Trajectories towards balancing value creation and capture: Resolution paths and tension loops in open innovation projects

Abstract This study aims to elevate the current understanding of value creation and value capture tensions that emerge in open innovation projects and of their potential solutions. In contrast with prior studies that often suggest specific solutions to individual tensions, our study takes an integrative approach by considering complex (bundles of) tensions and potential solutions to these. The study employs qualitative methods and builds on interview data from six case companies and a group of expert informants. We investigate unfolding events from the point when value creation – value capture tensions are identified in open innovation projects, to the search for their solutions. We label such sequences of unfolding events as trajectories. Our findings reveal two types of trajectories: resolution paths, which are trajectories from initial tensions to solutions, and tension loops, where initial tensions persist and/or new tensions emerge after solutions are enforced. We analyze a total of 17 trajectories, of which seven are marked as resolution paths, and ten represent tension loops. For the majority of the tension loops in our data (eight out of ten) the tensions remain unresolved. We further categorize the types of tensions and discuss the implications of our results for researchers and practitioners.

[1]  P. Cooke,et al.  Constructing Regional Advantage: Platform Policies Based on Related Variety and Differentiated Knowledge Bases , 2011 .

[2]  P. Ritala,et al.  Incremental and Radical Innovation in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability , 2013 .

[3]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward , 2016 .

[4]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  The Dynamics of Open Strategy: From Adoption to Reversion , 2017 .

[5]  M. Martinsuo,et al.  Supplier integration in complex delivery projects: comparison between different buyer-supplier relationships , 2010, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[6]  M. Bengtsson,et al.  Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges , 2014 .

[7]  Xu Jiang,et al.  Partner trustworthiness, knowledge flow in strategic alliances, and firm competitiveness: A contingency perspective , 2016 .

[8]  A. Huff.  Project Innovation: Evidence-Informed, Open, Effectual, and Subjective , 2016 .

[9]  Liisa-Maija Sainio,et al.  Appropriability Regime for Radical and Incremental Innovations , 2008 .

[10]  T. Minshall,et al.  Managing asymmetric relationships in open innovation: lessons from multinational companies and SMEs , 2013 .

[11]  O. Gassmann,et al.  Open R&D and Open Innovation: Exploring the Phenomenon , 2009 .

[12]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[13]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing , 2011 .

[14]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[15]  Kevin G. Corley,et al.  Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research , 2013 .

[16]  Bjørn Olsen,et al.  Governance of complex procurements in the oil and gas industry , 2005 .

[17]  Jonas Söderlund,et al.  Managing Complex Development Projects: Arenas, Knowledge Processes and Time , 2002 .

[18]  Katja Hutter,et al.  Fair play: Perceived fairness in crowdsourcing competitions and the customer relationship-related consequences , 2017 .

[19]  Farok J. Contractor,et al.  How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choices: A theory development note , 2002 .

[20]  O. Granstrand,et al.  The Challenge of Closing Open Innovation: The Intellectual Property Disassembly Problem , 2014 .

[21]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  Innovating Business Models with Co-Development Partnerships , 2007 .

[22]  J. Ahn,et al.  Determinants of innovation collaboration selection: a comparative analysis of Korea and Germany , 2017 .

[23]  Riitta Katila,et al.  Exploiting technological opportunities: the timing of collaborations , 2003 .

[24]  T. Salge,et al.  Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing , 2019, Research Policy.

[25]  Exequiel Hernandez,et al.  Network Defense: Pruning, Grafting, and Closing to Prevent Leakage of Strategic Knowledge to Rivals , 2014 .

[26]  Thierry Rayna,et al.  Large-Scale Open Innovation: Open Source vs. Patent Pools , 2010, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[27]  A. Arora,et al.  The Paradox of Openness Revisited: Collaborative Innovation and Patenting by UK Innovators , 2015 .

[28]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[29]  Juite Wang,et al.  A performance-oriented risk management framework for innovative R&D projects , 2010 .

[30]  S. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Opportunity Creation in Innovation Networks: Interactive Revealing Practices , 2014 .

[31]  G. D. Lauritzen,et al.  Perspective: Leveraging Open Innovation through Paradox , 2018, Journal of Product Innovation Management.

