Exploring the impact of open innovation on national systems of innovation A theoretical analysis Yuandi Wang a, Wim Vanhaverbeke a b c, Nadine Roijakkers a a Hasselt University, Faculty of business Economics , KIZOK/Innovation Management, Campus Diepenbeek, Agoralaan-Building D, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium b Vlerick-Leuven-Gent Management School, Reep 1, Gent , Belgium c ESADE Business school, Avenida Pedralbes 60-62,08034 Barcelona, Spain a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 24 october 2010 Received in revised form 12 august 2011 Accepted 13 august 2011 Available online 6 september 2011 This paper investigates the impact of open innovation on national systems of innovation. The open innovation concept has become widely established among scholars and practitioners. However, an overview of its impact on national innovation systems is still lacking. Given that the innovating firm is at the core of national innovation systems, a better understanding of shifting innovation strategies at the firm level is of fundamental importance to the actions of policy-makers within the national innovation systems framework. Based on the main analytical approaches of national innovation systems and the current state of open innovation research we argue that open innovation practices have at least three critical effects on national systems of innovation:(a) they reinforce its importance;(b) they improve its effectiveness; and (c) they diversify its networks. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Open innovation National systems of innovation Innovation intermediaries Technology markets Corporate venture capital Innovation policy 1. Introduction Nowadays, no single company, not even the manufacturing giants , can monopolise the knowledge landscape as it used to be the case 1, 2. The knowledge landscape is fairly heterogeneous, with a wide variety of players (firms of various sizes, universities, research institutes), each focusing on different pieces of the puzzle. As a result, the means of organising innovation have moved beyond the boundaries of the firm towards the concept of‘open innovation, 'a term coined by Chesbrough 3. Open innovation (OI) can be defined as‘the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and to expand the markets for external use of innovation respectively'4, p. 1. According to Chesbrough 3, 4 OI requires that a firm creates value and captures value using technologies developed by others or enabling others to use its technology. When a company creates value using technology from the outside it can scout for several sources of technology or ideas. First, companies can license-in technologies. Second, they can establish different types of alliances to co-develop innovations with partners. Third, they can use brokers (e g. Innocentive) to reach a large number of researchers or technicians worldwide. Fourth, companies can spin-in or acquire high-tech companies to gain access to particular types of technology. Finally they can source external knowledge from communities of practitioners, customers or specialists usually referred to as open source. These are all enablers of open innovation that coexist and jointly stimulate innovative performance. The ability of firms to apply OI practices rests on a large number of external factors. In particular, open innovation practices are affected positively by: A continuous supply of outside knowledge; highly-educated personnel; financial resources; effective legal systems; institutions protecting IP rights. Most of these factors are closely related to a country's national system of innovation (NSI) 5, 6. A general definition of NSI is the set of institutions, actors, and relationships that individually and jointly influence a nation's cumulative innovative performance. Chesbrough 3 models the relationship between NSI and OI when he illustrates how Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 Corresponding author. Tel.:++32 11268624. E-mail address: Nadine. Roijakkers@uhasselt. be (N. Roijakkers. 0040-1625/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. techfore. 2011.08.009 Contents lists available at Sciverse Sciencedirect Technological Forecasting & Social Change structural changes in the US'NSI have created a widely distributed knowledge landscape since WORLD WAR II as a result of: Greater availability of highly-educated workers; venture capital; state-of-the-art knowledge. Furthermore, the author concludes that the resulting changes in NSI stimulated and accelerated the emergence of OI in the US. Yet apart from Chesbrough's 2003 pioneering work, there are few studies exploring the important relationship between OI and NSI (a notable exception is De Jong, Kalvet, and Vanhaverbeke 7). This is because the burgeoning literature on OI has focused largely on firm-centred analyses, which generally disregard the relations between firms and their external context. Most recent publications in this field focus on enhancing the OI framework and establishing its general validity 8, 9. Similarly, the large body of literature on NSI takes the structures, functions, and effectiveness of NSI as the main focus. This approach largely ignores new developments taking place at the firm level, where OI practices are used increasingly to organise companies'innovations 10. Therefore, few recent papers on NSI have analysed the paramount relationship between NSI and OI despite the fact that it is precisely this relationship that may be crucial for policy-making. Close scrutiny of the current literature on NSI reveals that there are three different approaches to examining NSI, which have been developed separately. We will briefly describe these structural functional, and effectiveness approaches to gain a balanced view of NSI. First, the structural approach is the most traditional and widely-used tool employed in NSI research. It focuses heavily on identifying structural elements that influence innovative performance within a system 11. Second, the functional approach is a new development for NSI research that concentrates on how various functions are served by the system. That is, what are the most important activities and processes taking place within an NSI? These functions constitute an intermediate level construct between the structural elements of an NSI and its performance 12. Third, there are many publications on NSI that focus on the effectiveness of innovation systems 13 where research covers performance assessment, system failures, and the efficient evaluation of input-output. This balanced view on NSI provides us with a baseline for exploring the impact of OI on NSI. In this study, we explore how a country's NSI structures, functions, and effectiveness are influenced when firms change their innovation strategies towards an OI paradigm. The structure and functioning of a country's existing NSI also has an impact on the way companies deal with OI practices but this side of the coin has already been dealt with in another study 14. Here, we focus on how changing innovation practices at the firm level impact the NSI. This study contributes to the literature and policy-making in the following ways. First, it encourages OI scholars to conduct their research within a broader economic growth perspective as this paper reveals that OI practices are connected closely to a country's specific innovative context. Second, it provides policy-makers with a better understanding of why an NSI needs to be adjusted when companies are adapting their approach to innovation. Given the new OI practices of companies it is reasonable to assume that an NSI needs to evolve in the direction of a so-called national system of open innovation. Offering policy-makers an enhanced understanding of why current trends in corporate OI need to be taken into account when drawing up public policies may be very useful. This paper is structured as follows. The first section introduces the main NSI analytical models. These approaches will be used to get a balanced view of an NSI, which, in turn, provides us with a good starting point for examining how corporate OI practices influence an NSI. The second section explores the impact of firm-level OI practices on an NSI. The third and final section sets out our conclusions and their implications for policy-makers. 