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

Digital strategies to a local cultural tourism development: Project e-Carnide

Digital humanities and smart economy strategies are being seen as an important link between tourism and cultural heritage, as they may contribute to differentiate the audiences and to provide different approaches. Carnide is a peripheral neighbourhood of Lisbon with an elderly population, visible traces of rurality, and strong cultural and religious traditions. The academic project e-Carnide concerns its tangible and intangible cultural heritage and the data dissemination through a website and a mobile app, with textual and visual information. The project aims to analyse the impact of technological solutions on cultural tourism development in a sub-region, involving interdisciplinary research in heritage, history of art, ethnography, design communication and software engineering and the collaboration between the university and local residents in a dynamic and innovative way. Framed by a theoretical approach about the role of smart economy for the cultural tourism development in peripheral areas, this paper focuses on a case study, dealing with documents, interviews and observations, in order to understand how the e-Carnide project evolves. The study comprises an analysis about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis) of the project in view to realize its social and cultural implications and to appreciate how it can be applied in other similar and enlarged projects. Results of the research indicates that the new technological strategies can promote the involvement of the population in the knowledge of its own heritage as a factor of cultural and creative tourism development centred on an authentic and immersive experience of the places

How governance mechanisms in family firms impact open innovation choices: A fuzzy logic approach

The inbound open innovation (OI) process consists of the opening of the innovation funnel to the contribution of external partners, with the aim of tapping into their knowledge. This opportunity is particularly valuable for family firms (FFs), which often have insufficient resources. However, the literature on the OI behaviour of family firms is not conclusive. Indeed, both the behavioural theory (BT) and the resource‐ based view (RBV) posit negative and positive outcomes regarding openness choices in FFs. We claim that these contrasting results can be reconciled if, according to the literature, FFs are seen as a heterogeneous breed, whose differences are deter- mined by different levels of participation of non‐family members in the governance mechanisms. Indeed, non‐family members can act in favour of OI. However, previous literature has failed to satisfactorily grasp the nuances of this heterogeneity. We sug- gest that it is necessary to adequately operationalize the heterogeneity concept by means of fuzzy logic. We conducted a survey on 178 Italian FFs. Results show that the involvement of non‐family members affects the extent to which firms draw on knowledge from external partners. Specifically, the higher the involvement of non‐ family members, the more there is collaboration with vertical partners along the sup- ply chain

From outsourcing to Open Innovation: a case study in the oil industry

This paper describes the experience of Eni, from the awareness of its weakness against external actors (mainly service companies) to the definition of a structured approach to partnership, i.e., Open Innovation (OI), to overcome such weakness. Implementing OI is complex, and the Majors’ position is not easy to change. In particular, the strong appeal to outsourcing geophysics, drilling, onshore and offshore operations and well activities by Eni Exploration and Production (E&P) division led to a technological trajectory that proved to be diffi cult to correct in the short term. Indeed, E&P innovation is in the hands of services companies, thereby compromising Eni’s ability to innovate

How do measurement objectives influence the R&D performance measurement system design? Evidence from a multiple case study

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address the problem of designing a performance measurement system (PMS) for research and development (R&D) activities; in particular, it investigates if and how different objectives for the PMS use influence the design of its constitutive elements. Design/methodology/approach A literature review was first conducted, aimed at identifying the constitutive elements of a PMS for R&D and the major purposes for its use. Then, a multiple case study involving four Italian technology-intensive firms was undertaken for investigating the relationship between PMS constitutive elements and measurement purposes. Findings Different PMS objectives imply significantly different design choices for constitutive elements. Even when companies are very different in terms of size and sector of activity, similar objectives lead to very similar PMSs. Research limitations/implications The research is qualitative. Further research should aim to increase the rationality and objectivity of the proposed relationships and explore the joint effects of the measurement objectives and other contextual factors on the measurement system design. Practical implications R&D managers who plan to design a PMS for their departments can follow the guidelines suggested in the paper to tune the basic features of the PMS to the real objectives they mean to pursue. Originality/value It is the first attempt, to the best knowledge of the authors, that explicitly and practically suggests how to tailor the design of each PMS's constitutive element according to the objectives that are pursued

Creating a Research Network on Open Innovation

Presentazione progetto al congresso “Creating a Research Network on Open Innovation”, 12th International Continuous Innovation Network (CINet) Conference “Continuous Innovation: Doing More with Less