enterprise

Open Innovation - The Good, The Bad, The Uncertainties - Eliza Laura Coras.pdf.txt

with other enterprises, universities, public research institutes, suppliers, customers and competitors in the EU-27.

innovation performance of modern enterprises (Lasagni, 2012. Therefore, it can be argued that the ability to access external knowledge resources efficiently and overcoming the risks encountered in

http://ec. europa. eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance -review/files/countries-sheets/2012/romania en. pdf

http://ec. europa. eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2011 en. pdf 16. Jarillo, J. C. 1993), â€ Strategic Networks:

Open Innovation 2.0.pdf.txt

raw material basis for new enterprises and young people to create their own jobs Ramaswamy highlights in his paper the triple win

-ern enterprises. How to maintain and preferably increase the innovation capability by acting dif -ferently, organising the enterprise differently and

developing values and practises for creativity? How do we transform our organisations from data-to

-forming enterprises more digital which is essen -tial when moving ahead with the digital agenda in

by private enterprise, that operate in every significant area of business and provide potential highâ growth companies with advice and support from experienced businesspeople and angel

â€¢http://know-hub. eu/blog/involving-enterprises -in-the-design-of-a-ris3-strategy. html

cofounders of renowned high tech enterprises presidents and vice-presidents of modern and first -class universities, representatives of well-backed

-work enterprises, with their co-location nodes becom -ing switching points in the European scheme of over

Enterprises Enterprises need closest approaches to innovation and change corporate culture to measure success with different formulas than the short-term â€ Return

of Inversionâ€. They also need to soak up new busi -ness models more in line with todayâ€ s society.

-holding individuals and enterprises (1 Wealth-Welfare-Wellbeing as the Basis of Joint Creation and Evolution Of value

In the typical value creation process, enterprises and stakeholders had distinct roles. Stakehold -ers had a stake in value creation, but enterprises

viewed stakeholders as being largely passive and docile recipients of value creation. Stakeholding individuals now expect to have a more active role

whether inside the enterprise network or outside as part of the enterprise eco -system, are integral to this differential process of

jointly defining and creating value. A key point to CHAPTER III Open Innovation 2. 0

The enterprise is seen now as not just an economic but also a moral and human institution

passive to active, affecting enterprises and being affected by them, opening up various kinds of caus

with stakeholders and enterprises still â€ owningâ€ particular key resources. So when an engagement platformâ€ based offering entails multiple enter

enterprises intensify co-creatorsâ€ acts of value cre -ation in terms of wealth-welfare-wellbeing. As all enterprising entities and people attempt to change

-quire the efforts of nodal enterprises that can con -nect together a variety of services, partners, and

Nodal enterprises like GM Onstar recognise the need for collaborative innovation across the private-public-social sectors

enterprises to enable and connect with the co-cre -ation experiences of individuals, as discussed next

The notion of enterprises in the private sector leading initiatives for the greater good has become familiar thanks to the spread of

enterprises are creating shared value together with the public and social sectors, and likewise, social

and ecologically oriented) enterprises are benefit -ing from working with the private sector (6),(7). The

ecosystems for all enterprises in the economic and social system, whether private, social, or public. This

sector enterprises can build services and applica -tions that benefit residents across India. Enterprises that become part of the UID applications ecosystem

get an authentication service via UIDAI confirming almost immediately the identity of any individual through an advanced technology infrastructure

enterprises. Continuing with the UIDAI example consider the real-life applications UIDAI is piloting as part of Aadhaarâ€ s application ecosystem.

and social sector enterprises. On their part, enterprises are learning how to engage external and internal stakeholders and to harness

their personal, peer-to-peer, and collective know -ledge, creativity, and expertise for the purpose of engendering development together.

nodal enterprise in the ecosystem, whether private public or social, as shown in Figure 2

details on co-creative enterprise transformation Briefly, co-creative enterprise transformation can be broken down into the following components

1. Jointly creating and evolving value with stake -holding individuals 2. Purposefully designing platforms of en

5. Augmenting creative capacities of enterprise architectures and management systems 6. Enabling and supporting individuated value cre

9. Building new strategic capital for enterprises; and 10. Expanding wealth-welfare-wellbeing Figure 2:

Co-Creative Enterprise Transformation Who: Enterprises Whence: Goods and Services How: Activities Who: Stakeholders and Enterprises

Whence: Individual Human Experiences How: Platforms of Engagements From: To Who: Stakeholding Individuals and Enterprises

Whence: Co-Creation Experiences How: Co-Creative Engagement Platforms Stakeholding Individuals as Co-Creators Enterprises

as a Nexus of Engagement Platforms Source: Adapted from Venkat Ramaswamy and Kerimcan Ozcan, The Co-Creation Paradigm (2014

104 O P E N I N N O V A t I O N y E A r B o O k 2 0 1 4

Enterprises must fundamentally stop thinking of individuals as passive and docile recipients of their offerings but must

-ation on the same level as enterprises. Convergence of value creation based on individualsâ€ experiences in economy and society necessitates that all enter

and social enterprises must build innovation ecosystems of capabilities centred on the wealth-welfare-wellbeing of all individuals

responsive, and effective enterprises, and coevolving better states of governance, infrastructure, devel -opment, and sustainability.

