IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i11p3225-d238776.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construction of Open Innovation Ecology on the Internet: A Case Study of Xiaomi (China) Using Institutional Logic

Author

Listed:
  • Jaime Ortiz

    (Vice Provost Global Strategies and Studies, University of Houston, E.W. Cullen Bldg. Suite 101, 4302 University Dr., Houston, TX 77204, USA)

  • Hao Ren

    (School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Kei Li

    (School of Economics and management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • An Zhang

    (State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

Abstract

The characteristics of collaborative innovation and interactions among core enterprises, users, and partners are critical. Research is lacking on how to construct open innovation ecology through institutional design. This study explores how core enterprises effectively motivate users and partners to participate in innovation activities on the Internet and successfully constructing open innovation ecology, using the institutional logic theory and an exploratory case study of Xiaomi, a famous Chinese Internet enterprise. The findings are as follows: (1) three main characteristics of innovation carried out by core enterprises, users, and partners in the open innovation ecology—iterative innovation, social innovation, and joint innovation; (2) three new institutional practices—following, leading, and symbiotic mechanisms—which provide an effective institutional guarantee for interaction and innovation; (3) two kinds of institutional logic—administrative logic and social logic, which core enterprises follow to construct open innovation ecology on the Internet, and its change in innovation characteristics. Therefore, a full understanding of the changing rules of the institutional logic is fundamental for successfully building open innovation ecology. This study enriches both the open innovation ecology theory as well as the institutional logic theory. In addition, Xiaomi’s open innovation ecological development model proves that core enterprises can take the approach of building open innovation ecology. It provides a strong example to other enterprises on innovations on the Internet.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaime Ortiz & Hao Ren & Kei Li & An Zhang, 2019. "Construction of Open Innovation Ecology on the Internet: A Case Study of Xiaomi (China) Using Institutional Logic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3225-:d:238776
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3225/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3225/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Sophie Thelisson & Mickaël Géraudel & Audrey Missonier, 2018. "How do institutional logics evolve over the merger process? A case in the public-private urban planning sector," Post-Print hal-02091760, HAL.
    2. Paul Trott & Dap Hartmann, 2009. "Why 'Open Innovation' Is Old Wine In New Bottles," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 715-736.
    3. Richard A. Bettis & C. K. Prahalad, 1995. "The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14.
    4. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2010. "Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 306-333, March.
    5. Amit Nigam & William Ocasio, 2010. "Event Attention, Environmental Sensemaking, and Change in Institutional Logics: An Inductive Analysis of the Effects of Public Attention to Clinton's Health Care Reform Initiative," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 823-841, August.
    6. Cecilia Rossignoli & Francesca Ricciardi & Sabrina Bonomi, 2018. "Organizing for Commons-Enabling Decision-Making Under Conflicting Institutional Logics in Social Entrepreneurship," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 417-443, June.
    7. Hana Kim & Eungdo Kim, 2018. "How an Open Innovation Strategy for Commercialization Affects the Firm Performance of Korean Healthcare IT SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Hao Ren & Rongrong Wang & Suopeng Zhang & An Zhang, 2017. "How Do Internet Enterprises Obtain Sustainable Development of Organizational Ecology? A Case Study of LeEco Using Institutional Logic Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Mario Barchi & Marco Greco, 2018. "Negotiation in Open Innovation: A Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 343-374, June.
    10. Bjorn Remneland Wikhamn & Alexander Styhre, 2019. "Open Innovation Groundwork," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(02), pages 1-29, January.
    11. Durand, Rodolphe & Thornton, Patricia, 2018. "Categorizing Institutional Logics, Institutionalizing Categories: A Review of Two Literatures," HEC Research Papers Series 1276, HEC Paris, revised 30 May 2018.
    12. Schweisfurth, Tim G., 2017. "Comparing internal and external lead users as sources of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 238-248.
    13. Lindberg, Kajsa, 2014. "Performing multiple logics in practice," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 485-497.
    14. Jacqueline Corbett & Jane Webster & Tracy A. Jenkin, 2018. "Unmasking Corporate Sustainability at the Project Level: Exploring the Influence of Institutional Logics and Individual Agency," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 147(2), pages 261-286, January.
    15. Sonali K. Shah, 2006. "Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1000-1014, July.
    16. Anna S. Cui & Fang Wu, 2016. "Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 516-538, July.
    17. Allan P. O. Williams, 2006. "Leadership in Change," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Rise of Cass Business School, chapter 15, pages 200-220, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hao Jing & Guimin Qu & Ning Qi, 2023. "Influence of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Open Innovation of Military-Civilian Integration Enterprises in China: The Mediating Effect of Organization Legitimacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Xuming Zhang & Dongphil Chun, 2023. "Business Model Innovation of Exponential Organizations: The Case of Xiaomi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.

