Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Open Innovation has been one of the most-debated topics in management research in the
last decade. Although our understanding of this management paradigm has significantly
improved over the last few years, a number of important questions are still unanswered. In
particular, an issue that deserves further attention is the anatomy of the organizational change
process through which a firm evolves from being a Closed to an Open Innovator. The paper
represents a first step in overcoming this limitation. In particular, adopting a longitudinal,
firm-level perspective, it addresses the following question: which changes in a firm’s organiza-
tional structures and management systems does the shift from Closed to Open Innovation
entail? In answering this question, the paper uses established concepts in organizational change
research to look into a rich empirical basis that documents the adoption of Open Innovation by
four Italian firms operating in mature, asset-intensive industries. The results show that the
journey from Closed to Open Innovation involves four main dimensions of the firm’s
organization, i.e. inter-organizational networks, organizational structures, evaluation pro-
cesses and knowledge management systems, along which change could be managed and
stimulated.
222 R&D Management 40, 3, 2010. r 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Unravelling the process from Closed to Open Innovation
firm’s organization and management systems earlier paradigms (Kuhn, 1962), and it must
(Chesbrough, 2003). Nevertheless, a systematic explain evidence beyond its initial area of inquiry
and longitudinal analysis of the process through to prove external validity (Yin, 2003).
which these dimensions are transformed by the The search for providing evidence to Kuhnian
adoption of Open Innovation is lacking. anomalies informed in particular the recent
The paper represents a first step in overcoming work of Henry Chesbrough (Chesbrough and
this limitation. In particular, adopting a firm-level Crowther, 2006; Chesbrough et al., 2006) and
perspective, it addresses the following main ques- other authors (e.g., Maula et al., 2006; West and
tion: which changes in a firm’s organizational Gallagher, 2006; Perkmann and Walsh, 2007),
structures and management systems does the shift who have mostly reflected on the theoretical
from Closed to Open Innovation entail? In an- implications of Open Innovation. This focus of
swering this question, the paper reports and recent research has left the issue of how Open
comments on a rich empirical basis that docu- Innovation is implemented in practice rather
ments the adoption of Open Innovation by four under-researched. Only scattered anecdotic evi-
Italian firms operating in mature, asset-intensive dence is indeed available about the process
industries. These data represent a source of valu- through which firms shift their organizational
able insights for research and development and managerial systems from a Closed to an
(R&D) managers who are interested in under- Open Innovation paradigm. For instance, Huston
standing and weighting the implications that a and Sakkab (2006) describe the different types of
shift towards a more open approach to innova- networks, either developed specifically to facil-
tion implies, as well as the organizational and itate innovation activities or already existing and
managerial solutions that might streamline this joined by the firm (e.g., InnoCentive) and the
pervasive transformation process. strategic planning processes that are at the heart
Change from Closed to Open Innovation is a of Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) model of Open
rather unexplored topic in both high-technology Innovation. Dodgson et al. (2006) further elabo-
and asset-intensive industries. However, our em- rate on the case of P&G by discussing the role
pirical and theoretical knowledge of the charac- played by information technologies (data mining
teristics of Open Innovation in low-tech and searching, simulation and modelling, virtual
environments remains very limited in comparison and rapid prototyping) in supporting the adop-
with high-tech environments (Chesbrough and tion of Open Innovation. Haour (2004) and
Crowther, 2006; Vanhaverbeke, 2006; van de Dittrich and Duyster (2007) focus on the way in
Meer, 2007). Our decision to focus on firms which networks for innovation are created and
belonging to mature, asset-intensive industries is managed, analysing the cases of the ‘distributed
believed therefore to make a stronger contribu- innovation’ system at Generics and the develop-
tion to the debate on the use and diffusion of ment of new-generation mobile phones at Nokia.
Open Innovation. Finally, Gassmann and Enkel (2004) identify
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 three core innovation processes (outside-in, in-
reviews the relevant literature on the implementa- side-out and coupled processes) that explain the
tion of Open Innovation, with a focus on mature, adoption of Open Innovation in practice.
asset-intensive industries. Section 3 develops a As far as the issue of external validity of Open
theoretical framework that was used as a lens to Innovation is concerned, it remains an open ques-
gather and interpret the data on the process of tion whether its underlying concepts apply to
implementation of Open Innovation. Section 4 lower technology or more mature industries.
