IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pab/wpboam/17.02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improving The Effectiveness Of Open Innovation: A Configurational Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Gloria Cuevas-Rodríguez

    () (Department of Business Organization and Marketing, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Antonio Carmona-Lavado

    () (Department of Business Organization and Marketing, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Carmen Cabello-Medina

    () (Department of Business Organization and Marketing, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

Abstract

In this research, we propose that biotech firms use Open Innovation (OI) configurations by combining three openness practices (number of alliances, breadth and external R&D) and five complementary organizational assets for openness (internal R&D, human capital, alliances coordination and interorganizational learning capabilities, and patenting) and that such configurations have influence on firm performance. From our empirical study on a sample of Spanish biotech firms, three predominant configurations are identified, which are located at different points in the openness continuum, and encompass different combinations of openness practices and organizational complementary assets. The most open configuration presents a significant superior performance while the least open is associated with the lowest performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Gloria Cuevas-Rodríguez & Antonio Carmona-Lavado & Carmen Cabello-Medina, 2017. "Improving The Effectiveness Of Open Innovation: A Configurational Approach," Working Papers 17.02, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Business Organization and Marketing (former Department of Business Administration).
  • Handle: RePEc:pab:wpboam:17.02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.upo.es/serv/bib/wpboam/wpboam1702.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. Zahra, Shaker A., 1996. "Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 289-321, July.
    3. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    4. 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..
    5. Kock, Alexander & Gemünden, Hans Georg & Salomo, Søren & Schultz, Carsten, 2011. "The Mixed Blessings of Technological Innovativeness for the Commercial Success of New Products," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 63285, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    6. Christine Gulbranson & David Audretsch, 2008. "Proof of concept centers: accelerating the commercialization of university innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 249-258, June.
    7. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 615-624, August.
    8. Tether, Bruce S., 2002. "Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 947-967, August.
    9. Santoro, Michael D. & Chakrabarti, Alok K., 2002. "Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1163-1180, September.
    10. Mark A. Youndt & Mohan Subramaniam & Scott A. Snell, 2004. "Intellectual Capital Profiles: An Examination of Investments and Returns," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 335-361, March.
    11. Wincent, Joakim & Anokhin, Sergey & Örtqvist, Daniel, 2010. "Does network board capital matter? A study of innovative performance in strategic SME networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 265-275, March.
    12. Peter J Buckley & Mark C Casson, 2009. "The internalisation theory of the multinational enterprise: A review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 40(9), pages 1563-1580, December.
    13. 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.
    14. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2004. "Little Patents and Big Secrets: Managing Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 1-22, Spring.
    15. John Hagedoorn & Geert Duysters, 2002. "External Sources of Innovative Capabilities: The Preferences for Strategic Alliances or Mergers and Acquisitions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 167-188, March.
    16. Kingston, William, 2001. "Innovation needs patents reform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 403-423, March.
    17. Narula, Rajneesh & Duysters, Geert, 2004. "Globalisation and trends in international R&D alliances," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 199-218.
    18. Petr Hanel & Marc St-Pierre, 2006. "Industry–University Collaboration by Canadian Manufacturing Firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 485-499, July.
    19. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    20. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    21. Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda & Michiel de Boer, 1999. "Coevolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 551-568, October.
    22. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    23. 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.
    24. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Deeds, David L., 2006. "Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 429-460, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Open Innovation; Configurations; Internal R&D; Human Capital; Coordination and Interorganizational Learning capabilities; and Patenting.;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pab:wpboam:17.02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Publicación Digital - UPO). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/doupoes.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.