Open innovation in start-ups is a relatively unexplored field and studies focusing on collaborative innovation between start-ups with large companies seen from the former’s point of view are virtually inexistent. The authors address this gap in an exploratory study built on in-depth case studies. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how start-ups successfully organize and manage open innovation with large companies. The paper highlights common challenges and barriers faced by start-ups in adopting open innovation practices along with its benefits for them.
This is an exploratory study based on two case studies. The cases are diligently selected to examine two key forms of open innovation – inbound and outbound open innovation – in start-ups.
The paper provides an insight on how start-ups organize and manage open innovation activities with large companies and how it benefits them in overcoming liability of newness and smallness. The practices significantly differ from those followed in large companies. The paper highlights the advantages and challenges of inbound and outbound open innovation for start-ups. This paper also ascertains the crucial role of start-up manager for successful implementation of open innovation and shows how start-up’s managers with prior experience of working in/with a large company can proficiently deal with the larger counterpart in the innovation network.
This research is based on exploratory case studies so the conclusions drawn from these two cases may be hard to generalize. The findings of the study could be used for further development of the theoretical framework. Future research, including quantitative studies, will be helpful in examining the conclusions and providing more in-depth understanding of open innovation in start-ups.
The paper includes several practical implications for the managers including the role start-up managers play in organizing and managing open innovation activities. Furthermore, this paper suggests how start-ups could orchestrate open innovation ecosystem.
The paper is a step forward in filling the literature gap about open innovation and start-ups with some definite implications for start-up managers. A lot is written about the collaboration between large firms and start-ups from a former’s point of view but the start-up’s perspective has been left unexplored.
Startup companies represent a powerful engine of open innovation (OI) processes. The purpose of this paper is to represent a first step in building a map of the state-of-the-art knowledge of the “startups in an OI context” phenomenon. Through the selection and analysis of relevant literature, this study aims at deepening our understanding of the theme and at providing directions for future research.
By using an explicit method for the review (Pittaway et al. , 2004) the authors selected a set of papers, which cover the knowledge domain object of this study. In total, 41 articles about “startups and OI” have been selected and the full papers have been analysed.
The analysed literature has been synthesized in seven sub-topics, which have been evaluated as the most relevant in explaining the phenomenon of startups in relation to OI. Implications for research, for managers and for policy makers conclude the paper.
The review produced valuable knowledge for both managers and policy decision-makers. The paper allows a better understanding of the role of startups in OI processes. This improved understanding can help managers of large firms as well as policy makers involved in OI in making their decisions. Besides, implications of OI strategies for startup managers have been singled-out.
Startup companies are intrinsically open organizations, necessarily engaged in innovation processes. Research at the intersection between the themes of OI and startups is gaining momentum. This review of the literature represents the first attempt to organize the scientific knowledge related to the intersection between the startups and OI phenomena systematically.
This paper provides an overview of the main perspectives and themes emerging in research on open innovation (OI). The paper is the result of a collaborative process among several OI scholars – having a common basis in the recurrent Professional Development Workshop on ‘Researching Open Innovation’ at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. In this paper, we present opportunities for future research on OI, organised at different levels of analysis. We discuss some of the contingencies at these different levels, and argue that future research needs to study OI – originally an organisational-level phenomenon – across multiple levels of analysis. While our integrative framework allows comparing, contrasting and integrating various perspectives at different levels of analysis, further theorising will be needed to advance OI research. On this basis, we propose some new research categories as well as questions for future research – particularly those that span across research domains that have so far developed in isolation.