motivates the design of the research and describes Only very recently have a few attempts been
how the case studies have been conducted. Section undertaken to study Open Innovation in low-
5 presents and discusses the results of the empirical tech, mature industries. Chesbrough and Crowther
analysis, whereas conclusions and future avenues (2006) survey 12 firms in the United States, identi-
for research are described in Section 6. fied as ‘early adopters’ of Open Innovation, in the
aerospace, chemicals, inks&coatings and consumer
packaged goods industries. The authors find that,
2. Literature review even if Open Innovation concepts are not wide-
spread in use, the firms in the sample clearly
In order to be recognized as a new paradigm for increased their leverage on external sources of
industrial innovation, Open Innovation must ac- innovation to complement their internal R&D
count for anomalies that are not fully explained in activities. Vanhaverbeke (2006) and van de Meer
(2007) study Dutch innovative SMEs operating in zational change involves variation in both current
different mature industries (e.g., food and bever- modes of action and cognition, in order to enable
age, chemicals, machinery and equipments) the organization to take advantage of internal
and find that the use of ‘importing mechanisms’ and external opportunities (Gioia and Chitti-
for accessing external sources of innovation is peddi, 1991); (ii) overcoming the Not-Invented-
rather diffused, whereas serious barriers are still Here and Not-Sold-Here syndromes is key in
perceived in the adoption of ‘exporting mechan- successfully introducing Open Innovation (Ches-
isms’, through which technologies are externally brough, 2003). Similarly, research has shown that
exploited. Taken together, these contributions inertia is the most challenging barrier towards
clearly indicate the prevalence of the inbound effective organizational change (e.g., Sastry, 1997;
over the outbound dimension of Open Innovation Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999); (iii) both the
in mature industries. adoption of Open Innovation and successful
This article addresses both these limitations of organizational change require the development
the extant literature, studying the process of im- of new organizational routines, e.g., evaluation
plementation of Open Innovation in firms belong- procedures and metrics of performance (Mar-
ing to mature and asset-intensive industries. In shak, 1993; Chesbrough, 2006); (iv) firms imple-
particular, its focus is on inbound Open Innova- menting Open Innovation have to undergo a
tion, because previous research has shown that it continuous process of experimentation, adapta-
is the prevailing dimension in these companies. tion and learning to pro-actively define their
business environment, as it occurs in organiza-
tional change initiatives (Burnes, 1992). There-
3. Reference framework fore, it is reasonable to conceive the journey from
Closed to Open Innovation as an organizational
In this section, we describe the reference frame- change process and hence to use the approaches
work that was used as a guide to gather and and instruments developed by organizational
interpret the empirical evidence collected through change research to unravel its characteristics.
the case studies. This framework has been devel- The way in which companies change their
oped by looking into both organizational change organization is a central topic in organizational
and Open Innovation research. studies. Van de Ven and Poole (2005) attempt to
organize different approaches used by scholars,
tracing them to different ontological views about
organizations (i.e. whether they are viewed as
3.1. Process of implementation of Open consisting of things or of processes) and different
Innovation epistemologies about the methods for studying
Implementing Open Innovation has a deep change (i.e. through variance theory, where
impact on the organization and management change is represented as a dependent variable
systems of the innovating firm. As noted by and statistically explained by a set of independent
Christensen (2006, p. 35), ‘Open Innovation can variables, or through process theory, where
be considered an organizational innovation’. change is explained as a temporal order and
Similarly, the barriers that IBM, P&G and Air sequence of events). Their analysis clearly indi-
Products had to overcome in their journey from cates that approaches conceiving of the organiza-
Closed to Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2006) tion as made of things (which are dominant in
closely resemble the dynamics underlying organi- empirically grounded organizational and social
zational change, as noted also by Deck (2008). science research) and explaining change as a
Differently put, an interesting parallel can be temporal order and sequence of events (which
drawn between the characteristics of organiza- are better suited to understand ‘how’ the process
tional change processes and the challenges that of change takes place) are more appropriate for
firms are confronted with in their journey towards the purpose of our multiple case-study analysis
Open Innovation: (i) Open Innovation does not (Tsouskas and Chia, 2002).
merely require a firm to intensify its relationships An established research stream on process
with external organizations throughout its inno- methods conceptualizes the process of change as
vation processes. Rather, it involves the use of the a sequence of interconnected phases or stages
business model as the cognitive device through (Fisher, 1970), which allows for ‘encapsulating
which decisions about innovation are evaluated the essentials of the richness of processes
and taken (Chesbrough, 2006). Similarly, organi- in a simpler account of stepwise development or
typical activities’ (Van de Ven and Poole, 2005). A They could also indeed be conceived as manage-
number of phase models have been developed rial levers on which a company can intervene to
over time (e.g., Kotter, 1995; Galpin, 1996). streamline its journey towards Open Innovation.
