Search

Recently, increasing attention has been paid to entrepreneurial ecosystems and the process of their formation and function. Researchers have noted the important role that intermediary organizations such as incubators play in connecting various actors within ecosystems. Yet our understanding of this role is limited to a few empirical insights. Using resource dependence and embeddedness as theoretical lenses, the present research examines the role of incubators in entrepreneurial ecosystem formation and function, and analyzes how intermediation activities shape collaboration patterns embedded within entrepreneurial ecosystems. Our findings are based on an empirical investigation of two entrepreneurial ecosystems, one in Kenya and one in Uganda. Our analysis of 38 semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurial actors in these ecosystems reveals the underlying structural, operational, and relational conditions that influence the actors’ interaction with each other. We propose three collaboration patterns that emerge among actors in entrepreneurial ecosystems under these conditions: one-sided dependency-based, joint dependency-based, and mutual dependency-based collaborations. We discuss these patterns in detail and identify the circumstances in which each is most likely to occur. This empirical setting clearly shows that beyond their primary roles of providing space, network, and advice to entrepreneurs, intermediary organizations in entrepreneurial ecosystems play a significant role in orchestrating collaborations. Finally, we reflect on the limitations of this study and offer implications for future research.

The role green businesses can play in a transition to a more sustainable society is an emer-gent area of questioning that has attracted the attention of both environmental and business aca-demics. Different disciplines have contributed to a growing base of literature, yet a few key gaps exist, such as how green companies balance economic and environmental concerns and how green businesses operate as hybrid organizations. Utilizing ethnographic tools including observations and semi‐structured interviews, this study closely analyses a born green company. The study attempts to identify how the green entrepreneurial company creates and captures environmental, economic, and social value as well as how these three types of value are interrelated. The study refrains from economic quantification of environmental and social value, instead focusing on identifiable in-stances of value creation and capture. This is conducted out of a recognition of non‐substitutability concerns to give equal footing to different forms of value, therefore, avoiding some of the economic biases present in previous research. It is suggested that environmental and economic value can have a complementing or competing relationship depending on how the business uses its resources. A four‐stage model is proposed, highlighting how this reflexive and dynamic relationship can influence firm performance. The potential benefits of social value creation by green businesses are iden-tified as an overlooked and under‐researched area that could have a significant impact on firm per-formance. Built on the nexus of hybrid organizations and green entrepreneurship, this study con-tributes to theory and practice by unpacking hybrid ways of creating and capturing value.

PurposeThere is little known about investigating the importance of all proximity dimensions simultaneously as a result of geographical proximity on university-industry collaborative innovation. This paper aims to answer the question of how geographically proximate university and industry influence cognitive, social, organizational, institutional and cultural proximity within university-industry joint laboratories and finally, what is the outcome of these interplays on collaborative innovation.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses an exploratory multiple-case study approach. The results are derived from 53 in-depth, semistructured interviews with laboratory directors and representatives from both the company and the university within 8 joint laboratories of Telecom Italia (TIM). The data collection was carried out in 2014 and 2015. The analysis follows a multi-grounded theory approach and relies on a mix of deductive and inductive reasoning with the final goal of theoretical elaboration.FindingsThis study finds the role of social and cultural proximity at the individual level as a result of geographical proximity as an enabler of collaborative innovation by triggering mutual learning, trust formation and frequent interactions. Cognitive proximity at the interface level could systematically influence collaborative innovation, while organizational and institutional proximity has marginal roles in facilitating collaborative innovation. The qualitative analysis offers a conceptual framework for proximity dimensions and collaborative innovation within university-industry joint laboratories.Practical implicationsThe framework not only advances state-of-the-art university-industry collaboration and proximity dimension but also offers guidance for managers in designing collaborative innovation settings between university and industry.Originality/valueWith this study, the paper advances the understanding be

This research explores how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) manage external stakeholders during open innovation (OI) processes. To date, extensive literature has explored OI within large organisations, however, there is limited understanding of how SMEs can strategically manage stakeholders during different stages of OI projects. Using a multi-grounded theory approach, 11 cases of SME OI projects were analysed across four regions within Europe. The findings reveal a wide range of primary and secondary stakeholders with varying levels of power and dependency were leveraged across the different stages of the OI projects. A model is presented which advances knowledge on how to map, analyse and manage stakeholders strategically in a SME-OI context. Our research helps advance theory on SME-OI stakeholder management processes and reveals appropriate stakeholder management strategies, which will assist SME managers in alleviating the SME-OI paradox.

