Building an Understanding of How Winning Products Emerge When Open and Proprietary Products Coexist: Evidence from the Reprap Community

Online innovation communities have altered the nature of collaborative innovation. Within these communities, coexistence of open and closed source offerings is becoming commonplace, though potential diffusion and product advantages from each form are not well understood. Patterns of derivative innovation within these communities affect designers' focus; thus, this work is grounded in the attention‐based view. Beyond open vs. closed source development, we find that the presence of sibling designs (designs based on the same source material) and self‐remix (iteration on material by the same designer) have notable diffusion and product effects. Diffusion effects are investigated using 354 co‐existing open and closed source 3D printers from the RepRap community, while a subset of these printers is used for an analysis of key product attributes: value and ease of use. While previous researchers have argued for an early stage open source diffusion advantage, this is not observed here. However, customers perceive open source products to have value advantages, while closed source offerings are easier to use. Sibling designs have a diffusion advantage, particularly early on. Self‐remixes have both diffusion and product advantages. By better understanding these contextual elements of derivative innovation, designers' attention can be shaped to achieve desired outcomes.

[1]  Pankaj Setia,et al.  The Takeoff of Open Source Software: A Signaling Perspective Based on Community Activities , 2020, MIS Q..

[2]  Juan Tan,et al.  Empirical Study on Influencing Factors of Knowledge Product Remixing in OIC , 2020, IEEE Access.

[3]  Marco Wirth,et al.  Creativity and productivity in product design for additive manufacturing: Mechanisms and platform outcomes of remixing , 2019, Journal of Operations Management.

[4]  Andrew R.J. Dainty,et al.  Exploring the Organizational Proliferation of New Technologies: An Affective Actor-Network Theory , 2019, Organization Studies.

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

[6]  Carla Curado,et al.  Human Resource Management Contribution to Innovation in Small and Medium‐Sized Enterprises: A Mixed Methods Approach , 2018 .

[7]  Frédéric Thiesse,et al.  Copy, transform, combine: exploring the remix as a form of innovation , 2017, J. Inf. Technol..

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

[9]  G. D. Lauritzen The Role of Innovation Intermediaries in Firm‐Innovation Community Collaboration: Navigating the Membership Paradox , 2017 .

[10]  Ahmet H. Kirca,et al.  You gotta serve somebody: the effects of firm innovation on customer satisfaction and firm value , 2017 .

[11]  Christopher L. Tucci,et al.  A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research , 2017 .

[12]  Karim R. Lakhani,et al.  Special Section Introduction - Online Community as Space for Knowledge Flows , 2016, Inf. Syst. Res..

[13]  Michael A. Stanko Toward a Theory of Remixing in Online Innovation Communities , 2016, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  Anna Yström,et al.  Exploring Design Principles of Organizing for Collaborative Innovation: The Case of an Open Innovation Initiative , 2016 .

[15]  M. Ciesielska,et al.  Dilemmas within commercial involvement in open source software , 2016 .

[16]  George Kuk,et al.  The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing , 2016 .

[17]  Mika Westerlund,et al.  The Grey Areas Between Open and Closed in Innovation Networks , 2015 .

[18]  M. Fink,et al.  The Potential of Additive Manufacturing for Technology Entrepreneurship: An Integrative Technology Assessment , 2015 .

[19]  Thomas Kohler,et al.  Crowdsourcing-Based Business Models: How to Create and Capture Value , 2015 .

[20]  Marine Agogué,et al.  Resisting classical solutions: The creative mind of industrial designers and engineers , 2015 .

[21]  B. A. Gilbert,et al.  The geographic origins of radical technological paradigms: : A configurational study , 2015 .

[22]  Benjamin Mako Hill,et al.  The Remixing Dilemma , 2012, ArXiv.

[23]  Martin Kenney,et al.  Android and the demise of operating system-based power , 2014 .

[24]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Forecasting Tournaments , 2014 .

[25]  Linus Dahlander,et al.  Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention , 2014 .

[26]  Todd R. Zenger,et al.  Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice , 2014 .

[27]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  A Classification of Open Innovation and Open Business Models , 2014 .

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

[29]  Marine Agogué,et al.  RETHINKING THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARIES AS AN ARCHITECT OF COLLECTIVE EXPLORATION AND CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE IN OPEN INNOVATION , 2013 .

[30]  Karim R Lakhani,et al.  Using the crowd as an innovation partner. , 2013, Harvard business review.

[31]  Lars Frederiksen,et al.  The Core and Cosmopolitans: A Relational View of Innovation in User Communities , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[32]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for Ideation: Individual-level Openness and Idea Generation in R&D , 2012 .

