DISSERTATION PROPOSAL (Draft) -...

UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS

DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

(Draft)

Student: Kaja Rangus

Supervisor: Doc. dr. Igor Prodan

Ljubljana, September 2011

INDEX

1 PROPOSED TITLE .............................................................................................................. 1

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DISSERTATION TOPIC AREA AND THE ISSUES THAT

THE DISSERTATION ADDRESSES .................................................................................... 1

2.1 Broad scope of research .................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Narrow scope of research ................................................................................................. 2

3 RESEARCH TOPIC, QUESTIONS AND GOALS ........................................................... 7

3.1 Research questions ........................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Research goals .................................................................................................................. 8

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 8

4.1 Research methodology of the first paper .......................................................................... 8

4.2 Research methodology of the second and third paper ...................................................... 9

5 CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE ............................................... 10

6 PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION ........................ 11

7 LITERATURE USED IN THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL .................................... 12

8 PROPOSED LITERATURE FOR THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION ................... 15

Dissertation proposal Kaja Rangus

1

1 PROPOSED TITLE

English: Open innovation proclivity: Construct development, determinants and outcomes

Slovenian: Nagnjenost k odprtemu inoviranju: Razvoj konstrukta, determinante in rezultati

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DISSERTATION TOPIC AREA AND THE

ISSUES THAT THE DISSERTATION ADDRESSES

The field of my doctoral dissertation is entrepreneurship, which is a part of business and

organizational science.

2.1 Broad scope of research

In the past, most technology-oriented companies focused on developing new technologies

within the company, which were applied only in their products and services (Chesbrough,

2003c). Companies followed a closed approach to innovation, in which their interaction with

the environment was strictly limited (Lichtenthaler, 2008). In view of a closed innovation

model “successful innovation requires control” (Chesbrough, 2004), therefore all research and

development (R&D) activities are performed internally with little or no inclusion of other

employees or external partners (Praest Knudsen & Botker Mortensen, 2011). Companies that

innovate in the closed model are strongly self-reliant, they generate, develop, build, market,

distribute, service, finance and support all their ideas on their own (Chesbrough, 2004).

However, the complexity and increasing costs of R&D activities, the shortening of the

technology life cycles, the presence of highly qualified and educated suppliers and customers,

raising number and mobility of experienced workers, the growth and accessibility of venture

capitalists and the worldwide distribution of knowledge from universities and research labs

make the innovation process more and more difficult and hard to manage (Vanhaverbeke,

2006). Consequently, the inhouse R&D laboratory is no longer the main source of ideas,

commercialization can also occur outside the traditional markets of the enterprise and the role

of the protection of the intellectual property (IP) is losing its importance (Teirlinck &

Spithoven, 2008). Even though in reality not many firms use completely closed approach to

innovation, the complexity of the development within and outside the innovation field forces

companies to direct the innovation processes towards the openness (Huizingh, 2011).

Companies have to team up to develop and absorb novelties, commercialize new technologies

as well as to follow the latest improvements and developments (Vanhaverbeke, 2006).

In contrast to vertically integrated model where internal R&D activities lead to internally

developed products, open innovation also includes the use of external sources of innovation

and creates the ability to make a profit despite the support of external partners (Almirall &

Casadesus-Masanell, 2010; Chesbrough, 2003b; Lee, Park, Yoon, & Park, 2010; van de


2

Vrande, de Jong, Vanhaverbeke, & de Rochemont, 2009; Wallin & von Krogh, 2010; West,

2006). Open innovation paradigm assumes that useful knowledge of high quality is widely

distributed and even the most capable and sophisticated companies cannot develop

technologies without the help of external sources (Chesbrough, 2006). Open innovation

suggests that the companies should use broad range of knowledge sources, including

customers, suppliers, universities, national labs, consortia, consultants, start-ups (Chesbrough,

2003b), spin-offs from large established firms, individual inventors (Chesbrough, 2006) as

well as firms in unrelated industries or even competitors (Wallin & von Krogh, 2010) and at

the mean time creative exploit firm`s IP (Chesbrough, 2003b). Following open innovation

approach makes the boundaries between company and surrounding environment more porous

(Wallin & von Krogh, 2010) and enables the knowledge flow and ideas to move easily inside

and outside the boundaries for co-creation of new and improved technologies (Gassmann &

Enkel, 2004; Minshall, Mortara, Napp, & Slacik, 2009). Companies operate as part of a larger

network, which creates added value for customers (Vanhaverbeke, 2006). They buy or license

technologies from others and at the same time take their inventions outside the company

through licensing, joint venture and spin-offs (Chesbrough, 2006). Additionally to traditional

commercialization at the existent markets companies applying open innovation concept can

commercialize ideas through channels outside their current businesses (e.g. establishment of

startup company, licensing agreements) and in this way create additional value (Chesbrough,

2006). Furthermore, company can also in license ideas generated outside of firm`s boundaries

for commercialization (Chesbrough, 2003a). Some companies are searching for external

knowledge, which they want to incorporate internally; others are looking for external markets

for their existing technologies (West & Gallagher, 2006b).

2.2 Narrow scope of research

Although there is an increasing number of studies in the field of open innovation, several gaps

exist in the literature. Prior studies are mostly dedicated to the theoretical explanation of the

concept (e.g. Almirall & Casadesus-Masanell, 2010; Chesbrough, 2006; Chesbrough &

Garman, 2009; Mäkipää, Ahonen, & Mäntymäki), or representation of case studies (e.g.

Chesbrough, 2003b; Di Gangi & Wasko, 2009; Langvardt, 2010; Pontiskoski & Asakawa,

2009; Rohrbeck, Holzle, & Gemunden, 2009). A handful of studies analyze issues in large-

scale studies (e.g. Lichtenthaler, 2008; van de Vrande et al., 2009). Most of the studies so far

have been focused either on external technology acquisition or external technology

exploitation, and did not consider joint perspective (Lichtenthaler, 2008). Additionally, the

intangible nature of this construct makes it difficult to conceptualize and define all dimensions

that form it. Despite the fact that absorptive capacity is a vital component for successful

implementation of inbound open innovation, little attention is paid to connection between this

concept and open innovation (Spithoven, Clarysse, & Knockaert, 2010). Besides, only few

articles analyze management in open innovation, although there is a clear emphasis on the

role of the managers to support people striving to be innovative (Elmquist, Fredberg, & Ollila,

2009). In order to narrow the literature gap the dissertation will focus on construct


3

development of open innovation proclivity and empirical testing of proposed hypothesis

related to absorptive capacity and personal characteristics of managers.