Armenakis and Bedeian (1999), in their review
of theory and research on organizational change, 3.2.1. Networks
show that all these models have originated from Empirical evidence clearly shows that firms imple-
the early work of Lewin (1947), who conceptua- menting Open Innovation require the establish-
lized the change process as progressing through ment of extensive networks of inter-organiza-
three main phases, namely unfreezing, moving tional relationships with a number of external
and institutionalizing. The first phase is con- actors, in particular universities and research
cerned with the establishment of a sense of institutions (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007), suppli-
urgency for change, the establishment of a ‘guid- ers (EmdenGrand et al., 2006) and users (von
ing coalition’ (Kotter, 1995) for championing it Hippel, 2005; Simard and West, 2006). Laursen
and the creation and communication of the new and Salter (2006) identify two variables that
vision to both internal and external stakeholders. describe the characteristics of a network for
The second phase concerns the actual implemen- innovation, namely its search breadth, which is
tation of change, through the establishment of defined as the number of external sources or
new procedures and patterns of behaviour con- search channels that firms rely on, and its search
sistent with the new vision, eventually acting on depth, which is defined as the extent to which
budget constraints, targets, schedules and reward firms draw from the different external sources or
systems. This phase is usually characterized by an search channels. Working on these variables,
experimental approach, through which the solu- increasing both search breadth and depth, firms
tions that are best suited to the firm’s endeavour are able to implement inbound Open Innovation.
are identified. Finally, the third phase involves the
institutionalization of the new order, through 3.2.2. Organizational structures
consolidating improvements achieved to prevent Effectively managing externally acquired knowl-
a slip back to the antecedent status quo. Arme- edge requires the development of complementary
nakis and Bedeian (1999) go further by suggesting internal networks (Hansen and Nohria, 2004), i.e.
that the Lewin’s model should be used as an organizational systems focused on accessing and
integrated and simplified framework to support integrating the acquired knowledge into the firm’s
further research into organizational change. innovation processes. Evidence shows that this
Consistent with Armenakis and Bedeian internal reorganization might concern: (i) organi-
(1999), we decided to adopt Lewin’s model as zational structures, e.g., the establishment of
an instrument to examine the journey from independent ‘Open Innovation’ business units
Closed to Open Innovation undertaken by the (Kirschbaum, 2005), or task forces and dedicated
firms in our sample. This choice was suggested cross-functional teams (Huston and Sakkab,
especially by the parsimony of the model, which 2006). (ii) Organizational roles, e.g., champions
divides the organizational change process into who lead the process of transition from Closed to
only three phases, thus improving the reliability Open Innovation (Chesbrough and Crowther,
of our empirically grounded research (Yin, 2003). 2006), or gatekeepers who manage the interface
between the firm and its external environment
(Tushman, 1977). (iii) Rewarding and incentive
systems, which should include more open-or-
3.2. Managerial levers for Open
iented goals and metrics (Chesbrough, 2003).
Innovation
Understanding the anatomy of the process from 3.2.3. Evaluation processes
Closed to Open Innovation requires identification Another key dimension where change entailed by
of the dimensions along which change occurs, in Open Innovation becomes manifest is the process
the three phases of the organizational change adopted to evaluate innovation opportunities and
process. Our framework identifies four dimen- projects. The openness of the innovation system
sions (namely networks, organizational struc- complicates this evaluation, because it determines
tures, evaluation processes and knowledge higher levels of technical and market uncertainty.
management systems) along which the change Under these circumstances, firms should learn to
required to become an Open Innovator takes play ‘poker’ as well as ‘chess’ (Chesbrough et al.,
place and, most importantly, can be stimulated. 2007), i.e. they need to use new evaluation criteria
to focus more on external sources of innovation. the use of IP protection systems enables inbound
As far as inbound Open Innovation is concerned, Open Innovation, as it prevents the opportunistic
the evaluation process should be designed to behaviours of the actors with which the firm
manage the higher uncertainty that analysing collaborates (Chesbrough, 2003).
technologies and opportunities developed outside The elements of the reference framework that
the firm’s boundaries entails. In this respect, have been discussed in the last paragraphs are
systems to systematically scan and continuously integrated and represented in Figure 1.
