IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v120y2017icp252-260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan, Ioana
  • Bengtsson, Lars

Abstract

There is to date abundant evidence about the way openness-performance liaisons are shaped, yet parallel streams of research point towards an intricate relationship between appropriability and openness. Accordingly, while openness may reveal ample opportunities, risks of e.g. misappropriation should also be accounted for in open innovation processes, as they might affect performance. Recent research highlights the scarcity of studies investigating openness, appropriability and performance, and suggests a further need to analyze this in different stages of the innovation process. This study therefore aims to investigate the effects of three groups of intellectual property protection mechanisms (formal, semi-formal and informal) and openness (in terms of collaboration depth with eight types of partners) on two types of innovation performance (efficiency and novelty) across innovation phases. The analysis is based on a sample of 340 manufacturing firms from three European countries. Findings show that in early stages of the innovation process, efficiency is positively linked to the use of semi-formal appropriability mechanisms, such as contracts, yet negatively related to the use of formal ones, such as patents. The latter potentially illustrates the high uncertainty and increased risks of imitation or misappropriation in early innovation phases. Informal appropriability mechanisms contribute to novelty in earlier as well as later stages. Results further indicate novelty is explained by university collaboration throughout the innovation process, while competitor collaboration positively associates with novelty in later innovation stages. Vertical collaborations with supplier and customers reveal contrasting effects, which could also have implications linked to imitation risks. Furthermore, the negative effects of formal appropriability mechanisms and supplier collaboration on innovation performance in distinct stages of the innovation process might have implications for the so-called paradox of disclosure.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:120:y:2017:i:c:p:252-260
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517303360
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.014?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. Anne-Laure Mention & Anna-Leena Asikainen, 2012. "Innovation & Productivity: Investigating Effects Of Openness In Services," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 1-27.
    2. Mina, Andrea & Bascavusoglu-Moreau, Elif & Hughes, Alan, 2014. "Open service innovation and the firm's search for external knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 853-866.
    3. 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..
    4. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2002. "R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1169-1184, September.
    5. Christoph Grimpe & Ulrich Kaiser, 2010. "Balancing Internal and External Knowledge Acquisition: The Gains and Pains from R&D Outsourcing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(8), pages 1483-1509, December.
    6. Fabrizio, Kira R., 2009. "Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 255-267, March.
    7. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 1999. "Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 63-80, January.
    8. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2007. "The value of intellectual property rights to firms and society," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 541-567, Winter.
    9. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Olander, Heidi & Blomqvist, Kirsimarja & Panfilii, Victoria, 2012. "Orchestrating R&D networks: Absorptive capacity, network stability, and innovation appropriability," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 552-563.
    10. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2007. "The Value of Intellectual Property Rights to Firms," Discussion Papers 06-036, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    11. Tsai, Kuen-Hung & Wang, Jiann-Chyuan, 2009. "External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: An analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 518-526, April.
    12. Anja Cotic Svetina & Igor Prodan, 2008. "How Internal and External Sources of Knowledge Contribute to Firms’ Innovation Performance," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 6(3), pages 277-299.
    13. Hagedoorn, John & Ridder, Ann-Kristin, 2012. "Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study," MERIT Working Papers 2012-025, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    14. Sharon Novak & Steven D. Eppinger, 2001. "Sourcing By Design: Product Complexity and the Supply Chain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 189-204, January.
    15. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    16. Zobel, Ann-Kristin & Lokshin, Boris & Hagedoorn, John, 2017. "Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-54.
    17. repec:bla:jomstd:v:47:y:2010:i:s2:p:1483-1509 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. 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.
    19. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2013. "The Case against Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    20. Daniel K. Schamberger & Nina J. Cleven & Malte Brettel, 2013. "Performance Effects of Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation Strategies and the Moderating Role of External Innovation Partners," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 336-356, May.
    21. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2012. "Productivity effects of basic research in low-tech and high-tech industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1555-1564.
    23. Bruno Cassiman & Giovanni Valentini, 2016. "Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 1034-1046, June.
    24. María Jesús Nieto & Alicia Rodríguez, 2011. "Offshoring of R&D: Looking abroad to improve innovation performance," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 42(3), pages 345-361, April.
    25. Nicolai J. Foss & Keld Laursen & Torben Pedersen, 2011. "Linking Customer Interaction and Innovation: The Mediating Role of New Organizational Practices," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 980-999, August.
    26. Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2009. "Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and high-technology sectors in European countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 495-506, April.