The research of the first paper will focus on the development of a valid and reliable

measure of open innovation proclivity.

Despite the fact that number of scholars and practitioners emphasize the importance of open

innovation for firm performance, the literature in this field still lacks the conceptualization

and measure of open innovation. Additionally, a variety definitions and focal points for open

innovation have been used, which do not cohere into a suitable analytical framework and this

makes it difficult to evaluate the influence of open innovation on firm`s performance

(Dahlander & Gann, 2010). West et al. (2006) state that with new paradigm also new

operationalizations for measuring open innovation construct should be developed, whereas

Enkel et al. (2009) claim that the open innovation processes are difficult to evaluate because

only first measurement approaches are identified.

To my knowledge only van de Vrande et al. (2009) systematically describe the practices of

open innovation. They distinguish between technology exploitation and technology

exploration, but the measure is neither clearly defined nor conceptualized operationalized or

measured. Additionally, their practices should be more narrowly defined in order to acquire

more precise view on open innovation (van de Vrande et al., 2009). The first survey that

attempts to empirically examine the proclivity of open innovation was published by Hung and

Chiang (2010). The construct introduces some of the steps recommended for development of

the measure. Hung and Chiang (2010) base the open innovation proclivity on the theory

provided by Chesbrough; more detailed on his open innovation principles. The scale consists

of eight questions that are answered on a 1 (highly disagree) to 5 (highly agree) Likert items.

Although Hung and Chiang (2010) conducted several exploratory and follow up interviews

with their expert panel to improve and verify their primary scale of open innovation

proclivity, in my opinion the scale is not entirely sufficient, since it only contains some parts

of the open innovation proclivity such as collaboration and selling/buying of IP, whereas it

does not measure anything connected to venturing, external participation, employee and

customer involvement, which are all important elements of open innovation. Besides,

collaboration with people outside the company is only mentioned and the scale does not

distinguish between different types of partnerships. It does not take into account that the

nature of most companies is such that they have to cooperate with at least one partner.

Additionally, the survey is only conducted in one country and only among electronic products

manufacturers.

Open innovation can be presented in many forms, therefore these multi-dimensions of the

concept should be kept in mind when forming open innovation measurement (Huizingh,

2011). The open innovation process requires also taking into consideration the complex social

interactions between several participants (Sorensen, Mattsson, & Sundbo, 2010).


4

Lichtenthaler (2011) claims that it is “unrealistic to expect immediate performance increases

as a consequence of opening up the innovation process”, because managers first have to

identify the need and develop organizational capabilities for managing open innovation.

Furthermore, this concept may be an important approach to help managers identify new

opportunities (Lichtenthaler, 2011). Open innovation proclivity assesses the extent to which a

firm adopts the open innovation approach (Hung & Chiang, 2010). Therefore, in my opinion,

the measure of open innovation proclivity is appropriate proxy of company`s innovation

direction.

In order to fill the gaps in previous research, refined multidimensional measure of open

innovation proclivity will be developed in the first paper. The basis for the conceptual

framework is research provided by van de Vrande et al. (2009) where elements will be

supplemented and presented in detail, according to the theory and case studies.

The theoretical findings point out that the open innovation proclivity is a second-order factor

construct composed of 8 items.

Figure 1: The conceptual model of open innovation proclivity

Source: Adapted from van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M.: Open

innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges, 2009.

The research topic of the second paper will focus on the relationship between open

innovation proclivity and absorptive capacity and their influence on business

performance.

To gain additional benefits from external sources of information company has to identify

relevant knowledge and integrate it into its innovation processes (West & Gallagher, 2006a).

Therefore, the key pre-condition for internalizing external knowledge is the firm`s ability to

recognize and adapt externally acquired technologies (Spithoven et al., 2010; van de Vrande,

Lemmens, & Vanhaverbeke, 2006). This is known as absorptive capacity which is defined as

a “set of organizational routines and processes by which firms acquire, assimilate, transform,

and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic organizational capability” (Zahra & George,

2002).


5

Absorptive capacity is critical to its innovative capabilities and is related to the firm`s level of

former knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Thus, internal technology development can

strengthen the firm`s ability to recognize and adapt external knowledge (Lazzarotti, Manzini,

& Pellegrini, 2010; van de Vrande et al., 2006). Firms that operate under open innovation

principles are expected to invest in their absorptive capacity (Tether & Tajar, 2008).

Escribano, Fosfuri, & Tribó (2009) show that firms with higher levels of absorptive capacity

identify and exploit external knowledge flows more efficiently, stimulate innovative outcomes

and consequently gain competitive advantage. According to van de Vrande, Vanhaverbeke, &

Gassman (2010) absorptive capacity is a concept that has a strong potential to be coupled to

open innovation.

Although several scholars (e.g. Hughes & Wareham, 2010; Laursen & Salter, 2006;

Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2009; Spithoven et al., 2010) emphasize that there is a

relationship between absorptive capacity and open innovation no empirical examination has

been done to prove this relationship. Therefore the second paper of the doctoral dissertation

will examine the influence of absorptive capacity on open innovation proclivity of the firm

and their impact on business performance.

Figure 2: The relationship between open innovation proclivity, absorptive capacity and

business performance

The third paper will focus on the relationship between open innovation proclivity and

personal characteristics of managers and their influence on innovation performance.

Gassmann, Enkel, & Chesbrough (2010) state that implementation of open innovation starts

with a mindset. Mindsets of managers that need to realize that external ideas and expertise can

create significant value for the company and should be brought internally (Wallin & von

Krogh, 2010). Firm has to establish specific management mechanisms and develop different

OPEN INNOVATION

PROCLIVITY

BUSINESS

PERFORMANCE

ABSORPTIVE

CAPACITY


6

tools, processes and structures for successful management of diverse open innovation

processes (Lichtenthaler, 2011).

One of the most important tasks of the managers is to promote innovation and entrepreneurial

culture across the organization (Igartua, Garrigos, & Hervas-Oliver, 2010). Traditional

management thinking causes serious problems to most managers trained in this manner at

introducing the new concept of open innovation into the business practice, which makes the

implementation of open innovation so challenging (Wallin & von Krogh, 2010). The direction

of the company development generally depends on the set of biases, beliefs, and assumptions

that managers built on their previous experiences (Pontiskoski & Asakawa, 2009). Adapting

open innovation concept requires new decisions in developing and exploiting innovation

activities embraced by managers (Huizingh, 2011). If managers are able to effectively manage

the open innovation activities the open innovation may positively affect firm`s innovation

success and performance (Lichtenthaler, 2011). Managers must pay particular attention also to

softer, non-technical issues of motivation, different knowledge types and adjusted governance

(Wallin & von Krogh, 2010).

