Giustina Secundo and Antonio Toma Department of Engineering for Innovation,
Facolta di Ingegneria, Universita del Salento, Lecce, Italy Giovanni Schiuma Universita degli Studi della Basilicata,
Potenza, Italy, and
Giuseppina Passiante Department of Engineering for Innovation,
University of Salento, Lecce, Italy. “Knowledge transfer in open innovation A classification framework for healthcare
ecosystems” Business Process Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 1, 2019 pp. 144-163 © Emerald Publishing Limited.
[point 1] In a world of ever-changing
corporate environments and reduced product life cycles, organizations working
in R&D and technology-intensive industry “can
and should use external ideas as well as internal ones, and internal and
external paths to market” to make the most out of their technologies
(Chesbrough, 2003, p. 24).
[point 2] Chesbrough et al. (2006)
proposed a quite broad definition of open innovation as the “purposive
inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and to
expand the markets for external use of innovation” (Chesbrough
et al.,
2006, p. 1) using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the
organization’s business model (Chesbrough and Bogers,
2014).
[point 3] Since 2003, there has been an
abundance of research conducted into open innovation, even though much of this
research has focused on individual firms interacting with external partners, large-scale
enterprises, leaving a gap in R&D intensive industry and at
inter-organizational value network level (alliance, network and, specifically,
ecosystem) (Chesbrough et al., 2014).
[point 4] The innovation of healthcare
ecosystems will likely take the form of a constellation of improvements and not
the adoption of a singular product or service. Healthcare ecosystems usually
involve a wide number of actors (patients, doctors, nurses, companies and
government bodies) that open their innovation processes in order to incorporate
knowledge flows originated from or co-produced with external stakeholders (academia,
research centers, industry, government, NGOs and public institutions) (Chesbrough
and Bogers, 2014; Dahlander and Gann, 2010; Huizingh, 2011; Enkel et al.,
2009; Ardito and Messeni Petruzzelli, 2017). Characterizing knowledge in terms
of flows means looking at knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed
experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a
framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” (Davenport
and Prusak, 2000, p. 5).
Cinzia Battistella, Alberto Felice De Toni,
Elena Pessot, (2017) "Practising open innovation: a framework of
reference", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 23 Issue: 6,
pp.1311-1336.
[point 5] The open innovation (OI) paradigm
has received an extensive number of contributions from different research
streams (Gassmann, 2006), taking into account a variety of dimensions such as
strategy, leadership and organisational structure (Giannopoulou et al.,
2011). The exponential growth of this research field has also led to the
publication of numerous reviews, addressing major research streams on different
topics. In particular, previous studies have focussed on notions of OI, OI
forms (in terms of inbound/outbound/coupled processes, number, type and variety
of partners, mechanisms, opened phases of the innovation process, types of
innovation, focus), effectiveness (in terms of the firm’s
general or innovation performance), contextual factors (size of the company,
industry/technology intensity) and strategic orientation (leader/follower,
leadership and internal culture, business models, impact of appropriability)
(see e.g. literature reviews by Elmquist et al., 2009; Huizingh, 2011; Kovacs et al.,
2015; West et al., 2014).
[point 6] Beyond theoretical issues, little
research has been conducted to thoroughly investigate effective OI
implementation in companies, i.e. practices or modes (Giannopoulou et al.,
2011; Spithoven et al., 2013; West and Bogers, 2014). While OI
practices adoption has been widely proved in different companies and in
different contexts (Huizingh, 2011), scholars (Chesbrough and Brunswicker,
2014; Docherty, 2006; Gassmann, 2006; Giannopoulou et al.,
2011) agree that companies are still facing difficulties in implementing them,
particularly in terms of organisational and cultural barriers. Moreover,
companies interact with various combinations of actors, with different roles
and strength of ties (Lee et
al., 2010) and adopt diverse sets
of instruments (Rass et al., 2013) in their OI activities.