This paper focuses on how companies deploy structural properties of adaptive capacity (multiplexity, redundancy and loose coupling) to cope with the phenomenon of internal challenges of Open Innovation (OI) implementation, i.e. organisational and cultural changes. We developed a single case study, which offered significant findings. First, the multiplexity of relationships in OI settings helps to face the challenges of organisational and cultural changes by triggering trust formation and interaction. Second, redundancy has twofold elements: institutional logics redundancy triggers cultural change challenges which can be overcome through management practices and communications; task redundancy facilitates knowledge sharing and collaboration, thus helping to deal with organisational change challenges. Finally, loose coupling in OI settings facilitates social interconnectedness among members through management practices, helping to face organisational and cultural change challenges. We provide managerial and theoretical implication to deal with the challenges of OI in relation to both organisational and cultural changes.

In this article, we explore and interpret organizational identity transformation associatedwith the open innovation strategy of the largest telecommunication company in Italy, Telecom Italia(TIM). When TIM established eight joint laboratories within five major Italian universities to benefitfrom opening its business model, it transferred some R&D employees to the new laboratories to workwith the university scientists. This organizational transformation imposed challenging conditions forR&D employees engaged in the open innovation activities of the firm. We conducted an interpretativephenomenological analysis (IPA) to answer the question of “how do R&D employees experience theimplementation of an open innovation strategy from an organizational identity perspective?” Our analysisis based on the interpretation of the lived experiences of 14 employees. Studying the phenomenon ofopen innovation implementation using the lens of organizational identity suggests the following: (1) Theprocess of open innovation through mobility of skilled R&D employees triggers organizational identityambiguity and change, (2) Organizational identity ambiguity phase in the process of open innovationcan be shortened by the support of parent company and managerial skills highlighting sensemakingmechanisms, (3) Constructing a shared organizational identity with university members involved in thisprocess is an undeniable element of OI success. We contribute to the literature by establishing linkagesamong organizational identity and open innovation and building on recent works on the role of individualswithin open innovation ecosystems. Our qualitative analysis draws on a conceptual framework for openinnovation and organizational identity transformation

Scientific knowledge dissemination is necessary to collaboratively develop solutions to today’s challenges among scientific, public, and commercial actors. Building on this, recent concepts (e.g., Third Mission) discuss the role and value of different dissemination mechanisms for increasing societal impact. However, the value individual scientists receive in exchange for disseminating knowledge differs across these mechanisms, which, consequently, affects their selection. So far, value capture mechanisms have mainly been described as appropriating monetary rewards in exchange for scientists’ knowledge (e.g., patenting). However, most knowledge dissemination activities in science do not directly result in capturing monetary value (e.g., social engagement). By taking a value capture perspective, this article conceptualizes and explores how individual scientists capture value from disseminating their knowledge. Results from our qualitative study indicate that scientists’ value capture consists of a measureable objective part (e.g., career promotion) and a still unconsidered subjective part (e.g., social recognition), which is perceived as valuable due to scientists’ needs. By advancing our understanding of value capture in science, scientists’ selection of dissemination mechanisms can be incentivized to increase both the value captured by themselves and society. Hence, policy makers and university managers can contribute to overcoming institutional and ecosystem barriers and foster scientists’ engagement with society., Scientific knowledge dissemination is necessary to collaboratively develop solutions to today’s challenges among scientific, public, and commercial actors. Building on this, recent concepts (e.g., Third Mission) discuss the role and value of different dissemination mechanisms for increasing societal impact. However, the value individual scientists receive in exchange for disseminating knowledge differs across these mechanisms, which, consequently, affects their selection. So far, value capture mechanisms have mainly been described as appropriating monetary rewards in exchange for scientists’ knowledge (e.g., patenting). However, most knowledge dissemination activities in science do not directly result in capturing monetary value (e.g., social engagement). By taking a value capture perspective, this article conceptualizes and explores how individual scientists capture value from disseminating their knowledge. Results from our qualitative study indicate that scientists’ value capture consists of a measureable objective part (e.g., career promotion) and a still unconsidered subjective part (e.g., social recognition), which is perceived as valuable due to scientists’ needs. By advancing our understanding of value capture in science, scientists’ selection of dissemination mechanisms can be incentivized to increase both the value captured by themselves and society. Hence, policy makers and university managers can contribute to overcoming institutional and ecosystem barriers and foster scientists’ engagement with society.