2. Three approaches to NSI Since the 1980s the NSI concept has been developed and built on by a host of scholars 11,15. A commonly used definition of NSI is: The network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and interactions imitate, import, modify, and diffuse new technologies 11. Lundvall 15 draws a clear distinction between a narrow and a broad definition of NSI. Nelson et al. 11 perceive NSI as a set of institutions whose interactions determine the innovative performance of a country. Although there is no single definition of NSI, most scholars share the core view that a country's NSI pursues some given goals, is spun by institutions, organisations, and interrelationships and all these elements form the woof and the weft of nation-specific contexts. We find that the current NSI literature is scattered and that at least three approaches have been developed separately over the last two decades We label them the structural, functional, and effectiveness approaches. To clarify several NSI dimensions we briefly describe them below. Each of these dimensions will, in turn, be used as starting points for our analysis of the impact of OI practices on a country's NSI. The structural approach identifies and describes structural elements in different types of innovation systems. This approach, which uses these structural elements to explain differences in innovative performances of various systems 11,15, has been the most common one since the NSI was articulated first by Freeman in 1987. Structural analysis focuses on the national level of innovative activities and the structures spawned by companies, universities, research institutes, government agencies, public policies, institutions, and, in particular, the various relationships among them. Coherent corporate behaviour in the innovation field is shaped by national culture, laws, norms, and conventions 16. The structural view of NSI primarily aims to identify the main determinants influencing the production, use, and dissemination of new technologies in a given country or region. The functional approach to NSI focuses on the activities and processes that the main actors within an NSI carry out for the purpose of knowledge generation, dissemination, and application 12,17 19. A function can be defined as the contribution of one or a set of activities to an NSI goal 19. Such functions might be: fostering technology markets; setting up linkages; stimulating education and training; setting up IPR protection; mobilising resources; providing knowledge 20. A combination of several NSI 420 Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 functions is referred generally to as a functional portfolio, which can be used to study NSI dynamics by mapping various portfolios over time 12. The effectiveness approach takes into account the complex nature of NSI where most actors and elements of NSI are embedded‘socially 'and the mechanisms used to coordinate them are non-market mechanisms: Institutional, networking, and policy mechanisms are employed to coordinate actors in an NSI 21. The effectiveness approach focuses on: assessing a system's performance; input-output efficiency; diagnosing systemic failures hindering NSI development and operation; setting the benchmark and developing linked indicators 13. These approaches are developed separately and they emphasise different NSI characteristics. In order to discuss the impact of OI practices on NSI, a single approach cannot be relied upon as this might bias the results. Therefore, we prefer to have balanced a view on NSI based on the aforementioned approaches. This should give us a more detailed, complete picture of what an NSI is, which, in turn, may facilitate our study of OI impact on NSI. As Lundvall 16 states, NSI are supposed purposively to achieve a certain goal in an attempt to capture the process of knowledge generation dissemination, and use. Its ultimate goals are economic growth, job creation, and acquisition of international skills. Each innovation system performs differently in achieving its supposed aims. This principle is the underpinning for the effectiveness approach. Consequently, this approach provides a starting point for analysing the impact of OI on NSI: corporate OI and its effect on NSI effectiveness therefore lie at the core of our analysis. Subsequently, we examine functions, processes or activities, following the functional approach. As a result, we can say to what extent functions in innovation systems are achieved'through open innovation. However, the major weakness of the functional approach is a lack of clear and practical implications for policy-making. In contrast, the structural approach 12 pays sufficient attention to identifying the most important factors in national systems of innovation. Thus it can help us determine OI's main policy implications. In the following section we consider the impact of OI on NSI in detail, using the approaches just described. 3. The impact of open innovation on NSI In contrast to the internally integrated model of innovation explained by Chandler et al. 22, the OI model presents a way of explaining how firms have come to organise their innovations so as to make full use of both internal and external innovations 9. Given that innovative firms lie at the heart of NSI and are vital to public policy design 16, we assume that this new development cannot be overlooked when studying NSI. 1 Consequently, investigating the impact of OI on NSI is likely to benefit both streams of OI and NSI studies. In the first two sections we describe the impact of open OI practices on the functions and effectiveness of NSI. The last section addresses the impact of OI on the NSI structural perspective. 3. 1. Open innovation reinforces the importance of NSI OI practices depend heavily on the internal capability of firms to leverage outbound and inbound knowledge and on the availability of sufficient external knowledge and other important resources. The supply of external knowledge is determined largely by a well-equipped functional NSI. This strong interdependence makes NSI more important than ever before. Hereafter we focus on the formation of technology markets, linkages, IPR protection, knowledge development (basic research), and education and training. 3. 2. Undeveloped technology markets need to be cultivated in NSI OI broadens the range of external technology sourcing modes by embracing alliances and acquisitions, technology markets, and corporate venture capital (CVC) 3, 23. In technology markets, firms purchase, sell, and use technologies developed by other firms to complement their internal technology base 24. Technology markets therefore play a key role in OI practices. Chesbrough 4 claims that technology markets (especially innovation intermediary markets) are a critical enabler for OI. Rigby et al. 25 use the term open-market innovation to map the burgeoning use of technology markets by firms for innovation purposes. However in contrast to most intangible markets, technology markets generally result in high transaction costs because they are imperfect 1, 26. Therefore, a reduction in imperfections would lead to a greater use of technology markets. Teece 27 emphasises the importance of improving the IPR regime and the legal system. Gambardella et al. 28 argue that the use of technology markets could be boosted if policies hindering the emergence of supporting institutions could be removed. Even so, the current literature on NSI and public policy largely overlooks this increasingly important function 29,30. Hence there is an urgent need to foster technology markets in NSI. 1 Open innovation is a new term coined by Chesbrough in 2003 but collaborative innovation agreements between companies such as technology alliances joint ventures, technology licensing etc. have been analysed since the 1970s and 1980s. We believe, however, that open innovation represents a quantum leap with respect to the previous literature on collaborative innovation strategies. First, open innovation emphasises that innovating companies have to make full use of both internal and external innovations. External sources of innovations are as important as internal ones and this balance was not present in previous literature. Second, open innovation offers a unified framework in which a firm's innovation strategy, the choice between external technology sourcing modes, the creation of absorptive capacity and business model thinking are linked tightly to each other. Finally, the buzz on open innovation has triggered many firms to redirect their innovation strategy in new ways. We argue that open innovation and its influence on NSI deserve attention from researchers and policy-makers for two reasons: First, open innovation cannot be considered as a simple extension of the previous literature on collaborative research. Second, the balance between internal and external sourcing of ideas indicates that the way innovating firms reach out to other organisations in the NSI is of much greater importance than hitherto. Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 421 3. 3. Linkages within NSI need to be strengthened to facilitate the increasingly wide use of innovative networks In the OI realm, using inter-organisational collaborative agreements and networks to harness external knowledge flows among organisations is a key dimension. In itself, OI can almost be seen as a specific approach covering the links that innovating firms forge with other organisations 31. With a paradigmatic shift from closed innovation to open innovation has come a shift in the locus of innovation from large companies to networks 32. Prior research has demonstrated the major advantages of innovation networks for coordinating both tacit and explicit knowledge flows and further research shows a positive effect of firms'presence in such networks on their innovative performance 33 36. However, existing NSI literature does not sufficiently challenge the‘closed innovation paradigm'for most networked innovations, which still centre on internal R&d 4. Open innovation scholars argue that firms use networks to source external knowledge for internal use and to market unused internal technologies 37. Inter-organisational networks are an increasingly important channel for implementing OI. However, this cannot be expected to take place in an NSI in which closed innovation thinking prevails 38. Innovation networks are likely to be used more widely in the OI era than ever before and this in turn means a need for stronger NSI linkages. Actually this argument is consistent with the NSI core concept whereby multifarious efforts foster different kinds of collaboration and networking activity 39,40. Specifically, a stronger linkage between public and private sectors is imperative in the era of OI 37. Thus, the increasing development of OI practices is strongly reliant on forging ties among the key innovation players 41.3.4. Efficient flows of knowledge heavily depend on stronger IPR protection OI practices involve abundant inbound and outbound flows of knowledge. Inside-out and outside-in flows entail patent licencing, technology-based acquisition, joint-ventures, non-equity R&d investments and increasingly, direct technology buying or selling. Traditionally, consortia agreements have allowed information flows and technology collaboration only within a consortium, whose membership is limited to just a few companies 42. Obviously, OI is restricted not to these tight forms of technological collaboration and embraces the global innovation community as its knowledge base 43. However, the efficiency of knowledge flows is linked directly to a country's regime for knowledge appropriation. Earlier NSI studies have shown that a well-defined system of intellectual property protection can ease knowledge flows 44. In view of this demand for knowledge flows NSI scholars have listed IPR protection as one of the key functions within a portfolio and have discussed widely it 6, 45 47. Therefore, enabling OI practices means improving and strengthening the IPR protection system and related legal regime 48 within the NSI framework. This is one of the most important requisites for OI practices. The‘seed corn'of OI relies on major public support for basic research OI shows that companies are shortening their time horizons for R&d expenses and are shifting the focus of their internal efforts from basic research tomore immediate application-oriented innovations 3. This implies that industry can no longer be expected to underwrite the bulk of basic research costs. The spate of innovations fromthese laboratories over the past forty years is likely to dry up in the near future, given this shift in orientation made by major labs. This trend is reflected also in the fact that most of the worldfamous corporate R&d laboratories of the twentieth century have been downsized, broken up, or redirected to new goals 49. Basic research is critical as‘seed corn'for new waves of innovations and greatly enriches the knowledge landscape. Public support for basic research has long been a tradition in most countries 50. However, in recent years, some counties, such as the U s.,have slashed public funding 51. This seems inconsistent with the development of the OI principle. A basic insight of OI is that there is a new division of innovative efforts between industry government, and academia with less basic research being conducted inside large corporate labs 49. Only two decades ago, large industrial companies had vast corporate R&d centres, which had greater scientific and technological capabilities than most universities. The majority of these central labs were dismantled especially during the 1990s as big companies were pressured by shareholders to focus on short-term profits. Long-term research was seen increasingly as too expensive. In consequence, as companies focused more and more on applied sciences and the development and commercialisation of technologies, universities became the sole institutions targeting basic research. In this way the position of basic research became weaker in the innovation ecosystem of different countries. Therefore, governments and universities face the challenge of stimulating efforts in basic research by providing public funds for most of the‘seed corn'research. This can in turn spur the major innovations of the next two decades 8, 52. Instead of weakening public support for basic research, this NSI role may need to be beefed up. 3. 5. The supply of high-quality labour is linked strongly to education and training One of the crucial elements holding the open innovation system together is its human and social capital. As Chesbrough 3 states a high-quality labour force is one of the major prerequisites of OI as it allows knowledge to spill over to other organisations and boosts firms'ability to absorb innovations 53. This also applies to the recruitment of graduates by firms, which is probably one of the main mechanisms for making money from fundamental research 54. Hence the stress often laid on the roles played by education and training in stimulating OI 55. Better education and training will strengthen many of the behavioural aspects of OI, including networking and collaboration skills, corporate entrepreneurship, the ability to license technologies, and carrying out R&d. Developing and maintaining a skilled labour force requires governments to deliver and implement high-quality education at all levels. In addition, policy-makers need to address postgraduate training and‘lifelong learning'for a society's human capital as 422 Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 well 56. In general, education and training are at the heart of a public policy for fostering OI. Therefore we cannot ignore the importance of NSI in pursuing the open innovation model. This section explored howopen innovation influences the functional perspective of NSI. Weargued that rising use of the OI approach boosts NSI importance in at least five areas: fostering technology markets; establishing stronger linkages within NSI; IPR protection; funding basic research; ensuring the supply of high quality personnel. All of these are linked closely to the performance of NSI functions. 3. 