Search results

This study explores how open innovation (OI) can be instrumental for entrepreneurs in sensing and seizing entrepreneurial opportunities in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This study also illustrates how OI can help SMEs overcome the liability of smallness.

This is exploratory research using an inductive, multiple-case study approach. This study capitalizes on five in-depth case studies of European SMEs to explore a phenomenon using replication logic and provide a robust basis for theory building.

This study presents a holistic view of the OI process in SMEs and illustrates the crucial role of entrepreneurs. The study provides a better understanding of how OI can help entrepreneurs sense and seize entrepreneurial opportunities by envisioning venture ideas and implementing business model innovation through the management of innovation partners.

The study emphasizes two critical roles of entrepreneurs in implementing OI in SMEs. First, the entrepreneur can be the instigator of strategic change, and second, he/she can orchestrate the innovation network. The findings emphasize that OI helps avoid knowledge corridors at the venture idea stage, leading to a (re)structuring of the business model and the emergence of a network of innovation partners, which should be managed hands-on. This study discusses in detail the two crucial roles of entrepreneurs.

Innovation ecosystems have not been defined univocally. The authors compare the different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature, the link with open innovation, the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, and the need to orchestrate them properly. In this way, the purpose of this paper is to provide a highly needed, concise overview of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking.

A systematic screening of the literature searching for publications focusing on innovation ecosystems is carried out in the paper. The authors found 30 publications and compared the different approaches to innovation ecosystems: the authors classify them according to industries, the level of analysis, their central focus on innovation ecosystems, whether frameworks are developed in the publications, the main actors, focus on SMEs or large companies, the success of innovation ecosystems and the role of the orchestrator.

The authors found different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature. Some papers look at the link with open innovation, and others at the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, the role of orchestrators, etc. The authors also provide an overview about the industries, the level of analysis, the central focus of the research, the main actors in the networks and the success factors. The authors observe that most publications have been written in Europe and apply to European ecosystems. The approach in Europe is, to some extent, also different from the main focus of leading American scholars.

The authors compare different approaches to innovation ecosystems. This provides a highly needed understanding of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking. There are some limitations as well: the paper only does a literature review, and the authors are not developing a new framework to study innovation ecosystems.

The literature overview is not primarily focused on practitioners, but the tables in the paper provide a quick overview of good management practices for setting up and managing innovation ecosystems.

Innovations ecosystems are, in some cases, established to solve major societal problems such as changes in healthcare, energy systems, etc. Therefore, they require the interaction between different types of partners including universities, research institutes and governmental agencies. Studying innovation ecosystems is crucial to facilitate social or societal changes.

The paper presents a highly needed overview of the literature about innovation ecosystems and a concise examination of the different aspects that are studied so far.

This study aims to develop theory on the process toward digital service innovation (DSI) and to generate insights into how companies deal with the rising complexity associated with DSI, both inside and outside of the organization, through organizational learning and alignment.

After purposeful sampling, in-depth, longitudinal case studies of three manufacturers are presented as illustration. Per case, multiple semi-structured interviews are conducted, and insights are validated through rich additional data gathering. Each company's DSI pathway is reconstructed with critical incident technique. Next, using systematic combining, a middle-range theory is developed by proposing a theoretical frame concerning the relations between DSI maturity, learning and alignment.

The authors posit that, as companies gradually develop and progress toward DSI maturity, they deal with a rising degree of complexity, fueling their learning needs. Companies that are apt to learn, pass through multiple cycles of learning and alignment to overcome specific complexities associated with different DSI stages, with each cycle unlocking new DSI opportunities and challenges.

The study applies a stage-based view on DSI combined with complexity management and organizational learning and alignment theory. It offers a theoretical frame and propositions to be used by researchers for future DSI studies and by managers to evaluate alternative DSI strategies and implementation steps.

Open innovation in start-ups is a relatively unexplored field and studies focusing on collaborative innovation between start-ups with large companies seen from the former’s point of view are virtually inexistent. The authors address this gap in an exploratory study built on in-depth case studies. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how start-ups successfully organize and manage open innovation with large companies. The paper highlights common challenges and barriers faced by start-ups in adopting open innovation practices along with its benefits for them.

This is an exploratory study based on two case studies. The cases are diligently selected to examine two key forms of open innovation – inbound and outbound open innovation – in start-ups.

The paper provides an insight on how start-ups organize and manage open innovation activities with large companies and how it benefits them in overcoming liability of newness and smallness. The practices significantly differ from those followed in large companies. The paper highlights the advantages and challenges of inbound and outbound open innovation for start-ups. This paper also ascertains the crucial role of start-up manager for successful implementation of open innovation and shows how start-up’s managers with prior experience of working in/with a large company can proficiently deal with the larger counterpart in the innovation network.

This research is based on exploratory case studies so the conclusions drawn from these two cases may be hard to generalize. The findings of the study could be used for further development of the theoretical framework. Future research, including quantitative studies, will be helpful in examining the conclusions and providing more in-depth understanding of open innovation in start-ups.

The paper includes several practical implications for the managers including the role start-up managers play in organizing and managing open innovation activities. Furthermore, this paper suggests how start-ups could orchestrate open innovation ecosystem.

