Is your open-innovation successful? The mediating role of a firm's organizational and social context

Open firms are not equally successful. This is because, in order to benefit from external sources of knowledge, firms must be able to absorb such knowledge. The paper outlines a firm’s context as a set of organizational and social features, which may be considered absorptive capacity antecedents. It explores the mediating role of such antecedents in the relationship – hitherto insufficiently researched – between the degree of openness and innovative performance. The use of a methodology combining both direct interviews and survey of Italian firms has allowed us to confirm the supposed mediating role. We also identify different modes for companies to open up their innovation process and, for each of them, the antecedents that are consistent with choices regarding the degree of openness

Are there any differences between family and non-family firms in the open innovation era? lessons from the practice of European manufacturing companies

Although there is an increased interest in studies on FFs and open innovation (OI) the existing knowledge is rather limited. This study explores the open innovation choices, their determinants and the relative innovation performance in FFs with respect to non-family firms. By means of an European survey involving Italian, Swedish, Finnish and UK family and non-family firms we aim at investigating whether FFs are adopting a peculiar behaviour in the open innovation era. In order to achieve this goal, we rely on concepts and constructs already defined by open innovation literature and we explore the behaviour of FFs and non-family firms. Analysis of differences show that family firms are in general less open than non-family firms, when we consider openness in terms of breadth, while they show a higher intensity of collaboration behaviour when we consider the measures of depth. FFs perceive as slightly higher the competitive pressure, but very similar is the perceived technological pressure. Also drivers of collaboration and innovation strategy are on average very similar. Significant differences between FFs and non-FFs are found as concerns the use of IP legal rights (lower for FFs). On average, FFs declare a slightly higher novelty performance. A first type of regressions shows the contribution of some environmental and internal firm-specific factors as explanatory variables of openness degree and thus allow to depict the specific profile of FFs. When we explore differences on the supposed mediating factors of the relationship between openness and innovation performance, the organizational-managerial mechanisms emerge as factors over which FFs exert particular care. A second type of regressions shows that, beside the external social capital, organizational-managerial mechanisms emerge for FFs as a relevant mediator in the relationships between OI depth and innovation performance

IP Strategy in the Open Innovation Era: The Case Of Collaborative NPD

The most recent literature as well as the practice of companies are bringing into evidence that ensuring appropriability is very difficult, in the context of open innovation. The purpose of this paper is to study this problem, and, in particular, it is analyzed the role of organizational and managerial mechanisms in reinforcing the effectiveness of other IPPMs in collaborative NPD. The paper is based upon literature analysis and a multiple case study, involving three companies, and sheds some light on the specific organizational and managerial interventions that can be introduced within companies in order to improve the effectiveness of the IP strategy in collaborative NPD

When IPPMs reduce uncertainty

The Intellectual Property (IP) management in Open Innovation (OI) is one of the most interesting topic in the literature: several authors have highlighted that IP protection mechanisms IPPMs can be useful in order to cope with uncertainty regarding the control over critical know-how, the management of both the background and the foreground knowledge, the property rights and the rights to use innovations, as well as the resolution of possible legal disputes. Our purpose is to identify how IPPMs should be combined along the collaboration phases in order to reduce uncertainty and if IPPMs should be differentiated depending on the different types of partners. On the basis of two case studies in two Italian companies, it emerges the importance to regulate the IP management since the early stages of the collaboration through contractual tools such as Non-Disclosure Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Development Agreement, and Rights to Use. Hence, differently from the literature, case studies suggest that the Right to Use and the agreements governing the joint development should be defined in the exploration phase, in order to produce immediate effects in terms of uncertainty reduction. Once in the development phase, each partner will mostly monitor the other partners’ respect of such agreements

Technology assessment with IF-TOPSIS: An application in the advanced underwater system sector

Technologies are pivotal for firms' success, but also resource consuming. Therefore, managers have to assess and select technologies carefully in order to allocate resources on the most promising ones, grounding their decisions on adequate sets of criteria on which experienced people can express their opinion.This work proposes an application of Multi Criteria Decision Aids to technology assessment, where Decision Support Systems offer an effective support for evaluating technology impact on firms' success, building on experts' judgments.The method is based on a peer-based modification to Intuitionistic Fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making with TOPSIS method (peer IF-TOPSIS). A case study in which this methodology is applied to a company operating in the military sector (Advanced Underwater System) is also presented.Besides the empirical proof of the method's suitability and value in assisting managers in their decision, the paper's contributions are both methodological and theoretical. Methodologically, while allowing a peer-based voting procedure, the method enhances the consensus in the firm and limits the possible biases that a supra-decision maker could introduce. Theoretically, the set of proposed criteria includes many facets of the assessment problem, and avoids being tailored to the investigated technological field, so enhancing its generalizability

Technological Strategy, Open Innovation and Performance: Evidences by a Structural- Equation-Model Approach

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to shed further light on determinants of the openness degree to give a more conclusive evidence to the research in the field. In particular, the influence exerted by the technological strategy is still debated, in that evidence on the relationship between the technological strategy and openness is conflicting. Design/methodology/approach – The authors put forward a structural equation model which enriches the state-of-the-art literature by explicitly testing the interplay among technological strategy, openness (innovatively measured in terms of partner intensity, phase intensity and variety in terms of partners, phases and contents) and innovation performance. Our study relies on data from 415 firms based on a research survey developed in Finland, Italy and Sweden. Findings – Findings show that openness, if measured in terms of partner intensity and phase intensity, fully mediates the relationship between technological strategy and innovation performance, by suggesting that the effectiveness of a firm’s technologically aggressive behavior is strongly related to the intensification of collaboration with the partners along the innovation funnel. Conversely, openness variety seems to play an opposite role and is influenced differently by partner and phase intensity. This result likely emphasizes how the cost-side of open behavior becomes harder to manage, and thus costly, when it involves too many different types of partners, phases and contents. Practical implications – Firms that adopt a technologically aggressive strategy are recommended to deeply open their innovation process to foster innovation performance. However, because of the fact that a high level of openness variety could generate some drawbacks, managers should be very careful in the management of different phases, sources and content. Therefore, what clearly emerges is a call to find adequate strategies for effectively managing the collaboration process to avoid the waste of resources and initiatives. Originality/value – Originality and the value of the paper reside in a more fine-grained definition of the openness concept, which takes into consideration other facets of openness compared to those usually analyzed in the literature, and a powerful statistical model, such as structural equation modeling, offering great advantages and flexibility in matching the theoretical model with the data