6. Open innovation improves the effectiveness of NSI The effectiveness of NSI is the extent to which the system attains its general goal or carries out its mission 13. In reviewing the literature on the effectiveness of NSI, we find that scholars typically concentrate on market distortions 57,58 and system failures 59 61. Empirical studies are linked directly to static (input/output) indicators such as R&d expenditures, patents, and bibliometric data 62. Generally speaking, such studies have detected most of the factors and mechanisms influencing the effectiveness of systems. However as some authors claim, there are still a number of factors and mechanisms that have been explored poorly. For instance, Oreland et al. 63 states that knowledge transfer mechanisms have a critical impact on the effectiveness of systems. Porter 64 draws attention to the importance of institutional factors such as the effectiveness of the R&d system and networks between firms. In our study, we suggest mechanisms through the lens of OI that may enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of NSI. In particular, we focus on: the social wellsprings of innovations; strong specialisation in innovative labour; the efficiency of resource allocation; accelerating knowledge flows at lower costs. 3. 7. Eliciting social resources for innovation In modern society, innovation is vital for countries in building up their competitive advantage and providing sufficient social welfare to their citizens 11,65. Successful innovation requires sufficient resources to be earmarked to ongoing discoveries, knowledge generation and dissemination, and technical development 29. Earlier NSI studies have focused almost solely on mobilising public and private resources for technological innovations and have suggested two complementary investment models 66. The first is the‘private investment'model, which assumes that innovation can be funded by private sources and that private returns can be appropriated from such investments 67. The second is the‘collective model'which fosters innovation through direct public investments in public knowledge goods 68. This model also progressively employs policy instruments to promote private investments in R&d 69. Examples of such policy instruments are competition policies, tax policies, and subsidies. Therefore, prior to the OI era, innovation came about either through private R&d spending in firms or through government investments in the public sphere 70. A vast range of social resources, such as retired skilled workers, and the valuable knowledge of former staff, have been excluded generally from the task of advancing the frontiers of innovation. OI scholars state that in the OI era companies should tap into this large external pool of know-how to gain new ideas while at the same time move unused ideas outside the company 3. This leads to a large, valuable stock of knowledge for others and additional revenues for the firm itself. Researchers in OI claim that valuable knowledge can be generated through resources other than those provided by firms and governments 36. Valuable knowledge can be produced through a broad range of instruments, including blogs and internet-based communities 38. A typical example of using social resources to innovate is the popular phenomenon of open source software 71 and the current Threadless Community 72 revealing‘a third model'that draws upon extensive social resources to create valuable public knowledge. This model is termed the‘private-collective'model by von Hippel et al. 71 and is an unusual collaborative effort where skills in firms, sectors, and nations offer a vast pool of public knowledge. OI thereby generates a unique way of eliciting and coordinating the efforts of scattered individuals in an internet-oriented knowledge base. This provides great potential for a country to increase the level of knowledge creation in society and further improve NSI effectiveness. 3. 8. Benefiting from strong specialisation in innovative labour Economists have shown that the growth of a more complex division of labour is closely bound to the growth of total production and trade which strengthens a country's competitiveness 73. When closed innovation prevailed, the economy of specialisation was confined largely within firms 74. A study by Arora et al. 75 shows that a decline of research productivity inevitably occurs when research-oriented firms integrate manufacturing and marketing units. They further claim that small innovating firms may be inefficient at building downstream assets, making the commercial exploitation of new technology riskier and less efficient. Large companies are generally better at exploitation than exploration and may be adapted better to making incremental improvements to existing technologies than pioneering new discoveries 76. There is a natural labour division in knowledge generation and commercialisation between firms of different sizes. Consequently there is a major opportunity to benefit from this strong division of labour through an open innovation model. OI theory purports that innovators do not necessarily implement all innovation stages, thus profiting from the division of labour in this field. In particular, innovating firms can choose to sell technologies instead of investing in the downstream assets required to commercialise technologies or they can choose to buy new technologies instead of creating them in expensive inhouse R&d labs 49. Through this innovative labour specialisation, companies may be able to focus their strengths on some parts of innovation value networks. This in turn, boosts both the competitive capacity of the value network and the effectiveness of a country's NSI 77. Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 423 3. 9. Improving the efficiency of resource allocation Innovation is a risky undertaking that requires the allocation of financial and intellectual resources under specific conditions. At the company level, the innovative resource allocation process has been discussed widely in the context of the Bower Burgelman model 78,79, which is aligned with the closed innovation paradigm where resource allocation is confined within firms 80. This generates two types of efficiency losses, one for the company and the other for society at large. In general firms are aiming for sustainable success while allocating scarce resources to costly R&d activities. The likely result is extended patent portfolios. According to Chesbrough's 49 survey around 25%of patents are used never in any of the patent holders'businesses and most innovations and IP sit on the shelf unused. This is a major waste of scarce corporate resources. From society's point of view, the loss is even greater. If companies never use some of the technologies they are creating or license-out these technologies to other companies for the purpose of commercialisation, then the products covered by the temporary monopoly are brought never to market. Therefore, society never gets to experience the use of these new inventions, and policymakers also empower companies to prevent anyone else from using the technology until the patents expire. As innovation orientation changes from internal R&d to the growing use of external innovation, the Bower Burgelman model gradually becomes obsolete and sub-optimised. As Maula 81 suggests for the OI process, allocation of resources will shift from the focal corporation to the developer community and external partners, such as joint ventures and university research. In this way, resource allocation efficiency will be gained at two levels. At the firm level, innovating firms using this new model can manage the innovation community successfully over different time horizons 70 by leveraging internal and external innovators. In addition, active R&d resource sharing generally widens firms'R&d reach and greatly reduces unnecessary duplication. From society's point of view OI provides greater scope for jointly configuring the best ideas and business models. In other words, OI strives to come up with the best ideas and the most suitable business models for commercialisation 49,82. As a result, OI improves resource allocation at the macro level and yields benefits for all concerned 57.3.10. Accelerating knowledge flows at low transaction costs The NSI approach stresses the power of knowledge transfer and dissemination 83. Public policy thus often seeks to boost knowledge flows in order to synthesise and strengthen the general purpose of NSI. During the era of closed innovation most innovating firms were reluctant to transfer knowledge, particularly outside the bounds of the company. For instance, patents (the most tradable knowledge assets) were treated commonly like The Crown jewels rather than media for knowledge exchange. The arrow information paradox, the NIH syndrome, untapped technology markets, and holdup problems used to prevent low-cost knowledge transfer 84 86. Conversely, in an OI era, knowledge transfer is driven primarily by firms'desire to advance current business models, nurture new businesses, or sell unused technologies to create additional revenues 49. These intrinsic reasons are fuelled by the growing number of innovation intermediaries which, in turn speed up the circulation of global knowledge. Innovation intermediaries create a link between innovating firms and the global innovation community and help firms enhance their OI capabilities by exploiting the most valuable and context-specific tacit knowledge 43. At the same time, wider use of different types of networks boosts knowledge transfer, given that intermediaries'raison d'être is to convey firms'inbound and outbound knowledge 87,88. Increasingly efficient technology markets mean that companies no longer need to acquire and sell other companies to access the underlying ideas and technologies. Consequently, much potentially valuable trade in innovation and its associated IP becomes less expensive 44, 49,89. Companies can extract value from technology without having to spend a lot of time and scarce resources on developing manufacturing, distributing, and marketing capabilities. As scholars are quick to claim, OI alleviates the AIP, NIH, and holdup problems 49 and so fosters knowledge transfer at low transaction costs, which, in turn, enhances NSI effectiveness. 3. 11. Open innovation diversifies the networks used in NSI Structural elements in NSI include institutions, other players and their myriad relationships 11. The most important players are firms, universities, venture capital organisations, and public agencies charged with innovation policy 29. Institutions embrace legislation customs, and conventions. Culture and relationships refer to the various kinds of market and non-market relationships 15. In the OI age, we have to consider the emergence of new elements in NSI, such as innovation intermediaries, technology markets in physical and electronic forms, specialist technology suppliers and buyers, and so on 1, 8, 43,49. At the same time, the widespread use of external innovation tools such as collaborative communities dramatically affects players'relationship networks. In this paper, we focus on networks. Furthermore, we show that OI diversifies the networks used in NSI. 3. 12. Networks used in NSI It is well known that one of NSI's most distinctive features is the numerous interactions among its components. Bearing in mind the importance of networks in NSI, pioneering researchers in this field consider NSI to be the network driving knowledge generation, diffusion, and use 15. However, as several authors have shown, NSI networks only focus on formal knowledge exploration 90,91. Typical examples of these networks are producer user relationships and the triple helix of university industry government. 424 Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 Producer user relationships marked the birth of the term‘National System of Innovation'.'In the 1980s, the strong producer user relationships in the competitive Japanese manufacturing sector and Japan's resulting economic boom attracted the interest of scholars and policy-makers alike. In 1988, Lundvall claimed that research should focus on NSI instead of single producer user networks. Focusing on the growing phenomenon of‘centres of excellence'where industrial development seems to be linked closely to the best universities 92, Etzkowitz et al. 39 coined the term‘triple-helix relations'to describe relations between university, industry, and government. Here, they stressed the role universities play in technical innovation and knowledge-based economies. Such networks are popular in NSI research. However many scholars have noticed that even when they include other types of networks, NSI research remains focused on the knowledge exploration phase and on formal players such as firms, universities, and government research entities 93. In general, current research ignores the new forms of innovation networks, such as the growing online social networks and other collaborative communities for knowledge exploration 36,94. Moreover, little work has been done on downstream networks exploiting existing knowledge 91.3.13. Online social networks: Enlarging the knowledge exploration landscape The OI model stresses the importance of using a broad range of sources for innovation and commercialisation activities by firms. Its success therefore mainly depends on the continued supply of external sources 3. This supply of external knowledge can be sourced from traditional partners such as universities, users, and suppliers, as well as a range of other institutions and individuals. The knowledge they bring (often in the form of‘tacit knowledge')is a key asset in NSI. Therefore, the ability to locate, identify, and acquire valuable knowledge and generate various channels of knowledge transfer is of vital importance in a knowledge society. Online social networks are used frequently by firms as one of these channels but NSI scholars have not heeded them enough to date 95. An illustrative case of online social networks is the trend towards open source software 71. An oft-given example is the Linux Foundation. Open source involves collaboration between firms, suppliers, customers, and policy-makers of related products to pool software R&d and generate shared technology. Instead of the traditional extrinsic motivations, external innovators have strong intrinsic motivations such as reputation, fame, intellectual challenge, fun, and interest 72. More recently, various online communities and hosted service webs facilitating co-operation and knowledge-sharing among innovating firms, customers, and other interested parties, have been recorded in the literature 94,96. Social online networks, such as open source software communities, offer valuable benefits for society by encouraging community members to share their knowledge. One way for policy-makers to elicit social knowledge is by building a wide range of internet-based platforms to bridge business sectors and create a broad range of knowledge, expertise, and skills in cyberspace. The power of this type of network lies in mobilising dispersed local knowledge that can be applied to both problem-solving and problem-seeking. The result is a more open-ended fertile innovation process. Online social networks may solve problems for current business development or pool ideas 97 for future business development. Incentives can be either extrinsic, intrinsic, or both 72. In this way, highly-skilled retirees, graduate students, professional workers in various disciplines, ordinary citizens, and research-based and profit-seeking organisations are linked up in online social networks. Individuals are assigned carefully to certain communities, for example, those serving a given sector. These communities are tasked then with innovating in a given knowledge field. Community members share the right to use and collaboratively develop certain technologies. Usually they work for free to pool solutions experience, ideas, and other key knowledge for the business development of a firm 98,99. 3. 