H200819 Open innovation in SMES Trends, motives and management challenges Vareska van de Vrande Jeroen P. J. de Jong
Entrepreneurship and SMES), as part of the'SMES and Entrepreneurship programme 'financed by The netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs
Most recent EIM reports and much more on SMES and Entrepreneurship can be found at
www. entrepreneurship-sme. eu The responsibility for the contents of this report lies with EIM bv.
Quoting numbers or text in papers, essays and books is permitted only when the source is mentioned clearly.
Department of Strategic Management and Business Environment Room T7-33 P o box 1738,3000 DR Rotterdam, The netherlands
difference in the adaption to open innovation between manufacturing and services firms, and between larger and smaller SMES.
strategy to realize market-related objectives such as meeting customer demands, or keeping up with competitors.
different categories of SMES, such as services and manufacturing firms? What are the most important drivers for SMES to start open innovation practices?
suppliers, customers, complementors (Nalebuff and Brandenburger, 1996) and other actors in the value system. Moreover, many SMES are active in medium-or low-tech
venture capital is abundant nowadays and the acceleration of the product life cycle has turned intellectual property (IP) into an increasingly perishable
and spinning out new ventures, and the licensing of intellectual property to external parties (Chesbrough, 2003.
) several large high-tech companies spin off new ventures 8 because the business idea does not fit into the existing business model.
The potential for these spin off companies is enormous; Chesbrough (2003) illustrates that the total market value of 11 projects which turned into new ventures exceeded that of their
parent company, Xerox, by a factor of two In addition, firms can also profit from their own, unused IP when other firms
with different business models find profitable, external paths to the market for an idea Chesbrough, 2006.
Customers, employees and other firms are the most common sources of new ideas, but the use of venture capital, outsourcing of R&d and
the licensing of other firms†IP are also becoming more common nowadays First of all, firms may benefit from user-initiated innovations by decreasing
commercialization costs and by accelerating involving customers into the product development and commercialization process (Gales and Mansour-Cole, 1995.
customers prefer possible future characteristics of products. However, conventional market research methods may not work well in the instance of many industrial goods
and services (Herstatt & Von Hippel, 1992. More recently, firms stimulate users to co-develop products or technologies,
Not only customers but also firms'employees can contribute to a firm's overall innovative performance. Both in closed and open innovation paradigms, individual
) Additionally, interaction with suppliers & customers can provide missing external inputs into the learning process
products and or services Inter-organizational networking might also take the specific form of participation in new or existing companies, for instance through minority holdings or
corporate venture capital investments (Chesbrough, 2002; Dushnitsky and Lenox 2005a; Ernst et al. 2005). ) Through these kinds of equity investments, firms gain a
â€oewindow†on new technological developments (Keil, 2002. Moreover, the equity investment might serve as the creation of an option to further increase collaboration
with the partner firm in case the technology provides to be valuable for the investing firm (Van de Vrande et al.
venture capital investments have a positive effect on the innovative performance of firms (Dushnitsky and Lenox, 2005b;
so that competitors could not profit from ideas. In open innovation, firms manage IP in a different way:
external IP to fuel their own business model and to speed up and nurture their own research engine.
valuable add-on to the current business model of firms To conclude, open innovation in firms can take many different forms.
becoming increasingly important for industry R&d and thus for economic growth 13 3. 1 Type of industry
between services and manufacturing firms. Prior studies have acknowledged the fact that services and manufacturing firms are fundamentally different.
According to Atuahene-Gima (1996) services differ from products in terms of intangibility inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability. Intangibility refers to the fact that
services can be regarded as experiences which makes it more difficult to assess their value before purchase.
Inseparability highlights the role of the customer in the simultaneous production and consumption of the service.
perishability point towards the variability in the quality of services and the inability to store services when supply exceeds demand.
Their study shows how factors affecting the innovation potential differ greatly between these two groups of firms.
services and manufacturing firms Traditionally, the importance of closed innovation was highlighted primarily for industrial firms.
mobility of engineers and the rise of the venture capital industry have forced these firms to open up their innovation processes.
Aside from the fact that SMES are services or manufacturing firms, they also differ significantly in size.