The paper is a step forward in filling the literature gap about open innovation and start-ups with some definite implications for start-up managers. A lot is written about the collaboration between large firms and start-ups from a former’s point of view but the start-up’s perspective has been left unexplored.

Boundary-spanning exploration through establishing alliances is an effective strategy to explore technologies beyond local search in innovating firms. The purpose of this paper is to argue that it is useful to make a distinction in boundary-spanning exploration between what a firm learns from its alliance partners (explorative learning from partners (ELP)) and what it learns from other organisations (explorative learning from non-partners (ELN)).

The authors contend that alliances play a role in both types of exploration. More specifically, the authors discern three types of alliances (inside ties, clique-spanning ties and outside ties) based on their role vis-à-vis existing alliance cliques. Clique members are highly embedded, and breaking out of the cliques through clique-spanning and outside alliances is crucial to improving explorative learning. Thereafter, the authors claim that clique-spanning ties and outside ties have a different effect on ELN and ELP.

The empirical analysis of the “application specific integrated circuits” industry indicates that inside ties have negligible effects on both types of explorative learning. Clique-spanning ties have a positive effect on ELP, but not on ELN. The reverse is true for outside ties. The results show that research on explorative learning should devote greater attention to the various roles alliance partners and types of alliances play in advancing technological exploration.

The literature only emphasises the learning from partners, focussing mainly on accessing their technology. In sum, alliance partners play different roles in exploration, and their network position influences the role they are able to play.

The purpose of this paper is to categorize industrial clusters, and then compare three industrial clusters of three countries from the perspectives of hard environment, soft environment, factors from supply and demand sides, and the network mechanism.

Data were collected through interview with cluster coordinators. Qualitative case studies were conducted.

The center of excellence behaves well in nearly all aspects, while the spatially narrowly distributed specific center of innovation mainly exploits benefits from its concentrated sector. For the Chinese comprehensive technology incubator, relatively limited geographical space and broad sectorial distribution endow it with unclear strengths, implying the inadequacy of interconnectedness and industry relatedness mentioned by Porter.

Data were collected mainly from cluster coordinators, implying further data collecting and more comprehensive analysis.

It only makes sense to compare industrial clusters that are comparable with each other. Elements must be matched to facilitate the network interactions, and hence the innovation performance of clusters.

This paper contributes to the theoretical basis through it analyzing and clarifying the scales to measure industrial clusters, and answers the question: what is the situation of industrial clusters behaving in several aspects including hard environment, soft environment, supply, demand, network interactions and innovation performance?

Major technological innovations are usually associated with central R&D facilities in large companies and leading edge technologies that are key to unlocking business opportunities in promising, embryonic markets. The purpose of this paper is to identify and analyze several factors that determine the success of a major process innovation in a mature but changing industry. The paper furthermore shows that the periphery of a company can be as innovative as headquarters and central R&D‐labs.

This paper is based upon an in depth case study of the “Business Group Influenza” (BGI) at Solvay, a multinational company in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry based in Brussels. BGI turned a mature business into a growth engine for the company through the development of a cell culture technology. Next, we identified 20 success factors of innovations based on extensive literature research. These factors can be placed in four main categories; strategic factors, market environment factors, development process factors, and organizational factors. In this paper, we apply these key drivers to the renewal of Solvay's influenza vaccine business.

It is found that a systematic analysis of the case using the 20 key drivers allows us to evaluate the management of this major innovation process. In this way, one can easily spot the drivers that need more attention or require another management approach. We also find that the management of attention of the top‐management is crucial in long‐term innovation projects.

The contribution of this study is twofold. On the one hand, the rejuvenation of Solvay's influenza vaccine business shows that changing markets conditions in combination with a breakthrough process technology can turn a cash cow into a growth business. On the other hand, the systematic analysis of key innovation drivers allows one to identify the strength and weaknesses in the management of a long‐term, breakthrough process innovation.

This paper aims to explore the relationship between open innovation (OI) and absorptive capacity (AC) using a bibliometric analysis of existing literature.

The bibliometric analysis is used to review the covered research articles in the Web of Science (WoS) database. The time span covered over 20 years from the year 2000 to 2020.

The study suggests that it is an attracting and growing field for researchers, and there exists a close relationship between OI and AC. Further, the literature has parted into three research streams (1) AC and OI: dependency and interchangeability; (2) OI and its future avenues (3) OI and AC: critical factor for firm innovation performance which elaborate various future scopes to study.

The study's limitations exist with the biasness in database selection criteria, such as the possible non-inclusion of crucial articles.

The study’s implications are to discern close association and path dependency of AC and OI; and facilitate the innovation performance of the firm via developing of AC.

The approach used is a novelty, and the conclusions can better understand the relationship between both terms (OI and AC). Thus, it can help increase firm innovation performance.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Digital service innovation (DSI) can open new doors for companies and help to enhance and sustain competitiveness. The journey to DSI maturity is challenging but one that can be successfully completed through progression from adaptive to generative learning and appropriate alignment both inside the firm and with various external partners.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.