customers and external experts into their innovation processes (Mckinsey, 2008. It has been suggested that this open innovation approach, especially
Competitiveness and Employment Objective, co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF balance out prevailing size disadvantages toward
fragmented to date and still leave space for speculation and incongruence (Bianchi et al. 2010 Many of these studies focus on one type of open
practices alike, there is a need for additional work to advance the knowledge regarding open innovation
individuals, designers, retired employees, scientists suppliers, or other enterprises for new ways to generate idea,
promoting growth and employment opportunities Bednarzik, 2000; Hoffman et al. 1998; Bianchi et al.,, 2010; Chesbrough, 2010;
rely on less human resources (Hausman, 2005) and therefore have to deal with a lack of a broad multi
enterprises, based on staff headcount, annual turnover and annual balance sheet (European Commission, 2005. As financial data is rarely
employees when selecting our interview partners Five of our selected companies represent micro firms with less than 10 employees, while ten of
them employ between 10 and 50 employees. The sample of interviewees was selected in a way to provide a broad range of work fields in the area of
craftsmen businesses including carpenters mechanical engineers, metal workers, footwear producers, sports equipment technicians, electrical engineers, bricklayers and manufacturers of
refrigeration. Twelve of the interview partners are also the owners of the respective firms, and only
three were did CEOS that not own the company The interviewees were notified via phone and an
an expert in open innovation studies. To ensure that the insider†s perspective did not bias the results, the
Also, internal sources such as employees are still considered important sources of innovation Interviewee 8: â€oeyou have to consider that the
employees, who are working on the front line and who have gathered a tremendous amount of experience within their specific area of expertise
our employees are actively involved in the development process of new ideas. I am the one responsible for condensing and
are made in collaboration with our employees because without their involvement it is difficult to consequently succeed. â€
not always offer qualified staff, and because of limited resources, there is no possibility to train the
promotions aimed at targeted customers Interviewee 1: â€oewe are actively using our home page to illustrate our products
customers, employees and other corporations are accepted as sources for invention. This study supports theoretical assumptions, which point out
that large firms(>250 employees) are collaborating on average with more external partners than small firms.
human resources and the lack of technological capabilities force them to look for different types of innovation partners
Accordingly, they may have to work in several consecutive steps, which in some cases look like a bootstrapping strategy
innovation experts. Some cases where not useful to illustrate open innovation in SMES. Other companies were acquired just
should have less than 500 employees. The companies are active in a wide range of industries.
and have 500 employees; other companies are just a few years old and have less than five employees.
The reader should thus not be surprised by the heterogeneity 13 of the cases. The diversity of the themes we will discuss illustrates how open innovation can take
learning process led by sleep experts. The QOD case illustrates that developing a successful business model that ultimately changes the industry starts with nothing more than the conviction of a well
less than 20 employees) that is active in the bicycle accessory market. It is a third-generation, family
processing steps and were thus more expensive when manufactured in countries with high-labour costs.
manufacturers, professional organizations, user groups, social representatives, and teaching institutions that created a totally new concept for the patient hospital room:
hospitalisation is the central concept around which the consortium works. The Patient Room of the
Medical staff must care for more patients; patients stay for shorter hospitalisation periods; and the drive is strong to increase the medical staff†s productivity
Furthermore, retailers can adapt their promotions to each customer†s personal style This approach not only provides extensive capabilities for the buying process,
started a glass works company that produced its own line of glass instruments. This Belgian company
and material experts. The third step is promotion. In this step, Curana organized information sessions to promote its new ideas among potential customers.
In this way, the company r eceived valuable feedback from potential customers. Realization is the fourth step.
collaboration with external production partners, mold makers, and material experts Using the so-called Original Strategic Management (OSM) model, Curana and its innovation partners
After consulting with an examination board of sleep experts, QOD decided to produce a functional quilt that would reduce the temperature variation under the quilt to
specialized workers, and small innovation port folios such that risks associated with innovation cannot be spread.
It combined valuable insights from sleep experts with the PCM technology, which has required the characteristics to improve sleep.
and tested with the help of medical experts. QOD€ s first functional quilt†branded as Temprakon†was the result of linking PCM technology with insights about sleep comfort
Jaga also explored initiatives to spur the creativity of employees and external partners by setting up
who complained that they only could do real nursing work during 50%of their working time.