monitor the range of technologies available in the It is important to note that changes occurring
external environment (van de Vrande et al., 2006), along one of the four managerial levers that lie at
as well as new forms for the involvement of the heart of our framework necessarily have an
external sources of innovation through the stra- impact along the other levers. Although it is
tegic use of corporate venturing (Keil, 2002), beyond the scope of this paper to systematically
appear to have increasing importance. assess how each dimension is connected to each
other, it is important to comment on the nature of
3.2.4. Knowledge management systems their linkages and provide some examples of them
Finally, knowledge management systems repre- that are grounded in the existing literature. With
sent another area where Open Innovation im- the growth in the scope and size of the network of
pacts. Open Innovation is in fact all about external organizations or individuals from which
leveraging and exploiting knowledge generated to in-source knowledge and technologies, a firm
inside and even outside the firm, to develop and needs to develop dedicated ICT and, more
exploit innovation opportunities. Implementing broadly, knowledge management systems to sup-
Open Innovation requires therefore the use of port its operation (link between ‘networks’ and
knowledge management systems able to support ‘knowledge management systems’). This is exem-
the diffusion, sharing and transfer of knowledge plified by the cases of P&G with its Connect &
within the firm and with the external environ- Develop innovation management model (Dodg-
ment. For the purpose of this paper, we consider son et al., 2006) and the development of ‘The
both the use of Information and Communication Sims’ computer game (Prugl and Shreier, 2006).
Technology platforms and Intellectual Property Similarly, a timely and accurate evaluation of a
(IP) management systems. The role of ICT in high volume of technological opportunities and
supporting a shift towards Open Innovation has innovation projects generated in an Open Inno-
been widely acknowledged in the literature (Hus- vation environment requires the development and
ton and Sakkab, 2006; Piller and Walcher, 2006). use of dedicated ICT and knowledge management
The largest part of these technology platforms is systems (link between ‘evaluation processes’ and
used with the main purpose of facilitating the ‘knowledge management systems’). For instance,
inflow of knowledge from outside sources. This is both P&G (Huston and Sakkab, 2006) and BMW
the case, e.g., of the IT infrastructure used by (Stahl and Bergfeld, 2008) had designed centra-
P&G to collect ideas throughout its suppliers lized databases (respectively named Eureka and
network (Huston and Sakkab, 2006). Similarly, Technis) and automated ICT flow systems for
rapidly collecting, processing and evaluating in- facilitate the achievement of a critical mass in this
novation ideas and technologies emerging from activity (link between ‘organizational structures’
different sources both inside and especially out- and ‘knowledge management systems’). This link-
side the firm. Putting into practice these processes age is the subject of an entire chapter of the most
for the evaluation of technologies and innovation recent book by Henry Chesbrough (2006), where
opportunities emerging from external and hetero- the cases of Qualcomm, UTEK and Intellectual
geneous sources increases the need for a firm to Ventures are described.
establish dedicated organizational roles such as
technology gatekeepers and innovation cham-
pions (Gemunden et al., 2007). Similarly, new 4. Research methodology
organizational units are often created or re-con-
figured with the aim of concentrating heteroge- We decided to use case-study research as an
neous competencies and decisional authority (link overall methodological approach for our empiri-
between ‘evaluation processes’ and ‘organiza- cal investigation. As suggested by a number of
tional structures’). This is clear for instance in scholars, this is in fact a very powerful method for
the case of the Dutch multinational company building a rich understanding of complex phe-
DSM reported in Kirschbaum (2005) and in the nomena (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) that
case of Generics discussed by Haour (2004). requires the capability to answer to ‘how’ and
Similar changes at the organizational level are ‘why’ questions (Yin, 2003). In particular, we
also needed if a firm wishes to reduce the costs used a multiple case-study design, which was
involved in the operation of a broad and hetero- chosen as it allows both an in-depth examination
geneous network of external technology sources of each case and the identification of contingency
and to maximize its capability to capitalize on it variables that distinguish each case from the other
(link between ‘organizational structures’ and ‘net- (Eisenhardt, 1989).