Chiaroni et al. (2011) emphasize the critical role of top management in implementing the

concept of open innovation. In their view the implementation of open innovation requires the

innovating firm to act upon a number of managerial levers which cause the changes towards

openness. Elmquist et al. (2009) raise the question about the new role and charisma of the

managers in changing organizations to become more oriented towards open innovation, as

well as a need to understand the individuals that participate in the open innovation scheme.

They also emphasize the role of managers to motivate not only their employees but also other

actors participating in their innovation processes. The importance of the top management in

implementing the open innovation concept is also stressed in the case of P&G where all

novelties and changes are made by the leaders (Huston & Sakkab, 2007).

Although there is a clear emphasis on the role of the managers to orient towards the open

innovation only few articles actually analyze the influence of the top management on

introducing and implementing this concept. Therefore the third paper of the doctoral

dissertation will examine the influence of personal characteristics of managers on open

innovation proclivity and their impact on innovation performance.


7

Figure 3: The relationship between open innovation proclivity, personal characteristics of

managers and innovation performance

3 RESEARCH TOPIC, QUESTIONS AND GOALS

The dissertation will involve open innovation as a central topic and will be written in the form

of publishable papers. First paper will deal with the problem of the open innovation

measurement. My intention is to define, conceptualize and measure the open innovation

proclivity. The proposed measure will be empirically tested in at least two countries. I will

also examine how open innovation proclivity influences firm`s innovation and business

performance. The measure of open innovation proclivity is the first research area of my

doctoral dissertation, while remaining two papers will focus on the influence of absorptive

capacity and personal characteristics of managers on open innovation proclivity as well as on

the firm`s innovation and business performance.

3.1 Research questions

In my dissertation I will try to answer the following research questions:

Research question 1: Which items constitute the open innovation proclivity?

Research question 2: How open innovation proclivity influences firm`s performance?

Research question 3: How firm`s absorptive capacity influences open innovation

proclivity?

Research question 4: How firm`s absorptive capacity influences firm`s performance?

Research question 5: How personal characteristics of managers influence open innovation

proclivity?

Research question 6: How open innovation proclivity influences innovation performance?

Research question 7: How personal characteristics of managers influence innovation

performance?

OPEN INNOVATION

PROCLIVITY

PERSONAL

CHARACTERISTICS

OF MANAGERS

INNOVATION

PERFORMANCE


8

3.2 Research goals

The goal of my research is the development of refined multidimensional measure of open

innovation proclivity which will be cross-culturally generalizable and empirical testing of the

influence of absorptive capacity and personal characteristics of managers on open innovation

proclivity as well as their influence on firm`s business and innovation performance.

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The doctoral dissertation will be structured in the form of collection of scientific papers. The

methodology of the papers is presented in this section.

4.1 Research methodology of the first paper

This section discusses development of the open innovation proclivity scale. I will follow

DeVellis (2003) procedures for developing reliable and valid measure of open innovation

proclivity. DeVellis (2003) procedures comprise of clear definition of what we want to

measure, generation of an item pool, determination of the format for measurement, initial

review by experts, inclusion of the validation items, administration of the items to a

development sample, evaluation of the items and optimization of the scale length.

Firstly the critical literature review in the field of open innovation will be carried out. The

basis for data collection will be online bibliographic databases, such as Science Direct,

Proquest, EBSCOhost, Emerald Fulltext, Google Scholar, Google Books and others.

Furthermore all the latest issues of the most important journals in the field of innovation and

entrepreneurship, such as Technovation, Research Policy, Journal of Business Venturing,

Entrepreneurship and Practice, Academy of Management Journal, will be reviewed. That will

present the basis for the determination of the main items of the open innovation proclivity.

The following step is generation of the item pool which reflects the field of open innovation

proclivity. The items will be validated by structured interviews with entrepreneurs and expert

judges. The format for measurement will be the seven point Likert scale. Furthermore the

questionnaire will be validated by foreign expert judges in the field of open innovation, which

will enable international validity of the scale. Afterwards, I will carry out a focus group,

where participants will take part in a discussion of each item in terms of suitability,

uniqueness and ability to convey the intended meaning. The questionnaire will be prepared in

English, translated into Slovenian language and later back translated (Van de Vijver &

Hambleton, 1996). After that the pilot study will be carried out on a sample of 30 Slovenian

entrepreneurs to collect their opinion and feeling about the questions.


9

On this base the final version of questionnaire will be prepared for final validation of the

measure of open innovation proclivity. The questionnaire will include all relevant questions

that indicate the proclivity towards open innovation. It will be distributed to 3000 randomly

chosen entrepreneurs via e-mail. To enhance the response rate the reminder will be send to

recipients after a week, and again after two weeks (Dillman, 2007). The questionnaire will be

carried out in Slovenia and in at least one foreign country which will ensure the cross-culture

validation. After the data collection, the reliability and validity of the measure will be

evaluated. The analysis will identify the most appropriate number of factors, explained by

different number of items. The final step will consist of discriminant validity, which will

show that open innovation proclivity is a distinct construct in relation to other entrepreneurial

constructs and confirmatory factor analysis in order to test the factorial validity of the results

that were conducted by exploratory factor analysis. On this base the final measure of open

innovation proclivity will be prepared. Above discussed detailed description of the scale

development is presented in the Figure 4.

Figure 4: Development of the scale for open innovation proclivity

4.2 Research methodology of the second and third paper

Due to the related concepts of the study, the structure of the second and third paper will be

very similar.

Firstly the critical literature review in the field of absorptive capacity and personal

characteristics of managers will be carried out. I will follow the same steps for literature

review as described under research methodology of the first paper. Based on the literature

review, a survey instrument for absorptive capacity and personal characteristics of managers will


10

be developed. The questionnaire will be prepared in English, translated into Slovenian

language and later back translated (Van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996). After that the pilot

study will be carried out on a sample of 20 Slovenian entrepreneurs to collect their feedback.

Their comments will be considered in the final questionnaire. The final questionnaire will be

distributed to 3000 randomly chosen entrepreneurs via post. To enhance the response rate the

reminder will be send to recipients after a week, and after two weeks an electronic version of

the survey (Dillman, 2007). The questionnaire will be carried out in Slovenia and in at least

one foreign country which will ensure the cross-culture validation.

The data gathered will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlations analyses,

ANOVA, reliability tests, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and

structural equation modeling.

