Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: a corporate social responsibility perspective

This paper examines the concept of open innovation within the context of corporate social responsibility. It demonstrates how the practice of open innovation unfolds in inter-organizational collaborations that involve the voluntary or charitable sector, outlining the findings of an explorative collective case study of eight voluntary dyadic partnerships between corporate and nonprofit organizations in the United Kingdom, which have resulted in innovation outcomes. Two generic approaches to open innovation were witnessed: firstly, a more exploratory approach to dyadic engagement activities that resulted in an emergent innovation process, and secondly, a focused and pre-determined search activity to exploit the resources of the nonprofit partner that demonstrated a more planned innovation process. Two distinct boundary-spanning roles were identified: in dyads exhibiting few organizational linkages, the role was associated with formal responsibilities from senior management to 'manage' innovation opportunities and outcomes. In dyads exhibiting high linkages, there was no such formality; the role was a 'conduit' to facilitate search and exploration to locate opportunities for innovation through idea exchange. Overall, this research demonstrates the value of an open innovation approach driven by the need to address societal and social issues (rather than those purely economic). Such practice broadens a firm's 'search' activities and delivers innovations in exchange for enhanced social legitimacy – acting innovation capital for future enterprising activities and market advantage.     

Social Innovation in an Interconnected World: Introduction to the Special Issue

This introduction provides an overview of the special issue and identifies the need for continued work in the area of social innovation, which seeks to create social value and progress and engages multiple stakeholders. Our special issue highlights various levels and stakeholders involved in the process and outcomes of social innovation. While mainstream innovation, which has been traditionally driven by profit maximization motivations, tends to create winners and losers, social innovation that focuses on redistribution of knowledge, discovery, and cocreation changes the key assumptions and logics of the conventional innovation theory. This introduction first briefly outlines current social innovation literature, presents the contributions created in this special issue, and concludes with the identification of three priorities (or needs) for social innovation researchers.     

Organizing for Radical Innovation: Exploring Novel Insights

While radical innovation brings extensive economic rewards to firms, it is an activity fraught with risk. Prior research has shown that such risks mainly stem from organizational arrangements (at the level of individuals, teams, firms, and inter firm collaborations), which are inadequate or inefficient to support radical innovation. The papers in this special issue on “Organizing for Radical Innovation: Exploring Novel Insights” take stock of past work and provide novel insights about how to organize for radical innovation. The overarching idea linking them is that radical innovation hinges on the creation of fundamentally new knowledge and the continuous stimulation of creativity. Thus, organizational arrangements that support such processes play a crucial role in explaining and predicting the successful commercialization of breakthrough ideas, radically new technologies, and solutions. In particular, the field of science, which in essence aims for the systematic production of new knowledge, can be a valid source of inspiration for how individuals, teams, firms, and interfirm collaborations should organize for radical innovation. Moving from these premises, in this introductory paper, we offer an overview of the topic of organizing for radical innovation and highlight possible linkages with the organizing principles. Then, we summarize the main insights from the papers in this special issue and use their core ideas to sketch a novel research agenda for scholars working at the intersection of organization theory, economics of science, and management of innovation.     

Do special issues offer something special? An overview of research trends in Telecommunications Policy special issues

This study explores the value of special issues by analyzing the characteristics of special issues of Telecommunications Policy (TP). Specifically, this study examines the status of special issue publications, the characteristics of their articles compared with those of general issues, and the factors affecting article citations. For the analysis, all information on TP articles published from 1976 to 2018 was collected from the Scopus database. A comparative analysis as well as a negative binomial regression were conducted on papers published after 1994, when the first special issue was published. The results show that special issues are distinguished from general issues by various characteristics, such as multinational author collaboration, number of references, keywords, and funding. While general issue papers are more frequently cited in academia, special issue papers show better performance in terms of online captures and social media sharing. Moreover, the smaller number of variables affects the frequency of citations in the case of special issues, revealing that content and format are more influential than author factors.     