Crowdfunding enables enterprises to validate prod -ucts by gathering a critical mass of funding (and

-tion enables enterprises to identify, collaborate, and produce in an entirely unprecedented manner Establishing a strong communication link between

empowered enterprise. As alluded to earlier, the char -acteristics and approaches to unlock these opportun

Local Motors also works with large enterprises through hosted challenges, whereby the enter -prise may outsource a design task to the Local

difference between enterprises that are native to data and others is how they approach strategy.

Open innovation in small and micro enterprises .pdf.txt

Open innovation in small and micro enterprises Abstract Open innovation has become a key strategic element to increase the generation and commercialization of innovations

The Mckinsey Enterprise 2. 0 study shows that in 2008,60-70%of large, established companies were

suppliers, or other enterprises for new ways to generate idea, find solutions and integrate external

small and medium enterprises. SMES are clearly different from larger firms with respect to how they innovate and consequently can use open innovation

medium-sized enterprises (SMES) are the engine of the European economy. They are an essential source

%20,9 million) of enterprises active within the EU -27â€ s nonfinancial business economy in 2008 were

scope (Nooteboom, 1994), small enterprises tend to keep a smaller part of R&d in-house than large

within small enterprises (Oâ€ Dwyer et al. 2009 1. 3. Open innovation in SMES. Successful inno

than larger enterprises due to characteristics such as less bureaucracy, increased willingness to take risks and faster ability to react to changing environments

significantly more often than small enterprises Furthermore, a recent study conducted by Ebersberger et al. 2010) provides evidence that the

SMES is lower than in large enterprises. In relation to the amount of external collaboration, SMES tend

enterprises, based on staff headcount, annual turnover and annual balance sheet (European Commission, 2005. As financial data is rarely

and micro enterprises and enhance their innovation productivity References 1. Arias-Aranda D.,Minguela-Rata B. and Rodrã guez-Duarte A. 2001.

-sized enterprises: how to find alternative applications for your technologies, R&d Management, 40 (4), pp. 414-431

Small and medium district enterprises and the new product development challenge: evidence from Italian eyewear district, International Journal of Operations & Production Management

enterprises: a process manifest, Technovation, 25, pp. 1119-1127 22. Eisenhardt M. K. 1989. Building Theories from Case-study Research, Academy of Management Review, 14

The new SME definition â€ User Guide and Model Declaration, Enterprise and Industry Publication 24.

Building the Web 2. 0 Enterprise 50. Morgan J. and Wang R. 2010. Tournaments for Ideas, California Management Review, 52 (2), pp. 77-97

Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises SMES) in the manufacturing sector:

Open innovation in SMEs - Prof. Wim Vanhaverbeke.pdf.txt

innovation has been studied mainly in large, multinational enterprises, of which most have large internal R&d departments or operate in technology intensive industries.

enterprises N-SME=792 Large firms N-large=175 Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

Open innovation in SMEs Trends- motives and management challenges .pdf.txt

employees) and medium sized enterprises (100-499 employees. The innovation processes of larger firms are structured typically more and professionalized, and

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

Open innovation in SMEs Trends, motives and management challenges.pdf.txt

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.

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¿,

between medium-sized and small enterprises. Furthermore we explore the motives of SMES to engage in open

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

enterprises may engage in various practices. In this paper three activities related to technology exploitation will be distinguished:

large enterprises (e g. Chesbrough, 2003; Lord et al. 2002 The potential of venturing activities is regarded to be

Enterprises have opportunities to out-license their IP to obtain more value from it (Gassmann, 2006.

enable enterprises to acquire new knowledge and techno -logies from the outside. In the survey, ï ve practices were

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.

) 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

Finally, enterprises can externally acquire intellectual property, including the licensing of patents, copyrights or trade marks, to beneï t from external innovation opportu

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

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

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.

Indeed, descriptive statistics of Dutch enterprises offered by Statistics Netherlands (2006) demonstrate that manufacturers are on average more technology-intensive

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 10â€ 99 employees) and medium-sized ones

is applied more commonly by medium-sized enterprises and that any trend towards open innovation is stronger in

key motives of enterprises to practice open innovation Previous work on motives for open innovation focused on

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

capital and other support services from your enterprise Outward IP licensing Selling or offering licenses or royalty agreements to

Equity investments in new or established enterprises in order to gain access to their knowledge

venturing and external participations in other enterprises are conducted by only by a minority of the respondents

enterprises. We do remark that these practices were deï ned very broadly (Table 2) and hence may blur any signiï cant

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

between small-and medium-sized enterprises. Again signiï cances were analyzed with different tests (including multivariate analysis of variance with industry controls

Table 5 shows that medium-sized enterprises (100â€ 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

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 Â 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

Medium-sized enterprises are represented clearly over and their innovation activities are marked also by practices which usually demand

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

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

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 10â€ 499 employees. This is partly due to the screening

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

also capturing small enterprises and ï rms in services industries Open innovation studies have so far been dominated

of enterprises, and external networking activities, but do not pay attention to other open innovation practices

many enterprises are marked increasingly by external technology acquisition, but that external technology exploitation to commercialize technologies is of a more

in small and medium-sized enterprises: an empirical survey. Long Range Planning 34, 357â€ 381

Open innovationinSMEs Trends,motives and management challenges.pdf.txt