5 CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE

The contribution to the field of knowledge will be twofold. From a theoretical perspective, the

dissertation addresses the problem of measuring and identifying the practices that shape the

concept of open innovation. It will present a comprehensive literature review in the field of

open innovation and develop refined multidimensional measure of open innovation proclivity.

The research will culminate in the first multidimensional measure of open innovation

proclivity which will be cross-culturally generalizable. The scale will be appropriate for

examination in wide variety of industries, from manufacturing to service firms and will not be

limited only to large corporations, but will also be relevant for smaller firms. Additionally,

research will also show how absorptive capacity and different personal characteristics of

managers influence open innovation proclivity as well as how these constructs impact on

firm`s business and innovation performance.

From a practical point of view, the construct developed in the first paper and empirical testing

of proposed hypothesis from the second and third paper can help managers at incorporating

open innovation in their company. The study will present in detail several possibilities of

implementing open innovation practices. Using the proposed model, companies will be able

to identify the abilities they possess for exploitation of internal knowledge and exploration of

the knowledge and technology from outside.


11

6 PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION

Introduction

1. Development and validation of a scale for measuring open innovation proclivity

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Theoretical background

1.3. Methodology and data collection

1.4. Findings

1.5. Conclusion, limitations, implications and future research

1.6. References

2. The influence of absorptive capacity on open innovation proclivity

2.1. Introduction



2.4. Findings


2.6. References

3. The role of personal characteristics of managers in the orientation towards open

innovation

3.1. Introduction



3.4. Findings


3.6. References

Conclusion

4. References


12

7 LITERATURE USED IN THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of

discovery and divergence Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27-47.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,

44(3), 1-9.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting

from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). Open platform innovation: Creating value from internal and

external innovation. Intel Technology Journal, 7(3), 5–9.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management,

47(1), 23-26.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial

innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open

innovation: researching a new paradigm (pp. 0-19): Oxford University Press.

Chesbrough, H. W., & Garman, A. R. (2009). How open innovation can help you cope in lean

times. Harvard business review, 87(12), 68.

Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). The Open Innovation Journey: How firms

dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm.

Technovation, 31(1), 34-43.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning

and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1).

Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-

709.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications: Sage Publications, Inc.

Di Gangi, P. M., & Wasko, M. (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user

innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm.

Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 303-312.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method: John Wiley &

Sons Inc.

Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T., & Ollila, S. (2009). Exploring the field of open innovation.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 326-345.

Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation:

exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.

Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The

moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96-105.

Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process

archetypes.

Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D

Management, 40(3), 213-221.

Hughes, B., & Wareham, J. (2010). Knowledge arbitrage in global pharma: a synthetic view

of absorptive capacity and open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 324-343.


13

Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.


Hung, K. P., & Chiang, Y. H. (2010). Open innovation proclivity, entrepreneurial orientation,

and perceived firm performance. International Journal of Technology Management,

52(3), 257-274.

Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2007). Implementing open innovation. Research-Technology

Management, 50(2), 21-25.

Igartua, J. I., Garrigos, J. A., & Hervas-Oliver, J. L. (2010). How innovation management

techniques support an open innovation strategy Research Technology Management,

53(3), 41-52.

Langvardt, A. W. (2010). Building the pipeline through an "open innovation" strategy and a

focus on ethics: An interview with Young-Jin Kim, CEO and Chairman of Handok

Pharmaceuticals Co. Business Horizons, 53(2), 101-104.

Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining

innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management

Journal, 27(2), 131-150.

Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Pellegrini, L. (2010). Open innovation models adopted in

practice: an extensive study in Italy. Measuring Business Excellence, 14, 11-23.

Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs-An intermediated

network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290-300.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Open innovation in practice: an analysis of strategic approaches to

technology transactions. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 55(1), 148-

157.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open Innovation: Past Research, Current Debates, and Future

Directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75-93.

Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A Capability Based Framework for Open

Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies,

46(8), 1315-1338.

Mäkipää, M., Ahonen, M., & Mäntymäki, M. Developmental steps from closed innovation to

open innovation. Retrieved from

http://www.uta.fi/~mikko.ahonen/IRIS29_final_Makipaa_Ahonen_Mantymaki.pdf

Minshall, T., Mortara, L., Napp, J., & Slacik, I. (2009). How to implement open innovation:

lessons learned from studying large multinational companies. Management

Technology Policy, 1-56.

Pontiskoski, E., & Asakawa, K. (2009). Overcoming barriers to open innovation at Apple,

Nintendo and Nokia. International Journal of Social Sciences, 53(1).

Praest Knudsen, M., & Botker Mortensen, T. (2011). Some immediate - but negative - effects

of openness on product development performance. Technovation, 31(1), 54-64.

Rohrbeck, R., Holzle, K., & Gemunden, H. G. (2009). Opening up for competitive advantage

- How Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management,

39(4), 420-430.


14

Sorensen, F., Mattsson, J., & Sundbo, J. (2010). Experimental methods in innovation

research. Research Policy, 39(3), 313-322.

Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise

inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130-141.

Teirlinck, P., & Spithoven, A. (2008). The spatial organization of innovation: Open

innovation, external knowledge relations and urban structure. Regional Studies, 42(5),

689-704.

Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for

innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-

base. Research Policy, 37(6-7), 1079-1095.

Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines.

European Psychologist, 1(2), 89.

van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open

innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,

29(6-7), 423-437.

van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes

for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(1), 347-363.

van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Broadening the scope of

Open Innovation: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of

Technology Management, 52(3/4), 221-235.

Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). The inter-organizational context of open innovation. In H. W.

Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a new

paradigm (pp. 205-219).

Wallin, M. W., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for Open Innovation: Focus on the

Integration of Knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145-154.

West, J. (2006). Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation? In H. W. Chesbrough,

W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a new paradigm

(pp. 109-133).

West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006a). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm

investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319-331.

West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006b). Patterns of open innovation in Open Source software. In H.

W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a

new paradigm (pp. 82-106).

West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open Innovation: A Research

Agenda. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation:

researching a new paradigm (p. 285).

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (Writers). (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review,

reconceptualization, and extension [Article], Academy of Management Review:

Academy of Management.


15

8 PROPOSED LITERATURE FOR THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION

Abrahăo, S., Gómez, J., & Insfran, E. (Writers). (2010). Validating a size measure for effort

estimation in model-driven Web development [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2010.05.031].