Types of R&D Collaborations and Process Innovation: The Benefit of Collaborating Upstream in the Knowledge Chain

This paper explains how research and development (R&D) collaborations impact process innovation; given the differences in innovation mechanisms, prior insights from studies of product innovation do not necessarily apply to process innovation. Extending the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this paper classifies four types of R&D collaborations—with universities, suppliers, competitors, and customers—in terms of two knowledge dimensions: position in the knowledge chain and contextual knowledge distance. Position in the knowledge chain is the position of the R&D collaboration partner in the knowledge chain of the industry—the input–output sequence of activities that result in the transformation of raw materials into products that are used by end customers. Based on this knowledge chain, this paper considers universities and suppliers as upstream R&D collaborators, and competitors and customers as downstream R&D collaborators. Contextual knowledge distance is the difference in industry‐related contexts of operation of the R&D collaboration partners and the firm. Based on this, this paper views R&D collaborators that are suppliers and competitors as having low contextual knowledge distance to the firm, and R&D collaborators that are customers and universities as having high contextual knowledge distance to the firm. Using this classification, this paper proposes a ranking of R&D collaborations in terms of their impact on process innovation: R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest impact, followed by R&D collaborations with universities, then R&D collaborations with competitors, and finally R&D collaborations with customers. These arguments are tested on a four‐year panel of 781 manufacturing firms. The results of the analyses indicate that R&D collaborations with suppliers and universities appear to have a positive impact on process innovation, R&D collaborations with customers appear to have no impact, and R&D collaborations with competitors appear to have a negative impact. As a consequence, the main driver of the impact of R&D collaborations on process innovation appears to be position in the knowledge chain rather than contextual knowledge distance. These novel ideas and findings contribute to the literature on process innovation. Even though process innovation tends to be internal and tacit to the firm, it can still benefit from external R&D collaborations; this paper is the first to analyze this relationship and provide a theoretical framework for understanding why this would be the case. This study also has important managerial implications. It suggests that managers need to be careful in choosing the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Engaging in R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers appears to be helpful for process innovation, whereas conducting R&D collaborations with competitors may potentially harm process innovation.     

Links among innovation,food system transformation,and technology adoption,with implications for food policy: Overview of a special issue

This overview paper introduces the special issue focused on links among innovation, food system transformation, and technology adoption in all segments of agrifood value chains from inputs to farming to post-harvest segments including logistics, wholesale, processing, and retail. We identify the issues and the gaps in the literature, and then note key points and contributions of the papers in the special issue. We then highlight food policy implications.     

Perspective: Leveraging Open Innovation through Paradox

In search of fresh ideas, firms increasingly engage with external contributors in open innovation collaborations. However, research has found that such collaborations frequently fail, and has pointed to conflicting demands of control and openness. On the one hand, firms want controlled and selective participation, clarity of purpose, and a choice of ideas based on their own current capacity and value appropriation strategies. On the other, their external contributors tend to want open and unfettered participation, the creative potential of the idea per se, and unrestricted knowledge sharing. This article proposes to shift the conceptual frame from looking at the tensions between control and openness as problems to looking at them as synergies. Drawing on the literature of open innovation and organizational paradox, this article contributes a novel perspective on open innovation that suggests how firms can leverage open innovation collaborations through paradox by combining practices based on differentiation and integration.     

A qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management in complex products and systems development

Much research has recognized that cross-disciplinary knowledge inputs are necessary to successful product innovation, particularly in complex products and systems (CoPS) development. This paper focuses on developing an exploratory framework for studying how an inter-organizational knowledge management (KM) approach affects the development of CoPS, and exploring how inter-organizational collaboration affects KM within a CoPS context. Based on a review of the literature and in-depth case studies, this paper puts forward some propositions and develops an integrated conceptual model showing the link between the dimensions of inter-organizational KM and the performance of CoPS development. Finally, the implications of the proposed model for inter-organizational KM in a CoPS environment are discussed.     

Introduction to the Special Issue: Financial Resource Constraints and Innovation

This is an introduction to the JPIM special issue on the link between resource constraints and innovation. Before introducing the papers, we briefly review two perspectives on the role of resources in innovation management. The first, mainstream argument views adequate or even slack (rather than constrained) resources as an enabler of innovation. The second argument, currently frequented in the bottom‐of‐the‐pyramid literature but originating much earlier, suggests that resource constraints provide a potentially highly valuable opportunity for innovation.     

Innovative strategic relationships among sustainable start-ups

This short note introduces the Industrial Marketing Management special issue entitled “Innovative strategic relationships among sustainable start-ups”. After reviewing the key concepts and recent studies on the interrelationships between sustainability, innovation, and entrepreneurship, the seven papers that make up the special issue are placed within a macro-meso-micro framework to analyze how innovation can contribute to the transition toward sustainability. The methodological approaches and results of these seven studies are briefly summarized and their main implications highlighted. To conclude, paths for future research are suggested. These paths provide opportunities to advance the analysis of how sustainable start-ups at the micro level can bring about systemic changes at the meso and macro levels through the management of innovative strategic relationships.     