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
extent to which SME companies establish new ventures as a part of their open innovation strategy is likely to depend on firm size.
spinning out of new ventures requires a structured and well organized innovation 15 process. Moreover, participation in other firms also calls for a certain amount of
which can be used to make high-risk investments with uncertain return on investment. Larger firms typically have more financial resources to engage in these
kinds of investments. The same holds for the in-and out-licensing of intellectual property rights;
in-licensing of IP requires financial slack, whereas out-licensing of IP requires the structure
customer demand, but also in collecting new ideas and knowledge, improving innovative performance, continuous growth and financial motives.
Services †IT (NACE code 72) 53 17 †business services (NACE code 74) 59 24
†other services (NACE codes 50-71; 92-93) 104 60 216 101 317 Total 376 229 605
4. 2 Operationalizing open innovation Open innovation was operationalized according to the different dimensions mentioned earlier in this paper2
use variables measuring if firms had spun ever out new ventures, or licensed-out their own intellectual property in the period 2003-2005
To address the role of customers, respondents were asked to which degree customers were involved in the innovation process, for instance by
doing active market research, deploying new products which were specified by customers themselves, or producing new products based upon inventions by
customers of users. The survey data contained a summary variable indicating customer involvement, i e. a dummy coded 1
if firms used input from their customers in recent innovation processes 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
enhance opportunity exploration. The survey data allowed distinguishing between employees that belong to the R&d department
public knowledge centers (e g. universities), customers, suppliers, and investors (e g banks, venture capital firms 20 Finally, we looked at the degree firms participate by equity investments in new
or existing companies, we asked whether respondents had ever outsourced R&d in the period 2003-2005,
and to what extent the firm licensed IP from other firms For each type of technology exploration, respondents were asked to indicate
opportunity to elaborate on their motives and perceived challenges for each of these technology exploration mechanisms by means of open-ended questions
of network partners, customers and employees in innovation processes is fairly 21 common among Dutch SMES.
used by both manufacturing and services firms. Oneway analysis of variance furthermore demonstrates that outsourcing R&d is done more frequently by
results show that venturing is more popular among services firms compared to manufacturing firms service SMES spin out new ventures more often.
Thus, although manufacturing firms are involved to a larger extent in outsourcing of R&d and the
manufacturing firms and services firms for the other types of open innovation 22 Table 3. Open innovation practices and perceived change in manufacturing and service
Services n=317 F -value Manufacturing n=288 Services n=317 F -value Technology exploitation
Venturing 24%33%5, 8 0. 09 0. 15 3, 8 License IP to other firms 11%8%1, 5 0. 02 0. 02 0, 1
experienced a stronger shift towards more outsourcing of R&d, while services firms experienced a stronger increase in new venturing.
between the services and manufacturing SMES for the other items 5. 2 Size classes SMES are not a homogenous group of firms.
the involvement of network partners, customers and employees in their innovation processes. Some of them also rely on outsourcing of R&d,
outsourcing of R&d, setting up new ventures participation in new or existing firms, involvement of external partners in the
customers, increase growth and/or market share Utilization*Optimal use of talents, qualities, and ideas of current employees
developments and to meet customer demand, which should eventually result in increased growth, better results,
-changing customer demand and to prevent the firm from being outperformed by competitors or new entrants
with customers. In this case, employee involvement is a valuable source of knowledge in the innovation process
In this case, the new venture commercializes products that do not fit the corporate brand or strategy.
Organization/culture Balancing innovation and daily tasks, communication problems, aligning partners organization of innovation Resources Costs of innovation, time needed
Customer demand Customer demand too specific, innovation appears not to fit the market Competent employees Employees lack knowledge/competences, not enough labor flexibility
and communication problems within and between organizations 34 Table 10. Barriers to different types of open innovation
governmental or other not-for-profit institutions. Administrative burdens are also prominent when the company receives governmental subsidies and grants
with problems related to property rights, adoption and too specific customer demands When involving employees, it often turns out that they do not have required the
number of specialized services firms to execute this job4 Overall, we can conclude that many barriers for open innovation in SMES are
different for services and manufacturing firms as we expected based on the literature Manufacturing firms are on average more active in the outsourcing of R&d and the
of methods to meet the ever-changing customer demand and to stay competitive Corporate renewal is second most important driver towards open innovation.