The remainder was absorbed by administration and other tasks. The small consortium took this feedback as an input to set up an IT-system where nurses have more time
If your partner leaves the company or secures another position, the joint project may stop
of Saflot Creative Consultants) added: â€oeour antennas are open to society and technologies, and we record a lot.
Disciplining disloyal partners only works under certain circumstances. First, a strong leader must operate in the network,
partners only works if the innovation network is instrumental in creating a competitive advantage for the companies involved.
Some of the networks work with open books to ensure that all partners involved use fair overhead costs
employees, for instance, did not understand why management was preoccupied with managing the network of partners while internal management problems also had to be solved.
firm in the case inventors are companies doing contract research, external designers, or employees Several firms we interviewed chose not to co-patent an invention that was developed co with their
SMES is hampered by lack of financial resources, scant opportunities to recruit specialized workers poor understanding of advanced technology, and so on.
Universities, research labs, crowds of experts, lead users, and knowledge brokers are just a few examples of potential external sources of kn owledge.
collaboration and are eager to work with the venture Finally, Toine also had to license the technology from DSM.
detected that the existing turbo-fryers on the market did not work, and his simple adaptation to the air
packaged with an inspiring recipe booklet, written by a culinary expert, which contains 30 easy-to
o Licensing to small firms implies significant work in return for small licensing revenues The venture manager,
What works is a vision, not a dream. In most cases, the vision can be considered as a new
consultants develop. In contrast, they are spurred to take action when they are confronted with the testimonials of entrepreneurs who are using open innovation successfully to develop new businesses
SMES are companies with less than 250 employees (N=792; lager companies (â ¥ 250 employees;
N=175 The calculation covers the period 2002-2004 Open innovation can be measured in different ways.
labs, private R&d organizations, and consultants (iv; institutional sources (universities and university colleges (v), government and public research organizations (vi)),
calculated by dividing the search strategy score by the employment of the firm External R&d indicates how heavily companies rely on five possible external R&d activities:
reflects external R&d per employee Collaborative innovation indicates whether innovating firms engage in collaborative innovation activities with
consultants and private R&d organizations iv); ) universities (v; and public research organizations (vi. Collaborative innovation is captured by calculating
collaboration per employee Variable Small and medium-sized enterprises N-SME=792 Large firms N-large=175
Moreover, small contests can be held among employees, suppliers, and local communities of designers, engineers, and so on
Customers, employees and other firms are the most common sources of new ideas, but the use of venture capital, outsourcing of R&d and
Not only customers but also firms'employees can contribute to a firm's overall innovative performance. Both in closed and open innovation paradigms, individual
employees play a crucial but different role. Thus, a firm should foster a culture in
which these knowledge workers are motivated to continuously search for new ideas In addition, firms that embark on open innovation should stimulate inter
-organizational networking between employees of different firms. Several case studies illustrate that informal ties of employees with employees of other organizations or
institutions are crucial to understand how new products are created and commercialized (Chesbrough et al. 2006). ) Morgan (1993) observed in the early
nineties already that the role of formal reporting structures and detailed work processes had diminished a role in favor of informal networks of employees.
These networks were in many cases cross-boundary linking employees of (locally bounded 10 networks of firms.
The strength and dynamics of these connected groups of employees has a significant impact on firms'knowledge creating capability.
1 Another important dimension of technology exploration is inter-organizational networking. For instance, R&d alliances between noncompeting firms have become
to how informal networks of employees in networked organizations may facilitate (or hamper knowledge creating and integration
provides evidence that small firms (firms with less than 1000 employees) continually increased their share of total industrial R&d spending in the US during the last two
employees were still responsible for 38%of total industry R&d spending in 2005 compared to 71%in 1981 (National Science Foundation, 2006.
inclined to use networks and customer and employee involvement in the innovation process, we expect to find that in general manufacturing firms are involved more in
SMES are defined as firms with up to 500 employees. However there is still great difference in the innovation strategies of small firms (up to 100
employees) and medium sized enterprises (100-499 employees. The innovation processes of larger firms are structured typically more and professionalized, and
-organizational networks, the involvement of employees and that of customers in the innovation processes seems to be equally feasible for both small and large SMES, the
Netherlands, defined as all firms with no more than 500 employees. Firms with less than 10 employees (i e. micro-firms) were excluded from the sample, because in
general they have no or very limited in-house R&d activities. Besides, the population of micro-firms contains a relatively high share of start-ups.
