Information Management & Computer Security, 16(1), 28-48. doi:10.1108/09685220810862733Scullin, S., Allora, J., Lloyd, G. O. & Fjermestad, J. (2002). Electronic customer relationship management: Benefits, considerations, pitfalls and trends. In Proceedings of the IS One World Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April, pp. 3–5.Shane, S. A., & Ulrich, K. T. (2004). 50th Anniversary Article: Technological Innovation, Product Development, and Entrepreneurship inManagement Science. Management Science, 50(2), 133-144. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0204Sims, D. (2000). A new ROI for new economy CRM and just why doesn’t high-tech get it? crmguru.com, April 2000.Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., & Yim, F. H. K. (2005). CRM: conceptualization and scale development. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1264-1290. doi:10.1108/03090560510623253Tushman, M. L. (1997). Winning through innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 25(4), 14-19. doi:10.1108/eb054591Verhoef, P. C., & Donkers, B. (2001). Predicting customer potential value an application in the insurance industry. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 189-199. doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00110-5Vorhies, D. W., & Harker, M. (2000). The Capabilities and Perfor Mance Advantages of Market‐Driven Firms: An Empirical Investigation. Australian Journal of Management, 25(2), 145-171. doi:10.1177/031289620002500203Waltner, C. (2001). CRM makes on-line shopping personal. InformationWeek, January 29, 2001.Weerawardena, J. (2003). Exploring the role of market learning capability in competitive strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4), 407-429. doi:10.1108/03090560310459023Whatis.com. (2001). DIY BI: A guide to self-service business intelligence implementation. Retrieved from http://whatis.techtarget.com/whatis_definition_page/0,4152,211901,00.htmlZhu, Z., & Nakata, C. (2007). Reexamining the Link Between Customer Orientation and Business Performance: The Role of Information Systems. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(3), 187-203. doi:10.2753/mtp1069-667915030

iSIM: An integrated design method for commercializing service innovation

© 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York. Service innovation is focused on customer value creation. At its core, customer centric service innovation is technology-enabled, human-centered, and process-oriented. To profit from such innovation, firms need an integrated cross-disciplinary, holistic method to design and commercialize service innovation. From diverse but interrelated strands of theories from service science, strategic management, organization science and information systems literatures, this article develops a new integrated design method, known as iSIM (integrated Service Innovation Method), for simultaneous service innovation and business model design for sustained customer value co-creation with the firm. Following design science research method, the article theoretically defines and integrates iSIM’s seven constitutive design process-elements: service strategy, customer type / value proposition, service concept, service system, customer experience, service architecture and monetization into a coherent and end-to-end aligned integrated design method. It explains how iSIM would be holistically and iteratively practiced by practitioners, and conceptually exemplifies its utility via telco and Amazon case studies using secondary data. Perspectives on iSIM from selected practitioners are discussed which confirm iSIM’s potential utility for their business. Managerial implications of implementing the iSIM and potential areas for further research are also discussed

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.

User involvement and value co-creation in well-being ecosystems

Purpose: This article aims to examine how users' involvement in value co-creation influences the development and orchestration of well-being ecosystems to help tackle complex societal challenges. This research contributes to the public management literature and answers recent calls to investigate novel public service governances by discussing users' involvement and value co-creation for novel well-being solutions. Design/methodology/approach: The authors empirically explore this phenomenon through a case study of a complex ecosystem addressing increased well-being, focussing on the formative evaluation stage of a longitudinal evaluation of Sweden's first support centre for people affected by cancer. Following an abductive reasoning and action research approach, the authors critically discuss the potential of user involvement for the development of well-being ecosystems and outline preconditions for the success of such approaches. Findings: The empirical results indicate that resource reconfiguration of multi-actor collaborations provides a platform for value co-creation, innovative health services and availability of resources. Common themes include the need for multi-actor collaborations to reconfigure heterogeneous resources; actors' adaptive change capabilities; the role of governance mechanisms to align the diverse well-being ecosystem components, and the engagement of essential actors. Research limitations/implications: Although using a longitudinal case study approach has revealed stimulating insights, additional data collection, multiple cases and quantitative studies are prompted. Also, the authors focus on one country but the characteristics of users' involvement for value co-creation in innovative well-being ecosystems might vary between countries. Practical implications: The findings of this study demonstrate the value of cancer-affected individuals, with “lived experiences”, acting as sources for social innovation, and drivers of well-being ecosystem development. The findings also suggest that participating actors in the ecosystem should utilise wider knowledge and experience to tackle complex societal challenges associated with well-being. Social implications: Policymakers should encourage the formation of well-being ecosystems with diverse actors and resources that can help patients navigate health challenges. The findings especially show the potential of starting from the user's needs and life situation when the ambition is to integrate and innovate in fragmented systems. Originality/value: The proposed model proposes that having a user-led focus on innovating new solutions can play an important role in the development of well-being ecosystems