    27. Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research & Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council, 1962. "The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number univ62-1.
    28. Ann-Kristin Zobel & Benjamin Balsmeier & Henry Chesbrough, 2016. "Does patenting help or hinder open innovation? Evidence from new entrants in the solar industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(2), pages 307-331.
    29. Belderbos, Rene & Carree, Martin & Diederen, Bert & Lokshin, Boris & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2004. "Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1237-1263, November.
    30. Ki H. Kang & Jina Kang, 2009. "How Do Firms Source External Knowledge For Innovation? Analysing Effects Of Different Knowledge Sourcing Methods," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(01), pages 1-17.
    31. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1987. "Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(2), pages 265-309, October.
    32. Nicholas Argyres & Lyda Bigelow, 2010. "Innovation, Modularity, and Vertical Deintegration: Evidence from the Early U.S. Auto Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 842-853, August.
    33. Amara, Nabil & Landry, Réjean & Traoré, Namatié, 2008. "Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1530-1547, October.
    34. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    35. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2006. "In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R& D and External Knowledge Acquisition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 68-82, January.
    36. Jaider Vega-Jurado & Antonio Gutiérrez-Gracia & Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio, 2009. "Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(4), pages 637-670, August.
    37. Scott D. N. Cook & John Seely Brown, 1999. "Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 381-400, August.
    38. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    39. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    40. James Love & Mica Ariana Mansury, 2007. "External Linkages, R&D and Innovation Performance in US Business Services," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 477-496.
    41. Hwang, Junseok & Lee, Youngjin, 2010. "External knowledge search, innovative performance and productivity in the Korean ICT sector," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 562-571, November.
    42. Drechsler, Wenzel & Natter, Martin, 2012. "Understanding a firm's openness decisions in innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 438-445.
    43. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    44. Hertzfeld, Henry R. & Link, Albert N. & Vonortas, Nicholas S., 2006. "Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 825-838, July.
    45. John Hagedoorn & Danielle Cloodt & Hans van Kranenburg, 2005. "Intellectual property rights and the governance of international R&D partnerships," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 36(2), pages 175-186, March.
    46. Belderbos, René & Cassiman, Bruno & Faems, Dries & Leten, Bart & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 841-852.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lu, Qinli & Chesbrough, Henry, 2022. "Measuring open innovation practices through topic modelling: Revisiting their impact on firm financial performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    3. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    4. Gómez, Jaime & Salazar, Idana & Vargas, Pilar, 2020. "The Role Of Extramural R&D And Scientific Knowledge In Creating High Novelty Innovations: An Examination Of Manufacturing And Service Firms In Spain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    5. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    6. Anu Wadhwa & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & M. B. Sarkar, 2017. "The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 873-896, October.
    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. Crass, Dirk & Valero, Francisco Garcia & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2019. "Protecting Innovation Through Patents and Trade Secrets: Evidence for Firms with a Single Innovation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 117-156.
    9. Ebersberger, Bernd & Galia, Fabrice & Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Inbound Open Innovation and Innovation Performance: A Robustness Study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    10. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    11. Chigu Kim & Chul Lee & Jina Kang, 2018. "Determinants Of Firm’S Innovation-Related External Knowledge Search Strategy: The Role Of Potential Absorptive Capacity And Appropriability Regime," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-33, August.
    12. Buss, Philipp & Peukert, Christian, 2015. "R&D outsourcing and intellectual property infringement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 977-989.
    13. Zhang, Jingjing & Groen, Aard, 2021. "Informal and formal open activities: Innovation protection methods as antecedents and innovation outputs as consequences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    15. Sofka, Wolfgang & de Faria, Pedro & Shehu, Edlira, 2018. "Protecting knowledge: How legal requirements to reveal information affect the importance of secrecy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 558-572.
    16. Astrid Heidemann Lassen & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Promoting Future Sustainable Transition by Overcoming the Openness Paradox in KIE Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Bahemia, Hanna & Sillince, John & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2018. "The timing of openness in a radical innovation project, a temporal and loose coupling perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 2066-2076.
    18. Delgado-Verde, Miriam & Martín-de Castro, Gregorio & Cruz-González, Jorge & Navas-López, José Emilio, 2021. "Complements or substitutes? The contingent role of corporate reputation on the interplay between internal R&D and external knowledge sourcing," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 70-83.
    19. Fábio Gama, 2019. "Managing collaborative ideation: the role of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 97-118, March.
    20. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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:120:y:2017:i:c:p:252-260. 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.