IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v150y2022icp528-537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overcoming openness paradox in open networks: A configurational approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ding, Yixin
  • Wu, Jianfeng

Abstract

The research on how to manage the openness paradox in corporate innovation networks makes for an interesting topic in the innovation literature. This study investigates the configurational effects of innovative search, appropriability, and open network characteristics on corporate innovation performance. To this end, the study samples 593 Chinese manufacturers using the qualitative comparative analysis method. Empirical findings show that three open strategies improve innovation performance—the patent applicant-dominant, balanced, and explorative search-dominant strategies in low-level, high-level, and high- or low-level geographic and organizational research and development (R&D) networks, respectively. This study also reveals the critical role of an R&D network in open strategies. Specifically, firms with high-level geographic or organizational R&D networks tend to adopt complementary open strategies, whereas those with low-level R&D networks prefer substitutive open strategies. These findings guide firms to choose suitable open strategies in innovation networks.

Suggested Citation

  • Ding, Yixin & Wu, Jianfeng, 2022. "Overcoming openness paradox in open networks: A configurational approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 528-537.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:150:y:2022:i:c:p:528-537
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296322005793
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.037?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. Wu, Jianfeng & Shanley, Mark T., 2009. "Knowledge stock, exploration, and innovation: Research on the United States electromedical device industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 474-483, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Du, Yunzhou & Kim, Phillip H., 2021. "One size does not fit all: Strategy configurations, complex environments, and new venture performance in emerging economies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 272-285.
    4. Fábio Gama, 2019. "Managing collaborative ideation: the role of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 97-118, March.
    5. Chen, Min-Nan & Wu, Chia-Hung, 2020. "Complementary-in use appropriability in innovative service firms: An empirical study in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    6. Zobel, Ann-Kristin & Lokshin, Boris & Hagedoorn, John, 2017. "Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-54.
    7. Yaowu Sun & Yi Zhai, 2018. "Mapping the knowledge domain and the theme evolution of appropriability research between 1986 and 2016: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 203-230, July.
    8. Daniel Nepelski & Vincent Roy & Annarosa Pesole, 2019. "The organisational and geographic diversity and innovation potential of EU-funded research networks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 359-380, April.
    9. Singh, Jasjit, 2008. "Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 77-96, February.
    10. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    11. Eunkwang Seo & Hyo Kang & Jaeyong Song, 2020. "Blending talents for innovation: Team composition for cross-border R&D collaboration within multinational corporations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(5), pages 851-885, July.
    12. Fiori, Giovana Maria Lanchoti & Basso, Fernanda Gisele & Porto, Geciane Silveira, 2022. "Cooperation in R&D in the pharmaceutical industry: Technological and clinical trial networks in oncology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Miric, Milan & Boudreau, Kevin J. & Jeppesen, Lars Bo, 2019. "Protecting their digital assets: The use of formal & informal appropriability strategies by App developers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    14. Peter Maskell & Anders Malmberg, 2007. "Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(5), pages 603-618, September.
    15. Heng Liu & Xiu-hao Ding & Hai Guo & Jin-hui Luo, 2014. "How does slack affect product innovation in high-tech Chinese firms: The contingent value of entrepreneurial orientation," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 47-68, March.
    16. Li, Yanfei & Ji, Qiang & Zhang, Dayong, 2020. "Technological catching up and innovation policies in China: What is behind this largely successful story?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    17. Snehal Awate & Marcus M Larsen & Ram Mudambi, 2015. "Accessing vs sourcing knowledge: A comparative study of R&D internationalization between emerging and advanced economy firms," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 46(1), pages 63-86, January.
    18. Roberto Ragozzino, 2009. "The Effects of Geographic Distance on the Foreign Acquisition Activity of U.S. Firms," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 509-535, September.
    19. Bruno Cassiman & Giovanni Valentini, 2016. "Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 1034-1046, June.
    20. Kafouros, Marios & Love, James H & Ganotakis, Panagiotis & Konara, Palitha, 2020. "Experience in R&D collaborations, innovative performance and the moderating effect of different dimensions of absorptive capacity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    21. Radziwon, Agnieszka & Bogers, Marcel, 2019. "Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 573-587.
    22. Gnyawali, Devi R. & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2011. "Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 650-663, June.