[32]  Dirk Lüttgens,et al.  Attracting Solutions in Crowdsourcing Contests: The Role of Knowledge-Distance, Identity Disclosure, and Seeker Status , 2019, Research Policy.

[33]  Ioana Stefan,et al.  Embracing the Paradox of Interorganizational Value Co‐Creation–Value Capture: A Literature Review Towards Paradox Resolution , 2019, International Journal of Management Reviews.

[34]  Anne L. J. Ter Wal,et al.  The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis , 2016 .

[35]  A. Salter,et al.  The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration , 2014 .

[36]  Jay Erstling,et al.  The Patent Cooperation Treaty: At the Center of the International Patent System , 2006 .

[37]  M. Bengtsson,et al.  ”Coopetition” in Business Networks—to Cooperate and Compete Simultaneously , 2000 .

[38]  Pankaj C. Patel,et al.  The dark side of knowledge transfer: Exploring knowledge leakage in joint R&D projects , 2015 .

[39]  S. Srivannaboon,et al.  Project management and project portfolio management in open innovation: Literature review , 2016, 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET).

[40]  N. Rajagopalan,et al.  Are all ‘sharks’ dangerous? new biotechnology ventures and partner selection in R&D alliances , 2012 .

[41]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Effective incomplete contracts and milestones in market-distant R&D collaboration , 2012 .

[42]  Nikolaus Franke,et al.  "Does This Sound Like a Fair Deal?": Antecedents and Consequences of Fairness Expectations in the Individual's Decision to Participate in Firm Innovation , 2013, Organ. Sci..

[43]  Kalevi Kyläheiko,et al.  The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis , 2007 .

[44]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  Understanding the Advantages of Open Innovation Practices in Corporate Venturing in Terms of Real Options , 2008 .

[45]  P. Ritala,et al.  Managing the Appropriability of R&D Collaboration , 2016 .

[46]  Venkatesh Shankar,et al.  Asymmetric New Product Development Alliances: Win-Win or Win-Lose Partnerships? , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[47]  M. Reitzig,et al.  Private-Collective Innovation, Competition, and Firms’ Counterintuitive Appropriation Strategies , 2011 .

[48]  Neil Anderson,et al.  A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity , 2009, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[49]  S. Dopson,et al.  When Does Search Openness Really Matter? A Contingency Study of Health‐Care Innovation Projects , 2013 .

[50]  Project and Innovation Management: Bridging Contemporary Trends in Theory and Practice , 2016 .

[51]  Anu Wadhwa,et al.  The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance , 2017, Organ. Sci..

[52]  G. Dagnino.  Coopetition Strategy: A New Kind of Interfirm Dynamics for Value Creation , 2009 .

[53]  W. Vanhaverbeke,et al.  When Research Meets Development : Antecedents and Implications of Transfer Speed , 2014 .

[54]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  Contract Law and the Governance of Inter-Firm Technology Partnerships - An Analysis of Different Modes of Partnering and Their Contractual Implications , 2007 .

[55]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[56]  Arun Rai,et al.  Interfirm Strategic Information Flows in Logistics Supply Chain Relationships , 2009, MIS Q..

[57]  D. Gann,et al.  How open is innovation , 2010 .

[58]  P. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen,et al.  Orchestrating R&D networks: Absorptive capacity, network stability, and innovation appropriability , 2012 .

[59]  S. Brunswicker,et al.  Open Innovation in Small and Medium‐Sized Enterprises (SMEs): External Knowledge Sourcing Strategies and Internal Organizational Facilitators , 2015 .

[60]  Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen,et al.  The availability, strength and efficiency of appropriability mechanisms - protecting investments in knowledge creation , 2009, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[61]  I. Coyne.  Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? , 1997, Journal of advanced nursing.

[62]  Markus Reitzig,et al.  Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm , 2018 .

[63]  H. Dekker.  Partner Selection and Governance Design in Interfirm Relationships , 2008 .

[64]  Andrew Davies,et al.  Managing Structural and Dynamic Complexity: A Tale of Two Projects , 2014 .