14. Knowledge exploitation networks: Focus on commercialisation Research has shown repeatedly that innovation is a multi-stage process. It consists of several critical stages, of which research and development and commercialisation are the most commonly cited ones in the literature 100. However, the fact is that most innovation policy efforts focus on R&d progress rather than commercialisation. Open innovation stresses that a firm's business model acts as a filter, leaving just a few technology projects in the running for commercialisation. The upshot is that technological developments do not automatically lead to the successful launch of products and services 101. More importantly considerable efforts may have to be put into commercialising the unused technology through spin-offs or through licencing to other companies in other markets. As such, commercialising technology is a complex process, involving different parties such as users, suppliers, rivals, and other partners in the value network 3, 36,102. As March 33 noted, knowledge exploitation networks are entirely different from those covering universities and research-based knowledge-seeking organisations. While the insights gained by knowledge exploitation networks have received less attention in the NSI literature, they are crucially important as they are directly responsible for the market success and profitability of new technologies 16. OI may provide a new way to bridge this gap. For instance Vanhaverbeke et al. 103 consider one of these exploitation networks by using the concept of value constellation. They suggest that value constellations differ from R&d networks insofar as they commercialise innovations with partners that have the wherewithal to bring the product or service to market 104. In addition, exploitation networks commonly embrace complex network governance something that is in sharp contrast with the dyadic relations between single partners that are typically found in knowledge exploration networks 105. Scholars have suggested therefore that firms must set up and lead an entire value network to support their specific innovations 80. Although research on this issue is still at an early stage it is foreseeable that exploitation networks will grow in popularity over the next few years due to the growing reliance on OI. The emergence of exploitation networks will affect NSI as companies with promising, game-changing innovations Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 425 set up these new kinds of value) networks. An NSI can thus shift away from the link between research and educational institutions to focus instead on the commercialisation networks needed to launch new products. The government can play an important role in these networks. The growing importance of sustainability goals in the energy, car manufacturing, and chemical industries illustrates the changing role of governments in NSI today. 4. Conclusions It may be unwise to limit the study of open innovation to the firm level. Companies are embedded in networks industries, and national economies. In this study, we examine how open innovation practices in firms have an impact on the regional or national systems of innovation (NSI. An NSI is likely to be affected when companies change their innovation practices and the way in which they collaborate with external innovation partners. Surprisingly, the impact of OI practices on NSI has received so far scant attention from both scholars and policy-makers a notable exception being De Jong et al. 7. Making the connection between OI practices at the firm level and their impact on the meso-or national scale is hampered by the different theoretical approaches found in NIS literature, namely the structural, functional, and effectiveness approaches. The various perspectives put forward by these approaches have yielded a sufficiently detailed picture of NSI to study the impact of open innovation. As such we have developed various arguments to demonstrate that companies'OI practices influence an NSI in different ways. First, OI reinforces the importance of NSI more than ever. There is currently pressure to boost the effectiveness of technology markets given that innovating firms are increasingly interacting with other NSI partners. Similarly, the role of innovation networks becomes more important as a result of firms'OI practices. The locus of innovation no longer lies in single firms but in the innovation network 106. Next, increasing inter-organisational knowledge flows raise the importance of having a reliable IP protection system. Companies work more and more on technology applications rather than on fundamental research. This is why the latter may need to be funded in new ways. Finally, OI hinges on the supply and mobility of highly-skilled knowledge workers. Hence, education and training need to be linked closely to innovation policies. Second, OI provides several mechanisms to improve the effectiveness of NSI. This effectiveness can be enhanced by eliciting more resources for innovation. Besides private and public investments in R&d we also need to include a vast range of social resources that could be used in OI. Examples of such resources include: retired skilled workers; internet-based communities; innovation intermediaries. Next, NSI effectiveness can be boosted through greater labour specialisation in the innovation field. Finally, NSI will be more effective when the unused technologies of large companies are commercialised through spin-offs or when they are made accessible to other firms through licencing. Third, OI leads to the emergence of many new structural elements such as innovation intermediaries and technology markets. To a great extent, OI will simultaneously diversify the networks used in NSI by creating two new types of networks: online ones fostering knowledge exploration, and exploitative ones targeting knowledge commercialisation. As we mentioned earlier, these insights may have important policy-making implications. First, policy-makers need to realise that the rapid proliferation of firms'OI practices is changing the way companies innovate. Since IP ultimately rests on the activities and initiatives of companies, it is vital that policy follows this trend to foster a more open innovation environment. We have shown in this study how firms'OI practices influence the NSI and that policy-makers need to examine how their decisions can foster and speed up OI practices. First the government can help by encouraging firms to work together in multi-partner innovation networks. Second, policy-makers are advised to broaden the scope of innovation to include not only joint research but also joint development and commercialisation activities. Third, policies may need to find new ways for improving NSI effectiveness by considering the roles played by innovation intermediaries and newly-emerging technology services facilitating open innovation. Fourth, more attention might be paid to the IPR system: it needs to be reliable and affordable for (smaller) innovators and policy-makers may need to stimulate the dissemination of unused knowledge. This requires a new policy towards large companies that hoard technology without using it. Fifth, governments can:(i) promote the generation and dissemination of high-quality knowledge;(ii) foster and support institutions channelling human and financial resources towards promising technologies and business models;(iii) highlight the reworking of good ideas through suitable business models and highly-efficient markets for technology and knowledge workers. Sixth, policy-makers may need to move away from funding innovation in single firms and towards networks of firms (given that this is the locus of innovation today). Our study is broad in scope and examines how emerging corporate OI practices have an impact on the functioning of the NSI. Chesbrough et al. 4, p. 287 stated that OI is practiced within the context of a given set of political and economic institutions, including regulation, intellectual property law, capital markets, and industry structure. We have focused on the impact of corporate OI practices on the NSI. Even so, we only provided a general picture and did not tackle a given research issue. We encourage future researchers to delve more deeply into the links between OI practices and the NSI. In particular we advocate studies on the link between corporate OI practices and: the education system; technology and business networks; IPR system; industry structure; regulatory system; funding rules for innovation. Empirical, comparative analyses of NSI in various nations could be one way of discovering which OI practices influence the NSI and how particular NSI features shape firms'OI practices. References 1 U. Lichtenthaler, H. Ernst, Innovation intermediaries: why internet marketplaces for technology have not yet met the expectations, Creat. Innov. Manage. 17 (1)( 2008) 14 25.2 R. Kirschbaum, Open innovation in practice, Res. Technol. Manage. 48 (4)( 2005) 24 28.426 Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 3 H. Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business school Press, Boston, Mass, 2003.4 H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, J. West (Eds.),Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 2006.5 D. Archibugi, National innovation systems, a comparative analysis, Res. Policy 25 (5)( 2006) 838 842.6 K. Smith, Economic Infrastructures and Innovation Systems, in: C. Edquist (Ed.),Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, Printer, London, 1997.7 J. P. J. d. Jong, T. Kalvet, W. Vanhaverbeke, Exploring a theoretical framework to structure the public policy implications, Technol. Anal. Strat. Manage. 22 (8)( 2010) 877 896.8 O. Gassmann, E. Enkel, H. Chesbrough, The future of open innovation, R&d Manage. 40 (3)( 2010) 213 221.9 J. F. Christensen, The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics, Res. Policy 34 (10)( 2005) 1533 1549.10 A. Segal, Autonomy, security, andinequality: China, India, theunitedstates, andtheglobalisation of science and technology, Technol. Soc. 30 (3/4)( 2008) 423 428.11 R. R. Nelson (Ed.),National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford university Press, New york, 1993.12 A. Bergek, J. Staffan, C. Bo, C. Sven, R. Annika, Analysing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis, Res. Policy 37 (3)( 2008) 407 429.13 J. Niosi, National systems of innovations are x-efficient (and x-effective: why some are slow learners, Res. Policy 31 (2)( 2002) 291 302.14 Y. Wang, N. Roijakkers, W. Vanhaverbeke, Linking open innovation to national systems of innovation: a coevolutionary perspective, Int. J. Innov. Reg. Dev. 3 (5)( 2011) 446 464.15 B.-Å. Lundvall (Ed.),National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London, New york, 1992.16 B.-Å. Lundvall, National innovation system-analytical concept and development tool, DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference, Copenhagen, 2005.17 A. Johnson, Functions in Innovation System Approaches, Electronic Paper at the Proceedings of the Nelson and Winter Conference Volume, 2001.18 C . Edquist, The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: an account of the state of the art, in DRUID, Aalborg, 2001.19 M. P. Hekkert, R. A. Suurs, A. Negro, S. O. Kuhlmann, R. E. H. M. Smits , Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (4)( 2007) 413 432.20 X. L. Liu, S. White, Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China's transitional context, Res. Policy 30 (7)( 2001) 1091 1114.21 D. J. Teece, Competition, cooperation, and innovation: organisational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress, J. Econ. Behav. Org. 18 (1)( 1992) 1 25.22 A d. Chandler, T. Hikino, Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1990.23 W. Vanhaverbeke, G. Duysters, N. Noorderhaven, External technology sourcing through alliances or acquisitions: an analysis of the application-specific integrated circuits industry, Org. Sci. 13 (6)( 2002) 714 733.24 P. d. Weerd-Nederhof, O. Fisscher, Alignment and alliances for research institutes engaged in product innovation. Two case studies, Creat. Innov. Manage. 12 (2)( 2003) 65 75.25 D. Rigby, C. Zook, Open-market innovation, Harv. Bus. Rev. 80 (10)( 2002) 80 89.26 F. Cesaroni, Technological outsourcing and product diversification: do markets for technology affect firms'strategies? Res. Policy 33 (10)( 2004) 1547 1564.27 D. J. Teece, Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, Res. Policy 15 (1986) 285 305.28 A. Gambardella, P. Giuri, A. Luzzi, The market for patents in Europe, Res. Policy 36 (8)( 2007) 1163 1183.29 C. Edquist (Ed.),Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, Pinter Publishers, London, 1997.30 R. R. Nelson, What enables rapid economic progress: what are needed the institutions? Res. Policy 37 (1)( 2008) 1 11.31 W. Vanhaverbeke, The Interorganisational Context of Open innovation, in: H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, J. West (Eds. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 2006.32 G. P. Pisano, The R&d boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis, Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1)( 1990) 153 176.33 J. G. March, Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning, Org. Sci. 2 (1)( 1991) 71 87.34 W. W. Powell, P. Brantley, in: N. Nohria, R. Eccles (Eds. Competitive Cooperation in Biotechnology: Learning through Networks? Harvard Business school Press, Boston, 1992.35 I. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 1995.36 G. von Krogh, S. Spaeth, K. R. Lakhani, Community, joining, and specialisation in open source software innovation: a case study, Res. Policy 32 (7)( 2003) 1217 1241.37 H. Chesbrough, K. Schwartz, Innovation business models with co-development partnerships, Res. Technol. Manage. 50 (1)( 2007) 55 59.38 H. Chesbrough, A. Prencipe, Networks of innovation and modularity: a dynamic perspective, Int. J. Technol. Manage. 42 (4)( 2008) 414 425.39 H. Etzkowitz, L. Leydesdorff, The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university industry government relations, Res. Policy 29 (2)( 2000) 109 123.40 B.-Å. Lundvall, Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation, in: G. Dosi (Ed.),Technical Change and Economic theory, Pinter Publishers, London, 1988.41 M. P. Hekkert, S. O. Negro, Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: empirical evidence for earlier claims, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 76 (4)( 2009) 584 594.42 B. N. Anand, T. Khanna, The structure of licensing contracts, J. Ind. Econ. 48 (1)( 2000) 103 135.43 J. Howells, Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation, Res. Policy 35 (5)( 2006) 715 728.44 A. Arora, A. Gambardella, The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour, Res. Policy 23 (5)( 1994) 523 532.45 M. Nelson, J. L. Mason, How the South Joined the Gambling Nation: The Politics of State Policy Innovation, Louisiana State university Press, Baton rouge, 2007.46 C. Freeman, Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems complementarity and economic growth, Res. Policy 31 (2)( 2002) 191 211.47 P. Cooke, Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: exploring‘Globalisation 2'a new model of industry organisation, Res. Policy 34 (8)( 2005) 1128 1149.48 N. Gallini, S. Scotchmer, Intellectual Property: When is it the Best Incentive System? NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy, 2 (1), MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2002, pp. 51 77.49 H. Chesbrough, Open Business models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard Business school Press, Boston, Mass, 2006.50 K. Pavitt, Public policies to support basic research: what can the rest of world learn from US theory and practice?(And what they should not learn), Ind. Corp. Change 10 (3)( 2001) 761 779.51 D. M. Hart, Accounting for change in national systems of innovation: a friendly critique based on the U s. case, Res. Policy 38 (4)( 2009) 647 654.52 L. Dahlander, D. M. Gann, How open is innovation? Res. Policy 39 (6)( 2010) 699 709.53 W. M. Cohen, D. A. Levinthal, Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1990) 128 152.54 D. Jong, J. P. J. B. Roelofs, Tweemeting Syntens: Evaluatie 2003 2006, in EIM/BCI, Zoetermeer,, 2007.55 D. O'Doherty, K. Arnold, Understanding Innovation: the need for a systemic approach. The IPTS Report, 71, IPTS, Seville,, 2003.56 J. P. J. De Jong, Policies for open innovation: theory, framework and cases, EIM Business and Policy Research,, 2008.57 Z. Griliches, R&d and Productivity, The University of chicago Press, Chicago, 1998.58 F. J. Arcelus, P. Arocena, Convergence and productive efficiency in fourteen OECD countries: a nonparametric frontier approach, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 66 (2)( 2000) 105 117.59 D. Rahm, B. Bozeman, M. Crow, domestic technology transfer and competitiveness: an empirical assessment of roles of university and governmental R&d laboratories, Public Adm. Rev. 48 (6)( 1988) 969 978. Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428 427 60 L. Magunsson, J. Ottosson (Eds. Evolutionary Economics and Path Dependency, Elgar, Cheltenham, 1997.61 R. Rothwell, Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s, R&d Manage. 