works’). In this respect, Gassmann and Enkel The study involved four Italian firms from
(2004) describe how the re-configuration of the different industries (cement, concrete and steel
IBM R&D laboratory in Rüschlikon was needed pipes, chemicals, automotive brake systems) that
to improve the integration in the innovation were studied during the last year (see Table 1,
process of a broad network of customers and where real names have been blinded for confiden-
suppliers. Finally, improving IP management tiality reasons). In the beginning, a preliminary
capabilities and developing an IP-enabled busi- screening of Italian newspapers (see Chesbrough
ness model require a firm to establish both orga- and Crowther, 2006), carried out using a profes-
nizational roles that oversee the generation and sional database (see http://www.lexisnexis.com),
deployment of its IP and dedicated units that allowed us to identify 10 firms from mature, asset-
Company A Cement and h6.0 bn 23,700 0.5 250 Former head of corporate
concrete R&D Head of the IP office
Head of corporate R&D
Company B Steel pipes h10.0 bn 21,700 0.6 300 Head of corporate R&D
Coordinator of R&D and
technological innovation
projects Divisional product
development manager
Company C Adhesives h1.2 bn 4,700 6.7 170 Head of corporate R&D
and sealant Head of technical assistance
for buildings Coordinator of network
innovation projects
Company D Automotive h0.9 bn 4,300 5 400 Head of corporate R&D
brake systems Head of the IP office
Background information Networks At the beginning of the 1990s, the Leveraging on the social network The participation of the company
company retained a limited number of the head of R&D, the company to EU-funded research projects
The wave of globalization hit the of formal relationships with key started to establish formal allowed to involve a European
229
Table 2. (Contd.)
230
Company A Unfreezing (1991–1994) Moving (1995–2005) Institutionalizing (2006–)
231
closely with it’.
Table 2. (Contd.)
232
Company B Unfreezing (2002–2003) Moving (2004–2005) Institutionalizing (2006–)
Background information Networks Once appointed head of the newly Based on the social network of the In 2006, the company started a
created R&D unit, the new manager head of R&D, the company started a programme for creating a more
In the year 2002, recognizing an started involving in innovation number of formal relationships with established network with its key
increase in global competition, top activities a number of university main universities and research suppliers, making the transition
corporate management decided to professors and researchers he had centres. In Italy, this network rapidly from an ad hoc project-by-project
reorganize and concentrate all the previously met during his education grew in the years 2004–2005 to involvement towards a more
activities related to steel pipes, and his long career in the company include nearly 50 universities and structured involvement based on
which were previously distributed (when he was in charge of managing public research labs and consortia. potential for knowledge transfer in
in a number of loosely coupled basic research activities). Relationships were also established at given scientific and technological
the most innovative company in this (and associated grants) in the main technicians (‘gatekeepers’) within
field’ scientific areas of interest for the the technical assistance centre was
In the year 2002, a new independent company. created to constantly monitor new
233
Table 2. (Contd.)
234
Company B Unfreezing (2002–2003) Moving (2004–2005) Institutionalizing (2006–)
the field of steel pipes connections. Moreover, the company invested in A system of collection of project
gaining the access to scientific ideas from all employees (called
databases (e.g., Cilea, Science Direct) ‘long list’) was developed on the
and patent databanks, made company’s Intranet. Ideas
available to all employees through the collected are then screened once a
company’s Intranet. year by a pool of project managers
and the resulting ‘short list’ is
inserted into the normal
evaluation process for innovation
projects. The heads of R&D said:
‘we know Ibm does the same, and
even much better than us, but we
are still young in using such tools’.
Background information Networks The new head of R&D started its In 1998, a formal programme was The network with universities was
activities in the company with a started with Politecnico di Milano further enlarged by including
In the year 1994, the company clear programme in mind: ‘Without and Scuola Normale di Pisa to offer CNR – National Centre for
235
Table 2. (Contd.)
236
Company C Unfreezing (1995–1997) Moving (1998–2005) Institutionalizing (2006–)
237
Table 2. (Contd.)
238
Company D Unfreezing (2000–2002) Moving (2003–2005) Institutionalizing (2006–)
Background information Networks The company had a strong network The network was further In 2007, a cross-industries
including key players in the strengthened by increasing the consortium, named Intellimech,
Starting from the year 2000, in automotive industry. However, with number of collaborations with was established by the company
response to an increase in global the partial exception of racing universities (University of Munich, involving 18 industrial partners.
competition in the automotive teams, the involvement of Università degli Studi di Milano). The aim of the consortium was to
components market, the company customers in the innovation process Key customers, particularly high-end develop mechatronics solutions
decided to strengthen its presence was rather limited. automotive manufacturers, started for a number of potential
in foreign markets. The company In 2002, the new head of R&D becoming involved in innovation applications, even outside the
acquired manufacturing plants in started creating an innovation projects. automotive industry.
