1,721,039 research outputs found
How governance mechanisms in family firms impact open innovation choices: A fuzzy logic approach
No full textThe 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
Creating a Research Network on Open Innovation
No full textPresentazione progetto al congresso “Creating a Research Network on Open Innovation”, 12th International Continuous Innovation Network (CINet) Conference “Continuous Innovation: Doing More with Less
From outsourcing to Open Innovation: a case study in the oil industry
No full textThis 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
Technology aggressiveness, open innovation and innovation performance: evidences by a structural- equation-model approach
No full textPurpose – Still little is known about the determinants of the openness degree. Examples of investigated determinants are firm-specific or environmental/external factors. However, the role exerted by some of them remains unclear. In particular, it is still debated the influence by the so-called “technology aggressiveness”. As a matter of fact, evidences on the relationships between the technology aggressiveness and openness are in fact conflicting. The aim of this study is thus to shed further light on the relationship between technology aggressiveness and openness degree in order to give a more conclusive evidence to the debate.
Design/methodology/approach – We elaborate a structural equation model which enriches the state-of-the-art by explicitly testing the interplay among technology aggressiveness, openness (innovatively measured in terms of partner intensity, phases intensity, and variety) and innovative performance. Our study relies on data from more than 400 firms by a survey research developed in Finland, Italy and Sweden.
Originality/value – Findings shows that openness, if measured as partner intensity and phase intensity, fully mediates the relationship between technology aggressiveness and innovative performance, by suggesting that the effectiveness of a firm’s technology aggressive behaviour 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 differently influenced by partner and phase intensity. This result likely emphasises the cost-side of an open behaviour becoming harder to manage, and thus costly, when involving too many different partners, phases and contents.
Practical implications – If one hand firms, which adopt a technology aggressive strategy, are recommended to deeply open their innovation process in order to foster innovation performance. However, due to the fact that a high openness variety could generate some downside, managers should be very careful in the management of different phases, sources and contents. So that a call to find adequate strategies for effectively managing the collaboration process in order to avoid waste of resources and efforts clearly emerges
Opening The Innovation Process: Models and Practice in Italy
No full textThe concept of “Open Innovation” is often studied supposing an artificial dichotomy between closed and open approaches, whilst the idea of exploring different degrees and types of openness in a sort of continuum seems to provide a more interesting and rich avenue to investigate. In vein of these premises, we analyse different open innovation models adopted in practice in terms of: 1) the number and typologies of partners (partner variety) and 2) the number and type of phases open to external partners (innovation phase variety). In this paper, we first of all describe the approaches to Open Innovation firms adopt according to these two variables and we identify four dominant models adopted; second, we illustrate if and how contextual variables – both internal and external - influence the choice of a specific approach to Open Innovation; third, we analyse the impact that such approaches to Open Innovation have on performance
Contextual Factors and Open Innovation: Are There Contradictory or Yet Little Investigated Propositions?
No full textOpen Innovation (OI) is emerging as a new alternative in opposition to the closed approach: its key tenet is that not all good ideas emerge within organisations and not all good internal ideas can be successfully commercialised by the same firm.
In the last years, even with an attention to OI, most searches have focused on theoretical considerations and case studies, while large-scale studies are still limited. Despite the depth of analysis of case studies is undisputed, surveys
have greater hope of extending results. Moreover, although some relationships between contextual factors, OI and performance have been analysed through surveys, they remain quite contradictory.
Therefore, the aim of this article is to point out these relationships, whether they are contradictory or little investigated by surveys, in order to encourage future empirical research. Consistently, the design of authors’ survey project is presente
Are there any differences between family and non-family firms in the open innovation era? lessons from the practice of European manufacturing companies
Full text linkAlthough 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
Is Your Open-Innovation Successful? The Moderating Role of the Human and Organizational Internal Context
No full textWe explore the relationship among firm absorptive capacity, open-approach to innovation and innovative performance. We operationalize absorptive capacity as a multi-item construct which considers social capital and some organizational features. Open-approach to innovation is interpreted as an approach achievable in continuum in terms of intensity of collaboration with partners. Innovative performance considers several factors: the enlargement of the company’s competence base and the improvement of the time to market.
On the basis of data collected from 106 Italian companies, we find that a low level of absorptive capacity impacts negatively on the firm orientation in adopting a more open approach. We also study the relationship between openness and firm innovative performance: this relation is positively moderated by absorptive capacity. This suggests that openness is not critical per se to enhance innovative performance and that a favourable social-organizational context is needed to make collaboration a success
How To Be Open? Contextual Factors Affecting the Dilemma. A Literature Review and a Research Agenda
No full textCompanies have historically relied on large investments in internal research and
development to drive innovation and provide sustainable growth. However this
model, defined as ‘closed’, is eroding because of the labour mobility, the
presence of abundant venture capital, and the wide dispersion of knowledge
across organizations. A more open approach, named ‘Open Innovation’ (OI), is
emerging as an effective alternative to the closed model: its key tenet is that not
all good ideas emerge inside the organization and not all good ideas generated
within the organization can be successfully developed and commercialized by the
same firm.
In the last years, OI literature grew exponentially highlighting different OI
approaches that firms follow, different contextual variables influencing such
approaches and different effects that such approaches produce in terms of
performance. However the part of the OI literature that has been investigated
more thoroughly and more extensively is the one which investigates the impact of
external and internal contextual variables on the approaches toward OI. Hence,
in our opinion, this part of the literature is more ready (because of the
thoroughness of the literature) and more in need (because of the extensiveness of
the literature) of systematisation. Therefore, the objective of this article is to
review current trends in the state-of-the-art literature regarding the impact
exerted by the external and internal contextual variables on the approaches that
firms have toward OI. Our efforts aim at developing research hypotheses that can
nurture future empirical research: that of the scientific community and certainly
that of ours
- …