    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. De Silva, Muthu & Gokhberg, Leonid & Meissner, Dirk & Russo, Margherita, 2021. "Addressing societal challenges through the simultaneous generation of social and business values: A conceptual framework for science-based co-creation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Obradović, Tena & Vlačić, Božidar & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Open innovation in the manufacturing industry: A review and research agenda," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Wu, Xiaojie & Tan, Xiaoxia & Wang, Xiuqiong, 2023. "The institutional logics perspective in management and organizational studies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Stenling, Cecilia, 2014. "The emergence of a new logic? The theorizing of a new practice in the highly institutionalized context of Swedish voluntary sport," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 507-519.
    6. Stanko, Michael A. & Allen, B.J., 2022. "Disentangling the collective motivations for user innovation in a 3D printing community," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Wenjie Li & Wenyu Du & Jiamin Yin, 2017. "Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem as a new form of organizing: the case of Zhongguancun," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. S. Arunachalam & Sridhar N. Ramaswami & Pol Herrmann & Doug Walker, 2018. "Innovation pathway to profitability: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilities," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 744-766, July.
    9. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    10. Wang Kai, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Idea Generation Techniques," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 65-80, January.
    11. Thomas Lans & Wim Hulsink & Herman Baert & Martin Mulder, 2008. "Entrepreneurship Education And Training In A Small Business Context: Insights From The Competence-Based Approach," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 363-383.
    12. Christina Theodoraki & Karim Messeghem & Mark P. Rice, 2018. "A social capital approach to the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an explorative study," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 153-170, June.
    13. Spaniol, Matthew J. & Rowland, Nicholas J., 2022. "Business ecosystems and the view from the future: The use of corporate foresight by stakeholders of the Ro-Ro shipping ecosystem in the Baltic Sea Region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Delin Zeng & Jingbo Hu & Taohua Ouyang, 2017. "Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    15. Akbar Ali, 2012. "Leadership and its Influence in Organizations ¨C A Review of Intellections," International Journal of Learning and Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 2(6), pages 73-85, December.
    16. Jean-Philippe Denis & Frank Tannery, 2002. "L'architecture des systèmes de contrôle de la stratégie dans les groupes," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 5(3), pages 69-114, September.
    17. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Bo Cowgill, 2017. "Multiplicative-innovation synergies: tests in technological acquisitions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1212-1233, October.
    18. Elizabeth J. Altman & Frank Nagle & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Innovating Without Information Constraints: Organizations, Communities, and Innovation When Information Costs Approach Zero," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-043, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2014.
    19. Liuan Wang & Lu (Lucy) Yan & Tongxin Zhou & Xitong Guo & Gregory R. Heim, 2020. "Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 537-555, June.
    20. Müller-Stewens, Günter & Stonig, Joachim, 2023. "Auf dem Weg zum Stakeholder-Kapitalismus: Merkmale und Konsequenzen einer sich verändernden institutionellen Logik," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 77(4), pages 316-333.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3225-:d:238776. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.