IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v102y2016icp169-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing

Author

Listed:
  • West, Joel
  • Kuk, George

Abstract

Selective openness allows a firm to sell a systemic innovation that combines both open and proprietary technologies. Such firm strategies are now common for open source software and other information goods. However, they pose conceptual and practical uncertainties for hardware-focused companies, particularly as research on open hardware has emphasized community rather than firm success. Here we study firm openness in 3D printing, with a case study of how MakerBot Industries leveraged external communities and selective openness become the consumer market leader. After reviewing the literature on systemic innovation and selective openness, we document the proprietary strategies of a dozen startup companies during the first two decades of the 3D printing industry. We contrast this to the open hardware, software and content strategy that MakerBot's founders used to enter and grow the consumer market from 2009 onward. We show how MakerBot shifted to a selectively open, systemic innovation strategy that complemented proprietary hardware and software with open user-generated content from its Thingiverse online community. From this, we suggest the inherent complementarity of selective openness strategies between open and proprietary components, and conclude with predictions as to when and how a startup or incumbent firm will combine open and proprietary elements.

Suggested Citation

  • West, Joel & Kuk, George, 2016. "The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 169-181.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:102:y:2016:i:c:p:169-181
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162515002449
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan MacCormack & John Rusnak & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1015-1030, July.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Shane Greenstein, 1999. "Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 1-40, March.
    4. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    5. Bruce Kogut & Anca Metiu, 2001. "Open-Source Software Development and Distributed Innovation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 17(2), pages 248-264, Summer.
    6. West, Joel, 2003. "How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1259-1285, July.
    7. Atip Asvanund & Karen Clay & Ramayya Krishnan & Michael D. Smith, 2004. "An Empirical Analysis of Network Externalities in Peer-to-Peer Music-Sharing Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 155-174, June.
    8. Henkel, Joachim & Schöberl, Simone & Alexy, Oliver, 2014. "The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 879-890.
    9. Linus Dahlander, 2007. "Penguin in a new suit: a tale of how de novo entrants emerged to harness free and open source software communities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(5), pages 913-943, October.
    10. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    12. Sonali K. Shah, 2006. "Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1000-1014, July.
    13. Fiona Murray & Siobhán O'Mahony, 2007. "Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 1006-1021, December.
    14. Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
    15. Dahlander, Linus & Magnusson, Mats G., 2005. "Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 481-493, May.
    16. Joel West & Siobhan O'mahony, 2008. "The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 145-168.
    17. Scott Shane, 2000. "Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 448-469, August.
    18. Joachim Henkel, 2009. "Champions of revealing--the role of open source developers in commercial firms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(3), pages 435-471, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Elco Burg & Hans Berends & Erik M. Raaij, 2014. "Framing and Interorganizational Knowledge Transfer: A Process Study of Collaborative Innovation in the Aircraft Industry," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 349-378, May.
    21. Davies, Andrew, 1996. "Innovation in Large Technical Systems: The Case of Telecommunications," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(4), pages 1143-1180.
    22. Langlois, Richard N. & Robertson, Paul L., 1992. "Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 297-313, August.
    23. Teece, David J., 2006. "Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1131-1146, October.
    24. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    25. Baker, Ted & Miner, Anne S. & Eesley, Dale T., 2003. "Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 255-276, February.
    26. O'Mahony, Siobhan, 2003. "Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect their work," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1179-1198, July.
    27. Annabelle Gawer, 2009. "Platform Dynamics and Strategies: From Products to Services," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    28. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    29. Lakhani, Karim R. & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 923-943, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yeh, Ching-Chiang & Chen, Yi-Fan, 2018. "Critical success factors for adoption of 3D printing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 209-216.
    2. Mulhuijzen, Max & de Jong, Jeroen P.J., 2024. "Diffusion to peers in firm-hosted user innovation communities: Contributions by professional versus amateur users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    3. Beltagui, Ahmad & Kunz, Nathan & Gold, Stefan, 2020. "The role of 3D printing and open design on adoption of socially sustainable supply chain innovation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    4. Jiang, Ruth & Kleer, Robin & Piller, Frank T., 2017. "Predicting the future of additive manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal implications of 3D printing for 2030," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 84-97.
    5. Beltagui, Ahmad & Rosli, Ainurul & Candi, Marina, 2020. "Exaptation in a digital innovation ecosystem: The disruptive impacts of 3D printing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    6. Kwak, Kiho & Kim, Wonjoon & Park, Kyungbae, 2018. "Complementary multiplatforms in the growing innovation ecosystem: Evidence from 3D printing technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 192-207.
    7. Rong, Ke & Patton, Dean & Chen, Weiwei, 2018. "Business models dynamics and business ecosystems in the emerging 3D printing industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 234-245.
    8. Beltagui, Ahmad & Sesis, Achilleas & Stylos, Nikolaos, 2021. "A bricolage perspective on democratising innovation: The case of 3D printing in makerspaces," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    9. Lu, Qinli & Chesbrough, Henry, 2022. "Measuring open innovation practices through topic modelling: Revisiting their impact on firm financial performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    10. Marić, Josip & Opazo-Basáez, Marco & Vlačić, Božidar & Dabić, Marina, 2023. "Innovation management of three-dimensional printing (3DP) technology: Disclosing insights from existing literature and determining future research streams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Rayna, Thierry & Striukova, Ludmila, 2021. "Assessing the effect of 3D printing technologies on entrepreneurship: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    12. Fassio, Claudio & Grilli, Luca, 2016. "From technological to symbolic innovation? Open source, Maker Movement and global demand for 3D printers," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/7, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    13. Barrett, Gillian & Tsekouras, George, 2022. "A tango with a gorilla: An exploration of the microfoundations of open innovation partnerships between young innovative companies and multi-national enterprises," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    14. Jonathan Sims & Victor P. Seidel, 2017. "Organizations coupled with communities: the strategic effects on firms engaged in community-coupled open innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(4), pages 647-665.
    15. Erdem Dogukan Yilmaz & Ivana Naumovska & Milan Miric, 2023. "Does imitation increase or decrease demand for an original product? Understanding the opposing effects of discovery and substitution," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 639-671, March.
    16. Christian Lechner & Abeer Pervaiz, 2020. "From invention to industry from a social movement perspective: the emergence of the 3D printing industry," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, December.
    17. Naghshineh, Bardia & Ribeiro, André & Jacinto, Celeste & Carvalho, Helena, 2021. "Social impacts of additive manufacturing: A stakeholder-driven framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    18. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).