[point 7] “…an integrated framework to
support companies in decision making on when, how and which OI practices to
adopt is still lacking (Huizingh, 2011; Bellantuono et al.,
2013)”
[point 8] The valuable advantages of opening
up the innovation process to the outside are widely acknowledged (Boudreau and
Lakhani, 2009; Docherty, 2006) and have been experienced in different companies
and in different contexts (Huizingh, 2011). OI is associated with superior firm
performance (Laursen and Salter, 2006; Rass et al., 2013) and higher innovative
activity in companies (Cosh and Zhang, 2011), both in large and
small-to-medium-sized ones (Spithoven et al., 2013). This is true in
particular: when the technology, design and innovation approaches have yet to
be ascertained; when customer needs are highly varied or not yet fully
understood; and when companies can separate and outsource distinct parts of the
innovation process in order to take advantage of different knowledge and ideas (Boudreau
and Lakhani, 2009).
[point 9] Developing and exploiting
innovation activities in collaboration with external parties requires new
decisions that should be delineated in: when, how, with whom, with what purpose
and in what way (Huizingh, 2011). While previous research studied management challenges
for effective OI implementation (see e.g. van de Vrande et al.,
2009 for a study on SMEs in this sense), there is still little research on
putting OI into practice (Giannopoulou et al., 2011; West and Bogers, 2014),
especially in the case of SMEs.
[point 10] Bellantuono et al. (2013)
introduce a framework that supports managers in identifying the OI practices
that best fit a specific innovation project. For this purpose they study different
combinations of variables related to OI practices – e.g.
access mode, degree or formality, etc. – and variables related to a
companies’ innovation context in terms of knowledge
supply – e.g. the level of knowledge they possess.
Despite this, they do not provide a list of practices, i.e. they do not explore
thoroughly all the possible OI practical approaches.
Susanne Ollila and Maria Elmquist. “Managing Open Innovation: Exploring
Challenges at the Interfaces of an Open Innovation Arena” CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT Volume
20 Number 4 2011.
[point 11] The emergence of open innovation initiatives,
in which R&D and innovation processes are increasingly opened to external
parties, seems to be associated with amplifying the levels of collaboration. Initiatives
by large companies such as Procter & Gamble are often cited as success
stories of how to use external sources to innovate (Dodgson, Gann & Salter,
2006; Huston & Sakkab, 2006). However, most research has a ‘one firm focus’
and discusses, for instance, how the firm might benefit from open innovation.
[point 12] Research on open innovation focuses on new
actors, such as innovation intermediaries (Chesbrough, 2006) that provide an
open marketplace for ideas, talent and technologies. Innovation intermediaries
are variously described in the literature as bridgers (Bessant & Rush, 1995; McEvily &
Zaheer, 1999), brokers (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Provan &
Human, 1999) and as third parties (Mantel & Rosegger, 1987). In an overview
of innovation intermediation, Howells (2006) argues that innovation intermediation
can be considered as a function, a process and a relationship. In a study of InnoCentive,
an innovation intermediary that facilitates open problem solving, Lakhani and Jeppesen
(2007) investigate how companies leverage collaboration with these open
innovation actors. But again the focus is on a single firm collaborating with
an intermediary.
[point 13] It is becoming more frequent for
organizations to find they are unable to have all the competencies they require
in-house, which is forcing them to open up their R&D processes – and to
engage in open innovation (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke & West, 2006). This has
led to experimentation with new types of collaboration between organizations.
Chesbrough’s (2003a, 2003b) original open innovation model describes inbound
innovation, where firms commercialize external ideas, and outbound innovation
where firms out-license or spin-off internal ideas. Enkel, Gassmann and
Chesbrough (2009) added a third process to this model: the coupled process that
combines the two directions.