small and medium sized enterprises, there are a number of avenues for future research. First, following up on the different clusters that were indentified in this
Economics of Innovation and New Technology 4 (1), 41 -59 Atuahene-Gima, K.,1996. Differential Potency of Factors Affecting Innovation
Performance in Manufacturing and Services Firms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13,35-52
Making Sense of Corporate Venture capital. Harvard Business Review, March 2002,4-11 Chesbrough, H.,2003. Open Innovation:
Open business models: How to thrive in a new innovation landscape. Harvard Business school Press: Boston, MA
Innovation Systems and Clusters in the Asymmetric Knowledge Economy. In Breschi, S.,Malerba, F. eds..
new ventures? Strategic Management Journal 26,947-965 Dushnitsky, G.,Lenox, M. J.,2005b. When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial
ventures? Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Research Policy 34,615-639 EIRMA, 2003. Innovation through Spinning In and Out.
Working group Report WG60, Eirma: Paris EIRMA, 2004. Technology Access for open innovation. Working group Report WG63, Eirma:
Corporate Venture capital as a Strategy for External Innovation: An Exploratory Empirical Study. R&d Management 25
Economics 9, 33-44 Hair, J. F.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.,Black, W c.,1998.
ventures: Toward time-based cultural management. Human Relations, 50: 211 -228 Milligan, G. W.,Cooper, M. C.,1987.
investment in open-source software. R&d Management 36,319-331 45 The results of EIM's Research Programme on SMES and Entrepreneurship are published in the
following series: Research Reports and Publieksrapportages. The most recent publications of both series may be downloaded at:
www. entrepreneurship-sme. eu Recent Research Reports and Scales Papers H200818 10-11-2008 High-Growth SMES Evidence from The netherlands
H200812 16-9-2008 Science and technology-based regional entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: building support structures for business creation
and growth entrepreneurship H200811 8-9-2008 What Determines the Growth Ambition of Dutch Early-Stage
Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data H200809 25-7-2008 The Entrepreneurial Adjustment Process in Disequilibrium
H200808 2-7-2008 Entrepreneurial Career Capital, Innovation and New Venture Export Orientation H200807 24-6-2008 Twee decennia ondernemerschapsbeleid in beeld:
Entrepreneurship in The netherlands H200804 19-2-2008 Samenwerken op afstand H200803 1-1-2008 Explaining Preferences and Actual Involvement in Self
H200723 21-12-2007 Overoptimism Among Entrepreneurs in New Ventures: The Role of Information and Motivation
H200721 21-12-2007 The Role of Export-Driven New Ventures in Economic growth A Cross-country Analysis
H200719 21-12-2007 Modelling latent and actual entrepreneurship H200718 21-12-2007 Knowledge management and Innovation:
H200717 21-12-2007 Entrepreneurship and innovation H200716 21-12-2007 Employment Growth of New Firms
Entrepreneurship H200714 21-12-2007 Creative industries H200713 19-11-2007 New Ventures†Export Orientation:
H200707 11-5-2007 Competition and innovative intentions: A study of Dutch SMES H200706 eind maart High-Growth Support Initiatives
H200701 3-1-2007 Entrepreneurial diversity and economic growth H200627 21-12-2006 Motivation Based Policies for an Entrepreneurial EU Economy
H200626 19-12-2006 Export Orientation among New Ventures and Economic growth H200625 18-12-2006 Institutionele voorwaarden voor zelfstandig ondernemerschap
H200624 13-12-2006 Creative Destruction and Regional Competitiveness H200623 6-12-2006 Entrepreneurship, Dynamic Capabilities and New Firm Growth
H200622 1-12-2006 Determinants of self employment preference and realization of women and men in Europe and the United states
H200616 11-10-2006 Entrepreneurship and its determinants in a cross-country setting H200615 2-10-2006 The Geography of New Firm Formation:
as small enterprises and service industries were surveyed not ARTICLE IN PRESS ï¿Corresponding author. Tel.:++4121 693 0048;
medium-sized enterprises (SMES. It is a ï rst, explorative study measuring to which extent SMES apply open
large samples of enterprises are explored, the focus is on speciï c issues rather than the full open innovation model
broader sample of enterprises. He focused on medium -innovation practices are applied also by small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMES.
Drawing on a database collected from 605 innovative SMES in The netherlands, we explore the incidence of and apparent trend towards open innovation.
major differences between manufacturing and services industries, but medium-sized ï rms are on average more heavily involved in open
motives such as meeting customer demands, or keeping up with competitors. Their most important challenges relate to organizational
1. Introduction large, high-tech multinational enterprises (MNES) drawing Open innovation has so far been studied mainly in high-tech, multinational enterprises.
