Standardization as open innovation: two cases from the mobile industry

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to introduce standardization as a neutral arena for open innovation. The aim is to show that different policies towards open membership in standardization initiatives lead to different open innovation processes.Design/methodology/approachTwo cases are used to illustrate the differences in open innovation processes. The cases are the Android mobile operating system and the service platform developed by the Open Mobile Alliance. The core process types introduced by Gassmann and Enkel are used to show the different open innovation approaches.FindingsBoth cases use open innovation to create standards. Open membership leads to a coupled process, while a more restricted membership gives separate inside‐out and outside‐in processes. The case lead by established firms in the industry has a process where radical innovations are introduced early in the process, while the case lead by newcomers has a process where radical innovations are introduced late in the process. The two cases have different approaches towards commercialization of the products. Android relies on third‐party developers, while the Open Mobile Alliance relies on their own members.Research limitations/implicationsThe cases are from the telecommunication sector and based on standardization of large technical platforms. The findings might not be the same for other sectors.Originality/valueThe paper establishes open innovation as a neutral arena for open innovation outside the domain of any single firm. It shows how the openness towards membership influences the choice of open innovation processes.

Open innovation using open source tools: a case study at Sony Mobile

“…Thus, this interaction can be classified as a coupled innovation process (Gassmann and Enkel 2004). This also complies with Grotnes' description of how an open membership renders in a coupled process, as Jenkins and Gerrit communities both are free for anyone to join, in contrast to the Android platform and its Open Handset Alliance, which is invite-only (Grøtnes 2009). …”

“…In relation to RQ2, the move to Android took Sony Mobile from a closed context to an external arena for OI, recalls the description provided by Grotnes (Grøtnes 2009). With this, the R&D was moved from a structured joint venture and an internal vertical hierarchy to an OI community.…”

Managing Identity Tensions during Mobile Ecosystem Evolution

“…In a nomadic information environment, however, all this will change: services will come to the users whenever and wherever they are needed'. Given that such settings change constantly, their inherent dynamism transcends multiple use contexts (Lindgren and Wiberg, 2000;Henfridsson and Lindgren, 2005;Sørensen and Pica, 2005;Ferneley and Light, 2008;Kietzmann, 2008;Lindgren et al, 2008;Henfridsson and Lindgren, 2010) and creates unprecedented levels of generativity calling for constant modification of services (Tilson et al, 2010), often through industry-level 'socio-technical engineering' and standard setting Lyytinen et al, 2008;Grøtnes, 2009).…”

‘The future’s bright, the future’s mobile’: a study of Apple and Google mobile application developers

“…This business consortium consists of around 50 technology and mobile firms (such as Samsung, Motorola, LG, Vodafone, and Intel) that are committed to open standards for mobile devices. In contradistinction to its name, membership of the OHA is based on personal invitation from Google (Grotnes 2009), which suggests that Android is far from an open source project.…”