Space and Open Innovation: Potential, limitations and conditions of success

The classical model of innovation behind closed doors is slowly but surely being challenged by the Open Innovation model that is reshaping the way organizations bring new products and services into the market. This paper reports on the results of an International Space University (ISU) Team Project (TP) focused on the potential, limitations and conditions of success of Open Innovation in the space sector using ISU׳s international, interdisciplinary, intercultural (3Is) approach. Open Innovation can be defined as “the process of strategically managing the sharing of ideas and resources among entities to co-create value”. Conventional approaches to technology development for space, such as spin-offs or spin-ins, are no longer sufficient to fully describe the interactions between organizations in today׳s Research and Development (R&D) landscape. Traditionally, conducting space technology development and launching space missions required massive infrastructure investments, long lead times and large teams of experts. However, internal R&D, dedicated marketing departments and closely guarded intellectual property are no longer the only way to achieve success. Smaller, nimbler teams, significant use of crowdfunding, a more aggressive approach to managing risk and a great motivation to leverage intellectual property are just some of their defining characteristics. By using a case study methodology focused on asteroid mining supported by a critical literature review, the project team highlighted the potential of Open Innovation in space by identifying its most promising applications as well as its limitations.

[1]  M. Sawhney,et al.  The 12 different ways for companies to innovate , 2012, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

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

[3]  M. C. Vega,et al.  Living Labs, Spaces for Open Innovation and Technology Transfer. An Alternative to the Solution of Social Problems in Paraguay , 2014 .

[4]  Jacob Aron.  Alien-hunting equation revamped for mining asteroids , 2013 .

[5]  AndriopoulosConstantine,et al.  Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity , 2009 .

[6]  Jedicke,et al.  Understanding the distribution of near-earth asteroids , 1999, Science.

[7]  A. Amin,et al.  Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities, and Communities , 2004 .

[8]  N. Sakkab,et al.  Connect and Develop : Inside Procter & Gamble's New Model for Innovation , 2006 .

[9]  Dora Marinova,et al.  Models of Innovation , 2003 .

[10]  O. Williamson.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting , 1985 .

[11]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[12]  Jacob Schmookler,et al.  Economic Sources of Inventive Activity , 1962, The Journal of Economic History.

[13]  H. Chesbrough.  Open Innovation: Where We've Been and Where We're Going , 2012 .

[14]  W. T. Robinson,et al.  Note: The Impact of Leadtime and Years of Competitive Rivalry on Pioneer Market Share Advantages , 1994 .

[15]  Wei-Tek Tsai,et al.  Cloud-Based Software Crowdsourcing , 2014, IEEE Internet Computing.

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

[17]  R. Katz,et al.  Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups , 1982 .

[18]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[19]  M. Porter.  From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy , 1989 .

[20]  Kenton O'Hara,et al.  Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts , 2011, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[21]  Prue Taylor.  The concept of the common heritage of mankind , 2016 .

[22]  Gilles Garel,et al.  L'intrapreneuriat, compétence ou symptôme ? Vers de nouvelles organisations de l'innovation , 2009 .

[23]  Nari Lee,et al.  Flexibility in contract terms and contracting processes , 2010 .

[24]  Svenja Paul,et al.  The role of human resource management in open innovation: exploring the relation between HR practices and OI , 2013 .

[25]  Constantine Andriopoulos,et al.  Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[26]  E. C. Martins,et al.  Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation , 2003 .

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

[28]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[29]  Liam Fahey,et al.  Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management , 2000 .

[30]  Soili Nystén-Haarala,et al.  Interfacing Intellectual Property Rights and Open Innovation , 2010 .

[31]  P. Cohendet,et al.  Playing across the playground: paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm , 2007 .

[32]  Patrick Cohendet,et al.  Challenging the Stage-Gate Model in Crowdsourcing: The Case of Fiat Mio in Brazil , 2014 .

[33]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Innovacion disruptiva para el cambio social , 2006 .