A multi-dimensional approach for managing open innovation in NPD

Purpose This paper explores openness within new product development (NPD) projects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of breadth, depth and partner newness on product innovativeness and product competitive advantage. The authors also seek to examine the contingent effects of the appropriability regime. The authors make suggestions to academics and practitioners based on the findings. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a structured survey instrument producing an empirical analysis of 205 NPD projects in the manufacturing sector in the UK. The authors use an ordinary least squares regression model to test hypothesised relationships between openness (breadth, depth and partner newness), product innovativeness, product competitive advantage and the appropriability regime. Findings The authors find that each of the three dimensions of openness, depth, breadth and partner newness, have a significant but differing impact on product innovativeness. Specifically, the study indicates that breadth has a positive effect but only in the presence of a strong appropriability regime, partner newness has a direct positive effect, and depth a direct negative effect. The authors also find that product innovativeness has a positive impact on product competitive advantage. Research limitations/implications Further research should focus on replicating the findings in other countries, search for further moderating factors, such as the stage of the NPD process, and analyse the longitudinal impact of openness within NPD projects. Practical implications Organisations are encouraging managers to be more open in their approach to NPD. The authors’ findings suggest that managers need to think about the three dimensions of openness, breadth, depth and partner newness. Their engagement with each of these dimensions depends on the desired outcomes of the innovation project and the strength of patents. Originality/value The research extends the extant supplier involvement in new product development literature to examine the effect of up to 11 types of external actor in NPD projects. The authors test a new multi-dimensional measurement scale for the openness construct. The authors show that each dimension has a different relationship with product innovativeness.

[1]  Gottfried Tappeiner,et al.  The Learning Region: The Impact of Social Capital and Weak Ties on Innovation , 2007 .

[2]  C. Benedetto,et al.  Organizing for Inbound Open Innovation: How External Consultants and a Dedicated R&D Unit Influence Product Innovation Performance† , 2016 .

[3]  Tingting Yan,et al.  Communication Intensity, Goal Congruence, and Uncertainty in Buyer-Supplier New Product Development , 2013 .

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

[5]  Kenneth B. Kahn.  Interdepartmental Integration: A Definition with Implications for Product Development Performance , 1996 .

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

[7]  Markus Baer.  The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: a comprehensive examination and extension. , 2010, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  G. Ahuja.  Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study , 1998 .

[9]  James M. Utterback,et al.  A dynamic model of process and product innovation , 1975 .

[10]  M. Swink.  Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of development team integration processes , 1999 .

[11]  M van Dijk,et al.  Technological Regimes and Industrial Dynamics: The Evidence from Dutch Manufacturing , 2000 .

[12]  J. Sinacore.  Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions , 1993 .

[13]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  James E. Bartlett,et al.  Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research , 2001 .

[15]  Thomas Y. Choi,et al.  The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective⋆ , 2011 .

[16]  Marcus M. Keupp,et al.  Determinants and Archetype Users of Open Innovation , 2009 .

[17]  B. Byrne.  Structural equation modeling with EQS : basic concepts, applications, and programming , 2000 .

[18]  J. Nunnally.  Psychometric Theory (2nd ed), New York: McGraw-Hill. , 1978 .

[19]  Jayanth Jayaram,et al.  Supplier involvement in new product development projects: dimensionality and contingency effects , 2008 .

[20]  R. Field.  Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policymaking and Crisis Management , 1989 .

[21]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Contingency Perspectives of Organizational Strategy: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research , 1985 .

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

[23]  L. Ciravegna,et al.  OUTSOURCING OF NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND THE OPENING OF INNOVATION IN MATURE INDUSTRIES: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF FIAT DURING CRISIS AND RECOVERY , 2011 .

[24]  Timothy R. Hinkin.  A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations , 1995 .

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

[26]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[27]  R. Chandy,et al.  Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize , 1998 .

[28]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

[29]  Brian Squire,et al.  A CONTINGENT PERSPECTIVE OF OPEN INNOVATION IN NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS , 2010 .

[30]  J. West,et al.  Open Innovation: The Next Decade , 2014 .

[31]  Keld Laursen,et al.  The Paradox of Openness Appropriability and the Use of External Sources of Knowledge for Innovation , 2005 .

[32]  S. Arvanitis,et al.  From Knowledge to Added Value: A Comparative, Panel-Data Analysis of the Innovation Value Chain in Irish and Swiss Manufacturing Firms , 2009 .

[33]  R. Handfield,et al.  Knowledge Sharing in Interorganizational Product Development Teams: The Effect of Formal and Informal Socialization Mechanisms* , 2009 .

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

[35]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[36]  M. Frohlich,et al.  Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain strategies , 2001 .

[37]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices , 2009 .

[38]  Mark E. Parry,et al.  Challenges of managing the development of breakthrough products in Japan , 1999 .