An incubation perspective on social innovation: the London Hub – a social incubator

In the context of incubators, particularly those that are driven to achieving social objectives, this paper investigates core processes that support the development of social innovation. Social innovation, as this paper argues, is underpinned by a new form of social collaboration and engagement built upon strong forms of sharing knowledge and learning. Coupled with this is the element of social capital reinforced by entrepreneurship and leadership that promotes sustainability in the community. These factors drive innovative thinking and ways of engaging among stakeholders in order to create new forms of socio-economic impact. Such value-creating activity occurs in firms that operate within incubators involving a wide range of stakeholders who work through networks to co-create and meet social challenges. Through a case study of a social incubator and an incubatee, we demonstrate the core processes that irradiate the argument on social innovation. The contribution of this paper is threefold: First, social innovation is an emerging area of research, of which there is a dearth in terms of examining the processes empirically. We address the gap in this field by demonstrating the value of social collaboration and engagement using different innovation models. Second, we establish links between social innovation and incubation using the concept of social capital. This allows us to achieve our third contribution: exemplification of a dyadic value-based partnership and collaboration processes between an incubator and an incubatee, through activities driven by social innovation that aim to have social impact. The paper concludes with practice implications and suggests directions for future research.     

R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*

This paper studies the relative impact on product innovation of research and development (R&D) collaborations with universities, suppliers, customers, and competitors. It argues that each type of R&D collaboration differs in terms of the breadth of new knowledge provided to the firm and in the ease of access of this new knowledge, resulting in a different impact on product innovation. As a result, it proposes that R&D collaborations with universities are likely to have the highest impact on product innovation, followed by R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers, and, finally, competitors. These arguments are tested on the R&D collaborations undertaken by a sample of 781 manufacturing firms during 1998–2002. The tests find that R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest positive impact on product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities. Surprisingly, R&D collaborations with customers do not appear to affect product innovation, and collaborations with competitors appear to harm it. Moreover, the positive influence of R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers is sustained over the long‐term, but the negative influence of R&D collaborations with competitors is, fortunately, short‐lived. These findings indicate that ease of knowledge access, rather than breadth of knowledge, appears to drive the success of R&D collaborations for product innovation. R&D collaborations with suppliers or universities, which are characterized by relatively easy knowledge access, have a positive influence on product innovation, whereas R&D collaborations with customers or competitors, which are characterized by reduced ease in knowledge access, are not related or are even negatively related to product innovation. Moreover, to achieve product innovation with the help of R&D collaborations, it appears that the collaboration must first have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; once these are in place, it is better if the partner has a relatively narrow knowledge base. Thus, while R&D collaborations with both suppliers and universities are positively related to product innovation, the narrow knowledge base provided by collaborations with suppliers appears to have a larger positive impact on product innovation than the wider knowledge base provided by collaborations with universities. These arguments and findings are important and novel. The paper is one of the first to theoretically explain and empirically show that various types of collaborations have a differential influence on product innovation. It goes beyond previous literature by providing a theoretical logic for ranking the likely impact of types of collaborations on product innovation. The study also suggests to managers to carefully select the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Collaborations with suppliers appear to be the most promising for product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities, whereas collaborations with competitors may be detrimental to product innovation.     

Opening the network: Bridging the IMP tradition and other research perspectives

This paper introduces the theme of this Special Issue, that brings together some of the most significant papers presented at the 2006 Industrial Marketing & Purchasing (IMP) Group Conference. By proposing “opening the network” as the conference theme, our ambition was to provide a forum for new perspectives, alternative research methods and new empirical contexts, and so help IMP scholarship to continue evolving. After some preliminary remarks, we briefly introduce the papers and their contribution to the theme of this Special Issue. A first group of studies stimulates reflection in the field by contrasting IMP scholarship with ideas and points of view developed in related fields of inquiry. The second group, on the other hand, may be seen as an endogenous development of IMP scholarship, while the third group represents a response to a critique often addressed at the markets-as-networks approach: its dearth of managerial relevance.     

Fostering inclusive social innovation in subsistence marketplaces through community-level alliances: An institutional work perspective

Social enterprises can play an instrumental role in addressing major societal challenges in subsistence marketplaces through the creation of shared value. However, there are many social barriers in subsistence contexts that exclude vulnerable groups from participating in, and benefiting from, the shared value creation process. These social barriers are contextual in nature and arise from sources such as gender-based discrimination or caste-based discrimination. The exclusion of such vulnerable groups undermines the goal of inclusive social innovation and sparks concerns of elite-capture of shared value in subsistence marketplaces. In this paper, we highlight how social enterprises can overcome the concern of elite-capture of shared value by fostering inclusive social innovation in subsistence contexts. Our research draws from a longitudinal inductive study of nine Indian social enterprises operating in industrial markets such as agriculture and logistics. We apply and extend insights from institutional work perspective to uncover three principal mechanisms for fostering inclusive social innovation, namely – a) relational work, b) inclusion work and c) equity work. These mechanisms work in concert to facilitate the a) creation of shared value in subsistence contexts, b) inclusive distribution of shared value, and c) fair distribution of shared value.     

