IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5572-d809367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Game Analysis of the Open-Source Innovation Benefits of Two Enterprises from the Perspective of Product Homogenization and the Enterprise Strength Gap

Author

Listed:
  • Aiping Tao

    (School of Economics, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230601, China)

  • Qi Qi

    (School of Economics, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230601, China)

  • Yi Li

    (Jiangsu Office, China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, Nanjing 210004, China)

  • Dan Da

    (School of Business, Jiangsu Open University, Nanjing 210000, China)

  • Valentina Boamah

    (School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Decai Tang

    (School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

Abstract

Revenue is one of the hottest topics in the field of open-source innovation. Can open-source innovation really bring more revenue to firms? What affects the revenue from open-source innovation? Based on the perspective of product homogenization and the enterprise-strength gap, these questions are answered in this study using theoretical analyses and the construction of a game model to explore the influence of product homogeneity and the strength gap between firms regarding the revenue from open-source innovation. The results show that enterprise homogeneity and the revenue from open-source innovation are not linearly related. High homogeneity does harm the revenue from open-source innovation, while the revenue is relatively high when the homogeneity is moderate. Additionally, it was also identified that the strength gap between firms has a negative influence on the revenue from open-source innovation. The wider the strength gap is, the greater the revenue loss of the weaker firms and, thus, the lower the total revenue of the two firms will be. This paper provides a reference for research on enterprise revenue from open-source innovation and the selection of participants in open-source activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Aiping Tao & Qi Qi & Yi Li & Dan Da & Valentina Boamah & Decai Tang, 2022. "Game Analysis of the Open-Source Innovation Benefits of Two Enterprises from the Perspective of Product Homogenization and the Enterprise Strength Gap," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5572-:d:809367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5572/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5572/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2002. "Some Simple Economics of Open Source," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 197-234, June.
    2. Elliot Maxwell, 2006. "Open Standards, Open Source, and Open Innovation: Harnessing the Benefits of Openness," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 1(3), pages 119-176, July.
    3. Dedman, Elisabeth & Lennox, Clive, 2009. "Perceived competition, profitability and the withholding of information about sales and the cost of sales," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2-3), pages 210-230, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Colombo, Massimo G. & Piva, Evila & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina, 2014. "Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 891-902.
    6. Christian Rammer & Dirk Czarnitzki & Alfred Spielkamp, 2009. "Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: substituting technology by management in SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 35-58, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Juan Mateos Garcia & W. Edward Steinmueller, 2003. "The Open Source Way of Working: a New Paradigm for the Division of Labour in Software Development?," SPRU Working Paper Series 92, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Hagedoorn, John & Wang, Ning, 2012. "Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1072-1083.
    10. De Marco, Chiara Eleonora & Martelli, Irene & Di Minin, Alberto, 2020. "European SMEs’ engagement in open innovation When the important thing is to win and not just to participate, what should innovation policy do?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    11. Leckel, Anja & Veilleux, Sophie & Dana, Leo Paul, 2020. "Local Open Innovation: A means for public policy to increase collaboration for innovation in SMEs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Jennifer W. Spencer, 2003. "Firms' knowledge‐sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 217-233, March.
    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. Sengupta, Abhijit & Sena, Vania, 2020. "Impact of open innovation on industries and firms – A dynamic complex systems view," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    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. Schrape, Jan-Felix, 2017. "Open source projects as incubators of innovation: From niche phenomenon to integral part of the software industry," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2017-03, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    4. Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca & Boronat-Moll, Carles, 2021. "Technological innovation typologies and open innovation in SMEs: Beyond internal and external sources of knowledge," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    5. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    6. Bitzer, Jürgen & Geishecker, Ingo, 2010. "Who contributes voluntarily to OSS? An investigation among German IT employees," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 165-172, February.
    7. Massimiliano Gambardella, 2011. "The Scope of Open Licenses in Cultural Contents Production and Distribution," Working Papers hal-04140977, HAL.
    8. Amit Mehra & Rajiv Dewan & Marshall Freimer, 2011. "Firms as Incubators of Open-Source Software," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 22-38, March.
    9. Bernd Ebersberger & Nils Mevenkamp, 2016. "Open Innovation in Eastern Europe and Central Asia," Journal of Business Administration Research, Journal of Business Administration Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 5(2), pages 8-19, October.
    10. Francesco Rullani, 2006. "Dragging developers towards the core. How the Free/Libre/Open Source Software community enhances developers' contribution," LEM Papers Series 2006/22, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    11. Chiao, Benjamin & MacVaugh, Jason, 2021. "Open innovation and organizational features: An experimental investigation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 376-389.
    12. Xulia González & Daniel Miles-Touya & Consuelo Pazó, 2016. "R&D, worker training and innovation: firm-level evidence," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 694-712, November.
    13. Bitzer, Jurgen & Schrettl, Wolfram & Schroder, Philipp J.H., 2007. "Intrinsic motivation in open source software development," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 160-169, March.
    14. Burcu Tan & Edward G. Anderson, Jr. & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2020. "Platform Pricing and Investment to Drive Third-Party Value Creation in Two-Sided Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 217-239, March.
    15. Osterloh, Margit & Rota, Sandra, 2007. "Open source software development--Just another case of collective invention?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 157-171, March.
    16. Gaudeul, Alexia, 2008. "Open Source Licensing in Mixed Markets, or Why Open Source Software Does Not Succeed," MPRA Paper 19596, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2005. "Linux vs. Windows: A comparison of application and platform innovation incentives for open source and proprietary software platforms+," Working Papers 05-03, NET Institute, revised Sep 2005.
    18. Marzi, Giacomo & Fakhar Manesh, Mohammad & Caputo, Andrea & Pellegrini, Massimiliano Matteo & Vlačić, Božidar, 2023. "Do or do not. Cognitive configurations affecting open innovation adoption in SMEs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    19. Robert M. Sauer, 2007. "Why develop open-source software? The role of non-pecuniary benefits, monetary rewards, and open-source licence type," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 605-619, Winter.
    20. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel & Müller, Bettina, 2009. "Open Source, ICT infrastructure and firm performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-089, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5572-:d:809367. 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.