Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and…

  • Published on
    17-Sep-2018

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Transcript

<ul><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 1 </p><p>TABLE 2A Marc Gruber OI and entrepreneurship OI and start ups Opportunity identification Could OI facilitate the opportunity recognition process? Platforms could be used to share knowledge with outsiders what would be the best way </p><p>to do that? How to facilitate entrepreneurial process? Dark sides of open innovation for startups (share ideas people may not understand, </p><p>hesitant to share knowledge with others) In what stages OI is beneficial and in what types of startups? </p></li><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 2 </p><p>TABLE 2B Satish Nambisan OI and entrepreneurship Responsible innovation how open innovation becomes a vehicle for companies to be </p><p>more responsible (in terms of both processes and outcomes) New entities (3D platforms, makerspaces, etc.) that facilitate entrepreneurial initiatives </p><p>(by individuals, startups and established companies) A typology of such makerspaces (based on the nature of knowledge/activities that are </p><p>transacted) How does OI help or hinder entrepreneurship? How established firms interact with individuals to be inspired and generate new ideas? How established companies need to change their organizational strategies/structures to </p><p>leverage their relationships with and the output from such entities? Reputation, relationships, Trust and corporation-individual relationships Appropriate theoretical perspectives: Social capital, physical-knowledge interfaces, </p><p>legitimacy, reputation, signaling, etc. How to get published lack of clarity of these concepts, key challenge make as narrow as </p><p>possible clearly define what you are examining How can crowd techniques help entrepreneurship (startups)? How crowds lower the barriers, how can entrepreneur distribute the task and explore </p><p>these facilities? How crowd-based techniques can facilitate entrepreneurship. Such crowd-based </p><p>techniques can be used to acquire resources and knowledge for various stages of entrepreneurship and raises several interesting research questions. </p><p> Types of opportunity that are conducive for crowd-based techniques How crowd-based technique enhance access to entrepreneurial opportunities How entrepreneurial tasks can be distributed across different crowds by individual </p><p>entrepreneurs? How can open innovation be used as a vehicle by companies to be more responsible - in </p><p>terms of both processes and outcomes, responsible innovation </p></li><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 3 </p><p>TABLE 3 John Ettlie Different forms of OI and performance (overarching theme: fit of type of OI and problem faced by the firm) Common theme that emerges is confusion of what type of approach should be suited to a </p><p>situation and a firm How to match the approach with the situation when does it lead to the best outcome? Implications for teaching and using cases for OI - How to define the various forms of OI </p><p>and how to help companies to organized OI? Information systems viewpoint: How big data and OI would go together? Which </p><p>concepts/insights from OI map into data driven innovation? Absorptive capacity and OI and innovation and OI in science, and what should </p><p>researchers consider relevant in OI 3rd parties interested in innovation process (innovative companies not spending much on </p><p>R&amp;D) R&amp;D to third parties, manufacturing R&amp;D to improve process improvement, outbound versus inbound, and 5% of revenue streams beyond license. Beyond SME research. </p><p> Circular business models (i.e., economic, natural resources and social responsibility and CSR accepted by customers. </p><p> Stochastic models that could bridge the gap between theory and practice Ecological and sustainability research OI and ecological innovationfirms are new to </p><p>this subject, often forced by regulation, outside the technological trajectory, what partners are good for ecological innovation---no guide exists for mechanisms===ecological innovation vs. other types. Academic and practical relevance </p><p> One underlying issuecomplementary efforts need to be combined regardless of context. Challenge theory like RBV and TCE, boundaries get blurred in OI; size and scale in </p><p>practical sense, when do you need and dont need the crowdscale up and down, only an IT address, but trust, etc. enters. </p><p> Contribution aimed at practice does collaboration contribute to sustainability. Which type of OI partner is best for promotion, and comply with regulation and secure funding. Theory, effects on different types of ecology. </p><p> Theory </p><p> existing theoretical perspectives: RBV, TCE, dynamic capabilities, absorptive capacity, network theory, signaling theory </p><p> how our theme contribute to theory </p></li><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 4 </p><p>TABLE 4 Mats Magnusson &amp; Stefan Haefliger Managing OI Motivation - why do individuals really engage in OI? Motivation may shift from one setting to the other, but how? Need to address different types of motivation (go beyond intrinsic and extrinsic) What are we really trying to accomplish? How are goals and objectives shaped in crowds </p><p>and communities, and what means of control can be used to influence and control? How are goals and motivation related to social identity and how can we manage identity? How do we influence social identity using informal roles? Need to clearly distinguish between crowds and communities Look into problem solving and problem framing activities, respectively (different in </p><p>crowds and communities) Experts are important (knowledge and power), but more knowledge is needed about their </p><p>specific roles and influence in OI How do individuals become good at OI? Individual OI skills and how these could be nurtured? How do we manage HR inside and outside? </p></li><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 5 </p><p>TABLE 5 Markus Perkmann Sources of OI Issues around sources of open innovation Absorptive capacity what moderates it (when they work with scientific organizations) How does AC improve firms performance? How do SMEs pursue OI? Identify configurations of OI sources (Pavitt 80) Are there specific types of open innovators? Open data as a source of OI How can firms effectively utilize something what is a public good? How can industry best use university knowledge? OI may work as an innovation buffer for firms (firm working with uni they avoid </p><p>utilizing internal funds/resources) Why we often observe that firms that go far away from their HQ to with universities Companies are looking for digitalization in their offerings what is different about