IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v39y2021i3p376-389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open innovation and organizational features: An experimental investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Chiao, Benjamin
  • MacVaugh, Jason

Abstract

This paper reports experimental results on open innovation in which free-riding, efficiency and spillover depend on the ability to affect the number of innovation contributors, and the modularity of the innovation task. This paper provides a tractable laboratory setting that relaxes the restrictive assumption of the theoretical literature that costs of development are independent across individuals. We have induced more distributed problem solving and spillover of knowledge when the process is more non-modular. When efficiency is measured as the percentage of profits made over maximum profits, small groups were more efficient than large groups in the non-modular production environment and efficiency was higher in the modular production environment irrespective of group size. Significantly, there was a higher percentage of spillover in the non-modular production environment, especially for large groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiao, Benjamin & MacVaugh, Jason, 2021. "Open innovation and organizational features: An experimental investigation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 376-389.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:39:y:2021:i:3:p:376-389
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026323732030181X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2020.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Carlsson, Bo & Jacobsson, Staffan & Holmen, Magnus & Rickne, Annika, 2002. "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 233-245, February.
    4. R. Mark Isaac & James M. Walker, 1988. "Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 179-199.
    5. Justin Pappas Johnson, 2002. "Open Source Software: Private Provision of a Public Good," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 637-662, December.
    6. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2006. "The Architecture of Participation: Does Code Architecture Mitigate Free Riding in the Open Source Development Model?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1116-1127, July.
    7. Marcel Bogers & Ann-Kristin Zobel & Allan Afuah & Esteve Almirall & Sabine Brunswicker & Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Annabelle Gawer & Marc Gruber & Stefan Haefliger & John Hagedoorn & Dennis, 2017. "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 8-40, January.
    8. Sørensen, Flemming & Mattsson, Jan & Sundbo, Jon, 2010. "Experimental methods in innovation research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 313-322, April.
    9. Isaac, R. Mark & Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 1994. "Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods : Experimental evidence utilizing large groups," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-36, May.
    10. Henkel, Joachim & Schöberl, Simone & Alexy, Oliver, 2014. "The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 879-890.
    11. Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
    12. Sharon Belenzon & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Motivation and sorting of human capital in open innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 795-820, June.
    13. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    14. Karim R. Lakhani & Hila Lifshitz-Assaf & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Open innovation and organizational boundaries: task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation," Chapters, in: Anna Grandori (ed.), Handbook of Economic Organization, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Belenzon, Sharon & Schankerman, Mark, 2015. "Motivation and sorting of human capital in open innovation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58514, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Steen, John & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Creating value by giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 137-150.
    2. Shuanping Dai & Guanzhong Yang, 2020. "Does Social Inducement Lead to Higher Open Innovation Investment? An Experimental Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    4. Martie-Louise Verreynne & Rui Torres de Oliveira & John Steen & Marta Indulska & Jerad A. Ford, 2020. "What motivates ‘free’ revealing? Measuring outbound non-pecuniary openness, innovation types and expectations of future profit growth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 271-301, July.
    5. Foege, J. Nils & Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl & Tietze, Frank & Salge, Torsten Oliver, 2019. "Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1323-1339.
    6. Islam, Mazhar & Miller, Jacob & Park, Haemin Dennis, 2017. "But what will it cost me? How do private costs of participation affect open source software projects?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1062-1070.
    7. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    8. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    9. Suhada, Thontowi A. & Ford, Jerad A. & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Motivating individuals to contribute to firms’ non-pecuniary open innovation goals," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    10. Hallberg, Niklas L. & Brattström, Anna, 2019. "Concealing or revealing? Alternative paths to profiting from innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-174.
    11. Frank Nagle, 2018. "Learning by Contributing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Contribution to Crowdsourced Public Goods," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 569-587, August.
    12. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    13. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & von Hippel, Eric, 2009. "Transfers of user process innovations to process equipment producers: A study of Dutch high-tech firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1181-1191, September.
    14. Becker, Markus C. & Rullani, Francesco & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2021. "The role of digital artefacts in early stages of distributed innovation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    15. Giuri, Paola & Ploner, Matteo & Rullani, Francesco & Torrisi, Salvatore, 2010. "Skills, division of labor and performance in collective inventions: Evidence from open source software," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 54-68, January.
    16. Veer, Theresa & Yang, Philip & Riepe, Jan, 2022. "Ventures' conscious knowledge transfer to close partners, and beyond: A framework of performance, complementarity, knowledge disclosure, and knowledge broadcasting," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3).
    17. Matthew J. Hashim & Karthik N. Kannan & Sandra Maximiano, 2017. "Information Feedback, Targeting, and Coordination: An Experimental Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 289-308, June.
    18. Shaikh, Ibrahim & Randhawa, Krithika, 2022. "Managing the risks and motivations of technology managers in open innovation: Bringing stakeholder-centric corporate governance into focus," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    19. Alfonso Gambardella & Christina Raasch & Eric von Hippel, 2017. "The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1450-1468, May.
    20. Alfonso Gambardella & Eric von Hippel, 2019. "Open Sourcing as a Profit-Maximizing Strategy for Downstream Firms," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 41-57, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:39:y:2021:i:3:p:376-389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.