Necessity entrepreneurs create ventures since they perceive they can find no other suitable work. The number of research articles on the subject has skyrocketed in the 2000s. Some of these papers influence the public policies worldwide, aiming at reducing unemployment by stimulating entrepreneurship, especially at a time of economic crisis. Necessity entrepreneurs are opposed to opportunity entrepreneurs, who pursue profitable market opportunities, in a commonly accepted dichotomy. First part of our doctoral dissertation presents how the « necessity entrepreneurship » concept developed. A second chapter summarizes the current global state of knowledge on necessity entrepreneurship, based on a thorough literature review. Particular focus is placed on the wide range of definitions. In a third part, we demonstrate that the « necessity entrepreneurship » category is not a reliable one. Although widely found in research papers, it is not a solid concept to identify entrepreneurs : its meanings vary according to regions, individuals, social and economic contexts. Fourth chapter of this work proposes a typology of necessity entrepreneurs to illustrate in eight categories the various profiles encountered in the literature. A quantitative exploratory study based on a sample of 1000 French entrepreneurs offers a first validation tool for the typology and gives percentages of entrepreneurs per profile. An operational list of all necessity factors, internal or external, unchangeable or modifiable, has then been developed to measure a degree of criticality and assign a score to necessity entrepreneurs. In order to improve the mentoring of necessity entrepreneurs, to develop their resilience and venture's success, last part of this paper is devoted to an in-depth analysis of necessity entrepreneurial processes. Therefore we used the biographical method in the framework of the effectuation theory. Specific issues and barriers related to necessity entrepreneurial venture set up have been identified, especially concerning resources gathering, funding and stakeholders' involvement. It appears necessity entrepreneurs resort to effectuation spontaneously and by default. However, although effectual principals have been developed based on expert entrepreneurs, it seems that applied by necessity entrepreneurs, they are no guaranty of success at all. As a conclusion, we demonstrate that teaching effectuation should however structure necessity entrepreneurial processes in a straightforward manner, in order to increase self-confidence and self-esteem of necessity entrepreneurs.
Les travaux de Sarasvathy sur l’effectuation ont apporté un nouvel éclairage sur l’expertise entrepreneu- riale. Cependant ils soulèvent beaucoup de questions, en particulier en situation d’accompagnement. Par exemple, comment aider les entrepreneurs à s’adapter à l’inconfort apparent d’une démarche effectuale ? Partant d’une réflexion interdisciplinaire entre une psychothérapeute praticienne de l’accompagnement et deux enseignants chercheurs, nous étudions le potentiel d’une méthode d’accompagnement fondée sur le modèle de Palo Alto.
The aim of this article is to contribute to the literature on the management of SME support arrangements, such a new business incubation programs, by presenting two European case studies of such arrangements. In the case studies, we have tried to identify management practices that seem to work well in both cases. The literature abounds with "success stories" of, for example, individual science parks, but such stories tend to have two major shortcomings. First, what constitutes success is seldom defined. Second, it is difficult to determine to what degree this success defends on local factors and to what degree it can be attributed to the management practices to the support arrangement. This study discusses the management practices of these two arrangements against the background of their regional settings.
This paper discusses the concept of business ecosystem. Business ecosystem is a relatively new concept in the field of business research, and there is still a lot of work to be done to establish it. First the subject is approached by examining a biological ecosystem, especially how biological ecosystems are defined, how they evolve and how they are classified and structured. Second, different analogies of biological ecosystem are reviewed, including industrial ecosystem, economy as an ecosystem, digital business ecosystem and social ecosystem. Third, business ecosystem concept is outlined by discussing views of main contributors and then bringing authors’ own definition out. Fourth, the emerging research field of complexity in social sciences is brought out due to authors’ attitude to consider ecosystems and business ecosystems as complex, adaptive systems. The focal complexity aspects appearing in business ecosystems are presented; they are self-organization, emergence, co-evolution and adaptation. By connecting business ecosystem concept to complexity research, it is possible to bring new insights to changing business environments.
Les politiques d’innovation, de nos jours souvent territorialisees, correspondent au moins implicitement a des visions de ce qu’est le processus d’innovation, voire a des fondements theoriques precis (policy rationale). Pour jeter un regard critique sur ces politiques, nous proposons de revenir sur les grands auteurs, particulierement Schumpeter et Hayek, afin de comprendre la nature profonde de cet acte creatif. Il nous semble tres reducteur de penser l’innovation sur le seul plan de l’economie de la connaissance, d’ou notre volonte d’insister sur la dimension entrepreneuriale du phenomene et d’en tirer des conclusions politiques. Pour cela, une relecture de la litterature neo-autrichienne est utile. Elle permet de comprendre le concept de decouverte entrepreneuriale qui est cite (sans trop de commentaires) dans les textes fondateurs de la politique europeenne de « smart specialization » des regions. Nous concluons sur la necessite de reveler puis de s’appuyer sur des porteurs de projets dans les territoires.