Acha, V. (2007). Open by design: the role of design in open innovation. Department of

Innovation, Universities and Skills.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human

decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. C., & Aren, S. (2007). Emotional and learning capability

and their impact on product innovativeness and firm performance. Technovation,

27(9), 501-513.

Allarakhia, M., Kilgour, D. M., & Fuller, J. D. (2010). Modelling the incentive to participate

in open source biopharmaceutical innovation. R&D Management, 40(1), 50-66.

Almeida, F. L., Oliveira, J. M., & Cruz, J. M. (2009). Paths to Accomplish a Successful Open

Innovation 2.0 Strategy. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(3), 131-140.

Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of

discovery and divergence Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27-47.

Antikainen, M., Mäkipää, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Motivating and supporting collaboration

in open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(1), 100-119.

Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-

cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495-527.

Antoncic, B., & Prodan, I. (2008). Alliances, corporate technological entrepreneurship and

firm performance: Testing a model on manufacturing firms. Technovation, 28(5), 257-

265.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta

analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.

Asakawa, K., Nakamura, H., & Sawada, N. (2010). Firms' open innovation policies,

laboratories' external collaborations, and laboratories' R&D performance. R&D

Management, 40(2), 109-123.

Awazu, Y., Baloh, P., Desouza, K. C., Wecht, C. H., Kim, J., & Jha, S. (2009). Information-

Communication Technologies Open Up Innovation. Research-Technology


Aylen, J. (2009). Open versus closed innovation: development of the wide strip mill for steel

in the United States during the 1920s. R&D Management, 40(1), 67-80.

Bahemia, H., & Squire, B. (2010). A Contingent Perspective Of Open Innovation In New

Product Development Projects. International Journal of Innovation Management

(ijim), 14(04), 603-627.

Bargas-Avila, J. A., Lötscher, J., Orsini, S., & Opwis, K. (2009). Intranet satisfaction

questionnaire: Development and validationof a questionnaire to measure user

satisfaction with the Intranet. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1241-1250.

Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Open, semi-open and closed innovators: Towards an explanation of

degree of openness. Industry & Innovation, 17(6), 577-607.


16

Belussi, F., Sammarra, A., & Sedita, S. R. (2010). Learning at the boundaries in an "Open

Regional Innovation System": A focus on firms' innovation strategies in the Emilia

Romagna life science industry. Research Policy, 39(6), 710-721.

Bergman, J., Jantunen, A. R. I., & Saksa, J.-M. (2009). Enabling open innovation process

through interactive methods: Scenarios and group decision support systems

International Journal of Innovation Management, 13, 139-156.

Bianchi, M., Campodall'Orto, S., Frattini, F., & Vercesi, P. (2010). Enabling open innovation

in small and medium sized enterprises: how to find alternative applications for your

technologies. R&D Management, 40(4), 414-431.

Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., & Chiesa, V. (2011). Organisational

modes for Open Innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: An exploratory

analysis. Technovation, 31(1), 22-33.

Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public

Management Review, 11, 15-33.

Boscherini, L., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2010). How to use pilot projects to

implement Open Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim),

14(06), 1065-1097.

Bowonder, B., Dambal, A., Kumar, S., & Shirodkar, A. (2010). Innovation strategies for

creating competitive advantage Research Technology Management, 53(3), 19-32.

Bughin, J., Chui, M., & Johnson, B. (2008). The next step in open innovation. The McKinsey

Quarterly, June, 22-29.

Caetano, M., & Amaral, D. C. (2011). Roadmapping for technology push and partnership: A

contribution for open innovation environments. Technovation, 31(7), 320-335.

Caligiuri, P. M., Jacobs, R. R., & Farr, J. L. (2000). The Attitudinal and Behavioral Openness

Scale: scale development and construct validation. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 24(1), 27-46.

Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its

conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 707-715.

Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2011). Knowledge creation and absorptive capacity: The effect of

intra-district shared competences. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1), 66-86.

Chandler, A. D. (1992). Organizational capabilities and the economic history of the industrial

enterprise. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(3), 79-100.

Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: the

constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2), 119-150.

Cheng, C. J., & Shiu, E. C. C. (2008). Re-innovation: The construct, measurement, and

validation. Technovation, 28(10), 658-666.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2002). Making sense of corporate venture capital. Harvard business

review, 80(3), 90-99.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,

44(3), 1-9.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property.

California Management Review, 45(3), 33-58.


17

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting

from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open platform innovation: Creating value from internal and

external innovation. Intel Technology Journal, 7(3), 5–9.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management,

47(1), 23-26.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). New puzzles and new findings. In H. W. Chesbrough, W.

Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a new paradigm.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial

innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open

innovation: researching a new paradigm (pp. 0-19): Oxford University Press.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2007). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation

landscape. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2007). Open Innovation and Patterns of R&D Competition. The

University of Melbourne.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2010). Bringing Open Innovation to Services. Retrieved from

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/2011-winter/52211/bringing-open-

innovation-to-services/

Chesbrough, H. W. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long

Range Planning, 43(2-3), 354-363.

Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California

Management Review, 50(1), 57.

Chesbrough, H. W., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open

innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229-236.

Chesbrough, H. W., & Euchner, J. (2011). Open service innovation: An interview with Henry

Chesbrough Research Technology Management, 54(2), 12-17.

Chesbrough, H. W., & Euchner, J. (2011). Open service innovation: An iterview with Henry

Chesbrough. Research Technology Management, 54(2), 12-17.

Chesbrough, H. W., & Garman, A. R. (2009). How open innovation can help you cope in lean

times. Harvard business review, 87(12), 68.

Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a

new paradigm: Oxford University Press, USA.

Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2007). Assessing open innovation in biotechnology.

Paper presented at the The XVIII ISPIM Conference – “Innovation for Growth: the

Challenges for East & West”, Warsaw, Poland.

Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2010). Unravelling the process from closed to open

innovation: evidence from mature, asset-intensive industries. R&D Management,

40(3), 222-245.

Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). The Open Innovation Journey: How firms

dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm.


Christensen, J. F. (2006). Whither core competency for the large corporation in an open


18

innovation world? In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open

innovation: researching a new paradigm (pp. 35-61).

Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H., & Kjar, J. S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of Open

Innovation--Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research

Policy, 34(10), 1533-1549.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.

Journal of marketing research, 16(1), 64-73.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning

and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1).

Collins, L. (2010). Green Communications Consortia Demonstrate Increasing Importance of

Open Innovation. Research Technology Management, 53(4), 3-5.

Conca, F. J., Llopis, J., & Tarí, J. J. (2004). Development of a measure to assess quality

management in certified firms. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(3),

683-697.

