In spite of the growing interest in open innovation, one of the core questions that remain unanswered is how different kinds of openness affect innovation performance. Moreover, the impact of the geographical dispersion of partners also needs further investigation, while there is a tension between the motives for global search and the needs for proximity in innovation processes. In this paper we will research the relationship between openness and performance outcome in manufacturing companies when taking the localisation of partners into account. The study is based on survey data from 415 companies. The openness is defined by three dimensions: partner breadth, partner depth and phase depth. Performance is measured in terms of cost, risk and time-to-market, innovativeness and economic performance. The results of this study confirm and illustrate the localisation dilemma. For manufacturing companies using a global approach, it seems advisable to collaborate more intensively with a reduced number of partners. In contrast, the companies applying a more spatially balanced approach could collaborate with an increased number of partners and still be innovative and cost efficient. This implies that different localisation strategies for external partner collaborations require different integration approaches in order to be successful.
This study reviews literature on paradoxical tensions between value co-creation and capture in interorganizational relationships (IORs). The purpose of this review is to make a re-evaluation of the literature by engaging a paradox theory lens, thereby identifying factors that render tensions salient and factors that lead to virtuous or vicious cycles. This review of 143 articles reveals factors that make tensions salient; these relate to plurality (e.g. coopetition), scarcity (e.g. lack of experience with IORs), change (e.g. changes in collaboration scope) or combinations thereof (e.g. IORs in weak appropriability regimes). Results also uncover factors that resolve paradoxical tensions of value co-creation and capture, thus spurring virtuous cycles (e.g. carefully mixing trust and contracts), as well as factors that promote vicious cycles, owing to the emphasis on either value co-creation or capture (e.g. myopia of learning). This review also uncovers a new category of factors that may stimulate either virtuous or vicious cycles, depending on the extent to which they are enforced. This finding expands the value co-creation–capture paradox resolution, and brings to light new dynamics in the paradox framework of dynamic equilibrium. The authors thus contribute by: (1) reassessing the existing literature and applying paradox theory to the well-known hazard of value co-creation and capture; (2) highlighting factors that amplify paradoxical tensions related to this hazard; and (3) outlining factors that solve the paradox by embracing its contradictory poles and factors that hinder paradox resolution by emphasizing either value co-creation or appropriation.
Researchers, policy makers and practitioners alike have in recent years acknowledged a growing tendency towards opening up the innovation process by combining internal organizational assets with external actors’ resources. However, opening up the innovation process usually also entails revealing ideas, which may result in misappropriation. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate tensions related to the openness-appropriability relationship; this is done in three studies. The first study concerns a specific contextual factor that is likely to stress the openness-appropriability tensions: the location of external partners in innovation. The second study relates to the way managing openness-appropriability tensions affects performance, and the third study involves a theoretical discussion about the nature of the tensions occurring in the openness-appropriability relationship, i.e. paradoxical, dilemmatic, or dialectical. The first two studies apply quantitative methods, using survey data, while the third is a conceptual paper. The findings from the first study indicate that the use of different groups of appropriability mechanisms varies across various types of openness and that the location of external partners in innovation refines these linkages even more. The second study’s main takeaway is that the higher appropriability intensity, i.e. the extent to which appropriability mechanisms are put into practice, explains higher performance outcomes. The third study suggests that the tensions between openness and appropriability are more likely of paradoxical nature. From a theoretical perspective, findings indicate that paradoxical tensions between openness and appropriability may have a spatial dimension, and that these tensions should also be investigated in regards to performance. Managerial implications point out that opening up to innovation partners located abroad is likely to require more costly appropriability mechanisms.
The fundamental paradox of disclosure suggested by Kenneth Arrow represents a challenge in contemporary open innovation settings. Potential negative outcomes of this paradox – e.g. misappropriation of ideas – are still not fully avertable. Researchers, practitioners and policy makers strive to untangle tensions related to this paradox, because failure to manage such tensions might entail lost jobs and hampered economic and technological growth.The purpose of this thesis is to provide a deeper understanding of this paradox by combining three perspectives on tensions in open innovation and applying a paradox lens. The overarching perspective is of value co-creation–value capture. The thesis comprises of five papers that are based on quantitative, qualitative and conceptual studies. The findings reveal: 1) characteristics of tensions; 2) factors that create tensions; and 3) possible solutions and pitfalls to managing said tensions. Findings show that tensions may be managed as paradoxical, dilemmatic or dialectical, depending e.g. on the need to be open or on the overlap between a product’s solution and its characteristics. Moreover, tensions could be spurred by a variety of factors, which may be categorized as: plurality of views, scarcity of resources, change, and combinations thereof (compound factors).Possible solutions to managing tensions include e.g. increasing staff awareness about intellectual property issues or improving collaboration contracts. Possible pitfalls are linked to over-focusing on either co-creating or on capturing value, and also to subsequent tensions. Findings also reveal a category of factors with dual role, which depending on their intensity, may lead to either solutions or to pitfalls. This hints towards additional layers of complexity concerning the paradox of disclosure. The findings contribute to theory on open innovation, appropriability and organizational paradox, and have important implications for practitioners and policy makers.