Examining the antecedents and consequences of green product innovation

As an important part of social innovation, green product innovation (GPI) is widely regarded as a beneficial strategy for firms to achieve sustainable success. While the way to effectively leverage GPI has not been fully invested. To address this lack, this study examines the antecedent role of inter-organizational control mechanism by investigating the nature of the interplay between formal control and social control in relation to green supply chain collaboration. In addition, we probe the impact of GPI on firm triple bottom line due to the inconsistent results in existing literature. Based on a sample of 239 senior managers and directors in the Chinese manufacturing industry, we test the hypotheses through moderated structural equations modelling. The results show that formal control and social control should be applied as complements in promoting GPI, while only working on Moreover, enhance the awareness and adoption of GPI stimulates better environmental performance and social performance as a result. The relationship between GPI and financial performance is mediated by both environmental and social performance. Our findings will help B2B participants understand the GPI and potential sustainable, social and economic outcomes, and support them formulate more effective control mechanism strategies.     

Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon

There is currently a broad awareness of open innovation and its relevance to corporate R&D. The implications and trends that underpin open innovation are actively discussed in terms of strategic, organizational, behavioral, knowledge, legal and business perspectives, and its economic implications. This special issue aims to advance the R&D, innovation, and technology management perspective by building on past and present studies in the field and providing future directions. Recent research, including the papers in this special issue, demonstrates an increasing range of situations where the concept is regarded as applicable. Most research to date has followed the outside-in process of open innovation, while the inside-out process remains less explored. A third coupled process of open innovation is also attracting significant research attention. These different processes show why it is necessary to have a full understanding of how and where open innovation can add value in knowledge-intensive processes. There may be a need for a creative interpretation and adaptation of the value propositions, or business models, in each situation. In other words, there are important implications for new and emerging methods of R&D management.     

Management innovation in complex products and systems: The case of integrated project teams

This paper examines the process of a management innovation in complex products and systems (CoPS). Prior literature offers limited theoretical and empirical insights into how an inter-organizational relationship delivers CoPS by moving towards ‘integrated project teams’ over time. The research is based on an in-depth, longitudinal case study, drawing on 34 semi-structured interviews and secondary data from following a client-contractor relationship in the UK water industry over time. The study draws out the various management innovation development phases. It also provides detailed insights in the developments and benefits of setting up integrated project teams. The study contributes to extant literature and practice by linking previously separate research streams of organizational design and management innovation with the management of CoPS.     

Micro-processes of public good social innovation in the Australian social impact investment market

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are strategic alliances aiming to generate financial profit through social innovation in the delivery of public social services. SIBs are also a product on the social impact investment market. There is little evidence for SIBs' effectiveness, and their ongoing international popularity partly rests on a theoretical premise that market mechanisms can effectively generate and diffuse social innovation. However, the literature contains no empirical consideration of whether and how this premise applies to public good social innovations. Our empirical study fills this gap by finding that public good social innovations are stimulated by market mechanisms, and markets are in turn shaped by these innovations. Despite this, public good social innovations eventually break away from markets in a micro-process we term ‘schisming’. Through describing how and why schisming occurs, we make a unique contribution to existing knowledge of the micro-processes of concerned market shaping, and the extent to which economic markets and a concerned society are embedded within each other. Implications for practitioners seeking to bridge social innovation and economic markets include the need to be cognisant of how contextual, socially constructed concerns affect the potential and process of diffusing social innovations.     

网络嵌入性与技术创新间关系实证研究

文献表明,有关网络嵌入性作用的研究得出了不同的、甚至截然相反的结论,本文对这一现象进行揭示,建立了网络嵌入性———跨组织学习———两类技术创新之间的关系模型。运用实证研究方法,发现了网络嵌入性、跨组织学习以及技术创新等变量之间的内在联系。研究结果表明嵌入性通过跨组织学习对技术创新结果的确有显著影响;现有研究结论的不尽统一,是因为没有对技术创新等变量进行分类而形成,本文用分类研究的方法,将涉及的变量细分为关系嵌入性、结构嵌入性、渐进性技术创新与突破性技术创新等,实证研究后发现,不同的网络嵌入性特征具有不同作用途径并会产生不同的结果。