Open innovation rests on the idea that not all the smart people work only for you, and managing human interaction across organizational boundaries is therefore central to open innovation. This article starts with outlining and reviewing research on this human dimension of open innovation. The article develops seven principles of innovation- producing encounters that can guide managers in enabling value creation through open innovation. We continue by introducing the rest of the special section, which expands beyond the human dimension to also include firms, platforms, and ecosystems, with important implications for the creation and capture of value from open innovation.
Although corporate venture capital (CVC) has been studied as part of open innovation (OI), assumptions about knowledge flows crossing organizational boundaries between "the inside" and "the outside" have limited those explorations. Drawing on an abductive approach to grounded theorizing, this article introduces an intuitive yet novel framework that traces the sources and applications of knowledge obtained from CVC to derive new conditions for how those investments allow companies to orchestrate knowledge flows to overcome barriers and increase their innovation effectiveness. Besides exploring traditional OI knowledge flows within the CVC context, this article further identifies and examines both outside-out knowledge flows (which help to shape an ecosystem for a corporate innovator) and inside-in knowledge flows (which overcome internal silos to achieve real innovation impact).
Ecosystems are the result of a delicate balance between centripetal forces that push economic activities toward integration, and centrifugal forces that pull economic activities out onto the market. Ecosystems evolve when these forces change. For example, technological complementarities - the main source of centripetal force - are dynamic and may be commoditized, generalized, or standardized over time. Management and coordination also change: for example, open innovation practices enable firms to move innovation activities from the in-house R&D lab out into the ecosystem. This article discusses how such dynamics in technologies and management lead to ecosystem evolution.
Artificial intelligence increasingly attracts attention and investments. However, appropriating value from this general-purpose technology (GPT) can be difficult. To understand these challenges, this article analyzes why IBM failed to generate significant profits from IBM Watson Health despite its promising starting points. The findings suggest that, considering the characteristics of GPT, an overly closed approach for taking it to market contributed to the failure. Furthermore, conditions such as the immaturity and the complexity of the application field intensified the challenges. This study suggests that using a strong appropriability regime in open innovation can enhance the appropriation of value from a GPT.
Open innovation has become well established as a new imperative for organizing innovation. In line with the increased use in industry, it has also attracted a lot of attention in academia. However, understanding the full benefits and possible limits of open innovation still remains a challenge. We draw on strategic management theory to describe some of these benefits and limits. More specifically, we develop a dynamic capabilities framework as a way to better understand the strategic management of open innovation, which can then help to better explain both success and failure in open innovation. With this background, as guest editors we introduce select papers published in this Special Section of California Management Review that were originally presented at the fifth annual World Open Innovation Conference, held in San Francisco, California, in December of 2018.
Open innovation is now a widely used concept in academia, business, and policy making. This article describes the state of open innovation at the intersection of research, practice, and policy. It discusses some key trends (e.g., digital transformation), challenges (e.g., uncertainty), and potential solutions (e.g., EU funding programs) in the context of open innovation and innovation policy. With this background, the authors introduce select papers published in this Special Section of California Management Review that were originally presented at the second annual World Open Innovation Conference, held in Santa Clara, California, in December of 2015.
When it comes to agility, startups have an edge over large corporations-whereas large corporations sit on resources which startups can only dream of. The combination of entrepreneurial activity with corporate ability seems like a perfect match, but often goes unused. This article examines how large corporations from the tech industry have begun to tap into entrepreneurial innovation from startups. Prominent examples are used to inductively derive a set of four models commonly used to engage with startups and to describe their characteristics, challenges, and rationales. While corporate equity is the key mechanism behind more established models, newer approaches replace equity with shared technology to connect both worlds with fewer organizational costs. This article presents a typology of corporate mechanisms to engage with startups that balance speed and agility against control and strategic direction, to map the ways companies can bridge the gap between themselves and the startup world.