[point 14] When firms open up their R&D and
innovation processes they need to acknowledge the managerial challenges this
entails. The degree of firm openness depends on the people and the company
culture (Herzog, 2008), and cultural change is thus essential for certain
innovation activities (Slowinski et al., 2009). Herzog (2008) argues that open
and closed innovation cultures are different and that open innovation requires
a risk-taking culture. It has been argued also that being able to combine
internal and external sources of innovation requires an ambidextrous mentality
(Vanhaverbeke, Van De Vrande & Chesbrough, 2008).
Marcel Bogers, (2011),"The open
innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations",
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 1 pp. 93 – 117.
[point 15] Despite the growing importance of R&D collaborations
in particular and open innovation in general, many important questions are
still unexplored – also due to the (growing) complexity of such collaborative
efforts and the nature of the underlying resources and knowledge (Chesbrough,
2003; Das and Teng, 2000; Granstrand, 2000; Gulati and Singh, 1998; Haefliger et al.,
2008; Henkel, 2006). For example, although there is an inherent paradox caused
by the natural tension between knowledge sharing and protection, little
attention has been given to how firms can protect their technological
competencies while they, at the same time, collaborate with other organizations
(McEvily et al., 2004) and how firms create and capture
value in an era of open innovation when innovating organizations are highly
dependent on each other (Vanhaverbeke, 2006). A better understanding of the exact
tension between knowledge sharing and protection is therefore important, for
academics who wish to further advance the field of open and collaborative
innovation as well as for managers who have to cope with this tension field in
practice.
[point 16] “… it is not surprising that it has been argued that we
have entered an era of intellectual and alliance capitalism (Gerlach, 1992;
Granstrand, 2000; Narula and Duysters, 2004; Teece, 2000). Gulati and Singh
(1998) furthermore note that the growth of inter-firm collaborations has been
characterized by increasing diversity of collaborations, with respect to
partners’ nationalities, motives and goals, and the formal structures used in
collaborations. Moreover, because of the increasing complexity of knowledge,
more and different kinds of partners are often needed to achieve a certain
goal, including partners from other industries, universities and public research
organizations as well as competitors.
[point 17] Collaborative agreements in general and knowledge sharing
in particular have been explored from a variety of theoretical perspectives
(Bogers, 2010). Two notable theories – also in strategic management theory in
general (see Acedo et al., 2006; Besanko et al.,
2010; Foss and Stieglitz, 2010; Leiblein, 2003) – that have served as a background
for studying collaborative efforts are transaction cost economics and the resource-based
view of the firm (see Das and Teng, 2000; Hagedoorn et al.,
2000; Kogut, 1988; Tsang, 2000). While transaction cost economics and the
resource-based view are fundamentally different, they also complement each
other (Argyres and Zenger, 2007; Foss, 2003; Mayer and Salomon, 2006; Tsang,
2000). Osborn and Hagedoorn (1997) in fact expect to see more attempts that
integrate both transaction cost and non-transaction cost arguments into a more
comprehensive theory of inter-organizational alliances and networks.
[point 18] According to transaction cost economics, collaboration
(as a kind of relational contracting) is the preferred governance mechanism in
case of medium production and transaction costs (Dyer, 1997; King, 2007; Oxley,
1997; Williamson, 1975, 1985). In this vein, collaboration copes with high
degree of asset specificity (causing switching costs), creates lower uncertainty
over specifying and monitoring partners’ performance, internalizes spillovers, balances the
partners’ contributions, and lowers opportunistic behavior (e.g. mutual hostage
situation).
[point 19] In the resource-based view, on the other hand, collaborations
can be used to exploit resource complementarities (Barney, 1991; Das and Teng,
2000; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996; Hitt et al., 2000; Lavie,
2006; Mowery et al., 1996). Accordingly, motives for
collaboration and partner selection are exploitation of resource
complementarity and economies of scale, gaining low cost new market entry, cost
and risk management, tacit collusion, and capability building and learning.
For class exercise, study the literature review blog article to conduct a literature review on the 19 points above. The link: https://josephho33.blogspot.com/2019/08/literature-review-process-of-alra-for.html.