Cooke, P. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation:

Exploring Globalisation 2'--A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy,

34(8), 1128-1149.

Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-

709.

Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. G. (2005). Relationships between open source software

companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms. Research Policy, 34(4),

481-493.

De Faria, P., Lima, F., & Santos, R. (2010). Cooperation in innovation activities: The

importance of partners. Research Policy, 39(8), 1082-1092.

Deng, X., Doll, W. J., & Cao, M. (2008). Exploring the absorptive capacity to

innovation/productivity link for individual engineers engaged in IT enabled work.

Information & Management, 45(2), 75-87.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications: Sage Publications, Inc.

Di Gangi, P. M., & Wasko, M. (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user

innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm.

Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 303-312.

Di Minin, A., Frattini, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2010). Fiat: Open innovation in a downturn (1993-

2003). California Management Review, 52(3), 132-159.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method: John Wiley &

Sons Inc.

Dittrich, K., & Duysters, G. (2007). Networking as a means to strategy change: the case of

open innovation in mobile telephony. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

24(6), 510-521.

Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open

innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36(1), 333-346.

Dreyfuss, R. C. (2011). Evaluating the public impact of open innovation. Australian

Economic Review, 44(1), 66-72.


19

Drummond, M. (2011). Unlocking open innovation. Inventors' Digest, 27(2), 17.

Du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J. A. A. M., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Omta, O. (2009).

The challenges of collaborative knowledge creation in open innovation teams. Human

Resource Development Review, 8(3), 350.

Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T., & Ollila, S. (2009). Exploring the field of open innovation.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 326-345.

Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation:

exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.

Eriksson, K., & Chetty, S. (2003). The effect of experience and absorptive capacity on foreign

market knowledge. International Business Review, 12(6), 673-695.

Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The

moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96-105.

Euchner, J. A. (2010). Two Flavors of Open Innovation. Research-Technology Management,

53(4), 7-8.

Fabrizio, K. (2006). The use of university research in firm innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough,

W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation; researching a new paradigm.

Oxford University Press, London.

Fabrizio, K. R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy,

38(2), 255-267.

Faems, D., De Visser, M., Andries, P., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Technology alliance

portfolios and financial performance: Value enhancing and cost increasing effects of

open innovation*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 785-796.

Ferrary, M. Specialized organizations and ambidextrous clusters in the open innovation

paradigm. European Management Journal, In Press, Corrected Proof.

Fichter, K. (2009). Innovation communities: the role of networks of promotors in Open

Innovation. R and D Management, 39(4), 357-371.

Flatten, T. C., Engelen, A., Zahra, S. A., & Brettel, M. (2011). A measure of absorptive

capacity: Scale development and validation. European Management Journal, 29(2),

98-116.

Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2005). Penguins, camels, and other birds of a feather:

Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities.

free/open source research community), available at http://opensource. mit.

edu/papers/ emingwaguespack. pdf.

Forbes, B., Asgharian, B., Dailey, L. A., Ferguson, D., Gerde, P., Gumbleton, M. Challenges

in inhaled product development and opportunities for open innovation. Advanced

Drug Delivery Reviews, In Press, Corrected Proof.

Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community members as a source of

innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 608-619.

Galende, J., & de la Fuente, J. M. (2003). Internal factors determining a firm's innovative

behaviour. Research Policy, 32(5), 715-736.

Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., & Luzzi, A. (2007). The market for patents in Europe. Research

Policy, 36(8), 1163-1183.


20

Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D

Management, 36(3), 223-228.

Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process

archetypes.

Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D

Management, 40(3), 213-221.

Graham, S. J. H., & Mowery, D. C. (2006). The use of intellectual property in software:

implications for open innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West

(Eds.), Open Innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press. New

York.

Grand, S., von Krogh, G., Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (2004). Resource allocation beyond firm

boundaries: A multi-level model for Open Source innovation. Long Range Planning,

37(6), 591-610.

Gronlund, J., Sjodin, D. R., & Frishammar, J. (2010). Open Innovation and the Stage-Gate

Process: A revised model for new product development California Management

Review, 52(3), 106-131.

Gruber, M., & Henkel, J. (2006). New ventures based on open innovation-an empirical

analysis of start-up firms in embedded Linux. International Journal of Technology

Management, 33(4), 356-372.

Gwynne, P. (2007). Open innovation's promise and perils. Research Technology


Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate

data analysis (7 ed.): Prentice hall Upper Saddle River.

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development:

Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs.

Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98-107.

Harison, E., & Koski, H. (2010). Applying open innovation in business strategies: Evidence

from Finnish software firms. Research Policy, 39(3), 351-359.

Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded

Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953-969.

Hernández-Espallardo, M., Sánchez-Pérez, M., & Segovia-López, C. Exploitation- and

exploration-based innovations: The role of knowledge in inter-firm relationships with

distributors. Technovation, In Press, Corrected Proof.

Hernández-Mogollon, R., Cepeda-Carrión, G., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Leal-Millán, A.

(2010). The role of cultural barriers in the relationship between open-mindedness and

organizational innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(4),

360-376.

Herstad, S. J., Bloch, C., Ebersberger, B., & Van De Velde, E. (2010). National innovation

policy and global open innovation: exploring balances, tradeoffs and

complementarities Science & Public Policy (SPP) (Vol. 37, pp. 113-124): Beech Tree

Publishing.

Hinkin, T. R. (1995) A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations.


21

Vol. 21. Journal of Management (pp. 967-988): Sage Publications, Ltd.

Holmes, S., & Smart, P. (2009). Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit

engagements: a corporate social responsibility perspective. R&D Management, 39(4),

394-409.

Hughes, B., & Wareham, J. (2010). Knowledge arbitrage in global pharma: a synthetic view

of absorptive capacity and open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 324-343.

Huizingh, E., Conn, S., & Torkkeli, M. (2011). ISPIM special issue on open innovation.


Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.


Hung, K. P., & Chiang, Y. H. (2010). Open innovation proclivity, entrepreneurial orientation,

and perceived firm performance. International Journal of Technology Management,

52(3), 257-274.

Hüsig, S., & Kohn, S. (2011). "Open CAI 2.0" - Computer Aided Innovation in the era of

open innovation and Web 2.0. Computers in Industry, In Press, Corrected Proof.

Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop. Harvard business review, 84(3), 58-

66.

Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2007). Implementing open innovation. Research-Technology


Igartua, J. I., Garrigos, J. A., & Hervas-Oliver, J. L. (2010). How innovation management

techniques support an open innovation strategy Research Technology Management,

53(3), 41-52.