This article reviews research on open innovation that considers how and why firms commercialize external sources of innovations. It examines both the “outside-in” and “coupled” modes of Enkel et al. (2009). From an analysis of prior research on how firms leverage external sources of innovation, it suggests a four-phase model in which a linear process — (1) obtaining, (2) integrating and (3) commercializing external innovations — is combined with (4) interaction between the firm and its collaborators. This model is used to classify papers taken from the top 25 innovation journals identified by Linton and Thongpapan (2004), complemented by highly cited work beyond those journals. A review of 291 open innovation-related publications from these sources shows that the majority of these articles indeed address elements of this inbound open innovation process model. Specifically, it finds that researchers have front-loaded their examination of the leveraging process, with an emphasis on obtaining innovations from external sources. However, there is a relative dearth of research related to integrating and commercializing these innovations.
Research on obtaining innovations includes searching, enabling, filtering, and acquiring — each category with its own specific set of mechanisms and conditions. Integrating innovations has been mostly studied from an absorptive capacity perspective, with less attention given to the impact of competencies and culture (including not-invented-here). Commercializing innovations puts the most emphasis on how external innovations create value rather than how firms capture value from those innovations. Finally, the interaction phase considers both feedback for the linear process and reciprocal innovation processes such as co-creation, network collaboration and community innovation.
This review and synthesis suggests several gaps in prior research. One is a tendency to ignore the importance of business models, despite their central role in distinguishing open innovation from earlier research on inter-organizational collaboration in innovation. Another gap is a tendency in open innovation to use “innovation” in a way inconsistent with earlier definitions in innovation management. The article concludes with recommendations for future research that include examining the end-to-end innovation commercialization process, and studying the moderators and limits of leveraging external sources of innovation.
The sustainable entrepreneurship: a generational approach in terms of entrepreneurial capabilities
The focus of sustainable entrepreneurship is on the entrepreneur’s capacity to attend to the process of sustainable development. A theoretical framework is set up in line with the resource-based-view and empirical work data are commented.
The 1st part leans on a theoretical corpus whose main reference is the “effectual entrepreneur” of Saras Sarasvathy (2008) in so far as, in this model, the role of the entrepreneur’s personal capabilities as leverages of his/her capacity to act is stressed. An enlarged version of the effectual entrepreneur is outlined so as to include the entrepreneurial capabilities depending on contextual factors and taking into account the fact that sustainable entrepreneurship is generally considered as “placebased”.
In the 2nd part, the data provided by a large field work are commented, knowing that its main purpose was to bring out the overall characteristics of three different generations’ entrepreneurial profile. The analysis puts to light a “generational effect” in terms of entrepreneurial capabilities and leads to distinguish three significant groups of entrepreneurs : their attending to sustainability is more or less asserted and their participation terms are more or less straight.
Over the past decade, the concept of open innovation has received substantial attention. Research has ranged from case study representations to large-scale quantitative studies using the Community Innovation Survey data or developing novel approaches to measuring open innovation. In this study, we conceptualise and validate a firm-level measure of proclivity for open innovation, which relates to the firm’s predisposition to perform inbound and outbound open innovation activities. To do so, we focus on smaller firms, assessing their organisational and behavioural perspectives related to open innovation. Building on existing scholarly research and a field study, we begin by conceptualising the theoretical framework of the multidimensional construct. We then develop and validate its measurement scale on two cross-cultural samples. The measure contains the following dimensions: inward IP licensing and external participation, outsourcing R&D and external networking, customer involvement, employee involvement, venturing, and outward IP licensing. Our results indicate that the measure has good reliability and validity. Implications for future research are also discussed.