University–industry collaborations are an important driver of innovation that highlights the benefits of collaborative processes across organizational boundaries. However, like in most collaborative processes, many challenges remain when trying to manage the process of knowledge sharing and interaction in university–industry partnerships. In this chapter, the authors specifically investigate how leadership as a managerial dimension facilitates collaboration within university–industry joint laboratories. The authors present an explorative and inductive case study of eight joint laboratories set up by Telecom Italia within five major Italian universities. The results show that the laboratory directors play a crucial role in providing a dynamic and socially active working environment, which is enabled through a process of sensemaking and sensegiving. The authors, moreover, find that this process plays a crucial role by shaping effective communication channels that facilitate knowledge sharing and transfer of information. The authors find that this process ultimately acts as a mediator between charismatic leadership on the individual level and distributed leadership on the collective level., University–industry collaborations are an important driver of innovation that highlights the benefits of collaborative processes across organizational boundaries. However, like in most collaborative processes, many challenges remain when trying to manage the process of knowledge sharing and interaction in university–industry partnerships. In this chapter, the authors specifically investigate how leadership as a managerial dimension facilitates collaboration within university–industry joint laboratories. The authors present an explorative and inductive case study of eight joint laboratories set up by Telecom Italia within five major Italian universities. The results show that the laboratory directors play a crucial role in providing a dynamic and socially active working environment, which is enabled through a process of sensemaking and sensegiving. The authors, moreover, find that this process plays a crucial role by shaping effective communication channels that facilitate knowledge sharing and transfer of information. The authors find that this process ultimately acts as a mediator between charismatic leadership on the individual level and distributed leadership on the collective level.

Capturing value from scientific knowledge has been described in the context of university-industry collaborations and science-based entrepreneurship. Value capture mechanisms aim to ensure a mainly monetary reward from the exchange of the value created (e.g., by patenting or licensing). However, most common knowledge dissemination mechanisms in science do not directly result into capturing monetary value. This leads to the paradoxical situation that scientists engage in value creation (i.e., scientific knowledge production) without anticipating to capture value. This study doubts that scientists act economically irrational. We explore how value capture principles work in science and how this affects the willingness to engage in value creation by distinguishing between use value and exchange value. Our findings show that the realized exchange value for scientists does not only consist of an objective monetary part, but also of a subjective part. This subjective exchange value is considered as valuable due to scientists needs (i.e., academic survival, egoidentity status validation, and societal impact). The desire to satisfy these needs drives scientists’ willingness to engage in scientific knowledge production. Our findings entail three theoretical contributions. First, we add to the understanding of value capture in science by exploring the scientists-specific relationship between value creation, value capture and their realized use and exchange value, as well as the underlying reasons why the realized exchange value is considered as valuable. Second, we discuss these findings in the light of open science. Third, we point on the importance to consider individual-level factors to assess value capture in science., Capturing value from scientific knowledge has been described in the context of university-industry collaborations and science-based entrepreneurship. Value capture mechanisms aim to ensure a mainly monetary reward from the exchange of the value created (e.g., by patenting or licensing). However, most common knowledge dissemination mechanisms in science do not directly result into capturing monetary value. This leads to the paradoxical situation that scientists engage in value creation (i.e., scientific knowledge production) without anticipating to capture value. This study doubts that scientists act economically irrational. We explore how value capture principles work in science and how this affects the willingness to engage in value creation by distinguishing between use value and exchange value. Our findings show that the realized exchange value for scientists does not only consist of an objective monetary part, but also of a subjective part. This subjective exchange value is considered as valuable due to scientists needs (i.e., academic survival, egoidentity status validation, and societal impact). The desire to satisfy these needs drives scientists’ willingness to engage in scientific knowledge production. Our findings entail three theoretical contributions. First, we add to the understanding of value capture in science by exploring the scientists-specific relationship between value creation, value capture and their realized use and exchange value, as well as the underlying reasons why the realized exchange value is considered as valuable. Second, we discuss these findings in the light of open science. Third, we point on the importance to consider individual-level factors to assess value capture in science.

This chapter highlights the role of university-industry collaboration in generating innovation. It provides an overview of the actors’ motives for collaboration, the most common barriers and drivers of this type of inter-organizational relationships, and reviews the types of collaborative links. Moreover, this chapter introduces various online tools for bridging the academia and the industry and presents some real cases of university-business collaboration. The chapter is supplemented by pedagogical guidelines, evaluation questions, teaching tips and suggestions for reading., This chapter highlights the role of university-industry collaboration in generating innovation. It provides an overview of the actors’ motives for collaboration, the most common barriers and drivers of this type of inter-organizational relationships, and reviews the types of collaborative links. Moreover, this chapter introduces various online tools for bridging the academia and the industry and presents some real cases of university-business collaboration. The chapter is supplemented by pedagogical guidelines, evaluation questions, teaching tips and suggestions for reading.

