Collaborative innovation network and knowledge transfer performance: A fsQCA approach

Customer co-creation is a phenomenon, whose relevance for innovative technology-based services (TBS) has been acknowledged both by scientific and management practice. However, empirical research on this topic is scarce. Above all others, the lack of a good metric for this construct to establish a common ground for empirical research has hampered progress to date. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to develop and test a construct measuring the willingness of a customer to engage in co-creation (hereafer, WCC) of innovative, TBS. This article provides a thorough literature review on customer co-creation, proposes a scale to measure the willingness to co-create (WCC) innovative, TBS and reports the results of a validation process using expert judges, an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The results of our studies show that the scale has good psychometric properties and that its relationships with other constructs and consumer adoption behaviour conform to theoretical expectations.

The willingness of a customer to co-create innovative, technology-based services: conceptualisation and measurement

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the role of intermediaries in open innovation networks in achieving ICT-enabled innovations. The ultimate goal of open innovation networks is to create value for endusers and providers, and to share the risks and rewards. The aim of this paper is to analyse the competences that intermediaries in open innovation networks need to master and exploit during the exploration and exploitation phases of an innovation process. Design/methodology/approach – Based on 14 cases, all of which are examples of collaborative multi-party projects with a focus on ICT-enabled innovations, the paper inductively develops a competence model for intermediaries that can be applied at different stages in the innovation. Findings – The research shows that intermediaries can play an effective role in open innovation, provided they have the right set of competences. It can be concluded that the role of innovation intermediary is most relevant in the creation and development phases. Re...

An organizational competence model for innovation intermediaries

This review consolidates research on innovation enablers for innovation teams, defined within this research as factors that enable a cross-functional team within an organization to conduct innovation work, to provide a deeper understanding of what factors enable innovation teams to conduct innovation work, which means that this research involves three areas to provide a holistic picture: the organizational context, the team itself, and the individuals within the innovation team. A systematic database search was conducted in which 208 relevant articles were identified and analyzed thematically way. Twenty innovation enablers related to innovation teams were identified: awareness, capabilities, climate, collaboration, culture, dedication, economy, education, empowerment, entre- / intrapreneurship, human resources, incentives, knowledge, knowledge management, management, mind-set, need, processes, strategy, and time. This review contributes to prior research a deeper understanding of what key factors enable innovative work for innovation teams. Suggestions of both academic and practical use for the identified innovation enablers are included in this review, and direction for future research is suggested.

/pdf/innovation-enablers-for-innovation-teams-a-review-56v81z7gpt.pdf

Innovation Enablers for Innovation Teams - A Review

As the paradigm of innovation becomes more user oriented and collaborative, to benefit from this changing paradigm, firms need to adjust their intellectual property rights management strategy and devise tools to manage openness. Crucially, firms need to resolve is how to interface the “closed innovation” paradigm required to acquire intellectual property rights in law and to introduce openness in the process of innovation and decentralised innovation process. While the topic of open innovation has produced numerous works especially in the area of business administration and organizational studies, literature on interfacing open innovation with intellectual property law is rare or rather focused on specific subject matters of IP. For example, legal research on open innovation focus on computer, open source software or user generated contents types. This leaves out vast areas of technology uncovered and under researched. Based on literature review and qualitative case studies on a group of Finnish firms, this paper aims to identify tools that are required to manage openness, in response to legal context, and examine to what degree the protection of intellectual property, in particular patent, can be adapted or interfaced with open innovation paradigm. The paper finds that (1) open innovation is dynamic, (2) all commercial open innovation is always managed or controlled, and that (3) actors and modalities of exchanges are heterogeneous and dynamic. Multiple claim holders – as contributors, investors, co-inventors, collaborator call for a governance structure over how their claims can be prioritised. This paper argues that intellectual property law do regulate the question of co-inventor, co-creator, and co-owner but do not regulate how these rights may be coordinated or managed, in what hierarchy. Thus, we argue that to prevent disputes, proactive private ordering is necessary. Furthermore, while open innovation benefits from open exchange in communication, in the absence of clear and certain rules on how such exchange lead to loss of right, “open” communication may not occur. In other words, unless openness is managed implicitly or explicitly, communications that are crucial in open innovation will not occur. Thus we find that openness in innovation is always managed either formally (through formal governance means i.e. contract, explicit firm policy) or informally (through community norms, trust and implicit corporate culture).The paper argues that governance means are best provided by the firms either as a contracts, or general policy over information exchanges, in other words a broader form of contract (Private ordering). As a secondary option, a certain proposals to the patent law revision can also be made through introduction of limitation and exception to the right. This paper has two practical implications. First, in the absence of proper legal safeguard for own collaborative input, the paper advocates contract based governance approach. Reflecting this, open and collaborative innovation requires firms to more actively and strategically involve in the governance of intellectual property. Secondly, as a proposal for patent law reform, the paper may enlighten law and policy makers to explores for a creation of particular defence against the claims of infringement in patent law.

/pdf/interfacing-intellectual-property-rights-and-open-innovation-56jo474usg.pdf

Interfacing Intellectual Property Rights and Open Innovation

The paper describes findings from a multiple case study about the innovation management challenges of a system integrator (SI) whose operation is characterized by a high demand of innovation and whose focus of integration capabilities is, accordingly, changing from component assembly to knowledge integration. The study involved six diverse case firms, and it applied the methodology of qualitative research. Innovation networks orchestrated by the SI were categorized, according to the way in which knowledge and intellectual property (IP) were explored and exploited in the network, to sourcing (transaction) and co-creation types of networks. The research question of the study was, what aspects of sourcing networks and of co-creation networks support or hinder networked innovation from the viewpoint of a SI and innovation management? After iteratively addressing the lessons learned from literature and empirical case findings, sets of supporting and hindering aspects were presented as implications of the study.

Innovation management challenges of a system integrator in innovation networks

Many industrial Virtual Organisations (VOs) operate in manufacturing industry. Their business focus has been on investment product deliveries to industrial customers. Now the needs of their customers are changing. Besides a single delivery, their customers are increasingly interested in the lifecycle services related to their investments. It seems that in many cases, the ability to commit to the lifecycle services is becoming a prerequisite for getting the contract for the investment product delivery. This sets challenges for companies, who make these deliveries as VOs. A VO is a temporary collaboration for a specific task, but lifecycle services require long term commitment. This paper discusses and analyses the ongoing business focus shift from transaction and delivery centric towards lifecycle business centric in the context of industrial manufacturing VOs. The paper identifies challenges that this shift in focus set for VOs. It also analyses some prevailing approaches for VOs to provide lifecycle services. Still, many questions remain open, and thus this paper can be seen as setting some questions for the future research in the area of VOs and industrial lifecycle service business.

/pdf/challenges-of-lifecycle-service-business-for-virtual-182sc2tadq.pdf

Challenges Of Lifecycle Service Business For Virtual Organisations

Arvonluonnin uudet muodot ja verkostot

Workbook for opening innovation : bridging networked business, intellectual property and contracting

Henri Hytönen

Papers

Innovation management challenges of a system integrator in innovation networks

Challenges Of Lifecycle Service Business For Virtual Organisations

Arvonluonnin uudet muodot ja verkostot

Workbook for Opening Innovation: Bridging Networked Business, Intellectual Property and Contracting