The Grey Areas Between Open and Closed in Innovation Networks

Leminen, Seppo; Turunen, Taija; Westerlund, Mika

doi:10.22215/timreview/948

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to consider that open and closed models of innovation share complementary spaces in organizations and may even be simultaneous (as mentioned by Leminen et al, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2018

TIM Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Except where otherwise noted, all content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. The PDF version is created withScribus, an open source desktop publishing program. OverviewThe Technology Innovation Management Review (TIM Review) provides insights about the issues and emerging trends relevant to launching and growing technology businesses. The TIM Review focuses on the theories, strategies, and tools that help small and large technology companies succeed.Our readers are looking for practical ideas they can apply within their own organizations. The TIM Review brings together diverse viewpoints -from academics, entrepreneurs, companies of all sizes, the public sector, the community sector, and others -to bridge the gap between theory and practice. In particular, we focus on the topics of technology and global entrepreneurship in small and large companies.We welcome input from readers into upcoming themes. Please visit timreview.ca to suggest themes and nominate authors and guest editors. ContributeContribute to the TIM Review in the following ways:• Read and comment on articles.• Review the upcoming themes and tell us what topics you would like to see covered.• Write an article for a future issue; see the author guidelines and editorial process for details.• Recommend colleagues as authors or guest editors.• Give feedback on the website or any other aspect of this publication.• Sponsor or advertise in the TIM Review.• Tell a friend or colleague about the TIM Review.Please contact the Editor if you have any questions or comments: timreview.ca/contact About TIMThe TIM Review has international contributors and readers, and it is published in association with the Technology Innovation Management program (TIM; timprogram.ca), an international graduate program at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Technology Innovation Management ReviewMarch 2018 (Volume 8, Issue 3) 3 timreview.ca tion, even when complete opening is not the main goal. The author highlights the scholarly contribution of the study and provides general recommendations for innovation managers.Finally, Flavia Luciane Scherer, Italo Fernando Minello, Cristiane Krüger, and Andréa Bach Rizzatti from the Federal University of Santa Maria in Brazil describe a technology startup's failed early attempt at internationalization and the lessons its founders are applying as they contemplate a second attempt to grow beyond the Brazilian market. Drawing on the literature on internationalization (especially the Uppsala model), export barriers, and the origin and concept of startups, the authors share insights from the case and derive recommendations to help technology startups in emerging economies successfully internationalize.In April, we will examine the theme of Frugal Innovation with Guest Editors Deepak S. Gupta, Executive Director of Applied Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Services (ARIES) at Centennial College in Toronto, Canada, and Mokter Hossain, Assistant Professor in the Center for Industrial Production at Aalborg Univer...

show abstract

“…It is important to consider that open and closed models of innovation share complementary spaces in organizations and may even be simultaneous (as mentioned by Leminen et al, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2018

TIM Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Does this hold elsewhere? There will continue to be interesting questions around switching (Appleyard & Chesbrough, 2017), as well as exploring hybrid forms of innovation between open and closed source (Bonaccorsi et al, 2006; Ciesielska & Westenholz, 2016; Leminen et al, 2015). The mixed and shifting effects of sibling designs should also draw further research inquiry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While designers may experiment with a first‐generation design, they are more likely to focus attention on refining their design in future generations—and do so with a more established set of development skills, fostering product diffusion. Self‐remix may allow designers to leverage the discovery advantages of the community (see Almirall & Casadesus‐Masanell, 2010; Leminen, Turunen, & Westerlund, 2015), while executing their own coherent, controlled vision (Appleyard & Chesbrough, 2017).…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building an understanding of how winning products emerge when open and proprietary products coexist: Evidence from the RepRap community

Stanko

2020

Creat Innov Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online innovation communities have altered the nature of collaborative innovation. Within these communities, coexistence of open and closed source offerings is becoming commonplace, though potential diffusion and product advantages from each form are not well understood. Patterns of derivative innovation within these communities affect designers' focus; thus, this work is grounded in the attention‐based view. Beyond open vs. closed source development, we find that the presence of sibling designs (designs based on the same source material) and self‐remix (iteration on material by the same designer) have notable diffusion and product effects. Diffusion effects are investigated using 354 co‐existing open and closed source 3D printers from the RepRap community, while a subset of these printers is used for an analysis of key product attributes: value and ease of use. While previous researchers have argued for an early stage open source diffusion advantage, this is not observed here. However, customers perceive open source products to have value advantages, while closed source offerings are easier to use. Sibling designs have a diffusion advantage, particularly early on. Self‐remixes have both diffusion and product advantages. By better understanding these contextual elements of derivative innovation, designers' attention can be shaped to achieve desired outcomes.

show abstract

“…However, such constructs may not come up similarly in more established living labs or when the profiling description of a living lab is written by a researcher, as evidenced by the extant studies (cf. Leminen, Turunen, & Westerlund, 2015;.…”

Section: Key Constructs and A Definition Of Living Labs As Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%