    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. Siobhan O'Mahony & Rebecca Karp, 2022. "From proprietary to collective governance: How do platform participation strategies evolve?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 530-562, March.
    2. Sebastian Spaeth & Georg von Krogh & Fang He, 2015. "Research Note —Perceived Firm Attributes and Intrinsic Motivation in Sponsored Open Source Software Projects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 224-237, March.
    3. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    4. 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.
    5. Dahlander, Linus & Piezunka, Henning, 2014. "Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 812-827.
    6. Frank Nagle, 2018. "Learning by Contributing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Contribution to Crowdsourced Public Goods," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 569-587, August.
    7. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Steen, John & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Creating value by giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 137-150.
    8. Maha Shaikh & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2016. "Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Openness and Transparency in Open Source Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 813-833, December.
    9. Stam, Wouter, 2009. "When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1288-1299, October.
    10. Nicolas Jullien & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2011. "FLOSS in an industrial economics perspective," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(4), pages 39-64.
    11. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    12. Nicolas Jullien & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2011. "Floss firms, users and communities: a viable match?," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 31-53.
    13. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    14. Haefliger, Stefan & Jäger, Peter & von Krogh, Georg, 2010. "Under the radar: Industry entry by user entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1198-1213, November.
    15. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    16. Martie-Louise Verreynne & Rui Torres de Oliveira & John Steen & Marta Indulska & Jerad A. Ford, 2020. "What motivates ‘free’ revealing? Measuring outbound non-pecuniary openness, innovation types and expectations of future profit growth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 271-301, July.
    17. Peng Huang & Marco Ceccagnoli & Chris Forman & D.J. Wu, 2009. "Participation in a Platform Ecosystem: Appropriability, Competition, and Access to the Installed Base," Working Papers 09-14, NET Institute, revised Sep 2009.
    18. Julia Bauer & Nikolaus Franke & Philipp Tuertscher, 2016. "Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 724-750, December.
    19. Rullani, Francesco & Haefliger, Stefan, 2013. "The periphery on stage: The intra-organizational dynamics in online communities of creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 941-953.
    20. Foege, J. Nils & Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl & Tietze, Frank & Salge, Torsten Oliver, 2019. "Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1323-1339.

    Corrections

    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:eee:tefoso:v:102:y:2016:i:c:p:169-181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.