IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orstsc/v9y2024i1p1-17.html

Profiting from Data Commons: Theory, Evidence, and Strategy Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Potts

    (School of Economics, Finance and Marketing RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia)

  • Andrew Torrance

    (School of Law, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045)

  • Dietmar Harhoff

    (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munchen, 80539 Bayern, Germany)

  • Eric von Hippel

    (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

We define data commons as repositories of freely-accessible, “open source” innovation-related data, information and knowledge. Data commons are and can be a significant resource for both innovating and innovation-adopting firms and individuals. First, the availability of free data and information from such commons reduces the innovation-specific private or open investment required to access the data and make the next innovative advance. Second, the fact that the data are freely accessible lowers transactions costs substantially. In this paper, we draw on the theory and empirical evidence regarding innovation commons in general and data commons in particular. Based on these foundations, we consider strategic decisions in the private and public domain: how can individuals, firms and societies profit from data commons? We first discuss the varying nature of and contents of data commons, their functioning, and the value they provide to private innovators and to social welfare. We next explore the several types of data commons extant today, and their mechanisms of action. We find that those who develop innovation-related information at private cost already have, surprisingly often, an economic incentive to freely reveal their information to a data commons. However, we also find and discuss important exceptions. We conclude with suggestions regarding needed innovation research, data commons “engineering”, and innovation policymaking that could together increase private and social welfare via enhancement of data commons.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Potts & Andrew Torrance & Dietmar Harhoff & Eric von Hippel, 2024. "Profiting from Data Commons: Theory, Evidence, and Strategy Implications," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orstsc:v:9:y:2024:i:1:p:1-17
    DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2021.0080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2021.0080
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/stsc.2021.0080?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
    2. Alessandro Acquisti & Curtis Taylor & Liad Wagman, 2016. "The Economics of Privacy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(2), pages 442-492, June.
    3. Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation Policy: Rationales, Lessons And Challenges," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 497-512, April.
    4. Charles I. Jones & Christopher Tonetti, 2020. "Nonrivalry and the Economics of Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(9), pages 2819-2858, September.
    5. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen & Heidi Williams, 2019. "A Toolkit of Policies to Promote Innovation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 163-184, Summer.
    6. Frischmann, Brett M., 2013. "Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199975501.
    7. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & von Hippel, Eric & Gault, Fred & Kuusisto, Jari & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Market failure in the diffusion of consumer-developed innovations: Patterns in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1856-1865.
    8. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    9. Jason Potts, 2016. "Innovation policy in a global economy," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(3), pages 308-324, November.
    10. Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
    11. Isabel Almudi & Francisco Fatas-Villafranca & Carlos M Fernández-Márquez & Jason Potts & Francisco J Vazquez, 2020. "Absorptive capacity in a two-sector neo-Schumpeterian model: a new role for innovation policy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(2), pages 507-531.
    12. 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.
    13. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    14. 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..
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    18. Oliver Alexy & Joel West & Helge Klapper & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1704-1727, June.
    19. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Pankaj Ghemawat, 2006. "Dynamic Mixed Duopoly: A Model Motivated by Linux vs. Windows," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1072-1084, July.
    20. Alexy, Oliver & Henkel, Joachim & Wallin, Martin W., 2013. "From closed to open: Job role changes, individual predispositions, and the adoption of commercial open source software development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1325-1340.
    21. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 2018. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation," NBER Working Papers 24449, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2013. "The Case against Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    23. Teece, David J., 2006. "Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1131-1146, October.
    24. Ron Adner & Phanish Puranam & Feng Zhu, 2019. "What Is Different About Digital Strategy? From Quantitative to Qualitative Change," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 253-261, December.