Iivari, N. (2010). Discursive construction of user innovations in the open source software

development context. Information & Organization, 20, 111-132.

Jaw, C., Lo, J.-Y., & Lin, Y.-H. (2010). The determinants of new service development:

Service characteristics, market orientation, and actualizing innovation effort.


Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., García-Morales, V. J., & Molina, L. M. (2011). Validation of

an instrument to measure absorptive capacity. Technovation, 31(5-6), 190-202.

Johannessen, J.-A. (2008). Organisational innovation as part of knowledge management.

International Journal of Information Management, 28(5), 403-412.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work

questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure.

The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51-69.

Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). Determinants and archetype users of open

innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), 331-341.

Kim, C., Laroche, M., & Tomiuk, M. A. (2001). A measure of acculturation for Italian

Canadians: scale development and construct validation. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 25(6), 607-637.

Kirschbaum, R. (2005). Open innovation in practice. Research-Technology Management,

48(4), 24-28.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the


22

replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.

Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioannou, G. Absorptive capacity,

innovation, and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, In Press,

Corrected Proof.

Lagnevik, M. (2003). The dynamics of innovation clusters: a study of the food industry:

Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lai, J.-Y., & Ong, C.-S. (2010). Assessing and managing employees for embracing change: A

multiple-item scale to measure employee readiness for e-business. Technovation,

30(1), 76-85.

Lakhani, K. R., & von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works. Research Policy,

32(6), 923-943.

Lamastra, C. R. (2009). Software innovativeness. A comparison between proprietary and

Free/Open Source solutions offered by Italian SMEs. R&D Management, 39(2), 153-

169.

Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational

learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477.

Langvardt, A. W. (2010). Building the pipeline through an "open innovation" strategy and a

focus on ethics: An interview with Young-Jin Kim, CEO and Chairman of Handok

Pharmaceuticals Co. Business Horizons, 53(2), 101-104.

Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining

innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management

Journal, 27(2), 131-150.

Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Pellegrini, L. (2010). Open innovation models adopted in

practice: an extensive study in Italy. Measuring Business Excellence, 14, 11-23.

Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs-An intermediated

network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290-300.

Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2006). Users' contributions to radical innovation:

evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D

Management, 36(1), 251-272.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Externally commercializing technology assets: An examination of

different process stages. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 445-464.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Integrated roadmaps for open innovation. Research-Technology


Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Open innovation in practice: an analysis of strategic approaches to

technology transactions. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 55(1), 148-

157.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance:

Examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4), 317-330.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2010). Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A

contingency perspective. Research Policy, 39(1), 55-66.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2010). Technology exploitation in the context of open innovation: Finding

the right `job' for your technology. Technovation, 30(7-8), 429-435.


23

Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open Innovation: Past Research, Current Debates, and Future

Directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75-93.

Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2009). Opening up the innovation process: The role of

technology aggressiveness. R&D Management, 39(1), 38-54.

Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A Capability Based Framework for Open

Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies,

46(8), 1315-1338.

Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2010). Technology transfer across organizational

boundaries: Absorptive capacity and desorptive capacity. California Management

Review, 53, 154-170.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:

Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The

Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177.

Mäkipää, M., Ahonen, M., & Mäntymäki, M. Developmental steps from closed innovation to

open innovation. Retrieved from

http://www.uta.fi/~mikko.ahonen/IRIS29_final_Makipaa_Ahonen_Mantymaki.pdf

Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs'

innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations. [doi:

10.1016/j.respol.2008.06.004]. 37, 1579-1590.

Marshall-Mies, J. C., Fleishman, E. A., Martin, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Baughman, W. A., &

McGee, M. L. (2000). Development and evaluation of cognitive and metacognitive

measures for predicting leadership potential. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 135-

153.

Maula, M. V. J., Keil, T., & Salmenkaita, J. P. (2006). Open innovation in systemic

innovation contexts. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open

Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press, Oxford (pp. 241-

257).

Mayer, H. (2010). Catching Up: The Role of State Science and Technology Policy in Open

Innovation. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(3), 195.

Menor, L. J., & Roth, A. V. (2007). New service development competence in retail banking:

Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of Operations

Management, 25(4), 825-846.

Mention, A.-L. (2011). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the

service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31(1), 44-53.

Minshall, T., Mortara, L., Napp, J., & Slacik, I. (2009). How to implement open innovation:

lessons learned from studying large multinational companies. Management

Technology Policy, 1-56.

Mortara, L., Napp, J., Slacik, I., & Minshall, T. (2009). How to implement open innovation:

lessons from studying large multinational companies. Great Britain: Centre for

Technology Management.

Mu, J., Tang, F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2010). Absorptive and disseminative capacity:

Knowledge transfer in intra-organization networks. Expert Systems with Applications,


24

37(1), 31-38.

Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A graded conceptualisation of self-

determination in the regulation of exercise behaviour: Development of a measure

using confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Personality and Individual Differences,

23(5), 745-752.

Muller-Seitz, G., & Reger, G. (2009). Is open source software living up to its promises?

Insights for open innovation management from two open source software-inspired

projects. R&D Management, 39, 372-381.

Munsch, K. (2009). Open model innovation Research Technology Management, 52(3), 48-52.

Murovec, N., & Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on

innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation,

29(12), 859-872.

Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived

corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235-247.

Neyer, A. K., Bullinger, A. C., & Moeslein, K. M. (2009). Integrating inside and outside

innovators: a sociotechnical systems perspective. R&D Management, 39(4), 410-419.

O'Connor, G. C. (2005). Open, radical innovation: toward an integrated model in large

established firms. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open

innovation: researching a new paradigm (pp. 62-81).

OECD. (2008). Open innovation in global networks. OECD Publications

Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Extending the theory of planned

behaviour: The role of personal norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2),

127-138.

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation:

Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-

280.

Phillips, J. (2010). Open Innovation Typology. International Journal of Innovation Science,

2, 175-183.

Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to

integrate users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(1), 307-318.

Pontiskoski, E., & Asakawa, K. (2009). Overcoming barriers to open innovation at Apple,

Nintendo and Nokia. International Journal of Social Sciences, 53(1).

Poot, T., Faems, D., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009). Toward a dynamic perspective on open

innovation: A longitudinal assessment of the adoption of internal and external

innovation strategies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Innovation

Management, 13(2), 177-200.

Praest Knudsen, M., & Botker Mortensen, T. (2011). Some immediate - but negative - effects

of openness on product development performance. Technovation, 31(1), 54-64.

Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An

empirical test. Technovation, 30(5-6), 332-347.