239
Davide Chiaroni, Vittorio Chiesa and Federico Frattini
trary, has almost always stressed the pivotal adoption of nanotechnology to improve the
role of the firm’s network as a key enabler of resistance of outdoor adhesives in company C.
the adoption of the new paradigm. In our The establishment of a firm-level inter-orga-
cases, it emerges that initially, it is the social nizational network, by leveraging the personal
networks of the managers in charge of R&D social networks of R&D managers. This net-
activities that allowed the firm to access im- work is mainly explorative in nature (March,
portant sources of technologies and innova- 1991), as companies need to explore new areas
tion rather than the firm-level one. This social of knowledge, different from the ones they
network comprises mostly relationships with have traditionally mastered. This implies that:
scientists at universities. Consistent with the (i) the depth of the network (Laursen and
perspective suggested by Perkmann and Salter, 2006) clearly prevails on its breadth, as
Walsh (2007), these inter-personal networks firms need to establish long-term formal re-
acted as antecedents to firm-level relation- lationships to maximize learning effects
ships. (March, 1991); (ii) the preferred partners are
universities. Relationships with universities,
In this unfreezing phase, it emerges that acting indeed, are less risky in terms of potential
on the firm’s knowledge management system to spillovers than others involving suppliers, cus-
improve IP management capabilities requires a tomers or even competitors. Focusing on uni-
firm to establish an independent organizational versities as external sources of technical
unit and dedicated organizational roles, which is knowledge is therefore consistent with the
an example of the link between the ‘organiza- low attitude of the companies towards IP
tional structures’ and the ‘knowledge manage- protection. In some cases (namely in compa-
ment systems’ dimensions of our framework. nies B and C), even an ad hoc organizational
structure has been created with the aim of
managing research collaborations with uni-
5.2. Moving versities in the relevant scientific areas.
The introduction of a more formalized eva-
In the moving phase of the transformation pro-
luation process for innovation projects de-
cess, after the need for a new approach to
signed to challenge the ‘traditional’ belief in
innovation has been fully established and com-
the superiority of the firm as the central locus
municated, Open Innovation is put into practice.
of innovation (Chesbrough, 2006), through
This step of the process is characterized by the
explicitly establishing procedures to assess
following aspects:
the potential and the opportunity to access
The establishment of an experimental field, i.e. external sources of technology, even beyond
a pilot project, for testing the practical im- the existing exploration network. In this eva-
plementation of Open Innovation. Around luation process, a relevant role is played by the
this project, the first bulk of the firms’ innova- IP Office, which defines mechanisms for facil-
tion network is created, mainly leveraging on itating knowledge transfer and for protecting
the existing social network of the Open In- companies from opportunistic behaviours
novation champion, and the solutions most (Chesbrough, 2006).
adequate to the characteristics of the firm are The introduction and empowerment of infor-
identified. The pilot project needs both to have mation technologies (Dodgson et al., 2006) for
the characteristics (in terms of the degree of supporting both project management activ-
innovativeness and requirements for accessing ities (e.g., videoconference devices, company’s
external sources of competences) that make it intranet, virtual project workspaces) and in-
a trustable testing field for the new approach novation scouting activities (e.g., scientific
to innovation and to be as clearly separated databanks, prior art and patent databanks).
from the rest of the innovation activities of the
company as to allow an independent measure The analysis shows how managing a growing
of its success or failure (Galpin, 1996; Arme- network of relationships with an external actor
nakis and Bedeian, 1999). This is the case for requires the establishment of a dedicated organi-
instance of the project on the development of zational unit to which the responsibilities for this
cement with photo-catalytic elements to be activity are concentrated. This exemplifies the
used for reducing cities’ pollution undertaken close link between the ‘networks’ and ‘organiza-
by company A, or the project about the tional structures’ dimensions in our framework.
Table 3. Anatomy of the organizational change process from Closed to Open Innovation in mature, asset-intensive
industries
Inbound dimension
Innovation, that has specific characteristics (e.g., voted to the management of innovation projects
the need to coordinate change at the level of both seems to be a strong signal that the status quo has
the firm’s internal and external organization), been unfrozen, although they do not interfere
which make it an interesting avenue of research. with established organizational processes and
As far as managerial implications are con- routines; (ii) the pivotal role of the social network
cerned, the model developed in the paper, and of the Open Innovation champion, which appears
especially the rich empirical basis that it discusses, to act as an antecedent and enabler of firm-level
provides R&D managers with a number of in- inter-organizational relationships; and (iii) the
sights that are useful to properly assess the importance of identifying a pilot project that
implications (and the costs) that a shift towards serves as a field test for the Open Innovation
a more open approach to innovation implies. procedures and practices to be fine tuned, become
Furthermore, they are provided several clues accepted and extended later on to the whole
about how to design and put into practice orga- organization.