this? </p></li><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 6 </p><p>TABLE 6 Susanne Ollila &amp; Albrecht Fritzsche Space and place in OI How space is defined (geography, location, proximity)? Extensionality of space in physical dimensions (including time) vs. formal-symbolic </p><p>expressions of thoughts Openness with respect to space: if space defines the (potential) boundaries of </p><p>participation and interaction, it either constrains openness or openness has to be conceptualized orthogonally to the dimensions of the space </p><p> Org theory has already discusses special settings for interaction for a long time what new aspects can open innovation bring in? An important aspect here seems to be the idea of self-selection from crowdsourcing research. Space is in this sense an offering to engage, not necessarily with specific tasks and purposes in mind, or the need for everyone actually to contribute. </p><p> We do not know how species influence different outcomes of collaboration. What are the reactions that we are seeking (cognitive, emotional) Different zones supporting activities/ role of time (short/ long, static/ dynamic) The concept of field-configuring events offer an access point to study dynamic or short-</p><p>term special settings Topological approaches can be informative to study spaces: proximity relations, central/ </p><p>periphery distinctions, network density Affective events theory, dilutive experience in space Obvious relations to design disciplines: architecture, city planning, boundary spanning, </p><p>artifacts &amp; affordances / boundary objects Actor-network theory and post-colonial theory provide concepts of translation and </p><p>enrollment that define third spaces in-between domains of different stakeholders. Educational psychology discusses the zone of proximal development (ZPD) to describe </p><p>the potential for learners to advance space as design space or solution space for innovation. </p></li><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 7 </p><p>TABLE 7 &amp; 8 Sabine Brunswicker &amp; Annabelle Gawer OI networks, platforms, ecosystems and communities What kinds of platforms do firm actually build How to attract and motivate complementors Variety of behaviors of complementors Performance of ecosystems, what does it mean that we have a health ecosystem Centrality in the network Encouraging to use beyond simplistic and static Connect OI ecosystems and platforms better connection is needed Look beyond transactional relationships how the build social communities Examining value capture in open systems Multimethod is a way to go to examine this phenomena Bridging engineering theories with Examining data traces, how do we study these Static version of technologies? Explosion of data of behaviors in ecosystems, little data about how people make money </p><p>out of it (reviews) </p></li><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 8 </p><p>TABLE 9 Dennis Hilgers Societal and policy aspects of OI Research Questions How to implement OI in public sector? Which methods? Offline versus online Actors: cities/city council, public/international policy, law, norm do we need actors? Change of policies &amp; actors Environmental policies Paris goal, OI at the firm level What are the effects/outcomes of open government? Do we need focal actors </p><p>anymore? How do we (people, countries, citizens) organize society? Disruptive societal approach: social romance versus political frustration Political sciences: Trust, voter turnout, citizen-government relation Agent-based modeling; citizens willingness to share data Societal aspects Strategic questions, future of cities (political questions) crowdsourcing initiatives Community-organized initiatives: refugees, environmental problems, catastrophes - </p><p>citizens network via social media OI for social innovation; help the local government Tools and impact are new leverage of ICT: self-selection, self-integration, self-</p><p>motivated Legal issues of OG: benefits versus risks (yes, we scan; property, privacy, security) What is the role of citizens versus government/state/city administration </p><p>participation society, administrations tasks move to citizens ones; why do we need cities anymore? Why do we need parties anymore? Who is responsible? Do people/citizens feel responsible? </p><p> Technology newly organize democracy? models of direct democracy versus dictator Big data for solving societal problems? Smart city, data collections by mobile </p><p>applications What is technology doing with us? How can big data change our society? Role of press Do we need a problem for participating in open government? Thomke 2003 personal </p><p>need or solution information; motivation is specific (fun/enjoyment versus personal problem) </p><p> What are the purposes of open government? Is it only marketing? (open and modern city) placebo </p><p> NIH not-invented here syndrome : how to manage these problems As follow up of the topic the facilitators recommend everybody to read this: http://www.nature.com/news/five-hacks-for-digital-democracy-1.21849 </p><p>http://www.nature.com/news/five-hacks-for-digital-democracy-1.21849</p></li><li><p>Researching Open Innovation: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Settings for Future Research </p><p> PDW at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 5, 2017 </p><p>Organizers: Agnieszka agra@btech.au.dk, Ann-Kristin azobel@ethz.ch Marcel marcel@ifro.ku.dk, 9 </p><p>TABLE 10 Frank Piller OI theory and practice Practice: Three case studies of OI in established organizations, as presented by embedded participant-researchers </p><p> Intel: Using OI to foster operational excellence by starting to overcome internal silos, then moving externals </p><p> Nike: Connecting with creative minds around the world to enhance brand and trend leadership, an the same time building new tech collaborations to get access to new materials and mfctr processes </p><p> Saab Aeronautics: Strong culture of openness resulting from Swedish factors (small country, long-term focus, need to stay independent, cultural openness) since foundation of company; first strategic move to more openness in 1970s when airplanes moved to more complex platform architectures (supplier integration) =&gt; openness became a reason of survival. Today largest shift by moving to connected products (IIoT), managing balance btw openness and flexibility become core issue Questions for theoretical enquiry: Using the case studies as a starting point, we discussed the following questions were we felt that more research could be useful: </p><p> What drives the decisions towards openness? How to people react when becoming part of OI? Behavioral view on OI How do capabilities develop for OI? </p><p> The last question, however, shows our largest open problem with the current OI </p><p>construct: We still do not wha...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >