IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i14p11036-d1194130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Innovation Intellectual Property Risk Maturity Model: An Approach to Measure Intellectual Property Risks of Software Firms Engaged in Open Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • B. Senakumari Arunnima

    (College of Engineering Trivandrum, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram 695016, India)

  • Dharmaseelan Bijulal

    (Government Engineering College, Barton Hill, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram 695035, India)

  • R. Sudhir Kumar

    (NSS College of Engineering Palakkad, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Akathethara 678008, India)

Abstract

Open innovation (OI) is key to sustainable product development and is increasingly gaining significance as the preferred model of innovation across industries. When compared to closed innovation, the protection of intellectual property (IP) that is created in open innovation is complex. For organisations engaging in OI, a sound IP management policy focusing on IP risk reduction plays a significant role in ensuring their sustained growth. Assessing the risks that are involved in IP management will enable firms to devise appropriate IP management strategies, which would ensure sufficient protection of an IP that is created in an OI model. Studies indicate that the risks which are associated with IP and risk management processes also vary with company segments that range from start-ups to micro, small, medium, and large organisations. This paper proposes an open innovation IP risk assessment model to compute the open innovation intellectual property risk score (OIIPRS) by employing an analytic hierarchy process. The OIIPRS indicates the IP risk levels of an organisation when it engages in open innovation with other organisations. The factors contributing to IP risk are identified and further classified as configurable IP risk factors, and the impact of these factors for the various company segments is also factored in when computing the OIIPRS. Further, an OI IP risk maturity model (OIIPRMM) is proposed. This model depicts the IP risk maturity of organisations based on the computed OIIPRS on an IP risk continuum, which categorises firms into five levels of IP risk maturity. The software firms can make use of the OIIPRMM to assess the level of IP risk and adopt proactive IP protection mechanisms while collaborating with other organisations.

Suggested Citation

  • B. Senakumari Arunnima & Dharmaseelan Bijulal & R. Sudhir Kumar, 2023. "Open Innovation Intellectual Property Risk Maturity Model: An Approach to Measure Intellectual Property Risks of Software Firms Engaged in Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:14:p:11036-:d:1194130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/11036/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/11036/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sung-Ho Kil & Dong Kun Lee & Jun-Hyun Kim & Ming-Han Li & Galen Newman, 2016. "Utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Establish Weighted Values for Evaluating the Stability of Slope Revegetation based on Hydroseeding Applications in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "The Seven Pillars of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 23-40, Springer.
    3. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    4. Gülşen Akman & Cengiz Yilmaz, 2008. "Innovative Capability, Innovation Strategy And Market Orientation: An Empirical Analysis In Turkish Software Industry," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(01), pages 69-111.
    5. 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).
    6. 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).
    7. Omer Unsal & Blake Rayfield, 2019. "Trends in Financial Innovation: Evidence from Fintech Firms," NFI Working Papers 2019-WP-03, Indiana State University, Scott College of Business, Networks Financial Institute.
    8. Tekic, Anja & Tekic, Zeljko, 2021. "Culture as antecedent of national innovation performance: Evidence from neo-configurational perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 385-396.
    9. de Beer, Jeremy & McCarthy, Ian P. & Soliman, Adam & Treen, Emily, 2017. "Click here to agree: Managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 207-217.
    10. Kaufmann, Carsten & Kock, Alexander, 2022. "Does Project Management Matter? The Relationship between Project Management Effort, Complexity, and Profitability," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 136213, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    11. Gomes, Leonardo Augusto de Vasconcelos & Facin, Ana Lucia Figueiredo & Salerno, Mario Sergio & Ikenami, Rodrigo Kazuo, 2018. "Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 30-48.
    12. Thamir Hamad Alaskar, 2023. "Innovation Capabilities as a Mediator between Business Analytics and Firm Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Granstrand, Ove & Holgersson, Marcus, 2020. "Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 90.
    14. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, March.
    15. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    16. Honghui Zhu & Jinmeng Lee & Xiaojun Yin & Meiling Du, 2023. "The Effect of Open Innovation on Manufacturing Firms’ Performance in China: The Moderating Role of Social Capital," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, March.
    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. Satheeskumar Navaratnam, 2022. "Selecting a Suitable Sustainable Construction Method for Australian High-Rise Building: A Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Lepore, Dominique & Frontoni, Emanuele & Micozzi, Alessandra & Moccia, Sara & Romeo, Luca & Spigarelli, Francesca, 2023. "Uncovering the potential of innovation ecosystems in the healthcare sector after the COVID-19 crisis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 80-86.
    3. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. 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.
    5. Choi, Kwang Hun & Kwon, Gyu Hyun, 2023. "Strategies for sensing innovation opportunities in smart grids: In the perspective of interactive relationships between science, technology, and business," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    6. Malte Jütting, 2020. "Exploring Mission-Oriented Innovation Ecosystems for Sustainability: Towards a Literature-Based Typology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-28, August.
    7. Gomes, Leonardo Augusto de Vasconcelos & Flechas, Ximena Alejandra & Facin, Ana Lucia Figueiredo & Borini, Felipe Mendes, 2021. "Ecosystem management: Past achievements and future promises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    8. Patrycja Klimas & Wojciech Czakon, 2022. "Species in the wild: a typology of innovation ecosystems," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 249-282, January.
    9. Juite Wang, 0000. "Analyzing and Predicting R&D Collaboration Networks in the Metaverse Industry," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 14716418, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    10. Gomes, Leonardo Augusto de Vasconcelos & Fleury, André Leme & Oliveira, Maicon Gouvêa de & Facin, Ana Lucia Figueiredo, 2021. "Ecosystem policy roadmapping," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Yanzhang Gu & Longying Hu & Hongjin Zhang & Chenxuan Hou, 2021. "Innovation Ecosystem Research: Emerging Trends and Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-21, October.
    12. Yuan, Ning & Li, Meijuan, 2024. "Research on collaborative innovation behavior of enterprise innovation ecosystem under evolutionary game," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    13. Klaus D. Goepel, 2019. "Comparison of Judgment Scales of the Analytical Hierarchy Process — A New Approach," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 445-463, March.
    14. Kotsopoulos, Dimosthenis & Karagianaki, Angeliki & Baloutsos, Stratos, 2022. "The effect of human capital, innovation capacity, and Covid-19 crisis on Knowledge-Intensive Enterprises’ growth within a VC-driven innovation ecosystem," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1177-1191.
    15. Marcon, Arthur & Ribeiro, Jose Luis Duarte, 2021. "How do startups manage external resources in innovation ecosystems? A resource perspective of startups’ lifecycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    16. Wang, Wenjing & Lu, Shan, 2021. "University-industry innovation community dynamics and knowledge transfer: Evidence from China," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    17. Tamer F. Abdelmaguid & Waleed Elrashidy, 2019. "Halting decisions for gas pipeline construction projects using AHP: a case study," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 179-199, March.
    18. Robertson, Jeandri & Caruana, Albert & Ferreira, Caitlin, 2023. "Innovation performance: The effect of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities in cross-country innovation ecosystems," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2).
    19. Reiter, Andreas & Stonig, Joachim & Frankenberger, Karolin, 2024. "Managing multi-tiered innovation ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    20. You Jin Kwon & Dong Kun Lee & You Ha Kwon, 2020. "Is Sensible Heat Flux Useful for the Assessment of Thermal Vulnerability in Seoul (Korea)?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-26, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:14:p:11036-:d:1194130. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.