Academic journal article Innovation: Organization & Management

Proclivity for Open Innovation: Construct Development and Empirical Validation

Academic journal article Innovation: Organization & Management

Proclivity for Open Innovation: Construct Development and Empirical Validation

Article excerpt

1. Introduction

Academics and business practitioners alike concur that open innovation is instrumental for sustaining competitive advantage in innovation and overall organisational competitiveness. Open innovation is a multifaceted phenomenon that has been conceptualised by Chesbrough (2003) and his followers (e.g., Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006; van de Vrande, de Jong, Vanhaverbeke, & de Rochemont, 2009) as an umbrella paradigm of specific organisational activities in the field of innovation. As stated by Huizingh (2011, p. 3), "Chesbrough connected the processes of acquiring external knowledge and exploiting internal knowledge externally by placing them both under the open innovation umbrella" that "encompasses, connects, and integrates a range of already existing activities". The early research on open innovation was primarily based on case studies of industry practice (e.g., Chesbrough, 2003; Dodgson, Gann, & Salter, 2006; Rohrbeck, Holzle, & Gemunden, 2009). Such studies were followed by quantitative studies analysing open-innovation-related issues in larger sets of empirical data, using the Community Innovation Survey (e.g., Ghisetti, Marzucchi, & Montresor, 2015; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Teirlinck & Spithoven, 2008) or collecting primary data (e.g., Cheng & Huizingh, 2014; Schroll & Mild, 2011; van de Vrande et al., 2009). More recently, several novel approaches to measuring open innovation have emerged (West, Salter, Vanhaverbeke, & Chesbrough, 2014), including scales for measuring the strategic aspects of open innovation (e.g., Hung & Chou, 2013), open innovation measures for the service sector (e.g., Mina, Bascavusoglu-Moreau, & Hughes, 2014; Thanasopon, Papadopoulos, & Vidgen, 2016), and open innovation measures at the project (e.g., Kim, Kim, & Lee, 2014) and individual level (e.g., Salter, Ter Wal, Criscuolo, & Alexy, 2014).

The aim of this paper is to conceptualise and validate a proclivity for open innovation measure that builds on the quantitative work of Hung and Chiang (2010). We define the proclivity for open innovation as the firm's predisposition to perform inbound and outbound open innovation activities. In their study, Hung and Chiang (2010) suggested that the proclivity for open innovation "assesses the company's inclination to integrate external ideas to complement its business model to pursue innovation success and gauges the company's tendency to profit from outsiders' use of its underutilised intellectual property" (Hung & Chiang, 2010, p. 258). Despite the fact that this conceptualisation integrates both inbound and outbound aspects of open innovation, it remains very abstract, as it does not identify which activities contribute to each of these aforementioned aspects. In proposing a multidimensional proclivity for open innovation measure, we contribute to this stream of the literature by evaluating the strength of a firm's future intentions to engage in open innovation. Since the implementation of open innovation requires time (Lichtenthaler, 2011), and open innovation is an evolving concept (Huizingh, 2011), it is important to develop a measure that evaluates a firm's future potential for open innovation. As defined by Deshpandé and Farley (1998), a firm's proclivity or orientation is a set of behaviours and processes aimed at achieving the firm's strategic intent. A specific advantage of the open innovation measure proposed in the study is that it is suitable to be used in the context of smaller companies. Engaging in external knowledge sourcing can improve the innovation performance of small and medium-sized firms (SMEs), precisely because of the successful introduction of new solutions and appropriation of financial value (Brunswicker & Vanhaverbeke, 2015). Open innovation is beneficial even for start-ups, helping them to compensate for their relatively small size and lack of market power (Eftekhari & Bogers, 2015). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.