A paradox within the paradox of openness: The knowledge leveraging conundrum in open innovation

Open innovation for institutional entrepreneurship: how incumbents induce institutional change to advance autonomous driving

“…Our study follows recent research, which has extended the boundaries of OI research by linking OI with other bodies of relevant literature (Ahn et al, 2017; Ritala and Stefan, 2021). Specifically, adopting an IE perspective on OI enables us to show that incumbents combine six shaping‐oriented practices and four adaptation‐oriented practices to induce institutional change in favor of AD while the technology is still under development.…”

“…For instance, future research could examine how the shaping‐ and adaptation‐oriented practices vary across different sets of institutions that companies seek to change or analyze the shaping‐ and adaptation‐oriented practices of non‐incumbent firms. Because engaging in IE is likely to contain elements of coopetition, future research could also explore how firms seeking institutional change deal with the tensions that occur among them (Ritala et al, 2016; Ritala and Stefan, 2021) or with the paradoxical tensions they might experience between their own willingness and power to induce change. We hope that our study will inspire more efforts in these directions.…”

From ego‐systems to open innovation ecosystems: A process model of inter‐firm openness

“…We conceptualize an ego‐system as a traditional business setting in which firms pursue a closed innovation strategy and create competitive advantages by being closed to exchanging productive innovation resources (Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007; Laursen & Salter, 2014). As such, firms stick to a closed model for several reasons, such as easy governance mechanisms (Zobel & Hagedoorn, 2020), low risk of knowledge leakage (Arora et al, 2016), being better protected from imitation (Alexy et al, 2018), low coordination cost (Boudreau, 2010; Greenstein, 1996), greater freedom to establish financial and technological trajectories (Almirall & Casadesus‐Masanell, 2010), capturing maximum value from innovation (Foege et al, 2019), and no anxieties related to the vulnerabilities of openness (e.g., Arora et al, 2016; Laursen & Salter, 2014; Ritala & Stefan, 2021; Zobel & Hagedoorn, 2020). Innovating firms operating within an ego‐system prefer strong IP rights to protect knowledge and create barriers that sustain exclusivity.…”

“…Consequently, firms are increasingly adopting open innovation models (Chesbrough et al, 2018; Vanhaverbeke & Clood, 2014; West & Bogers, 2014). Both scholarly and applied research suggests that adopting openness, ranging from closed to multiple levels of openness, is a critical strategic decision for a firm (Alam et al, 2022; Alexy et al, 2018; Almirall & Casadesus‐Masanell, 2010; Arora et al, 2016; Boudreau, 2010; Laursen & Salter, 2014; Ritala & Stefan, 2021; Vanhaverbeke et al, 2017). Furthermore, recent research suggests that adopting open innovation strategy simultaneously changes the innovation ecology from ego‐systems to open innovation ecosystems (Bogers et al 2018; Brattström & Faems, 2020; Chesbrough et al, 2018; Fasnacht, 2018; Xie & Wang, 2020).…”

Open innovation as a strategy for collaboration-based business model innovation: The moderating effect among multigenerational entrepreneurs

“…When considering individual social networks as social capital, it is important to clarify their roles to a firm-level exploration network [ 8 , 9 ]. Otherwise, when multi-networks overlap, it results in multiplexity or paradox of openness, thereby causing tensions among actors in collaborative innovation [ 10 ]. There are no clear lines between the business and family systems, which makes multiplexity in family businesses a lot like living in a tight-knit community with strong norms, trust, and rules.…”