    25. Laura Veldkamp, 2019. "Data and the Aggregate Economy," Annual Meeting Plenary 2019-1, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    26. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    27. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen & Heidi Williams, 2019. "A toolkit of policies to promote innovation," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 10.
    28. 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.
    29. Eric von Hippel & Harold DeMonaco & Jeroen P. J. de Jong, 2017. "Market failure in the diffusion of clinician-developed innovations: The case of off-label drug discoveries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 121-131.
    30. Jeroen Struben & Brandon H. Lee & Christopher B. Bingham, 2020. "Collective Action Problems and Resource Allocation During Market Formation," Post-Print hal-02927584, HAL.
    31. Sidney G. Winter, 2003. "Understanding dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 991-995, October.
    32. 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.
    33. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 2018. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation: An Exploratory Analysis," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 115-146, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    34. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    35. Jeroen Struben & Brandon H. Lee & Christopher B. Bingham, 2020. "Collective Action Problems and Resource Allocation During Market Formation," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 245-270, September.
    36. Dominique Guellec & Caroline Paunov, 2018. "Innovation policies in the digital age," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 59, OECD Publishing.
    37. Dietmar Harhoff, 1996. "Strategic Spillovers and Incentives for Research and Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 907-925, June.
    38. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2006. "Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1057-1071, July.
    39. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    40. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    41. Potts, Jason, 2018. "Governing the innovation commons," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 1025-1047, December.
    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. Mulhuijzen, Max & de Jong, Jeroen P.J., 2025. "The household sector innovation ecosystem: A framework and policy implications," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Tommy Pan Fang & Shane Greenstein, 2025. "Where the Cloud Rests: The Economic Geography of Data Centers," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 404-420, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    3. Darcy W E Allen, 2020. "When Entrepreneurs Meet:The Collective Governance of New Ideas," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number q0269, September.
    4. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    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. Adriana Zabłocka-Abi Yaghi & Tomasz Tomaszewski, 2024. "Measuring the Impact of R&D&I Subsidies on Innovative Inputs and Outputs in Polish Manufacturing Firms," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 3792-3823, March.
    7. Yu-Kai Lin & Likoebe M. Maruping, 2022. "Open Source Collaboration in Digital Entrepreneurship," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 212-230, January.
    8. Van Dyck, Marc & Lüttgens, Dirk & Diener, Kathleen & Piller, Frank & Pollok, Patrick, 2024. "From product to platform: How incumbents' assumptions and choices shape their platform strategy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    9. 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.
    10. Dosi, Giovanni & Lamperti, Francesco & Mazzucato, Mariana & Napoletano, Mauro & Roventini, Andrea, 2023. "Mission-oriented policies and the “Entrepreneurial State” at work: An agent-based exploration," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Claussen, Jörg & Halbinger, Maria A., 2021. "The role of pre-innovation platform activity for diffusion success: Evidence from consumer innovations on a 3D printing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    12. Preißner, Stephanie & Raasch, Christina & Schweisfurth, Tim, 2017. "Is necessity the mother of disruption?," Kiel Working Papers 2097, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    13. Carliss Baldwin & Eric von Hippel, 2011. "Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1399-1417, December.
    14. Jeroen de Jong & Eric von Hippel, 2010. "Open, distributed and user-centered: Towards a paradigm shift in innovation policy," Scales Research Reports H201009, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    15. Hou, Hong & Shi, Yongjiang, 2021. "Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Gianluca Biggi & Martina Iori & Julia Mazzei & Andrea Mina, 2025. "Green intelligence: the AI content of green technologies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 15(3), pages 803-840, September.
    17. Hanna Halaburda & Jeffrey Prince & D. Daniel Sokol & Feng Zhu, 2024. "The business revolution: Economy‐wide impacts of artificial intelligence and digital platforms," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 269-275, March.
    18. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    19. Hartmann, Mia Rosa & Hartmann, Rasmus Koss, 2023. "Hiding practices in employee-user innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    20. Elena Cefis & Stefania Scrofani & Matteo Tubiana, 2025. "Innovation policies and firms’ productivity: the Italian Industry 4.0 Plan for digital transformation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 50(5), pages 2443-2475, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:inm:orstsc:v:9:y:2024:i:1:p:1-17. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.