IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/indinn/v17y2010i6p577-607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open, Semi-Open and Closed Innovators: Towards an Explanation of Degree of Openness

Author

Listed:
  • Andres Barge-Gil

Abstract

There is much controversy in the literature over the relationship between the openness of firms' innovation strategies and firm characteristics such as size, R&D intensity and sector. We argue that the controversy arises because, both theoretically and empirically, only a binary, open vs. closed, strategy has been considered. In this paper, we distinguish among three firm strategies: open, semi-open and closed, drawing upon a panel of Spanish firms (2004-2006) using data from Community Innovation Survey (CIS)-type surveys, and two different indicators of openness. Our results show that open innovators are smaller and less R&D intensive than semi-open ones, although larger and more R&D intensive than closed innovators. These results reduce some of the controversies, and show that two conflicting forces, absorptive capacity and a “need” effect, are at stake in open innovation strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Andres Barge-Gil, 2010. "Open, Semi-Open and Closed Innovators: Towards an Explanation of Degree of Openness," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 577-607.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:indinn:v:17:y:2010:i:6:p:577-607
    DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2010.530839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13662716.2010.530839
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13662716.2010.530839?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. Mikael Jonasson, 2012. "Innovation and learning in thin structures - producing intensive links in Halland," International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(4), pages 364-378.
    2. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Dimitrios Pontikakis & Attila Varga, 2013. "Delocalization Patterns in University--Industry Interaction: Evidence from the Sixth R&D Framework Programme," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1676-1701, October.
    3. Du, Jingshu & Leten, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2014. "Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 828-840.
    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. Marius Băban & Călin Florin Băban & Tudor Mitran, 2023. "Universities as an External Knowledge Source for Industry: Investigating the Antecedents’ Impact on the Importance Perception of Their Collaboration in Open Innovation Using an Ordinal Regression-Neur," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, March.
    2. Jianghua Zhou & Rui Wu & Jizhen Li, 2019. "More ties the merrier? Different social ties and firm innovation performance," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 445-471, June.
    3. Marullo, Cristina & Ahn, Joon Mo, 2024. "Knowledge tensions and decision-making challenges in open innovation: Standardization as a de-biasing mechanism," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    4. van Criekingen, Kristof & Freel, Mark & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2021. "Open innovation deficiency: Evidence on project abandonment and delay," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-006, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Ogink, Ruben H.A.J. & Goossen, Martin C. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Akkermans, Henk, 2023. "Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Adele Parmentola & Marco Ferretti & Eva Panetti, 0. "Exploring the university-industry cooperation in a low innovative region. What differences between low tech and high tech industries?," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-28.
    7. Colin C. J. Cheng & Eric C. Shiu, 2021. "Establishing a typology of open innovation strategies and their differential impacts on innovation success in an Asia-Pacific developed economy," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 65-89, March.
    8. Ko, Young Jin & O'Neill, Hugh & Xie, Xuanli, 2021. "Strategic intent as a contingency of the relationship between external knowledge and firm innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    9. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500117 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M. & Barberá-Tomás,David & Edwards-Schachter,Mónica, 2015. "The impact of one of the most highly cited university patents: formalisation and localization," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201502, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 03 Jan 2017.
    11. Andries, Petra & Hünermund, Paul, 2020. "Firm-level effects of staged investments in innovation: The moderating role of resource availability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    12. Sanja Puzović & Jasmina Vesić Vasović & Dragan D. Milanović & Vladan Paunović, 2023. "A Hybrid Fuzzy MCDM Approach to Open Innovation Partner Evaluation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-26, July.
    13. Barrett, Gillian & Dooley, Lawrence & Bogue, Joe, 2021. "Open innovation within high-tech SMEs: A study of the entrepreneurial founder's influence on open innovation practices," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    14. Kobarg, Sebastian & Stumpf-Wollersheim, Jutta & Welpe, Isabell M., 2019. "More is not always better: Effects of collaboration breadth and depth on radical and incremental innovation performance at the project level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-10.
    15. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    16. Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Juan-José Nájera-Sánchez & Eva-María Mora-Valentín, 2018. "A Research Agenda on Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Co-Word Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-17, July.
    17. Cleonir Tumelero & Roberto Sbragia & Felipe Mendes Borini & Eliane Cristina Franco, 2018. "The role of networks in technological capability: a technology-based companies perspective," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, December.
    18. Byungun Yoon & Juneseuk Shin & Sungjoo Lee, 2016. "Open Innovation Projects in SMEs as an Engine for Sustainable Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-27, February.
    19. Lovrić, Nataša & Lovrić, Marko & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Factors behind development of innovations in European forest-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Michaela Kotkova Striteska & Viktor Prokop, 2020. "Dynamic Innovation Strategy Model in Practice of Innovation Leaders and Followers in CEE Countries—A Prerequisite for Building Innovative Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    21. Livieratos, Antonios D. & Tsekouras, George & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Angelakis, Antonios, 2022. "Open Innovation moves in SMEs: How European SMEs place their bets?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    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:taf:indinn:v:17:y:2010:i:6:p:577-607. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIAI20 .

    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.