This exploratory paper investigates if open Open innovation in SMES: Trends Vareska van de Vrandea, ï¿,
differences between manufacturing and services ï rms, and between medium-sized and small enterprises. Furthermore
we explore the motives of SMES to engage in open innovation and perceived management challenges in
been studied mainly in American enterprises (e g. Ches -brough, 2003; Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006; Lecocq and Demil, 2006) and not in others parts of the world
abundant venture capital and widely dispersed knowledge across multiple public and private organizations, enter -prises can no longer afford to innovate on their own, but
enterprises may engage in various practices. In this paper three activities related to technology exploitation will be distinguished:
-tion may also include ï nance, human capital, legal advice administrative services, etc. Previous open innovation
studies have focused primarily on venturing activities in large enterprises (e g. Chesbrough, 2003; Lord et al. 2002
The potential of venturing activities is regarded to be enormous, e g. Chesbrough (2003) illustrated that the total
market value of 11 projects which turned into new ventures exceeded that of their parent company, Xerox, by a factor
Enterprises have opportunities to out-license their IP to obtain more value from it (Gassmann, 2006.
Out-licensing allows them to proï t from their IP when other ï rms with different
business models ï nd proï table, external paths to the market. The decision of ï rms to license out depends on
boxes and internal competitions (e g. Van dijk and Van den Ende, 2002 2. 2. Technology exploration
enable enterprises to acquire new knowledge and techno -logies from the outside. In the survey, ï ve practices were
customers and evaluating what may be learned from general product development External networking is another important dimension
social capital, including individuals and organizations. As such, it comprises both formal collaborative projects and
allow enterprises to rapidly ï ll in speciï c knowledge needs without having to spend enormous amounts of time and
Enterprises may invest in start-ups and other businesses to keep an eye on potential opportunities Chesbrough, 2006; Keil, 2002.
Such equity investments provide opportunities to further increase external colla -boration in case their technologies prove to be valuable
Van de Vrande et al. 2006). ) Enterprises may also outsource R&d activities to acquire external knowledge
At the heart of the open paradigm is the assumption that enterprises cannot conduct all R&d activities by them
-selves, but instead have to capitalize on external knowledge which can be licensed or bought (Gassmann, 2006
Technical service providers such as engineering ï rms and high-tech institutions have also become more important in
Finally, enterprises can externally acquire intellectual property, including the licensing of patents, copyrights or trade marks, to beneï t from external innovation opportu
one†s business model and to speed up and nurture internal research engines To conclude, in comparison with the closed model, the
In the closed innovation model enterprises must generate their own ideas and then develop, build, market, distribute
enterprises to be strongly self-reliant, implicitly recom -mending organizing innovation in internal R&d depart -ments.
In contrast, the open model prescribes enterprises to draw on both external and internal ideas and paths to the
market, when enterprises look to discover and develop innovative opportunities (Chesbrough, 2003. In doing so the open innovation model recognizes that smaller ï rms
take an increasingly prominent role in the contemporary innovation landscape. Some ï rst tentative evidence is
small enterprises contribute to total industrial R&d expenses in the US. They accounted for around 24%of
interview-based study of 12 enterprises in mainly low-tech industries, Chesbrough and Crowther (2006) found that
between manufacturing and services industries. Services differ from physical goods in terms of intangibility inseparability, heterogeneity and perishability (Atuahene
-Gima, 1996. Given the distinct nature of the offerings of manufacturing and services ï rms, differences in the
adoption of open innovation may be very plausible. As physical goods are more separable and homogenous,
-nology fusion, new business models and knowledge leveraging. We argue that especially the ï rst three
applicable to manufacturers than to services enterprises i e. manufacturing enterprises generally tend to operate in
larger geographical regions and the nature of their processes demands higher investments in capital and technologies.