nizational and managerial solutions able to Obviously, the paper has a number of limita-
streamline the pervasive transformation process tions that call for future research. First of all,
towards Open Innovation. In this respect, the because of the methodology that it uses, the
main points that deserve attention appear to be: results cannot be statistically generalized to other
(i) the fact that the journey towards Open In- firms with characteristics different from the ones
novation is triggered by a change in the organiza- that we studied. Future research is therefore
tional structure of the innovating firm. The needed to investigate, through either extensive
creation of independent organizational units de- surveys or, better, comparative multiple case
studies, whether and how the model developed in tion in mobile telephony. Journal of Product Innova-
this paper can be applied to companies operating tion Management, 24, 6, 510–521.
in technology-intensive industries, and in other Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Salter, A. (2006) The role
countries different from Italy or, more interest- of technology in the shift towards open innovation:
ingly, outside Europe. A fascinating aspect to the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management,
investigate could also be the role played by the 36, 3, 333–346.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case
firm’s governance system. In particular, it could
study research. Academy of Management Review, 14,
be interesting to answer the following ques-
4, 532–550.
tion: does the fact of being a private held (or Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007) Theory
even a family-owned) or a publicly traded com- building from case studies: opportunities and chal-
pany affect the propensity of a firm to initiate the lenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1, 25–32.
transition towards Open Innovation or top man- EmdenGrand, Z., Calantone, R.J. and Droge, C.
agement’s commitment in the change process? (2006) Collaborating for new product development:
selecting the partner with the maximum potential to
create value. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
References ment, 23, 4, 330–341.
Fisher, B.A. (1970) Decision emergence: phases in group
Armenakis, A.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (1999) Organiza- decision making. Speech Monographs, 37, 53–66.
tional change: a review of theory and research in the Galpin, T. (1996) The Human Side of Change: A
1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 3, 293–315. Practical Guide to Organization Redesign. San Fran-
Burnes, B. (1992) Managing Change: A Strategic Ap-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
proach to Organizational Development and Renewal.
Gassmann, O. (2006) Opening up the innovation pro-
London, UK: Pitman.
cess: towards and agenda. R&D Management, 36, 3,
Chakrabarti, A.K. (1974) The role of champion in
223–226.
product innovation. California Management Review,
Gassmann, O. and Enkel, E. (2004) Towards a Theory
17, 58–62.
of Open Innovation: Three Core Process Archetypes.
Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New
Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference,
Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technol-
Lisbon, Portugal, July 6-9.
ogy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Gemunden, H.G., Salomo, S. and Holzle, K. (2007)
Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open Business Models: How to
Role models for radical innovations in times of open
Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Boston:
innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management,
Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. and Crowther, A.K. (2006) Beyond 16, 4, 408–421.
high-tech: early adopters of open innovation in other Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991) Sensemaking
industries. R&D Management, 36, 3, 229–236. and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Stra-
Chesbrough, H., Lim, K. and Ruan, Y. (2007) Open tegic management journal, 12, 6, 433–448.
innovation and patterns of R&D competition. Work- Goodman, P.S. and Dean, J.W. (1982) Creating long
ing Paper No. 12.07. term organizational change. In: Goodman, P.S. (ed.)
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006) Change in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey–
Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Ox- Bass, pp. 226–279.
ford: Oxford University Press. Hansen, M.T. and Nohria, N. (2004) How to build
Christensen, J.F. (2006) Wither core competency for collaborative advantage. Sloan Management Review,
the large corporation in an open innovation world? 46, 1, 22–30.
In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. Haour, G. (2004) Resolving the Innovation Paradox:
(eds), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Enhancing Growth in Technology Companies. Lon-
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–61. don, UK, Palgrave MacMillan.
Christensen, J.F., Olesen, M.H. and Kjaer, J.S. (2005) Huston, L. and Sakkab, N. (2006) Connect and de-
The industrial dynamics of open innovation – evi- velop: inside Procter&Gamble’s new model for in-
dence from the transformation of consumer electro- novation. Harvard Business Review, 86, 3, 58–66.
nics. Research Policy, 34, 1533–1549. Kaplan, S., Murray, F. and Henderson, R. (2003)
Clark, C.E., Cavanaugh, N.C., Brown, C.V. and Sam- Discontinuities and senior management: assessing
bamurthy, V. (1997) Building change-readiness cap- the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm re-
abilities in the IS organization: insights from the Bell sponse to biotechnology. Industrial and Corporate
Atlantic Experience. MIS Quarterly, 21, 4, 425–455. Change, 12, 4, 203–233.