This research examines two questions: What is the significance of relationships and how do they influence entrepreneurship? What kinds of settings or networks of relationships are conducive to entrepreneurship and how do we create them?^ A two track approach was used. First, a conceptual framework was developed in order to understand the questions and to make sense of observations about relationships and entrepreneurship. Second, actual examples of relationships were examined in order to see how they influence entrepreneurship and to learn under what circumstances they are successful. Two business incubators, the Fulton-Carroll Center in Chicago and the Enterprise Development Center on Route 128, were chosen as settings in which to explore these behaviors. The research methods used include in-depth interviews, participant observation and focus groups.^ The major finding is that the most important contribution of business incubators to entrepreneurship lies in the opportunities they provide for entrepreneurs to interact and develop relationships with other entrepreneurs, the incubator manager and other individuals associated with the incubator. Entrepreneurs receive three types of benefits: instrumental (such as increased sales, lower costs, enhanced capabilities and reduced risk), psychological and developmental. A typology which distinguishes the content of the exchanges and the structure of the relationships is presented in order to describe the variety of interactions within the incubators and to provide a basis for comparing them. Nine factors collectively influence the development of relationships and the interaction: the types of businesses, the personal characteristics of the entrepreneurs, the stage of the firms' development, the existence of a critical mass of firms, the layout of the incubator space, norms and attitudes, the existence of forums for discussion and the actions of the incubator manager. Lacking sufficient resources and skills, entrepreneurs must create or establish access to them by developing relationships of interdependence with others. Relationships are the vehicle that make the interactions as well as these benefits, possible.
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 spinoffs, among other means. 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 for 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.
Through an objective, systematic, and comprehensive review of the literature on open innovation (OI), this article identifies gaps in existing research, and provides recommendations on how hitherto unused or underused organizational, management, and marketing theories can be applied to advance the field. This study adopts a novel approach by combining two complementary bibliometric methods of co-citation analysis and text mining of 321 journal articles on OI that enables a robust empirical analysis of the intellectual streams and key concepts underpinning OI. Results reveal that researchers do not sufficiently draw on theoretical perspectives external to the field to examine multiple facets of OI. Research also seems confined to innovation-specific journals with its focus restricted to a select few OI issues, thereby exerting limited influence on the wider business community. This study reveals three distinct areas within OI research: (1) firm-centric aspects of OI, (2) management of OI networks, and (3) role of users and communities in OI. Thus far, studies have predominantly investigated the firm-centric aspects of OI, with a particular focus on the role of knowledge, technology, and R&D from the innovating firm's perspective, while the other two areas remain relatively under-researched. Further gaps in the literature emerge that present avenues for future research, namely to: (1) develop a more comprehensive understanding of OI by including diverse perspectives (users, networks, and communities), (2) direct increased attention to OI strategy formulation and implementation, and (3) enhance focus on customer co-creation and conceptualize “open service innovation.” Marketing (e.g., service-dominant logic), organizational behavior (e.g., communities of practice), and management (e.g., dynamic capabilities) offer suitable theoretical lenses and/or concepts to address these gaps.
New firms are an important mechanism through which new jobs are created. However, the new venture failure rate is greater than the rate of creation. Business incubators have been organized to bring new businesses together to increase the probability of success. Incubators do not guarantee success; however, evaluating potential clients on Critical Success Factors can minimize failures once the firm joins an incubator. This research investigates the screening practices of incubators and identifies unique groups of incubators. The screening practices were found to relate to sponsorship but not to physical characteristics or objectives.
Business incubators are one of the newest tools on the enterprise development scene; nearly 400 are now in operation. A business incubator is a facility that provides affordable space, shared office services, and business development assistance in an environment conducive to new venture creation, survival, and early-stage growth. This article is a preliminary examination of the relationships among incubator structure, policy, services, and performance. A value-added continuum model is used to describe various kinds of incubators and aspects of their operations. Managers of 127 incubators were surveyed to examine features of the value-added continuum. Surrogate measures for the concepts that anchor either end of the continuum—property development and business development—are empirically examined. Incubators are found to be poor real estate ventures. Age and size of facility are found to be important determinants of jobs created and firms graduated. Only one other structure, policy, or services variable is important for explaining business development outcomes.