[65]  J. Backmann,et al.  INITIATING OPEN INNOVATION COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN INCUMBENTS AND STARTUPS: HOW CAN DAVID AND GOLIATH GET ALONG? , 2019, International Journal of Innovation Management.

[66]  Bronwyn H. Hall.  Exploring the Patent Explosion , 2004 .

[67]  B. Looy,et al.  Co-Ownership of Intellectual Property: Exploring the Value-Appropriation and Value-Creation Implications of Co-Patenting with Different Partners , 2013 .

[68]  David J. Teece,et al.  Business models and dynamic capabilities , 2017 .

[69]  J. Henkel.  Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux (gekürzte Version) , 2006 .

[70]  E. Huizingh.  Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives , 2011 .

[71]  Christian Peukert,et al.  R&D outsourcing and intellectual property infringement , 2015 .

[72]  M. Perkmann,et al.  Open Data Partnerships between Firms and Universities: The Role of Boundary Organizations , 2015 .

[73]  Peter Neuhäusler.  The use of patents and informal appropriation mechanisms—Differences between sectors and among companies , 2012 .

[74]  J. Söderlund.  Project management, interdependencies, and time : Insights from Managing Large Systems by Sayles and Chandler , 2012 .

[75]  M. Trimble.  Advancing National Intellectual Property Policies in a Transnational Context , 2014 .

[76]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[77]  J. Sillince,et al.  The Timing of Openness in a Radical Innovation Project, a Temporal and Loose Coupling Perspective , 2018, Research Policy.

[78]  Øystein D. Fjeldstad,et al.  The architecture of collaboration , 2012 .

[79]  Arvind Parkhe,et al.  Orchestrating Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[80]  Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen,et al.  Orchestrator types, roles and capabilities – A framework for innovation networks , 2017, Industrial Marketing Management.

[81]  Annika Lorenz,et al.  Once bitten, less shy? The influence of prior misappropriation experience on R&D collaboration , 2018 .

[82]  J. Nickerson,et al.  Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations , 2004 .

[83]  Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen,et al.  Human resources – strength and weakness in protection of intellectual capital , 2015 .

[84]  Claudio Pizzi,et al.  Open Innovation at Project Level: Key Issues and Future Research Agenda , 2014 .

[85]  D. Ford,et al.  How should companies interact in business networks , 2002 .

[86]  A. Walter,et al.  Complex technological knowledge and value creation in science-to-industry technology transfer projects: The moderating effect of absorptive capacity , 2015 .

[87]  Naihua Duan,et al.  Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research , 2015, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

[88]  R. Duane Ireland,et al.  Friends, Acquaintances, or Strangers? Partner Selection in R&D Alliances , 2008 .

[89]  Anna Yström,et al.  Turning Open Innovation into Practice: Open Innovation Research through the Lens of Managers , 2011 .

[90]  M. Dowling,et al.  Commercialization strategies of young biotechnology firms: An empirical analysis of the U.S. industry , 2008 .

[91]  D. Teece.  Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance , 2007 .

[92]  Eva Niesten,et al.  Incentives, opportunism and behavioral uncertainty in electricity industries , 2012 .

[93]  Benjamin L. Hallen,et al.  How Do Social Defenses Work? A Resource-Dependence Lens on Technology Ventures, Venture Capital Investors, and Corporate Relationships , 2014 .

[94]  W. Vanhaverbeke,et al.  Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners , 2014 .

[95]  Jörg Sydow,et al.  Project Networks: Governance Choices and Paradoxical Tensions , 2016 .

[96]  Vibha Gaba,et al.  A Comparison of Milestone-Based and Buyout Options Contracts for Coordinating R&D Partnerships , 2015, Manag. Sci..

[97]  L. Bengtsson,et al.  Match and manage: the use of knowledge matching and project management to integrate knowledge in collaborative inbound open innovation , 2016 .

[98]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[99]  M. Bogers.  The Open Innovation Paradox: Knowledge Sharing and Protection in R&D Collaborations , 2010 .

[100]  Christopher Lettl,et al.  Value Creation and Value Capture in Open Innovation , 2018, Journal of Product Innovation Management.

[101]  Joel West,et al.  Firms, Users, and Innovation , 2014 .