IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v29y2019i4d10.1007_s12525-018-0325-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Design principles for establishing a multi-sided open innovation platform: lessons learned from an action research study in the medical technology industry

Author

Listed:
  • Christofer F. Daiberl

    (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg)

  • Sascha Julian Oks

    (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg)

  • Angela Roth

    (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg)

  • Kathrin M. Möslein

    (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
    HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management)

  • Steven Alter

    (University of San Francisco)

Abstract

Innovation in the medical technology (med tech) industry has a major impact on well-being in society. Open innovation has the potential to accelerate the development of new or improved healthcare solutions. Building on work system theory (WST), this paper explores how a multi-sided open innovation platform can systematically be established in a German med tech industry cluster in situations where firms had no prior experience with this approach. We aim to uncover problems that may arise and identify opportunities for overcoming them. We performed an action research study in which we implemented and evaluated a multi-sided web-based open innovation platform in four real-world innovation challenges. Analyzing the four different challenges fostered a deeper understanding of the conceptual and organizational aspects of establishing the multi-sided open innovation platform as part of a larger work system. Reflecting on the findings, we developed five design principles that shall support the establishment of multi-sided open innovation platforms in other contexts. Thus, this paper contributes to both theory and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Christofer F. Daiberl & Sascha Julian Oks & Angela Roth & Kathrin M. Möslein & Steven Alter, 2019. "Design principles for establishing a multi-sided open innovation platform: lessons learned from an action research study in the medical technology industry," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 711-728, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:29:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s12525-018-0325-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-018-0325-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-018-0325-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12525-018-0325-2?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. Lee, Sungjoo & Park, Gwangman & Yoon, Byungun & Park, Jinwoo, 2010. "Open innovation in SMEs--An intermediated network model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 290-300, March.
    2. Hossain, Mokter, 2018. "Motivations, challenges, and opportunities of successful solvers on an innovation intermediary platform," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 67-73.
    3. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    4. Dan Li & Longying Hu, 2017. "Exploring the effects of reward and competition intensity on participation in crowdsourcing contests," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(3), pages 199-210, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Henry Chesbrough & Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2002. "The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 529-555, June.
    7. Sabine Brunswicker & Ulrich Hutschek, 2010. "Crossing Horizons: Leveraging Cross-Industry Innovation Search In The Front-End Of The Innovation Process," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(04), pages 683-702.
    8. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    9. Zhu, Hangzi & Kock, Alexander & Wentker, Marc & Leker, Jens, 2019. "How Does Online Interaction Affect Idea Quality? The Effect of Feedback in Firm-internal Idea Competitions," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 118973, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    10. Viktoria Boss & Robin Kleer & Alexander Vossen, 2017. "Walking Parallel Paths Or Taking The Same Road? The Effect Of Collaborative Incentives In Innovation Contests," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 1-34, April.
    11. Bullinger, Angelika C. & Rass, Matthias & Adamczyk, Sabrina & Moeslein, Kathrin M. & Sohn, Stefan, 2012. "Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 165-175.
    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. Rainer Alt, 2021. "Electronic Markets on platform complexity," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(4), pages 737-742, December.
    2. Yuki Inoue & Takeshi Takenaka & Takami Kasasaku & Tadafumi Tamegai & Ryohei Arai, 2023. "How to design platform ecosystems by intrapreneurs: Implications from action design research on IoT-based platform," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, December.
    3. Nizar Abdelkafi & Christina Raasch & Angela Roth & R. Srinivasan, 2019. "Multi-sided platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 553-559, December.
    4. Hendrik Haße & Hendrik Valk & Frederik Möller & Boris Otto, 2022. "Design Principles for Shared Digital Twins in Distributed Systems," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 64(6), pages 751-772, 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. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    2. Elisa Salvador & Francesca Montagna & Federica Marcolin, 2013. "Clustering recent trends in the Open Innovation literature for SME strategy improvements," Post-Print hal-02535438, HAL.
    3. Nestle, Volker & Täube, Florian A. & Heidenreich, Sven & Bogers, Marcel, 2019. "Establishing open innovation culture in cluster initiatives: The role of trust and information asymmetry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 563-572.
    4. Messer, Julia & Martin, Alexander, 2019. "Open Innovation in KMU: Eine empirische Analyse ausgewählter Faktoren," Flensburger Hefte zu Unternehmertum und Mittelstand 18, Jackstädt-Zentrum Flensburg.
    5. Shukuan Zhao & Yu Sun & Xiaobo Xu, 2016. "Research on open innovation performance: a review," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 279-287, September.
    6. Jakob Pohlisch, 2020. "Internal Open Innovation—Lessons Learned from Internal Crowdsourcing at SAP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-22, May.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. André Spithoven & Wim Vanhaverbeke & Nadine Roijakkers, 2013. "Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 537-562, October.
    10. 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).
    11. Stanko, Michael A. & Henard, David H., 2017. "Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness and the consequences for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 784-798.
    12. Scuotto, Veronica & Beatrice, Orlando & Valentina, Cillo & Nicotra, Melita & Di Gioia, Leonardo & Farina Briamonte, Massimiliano, 2020. "Uncovering the micro-foundations of knowledge sharing in open innovation partnerships: An intention-based perspective of technology transfer," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    13. Barrett, Gillian & Dooley, Lawrence & Bogue, Joe, 2021. "Open innovation within high-tech SMEs: A study of the entrepreneurial founder's influence on open innovation practices," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Hagedoorn, John & Ridder, Ann-Kristin, 2012. "Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study," MERIT Working Papers 2012-025, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    16. Dahlander, Linus & Piezunka, Henning, 2014. "Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 812-827.
    17. R. Sandra Schillo & Jeffrey S. Kinder, 2017. "Delivering on societal impacts through open innovation: a framework for government laboratories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 977-996, August.
    18. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    19. Dziurski Patryk & Sopińska Agnieszka, 2020. "Does industry matter? Drivers and barriers for open innovation in high-tech and non-high-tech industries—Evidence from Poland," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 56(4), pages 307-323, December.
    20. Barrett, Gillian & Tsekouras, George, 2022. "A tango with a gorilla: An exploration of the microfoundations of open innovation partnerships between young innovative companies and multi-national enterprises," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Multi-sided platforms; Open innovation; Work system theory; Medical technology industry cluster; Action research;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M1 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration

    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:spr:elmark:v:29:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s12525-018-0325-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.