IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v124y2020i1d10.1007_s11192-020-03434-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What motivates ‘free’ revealing? Measuring outbound non-pecuniary openness, innovation types and expectations of future profit growth

Author

Listed:
  • Martie-Louise Verreynne

    (RMIT University)

  • Rui Torres de Oliveira

    (Queensland University of Technology, Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, Business School)

  • John Steen

    (University of British Columbia, Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering)

  • Marta Indulska

    (The University of Queensland, Business School)

  • Jerad A. Ford

    (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)

Abstract

Open innovation (OI) refers to the inbound and outbound flows of knowledge beyond the boundary of the organization, which can be in the form of pecuniary or non-pecuniary exchanges. Investigation into pecuniary and inbound innovation types has advanced rapidly, but non-pecuniary outbound OI (free revealing) has received less attention. Presenting a scale developed through a systematic literature review, expert testing and exploratory factor analysis, we show that revealing is reflected by five motivational factors, namely seeking complementary capabilities, product diffusion, strategic spillovers, product enhancement, and co-creation with firms. Regression models show that these factors influence the variety of innovation types and shareholder expectations of value capture through future returns.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03434-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03434-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03434-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03434-4?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. Bruce Kogut, 1988. "Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 319-332, July.
    2. Scott L. Newbert, 2007. "Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 121-146, February.
    3. Mark Dodgson & David M. Gann & Ammon Salter, 2007. "“In Case of Fire, Please Use the Elevator”: Simulation Technology and Organization in Fire Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 849-864, October.
    4. Cammarano, Antonello & Michelino, Francesca & Lamberti, Emilia & Caputo, Mauro, 2017. "Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 204-222.
    5. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    6. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Alon Brav & Wei Jiang, 2015. "The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism," NBER Working Papers 21227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    8. Peres, Renana & Muller, Eitan & Mahajan, Vijay, 2010. "Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: A critical review and research directions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 91-106.
    9. Vandermerwe, Sandra & Rada, Juan, 1988. "Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 314-324, December.
    10. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen & Du, Jun, 2009. "Innovation, ownership and profitability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 424-434, May.
    11. Fariborz Damanpour & Richard M. Walker & Claudia N. Avellaneda, 2009. "Combinative Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 650-675, June.
    12. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    13. 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..
    14. Robert G. Fichman, 2004. "Real Options and IT Platform Adoption: Implications for Theory and Practice," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 132-154, June.
    15. Joel West & Karim Lakhani, 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 223-231.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Lopez-Vega, Henry & Tell, Fredrik & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2016. "Where and how to search? Search paths in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 125-136.
    19. Prashant Kale & Harbir Singh & Howard Perlmutter, 2000. "Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 217-237, March.
    20. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation : An empirical analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 293-315, January.
    21. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation," Scholarly Articles 29407535, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    22. Tobin, James, 1969. "A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 1(1), pages 15-29, February.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Aija Leiponen & Constance E. Helfat, 2010. "Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 224-236, February.
    26. Gary Hamel, 1991. "Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(S1), pages 83-103, June.
    27. Oliver Alexy & Elif Bascavusoglu-Moreau & Ammon J. Salter, 2016. "Toward an aspiration-level theory of open innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(2), pages 289-306.
    28. Jack A. Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2004. "A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm—The Problem-Solving Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 617-632, December.
    29. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    30. Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne, 1985. "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(3), pages 341-352, December.
    31. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    32. David J Teece, 2008. "Capturing Value from Technological Innovation: Integration, Strategic Partnering, and Licensing Decisions," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Technological Know-How, Organizational Capabilities, And Strategic Management Business Strategy and Enterprise Development in Competitive Environments, chapter 12, pages 237-252, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    33. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.
    34. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    35. Machlup, Fritz & Penrose, Edith, 1950. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, May.
    36. Eric von Hippel & Harold DeMonaco & Jeroen P. J. de Jong, 2017. "Market failure in the diffusion of clinician-developed innovations: The case of off-label drug discoveries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 121-131.
    37. Yoo, Boonghee & Donthu, Naveen, 2001. "Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 1-14, April.
    38. Marcel Bogers & Ann-Kristin Zobel & Allan Afuah & Esteve Almirall & Sabine Brunswicker & Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Annabelle Gawer & Marc Gruber & Stefan Haefliger & John Hagedoorn & Dennis, 2017. "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 8-40, January.
    39. John Steen & Dallas Hanson & Peter Liesch, 1998. "Collaborative Research and Development: New Insights from Cyclic Models of the Innovation Process," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(01), pages 107-121.
    40. Dietmar Harhoff, 1996. "Strategic Spillovers and Incentives for Research and Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 907-925, 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. Suhada, Thontowi A. & Ford, Jerad A. & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Motivating individuals to contribute to firms’ non-pecuniary open innovation goals," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    2. Rui Torres de Oliveira & Simona Gentile-Lüdecke & Sandra Figueira, 2022. "Barriers to innovation and innovation performance: the mediating role of external knowledge search in emerging economies," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 1953-1974, April.
    3. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Nguyen, Tam & Liesch, Peter & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Exporting to escape and learn: Vietnamese manufacturers in global value chains," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(4).
    4. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    6. Schäper, Thomas & Jung, Christopher & Foege, Johann Nils & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Fainshmidt, Stav & Nüesch, Stephan, 2023. "The S-shaped relationship between open innovation and financial performance: A longitudinal perspective using a novel text-based measure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. J. Nils Foege & Erk P. Piening & Torsten-Oliver Salge, 2017. "Don’T Get Caught On The Wrong Foot: A Resource-Based Perspective On Imitation Threats In Innovation Partnerships," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 1-42, April.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Suhada, Thontowi A. & Ford, Jerad A. & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Motivating individuals to contribute to firms’ non-pecuniary open innovation goals," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    14. Hallberg, Niklas L. & Brattström, Anna, 2019. "Concealing or revealing? Alternative paths to profiting from innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-174.
    15. Thuy Seran & Sea Matilda Bez, 2019. "Managing Open-Innovation between Competitors: A Project-Level Approach," Post-Print hal-02427680, HAL.
    16. 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.
    17. Lopes, Ana Paula Vilas Boas Viveiros & de Carvalho, Marly Monteiro, 2018. "Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: Towards a contingent conceptual model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 284-298.
    18. Yaowu Sun & Yi Zhai, 2018. "Mapping the knowledge domain and the theme evolution of appropriability research between 1986 and 2016: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 203-230, July.
    19. Oliver Alexy & Joel West & Helge Klapper & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1704-1727, June.
    20. Chiao, Benjamin & MacVaugh, Jason, 2021. "Open innovation and organizational features: An experimental investigation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 376-389.

    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:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03434-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.