Type of industry 10-99 employees 100-499 employees total Manufacturing †food and beverages (NACE codes 15-16) 40 21
To measure the role of employees, respondents had to indicate to which degree employees were stimulated to contribute to innovation processes, e g. by investing in
employees†ideas and initiatives, creating autonomous teams with own budgets to carry out innovations, or stimulating employees†external work contacts in order to
enhance opportunity exploration. The survey data allowed distinguishing between employees that belong to the R&d department
and those that are coming from other organizational parts of the company Furthermore, the survey also investigated
%Employee involvement 93%42%57%1 %Network usage in innovation processes 94%29%67%4
of network partners, customers and employees in innovation processes is fairly 21 common among Dutch SMES.
Especially employee involvement, customer involvement, the use of network partners and (to a lesser extent) outsourcing of R&d have experienced a substantial increase in
Customer involvement, employee involvement, and the usage of networks in the innovation process appear to be the main types of open innovation practices
Employee involvement 94%93%0, 4 0. 41 0. 41 0, 1 Network usage in innovation processes 95%94%0, 3 0. 24 0. 26 0, 3
Table 4 shows that larger SMES (100-499 employees) are on average much stronger involved in outsourcing R&d, participation in other firms and in-and out
-licensing, as compared to the small SMES(<100 employees. Both size categories show no significant differences with respect to customer and employee involvement
networking with partners because these are practices that have no discriminating power since all firms are involved actively in them.
employees n=376 100-499 employees n=229 F-value 10-99 employees n=376
100-499 employees n=229 F-value Technology exploitation Venturing 27%32%1, 9 0. 11 0. 14 1, 5
License IP to other firms 6%16%18,9**0. 01 0. 04 2, 1 Technology exploration
Customer involvement 97%98%1, 2 0. 30 0. 50 22,8 **Employee involvement 92%96%3, 0 0. 37 0. 48 7, 5
*Network usage in innovation processes 94%95%0, 2 0. 20 0. 33 8, 8
**Employee involvement 98%99%38%388,9 **Network usage in innovation processes 99%100%44%317,7
the involvement of network partners, customers and employees in their innovation processes. Some of them also rely on outsourcing of R&d,
customer involvement and to a minor extent on employee involvement and network partners. This is, of course, a (too) narrow interpretation of open innovation
**Employee involvement 0. 53 0. 43 0. 07 18,2 **Network usage in innovation processes 0. 29 0. 27 0. 05 5, 1
Share of firms with 100-499 employees (vs. 10-99 empl. 55%34%25%12,0
non-R&d employees in the innovation process The different answers of the respondents to the question what drives them to get
and ideas of current employees Policy*Organization principles, management conviction that involvement of employees is desirable
Motivation*Involvement of employees in the innovation process increases their motivation and commitment *Only used for coding motives related to employee-involvement
Table 8 below shows that for almost all open innovation practices pursued by SMES the most important motives are market-related ones.
For the majority of respondents using new innovation methods is regarded as a way to keep up with market
involvement of non-R&d employees in the innovation process: this innovation practice is related to three motives that are clearly different from the other motives
Employee involvement n=256 Control%1 1 3 1 1 9 Focus%3 8 0 1 0
Employee involvement is the only type of innovation in which the respondents do not mention the objectives listed in the other types of innovation.
respondents that involve non-R&d employees in their innovation process do so because they feel that the skills of their employees can be utilized in a more efficient
way, and that they can complement the innovation initiatives of the management and/or R&d department.