Deck, M.J. (2008) Open business models: how to thrive in Keil, T. (2002) External Corporate Venturing: Strategic
the new innovation landscape – book review. Journal Renewal in Rapidly Changing Industries. West Port,
of Product Innovation Management, 25, 406–408. CT: Quorum Books.
Dittrich, K. and Duyster, G. (2007) Networking as a Kirschbaum, R. (2005) Open innovation in practice.
means to strategy change: the case of Open Innova- Research-Technology Management, 48, 4, 24–28.
Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: why transformation van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C. and Vanhaverbeke, W.
efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73, 2, 59–67. (2006) Choosing governance modes for external tech-
Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. nology sourcing. R&D Management, 36, 3, 347–363.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006) The interorganizational con-
Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006) Open for innovation: text of open innovation. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanha-
the role of openness in explaining innovation perfor- verbeke, W. and West, J. (eds), Open Innovation:
mance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
Management Journal, 27, 131–150. versity Press.
Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics. Human von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Cam-
Relations, 1, 5–41. bridge, MA: MIT Press.
March, J.G. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in or- West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006) Challenges of open
ganizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 1, 71–87. innovation: the paradox of firm investment in
Marshak, R.J. (1993) Managing the metaphors of open-source software. R&D Management, 36, 3,
change. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 1, 44–56. 319–331.
Maula, M.V.J., Keil, T. and Salmenkaita, J.-P. (2006) Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and
Open innovation in systemic innovation contexts. In: Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J.
(eds), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davide Chiaroni is Assistant Professor at the
Orlikowski, W.J. and Hofman, J.D. (1997) An impro- Department of Management, Economics and in-
visational model for change management: the case of dustrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano. His
groupware technologies. Sloan Management Review, main research areas are Open Innovation and
38, 2, 11–22. strategic management in high-tech industries. He
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007) University-indus-
is the author of two books and of more than 40
try relationships and open innovation: towards a
research agenda. International Journal of Manage-
papers, including articles in R&D Management,
ment Reviews, 9, 4, 259–280. Technovation, International Journal of Technology
Piller, F.T. and Walcher, D. (2006) Toolkits for idea com- Management and International Journal of Entre-
petitions: a novel method to integrate users in new pro- preneurship and Innovation Management.
duct development. R&D Management, 36, 3, 307–318.
Prugl, R. and Shreier, M. (2006) Learning from lead- Vittorio Chiesa is Full Professor of R&D Strategy
ing-edge customers at The Sims: opening up the and Organisation at Politecnico di Milano. He is
innovation process using toolkits. R&D Manage- a member of the Faculty of MIP – the Business
ment, 36, 3, 237–250. School of Politecnico di Milano, where he is
Sastry, M.A. (1997) Problems and paradoxes in a responsible for the Technology Strategy area.
model of punctuated organizational change. Admin- His main research interests are in R&D manage-
istrative Science Quarterly, 42, 2, 237–275.
ment and organization, technology strategy and
Simard, C. and West, J. (2006) Knowledge networks
international R&D. He has published six books
and the geographic locus of innovation. In: Ches-
brough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds),
and more than 100 papers, including 40 articles in
Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Ox- leading international journals such as the Journal
ford: Oxford University Press. of Product Innovation Management, IEEE Trans-
Stahl, M. and Bergfeld, M-M. (2008) BMW group: actions on Engineering Management and Interna-
strategic framework for global innovation to enhance tional Journal of Operations and Production
the efficiency of global R&D. In: Boutellier, R., Management.
Gassmann, O. and von Zedtwitz, M. (eds), Managing
Global Innovation. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Federico Frattini is Assistant Professor at the
Tsouskas, H. and Chia, R. (2002) On organizational Department of Management, Economics and in-
becoming: rethinking organizational change. Orga- dustrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano.
nization Science, 13, 5, 567–582. His research interests are in R&D performance
Tushman, M.L. (1977) Special boundary roles in the
measurement, the organization of R&D activities
innovation process. Administrative Science Quar-
and the commercialization of innovation in high-
terly, 22, 587–605.
van de Meer, H. (2007) Open innovation – the Dutch tech markets. He has published more than 50
treat: challenges in thinking in business models. papers, including articles in the Journal of Product
Creativity and Innovation Management, 6, 2, 192–202. Innovation Management, R&D Management,
van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (2005) Alternative Journal of Engineering and Technology Manage-
approaches for studying organizational change. ment and International Journal of Technology
Organization Studies, 26, 9, 1377–1404. Management.