This study focuses on the tense appropriability-openness relationship, defined by some as paradox. Based on an international survey of 415 manufacturing firms, we investigate how the use of different kinds of intellectual property protection mechanisms (IPPMs) affects interfirm R&D collaboration while considering partner location in the analysis as well. Our results show that the use of formal, semi-formal or informal IPPMs has different effects on openness in terms of partner variety and depth of collaboration with academic partners, value chain partners and competitors. Moreover, when considering location we uncover previously hidden appropriability-openness liaisons showing that semi-formal or informal IPPMs are mainly valid in relation to national partners, whereas formal appropriability explains international collaborations. One implication of the study is that to better understand the appropriability-openness relationship it is imperative to differentiate between national and international settings. We further suggest that the potential paradox delineating this relationship has a geographical dimension.
It is unclear how companies choose intellectual property protection mechanisms (IPPMs) in open innovation and how this choice affects firm performance. Our study addresses these gaps by using a data sample of 415 manufacturing firms from three European countries. The analysis covers eight IPPMs used in open innovation with four types of partners. Findings show that combinations of IPPMs vary according to partner openness. Moreover, companies using all kinds of IPPMs perform better than those relying on informal or semiformal IPPMs.
This study set out to investigate the use of formal protection mechanisms (formal contracts and IPRs) in interorganisational R&D collaboration with various types of partners within and across national borders. Considering the scarcity of studies that analyse both IPRs and formal contracts in the context of open innovation with different partner types located both nationally and abroad, our study contributes with new evidence about the actual formal mechanisms that are used in R&D endeavours with external partners. Our results suggest that firms mainly engaged in R&D collaboration with local firms mainly rely on contracts and agreements as formal protection mechanisms, while companies with mostly international R&D partners seem to enable knowledge exchange in the context of open innovation by means of IPRs.
There is to date abundant evidence about the way openness-performance liaisons are shaped, yet parallel streams of research point towards an intricate relationship between appropriability and openness. Accordingly, while openness may reveal ample opportunities, risks of e.g. misappropriation should also be accounted for in open innovation processes, as they might affect performance. Recent research highlights the scarcity of studies investigating openness, appropriability and performance, and suggests a further need to analyze this in different stages of the innovation process. This study therefore aims to investigate the effects of three groups of intellectual property protection mechanisms (formal, semi-formal and informal) and openness (in terms of collaboration depth with eight types of partners) on two types of innovation performance (efficiency and novelty) across innovation phases. The analysis is based on a sample of 340 manufacturing firms from three European countries. Findings show that in early stages of the innovation process, efficiency is positively linked to the use of semi-formal appropriability mechanisms, such as contracts, yet negatively related to the use of formal ones, such as patents. The latter potentially illustrates the high uncertainty and increased risks of imitation or misappropriation in early innovation phases. Informal appropriability mechanisms contribute to novelty in earlier as well as later stages. Results further indicate novelty is explained by university collaboration throughout the innovation process, while competitor collaboration positively associates with novelty in later innovation stages. Vertical collaborations with supplier and customers reveal contrasting effects, which could also have implications linked to imitation risks. Furthermore, the negative effects of formal appropriability mechanisms and supplier collaboration on innovation performance in distinct stages of the innovation process might have implications for the so-called paradox of disclosure.
Firms relying on external sources of knowledge for innovation may encounter a paradox of openness concerning the need to both share and protect knowledge in collaborations. Based on an international survey of manufacturing firms this study attempts to illustrate various forms of the paradox by investigating the effects firms’ openness has on appropriability and performance in high and low tech industries. Findings reveal that the paradox is more likely to occur in the high tech industry cluster, thus hinting towards additional challenges firms in this cluster face in practice and underlining the need to include the technological dimension when researching the paradox. Moreover, in the majority of openness-appropriability combinations where we find a potential paradox of openness, firms do not succeed to overcome the paradox. The one exception in our sample is for the high tech firms when collaborating with suppliers and using formal appropriability. By pinpointing the different forms of the paradox this study also contributes to the ongoing debate concerning the role of intellectual property mechanisms in inbound open innovation.