The purpose of this study is to understand the influence of geographical proximity on other proximity dimensions within university-industry cooperative research centers. Many aspects of the relationship between proximity and innovation have been researched, but the interplay between geographical proximity and other proximity dimensions in this particular socioeconomic setting has not been deeply investigated. To advance our understanding in this context, our multiple-case study addresses the question of how geographically proximate university and industry influence cognitive, social, organizational, institutional, and cultural proximity within university-industry joint laboratories. Our results are derived from 53 in-depth interviews with laboratory directors and employees, and representatives from both the company and the university within eight joint laboratories of Telecom Italia (TIM). We find that geographical proximity helps to shed light on the performance of university-industry collaboration by influencing proximity dimensions. We specifically identify the significant role of geographical proximity on social and cultural proximity specifically at micro level. Our qualitative analysis draws on a conceptual framework for proximity dimensions and university-industry cooperative research centers. Our findings provide specific insights that advance the literature in proximity as well as university-industry collaborations., The purpose of this study is to understand the influence of geographical proximity on other proximity dimensions within university-industry cooperative research centers. Many aspects of the relationship between proximity and innovation have been researched, but the interplay between geographical proximity and other proximity dimensions in this particular socioeconomic setting has not been deeply investigated. To advance our understanding in this context, our multiple-case study addresses the question of how geographically proximate university and industry influence cognitive, social, organizational, institutional, and cultural proximity within university-industry joint laboratories. Our results are derived from 53 in-depth interviews with laboratory directors and employees, and representatives from both the company and the university within eight joint laboratories of Telecom Italia (TIM). We find that geographical proximity helps to shed light on the performance of university-industry collaboration by influencing proximity dimensions. We specifically identify the significant role of geographical proximity on social and cultural proximity specifically at micro level. Our qualitative analysis draws on a conceptual framework for proximity dimensions and university-industry cooperative research centers. Our findings provide specific insights that advance the literature in proximity as well as university-industry collaborations.

The purpose of this study is to understand the role of leadership in bridging the cultural gap within university-industry cooperative research centres. Many different aspects of university-industry collaborations have been researched, but the role of leadership in such organizations has not been deeply investigated. In order to advance our understanding in this context, our multiple case study addresses the question of how leadership bridges the cultural divide within university-industry joint laboratories. Our results are derived from 53 in-depth interviews with laboratory directors and employees representatives from both the company and the university within eight joint laboratories of Telecom Italia. We find that leadership theories help to shed light on the performance of university-industry collaboration. We specifically identify charismatic leadership at the individual level followed by distributed leadership practices at the collective level as being crucial in bridging the cultural divide between individuals within university-industry research centres. Our qualitative analysis draws on an analytical framework for leadership of university-industry cooperative research centres. Our findings provide specific insights that advance the literature in management of university-industry collaborations as well as leadership theories., The purpose of this study is to understand the role of leadership in bridging the cultural gap within university-industry cooperative research centres. Many different aspects of university-industry collaborations have been researched, but the role of leadership in such organizations has not been deeply investigated. In order to advance our understanding in this context, our multiple case study addresses the question of how leadership bridges the cultural divide within university-industry joint laboratories. Our results are derived from 53 in-depth interviews with laboratory directors and employees representatives from both the company and the university within eight joint laboratories of Telecom Italia. We find that leadership theories help to shed light on the performance of university-industry collaboration. We specifically identify charismatic leadership at the individual level followed by distributed leadership practices at the collective level as being crucial in bridging the cultural divide between individuals within university-industry research centres. Our qualitative analysis draws on an analytical framework for leadership of university-industry cooperative research centres. Our findings provide specific insights that advance the literature in management of university-industry collaborations as well as leadership theories.

In this article, we explore and interpret organizational identity transformation associated with open innovation strategy of the largest telecommunication company in Italy, Telecom Italia (TIM). When TIM established eight joint laboratories within five major Italian universities to benefit from opening its business model, it transferred some of the R&D employees to the new laboratories to work with the university scientists. This organizational transformation created underexplored conditions for R&D employees engaged in the open innovation activities of the firm. Our interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) answers the question of “How do R&D employees experience organizational identity change in the process of open innovation?”. We based our analysis on interpreting lived experiences of 14 employees. Studying the phenomena of organizational identity change during the process of open innovation implementation suggests the following: (1) The process of open innovation through mobility of skilled R&D employees triggers organizational identity ambiguity and change, (2) Organizational identity ambiguity phase in the process of open innovation can be shortened by the support of parent company and managerial skills highlighting sensemaking mechanisms, (3) Constructing a shared organizational identity with university members involved in this process is an undeniable element of OI success for this strategy. We contribute to the literature by establishing linkages among organizational identity and open innovation and by building on recent works on the role of individuals within open innovation ecosystem. Our qualitative analysis draws on a conceptual framework for open innovation and organizational identity transformation.