For services†due to their relatively intangi -ble, simultaneous and heterogeneous nature†the opposite applies. Indeed, descriptive statistics of Dutch enterprises
offered by Statistics Netherlands (2006) demonstrate that manufacturers are on average more technology-intensive V. van de Vrande et al./
Besides industry differences, the size of enterprises may also inï uence the adoption of open innovation.
results contain information on both small enterprises deï ned as 10†99 employees) and medium-sized ones
is applied more commonly by medium-sized enterprises and that any trend towards open innovation is stronger in
environment (Chesbrough, 2003. In a world of mobile workers, abundant venture capital, widely distributed knowledge and reduced product life cycles, most enter
-prises can no longer afford to innovate on their own. A further exploration of motives was done by Chesbrough
key motives of enterprises to practice open innovation Previous work on motives for open innovation focused on
market-related motives such as meeting customer demands but also to acquire new knowledge. Likewise, Jacobs and
enterprises may engage in collaboration to acquire missing knowledge, complementary resources or ï nance, to spread
deï ned as enterprises with no more than 500 employees and was implemented by means of computer-assisted
enterprises that systematically innovate, were selected. The V. van de Vrande et al.//Te survey therefore started with screening questions.
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 start-ups. It was anticipated that very few micro-enterprises
would pass the screening. The sample was drawn from the Dutch Chambers of Commerce database. Interviewers
asked if their enterprise had engaged in any venturing activities in the past 3 years. Throughout the survey a time
Statistics Netherlands to identify innovative enterprises Statistics Netherlands, 2006; OECD, 2005. Secondly respondents were asked if venturing activities in their
enterprise had increased, remained stable, or had decreased in the past 7 years (if venturing activities were missing the
Services IT (NACE code 72) 53 Business services (NACE codes 73†74) 59 Other services (NACE codes 50†71;
93) 104 216 Total 376 Table 2 Surveyed open innovation practices Practice Deï nition Technology exploitation
Venturing Starting up new organizations drawing on internal knowledge, and possibly also with ï nance, human
capital and other support services from your enterprise Outward IP licensing Selling or offering licenses or royalty agreements to
Directly involving customers in your innovation processes, for example by active market research to check their needs,
for external knowledge or human capital External participation Equity investments in new or established enterprises in
order to gain access to their knowledge or to obtain others synergies Outsourcing R&d Buying R&d services from other organizations, such as
universities, public research organizations, commercial engineers or suppliers Inward IP licensing Buying or using intellectual property, such as patents
venturing and external participations in other enterprises are conducted by only by a minority of the respondents
innovation between manufacturing and services enter -prises. For ease of presentation, trend scores have been averaged.
between manufacturing and services were nearly identical output available on request The left-hand side of Table 4 shows only few signiï cant
differences between manufacturing and services enter -prises. Employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking appear to be main types of open
innovation conducted by both manufacturers and services enterprises. We do remark that these practices were deï ned
very broadly (Table 2) and hence may blur any signiï cant difference (also see discussion section.
%Services n  317 %Man Z (U Technology exploitation **po0. 001,*po0. 01, 4po0. 05
In contrast, services enterprises do better on venturing activities (33%versus 24%,po0. 05 The right-hand side of Table 4 reveals that the trend
differences between the manufacturing and services in -dustries with regards to the incidence and trend towards
between small-and medium-sized enterprises. Again signiï cances were analyzed with different tests (including multivariate analysis of variance with industry controls
Services n  317 Mann†Whitney Z (U 0. 09 0. 15 2. 14 0. 02 0. 02 0. 1
Table 5 shows that medium-sized enterprises (100†499 employees) are more likely to engage in open innovation
-ium-sized enterprises are involved much more in these open innovation activities. This result contrasts the ï ndings by
In sum, we ï nd that medium-sized enterprises apply and adopt open innovation more often than their smaller
techniques to ï nd homogeneous groups of enterprises Finally, the differences between clusters were explored with
these enterprises nearly always rely on the involvement of employees and customers, and external networking, features
which are shared with cluster 1 Cluster 3 includes innovative ï rms that rely heavily on
Most enterprises have adopted either open or closed strategies on both technology exploration and exploitation activities, i e. only few respondents are found with
We also investigated if enterprises in the three clusters are distributed evenly across industries and size classes (see
medium-sized enterprises. In clusters 2 and 3 these shares are 34%and 25%,respectively.
df  2). It thus appears that enterprises in cluster 1 (open innovators) tend to be larger organizations.