22 (1992) 221 239.62 W. Nasierowski, F. J. Arcelus, On the efficiency of national innovation systems, Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 37 (3)( 2003) 215 234.63 T. Roeland, P. d. Hertog, Assessing the Knowledge Distribution Power of National Innovation Systems, OECD Conference on New S&t Indicators for the Knowledge-Based Economy OECD, Paris, 1996.64 M. E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New york, 1990.65 C. Freeman , The‘national system of innovation'in historical perspective, Cambridge J. Econ. 19 (1)( 1995) 5 20.66 T. P. Hughes The Evolution of Large Technological Systems, in: W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, T. J. Pinch (Eds. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, The MIT Press, Massachusetts, 1990.67 A. Alchien, H. Demsetz, Production, information cost, and economic organisations, Am. Econ. Rev. 62 (1972) 777 795.68 H. Aldrich, Organisations Evolving, Sage, London, 1999.69 S. Hess, Individual behaviour and collective action towards the environment: an economic framework based on the social customs approach, Rational. Soc. 10 (2)( 1998) 203 222.70 S. Grand, G. von Krogh, D. Leonard, S. Dorothy, W. Swap, Resource allocation beyond firm boundaries: a multilevel model for Open source innovation, Long Range Plann. 37 (6)( 2004) 591 610.71 E. von Hippel, G. von Krogh, Open source software and the‘private-collective'innovation model: issues for organisation science, Org. Sci. 14 (2)( 2003) 209 223.72 K. J. Boudreau, K. R. Lakhani, How to manage outside innovation, MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 50 (4)( 2009) 68 77.73 J. Stiglitz, C. E. Walsh, Economics, third edition W. W. Norton & Company, New york, 2002.74 D . Archibugi, M. Pianta, Specialisation and size of technological activities in industrial countries: the analysis of patent data, Res. Policy 21 (1)( 1992) 79 93.75 A. Arora, A. Fosfuri, A. Gambardella, Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy, MIT Press, Cambridge and London, 2001.76 D. A. Levinthal, J. G. March, The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal 14 (1993) 95 112.77 A. Arora, R. P. Merges, Specialised supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries, Ind. Corp. Change 13 (3)( 2004) 451 475.78 J. L. Bower, Planning within the firm, Am. Econ. Rev. 60 (2)( 1970) 186 194.79 R. A. Burgleman, Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: insights from a process study, Manage. Sci. 23 (1983) 1349 1363.80 C. M. Christensen, R. S. Rosenbloom, Explaining the attacker's advantage: technological paradigms, organisational dynamics, and the value network, Res. Policy 24 (2)( 1995) 233 257.81 B.-Å. Lundvall, P. Intarakumnerd, J. Vang-Lauridsen, Asia's Innovation Systems in Transition, New Horizons in the Economics of Innovation Series, Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, 2006.82 K. D. Backer, Open Innovation in Global networks, OECD, Paris, 2008.83 OECD, Open Innovation in Global network, OECD, Paris, 2005.84 C . Y. Li, C. T. Hsieh, The impact of knowledge stickiness on knowledge transfer implementation, internalisation, and satisfaction for multinational corporations, Int. J. Inf. Manage. 29 (6)( 2009) 425 435.85 B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, B.-Å. Lundvall, Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Ind. Corp. Change 11 (2)( 2002) 245 262.86 J. L. Cummings, B. S. Teng, Transferring R&d knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success, J. Eng. Tech. Manage. 20 (1 2)( 2003) 39 68.87 T. Y. Eng, Implications of the internet for knowledge creation and dissemination in clusters of hi-tech firms, Eur. Manage. J. 22 (1)( 2004) 87 98.88 B. Nooteboom, Innovation and inter-firm linkages: new implications for policy, Res. Policy 28 (8)( 1999) 793 805.89 V. Chiesa, R. Manzini, E. Pizzurno, The externalisation of R&d activities and the growing market of product development services , R&d Manage. 34 (1)( 2004) 65 75.90 B. Carlsson, R. Stankiewicz, On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological Systems, in: B. Carlsson (Ed.),Technological Systems and Economic Performance: the Case of Factory Automation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.91 K. Dittrich, G. Duysters, Networking as a means to strategy change: the case of open innovation in mobile telephony, J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 24 (5)( 2007) 510 521.92 M. Sawhney, E. Prandelli, Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets, Calif. Manage. Rev. 42 (4)( 2000) 24 54.93 J. Fagerberg, D c. Mowery, R. R. Nelson, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford university Press, Oxford, New york, 2005.94 B. Beckhy, A. Hargadon, When collections of creatives (sic) become creative collectives: a field study of problem solving at work, Org. Sci. 17 (4)( 2006) 484 500.95 R. Cachia, R. Compañó, O. Da Costa, Grasping the potential of online social networks for foresight, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (8)( 2007) 1179 1203.96 R. P. Bagozzi, U. M. Dholakia, Intentional social action in consumer behaviour, J. Interact. Mark. 16 (2)( 2002) 2 21.97 O. Sorenson, J. W. Rivkin, L. Fleming, Complexity, networks and knowledge flow, Res. Policy 35 (7)( 2006) 994 1017.98 H. Katajisto, J. Kimari, Education, Training and Demand for Labour in Finland by 2015 Finnish National Board of education, Helsinki, 2005.99 K. Fichter, Innovation communities: the role of networks of promotors in Open Innovation, R&d Manage. 39 (4)( 2009) 357 371.100 J. Tidd, J. Bessant, K. Pavitt, Managing Innovation Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change, John Wiley & Sons, London, 2001.101 H. Chesbrough, Business model innovation: it's not just about technology anymore, Strategy Leadersh. 35 (6)( 2007) 12 17.102 L. K. Mytelka, K. Smith, Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process, Res. Policy 31 (8 9)( 2002) 1467 1479.103 W. Vanhaverbeke, M. Cloodt, Open Innovation in Value Networks, in: H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, J. West (Eds. Open innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 2006.104 R. Amit, C. Zott, Value creation in e-business, Strateg. Manage. J. 22 (2001) 493 520.105 B. Büchel, S. Raub, Building knowledge creating value networks, Eur. Manage. J. 20 (6)( 2002) 587 596.106 W. W. Powell, K. W. Koput, L. Smith-Doerr, Interorganisational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology, Adm. Sci. Q. 41 (1)( 1996) 116 145. Yuandi Wang is a postdoctoral fellow at Technical University of Denmark. He received his Phd from Hasselt University in Belgium. He received his Masters degree from Dalian University of Technology (People's republic of china. From 2005 to 2007 he was a lecturer at China University of Mining and Technology. Since 2008 he has been working for his Phd thesis in the field of open innovation and national systems of innovation. Wim Vanhaverbeke is professor of strategy and innovation at the University of Hasselt (Belgium. He is also visiting professor at ESADE (Spain) and the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School. He is published in international journals such as Journal of Management Studies, Organization Science, Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies, and Journal of Business Venturing. He serves on the editorial board of several international journals. He is co-editor with Henry Chesbrough and Joel West of‘Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, 'a book about the research challenges associated with Open Innovation. He is extending his research on open innovation and open business models by performing joint research with various universities around the globe. Nadine Roijakkers obtained her Phd degree from the United nations University-MERIT (Netherlands) in 2002. For two years she worked as a policy researcher for the European commission. From 2004 to 2007 she was an assistant professor of Open Innovation at Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands. For the past two and a half years she has been working as a strategy consultant at Atos. Since 2009 she has been working in Belgium alongside Wim Vanhaverbeke to further develop the theory and practice of Open Innovation. Outlets for her research include Long Range Planning, Harvard Business History Review, and Research Policy. 428 Y. Wang et al.//Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79 (2012) 419 428

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011