Search

One novel implication of the open innovation paradigm is that inflows and outflows of knowledge are complementary. We argue that engaging simultaneously in buying and selling knowledge should allow firms to increase innovation outcomes. At the same time, we identify some of the relevant costs (cognitive, transaction, and organizational costs) that 'open' firms can reduce by combining knowledge inflows and outflows. Empirically, however, we find no evidence for such complementarity in a sample of Belgian manufacturing firms. Firms buying and selling knowledge do increase their sales of new products, but at the same time their R&D costs increase more than proportionally. Our findings, therefore, indicate the need for research into a better understanding of the drivers of actual costs of organizing for open innovation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Despite almost a decade of living lab activity all over Europe, there still is a lack of empirical research into the practical implementation and the related outcomes of living labs. Therefore, this article proposes a framework to create a better understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of living labs. We investigate three living labs in Belgium and one in Finland to learn how the different building blocks of living lab environments contribute to the outputs of innovation projects launched within the lab. The findings imply that managers and researchers contemplating innovation in living labs need to consider the intended inputs and outcomes, and reframe their innovation activities accordingly. We formulate practical guidelines on how living labs should be managed on the levels of community interaction, stakeholder engagement, and methodological setup to succeed in implementing living lab projects and to create user-centred innovations. That way, living lab practitioners can work towards a more sustainable way of setting up living labs that can run innovation projects over a longer period of time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Design may be seen as one of several key factors contributing to new product development, along with research and development, marketing, manufacturing, purchasing, etc. More and more, creative design comes to the fore, and many companies believe that superior design will be the key to winning customers. It has the ability to create corporate distinctiveness and also possesses the potential to give a product an individual or new look. Furthermore, the model of open innovation suggests that firms can and should use external and internal knowledge flows in order to create valuable ideas, and also internal and external paths to the market. Also, in the design process, a common trend toward external design skills has emerged in recent years. Due to cost and control factors, firms are increasingly outsourcing design activities. By using a sample of Belgian companies, this paper explores the contribution of design activities to product market performance. While there is mounting evidence that design can be seen as a strategic tool to successfully spur sales of new product developments at the firm level, the topic of design innovation has not yet been linked to the open innovation concept. In this paper, it is empirically tested whether design activities conducted in house differ in their contribution to new product sales from externally acquired design. So, do design activities that have been developed only with internal resources lead to a greater success than those that have been carried out with external sources of knowledge? Using a large cross-section of manufacturing and service firms, the effects on sales of products new to the market and of imitations or significantly improved products of the firm are investigated. At first glance, the findings indicate that externally acquired design is not superior to in-house design activities: the results show that only design activities that are mainly conducted with internal knowledge sources play a crucial role regarding the product innovation's success with market novelties. Design conducted in collaboration with external partners, however, has no significant influence. This is not the case for imitations, that is, products only new to the firm. Their success is also influenced by design activities developed with external collaborators. This effect is robust for several modifications of the model specification. In contrast to earlier literature on new technological developments, this paper argues that external design may not affect the sales of market novelties as the 'market news' may spill over quickly to rivals through common suppliers including external designers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The open innovation paradigm emphasises the importance of alliances for improving the innovation performance of firms. However, existing empirical research on innovation performance implications of alliances is dominated by cross-sectional studies. As a result, we do not know how the time frame of alliances might influence innovation performance. In this study, we therefore examine the impact of different time frames of alliance strategies on innovation performance. In order to do so, we collected panel data on 217 Flemish startup firms. The results show a positive association between 'discontinuous alliance strategies' with suppliers, customers and competitors and 'incremental' innovation performance. In addition, we find a positive impact of 'continuous alliance strategies' with suppliers, competitors and universities and other research institutes on 'radical' innovation performance. These findings encourage startup firms to balance their alliance portfolio not only in terms of different kinds of partners but also in terms of different kinds of time frames. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]