small enterprises with modest application of open innova -tion, but even here a majority of ï rms involves customers
in their innovation processes. The most distinctive feature of cluster 2 is that these SMES all engage in practices which
require substantial investments, including employee invol -vement and external networking. Medium-sized enterprises are represented clearly over and their innovation activities
are marked also by practices which usually demand substantial investments, including venturing, external participations, IP licensing and R&d outsourcing
5. 4. Motives and challenges The results analyzed in the previous section show that SMES clearly have taken up a more open approach
towards innovation. An important part of the survey focused on the motives and challenges of SMES when
and to meet customer demand, which eventually should result in increased growth, better ï nancial results, or
the ever-changing customer demand and to prevent the ï rm from being outperformed by competitors or new
developments, customers, increase growth and/or market share 3 13 Utilization Optimal use of talents, knowledge
-ees for optimal use of human capital and for market considerations. However, employee involvement is also the
tasks, and communication problems within and between organizations The availability of time and resources is another barrier
communication problems, aligning partners organization of innovation 35 Resources Costs of innovation, time needed 5
Demand Customer demand too speciï c, innovation appears not to ï t the market â€
customer demands. When relying on employees to imple -ment open innovation, it often turns out that they do not
growing number of specialized services ï rms to execute this job Overall, we can conclude that many barriers for open
and multinational enterprises (MNES. Open innovation practices in innovating SMES have been neglected. This study addresses this gap by exploring the incidence of and
medium-sized enterprises. Our results are in line with the recent survey study of Lichtenthaler (2008) who demon
most SMES somehow try to involve their customers in innovation processes by tracking their modiï cations in
substantial investments. IP licensing, venturing and ex -ternal participation on the contrary, require ï nancial investments, formalized contracts and a structured innova
-tion portfolio approach to manage the risks. This ï nding is in line with former studies about innovation in SMES
enterprises (as opposed to services companies and small enterprises, respectively. Manufacturing ï rms are on
average more active in the outsourcing of R&d and the out-licensing of IP, a result that is not surprising given the
Medium-sized enterprises engage in and adopt open innovation more often than small enterprises. These
ï rms dispose of the required scale and resources to organize a broader range of innovation activities, and compared to
small enterprises they may be considered as larger repositories of knowledge that can be purposively out -sourced.
enterprises as well, but the adaption rate for all exploration activities grows faster for medium-sized ï rms than for small
innovation practices at the same time to serve customers effectively or to open up new markets, with higher-order objectives to secure revenues and to maintain growth.
argued that the main problem of small enterprises is not so much invention but commercialization.
to survey open innovation in broad samples of enterprises should delineate the several practices in a more detailed
chance that some types of enterprises were overlooked still The screening of respondents implied that start-ups and
micro-enterprises (with less than ten employees) were excluded. As these enterprises have been repeatedly identiï ed as sources of breakthrough innovations
and challengers of incumbent innovation actors (e g Schumpeter, 1934), this is an issue that future researchers
be generalized to the population of Dutch enterprises with 10†499 employees. This is partly due to the screening
services. Manufacturers are heavy-users of innovation policies, and for †political†reasons the commissioner of
broader groups of enterprises than just large and multi -national enterprises or high-tech manufacturing ï rms, i e
the open model is present and increasingly applied in the whole economy. Future research should broaden
the scope by studying open innovation in broader samples also capturing small enterprises and ï rms in services
industries Open innovation studies have so far been dominated by qualitative research approaches, drawing heavily on
CIS mainly focus on R&d and innovation investments of enterprises, and external networking activities, but do not pay attention to other open innovation practices
OECD, 2005. Especially technology exploitation activ -ities are overlooked. The survey presented here might inspire statistical ofï ces to modify their surveys
many enterprises are marked increasingly by external technology acquisition, but that external technology exploitation to commercialize technologies is of a more
Economics of Innovation and New Technology 4 (1), 41†59 Arora, A.,Fosfuri, A.,Gambardella, A.,2001.
innovation performance in manufacturing and services ï rms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13, 35†52
Making sense of corporate venture capital Harvard Business Review, 4†11 march Chesbrough, H.,2003. Open Innovation:
Open Business models: How to Thrive in a New Innovation Landscape. Harvard Business school Press, Boston, MA
Business Economics 9, 33†44 Greiner, L. E.,1972. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow
in small and medium-sized enterprises: an empirical survey. Long Range Planning 34, 357†381
a look at performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&d project groups. R&d Management 12, 7†19
partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conï ict resolu -tion techniques. Strategic Management Journal 15, 135†152
Economy). ) Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg, The netherlands Teece, D.,1986. Proï ting from technological innovation: Implications for
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011