Institutional voids and innovation governance: A conceptual exposition of the open versus closed architecture choice

Abstract

The choice of open versus closed innovation is shaped by the interplay between firms' analytical orientation and the institutional conditions within firms' operating environments. Whereas there is a plethora of research about the antecedents of innovation performance, there is a lack of understanding about the factors affecting and influencing innovation governance. Regulatory, normative, and cognitive institutional voids have differential impacts on the choice of open versus closed innovation. Firms' analytical orientation, political connections, and collaborating partners' home country institutions moderate the effect of institutional voids on innovation governance.

Looking inside the determinants and the effects of entrepreneurial innovation projects in an emerging economy

“…However, given the confidential agreements, we do not have access to regional level information to avoid the potential identification of enterprises. Although our results do not provide significant insights, the state orientation towards supporting entrepreneurial innovation via enterprise-university collaborations is reducing the transactional costs generated by institutional voids that diminish organisational incentives for developing innovation and leveraging of talent (Mahmood and Mitchell, 2004;Puffer et al, 2010;Liedong et al, 2020). This issue could also explain the effect captured by the institutional voids proxy.…”

“…The last contribution relates to the effect of institutional voids on entrepreneurial innovation projects within enterprise-university collaborations (Liedong et al, 2020). By considering the particularities of emerging economies in terms of institutional voids and how they could affect entrepreneurship and innovation strategies, we introduced as a control variable the measure of "institutional voids" that captured the perception of enterprises about their positive/negative effects of institutional voids on their strategies.…”

“…The plausible explanation is the lowest variance in the measure of institutional voids across our research setting (only one emerging economy). In this regard, this paper contributes to the ongoing academic debates related to the role of academia in entrepreneurship and innovation (Audretsch, 2014;Audretsch et al, 2019); to the determinants of entrepreneurial innovation projects within enterprise-university collaborations (Autio et al, 2014;; to the consequences of entrepreneurial innovation projects within enterprise-university collaborations (Lehmann and Menter, 2016;Guerrero and Urbano, 2019a,b); and the effect of institutional voids on entrepreneurial innovation projects within enterprise-university collaborations (Puffer et al, 2010;Liedong et al, 2020).…”

“…In this vein, there is also no consensus about the effect of public incentives for fostering entrepreneurship/innovation by engaging enterprise-university collaborations to develop entrepreneurial innovations (García-Quevedo, 2004;Zeng et al, 2010;Dimos and Pugh, 2016;. Indeed, in emerging economies, there is also a gap concerning the effect of institutional voids on enterprise-university strategies towards entrepreneurship and innovation (Liedong et al, 2020). Therefore, new insights about the determinants of entrepreneurial innovation projects within enterprise-university are needed.…”

Searching for a new perspective on institutional voids, networks and the internationalisation of SMEs in emerging economies: a systematic literature review

“…In recent decades, the institutional theory has risen to prominence as a popular and powerful explanation for the internationalisation processes of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Within this domain, scholars argue that institutions are more than just background conditions (Liedong et al , 2020a); rather, they have a direct bearing on the strategic options available to entrepreneurs. The literature explores how resource-seeking SMEs adapt their internationalisation strategies to different institutional contexts; the assumption being that these enterprises can achieve and sustain competitive advantages in international markets through strategies that overcome or capitalise on the nature of such markets' institutional environments (Marquis and Raynard, 2015).…”