In earlier work, the author has argued for the concept of open innovation -that companies should both organize their innovation processes to be more open to external knowledge and ideas and also let more of their ideas and knowledge flow to the outside when not being used internally. Yet initial discussion of open innovation contrasted it to traditional R&D and product development; this had the effect of placing the focus more on product and technology innovation than on service innovation. Open innovation works somewhat differently in service businesses, in part because the role of the customer is different; in a service business, the customer is often involved in an iterative process with the company that results in a customer experience. In addition, innovation processes work differently in services. Few companies have formal R&D operations for the services they provide, and the customer may need to participate throughout the service innovation process. Some of the concepts of open innovation apply readily to service innovation. For example, Amazon. com has not only created open service innovation by bringing the "outside in"-think of customer reviews on Amazon.com and third parties selling products via Amazon's site -but also by taking the"inside out,"by, for example, using internal knowledge and infrastructure to create a business selling cloud computing services to other companies. Companies interested in moving toward open service innovation can try techniques such as working closely with customers to develop new solutions for them; focusing offerings on utility for customers, rather than on products; and embedding the company in a customer's organization. Companies that have traditionally been product oriented may need to make some organizational changes, such as changing service pricing, as they move to a more service-oriented approach.
A recession often forces you to cut R&D as you refocus on your core. But innovation need not go by the wayside. By placing certain assets and projects outside your walls, you can actually preserve opportunities for future growth while you shore up the fortress. Chesbrough, of Haas School of Business, and Garman, of New Venture Partners, identify five strategic moves that open the door to innovation by, ironically, letting it out of the house. Some inside-out moves permit outside firms to invest in and develop your projects; others call for spinning off projects as separate ventures that still allow you to retain some equity. Whatever the specific approach, you can meet the inherent cultural and organizational challenges of inside-out open innovation by approaching it holistically and placing it under the leadership of senior executives in strategic roles.
The increasing adoption of more open approaches to innovation fits uneasily with current theories of business strategy. Traditional business strategy has guided firms to develop defensible positions against the forces of competition and power in the value chain, implying the importance of constructing barriers rather than promoting value creation through openness. Recently, however, firms and even whole industries, such as the software industry, are experimenting with novel business models based on harnessing collective creativity through open innovation. The apparent success of some of these experiments challenges prevailing views of strategy. At the same time, many of these experimenters now are grappling with issues related to value capture and sustainability of their business models, as well as issues of corporate influence and the potential co-option of open initiatives. These issues bring us back to traditional business strategy, which can offer important insights. To make strategic sense of innovation communities, ecosystems, networks, and their implications for competitive advantage, a new approach to strategy--open strategy--is needed. Open strategy balances the tenets of traditional business strategy with the promise of open innovation.
This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Because of two trends--rising R&D costs and decreased product revenues (due to shorter product life cycles)--companies are finding it increasingly difficult to justify investments in innovation. Business models that embrace open innovation address both issues. The development costs of innovation are reduced by the greater use of external technology in a firm's own R&D process. This saves time as well as money, and the firm no longer restricts itself to the markets it serves directly. Now it participates in other segments through licensing fees, joint ventures, and spin-offs, among others. These different streams of income create more overall revenue from the innovation. To partake more fully in the benefits of open innovation, companies need to develop the ability to experiment with their business models, finding ways to open them up. Building that capability requires the creation of processes for conducting experiments and assessing their results. Although that might seem obvious, many companies simply do not have such processes in place. In most organizations, no single person short of the CEO bears responsibility for the business model. Instead, business unit managers (who are usually posted to their jobs for just two to three years) tend to take the business model for granted. To understand how an organization can open its business model, the author provides case examples of IBM, P&G, and Air Products, three companies that operate in different industries with vastly different technologies and products. Each used to function with a very internally focused, closed business model, and each has since migrated to a business model that is substantially more open.
The market at the "bottom of the pyramid" represents an important business opportunity, provided that managers understand the challenges of reaching this huge market segment. The difficulties in designing and introducing new products and technologies are generally attributed to a lack of understanding of the local environment in these countries. However, accessing the potential market in the developing world also requires an appropriate business model. Nongovernmental organizations are uniquely positioned to develop some of the most innovative and successful business models in the developing world. For-profit organizations would do well to engage with NGOs to create effective business models to market technologies in the developing world.