[33]  Sebastian Spaeth,et al.  Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development , 2012, MIS Q..

[34]  Yong Tan,et al.  Social Networks and the Diffusion of User-Generated Content: Evidence from YouTube , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[35]  R. McMahon,et al.  The comparative methods , 2012 .

[36]  J. Chataway,et al.  Crowdsourcing Based Business Models , 2012 .

[37]  Richard Williams,et al.  Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects , 2012 .

[38]  William Ocasio,et al.  Attention to Attention , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[39]  Alan MacCormack,et al.  Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis , 2011 .

[40]  Rhys Jones,et al.  RepRap – the replicating rapid prototyper , 2011, Robotica.

[41]  Martin Höst,et al.  A systematic review of research on open source software in commercial software product development , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[42]  B. Looy,et al.  Technological Activities and Their Impact on the Financial Performance of the Firm , 2010 .

[43]  K. Hölzle,et al.  Virtual Communities for Innovation: Influence Factors and Impact on Company Innovation , 2010 .

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

[45]  Heli Koski,et al.  Applying open innovation in business strategies: Evidence from Finnish software firms , 2010 .

[46]  Hyunjoo Lee,et al.  Profiling mobile TV adopters in college student populations of Korea , 2010 .

[47]  Ramon Casadesus-Masanell,et al.  Open Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and Divergence , 2010 .

[48]  Michael A. Stanko,et al.  Lead Users and Early Adopters on the Web: The Role of New Technology Product Blogs* , 2010 .

[49]  W. Ocasio,et al.  Attention and Control , 2010 .

[50]  W. Stam When Does Community Participation Enhance the Performance of Open Source Software Companies? , 2008 .

[51]  Joachim Henkel,et al.  Champions of Revealing - the Role of Open Source Developers in Commercial Firms , 2008 .

[52]  Donald R. Lehmann,et al.  The Structure of Survey-Based Brand Metrics , 2008 .

[53]  Beth A. Bechky,et al.  Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration among Unexpected Allies , 2008 .

[54]  W. Stam,et al.  WHEN DOES COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ENHANCE THE PERFORMANCE OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE COMPANIES , 2008 .

[55]  J. Bohlmann,et al.  Segmented Switchers and Retailer Pricing Strategies , 2008 .

[56]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[57]  Kyle C. Longest,et al.  Fuzzy: A Program for Performing Qualitative Comparative Analyses (QCA) in Stata , 2008, The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata.

[58]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Redesigning social inquiry , 2008 .

[59]  J. West,et al.  Open innovation : researching a new paradigm , 2008 .

[60]  Sebastian Spaeth,et al.  Code Reuse in Open Source Software , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[61]  David M. Waguespack,et al.  Penguins, Camels, and Other Birds of a Feather: Brokerage, Boundary Spanning, and Leadership in Open Innovation Communities , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[62]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects , 2007 .

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

[64]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  The Transformation of Open Source Software , 2006, MIS Q..

[65]  Sonali K. Shah Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[66]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Entry Strategies Under Competing Standards: Hybrid Business Models in the Open Source Software Industry , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[67]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Architecture of Participation: Does Code Architecture Mitigate Free Riding in the Open Source Development Model? , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[68]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Understanding Open Source Software Evolution 181 , 2006 .

[69]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[70]  Nicholas Economides,et al.  Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[71]  Lars Frederiksen,et al.  Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[72]  Lu Hong,et al.  Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[73]  Giancarlo Succi,et al.  An empirical study of open-source and closed-source software products , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[74]  Lars Bo Jeppesen,et al.  Consumers as Co-developers: Learning and Innovation Outside the Firm , 2003, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[75]  Joel West,et al.  How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies , 2003 .

[76]  Georg von Krogh,et al.  Open Source Software and the "Private-Collective" Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science , 2003, Organ. Sci..

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

[78]  Karim R. Lakhani,et al.  Community, Joining, and Specialization in Open Source Software Innovation: A Case Study , 2003 .

[79]  Walt Scacchi,et al.  Understanding Open Source Software Evolution , 2003 .

[80]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Why Open Source Software Can Succeed , 2003 .

[81]  J. Tirole,et al.  Some Simple Economics of Open Source , 2002 .

[82]  Stephen Bitgood,et al.  The Role of Attention in Designing Effective Interpretive Labels , 2000 .

[83]  J. Rayport,et al.  Spark innovation through empathic design. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[84]  W. Ocasio TOWARDS AN ATTENTION-BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM , 1997 .

[85]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[86]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First‐mover advantages , 1988 .