Open Innovation Implementation in the Service Industry: Exploring Practices, Sub-practices and Contextual

Abstract

This paper addresses a major gap in reported research on open innovation (OI) literature: How do service firms adopt open innovation? This research focuses on data from eighteen service SMEs in Belgium from high-tech and knowledge-intensive service industries. Based on analysis, we find new insights regarding open innovation practices (i.e., inbound and outbound) and sub-practices (i.e., acquiring, sourcing, selling and revealing) for service firms. More specifically, the study showed that service SMEs are more inclined to use inbound practices due to reasons associated with firm size, industry, and knowledge intensity in the market, whereas the decision about which sub-practice to adopt seems to be strongly influenced by the type of actor, the firm’s vulnerability and internal managerial skills, and the existence of complementarities. Thus, we contribute to OI literature as well as capability literature through providing initial insights regarding the adoption of OI by service firms.

Managing open innovation

“…This is because recent studies (e.g. Virlee et al, 2015) have shown that open innovation is increasingly being adopted in the service sector as well. In addition, the services sector in India is considered as the most important sector representing more than half of the country's gross domestic product.…”

Developing a competency model for open innovation

“…indirect and even direct competitors, suppliers, service and platform providers, technology brokers, universities, research organisations, crowds, lead users) with the aim of acquiring inbound OI and/or commercially exploiting outbound OI technologies and knowledge (e.g. Chiaroni et al, 2011;Bianchi et al, 2011;Spithoven et al, 2013;Virlée et al, 2015;Kortmann and Piller, 2016). The essential contribution of this body of research is to describe the content of change towards OI in terms of different OI activities and the contextspecific industries/sectors in which it happens while less emphasis is placed on the process of change (Bianchi et al, 2011;Virlée et al, 2015).…”

“…Chiaroni et al, 2011;Bianchi et al, 2011;Spithoven et al, 2013;Virlée et al, 2015;Kortmann and Piller, 2016). The essential contribution of this body of research is to describe the content of change towards OI in terms of different OI activities and the contextspecific industries/sectors in which it happens while less emphasis is placed on the process of change (Bianchi et al, 2011;Virlée et al, 2015). This corresponds to the call by Bogers et al (2017) for research at the intra-organisational level of analysis "that help[s] to explain how individual-level attributes and behaviours as well as design elements of the organisation need to adapt as the organisation transitions to OI" (p. 22).…”

Idea generation and open innovation in SMEs: When does market‐based collaboration pay off most?

“…First, the generalizability of the findings is limited, even though we collected survey data on 146 SMEs. For example, idea generation activities in manufacturing may differ greatly from those in other industrial sectors (Virlee et al, ). These differences may lead to different types of relationships.…”

“…Exceptions include studies by Brunswicker and Vanhaverbeke (2015), Lee, Park, Yoon, and Park (2010), Parida et al (2012), Perkins et al (2017), and van de Vrande et al (2009). This omission in the literature is surprising because previous studies have indicated that SMEs depend heavily on external expertise to innovate (Virlee, Hammedi, & Parida, 2015). Researchers have barely investigated the importance of purposively using internal organizational routines to aid the search for innovative ideas and improve innovation performance in SMEs.…”