[39]  Hossam Ismail,et al.  A study of contingency relationships between supplier involvement, absorptive capacity and agile product innovation , 2013 .

[40]  A. Bonaccorsi,et al.  Strategic Partnerships in New Product Development: an Italian Case Study , 1994 .

[41]  Ulrich Kaiser,et al.  Balancing Internal and External Knowledge Acquisition: The Gains and Pains from R&D Outsourcing , 2010 .

[42]  Ammon Salter,et al.  The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms , 2004 .

[43]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  INNOVATION OBJECTIVES, KNOWLEDGE SOURCES, AND THE BENEFITS OF BREADTH , 2010 .

[44]  A. Rodríguez‐Pose,et al.  In Economics and Social Sciences Working Papers Series Firm Collaboration and Modes of Innovation in Norway Firm Collaboration and Modes of Innovation in Norway Firm Collaboration and Modes of Innovation in Norway , 2022 .

[45]  M. Porter,et al.  The Competitive Advantage of Nations. , 1990 .

[46]  L. Mann,et al.  A Short Measure of Transformational Leadership , 2000 .

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

[48]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  The Development of an Intragroup Norm and the Effects of Interpersonal and Structural Challenges , 1991 .

[49]  H. Chesbrough.  The Era of Open Innovation , 2003 .

[50]  R. Reed,et al.  Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage , 1990 .

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

[52]  Annick Castiaux,et al.  Radical innovation in established organizations: Being a knowledge predator , 2007 .

[53]  Adegoke Oke,et al.  Communication channels, innovation tasks and NPD project outcomes in innovation-driven horizontal networks , 2010 .

[54]  Irem Demirkan,et al.  The Performance Consequences of Ambidexterity in Strategic Alliance Formations: Empirical Investigation and Computational Theorizing , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[55]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[56]  B. Looy,et al.  Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach , 2005 .

[57]  Martin Natter,et al.  Understanding a firm's openness decisions in innovation , 2012 .

[58]  Pamela R. Haunschild,et al.  Friends or Strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, Market Uncertainty, and Network Partner Selection , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[59]  M. Nieto,et al.  The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation , 2007 .

[60]  Bart Van Looy,et al.  Technology Alliance Portfolios and Financial Performance: Value-Enhancing and Cost-Increasing Effects of Open Innovation* , 2010 .

[61]  M. Primo,et al.  An exploratory study of the effects of supplier relationships on new product development outcomes , 2002 .

[62]  R. Shah,et al.  In union lies strength: Collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects , 2009 .

[63]  Sebastian Spaeth,et al.  How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation , 2013 .

[64]  J. A. Trespalacios,et al.  New product internal performance and market performance: Evidence from Spanish firms regarding the role of trust, interfunctional integration, and innovation type , 2008 .

[65]  Michael Song,et al.  Supplier's involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures , 2008 .

[66]  S. Boerner,et al.  Follower Behavior and Organizational Performance: The Impact of Transformational Leaders , 2007 .

[67]  Rosanna Garcia,et al.  A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review , 2002 .

[68]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[69]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  Decomposing Product Innovativeness and Its Effects on New Product Success , 2006 .

[70]  R. Rothwell.  Towards the Fifth‐generation Innovation Process , 1994 .

[71]  M. Ruef,et al.  Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation , 2002 .

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

[73]  I. Janis.  Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policymaking and Crisis Management , 1989 .

[74]  S. Zeng,et al.  Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs , 2010 .

[75]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[76]  Andrea Schenker-Wicki,et al.  The impact of outside‐in open innovation on innovation performance , 2011 .

[77]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  Structural equation modeling with AMOS , 2010 .

[78]  John H. Grant,et al.  Construct Measurement in Organizational Strategy Research: A Critique and Proposal , 1986 .

[79]  Rita Gunther McGrath,et al.  Innovation, competitive advantage and rent: a model and test , 1996 .

[80]  M. Porter.  The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[81]  J. West,et al.  Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation , 2013 .

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

[83]  Kingshuk K. Sinha,et al.  The development and application of a process model for R&D project management in a high tech firm: A field study , 2011 .

[84]  Ashley Rae Davis.  A social capital perspective on systems agility , 2009 .

[85]  F. Selnes,et al.  Promoting Relationship Learning , 2003 .

[86]  David J. Ketchen,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF THE USE OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH , 2004 .

[87]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[88]  R. Handfield,et al.  Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design , 2005 .

[89]  James G. Combs,et al.  Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance: toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics , 1999 .

[90]  N. Foss,et al.  Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions , 2015 .

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

[92]  Stephen Roper,et al.  Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services , 2011 .

[93]  Stephen Roper,et al.  The organisation of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manufacturing , 2004 .

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

[95]  J. Schumpeter.  The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle , 1934 .

[96]  Enno Siemsen,et al.  Common Method Bias in Regression Models With Linear, Quadratic, and Interaction Effects , 2010 .