    23. Lori Rosenkopf & Atul Nerkar, 2001. "Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 287-306, April.
    24. Felício, José Augusto & Duarte, Margarida & Rodrigues, Ricardo, 2016. "Global mindset and SME internationalization: A fuzzy-set QCA approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1372-1378.
    25. Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Kraus, Sascha, 2013. "Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 2060-2070.
    26. 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.
    27. Wojciech Czakon & Devi Gnyawali & Frédéric Le Roy & Manish K. Srivastava, 2020. "Coopetition Strategies: Critical Issues and Research Directions," Post-Print hal-02517434, HAL.
    28. Ritala, Paavo & Huizingh, Eelko & Almpanopoulou, Argyro & Wijbenga, Paul, 2017. "Tensions in R&D networks: Implications for knowledge search and integration," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 311-322.
    29. Stefan, Ioana & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Oikarinen, Eeva-Liisa, 2022. "The dark side of open innovation: Individual affective responses as hidden tolls of the paradox of openness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 360-373.
    30. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    31. Liefner, Ingo & Si, Yue-fang & Schäfer, Kerstin, 2019. "A latecomer firm's R&D collaboration with advanced country universities and research institutes: The case of Huawei in Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 86, pages 3-14.
    32. Werner Hoffmann & Dovev Lavie & Jeffrey J. Reuer & Andrew Shipilov, 2018. "The interplay of competition and cooperation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(12), pages 3033-3052, December.
    33. Zhang, Jingjing & Groen, Aard, 2021. "Informal and formal open activities: Innovation protection methods as antecedents and innovation outputs as consequences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    34. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    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. 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).
    2. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Lu, Qinli & Chesbrough, Henry, 2022. "Measuring open innovation practices through topic modelling: Revisiting their impact on firm financial performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Puliga, Gloria & Urbinati, Andrea & Franchin, Enrico Maria & Castegnaro, Stefano, 2023. "Investigating the drivers of failure of research-industry collaborations in open innovation contexts," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Thuy Seran & Sea Matilda Bez, 2019. "Managing Open-Innovation between Competitors: A Project-Level Approach," Post-Print hal-02427680, HAL.
    7. Yaowu Sun & Yi Zhai, 2018. "Mapping the knowledge domain and the theme evolution of appropriability research between 1986 and 2016: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 203-230, July.
    8. Broekhuizen, Thijs & Dekker, Henri & de Faria, Pedro & Firk, Sebastian & Nguyen, Dinh Khoi & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2023. "AI for managing open innovation: Opportunities, challenges, and a research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    9. Frédéric Le Roy & Sea Matilda Bez & Johanna Gast, 2021. "Unpacking the management of Oligo-coopetition strategies in the absence of a moderating third party," Post-Print hal-03349671, HAL.
    10. Crick, James M. & Crick, Dave, 2021. "The dark-side of coopetition: Influences on the paradoxical forces of cooperativeness and competitiveness across product-market strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 226-240.
    11. Zhang, Jingjing & Groen, Aard, 2021. "Informal and formal open activities: Innovation protection methods as antecedents and innovation outputs as consequences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Le Roy, Frédéric & Robert, Frank & Hamouti, Rizlane, 2022. "Vertical vs horizontal coopetition and the market performance of product innovation: An empirical study of the video game industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. Ogink, Ruben H.A.J. & Goossen, Martin C. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Akkermans, Henk, 2023. "Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    15. Huiying Zhang & Xiguang Chen, 2022. "Open Innovation and Sustainable Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of IP Strategic Planning and IP Operation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    17. Stefan, Ioana & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Oikarinen, Eeva-Liisa, 2022. "The dark side of open innovation: Individual affective responses as hidden tolls of the paradox of openness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 360-373.
    18. Bhawani Bhatnagar & Viktor Dörfler & Jillian MacBryde, 2023. "Navigating the open innovation paradox: an integrative framework for adopting open innovation in pharmaceutical R&D in developing countries," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2204-2248, December.
    19. Nambisan, Satish & Wright, Mike & Feldman, Maryann, 2019. "The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    20. Patricia Laurens & Pierluigi Toma & Antoine Schoen & Cinzia Daraio & Philippe Larédo, 2022. "How does Internationalisation affect the productivity of R&D activities in large innovative firms? A conditional nonparametric investigation," Post-Print hal-03840316, HAL.

    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:jbrese:v:150:y:2022:i:c:p:528-537. 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/locate/jbusres .

    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.