Prugl, R., & Schreier, M. (2006). Learning from leading-edge customers at The Sims: opening

up the innovation process using toolkits. R&D Management, 36(3), 237-250.


25

Raasch, C., Herstatt, C., & Balka, K. (2009). On the open design of tangible goods. R&D

Management, 39(4), 382-393.

Rahman, H., & Ramos, I. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs: From closed boundaries to

networked paradigm. Information in Motion: The Journal Issues in Informing Science

and Information Technology 7, 471.

Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for

innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation,

30(1), 65-75.

Rohrbeck, R., Holzle, K., & Gemunden, H. G. (2009). Opening up for competitive advantage

- How Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management,

39(4), 420-430.

Santamaría, L., Nieto, M. J., & Barge-Gil, A. (2009). Beyond formal R&D: Taking advantage

of other sources of innovation in low-and medium-technology industries. Research

Policy, 38(3), 507-517.

Santamaría, L., Nieto, M. J., & Barge-Gil, A. (2010). The Relevance of Different Open

Innovation Strategies for R&D Performers. Relevancia de distintas estrategias "Open

Innovation" para las empresasque hacen I+D., 45, 93-114.

Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry-

university interactions. Research Policy, 31(7), 1163-1180.

Sarkar, S., & Costa, A. I. A. (2008). Dynamics of open innovation in the food industry.

Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 574-580.

Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An

application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 49(3), 843.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J. (1998).

Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and

Individual Differences, 25(2), 167-177.

Simard, C., & West, J. (2006). Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of innovation.

In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open Innovation:

Researching a New Paradigm (pp. 220-240).

Simcoe, T. (2006). Open standards and intellectual property rights. In H. W. Chesbrough, W.

Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (pp.

161-183).

Slowinski, G., Hummel, E., Gupta, A., & Gilmont, E. R. (2009). Effective practices for

sourcing innovation. Research-Technology Management, 52(1), 27-34.

Slowinski, G., & Sagal, M. W. (2010). Good practices in open innovation Research

Technology Management, 53(5), 38-45.

Sorensen, F., Mattsson, J., & Sundbo, J. (2010). Experimental methods in innovation

research. Research Policy, 39(3), 313-322.

Spinellis, D., Gousios, G., Karakoidas, V., Louridas, P., Adams, P. J., Samoladas, I. (2009).

Evaluating the quality of open source software. Electronic Notes in Theoretical

Computer Science, 233, 5-28.


26

Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise

inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130-141.

Stam, W. (2009). When does community participation enhance the performance of open

source software companies? Research Policy, 38(8), 1288-1299.

Stodden, V. (2010). Open science: policy implications for the evolving phenomenon of user-

led scientific innovation. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 9, 1-8.

Teece, D. J. (2004). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of

(sustainable) enterprise performance. Business Week, 64.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic

Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Teirlinck, P., & Spithoven, A. (2008). The spatial organization of innovation: Open

innovation, external knowledge relations and urban structure. Regional Studies, 42(5),

689-704.

Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self

identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3),

225-244.

Terry, D. J., & O'Leary, J. E. (1995). The theory of planned behaviour: The effects of

perceived behavioural control and self efficacy. British Journal of Social Psychology,

34(2), 199-220.

Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for

innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-

base. Research Policy, 37(6-7), 1079-1095.

Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). The organisational-cooperation mode of innovation and its

prominence amongst European service firms. Research Policy, 37(4), 720-739.

Traitler, H., Watzke, H. J., & Saguy, I. S. (2011). Reinventing R&D in an Open Innovation

Ecosystem. Journal of Food Science. Retrieved 2, 76, from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01998.x/full

Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Sharkey, T. W. (2006). Absorptive

capacity: Enhancing the assimilation of time-based manufacturing practices. Journal

of Operations Management, 24(5), 692-710.

Tucker, S., & Turner, N. (2011). Young worker safety behaviors: Development and validation

of measures. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1), 165-175.

Valentina, L., Raffaella, M., & Luisa, P. (2010). Open innovation models adopted in practice:

an extensive study in Italy. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(4), 11.

Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines.

European Psychologist, 1(2), 89.

van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open

innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,

29(6-7), 423-437.

van de Vrande, V., & de Man, A.-P. (2011). A response to "Is open innovation a field of study

or a communication barrier to theory development?". Technovation, 31(4), 185-186.

van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes


27

for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(1), 347-363.

van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Broadening the scope of

Open Innovation: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of

Technology Management, 52(3/4), 221-235.

van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and

interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463-472.

Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). The inter-organizational context of open innovation. In H. W.



Vanhaverbeke, W., & Cloodt, M. (2006). Open innovation in value networks. In H. W.



Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation (Vol. 132): Oxford University Press New

York.

von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management

science, 48(7), 821-833.

von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the" private-collective"

innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209-

223.

von Krogh, G. (2011). Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to

theory development? A commentary. Technovation, 31(7), 286-286.

von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., & Lakhani, K. R. (2003). Community, joining, and specialization

in open source software innovation: a case study. Research Policy, 32(7), 1217-1241.

Wallin, M. W., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for Open Innovation: Focus on the

Integration of Knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145-154.

West, J. (2003). How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform

strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259-1285.

West, J. (2006). Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation? In H. W. Chesbrough,

W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a new paradigm

(pp. 109-133).

West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm

investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319-331.

West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open

source software. R&D Management Special Issue on "Opening-up the innovation

process, 36(3).

West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Patterns of open innovation in Open Source software. In H.

W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a

new paradigm (pp. 82-106).

West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about the role of communities in open

innovation. Industry and Innovation, 15(3).

West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open Innovation: A Research

Agenda. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation:


28

researching a new paradigm (p. 285).

William Todorovic, Z., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: An

entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation, 31(2-3), 128-137.

Wincent, J., Anokhin, S., & Boter, H. (2009). Network board continuity and effectiveness of

open innovation in Swedish strategic small-firm networks. R&D Management 39(1),

55-67.

Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,

24(10), 991-995.

Wolff, M. F. (2006). Netherlands" Technopole" Takes Open Innovation To Next Stage.

Research-Technology Management, 49(2), 2-7.

Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument

to measure user perceived service quality of information presenting Web portals.

Information & Management, 42(4), 575-589.

Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A

taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319-340.

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (Writers). (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review,

reconceptualization, and extension [Article], Academy of Management Review:

Academy of Management.

Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks

and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181-194.

DISSERTATION PROPOSAL (Draft) -...

Documents

Transcript of DISSERTATION PROPOSAL (Draft) -...