IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Research on open innovation strategy and its performance in Korea smart media industry: Focusing on user innovation strategy


  • Na, Cheongho
  • Kim, Eungdo
  • Hwang, Junseok


With the rapid development of ICT, smart society has been arrived. Smart devices also make user's role change and be powerful. In other words, user's power is stronger by smart devices in smart media industry and especially social environment like application market is catalyst for growth of user's role and power. On the other hand, it is hard for a firm to have all abilities and sources in this sudden change. Therefore, firms have to make their strategy considering user's role. For that reason, firms can use networks such as university, researcher, firm and user from the viewpoint of open innovation. I argue that users have some roles as one of the main agents in smart media industry affecting firm's strategy and performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Na, Cheongho & Kim, Eungdo & Hwang, Junseok, 2014. "Research on open innovation strategy and its performance in Korea smart media industry: Focusing on user innovation strategy," 20th ITS Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro 2014: The Net and the Internet - Emerging Markets and Policies 106850, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:itsb14:106850

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Joachim Henkel & Eric von Hippel, 2005. "Welfare Implications of User Innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 73-87, January.
    4. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    5. Eric von Hippel & Ralph Katz, 2002. "Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(7), pages 821-833, July.
    6. Paul E. Bierly III & Paula S. Daly, 2007. "Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and Organizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 31(4), pages 493-516, July.
    7. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    8. Mitchell P. Koza & Arie Y. Lewin, 1998. "The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 255-264, June.
    9. Von Hippel, Eric A. & Katz, Ralph, 2002. "Shifting Innovation to Users Via Toolkits," Working papers 4232-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    10. Bruce A. Blonigen & Christopher T. Taylor, 2000. "R&D Intensity and Acquisitions in High‐Technology Industries: Evidence from the US Electronic and Electrical Equipment Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 47-70, March.
    11. Isabelle Huault & V. Perret & S. Charreire-Petit, 2007. "Management," Post-Print halshs-00337676, HAL.
    12. Pamela D. Morrison & John H. Roberts & Eric von Hippel, 2000. "Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1513-1527, December.
    13. Levin, Richard C & Cohen, Wesley M & Mowery, David C, 1985. "R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 20-24, May.
    14. Joachim Henkel & Eric Hippel, 2005. "Welfare Implications of User Innovation," Springer Books, in: Albert N. Link & F. M. Scherer (ed.), Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield, pages 45-59, Springer.
    15. Yamakawa, Yasuhiro & Yang, Haibin & Lin, Zhiang (John), 2011. "Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 287-296, March.
    16. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, 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. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    2. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    3. Hyojung Kim & Namgyoo Park & Jeonghwan Lee, 2014. "How does the second-order learning process moderate the relationship between innovation inputs and outputs of large Korean firms?," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 69-103, March.
    4. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Lars Frederiksen, 2006. "Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 45-63, February.
    5. Guktae Kim & Moon-Goo Huh, 2015. "Exploration and organizational longevity: The moderating role of strategy and environment," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 389-414, June.
    6. Vincent K.K. Leung & Marco Chi Keung Lau & Zhe Zhang & Flora F. Gu, 2015. "Explorative versus exploitative alliances: evidence from the glass industry in China," Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 127-146, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Yasser Alizadeh & Antonie J. Jetter, 2019. "Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-33, August.
    9. Pilar Bernal & Juan P. Maicas & Pilar Vargas, 2016. "Exploration, exploitation and innovation performance: Disentangling environmental dynamism," Documentos de Trabajo dt2016-03, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Zaragoza.
    10. Zhang, Haisu & Wu, Fang & Cui, Anna Shaojie, 2015. "Balancing market exploration and market exploitation in product innovation: A contingency perspective," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 297-308.
    11. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    12. Mohammad Keyhani & Yuval Deutsch & Anoop Madhok & Moren Lévesque, 2022. "Exploration-exploitation and acquisition likelihood in new ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 1475-1496, March.
    13. Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2019. "Trading knowledge for status: Conceptualizing R&D alliance formation to achieve ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 36-42.
    14. Yamakawa, Yasuhiro & Yang, Haibin & Lin, Zhiang (John), 2011. "Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 287-296, March.
    15. Faroque, Anisur R. & Morrish, Sussie C. & Kuivalainen, Olli & Sundqvist, Sanna & Torkkeli, Lasse, 2021. "Microfoundations of network exploration and exploitation capabilities in international opportunity recognition," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1).
    16. Onexy Quintana-Martinez & Antonio-Rafael Ramos-Rodriguez, 2016. "Changes in the Axes of Convergence of Innovation Management Research," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 1-96, April.
    17. Dovev Lavie & Jingoo Kang & Lori Rosenkopf, 2011. "Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1517-1538, December.
    18. Zhiang (John) Lin & Haibin Yang & Irem Demirkan, 2007. "The Performance Consequences of Ambidexterity in Strategic Alliance Formations: Empirical Investigation and Computational Theorizing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1645-1658, October.
    19. Belderbos, Rene & Faems, Dries & Leten, Bart & Van Looy, Bart, 2009. "Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms," MERIT Working Papers 2009-067, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    20. 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.

    More about this item


    Open innovation; smart media industry; strategy; performance; user's role;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:zbw:itsb14:106850. 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: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.