The List is HBR's annual attempt to capture ideas in the state of becoming--when they're teetering between what one person suspects and what everyone accepts. Roderick M. Kramer says it isn't bad when leaders flip-flop. Julia Kirby describes new efforts to redefine the problem of organizational performance. Joseph L. Bower praises the "Velcro organization," where managerial responsibilities can be rearranged. Jeffrey F. Rayport argues that companies must refocus innovation on the "demand side." Eric Bonabeau describes a future in which computer-generated sound can be used to transmit vast amounts of data. Roger L. Martin says highly reliable corporate systems such as CRM tend to have little validity. Kirthi Kalyanam and Monte Zweben report that marketers are learning to contact customers at just the right moment. Robert C. Merton explains how equity swaps could help developing countries avoid some of the risk of boom and bust. Thomas A. Stewart says companies need champions of the status quo. Mohanbir Sawhney suggests marketing strategies for the blogosphere. Denise Caruso shows how to deal with risks that lack owners. Thomas H. Davenport says personal information management--how well we use our PDAs and PCs--is the next productivity frontier. Leigh Buchanan explores workplace taboos. Henry W. Chesbrough argues that the time is ripe for services science to become an academic field. Kenneth Lieberthal says China may change everyone's approach to intellectual property. Jochen Wirtz and Loizos Heracleous describe customer service apps for biometrics. Mary Catherine Bateson envisions a midlife sabbatical for workers. Jeffrey Rosen explains why one privacy policy won't fit everyone. Tihamer von Ghyczy and Janis Antonovics say firms should embrace parasites. And Jeffrey Pfeffer warns business-book buyers to beware. Additionally, HBR offers a list of intriguing business titles due out in 2005.
Harvard professor Henry Chesbrough takes a look at leading-edge companies' latest moves to harvest ideas from outside and to benefit from sharing their own R&D with others--even with competitors.
Champions of virtual corporations urge managers to subcontract anything and everything. And because several high-profile corporate giants have been outperformed by more nimble, "networked" competitors, the idea of the virtual organization is tantalizing. Many executives have come to believe that a company that invests in as little as possible will be more responsive to a changing marketplace and more likely to attain global competitive advantage. But is that really the best way to organize for innovation? In this HBR article from 1996, Henry Chesbrough and David Teece argue that the virtual corporation has been oversold. Innovation is not monolithic. For some innovations, joint ventures, alliances, and outsourcing can play a useful role. But for others, they are inappropriate--and strategically dangerous. The authors present a framework to help managers determine when to innovate by going virtual, when to form alliances, and when to rely on internal development. They provide a range of cases to illustrate how to match organizational strategy to the type of innovation being pursued. Long-term success requires considerable and sustained investment within a company.
Genzyme has made money with external technology in orphan drug markets generally considered to be too small to be attractive to other drug companies. Now competition is entering these same markets, placing Genzyme's business model under new pressures.
Large companies have long sensed the potential value of investing in external start-ups, but more often than not, they fail to get it right. Remember the dash to invest in new ventures in the late 1990s and the hasty retreat when the economy turned? This article presents a framework that will help a company decide whether it should invest in a particular start-up by first understanding what kind of benefit might be realized from the investment. The framework--illustrated with examples from Intel, Lucent, and others--explains why certain types of corporate VC investments proliferate only when financial returns are high, why other types persist in good times and in bad, and why still others make little sense in any phase of the business cycle. The framework describes four types of corporate VC investments, each defined by its primary goal--strategic and financial--and by the degree of operational linkage between the start-up and the investing company. Driving investments are characterized by a strong strategic rationale and tight operational links. Enabling investments are also made primarily for strategic reasons, but the operational links are loose. Emergent investments, which are characterized by tight operational links, have little current--but significant potential--strategic value. Passive investments, offering few potential strategic benefits and only loose operational links, are made primarily for financial reasons. Passive corporate VC investments dry up in a down economy, but enabling and driving investments usually have more staying power. That's because their potential returns are primarily strategic, not financial. In other words, they can foster business growth. Emergent investments may make sense even in a weak market because of their potential strategic value--that is, their ability to help companies identify and spark the growth of future businesses.
Discusses the impact of limited market size on epilepsy therapies and shows how an early-stage venture fund can catalyze faster development of new treatments.
Describes an Israeli joint venture company, created to convert military technology to civilian uses. Also documents the explosive growth of the Israeli high-technology sector in the 1990s.