In addition, many companies involve employees for motivational reasons. Up to 15%of the respondents is convinced of the added value
of employee involvement for innovation; often this is part of the firm's policy in this case. Another 22%sees the involvement of employees mainly as a way to motivate
them. The direct impact on the bottom-line in that case is less important as employees are engaged primarily in the innovation process to increase their overall performance
on the job. Finally, market considerations are also important: after all, employees may be closely related to the market
and therefore have a better idea than managers or engineers about the potential success of products and the problems they experience
In this case, employee involvement is a valuable source of knowledge in the innovation process Finally, there are also motives that are primarily related to specific types of
Competent employees Employees lack knowledge/competences, not enough labor flexibility Commitment Lack of employee commitment, resistance to change
Idea management Employees have too many ideas, no management support Table 10 shows the extent to which the barriers mentioned above matter for each of
the different types of open innovation activities. Organization and corporate culture -related issues that typically emerge
or, in the case of venturing, employees who leave the organization. These inter-organizational relationships frequently lead to
Employee involvement n=88 Administration%28 13 10 --Finance%10 0 5 --Knowledge%5 5
employees %--24 Commitment%--51 Idea management%--8 Other%8 3-8 -Total%100 100 100 100 100
When involving employees, it often turns out that they do not have required the 35 capabilities or skills to make a valuable contribution to innovation,
up any of the ideas provided by employees or that the number of ideas coming from
individual employees just gets too large to handle in an efficient way. This, in turn poses new challenges to managers when they want to get the most out the creativity of
SMES play an increasingly important role in innovation and job creation, but are nevertheless left out of the research on open innovation,
-Employment: New Insights into the Role of Gender H200802 5-6-2008 Intrapreneurship; Conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee
behaviour H200801 12-11-2008 Investigating Blue Ocean v. Competitive Strategy: A Statistical Analysis of the Retail Industry
H200716 21-12-2007 Employment Growth of New Firms 46 H200715 21-12-2007 Entrepreneurial Culture and its Effect on the Rate of Nascent
H200709 12-10-2007 Does Self employment Reduce Unemployment H200708 10-9-2007 Social security arrangements and early-stage entrepreneurial
H200622 1-12-2006 Determinants of self employment preference and realization of women and men in Europe and the United states
and discusses the limitations and implications of our work 2. Open innovation Traditionally, large ï rms relied on internal R&d to
and the involvement of non-R&d workers in innovation initiatives Venturing is deï ned here as starting up new organiza
employees, including those who are employed not at the ovation 29 (2009) 423†437 internal R&d department.
that informal ties of employees with employees of other ARTICLE IN PRESS chn organizations are crucial to understand how new products
by individual employees is a means to foster organizational success (e g. Van de ven, 1986. Work has become more
knowledge-based and less rigidly deï ned. In this context employees can be involved in innovation processes in
multiple ways, for example by taking up their suggestions exempting them to take initiatives beyond organizational boundaries, or introducing suggestion schemes such as idea
work of Von Hippel (2005) users are regarded increasingly not as just passive adopters of innovations, but they may
) This work concludes that innovation in SMES is hampered by lack of ï nancial resources, scant opportu
-nities to recruit specialized workers, and small innovation portfolios so that risks associated with innovation cannot
deï ned as 10†99 employees) and medium-sized ones 100†499 employees. Past work has shown that there is a
great deal of difference in the innovation strategies of small and large ï rms (e g. Vossen, 1998;
Acs and Audretsch 1990). ) Innovation processes of larger ï rms are typically more structured and professionalized.
marked by recruiting specialized workers, and introducing managerial layers, rules and procedures (Greiner, 1972 Once a critical size is reached,
workers, abundant venture capital, widely distributed knowledge and reduced product life cycles, most enter -prises can no longer afford to innovate on their own.
deï ned as enterprises with no more than 500 employees and was implemented by means of computer-assisted
10†99 employees and 100†499 employees. Enterprises with less than 10 employees (micro-enterprises) were excluded
since they generally have limited no or identiï able innova -tion activities, and this population usually contains many
R&d managers or staff managing new business develop -ment activities. In total 2230 respondents were contacted, of
Employee involvement Leveraging the knowledge and initiatives of employees who are involved not in R&d, for example by taking up
suggestions, exempting them to implement ideas, or creating autonomous teams to realize innovations Technology exploration
99 employees 100†499 employees Total 21 22 32 53 128 288 17 24 60
networking and employee involvement are fairly common innovation practices. Outward and inward licensing of IP
Employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking appear to be main types of open innovation conducted by both manufacturers and services
Employee involvement 93 42 57 1 Technology exploration Customer involvement 97 38 61 1 dus
Employee involvement 94 93 0. 7 Technology exploration Customer involvement 98 97 0. 8 External networking 95 94 0. 6
employees) are more likely to engage in open innovation On all technology exploitation and exploration practices
mind that employee involvement, customer involvement Table 5 Incidence of and perceived trends in open innovation practices between siz
10†99 employees n  376 %100†499 employees n  229 %Ma Z (U
Technology exploitation Venturing 27 32 1. 4 Outward IP licensing 6 16 4. 3 Employee
involvement 92 96 1. 7 Technology exploration Customer involvement 97 98 1. 1 External networking
respondents with 100†499 employees are (much) larger Especially for the technology exploration activities med
Whitney 10†99 employees n  376 100†499 employees n  229 Mann†Whitney
Z (U 0. 11 0. 14 1. 2 0. 01 0. 04 1. 5 0. 37 0. 48 2. 8
the practices of employee involvement, external involve -ment and external networking. The second component contains R&d outsourcing and outward and inward IP
rely on the involvement of employees and customers, and external networking, features which are shared with cluster 1
Employee involvement 98 99 Technology exploration Customer involvement 98 99 External networking 99 100 External participation 44 31
Employee involvement 0. 53 0. 43 Technology exploration Customer involvement 0. 52 0. 38 External networking 0. 29 0. 27
including employee invol -vement and external networking. Medium-sized enterprises are represented clearly over and their innovation activities
qualities, and initiatives of employees †30 Policy Organization principles, management conviction that involvement of employees
is desirable †15 Motivation Involvement of employees in the innovation process increases their motivation and commitment
†22 Other 19 11 Total 100 100 ion Technology exploration e ent %Customer involvement
Employee involvement is the only item where motives are different than for the other items.
