122 research outputs found
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 partnersâ 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 resourceâ 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 nonâfamily members in the governance mechanisms. Indeed, nonâfamily 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 nonâfamily members affects the extent to which firms draw on knowledge from external partners. Specifically, the higher the involvement of nonâ family members, the more there is collaboration with vertical partners along the sup- ply chain
IdentitĂ territoriali del Centro Italia: la componente migratoria fenomeno decisivo nei caratteri sociodemografici e nelle tendenze in atto
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 Majorsâ 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 Eniâs 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
Firm-Specific Factors and the Openness Degree: a Survey of Italian Firms
Purpose â Many companies claim they are adopting an open approach to innovation, but each of them with its own way. This paper aims to explore the different models for opening up the innovation process adopted in practice.
Design/methodology/approach â The paper employs an extended survey among Italian manufacturing companies; cluster analysis; and ANOVA.
Findings â The study distinguishes four different open innovation models with respect to two variables, representing the degree of openness: the number and type of partners with whom the company collaborates (partner variety) and the number and type of phases of the innovation process
actually open to external collaborations (innovation phase variety). They are: open innovators, closed innovators, integrated collaborators and specialised collaborators. The paper describes each cluster in terms of firm-specific variables that characterize and support open innovation choices; finally, it tries to draw some tentative explanation of the influence of openness on the innovative performance of
companies.
Research limitations/implications â The number of espondents is still limited (i.e. about 100). Moreover, only the relationship between some firm-specific factors and the degree of openness (defined specifically in terms of partner variety and phase variety) is studied: a wider investigation is recommended to include more contextual factors, i.e. external/environmental ones, or more variables
that can help to define the openness degree.
Practical implications â The paper provides managerial implications because it suggests that open innovation is not an âon/offâ choice, but it can be interpreted and adopted with different degrees, consistently with the companyâs specific context.
Originality/value â The paper introduces a new perspective that integrates both the number/typology of partners and the number/typology of phases, in order to understand if such a perspective can confirm the existence of different open innovation models
- âŠ