IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/intemj/v15y2019i1d10.1007_s11365-018-0544-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing collaborative ideation: the role of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Fábio Gama

    (Halmstad University
    Santa Catarina State University
    Luleå University of Technology)

Abstract

Collaborative ideation is a key practice for innovation. Implementing suitable appropriability mechanisms during this collaborative ideation is a necessary yet difficult task. This difficulty owes to a high level of uncertainty and low level of codification because partners work on loosely defined concepts that may change during the collaboration. Firms can employ several appropriability mechanisms to protect their knowledge. Examples include patents, copyright, legal agreements, document management, lead time, secrecy and complexity. However, the best time to apply each mechanism remains unclear, and few empirical studies have explored this issue. This study is based on exploratory case studies of three manufacturing firms. The goal is to identify which appropriability mechanisms are pertinent at each phase of collaborative ideation and how they influence the effectiveness of protection. The results of the analysis lead to the development of a model describing the managerial practices that influence the effectiveness of protection. The results also lead to a set of research propositions to define when each appropriability mechanism is most likely to be used. Overall, this research contributes to the discussion of how to integrate formal and informal appropriability mechanisms for safe collaborative ideation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:intemj:v:15:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11365-018-0544-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11365-018-0544-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11365-018-0544-1
    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/s11365-018-0544-1?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. Markus Reitzig & Joachim Henkel & Ferdinand Schneider, 2010. "Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 947-967, June.
    2. de Laat, Paul B., 2005. "Copyright or copyleft?: An analysis of property regimes for software development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1511-1532, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Tuija Luoma & Jaakko Paasi & Katri Valkokari, 2010. "Intellectual Property In Inter-Organisational Relationships — Findings From An Interview Study," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(03), pages 399-414.
    5. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    6. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    7. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. R. Whittington & Ludovic Cailluet & B. Yakis-Douglas, 2011. "Opening Strategy: Evolution of a Precarious Profession," Post-Print halshs-00738389, HAL.
    9. Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    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. 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).
    12. Spieth, Patrick & Joachim, Verena, 2017. "Reducing front end uncertainties: How organisational characteristics influence the intensity of front end analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 108-119.
    13. John Hagedoorn, 2003. "Sharing intellectual property rights--an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(5), pages 1035-1050, October.
    14. Symeonidou, Noni & Bruneel, Johan & Autio, Erkko, 2017. "Commercialization strategy and internationalization outcomes in technology-based new ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 302-317.
    15. Sofka, Wolfgang & de Faria, Pedro & Shehu, Edlira, 2018. "Protecting knowledge: How legal requirements to reveal information affect the importance of secrecy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 558-572.
    16. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    17. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    18. Jaakko Paasi & Tuija Luoma & Katri Valkokari & Nari Lee, 2010. "Knowledge And Intellectual Property Management In Customer–Supplier Relationships," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(04), pages 629-654.
    19. Belderbos, René & Cassiman, Bruno & Faems, Dries & Leten, Bart & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 841-852.
    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. 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.
    2. Wayne Visser, 2020. "Integrated Innovation: Applying Systems Thinking to Sustainable Innovation and Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Ghasemzadeh, Khatereh & Bortoluzzi, Guido & Yordanova, Zornitsa, 2022. "Collaborating with users to innovate: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Nguyen, Thi Phuong Thao & Huang, Fang & Tian, Xiaowen, 2023. "Intellectual property protection need as a driver for open innovation: Empirical evidence from Vietnam," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    5. 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.

    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. 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).
    3. Crass, Dirk & Valero, Francisco Garcia & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2019. "Protecting Innovation Through Patents and Trade Secrets: Evidence for Firms with a Single Innovation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 117-156.
    4. Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    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. Astrid Heidemann Lassen & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Promoting Future Sustainable Transition by Overcoming the Openness Paradox in KIE Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. 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.
    9. Chung, Jiyoon & Lorenz, Annika & Somaya, Deepak, 2019. "Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive measures to address the problem of IP access," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    10. 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.
    11. Bahemia, Hanna & Sillince, John & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2018. "The timing of openness in a radical innovation project, a temporal and loose coupling perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 2066-2076.
    12. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    14. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    15. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    16. Mounir Amdaoud & Christian Le Bas, 2020. "Firm Patenting and Types of innovation in Least Developed Countries. An Empirical Investigation on Patenting Determinants," Working Papers hal-03059466, HAL.
    17. Hyo Kang & Wyatt Lee, 2022. "How innovating firms manage knowledge leakage: A natural experiment on the threat of worker departure," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(10), pages 1961-1982, October.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Hermans, Ben & Leus, Roel & Looy, Bart Van, 2023. "Deciding on scheduling, secrecy, and patenting during the new product development process: The relevance of project planning models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    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:intemj:v:15:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11365-018-0544-1. 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.