However, employee involvement is also the outcome of an †internal organizational policy†or it is
employees. These two motives are dictated not necessarily by innovation objectives Table 9 identiï es the main managerial and organiza
-ing, employees who leave the organization. These inter -organizational relationships frequently lead to problems concerning the division of tasks and responsibility, the
Competences Employees lack knowledge/competences, not enough labor ï exibility †Commitment Lack of employee commitment, resistance to
change †Idea management Employees have too many ideas, no management support †Other 7
Total 100 100 ployee olvement 88 %Customer involvement n  68 %External networking n  53
When relying on employees to imple -ment open innovation, it often turns out that they do not
to take up any of the ideas provided by employees or that the number of ideas coming from individual employees just
gets too large to handle in an efï cient way. This, in turn poses new challenges to managers when they want to get
non-R&d) workers. For technology exploration, by far most SMES somehow try to involve their customers in
Drawing on previous work we expected that the incidence and trend towards open innovation would be
with employee involvement and external networking, and ending with more †advanced†practices like IP licensing
particularly applies to employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking. These innovation practices were introduced to respondents in such a way that
micro-enterprises (with less than ten employees) were excluded. As these enterprises have been repeatedly identiï ed as sources of breakthrough innovations
with 10†499 employees. This is partly due to the screening questions, but also because it was decided that manu
customer involvement, following with employee involve -ment and external networking, and ending with more advanced practices which require formal budgets and
Future work should further investigate how organizations engage in open innovation outï ows of knowledge,
Employee involvement 0. 72 0. 13 0. 01 Customer involvement 0. 59 ï¿0. 08 0. 10
employee creativity into practicable ideas. R&d Management 32 387†395 Von Hippel, E.,2005. Democratizing Innovation.
and discusses the limitations and implications of our work 2. Open innovation Traditionally, large ï rms relied on internal R&d to
and the involvement of non-R&d workers in innovation initiatives Venturing is deï ned here as starting up new organiza
employees, including those who are employed not at the ovation 29 (2009) 423†437 internal R&d department.
that informal ties of employees with employees of other ARTICLE IN PRESS chn organizations are crucial to understand how new products
by individual employees is a means to foster organizational success (e g. Van de ven, 1986. Work has become more
knowledge-based and less rigidly deï ned. In this context employees can be involved in innovation processes in
multiple ways, for example by taking up their suggestions exempting them to take initiatives beyond organizational boundaries, or introducing suggestion schemes such as idea
work of Von Hippel (2005) users are regarded increasingly not as just passive adopters of innovations, but they may
) This work concludes that innovation in SMES is hampered by lack of ï nancial resources, scant opportu
-nities to recruit specialized workers, and small innovation portfolios so that risks associated with innovation cannot
deï ned as 10†99 employees) and medium-sized ones 100†499 employees. Past work has shown that there is a
great deal of difference in the innovation strategies of small and large ï rms (e g. Vossen, 1998;
Acs and Audretsch 1990). ) Innovation processes of larger ï rms are typically more structured and professionalized.
marked by recruiting specialized workers, and introducing managerial layers, rules and procedures (Greiner, 1972 Once a critical size is reached,
workers, abundant venture capital, widely distributed knowledge and reduced product life cycles, most enter -prises can no longer afford to innovate on their own.
