FULLTEXT01 2 .pdf - The novelty of Open Innovation Peter...

1
The novelty of Open Innovation
Peter Altmann
1
, Carmen Lee
2
(Jing Li)
1
SET, Halmstad University, Sweden. [email protected]
2
SET, Halmstad University, Sweden. [email protected]
Abstract: Proponents of Open Innovation argue in support of its novel
additions, critics however question its novelty and argue that the roots
of Open Innovation predate Chesbrough. We investigate what is novel
about Open Innovation by comparing predating theories and concepts
with the main themes we found using a literature review. Our results
indicate that the novelty of Open Innovation lies in its holistic
approach. These findings were synthesized into a star model that could
help both scholars and managers in their work with Open Innovation.
1. I
NTRODUCTION
Open Innovation (OI) is a hot topic in innovation management with over 275 000 hits on
Google Scholar. It has sparked the interest of scholar in a wide array of disciplines (Huizingh,
2011). There is, however, an ongoing disagreement regarding the novelty of OI. Research
splits into two main standpoints: proponents of OI who emphasize its novelty and superiority
over previous „closed‟ models, and critics who question the novelty of OI by pointing to
previous theories and the ambiguity of the term OI. The recent debate in Technovation (see
Groen & Linton, 2010) shows this disagreement and puts the definition of OI into question.
Chesbrough first coined the term in his 2003 book Open Innovation: The new imperative for
creating and profiting from technology , and Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke & West (2006)
defined OI as the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal
innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively. Open
innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as
internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as they look to advance their
technology (p. vii). OI thus encompasses all open innovation management approaches with
regards to knowledge flows and market exploitation. Being very broad, together with its
indistinguishableness, contributes a lot to the lack of focus when it comes to usage of the
term. Dahlander & Gann (2010) argue that the ambiguity of the term as well as usage of
different definitions further inhibits the construction of a coherent body of knowledge.
Reasons given to support the novelty of OI includes mention of how industries are moving
from closed innovation to open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003a; 2003b), as well as list of
„erosion factors‟ that is claimed to render the closed model obsolete in most industry sectors
thus supporting said move (Chesbrough, 2003c). Chesbrough (2003b) further emphasizes the
novelty with examples of how the closed model is obsolete. Two such examples are DuPont‟s
and AT&T‟s internal research focus, subsequently arguing that internal R&D is no longer the
strategic asset it once was. The answer lies in a fundamental shift in how companies generate