deï ned as enterprises with no more than 500 employees and was implemented by means of computer-assisted
10†99 employees and 100†499 employees. Enterprises with less than 10 employees (micro-enterprises) were excluded
since they generally have limited no or identiï able innova -tion activities, and this population usually contains many
R&d managers or staff managing new business develop -ment activities. In total 2230 respondents were contacted, of
Employee involvement Leveraging the knowledge and initiatives of employees who are involved not in R&d, for example by taking up
suggestions, exempting them to implement ideas, or creating autonomous teams to realize innovations Technology exploration
99 employees 100†499 employees Total 21 22 32 53 128 288 17 24 60
networking and employee involvement are fairly common innovation practices. Outward and inward licensing of IP
Employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking appear to be main types of open innovation conducted by both manufacturers and services
Employee involvement 93 42 57 1 Technology exploration Customer involvement 97 38 61 1 dus
Employee involvement 94 93 0. 7 Technology exploration Customer involvement 98 97 0. 8 External networking 95 94 0. 6
employees) are more likely to engage in open innovation On all technology exploitation and exploration practices
mind that employee involvement, customer involvement Table 5 Incidence of and perceived trends in open innovation practices between siz
10†99 employees n  376 %100†499 employees n  229 %Ma Z (U
Technology exploitation Venturing 27 32 1. 4 Outward IP licensing 6 16 4. 3 Employee
involvement 92 96 1. 7 Technology exploration Customer involvement 97 98 1. 1 External networking
respondents with 100†499 employees are (much) larger Especially for the technology exploration activities med
Whitney 10†99 employees n  376 100†499 employees n  229 Mann†Whitney
Z (U 0. 11 0. 14 1. 2 0. 01 0. 04 1. 5 0. 37 0. 48 2. 8
the practices of employee involvement, external involve -ment and external networking. The second component contains R&d outsourcing and outward and inward IP
rely on the involvement of employees and customers, and external networking, features which are shared with cluster 1
Employee involvement 98 99 Technology exploration Customer involvement 98 99 External networking 99 100 External participation 44 31
Employee involvement 0. 53 0. 43 Technology exploration Customer involvement 0. 52 0. 38 External networking 0. 29 0. 27
including employee invol -vement and external networking. Medium-sized enterprises are represented clearly over and their innovation activities
qualities, and initiatives of employees †30 Policy Organization principles, management conviction that involvement of employees
is desirable †15 Motivation Involvement of employees in the innovation process increases their motivation and commitment
†22 Other 19 11 Total 100 100 ion Technology exploration e ent %Customer involvement
Employee involvement is the only item where motives are different than for the other items.
However, employee involvement is also the outcome of an †internal organizational policy†or it is
employees. These two motives are dictated not necessarily by innovation objectives Table 9 identiï es the main managerial and organiza
-ing, employees who leave the organization. These inter -organizational relationships frequently lead to problems concerning the division of tasks and responsibility, the
Competences Employees lack knowledge/competences, not enough labor ï exibility †Commitment Lack of employee commitment, resistance to
change †Idea management Employees have too many ideas, no management support †Other 7
Total 100 100 ployee olvement 88 %Customer involvement n  68 %External networking n  53
When relying on employees to imple -ment open innovation, it often turns out that they do not
to take up any of the ideas provided by employees or that the number of ideas coming from individual employees just
gets too large to handle in an efï cient way. This, in turn poses new challenges to managers when they want to get
non-R&d) workers. For technology exploration, by far most SMES somehow try to involve their customers in
Drawing on previous work we expected that the incidence and trend towards open innovation would be
with employee involvement and external networking, and ending with more †advanced†practices like IP licensing
particularly applies to employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking. These innovation practices were introduced to respondents in such a way that
micro-enterprises (with less than ten employees) were excluded. As these enterprises have been repeatedly identiï ed as sources of breakthrough innovations
with 10†499 employees. This is partly due to the screening questions, but also because it was decided that manu
customer involvement, following with employee involve -ment and external networking, and ending with more advanced practices which require formal budgets and
Future work should further investigate how organizations engage in open innovation outï ows of knowledge,
Employee involvement 0. 72 0. 13 0. 01 Customer involvement 0. 59 ï¿0. 08 0. 10
employee creativity into practicable ideas. R&d Management 32 387†395 Von Hippel, E.,2005. Democratizing Innovation.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011